attraction to beauty, he was extremely sensitive to it and it is possible that it was brought up by the nature in which he grew up, and i think that europe intensified it, that is, you now, you are now talking about what the soviet authorities gave him, as if brought him to into this european world, gave him the opportunity to get this education, and he sincerely, being a petliurian at first, yes, but he sincerely believed. the soviet government and started working for the soviet government, right? well, i wouldn't say that it was given to him by the soviet authorities, after all, he himself had these opportunities took advantage of it, and it was his natural ability, but the soviet government is actually an amazing construct, i think that it is important for us, even now, to deconstruct and understand this architecture that allowed... uh to mislead a very

large number of thinking intelligent people, because my opinion is that the artists sincerely believed in the ideas that the soviet government proposed, it was a sincere faith in industrialization, in industrial progress, in the victory of machines, and the avant-garde was very technological and futuristic, and therefore the artists - it's true it's... as if it's some kind of delusion that really captivates and pulls, and that's why dovzhenko really, he was one of those who believed in reality and constructed, ugh, that is, uh, but for this he had to give up his identity, because on the one hand it was like, i understand about progressiveness, yes, what you 're talking about and about some such perspective that this ideology opened up for people, but on the other hand it was. clearly about identity,

so it was hostile to his identity, i will now quote you a diary that is very famous words, this is a dialogue with his father, he says, he asks, who are we, dad, we are not russian, no, not russian, who are we, who are we, son, kakhlym, those who process bread, and dovzhenko writes, we were a single people in to europe, who did not know who he is, that is, dovzhenko understands very clearly, yes, about identity and about the hostility of this world. his identity, what year he was in, these diaries, this is a memory of, i understand that it is in the gluhiv gymnasium or school, this is an old memory, yes, but, but equally , the diary was already written later, that is, well that is the fact that davzhenko is ukrainian, we see all the time, yes, even in the worst times, he is himself, he tries to put these ukrainian narratives somewhere, yes. that is, it seems to me that

when he says that i entered the revolution from the wrong door, it was through the wrong door, so what is it, was it sincere, or was it such a simple lifeline, well, from this quote that you have read, one can see his sense of shame, as if what, what if this is the only country or nation that is backward, i.e. this is the shame of the one who you are, and his in films, this duality is also felt, yes, on the one hand, something so new, beautiful, which is approaching and where you have to strive, and on the other hand, these simpletons in embroidered shirts, from which you came out, and for whom you have a very great love there and sentiment, but this is a shame, that is... the kind of year

you grow up with, she is colonial, by the way , yesterday i read about dovzhenko, and i saw that he, he was already close to waplite, when he was in this kharkiv period and the kyiv period, and he writes there about waplite and hart, about the fact that these are people who are very ethnographic, very archaic, uncivilized, and it is he who speaks for a moment about... the waveman, the opposite party, that is, about all these people, and he says that it seems to me that sometimes i come to the evening, and it seems to me that i am at parties, that it's all very ethnographic, it's about what you're talking about, about this feeling of ethnography, as archaicness, as one's own culture, as something archaic, or am i wrong, i think we dealt with this in our childhood or youth , this... well,

you feel that you are a provincial, as it were, that the world is already somewhere far away, moreover. well we can to observe, living in the provinces, that something is happening in moscow, something is happening in kyiv, they are very far from you, what is happening abroad, it is just another planet in general, and i think that with his, well, his genius and his talent he really, well, he wanted something more, but he didn't just, i think, want it for himself, but he wanted it back, well, so that it would help the society that he actually came from, he still... could not sever his connection with him, and therefore i will start with venygor in this film, dovzhenko is shooting with above all, screenwriters mike johansyn and the famous

otaman yurko tyutyunnyk, and this is still the 29th year, even before the repressions, and it is either happening or will happen. as i understand it, in kharkiv there is a trial over ieds, ugh, and dovzhenko films such a colossal, multi-layered, fundamental story about 2,000 years of ukrainian history, and here we actually see that it works and his ukrainian identity is revealed.

