For example, I read an article about the Crimean Bridge, and there “as a result, state funds have moved into the hands of selected private individuals.” And it's all so outrageous.

What are you?! Can't be! This could not be the case in the United States. In the same place, Lockheed Martin and other arms manufacturing companies are entirely state-owned. And never, you hear "NEVER" the state does not give money to private traders! Yes?

In another place, where it is written about the new railway, American experts indignantly say that "the implementation of this project was entrusted to a special military unit."

And according to American experts, this is also bad, unacceptable and points to the non-market, authoritarian and militaristic nature of the Russian government.

Why do Americans think everyone is an idiot? After all, they constantly condemn everything in Russia in a row, no matter how it is done. The state pays private contractors (which is normal world practice) - bad. The state uses state structures for construction (which is also standard practice) is still bad.

Moreover, probably, no one will be surprised if I say that both of these mutually exclusive statements are given in one article.

Here is a similar principle, but with opposite sign. We must scold Russia for everything, and each ideologically blinkered character will choose the part that suits him.

Therefore, Americans pay equally to any authors who throw mud at Russia - whether from a monarchist, liberal, nationalist or communist position. Doesn't matter. The main thing is that the publication should contain a negative assessment, and from what ideological positions - this does not bother them at all.

Russia is a huge country with millions of people living on its territory. What unites us? Will things change for the better? Vladimir Solovyov and Anna Shafran discussed this and much more with the audience of Vesti FM in the Full Contact program.

Solovyov: Yesterday I asked the people two questions on Twitter, and now I want to ask them to you. Please say here we are big country, giant... And what unites us? What unites us as a country? And the second question I asked is even more difficult: is something changing for the better?

Saffron: Well, what do you people, I wonder, answered?

Solovyov: Unfortunately, the most popular response to what we have in common has been "hate". And the second answer was "victory in the Great Patriotic War". Deeply, with a large lag was "Russian language", "Russian literature".

Saffron: Did people remember hockey?

Solovyov: No, I didn't remember.

Solovyov: But it was very sad when hatred comes out on top. Very sad!

Saffron: Hello! Please speak up, we are listening.

Alexander: Good afternoon! I think that we are united, first of all, of course, by our history. I encountered this, now I have left Moscow, I have been working in Yekaterinburg for several months. It is very useful, of course, for many people to go there, including the protesters. And the territory unites us. Colossal country. I was faced with the fact that there is Moscow with its course, and there is the rest of the country. This is how she lives. I had to come back to Moscow now, I got through to you. Here everything is completely different: the rhythm of life, and some are all nervous. Ekaterinburg is the calmest city. I don't feel any problems there. Most likely, I will go there for three years to work, I will even move my family. Here it is still necessary to brainwash some comrades. Sorry for this phrase.

Solovyov: Yes, correct comparison. So what unites us? In addition to the love of football and the hatred of football players.

Saffron:"Still, I believe - kindness," someone from Moscow writes to us.

Solovyov: Yes exactly! Kindness!

Saffron: Someone answers immediately - "mat".

Solovyov:"Gazprom. People's property". And why did the national heritage have to bury our football? That's why, if some lawyer was once drafted into some kind of Zenit, should he automatically be the coach of the national team? What is happiness? Well, why such nonsense? "We are united by the border." In the sense that the hell will you run away?

Saffron:"Pride and Stupidity" "Tosca unites us." "Nothing unites us - everyone hates each other." "Relatives throughout the country - Chelyabinsk, Lipetsk, Kazan, Minsk." "We are united common problems and troubles". "Our unique culture". "Fools and roads, not counting lawlessness". "The name is Russia". Yes, that's a lot.

Also in this release:

General Director of "Sinan Invest" Alexander Zhigulin spoke about the purchase of real estate in Turkey.

You can find audio releases in the "Programs" section, on the program page

Popular

07.03.2019, 08:07

"The ruble should become an investment currency"

MIKHAIL KHAZIN: "The whole program economic growth in Russia can be described in one phrase: you need to make a ruble of investment currency in order to make it profitable to invest in rubles. This is very easy to do: we need development institutions that will invest in a project-based way in the creation of import-substituting enterprises."

