Corrected "holiday"

SERB breaks the screening of the film about the blockade. Aleksey Krasovsky, Konstantin Lvov, Andrey Arkhangelsky, Nikita Petrov, Irina Shcherbakova, Anton Dolin, Anatoly Golubovsky

What means and for what purpose do the Prochrevsky Nazi disrupt club views of the film “Holiday”? Reporting from the cinema hall "Memorial".

Genre of “Holiday”: vaudeville, comedy of positions, social satire? Is it appropriate to call the film “Black Comedy of Blockade”? “Holiday” as a criticism of the Soviet nomenclature and public inequality.

“Holiday” as a way of film production, independent of the state. Black PR prohibitive instances and the director’s refusal to receive a rental certificate. Why did pseudo -patriots take up arms for the film? Blockade as a forbidden topic for neoconservative consciousness.

The director of the film Alexei Krasovsky , historian and critic Konstantin Lvov , critic Andrei Arkhangelsky are discussing. In the record, historians Nikita Petrov and Irina Shcherbakova (Society "Memorial"), film critic Anton Dolin , producer and sociologist Anatoly Golubovsky .

Elena Fanailova is conducting the program.

Elena Fanailova: I would prefer to start a conversation about the film "Holiday" with serious matters. For example, how do we, people of culture, talk about history, how to relate to attempts to an artistic interpretation of the blockade topic, despite the fact that in the literary world there are a lot of such interpretations - from Lydia Ginzburg to the " Blockade Book ", to numerous released memories and so on. How to handle the ideologically loaded Soviet myth and the truth about how the Badaev warehouses burned, how people who received special fibers during the blockade fought. Not only the film "Holiday" raises all these questions, but also the already begun discussions about it. And the show of the film came to smash citizens from the radical organization SERB.

Alexey Krasovsky

Alexey Krasovsky: These people talked when they called or pretended to call the police that it was forbidden cinema. For this, neither the Ministry of Culture is needed, nothing, people who come with gas spray cans are needed in gloves, preparing green or something else, and they proceeded this completely shamelessly. The state through such people, through the ministry, including trying to make it clear to artists, to other free -thinking people that it will create rules.

Konstantin Lviv: It is very interesting that the film about the past has become a provocation of the discussion about the present. And our attempt - even for reasons of rental rules, public impressions in Russia - was declared precisely as a discussion. And it’s good that it took place, it turned out to show fragments, although I wanted to show more. The limits of the discussion were also clarified when people from the SERB group appeared, who have not only words among the arguments, but also worships, spray cans in their hands. When one of their arguments was the cry of the Jews, addressed to opponents, here, despite all the efforts of Alexei, who until the last tried to speak human language with them, inevitably ended in the police department and our statements about hooligan actions. And this, probably, is also a logical consequence of state ideology.

Elena Fanailova: It seems to me that the appearance of people of this type, let's call them "ball", was inevitably on discussion. The final of the film directly tells us that such people will come to your house.

Andrei Arkhangelsky: The most interesting is the question: what do they oppose, coming to smash this film? Since they cannot clearly answer, I will try. No layer of history, no content is interested in these people, they are interested in the question of taboos. This is a taboo and is an important cross, it can be called an existential foundation. Every person needs to rely on some kind of value system, and for them the ethical foundation is precisely a taboo, a ban on conversations, on an attempt to reflect on a number of topics that are considered taboo. And the main thing that Alexei did the bad, in their opinion, he violated the unspoken bans, allowed himself a conversation about what it was not customary to talk about in society. This is an unauthorized conversation - that's what is important.

Elena Fanailova: I would look at the reaction of Nikita Petrov, a historian from the Memorial Society, who met with these wonderful people at the entrance to the hall.

