Konstantin Raikin, Artistic Director of the Satririkon Theatre, delivered a speech on censorship at the All-Russian Theater Forum. The speech caused a huge resonance, since Raikin actually spoke out against the struggle of officials for morality in art. Many congress delegates expressed full agreement with the artistic director of the Satyricon.
“In general, a lot of interesting things happen in the theater. And a lot of interesting performances. I think it's good. Different, controversial, beautiful! No, for some reason we want to again ... We slander each other, sometimes denounce - just like that, we slander. And again we want to the cell. Why in a cage again? "To censorship, let's!" Don't, don't! Lord, what are we losing and giving up conquests ourselves? What are we illustrating of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, who said: "Just deprive us of guardianship, we will immediately ask for guardianship back." Well, what are we? Well, is he really such a genius that he snitched on us a thousand years in advance? About our, so to speak, servility,” Raikin said.
He was also outraged by the closure of a number of events due to protests by activists:
“These, so to speak, raids on art, on the theater, in particular. These are completely lawless, extremist, impudent, aggressive, hiding behind words about morality, about morality, and in general with all sorts of, so to speak, good and lofty words: “patriotism”, “Motherland” and “high morality”. These groups of allegedly offended people who close performances, close exhibitions, behave very brazenly, to whom, in a very strange way, the authorities are neutral - they distance themselves. It seems to me that these are ugly encroachments on the freedom of creativity, on the prohibition of censorship. And the ban on censorship - I don’t know how anyone relates to this, but I think that this is the greatest event of secular significance in our life, in the artistic, spiritual life of our country ... This is a curse and a centuries-old shame in general for our national culture, our art - finally , was banned."
“I do not believe these groups of indignant and offended people, whose religious feelings, you see, have been offended. I do not believe! I believe they are paid. So it's a bunch of nasty people who are fighting in illegal nasty ways for morality, you see."
“And our unfortunate church, which has forgotten how it was persecuted, priests were destroyed, crosses were torn down and vegetable stores were made in our churches. She's starting to act the same way now. This means that Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy was right when he said that the authorities should not unite with the church, otherwise it would begin not to serve God, but to serve the authorities. What we are seeing to a large extent."
To counter these phenomena, Raikin called on people of culture to unite.
“It seems to me that now, in very difficult times, very dangerous, very scary; it looks very similar ... I won’t say what. But you understand. We need to unite together very strongly and very clearly to rebuff this.”
The Kremlin commented on Raikin's statement, pointing out that he confuses censorship and government orders.
“Censorship is unacceptable. This topic has been repeatedly discussed at meetings of the president with representatives of the theatrical and cinematographic community. At the same time, it is necessary to clearly differentiate those productions and works that are staged or filmed with state money, or with the involvement of some other sources of funding. When the authorities give money for a production, they have the right to designate this or that topic,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Peskov also noted that those works that appear without state funding should not violate the law: for example, incite discord or call for extremism.
There is an opinion that it was financing, or rather, its absence, that prompted the artistic director of the Satyricon to sharply criticize cultural policy.
So, on the eve of Raikin announced the threat of closing the theater due to financial problems. Now "Satyricon" rents temporary premises in connection with the reconstruction of the theater building, and all the money that the budget allocates goes to pay the rent. This funding is not enough for rehearsals, and the theater has been idle for half a year.
By the way, just six months ago, a real threat loomed over the theater, when in February a performance on the acutely social theme “All Shades of Blue” was staged on its stage. Deputy Vitaly Milonov did not keep himself waiting and called to check the statement on gay propaganda among minors. Milonov was not embarrassed by the fact that "18+" was indicated on the poster.
Comparing these facts, we can assume that Raikin "has nothing to lose": if the "Satyricon" does not receive funding and still closes, the authorities with their censorship will be to blame.
A video of Konstantin Raikin's speech went viral on the Web, causing a strong reaction from both famous people and ordinary users.
The president of the Night Wolves motorcycle club, Alexandra Zaldostanov, known as the “Surgeon,” criticized Raikin’s words, accusing him of “desire to turn Russia into a sewer.”
“The devil always seduces with freedom! And under the guise of freedom, these raikins want to turn the country into a sewer, through which sewage would flow,” Zaldostanov said.
He promised that he would defend Russian freedom from "American democracy", adding that "the Raikins would not exist in America, but we have them."
The Satyricon reported that now Konstantin Raikin does not intend to respond to criticism of his speech.
Soviet and Russian filmmaker Iosif Raihelgauz said in an interview with Life that "Raikin speaks because he can speak."
“I fully support him. He is an outstanding figure in modern theater. But he says, because today it does not threaten his life and health. To date, there are a lot of claims, but comparing the current president with the general secretaries of those times - Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov - is incomparable, ”said Reichelgauz.
