State Duma Deputy Elena Yampolskaya: once again about “Matilda. Elena Yampolskaya: True culture is always related to conscience - So what is the problem
A lot has been written about Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov’s) book “Unholy Saints” recently. Of course: for the first time, a book about the monastery and modern ascetics, the author of which is a clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church, found itself in the center of reader interest and became an absolute bestseller...
The reader, as a rule, never pays attention to the page with the imprint of the book, but I do not skip it due to professional interest. Editor - Elena Yampolskaya... First thought: “The same one?” Practicing journalists extremely rarely become book editors, and Yampolskaya is, without exaggeration, a well-known journalist, the author of several books herself (for a conversation with her “If it doesn’t hurt, you’re not a professional”, see No. 14 (30) of our magazine). Currently, Elena Aleksandrovna is the editor-in-chief of the Kultura newspaper, the first issue of which was published at the end of January 2012. She herself believes that the changes in her life are connected precisely with working on the book. We talk about the peculiarities of working on “Unholy Saints”, about the internal experience that is associated with it, and about the newspaper “Culture” - a new publication aimed at a modern person who is in search of...
— How did it happen that you, a journalist, at that time deputy editor-in-chief of Izvestia, became the editor of Father Tikhon’s book? Back then, it probably didn’t have a name yet?
And it all turned out like this. Father Tikhon and I have known each other for a long time, we have been on quite long trips together several times, I wrote in Izvestia about his film “The Byzantine Lesson.” And then one day I came to him, probably to confess - for what other reason could I have ended up in the Sretensky Monastery? After confession, he asked me: “Do you, Lena, know any good literary editor? And then I’m going to publish a book. I have a huge number of disparate chapters and materials, I need to assemble a single whole from this, and it is necessary for someone to look at everything with an editorial eye.” I answered: “I know, Father Tikhon, a good editor - he is sitting in front of you.” I have never worked in publishing houses, but I can recommend myself among newspaper editors without false modesty. For some reason, it seemed to me that Father Tikhon asked this question for a reason, but precisely in order to hear: yes, I am ready to do this. At the same time, my work at Izvestia was so intense that if it had not been Father Tikhon’s book, but some other “leftist” work, I would never have taken it on. In general, there was something above all this, I realized this later.
From the very first chapter it became clear that the book was unusually fascinating. I didn’t rewrite anything globally: editing consisted of working on individual “burrs.” Father Tikhon, firstly, has a lively style, a wonderful sense of humor, and very good dialogues. And secondly, of course, you can feel the screenwriting education: he perfectly builds the picture - you see visibly what the author is talking about.
Since the book is very interesting (someone told me: “This is the Conan Doyle of the Church!”), and it was difficult to tear myself away from it even in the first printout, I had to re-read the text many times. This is the case when you, carried away by the plot and in a hurry to find out what will happen next, stop monitoring the correct construction of the phrase. I had to go back all the time. And in the end, it so happened that I not only read this book three times, I literally read every word in it three times, and each time it became a new work for the soul. A job that, perhaps, was not even assigned by Father Tikhon.
Few things in my life have changed me as much as this book. Moreover, I do not attribute this solely to the influence of the author, whom I have great respect and great sympathy for. There was something above us. This book was given to him for some reason, and it was given to me - and not by Father Tikhon, but by Someone who is higher. If we talk about what made the greatest impression on me, this is the chapter about schema-abbot Melchizedek, who died and then rose again. I don't know if it's worth retelling. But it’s probably worth it, not everyone has read the book...
 |
Father Tikhon talks about how, while still a very young novice, he risked turning to the schema-monk with the question: what happened to him then, what did he see when he was there from where they do not return? That's what he heard.
... Hegumen Mikhail walks along a green field, comes to some kind of cliff, looks down, sees a ditch filled with water, mud - there are fragments of some chairs, cabinets, broken legs, doors, and something else lying there. He looks there in amazement and sees that all these are things he made for the monastery. With horror, he recognizes his work and suddenly feels someone's presence behind him. He turns around and sees the Mother of God, who looks at him with pity and sorrow and sadly says: “You are a monk, we were waiting for prayers from you, but you only brought this”...
I can’t tell you how shocked this thing was to me. We are not monks, but each of us has our own obedience in the world. I considered my obedience to be this endless editing of texts, preparation of strips, release, and so on, and so on. This was the first time I looked at my work from the outside and realized that although what is expected of me is probably not only prayers, but this is what will then wallow in the mud, by and large. This routine, daily work of mine will then lie lying around with its legs torn off and its doors broken off. She lives for one day. Reflecting the news picture of the day leads no one to anything, because it does not create any new meanings. I sit all the time and clean out some dirty texts, because journalists generally write very poorly now, and I sit and clean, clean, clean... And I thought: “My God, is this really how my life will go?!”
This is the greatest experience I learned from Father Tikhon’s book. And I hope that now in the newspaper “Culture”, although it is still necessary to clean up the texts, it seems to me that my life has begun to line up in some other way.
— Did you manage to visit the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery, to which most of the book is dedicated?
— I visited Pechory for the first time only after I read the book. I really wanted to go there: in recent years I have been extremely worried about Father John (Krestyankin). This is a special person for me. Unfortunately, I didn’t find him alive. But I love reading his letters. In the car, I’ll put on a CD with his sermons and listen. He somehow lives next to me. And, having edited Father Tikhon’s book, I decided: “That’s it, I’m going to Pechory.” Unfortunately, this trip was mostly a disappointment. Maybe, and even for sure, I myself am to blame for this - I was not truly ready... But a miracle happened there, and I met Father John - completely real, absolutely alive.
