and highlighted an exact copy, well, now the main question, do you agree, you are still asking, well then go ahead, taxi driver, that’s right, dayer.

we are airing a special edition of the big game, we have a special format, we will show a film by sergei from einstein, ivan the terrible, but before the show we will discuss this very important and interesting film. a film that was produced 80 years ago, but still arouses widespread interest, from my point of view, at least, has not lost its relevance. let's look at one of the first episodes of the film: now for the first time, great prince of moscow, crown, tsar of all rus'.

imposes himself, and thus forever, puts a limit on the multi-power, climatic, boyar in russia, from now on the russian land will be one, raises his hand to the boyar power, but in order to hold the russian land in a single hand, strength is needed, and therefore from now on we are establishing an army to serve, streltsy, permanent, whoever does not fight in the troops of those sovereigns, should he participate in the great campaigns of the tsar with money?

bear your money on your own head. sergei izenshtein, among his other numerous merits, was artistic head of masfilm. today, the general director of masfilm, karend chakhnazarov, whom we are very pleased to welcome, is a regular participant in our program, and... karening georgievich, in addition to the fact that he directs masfilm, directs his own films, speaks a lot, and the question inevitably arises: corent, why did you and masfilm decide to restore this film, devote your time to it, spend serious effort on it. well, you understand, we started this program, i think, 10-11 years ago, restoration.

in general, sergei anzenshtein, well, in my opinion , sergei zenshtein is the greatest director, but in my opinion, he is generally number one in the world history of cinema, cinema in general is only 100 years old, so compared to painting, literature and music are very

young art, so in fact, in my opinion, there are not many figures who can be called truly so fundamental for cinema, why isenshtein, why his cinema, because the thoughts that are conveyed through the viewer, through the construction of the frame, through the mesenscene, through editing, that is, by means of cinema, in this sense esenstein was an absolute innovator, other cinema masters, of course, went to this, there in america, grifeth, there von stroheim, but

esenstein brought this to perfection, here in his cinema is cinema became cinema as a separate art, for example, before him... the great charlie chaplin filmed, but in principle charlie chaplin could act on stage, that is, cinema in this case was simply a conductor, like a kind of post office, so esenstein created cinema as an art, in which there is an artistic image, there is potemkin, if you remember, the famous scene, there is a stroller rushing along with a child, rushing along the steps of odessa.

such eternal questions for russia are the question of power, the question of relationships, the power of the people, the power of the elites, esenstein raises all these questions in it, it is surprising that this picture was made during the war, in the most

difficult years of the war - this is when virtually everything was hanging on map, at this time, ezenstein was filming this film and the country gave him the opportunity to make this picture. this amazing, so i am very grateful to the first channel to you personally, since i know your initiatives, it seems to me that it is very important that such films are shown very widely for our public, and it seems to me that it will certainly receive a proper assessment from the modern viewer, the film in my opinion , very dynamic, and i am not a specialist in soviet cinema,

there were things that he could not know but analytically predict, but on some instinctive level, he generally predicted. a lot of what happens to in russia today, the boyars who want to go their own way, in a situation of war, when a very serious challenge has been thrown at the country, they bastards begin to leave, this was called departure, departure, departure, as a form of protest. when it seems to ivan that he does not have enough of a mandate

to do what is necessary during the war, he decides that he needs a new mandate, popular support, and since such general elections were not held then, he leaves for alexandrova sloboda, with hope. that this departure will make an impression on the people, and if the people wants to support him, then from the point of view of ivan the terrible, he will have his own new powers to do what was required for the state. let's see what ivan the terrible said when he decided to go. i won't trust anyone. i will be in the iron and threshing floor! i will leave moscow,

i will leave, i will go to alexandrov sloboda, you will march on moscow, you will return as a conqueror, i will not return to campaigns, i will not return to campaigns, i will return to the national call, it is impossible to call the whole people. it’s impossible to listen to the korlopanov, brothers hungry to trust, where are you going, red dog, you are trying to teach the king how to act, in that nationwide call, i will gain limitless power, i will accept a new anointing, i have put on a great, merciless one, well, that’s a leap, well, it’s as if, well, that’s how ..