how do you watch this film today, what is it about, what is it to us from those times, says dovzhenko, how do you watch it today? i would say what exactly this film, i understand that you decided to take a trilogy, so of his stellar

films, first of all, it is a very interesting artistic experiment and a technical experiment, because in this film. in zvanihor dovzhenko used a lot of such cinematography and editing techniques, which were innovative, because there were combined shootings, because he still tells a myth, and it is a little like a fairy tale, and this fairy tale, it is probably characteristic of many films about ukraine, as a certain... mythical territory, is torn away from the reality into which it is necessary to create a new world and bring it from the outside, because it is already preparing us for the fact that in the films of dovzhenko and many of his

contemporaries, kavaleridze, for example, or kordyum, this way will appear , well, the way to find a ukrainian, but this is not quite a ukrainian anymore, but this... this is already a soviet person who comes to his place, that is, that original ukrainian, who, as we see in the film, is ashamed of him, and he someone has to come to change, and rebirth, that is , it is, it is, we see it as a rebirth, it is like a rebirth, but at the same time it really begins to model some new reality, that is, it is a function of cinema, which is characteristic of soviet, soviet cinema. space, and this film, despite the fact that it is reborn as if it is visible, it is the same, it was also repressed, banned, because of the fact that through maiko johansen and through yurk tyutyunnyk, i understand correctly, yes, it is a plus it was already there, although the 27th year is still,

this is still the period of the wolf, the wolf ceased to exist in the 30th year, that is, by the 30th year, we have to... the simplest is define as ukrainian hollywood and well, it will not be a sign. because the all-ukrainian photocinema management absorbed all the infrastructure necessary for the creation and existence of cinema, i.e. there were its three film studios, there were its film schools and later the film institute appeared, there were its publications, authors and people who worked within the uvuk, they , it was part of the kharkiv cultural elite, they grew out of the literary elite. that is, in

literally eight years from the 22nd to the 30th year, it was a very progressive institution that developed on the go. but she is in her 30s was banned, and ukraine-film appeared, which was already completely subordinated to moscow. the uniqueness of the wolf is that it acted autonomously, that is, politics. filmmaking was determined locally in ukraine, in odesa, in kyiv, and therefore, in principle, the prominent names of film artists are connected precisely with the all-ukrainian photocinema management, and when its working atmosphere in moscow became unbearable, brothers kaufman and dzigavertov fled here, uh, and they continued their activities here, which of course, well, wolf ... enriched themselves at the expense of very unusual personalities, it cooperated with foreign directors and cameramen, and

dovzhenko really liked working with josef rona, a german cameraman who, in principle, became his right-hand man in many projects. and then, and then it was banned because of what? due to the fact that the so-called came into force, the main producer of sovietsky stepped in. stalin himself began to define already, yes, i was struck by how much he was, how much he was tangential, how active he was in, so to speak, in producing and ordering movies, and that's it in fact, there is, well, something that still requires some kind of very complex research, like, who, who was this producer of the creation of the wolf in the first place, that it shot so well, that it so... worked, because now we see in the management of the cinema prefers degradation, and

we see that there is a lot, well, the cinema now relies on independent initiatives, that is , the representatives of the state rather bring confusion there and do not define it. that's right but ok what you just said for us, so for us experience teaches. the center managed to find the ukrainian intertitles for the film zemlya and restore them, because they were mostly lost, there were a few of them preserved, and the center restored them a few years ago, so we got evidence that our films are in ukrainian, but in the 30s th year... the holiday ended, ukrainian films that were shot on the territory of ukraine were also closed,

and these were the yalta, odessa and kyiv film studios, they were all given to moscow, to white columns, to the guest film fund of russia, where they were the originals, the negatives are still there, and ukraine already received these films later by purchasing positive copies, that is, they are either in foreign archives, that is, it all collapsed. together with the curtailment of ukrainization, in principle, yes, clearly yes, behind this was a great producer of nations, who already had other ideas and visions about how everything should develop, and we will talk about it later, but it is arsenal's turn, in arsenal is a movie, and for me, for me, it's actually arsenal and shorts, for me, these are two films that just show the rupture internal dovzhenka arsenal, i will remind you of this film about the bolshevik uprising at

the arsenal factory in kyiv, when the bolshevik workers rose up against the uner government against the unr army, which actually suppressed this uprising and dovzhenko was in this army.