This is the story. I came as a journalist, planning to do a report for Izvestia, where I worked at the time. I was assigned to a very important monk who is in charge of press relations. The monk, as far as I understand, does not like people in general, and especially journalists. Apparently, this is why they gave him such obedience, so that journalists would not return to the monastery. He greeted me extremely coldly, even arrogantly, showed me what he could, answered questions: “I’m incompetent here,” “I won’t talk about this,” “The governor cannot meet with you,” “These are matters of our internal regulations.” " - and so on. He doesn’t look me in the eyes, he’s always somewhere to the side... In general, it’s terrible. We went briefly to Father John’s cell, but communication with this man, who for some reason immediately showed such intense hostility towards me, everything was poisoned. I was shackled, I couldn’t really perceive or feel anything. They came in and left.
In the evening I returned to my hotel room. I sat down in a shabby chair, sadness in my soul, and I thought: “The whole horror is that I will no longer be able to read Father John’s books the way I read them now, with the same glee. Because now, as soon as I open Krestyankin, I will immediately remember this unkind monk - and that’s all...” I understand that this is selfishness, that the monk is not obliged to love me, but I am a living, normal person, a woman, much younger than him, and it is unpleasant for me when they demonstrate such obvious rejection... And just as I was immersed in such thoughts, my mobile phone rings: “ Elena, this is Father Filaret, cell attendant of Father John. They say you were looking for me today? Apparently, his father Tikhon from Moscow found it, realizing that all my ends were cut off there and I was almost in despair. It was already about nine o'clock in the evening. Father Filaret says: “Don’t you want to return to the monastery right now?” Of course, I immediately ran back. The sun was setting, the domes were going out, it was September. We went to Father John's cell, sat on the famous green sofa and sat there for two and a half hours. How good it was! Father Filaret is a miracle. He did what he always does for everyone, what they say Father John did: he sprinkled me with holy water, poured the rest into my bosom (at the same time he took care to call a taxi so that I wouldn’t catch a cold on a cold night in a wet sweater), fed me chocolate, so much told everything about Father John. We prayed. I held the priest’s epitrachelion in my hands, stained with wax, unusually warm, alive - here it is just lying on the pillow and breathing... It’s amazingly perfect.I was so shocked by the materiality of this miracle! As soon as I sat down and thought that I couldn’t read Father John’s books with a light heart, that this residue was disgusting, some unpleasant doubts about the monastery, I would now project them onto him too... And Father John at that very second simply took me by the scruff of the neck and said: “Come on, come back. Now let's start all over again." It was absolute happiness and absolute reality.
After that, I spent another day there, and nothing could penetrate me - neither sideways glances, nor cold treatment. I felt sorry for this monk. He talked with such arrogance about how in the monastery you have to suppress your own pride that you wanted to punch him on the nose. In addition, I realized that I myself had arrived there in a not entirely prepared state. God bless him, it doesn't matter. I came to the caves, put my hand on Father John’s coffin, said “thank you” to him, asked him for something and came out into the light of God absolutely happy. If I ever return to Pechory, then, I think, only to Father John. But my trip there, of course, was completely connected with Father Tikhon’s book; I really wanted to see with my own eyes everything that was described there.
— If you remember the book, Tikhon’s father was initially sent to the cowshed. Maybe this is some kind of experience that is given...
- ...to such ambitious people. And Father Tikhon, I think, is by nature an ambitious person. This is good quality in my opinion. It is this that does not allow you to do your job poorly in any area. Then other things, more serious and spiritual, take the place of ambition. But initially, I think it’s very good when ambition is inherent in a person by nature.
— You were the first reader of many of the stories included in the book. Was the author interested in your opinion?
- Certainly. The author constantly asked whether it was interesting or not, especially since he knows me quite well. I cannot call Father Tikhon my confessor, it is said loudly, but still I confessed to him more than once and received communion at the Sretensky Monastery. Despite Father Tikhon’s busy schedule, he never refused such requests and, in addition to confession, always found time to talk. Moreover, it is very reasonable, practical and even pragmatic, that is, the way one should talk to an ordinary secular person, to a woman. I never spoke from the height of my spiritual experience.
I think that it was initially important for him that the book reach a wide range of readers, not only strictly church people, so that it would slightly turn the consciousness of an ordinary person - and he tested this effect on me, of course. Very correct, professional approach.
In our newspaper “Culture” there is a permanent page dedicated to religion, it is called “Symbol of Faith”. All traditional confessions are represented there, but Orthodoxy prevails, this is understandable and natural, from all points of view. And so, the Orthodox journalists whom I involve in working on this page sometimes begin to bang their heads against the wall after my comments and shout: “No, Orthodoxy and the newspaper are incompatible! We can’t do that.” I say: “Are Orthodoxy and a fascinating book compatible? Take “Unholy Saints” - this is how it should be written. Learn."
— For the last twenty years in our country it was believed that the topic of culture was not in demand, that publications entirely devoted to it were unprofitable. The cultural institutions themselves, especially in the provinces, were forced to survive, even to some extent abandoning themselves, their task of bringing truly culture to the masses, and not consumer goods... Is this period over? What can be considered its result? How much have we lost during this time?
— “We”—as a country? I believe that during this time we have lost almost everything, and gained only one thing - the return of religion to our natural, everyday life. But this only acquisition of the post-Soviet period is so expensive that it gives us hope: we will still get out of the swamp. In principle, the Soviet Union would have survived if not for state atheism, I am absolutely sure of this.
Look - Cuba is still holding on because there has never been militant atheism there. There are many Catholic churches there, there is even an Orthodox Church. By the way, I flew with Patriarch Kirill, then still a metropolitan, to the opening of this temple. And nothing - the country is a socialist one. And you don’t need to tell me about how bad, hungry and scary it is there. There are cheerful, healthy people who dance, sing, kiss on the ocean embankment in the evenings, are not afraid to let their children go outside, and tenderly, although probably not very wisely, love their charismatic Fidel. Yes, they have a specific life, but to say that it is worse than that of their fellow tribesmen who fled to Miami on air mattresses?.. It so happened that almost simultaneously, with a difference of a month, I visited both Cuba and Miami. And when I saw the Cuban colonies there... Cubans are generally prone to being overweight and at American fast food they quickly turn into some kind of shapeless bags. They go shopping, listlessly sorting through jeans - they have nothing else. America doesn't need them. In my opinion, life in Cuba is much better, because it is inspired, first of all, by love for the homeland. It is very important.I think that our people now have a need not for culture as such, but for acquiring meaning. In recent years, any thinking Russian person has really been deprived of them. The cultural product is diverse and intrusive, but basically it does not offer these meanings and does not ask any serious questions. There is such a fear that “oh, if we start loading now, they will switch the button or won’t buy a ticket, word of mouth will spread that it’s too difficult, too gloomy”...
