The world-famous director Alexander Sokurov never hides his civic and political views, even if promptly asked. Because of this, I lost many useful contacts and made enemies. Alexander Nikolaevich answered questions from readers and the editors of Znak.com during the “Days of Sokurov” at the Yeltsin Center. We talked about Putin and Ramzan Kadyrov, Orthodoxy and Islam, art and censorship.

“Putin has his own cinematic biographer - Nikita”

At the “Days of Sokurov” festival at the Yeltsin Center, your film about Boris Yeltsin “An Example of Intonation” was shown. Can you express Yeltsin’s intonation in a few words? You communicated, you were connected by friendly relations.

If I could express it in a few words, I probably wouldn’t make the film. I have many intonations associated with Boris Nikolaevich. And what I showed is clearly not enough. I have only touched upon this topic a little. Besides, I wasn’t the only one filming about him. In Moscow, he actively made contact with other directors and journalists, who seemed simpler and more accessible to him and Naina Iosifovna. I was too abstruse a character for him. However, with me he always had an intonation of understanding, patience, nobility, respect and even some kind of gentleness. But this is my personal, private feeling, because he was not quite like that, since he was engaged in hard work.

- You have repeatedly and quite frankly, as you admit, talked face to face with the current president. After these meetings, do you have an understanding of what Putin’s “intonation” is? Would you be interested in making a film about him?

– Vladimir Putin has his own cinematic biographer - Nikita. He has already made films about him. In general, thank God, this place is occupied. Although I know many directors who would like to join this rank, the president himself simply does not need it.

- You said that in personal conversations he appears different than in public space...

I assure you that even Zhirinovsky appears in one form in public space, but in personal communication he is completely different. And Boris Nikolaevich was different. I was sometimes surprised to see him on TV. I didn’t recognize him, he was such a different person. In general, any large-scale personality looks different in private communication: arrogance, the desire to win a special place for himself in the historical or cultural space, disappears. In one-on-one communication it is always other people. Unfortunately.

Don't you think that modern world leaders are shrinking right before our eyes? It is enough to compare the leaders of leading European states and the United States with those who were at the helm half a century ago; the comparison will clearly not be beneficial to the current ones. What do you think is connected with the crisis of the political elites?

Indeed, degradation is obvious. This is due to the fact that they are not witnesses to major historical processes. Our life, of course, remains difficult, but current leaders are unable to see this or anticipate it. I said that war with Ukraine is inevitable ten years ago. Many people then twirled their fingers at their temples, but for me it was completely obvious. And I wonder why this was not obvious to Russian and Ukrainian leaders. This suggests that the current political elite is made up of short-sighted people. That the level of culture, intelligence, and indeed the scale of personality is leveled today. Look at the current Chancellor of Germany. Well, what is it? Just a sad sight. And the Italian prime minister or the last presidents of France...

Since you predicted the Ukrainian events, let me ask: in your opinion, is a peaceful outcome still possible? Otherwise, if you listen to our political observers, the point of no return has already been passed...

I hope that someday these political observers will appear before the Hague Tribunal as provocateurs who have caused enormous damage to the humanitarian space of Russia and the entire Russian people. These radio and television criers are engaged in throwing matches during a fire. If I were in power, I would pay special attention to these people who create the preconditions for international conflicts. They must be punished. These are just criminals who work in both public and private channels. Both there and there there is no responsibility for such behavior. If the political vector changes, all these commentators will instantly change their minds. We saw this clearly in the example of the conflict with Turkey. They shouted the loudest about the murderers of Russian pilots, but as soon as they were told that Turkey had ceased to be enemy No. 1, they immediately changed their rhetoric to the opposite. It's so vulgar and vulgar. They are worse than women who sell themselves.

- Women with reduced social responsibility, as they say now.

- Yes, I mean prostitutes. But when a woman gives herself to a man, there is at least some naturalness in this, and there is nothing natural and organic in the behavior of these commentators.

Russia had an open military conflict with Georgia. However, Russian tourists visit Georgia with pleasure and do not encounter aggression against them. How much time must pass before you can plan a vacation in Kyiv?

– Indeed, I was recently in Georgia and did not encounter anything but cordiality and hospitality there. But in the case of Ukraine this will not happen soon. Mutual contradictions and grievances are too strong. The fact is that for some reason the Russians are sure that they are one people with the Ukrainians, and this is a profound misconception. Ukrainians have long dreamed of breaking away from Russian influence and living away from us, ceasing to be a shadow of Russia. Soviet practice brought our peoples closer together, but still we are just neighbors. We don't live in the same apartment.

Imagine you have neighbors and you suddenly start declaring them to be your brother and sister. “Why on earth? - they say. “We’re just neighbors!” - "No! We live on the same landing, we are already relatives!” But neighborhood does not imply that we should exchange husbands, wives or children.

The Ukrainian people have their own historical path - extremely difficult, sometimes even humiliating. Their history is always a subject of outside interference, when someone constantly divides your country and forcibly introduces you to their culture. Life is hard for the Ukrainian people, hard. And here, too, Ukrainian politics clearly lacks intelligence. At a difficult historical moment, the people did not put forward large-scale politicians who could delicately emerge from difficult confrontational circumstances. Carefully separate the “Siamese twins” that have become Russia and Ukraine, fused with their economies and national characteristics. But there were no politicians who, even taking into account the accumulated irritation towards the Russians and the pressure of nationalists, would steadily and delicately carry out all the processes. This means that these institutions of power have not matured. After all, in order to build relationships with such a large and difficult neighbor as Russia, a wise political elite is needed. Unfortunately, it is not available in Ukraine yet. Because, unlike Georgia, Ukrainians have no experience of statehood and public administration.

And besides, we are still very different from the Georgians - we have a different alphabet, a completely different culture, traditions, language, temperament, and everything is different. And with Ukraine, of course, there is a dangerous appearance of commonality. But this is only an appearance, and I, often visiting Ukraine, saw the powerful energy of rejection and desire for independence from Russia. The closer the peoples, the more difficult their relationships. You know: the most painful conflicts occur between relatives.

Is this why you proposed to enshrine at the constitutional level the impossibility of military actions with neighboring countries?

We must have a categorical condition: not to fight with our neighbors. This applies to the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. I would introduce into the Constitution the principle of mandatory peaceful coexistence with all countries with which we have common borders. Even if we are attacked, we must find the strength not to use the army, not to invade someone else’s territory. You can quarrel with your neighbors, but you cannot fight.

But all over the world, countries, if they fought with someone, it was more often with their neighbors. Germany repeatedly fought with France, and in the history of relations between France and England there was even a hundred-year war. And nothing, somehow they find a common language.

Let's not forget that Germany was never part of France, and France was never part of England, although they fought all the time on a territorial principle. Of course, territorial claims always exist. The same Italy really dreamed of receiving part of the French lands from Hitler. But no one was ever part of each other, as in the Soviet Union. In Europe there is only one exception in this regard - the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

“We are dealing with a bomb that could explode at any moment.”

