The key idea is to separate truth from lies. This talk show began as a confrontation between once close people, whose relationship was broken, but not completely broken, by lies, as an opportunity for the first time in for a long time talk frankly, ask vital questions important questions and get truthful answers. It is impossible to lie in our studio - the characters are connected by sensors to the polygraph. This turns every program into psychological thriller.
I feel in the right place. The events of the last few years have literally turned my life upside down. There were a lot of lies around, a lot of betrayal and hypocrisy. Condemnation of the crowd. Therefore, I, like no one, know how important it is sometimes to find out the truth, to explain to the world, how important it is to be heard.
By the way, I myself suggested being the first to take a polygraph test and answer the questions that our “colleagues” have been savoring for many years now. And after that I think that I have every right ask frank questions of my guests. I'm very proud of this program. Over the summer, we managed to beat the ratings not only of our old direct competitors (18% share - Ed.), but also the ratings of our new rivals - former colleagues on Channel One.
I heard that it is still possible to fool the detector. The whole question is how to answer the questions.
I don't know how to fool the detector. I think this is impossible. Before recording the program, our heroes undergo preliminary polygraph testing. It's a long process. And only in the studio during filming we finally find out which of what they said is true and which is a lie.
Experts ask a lot of additional questions. An irrefutable truth emerges from many answers, so it is impossible to fool a polygraph. Even if someone manages to “skip” the first question, additional ones will still lead to clean water. Therefore, polygraph examiners often do not immediately render a verdict, but ask additional questions.
By the way, the hero is observed not only by a polygraph examiner - a specialist in working with the polygraph, but also by a profiler who analyzes the emotions, facial expressions of the program hero, his speech, signs invisible to an inexperienced observer, by which one can always understand whether a person is lying or telling the truth. Sometimes they are joined by a criminologist - a specialist who works with the motives of crimes. Believe me, if our specialists take on a guest, he will not get out. It is impossible to lie.
How do you get people to participate in the program? What kind of technologies are you using: torture, blackmail, bribery?
No matter how loud and pathetic it may sound, the desire to be heard is much more important for many than anything else.
People want to defend their truth, and we help them with this.
You yourself were in a similar position and you understand that it is very difficult to open up and tell the details personal life in front of a large audience.
Yes, for me, the polygraph test and the need to talk about personal things became a severe shock. The first such interview was dedicated to the release of my book “Zhanna” last fall. And secondly, on the eve of the airing of the project “Actually”. It was damn difficult. But I had the main help - the truth was on my side. Therefore, agreeing to this conversation was not easy, but telling the truth turned out to be a great relief. Psychologists know how reticence and lies destroy human destinies.
But surely you pay people money to participate?
Do you really think that money is the decisive argument for our man? Achieving justice is a much stronger motive.
An actor took part in one of the first programs. After everything this man has done, doesn't he make you feel disgusted? Why give broadcasts to such people?
Speaking about me, the last few years have changed me a lot, I, in principle, try not to judge or condemn.
Within the framework of the program, I am not interested in moralizing - it is not for me to decide what is good and what is bad. My personal task is to try to understand the guest.
And if a criminal comes to the studio, I will ask: why? And I'll try to hear him. This does not mean to justify.
In the “” program he said that “television of Botox, silicone and giveaways with vodka on the bottom” is becoming a thing of the past. People are tired of it. It seems to me that Dibrov is mistaken. This kind of television will never go away. What do you think about this?
I am convinced that television should remain socially relevant. In my opinion, the story of the “crystal boy” Sasha Pushkarev is more important than the story of expensive gifts for Anna Kalashnikova, because it appeals to the heart and is an example of perseverance and dignity!
We called Dibrov after the recording you mentioned. We talked for a long time. I agree with Dmitry’s arguments: the topic can be anything everyday: “silicone and Botox”, unequal marriage, betrayal, rape, illegitimate children. It's all vital.
June 15, 2017Our task is television, as I see it, and the skill is to make life story don't wash dirty laundry, and literature.