I don't think this is true. We have normal, thinking, intelligent people. There are still a lot of them in the country, fifty percent to be exact. They simply don't know where to go to ask a question and work with someone to find the answer. They just crave at least some intellectual, not in the sense of high-brow, but serious conversation...
- ...about some important things.
- Yes. It is quite natural that one must look for meaning primarily in the sphere of faith and culture. Moreover, a culture that is still connected with faith, originated from it, was born, and, in general, true culture never breaks this umbilical cord. This niche interests me.
We need people who are trying to formulate for themselves why they live. In modern Russia it is very difficult to understand this. If you are a deeply religious, truly church-going person, it’s probably easier for you. But if you are an ordinary representative of Russian society and you have an actively working brain in your head, and a heart full of doubts in your chest, then it is very difficult for you to understand why you exist at any given moment. Unless, of course, you think that you just live to feed your family. But feeding a family is a strange purpose of human existence. Not too tall to say the least. It is very strange when it is put at the forefront. To live solely for this, in my opinion, is humiliating for a spiritual being.
— In talking about a person’s religious life, “Culture” is still just looking for its tone, or do you want to achieve something specific?
— For now, I urge my Orthodox journalists who deal with this topic “not to scare people.” Because I remember what I was like, say, ten or even five years ago. In general, I believe that in life you need to believe in two things: in the Lord God and in a person’s ability to change for the better. I know from myself that a person is capable of very strong evolution. That’s why I can’t stand talking about the so-called “candlesticks”: they say, the boss came to the temple with a “flashing light”, stands with a candle, does not understand anything... No one knows what is going on in this person’s soul, and no one has the right to call him names "candlestick". I don’t believe that you can defend your service and at the same time think all the time: what kind of kickback will they give you tomorrow and did you forget the bribe in the left pocket of your sheepskin coat. I am sure that worship “breaks through” anyone, and even a completely unchurched person leaves church a little changed.
Since our newspaper is called “Culture,” we try to present the topic of religion through cultural events. This is all the more important because once in Russia these spheres were inseparable. All of Pushkin is permeated with biblical motifs, Gogol, Dostoevsky, even Chekhov... Christianity was a natural fabric that was preserved in absolutely everything - in music, painting, literature. And I think that it is very important for us to take all this out of our chests and remind: guys, once upon a time it wasn’t like this - not “society is separate, but the Church is separate” or “we are Orthodox, and you are everyone else,” - but there was a life imbued with faith.
Again, we are asking for interviews and comments not only from priests or those people who are famous for their piety. If a person thinks about what he lives for, he has every right to appear on our “Symbol of Faith” page.
— The concepts of culture and art have also always been inextricably linked. Contemporary art, in your opinion, how does it see the pain points of modern man?
— The whole question is what you mean by the term “contemporary art.” Contemporary is what is produced now, at a given moment in time, or what is commonly called contemporary art. What mainly refer to various manifestations of “art” - installations, a naked artist on all fours...
- That is today's art, which is still art.
— There are no general trends, unfortunately, because neither Russian society nor Russian art have ever been so atomized. Contemporary artists are completely different people, and although they create at the same time in the same country, they exist in parallel realities and often do not intersect with each other, which means they do not resonate and do not create common meanings.
But I think that for those who follow the path of searching for meaning, everything will be quite stable. Maybe they will not immediately collect such a box office as some “Yolki-2” or “Rzhevsky against Napoleon”, but I hope nothing threatens their existence in this country. I don’t believe that people whose souls want something more will die out here. She often doesn’t even understand what she wants, but her desires are not limited to the material world. It is typical of a Russian person to want more. And not at all in the sense as it was broadcast on Prokhorov’s election posters.
We, the Kultura newspaper, want to occupy this niche. Judging by the fact that there is demand for us, the circulation is growing, the number of subscribers is increasing, apparently people have noticed - the newspaper they have been waiting for has appeared. And I hope that “Culture” is already beginning to create new meanings: the person who picks up our newspaper, it changes at least a little bit, it turns his consciousness a little. And this is the most valuable quality in anything: a film, a play, a book. By the way, this certainly applies to Father Tikhon’s book. A newspaper is not a book, but to disparage it, in my opinion, is wrong. The newspaper is the word, and the word is everything. No matter what they say about its devaluation recently. Pipes. The word remains of great value if it is real. You just have to look for it. This is what we are trying to do.
Member of the United Russia political party faction.
Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture.
Journalist. Writer. Theater critic. Editor-in-chief of the newspaper "Culture".
Member of the Presidium of the Council for Culture under the President of the Russian Federation. Member of the Patriarchal Council for Culture.
Elena Yampolskaya was born on June 20, 1971 in Moscow. After receiving a certificate of secondary education, she entered the Russian Institute of Theater Arts at the Faculty of Theater Studies. During her studies, she worked as a freelance correspondent for the Commercial Bulletin magazine until 1990. Then, from 1992 to 1994, she was a columnist for the theater department of the Kultura newspaper. In 1994 she graduated from a theater university with a degree in theater studies.
Since 1994, Yampolskaya worked as a correspondent for the socio-political editorial office of the Izvestia newspaper. Three years later she was appointed head of the Izvestia-Kultura group. After leaving Izvestia, from 1997 to 2003 she headed the cultural department in Igor Golembiovsky’s newspaper New Izvestia and Russian Courier. For the next couple of years, she acted as editor of the cultural department of the limited liability company Publishing House H.G.S. In 2005, she was the chief editor of Theatrical New Izvestia, owned by the closed joint-stock company Newspaper New Izvestia.
