Terminology of cultural life has suddenly replenished with names and concepts about which have strongly forgotten since high school or film high school to whom as to me, it was possible to study in it. It seems, these names and concepts have hopelessly become outdated and seriously to accept them today begins nobody. However from repetition " bewitched words " in air something aloud changes.
in VGIKe was not bolshego curses, than " the code of Hejsa " according to definition of the leading teacher of cinematology faculty, " the false, hypocritical law of the American society impregnated with double bourgeois morals ". But times change, and the former enemies, without knowing that, become friends. Costed to the present president of the country, obviously, on navodke the unfair expert from a near circle to mention a name of Hejsa with its ethical code as the same film experts have disdained covenants of the alma mater VGIKa also have begun to argue that the code of Hejsa was not too bad. The code text is reproduced in the newspaper of the Union of cinematographers of the Russian Federation " SK News " and in the same place it is offered to carry out among members of the union public hearings on this question so that, probably, to adopt valuable Hollywood experience.
the acceptable code of Hejsa was born on a boundary 1920 - 1930 - h years in atmosphere of Great depression, and has died a natural death in 1968 - m, on peak of youth movement of the protest, has definitively been buried under a building of New Hollywood 1970 - h. The law has fulfilled the: the films subsequently recognised as national pride and property became its direct victims (we name at least " the Great dictator " Charlie Chaplin and " Spartak " Stanley Kubrika). Well Hejs with them, with Americans. Does not pass also half a century from cancellation of the archaic law as old man Hejs who for a long time has died in boze, suddenly gets out of a tomb and substitutes a shoulder to the Russian colleagues - to cinematographers. It with nostalgia remember on the governmental advice on cinematography and more recently again at a meeting in the Union of the cinematographers, taken place as the curtain fell MMKF.
Stanislav Govorukhin, after Vladimir Ilichom called intelligency a nation shit, calls now this rotten substance for voluntary moral restrictions. And that have not thought, as if appeals proceed only from directors of pension age, on a proscenium the group of the young bestowals too grieving for moral eminence is let out. On behalf of these pure hearts, graduates of film schools, addressed to Nikita Mikhalkov the letter has arrived (now after all time of collective letters) with the requirement has again come to put a barrier to a floor-mat and a seamy side, simultaneously having opened green street kind, highly moral " To positive cinema " which in every possible way rub clean, do not start up on festivals and it is malicious do not award awards. To name the names (and also names of those who him prevents to create) podpisantam have not allowed " totalitarian democracy and liberal dictatorship " still a couple of the samples of verbal balancing act revived from a non-existence. But then the fear has released, and some surnames not consent nevertheless have been published; probably, we will meet their carriers in the near future when the next financial tranche on film production will go.
the catalyst of the letter the award fact at the Cannes festival of the main prize of competition of student`s works to a film of Taisii Igumentsevoj " became abundantly clear; Road on... " (it is then awarded as well on " a Kinotavr ") . Well how not to be indignant: the tragicomic short story about the restless guy whom that evening leaves in pure a field in the middle of new buildings and loudly swears fair at the people, not only represented Russia at the largest festival of the world, but also has got the main award. In it and infantile authors of the letter, and standing up for them mature muzhi see acknowledgement of that " for a seamy side about the dying Russia so thirst to see in Europe ".
Alas, business is even worse. In Europe at all do not thirst for anything to see about Russia, just as about France or Germany. As, even despite some exotic features and gravitation to dictatorship (completely not liberal), it, Russia, is considered more or less normal, more or less bourgeois country. And the norm is not too interesting to art, and interest moves from territory of the country to area of internal human life which does not cease to be tragic even if it resides in smart apartment in the centre of Paris as heroes of a film " Love " Michael Haneke, twice a triumpher of the Cannes festival.
if to judge from the regional geographic point of view, both same Haneke, and its compatriot Ulrih Zajdl show the native land Austria, and Europe in whole, in such ugly kind that mum expensive. And Finland Aki Kaurismjaki inspires no more optimism. And England Ken Loucha. And if to leave from Europe... Will watch a film " Pishote " Ektora Babenko heading jury of last MMKF. Customs of the Brazilian colony for minors under a sensitive management of police are capable to enter into shock of the most tempered spectator, and it is difficult not to see in it " an image of the country ". Why - that the international festivals, without asking the permission local chiefs, such films suffice, without caring at all of performance by directors and producers of the patriotic problems. For example, Filipino Briljante Mendoza, klevetnicheski showing the native land as a kingdom korruptsionerov and dictators became one of the Cannes favourites. It is no wonder that among simple Philippine blogerov there were the patriots ready even to apologise for Mendoza. Only, certainly, not to the people.
no similar horrors are present in films Russian " a new wave ". If she seriously was engaged socially - political " in the image of the country " it would not seem a little. The majority even the sharpest and negativist films tell about not satisfied love and attempts of overcoming of loneliness, and in them the background is social only. And the greatest that it is possible for them to show and make, it is abusive lexicon and gloomy atmosphere. Well excuse. It is necessary to supply such cinema with English subtitles, and the hero of the same " Roads on... " will go out of doors to cry out: " Fuck you! " and whom with it today you will surprise in a world cinema context?
but domestic potential censors are, of course, right, as their Soviet predecessors forbidding and cutting films Cyruses by Muratovoj, Mark Osepjana, Andrey Konchalovsky and even Nikita Mikhalkov (" were right; Relatives ") . Wherefore they fine understood that as one of censors was expressed, " violets smell not as that ". The cinema with three abusive letters or without these has only one indicator of quality talent. When it is not present, other criteria come into effect. One of them was sounded by that leading teacher VGIKA learning the future film critics indulgently to concern to " to positive cinema " by a principle " a film bad, but kind ". It is visible, has taught less.