The TV presenter told the whole truth about Zhanna Friske, son Plato and the conflict with Rusfond.
On the anniversary of Zhanna Friske’s death, Dmitry Shepelev became a guest of Andrei Malakhov’s “Let Them Talk” program. The TV presenter told viewers and guests in the studio that he was so tired of scandals and gossip that he was ready to take a lie detector test and tell the whole truth about what happened over the past two years. From the first minutes of the broadcast, Shepelev admitted that he practically did not sleep on the eve of filming the program - he was so worried about everything that would happen in the studio.
“I haven’t slept, I’ll tell you honestly, and at the same time I feel a great sense of gratitude for the meeting that we can have today. I'm worried, truly worried. To my horror and my incomprehension, the story of Jeanne and everything connected with her is not left alone. All this continues to be discussed and condemned,” Dmitry told Andrey Malakhov.
One of the main issues was the recent conflict between the TV presenter and the family of Zhanna Friske with charitable foundation“Rusfond”, which in January 2014 collected more than 20 million rubles for the treatment of the singer. Let us remember that a few weeks ago the court ruled that in the near future. In response to the question of where the money had gone, Shepelev showed bank statements and said the following.
“This is a written confirmation that was used in court, confirmation that all the funds were withdrawn by her mother 10 days before her death,” the TV presenter said. On the eve of the broadcast of the program, journalists from the talk show “Let Them Talk” also contacted Zhanna Friske’s father to find out his position.
Dmitry Shepelev undergoes a lie detector test/Photo: frame from the program As one would expect, the man blamed his son-in-law for everything. “He’s arrogant and doesn’t consider people to be anyone at all. A man who came from rags to riches. Now he has eight guards,” Vladimir Borisovich noted in a conversation with reporters.
In an exclusive report, Dmitry Shepelev also showed the house that he bought with Zhanna when the singer was still alive. According to the TV presenter, no one lives there now, and Zhanna herself has been there twice. “It was a remarkable day. It was winter. We had a small picnic at the entrance to the house, drank Home wine, ate barbecue, talked different stories“Dmitry shared his memories and added that he does not intend to share the property with the singer’s relatives. Him on this moment I want only one thing: for my son Plato to grow up happy. “I don’t need anything that belongs to others, I want my son to live in peace,” the TV presenter expressed his point of view.
Dmitry Shepelev showed the house that he bought together with Zhanna Friske during the singer’s life/Photo: frame from the program The program also touched on the topic of disagreements between Dmitry Shepelev and the Friske family. During the lie detector test, the TV presenter said that the boy’s last meeting with his relatives took place three weeks ago. True, according to Zhanna’s common-law husband, the meeting with his grandparents was very difficult for his son.
“It was very difficult. After the meeting, Plato developed a fever. I called the doctor. He told me that this was an emotional reaction to this meeting. That is why I insist that a psychologist be present at the meetings,” Shepelev said. Zhanna Friske’s mother expressed her point of view on the situation. “We met in the psychologist’s office in the presence of the nanny, Dima. We were still protected by eight guards. It was about 30-35 minutes. If Zhanna were alive, she would throw him out,” the woman said emotionally.
One of the main premieres of the new television season in Russia was the show “Actually,” hosted by Dmitry Shepelev. The rating program has already become the center of attention and various accusations. AiF talked with Shepelev about how the polygraph works on the program and whether it is possible to lie during the show.
Vladimir Polupanov, AiF: Dima, what is it? main idea"Actually" program?
Dmitry Shepelev: The key idea is to separate truth from lies. This talk show began as a confrontation between once close people, whose relationship was broken but not completely broken by lies, as an opportunity for the first time in a long time to talk frankly, ask vital questions and get truthful answers. It is impossible to lie in our studio - the characters are connected by sensors to the polygraph. This turns every program into a psychological thriller. The truth that we learn can separate people forever or, on the contrary, connect them again, because even they do not always understand what is really happening between them. Today we have expanded the topics of our programs: the format allows us to talk not only about personal matters, but also to conduct our own investigations of high-profile criminal and political events.