Elena Alexandrovna returned to the Izvestia newspaper in 2006. She headed the culture department for two years, and from 2008 to 2011 she served as deputy editor-in-chief. In December 2011, she was appointed editor-in-chief of the Kultura newspaper, which two months earlier was experiencing severe financial difficulties. Having headed the publication, Yampolskaya said that under her leadership the newspaper would expand the range of topics, which would include social issues, religion and entertainment. In addition, I decided to change the name of the newspaper, which I considered boring and inert. In January 2012, the updated newspaper “Culture” began to be published with a new subtitle “The Spiritual Space of Russian Eurasia.” Elena Yampolskaya tried to make “Culture” a legislator of social mores in the country.
Since September 2012, Elena Yampolskaya has been a member of the presidium of the Council for Culture under the President of Russia. Since February 2016, she has been a member of the Public Council of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. She held the post of Secretary of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia.
In the elections of September 18, 2016, Yampolskaya Elena Aleksandrovna was elected as a Deputy of the State Duma of the VII convocation as part of the federal list of candidates nominated by the United Russia party. Regional group No. 10 - Kurgan region, Chelyabinsk region. Member of the United Russia faction. Start date of powers: September 18, 2016.
Deputies of the State Duma July 25, 2018 decided to appoint Elena Yampolskaya as chairman of the Culture Committee. Previously, the post was held by Stanislav Govorukhin.
Awards and Recognition of Elena Yampolskaya
Laureate of the Chaika and Iskra awards
Laureate of the Pushkin Gold Medal
Laureate of the commemorative medal named after Vasily Shukshin
Elena Yampolskaya, editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Culture”, member of the presidium of the Council for Culture and Art under the President of the Russian Federation, talks about the mission of culture in modern society, patriotism, moral education, Russian-Armenian cultural ties.
– Elena Aleksandrovna, you headed the newspaper “Culture” in 2011, with your arrival the revival of the publication began. What main results of the formation of the new “Culture” could you note?
– The main result, probably, is that “Culture” has returned to the agenda. If at first they asked me with surprise: “Does such a newspaper still exist?”, now some want to become the heroes of our publications, others, on the contrary, are afraid of this, readers call, write, thank, argue, in general, there are fewer and fewer indifferent. Compared to the previous “Culture”, which died a couple of months before our team arrived, we increased the circulation by 12 times. And this is just the minimum required. We can’t afford to simply print copies; a paper publication, especially a beautiful one, is expensive. But I know, for example, that at Sapsan, where the issue is distributed along with the monthly supplement - Nikita Mikhalkov’s Svoy magazine, passengers are extremely unhappy if our printed products are not enough for them. And the cleaners who walk through the cars at the end of the journey report that people don’t leave “Culture” - they take it with them. It is by such “trifles” that one can judge the demand. There is, of course, another way: it reached a million copies, filled the pages with all kinds of chewing gum, the person read it, chewed it, spat it out, threw it away, forgot. We strive to make a newspaper of great style, long-lasting, a newspaper that would provide quality food for the mind and soul.
– The topics that you raise on the pages of the newspaper go beyond culture and art, they include religion, politics, social problems, and much more. Are cultural issues extrapolated to these areas?
– In my opinion, absolutely everything that surrounds us is part of culture. Or it indicates its absence. Culture begins not with an evening trip to the theater, but with how friendly you greet your neighbor in the elevator early in the morning. Culture is not only a concert at the Philharmonic, but also a series on TV. The series is even more important, because philharmonic societies are not available everywhere, but most of our fellow citizens watch TV and, willy-nilly, adjust their thoughts and feelings based on what they see. It is impossible to implement state cultural policy without changing information policy. I come to various regions, and simple, naturally intelligent people ask me: “Why do participants shout and interrupt each other on different talk shows? Our parents taught us that this is indecent...” It seems to them that, as the editor-in-chief of the Kultura newspaper, I know the answer. And I can only refuse invitations to such shows myself, because I consider the manner of communication implanted there disgusting, humiliating, plebeian. Thanks to Vladimir Solovyov, who in his “Sunday Evening...”, although also not free from this format, nevertheless brings together notorious brawlers in one plot, calm and thoughtful people in another, so that everyone leaves the set generally satisfied.
Since culture is all-encompassing, I really hope that the Year of Ecology announced in 2017 will become a true year of culture for us. It's time to get rid of garbage - both material and mental. And the whole world needs to take on this. I am convinced that by cleaning courtyards, parks, forests, and banks of reservoirs, we clean out the nooks and crannies of our own souls. Effective love for our native land, loving care for it - this is what can really unite us.
– In the preface to your recently published book “On Culture and Beyond,” you say that the cultural baggage of each of us - a precious collection of everything we love - allows us to maintain a connection with our native land. Do you think the mission of culture is so high?
“I think it’s impossible to overestimate her.” Culture is the education of feelings. The lower the level of culture, the more mentally undeveloped, spiritually blind and deaf people there are. Hence the shameless violation of all moral norms, a disregard for the land and people, the past and the future.
– How do you assess Russian-Armenian ties in the field of culture? What joint cultural projects would you like to highlight?
– In my opinion, given the excellent interstate relations that connect Russia and Armenia today, the cooperation of our cultures should be richer and more diverse. I judge this by the fact that I extremely rarely receive invitations to cultural events from the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in Moscow. Many of our CIS partners are much more active in this regard. I understand that there are objective financial difficulties, but saving on culture is more expensive. Culture gives people a sense of belonging to each other. It creates a unified language of communication. In the end, music, theater, literature, fine arts, cinema are the most obvious and effective way to win mutual sympathy. I think that the opportunities of Armenian business in Russia have not yet been exploited in this field. Entrepreneurs from Armenia should invest in strengthening the friendly and charming image of their people in the minds of Russians.