The question is deeper - not about the right of the artist to speak out, but about the right of society to be free

Nikita Petrov: The question is deeper - not about the right of the artist to speak out, but about the right of society to be free. So you can make such a movie or any other movie that can cause a not always predictable reaction in part of the public? You can make such a movie because we live in a free country. And while we believe that we live in a free country, we are free. As soon as we begin to look back at those people who put these barriers and forbid something to do, we cease to be free ourselves, we begin to live according to the laws of self-censorship. There is nothing worse, and it was all already, we all have already passed in Soviet times. How can you put a person in the historical conditions of the blockade and remove the circle of people about whom this film? Yes, as a director, as the author is considered necessary. The question is already in our reaction - we accept it or not. This is impossible, it is impossible, here you are insulting, here you invade the holy of holies and want to disperse our public ... It turns out that our state, although it declares the lack of ideology in the constitution, is actually more deeply and deeper into the relic Soviet ideology and psychology, which there are taboo topics that do not dare to touch. Is it possible to talk about the blockade? Yes, on the pages of scientific publications - please. But publicly, you immediately receive accusations of blasphemy and anything.

Nikita Petrov

Elena Fanailova: How did the script about a privileged family in the blockade era and conflicts arising around the food products?

Alexey Krasovsky: Many, many years ago, I wrote a script about an embassy family living in a distant African country invented by me. Their embassy is disbanded, they are called back, and they, not wanting to return, arrange a fake coup in this country. As soon as I finished him, I realized that I was very losed, because there is a convention of cinema, but there were too many assumptions. And why lie, when all this is a glee among horror and nightmare, not African, but the present, was very close to us, during the blockade. I abandoned this story and wrote it again, only the foundation remained - the family, which pretends that nothing terrible is happening outside the window.

Elena Fanailova: Kostya, on the presentation of this film, you said that his drama reminds you of the fate of the characters of the Zoshchenko’s plays, when ironic dialogs and almost funny events occur against the backdrop of horror hidden outside.

Konstantin Lviv

Konstantin Lvov: This film work is even closer to the theater, including because there is actually one decoration - this house. This is the house-museum of the artist Chistyakov. It continues the traditions of Soviet drama, there Zoshchenko and Bulgakov there. Zoshchenko has numerous plays with very funny dialogues, marital treason, swearing, and at the same time there is the background - party cleaning, cleaning at work, arrests of pests, spies. The film also has a secondary spy line. Zoshchenko, together with Schwartz , managed to write the play "Under Lipas" in August 1941, it is comic, in the spirit of Soviet movie magazines, where Hitler fell into funny situations. They even managed to put this play with Akimov , it did not go long, because the laughter over Hitler in the situation of the impending nightmare, the 1941 military disaster - it was, of course, a terrible dissonance. I waited until the end of the film that the knock and the roar that was heard in the last frames, it would be a knock on the door, as in some plays of Bulgakov, when everything ended with the arrest of the Soviet punitive organs of all actors. And of course, Alexei generously uses the stamps of Soviet cinema.

Andrei Arkhangelsky: The film "Holiday" is one, and he has a lot of antiddeween. This is all the patriotic that is made today, produced in rather large quantities. And on the opposite to the "holiday" side-" T-34 ", a military film about the suffering of a person, about overcoming ...

Elena Fanailova: But this is a poster craft, in my subjective opinion.

This is a rebellion of acting, directorial, producer body against violence against art

Andrei Arkhangelsky: And the film Krasovsky, and the film "T-34", and this whole line of patriotics, which quite strongly affects the brains of people, is not about the war, but about something else. This is a strange projection, formal conditions are military, but the conflict is modern. The current Russian cinema created a semi-alternative space where the heroes tell us about something that excites us today, they are hints. We almost have no films about modernity, about the life that we live now, about today's 18-year-olds. This is taboo in the first place (such paintings appeared last year, but it is clear that this is also a kind of special operation). And this is a completely socialist rule that works in modern patriotic and in general in the whole movie controlled by the state. And the film "Holiday" is also, of course, not about the war, it is a kind of rebellion of a huge acting body. This is an unconscious riot, they themselves do not understand what moves them with passion, but the answer is very clear-this is the same censorship, the ban on speaking, thinking, feel on some taboo topics, and there are more and more. And the film "Holiday" is not only about the blockade, about a specific family, it is a rebellion of an acting, directorial, production body against violence against art. The moment came when they, let it and veiled, let them allegorically, but still let us know what was happening to them.