13.03.2019, 09:07

British elites want to restore the Empire

MIKHAIL KHAZIN: "They had several plans. They had a plan to make an empire based on the Arab world - however, then Israel would have to be liquidated. Kissinger, who is rumored to be close to this group, said that by 2022 There will be no Israel in the year. This plan did not work because Trump became president in the United States. It is clear that under Trump it will not be possible to eliminate Israel."

15.03.2019, 10:08

Ukrainians mostly betrayed themselves

ROSTYSLAV ISHCHENKO: “If we take the matter seriously, then, again, I don’t think that the term “betrayal” can be fully applied to the current citizens of Ukraine, even to those who, from our point of view, are indeed traitors, because basically they betrayed themselves. That is, they lived on their own territory, built their own state. The fact that we don't like this state is our problem, we don't live there."

The Corpus Publishing House has published a book by Andrey Smirnov, a classic of Russian film directing. The collection "Mugs and Quinoa" includes stories in which you can recognize the plots of many of his films. Daniil Adamov spoke with the director about the fate of his films, Russian history and cinema - old and new.

Andrei Sergeevich, you write: “I forced myself to write at least a page, at least two, every single day. Over the years, thousands of pages of diaries have been formed, I was even offered to publish them, but I was too lazy. Why did you decide now to collect your texts and publish them?

I didn’t touch the diaries, because I’m afraid I won’t have time to deal with them myself. After all, while I was retraining, as it is written in the book, from a Soviet director to a Soviet writer, many years passed. Publishing a book of diaries is a huge job, now I don’t have the opportunity to do it.

On March 12, I turned 75 years old. Terrible number. And on this day they brought me a luxurious bouquet of flowers and an envelope with congratulations from Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev. I thanked, was touched. And three days later, the Central Bank revoked the license from the Ekaterininsky Bank, which had two million sponsorship dollars for the production of the film. The script is called "Dark Water", it is in the book. The film will most likely be called The Frenchman. The actors had already been chosen, the group was working, in May I was supposed to start shooting. And that bank burned the money needed to make the film, as well as everything that my wife and I have earned over the past 30 years. Since March 19, I had to disband the group and stop the production of the picture.

It has nothing to do with the book though. I can't say that a certain moment has come. The scripts published in the book differ somewhat from films made. Including the script for "Autumn", which I shot, or "Sentimental Journey", which was shot by another director. But I wanted to see it in print. Yes, and such an age, to die soon. I wish there was a progress report. Therefore, there were no particularly conceited moments or some kind of greed. Just the work of many years. And I was glad when the publishing house corpus agreed to release it.

If we are already talking about a new film: it will be about the generation of the sixties. What is the reason for this choice of topic? And in addition to this question: with what do you associate such, perhaps, nostalgia for the 60s now?

For me, this is due to the fact that this is my generation. I remember that time well. But I don’t see much nostalgia, because both our press and the Internet are permeated with hatred for the sixties. All these accusations of the so-called dashing 90s and so on. There are a lot of young people who have not seen anything, but they say how good it was under communism.

I think that 74 years Soviet power This is a terrible period in the life of our country. She died, this is not Russia now, but a completely different country. How many people were killed, we still do not know exactly, but it is tens of millions. I'm not talking about the price our country paid for the victory in the Great Patriotic War. And we still don't know these numbers.

And the so-called thaw is the first breath since 1917. It is probably wrong to call it a feeling of freedom, because we were brought up in a Soviet school and, in general, we did not know what freedom is. But there was a feeling that doors that were previously closed were opened. Then a whole wave of new poets appeared, poetry evenings gathered huge audiences - a full Sports Palace in Luzhniki. The leaders of all this were, of course, Yevtushenko, Voznesensky, Akhmadulina, in lesser degree Robert Christmas. They literally wore them on their hands. Jazz, banned yesterday, appears in music, and the Lianozovo commune appears in painting. It was a breath of freedom, which was then cut off: Sinyavsky, Daniel, Brodsky were imprisoned, not to mention the year 68, when the seven went to Red Square against the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

And then, the people who took responsibility for new Russia in the 90s, these are in many respects the sixties, of the same generation. And the changes then were good, although, unfortunately, they were not completed and today the country has returned back. In many respects, we live like under Soviet rule, but not in everything, of course. And the very people who now say that the country fell apart was a complete nightmare and how well they lived under Soviet rule, they simply do not know anything. Completely false information was pushed into their brains.