– Have you been to Armenia? If yes, what are your impressions?
– Yes, I have been to Armenia twice – with the Theater under the direction of Armen Dzhigarkhanyan. Armen Borisovich and I have been friends for terrible to say how many years. While still a student at GITIS, I came to him for my first interviews - by the way, specifically for the newspaper “Culture”. The genre of interviews is, in principle, very close to me as a journalist; I return to many of my heroes again and again, but Dzhigarkhanyan is probably the record holder in terms of the number of conversations we recorded. There are people who, like good cognac, infuse year after year, becoming deeper and more interesting with age. Communicating with them is a true pleasure... So, Armen Borisovich made sure that, accompanying his team on tour, I saw not only Yerevan. They took me to Sevan, to Etchmiadzin, Garni Geghart. They even organized such exotic entertainment as swimming in sulfur springs. True, all this was quite a long time ago. So I'm looking forward to returning to Armenia again. Now with a special feeling, because a year and a half ago I married a wonderful man - an Armenian by nationality. I was very touched that the Armenians call people like me, “foreign” wives, “our daughter-in-law.” That is, the daughter-in-law of the entire people. Acquiring so many relatives at once is troublesome, of course, but overall pleasant.
- So what's the problem?
– For now – in a banal lack of leisure. Adding to the worries about the newspaper was the election race - the primaries of United Russia have just ended, preliminary voting for future candidates for deputies of the State Duma of the seventh convocation. I took part in this procedure in the Chelyabinsk region.
– We have been exploiting, as you put it, the Soviet cultural heritage for almost a quarter of a century. Are new shoots appearing?
– There are always sprouts – this is the property of life. However, they are often ruined by illiterate and irresponsible attitude. Somewhere there is a lack of selection: alas, in all spheres of our life, not only in culture, the role of apprenticeship, the long and painstaking increase in skill, has been almost completely leveled out. In most cases, a barely hatched sprout is not allowed to rise - they demand immediate fruit. Producers need another “star” for a month or a year. They are not interested in the longer term. The fate of such precocious people, as a rule, is ruined - having become accustomed to “shine” on the screen, they lose interest in self-improvement, and meanwhile the producers are already looking for a new victim. If the “star” is artificial, it gets boring very quickly. That is why, with tenacity worthy, perhaps, of better use, I insist that we need a system of all-Russian creative competitions aimed at finding and supporting young talents, and not at personal PR for members of various television juries.
As for the Soviet cultural heritage, it is priceless. In fact, this is the cement that still holds the peoples of the former Soviet republics together - sometimes contrary to the wishes of politicians. But we must understand that generations change. Young people don't want to live with our nostalgia. They need a new artistic language, the image of a modern hero, close and exciting issues. Here, the creators of now independent states are faced with a difficult task - not to allow us to completely disperse, to close the doors to each other. 
– Recently, the topic of patriotism has often been discussed in the press. The President of Russia pays great attention to this topic. Is patriotism our new ideology or is it a cultural mission through which we need to cultivate love for the homeland?
“Patriotism” is a very good word, but it’s just a word. We must not work as an echo of the president, repeating the same thing in every way, but, to each in his own place, fill this concept with content. Love for the homeland is acquired from early childhood, gradually, it consists of little things. To raise a patriot, you need good children's books, films, songs, computer games - our own, domestic ones. How does the average Russian family in a more or less large city spend their weekends today? He goes to the megamall, stares at the windows, watches this or that American movie, buys the children toys made God knows where and depicting foreign heroes, and then has a snack at this or that fast food - again under an American sign. And what homeland, tell me, will a child brought up in this way love? Will he even have a homeland?
– Is the development of culture a state task?
– Moreover, this is a factor of national security. It is necessary to systematically deal with cultural issues if we want Russia – strong and independent – to continue to exist on the world map. In addition, it is cheaper to maintain music schools and libraries than prisons and colonies.
– At the same time, the residual principle of cultural financing continues to operate?
– It is very fashionable to complain about this principle for years and even decades. However, two things must be clearly understood. Firstly, today we are in a difficult economic situation, this will not last a year or two, there will be no extra money in the foreseeable future. There are priority tasks that cannot be avoided: we need to support children, the elderly, and the poor, develop production, ensure import substitution, and strengthen the country’s defense. In such a situation, it hardly makes sense for a culture to expect special preferences. But - and this is the second important thing - it is in the cultural sphere that efficiency is ensured not so much by the volume of investments, but by the taste and love of those who distribute and invest funds. You can get a stunning result for a ruble, or you can get a complete bullshit for a hundred. The main capital of culture is not money, but talents. Guess the talent, attract him, give him the opportunity to realize his calling - and the efficiency of the funds spent will exceed one hundred percent. This happens in culture, really.
– Why has interest and love for books fallen over the past 20 years, lines at theater box offices disappear, and there is no total interest in museums and exhibitions? Is culture in crisis?
– Partly due to an overabundance of information. We suddenly found ourselves in a world not of cultures, but of subcultures – niche, limited, “party” ones. In a world where the spiritual hierarchy seems to have been lost, everything does not develop vertically, but spreads horizontally. Tolstoy wrote a novel, and I wrote it, posted it online, and got a hundred likes. How am I worse than Tolstoy? So much slag is being produced - screen, book, music - that people are looking for pleasure in other areas. Mainly in consumption. This is also one of the reasons for indifference to culture. A person with a consumer psychology does not stop, does not think - he buys, uses it one way or another and runs on: what else can he grab?
At the same time, mind you, as soon as a truly talented work of art appears, those same queues immediately return. And what about the excitement around Valentin Serov’s exhibition at the Tretyakov Gallery on Krymsky Val? This is not a purely aesthetic, but a deep human interest. People, it seems to me, came to look at amazing faces. Real, significant, behind each of which there is character and destiny, and not three pounds of falsehood and a couple of plastic surgeries. Art that deals with the genuine, not the feigned, is doomed to success at any time. Including the cash register.
