1. Alexander III and Maria Feodorovna were not the initiators of the “romance” between Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich and M. Kshesinskaya.
2. Alexander III and Maria Feodorovna were not opposed to their son’s wedding to Princess Alice of Hesse. On the contrary, when they learned about the engagement, they were happy for their son.
3. Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich’s youthful infatuation with the ballerina M. Kshesinskaya was not of the nature of “ love passion”and did not turn into sexual intercourse.
4. From his early youth, the Tsarevich dreamed of marrying Princess Alice, and never intended to give any serious character to his relationship with Kshesinskaya. The assertions of the script authors that Nikolai Alexandrovich “loved” Kshesinskaya so much that he did not want to marry Princess Alice, and was even ready to exchange his crown for a marriage with a ballerina, are pure fiction, a lie.
5. The crash of the Imperial train occurred in the fall of 1888, two years before Alexander III and Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich met M. Kshesinskaya. Therefore, there was no way they could talk about her. Kshesinskaya herself was 16 years old in 1888.
6. M. Kshesinskaya has never been to the Highest receptions.
7. Princess Alice of Hesse arrived in Crimea on October 10, 1894, that is, ten days before the death of Emperor Alexander III. Therefore, it is completely unclear why, according to the script, she is dressed in a mourning dress and expresses condolences to the Heir. In addition, the Heir met Alix in Alushta, where she was delivered by horse-drawn carriage, and not by train, as stated in the script.
8. M. Kshesinskaya was not present at the coronation of Emperor Nicholas II, and he could not have seen her there.
9. The procedure for the coronation and wedding of Russian emperors was written out in detail and had a centuries-old tradition. The provisions of the script where Alexandra Feodorovna argues with Maria Feodorovna whether she should wear the Monomakh cap or the large imperial crown are outright fabrications and lies. And also the fact that Maria Fedorovna herself tried on the crown for her daughter-in-law.
10. According to the established procedure, not the Emperor and Empress personally took part in the coronation rehearsal, but courtiers.
11. The eldest son of Emperor Alexander II, Heir Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, died in 1865 in Nice, not from tuberculosis, as “Maria Feodorovna” claims, but from meningitis.
12. The first filming in Russia, carried out by the French company Pathé, was dedicated not to the arrival of Princess Alice in Simferopol “by train,” as stated in the script, but to the coronation of Emperor Nicholas II.
13. Emperor Nicholas II did not faint at the coronation, his crown did not roll on the floor.
14. Emperor Nicholas II never, especially alone, went behind the scenes of theaters.
15. There has never been a person named “Ivan Karlovich” on the list of directors of the Imperial Theater.
16. Among the doctors who treated the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna there was never “Doctor Fishel”.
17. The ballerina costume is not worn on a naked body, so the episode with the torn bodice strap could not have taken place in reality.
18. No one, except the close family circle, could say “you” to the Tsar or the Heir, especially since K.P. Pobedonostsev could not do this.
19. Never a single Russian officer in his right mind could rush at the Heir to the Throne with the aim of beating or killing him, because of the “ballerina’s kiss.”
20. Emperor Nicholas II never tried to abdicate the throne, much less made any attempts to “escape” from Russia with Kshesinskaya.
21. Coronation gifts were distributed to the people not by throwing them from some towers, but in buffets specially designated for this. The crush began several hours before the distribution of gifts, at night.
22. Emperor Nicholas II never came to the Khodynskoye field and did not examine the “mountain of corpses,” which never existed. Since in total number those killed during the stampede (1,300 people) include those who died in hospitals. By the time the Emperor and Empress arrived at Khodynka Field, the corpses of the dead had already been taken away. So there was nothing to “observe”.
23. Slander: Alexander III organizes fornication dates for his son, forcing his brother Grand Duke Vladimir to photograph ballerinas for this.
24. Slander: Alexander III calls on his son Tsarevich Nicholas to live a prodigal life “while I’m alive.”
25. Slander: Before his death, Alexander III blesses M. Kshesinskaya for prodigal cohabitation with his son Tsarevich Nicholas.
26. Slander: Alexander III claims that all Russian emperors over the last hundred years lived with ballerinas.
27. Slander: Alexander III calls ballerinas “thoroughbred Russian mares.”
28. Slander: Nicholas II draws mustaches and beards on ballerinas’ photographs.
29. Slander: Nicholas II does not hide his relationship with Kshesinskaya and enters into sexual contact with her in the Great Peterhof Palace, thereby falling into fornication.
30. Slander: Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna participate in spiritualistic occult sessions of “Dr. Fishel,” which is a grave sin according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
Opinions of historians: The script of “Matilda” is a fiction of the worst taste
Moscow, September 25. The script of the film "Matilda", submitted several months ago for review to two famous Russian historians - the president of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.P. Karpov and scientific supervisor State Archive RF, Head of the Department of History Russia XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, Faculty of History, Moscow State University, to Professor S.V. Mironenko was subjected to severe criticism from them.
“The script of the film “Matilda” has nothing to do with the historical events that it tells about, except that only the names of the characters correspond to reality, and the heir-Tsarevich had an affair with Matilda Kshesinskaya. The rest is a complete fabrication of the worst taste,” says the summary of the conclusion of S.P. Karpov and S.V. Mironenko.
“The very first scene evokes a smile and great bewilderment. Matilda Kshesinskaya did not run up to the choir of the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin during the coronation of Emperor Nicholas II, did not shout: “Nicky, Niky!”, and the emperor himself did not faint. All this is an invention of the scriptwriters, resurrecting lines from famous novel Ilf and Petrov: “The Countess runs across the pond with a changed face.” Only in Ilf and Petrov it is grotesque and irony, and in the script there is the harsh “truth” of the heroes’ lives, as it appears to the author,” the Moscow State University professors continue.
According to historians, the film's script is filled with inventions of the worst taste, which have nothing to do with real events, much less to the feelings of the heroes.
“What is the scene worth when Nicholas’s father, Emperor Alexander III, chooses a mistress for his son from among the ballerinas of the Mariinsky Theater. Do I need to explain that such vulgarity could only be born in the head of a person who had no idea about the real relationships in the royal family, and even in the court environment,” note S.P. Karpov and S.V. Mironenko.
Historians recalled that although Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna were not sinless people, in their lives and relationships there was no place for vulgarity, which is in the film script.
“There were different situations in their lives, and their activities are assessed differently by historians. There was only one thing missing - vulgarity and dirt. Namely, the author of the script passes off vulgarity and dirt of the lowest level as historical truth,” the MSU professors emphasize in their conclusion.
Commentary by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk in connection with the aggravation of public debate on the film “Matilda”
Moscow, September 14. The situation surrounding the film "Matilda", unfortunately, is reminiscent of the one that unfolded some time ago around the scandalous French weekly "Charlie Hebdo". Then they tried to put us all in a dilemma: are you with “Charlie” or are you with the terrorists who shot the editorial staff? Now they are trying to put us before a choice: either you support Matilda, or you are with those who call for burning cinemas.