Political observer Konstantin Semin also disagrees with Raikin, saying that he "does not see the ghost of 1937 on the horizon."
“All those “terrible” incidents related to the protest of citizens against exhibitions and performances that Raikin lists, after all, they cannot be recorded as an asset of the state power. It's not the government that bans pornography. It is not the government that eradicates pedophilia in art. It is not the authorities that imposed a moratorium on treacherous and anti-Soviet, Russophobic statements in the media. Moreover, we see that in the percentage of such statements, such “acts of art”, as the “creators” themselves like to call it in the public space, it only becomes more and more. This happens with the full connivance of the state. The state looks at this not exactly sympathetically, but certainly without indignation. Therefore, it is absolutely incomprehensible to me: where, in what place, Mr. Raikin spotted this very “ominous ghost of Stalinist censorship,” Semin said.
He also stressed that the patience of society is not unlimited, and when the abuse of common sense and deviations in art go beyond the limits, one should not deprive people of the right to indignation and indignation.
“Sometimes it turns into ugly antics, but these antics are no more ugly than the acts that provoked them,” the political observer is sure.
Writer Amiram Grigorov also commented on Raikin's speech on his Facebook page.
“I just want to note - “Kostya Raikin”, who for a long time, almost since the 90s, was not particularly heard, apparently, could not remain silent, not because he is so especially white tape or liberal - he is specifically a businessman and conformist, tightly friendly with the authorities under two regimes.
Despite the fact that he came out with all the kvash-akhedzhaks from one Red Banner incubator, he really did not make political statements to the public, because he did not need it - he has everything in general - both the theater, and the gesheft, and the patronage of the Moscow authorities, he definitely (just don’t go to a fortuneteller) has a share in Raikin Plaza, simply because this plaza was built on land transferred either at the end of the scoop, at the very end of the reign of the “great aggkady of Isakovich”, or later, during the Time of Troubles, theater, and the plaza there was obviously reclaimed not without a gesheft.
I am sure that this “talented T-shirt Kostya” would have kept silent in a hundred cases out of a hundred. But apparently they called. Apparently hinted at. They said that he was "stuffing the pgincipes of cogation." They noticed that after the "gevolution" he would not be gut - they would enroll in kobzons. And Kostya did tell us,” wrote Amiram Grigorov.
The artistic director of the Gogol Center Theater, Kirill Serebrennikov, commented on Raikin's words in an interview with the Dozhd TV channel:
“An absolutely brilliant speech: honest, emotional, I understand what he is talking about in every word. I know that some people disrupted performances at Raikin's, wrote denunciations and so on, it all started quite recently, and he knows what he is talking about. And here is this round table in the Public Chamber, where there was an almost open conflict between Konstantin Arkadyevich and the First Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Aristarkhov, who dared to teach him how to live and what a state is. They say: we are the state, and we will decide what the people need and what they don't need. Everything returns to the most miserable scoop.
I think that what he said will be supported and considered by a large number of people. Because many feel the censorship too and face a catastrophic decline in subsidies for culture if it is not propagandistic. There will always be money for propaganda. And there will be less and less for culture and art. When the state talks about the state order, it means precisely propaganda. What else will it order?"
Photo, video: youtube.com/user/STDofRF
Regarding Lenin's quote in relation to Raikin. I specially cite Ilyich's article from the furry year 1905, which is interesting not only because of the opinion about the freedom of creativity of some individualists.
PARTY ORGANIZATION AND PARTY LITERATURE
The new conditions for Social-Democratic work that were created in Russia after the October Revolution brought the question of party literature to the forefront. The distinction between the illegal and legal press—this is the sad legacy of serf-owning, autocratic Russia—is beginning to disappear. It hasn't died yet, far from it. The hypocritical government of our Prime Minister is still rampaging to the point that Izvestiya Soveta Rabochiy Deputatov is printed "illegally", but apart from disgrace for the government, apart from new moral blows to it, nothing comes out of stupid attempts to "prohibit" what the government interferes with. unable to.
Given the existence of a distinction between the illegal and legal press, the question of Party and non-Party press was resolved in an extremely simple and extremely false, ugly way. All the illegal press was Party-owned, published by organizations, conducted by groups connected in one way or another with groups of practical workers in the Party. The entire legal press was not party-oriented—because party membership was banned—but "gravitated" toward one party or another. Inevitable were ugly alliances, abnormal "cohabitations", false fronts; the forced omissions of people who wished to express party views were mixed with thoughtlessness or cowardice of thought of those who had not grown up to these views, who were not, in essence, people of the party.
Cursed time of Aesopian speeches, literary servility, slave language, ideological serfdom! the proletariat put an end to this vileness, from which everything alive and fresh in Rus' was suffocating. But the proletariat has so far won only half the freedom for Russia.