Alexander Nikolaevich, you have always been aloof from political life. They said that not a single party has ever approached you with an offer to be on its election list. And suddenly, in the parliamentary elections last September, you headed the St. Petersburg list of the Yabloko party, while remaining non-partisan. Why did this happen now?

I'm running out of patience. Of all the parties or groups professionally involved in politics, only Yabloko is engaged in urban protection activities in St. Petersburg. It was thanks to Yabloko that I myself understood a lot about city protection work (“Sokurov’s group” is engaged in the protection of historical St. Petersburg - editor’s note). They always used professional tools. For example, they organized large lawsuits against Gazprom, which the St. Petersburg city protection movement did not dare to do. They helped us, and in the end we won almost all the cases. Well, then, there are people there whom I respect. Although, of course, I had no illusions. I understood that this was not a viable option. But my position was: stop sitting in the kitchen - you need to show your position and support those who think the same. Of course, I made my life difficult, but I don’t regret it. You have to pay for everything. Including for such political behavior.

You head a public group of urban protection activists, conducting a dialogue with the authorities about protecting old St. Petersburg from destruction. Last year, you wrote a letter to the Governor of St. Petersburg Poltavchenko with a request not to name the bridge over the Duderhof Canal after Akhmat Kadyrov, but they did not listen to you.

Unfortunately, this issue has come to an end. And I view the decision made as nothing other than terrorist activity on Russian territory. This threat comes from the Chechen sector. We are dealing with a bomb that can explode at any moment. In my opinion, this is a real military threat. Chechnya is a region of Russia that is not subordinate to Russia. They have their own army there, and all they need is a signal to move these armed people in some direction. It is obvious to me that this is outside the boundaries of the Constitution of my country. And I am sure that a collision is inevitable for a number of reasons.

I, of course, hope that the president understands who Ramzan Kadyrov is, and the limits of his capabilities have probably been defined. But at the same time, I have no doubt that if he gives instructions to armed people, there will be large casualties in a number of Russian cities.

At one time, you wrote a letter to Alexander Khloponin, who was the president’s representative in the North Caucasus District, where you proposed, under the auspices of the state, to convene a serious conference of Orthodox and Muslim clergy to raise political issues...

“And, of course, I didn’t receive any answer.” Nobody paid attention to this. Meanwhile, we see what is happening. Young people who escaped from the Caucasian cities behave outside of any norms not only of Russian life, but also outside of any moral norms in general. And law enforcement officers in Moscow are paralyzed by fear of Grozny, because it is there that death sentences are handed down. And if a person is sentenced to death in Grozny, no one will be able to protect him.

- Few people dare to talk about this out loud. And it’s clear why. Have you felt this danger yourself?

Certainly. But let me not be specific. I understand what I do and say and that I will have to answer for it. And the federal government needs to answer the question: is the Constitution of the Russian Federation a law valid on the territory of the entire Russian state? If yes, then appropriate measures must be taken. However, we see that this document no longer works. Maybe a new Constitution is being prepared? There is even an assumption who is ready to head the Constitutional Commission - this is one of the most odious and aggressive women in Russian politics.

- Irina Yarovaya?

Yes. Women generally have no luck in Russian politics. I think maybe they shouldn’t be allowed there? For some reason, as soon as our beautiful women break into the political elite, they behave more aggressively than men. The most hard-hearted parliamentarians in Europe are our women MPs.

- How do you explain this?

One word cannot explain this. The fact is that the role of men in Russia has long been leveled. This is evident both in the role of fathers in families and in the way our boys develop in schools. I think it’s time to return to separate education - separately for boys and girls.

- And the entire 20th century passed in the struggle for the emancipation of women.

But if women want equal rights, then let them be given equal responsibility. And yet, in our case, during court proceedings, the child always remains with the mother; fathers do not have a single chance in this fight. Then the husband must also leave the housing, and let him live as he knows. If we are equal on paper, then let it be so in everyday practice.

However, all these are details, and most importantly - the psychophysical surrender of positions by the entire male part of the population. And it starts from school. And if you ask which part of the male population in Russia is the weakest, without a doubt, I will answer - our military. This is the most pampered category of men. Even intelligence officers have great difficulty psychologically adapting to new living conditions - the military are so accustomed to comfort.

Quite an unexpected statement from the son of a career military man, who spent his entire childhood in military camps. Did they really start to notice something like this already?

My father was a front-line soldier, after all, but that generation had another problem - everyone drank. It was the scourge of military camps. They drank at home and often showed up drunk at work. Of course, there were garrisons that did not cross certain borders, but to a large extent this concerned everyone... Drunkenness in general is a huge problem for our country. I was struck by the scale of this phenomenon while still a student in Gorky, and when I studied in Moscow, entire faculties there were in a semi-alcoholic state. The drinking at VGIK was simply incredible; the forms sometimes took on wild proportions.

It is with alcoholism that I associate the degradation of the Russian male population. After all, in Muslim regions there is no such problem. Religion there helps preserve the national way of life. And since the Russians have long been a non-religious people, and our national way of life, closely connected with the rural way of life, was destroyed by the Bolsheviks, now it is as if we have no support that would stop this fall into the abyss.

“It’s a gigantic mistake to give part of the power to the Orthodox Church”

– Alexander Nikolaevich, on “Echo of Moscow” you once said: “Our huge country is torn apart. There is no common energy. The idea of ​​federalism has largely become obsolete. We need to change the federal principle." Which one?

What do you think about this?

In the Urals there was already an attempt to change the federal principle, creating the Ural Republic in the first half of the 1990s...

I remember Yeltsin’s reaction very well; he only spoke with Rossel on the phone several times in front of me about this matter. AND?..

- Nevertheless, this idea had enough supporters.

Both in Ufa and Irkutsk I also met supporters of such federalism. And this idea is still alive today. Let's say that in Kazan they are about to make a decision to change the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet, which will completely tear us apart from each other. This is happening all over the country. I see it.

It is important to be seen by the government. And they thought and looked for ways to hold the country together before it was too late. Citizens of the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, felt like a single whole, although there was no Internet or television...

– How do you answer this question yourself?

Well, I can only answer for what I remember personally. I think people were united by the idea of ​​universal equality, certain social guarantees, the idea of ​​internationalism, a common cultural space, accessible free education...

I would even say an equally accessible, high-quality education that a person could receive in the capital, in a small town, in a remote village, or in a Ryazan village. In principle, it was close to fruition. And today's education is class-based. So we will never have any Shukshin: in modern conditions he would not be able to get an education. All my attempts to resist payment for higher education led to the fact that I ruined relations with a large number of officials and rectors... In general, you yourself answered your question, formulating everything quite accurately.

- But if these “braces” do not work today, will Russia survive with the current “braces”?