If in the 90s the leaders of the country turned out to be the sixties, why didn't the same process happen as in the 60s? All cultural processes faded into the background before the problems that were in the 90s.

I am not a politician or a political scientist, so I do not undertake to give recipes, but there is no doubt that there was a cultural explosion in the 90s. And that is why a wave of strong writers has now begun, such as Stepnova, Vodolazkin, Shishkin, Ulitskaya and a dozen other authors. And the cinema? A new movie has arrived. A number of remarkable filmmakers appeared, including the now deceased, unfortunately, Lesha Balabanov. Therefore, a cultural explosion, of course, took place: in literature, and in cinema, and in music, finally. I'm not talking about bards, but people like Yuri Shevchuk, the Leningrad group and the amazing Sergei Shnurov, Boris Grebenshchikov appeared. It's all the result of a new breath of freedom.

Why, in your opinion, has such a rollback happened twice in a row? After the thaw, the screws were tightened - and after the 90s, too.

I think it happened because serfdom was abolished just over 150 years ago. This is not enough. The consciousness of people in Russia remains a serf. They are used to the fact that the master should take care of them, and do not want to lead an independent life.

You see, well, let's take some year 1055. At this time, the University of Bologna is already operating, as well as Oxford. And there, and there are only three faculties - theological, medical and legal. Moreover, a woman is teaching at Oxford at that time, which will be impossible in 200 years. When did the first university open in Russia? After 700 years - in 1775. And what happens in Russia when Oxford University is already operating? At this time, Andrei Bogolyubsky escaped from Kyiv and builds Vladimir-Suzdal Rus.

What is 700 years? According to demographers, 100 years is four generations. By the time the doors of Moscow University open, 28 generations of Europeans, even if they are the children of not peasants, but of the bourgeoisie, will have received a university education. Naturally, this will affect their children, grandchildren and so on. Well, how will we overcome this distance in 200 years? This cannot be.

You write in the book that you started keeping some kind of records because you could no longer do cinema. And they didn't let you make the movie you wanted. But new times have come, and it was logical to assume that you would begin to catch up. It didn't happen and you only made one film.

First, by 1991 I was 50 years old. A cinematographer is a profession, on the one hand, frivolous, and on the other, requiring a huge return. So the idea came to my mind to make a film about the Tambov uprising of the peasants, since everything is concentrated in it - this is a clot Russian history. And it required a gigantic effort. I was driven to despair that not a single picture would remain that I made without someone else's pointer. “Once upon a time there was a woman” is the only film in my biography that was not touched by the hand of the censor. It exists in the form of a film and a five-episode series, which, unfortunately, was never shown on Channel One, which bought it.

Vladimir Yarotsky

The film script took almost 10 years to complete. During this time, I first worked as an official, then taught, acted as an artist, staged in the theater. And it took a lot of time to make a good movie. And then everything went like clockwork. I managed to find money - public and private, to shoot a picture. I cannot complain about fate, the film received six Nika awards. And then I sat down for the script, which in the book is called "Dark Water". That is, I did not interrupt, but, unfortunately, I was never too prolific, and in my youth too.

You've got such a twisted story. Your first serious directorial work, the film "Angel", and the last this moment- “Once upon a time there was a woman” are united by the theme of the Civil War ...

Yes, in "Once upon a time there was a woman" they managed to say what they were not allowed to say in "Angel".

Were you not offended to hear and see such a reaction to the film "Once upon a time there was a woman"? All these statements about "why film this", "slandered the Russian people" and so on.

I was ready for it. I just didn’t think that such streams of accusations of Russophobia would come. After all, these accusations are pouring in from people who know nothing and do not want to know about own history. The history of Russia in the 20th century is monstrous. And until every student knows this, everything will be so.

Here is the story with our fans in France who got into fights. I've seen the pictures, they are killer. What do they have on their shirts? USSR, scary bear, the inscription "I am Russian". These people know nothing about the history of their grandparents. And they don't want to know! They are full of pride for Russia. For the one that never was.

It seems to me that education is the most necessary thing for Russia. But you have to live with it for at least a hundred years. So that four generations know their history, learn how to behave with each other. What unites us into one nation is the hatred of everyone for everyone.

