The scandal surrounding the not yet released film about the first love of Emperor Nicholas II unfolded with new strength. Why is the film, which is still in production, so outraged by the public?
At the center of the plot of the historical melodrama, as the creators called the genre, is the love of Tsarevich Nikolai Romanov, the future last Russian Emperor Nicholas II, and the ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya. The romantic relationship did not last long - until his coronation with his future wife Alexandra Federovna. By the way, they say that the ballerina and Nicholas II even had a daughter (!)
After a relationship with Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, she was the mistress of another Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, and later married another representative of the royal house - Grand Duke Andrei Romanov. She raised an illegitimate son. And after the revolution of 1917 she left Russia forever. In Paris she had her own ballet school.
The ban on the film Matilda is one of the hotly debated topics on the RuNet
Photo frame from the film
The fate of Kshesinskaya itself is curious - she lived a long life, almost a hundred years. She is a prima ballerina of the imperial theaters, an influential person.
Polish actress Michalina Olshanskaya was invited to play the role of the main character; German theater and film actor Lars Eidinger played Emperor Nicholas II. Among the star names: Ingeborga Dapkunaite, Evgeny Mironov, Sergey Garmash, Danila Kozlovsky and Grigory Dobrygin.
Meanwhile, from the first day, the picture was conceived as a large-scale historical reconstruction: the Assumption Cathedral, the Palace on the River Pontoon and the interiors of the carriages of the Imperial railway train were specially recreated. Filming took place at the Mariinsky Theater, in the Catherine, Alexander, Yusupov and Elaginoostrovsky palaces. According to some information, 5 thousand suits required 17 tons of fabric. The total budget for the film is $25 million.
Where did it all start?
Photo frame from the film
The fact that director Alexey Uchitel began filming historical films in 2014 was known and did not cause any protest. And when production was in full swing, to say the least, the public suddenly began to actively object to filming, demanding a complete ban. Perhaps the first trailer for the film seemed provocative. But since its appearance, complaints have poured in. Among the main initiators is the social movement “Royal Cross”:
“In the film Matilda, Tsar Nicholas II is not portrayed as who he really was. The love between Matilda Kshesinskaya and Tsar Nicholas II was platonic, not lustful. Also, during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II, economic and social status was better compared to the current situation in Russia,” the social activists said in an official statement. And they turned for support to Natalya Poklonskaya, now a State Duma deputy, and at that time the prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea.
Natalya Poklonskaya twice sent a request to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation to check “Matilda” for extremism. The inspection found no violations. In 2016, a petition appeared on the Internet on the website Change.org, the goal of which was to ban the film. “The content of the film is a deliberate lie,” it says.
“There are no facts in history of Russian tsars cohabiting with ballerinas,” the petition says. - Russia is presented in the film as a country of gallows, drunkenness and fornication, which is also a lie. The picture includes bed scenes between Nicholas II and Matilda, the tsar himself is presented as a cruel, vindictive libertine and adulterer.”
Photo frame from the film
At the end of January 2017, letters of complaint were sent to cinemas across the country. Natalya Poklonskaya sent another deputy request to the Prosecutor General's Office to check the legality of spending budget funds allocated by the Cinema Fund for the creation of the film. And in April 2017 - to the expert commission, consisting of doctors of psychological, legal, philological, cultural, historical sciences with up to 28 years of expert experience, to evaluate the script and trailers of the film.
The commission members noticed a lot of critical comments: from, again, the moral character of the Russian Tsar to the ugly appearance of his beloved. And the verdict is the same: the film imposes a false image of St. Nicholas II and offends the feelings of believers. The results of the examination were once again sent to the Prosecutor General's Office.
Who supported the release of the film?
The main idea heard by most cultural figures and officials is that it is premature to make an opinion about a film that has not yet been released. But aggressive attacks from public organizations also could not be ignored. Many cultural figures considered it their duty to speak out in support of the film: film director Stanislav Govorukhin, chairman of the Duma Committee on Culture, criticized the idea of checking the film, adding that such initiatives should be stopped in the bud.
An open letter was written by more than forty Russian filmmakers, including Pavel Lungin, Alexander Proshkin, Alexander Gelman, Vitaly Mansky, Andrei Smirnov and others. Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, who visited the filming of the film several times, also supported “Matilda” on air on the Komsomolskaya Pravda radio.
Finally, Dmitry Peskov, press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation, commented on the situation around the premiere. According to him, evaluating a film that is not yet ready is, to say the least, strange. “And then, to be honest, I, unfortunately, do not have information about which experts evaluated the film - there are differences between experts. Therefore, without knowing who exactly evaluated the film, within what authority, it is probably difficult to talk about anything,” Peskov said.
What do the descendants of the Romanov royal dynasty say?
Photo frame from the film
Representatives of the House of Romanov do not agree in their assessment of the film, which has not yet been released. But many people clearly didn’t like the idea of the film. The director of the chancellery of the Russian Imperial House, Alexander Zakatov, on Radio Baltika, called “Matilda” a low-grade fake that has nothing to do with real events: “It is quite possible to discuss the personality of even a holy man, even a tsar, but for what purpose? To show it in some perverted form, to make money on low emotions and instincts? This is not good".
The representative of the association of members of the Romanov family (another branch of the family) in Russia, Ivan Artsishevsky, believes that there is nothing offensive in the film. “Nicholas II became a saint for his martyrdom, and to show him as a man, I think, is absolutely normal - this is my personal position,” Artsishevsky told TASS.
The filmmakers are tired of the controversy
Director Alexey Uchitel called the discussion around “Matilda” useless and unnecessary. “Honestly, I’m already tired of Mrs. Poklonskaya’s war with me and the entire film crew. Instead of calmly finishing the film, I am forced to be distracted by nonsense, nonsense and insults,” the director told RIA Novosti. “The film will be released, everyone will watch it, and only then will it be possible to discuss it.”
Film producer Alexander Dostman also believes: “People who have not seen the film, and no one has seen it except working group, they can’t draw any conclusions - it’s funny, some kind of comedy film, amazing stupidity. And what’s also surprising is that everyone follows Natalya Poklonskaya’s lead and takes her opinion into account; I’ve already stopped being surprised by her. This is a film about beautiful love. Regardless of whether Tsar Nicholas is Tsar or not, he is a man, but what, a man cannot love?”
According to TASS, Konstantin Dobrynin, the lawyer of director Alexei Uchitel, appealed to the ethics commission of the State Duma of Russia with a complaint about the activities of deputy Natalya Poklonskaya, substantiating possible violations of the rules of parliamentary ethics, manifested in “unfounded accusations” by Poklonskaya against Uchitel, as well as in the “use knowingly false information and calls for illegal actions" against the creators of the film "Matilda".
When is the premiere?
The premiere is scheduled for October 26, 2017, it will take place at the Mariinsky Theater - where the main character of the film, Matilda Kshesinskaya, performed at the beginning of the 20th century. By the way, the music producer of the film was the artistic director and CEO Mariinsky Theater Valery Gergiev.
On October 26, a film about the ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya and Tsarevich Nicholas will be released. How close are the fates and images of the characters in the film to historical truth?
