make a sculpture out of steel, because bronze, bronze, sheets of bronze, were hammered out in exactly the same way there or how did this idea with steel come about then, i think it came about, why? because even then this regime of broad discussion was adopted, yes they invited, we participate in the expo, yes, that means, as it is usually done, we participate in the expo, a government meeting, directors of large, so to speak, enterprises are invited to it, everyone is asked the question: so, what are we going to exhibit, and some say: oh, and we in... there we can have two planes and indeed chkalov baidukov ferried planes there to an exhibition in paris in 1937, someone says: and we will be there, well, i don’t know , showing pictures and, someone else says: “oh, and we can offer you chromium-nickel steel, and how do you, and we, here at this meeting, but this is roughly how it happens, there was such a proposal, it was naturally defended by a representative.”

of this advanced metalworking enterprise, it suddenly turned out that this steel , with its half-millimeter thickness, it it is quite plastic, plus it is not assembled on rivets, welding and so on and so forth, that is, it has some, plus it is shiny, literally reflects sunlight, it simply glows, yes, it glows, all these qualities, it really is. they said that it needs to be made of steel, that is, it was as if they came to her with this material already, i wonder what she did when, for example, the sculpture expired about the synthesis of art and about how she generally thought outside the box, in the fifties there was an exhibition in a russian museum, where she showed a female torso made of glass and it was matte, well matte as if yes, it showed volume and...

vera mokhina wanted to show a transparent, transparent cake, because not in a museum, but somewhere in a park or a garden, where there is greenery all around, and as if this sculpture had collected moisture from the plants around it, it was formed from dew, from rain, that's what she wanted, that is, as if she even thought about the sculptures, how they would be exhibited, she had this figurative conceptual thinking, she was like she was and not just an applied artist and... to make something to order, she thought very globally. dear friends, you can watch all the podcastlabb episodes on the website of the first channel 1tv.ru, and is it true that at first this figure, well, this is a sculpture of a working collective farmer, should have been naked, but she was forbidden. well, yes, well, thank god, because this scarf was added there, and that is, it was, well, this is how to say, ordinary creative work here.

this sculpture, because it should already be by may it was to be taken away to be assembled, and first it was assembled here, and then it was assembled here, then they looked at it, looked at everything they could there, checked it, although the work was almost at random, because well, as it is customary, the sculptor works on the model, makes the model and then looks at it, comes, the shapers come, it is enlarged there eight times, here the model itself was a meter long or there 95 cm small. it was necessary to enlarge it simply by more than 20 times, and it is as if it is not clear, you make a mistake by a millimeter here, it can growing up, it was such a process, well that's why i said luck, luck was with them, they did everything very well, everything came together and so on, then there were adventures, when it was necessary to take all this to paris, yes a whole train, there were 28 carriages filled, which consisted of fragments. 65 they divided carefully into

65 fragments put their legs and they took everything there was somewhere there in poland in some tunnel you don't want to go through. not to let the soviets pass there were some they say they had to saw something off in some tunnel protruding beyond this it is easy to cut off with an oxyacetylene torch, but it was not so scary, then they brought it to paris, the french communists came to the rescue , they helped a lot there, including even with the protection of this area, that's exactly it... they found some kind of sawed-off cable there, the communists helped very much, thank god, very well, and they really built it very quickly, they built a pavilion in there in less than a month, they built a giant pavilion 160 m long, but they didn't let anyone back to

dismantle it, people unfamiliar with installation came absolutely with sculpture, with technologies there and so on, they sawed it into 44 pieces there. into 65 neat ones, and here it’s just like that, this is in paris, yes, in paris they sawed it into 44 pieces roughly, and there they somehow sent it all, we already assembled it, there they already changed the metal from thin to thick, violated the proportions, in general, they put it on this stump - in quotes and so on, in general, it was already, i think, that for her it was extremely traumatic, but still the game was worth the candle, i understand that it is...

