London will write off everything

How Russian cinema looks in the British capital

The number of Russian -speaking population of London is the subject of unquenchable disputes. Either 300 thousand of them (according to experts), or only 45 thousand (as the results of the census). In general, 9 million people live in London, so even the first figure does not turn the capital of Britain into Londhrad, Moscow-on-Temze or ... what other nicknames are there.

At the same time, Russians are a really important part of London. Their presence even created mythology and inspired the works of not pure art, so at least mass culture: from the clip of Robbie Williams Party Like a Russian and the MSMafia series to David Kronenberg’s film, “Russian Banditors, Viggo Mortinsen and Vincent Cassel, play. Indeed, in order to create the effect of presence, it is not at all necessary to be physically somewhere and, as they say, to shine face: it is enough to talk a lot about you. We all know about Carlson’s grandmother, although she does not appear in the book, and in general, it is not entirely clear whether it really exists. And there are a lot of Russians in England. True, not as warm as Carlson about his grandmother.

They write in newspapers, they say on TV, and not only in the news: the screen image of “The villain/villain from Russia” is revived (take at least the sensational series “Killing Eve”). And even from the theater scene (in the Old Vic, one of the main London theaters, there is a play “Very expensive poison” about the murder of Alexander Litvinenko).

The current relations of Great Britain and Russia (and some experts believe that the period was not even worse even during the Cold War) set the whole Russian that is happening in London, some kind of nervous context, even the expectation of a scandal. However, these expectations are not always justified.

On the films of the Week of Russian Cinema in London (it took place from November 24 to December 1) there were full halls, and almost all the audience remained for discussion.

Yes, the majority was clearly Russian -speaking: these are emigrants and their children who already speak with an accent, but there were completely, as they say, local ones. At the same time, there were not many questions about politics.

Personally, it annoyed me somewhat. I wanted, for example, with the creators of the film “T-34” to at least talk about how their work fits into the domestic official cult of war and victory, cutting off any dissent about this. But this was similar to the fact that most viewers, especially young people, took this work simply as a shooter from the world of the computer game World of Tanks, and the context in which any statement about the Second Worlded exists in modern Russia is unknown, and most importantly, they are not bothering.

This is generally very interesting. How art exists outside the socio-political context. And does it exist at all? The week of Russian cinema in London takes place as if a positive answer can be given to this question. The selection of films if something is presented, then this is the absence of at least some kind of trend. From the propaganda “ Balkan border ” to “ Great Poetry ” by Alexander Lungin with his references to the unnecessary war, which Russia wages in the east of Ukraine. From blockbusters of the T-34 type to fundamentally not entertaining the viewer films like “ Through the black glass ” Konstantin Lopushansky. And at the festival “Golden Unicorn” attached to the shows, the prize for the best film received the film “ Van Gogi ” Sergei Livnev. This is the story of the relationship of the father and son, playing out on the internal, intimate territory and does not go into the big world. This could happen anywhere and anywhere.

So, if you somehow reduce this set of films to one denominator, you will get something like "such a different movie is shot today in Russia." And, oddly enough, this gives not that the wrong picture.

Until recently (I write this on the eve of the sentence to Yegor Zhukov and with a sense of inevitability of catastrophic changes) The hybridness of the domestic structure of life was especially noticeable in the culture zone. It was there that the complete indifference of “us” and “them” took place. The art in general (and even more so requiring cinema budgets) became the main zone of the collaboration of the intelligentsia with the authorities and at the same time - what is important - authorities with the intelligentsia. The dispute of the five -year prescription about the logo of the Ministry of Culture on the credits of the “anti -Russian”, according to many, the film “Leviathan” (about who is more shameful for the ministry or for the film) is still not allowed. Because it is difficult to resolve it, and it is almost unprofitable for anyone.

Represented by the Nerossian (well, former Russian) spectators of the London week of the movie present this indifference in the purified and therefore in many ways true. This is simultaneously the simulation of freedom and exactly the same simulation of lack of freedom.

Let everyone choose what they want.