Elena Fanailova: Let's see the performance of Anton Dolina, who says that many aesthetes criticized the film for a strange acting game.

Anton Dolin

Anton Dolin: people involved in aesthetics began to say: after all, the film is bad, it is weak. The main motivation is this: in this film the actors play poorly, everything in it is false, unnatural. What I had my own, spectator, answer. Yes, there is an intonation that absolutely cuts hearing. It is obvious to me that this is a chosen, decorated intonation, it is related to how the interior is designed, what color scheme in this film is that it is theatrical, and this happens in one interior - almost on the stage. I will say truism, but it is appropriate. Historical films do not exist, all films and books are always talking about here and now, and the film "Holiday" speaks of today. The apparent fake, a more correct word - the artificiality of the behavior of heroes is fully justified by the fact that they are all in a false situation. If you have not inspected the film, watch, and you will understand: everyone is lying in it, you have agreed on this. And the only person who is telling the truth at that moment also feels that he is lying. That is, this is a film, not where the actors should play "well" so that we believe that these are real people. This is a film where the actors are obliged to play "badly" to convey a bad game of professional actors, but people living in an unbearable situation and forced to make a good mine in a bad game. But they cannot do this, because context is a war, blockade and the worst horror that can, or rather, cannot be imagined. And here Alexei chose the beautiful manner of a television test, which allows you to expose this falsehood.

Elena Fanailova: Alexey, did you have an unconscious riot?

Alexey Krasovsky: There was no unconscious, but the conscious, of course, was. I do not adhere to the policy and ideology of the state, and it exists in the mode of injury hysteria in society, preparation for the war, which is inevitable. This is categorically not close to me. I would like to answer for the entire acting workshop and say that they support me in everything, never in my life, like me, will not go to federal channels and so on, but, alas, there is no. I would like them to have some kind of civic position in this matter, because the future in our country depends on their consent or disagreement in some campaign, poster paintings. But they do it, and the main thing is that a movie is obtained that motivates people to exterminate other people due to disagreement with them.

Andrey Arkhangelsk

Andrei Arkhangelsky: This film is modern because it is about the current lies of lies. Everyone is forced to lie, and the word of truth, which sounds randomly in this collective lies, also dissolves in this lie. This is completely about modernity, and when the heroes are laughing amicably at the observance of some conventions, when the scientist tells a strict voice that there is a convention prohibiting the production of biological weapons, the funniest in this scene is the laughter, laughter of people. Theodor Adorno described the totalitarian type, he called it wink, as if a double game, when the audience or listeners perfectly understand everything, but since talking about something indecent, they read this art of a hint. The entire totalitarian system in Russian culture is called - double morality. Most of society supports this game in hypocrisy, because it understands: these are the rules of the game. This is what the conversation is going on in this film.

Elena Fanailova: Let's see Irina Shcherbakova - about Krasovsky’s connections with the great dramatic traditions.

Irina Shcherbakova

Irina Shcherbakova: No wonder they say that this is a performance. This is a film about what remains in our heads, what myths, cliches, images, and where we got them from. They are all of the films that, when we were small, was filled with a TV, these are films mainly from the late 50s-early 60s. And not without reason there are so many references to the Rozov plays that are all filmed. It was very interesting for me to see how they now work in the cliches, which we know since childhood. In the " Cranes fly " there was a riveting heroine, she made some wrong choice, then she nevertheless returned to the right path, there was a donated squirrel she kept. In the " noisy bottom " on the wall - the weapon of the father. And very funny, because whose weapons are? Grandfather? Father is an absolutely stroke figure from Soviet films, they did it when they wanted to create the image of a scientist, and we know in reality what a noble figure was hiding behind this noble figure.