I feel in the right place. The events of the last few years have literally turned my life upside down. There were a lot of lies around, a lot of betrayal and hypocrisy. Condemnation of the crowd. Therefore, I, like no one, know how important it is sometimes to find out the truth, to explain to the world, how important it is to be heard.
By the way, I myself suggested being the first to take a polygraph test and answer the questions that our “colleagues” have been savoring for many years now. And after that, I believe that I have every right to ask frank questions to my guests. I'm very proud of this program. Over the summer, we managed to beat the ratings of not only our old direct competitors (18% share - Ed.), but also the ratings of our new rivals - former colleagues on Channel One.
- I heard that it is still possible to fool the detector. The whole question is how to answer the questions.
I don't know how to fool the detector. I think this is impossible. Before recording the program, our heroes undergo preliminary polygraph testing. It's a long process. And only in the studio during filming we finally find out which of what they said is true and which is a lie. This is not a detector game, but verified and reliable information. People's fates are often at stake. Playing with this is blasphemy. And we value our reputation. To make it clearer, I will give an example. Let's say someone stole family jewelry. The heroes are not only asked: did you steal this? They also ask a lot of additional questions. Have you been to this house? Do you know where the jewelry was kept? Have you touched them? An irrefutable truth emerges from many answers, so it is impossible to fool a polygraph. Even if someone manages to “slip” the first question, additional ones will still lead to clean water. Therefore, polygraph examiners often do not immediately render a verdict, but ask additional questions.
By the way, the hero is observed not only by a polygraph examiner - a specialist in working with the polygraph, but also by a profiler who analyzes the emotions, facial expressions of the program hero, his speech, signs invisible to an inexperienced observer, by which one can always understand whether a person is lying or telling the truth. Sometimes they are joined by a criminologist - a specialist who works with the motives of crimes. Believe me, if our specialists take on a guest, he will not get out. It is impossible to lie.
- How do you manage to persuade people to participate in the program? What technologies do you use?— torture, blackmail, bribery?
No matter how loud and pathetic it may sound, the desire to be heard is much more important for many than anything else. People want to defend their truth, and we help them with this.
You yourself have been in a similar position and you understand that it is very difficult to open up and tell the details of your personal life in front of a large audience.
Yes, for me, the polygraph test and the need to talk about personal things became a severe shock. The first such interview was dedicated to the release of my book “Zhanna” last fall. And the second is on the eve of the airing of the project “Actually”. It was damn difficult. But I had the main help - the truth is on my side. Therefore, agreeing to this conversation was not easy, but telling the truth turned out to be a great relief. Psychologists know how reticence and lies destroy human destinies.
- But you probably pay people money for participation?
Do you really think that money is the decisive argument for our man? Achieving justice is a much stronger motive. For example, the famous 87-year-old actor became the heroes of one of the programs Ivan Krasko and his wife Natalia, who is 60 years younger than him. Surely, you’ve heard what the hell they write about these people, what labels they put on them - it’s no joke, such an age difference.
And this is sincere loving friend It was vitally important for people to explain themselves to the world, to answer the questions that haunt their fans: what is this - a marriage of convenience? Whim famous artist? The desire to attract attention at any cost? Or sincere love? Isn't that the motive? After that program, I couldn’t find a place for myself. I understood that by asking frank, sometimes intimate questions, for example, whether there was intimacy between them or not, I was hurting these people and was sure that they were unhappy with the conversation and that they were leaving the set with a heavy heart. But backstage Krasko himself came up to me and said: “Thank you for the conversation.” And then it became clear that this truth had become difficult for him, but cleansing, simply vital. As it once was for me, talking about Zhanna, about her illness, about our son and relationships within the family. Not easy, but vital.Actor Alexey Panin participated in one of the first programs. After everything this man has done (sex with a dog, walking naked on the streets in women's pantyhose and masturbation), doesn't he make you feel disgusted? Why give broadcasts to such people?