Matilda Kshesinskaya
Prima ballerina
Matilda
Kshesinskaya
(1903)
Movie In the film by Alexei Uchitel, Matilda, played by Polish actress Michalina Olshanska, is a brilliant beauty. It is no coincidence that such passions rage around the beautiful Polish woman. Keira Knightley was supposed to play Matilda, but she became pregnant and a replacement had to be found. Mikhalina is not a dancer, she is an actress, violinist and singer, but with a height of 1.65 m, the girl has ballet height. Kshesinskaya was not 18 when in March 1890 she met the Tsarevich. Mikhalina is 25, and this is appropriate: the film is not about romance, but about passion. Matilda, or Malya, as her relatives called her, is strong-willed and willful in Olshanskaya. Kshesinskaya really had a strong character. For more than ten years she reigned on the stage of the Mariinsky Theater. The great Tamara Karsavina and Anna Pavlova had the status of the first ballerinas, but there was only one prima - Kshesinskaya.
Story Matilda was not a beauty. Large nose, wide eyebrows... In reviews of ballets with the participation of the “prima ballerina assoluta” (as Matilda was called), a lot is said about her “physical charm”, but compliments to her appearance are restrained. The graceful Kshesinskaya (the ballerina is 1.53 m tall) was praised for having “a lot of life, fire and gaiety.” Perhaps these words contain the secret of Matilda’s magical charm, who said about herself: “By nature I was a coquette.” She loved and knew how to live, enjoy luxury and surround herself with the first men of the state, who had the power to give everything she wanted.
Lars Eidinger as Nikolai
Tsarevich Nikolai
Young
Tsarevich
Nikolay
(1890)
Movie The role of the crown prince went to 41-year-old German actor and director Lars Eidinger. In contrast to Nicholas’s established reputation as a weak king, Eidinger plays an almost Shakespearean hero, a man of strong passions, capable of rebellion for the sake of love. He is suffering, swift and harsh. Outwardly, the on-screen hero also bears little resemblance to the historical character in his youth. Eidinger is tall (height 1.9 m), large, mature. A thick beard also adds age. Before us is not a weak, indecisive crown prince, but a personality. If Nikolai had been such a hero as Eidinger played him, who knows how the fate of the dynasty and the country would have turned out. By the way, the role of Nikolai was first promised to Danila Kozlovsky, but when the decision changed, the actor was offered to play Count Vorontsov, a character who did not exist in reality.
Story Reddish, thin, short, short crew cut and calm gray-green eyes - this is how Matilda saw the Tsarevich. At the time of his meeting with Kshesinskaya, the 22-year-old future emperor wore a small, dandy mustache; a beard appeared later. “Everyone was always fascinated by him, and his exceptional eyes and smile won hearts. One of his character traits was to be able to control himself, writes Kshesinskaya about Nikolai in her memoirs “Memoirs”. - It was clear to me that the heir did not have something that was needed to reign... Something to force others to submit to his will. He didn’t know how to insist on his own and very often gave in.”
Still from the film
Princess Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt
Movie On-screen Alice cannot be called anything other than a red-haired beast. German actress Louise Wolfram, similar to Tilda Swinton, created a grotesque image. Pathetic, lanky, awkward, she tries to seduce Nikolai by dancing and gets tangled in her skirts, causing laughter. Alice is the opposite of the brilliant Matilda. The bride of the Tsarevich intrigues against the ballerina, arranges seances, performs magic on blood and wears green dresses with creepy roses. The Empress and mother of Nicholas Maria Fedorovna reproaches her future daughter-in-law for her lack of taste.
Story As soon as the princess became the heir's bride in April 1894, he confessed to her his passion for Kshesinskaya and broke off relations with the ballerina. In response, I received a short letter from Alix: “What happened, happened and will never return... I love you even more after you told me this story.” According to the authors of the film, Alice had to achieve a wedding with the Tsarevich, but in reality everything was different. The princess refused the heir several times, not wanting to betray the Lutheran faith, but then succumbed to persuasion. As contemporaries noted, Alice was distinguished by impeccable taste and beauty. “Thick hair lay like a heavy crown on his head, decorating it, but his large dark blue eyes looked cold under long eyelashes...”
Keys to the Heart
“Listen to how it will be: it is you, not me, who will be jealous, tormented, looking for a meeting and will not be able to love anyone as much as I do...” Matilda says to the heir in the film. In fact, Matilda was more interested in the relationship than Nikolai, she loved and suffered in separation more than he did. In June 1893, when the issue of the heir’s engagement to Princess Alice was once again unresolved, Kshesinskaya rented a dacha near Krasnoe Selo, where the Tsarevich’s regiment was stationed. But over the summer he came to Matilda only twice. In Nikolai's diaries there are entries that his heart and head at that time were occupied only with the princess. “After the engagement, he asked for a last date, and we agreed to meet on Volkonsky Highway. I came from the city in my carriage, and he came from the camp on horseback. A single meeting took place in private... What I experienced on the Emperor’s wedding day can only be understood by those who are capable of truly loving with all their souls,” admitted Matilda.
“I like Malya, I love Alix,” the Tsarevich wrote in his diary, and this phrase contains the whole truth about the love triangle - Nicholas, Alix and Matilda. And here are the lines from the queen’s diary, which she wrote down on her wedding night: “We belong to each other forever... The key to my heart, in which you are imprisoned, has been lost, and now you will never escape from there.”
Prepared by Elena ALESHKINA
An artist, of course, usually enjoys increased attention to his works. But when your opus is examined with a magnifying glass, excuse me, this is too much.
This is roughly the situation Alexey Uchitel now finds himself in with his long-suffering (without irony) “Matilda.” Natalya Poklonskaya’s attack, which caused a muddy wave of aggressive attacks from the “tsarebozhniks” up to the expressed desire to impale the director, on the one hand, added to the film’s popularity in advance. On the other hand, they added purely entomological interest to it on the part of critics, who are now forced to analyze “Matilda” in the light of the aggressive events around it. And this, of course, did not benefit the film and the team.
If it weren’t for Poklonskaya and her retinue of mentally unstable people, “Matilda” would have modestly passed by on the sidelines of film critical reviews as just another near-patriotic movie with a not very successful distribution fate, but not a failure against the backdrop of our entire film industry. Which I just want to put in quotation marks. But since the wave of public discussion has brought it to the surface, we have to sort through the bones. An exhibit after all.
Let's give the Teacher his due: he did an excellent job with the front side of the film. A costume historical drama from ancient times, when ladies dragged trains of silk skirts, gentlemen in sideburns savored the word “honor” with cutlets, and newly-crowned emperors laid out round sums from their pockets to the families of those killed during their coronation, in “Matilda” it is constructed competently, lovingly and clearly with honest use of the allocated budget. Which, you see, is already an achievement in our suspicious times.
The story told in the film unfolds against the backdrop of grand facades and elegant interiors. Here you can feel not only the scope, but also the taste, which, again, is rare for our current cinema. For the most part, we have one thing - either scope or taste. The magnificent end of the 300-year reign of the Romanov dynasty, which 20 years later will end in a bloody tragedy, becomes a successful backdrop for the dramatic love story between the soon-to-be Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich (Lars Eidinger) and the ballerina Matilda Krzesinskaya (Michalina Olshanska). Love will begin with the brave experiment of the young Kshesinskaya on stage - her breasts are accidentally exposed, and instead of shyly running backstage, she, seeing the future emperor in the box, impudently looking into his eyes, will continue to dance with her breasts bare, which, of course, will attract will captivate young Nikolai. Then, when Nicky tries to take possession of her in a special tent, Matilda slaps him in the face and promises that he will now love her forever.