Elena Fanailova: What are your relations, relations of the film with state authorities now? There was information that the St. Petersburg prosecutor’s office was going to check that you refused a rental certificate.

Alexey Krasovsky: Their position is illegal, in my opinion. They tried to close the film on YouTube, now they are trying to forbid us non -profit shows with the audience. I think the next step will be - to forbid me to communicate with the audience, with you, since we have no freedom of creativity. We have censorship, it is specific, subject, and these people who came to the show yesterday confirmed this. I do not communicate with the prosecutor's office. Already stated: if they believe that I am a criminal, let them come for me and take them with power methods how they can. They did not have legal methods left. I do not want to receive a rental certificate, I do not need it. I know very well that even if they give it to us, the distributors will not take the picture - they will be intimidated. If they even take it, people with greening will come to shows in cinemas. For what?

Elena Fanailova: I am amazed in this story that the picture has a delicate cinema Fleur, the fabric itself is an aesthetic thing, and we must have an inflamed imagination in order to promote this topic to such peaks of hatred and negativity.

The main taboo that Alexei violated, he did not want to deal with the state

Andrei Arkhangelsky: The main taboo that Alexei violated, he did not want to deal with the state. A person does not want to deal with the official system, he wants to exist on his own. This is a violation of all sorts of norms. And then what will everything be held on if everyone wants to make a film without asking for a certificate?

Elena Fanailova: Anatoly Golubovsky, producer, performed in about the same spirit.

Anatoly Golubovsky

Anatoly Golubovsky: What did the director and producer Krasovsky do for the further development of our cinema? And not only for cinema. He managed to create a model of a parallel cultural agenda, in no way connected with the state. And not even related to the mass viewer, since the project is obviously niche. And it turned out that you can make a film, show it to people, provide access to this film to those who are interested, repulse the costs, and then as God would give. And the state at any stage does not interfere in this story, with the exception of one thing: it acts as the main promoter that does not suspect that he is a promoter of this work. This is an amazing result, and it is necessary to bow low to the director Krasovsky for this model of the existence of culture: in addition to the state, the initiative cinema, an absolutely initiative culture that survives, has its own audience, and which has giant prospects.

Elena Fanailova: Alexei, is this your clever production move or just protecting himself and his creative space from the possible control of the state?

Alexey Krasovsky: Rather, this is a story about "contrary to". Когда все продюсеры отказались финансировать "Праздник" на этапе темы, я написал " Коллектора ", для того чтобы показать, что мы можем создать рабочую продюсерскую модель, которая будет окупаться. Это и произошло, фильм стоил в семь раз меньше, чем собрал, в том числе с помощью краудфандинговой платформы.

Елена Фанайлова: Кстати, "Коллектор" – экзистенциальное современное кино о проблемах не столько банковского негодяя, сколько современного человека вообще. Алексей, а вам кто-то из людей, которые помнили блокаду, показывал, как резать хлеб на газетке?

Алексей Красовский: Сначала пришлось это придумать, а потом оказалось, что так оно и было. Это из разряда чудесных совпадений. У нас была замечательная ассистент по реквизиту, которую, к сожалению, нельзя называть, потому что ее страшно запугали, как и многих других людей. У нас примерно треть съемочной группы не присутствует в титрах, и это ужасно. Это меня беспокоит и злит больше, чем всякие нодовцы, сербовцы и так далее, – запугивание приличных людей с очень высокой, серьезной компетенцией и репутацией.

Елена Фанайлова: Это невероятно, я даже не могла себе представить, что до такой степени на людей оказывалось давление, и они ему поддались.