it is to some extent cyclical, that is, all

the topics that are raised and that are relevant to us today were no less relevant at that time. let's remember what this time was, this time after the actual collapse of the russian empire, complete collapse, complete chaos, then restoration of the country, in many ways it is similar to what ivan the terrible did, the relationship... the relationship of the supreme power at that time joseph stalin with the boyars, with the people, all this happened, so in this sense we can say that, as they say, there are many parallels , they continue to exist, but this, in my opinion, is quite natural , too, because russia constantly faces the same threats, and these threats, one way or another, they... are resolved differently at different times, but ultimately the threats still the same, external threat, threat

separatism, which is always present in russia, the threat of relationships with the elites, who always partially, and sometimes en masse, take the side, so to speak, foreign, all these things are embodied in this picture, but...

in this in this form, it simply cannot exist in another form, he this theme, for him it is, as it were, one of the main ones in his works, but at the same time, as a great artist, a great artist is sometimes above his personal,

political or ideological views, as i repeat big...

that, esenstein and stalin understood each other. i think that esenstein, as a great artist, touched on some things that stalin did not want them to sound at that moment, although on the one hand the picture is absolutely, well, i would say, pro-soviet, internally, i would say even pro-stalinist, but on the other hand isenshtein, especially in the second series and third series, touches on a very complex issue. at what cost should this goal be achieved? the question of price, in this sense to me it seems that what does unlimited power do? yes, yes, yes, yes, this, it seems to me, this happened to him, even against his, perhaps, desire, but this, this motive arose in the second episode and it is very strong in the third,

it seems to me that stalin did not care i liked it, although at the same time he appreciated izinshtein’s desire to do this, another point that you mentioned, izinshtein’s patriotism, now we are looking at people,

i mean, this is an important part of creating our own national mythology, with this, that is he he was one of the creators of the soviet union, he was flesh and blood of the ussr, so he probably didn’t like something, his paintings were banned, he took off his bow, it was washed away, it’s clear that he had his own conflicts, but at the same time he still remained. an absolutely soviet man, this, by the way, is very interesting from the point of his origin, because his father, by the way, was the chief architect

of riga, an outstanding architect, all, well, in any case, most of the russian architectural modernism that he built mikhail ezenstein, he is in all textbooks, he was a major architect, with whom, apparently, he completely broke with him. with his mother, but his mother was also from an old, by the way, merchant family, russian, not jewish, but russian, they were merchants of the first guild, yes, yes, yes, and he left, he, he was there with her, what what happened between them, the father as a result went to berlin, and they are buried there, they apparently, so to speak, have some kind of this, so his very origin, his, his, his evolution, it is very interesting. by the way, he is in the red army was, by the way, during the civil war, but he may not have fought there directly, but he was a volunteer, yes, he was a volunteer,

let's go to advertising, we'll be back in just a few minutes, we'll talk about ivan the terrible and his time with vladimir nikolaevich rudakov, editor-in-chief of the magazine historian. let's go to advertising. the headquarters operation to denigrate our army failed miserably due to a couple of unsuccessful photos and videos, the incompetence of the ukrainian authorities from the very bottom to the very top. zelensky published exactly this photo on his page. telegram channel, very interesting landscapes inside, you can believe there are bunk beds, this is a barracks. one of the first to react to this was the well-versed ukrainian masiychuk and mourned the death of the military. and also how the israeli army tried to accuse iran of terrorism, but by accident. dressed ukrainian criminals, not iran or israel, these are areas much closer to us. antifake, premiere, tomorrow on the first. and i’m

walking, walking around moscow. until now, at the mitrouniversitet station, passengers point to that same escalator, some even start hum the song of hero nikita mikhalkov from the film “i walk around moscow.” i don’t like when they call me a comedian, because i haven’t done much comedy. the brilliant georgy danelia was the magician on the set. but how did he manage to direct his own life? daneli came home and said to sokolova, lyuba, i’m leaving, i fell in love, lyuba started crying, i think, what’s it like to live unloved, this is what it’s like to live unloved, is it true that the plot of the autumn marathon is autobiographical, he lived for two lives, and lyuba got it all sokolova, the fact that gundareva played, we get a prize, i’m happy that he’s watching, and he’s looking very interested, always slandering, for example, she said that... that he married the first person he met, for which the director blamed himself after the tragedy that happened in his family? after clinical death, he weighed 42 kg, and i realized that i had to save him.