The revolution is not over yet. If tsarism is no longer strong enough to defeat the revolution, then the revolution is not yet strong enough to defeat tsarism. And we live in a time when this unnatural combination of open, honest, direct, consistent partisanship with underground, covert, "diplomatic", evasive "legality" is affecting everything and everywhere. This unnatural combination affects our newspaper as well: no matter how much Mr. Guchkov jokes about Social-Democratic tyranny, which forbids the publication of liberal-bourgeois, moderate newspapers, the fact remains nevertheless—the Central Organ of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, Proletary ", nevertheless remains behind the door of autocratic-police Russia.
After all, the half of the revolution compels us all to immediately set about a new establishment of business. Literature can now, even "legally," be in the Party. Literature must become party literature. In opposition to bourgeois mores, in opposition to the bourgeois entrepreneurial, mercantile press, in opposition to bourgeois literary careerism and individualism, "lordly anarchism" and the pursuit of profit, the socialist proletariat must put forward the principle of party literature, develop this principle and put it into practice as far as possible. complete and complete form.
What is this principle of party literature? Not only that, for the socialist proletariat, literary work cannot be an instrument of gain for individuals or groups, it cannot in general be an individual matter, independent of the general proletarian cause. Down with the non-party writers! Down with the superhuman writers! Literary work must become a part of the common proletarian cause, "wheel and cog" of one single, great social-democratic mechanism set in motion by the entire conscious vanguard of the entire working class. Literary work must become an integral part of organized, planned, united Social-Democratic Party work.
"Every comparison is lame," says a German proverb. My comparison of literature with a screw, of living movement with a mechanism, is also lame. There will even be, perhaps, hysterical intellectuals who will raise a cry about such a comparison, which belittles, deadens, "bureaucratizes" the free ideological struggle, freedom of criticism, freedom of literary creativity, etc., etc. In essence, such cries would only be an expression of bourgeois-intellectualist individualism. There is no doubt that literary work is least of all amenable to mechanical leveling, leveling, the dominance of the majority over the minority. There is no doubt that in this matter it is certainly necessary to provide more scope for personal initiative, individual inclinations, scope for thought and fantasy, form and content. All this is indisputable, but all this only proves is that the literary part of the Party work of the proletariat cannot be stereotyped with other parts of the Party work of the proletariat. All this by no means refutes the proposition, alien and strange to the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democrats, that literary work must necessarily and necessarily become a part of Social-Democratic Party work, inextricably linked with the rest. Newspapers should become organs of various party organizations. Writers must by all means join the party organizations. Publishing houses and warehouses, shops and reading rooms, libraries and various book dealers - all this must become Party-accountable. All this work must be monitored by the organized socialist proletariat, it must be controlled, all this work, without a single exception, must be brought in by the living stream of the living proletarian cause, thus taking away all ground from the old, semi-Oblomov, semi-merchant Russian principle: the writer pees, the reader reads.
We will not say, of course, that this transformation of literary work, defiled by Asiatic censorship and the European bourgeoisie, could take place immediately. We are far from the idea of advocating some kind of uniform system or the solution of a problem by several resolutions. No, schematism in this area is the least we can talk about. The point is that our entire Party, that the entire class-conscious Social-Democratic proletariat throughout Russia should be aware of this new task, clearly set it and undertake to solve it everywhere and everywhere. Having emerged from the captivity of serf censorship, we do not want to go and will not go into the captivity of bourgeois-merchant literary relations. We want to create and we will create a free press, not only in the police sense, but also in the sense of freedom from capital, freedom from careerism; – not only that: also in the sense of freedom from bourgeois-anarchist individualism.
These last words will seem like a paradox or a mockery of the readers. As! perhaps some intellectual, an ardent supporter of freedom, will cry out. As! You want the subordination of collectivity to such a subtle, individual matter as literary creativity! You want the workers to decide questions of science, philosophy and aesthetics by majority vote! You deny the absolute freedom of absolutely individual ideological creativity!
Calm down gentlemen! First, we are talking about party literature and its subordination to party control. Everyone is free to write and say whatever he pleases, without the slightest restriction. But every free union (including the Party) is also free to expel such members who use the firm name of the Party to propagate anti-Party views. Freedom of speech and press must be complete. But the freedom of association must also be complete. I owe you, in the name of freedom of speech, the full right to shout, lie and write whatever you like. But you owe me, in the name of freedom of association, to give me the right to make or break an alliance with people who say such and such. The Party is a voluntary union which would inevitably disintegrate, first ideologically and then materially, if it did not purify itself of members who preach anti-Party views. The party program serves to determine the boundary between the Party and the anti-Party, the tactical resolutions of the party and its rules serve, finally, the whole experience of international Social Democracy, of international voluntary unions of the proletariat, which constantly included in its parties individual elements or trends that are not entirely consistent, not entirely purely Marxist, not entirely correct, but also constantly undertaking periodic "purifications" of his party.