Where I agree with the communists is that the church should be separated from the state. The current state is absolutely criminal in its management of relations with religious cults. We are making a gigantic mistake by giving some of the power to the Orthodox Church. They are, to put it mildly, strange and politically careless people.

As soon as the decision is made to create an Orthodox party, which will become one of the official state parties, the flywheel of destruction of the country will start. Everything is going towards this, and the Russian Orthodox Church is collecting property so that this party will be rich. But then large Muslim parties will appear, and then the question of the existence of the Russian Federation will be removed from the agenda.

This is not difficult to foresee: if in a certain territory the Orthodox religious force receives part of the political power as a gift from the state, then, accordingly, in other places the Muslim population will quite rightly demand part of the political power for their religious organizations. Believe me, Muslims will not concede anything in this matter. And when the interests of Orthodoxy and Islam come into political conflict with each other, an interreligious war will begin - the worst thing that can ever happen. In a civil war you can still come to an agreement, but in a religious war you fight to the death. No one will give in. And everyone will be right in their own way.

In one interview you said: “We are strangers in the European space. They are alien because they are big – in terms of the size of the country, the scale and unpredictability of ideas.” And in another you exclaim: “Aren’t Russians Europeans? Didn’t Europe educate us?”

There is no contradiction here. In one case I spoke about culture, in the other about ways of behavior. But, of course, Russia is civilizationally more connected with Europe.

- How then should we perceive the current turn to the East?

It's just stupidity, that's all. How many stupid things has the Russian state committed, which has not yet been able to truly be created? We either change the social system, or fight with our neighbors, or get fired up with some crazy ideas... And the state is, first of all, a tradition, an experience, time-tested and confirmed by national consent. We cannot find agreement even in small things.

Here in Yekaterinburg they are going to build a temple on the city pond, although part of the society is against it. But it would be nice to see how similar issues are resolved in Germany. There, if even a small part of the population is against it, the decision is postponed. Thus, they protect themselves from hasty steps. The Russian state has always lacked rationality and balance, and it still lacks it today.

“Our Muslims are silent and waiting to see where it will flare up and which side to take.”

Alexander Nikolaevich, you say that it is necessary to establish strict boundaries in relations between power and religion, but, on the other hand, you liked Iran, although this state can hardly be called secular...

Iranians are Shiites, and this is a completely special branch of Islam. In my opinion, it is much softer. And everything that we are told about the Iranian regime is not entirely true. I talked to different people there and will go there again soon. I think it is necessary to study the Iranian experience. They found themselves in complete isolation, but did not degrade, but, on the contrary, proved that everything is possible to develop within the framework of one self-sufficient nation - the economy, the military and chemical industries, agriculture, hydrocarbon production and scientific research... They even make several times more films than Russia. And very good ones.

Overall, this trip gave me a lot of thoughts about the development and strength of the Muslim world. It needs to be given serious attention. He is energetic and is no longer ready to remain within his own space. We must understand that it will cross boundaries and expand.

This is already actively happening. And you sound the alarm, saying that under no circumstances should mixing of cultures be allowed. But this thesis contradicts the current official European values, aimed at multiculturalism, open borders, and political correctness.

Europe today is being ruined by the fear of admitting that the national is higher than the international. I call it an infection. An infection just got into his body and he got sick. In order for the Christian and Muslim world to exist in harmony and agreement, it is necessary to draw a clear boundary that neither side can cross. We must not allow cultures to mix. This cannot happen without conflict, because culture is a code, a worldview. And the second rule is not to violate the norms of the root people. There should be modesty of the guest, but as a rule there is none. It cannot be said that Europe will disappear if mosques appear everywhere. But culture, without any doubt, will perish.

Europeans forget that civilization must be protected, this combination of national and Christian norms must be preserved. The European world has accumulated vast experience of socialization, various political compromises and political practices. And people’s ability to do quality work. After all, the main thing that attracts Arabs and Africans to Europe is that they can come to something ready to eat. For some reason they do not want to fight for the creation of their own quality states. They will not do this, but want to go where something has already been done. But since they do not have the skills of assimilation, they do not have the habit of respecting other cultural and religious principles, then, naturally, the current situation in Europe will lead to major conflicts and wars on the territory of European countries.

In general, we need distance, a noble distance between peoples. Or we can draw a line under European culture and prepare for a decisive modification of the entire European way of life. Either we must resist, or agree that we will lose.

- How can you resist if you yourself say that you are increasingly encountering censorship in the West?

Unfortunately it's true. Today in the West, people are much more dependent on power than 5-7 years ago. More than once European journalists have confessed to me that editors do not always allow what they have written to be published. My interviews there are now censored, and TV channels often refuse topics that I would like to discuss. Democratic traditions are deteriorating in Europe.

In one interview you said: “Napoleon was considered a murderer, who did not shake hands, but now he is almost a French national hero. Even a brand - cognac, cologne... And it will be the same with Hitler - rationality will defeat morality.” Will humanity really forget everything that Hitler did?

Within 15-20 years, everything will begin to change dramatically in assessments. But if you ask on what my belief is based, I will not answer. I just intuitively feel it. This is my perception of the pace at which changes in modern assessment categories occur. Well, who among the representatives of my generation, 30 years ago, could have imagined that Nazi youth organizations would exist in St. Petersburg? It seemed to us unrealistic under any circumstances. Especially in Leningrad, where witnesses of the Siege and participants of the Great Patriotic War are still alive. Nevertheless, they exist. And not the heirs of Russian nationalism, but the followers of German fascism, accepting its entire system and ideology.

- But our society still considers them marginal...

So far this is true, but, unfortunately, the boundaries between concepts are being erased very quickly, and the ground has been prepared for this.

In Europe, too, the topic of the Russian threat is popular today. Does this affect you as a Russian citizen? Or do you think that the West’s fears are justified?

I recently staged a play in Italy and, of course, talked a lot with the local intelligentsia. Among them there is a certain fear of the Russian army invading European territory. I encounter these concerns even more often in the Baltics. I tell the Balts all the time: don’t be afraid, this won’t happen. It’s just that the Baltics and Poland need to form an association of neutral states - this is an ideal solution for them. After all, when there are no NATO bases on your territory, then Russia will not need to send missiles in your direction. Be smart: don't plant raspberries near a bear's den.

In general, it’s time for Europe to understand that there is a much more dangerous enemy than Russia - the Muslim revolution. After all, why is it so difficult to cope with ISIS - because it is not just a terrorist organization, but a revolutionary ideological movement of the Muslim world. It can arise anywhere, like Bolshevism. After all, no matter how hard Europe pressed, it could not suppress the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. And there was also an ideology - to spread Bolshevism throughout the world: Lenin and his followers dreamed of organizing revolutions in Europe. ISIS is guided by similar principles: Christianity has outlived its usefulness, has decayed, let's send Christian civilization to the dustbin of history and replace it with a new order - the Muslim-political one. And since the idea cannot be defeated with missiles, fighting ISIS without entering into negotiations with them as a system means dooming oneself to defeat.