In the crowned Romanov family, Kshesinskaya was considered something of a challenge banner - starting with Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, she would take care of Nikolai, and when Nikolai became an exemplary family man, she would turn her gaze to the imperial cousin, Prince Andrei, whom she would later marry. But the Teacher doesn’t want to know anything bad about the heroine - his Matilda is a girl, although she is punchy, but she sincerely and devotedly loves her Nicky. The Polish actress is extremely good - fresh, black-browed and has that free sex appeal that our actresses are mostly deprived of. Therefore, one should not be surprised that the Teacher brought the heroine from abroad. With the emperor everything is much sadder. Lars Eidinger is an outstanding artist; it is almost impossible to attend performances of the Berlin Schaubühne with his participation. You can’t even tell right away what the director did with him. Or he forbade me, on pain of termination of the contract, to play as usual well. Or he pumped me with sleeping pills. But in any case, looking at a bearded man over 40, who is clearly bored with portraying a 22-year-old boy, is even somewhat awkward. The dissonance between the eyes of a well-aged man and the youthful impulses of yesterday's puberty is too striking, and this makes the love story seem deliberately false.
Although - and here again we must give credit to the director - he does not insist on the veracity of what is told. He doesn’t even try to persuade us that, they say, this could have happened. On the contrary, he seems to emphasize that everything told is fiction from beginning to end, and for this he attracts completely fairy-tale characters. Like Prince Vorontsov (Danila Kozlovsky), a bearded man furiously in love with Matilda, who is ready to send the heir to the throne to the next world for her sake. This is Koschey, Bad Boy and all the demons rolled into one. This is already funny, but it’s even funnier when a certain Lucifer-like psychiatrist, played for some reason by the great German theater director Thomas Ostermeier, puts Vorontsov in an aquarium with his head and begins to torture him. Isn’t this a direct hint to us: don’t believe it, dear viewers, don’t believe it for a second!
The only problem is that the director himself did not understand whether to believe himself or not. He desperately rushes between genres, between fiction and reality, never fully deciding what he is filming and why. It seems to him that he is making a completely patriotic movie about that textbook Russia before 1913, when the piglets were fat and people believed in God. That is, “Russia, which we lost.” It is not for nothing that the film begins with an unambiguous metaphor - the same famous train crash, after which the health of Tsar Alexander the Third (Sergei Garmash), who held the roof of the carriage for a long time, was greatly deteriorated, like that train. Soon Niki became emperor.
At moments it seems that the cunning Teacher actually made a comedy - in addition to Vorontsov and the half-mad psychiatrist, there are many more comic characters in comic circumstances in the film. The most charming of them is the head of the royal detective police, Vlasov (Vitaly Kishchenko). This sinister guy, as he seems to appear to the viewer, according to the plot, for several years does nothing but rush after Matilda, trying to separate her from the future emperor. Apparently, things were going very well in the country from a security point of view, since the main security guard throws all his strength at the ballerina girl. Having overtaken her, Vlasov tries to either drown the girl or burn her. Or maybe, on the contrary, things were going badly, but the detective police were busy with the wrong things, and so everything collapsed? Then it turns out that the Teacher is digging deep. And this is very difficult to believe.
Most likely, the director wanted to please a little everyone - patriots (Orthodoxy-autocracy-nationality), fans of mass spectacle (elegant salons and ferry races), housewives (a story of unhappy love), critics (good actors, especially Ingeborga Dapkunaite in the role of the Dowager Empress, plus room for interpretation, which we took advantage of). But as often happens in such cases, the artist missed, and the only one who was seriously interested in the film was deputy Poklonskaya. And she doesn’t want to watch the movie either.
By the way, the comedy is also supported by the fact that the Tsarevich, after a night of love with Matilda, always ends up wearing long johns. By the way, someone tell Poklonskaya about this - maybe she will calm down?
Opinions of historians: The script of “Matilda” is a fiction of the worst taste
Moscow, September 25. The script of the film "Matilda", submitted several months ago for review to two famous Russian historians - the president of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.P. Karpov and scientific supervisor State Archive RF, Head of the Department of History Russia XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, Faculty of History, Moscow State University, to Professor S.V. Mironenko was subjected to severe criticism from them.
“The script of the film “Matilda” has nothing to do with the historical events that it tells about, except that only the names of the characters correspond to reality, and the heir-Tsarevich had an affair with Matilda Kshesinskaya. The rest is a complete fabrication of the worst taste,” says the summary of the conclusion of S.P. Karpov and S.V. Mironenko.
“The very first scene evokes a smile and great bewilderment. Matilda Kshesinskaya did not run up to the choir of the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin during the coronation of Emperor Nicholas II, did not shout: “Nicky, Niky!”, and the emperor himself did not faint. All this is an invention of the scriptwriters, recalling the lines from the famous novel by Ilf and Petrov: “The Countess runs across the pond with a changed face.” Only in Ilf and Petrov it is grotesque and irony, and in the script there is the harsh “truth” of the heroes’ lives, as it appears to the author,” the Moscow State University professors continue.
According to historians, the film's script is filled with inventions of the worst taste, which have nothing to do with real events, much less to the feelings of the heroes.
“What a scene it is when Nicholas’s father, Emperor Alexander III, chooses a mistress for his son from among the ballerinas of the Mariinsky Theater. Do I need to explain that such vulgarity could only be born in the head of a person who had no idea about the real relationships in the royal family, and even in the court environment,” note S.P. Karpov and S.V. Mironenko.
Historians recalled that although Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna were not sinless people, in their lives and relationships there was no place for vulgarity, which is in the film script.
“There were different situations in their lives, and their activities are assessed differently by historians. There was only one thing missing - vulgarity and dirt. Namely, the author of the script passes off vulgarity and dirt of the lowest level as historical truth,” the MSU professors emphasize in their conclusion.
Commentary by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk in connection with the aggravation of public debate on the film “Matilda”
Moscow, September 14. The situation surrounding the film "Matilda", unfortunately, is reminiscent of the one that unfolded some time ago around the scandalous French weekly "Charlie Hebdo". Then they tried to put us all in a dilemma: are you with “Charlie” or are you with the terrorists who shot the editorial staff? Now they are trying to put us before a choice: either you support Matilda, or you are with those who call for burning cinemas.
But what about those who are not with some and not with others? For example, I unconditionally and categorically oppose any calls for violence, any threats against anyone, be it the director, actors, distributors, etc. I also oppose the ban on showing the film, and the revival of Soviet-style censorship. But at the same time, I just can’t and don’t want to take the side of those who defend this film.
Unlike most participants in the debate, I watched this film. Nowadays they say: if you haven’t seen it, keep quiet and wait until the film is released. And those who speak out against the film based on the trailer are accused of criticizing without having seen it. I expressed my opinion about the film not on the basis of the trailer, but on the basis of watching it full version. My opinion offended the director who invited me to the preview, but I could not bend my conscience. And I couldn’t keep silent either.
The discussion around the film involves the most different people and groups of people. But today there are thousands of letters expressing outrage. Many people do not understand why it was necessary, in the year of the centenary of the revolution, to once again publicly spit on a man who was shot along with his family and minor children. The anniversary of the revolution is an occasion for prayer and remembrance of the innocent victims, and not for continuing to spit on their memory.