an exclusive with dmitry borisov premiered on saturday on the first. a special episode of the big game is on air. we have a special format, we will show a film by sergei from einstein, ivan grozny. vladimir, you know very well the different views of historians on ivan the terrible, in the latest issue of your magazine you have, from my point of view, a very interesting article on this matter, well, how do you imagine ivan the terrible as a statesman? well, you know, firstly, it must be said that there are such figures in the history of every nation.

the days of alexander's wonderful beginning, such liberal aspirations, the image of paul i, who replaced great catherine, and liberal society have not yet cooled in memory of that time, of course, they tried to understand the nature of power, how such an advanced advanced catherine could be replaced by such a despot and how he was called behind his back the tyrant, like paul i. karamzin was looking for examples in history, and he found an example of such a tyrant in the face.

until 1564, that is, somewhere around the first years of the livonian war, when kurbsky, being, holding an important post, as if the governor of the king in yuriev, present-day tartu, in estonia on the newly conquered lands, makes an unexpected decision for himself to go to to the polish king, and being there, this means that he was already on the other side of the war... fighting , among other things, against the russians, he creates a myth about ivan the terrible, as a man who was reborn during his reign, there was a young king who was open to new things, who loved his surroundings, who acted in the interests of the country, and then the king turned into a bloody tyrant who dispersed all his associates, began executing them, which means flooding the whole country with blood. kurbsky

, of course, knows his way around this story. to the polish audience inside, let me remind you that ivan grozny tried unsuccessfully, however , to run for polish king, he lost the fight, by the way, to the future henry ilois, the french king, but his candidacy was considered as such strong candidates, and the history of kurbsky, and in general everything that kurbsky said in poland, about ivan the terrible, it was a story, including for an internal polish audience. about what a terrible person is located in the east of the polish-lithuanian commonwealth, it must be said that even the terminology that kurbsky used, which entered in all textbooks, for example, the elected rada, yes, this is a term that was written specifically for the polish audience, the term rada, yes, remember how we used to have a supreme council, the ukrainian ussr, and then it became the verkhovna rada, this is, polonism, so to speak, kurbsky somehow went down in history.

such a dissident, a man of free views, although in fact he was an ordinary traitor who, having found himself on the other side, so to speak, tried in every possible way to create a new biography for himself, to create a new reputation for himself. it's interesting that by his actions kurbsky was no different from ivan the terrible, in terms of his principles of action he was no different from ivan the terrible, and even the most liberal russian historians, when they described the behavior there in poland, admitted that kurbsky acts with completely self-defeating methods, this is kirill petrovich troekurov , having just moved there, all the criticism of the tsar, of course, from kurbsky, who... was from kurbsky, was later borrowed by koramzin, and from him by others, and by many other russian historians who often look at grozny through the eyes of his main opponent. and i also read

about the serious historians platonov, klyuchevsky, that what kurbsky wrote, that they really liked to inflate it in the then west, because then the... propaganda leaflets, such small brochures, where the rulers of the russian state were just beginning, therefore, such people were published , including ivan the terrible, portrayed as perfect monsters, and these brochures were not written on the field, not in the field, and so

to speak, not from life, they were written according to certain literary templates, according to which they were written portraits of turkish sultans, these are such azchina in its purest form, there are even texts where simply... the names were changed and the russian tsar was credited with atrocities against some peoples with whom the russian tsar had never crossed paths in his life, these were peoples with whom the turkish sultan interacted, for europe the then sultan was enemy number one, ivan the terrible, shown in the image of this sultan, turned into enemy number two. this is actually the beginning of such an anti-russian propaganda campaign, it falls, in fact, at the beginning of the 15th century, but when ivan the terrible becomes tsar, the company enters its golden age, and the biographies of ivan the terrible, which are published in the west, are biographies that, so to speak, do not have halftones, ivan the terrible is definitely there a negative figure, scary,

gloomy, and most importantly, she is scary, gloomy not because she brings something bad to her subjects, but because she threatens the high ideal of european civilization from the point of view, well, because he created.