- So this is the principle: “do not enter into negotiations with terrorists.”

That means it's outdated. Now you need to learn to negotiate with them. And this requires wisdom. Just look at why our Muslims are watching all this with such restraint? They remain silent and wait to see where it will flare up and which side to take.

“You shouldn’t think that cinema is harmless, this is a misconception”

Back in 2002, you told the Izvestia newspaper: “American film aggression is killing the feeling and thinking viewer. Russia is defeated in this sense.” Has anything changed in 15 years? How do you assess the completed Year of Russian Cinema?

Nothing changed. If the Year of Culture ended with the closure of libraries, then in the Year of Cinema we will lose all documentary film studios in Siberia, the Urals, the Far East, the northern regions and the North Caucasus. The state, of course, allocated a little more money for debuts, but this is not serious. To fully develop, our cinema needs 80-100 debuts a year, but now funds have been allocated for 16.

Nothing has been done for the mechanism of cinema's existence. I’m not talking about banning the distribution of Western films or selling more expensive tickets for foreign films, as they do in France. I’m talking about legal and economic measures that can contribute to the development of national cinema as an industrial direction, when there is a technical base, reasonable budgets, cinemas, access to television... It is precisely this kind of systematic work that the Ministry of Culture should be engaged in, but it does not do this at all.

Unfortunately, this is a feature of governing bodies in our time. When everything seems to be in place, but in reality no one is doing anything. We regularly see the president asking them: why hasn’t this been done, and why hasn’t it been completed? They answer him something, sometimes he even catches someone in a lie, but nothing changes. If this is the case everywhere, then why should it be different in our cinema?

Now there is an active fight against Internet piracy, but many of your films can only be watched thanks to torrents. And in general, for people living outside of large cities, torrents are essentially a window to the big world.

So it seems unnatural to me when an artist is against his work being seen by as many people as possible. Of course, I’m not making a producer’s film, which strictly demands a return on the invested funds, and I myself have never received money for the distribution of my films, but I still don’t understand why we are thus depriving a whole layer of our compatriots of the opportunity to choose. I don't think there should be any restrictions in the artistic space. The audience today is very poor, so it seems wrong to me to ban the reprinting of books and restrict access to music and films.

We are creating a state so that it fulfills its functions. And one of its main functions is to maintain society in a civilized state with the help of culture. The state must have resources to compensate for possible losses to copyright holders when opening free access to films or books. In general, I believe that an international agreement is needed within the framework of UNESCO or the UN on universal accessibility of works of world culture. But again they will say that I, like a city madman, am proposing something unrealizable.

Is this how your call to the organizers of class A festivals to abandon films with scenes of violence was received? But then a whole layer of genres will disappear. How to film, say, “War and Peace”?

I’m not advocating not filming about the war at all. I proposed to abandon violence on the screen as a professional, dramatic tool, to abandon plots and images associated with the glorification or aestheticization of violence. I have been talking about this for many years and calling for it, but I am not heard - neither here nor in Europe. Unfortunately, I'm sure this may be one of the few times where I'm absolutely right. The glorification and aestheticization of violence causes much more damage than, for example, any environmental problem.

Propaganda of evil is when they show you on the screen a method of killing and torturing a person. Such cinema causes irreparable harm to the human psyche, because for a modern young man, death is not sacred. It seems to him that killing costs nothing. Cinema convinces him that a person can be killed in different ways: by tearing out his intestines, tearing off his head, gouging out his eyes... One should not think that cinema is harmless. It's a delusion.

- But this is why the age categories “12 plus” and “18 plus” were introduced.

However, they do not solve the problem - today, thanks to the Internet, any child can watch anything. Although this can be dealt with, I assure you, if there is a desire. The electronic world is such a controlled and vulnerable segment that 3-4 buttons are enough to remove all this from public access, but apparently no one needs it.

What about your appeal to your fellow directors to stop filmmaking for at least a year and give all the funds allocated by the state to young directors? Has anyone responded?

Of course not. I have already gotten used to the fact that any of my initiatives do not cause any reaction in my homeland. Journalists still ask about this, and my colleagues are obviously completely uninterested in my point of view on topical issues.

In the West, many famous directors went to television. A recent example: Paolo Sorrentino, who, according to the European Film Academy, directed the best film of 2015, “Youth,” recently released the television series “The Young Pope” about the Pope. Would you be interested in making a series?

Well, I've done big documentaries for television. For example, “Spiritual Voices” or “Guilty,” which lasts five hours. These are large works, dramaturgically structured for the television format. But I don’t want to work in the conditions in which Russian serial cinema exists today. I am not interested in these topics, they have nothing to do with me.

- And abroad?

They offered me, but a number of circumstances did not allow me to do this.

Alexander Nikolaevich, you are one of the most titled Russian directors, yet among your colleagues you are considered a “black sheep,” and domestic audiences have never seen many of your works. Do you consider your professional career successful?

In general, it seems to me that I chose the wrong profession.

- What a confession!

It’s just that at the moment of choice I was too young to realize the full responsibility of this step. And for several years now, I clearly understand that the choice turned out to be wrong. There are other areas in which I would be more in demand and could do more. Because I was not fully realized in cinema. What can I say now...

The director became a special guest of the Russian-Norwegian film festival “Northern Character: Green Screen”, which took place on both sides of the border: in Kirkenes (Norway) and Nikel (Murmansk region). In the library of the village of Nikel, Sokurov spoke with journalists.

On the cutting edge of suspicion

Alexandra Mikhova, AiF: Alexander Nikolaevich, today there is a lot of criticism against Russian cinema. Is this criticism deserved?

Alexander Sokurov: Don't listen to anyone! We Russian people are predisposed to cinema. We are not predisposed to public administration or accounting, but science and cinema are our passion, our skill. This is noticeable in European festivals: the better the film, with greater emotional resources, with attachment to the people, the country, the less desirable it is for screening in Europe. Irreversible things are happening in the perception of Russia. Absolute ideology! I didn't allow myself to think about it before. But now, when colleagues from Western festivals comment on the films we show, they do not hide: this is too good a film, there is too much love for the Russian soldier, for the fate of the Russian people. We are on the cutting edge of suspicion, resentment and hatred.

Today, European viewers learn about Russia only as a result of scandalous circumstances - political or provocative. But first of all, we need to think about our people, about working to raise the social culture of Russians. She is in poor condition. This is especially evident in medium-sized and small towns where the Russian peasant population lives. Where Muslims live, there are no or almost no such problems. There is a completely different way of organizing life. And Russian youth have problems beyond their heads, but they are never talked about personally or analyzed.

— Doesn’t festival cinema help highlight these problems?

— Today the festival movement in the world is colossal, thousands of public events take place every day. But it’s bad when everything is toothless. The theme of the film must be absolutely necessary. For example, a young man’s conflict with the state. We need practical benefits for the country, for society, you know? This is not enough. And not only in Russia, in Europe too: all around is demagoguery, chatter, conversations and discussions in a narrow circle...