So it will be with us, gentlemen, supporters of bourgeois “freedom of criticism,” within the party: now our party is immediately becoming a mass party, now we are going through a steep transition to an open organization, now we will inevitably include many inconsistent (from a Marxist point of view) people, maybe maybe even some Christians, maybe even some mystics. We have strong stomachs, we are staunch Marxists. We will digest these inconsistent people. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget the freedom to group people into free associations called parties.
Secondly, gentlemen bourgeois individualists, we must tell you that your talk about absolute freedom is sheer hypocrisy. In a society based on the power of money, in a society where masses of working people are begging and a handful of the rich are parasitizing, there can be no real and real "freedom". Are you free from your bourgeois publisher, mister writer? from your bourgeois public, which demands from you pornography in novels and paintings, prostitution as a "supplement" to the "holy" theatrics? After all, this absolute freedom is a bourgeois or anarchist phrase (for, as a world outlook, anarchism is bourgeoisness turned inside out). It is impossible to live in society and be free from society. The freedom of a bourgeois writer, artist, actress is only a disguised (or hypocritically disguised) dependence on a bag of money, on bribery, on maintenance.
And we, socialists, expose this hypocrisy, tear down false signs, not in order to obtain non-class literature and art (this will be possible only in a socialist non-class society), but in order to hypocritically free, but in fact connected with the bourgeoisie , to oppose to literature a truly free, openly connected literature with the proletariat.
It will be free literature, because it is not greed or career, but the idea of socialism and sympathy for the working people that will recruit more and more new forces into its ranks. It will be free literature, because it will serve not the jaded heroine, not the bored and obese "top ten thousand", but the millions and tens of millions of working people who make up the color of the country, its strength, its future. It will be free literature, fertilizing the last word of the revolutionary thought of mankind with the experience and lively work of the socialist proletariat, creating a constant interaction between the experience of the past (scientific socialism, which completed the development of socialism from its primitive, utopian forms) and the experience of the present (the real struggle of the comrades of the workers).
Get to work, comrades! Before us is a difficult and new, but great and rewarding task - to organize a vast, versatile, diverse literary work in close and inseparable connection with the Social Democratic working-class movement. All Social-Democratic literature must become party literature. All newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, etc., must immediately take up reorganization work, for preparing such a situation that they will enter wholly, on one basis or another, into one or another party organization. Only then will "Social-Democratic" literature really become such, only then will it be able to fulfill its duty, only then will it be able, within the framework of bourgeois society, to break out of slavery to the bourgeoisie and merge with the movement of a truly advanced and to the end revolutionary class.
"New Life" No. 12, November 13, 1905 Signed: N. Lenin
Published according to the text of the newspaper "New Life"
We are printed according to: V.I. Lenin Complete Works, 5th ed., Volume 12, pp. 99-105.
PS. What, in my opinion, is the main thing in relation to the theme of freedom of creativity in this story.
1. It cannot be cut off from society and must take into account its interests, and the interests of not a narrow group of elites, but the broad masses of the people. Culture should be for the people, and not for the elite, since it should primarily contribute to the rise of people's self-consciousness and cultural education, and not please the bored "elite".
2. In the USSR itself, some of the given precepts of Ilyich on the topic of freedom of creativity were also fucked up, both in terms of attempts to control culture by purely administrative measures in isolation of the broad masses of the people, and in terms of flirting with noisy individualist creators who opposed themselves the interests of society.
3. Claims of hellish censorship on the part of modern creators are doubly ridiculous, since they want to receive money from state and non-state sponsors (since they are not financially independent, and from the point of view of market relations without third-party funding, the vast majority of creators are not competitive), but at the same time, they want to maintain the ability to stand in a pose. Because of this, cognitive dissonance arises when a noisy individualist creator demands absolute freedom of creativity and at the same time demands money from the state, which allegedly prevents him from expressing himself. In fact, they primarily depend on money, because without money you can’t put on a play or make a movie. But if he makes films and puts on performances for himself, completely ignoring the reaction of society to his work, then such a creator, in my opinion, is seriously cut off from real life (or pretends to be good) - the simplest reaction of the audience to a work they don’t like is throwing rotten vegetables at the unlucky ones " theater-goers" at a medieval fair.
The head of the Satyricon Theater, Konstantin Raikin, spoke sharply at the congress of the Union of Theater Workers of Russia, attacking state censorship and the actions of public activists aimed at protecting morality. Raikin was answered by Alexander Zaldostanov (Surgeon).
On October 24, during the congress of the Union of Theater Workers of Russia, the head of the Satyricon Theater, a well-known actor and director, made a resonant speech. His performance fell on the next anniversary of the birth of his famous father,.
In particular, Konstantin Raikin believes that there is censorship in Russia, and he especially dislikes the struggle of the state "for morality in art."