the wife even served in the same root of the black haidamaks, which dispersed this bolshevik uprising, so at least he had a black hat hanging in his parents' house, and i am now, excuse me, i am rude now, maybe this is a very rude analogy, but here for me to make such a film is an arsenal, i'm

not talking about its artistic value now, i'm talking about this internal gap in dovzhenka yes. for me, making a film like arsenal or shors for a petlyurovsky soldier is the same as for our veteran to make a film about - about givi or about motorola, and well, it's like that, i'm deliberately exacerbating it, just what had to happen to a person, how could he turn so internally , and what is he for what for this, what is this for such an internal kind of self... nation or what is it? well, here i am there will probably still be a lack of details about what happened to him, but we see that there are already subtitles in russian in the arsenal, and this is happening, if such a universalization of the language of cinema, yes, and it is necessary to reach as

many people as possible, and we see in the frame very... where crowds appear in the frames, and in several of dovzhenko's tapes we observe this, for example, when there is a crowd of people who are attentively listening to someone, and we may not even see the speaker himself, but we it is very important to see what is happening on their faces people, as they are there, or mistrust, or on the contrary, they are fascinated, they have some kind of elation, and these things are and... also in paintings, because in the national art museum in 16 in the 15th year there was an exhibition the heroes of the inventory attempt, the museum then explored the construct of the hero, how it is formed, and after the maidan, this research changed, because well , the maidan affected the way we look at our

heroes, and we decided to be more so discreet, and give the audience the opportunity to evaluate, and here is one of the... from the spaces, these were portraits of lenin, which are stored in the art museum, they have a certain artistic value, but this is a very interesting subject for research, and there were several canvases where lenin only stands with his back, kind of, you can see him only from behind, well, we understand by the absence hair, who is this, but in front of him is a youth who is inspired, who is inflamed, whose eyes are burning, who are excited, and according to this reaction, that is, this is the reaction of the witness. who is passionate about something, and it seems to me that dovzhenko got, perhaps caught this wave, that he can influence, change something, and how do you explain to yourself why he shows so scathingly, we deliberately chose this moment where he shows the members of the central council, these bourgeois, that's all, this is so emphasized,

disgusting, yes, he shows these people and yuriy shevelyov wrote in letters to roman korogotsky, which means that he wrote that this is a compensatory mechanism of self-justification due to the humiliation of the presenters of the program competitions. and i will quote now: why are those scumbags from the second camp needed in the arsenal, and why are they so filthy, filthy, so, so disgusting, and here we have the key, because they... did not manage to win, it turns out that they are to blame for the lost, for the lost war, so this is not a tribute to official demands, but the sincere truth in... sore and suffering, i am all in the anthem, but i am not responsible for this, but those bad guys are responsible, and shevelyov says that this is wild

dostoevism that is very close to the truth, this interpretation of dovzhenko is close to you, it is very interesting, perhaps it is important even for us in a broader sense for self-understanding. eh, and here i can't help but think now about, as it were, kvn, which is present in our lives, yes, which we seem to be, and we, it’s intellectual, some part doesn’t like it, but a large part of society likes it, it’s like such self-mockery and self-mockery, ugh, here really, such the valuable thought that we laugh at them because they didn't win, they... if they couldn't with their, i don't know, their background, they couldn't prevail, eh, and that's why they need to

be portrayed like that, although dovzhenko, he was always ironic, he, his first films, he wanted to shoot comedies, the first films there were vasya the reformer and yagidka kohannya, these are typical, by the way, german films of a european style, because they are in zvenihor and in the arsenal. dovzhenko is already inventing his own language, but these two films vasya the reformer and yagidka, they were so typical with make-up, they were urban stories, they were very playful stories, but really there were people from such a bourgeois class, they looked weak, not very nice, and on the posters dovzhenko also drew bourgeois, in the claws of the soviet government, he also painted them i didn't draw sympathy. and so i actually remember his kharkiv period, when in the visnyk publishing house, he also drew political cartoons on the unattractive petliura, vennichenko,

skoropadskyi, that is, people who were supposedly close to him in terms of value, but let's look at the next film earth, which is of course the most dovzhen brought the most famous, i think, ukrainian film in the world right now, which brought world fame. a film about collectivization, which is supposed to glorify collectivization, but showed absolutely the opposite, so it showed the separation of people from the land, from the roots and from nature.