Since we remembered the movie "Angel", here's what I wanted to ask. In the book, you talk about the beginning of the filming of the film and write that thanks to Chukhrai's experimental film studio, you were able to assemble the team you wanted. However, it is also known that Chukhrai was one of those people who to some extent put this film on the shelf, where it lay for 20 years.

You know, my relationship with Chukhrai is a completely separate issue. Of course, when I found out that the picture was being put on the shelf, I was furious. Moreover, I was forced to cut out a number of points. But I always lived in the hope that the film will be released. And so he made compromises, which I now regret, because the author's copy has not been preserved. And the difference is very big, because in the author's version the timing is 53 minutes, and in the one that remains - 34. 20 minutes taken from the short film is a lot.

I was not informed that the film was being shelved, I learned about it from someone's story. The studio sent a letter that the picture was not a success and it should be "covered up". I was furious, wrote a letter to Chukhrai, very harsh. And, having met him, I said rude things that I don’t want to remember.

Years passed, we practically did not communicate, although I was friends with his son. And then on TV I saw Chukhrai's film "Clear Sky", in which the threshold of the thaw is very accurately marked. I recalled how Chukhrai brought this film to VGIK and we, the students, watched Clear Sky very ironically, then asked him boorish questions, to which he adequately answered. And when I watched the film on TV, tears flowed from my eyes, I immediately dialed the number of Grigory Naumovich and said everything I wanted. He was touched by this. And we rekindled our relationship.

And then, for the anniversary of Chukhrai, Boris Berman and Ildar Zhandarev made documentary about him. Fortunately, Grigory Naumovich was still alive, so I managed to express in the film all my love for his paintings and for himself. I was glad that I had time to say these words while he was still alive.

And, of course, there was no resentment against him. The very attempt to look at civil war as a national tragedy could not be approved in 1967-1968. And Chukhrai understood this. At the age of 26, I thought that it was time to talk about it differently. And I had confidence that I was going in the direction in which Russia and the Russian consciousness would inevitably have to go. Although I was both a pioneer and a member of the Komsomol, so, you know, a "believer". But by that time I was already reading Vekhi, Berdyaev, Russian religious philosophers.

Vladimir Yarotsky

And when and how did this change in consciousness begin and you ceased to be a “believer”? I read in one of your interviews on the filming of the TV series "In the First Circle" that the works of the same Solzhenitsyn helped people like you - "half-blind, but gradually regained their sight."

In 1955, my parents moved to Maryina Roscha, and it turned out that there was a French special school a block away from our house. In Moscow at that time there were only three special schools for the study foreign languages. I was finishing the seventh grade, and my father told me that you have to be a fool to miss such an opportunity. And without any teachers, I learned French grammar over the summer and went to the eighth grade to French school. Two years later there was an exchange of schoolchildren, and we, nine blockheads, went to France for a month. In Paris we were taken on a tour of the museum modern painting, showed both Van Gogh and Matisse. But we knew then that these were bourgeois whims, and not painting at all. I remember how enthusiastically I told the guide on French, which great painter Vasnetsov and what lovely picture"Three heroes".

And with such cultural baggage, I entered VGIK. Of course, more than directing, we were engaged in military training and Marxism. This continues even now, only those who taught the history of the CPSU there are teaching the history of Russia today. But we had a number of wonderful teachers. For example, history fine arts was led by Tretyakov's nephew - Nikolai Nikolaevich. He identified the beginnings of a cultural understanding of painting.

I don't presume to judge other universities, but at an institute that trains filmmakers, the level of rivalry is very important. The higher it is in the group, the more serious the results will be. And there was good level"push". My classmates were Andron Konchalovsky, the late Vitya Tregubovich. At that time, Tarkovsky, Shukshin, Shepitko and so on studied there.

As a result, I left VGIK a different person. Priorities have changed. But this evolution went further. I got my diploma early, I was 22 years old, and I was already filming my first full-length picture. And then I got acquainted with Russian philosophy. Berdyaev was simply an indisputable teacher. I can’t say that the evolution has ended by Angel, because it never ends. But this was not done blindly, I already knew quite a few sources on the history of the Civil War.

When you were filming Belorussky Station, you already had experience with Angel, which was not released. That is, you probably understood that the view of history that is close to you is not welcome at all.