Not to mention the fact that for the Church, Emperor Nicholas II is a passion-bearer, canonized. And the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, presented in the film as a hysterical witch, is also canonized. On Royal days At least one hundred thousand people gather in Yekaterinburg, who for five hours at night go in procession from the place of his execution to the place of his supposed burial.
I express the hope that in the year of the centenary of the tragic events that resulted in millions of victims for our people, there will be directors, writers and artists who will be able to pay tribute to the memory of the murdered Sovereign.
V.R. Legoyda: Orthodox believers cannot endanger people's lives and health
Moscow, September 11. Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media V.R. Legoida said that acts of violence associated with the film "Matilda" cannot come from religious people.
“Not only an Orthodox Christian, but also any believer would not think of expressing his disagreement with anything in a way that is dangerous to the life and health of innocent people,” said a representative of the Church.
“Whether it’s a cinema or cars in Moscow, all this speaks of spiritual or mental ill-health,” he added.
“The position of the Orthodox community, people who pray in connection with the release of the film “Matilda” or send appeals to those on whom the decision on distribution depends, and acts of demonstrative violence are phenomena from different moral galaxies,” emphasized V.R. Legoida.
“We have condemned, condemn and will condemn the actions of pseudo-religious radicals, no matter what religion they hide behind, because such actions are equally alien to the worldview of any believer,” concluded the chairman of the Department for Relations between the Church and Society and the Media.
A.V. Shchipkov: When expanding the boundaries of creative freedom, it is important not to step on what is sacred for others
Moscow, September 8. Speaking on the television show “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” on the Rossiya 1 TV channel, First Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media, member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Political Sciences A.V. Shchipkov noted that the absence of boundaries for freedom of creativity inevitably leads to trampling on the feelings of other people.
“We constantly discuss the boundaries of freedom. But it would be more correct to discuss another problem - the problem of the lack of borders. When we begin to discuss the absence of boundaries, our vision expands, we begin to say that the boundaries of what is permitted in art are endless, that it is impossible to draw boundaries,” said A.V. Shchipkov.
“If the boundaries in creativity and in art are endless, then they inevitably step on things that are sacred to other people,” he added.
The First Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media recalled that although the film “Matilda” does not pose a direct physical threat, its release on screens will cause a painful reaction from those who revere Tsar Nicholas II.
"Here, of course, we're talking about about a film that, in principle, cannot kill or maim anyone. But in fact it can, because we are talking about a person to whom a huge number of citizens of our country have a special relationship. When a creator, an artist begins to expand his boundaries of what is permitted, he steps on what is sacred for others,” concluded A.V. Shchipkov.
The Year of Cinema was solemnly closed at the Mariinsky Theater with the announcement of the most anticipated premieres, in the presence of top officials of the state.
The Chairman of the Union of Cinematographers said with tired wisdom that truth without love is a lie. The screen also showed footage from the film “Matilda” directed by Alexei Uchitel, the official premiere of which was announced for March 2017.
No one has seen the film yet, but almost everyone has heard about the scandal that broke out this fall. The two-minute trailer of the “main historical blockbuster” has already collected a quarter of a million views on YouTube and applications to the prosecutor’s office from offended citizens.
Emperor Nicholas II and the prima of the Imperial Theaters Matilda Kshesinskaya after the coronation, indeed, did not meet again. But the love of the crown prince and the famous ballerina is not only the plot of a blockbuster, but also a biographical fact.
Where is the artist’s right to fiction, and where is his responsibility to historical truth? The great poems of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, including “Boris Godunov,” not to mention Salieri, who was in vain accused of the murder of Mozart, could have been banned long ago by any investigative committee. But art, fortunately, goes to a different department.
In whose hands is the border marker here? Ignorant picketing? An enlightened expert? Internal censor? Arts Council?
Or maybe this is a public field for public discussion, in which opponents do not throw grenades at each other from warring trenches. Where does a different point of view include an indispensable respect for dissent?
How can you now speak on the razor's edge without hurting your opponent?
...They say that when Brodsky was tried for parasitism, Anna Akhmatova remarked with irony mixed with envy: “What a biography they are making for our redhead! It's like he hired someone."
How much box office success the resonant scandal surrounding the film will make for the future film—time will tell. I want to believe in a teacher with a capital T.
And the unholy saints will be in the same cinema...
Today " Russian newspaper"is taking, in general, an unprecedented step.
Two key figures in a high-profile public debate present their points of view without a single cut. Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov is opposed by the editor of the society department Elena Yakovleva, and the director Alexei Uchitel is opposed by the editor of the culture department Igor Virabov.
Read, decide for yourself whether to watch or not watch.
Fiction and deception
Text: Elena Yakovleva
Bishop Tikhon of Yegoryevsk: Why does our cinema celebrate the centenary of the revolution with the film “Matilda”? Photo: Sergey Bobylev / TASS
One of the most high-profile film premieres of next year promises to be the film “Matilda” by Alexei Uchitel. And one of the sharpest too. Letters are being sent to deputies and the Ministry of Culture demanding not to show the film, which again, according to an inescapable Soviet habit, tarnishes the image of the last Russian emperor. Many were frightened by the trailer for the future film, presenting it as a searing melodrama. The validity of these reactions is commented on by a member of the Presidential Council for Culture and Art, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) of Yegoryevsk.
Alexey Uchitel, a wonderful director, artist, not a hack, this is proven by both his films and film awards, chose for his new film the plot of the love of the last Russian emperor for the ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya. A true artist is free to choose any subject...
Bishop Tikhon: Who dares to challenge this? Of course, the artist is free to choose any historical subject. It is a thankless task to discuss a film that has not yet been released.
But spears are already being broken because of him.
Bishop Tikhon: No wonder: the film is released in early spring 2017, exactly on the centenary of the February 1917 coup. Hence the special interest. The coming year will inexorably confront us with the need to comprehend the grandiose civilizational catastrophe that occurred in Russia a hundred years ago. The events that took place then had a decisive impact on the lives of almost all people living in Russian Empire, in the Soviet Union, influenced the destinies of the whole world. Scientists, politicians, religious and public figures will look for answers to many questions related to this date. The same task will face art. Theatre, painting, music - they will all be called upon to contribute to the artistic, imaginative understanding of the causes and consequences of the Russian tragedy. As we see today, cinema will not remain on the sidelines. On such a symbolic anniversary, Russian cinema will be represented by the film “Matilda”, the only one, at least among the announced feature films, on this topic. The premiere date was chosen in advance and, of course, not by chance - March 2017: exactly the centenary of the coup and abdication of Nicholas II.
Hugs with Matilda, hugs with Alexandra... What is this - the author's vision? No - slander real people
Is a premature conflict brewing around Matilda?
Bishop Tikhon: In preparation for our meeting, I reviewed the discussion materials. Here’s what the film’s director, Alexey Uchitel, says: “They discuss and make some statements and write to the prosecutor’s office that no one saw anything, not a single frame. Therefore, when people try to express something, they must have a subject of conversation, but it does not exist.” But actually it is not. A few months ago, the creators of “Matilda” posted a trailer for the film on the Internet, and anyone can easily see not just “one frame,” but watch several excerpts from the most key scenes of the future film. So there is quite a subject for conversation. There is another most important subject on this topic - the real story of the relationship between Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich and Matilda Kshesinskaya.
What sources, including documentary ones, can tell us about this story?