Festivals should focus on attracting high school and college students. The teenage and youth environment is elusive. These are dangerous and unpredictable people, they can be turned in any direction - both criminal and radical political. It is very interesting how our time will cope with them. The communists sometimes succeeded: entire generations of creators and romantics grew up, they built their lives on special principles. But the modern state is losing these battles year after year.

Parsnips are not an indicator

— Maybe we should show your films to young people?

- In no case! I didn’t even allow my students who studied at the directing department to watch my films. He never showed any of his films to the guys who completed the course in the Caucasus (Alexander Sokurov taught a course for young directors in Kabardino-Balkaria - Ed.). I don’t like movies, but if I do like anything, it’s literature and classical music. They turned me, a provincial, downtrodden boy, into a thinking person. When my peers were interested in the Beatles and Western music, I was in love with Mozart's quartets. It was as if he was from another world, another people, another state. My body is a little ugly, inorganic to the life around me.

But, of course, there is something in cinema that has become of great value to me over time. There are 15-20 works that are a must see, the rest - as necessary and inevitable. For example, “Man from Aran” (dir. Robert J. Flaherty, 1934), “Strike” (dir. Sergei Eisenstein, 1924), “High Court” (dir. Hertz Frank, 1987). They overturn a person’s idea of ​​visuality: what is good and what is bad on the screen. When I first watched High Court, it revealed a lot to me: the layers of the pie that is human consciousness and human morality. It sometimes seems to us that the boundaries of morality are strictly defined, but in fact they do not exist and cannot exist. I realized this with horror, and then life confirmed it to me many times, especially in the military trenches. Criminals, terrible people, sitting nearby, protected and covered - they behaved extremely selflessly. And “moral” people who could say something about Pasternak went to the bottom and did not participate in anything. Cinema has the ability to visually convey poles.

— You often talk and film about the war. Why?

— War is what tormented my people, ruined the whole life of my country. And this is what we have to experience again. I have no doubts. The Russian people quickly forgot what war was, and in St. Petersburg they forgot what a blockade was. And Russian women are ready to support military actions, not thinking that their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands, torn to pieces, will lie in the trenches. They forgot... For Russia, war is a pattern. Very unpleasant. We do not know the experience of peaceful life and the reasonable completion of some kind of peaceful construction. We have not completed any of the stages of reforms in the country. Since 1905, with the end of the Russo-Japanese War, we have not had a break of more than ten years between armed conflicts. We have not come out of the streak of losing the male population. Crushing, terrible losses that have transformed the Russian people - internal, moral, psychophysical, loss of character, loss of complex people.

“I wanted to leave, but...”

— What are you working on now?

— We are trying to work on a new film, although there is not much money. For me this is a very difficult topic, it’s too early to say - maybe nothing will work out. You can never be sure that what you have planned in artistic form can come true. No one is doomed to success. My professional path is associated more with failures than with successes. I'm used to it. But then I did what I wanted and never worked to order. This is how he paid for his self-will. This is worth a lot, and I’m not talking about the economy now.

— Didn’t want to give up on everything?

- I really wanted to! Leave this environment and communication.

- Why didn’t you leave?

- Stupidity. And the fact that I still haven’t been able to find an alternate airfield. But it's inevitable, I'll leave anyway. The question is how much strength is enough. Today I have responsibility for my graduates. I understand that no one is waiting for them and no one will help them in any way...

Interesting stories will appear as they come from all over the country. A person living in Murmansk, Yaroslavl or Arkhangelsk is a different person, and he brings different plots, a different language and narrative to the cinema. But they don’t have access to money; 90% of directors are not allowed to participate in serious cinema.

Irina Petrovskaya : I watched this episode in great detail. Here it is clear how propaganda is done, how many statements, words, ideas that Alexander Sokurov expressed in this scandalous interview from their point of view are turned upside down. Didn't find the quote? In the retelling, it sounds like Alexander Sokurov calls people working today on federal television channels provocateurs, arsonists, people who throw matches during a fire. And he assumes that these people, in general, these people belong at the tribunal in The Hague. And over time, most likely, this will happen. And they will be judged. Precisely because they play a wildly destructive role in shaping the views and worldview of Russians, many Russian viewers, they multiply hatred. Like that. There was also a continuation, it was not quoted. When the vector and policy change, just as all the same people, as was the case with Turkey, with the Turkish president, will instantly change and will say the exact opposite of what they said yesterday. And there the correspondent clarifies that these are like women with reduced social responsibility. And Alexander Sokurov says: yes, I mean exactly this category of people. And then 60 Minutes takes that quote and brings it up to this point with reduced social responsibility. It displays, as is customary, on the screen, but how it is immediately interpreted by the presenters. Olga Skabeeva says: Alexander Sokurov wants to send all Russian television journalists to the Hague Tribunal. Alexander Sokurov demands that they shut up, she says. Alexander Sokurov demands that we stop talking about what really worries us today. That is, you already understand, I deliberately went through the entire text; in not a single phrase does he use the word “journalist” at all. Because we are not talking about journalists. And, as he rightly says, he uses television and radio heralds, propagandists and some other words, in addition to provocateurs. In not a single sentence does he say that they should remain silent. He says that they should not incite hatred and should not throw matches... He says, perhaps not expressed very precisely, not to be scattered, but we understand, to add fuel to the fire. That's what he means. And play with matches at a time when there is already a fire. After which the discussion begins, and as always, Leonid Gozman tries, having caught this contradiction in the words of Sokurov and the words of Skabeeva, to say that he is not calling on anyone to remain silent. Behind the way they tried to turn it all around, it was clear: for what, but for us. Well, what kind of tribunal is this when we are doing such an important thing? We illuminate.

The director, whose name is included among the hundred best directors of world cinema, is known not only for his films, which have won many awards at prestigious international festivals. In Russia, Sokurov is known as a man of a strong public position, which he is not afraid to express publicly, in the face of those in power, at the risk of causing their displeasure.

Thus, immediately after the start of the Ukrainian conflict, Sokurov spoke out sharply against the use of military force in Ukraine and called for respect for the desire of Ukrainians to have an independent state. In February 2017, he harshly condemned Russian television commentators, suggesting that sooner or later they would appear before the Hague Tribunal as provocateurs inciting hatred. In March 2017, at the Nika Award ceremony, the director spoke in defense of schoolchildren and students who took part in the protests on March 26, about the need for dialogue with them; He also repeatedly spoke out in defense of director Oleg Sentsov, convicted on terrorism charges.

That is why our conversation with Alexander Sokurov concerns a wide range of issues - about the fate of Russia, about the new generation, about culture, about the nature of power, about the need for a new model of the state.

– Alexander Nikolaevich, you so often talk about the need to talk: with young people, with the authorities. Why does no one want to do this, why is the level of aggression so high in Russia?