Not certainly in that way. Of course, I understood everything, but I didn’t have the slightest regret about the “Angel”, even with such a fate. I was proud of it internally. And the team that made the picture - cameraman Pavel Lebeshev, artist Korovin - had confidence that we had done a real job, and not some nonsense. And when they put the film on the shelf, Lebeshev said: "Don't give a damn, we're still the most talented."

Vladimir Yarotsky

- How did you come to the Belorussky Station? How did this movie start?

My father received the Lenin Prize in 1964 for the book The Brest Fortress, and I saw the heroes of this book with my own eyes. In 1954, when the editorial office of Novy Mir was destroyed, where my father was deputy editor-in-chief, he began to look for some topic. And stopped at the history of defense Brest Fortress. It was believed that everyone there died, and for 10 years my father searched for these heroes and found more than 400 people, alive, who participated in the defense. Their fates were terrible, because it was possible to avoid captivity only by shooting themselves or joining the police. Almost all of them went through German captivity, and when they were released, half went to domestic camps. None of them received any pensions. These people, whom my father found, came, often stayed overnight with us. And everyone had to help: get a pension, prove that he was not a traitor to the Motherland, and so on.

In the summer of 1968, my friend Leonid Gurevich, who was an editor at Chukhrai's studio, said that there was an application from screenwriter Vadim Trunin. Four front-line soldiers meet in the cemetery at the funeral of their commander. They have long become strangers and the whole film is looking for a haven to drink and find again mutual language. I had a feeling that I had to make this picture. And this plot was superimposed on my memories of the heroes of Brest. That same night I found Trunin, who was writing a script for Kirghizfilm in a sanatorium. At four o'clock in the morning they woke him up, called him to the phone, and I said that I wanted to take it off. He said - take the application. But it ended up a year before I got it.

I went to the experimental studio and said I wanted to make a film; Pozner (father of today's famous Vladimir Pozner) said that they no longer have anything to do with me after "Angel". I took the application to Mosfilm. It was on four pages, and the film ended with the front-line soldiers spending the night with their front-line nurse, and in the morning they go about their business as strangers as they were. And Julius Raizman then told me that the film would not be allowed to be shot with such an ending. As a result, Mosfilm refused.

After some time, Chukhrai's experimental studio began to stir and concluded an agreement with Larisa Shepitko, who was supposed to shoot this film. We were friends, we knew each other. She took Lebeshev as an operator. They wrote the script, let me read it. That's why we met - me, Trunin and Shepitko. I was outraged and said that the script was no good. However, there were two great scenes. The first is when locksmith Prikhodko comes home to his family. And a grand finale was invented when these same heroes, only young ones, come out at the Belorussky railway station in 1945.

In general, they were transported for some time. And then I found out that the contract was terminated and Larisa left this project. I again ran to the experimental studio and again received the same refusal: we don’t have any more business with you, we’ve had enough of Angel.

Then the director Mark Osepyan calls me and says that he was offered this film. Well, I wished him well. They carried on for some more time and parted, something did not work out for them.

And then my time came. Neither I nor Trunin had any money. We borrowed money and left to write the script. The author of the script, of course, is Trunin, but I, as they say, was sitting next to him. The script included a scene with a mechanic Prikhodko and the finale, where the young heroes go to the square of the Belorussky railway station. So some elements remained from what Larisa did.

Trunin wrote a wonderful script, head and shoulders above the finished film. For example, there is a story about how the heroes got into the police. Some young guys in the restaurant insulted them and, considering them old men, got into a fight. But the front-line soldiers are former paratroopers, they “decomposed” them. However, one of the young people was the son of some boss, the police came and took away my heroes. But they left the police themselves, twisting the entire department. The only thing left in the end is when they go out into the street and Leonov shouts: “Long live freedom!” But in the script it was much cooler. Even now I can't think of it without shuddering, it was so much better.

The script went through the courts for about a year and a half. Didn't want any. How is it - they themselves twist the policemen, but there could be no question of this. And if it were not for Mikhail Ilyich Romm, no one would have launched us. He almost put a membership card for this film. He really liked the script. And before you start filming, the then Chief Editor Collegium Goskino Sytin forced us to write one paper - the so-called denunciation of ourselves. And we signed it with Trunin that it would not be an anti-Soviet picture. Only after that we were launched.