But what about those who are not with some and not with others? For example, I unconditionally and categorically oppose any calls for violence, any threats against anyone, be it the director, actors, distributors, etc. I also oppose the ban on showing the film, and the revival of Soviet-style censorship. But at the same time, I just can’t and don’t want to take the side of those who defend this film.
Unlike most participants in the debate, I watched this film. Nowadays they say: if you haven’t seen it, keep quiet and wait until the film is released. And those who speak out against the film based on the trailer are accused of criticizing without having seen it. I expressed my opinion about the film not on the basis of the trailer, but on the basis of watching its full version. My opinion offended the director who invited me to the preview, but I could not bend my conscience. And I couldn’t keep silent either.
A variety of people and groups of people are involved in the discussion surrounding the film. But today there are thousands of letters expressing outrage. Many people do not understand why it was necessary, in the year of the centenary of the revolution, to once again publicly spit on a man who was shot along with his family and minor children. The anniversary of the revolution is an occasion for prayer and remembrance of the innocent victims, and not for continuing to spit on their memory.
Not to mention the fact that for the Church, Emperor Nicholas II is a passion-bearer, canonized. And the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, presented in the film as a hysterical witch, is also canonized. On Tsar's days, at least one hundred thousand people gather in Yekaterinburg, who for five hours at night go in procession from the place of his execution to the place of his supposed burial.
I express the hope that in the year of the centenary of the tragic events that resulted in millions of victims for our people, there will be directors, writers and artists who will be able to pay tribute to the memory of the murdered Sovereign.
V.R. Legoyda: Orthodox believers cannot endanger people's lives and health
Moscow, September 11. Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media V.R. Legoida said that acts of violence associated with the film "Matilda" cannot come from religious people.
"Not only Orthodox Christian, but it would not even occur to any believer to express his disagreement with anything in a way that is dangerous to the life and health of innocent people,” said a representative of the Church.
“Whether it’s a cinema or cars in Moscow, all this speaks of spiritual or mental ill-health,” he added.
“The position of the Orthodox community, people who pray in connection with the release of the film “Matilda” or send appeals to those on whom the decision on distribution depends, and acts of demonstrative violence are phenomena from different moral galaxies,” emphasized V.R. Legoida.
“We have condemned, condemn and will condemn the actions of pseudo-religious radicals, no matter what religion they hide behind, because such actions are equally alien to the worldview of any believer,” concluded the chairman of the Department for Relations between the Church and Society and the Media.
A.V. Shchipkov: When expanding the boundaries of creative freedom, it is important not to step on what is sacred for others
Moscow, September 8. Speaking on air television show“Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” on the TV channel “Russia 1”, first deputy chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media, member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Political Sciences A.V. Shchipkov noted that the absence of boundaries for freedom of creativity inevitably leads to trampling on the feelings of other people.
“We constantly discuss the boundaries of freedom. But it would be more correct to discuss another problem - the problem of the lack of borders. When we begin to discuss the absence of boundaries, our vision expands, we begin to say that the boundaries of what is permitted in art are endless, that it is impossible to draw boundaries,” said A.V. Shchipkov.
“If the boundaries in creativity and in art are endless, then they inevitably step on things that are sacred to other people,” he added.
The First Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media recalled that although the film “Matilda” does not pose a direct physical threat, its release on screens will cause a painful reaction from those who revere Tsar Nicholas II.
“Here, of course, we are talking about a film that, in principle, cannot kill or injure anyone. But in fact it can, because we are talking about a person to whom a huge number of citizens of our country have a special relationship. When a creator, an artist begins to expand his boundaries of what is permitted, he steps on what is sacred for others,” concluded A.V. Shchipkov.
The Year of Cinema was solemnly closed at the Mariinsky Theater with the announcement of the most anticipated premieres, in the presence of top officials of the state.
The Chairman of the Union of Cinematographers said with tired wisdom that truth without love is a lie. The screen also showed footage from the film “Matilda” directed by Alexei Uchitel, the official premiere of which was announced for March 2017.
No one has seen the film yet, but almost everyone has heard about the scandal that broke out this fall. The two-minute trailer of the “main historical blockbuster” has already collected a quarter of a million views on YouTube and applications to the prosecutor’s office from offended citizens.
Emperor Nicholas II and prima Imperial theaters After the coronation, Matilda Kshesinskaya, indeed, did not meet again. But the love of the crown prince and the famous ballerina is not only the plot of a blockbuster, but also a biographical fact.
Where is the artist’s right to fiction, and where is his responsibility to historical truth? The great poems of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, including “Boris Godunov,” not to mention Salieri, who was in vain accused of the murder of Mozart, could have been banned long ago by any investigative committee. But art, fortunately, goes to a different department.
In whose hands is the border marker here? Ignorant picketing? An enlightened expert? Internal censor? Arts Council?
Or maybe this is a public field for public discussion, in which opponents do not throw grenades at each other from warring trenches. Where does a different point of view include an indispensable respect for dissent?
How can you now speak on the razor's edge without hurting your opponent?
...They say that when Brodsky was tried for parasitism, Anna Akhmatova remarked with irony mixed with envy: “What a biography they are making for our redhead! It’s like he hired someone.”
Time will tell what kind of box office success the resonant scandal surrounding the film will make for the future film. To the teacher with capital letters I want to believe.
And the unholy saints will be in the same cinema...
Today “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” is taking, in general, an unprecedented step.
Two key figures in a high-profile public debate present their points of view without a single cut. Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov is opposed by the editor of the society department Elena Yakovleva, and the director Alexei Uchitel is opposed by the editor of the culture department Igor Virabov.
Read, decide for yourself whether to watch or not watch.
Fiction and deception
Text: Elena Yakovleva
Bishop Tikhon of Yegoryevsk: Why does our cinema celebrate the centenary of the revolution with the film “Matilda”? Photo: Sergey Bobylev / TASS
One of the most high-profile film premieres of next year promises to be the film “Matilda” by Alexei Uchitel. And one of the sharpest too. Letters are being sent to deputies and the Ministry of Culture demanding not to show the film, which again, according to an inescapable Soviet habit, tarnishes the image of the last Russian emperor. Many were frightened by the trailer for the future film, presenting it as a searing melodrama. The validity of these reactions is commented on by a member of the Presidential Council for Culture and Art, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) of Yegoryevsk.
Alexey Uchitel is a wonderful director, artist, not a hack, this is proven by both his films and film awards; he chose for his new film the plot of the love of the last Russian emperor for the ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya. A true artist is free to choose any subject...
Bishop Tikhon: Who dares to challenge this? Of course, the artist is free to choose any historical subject. It is a thankless task to discuss a film that has not yet been released.
But spears are already being broken because of him.