– People treat each other differently - in America they shoot and kill more often than here, we don’t even fully know what’s going on in Latin America, and it’s scary to even think about the Arab world. The Russians, whom I know and understand better, have problems largely due to our vast space - this is a very heavy burden.

– Do you think Russia should shrink, shrink?

“I think it will happen on its own.” There are decisions that need to be made today, otherwise later it will be impossible to do without forceful methods. In state development, one must always go ten steps forward, and not lag behind. Back in 2007, I spoke about the inevitability of war with Ukraine; everything was clear to me as a historian and a person. But the country’s security services probably did not understand this; in any case, the parliament, infected with global problems, certainly did not think about it.

In fact, there is nothing complicated in Russia’s situation, I haven’t had any questions for our politicians for a long time, I understand which way everything is going. I promised myself not to make any more predictions that no one pays attention to anyway. But I myself, as a person and as an artistic author, must prepare for what awaits my homeland.

If there is energy, intelligence and patience to overcome, then Russia can have a wonderful future

If there is energy, intelligence and patience to overcome, then Russia can have a wonderful future, it has enormous potential. Only she needs a radical change in the image of the country, the state structure. My heroine in the film “Alexandra” says: ask God for intelligence, you don’t need anything else. It seems to me that Russian people have a shortage here. We are predisposed to science, to art, but not to state building. It was not for nothing that Peter tried to import European experience - the experience of the civilization within which we exist. But it seems to me that my homeland, my Russia, lacks prophetic, wise, non-forceful decisions.

– Isn’t it necessary, in order to move forward, to understand the terrible experience that Russia had in the twentieth century? Why have we heard nothing even about the centenary of the revolution at the state level, except for the wonderful exhibition in the Hermitage?

– The exhibition is truly wonderful, like the entire Hermitage - this is the only thing that keeps me in St. Petersburg. It seems to me that the time has not come. This event is so simple and linear that we can talk about it much later. After all, little has changed since 1917, even though the whole country was turned upside down. I once told Boris Yeltsin that I am sure that everything will come back, that the changes of perestroika are superficial, and it is clear why: so many sins, so many crimes have been committed, but there has been no progress in the people’s ability to comprehend. Maybe there is even degradation. To some extent, the practice of communists, without a doubt, is ahead of the practice of today's Russian politicians.

– Isn’t this the fault of the politicians of the new Russia, the liberals, all of us who didn’t need anything other than freedom? We reveled in it back then and didn’t notice the suffering of people, driven out of production, starving, lost?

“Those changes were rapid - and in a sense it was right. It was impossible to endure any longer. And the political rage of those forces that were defeated was such that the consequences could be very serious if they came to power again. So everyone was in a hurry. Never before has such a large state had to go back to the past. But perestroika required a return to 1917 or 1916, to those ideas that Bolshevism fought against.

We are still going back, maybe we will get there in three or four years, and then what? And then we need to understand where to go - to build socialism again or the new system that has formed today? First, we experimented in 1917 - we went to socialism, where no one went but us. We performed a terrible experiment on ourselves - and lost. I had to crawl back on my hands and knees - and there was no one there, most were killed - along with their life experience and economic way of life. There are only corpses lying around there.

- Maybe we should at least admit that they killed so many people in vain?

We are predisposed to science, to art, but not to state building

– For this, the state must become more civilized. Our country has great originality. I think with alarm what will happen if those who criticize it today come to power - so what? There will be the same people around them, there will not be a single non-corrupt employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - try to do something when everything is riddled with this infection. Those who criticize Putin for Syria will receive the same huge country with huge borders and a huge army, which must not only be trained, but also periodically put on a hot frying pan, otherwise it will not be able to protect this country. And they will have a large military budget and everything that is happening now. Without serious changes in state building, the structure of the state, and relations between regions, the problem cannot be solved. And without these changes, in my opinion, there will be no Russia.

– But how to achieve this? Look what any attempt to participate in the political process leads to, young people going out onto the streets - everything is immediately suppressed.

– The reaction of young people is like this because there is no system of dialogue between the younger generation and society. I have told both the past and the current governor many times that if you do not start creating a system of political dialogue with schoolchildren and students, they will eventually start running along Nevsky Prospect and throwing grenades at restaurants and cafes. You'll wait for it. And they will do this not because they are criminals, but because social temperament is the most important part of their nature. It is precisely at this age that social activity that is unmotivated from a logical point of view arises, which needs to be turned into reasonable joint work. This is not the case. None of the governors is ready to meet with young people.

When young people in the West go out into the streets, we see looting, robberies, and burned cars. Say thank you to our youth, who are still behaving quietly - in response to the incorrect behavior of the riot police and the National Guard, which is harassing young people - I am taken aback by this name, because it says that it should protect the people and the country. The state should behave subtly and wisely, but, unfortunately, it does not behave this way.

– And these children also have an extremely strong sense of injustice...

In 1917, we performed a terrible experiment on ourselves - and lost

– To have more justice, more time is needed. Our people have raised a lot of money in a very short time, and we understand that money does not like fuss. This can be seen even from modest cinematic budgets: if you handle them carefully and slowly, then you will have enough for everything, but if not, then you will not do anything and will still owe money.

It is clear that wealth is obtained as a result of the fact that someone deceived someone, bypassed someone, or managed to get closer to power, which, naturally, in return requires support for itself. The state cannot be required to behave morally, and this will always be the case until there are restraining forces within society that will tell politicians that politics costs too much for the people.

– When you talk about changes, you often emphasize the need to strengthen the humanitarian component in management, in all areas. But how can this be achieved when this space, on the contrary, shrinks like shagreen leather?

– Counteract this compression. There are a lot of pain points here. We have one point of view on preserving the city center, but the authorities have a completely different point of view. If the authorities and city defenders find a common platform, this will already be a lot. We must demand the strictest adherence to the Constitution, demand maniacal adherence to the principle of separation of church and state, depoliticization of television, and development of education.

The state should behave subtly and wisely, but, unfortunately, it does not behave this way

Here is a man who received an excellent education in the Soviet Union - he graduated from the history department of the university, then from the directing department of the Cinematography Institute, and no one took a penny from me, they even paid me a stipend. If I were to enter into life today, I don’t know where I would stop - I would reach the course to the fourth history department, and then I would have to work, or I would not receive an education at all.

Today in the education system, the property qualification is a completely unconstitutional instrument. You can’t take money for this, especially in Russia, where there are so many problems with space, so many national problems. In our country, the accessibility of all education should be absolute - this is not debated. Education, culture, and medicine should receive the largest budgets, otherwise why do we need a state? It is needed in order to create a cultural space so that people do not go wild. And it consumes culture.

But this state of affairs is supported by the population. The people are those who think, the rest are the population. And civil society is not developing either, because it does not have support. Are democratic radio stations and Novaya Gazeta supported by millions? Not at all. Democracy has not become and will not become the favorite child of the Russian people for a long time, unless there is a transition to very strict Stalinist or monarchist principles and if the Orthodox Church does not come to power, which can generally destroy Russia. After all, the powerful Muslim community living in Russia may demand the same dividends.