what is recorded of his personal victims, but this is much less than that of charles 9, and in france, barflamey’s night, in france more than 100. for the first time, the grand duke of moscow, the crown of the tsar

of all russia, places himself, from now on the russian land will be one, raises his hand to the boyar power, already arrows of the tatars, hatred of the boyars, and this knife will pierce those who... raised their hand against moscow, i will not allow the strength of the evil neighbor to strangle our power with a trade noose, power must pass to the boyar tsar, so that power is shared by the boyars, the boyars will again resist you the people they're coming, a film by sergei ezenstein, ivan groznyj. today we will introduce you to

a person whose work is attracting more and more interest every day, this is circus and theater director valentin gneushev. i came to school to become a clown, but my teacher forbade me to be, a lot of brilliant people who found some kind of poetic, fantastic reality in the circus, this is the transience that i want from... the circus that i want to do, it does not exist. we continue our series of half-hour portrait programs and would like to introduce you to dmitry sovetsky, a russian writer for about 15 living in paris for years. i came to my beloved woman, and after 2.5 days i realized that she was gone, and that i had to start from scratch myself. i knew that my homeland is my language, this is the language in which i write. it was such a truly poor moscow bohemia. who lived on bad wine on good

poetry, my 49.5 minutes of jazz are not just a program for me, an important program for me, i know that you are sitting at a table in a st. petersburg cafe, where they play programs from 49, ciao baby, matodor, tomorrow on the first. a special episode of the big game is on air, we have a special format, we will show a film by sergei izenshtein, ivan the terrible, it seems to me, vladimir, when i say, it seems, i mean that it seems to me, and i will be glad if you correct me, that this is a problem with the presentation . in russia, it is, of course, much broader than the time of ivan the terrible, but of our

time, there was such a famous historian richard pibes, who spent 2 years as an adviser on the soviet union to ronald regen, returned to you at harvard, we must give him his due when he was in washington , everything to him i really didn’t like this job in the white house, because firstly...

he constantly compared russia with some ideal that never existed, but in comparison with this ideal, russia was unpleasantly terrifying.

that france of the 16th century was a chronically aggressive country. all they did was fight. no, well, listen, peter i tried to create an army of a european model, that is , the level of the russian army was an order of magnitude lower, it was necessary to catch up to the level

of the european powers in order to adequately resist them, for example sweden. it's obvious thing. the local noble army is against the regular army, which has been in europe for a long time and has shown itself in its own right. various alterations, you have seen the film, you know more about ivan the terrible than the vast majority, not just ordinary people, but historians, to what extent do you think that the image of ivan the terrible in the film corresponds, well, if you like, to historical science, this is very complex question, you know why, because karen georgich said absolutely correctly, esenstein is a great artist, of course, without any quotes, and he created, of course, image... it was possible to convey a certain idea to it, so you can find fault with this film in details, you can say that what was wrong here, this could not be said at that time, and this is normal for a movie of this level, but in the main thing, i think esenstein felt what many people who thought about grozny felt, that on the one

hand, of course, ivan the terrible is a historical man, ask any person, name five figures of russian history, the formidable will be there, alexander nevsky, by the way , and peter ii too, historically, not because he is so famous, but because the contribution he made to the development of the country cannot be overestimated, russia entered, so to speak, other eurasian expanses, remember, the annexation of the kazan khanate, astrakhan, russia stood on par with the empires of that time, he took the title of tsar, that is, he became on the level, on the level of actually byzantine emperors, caesars, this is the high status of the russian state. he nevertheless created a more regular army than was before him, he thought, of course, in huge large-scale categories, and he was, he was a great writer, ivan the terrible, let’s not forget, he was a great intellectual of his time, in comparison with whom many, many rulers, his contemporaries, pale,

he left outstanding literary works, there are not even any quotation marks here necessary, and at the same time the price that was paid for many... his transformation was quite high, he was a man of his time from the position of, say, koramzin of the 19th century, our noble and 20th century so humanistic, of course to him maybe, maybe many claims can be made, but rizenshtein captured the scale of this figure very correctly, and such a personality cannot be measured with a ruler, but if i may say so, karen georgivich remembered about the second series, because stalin’s second second series really is. i categorically did not like it, and indeed - isenstein showed, among other things that karengech was talking about, the loneliness of a man at the pinnacle of power, a man who was ready, in the name of his great ideas about the fate of his homeland, yes, to sacrifice much, much, he finds himself alone, he has no people with

whom he can be close as a human being. corinne, if i say that the film is a heroic tragedy, i would be wrong. no, i think you're right, yes. yes, yes, a tragedy, yes, a tragedy, especially, yes, in the second, vladimir said correctly, loneliness, power - this is this, this is the theme that arises, by the way, i’m not sure that stalin didn’t like it, i think it’s just he decided that it was inappropriate to show, i think maybe he liked it, so, in fact, he talked to esenstein for 2 hours, but i decided that this is not necessary, this, as they say, is to be shown in cinema for today, but about... about here, in order to understand the method from einstein, there is one very funny story, but it seems to me that it is very indicative when from einstein was filming alexander nevsky, well, he’s there in the corridor.