But even after that, the picture was closed four times. And for the fourth time, everything has already been filmed, except for the last scene. But they demanded from me that I shoot Inna Makarova, and not Urgant. That is, when the whole picture was shot, except for the last scene, I was required to do a screen test. I made these tests. Makarova had a pretty decent audition, but I was sure that Nina Urgant should play.

I was leaving, the artistic council was without me. But Reisman told me that everything would be fine. I returned from filming, and Reizman told me: “You know, Andryush, we approved Makarova. She's really better." After that, I wrote a statement that I was leaving the picture and my name should not be mentioned in the credits. And he went to a friend's cottage. On the fourth day, a car arrived from Mosfilm. As a result, they were allowed to shoot Urgant.

And then last scene I had to redo it in its entirety. The fact is that they appear at the nurse's dirty, they got out of the collector. And for the whole scene, the four men were naked to the waist, already heavy, except for Safonov, who is slender. I still don’t know who watched it, either Brezhnev or his mother-in-law, but they said categorically: “This scene needs to be re-shot.” I begged you not to reshoot. But Trunin, who was older, told me: "Well, if it's necessary, give it to them, the picture may even survive." We re-shot, but new scene much worse than what it used to be.

Vladimir Yarotsky

- By the way, there is a text in the book where you write that you do not like your films. Do you still have this feeling?

Yes, I do not like, except last movie who was not hurt in any way. I, however, prefer the series, it is closer to the idea. The idea has spread, it is impossible to drive everything into one film. And the series included a number of scenes that did not make it into the film, but which I was very sorry to part with.

We have to remember our own mistakes and that we had to give in to censorship. After all, a lot had to be removed in Belorussky Station, and in Autumn, for a few shots, my heart still hurts. And the picture "Faith and Truth", after which I quit directing ... It's just a different film. We shot half of the film, after which the work was suspended and endless party committees, artistic councils, editorial councils began. And the then director of Mosfilm told me: “You spent a million, do you think we will give you a second one? Not until you change this and this." And scene after scene, I had to reshoot or shred just to save the picture. She's decent, I'm not ashamed of her, maybe she looks even better now than then. I wanted to shoot a grotesque picture, which was not allowed categorically. We needed social realism. It was very disappointing, because what we have already filmed turned out to be very original.

- In your films, after all, it played great amount actors you have discovered...

I have a lucky hand. In my films, many played their first roles. For example, Lenya Kulagin in "Angel". He now has over a hundred paintings. Lyudmila Polyakova is the star of the Maly Theater. Zhora Burkov, a great comedian who plays a dramatic character, played in Angel. In "Autumn" - Natasha Gundareva, Sasha Fatyushin. Yes, and Daria Ekamasova, who had only a couple of episodes before “Once upon a time there was a woman”, received “Nika” for the best female role.

Since you remembered Mikhail Romm, I would like to ask you something. Why did none of the whole galaxy of his students make a film about him? Have you ever had the desire to do something similar?

Today this is very difficult to do. If I were younger, maybe I would. After all, we did not understand much, learning from Romm. And we are extremely lucky.

Before the painting "Nine Days of One Year" he wrote: "I have lied all my life, I don't want to do it anymore." None of the Stalin Prize winners - and he had five of them - said anything like that. They lived like nothing happened. And in "Nine Days of One Year" only a monologue about fools is worth something! To say this at that time ... We are terribly lucky - those who managed to get to him.

From his first year, the trinity should at least be named - Tarkovsky, Shukshin, Mitta. From our next course - Konchalovsky, Tregubovich, me and the Belarusian director Igor Dobrolyubov. And in the next course, which he scored, but did not have time to finish, - Abdrashitov, Solovyov. Enough already! He certainly had an amazing eye.

Romm was an absolutely unprotected, open person. We did not know many things at that time. After all, Romm was born in Irkutsk, his parents were Mensheviks, exiles. This is even worse than the White Guards. Because how Stalin dealt first with the Mensheviks, and then with the Socialist-Revolutionaries, it is impossible to imagine. Therefore, I only now understand under what fear Romm could live.