This worries me more than other political processes. I can only be Russian here, and I can be Orthodox even at the North Pole. If my country begins to collapse - well, not Moscow and St. Petersburg, this is not Russia, but my Arkhangelsk, my Murmansk, my Astrakhan, my Yekaterinburg - where will I go as a Russian person? If they used to say “Moscow is behind me,” now only the Arctic Ocean will remain behind us.

– How do you look at the new wave of instilling patriotism instead of culture, and it’s going off with a bang?

The people are those who think, the rest are the population

“People are being dragged into politics, but they are not able to understand the most basic things. Russian people cannot teach their teenagers not to shit in hallways. Look at some programs on Channel 1 or Channel 2 - how people live, the terrible state of their housing. I try to watch the serial film “Shameless” on NTV, it’s an impeccable work of cinematography, there are such pictures of life that sometimes it’s just painful to look at the screen. These are amazing performances. We hear features of the way of life of people who have never been to the Hermitage and will never be there, who have read three or four books and will not read any more. There are a huge number of towns and cities where there is no cultural recreation at all.

You talk about patriotism, but I say: don’t pee in the hallways! And how many are in prison? After all, 95% are Russian men and women, many of whom have committed bitter, difficult deeds. This is what is happening to the people of which I am a part.

– There is constant talk about patriotism, and at the same time, an interchange on the bones is being built on the Pulkovskoye Highway, and a military cemetery is being destroyed.

– This once again speaks of the weakness of the city protection movement and the fact that the bureaucratic system has no principles and ideals. We have no talent for state building - we have been building a state for so many centuries, and everything does not work out. This is not inevitable: not every woman who gives birth becomes a mother, not every nation keeps up with the steps of civilization.

– So Russia may not make it in time?

You talk about patriotism, but I say: don’t pee in the hallways!

– In a sense, we are already late – in terms of technology. It’s hard for me to judge, but you are now in our modest equipment room, where there is nothing made in Russia - not even Chinese sockets. I’m wearing everything bought at sales, with labels from Turkey or China. So I kept wanting to buy our watch from the Petrodvorets factory, I bought it - it worked for five months, and they told me: you are so naive that you bought something like that!

– Today, some say that Russia is facing some kind of social explosion, a transition to dictatorship, others - that, on the contrary, stagnation. What do you think is more likely and what is worse?

– Stagnation is better: it is a pause, a gathering of strength, lives saved, the cultivation of people who more deeply understand social processes and the economy. In general, we are capable of great decisions and results. For me, a phenomenal story is the evacuation of industry during the war. It is clear that these are bloody methods, overcoming them, but what is the scale of creating a new industry at the beginning of the war! And there is not a single film or study about this! This means that there were people who comprehended and carried out a task no less complex than military operations at the front.

The Stalin-Leninist model of the state has long outlived its usefulness. People must come who can come up with a new model of the state. It seems to me that we don’t have people who think about this, I’m very afraid that work on rewriting the Constitution will soon begin, repressive motivations will intensify, and our aggressive ladies from parliament will finally cut off everyone’s heads. But this is not what we need - we need a strong, peaceful, smart state that is respected, sometimes feared, but which never demonstrates its strength. It is necessary that our foreign policy should not be so wasteful and expensive, that our capital should not cost so much to our people. This is obvious, but nothing is being done in this direction, there is some kind of trouble...

– Can the time of stagnation provide a beneficial pause for developing these decisions, or will the authorities use it for further tightening?

The Stalin-Leninist model of the state has long outlived its usefulness

– There will definitely be tightening, but stagnation is the only thing worth hoping for. People have already forgotten how long we waited for Gorbachev. No one had any thoughts of destroying the country; we needed smart changes so that the political party in power would become wiser, admit the mistakes of the Stalinist period, the stupidity of its actions in relation to culture. We need a country - not a threat to the world, not some unpredictable system. Whoever curses Gorbachev now - remember how long we waited for his arrival! But, apparently, the lack of government talent led to what it led to. You can be a very experienced, but mediocre person, that’s the whole point.

– Your tetralogy about power is devoted to the character of rulers, but you do not show why people fall in love with tyrants. Why?

- It's simple. At first, Hitler was a small reflective subject, and he had no chance of becoming a tyrant if the people did not support him, because he took advantage of the mechanism of democracy 100%. On the other hand, the book "Mein Kampf" was written very early and was published in large numbers - Hitler did not hide anything, and they believed him. This means that there was a cavity, a disease, within the people themselves. And where it exists, what arose with Nazism will certainly arise. The German people supported him.

– Just like in Russia, the people supported Stalin.

– Yes, but in Russia everything is more complicated. The principles that the Communist Party declared were strikingly different from the principles of Nazi ideology. There was only one vulnerable moment - the desire to build communism throughout the world, and the Nazis - to spread their ideology and build a giant Nazi state. Hence the intelligence activity, and one of the points in the text of Germany’s declaration of war on the USSR is claims about support for the communists who wanted to overthrow the political system in Germany.

But the differences are colossal. Communism was not a colonial system, but Nazism and everything connected with its European practice gave birth to colonial systems. There are still more differences. We didn't have national outcasts.

- But there were class ones - dispossessed people, children of priests and nobles.

– Yes, but this was not the scourge of the system.

– And the very concept of “enemy of the people” – anyone could become one, right? Maybe this is also a cavern?

No one ever speaks to the people in devilish terms; they are always called to goodness

- Yes, these are terrible signs. If we were a more compact country, maybe things would be different for us.

- But look. Alexander Nikolaevich, here before us are two Koreas - they are one people, but different authorities - and what different results. Maybe the meaning of power in general lies in what properties of human nature it appeals to - high or low, because a person has both?

– This is a very difficult question. After all, no one ever speaks to the people in devilish terms; they are always called upon to do good. Korean leader appeals to patriotism. Germany quickly revived its economy after World War I because the people wanted it. They told him: we will revive metallurgy and agriculture, we will build military factories, roads - and we will live better. “Yes,” said the Germans, “of course!” They were told: you will work in military factories, the best will go into the army, we need planes and tanks, we will build many kindergartens, sewing factories - which German at that time could object to this practically socialist idea?

We have been asking for a long time to understand the economics of film production and theater, where there are no recommendations on how to handle public money, and there are many unregistered documents. I am also concerned about the situation with the State Film Fund, which needs to allocate additional funds for its technical equipment. While I live in Russia, I care how cultural institutions develop in the country.

Russian women are unable to raise and educate those whom we call politicians

I asked to sort out the ban on showing many of my paintings, and offered to give me what the state no longer needed. In auteur cinema there is an individual and professional artistic experience that must be preserved. And again no answer. So I don’t yet understand who I am, what I am - I should probably sit quietly, be silent, not be interested in anything.

– Your wonderful one immediately comes to mind.