Bishop Tikhon: Letters and diary entries, memoirs, reports of fiscal services. The heir and Matilda Kshesinskaya met in 1890 at a ballet school graduation. He was a little over twenty, she was 18. The girl falls in love with the crown prince, and he is ready to be carried away by her, if only to dispel the sadness of his father’s categorical refusal: Emperor Alexander III forbade the heir to even think about marrying the young German princess Alix, whom Nicholas fell in love with when she visited Russia a year ago. At first, the acquaintance of the Tsarevich and Kshesinskaya continues fleetingly: they meet either on the street or in the theater. Then Nikolai sails off on a long trip around the world, and upon returning, he meets Matilda, and their feelings flare up again. Nikolai called them the “brightest” pages of his youth. But by 1893 these relations became calmer, they were becoming less and less common. And when the girl whom the heir actually dreamed of marrying Princess of Darmstadt Alice agreed to the marriage, but Emperor Alexander III still agreed to it, Nicholas sincerely told Matilda about this. In 1894, all relations between Nicholas and Matilda were terminated. Forever. Although he still treated Kshesinskaya very warmly. They remained friends, and neither side made a tragedy out of the separation. We agreed that she would call him both “you” and Niki. He helped her in every possible way, but they never met alone again. The heir considered it his duty to tell the bride about Matilda. There is a letter from Alix to her fiancé, where she writes: “I love you even more since you told me this story. Your trust touches me so deeply... Will I be able to be worthy of it?” The love of the last Russian Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, amazing in the depth of feelings, fidelity and tenderness, continued on earth until their last martyrdom hour in the Ipatiev House in July 1918. That, in fact, is the whole story.
And, probably, there is nothing wrong with a talented director talking about her in his film.
Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich with his bride Princess Alice of Hesse. Coburg. April 20, 1894.. Photo: RIA Novosti
Bishop Tikhon: It would be good if that were so. The film by Alexei Uchitel claims to be historic, and the trailer is titled nothing less than “The Main Historical Blockbuster of the Year.” But after watching it, I honestly admit I can’t understand: why did the authors do it this way? Why touch on this topic in this way? Why do they force the viewer to believe in the historicity of the heartbreaking scenes of the “love triangle” they invented, in which Nikolai, both before and after his marriage, melodramatically rushes between Matilda and Alexandra. Why is Empress Alexandra Feodorovna depicted as a demonic fury walking with a knife (I'm not kidding!) towards her rival? Vengeful, envious Alexandra Fedorovna, unhappy, wonderful, magnificent Matilda, weak-willed Nikolai, rushing to one or the other. Hugs with Matilda, hugs with Alexandra... What is this - the author's vision? No - slander against real people. But that's not all. Why invent Nicholas's fainting during the coronation with his crown spectacularly flying off his crowned head? Is this a “subtle” hint of future upheavals? Why force Alexander III to utter a completely delusional, especially in his mouth, maxim that he was the only one of the Romanovs who did not live with ballerinas? Who is the slogan of the trailer that appears on the screen: “Love that changed Russia”? Complete idiots? Why, who do they want to fool with another masterpiece slogan: “The Secret of the House of Romanov”? What other secret? The whole of secular Petersburg knew about the relationship between the heir and Kshesinskaya. Should the centenary of the collapse of the dynasty be celebrated with a heartbreaking Hollywood melodrama? And by the way love triangle with explicit scenes? Despite the fact that a considerable part of our viewers will perceive the film, released in the year of the centenary of revolutionary upheavals, as real story Russia. And the main thing that is impossible to understand is: don’t the authors understand that all these vulgar falsifications will inevitably be exposed; the film will not be helped by either skillfully filmed spectacular scenes, or expensive sets and costumes, or foreign actors. Or are those who say: nothing personal, just business, right? I don't want to think like that.
But there is still no film yet...
Bishop Tikhon: The film was not released, and any objections against it are easy to restrain with the reminder of the shaming phrase: “I haven’t read Pasternak, but I condemn him.” But shouldn’t the trailer, as an author’s summary of the film, alert anyone familiar with Russian history? Not to mention how alarming this is to Orthodox people, for whom Nicholas II and his family are holy martyrs.
But the sovereign was not glorified for every scene of his life - for his martyrdom.
Bishop Tikhon: Yes, he is glorified for the path he has traveled since 1917. And this was the way of the cross - with five children, a wife and several relatives. It was for his courageous confession, for the kind of Christian he remained in the last year and a half of his life, that he was glorified in the Church.
So what, the Church will demand a ban on the film?
Bishop Tikhon: I am sure that this is an absolutely dead-end and wrong path. Not demands for prohibitions, but a warning about truth and untruth - this is the goal that can and should be set in connection with the upcoming wide screening of the film. If the film lives up to the trailer, it will be enough to simply talk widely about the real former history. Actually, that's what we are doing now. And then the viewer will decide for himself.
Vladyka, but you studied at VGIK and you understand that a good film is impossible without drama. And doesn’t the artist have the right to artistic invention?
Bishop Tikhon: But not for deliberate distortion. In a historical novel, “fiction is not deception,” Okudzhava convinced. In a work of art about historical figures, of course, the author's fiction, artistic, dramatic reconstruction of events is necessary. But if the artist is not deprived of elementary moral responsibility, he will not go beyond the boundaries of historical accuracy and will never turn history into its opposite. Deliberate distortion of history is either deception or propaganda.
Bishop Tikhon: Based on history, not contrary to it, not contrary to it. It's all a matter of taste and talent. Of course, you can take historical characters and make them do whatever the author wants. Kutuzov in the film adaptation of “War and Peace” can surrender not only Moscow, but also St. Petersburg. And Pugachev in the film based on “The Captain’s Daughter” will become Catherine’s lover. It just has nothing to do with art. Either it's called special genre— fantasy. Then the film should be labeled that way.
Film bans are an absolutely dead-end and wrong path. A warning about truth and untruth, that’s what’s important...
Have you told Alexey Uchitel about this?
Bishop Tikhon: Yes, I talked to him on the phone. He said exactly the same thing as you.
And what did he answer?
Bishop Tikhon: That the trailer and even the script are not yet a film. In this sense he is right.
Have you read the script?
Bishop Tikhon: The director gave me the script to read, but I promised him to refrain from commenting on the script.
Apparently, your position has not changed after reading the script?
Bishop Tikhon: I won't comment on the script.
When “Matilda” is released as a series, perhaps it would be worth accompanying each episode with a documentary film that would return the viewer’s historical consciousness to the correct perception?
Bishop Tikhon: I can't really imagine it. I think it's enough for people to know about the true story.
I watched a lot yesterday documentaries about the heir and Kshesinskaya - completely disgusting in tone and persistently convincing that the affair continued into the sovereign’s marriage. With comments from esotericists, dubious psychologists and others. And no one calls out the yellow TV channels for their vileness, but for some reason we are in a hurry to make claims against the undoubted artist.
Bishop Tikhon: Pseudo-documentary creations do not have much influence on the minds and souls of people; they do not attract as much attention. A big feature series is another matter.
The film stars an outwardly gorgeous Polish actress, a wonderful German director, Thomas Ostermeier, and an actor from his famous Schaubühne theater, Lars Eidinger. That is, in addition to a good director, the film had a wealthy producer.
Bishop Tikhon: The film is designed not only for domestic audiences, but also for international distribution. It was made according to the global, globalistic, Hollywood “laws of the genre.” I think that from a purely entertainment point of view it will be a spectacular, pompous picture.