In his speech, he cited as examples the Lumiere Brothers Center for Photography in Moscow, as well as the cancellation of the play "Jesus Christ Superstar" at the Omsk theater.
Konstantin Raikin said that the public organizations that have achieved the cancellation of these cultural events are only "hiding behind" words about morality, patriotism and the motherland. According to Raikin, such actions are "paid for" and illegal.
The head of the theater "Satyricon" reminded his colleagues "of the guild solidarity" of artists, and urged "not to pretend that the government is the only bearer of morality and morality."
Konstantin Raikin. Speech at the Congress of the Union of Theater Workers of Russia
FULL TEXT of Konstantin Raikin's speech at the Congress of the Union of Theater Workers of Russia
Dear friends, I apologize to you that now I will speak a little eccentrically, so to speak. Because I'm from rehearsal, I still have an evening performance, and I internally kick my legs a little - I'm used to coming to the theater in advance and preparing for the performance that I will play. And somehow it is quite difficult for me to speak calmly on the topic that I want to touch on.
Firstly, today is October 24 - and the 105th anniversary of the birth of Arkady Raikin, I congratulate you all on this event, on this date.
And, you know, I’ll tell you this, that my dad, when he realized that I would become an artist, taught me one thing, he somehow put one such thing into my mind, he called it - workshop solidarity. That is, this is a kind of ethics in relation to those involved in the same thing with you. And I think it's time for us all to remember this.
Because I am very disturbed - I think, like all of you - by the phenomena that occur in our lives. These, so to speak, raids on art, on the theater in particular. These completely lawless, extremist, impudent, aggressive, hiding behind words about morality, about morality, and in general all sorts of, so to speak, good and lofty words: “patriotism”, “Motherland” and “high morality” - these are the groups of supposedly offended people, who close performances, close exhibitions, behave very impudently, to whom the authorities are somehow strangely neutral, distancing themselves. It seems to me that these are ugly encroachments on the freedom of creativity, on the prohibition of censorship.
And the ban on censorship - I don't know how anyone feels about this - I think that this is the greatest event of secular significance in our life, in the artistic and spiritual life of our country. In our country, this curse and shame in general on our national culture, our centuries-old art, has finally been banned.
Our direct superiors speak to us in such a Stalinist lexicon, such Stalinist attitudes, that you simply can’t believe your ears!
And what is happening now? I now see how the hands of someone are clearly itching to change this and return it back. And to return back not just in times of stagnation, but even in more ancient times - in Stalin's times. Because our direct superiors are talking to us in such a Stalinist lexicon, such Stalinist attitudes, that you simply can’t believe your ears! This is what representatives of the authorities say, my immediate superiors, Mr. Aristarkhov * talks like that. Although he generally needs to be translated from aristarchic into Russian, because he speaks a language that is simply embarrassing that a person speaks like that on behalf of the Ministry of Culture.
We sit and listen to it. Why can't we all speak together?
I understand that we have quite different traditions, in our theatrical business too. We are very divided, I think. We have little interest in each other. But this is half the trouble. The main thing is that there is such a vile manner - to rivet and sneak at each other. I think it's just unacceptable right now!
Guild solidarity, as my father taught me, obliges each of us, a theater worker, whether an artist or a director, not to speak badly about each other in the media. And in the instances on which we depend. You can be as creative as you want to disagree with some director, artist. Write him an angry text message, write him a letter, wait for him at the entrance, tell him, but do not interfere with the media, and make it the property of everyone, because our strife, which will definitely be, will be!
Creative disagreement, indignation is normal. But when we fill newspapers and magazines and television with this, it only plays into the hands of our enemies, that is, those who want to bend art to the interests of power. Small, specific, ideological interests. We, thank God, have freed ourselves from this.
Words about morality, the Motherland and the people, and patriotism, as a rule, cover very low goals. I do not believe these groups of indignant and offended people who, you see, have their religious feelings offended. I do not believe! I believe they are paid.
I remember. We all come from the Soviet regime. I remember this shameful idiocy. That's the reason, the only reason I don't want to be young, I don't want to go back there again, to that nasty book, to read it again. They make me want to read this book again! Because, as a rule, very low goals are covered with words about morality, the Motherland and the people, and patriotism. I do not believe these groups of indignant and offended people who, you see, have their religious feelings offended. I do not believe! I believe they are paid.
So it's a bunch of nasty people who fight in illegal nasty ways for morality, you see. When photos are poured over with urine - is this a struggle for morality, or what?
In general, there is no need for public organizations to fight for morality in art. Art itself has enough filters from directors, artistic directors, critics, audiences, the soul of the artist himself. They are the bearers of morality. There is no need to pretend that power is the only bearer of morality and morality. In general, this is not so.