– Yes, I had troubles with the organizers - they made a rather harsh remark to me about how I dared to speak like that. Of course, I shouldn't have done this, but it was the only opportunity to publicly say what worries me. There is one problem: I have a passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation, and it not only obliges me to comply with some norms, but also encourages me to think about the country of which I am a citizen.

- It was quite difficult to look at the faces in the hall: many had such an expression - well, talk, talk, it’s clear who is saying this...

– Yes, the performance was inappropriate, and Konchalovsky got angry. People come there to have fun, and reflection on events in the country greatly irritates them. They are wealthy, they live well and they say that they are far from politics, but I can be unrestrained - that’s true. First of all, I spoke about our dignity, which consists in not beating girls, not touching them. At a public event, no employee of the Russian Guard has the right to even touch the girl or say a rude word, she is inviolable. No matter who sneers at this, we still have behind us great literature, great music, a great civilization that has precisely formulated moral principles.

– And within the framework of what civilization are they formulated - only Russian or still European?

It's time to start living with our own heads, seriously thinking about how we can continue to live and develop.

– I feel Russian civilization better, European civilization worse, especially in recent years, looking at multiculturalism, at what the Americans did in Iraq. Much in the world today is not going as we would like; there is already a large load of accumulated mistakes that have not been comprehended in the European consciousness. I remember what difficult conversations I had with my friends from Germany during the bombing of Yugoslavia: they all supported it, but I did not understand it. But then it became clear that this was general political myopia. And this suggests that it’s time for us to start living with our own heads, making our own decisions, seriously thinking about how we can continue to live and develop.

I do not see a renaissance either in the intellectual or political environment of Europe. Just like in Russia, we see a crisis of federalism, a crisis of statehood, and no one is seriously thinking about it. It seems to me that in Europe no one thinks about political strategy, one president replaces another, their political life is short, no one has time to concentrate, even the UN does not discuss big, serious issues. This is the flip side of the degradation of the political environment.

– I’ll say something terrible: maybe this means that humanity needs new upheavals?

– It’s very possible, but it’s a scary assumption. I am simply articulating what humanity needs: vote for those for whom humanitarian principles are higher than political ones.

– Every time we come up against the word “humanitarian,” but what can help us as a species preserve the human in us?

“I don’t know what will help the Germans or the French, but the Russians will be helped by the revival of the village - a cultural layer that does not drink, does not crawl on its hands and knees along its dirty roads from the store to its creepy house. This is the first, and the second is a decisive change in political principles: the state is created in order for culture to exist.

– But how will this revival of the village be accomplished? You saw how journalist Andrei Loshak filmed the village, walking with a camera along Radishchev’s path from St. Petersburg to Moscow?

– Yes, Loshak is a brilliant director and a brilliant citizen. There are people to whom I am ready to kneel. He taught me a lot, I am in his debt as a citizen of Russia. It is necessary to decisively change the activities of state television, remove this mediocre swill, declare a day of silence with empty screens - only news and music, preferably classical. Changes in the country require step-by-step actions, political will and clarity of mind.

Yavlinsky clearly formulated what was needed: respect for people. Contempt for culture, contempt for a person, disrespect for him - this is a cross-cutting motivation for us, including as part of the national character. Nowadays there are programs on television that show so much human grief, so many troubles - and very often it turns out that it is not the authorities who are to blame, but the people themselves who are bad and behave badly.

Yavlinsky clearly formulated what is needed: respect for people

We need a serious reconfiguration of the state body, a revision of the federal structure, and if there is no such revision, I am sure we will ruin, we will ruin Russia. After all, even the Bolsheviks, having come to power, made two brilliant moves - the elimination of illiteracy and the separation of church and state. The elimination of illiteracy was a broad target program, the opening of schools, publishing houses, millions of expenses and enormous public energy. Unfortunately, it went alongside the misfortune of Stalinist absolutism that later overtook the country.

– And now exactly the opposite process has been launched - the closure of universities, the tightening of rules at school...

“I don’t understand the purpose of this process.” Maybe this is the wrong personnel policy, because the president is not able to comprehend and evaluate everything correctly, I don’t even understand how he lives in this schedule.

– Maybe the graph is like this because the vertical is too pointed?

– Maybe this is the realization of his idea of ​​​​necessity for the country - you agree that he has the right to think so, even if the rating is exaggerated, but not by that much.

– Yes, but many will object that if you clear out the entire field like this and don’t let anyone into the first channels, then it’s clear that only one person will have support.

Very few men can decide to fight politically

– I agree, but at the same time, if there were serious big leaders, we would know about them. Navalny exists - he is a fighter. But very few men can decide to fight politically. Only a woman can decide on such a confrontation. Men are fearful, and then it is easier to kill a man.

– We have enough killed women – for example, Galina Starovoitova.

– Yes, she was a major politician, an outstanding person, her death is a disaster. And the death of Politkovskaya, and Estemirova, and Nemtsov... You will still have to answer for these terrible crimes - if not before Jesus, then before Allah. There will still be responsibility from above.

– For performers or for the country?

– For those who organized the murders. But there is nothing to punish Russia for - it has never admitted its mistakes. But it is necessary to inform the people that they are responsible. I wish all political figures, all parties could come to Norilsk, Komi, Kolyma, kneel in front of these cemeteries of those killed and prisoners - and have this shown to all the people. Will we see this? In general, it would be ideal if the State Duma and the Federation Council would board simple airplanes and fly to Kolyma. Let them clear the snow, lay out blankets for them, let them kneel down and stand silently in front of some prisoner’s cemetery. And the whole people should see this - then something will begin to change. Not right away, step by step,” film director Alexander Sokurov said in an interview with Radio Liberty.

The film director dubbed journalists provocateurs who “throw matches during a fire.”

The famous Russian director Alexander Sokurov shared his attitude towards television political commentators and the military conflicts of the Russian Federation with other countries.

As the filmmaker said in an interview with Znak.com, he hopes that Russian political commentators, television and radio employees will one day appear before the Hague Tribunal. He called journalists provocateurs who “throw matches during a fire” and suggested that the authorities pay special attention to them.

"They have to intkbbach be punished. These are just criminals who work on both state and private channels,” he said, calling the idea that Russians and Ukrainians are one people a deep misconception.

Sokurov believes that the countries were brought together by “Soviet practice,” although Russians and Ukrainians are “just neighbors.” At the same time, the director considered the historical path of the Ukrainians humiliating, since it involves constant interference from the outside.

“And here Ukrainian politics clearly lacks intelligence. At a difficult historical moment, the people did not put forward large-scale politicians who could delicately get out of difficult confrontational circumstances,” the director said.

As a solution to the problem of Russia’s conflicts with neighboring countries, Sokurov proposed introducing into the Constitution the principle of peaceful coexistence with states that have a common border with our country. He believes that even in the event of an attack on Russia, one should find the strength not to use one’s own army and not to invade foreign territory.