Historical figures and movie hacks
A serious debate has flared up in Russian society about whether or not the latest Anglo-French film “The Death of Stalin” can be released into cinemas. While some citizens write angry letters against it, while others approve, saying, “let them play it,” on January 25, the Moscow cinema “Pioneer”, without waiting for the distribution license to be issued, began showing the film. Moreover, according to the cinema administration, there are no places for a single session until February 4. Even such a reduced comfort option as seats on pillows in the aisles has been sold out.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
The administration of the Pioneer cinema is threatened with a fine of 100 thousand rubles for violating the rental rules and 200 thousand rubles for subsequent showings without a license. However, the businessmen at Pioneer are in no hurry to remove the film from the show, hoping to make a substantial jackpot on the hype, since there will definitely be an interested buyer for the disgustingly stinking exotic fruit durian, which is prohibited for transportation on airliners.
Is the film “The Death of Stalin” really so good that, as they say, the capital’s elite, the office “plankton”, post-Soviet youth, and people who have lived a fair amount of time in the USSR are flocking to see it at the same time?
Reviews of the film from most viewers are “abomination.” The masters of Yeltsin's TV, like Leonid Parfenov, upon leaving the screening, thoughtfully pick their noses and say something like: “This is a pamphlet, a political satire, it would be a sin to be offended by this, much less ban it.”
And now all sorts of “rulers of thoughts” began to crackle, cackle and cackle. Presidential candidate from the Baba Yaga Against party, Ksenia Sobchak, advises domestic filmmakers to increase the intensity of revelations, instead of engaging in jokes. The main “fighter against the regime”
Lyokha Navalny, in a video address to the nation, denotes the civic position of “what is this?”, and calls on Russian citizens to continue eating crap on the grounds that “about 20 years ago, such things were the mainstream of domestic television,” citing as an argument the mediocre sketch “Lenin”, forgotten by everyone and a soldier." Green youth, unable to distinguish Hegel from Babel, rate the film as “very funny” and regret that there is “not enough Jason Isaacs on the screen.” Marshal Zhukov turned out to be very cute.
People's Deputy Natalya Poklonskaya (who did not say a word on the occasion of the presentation of the film about the punitive battalion "Aidar" in Moscow) suddenly dropped out of a state of mournful insensibility about the film "Matilda" that had burst onto the screens, saying that people had nothing to worry about because of some kind of a film about a man equal to Hitler. Whether it’s the myrrh-streaming Nikolai v.2.0...
Various online polls show that almost 77% of Russian Internet users are in favor of banning the screening of the film “The Death of Stalin.” Some Russian filmmakers also joined the majority opinion.
Unfortunately, or rather fortunately, I personally did not have the opportunity to watch the scandalous film in its entirety. The teasers and trailers posted on YouTube were enough. Nevertheless, what was seen was enough to form an unambiguous opinion: under the guise of “historical and political satire,” the viewer is sold a film of the “bottom” category, filled with fun around the death and funeral of a historical figure, toilet gags and humor below the belt. The film does not at all look like satire or lampoon. Except for the toilet. None of the characters are even close to their famous prototypes. In order for viewers to be able to more or less navigate among the scurrying and screaming on-screen caricatures, everyone should have cardboard boxes with signatures attached to their necks: “Stalin”, “Beria”, “Malenkov”, “Khrushchev”, etc...
The only recognizable character in the outhouse action is “Marshal Zhukov,” and even then, because of the marshal’s uniform hung from head to toe with awards.
Actually, that's all that can be said about the film.
Now about the phenomenon and the hype. For the unhealthy hype around the worthless film “The Death of Stalin,” we should thank the cliquey Natalya Poklonskaya, who arranged an excellent scandalous advertisement for the mediocre film Teacher, almost causing a trigger chain of pogroms and reprisals from the inadequate and holy fools who supported her.
As for the film, people are saying things like, “Make a film about the death of Princess Diana in the same spirit.” Film experts recall that a film about Churchill was recently released in Great Britain, in which the Prime Minister is shown as a wise and far-sighted politician.
This is where I think the dog is buried. The UK or US will never make a film about their historical figures in caricature form. Inner dignity does not allow Cromwell to be portrayed as a clown. With us it is possible. And how long. Since the beginning of Gorbachev's Catastrophe.
Lenin, Stalin, Zhukov are never caricatured personalities. You can love and admire them, you can hate and curse them, but these are the titans of the history of civilization. Lenin is the inspirer of the Great October Revolution, which changed the world, the founder of the USSR, the world’s first state of workers and peasants. Stalin is the creator of heavy industry, the transformer of Russia from a humble agricultural semi-colony into an industrial superpower, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, personifying Victory. Zhukov is the most famous Soviet commander, Marshal of Victory.
In our country, as soon as the authorities said, “anything is possible,” a “golden company” quickly arose who loved to drag anything into the dirt. The “Golden Company”, which previously held its tongue in its arse. Often - in the boss's ass.
The trouble is not that Europeans or Americans make idiotic films about our outstanding figures. The trouble is that idiocy and disdain for outstanding people have become the mainstream in Russian culture and politics.
How can you demand something from foreign cultural traders, if in our country Nikita Mikhalkov receives considerable money from the treasury for a film where, at the very beginning, Comrade. Stalin's face being dunked into a cake? Isn't it too much? Maybe director Mikhalkov should start sublimating his suppressed desires at his own expense and in a narrow circle?
Until historical figures began to be mixed with dirt in our country, and in the West there was a respectful or neutral attitude towards them. As soon as the Gorbachev and Yeltsin regimes began an audit of the Great Patriotic War and its results, the same thing began in the West. While the Soviet Union was alive, none of the sane political, public and cultural figures questioned the feat and sacrifice of the Soviet people in the fight against the world evil - Hitler's fascism. Today, any louse can accuse our country of genocide. Even those who received life and freedom at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of our soldiers.
During the “holy nineties,” the people of Russia ate “democratic” slop to the rooftops and drew historical conclusions the hard way. Today, the main cultural public demand is to leave the country’s outstanding figures alone and stop revising national history, no matter how difficult and unsightly its individual moments may be. The situation in which nonentities and hacks are trying to throw mud at the titans has long been unacceptable and outrageous.
Fortunately, the problem of the film “The Death of Stalin” and similar dandruff can be solved by refusing to issue a distribution license. You can even go further and adopt the experience of “our American partners,” who often require foreign film distributors who want to show films in the United States to “reshoot here and re-edit here.” So that, therefore, certain historical episodes correspond to the American interpretation of events and do not offend the local moviegoer.
It’s not clear what needs to be done with the proliferation of internal hack-treagers, fans of filming trash and smut at the expense of the budget. Maybe it’s time to introduce Hollywood norms: if a film doesn’t pay for itself at the box office, return the money and go sweep the streets. If you want to continue filming, do it at your own expense or look for naive sponsors. Then the fate of retraining as building managers will await all those who like “that’s how I see it,” who contemptuously spit on state money, public opinion and historical accuracy.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.