Pavel Lungin. Photo from personal archive
— We are presented with the pious images of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the wisdom and magnificence of Stalin. What happens to the attitude towards Russian history, which we seem to have not studied? As if some kind of shift had taken place, we are told, with all the severity of the Criminal Code, how one or another event, this or that figure, like Grozny, Nicholas I, Stalin, Malyuta Skuratov …
— The problem is that now you don't need to order anything, they themselves understand everything, without words. And the intelligentsia is already talking to such a degree, including the attitude to history … And already all and sundry have said that history is being rewritten. History is indeed being rewritten. This is a favorite Russian tradition. Even in the time of Ivan the Terrible, monks and chroniclers were gathered — they checked what they wrote, and they blotted out what was not allowed. The attitude to history as an artifact to be worked on, censored, painted, inscribed or blotted out has long been in Russia, especially under Soviet rule.
— And not only here. Another common phrase is that history is rewritten by winners.
— It's hard to understand who is the winner. In fact, if you take France or Italy, did they win or lose? In general, everyone won and everyone lost. There are no and cannot be winners in life, if only because it ends in death. If someone had found eternal life by disfiguring history … There were attempts, but fortunately, this is impossible.
Rewriting history rather has a symbolic meaning, it’s not a real interest in the legends of deep antiquity. Because young people don't know history at all. Ask, they will tell you that Peter I lived in the XII century, Lenin won the Second World War … But there is a request for a sign, a symbol — you need to create a gallery of victorious historical figures. And by their example, show that modern Russia fits into the naturally developing image of great Russia. That we are a link, a natural element, and maybe even the top of this chain. And there can be no weak links, losses, concessions in this strong chain. So it is and so it will be.
That is, a modern revision of history is an attempt to capture not even today, but the future. «Today» has already been captured and everything is in order.
And the colored story rests against the future and proclaims: «It will be so, because it was so!»
— Isn't it strange to rewrite the canonical life of Metropolitan Philip, whom he did not seem to have killed, as it suddenly turned out, Skuratov.
— Hearing this discussion, I was shocked. It is curious that this was not the case under Stalin. Although then they could have been imprisoned, shot, killed. Now it seems that there are no such direct dangers, but the general atmosphere is such that people break down. As if some kind of force throws up: Archpriest Tsypin did not have time to think or freeze … I don’t even think that he managed to run to the Patriarch. He said. You know, like the excellent students in the first class, devouring the teacher with their eyes. As soon as she says something, they jump up straight from the chair: “Let's do it, Maryivanovna! As you say! Wipe the board? Dictate! «
— By the way, Patriarch Alexy at one time categorically refused to canonize Grozny.
— Alexy refused — well, you can't canonize a murderer. And the old pre-revolutionary Russia did not argue with the fact that Ivan the Terrible is a murderer. And the great historians, starting with Karamzin and beyond, also threw a detour into the future, saying that this is impossible, this should not happen again. In this sense, no one loved Grozny, except for some individual communists for some reason.
— Stalin admired the «great and wise ruler» Grozny.
— So he is «a single communist.» It is curious to see how people are inspired by this desire — to please.
— Something will be heard from above and …
— They won't even hear, the shadow flew by, the moth flashed, the fly buzzed, and the person, losing face, is in a hurry to guess. Amazing plasticity.
Pavel Lungin. Photo: Press Service of the A. Tarkovsky Film Festival / TASS
— In a hurry to become the first student. Tell me, maybe there is a utilitarian rhyme here to justify what is happening? How demanded the Stalinist maxim sounds: «The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible was that he stood on the national point of view and did not let foreigners into his country, protecting the country from the penetration of foreign influence.» And today it is necessary to justify the oprichnina, explaining its progressiveness.
— Of course. But there were oprichnina everywhere. Everyone repeats that Belarus exists on the strength of Russia. And in my opinion, Belarus lives on the strength of its oprichnina. We see the same «Belarusians» in Latin America, the same «Belarusians» were in Haiti under François Duvalier, and in many African states. I want to say that this is some kind of natural twist: if you go along the line of fear, suppression, then the oprichnina always appears. And, unfortunately, such a state can exist for a long time. Although Ivan the Terrible, as we know, destroyed the oprichnina …
— And cruelly. And the rippers paid with their lives, like the Stalinist murderers.
— Everything is cruel. Stalin also straightened out, but in a different way, more technologically, layer by layer, first the top layer, a new one growing from below. And he, like Michurin, took off crust after crust.
Photo: Vlad Dokshin / «New»
— Mostly fertile layers, I wanted to get to the bottom of lifeless clay.
— Grozny was a madman. He was devoured by eternal fear … However, Malyuta Skuratov was not repressed, honestly died from wounds during the Livonian War.
— Karamzin in paints described Skuratov's raids on the possessions of the boyars who fell into disgrace, after which he “captured their wives and daughters for desecration,” his cruelty in torture. And the people said about him: «The tsar is not so terrible as his Malyuta.» During the Novgorod campaign of the tsar, judging by the preserved documents, he tortured more people than died during the very capture of the city by the troops. And is this emblem of fear needed again?