Bishop Tikhon: No wonder: the film is released in early spring 2017, exactly on the centenary of the February 1917 coup. Hence the special interest. The coming year will inexorably confront us with the need to comprehend the grandiose civilizational catastrophe that occurred in Russia a hundred years ago. The events that took place then had a decisive impact on the lives of almost all people living in Russian Empire, in the Soviet Union, influenced the destinies of the whole world. Scientists, politicians, religious and public figures will look for answers to many questions related to this date. The same task will face art. Theatre, painting, music - they will all be called upon to contribute to the artistic, imaginative understanding of the causes and consequences of the Russian tragedy. As we see today, cinema will not remain on the sidelines. On such a symbolic anniversary, Russian cinema will be represented by the film “Matilda”, the only one, at least among the announced feature films, on this topic. The premiere date was chosen in advance and, of course, not by chance - March 2017: exactly the centenary of the coup and abdication of Nicholas II.
Hugs with Matilda, hugs with Alexandra... What is this - the author's vision? No - slander real people
Is a premature conflict flaring up around “Matilda”?
Bishop Tikhon: In preparation for our meeting, I reviewed the discussion materials. Here’s what the film’s director, Alexey Uchitel, says: “They discuss and make some statements and write to the prosecutor’s office that no one saw anything, not a single frame. Therefore, when people try to express something, they must have a subject of conversation, but it does not exist.” But actually it is not. A few months ago, the creators of “Matilda” posted a trailer for the film on the Internet, and anyone can easily see not just “one frame,” but watch several excerpts from the most key scenes of the future film. So there is quite a subject for conversation. There is another important subject on this topic - the real history of the relationship between Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich and Matilda Kshesinskaya.
What sources, including documentary ones, can tell us about this story?
Bishop Tikhon: Letters and diary entries, memories, reports of fiscal services. The heir and Matilda Kshesinskaya met in 1890 at a ballet school graduation. He was a little over twenty, she was 18. The girl falls in love with the crown prince, and he is ready to be carried away by her, if only to dispel the sadness of his father’s categorical refusal: Emperor Alexander III forbade the heir to even think about marrying the young German princess Alix, whom Nicholas fell in love with when she visited Russia a year ago. At first, the acquaintance of the Tsarevich and Kshesinskaya continues fleetingly: they meet either on the street or in the theater. Then Nikolai sails away for a long time trip around the world, and upon returning, he meets Matilda, and their feelings flare up again. Nikolai called them the “brightest” pages of his youth. But by 1893 these relations became calmer, they were becoming less and less common. And when the girl whom the heir actually dreamed of marrying, Princess Alice of Darmstadt, agreed to the marriage, and Emperor Alexander III nevertheless agreed to it, Nicholas sincerely told Matilda about this. In 1894, all relations between Nicholas and Matilda were terminated. Forever. Although he still treated Kshesinskaya very warmly. They remained friends, and neither side made a tragedy out of the separation. We agreed that she would call him both “you” and Niki. He helped her in every possible way, but they never met alone again. The heir considered it his duty to tell the bride about Matilda. There is a letter from Alix to her fiancé, where she writes: “I love you even more since you told me this story. Your trust touches me so deeply... Will I be able to be worthy of it?” The love of the last Russian Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, amazing in the depth of feelings, fidelity and tenderness, continued on earth until their last martyrdom hour in the Ipatiev House in July 1918. That, in fact, is the whole story.
And, probably, there is nothing wrong with a talented director talking about her in his film.
Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich with his bride Princess Alice of Hesse. Coburg. April 20, 1894.. Photo: RIA Novosti
Bishop Tikhon: It would be good if that were so. The film by Alexei Uchitel claims to be historic, and the trailer is titled nothing less than “The Main Historical Blockbuster of the Year.” But after watching it, I honestly admit I can’t understand: why did the authors do it this way? Why touch on this topic in this way? Why do they force the viewer to believe in the historicity of the heartbreaking scenes they invented? love triangle”, in which Nikolai, both before and after marriage, melodramatically rushes between Matilda and Alexandra. Why is Empress Alexandra Feodorovna depicted as a demonic fury walking with a knife (I'm not kidding!) towards her rival? Vengeful, envious Alexandra Fedorovna, unhappy, wonderful, magnificent Matilda, weak-willed Nikolai, rushing to one or the other. Hugs with Matilda, hugs with Alexandra... What is this - the author's vision? No – slander against real people. But that's not all. Why invent Nicholas's fainting during the coronation with his crown spectacularly flying off his crowned head? Is this a “subtle” hint of future upheavals? Why force Alexander III to utter a completely delusional, especially in his mouth, maxim that he was the only one of the Romanovs who did not live with ballerinas? Who is the slogan of the trailer that appears on the screen: “Love that changed Russia”? Complete idiots? Why, who do they want to fool with another masterpiece slogan: “The Secret of the House of Romanov”? What other secret? The whole of secular Petersburg knew about the relationship between the heir and Kshesinskaya. Should the centenary of the collapse of the dynasty be celebrated with a heartbreaking Hollywood melodrama? And here, by the way, is there a love triangle with explicit scenes? Despite the fact that a considerable part of our viewers will perceive the film, released in the year of the centenary of revolutionary upheavals, as real story Russia. And the main thing that is impossible to understand is: don’t the authors understand that all these vulgar falsifications will inevitably be exposed; the film will not be helped by either skillfully filmed spectacular scenes, or expensive sets and costumes, or foreign actors. Or are those who say: nothing personal, just business, right? I don't want to think like that.
But there is still no film yet...
Bishop Tikhon: The film was not released, and any objections against it are easy to restrain with the reminder of the shaming phrase: “I haven’t read Pasternak, but I condemn him.” But shouldn’t the trailer, as an author’s summary of the film, alert anyone familiar with Russian history? Not to mention how alarming this is to Orthodox people, for whom Nicholas II and his family are holy martyrs.
But the sovereign was not glorified for every scene of his life - for his martyrdom.
Bishop Tikhon: Yes, he is glorified for the path he has traveled since 1917. And this was the way of the cross - with five children, a wife and several relatives. It was for his courageous confession, for the kind of Christian he remained in the last year and a half of his life, that he was glorified in the Church.
So what, the Church will demand a ban on the film?
Bishop Tikhon: I am sure that this is an absolutely dead-end and wrong path. Not demands for prohibitions, but a warning about truth and untruth - this is the goal that can and should be set in connection with the upcoming wide screening of the film. If the film lives up to the trailer, it will be enough to simply talk widely about the real former history. Actually, that's what we are doing now. And then the viewer will decide for himself.
Vladyka, but you studied at VGIK and you understand that a good film is impossible without drama. And doesn’t the artist have the right to artistic invention?
Bishop Tikhon: But not for deliberate distortion. IN historical novel“Fiction is not deception,” Okudzhava also convinced. In a work of fiction about historical figures, of course, the author's fiction, artistic, dramatic reconstruction of events are necessary. But if the artist is not deprived of elementary moral responsibility, he will not go beyond the boundaries of historical accuracy and will never turn history into its opposite. Deliberate distortion of history is either deception or propaganda.
Bishop Tikhon: Based on history, not contrary to it, not contrary to it. It's all a matter of taste and talent. Of course, you can take historical characters and make them do whatever the author wants. Kutuzov in the film adaptation of “War and Peace” can surrender not only Moscow, but also St. Petersburg. And Pugachev in the film based on “The Captain’s Daughter” will become Catherine’s lover. It just has nothing to do with art. Either it's called special genre– fantasy. Then the film should be labeled that way.
