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 Russian History of the 19th – early 20th centuries, Faculty of History, Moscow State University, Professor S.V. Mironenko was subjected to severe criticism from them.
“The script for the film Matilda has nothing to do with historical events, about which it is narrated, 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, Nicky!”, and the emperor himself did not faint. All this is an invention of the scriptwriters, recalling the lines from the famous novel by 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 that have nothing to do with real events, much less to the feelings of the heroes.
“Just look at the scene when Nicholas’s father, Emperor Alexander III, chooses a mistress from among the ballerinas for his son 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.
The discussion around the film involves the most different people and groups of people. 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 the television show “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” on the Rossiya 1 TV channel, 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're talking about about a film that, in principle, cannot kill or maim 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.
Alexei Uchitel's film Matilda, which has not yet been released, was again criticized - this time by the executive secretary of the Patriarchal Council for Culture, Father Tikhon (Shevkunov). In an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the clergyman called the main line of the film - the story of the relationship between Emperor Nicholas II and the ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya - “slander on real people”, denying the director in this case the right to the “author’s vision”.
Bishop Tikhon indicated that his opinion of “Matilda” was based on the trailer and script that Teacher sent him.
“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 [the trailer], I honestly can’t understand: why did the authors do it this way? — the bishop told RG. - Why touch on this topic in this way? Why do they force the viewer to believe in the historicity of the heartbreaking scenes of the “love triangle” they invented, in which Nikolai, both before and after his 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?”
He also pointed out that there is no need to celebrate the centenary of the collapse of the Romanov dynasty (the premiere of “Matilda” is scheduled for March 2017, on the anniversary of the February Revolution) with “a heartbreaking Hollywood melodrama.”
Director Alexey Uchitel, in a commentary to St. Petersburg Radio Baltika, called Father Tikhon’s words a misunderstanding.
“I will be happy to invite all the people from the church. I really want to show “Matilda” to all the deputies,” said Uchitel. - Because I am confident in myself, in those people who made the picture, and there are many distinguished people there. Naturally, we could not allow any kind of ethical and historical unreliability. And the fact that some kind of fantasy is present is acceptable in any work of art.”
In addition, the film was presented at an open pitching event for the Cinema Foundation and, as a result, received government support.
Alexey Uchitel began filming Matilda in 2014 on a large scale. Filming took place on the territory of the Moscow Kremlin; for the coronation scene, the scenery of the Assumption Cathedral was built in St. Petersburg; there were many extras (in one of the scenes there were five hundred people at a time).
The declared budget of the film was 700 million rubles. The main roles were played by Polish actress Michalina Olshanskaya and German actor Lars Eidinger (he played Nicholas II). The film also stars Danila Kozlovsky (he plays Count Vorontsov), Ingeborga Dapkunaite (Empress Maria Fedorovna), Sergei Garmash (Emperor Alexander III) and many other Russian actors.
Hurt feelings
In early November, Orthodox activists from the organization “Royal Cross” asked the police, the Prosecutor General’s Office and State Duma deputy Natalya Poklonskaya to check the film “Matilda”. Social activists were sure that the film offended the feelings of believers. In their message, representatives of the “Royal Cross” called the film “an anti-Russian and anti-religious provocation in the field of culture.”
Poklonskaya appealed to the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation with a request to conduct an investigation.
At the same time, the deputy said that “she will not get dirty” by watching the film “Matilda” - this is how the words of the former prosecutor of Crimea are reported by MIA “Russia Today”.
On December 5, Alexey Uchitel told TASS that the prosecutor’s check was carried out and “found nothing.” Commenting to the agency on the appeal itself, which gave rise to this inspection, the director said that such appeals are usually written by “some crazy people from fake public organizations.”
Ivan Artsishevsky, a representative of the House of Romanov, did not see anything offensive in the film. He stated that the authors’ desire to show Nicholas II real person absolutely normal. Also, the mention of the emperor’s connection with Matilda Kshesinskaya cannot be regarded as a desecration of the memory of Nicholas II and the feelings of believers.
“When he was not married, he actually had a relationship with Matilda - this is a historical fact. It’s absolutely normal that art shows this, describes this human image Nicholas II. He was a man with his own weaknesses, he was really in love,” Artsishevsky said in an interview with TASS.
“There is no position of the Romanovs and there will not be, they will not interfere. I can’t even explain to them the essence of this problem,” Artsishevsky concluded.
MOSCOW, July 24 – RIA Novosti. The Russian Orthodox Church does not consider Alexei Uchitel's film "Matilda" a deliberate distortion of the image of the saint, but they called the negative reaction of part of society natural. This opinion was expressed by the press secretary of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill, priest Alexander Volkov, in an interview.
“The teacher did not make a chamber film for some select audience, not a movie for his own people. He made a film for wide release... And he, of course, needs to understand that the perception of his work can be very ambiguous... The reaction that exists is - this is something quite natural. The film will obviously cause a mixed reaction and will not go unnoticed, including from a negative point of view,” Volkov said.
He recalled that Nicholas II is not only a historical figure, but also an Orthodox saint - “and here, of course, you need to understand that with this film the director can touch a lot of people.” "At the same time, I think that there will be a positive reaction to the film. I am sure that there are also correct ones in it, the good side", the priest added.
The Patriarch's press secretary also stated that the Teacher's film is not a deliberate distortion of the image of the saint.
“I am sure that, whatever this film is, it is not a caricature and a deliberate distortion of the image of a holy man,” Volkov answered the question of whether an analogy could be drawn between “Matilda” and caricatures of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
"There is a difference between consciously shocking people, the caricature genre, and high cinema, of which Alexey Uchitel is a part. This is the view of a particular director, a particular artist on this or that historical aspect, and his attempt, with his methods, his tools, his film, to convey his message to the audience, and then there was deliberate incitement of hatred,” Volkov said.