Speaking about me, the last few years have changed me a lot, I, in principle, try not to judge or condemn. In addition, within the framework of the program, I am not interested in moralizing - it is not for me to decide what is good and what is bad. My personal task is to try to understand the guest. And if a criminal comes to the studio, I will ask: why? And I'll try to hear him. This does not mean to justify. I didn't ask Alexey Panin about the origin of the scandalous videos. The topic of the program was different, more important and deeper, in my opinion. There is an insurmountable conflict between Alexei and his wife that was worth trying to resolve. They have common child- A 10-year-old girl who, like any child, deserves to grow up in peace and harmony. And for her sake, they agreed to talk, tried to hear each other. This is what I see as my task.
- And How? Did this conversation help them?
They left the studio separately. They failed to hear each other. But! Panin answered fundamental questions using a polygraph: whether his shocking lifestyle poses a danger to the child. Did his daughter witness his drunken antics? No, I wasn't. And it was worth it.
- I got the impression that sometimes the truth harms relationships, aggravates them.
One of the guests of the program was an actor Konstantin Glushkov. He is raising a son, whose existence he only learned about when the boy was 4 years old. He wanted to know if he had been raising his own child all these years. I asked him more than once: “Are you sure you want to know the whole truth? Can the truth really change your attitude towards your son?” “I want to,” he said. Found out. The son is not his. Glushkov could not restrain himself and jumped out of the studio. It seemed to me that he would simply kill his wife. But behind the scenes they reconciled. I agree, a difficult truth for both of them. But lies were already destroying their family, and the truth opened the way to understanding.
- Dmitry Dibrov in the first episode of the “Let Them Talk” program with Dmitry Borisov said that “television of Botox, silicone and giveaways with vodka on the bottom” is becoming a thing of the past. People are tired of it. It seems to me that Dibrov is mistaken. This kind of television will never go away. What do you think about this?I am convinced that television should remain socially relevant. In my opinion, the story of the “crystal boy” Sashi Pushkareva more important than the history of expensive gifts for Anna Kalashnikova. Because it appeals to the heart, because it is an example of perseverance, an example of dignity!
One of the episodes of our program was dedicated to our adopted daughter Irina Ponarovskaya. For 33 years this girl lived with the conviction that her adoptive father Wayland Rodd (ex-spouse Ponarovskaya) beat her. She cannot provide any evidence, but she claims: Wayland Rodd beat me. And she lives with this all her life. Rodd took a polygraph. And it turned out - he didn’t hit! He never beat her, but was an attentive and caring father to her, and her memories are the fruit of a child’s fantasy. I'm proud of this dramatic program. Because it is about responsibility, about education, about attitude towards children. And she lifted such a heavy burden from both Wayland and his adopted daughter.
We called Dibrov after the recording you mentioned. We talked for a long time. I agree with Dmitry’s arguments: the topic can be anything everyday - “silicone and Botox”, unequal marriage, betrayal, rape, illegitimate children. It's all vital. But our task is television, as I see it, and the skill is to turn a life story not into washing dirty laundry, but into literature. By the way, I came across an idle opinion: any conversation about the secret is equated with yellowness. And I don't agree with this. There's nothing more valuable on television than real-life honesty, especially when it comes to truth and lies and how they change lives.
It seemed to me that the story of Prokhor Shyalyapin had already been sucked up so many times that it could no longer be of interest to television. The viewer is given the false impression that the man who is often called “gigolo and gigolo” is positive hero, since it is used so often on television. By inviting him to the program, you are giving him free PR.
In our program Chaliapin And Kopenkina passed the polygraph. We talked about Prokhor’s childhood and discovered: his mother and himself were beaten by his father, his father was imprisoned, the boy actually grew up without a father. Further more. At the age of 10, in his own home, he witnessed the murder of two relatives, his aunt and grandmother.