– Is religion capable of “compensating” for the lack of culture?
– In a multinational and multi-religious society - even if there is a state-forming people and a main religion - religious issues must be approached very delicately. Faith and culture are not meant to “recompense”, but to complement each other. True culture, in my opinion, always consists of kinship with conscience. And this concept is divine. And equally accessible to a person of any nationality, any religion. It is not for nothing that we find so many truly Christian motifs in the art of the Soviet period - that is, in what was generated by a formally atheistic state.
– There is an opinion that many television programs have a negative impact on young people, corrupting them, such as, for example, the notorious program “Dom-2”. As a member of the Council for Culture and Art under the President of the Russian Federation, are you struggling with this?
– We have already discussed the fact that cultural and information policies in our country, unfortunately, are still practically divorced. I agree that encouraging vulgarity is extremely dangerous. If a young man sees that he can not study, not work, lie on the couch all day long, listlessly quarreling with his peers, and at the same time remain in the center of attention of his peers, the damage from such “educational work” is difficult to calculate. You may have heard: a baboon now lives in the Gelendzhik Zoo, which was kept in one of the Moscow casinos for several years. There he was taught to smoke and drink. Then the gambling establishment was closed, the baboon was taken away, and now he leads a healthy lifestyle. The only weakness that I have retained from the old days is the Dom-2 program. Apparently because he recognizes himself in the participants. I love animals very much, but a person who voluntarily takes on the role of a monkey sitting in a cage for the amusement of an idle public is a deplorable sight.
At the same time, I am not a supporter of purely repressive measures. Everything harmful should not be prohibited, but replaced by benign, talented, interesting ones. The main task for the new generation, in my opinion, is to set their scale. Different than on youth channels and social networks. So that we dream of getting not those same hundred likes, but the State Prize, the star of the Hero of Labor, a place in the history textbook... The reduction in scale, the insignificance of desires and tasks destroys us every day. Distinguishing the great from the small, the important from the unnecessary - this is what culture should teach.
The conversation was conducted by Grigory Anisonyan
<...>Elena Yampolskaya, editor-in-chief of the newspaper Kultura, has a high chance of getting a place on the United Russia list for the Chelyabinsk region: she is also participating in the primaries. In her post, Yampolskaya persistently defends spiritual bonds, scolds opposition cultural figures, and in 2014 she initiated a scandal at the Moscow International Book Festival, when two performances were excluded from the program for promoting homosexuality and obscenities. Yampolskaya’s ambitions to make the Kultura newspaper a “legislator of public mores” brought political success: at the last congress of United Russia she joined the party’s general council. Elena Yampolskaya refused to talk to Novaya, advising her to use “poems” by Dmitry Bykov instead of her comment.<...>
<...>Today I just wrote another “Letter of Chain” for Novaya Gazeta. I hope that they won’t publish it today, because it turned out to be very harsh. I always, you know, write first, then regret it. The fact that in a deteriorating country everything is degrading and everything goes along the same vector leads us to the idea that after Medinsky, Elena Yampolskaya should be appointed Minister of Culture - she is trying very hard. She has already turned the newspaper of the same name into a symbol of counterculture, anticulture, and now she will do the same thing - this is my value judgment, Elena, value judgment - to do, as I believe, with the Ministry of Culture.<...>
They say: shoot Medinsky. He will soon be replaced, he finds himself at the center of a dispute - is he responsible for the deputy? Who should be staggering - not the crown, right? There hasn’t been any ballast for a long time, but at least someone needs to be removed! Culture is it.
I must be the only one from the entire writing community who will say: don’t touch Medinsky! He wrote his works himself, easily looking for reasons: they say, you yourself are a rogue country! I just believe that no one else would have written this. He didn’t curry favor with his enemies in defense of Mother Rus' (although, naturally, he borrowed: postmodernist, don’t suck!). Even if he was a bogeyman for historians that they were sarcastic among themselves, he was still not Starikov (amen, scatter, holy, holy, holy!).
Even if he fired Mironenko, the opinion of the saints is strange: they say, the honor of the Ministry of Culture has been damaged. Where to drop it? And that's what I'm talking about. Over there in St. Petersburg, Reznik’s gang, loving culture, our mother, shouts with the courage of a mountain rider: Remove Medinsky! Let Reznik himself insist for a long time to draw a line under him; but did he suit the rest? But it became possible - and aha! I don’t take part in this persecution, I don’t interfere with my kick: he is the first Russian People’s Commissar to write after Lunacharsky, and he’s a better writer than one who puffs out the stupid anger of a pig; Medinsky is not yet such a mouse as those behind him. After all, there is no light, no reflection. Even the Internet gives in: well, it doesn’t exist - but who will? There is no alternative either. Nevzorov suggested Valuev: yes, he is handsome and muscular, I would give my life for a kiss from him, if I were a homosexual, but, seeing this gloomy tower that will not let anyone down, I feel that he will make another contrast with culture. Oh, if Medinsky falls down and, so to speak, breaks the thread - there is a candidate, there is a beauty - to enter the burning hut! What will revive the flat plain under the crust of March ice? I shout: Yampolskaya, Yampolskaya! Give Yampolskaya here! I vote for Yampolskaya. I want her to be a minister. I'm afraid I won't get that kind of pleasure with others. She is for the Motherland, for the gentleman with the mustachioed regal face - and at least we will have some fun before our well-deserved end.
I want Yampolskaya, Yampolskaya! Not for the first time, I have appreciated in her that samurai, Japanese ability to burn out at the root everything that she touches, without a shadow of thought or shame (there is another beauty - yes, Skoybeda, but she has no place!). Her pressure has now intensified, and the pathos has not cooled either: it was not for nothing that she carried out the crime on Vasilievsky with Pyotr Tolstoy. Now we have an Izhitsa, a fork, a choice, north-south... She will cover everything that moves, and sit on top, and the skiff, and so that they don’t hang you right away - pray, sons of bitches! I will be expelled from the profession, and Makarevich from the country. The culture will become webbed. You give Elena, because with her everything will probably end faster. (Although, perhaps, not faster. I have been living in the world for a long time in my usual climate: here you can rot for decades, and still not rot.)