“We must categorically avoid the priest, standing on the pulpit, saying in his sermon: this work is good, but this is bad, you can’t go to see this film, but go burn the cinemas there. This, of course, is impossible,” the priest said.
“The hierarchy of the church cannot simply go and say: “You should like this, but not that.” Simple free people They can express their point of view, it is their right. If they unite themselves around Orthodoxy and say: we Orthodox believe that this film is not good enough or simply bad, then I’m sorry. So, accept their position... Of course, in this sense, we always strive for balance and urge people not to go beyond the bounds of decency. In this sense, of course, we need to warn people against excessive aggression,” the press secretary noted.
The film "Matilda" is dedicated to the fate of the ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya, with whom the future Nicholas II was in love. The main role was played by Michalina Olshanska from Poland, Nicholas II was played by the German artist Lars Eidinger. The premiere will take place on October 6 at the Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg, and the film should be released in wide release on October 25.
Earlier, representatives of the social movement “Royal Cross” called “Matilda” an “anti-Russian and anti-religious provocation,” and State Duma deputy Natalya Poklonskaya asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to check the film. According to her, specialists and scientists made a comprehensive examination of the film materials. She showed that the image created in “Matilda” does not correspond to the image of Emperor Nicholas II, canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.
- 1291 2
- source: ura.news
Chairman of the Council for Culture under the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) of Yegoryevsk, who is considered Vladimir Putin’s confessor, spoke about Alexei Uchitel’s film “Matilda,” which is preparing to be released on Russian screens. Bishop Tikhon spoke about his attitude to the painting during a lecture on the events of 1917 in Russia, which he gave in Yekaterinburg at the opening of the museum “Russia - My History”.
According to Tikhon’s story, he almost became a consultant for the film - director Uchitel approached him with such a proposal. The priest, being a screenwriter by profession, was surprised that the director was looking for consultants for a film whose script was already ready and which was almost filmed, but still asked for the script for review. They didn’t send him for a very long time, and during this time he managed to watch the trailer, which, according to Tikhon, horrified him.
“The relationship between the heir Nikolai Alexandrovich and Matilda Feliksovna Kshesinskaya was not a secret to anyone - all of St. Petersburg was just gossiping about it,” explains Bishop Yegoryevsky. “But Emperor Alexander III appears - my favorite emperor - and utters a phrase that makes me feel bad. The phrase is enchanting in its vulgarity and in the fact that it was impossible to hear such a thing from Alexander III: “I am the only one of the Romanovs who did not live with ballerinas.” I saw Alexei Mikhailovich and Mikhail Fedorovich, under whom there were no ballets even close, and other emperors.”
Later, the bishop managed to get acquainted with the script, in which, according to him, everything is approximately the same as in the trailer. “Nikolai jumps from Matilda’s boudoir to Alexandra’s boudoir, from Alexandra to Matilda - this is after his marriage to Alexandra Feodorovna. Then the coronation, Matilda suddenly finds herself at this coronation, shouts “Nicky!”, he faints, the crown of the Russian empire rolls off. Vulgarity at a pre-fainting level!
Well, how can we comment on the fact that Alexandra Fedorovna, Princess Alix, a fragile girl at that time, with a knife, with a sharpener, goes to Matilda to get her blood. What is there to talk about here anyway?
According to Tikhon, he expressed all this to director Uchitel, apologizing to him (since he is older than him). The bishop called the film an adaptation of Alla Pugacheva’s song: “Kings can do anything, but no king can marry for love.” “We’ll watch the film, of course, what they’ve remade there,” says the priest. “But in the script they say that he loves the proletarian girl Matilda, but for dynastic reasons he must marry this strange evil fury Alexandra.”
According to Tikhon, everything was, of course, not so. To the listeners of the lecture, the bishop offered his view of love triangle between Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra Feodorovna and the ballerina Kshesinskaya: the latter actually had a relationship with the heir, who was very worried about Princess Alix’s refusal to his proposal. However, once she agreed, he ended his relationship with Matilda, apologizing to her for allowing her to fall in love with him, and subsequently providing for her. And with Alexandra Feodorovna they created a “model family.”
According to Tikhon Shevkunov, the film “Matilda” should not be banned, since it will not give anything (impossible, since there is no censorship in the country), and also because the path of bans is a dead end. Instead, the bishop suggests telling the truth of history. “And then - whoever wants it: someone likes to engage in exorcisms to hang noodles on their ears, but this is individual,” said Bishop Tikhon. “If you like to support a film like this, support it!”
Interesting article?
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 famous ballerina– this 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 " Russian newspaper” 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 the 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 the plot of the latter’s love for his new film Russian Emperor to 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 the Russian Empire, in the Soviet Union, and 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 of 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 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 off on a long 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 of the “love triangle” they invented, in which Nikolai, both before and after his 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: “The 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 a historical novel, “fiction is not deception,” Okudzhava convinced. In a work of art about historical figures, of course, the author's fiction, artistic, dramatic reconstruction of events is 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” to become Catherine’s lover. It just has nothing to do with art. Or it is called a 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” comes out as a series, maybe it’s worth accompanying each episode with a documentary film that brings back historical consciousness viewer 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.
I watched a lot yesterday 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 his actor famous theater“Schaubühne” Lars Eidinger. That is, the film except 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 for the cancellation of 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. It is the business of the Church to prohibit and permit when necessary, in 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 later 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, should we 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, different ages, hundreds. They needed typical characters with a beard... They selected clergymen 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, 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? In terms of explicit scenes, we have a picture for a 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, and 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 fairest 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 martyrs 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.
And who has the right to evaluate? piece 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, venerable, different, including the studio management, gathered there. 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? Should we still ban it?
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.