Over the past 20 years, the State Hermitage has held many exhibitions abroad dedicated to Russian sovereigns. Mikhail Piotrovsky believes that this managed to largely change the views of the European establishment on the Russian tsars. They are no longer seen through anecdotes about Catherine’s lovers, but as people of high culture, with excellent taste, and historical power. Against the backdrop of such efforts, it would be a pity to again show the world the image of Nicholas II through a love triangle...
Bishop Tikhon: Nicholas II like no other for a hundred years recent years was discredited and slandered. People at the everyday level are accustomed to this. And they are latently ready to accept a new film about a completely insignificant, depraved last king who betrays his word and does not know the honor and loyalty. But all this again goes into the old basket - a strange state, a strange people, strange kings. It's a pity.
But the film hasn't come out yet.
Bishop Tikhon: That's where we started the conversation. It is a thankless task to discuss a film that has not yet been released. I know first-hand what it’s like to make a movie. This is a huge work of many people, and first of all the director. And it’s all the more offensive when the plan is initially based on a plot that can only be called historical bad taste.
IN Lately There are constantly reproaches against the Church that it demands to ban this or that performance or film, citing protests about insulting religious feelings. Famous actors and directors see this as a violation of creative freedom.
Bishop Tikhon: Activists are offended. The directors are outraged. The press warns society about new facts of interference of the Russian Orthodox Church in the sphere of freedom of creativity. Progressive society is indignant. At the Presidential Council on Culture and Art the issue of censorship is raised... It’s just some kind of drama. Stronger than Goethe's Faust. I just want to say: curtain!
But in reality, not everything is so simple in this performance.
Indeed, there were appeals against the showing of the famous rock opera in Omsk. But these protests were not made by the Russian Orthodox Church, but by one of the many thousands of public associations, unions, and brotherhoods operating today in our country. A group of Orthodox activists demands that this performance be filmed, it seems, in all the cities where the St. Petersburg Opera Theater comes on tour. Recently there were similar appeals, for example, in Tobolsk. They were reviewed and not satisfied. The Tobolsk diocese had nothing to do with the demands to cancel the performance. And in Omsk, according to the producer, the showing of the play was agreed upon with the metropolitanate. Anyway official representative of the diocese stated the following: “It is not the business of the diocese to regulate the repertoire policy of this or that theater. I only know that the confessor of the leading actor blessed him for this 30 years ago.” The chairman of the department for relations between the Church and society and the media, Vladimir Legoida, after the start of the media hype, reported through all news agencies that the Church does not support the demands to remove the play from the theater repertoire. And the producers informed that the performance in Omsk was canceled because only a little more than forty tickets were purchased for the thousandth hall. Last year, they said, the same performance was shown here in Omsk, although even then there were appeals from citizens asking for the cancellation of the performance. But the tickets sold out and the performance took place.
All this known facts. But only one thing can be heard everywhere: the Russian Orthodox Church demands that the play be filmed and is getting its way.
Recently, one priest from Armavir, remembering Vasily Zhukovsky’s editing of Pushkin’s fairy tale about Balda, where the priest was replaced by a merchant, published a brochure in the Armavir printing house with a merchant and without a priest in a circulation of four thousand copies. And then headlines appeared in dozens of media outlets, including central ones: “The Russian Orthodox Church is editing Pushkin!” And despite the fact that the head of the publishing council of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk, also stated through all news agencies that in this case this is the personal initiative of an individual priest and that the classics cannot be changed and edited even for the best purposes, journalistic statements that the Church has reached the point of complete insanity, so that Pushkin is also being altered, and they are joyfully dazzling to this day. This is our multi-part drama. It is obvious that its authors really like it. There are also enthusiastic spectators. So without a doubt - to be continued. But we have long been accustomed to this, so, as they say, take up the flag! As for the film, I'm sure, most likely individuals and groups, including Orthodox Christians, will demand its ban. I’ll say right away: we respect and understand their position. And we will encourage you to take it into account. But, I repeat once again, I consider the path of prohibitions to be a dead end. It is the business of the Church to prohibit and permit when necessary, in spiritual world. But not in a secular way. Including neither theatrical nor cinematic. But this does not mean that we will not openly express our beliefs.
What about Tannhäuser? After all, there was a protest from the official Church - the Novosibirsk Metropolis.
Bishop Tikhon: And not only a protest, but also a lawsuit was initiated based on the claim of the Novosibirsk Metropolis for an innovative variation on a theme by Wagner. In the production, no matter how much some theater critics fool us, the only “artistic find,” the goal and the center of attention was blasphemy against the image of Christ. Public hearings were held, then the Novosibirsk Metropolis filed a lawsuit in full accordance with the law. And she lost this trial.
But the performance was filmed.
Bishop Tikhon: This difficult, unpleasant and unprecedented decision of the Ministry of Culture should be assessed in the context of the subsequent bloody tragedy of Charlie Hebdo. As life has shown, this decision turned out to be correct and necessary prevention from irresponsible and extremely dangerous, especially in the conditions of our multinational and multireligious country, public experiments and provocations, which anyone wants to call creativity.
Little Matilda's Big Fears
Text: Igor Virabov
Director Alexey Uchitel: There can be no vulgarity - I guarantee it. We took on a serious work in every sense. Photo: Sergey Bobylev/ TASS
The story of Alexei Uchitel’s new film “Matilda” fell on my head unexpectedly. Actually, the film doesn’t exist yet, no one has seen it - it will be released in a few months. But someone already wants to attract him to such and such severity. For what? Because there's something wrong with the film.
The plot of the new film is connected with Emperor Nicholas II and ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya. What is historical truth? What is artistic truth? And how, in the end, should we deal with Pushkin: Salieri did not poison Mozart, and Italian descendants not so long ago threatened to bring “our everything” to trial. Is it really time?.. In short, we had something to talk about with Alexei Uchitel
Why did you take on this film? Are you fascinated by the fate of the ballerina? But you have already filmed “Giselle Mania” with Galina Tyunina about the ballerina Olga Spesivtseva.
Alexey Uchitel: The story is quite long. It all started with Vladimir Vinokur - he suggested that I make a film about Matilda Kshesinskaya. His Foundation for the Support of Culture and Art is connected with ballet, his daughter Anastasia dances at the Bolshoi, his wife Tamara Pervakova is a former ballerina, and, as I understand it, she was the initiator of the film. And when they showed me the script written by Andrei Gelasimov, I said that simply filming the biography of Matilda Kshesinskaya was not so interesting to me.
He proposed to write a new script that would focus on the figure of Nicholas II - it seemed to me that this man, with all his contradictions, is not always correctly understood among us... The new script was called “Matilda”. It covers several years before the coronation of Nicholas II, with which, in fact, our picture ends.
And I wrote a new script...
Alexey Uchitel:...wonderful writer Alexander Terekhov. He largely set the tone of the future film. In such films it is always difficult - what is the extent of fantasy. Like all feature films, this picture is certainly impossible without connection historical facts and artistic invention.
How to connect them? They will scold me just by looking closely, is he really in love, is he kissing like that? But we are just showing a living person, with immediate feelings, what’s wrong with that?
What does “they will” mean? You’re already being scolded. Some even claim that the film is a “historical lie.”