and so this film earth is released. and as i understand it, it is in the box office for nine days, and on the ninth day an article by the kremlin trumpeter demyan bedny is published, i just can't

resist, i will quote demyan bedny, he writes such a devastating article in the news, and in particular he writes , the movie thing zemlya ilyechu would have called an abomination, he would have assessed it with the scornful word intolerable ugliness, and that's the end of it, to which dovzhenko reacts. so that he wanted to kill the cow, and at the same time, in parallel, in parallel to this abomination written by demyan biedny, suddenly such a movement begins, so in the world, yes, this film is recognized, dovzhenko becomes a star abroad in europe, in america and so on. in what, how, in your opinion, what is the strength of this film, what was the innovation of the earth, what? this is how the world suddenly perceived this film, it became for many, if not

instructive, but it... became a model of her view of nature, probably, and in this film, too, one feels a kind of dovzhenki-like task, and here is a gap there is a very strong feeling, the impression that he is already there begins to doubt his impulse, that is, it is such a story about not being yourself and losing yourself, and this dualism can... well, if the voice of this film were to be strengthened, and by the way, this is a very interesting idea, and immediately the soviet government is i felt it was this dualism and this gap with myself, maybe because the film was, well , you are now asking why the film was so popular, it was dovzhenko still couldn't, no matter how much he tried

to play along with the authorities somewhere . to like or play such a revolution of reshaping their own residents and an attempt to raise them to a higher level, and now i've lost my mind, well, i'll come back , but there, but dovzhenko, he was a pantheist in his essence, that is, he was not a christian or , very atypical, lost his faith during his studies. probably, but he was completely embedded in nature, and for him nature was everything, and if you look at the film that filmed the construction of dniproges, and together with the films of other directors, it reminds you of such a very painful realization that something is wrong with us, and we are being led

eh... somewhere in the wrong place, and they are trying to change us to the point of destroying us , and in the land, eh, there are these typical ukrainians who, if something should be done with them, or change them, or hide them further from civilization , there are already people of a new generation, and there is simply a great nature that captures all this, against the background of which it takes place, eh where... almost such a mythical thinking, where an old person in goodness goes to another world, where there is a naked woman, which was also a very, revolutionary move at the time, and it was his wife, it was yulia sontseva, who later, with whom he then he worked a lot in moscow, she was his assistant, and then grew into an independent director, if we have time, i will also

ask you about yulia sontseva. but before that i want to ask about, you said that he flirted with the authorities, for me the relationship between stalin and dovzhenko remains a kind of paradox, why stalin did not destroy dovzhenko like kurbas, like this entire generation, why he saved him several times even from dovzhenko's words, devzhenko thought so, why? i think we can only fantasize here, because we don't know. that in stalin was in his head, and what, what did stalin admire dovzhenko in your opinion, here is yerena tsymbal and a researcher of literature, she believes, she is a researcher of the actual shot revival, and she believes that because dovzhenko was so authoritarian himself , well, then he was impressed by stalin's power and authoritarianism , as if he himself was attracted to him, stalin was attracted by his figure, a valid opinion. me, since he was

a director, he might well have been attracted to this figure from an anthropological point of view, yes, because it was certainly outstanding personality, but now i have the thought that maybe, dovzhenko, when this repressive flywheel started to spin, ugh, maybe he had some illusion that he would sacrifice himself and... ugh, well, that is, if he takes the side, so to speak, of evil, then it will be like such a ritual sacrifice, and maybe others will suffer from this, less, maybe he somehow believed that he could influence the situation and persuade, maybe he believed, that his art influences stalin, and stalin listens to him, but this, this now...