In general, the government has so many temptations around it, around it, so many temptations that smart government pays art for the fact that art holds a mirror in front of it and shows in this mirror the mistakes, miscalculations and vices of this government. Here is a smart government pays him for this!
And the government pays not for that, as our leaders tell us, that: “And then you do it. We pay you money, then you do what you need to do.” Who knows? Will they know what to do? Who will tell us? Now I hear: “These are values that are alien to us. It's bad for the people." Who decides? Will they decide? They shouldn't interfere at all. They must not interfere. They should help art, culture.
There is no need to pretend that power is the only bearer of morality and morality. In general, this is not so. Actually, I think that we need to unite, I say again - we need to unite. We need to spit and forget for a while about our subtle artistic reflections in relation to each other.
I can dislike a certain director as much as I like, but I will lay down my bones so that they let him speak. I repeat the words of Voltaire in general, practically, because I have such high human qualities. Do you understand? In general, in fact, if not joking, then I think everyone will understand this. This is normal: there will be dissenters, there will be outraged.
For once, our theater workers meet with the president. These meetings are infrequent. I would say decorative. But still they happen. And there you can solve some serious issues. No. For some reason, here too, proposals begin to establish a possible boundary for the interpretation of the classics. Well, why would the president set this border? Well, why drag him into these things. He shouldn't understand it at all. He does not understand - and he does not need to understand. And in general, why set this limit? Who will be the border guard on it? Aristarkhov? Well, you don't need it. Let it be interpreted. Someone will be outraged - wonderful. What are we illustrating of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, who said: "Just deprive us of guardianship, we will immediately ask for guardianship back." Well, what are we? Well, is he really such a genius that he snitched about us a thousand years in advance? About our, so to speak, servility.
In general, a lot of interesting things happen in the theater. And a lot of interesting performances. Well, mass - I call when a lot. I think it's good. Different, controversial - great! No, we again for some reason want. We slander each other, sometimes inform, just like that, we slander. And again we want to cage! Why in a cage again? "To censorship, let's!" Don't, don't! Lord, what are we losing and giving up conquests ourselves? What are we illustrating of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, who said: "Just deprive us of guardianship, we will immediately ask for guardianship back." Well, what are we? Well, is he really such a genius that he snitched about us a thousand years in advance? About our, so to speak, servility.
I suggest to everyone: guys, we all need to clearly speak out on this issue - about these closures, otherwise we are silent. Why are we silent all the time?! They close performances, they close this ... They banned "Jesus Christ - Superstar". God! "No, it offended someone." Yes, offend someone, so what?
We all need to clearly speak out on this issue - about these closures, otherwise we are silent. Why are we silent all the time?! Close the performances, close this.
And our unfortunate church, which has forgotten how it was persecuted, priests were destroyed, crosses were torn down and vegetable stores were made in our churches. And she's starting to act the same way now. This means that Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy was right when he said that it is not necessary to unite with the authorities of the church, otherwise it begins not to serve God, but to serve the authorities. What we are seeing to a large extent.
And it is not necessary that: "The Church will be indignant." That is OK! Nothing! You don't have to close everything at once! Or, if they close, you need to react to it. We are together. Here they tried to do something with Borey Milgram in Perm. Well, somehow we stood on end, many. And put it back in place. Can you imagine? Our government has taken a step back. Being stupid, I took a step back and corrected this stupidity. This is amazing. It's so rare and atypical. But they did it. And we also took part in this - we got together and suddenly spoke out.
It seems to me that now, in very difficult times, very dangerous, very scary; it is very similar ... I will not say what, but you yourself understand. We need to unite together very strongly and very clearly resist this.
Once again, happy birthday to Arkady Raikin.
* Vladimir Aristarkhov - First Deputy Minister of Culture.
No less harshly answered Konstantin Raikin, the president of the Night Wolves motorcycle club, Surgeon ().
The president of the Night Wolves motorcycle club Alexander "Surgeon" Zaldostanov, in an interview with NSN, answered the head of the Satyricon Theater Konstantin Raikin, who called the activists of public organizations "a group of offended."
"The devil always tempts with freedom! And under the guise of freedom, these raykins want to turn the country into a sewer through which sewage would flow. We will not stand idle, and I will do everything to protect us from American democracy. Despite all the repression they spread around the world!" said the leader of the Night Wolves.
In his opinion, today Russia is "the only country that really has freedom."
"Raykins would not exist in America, but we do," said the Surgeon.
At the All-Russian Theater Forum STD held on October 24, the performance of the artistic director of the Satirikon Theater Konstantin Raikin caused the greatest resonance. In his emotional 10-minute speech, interrupted several times by applause, Konstantin Arkadyevich said that he was especially worried today, and in fact, he opposed even such a subspecies of censorship as the struggle of officials for morality in art. Later, many congress delegates said that they subscribed to Raikin's words and fully shared his position. "Teatral" gives this performance in full.