Film bans are an absolutely dead-end and wrong path. A warning about truth and untruth, that’s what’s important...
Have you told Alexey Uchitel about this?
Bishop Tikhon: Yes, I talked to him on the phone. He said exactly the same thing as you.
And what did he answer?
Bishop Tikhon: That the trailer and even the script are not yet a film. In this sense he is right.
Have you read the script?
Bishop Tikhon: The director gave me the script to read, but I promised him to refrain from commenting on the script.
Apparently, your position has not changed after reading the script?
Bishop Tikhon: I won't comment on the script.
When “Matilda” is released as a series, perhaps it would be worth accompanying each episode with a documentary film that would return the viewer’s historical consciousness to the correct perception?
Bishop Tikhon: I can't really imagine it. I think it's enough for people to know about the true story.
Yesterday I watched a lot of documentaries about the heir and Kshesinskaya - completely disgusting in tone and persistently convincing that the affair continued into the sovereign’s marriage. With comments from esotericists, dubious psychologists and others. And no one calls out the yellow TV channels for their vileness, but for some reason we are in a hurry to make claims against the undoubted artist.
Bishop Tikhon: Pseudo-documentary creations do not have much influence on the minds and souls of people; they do not attract as much attention. A big feature series is another matter.
The film stars an outwardly gorgeous Polish actress, a wonderful German director, Thomas Ostermeier, and an actor from his famous Schaubühne theater, Lars Eidinger. That is, except for the film good director was a wealthy producer.
Bishop Tikhon: The film is designed not only for domestic audiences, but also for international distribution. It was made according to the global, globalistic, Hollywood “laws of the genre.” I think that from a purely entertainment point of view it will be a spectacular, pompous picture.
Over the past 20 years, the State Hermitage has held many exhibitions abroad dedicated to Russian sovereigns. Mikhail Piotrovsky believes that this managed to largely change the views of the European establishment on the Russian tsars. They are no longer seen through jokes about Catherine’s lovers, but as people high culture, with great taste, historical power. Against the backdrop of such efforts, it would be a pity to again show the world the image of Nicholas II through a love triangle...
Bishop Tikhon: Nicholas II, like no one else, has been discredited and slandered over the past hundred years. People at the everyday level are accustomed to this. And latently ready to accept New film about the completely insignificant, depraved, betraying his word, not knowing the honor and loyalty of the last king. But all this goes back to the old basket - a strange state, strange people, strange kings. It's a pity.
But the film hasn't come out yet.
Bishop Tikhon: That's where we started the conversation. It is a thankless task to discuss a film that has not yet been released. I know first-hand what it’s like to make a movie. This is a huge work of many people, and first of all the director. And it’s all the more offensive when the plan is initially based on a plot that can only be called historical bad taste.
IN Lately There are constantly reproaches against the Church that it demands to ban this or that performance or film, citing protests about insulting religious feelings. Famous actors and directors see this as a violation of creative freedom.
Bishop Tikhon: Activists are offended. The directors are outraged. The press warns society about new facts of interference of the Russian Orthodox Church in the sphere of freedom of creativity. Progressive society is indignant. At the Presidential Council on Culture and Art the issue of censorship is raised... It’s just some kind of drama. Stronger than Goethe's Faust. I just want to say: curtain!
But in reality, not everything is so simple in this performance.
Indeed, there were appeals against the showing of the famous rock opera in Omsk. But these protests were not made by the Russian Orthodox Church, but by one of the many thousands of public associations, unions, and brotherhoods operating today in our country. A group of Orthodox activists demands that this performance be filmed, it seems, in all the cities where the St. Petersburg Opera Theater comes on tour. Recently there were similar appeals, for example, in Tobolsk. They were reviewed and not satisfied. The Tobolsk diocese had nothing to do with the demands to cancel the performance. And in Omsk, according to the producer, the showing of the play was agreed upon with the metropolitanate. In any case, the official representative of the diocese stated the following: “It is not the business of the diocese to regulate the repertoire policy of this or that theater. I only know that the performer's confessor leading role blessed him for this 30 years ago.” Chairman of the Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media Vladimir Legoida after the start of the media hype through all news agencies reported that the Church does not support demands to remove the play from the theater repertoire. And the producers informed that the performance in Omsk was canceled because only a little more than forty tickets were purchased for the thousandth hall. Last year, they said, the same performance was shown here in Omsk, although even then there were appeals from citizens asking to cancel the performance. But the tickets sold out and the performance took place.
All this known facts. But only one thing can be heard everywhere: the Russian Orthodox Church demands that the play be filmed and is getting its way.
Recently, one priest from Armavir, remembering the editing of Vasily Zhukovsky Pushkin's fairy tale about Balda, where the priest was replaced by a merchant, he published a brochure with a merchant and without a priest in the Armavir printing house with a circulation of four thousand copies. And then headlines appeared in dozens of media outlets, including central ones: “The Russian Orthodox Church is editing Pushkin!” And despite the fact that the head of the publishing council of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk, also stated through all news agencies that in this case this is the personal initiative of an individual priest and that the classics cannot be changed and edited even for the best purposes, journalistic statements that the Church has reached the point of complete insanity, so that Pushkin is also being altered, and they are joyfully dazzling to this day. This is our multi-part drama. It is obvious that its authors really like it. There are also enthusiastic spectators. So without a doubt - to be continued. But we have long been accustomed to this, so, as they say, take up the flag! As for the film, I am sure that most likely individuals and groups, including Orthodox Christians, will demand its ban. I’ll say right away: we respect and understand their position. And we will encourage you to take it into account. But, I repeat once again, I consider the path of prohibitions to be a dead end. The business of the Church is to prohibit and permit, when necessary, in the spiritual world. But not in a secular way. Including neither theatrical nor cinematic. But this does not mean that we will not openly express our beliefs.
What about Tannhäuser? After all, there was a protest from the official Church - the Novosibirsk Metropolis.
Bishop Tikhon: And not only a protest, but also a lawsuit was initiated based on the claim of the Novosibirsk Metropolis for an innovative variation on a theme by Wagner. In the production, no matter how much some theater critics fool us, the only “artistic find”, the goal and the center of attention was blasphemy against the image of Christ. Public hearings were held, then the Novosibirsk Metropolis filed a lawsuit in full accordance with the law. And she lost this trial.
But the performance was filmed.
Bishop Tikhon: This difficult, unpleasant and unprecedented decision of the Ministry of Culture should be assessed in the context of the subsequent bloody tragedy of Charlie Hebdo. As life has shown, this decision turned out to be the correct and necessary prevention from irresponsible and extremely dangerous, especially in the conditions of our multinational and multireligious country, public experiments and provocations, which someone wants to call creativity.
