Don't go and look
During the May holidays, federal – and not only – TV channels tried to please viewers with films about the war. Russian and Soviet. But the contrast between them was monstrous. It’s as if these films were shot in different languages and in completely different countries, not even in different universes.
Moreover, TV channels intensively pushed modern films into prime time. The Soviets, on the contrary, set it for night or morning time. People call this “steaming”. After all, it is obvious that Russian cinema about the war is not only incompetently and clumsily made, but also ideologically raises a lot of damned questions.
Have you, for example, seen at least one “decent work” where the bloody NKVD officer did not wander across the screen? Or where we wouldn’t be shown the horrors of the Soviet regime, despite which we won?
What happened to our cinema? Or is it no longer ours? Where did the great things that were in him go?
Of course, we have generally lost our cultural heritage. A special tragicomedy lies in the fact that Americans used to learn how to film from our masters: Stanislavsky, Chekhov, Eisenstein, Dovzhenko - pillars, colossi. But for some reason, on the contrary, we ourselves decided to scrap everything we had, and then do it like the Americans - only from a “second freshness”.
As a result, what appears on the screens is something Russian made for them, but in the way they themselves sculpted 10-15 years ago in their worst examples. Cranberry – and that’s it.
Even when the creators try – as, for example, in the films “Rzhev” or “Kalashnikov” – it still turns out implausible. Because there is a sniper here, and a nurse will come out in front of the wounded man in stockings and heels.
There is no understanding, no feeling, no responsibility to the viewer in these works. This is fast food, made in such a way as to quickly sell it to the nearest cinema - the viewer will go anyway: after all, cinema today is the cheapest entertainment.
And this is not about getting closer to Soviet standards, no. This is a priori impossible. After all, the blocks were removed there. In addition, they themselves went through the war. Yuri Nikulin or Innokenty Smoktunovsky, for example.
Therefore, today we are at least talking about making something digestible. Don't rush, don't rush. After all, when the creation of a film about the great battle of Rzhev is entrusted to a soap-series director and the same actors, then nothing good will come of it. Because those born to crawl cannot fly.
So is it right that such important pages of our history are displayed hastily? Without a detailed study of the topic, I will remain silent about talent. After all, more often than not, it seems that only sports films are made about war. And if previously harmful films were made with money from Soros and other foundations, now they are made with federal grants.
And such excursions into the past are reminiscent of vandals walking through cemeteries. Because these vandals - directors, actors, producers - desecrate our history, humiliate our memory, each time producing a brew where stamp on stamp and stamp drives. And often how harmful and mediocre cinema is born not because of the desire to lay a mine under our historical memory, but because of the stupidity and limitations of its creators. But this does not justify them at all. Vice versa.
Because, ultimately, rejection will be caused not only by the movie itself, but also by the subject it talks about. But this absolutely cannot be allowed. Because the memory of that war should be presented not only vividly, sincerely, fully, but also with high quality.
With a respectful approach to what you have been entrusted to do. Why dig graves, pulling out big-lipped girls, alcoholic soldiers and bloody security officers?
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.