Константин Львов: Если говорить о теме социального неравенства, опять получается взгляд из сегодняшнего дня. У нас заявлено в Конституции, что у нас социальное государство, но в действительности есть кричащая разница в материальном статусе. И корни увеличения социального неравенства – в Советском Союзе, который тоже декларировал себя как государство равных возможностей и потребностей. Создатели фильма показывают эту систему номенклатуры во всей ее отвратительной красе. А зарплата рабочего в 30-40-е годы действительно в среднем была 150-300 рублей, до денежной реформы, а люди, как профессор Воскресенский, получали три-пять тысяч в месяц, и это тоже были два мира.

Елена Фанайлова: Была ли у вас работа с документами, вы что-то начитывали до начала работы над сценарием или действовали на основании мифологии?

Алексей Красовский: Я читал документы, но не скажу, что мне это сильно помогло. Это помогает создать более вещественный мир, и все, что вы видите в кадре, по большей части из того времени, но меня это не вдохновляло на что-то. Мы снимаем кино про живых людей и для живых людей, поэтому копаться в глубоком прошлом я не вижу смысла. Мне хочется поговорить с живыми людьми о той пропасти, которая образовалась сегодня, а причины, корни ее, конечно, там. Я пытался вести разговор о блокаде, о несправедливом распределении с директором Музея блокады в Санкт-Петербурге. Люди понимают, что неловко и неудобно об этом говорить. Тема болезненная, и никто не понимает, какова дистанция, когда можно будет разрешить разговор об этом. Я разрешил себе его сейчас и несу всю ответственность.

Елена Фанайлова: Мне тоже кажется странным не разрешение этого разговора, когда внуки людей, переживших блокаду, об этом рассуждают и не могут справиться.

Антон Долин: Единственное, что делает меня абсолютно счастливым, когда происходит любой уродливый скандал вокруг произведения искусства или явления культуры, будь то " Тангейзер ", " Матильда ", "Праздник", все что угодно, – это то, что у нас страна, где все люди, даже самые тупые и злодейские, свято верят в магическую силу искусства, в то, что оно опасно, его надо запретить, ему надо помешать, его надо цензурировать. У них же всех схвачено, у них все спецслужбы, они всех прослушивают, делают, что хотят, чего им " Смерть Сталина ", которую можно скачать с торрента? Но они всерьез этого боятся. And it's cool.

Андрей Архангельский: Сразу приходит в голову аналогия из знаменитой книги Паперного "Культура Два", где он пишет, что одной из характерных черт этой культуры является вера в то, что как скажешь, так и случится, и это совершенно магическая практика. И это абсолютно про наше время, потому что вся система пропаганды – абсолютная магия, заговор, попытка материализовать слово, и если скажешь что-то 200 раз про Украину, то оно там обязательно случится.

Алексей Красовский: Когда я сказал, что следующим нашим проектом будет "Революция", выпустили тизер, не прошло и часа, как раздался звонок из прокуратуры, они возбудились и захотели вернуться к теме "Праздника". Сейчас достаточно одного слова, чтобы им стало страшно.

Андрей Архангельский: Мы существуем в магической культуре, и это нужно учитывать, мы вернулись в архаику за пять лет, и это результат всей этой пропаганды.

Константин Львов: В связи со вчерашними разговорами активистов я вспоминаю слова Алексея Цветкова – "неразвитость детской души". Мне кажется, что сейчас российскому обществу это очень свойственно. Они хватаются за эти свои игрушки, детские сказки, и я не знаю, это окончательное впадение в детство и последующий распад или предстоит какая-то более благопристойная юность и зрелость. Хотелось бы увидеть все-таки второй вариант.

Елена Фанайлова: В ХХ веке художников убивали за стихи, кино, отправляли в тюрьму за музыку, это происходило не только в России, но и при любом авторитарном и тоталитарном режиме. Меня не устает восхищать упорство, с которым люди, которые занимаются художественным творчеством, отстаивают свою свободу. В этом есть большой человеческий смысл, и это поле – поле художественного производства, поле искусства – это невероятная область борьбы свободы и несвободы. Это история о победе человеческого духа.