Little Matilda's Big Fears
Text: Igor Virabov
Director Alexey Uchitel: There can be no vulgarity - I guarantee it. We took on a serious work in every sense. Photo: Sergey Bobylev/ TASS
The story of Alexei Uchitel’s new film “Matilda” fell on my head unexpectedly. Actually, the film doesn’t exist yet, no one has seen it – it will be released in a few months. But someone already wants to attract him to such and such severity. For what? Because there's something wrong with the film.
The plot of the new film is connected with Emperor Nicholas II and ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya. What is historical truth? What is artistic truth? And how, in the end, to deal with Pushkin: Salieri did not poison Mozart, and Italian descendants not so long ago threatened to bring “our everything” to trial. Is it really time?.. In short, we had something to talk about with Alexei Uchitel
Why did you take on this film? Are you fascinated by the fate of the ballerina? But you have already filmed “Giselle Mania” with Galina Tyunina about the ballerina Olga Spesivtseva.
Alexey Uchitel: The story is quite long. It all started with Vladimir Vinokur - he suggested that I make a film about Matilda Kshesinskaya. His Foundation for the Support of Culture and Art is connected with ballet, his daughter Anastasia dances at the Bolshoi, his wife Tamara Pervakova is a former ballerina, and, as I understand it, she was the initiator of the film. And when they showed me the script written by Andrei Gelasimov, I said that simply filming the biography of Matilda Kshesinskaya was not so interesting to me.
Suggested to write new script, which will focus on the figure of Nicholas II - it seemed to me that this man, with all his contradictions, is not always correctly understood among us... The new script was called “Matilda”. It covers several years before the coronation of Nicholas II, with which, in fact, our picture ends.
And I wrote a new script...
Alexey Uchitel:...wonderful writer Alexander Terekhov. He largely set the tone of the future film. In such films it is always difficult - what is the extent of fantasy. Like all feature films, this picture is certainly impossible without connection historical facts and artistic invention.
How to connect them? They will scold me just by looking closely, is he really in love, is he kissing like that? But we are just showing a living person, with immediate feelings, what’s wrong with that?
What does “they will” mean – you are already being scolded. Some even claim that the film is a “historical lie.”
I believe that “bloody” and “weak-willed” are not the fairest descriptions of Nicholas II
Alexey Uchitel: What is this “lie”? You know, recently there was an interesting discussion on the Rossiya 1 TV channel: what is Feature Film? Let’s say, Eisenstein’s film “October” is an assault Winter Palace is perceived by viewers as a documentary chronicle. Old films about Peter the Great, about Ivan the Terrible - in the viewer’s head the impression is left that everything was so. But in fact, the directors, the filmmakers, brought a lot of their own.
Your picture is large-scale, so you had to bring in a lot of unique scenery and luxurious costumes...
Alexey Uchitel: Yes, I don’t want to brag, but today’s Russian cinema is not quite used to such large-scale filming. I'm proud of our artists. Surprisingly, even in Europe we did not find a pavilion that would be suitable in size for the construction of the set of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin - necessary for filming the coronation episode of Nicholas II, one of the key ones in our film. We found such a room at a former military plant in St. Petersburg. Amazingly, people, even random ones, looking in there, began to be baptized. Inside there is an absolute illusion that you are in a temple.
Although if you move a little to the side, you will see the back wall made of plywood. But the workers, when we started dismantling the decorations, refused: how could they raise their hand to the temple?! This is truly the magic of art.
Why such difficulties - you were allowed to film in the Kremlin, in the same Assumption Cathedral?
Alexey Uchitel: It was difficult, we were given three days to film, but imagine - there were 500 extras, a huge group, three days was physically not enough for what we had planned. The Kremlin, the access system, we have tons of equipment. Imagine: the extras were brought in at 6 in the morning, and only seven or eight hours later, at two o’clock in the afternoon, we went out onto the set with the actors. It was necessary to prepare five hundred people, all in historical costumes, in the episode there should be a lot of clergy, participants in the coronation, everyone had to put on beards, mustaches, and make-up.
Did consultants or church ministers help you?
Alexey Uchitel: Yes, we had several consultants different directions- both in history and in church rituals.
There are a lot of crowd scenes in the film - was it difficult to choose among those who wanted to star in it?
Alexey Uchitel: I take extras very seriously, but here half of St. Petersburg came to us, of different ages, in the hundreds. They needed typical characters with a beard... They selected the clergy especially carefully.
Didn't the ballerinas line up? Is it true that Diana Vishneva wanted to star in the role of Kshesinskaya?
Alexey Uchitel: I think Diana Vishneva the best ballerina both in our country and abroad. It’s just that these are different things - it’s great to dance or play a dramatic role... More than 300 actresses auditioned. We were forced to go into filming and shoot scenes not related to Kshesinskaya for the first two weeks. I hoped for a miracle - and it happened. A Polish actress arrived, she is 23 years old - and Kshesinskaya at the beginning of our film is also 23. They were just filming on the set of the Assumption Cathedral, and there was a wonderful German actor Lars Eidinger, who plays Nicholas II for us - we tried it, exchanged glances with him, and... Michalina Olshanska was instantly approved.
Don’t wait for questions: how is it possible, a film about a turning point? Russian history, and you gave the main roles to a Polish actress and a German from the Schaubühne theater?
Alexey Uchitel: We even have two actors from “Schaubühne”. In addition to Eidinger, Louise Wolfram also plays Alix, the future Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, but she must be German. I did not set myself the goal of finding a specially German actor for the role of Nicholas II. The director - anyone, in Hollywood, in Europe or here, in cinema or theater - recruits an ensemble of actors. Not individual stars. It is important that there is some kind of chemistry and fusion between the actors.
The same Thomas Ostermeier, the director of the Schaubühne theater, stages performances with Russian actors, and no one sees a sin in this. Lars Eidinger was to play the German doctor, Dr. Fischel. He came to us to try out the costume and makeup, and I saw in the dressing room a man not just similar, but very similar to Nicholas II. He is a brilliant actor, “Hamlet”, “Richard III”, in which he plays, are fantastic performances...
Although the hopes that Lars would speak Russian, filming with us for many months, were not justified, the accent remained, and we had to re-voice it. So there will still be a voice Russian actor, I won’t say who, but one of the best.
It is known that the future Emperor Nicholas II communicated with Kshesinskaya from 1890 to 1894. “Little Kshesinskaya fascinates me positively,” he wrote in his diary. The little one also admitted: “I fell in love with the Heir from our first meeting.” After Nikolai and Alix’s wedding, their meetings stopped. But there are rumors that you have cast a shadow on an exemplary family man: you made a film about a love triangle, but there was no triangle.
Alexey Uchitel: The rumors are greatly exaggerated. Yes, he had a fiancée, however, he was very passionate about Matilda Kshesinskaya before the wedding. And after the wedding - and in our film - they no longer communicated. They could see each other, but there was no longer any relationship. On the contrary, after the wedding he cut off this story for himself. These are facts of history. What love triangle? We don't have it either.
The film's trailer has the slogan: “The love that changed Russia.” And in the slogan, someone thought: you are reducing the tragedy of the country to a love affair.