You give Yampolskaya in advance, you dictate her in everything! With this, perhaps, we will save the publication of the same name from turning into a brown mass. One locality cannot lead the culture itself and the similarly named leaf! And gradually everything will settle down and return to normal: the newspaper, I think, will be washed off, and culture... somehow. I feel in my gut and in my skin a kind of joyful peace: a minister, even such a one, cannot control culture. No need to hit the table with your hands, swallow pills, drink Borzhom... I want Yampolskaya, Yampolskaya! There's only one ending, so at least we'll have a laugh. This is how the world will end upside down - my stomach hurts in advance!
It’s just a pity that Trump won’t be elected. Otherwise it would be a complete monolith.
[Dmitry Bykov:]
— I have the Kultura newspaper in my pocket. Now we will do PR for the newspaper “Culture”. Here, the editor-in-chief of this newspaper - how can the person who gave this name not burn with shame... Here, Elena Yampolskaya writes - amazingly, absolutely:
““Downtroddenness”, “submissiveness” - stop repeating these slander about Russians in general and women in particular. Russia is like the golden-maned mare from “The Little Humpbacked Horse”: “If you knew how to sit still, then you can control me.” But first we kick, kick, bite. This is the tradition. Challenge any so-called “strong” woman to be frank, and she will admit that the main drama of her life is the inability to find a man stronger than herself to bridle and bruise. Or (much less often): that the main happiness of her life is in finding a strong man who is not ashamed to obey.<...>By the way, the desire to love the one who leads your country is an absolutely healthy phenomenon.<...>So, alas, disappointments are inevitable in the fate of women. But if the hero...
[Olga Zhuravleva:]
- Oh please!
[Dmitry Bykov:]
—Attention!—
...but if the hero, heeling and hesitating, alternately chirping first on his right and then on his left leg, nevertheless secured himself on the pedestal, this is a great happiness for a woman. And for the country too.”
I don’t know what she calls a pedestal, and what’s up, who is “chickening” with her?
Dmitry Bykov in the “Minority Report” program on June 19, 2013
<...>And today Zvyagintsev has defenders as unreasoning as Elena, forgive me, Lord, Yampolskaya<...>
<...>Why would we persist, in kind? Just now the council under the Chief of Culture himself met at the helm - and they also branded the liberals. I don’t know why he collected them - and why disturb the ashes in general - but we were talking about liberals again. Culture, they say, is all in their hands. Which one, where? Forgive this insolence - where are the liberals in music and cinema? “It needs to be made national” - do so, but it’s not given to you! I don’t know how to do carpentry, let’s say—I can even make a stool out of my hands—but I don’t exclaim with a bitter feeling that the carpenters stole their hammers! The cultural elite, the generals, Yampolskaya and other Polyakov - what have the liberals stolen from you, what hammers do you lack? What kind of boss, owner and stingy person, what kind of stern idiot doesn’t let you into Russian culture, doesn’t allow you to make it national? What benefits do you have in the collapse that has happened, what feeding trough is not close to you? What, they didn’t give Mikhalkov any money? Yampolskaya was not accepted into the Investigative Committee? Actually, I won’t argue foolishly: I graduated from school, after college - and I can imagine the culture that you will build here. Yes, you have already tried to do this - so that everything becomes silent and black... You will start with a total ban, but then, but then what?!<...>
10.30.2017 at 20:27, views: 24518Not a single more or less noticeable official remained on the sidelines of the discussion. One part of the State Duma deputies insisted on the blasphemy and harmfulness of “Matilda”, but the other declared the film highly artistic, historical, reconciling and even complimentary in relation to the figure of the last Russian emperor. Both positions, in my personal opinion, do not correlate with reality.
They persistently and irresponsibly tried to drag the Church into the controversy surrounding “Matilda.” Irresponsible, because the tone adopted by the fighters implied a number of monstrously losing stories - from criticism of the Soviet project to anti-Semitism. It was mainly those clergy who were not afraid of marginality who decided to sign up for such a package. Reasonable representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church accepted a slightly offended neutrality, but every hint they made was immediately picked up and elevated almost to the rank of an ultimatum. Otherwise, this cannot be viewed as speculation. It is clear that a priest - even an intelligent, subtle one, with a diploma - is a weak judge in matters of secular art. Moreover: the better a priest he is, the less competent he is in this area. No monastic should like naked girls' breasts on the screen.
In relation to the leader of the so-called “Christian State”, the authorities chose the best from everything that was, in principle, available to the authorities - they showed that it exists. Kalinin was arrested. His beard has probably already been shaved or is about to be shaved. But again the question is from the joke: where do the thoughts go? Those thoughts that, thank God, rarely lead to arson, however, have quarreled a lot of people, which means they cannot be ignored. We have stopped receiving messages “You will answer at the Last Judgment!”, however, I know quite a few people who, over the past months, have stopped communicating, and sometimes even saying hello: “Matilda” served as a watershed.
Now the new picture of the Teacher is protected from radicals, criminal charges have fallen apart, the largest cinema chains have returned the title to their posters, closed and semi-closed pre-screenings have already reached a substantial audience, premiere screenings have taken place across the country, the first reviews have appeared (unlikely capable of influencing the box office), so there is no point in remaining silent any longer. In my opinion, “Matilda” is a creation designed for teenage undemanding motivation and teenage disregard for facts; externally spectacular, internally hollow love story, with a plot line that moves in a tedious “shuttle”, as in the fairy tale about the crane and the heron; cranberry syrup, a set of dreams and fantasies, sometimes causing shock in an adult viewer. The events of 120 years ago, that is, literally yesterday, are treated so freely, as if all the documents were burned in the ovens. In short, “Matilda” would not have gotten into history if she had not managed to get into history.