“Now I will speak a little eccentrically, because I’m from rehearsal, I still have an evening performance, and I internally kick my legs. I’m used to coming to the theater in advance and preparing for the performance that I will play. which I want to touch on. Firstly, today is October 24th - the 105th anniversary of the birth of Arkady Raikin. I congratulate you all on this date. And, you know, I will tell you this: when my father realized that I would become an artist, he taught me one thing. He put into my mind an important thing called guild solidarity. That is, it is ethics in relation to colleagues doing the same thing with you. And, it seems to me, now is the time for us to remember about it.
I am very disturbed (I think, like all of you) by the phenomena that occur in our lives. These, so to speak, "attacks" on art and theater in particular. These are completely lawless, extremist, impudent, aggressive [statements], hiding behind words about morality, about morality and in general with all sorts of good and lofty words: “patriotism”, “Motherland” and “high morality”. These groups of allegedly offended people who close performances, close exhibitions, behave impudently, towards whom the authorities are somehow very strangely neutral - they distance themselves from them ... It seems to me that these are ugly encroachments on freedom of creativity, on the prohibition of censorship. And the ban on censorship (I don’t know how anyone feels about this) is the greatest event of secular significance in the artistic, spiritual life of our country ... In our country, this curse and the centuries-old shame of our culture, our art, was finally banned.
And what is happening now? I see how obviously itchy hands of someone to change everything and return it back. Moreover, to return us not just to the times of stagnation, but even to more ancient times - to Stalin's times. Because our bosses talk to us in such a Stalinist lexicon, such Stalinist attitudes, that you just can't believe your ears! This is what representatives of the authorities say, my immediate superiors, Mr. Aristarkhov (First Deputy Minister of Culture. - “T”) talk like that. Although it generally needs to be translated from Aristarchic into Russian. It's just a shame that a person speaks like that on behalf of the Ministry of Culture.
We sit and listen to it. Why can't we all speak together?
I understand that we have different traditions in theatrical business. We are very divided. We have little interest in each other. But this is half the trouble. The main thing is that there is such a vile manner - to rivet and slander at each other. I think this is simply unacceptable! Guild solidarity, as my father taught me, obliges each of us, a theater worker (whether an artist or a director), not to speak badly in the media about each other and in the instances on which we depend. You can be as creative as you want to disagree with some director, artist - write him an angry text message, write him a letter, wait for him at the entrance, tell him. But there is no need to interfere with the media and make it available to everyone. Because our feuds, which will definitely be, creative disagreement, indignation - this is normal. But when we fill newspapers and magazines and television with this, it only plays into the hands of our enemies. That is, those who want to bend art to the interests of power. Small concrete ideological interests. We, thank God, have freed ourselves from this.
I remember: we all come from the Soviet regime. I remember this shameful idiocy! That's the reason, the only reason I don't want to be young, I don't want to go back there again. And they make me read this vile book again. Because, as a rule, very low goals are covered with words about morality, the Motherland, the people and patriotism. I do not believe these groups of indignant and offended people, whose religious feelings, you see, have been offended. I do not believe! I believe they are paid. So it's a bunch of nasty people who fight in illegal nasty ways for morality, you see.
When photos are poured over with urine - is this a struggle for morality, or what?
In general, there is no need for public organizations to fight for morality in art. Art itself has enough filters from directors, artistic directors, critics, audiences, the soul of the artist himself. They are the bearers of morality. There is no need to pretend that power is the only bearer of morality and morality. This is not true. In general, there are so many temptations in power! There are so many temptations around it that smart power pays art for the fact that art holds a mirror in front of it and shows in this mirror the mistakes, miscalculations and vices of this power. Here is a smart power for IT pays him. And the authorities are not paying for this, as our leaders tell us: “We pay you money, you do what you need to do.” Who knows? Will they know what to do? Who will speak to me? Now I hear: “These are values that are alien to us. It's bad for the people." Who decides? Will they decide? They shouldn't interfere at all. They should help art, culture.
Actually, I think that we need to unite. We need to spit and forget for a while about our subtle artistic reflections in relation to each other. I can dislike a certain director as much as I like, but I will lay down my bones so that they let him speak. This is me repeating the words of Voltaire in general. Practically. Well, because I have such high human qualities. Do you understand? In general, in fact, if not joking, then I think everyone will understand this. This is normal: there will be dissenters, there will be outraged.
For once, our theater workers meet with the president. These meetings are infrequent. I would say decorative. But still they happen. And there you can solve serious problems. No. For some reason, here too, proposals begin to establish a possible boundary for the interpretation of the classics. Well, why would the president set this border? Well, why is he in these cases ... He should not understand this at all. He doesn't understand, and he doesn't need to understand. And in general, why set this limit? Who will be the border guard on it? Aristarkhov… Well, don’t… Let them interpret it… Someone will be outraged – great.