Alexey Uchitel: Who imagined it? Some two organizations that no one had heard of before demanded that the prosecutor's office check us. The prosecutor's office checked and replied that from the point of view of the law, everything is in order. These are some kind of one-day organizations, they call themselves very pretentiously, but their letters, which were shown to us at the prosecutor’s office, for some reason all have the same text, all written as carbon copies. On “Russia 24”, a serious observer in the “Replica” section said that he managed to find out about these organizations. One is not registered anywhere, there are 4 people in it. And in the other, there is no one except the chairman.
As for the trailer, this is a product that is made by the distributor. I'm not denying it, and besides, it's made well. There will be three more trailers before the film's release. Yes, there is one kiss - so what, is it a provocation? From point of view explicit scenes We have a picture for kindergarten. There can be no vulgarity - I guarantee it. We took on a serious work in every sense. In addition to foreign actors, we have the best Russian actors participating. Garmash, Mironov, Dapkunaite, young Danila Kozlovsky, Grigory Dobrygin - if they saw vulgarity in the script, they would have sent me, and they would have done the right thing. And this love could really change Russia. The heir who overcame himself and had to make a painful choice...
In the history of the Romanov family, such a choice arose more than once. The grandfather of Nicholas II, Alexander II, having married, actually had a second family with Ekaterina Dolgoruka - this was no secret...
Alexey Uchitel: In the same trailer, someone heard a phrase when Alexander III says to his son something like: “I am the only emperor who did not sleep with a ballerina.” But, firstly, this is taken out of context, and secondly, he says this as a joke. And thirdly, it’s not so far from the truth: maybe not a ballerina, but someone else. Although the story of grandfather Nicholas II was tragic.
In your opinion, could the story of the little ballerina Kshesinskaya seriously influence the fate of Russia? If Alexander III had lived longer, if he had suddenly agreed to a morganatic marriage, and Nicholas had renounced the crown? If he hadn’t been in such a hurry with the wedding, would he have even shortened the mourning for his father by two days? Continuous “if only”...
Alexey Uchitel: It's not just about facts personal life... By the way, when I made the film “The Diary of His Wife,” which objectively had big success, I also heard: why are we digging into dirty laundry?! But how can it be that if Ivan Alekseevich Bunin, already sixty years old, falls in love with the young poetess Kuznetsova, and this turns his life upside down, dramatic events occur in the family, and yet against this background the same “his” arises Dark alleys" Why aren’t these secrets of the writer’s consciousness interesting?
During the filming of “Andrei Rublev,” Tarkovsky had the following ideas: to leave in the frame one of the characters with “Belomor” in his teeth. And the horsemen of the Horde against the backdrop of flickering power lines. But even without this hooligan mannerism, he was criticized from all sides for historical inconsistencies - and the film remained a masterpiece of world cinema.
Alexey Uchitel: I think we cannot lie about some fundamental things. There is a wedding, it happened before the coronation. There is a crash of the royal train, when many people died, but the royal family was not injured, and Alexander III, being a physically powerful man, managed to hold the roof of the carriage so that the whole family could get out. This saved them, but, unfortunately, accelerated his death: a few years later he died... But at the same time, we can create, for example, officer Vorontsov, played by Danya Kozlovsky - his character is madly in love with Kshesinskaya. Yes, this is partly an invented character: there was an English officer who was madly in love with Kshesinskaya, abandoned his fiancée and tried to hang himself. All this helps the dramaturgy, the beginning and the end... So what do you think, could the ballerina Kshesinskaya appear at the coronation or not?..
One day, Alexander III, after a demonstration performance by graduates of the Imperial Theater School, in violation of court rules, ordered to be invited to a festive banquet and seated one of the girls next to Tsarevich Nicholas. The girl's name was Matilda. So why not, and appear at the coronation...
I would like “Matilda” to be seen as a picture about the fate of a holy martyr who lived a multifaceted and difficult earthly life in an era that required painful choices and difficult historical decisions
Alexey Uchitel:...I could. Through the same people who sympathized with her. She could not come into contact with Nikolai, but, on the other hand, this could have happened. The issue is controversial, but for me the main thing is to avoid aesthetic vulgarity. Fiction is possible when it helps to better understand the main characters of the picture.
It’s not for nothing that you cited the example of Tarkovsky and his “Rublev” - the artistic truth in it is stronger than some historical inconsistencies... Otherwise, how can you film bare facts?
In your film there is a scene of Khodynka - the same massacre after the coronation for which Nicholas was nicknamed “Bloody”. For many, Nicholas II remained the main culprit for what happened later to the country. Kind, but weak-willed - the result is a sea of blood. But you look at Nikolai differently...
Alexey Uchitel: Yes, I believe that “bloody” and “weak-willed” are not the most fair descriptions of Nicholas II. This man ascended the throne in 1896 and until 1913 - during 17 years of rule - he led the country, with the help of the people he gathered in power, to political, economic, and military prosperity. Yes, he had shortcomings, he was contradictory, but he created the most powerful Russia throughout its existence. It was the first in Europe, second in the world in finance, economics, and in many respects.
But not in terms of the level of well-being of the population - the vast majority of the country, alas, remained poor and illiterate. Also facts...
Alexey Uchitel: Yes, I agree. Although there is another side: thanks to Nicholas II, the first kindergartens and nurseries in Russia appeared. And there are many other wonderful facts. For example, Nikolai was the first film fan in Russia, the first to buy a projector, the first filming was in Russia at the coronation of Nicholas II... Just now, on December 2, in the Catherine Palace near St. Petersburg we opened a huge exhibition of costumes from the film “Matilda”. This is truly amazing. Nadya Vasilyeva, our artist, literally puts jeans on one of the characters - I say: what are these, what kind of jeans were they at that time? But it turns out that there were jeans, which were already in fashion then. Roller skates and motorcycles were already popular. Someone will look and say - oh, that's not true. And this is one hundred percent true. This is the Russia we don't know.
In 1981, Nicholas II was canonized as a martyr abroad, and in 2000, after lengthy disputes, he was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a “royal passion-bearer.” But, by the way, there was the TV series “Star of the Empire” - where Kshesinskaya’s romantic relationship with Nikolai did not bother anyone. Why did they attack you?
Alexey Uchitel: They showed me a photo - in St. Petersburg they were protesting against abortion and for some reason they were holding a huge banner: “Ban the film “Matilda”!” Why they connect this is a mystery.
It’s strange when in the church on Bolshaya Ordynka they hang a call on the wall to collect signatures against the film. I thought about going and talking to the rector, but he would say: this is what the parishioners want. I still want the film to be watched first, and then assessed as a work of art, I insist.
But who has the right to evaluate a work of art? The state, they say, should help with money and step aside. The viewer, as someone uninitiated into the secrets of art, should not judge by rank. There is an opinion that only a narrow circle of initiates, “our own”, have the right to judge a work of art.
Alexey Uchitel: Of course, everyone can speak out. And film critics have their own relationships with authors, and they are not always objective. Look, there used to be artistic councils in both theaters and film studios. I remember the time when I worked in documentary films - and these artistic advice gave me a lot.