- And now he takes revenge on other women for this?
I believe that nothing passes without a trace. And the Prokhor we see on the screen today, with his high-profile novels and odious antics, he comes from a difficult, painful childhood. When Larisa Kopenkina first heard these facts from her biography in the studio ex-husband, she admitted that she looked at him with different eyes, was able to understand why he left her so inexplicably, why he generally acts so recklessly with other women. Our program conveyed more than just a dramatic story, it conveyed the truth. So it was worth it. Chaliapin and Kopenkina, after a long time of misunderstanding, asked each other for forgiveness, hugged and left the studio together. This is the incredible value of what is happening for me.
We will move along the path of separating truth from lies, no matter what you call it: scandalousness or social responsibility. We talk about topics that will not leave you indifferent. Rape Diana Shurygina, Lyudmila Porgina and a dramatic accident Nikolai Karachentsov. A lot has been said about all this. And only we said what actually happened to these people.
- Since we are talking, what do you think about Andrei Malakhov’s transition to the Russia 1 channel?
I entrusted Andrey with the most important interview in my life about Jeanne, about our Plato, about why I keep this personal so carefully, how important it is for me, why I protect my son with all my might. Today I understand: by declaring that he will “help his grandson meet his grandfather,” Andrei is acting professionally, but inhumanly.
Yesterday, the former common-law husband Zhanna Friske (34). The theme of the issue is Dmitry’s struggle with Zhanna’s family for their son Plato (4). Shepelev immediately stated that he wanted to finally dot the i’s: “To my horror, Zhanna’s story is not being left alone. All this continues to be discussed and condemned. People still come up to me: “We are for you” or “How could you do this.” And it scares me that there are so many questions that are in the air. I want to answer any question and put an end to it forever.”
The first question I asked concerned the missing 20 million rubles - where did the money go that the whole world collected for Zhanna’s treatment? “I continue to insist and say that Vladimir withdrew the money (Friske’s father – ed.). This money is the equivalent of love for Zhanna. With this money, people from all over the country supported a seriously ill girl. Therefore, you need to account for every penny. Just imagine how many seriously ill children could have been saved with these 20 million. 10 days before Zhanna’s death, her mother withdrew the entire amount from the account. In addition, not only Rusfond’s money was withdrawn, but also Zhanna’s personal funds. All accounts were emptied. I don't understand how it was possible, seeing dying daughter, think about money and leave his grandson without the lion’s share of the inheritance,” Dmitry said and showed an official document from the bank confirming that Zhanna’s mother withdrew the Rusfond funds. Do you remember that Vladimir Friske claimed that Dmitry withdrew money from the account and built luxurious Vacation home? According to Dmitry, he bought the cottage together with Zhanna, but after her death it now has four owners - he, Plato and Zhanna’s parents.
Malakhov asked if Zhanna and Dmitry’s son saw his grandparents. It turned out that he had not been trying to prevent Vladimir and Olga from meeting Plato for a long time: “I told my grandparents: “Don’t abandon your grandson. You know my phone number, you know where we live, and where the playground is.” “We won’t go, bring it to us,” they said. And instead of going to see their grandson, they went to court so that the court would determine the order of communication. The court ordered: 1.5 hours per month. Is this normal for a family? Not normal. But the court assessed the actions of the grandparents: threats, meetings and the amount of attention they devoted to their grandson.”
Dmitry not only spoke with Andrei Malakhov, but also passed a lie detector test before recording the program - he was asked the same questions that were asked during the broadcast. And Shepelev answered only the truth. Let us note that Vladimir Borisovich also agreed to undergo a polygraph test, but did not find the time for this.
Let us remember that when it became known about Zhanna Friske’s illness (she was struggling with a brain tumor), Channel One, together with Rusfond, organized a fundraiser for the singer’s treatment. We collected more than 20 million rubles, but then this money disappeared. Vladimir Friske accused Shepelev of the loss of funds.