In general, a lot of interesting things happen in the theater. And a lot of interesting performances. I think it's good. Different, controversial, beautiful! No, for some reason we want to again ... We slander each other, sometimes denounce - just like that, we slander. And again we want to the cell. Why in a cage again? "To censorship, let's!" Don't, don't! Lord, what are we losing and giving up conquests ourselves? What are we illustrating of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, who said: "Just deprive us of guardianship, we will immediately ask for guardianship back." Well, what are we? Well, is he really such a genius that he snitched on us a thousand years in advance? About our, so to speak, servility.
I suggest: guys, we need to speak clearly on this matter. Regarding these closures, otherwise we are silent. Why are we silent all the time? Shows are closed. Banned "Jesus Christ Superstar". God! "No, it offended someone." Yes, offend someone and what?!
And our unfortunate church, which has forgotten how they persecuted it, destroyed priests, tore down crosses and made vegetable stores in our churches, is starting to act by the same methods now. This means that Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy was right when he said that the authorities should not unite with the church, otherwise it would begin not to serve God, but to serve the authorities. What we are seeing to a large extent.
And do not be afraid that the church will be indignant. That is OK! You don't have to close everything right away. Or, if they close, you need to react to it. We are together. Here they tried to do something with Borey Milgram in Perm. Well, somehow we stood on end and put him back in his place. Can you imagine? Our government has taken a step back. Being stupid, I took a step back and corrected this stupidity. This is amazing. It's so rare and atypical. We did it. Gathered together and suddenly spoke out.
It seems to me that now, in very difficult times, very dangerous, very scary ... It is very similar ... I will not say what. But you understand. We need to come together and fight back very clearly."
Note that the press secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov commented on Konstantin Raikin's statement on censorship. "Censorship as such is unacceptable. This topic has been repeatedly discussed at meetings of the president with representatives of the theater and cinema community," he said.
Peskov recalled the difference between productions created with public money and those created with the involvement of other sources of funding. According to the press secretary of the president, when allocating funds, the state has the right to designate a theme. "This is not censorship, it should not be confused with a government order," he stressed. The main thing is not to violate the main provisions of the current legislation, Peskov noted. As an example, he cited the topic of extremism, writes Gazeta.Ru.
Also, the statement of Konstantin Raikin was commented on by the leader of the "Night Wolves" Alexander Zaldostanov. "The devil always seduces with freedom! And under the guise of freedom, these Raikins want to turn the country into a sewer through which sewage would flow," he said. In an interview with NSN, the biker stressed that he would do everything to protect Russia from "American democracy."
The artistic director of the Satyricon Theater Konstantin Raikin, speaking at the congress of the Union of Theater Workers of Russia, spoke harshly about censorship and the state's struggle for morality, urging colleagues in the creative workshop to protect exhibitions and performances from "groups of offended"
Global Look Press
"We are very disunited, it seems to me. We are quite little interested in each other. But that's not so bad. The main thing is that there is such a vile manner - to rivet and slander each other," Raikin said.
Separately, the artistic director of "Satyricon" touched upon the topic of recurring "assaults on art", noting that he personally considers the ban on censorship "the greatest event" in the life of the country. In addition, Raikin expressed concern that the authorities are distancing themselves from those people who are in favor of closing exhibitions and canceling performances.
“These groups of allegedly offended people who close performances, close exhibitions, behave very brazenly, to whom the authorities are somehow very strangely neutral, distance themselves. It seems to me that these are ugly encroachments on freedom of creativity,” Raikin continued.
“I don’t believe these groups of indignant and offended people, whose religious feelings, you see, are offended. I don’t believe! I believe that they are paid for. So these are groups of vile people who are fighting in illegal vile ways for morality, you see,” - emphasized the director.
He urged his colleagues "not to pretend that the government is the only bearer of morality and morality." According to Raikin, public organizations should not apply for this role either. The director emphasized that there are enough filters in art in the form of "artistic directors, critics, the soul of the artist himself."
Guild solidarity, according to Konstantin Raikin, obliges each theater worker not to speak badly about each other, and also not to speak badly about each other in the instances on which they depend.
Instead, he called on his colleagues to "speak clearly" about a number of high-profile episodes related to the closure of performances and exhibitions in Russian cities. “Why are we silent all the time? They close performances, they close it ... They banned Jesus Christ Superstar. Lord!” Raikin exclaimed.
He also expressed the opinion that the church had forgotten about the times when it itself was "poisoned, priests were destroyed, crosses were torn down and vegetable stores were made in our churches," and is now beginning to act "by the same methods."
“It means that Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy was right when he said that power should not be united with the church, otherwise it begins not to serve God, but to serve the power. What we observe to a large extent,” Raikin concluded.