It’s true that you could have been ordered to remove this. Unfortunately. But there is another truth: colleagues gathered there, venerable, different, including the studio management. Everyone spoke out - sometimes there were very heated debates, and much of it was useful. Now I won’t be able to gather ten directors and screenwriters, but I would be interested to hear their opinion even at the stage when the film is still being made. Now we are so divided that we are afraid to even show something to each other.
They say: censorship is not needed, the artist himself must be aware of his responsibility. What if he doesn’t realize? Still ban?
Alexey Uchitel: It seems to me that everything within the framework of the law has the right to life. Although if we try to replace the law with the help of incomprehensible “associations,” we will get just a kind of censorship, despite the fact that it is officially prohibited by law... I asked the question: why not check what kind of people are behind such organizations, where they came from, why they come from judge? They have the right - but in what form? By not letting people into exhibitions, theaters or burning posters of our film? One thing is strange to me. Our project is completely open and has been in the works for several years. There were many publications, interviews, and television stories. Why didn’t anyone worry before, why now, when a lot of money was spent on the painting...
By the way, how big are they?
Alexey Uchitel: Someone wrote: 25 million, but the amount is much less.
Did the state help?
Alexey Uchitel: There is government money, and quite a lot. The expert council read the script. Everyone was on the set, including the Minister of Culture. I don’t think the state can or wants to ban anything. The reception to the film so far is very good, and expectations are high.
What's going on with the film now?
Alexey Uchitel: It is currently in post-production. The acting and computer graphics work is finishing up. Our wonderful sound engineer Kirill Vasilenko, with whom I have been working since “The Diary of His Wife,” also works with the sound. The release is scheduled for March 30 next year, but... I want to do everything in time: and show major festival, and for the film to be commercially successful. If the fate of the festival works out, the box office may somehow move forward.
By the way, two weeks ago the recording of the music was completed - its author, Marco Beltrami, a famous film composer in America. We recorded for four days with the Mariinsky Theater Orchestra, conducted by Valery Abisalovich Gergiev. I was afraid that he would come out, conduct for three minutes and say: what kind of nonsense did they sell me?
But on the first day, instead of three hours, they recorded four whole hours...
Tell me, as someone who has just made a historical film: does history teach us something?
Alexey Uchitel: On the one hand, it teaches. And I still perceive what is happening in relation to the film as a misunderstanding. On the other hand... in 1916-1917 they did not attach importance to provocations: they would make some noise and disperse. And what grew out of these provocations?.. What they want to ban today, in five years they may either be completely forgotten, or recognized as a masterpiece, a classic. As for “Matilda”... I would like it to be seen as a picture about the fate of a holy martyr who lived a multifaceted and difficult earthly life in an era that required painful choices and difficult historical decisions.
Fierce discussions. TUT.BY went to see the film and compared the author’s version of Alexei Uchitel with real historical events analyzed in scientific literature, and also found direct errors that could have been avoided.
Let us clarify that TUT.BY does not intend to condemn the director for (un)conscious deviation from historical truth. In the end, every artist has the right to a creative interpretation of events. Another question is that many viewers (the author of the lines is no exception) tend to largely trust such biographical films. But the truth, unfortunately, often remains unknown.
Engagement during the life of the king
The historian’s main complaint about the film “Matilda” is a deliberate shift in emphasis. According to the plot of the film, Emperor Alexander III approves of the choice of his son, who, in modern terms, is dating the ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya. But he dies when the decision on the bride’s candidacy has not yet been made. As a result, after the death of his father, the young emperor faces a difficult choice between his bride Alix (the future Empress Alexandra Feodorovna) and Matilda.
In reality, there was no love triangle. The engagement of Nicholas and Alix was publicly announced during the lifetime of Alexander III. The bride was with the family of her betrothed emperor; the wedding took place less than a week after the funeral. The relationship between the ballerina and the heir ended before the latter's engagement. Since that time, the heroes have never communicated alone.
The decision to marry is the cornerstone in the plot of the film, invented by the screenwriter. If you follow the historical truth, then the invented conflict falls apart before your eyes. Therefore, it is more logical to perceive “Matilda” as a work in the “alternative history” genre. For example, in Tarantino's film Inglourious Basterds, one of the heroes shoots Hitler with a machine gun and the entire top of the Reich dies in an explosion and fire of the cinema. And this doesn't bother anyone.
Is Matilda a princess? Why not!
According to the plot of the film, Nicholas II did not give up hope of marrying Matilda until the very end. To do this, he decided to prove that the Kshesinskaya family had princely roots. Ballerina and Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich (a friend of the young emperor and the future husband of the ballerina) go to the library, where they look for information about an ancient family, to whose pedigree the Kshesinskys can be attributed. Alas, here the filmmakers send us greetings from the twentieth century.
At that time, the future monarch could only marry a person equal to him in status. Since there were very few European dynasties, the choice of brides was minimal, and incest was inevitable. For example, on her father’s side, Alix was both Nikolai’s fourth cousin and second cousin. Ten years before their marriage, Ella (in Orthodoxy Elizaveta Feodorovna), Alix's older sister, married Sergei Alexandrovich, Nikolai's uncle.
But even if Kshesinskaya was a princess, she could, at best, count on a morganatic marriage. Thus, her lover’s grandfather Alexander II entered into a similar alliance with Ekaterina Dolgorukova, who received the title of Princess Yuryevskaya. And even then this happened when the emperor had already been on the throne for a long time, and he had an heir.
As for the abdication of the throne - by the way, in her memoirs the ballerina claimed that she had never approached the heir with such a proposal - then similar story happened in England when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in order to marry the woman he loved (who was also divorced). True, this event happened in 1936. So forty years before this, Matilda’s happiness with Nikolai was impossible.
There was no bare breasts!
“Matilda” is unlikely to please even a lover of erotica. According to film critic Anna Efremenko, there “even spontaneous sex occurs according to intuitive instructions from IKEA.” But there is still one joy for a nude lover: in one of the episodes, Matilda’s breasts are exposed (this petty dirty trick from a competitor who is tugging at the string of her stage costume on her back). But the brave soloist does not hesitate and dances the part to the end. Moreover, the shocked Nikolai paid attention to her only after this episode (now it is clear how to surprise the 22-year-old heirs to the throne).
Of course, such a scene never happened in reality. The scandal in ballet St. Petersburg occurred only in 1911. And it happened not to a woman, but to a man. During the production of the ballet “Giselle,” the great dancer Vaslav Nijinsky appeared on stage in tight tights (before that, the performers of this role wore bloomers). Alexandra Feodorovna, who was sitting in the royal box, laughed, but such freedom caused confusion among the other members of the imperial family. As a result, Nijinsky was fired from the Mariinsky Theater.
If the reader turns to photographs of performances of that time (for example, they were published in the books of Vera Krasovskaya, the most authoritative specialist on the history of pre-revolutionary ballet), he will see that the bodice (the upper part of the dancers’ costume) was more closed, and its width at the shoulders was much thicker than those of modern artists. At that time, the costumes almost never used the current, almost invisible harnesses. Therefore, if a tight leotard, like Nijinsky’s, was possible at the turn of the century, then a light striptease was not.