several shards, there is something there, what will it be like for you, how will it go down in history, to which isenstein told him, this is how i’ll photograph it, it will be like this, it will be like this in history, and it turned out to be absolutely right, because alexander nevsky from einstein, he remained like that in our history, anyway, this image was also created by cherkassov, this is the method - esenstein, this is an absolutely correct method.

grozny in advancing to the south and most importantly in promoting siberia, and that if we are talking

about peter the great, for me he is, as it were, the great creator of modern russia, the creator of an empire, but it seems to me that this is precisely ivan the terrible, who, by the totality of his achievements and failures, that one can say about him that he is the creator of the russian kingdom, well, that he is the creator.

with ivania, those contours are designated, up to which the russian people have yet to reach, but which are already understandable in one way or another, and peter i began to organize this space, in general i think that three figures in this sense should be noted, ivan the terrible and peter ii are obviously here, but also ivan ii, who a little in the shadow is, unfortunately, the grandfather, the grandfather, yes, but who is also certainly a huge, large-scale figure, who, by the way, was the first to be called ivan the terrible, although there are no such executions.

in the name of father and son and the holy spirit, the grand duke and

sovereign ivan vasilievich. the god -crowned tsar of moscow and all great russia is called an autocrat. the moscow prince does not have the right to royal status. doesn't recognize europe. his king will be strongly recognized, however, some of his people are not very enthusiastic about this wedding, the dissatisfaction of those nobles is understandable that the belly of the grand duke, voldemar staretsky with his mother, the wedding of john. the tsar

complicates their path to the throne of moscow, but there seem to be supporters of john, then relatives of the bride of the grand duke, not the grand duke, but the tsar, the soul of the tsar.

oh, blessed king, accept from god,

skipiters. accept my son! accept the mighty power from god, accept your son, now and ever and forever and ever.

now for the first time, the grand duke of moscow places the crown of the tsar of all russia on himself, and thus forever, puts a limit on the multi-power, snarled, boyar in russia, from now on the russian land will be one, on the boyar. the authorities are raising their hand, but you must hold the russian land in a single hand, strength is needed, and therefore

from now on we are establishing an army, a service army, a streltsy army, a permanent army, whoever in the armies of those sovereigns himself... does not fight, will in the great campaigns of the king, to participate with money, to carry his own money on his own head, also to the holy monasteries, from now on, with his great income , to participate in military affairs. for their treasury is multiplying, but the russian land has no benefit from it, a strong government is needed, to beat the crap out of those who

oppose the unity of the russian state, because only with a single, strong, united kingdom inside, it is possible to exist. but what is our homeland if not a body, elbows and knees cut off? the upper reaches of our rivers, the volga, dvena, volkhov, are under our power, and their access to the sea is in the hands of others, the coastal lands, our fathers and grandfathers, were torn away from our land, and why on this day,

from now on i will be alone, the pope will not allow it, the emperor will not agree, europe will not recognize it, it will be strong, everyone will recognize it, it is necessary that there be no villages, day simeon, the god-receiver, the wedding has been appointed, let's celebrate the wedding.

master, why is such a privilege given to john, why is the prince of kurpia in john’s vassals, is the family of kurdish ministries more noble than the family of john of moscow, why?

yes, the backs of yourselves, people, lyuli, my little people, lyuli, lyuli, lyuli, little people,

give the estate, sir, to the fallen one, bachite, tapadar, tavadi, tuliru.

why, my friends, the closest ones, now not all? well, tsar, sovereign, it’s in vain to tell the people that marriage ends friendship.

and what will fyodor kalychev answer? you tear the king from ancient customs, through which i see great turmoil, i don’t dare go against the king, i can’t walk next to you, let me go to the monastery. you are exchanging the king of earth for the king of heaven, well, i will not stand between you and the king of heaven, go, pray for us sinners, i

ask one thing. don’t leave me in trouble, at the right time , at our call, come back! the mansions of the kryna zakharins marched towards the royal mansions.