— It seems to me that everything is similar, but nothing repeats itself. I took up Ivan the Terrible when I accidentally came across this conflict of confrontation between the tsar and the metropolitan, and even saw Mamonov's profile during the filming of «The Island», his inner sparkling … I saw this medieval personality in him. I must say that Mamonov is himself a phenomenon from another time.
— In the film «Tsar» he sometimes looks like a restless bird of prey. And the tension of the picture rests on the opposition of Grozny (Peter Mamonov) and Metropolitan Philip (Oleg Yankovsky), despotism and humanity.
“But at the same time, Grozny, in his own way, is a devout believer. This clash of two faiths, their irreconcilable conflict amazed me: the government and the church clashed there. Because Philip was also firm in his ideas and beliefs. I wanted to show that when the government takes itself for God, believing that it can change everything: day — night, the course of history, then evil comes inevitably.
Faith in decency, spiritual strength is not enough, we need some more powerful support to resist this onslaught of human power, which is climbing to heaven.
Ready to take the place of God.
— Grozny called himself the «abbot of all Russia.» By the way, after the release of the film, which literally in the first days raised a million dollars, you got it from the czarist people, from the nationalists, from the Orthodox historians. They wrote to the president, demanded to ban the film.
— Well, it’s not scary, then it wasn’t as rotten as it is now. Another thing struck me. Most of the viewers nevertheless sided with the authorities, choosing in this conflict not a victim, not Philip, but force. Tsar. This says a lot about the inner aspirations of the people.
— By the way, I was in the «amusement park» — torture machines recreated by your decorators in Suzdal. Impossible to forget. Alas, today not only the pious Grozny, but little by little, many topics are sacred. First of all, the war, its reasons, victory. And now the Federation Council supports the idea of Prosecutor General Krasnov to equate the justification and propaganda of Nazism with extremist activity. Why are these initiatives alarming?
“I don’t know, no one knows yet. Everyone feels that it is dangerous to analyze, to arrange discussions on a whole range of topics.
Photo: RIA Novosti
— Including thinking about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, about the number of victims, about the number of Panfilov's men. All of these topics are practically taboo.
— Imagine the chaos of the subway … First you ride in a carriage in the dark, then suddenly for a second the light — it's so good, the doors open, you can even get out. Then the doors are closed, whoever is left drives on into the darkness. Those who are on the platform, in the crowd, also do not immediately understand where to go. Suddenly, in this chaos, an escalator is found. You seem to be going. But it is not for you to choose the direction, it is impossible to run downward, because those who go up will trample you. Why are people worried now? There was a feeling that the escalator started working and was dragging us somewhere. And starting from some fifth, tenth lantern, there are talks about the war. And behind the conversations there is a war.
— But the escalator mechanic will say that you are being taken to the light, to freedom.
— But it is clear that the free, albeit chaotic, movement is over. And we understand why they talk about war: we do not have so many victorious symbols.
— They would have taken and thrown all their inexhaustible forces into space.
— Well, space is terrible, it's cold there … It is obvious that space is not for people …
— And the war for the people?
— Alas. Beginning with the Trojan or even with the fights of gangs of monkeys — an eternal theme. We know that there is some kind of internal need for war; we remember Fukuyama's famous statement about war as the greatest force that allows us to preserve political autonomy and assimilate the technologies of our enemies. But … There is no such feeling that they want war. It seems to me that now there are wars, all these confrontations are lived out rather virtually, no one puts on, so to speak, an armor, does not take a gun …
— Well, if not for the bombing, they would not fire at living people.
— And yet the war is acquiring some digital or theatrical character. Sometimes they resemble performances to cheer up the spirit of the nation … This, by the way, was described by the Strugatskys, Sorokin, Pelevin. Such half-invented ideological wars are necessary to educate the people, to keep them in check. Look, the more time passes, the more these two different writers turn out to be predictors in different ways, and their texts are prophetic. If Sorokin rather kamla, like a shaman, takes us to the near future, then with Pelevin you fly somewhere far, into the world of digital drug trips, but which are also carried out. Once again I think about how shortsighted is the opinion of the intelligentsia, who scornfully brushes aside their books: “Is this literature? What is this about? «
— The current creeping wars are not so much virtual as hybrid. The word «hybrid» has suddenly become a key word for today. Our whole life is hybrid: it seems like you can't travel, but you can. It seems we are not fighting, but shooting.
— Apparently, we are entering some kind of new culture. There are such civilizational faults. One of them was at the beginning of the 20th century, because an abyss arose between the 19th and 20th centuries. As in the era when Africa moved away from Eurasia … Giant tectonic shifts. And it all starts little by little. First, one plate, the second … Then suddenly magma boiled, and already another life began. I don’t know, we can say that we were “lucky”: we got into this rift. And only people gifted with some special providence understand what is happening. Or maybe they don't understand. Because we are on the verge of a new era, culture. And maybe the most correct thing now is to think about preserving yourself, your «I», not to succumb to these artificial social hysterics. Here's how to do it? To remain oneself and to survive is a big difficult task.