At the same time, any artist has the right to creative failure. Alexey Uchitel is not to blame for anything: he was not warned that the standard rules of the cinematic game were canceled in some cases. “Matilda” is no better or worse than most Russian films of the modern era, and there is no reason to exclude it from the screen. You should have thought earlier.
Actually, here lies the key problem. If the creation of "Matilda" was a conscious act, someone, of course, would have taken responsibility for its release. That is, he publicly and clearly said: yes, we assisted the Teacher - in production, in distribution, we consider this to be correct, the film is necessary, if you want to execute, execute together...
Nothing of the kind is observed. Foma nods at Yerema, Yerema responds. They should have thought sooner. But they didn't think.
The humanitarian sphere in our country is coordinated so fragmentarily and unsystematically, as if we generally deny our fellow citizens the presence of a soul - both in the religious and everyday sense of the word. After all, there must be a think tank somewhere that, just a few years ago, would have been concerned about how we would approach the centenary of the revolution. What will the “reds,” “whites,” and “monarchists” get, what are the expectations of different strata of society, what are the main risks and how to prevent them.
Recently, it has become fashionable for us to talk about empathy, meaning by it the ability to cry when someone else cries. In fact, this quality is much more valuable in the state field than in everyday life. Empathy is the ability to scan someone else’s emotional state and correct it in a timely manner. Today, the most empathic person in the yard wins - whoever controls the mood controls society.
Since there is no analysis and planning in the humanitarian sphere, we are approaching November 2017 with a full film about the weak, restless Tsarevich and a couple of television premieres about the obvious and behind-the-scenes geniuses of October. One of the series, “Demon of the Revolution” by Vladimir Khotinenko, promises to become a genuine artistic event. Judging by the materials that I was lucky enough to see, this is a very Russian film in spirit - that is, a film where the director is passionately and passionately passionate about his characters. And Vladimir Lenin and even Alexander Parvus (the sought-after demon), shown with lively interest, will always turn out to be more attractive than palace glamor filmed with a cold nose. Well, you must agree: why such distortions on the eve of such a controversial anniversary?
Joseph Brodsky also warned that life will swing to the right, swinging to the left. The right-wing rebellion had been brewing for a long time and was only waiting for a reason to flare up. They literally gave me a reason. This is not about a surge in national self-awareness. On the scale of Russia, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was not, is not and is unlikely to ever become a popular character, regardless of canonization. It is possible to feel sad about this, and we know worthy people who experience this kind of grief. This can be considered a manifestation of the highest justice. But to dispute this fact means to live in illusions. And anyone living with illusions - whether he believes in the restoration of the monarchy or the revival of the Soviet Union - is a dear guest on various talk shows, but in life he is a bad adviser.
Everything that is undertaken by fans of the passion-bearing king (I mean everything that ends up in the media) works against him. Even if you don’t take into account the hooligan extremes. Russian people do not like it when delicate issues are resolved through the prosecutor's office. Russian people look skeptically at posters with calls: “Repent!”, for he himself could count on repentance. For a Russian person, it doesn’t matter whether Nicholas II was an impeccable husband and a sacrificial father: in our opinion, the head of the country should be the father of the country first and foremost. And consider all subjects (optionally citizens) as your own family. An ideal husband at the helm of power - this is not valued in Russia, because it always ends badly. For the last (God willing, last) time in our memory. When the empire collapsed again, this time the Soviet one.
“Matilda” faced not the will of the people, but the consequences of a global spiritual Emptiness. Emptiness without Chapaev, without a king, without inspiring ideas, unifying meanings and undoubted values. Please note: discussions about art now automatically flow into conversations about money. “Oh, we’re feeding them in vain,” people scratch their heads when they hear about yet another scandal. It’s also good if it leaves a loophole for hope: “Let them be useful.” At the same time, as soon as something worthwhile happens in a culture, no one remembers the cost of the issue. It follows from this: the costs of culture should be neither large nor small, but justified. People expect from culture not cost savings, but spiritual consolation. Talent is the most subtle and effective tool for harmonizing social relations, improving the health of the individual and society. It must be kept sharp, carefully oiled, in a velvet case. If the instrument is dull, rusty, obsolete, or we simply don’t know how to use it, what’s the point of discussing the need to replace the velvet case with a cloth case - or without a case at all?
The lack of systematic work in the humanitarian sphere leads to the fact that major victories and large-scale events are not adequately reflected in art and quickly cease to serve as incentives for national enthusiasm. Preparations for significant dates are carried out biasedly, thoughtlessly, and even simply carelessly - hence the unfortunate incidents like the Matilda scandal. The values declared by the country's president and public opinion leaders conflict with information policy, everyday culture, and educational programs. Projects on which enormous amounts of money are spent tickle the public's nerves, but add nothing to either the mind or the heart.
The patriotic agenda, not filled with substance, is handed over, as we see, to illiterate fanatics. This cannot be allowed, otherwise we risk discrediting the patriotic idea as a whole. But, if you think strategically, it is equally important to keep sincere, passionate, caring people from turning into fanatics. An obligatory function of the state is to work with passionaries. They need high goals, difficult tasks, a sense of being in demand, they need the education of feelings and education of the mind - and this is the direct mission of the humanitarian sphere.
The ordinary people who made up the majority in a recent VTsIOM survey are those who are indifferent to self-realization, creativity, and even a career, and only need a stable income, uninterrupted public transport and a children's playground within walking distance, people who, like the hero of Dragunsky, revolve in circle “house, pole control, mushroom”, prevail in any nation - as an inert platform, a vibration damper. However, they are not the ones who move the nation forward. Not them, but those of their children who, rebelling and imagining, strive beyond the boundaries of their personal comfort zone.
What channels for the release of energy will be found by the growing passionaries today is a truly national question. So far the channels are tight. “Matilda,” who, of course, was not worth such passions, felt this to the fullest.
Elena YAMPOLSKAYA, Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation
