Examination of “Matilda”: the opinion instead of facts

Still from the film

And never in any official document I have not seen so many derogatory, disparaging words about Nicholas II and the Orthodox believers in the examination of the film by Alexei Uchitel “Matilda”.

The film itself was not yet released, and it is possible that it will be another parody of bad fantasy on the theme of Russian history. Alas, not the first.

But his expertise is something special and potentially more dangerous. Again, I’ve never seen before in a document written not idle network inmates, and the professionals whose signatures and seals are on each page, hurtful, evil, unjust words about the last Russian Emperor and Church going people who consider him a Saint. Here and low intelligence and immorality, and obscene antics. Here the inadequacy of the Orthodox, and their choice of “worthless object of worship”.

Of course, from the point of view of the authors of the examination, all those hurtful words they say don’t they. From their point of view, all of this is shaped by the means stated in the movie “Matilda”. Like the story “Mowgli”: “They called you an earth worm”! Kaa the boa would not know this, do not tell him Mowgli.

According to the authors of the examination, the application of this resentment probably for one main reason: the audience needs to identify the characters with historical persons, and this identification seems to experts something obvious. It is formulated like this: “These circumstances also have (not have) a direct and significant negative impact on the perception of the audience of a performance by Lars Eidinger image of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II”.

But if part of the audience the negative impact “can not be provided”, it still means that the other part of the audience from such influence may be saved. However, they — the people likely worthy of, once they can protect themselves from pernicious effects — the experts are not delayed. They do not Express confidence in the wisdom of the audience to distinguish truth from falsehood, dignity from shamelessness, art and crafts. Thus (if we think in logic experts) they distribute to the entire audience such derogatory evaluation, such as low intelligence, weakness of spirit and lack of independence of thinking. And, anyway, it’s a shame.

So, why the audience needs to identify with the Emperor-Martyr Nicholas II with the “pejorative-denigration” (as stated in the text of the examination. In Russian it means “derogatory, denigrating”. — Ed.) the image that is created in the film by Alexei Uchitel? The answer to this question in the examination no. Maybe because “the character of Nicholas II,” also called Nicholas II? If it were sufficient justification, the expert, the Trinity had to be identified with more known to the General public musicologist Trinity.

Maybe because Lars Eidinger looks very similar to a famous image of Nicholas II? But the experts just insist that Eidinger on Nicholas II did not like. And even more, they argue, not like he gulielmum their behavior.

So why the Russian audience, besides Maleficarum familiar with the reliability of modern Russian historical movie, have to look at different actor committing questionable actions, and suggest that is for certain was the Emperor and the Saint? Next: why the Russian audience, looking at different from and not a leading actor, have to remember a little-known German erotic film, which starred Eidinger, and to identify his depraved (as, without citing examples, experts say) the action in that movie, even if not with the actor Eidinger, and with Nicholas II?

Went to the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. “Mentally unbalanced and inadequate woman… Is the perception created in the film, the image of Alexandra Feodorovna will arise in almost any educated person who is familiar with the basics of the Orthodox faith and the values of Orthodox Christianity.” So, after all, at stake is not the Empress herself, but only her “created in the film image.” Hence, the viewer still is able not to identify, and to separate historical person and the image. And, according to the experts, should count myself offended by the fact that the image did not coincide with the one adopted in the authoritative for the viewer community.

Here the experts are suddenly on solid ground — just because the canonization of Nicholas II took place, and therefore, the community has received official support. In the opinion of experts, the viewer must look at the other Eidinger, which inadequately represents the young Nicholas II, and think something like “there goes a Saint, canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, Oh, how ugly”.

But there’s a hitch. The fact that Nicholas II was canonized as a Martyr, which is repeatedly mentioned in the examination. “Martyrs” is a variant of the canonization, which the ROC has chosen for those who have accepted suffering and death at the hands of political opponents. In the Russian tradition, for example, Boris and Gleb — the people, known primarily for his death. The death of Nicholas II and his family, truly awful, allows to classify them to martyrs. And the film “the Romanovs. The Imperial family”, which is placed on several Orthodox sites, is a film about suffering and death. However, you can hardly expect from the viewer that he is looking at young, full of hope and strength Nicholas, will think: “Here comes the Holy Martyr”.

In a sense, the canonization drove its supporters into a trap: now in the last Emperor would be difficult to find and show something more remarkable and worthy of compassion than his death. Because life, especially the life of a politician is an inevitable ambiguity. So, you can always say that they offend someone.

I stepped now on the field of speculation, but this is forgivable because almost all of this expertise — an assumption, moreover, expressed in categorical form. “Substitution of fact and opinion” — strong rebuke, addressed to the Director experts, they could first to try on.

Here’s a trifle: it is reported that the scene of fainting Nicholas at his coronation (which had no place in reality) should strengthen the impression of him as a man who “has very low mental abilities.” Why? As syncope is associated with extremely low intellectual abilities?

That substitution is larger: the image of Nicholas the negative, because in reality he just couldn’t (well could not!) fall in love with Mathilde Kschessinska, the photos which the experts saw crooked teeth and “forward elongated face shape, making it superficially similar to a mouse or a rat.” Then the experts come to the magical conclusion: they recognize external data Actresses (not red!) “satisfactory,” however, I believe that the audience at this point should remember photos the real Matilda, to leave behind a good-looking forgery and think about how it negatively, that Tsesarevich Nicholas could fall in love with such a lady. That the viewer can at least in this dramatic moment to guess that forgery is the film Teachers, this is not an option.

The Russian audience, existing in the imagination of gentlemen experts — very curious type. He is both knowledgeable and very stupid. He closely examines and carries in memory the photos of the ballerinas of the last century and versed in German cinema for aesthetes sex addicts. He knows the Orthodox rites and is offended when they are violated (the fact that they violate a woman, not yet accepted or barely accepted Orthodoxy should not be taken into account). Thus the viewer is not able to turn away from the screen and realize that this is a Convention, and possibly a lie. Looking for lewdness “of the character of Nicholas II”, the viewer, in the opinion of experts, should think something like: “phew, that was the Emperor! And these Orthodox — well, stupid!”

It seems that the experts genuinely do not admit that their expertise can also have an impact on the perception (and someone “cannot help”) and may not be the one they expected.

In this examination something tears touching: children’s worship adult humans before the Power of Art. But the other feature — not so touching to us — a substitution of facts with opinion. That Teacher substitution is called a “feature film”, and the gentlemen of the experts “expertise” — a fundamental difference.

Read the story “isn’t it time Poklonsky to revoke the citizenship”