I believe that “bloody” and “weak-willed” are not the fairest descriptions of Nicholas II
Alexey Uchitel: What is this “lie”? You know, recently there was an interesting discussion on the Rossiya 1 TV channel: what is a feature film? For example, Eisenstein’s film “October” - the storming of the Winter Palace is perceived by the audience as a documentary chronicle. Old films about Peter the Great, about Ivan the Terrible - in the viewer’s head the impression is left that everything was like that. But in fact, the directors, the filmmakers, brought a lot of their own.
Your picture is large-scale, so you had to bring in a lot of unique scenery and luxurious costumes...
Alexey Uchitel: Yes, I don’t want to brag, but today’s Russian cinema is not quite used to such large-scale filming. I'm proud of our artists. Surprisingly, even in Europe we did not find a pavilion that would be suitable in size for the construction of the set of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin - necessary for filming the coronation episode of Nicholas II, one of the key ones in our film. We found such a room at a former military plant in St. Petersburg. Amazingly, people, even random ones, looking in there, began to be baptized. Inside there is an absolute illusion that you are in a temple.
Although if you move a little to the side, you will see the back wall made of plywood. But the workers, when we started dismantling the decorations, refused: how could they raise their hand to the temple?! This is truly the magic of art.
Why such difficulties - you were allowed to film in the Kremlin, in the same Assumption Cathedral?
Alexey Uchitel: It was difficult, we were given three days to film, but imagine - there were 500 extras, a huge group, three days was physically not enough for what we had planned. The Kremlin, the access system, we have tons of equipment. Imagine: the extras were brought in at 6 in the morning, and only seven or eight hours later, at two o’clock in the afternoon, we went out onto the set with the actors. It was necessary to prepare five hundred people, all in historical costumes, in the episode there should be a lot of clergy, participants in the coronation, everyone had to put on beards, mustaches, and make-up.
Did consultants or church ministers help you?
Alexey Uchitel: Yes, we had several consultants in different areas - both in history and in church rituals.
There are a lot of crowd scenes in the film - was it difficult to choose among those who wanted to star in it?
Alexey Uchitel: I take extras very seriously, but here half of St. Petersburg came to us, of different ages, in the hundreds. They needed typical characters with a beard... They selected the clergy especially carefully.
Didn't the ballerinas line up? Is it true that Diana Vishneva wanted to star in the role of Kshesinskaya?
Alexey Uchitel: I consider Diana Vishneva the best ballerina both in our country and abroad. It’s just that these are different things - it’s great to dance or play a dramatic role... More than 300 actresses auditioned. We were forced to go into filming and shoot scenes not related to Kshesinskaya for the first two weeks. I hoped for a miracle - and it happened. A Polish actress arrived, she is 23 years old - and Kshesinskaya at the beginning of our film is also 23. They were just filming on the set of the Assumption Cathedral, and there was a wonderful German actor Lars Eidinger, who plays Nicholas II for us - we tried it, exchanged glances with him, and... Michalina Olshanska was instantly approved.
Don’t wait for questions: how is it possible, a film about a turning point Russian history, and you gave the main roles to a Polish actress and a German from the Schaubühne theater?
Alexey Uchitel: We even have two actors from Schaubühne. In addition to Eidinger, Louise Wolfram also plays Alix, the future Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, but she must be German. I did not set myself the goal of finding a specially German actor for the role of Nicholas II. The director - anyone, in Hollywood, in Europe or here, in cinema or theater - recruits an ensemble of actors. Not individual stars. It is important that there is some kind of chemistry and fusion between the actors.
The same Thomas Ostermeier, the director of the Schaubühne theater, stages performances with Russian actors, and no one sees a sin in this. Lars Eidinger was to play the German doctor, Dr. Fischel. He came to us to try out the costume and makeup, and I saw in the dressing room a man not just similar, but very similar to Nicholas II. He is a brilliant actor, “Hamlet”, “Richard III”, in which he plays, are fantastic performances...
Although the hopes that Lars would speak Russian, filming with us for many months, were not justified, the accent remained, and we had to re-voice it. So there will still be a voice Russian actor, I won’t say who, but one of the best.
It is known that the future Emperor Nicholas II communicated with Kshesinskaya from 1890 to 1894. “Little Kshesinskaya fascinates me positively,” he wrote in his diary. The little one also admitted: “I fell in love with the Heir from our first meeting.” After Nikolai and Alix’s wedding, their meetings stopped. But there are rumors that you have cast a shadow on an exemplary family man: you made a film about a love triangle, but there was no triangle.
Alexey Uchitel: The rumors are greatly exaggerated. Yes, he had a fiancée, however, he was very passionate about Matilda Kshesinskaya before the wedding. And after the wedding - and in our film - they no longer communicated. They could see each other, but there was no longer any relationship. On the contrary, after the wedding he cut off this story for himself. These are facts of history. What love triangle? We don't have it either.
The film's trailer has the slogan: "Love that changed Russia." And in the slogan, someone thought: you are reducing the tragedy of the country to a love affair.
Alexey Uchitel: Who imagined it? Some two organizations that no one had heard of before demanded that the prosecutor's office check us. The prosecutor's office checked and replied that from the point of view of the law, everything is in order. These are some kind of one-day organizations, they call themselves very pretentiously, but their letters, which were shown to us at the prosecutor’s office, for some reason all have the same text, all written as carbon copies. On “Russia 24”, a serious observer in the “Replica” section said that he managed to find out about these organizations. One is not registered anywhere, there are 4 people in it. And in the other, there is no one except the chairman.
As for the trailer, this is a product that is made by the distributor. I'm not denying it, and besides, it's made well. There will be three more trailers before the film's release. Yes, there is one kiss - so what, is it a provocation? In terms of explicit scenes, we have a picture for a kindergarten. There can be no vulgarity - I guarantee it. We took on a serious work in every sense. In addition to foreign actors, we have the best Russian actors participating. Garmash, Mironov, Dapkunaite, young Danila Kozlovsky, Grigory Dobrygin - if they saw vulgarity in the script, they would have sent me, and they would have done the right thing. And this love could really change Russia. The heir who overcame himself and had to make a painful choice...
In the history of the Romanov family, such a choice arose more than once. The grandfather of Nicholas II, Alexander II, having married, actually had a second family with Ekaterina Dolgoruka - this was not a secret...
Alexey Uchitel: In the same trailer, someone heard a phrase when Alexander III says to his son something like: “I am the only emperor who did not sleep with a ballerina.” But, firstly, this is taken out of context, and secondly, he says this as a joke. And thirdly, it’s not so far from the truth: maybe not a ballerina, but someone else. Although the story of grandfather Nicholas II was tragic.
In your opinion, could the story of the little ballerina Kshesinskaya seriously influence the fate of Russia? If Alexander III had lived longer, if he had suddenly agreed to a morganatic marriage, and Nicholas had renounced the crown? If he hadn’t been in such a hurry with the wedding - had he even shortened the mourning for his father by two days? Continuous “if only”...
Alexey Uchitel: It’s not just about the facts of personal life... By the way, when I made the film “The Diary of His Wife,” which was objectively a great success, I also heard: why are we digging through dirty laundry?! But how can it be that if Ivan Alekseevich Bunin, already sixty years old, falls in love with the young poetess Kuznetsova, and this turns his life upside down, dramatic events occur in the family, and yet against this background his same “Dark Alleys” arise. Why aren’t these secrets of the writer’s consciousness interesting?