Romm told us, students, during the lecture about how we lived under Stalin. you get Stalin Prize- a suitcase of money, because it is 100 thousand rubles. It's like a million dollars now. Romm said that you wear it with one thought: to skip and drink as soon as possible, otherwise they will put you in jail. But then we thought that the winner of five Stalin Prizes was deceitful. Well, it can't be. Moreover, everyone knew that Stalin loved him.

And many years later, already when Romm lay in the grave, Raizman and I walked in Bolshevo, where the House of Cinematographers is. And he told the scene of the 36-37th year. Raizman could not sleep, got up at six in the morning, went out into the yard with the dog. Five minutes later, Romm flies out of the house and says: “July, I just heard on the radio - they gave me the Stalin Prize. So they won't put you in?" I immediately remembered Romm's story to the students. And this story of Reisman confirmed his absolute accuracy.

And then, "Ordinary fascism" is a grandiose picture, which in Russia every day becomes more relevant and more relevant. After all, the film was held with great difficulty then, it was not shown on TV. And the GDR did not want to show it. But a German director who lived in the GDR told me that when Ordinary Fascism was shown on television in West Berlin at night, they woke up the children, sat them in front of the TVs and said: look, this is our story.

- Do you especially follow any of the young directors?

Yes, for everyone, perhaps. I try to keep up as much as possible. Now, in my opinion, quite an interesting wave of new directors. beautiful latest work Anna Melikyan. In my opinion, she is the most talented of Solovyov's students.

In general, there are many successful commercial projects now. It seems to me that the current cinema, with all its shortcomings, is healthier than the Soviet one. He is more connected with the public, it is clear for whom they do it. And although it is difficult to find money, there are paintings and art films. Find money and Sigarev, and Mizgirev, and Fedorchenko. New film Soloviev is about to come out. Everything is developing in a healthy way.

Or there are Rodnyansky and Zvyagintsev's films. Daniil Dondurei told me that Zvyagintsev is the most famous Russian director throughout the history of Russian cinema since 1908. So in the West they did not know either Eisenstein or Dovzhenko, anyone. It's all the same dashing 90s brought us. "Leviathan", which we have none federal channel not shown, went around the world. And Zvyagintsev creates without any restrictions.

Hate and love are always somewhere nearby. At least, they regularly try to remind us of this and instill this truth. But is it really so? Is it possible to expect that on the basis of hatred you and a person will build a strong and long-lasting relationship?

The topic of hatred is relevant now more than ever. This is especially evident in social networks. People believe that they can insult other people with impunity by expressing their negative opinion about everything in the world. Often they have many supporters, and the haters begin to unite against the background of general hostility or even hatred.

The mechanism of association against the weak or against the background of envy and hatred in relation to another object has been known since ancient times. Children act in the same way, for example, at school - in any class there will always be an object for ridicule or bullying. Many people take up arms against him, and he becomes a white crow. Surely, in your life there were similar cases.

But remember: how often did hatred become for people the start for further strong ties? It is unlikely that it will be possible to immediately give worthy examples.

we heartit

Meanwhile, not so long ago it was developed mobile app for dating called Hater. As you might guess, the dating mechanism is based on a shared hatred of something. If in ordinary profiles of dating sites people write what they like and praise themselves in every way, then a person immediately indicates what he hates and is looking for interlocutors like himself. That is, they immediately have a great topic for conversation: what and why they don’t like it and, perhaps, how they would like to change the situation.

On the one hand, this great idea. People don't try to show off on dates. the best sides, and immediately begin with negativity and claims. In every person there is a light and dark sides that open at one time or another in life. But if “light” can unite two people and eventually result in a full-fledged relationship, then you can’t say the same about “darkness”.

The creator of the application, comedian and former banker Brandon Alper, assures that he did not implement this idea for serious intentions. In his opinion, online dating in recent times became dull, so he decided to add variety and fun. And it’s not yet necessary to say that common hated interests will lead to a strong relationship or marriage.

s1.favim

He is supported by psychologists. Experts assure: common negative interests cannot lay the foundation for something worthwhile. It's all great and fun, but temporary. If you seriously want to meet your man and live with him happy life, do not hope that hatred will be your start. The fact is that our thoughts give birth to actions. And if we are filled with darkness and negativity, what actions can we talk about?

In any case, hatred is far from those feelings that bring us closer to happiness. So draw your own conclusions.