Ball on Blood
During the coronation of Nicholas II, Khodynka happened - a mass stampede on the Khodynka field (now it is located on the territory of modern Moscow). At least half a million people came there for a mass celebration in honor of the coronation. Many were attracted by rumors of gifts and distribution of valuable coins. During the stampede, 1,379 people were killed and more than 900 were injured. If you believe the film, Nikolai arrived at the scene of the tragedy, ordered to bury each killed in a separate grave (and not in a common one, as negligent subordinates suggested), allocate money from the treasury to their relatives, and then knelt down, repenting of his unintentional crime.
In reality, the Khodynskoye field was cleared of traces of the tragedy... and the celebration continued. For example, the orchestra played a concert on the same field. In the evening, celebrations continued in the Kremlin Palace, and a ball was held at the French Embassy. The monarchists argued that Nicholas II did not cancel the ball, being faithful to his allied obligations. But in any case, the emperor's reputation was seriously damaged.
After this scene, it’s even strange that Natalya Poklonskaya accused the film’s director, Alexei Uchitel, of desecrating the memory of the last Russian emperor. Rather, the film contains an idealization of his image.
The Emperor in a stroller and Alix on a motorcycle
There are plenty of other inaccuracies in the picture. For example, the crash of the imperial train occurred six years before the death of Emperor Alexander III, when his son was not even familiar with Kshesinskaya. But it wasn't enough for the film. beautiful picture. Therefore, a cart with a man appears in the frame, which did not have time to cross the tracks, as a result of which a train crashed into it (in reality there was no peasant. According to one version, the cause was too high a speed, according to another - rotten sleepers). And after the accident we see the emperor in wheelchair. For that time, this was unthinkable: rumors about the condition of Alexander III would have immediately spread throughout the capital.
Or another example. Alexandra Fedorovna brings a German doctor with her. The future mother-in-law kicks him out of the palace. The doctor is already starting the motorcycle when Alix leaves the palace, sits behind him, and they ride out together. Can you imagine that at the end of the 19th century, the emperor’s wife was driving around the capital on a motorcycle behind the back of an unfamiliar man? I'm not afraid to seem categorical - this is impossible.
For the sake of objectivity, I’ll add: if Matilda had turned out to be a successful film, its artistic merits would have outweighed many of these listed shortcomings. But, judging by the film, the king, or rather the emperor, turned out to be naked. Or is it just Matilda?
To the cinema
Nicholas II's father, Emperor Alexander III, was against his son's marriage to Princess Alice of Hesse.
In life
Indeed, at first Russian Emperor My wife and I were not delighted with this marriage. Alice may have been the granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England, but at that time she was a poor princess from a provincial German duchy. Her mother suffered from a nervous disorder, but, worst of all, she was a carrier of hemophilia, which is transmitted through the female line to sons, but the carriers themselves do not get sick. (As a result, Nikolai’s son, Tsarevich Alexei, suffered from hemophilia). Alexander counted on the marriage of the heir to Helen Louise Henrietta, daughter of Louis Philippe, Count of Paris. But then politics, as well as the serious illness of the emperor (and he wanted to marry his son before his death) accelerated the marriage of Nicholas and Alice, who became Alexandra Fedorovna in baptism.
To the cinema
Alexander III himself introduced his son to Matilda Kshesinskaya.
In life
This happened in 1890 immediately after the graduation performance at the Imperial Theater School, which, according to tradition, was attended by the monarch and his family. Alexander III unexpectedly singled out Matilda Kshesinskaya among all the dancers and declared to the 17-year-old graduate: “Be the decoration and glory of our ballet!” After the performance, without taking off theatrical costumes, all the students gathered in a large rehearsal hall to present themselves to the royalty.
The action was carefully rehearsed, the candidates for the best graduates were pre-selected from among the first students, among whom Kshesinskaya could not be included simply because she was listed as attending. And then the first surprise happened - in violation of all the rules, the sovereign asked: “Where is Kshesinskaya?” I had to call her. After the presentation of the graduates, a gala dinner followed, and Malechka also did not have a permanent place at the common table. And the sovereign again ordered in his own way - he seated Kshesinskaya between himself and the heir, playfully threatening both: “Just be careful, don’t flirt too much!” At the same time, Nikolai and Kshesinskaya began to communicate closely only two years later. But Alexander could not show his son on the train, who some time later had an accident, a photograph of the young ballerina. After all, the crash of the train, in which the emperor was injured, because of which he later fell ill and died early, happened two years before Nicholas met Kshesinskaya.
To the cinema
Nicholas II cannot forget his beloved, planning to give up the throne for Kshesinskaya and run away with her.
In life
Many critics of the film argue that the relationship between Nikolai and Matilda was only platonic. It is unlikely. But after his parents’ decision to marry him to Alice Gessenskaya, he decides to end his affair with Kshesinskaya - for sure. And Niki had no intention of running anywhere. This is how the ballerina herself recalls this in her memoirs: “On April 7, 1894, the engagement of the heir to the throne to Alice, Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt was announced. I knew for a long time that sooner or later this would happen, but still my grief was boundless...
After returning from Coburg and the engagement, the heir to the throne asked me for a farewell meeting. We agreed to meet on Volkonsky Highway, at a barn with hay standing on the side of the road.
Regina Zbarskaya: the real life of the Red Queen
- More details
I came from the city in my carriage, and he came on horseback, straight from the training ground. And, as always happens in such cases, when you need to say a lot to each other, a lump came to our throats, and we said something completely different from what we wanted. There is a lot left unsaid. And what can you talk about at parting, if you know that nothing can be changed...
When Niki left for the training ground, I stood by the barn for a long time and looked after him until he disappeared from sight. And he kept looking around and looking back... I didn’t cry, but my heart was breaking with grief, and as he moved away, my soul became heavier.
I returned to the city, to my empty and orphaned house. It seemed to me that life was over and there would be nothing ahead but pain and bitterness.”
According to rumors, Kshesinskaya received 100 thousand rubles and a house as final payment for her relationship with her august lover. In the future, they most likely never met again. But Nikolai periodically helped his ex-girlfriend in absentia in her theatrical affairs. Nothing is known about at least one personal meeting between Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and Kshesinskaya.
To the cinema
Nikolai had a competitor - Lieutenant Vorontsov (played by Danila Kozlovsky). He is in love with Matilda Kshesinskaya so much that he is trying to stop his main rival. For example, he wants to beat him with a crown. The future Emperor Nicholas II shows mercy to the unlucky criminal - he replaces death penalty forced treatment.
In life
There is no known fan of Kshesinskaya named Vorontsov. The ballerina preferred members of the imperial family: after breaking up with Niki, she was the mistress of the Grand Dukes Sergei Mikhailovich and Andrei Vladimirovich Romanov. And it’s unlikely that a Russian officer would be able to raise his hand against the Tsarevich because of a ballerina - this does not fit into the code of noble honor. So in this case it is purely artistic fiction.