During the filming of Andrei Rublev, Tarkovsky had the following ideas: to leave in the frame one of the characters with “Belomor” in his teeth. And the horsemen of the Horde against the backdrop of flickering power lines. But even without this hooligan mannerism, he was criticized from all sides for historical inconsistencies - and the film remained a masterpiece of world cinema.
Alexey Uchitel: I think we cannot lie about some fundamental things. There is a wedding, it happened before the coronation. There is a crash of the royal train, when many people died, and royal family was not injured, and Alexander III, being a physically powerful man, managed to hold the roof of the carriage so that the whole family could get out. This saved them, but, unfortunately, accelerated his death: a few years later he died... But at the same time, we can create, for example, officer Vorontsov, played by Danya Kozlovsky - his character is madly in love with Kshesinskaya. Yes, this is partly an invented character: there was an English officer who was madly in love with Kshesinskaya, abandoned his fiancée and tried to hang himself. All this helps the dramaturgy, the beginning and the end... So what do you think, could the ballerina Kshesinskaya appear at the coronation or not?..
One day, Alexander III, after a demonstration performance by graduates of the Imperial Theater School, in violation of court rules, ordered to be invited to a festive banquet and seated one of the girls next to Tsarevich Nicholas. The girl's name was Matilda. So why not, and appear at the coronation...
I would like “Matilda” to be seen as a picture about the fate of a holy martyr who lived a multifaceted and difficult earthly life in an era that required painful choices and difficult historical decisions
Alexey Uchitel:...I could. Through the same people who sympathized with her. She could not come into contact with Nikolai, but, on the other hand, this could have happened. The issue is controversial, but for me the main thing is to avoid aesthetic vulgarity. Fiction is possible when it helps to better understand the main characters of the picture.
It’s not for nothing that you cited the example of Tarkovsky and his “Rublev” - the artistic truth in it is stronger than some historical inconsistencies... Otherwise, how can you film bare facts?
In your film there is a scene of Khodynka - the same massacre after the coronation for which Nicholas was nicknamed “Bloody”. For many, Nicholas II remained the main culprit for what happened later to the country. Kind, but weak-willed - the result is a sea of blood. But you look at Nikolai differently...
Alexey Uchitel: Yes, I believe that “bloody” and “weak-willed” are not the most fair descriptions of Nicholas II. This man ascended the throne in 1896 and until 1913 - during 17 years of rule - he led the country, with the help of the people he gathered in power, to political, economic, and military prosperity. Yes, he had shortcomings, he was contradictory, but he created the most powerful Russia throughout its existence. It was the first in Europe, second in the world in finance, economics, and in many respects.
But not in terms of the level of well-being of the population - the vast majority of the country, alas, remained poor and illiterate. Also facts...
Alexey Uchitel: Yes, I agree. Although there is another side: thanks to Nicholas II, the first kindergartens and nurseries in Russia appeared. And there are many other wonderful facts. For example, Nikolai was the first film fan in Russia, the first to buy a projector, the first filming was in Russia at the coronation of Nicholas II... Just now, on December 2, in the Catherine Palace near St. Petersburg we opened a huge exhibition of costumes from the film “Matilda”. This is truly amazing. Nadya Vasilyeva, our artist, literally puts jeans on one of the characters - I say: what are these, what kind of jeans were they at that time? But it turns out that there were jeans, which were already in fashion then. Roller skates and motorcycles were already popular. Someone will look and say - oh, that's not true. And this is one hundred percent true. This is the Russia we don't know.
In 1981, Nicholas II was canonized as martyrs abroad, and in 2000, after lengthy disputes, he was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, as a “royal passion-bearer.” But, by the way, there was a TV series “Star of the Empire” - where Kshesinskaya’s romantic relationship with Nikolai did not bother anyone. Why did they attack you?
Alexey Uchitel: They showed me a photo - in St. Petersburg they were protesting against abortion and for some reason they were holding a huge banner: “Ban the film Matilda!” Why they connect this is a mystery.
It’s strange when in the church on Bolshaya Ordynka they hang a call on the wall to collect signatures against the film. I thought about going and talking to the rector, but he would say: this is what the parishioners want. I still want the film to be watched first, and then assessed as, I insist, a work of art.
But who has the right to evaluate a work of art? The state, they say, should help with money and step aside. The viewer, as someone uninitiated into the secrets of art, should not judge by rank. There is an opinion that only a narrow circle of initiates, “our own”, have the right to judge a work of art.
Alexey Uchitel: Of course, everyone can speak out. And film critics have their own relationships with authors, and they are not always objective. Look, there used to be artistic councils in both theaters and film studios. I remember the time when I worked in documentary films - and these artistic advice gave me a lot.
It’s true that you could have been ordered to remove this. Unfortunately. But there is another truth: colleagues, venerable, different, including the studio management, gathered there. Everyone spoke out—sometimes there were very heated debates, and much of it was useful. Now I won’t be able to gather ten directors and screenwriters, but I would be interested to hear their opinion even at the stage when the film is still being made. Now we are so divided that we are afraid to even show something to each other.
They say: censorship is not needed, the artist himself must be aware of his responsibility. What if he doesn’t realize? Should we still ban it?
Alexey Uchitel: It seems to me that everything within the framework of the law has the right to life. Although if we try to replace the law with the help of incomprehensible “associations,” we will get just a kind of censorship, despite the fact that it is officially prohibited by law... I asked the question: why not check what kind of people are behind such organizations, where they came from, why they come from judge? They have the right - but in what form? By not letting people into exhibitions, theaters or burning posters of our film? One thing is strange to me. Our project is completely open and has been in the works for several years. There were many publications, interviews, and television stories. Why didn’t anyone worry before, why now, when a lot of money was spent on the painting...
How big, by the way, are they?
Alexey Uchitel: Someone wrote: 25 million, but the amount is much less.
Did the state help?
Alexey Uchitel: There is government money, and quite a lot. The expert council read the script. Everyone was on the set, including the Minister of Culture. I don’t think the state can or wants to ban anything. The reception to the film so far is very good, and expectations are high.
What's going on with the film now?
Alexey Uchitel: It is currently in post-production. The dubbing and work with computer graphics are coming to an end. Our wonderful sound engineer Kirill Vasilenko, with whom I have been working since “The Diary of His Wife,” also works with the sound. The release is scheduled for March 30 next year, but... I want to do everything in time: to show it at a major festival, and for the film to be commercially successful. If the fate of the festival works out, the box office may somehow move forward.
By the way, two weeks ago the recording of the music was completed - its author, Marco Beltrami, a famous film composer in America. We recorded for four days with the Mariinsky Theater Orchestra, conducted by Valery Abisalovich Gergiev. I was afraid that he would come out, conduct for three minutes and say: what kind of nonsense did they sell me?
But on the first day, instead of three hours, they recorded four whole hours...
Tell me, as someone who has just made a historical film: does history teach us something?
Alexey Uchitel: On the one hand, it teaches. And I still perceive what is happening in relation to the film as a misunderstanding. On the other hand... in 1916-1917 they did not attach importance to provocations: they would make some noise and disperse. And what grew out of these provocations?.. What they want to ban today, in five years they may either be completely forgotten, or recognized as a masterpiece, a classic. As for “Matilda”... I want it to be seen as a picture about the fate of a holy martyr who lived a multifaceted and difficult earthly life in an era that required painful choices and difficult historical decisions.