then whether you like it or not, even if you are there you draw a political caricature, all the same it is as if it is impossible to go around it, it is wonderful, well, after all, yes, it is clear that vera ignatyevna is best known for this sculpture, well, and for the faceted glass, about which the gangs will always continue, after all, what else do we need to talk about, what other important works of hers, please, he is sitting at the conservatory pyotr ilyich, and in an amazing pose, here.

chkalov, then, such a real fall of icarus, the wing in the unfolded and there one sculpture was stolen from an exhibition, the second sculpture, the second sculpture by some in a way stolen from the tretyakov gallery, i don’t even understand how this is possible, in general, only one plaster model remained, she wanted to turn it into a monument, but it didn’t happen either, well, in general, such stories certainly happened at that time quite a lot. yes, in fact, a lot in general from mukhina’s life, we don’t know, as if it were widely unknown, for example, the same art glass factory in leningrad, where, which she essentially managed, yes, as artistic director, but she was also the initiator

of its creation, when back in the forties there was no such plant, she suggested making an experimental workshop on the basis of a mirror plant, just a glass plant, that is, no one talked about artistic glass there, and then she, yes, yes, and in fact, after that, of course, during the war, and the great patriotic war , the work of this art department was interrupted, but already from 1945 the work was in full swing and new masters were trained, and what was very interesting was that not only, for example, she made a project, and then gave it to production, she stood there watching, as everything is cast, she always communicated with technologists and... together with them she found adequate solutions and forms, including, because it was important, yes, how to go together with technology with the material, that is, as if she was always searching, and there was no final decision that this is good and this is bad, she was always searching,

this mobility, it is also, in principle, very, when a person is constantly learning, constantly searching for something, this also usually accompanies great talent, when a person is always like a child, something... discovers for herself, that is, she did not rest on her laurels, she was always such a hard worker, and it was interesting not only in art in such a pure high way, but in production directly, right in the workshop, right in... there she baked with the workers to work, that was interesting to her, here are her students, mukhin's school, we can talk about this, i don't think, that is, she remained such a unique unprecedented phenomenon, well, thank god, but in fact it is artistic to be an artistic director and to be on artistic councils - this is also very important, because firstly , they don’t just send something to production and sign it, they give recommendations on when to do it, what needs to be changed from a technological point of view, that is, as if it were some kind of teacher, well, in fact, you come, and they tell you:

as we would say now, to set trends, the plant was made in order to do, because it would be necessary to make good periods of its creative life and, moreover, samples, so that artists would make them, and then it was assumed that these projects would be buy glass factories all over the country, that is, as if they make artistic glass, then they experiment, develop new models, and then it is released everywhere, that is, in fact, the same thing happened with some ordinary...

i learned a lot of new things, on this we say goodbye to you, our dear viewers, so, we

talked about vera ignatyevna mukhina, in our studio were alexandra sankova, director and founder of the moscow design museum and yuri avakomov, architect, artist, curator. thank you very much, dear friends. this is a podcast of witnesses from einstein and its hosts, i am a film historian natalia ryabshchikova and my colleague stanislav didinsky. in this podcast we tell who and how created classic, cult, little-known, forgotten soviet films. we delve into the secrets of film archives and tell why it is necessary to watch soviet cinema now. how to understand it better and how to get the most pleasure from it, and today our topic is

the ninetieth anniversary of the remarkable soviet director, russian director alexander mita and his film, made at the end of sixties burn-burn my star. stas, why is it important for us to talk about alexander metta? because this is the man who largely laid the foundations for the attitude towards cinema as a kind of mass spectacle. this is the new standard. soviet blockbuster, remember, the film crew, the tale of wanderings, this was of course done by meta, who thought about how in general abroad, they create mass cinema, in those years when he was actively interested in this , subsequently he developed his theory, concept and further about the three-act structure, how in general any mass film is built, there is a first act with a plot, there is a second and third, where the culmination and denouement of everything takes place, and so the meta in this sense is of course an amazing such... on path of the soviet director, who started with children's films, in fact, who was actively interested

in what his colleagues were doing, including even participating as an actor on the sets of his colleagues, and then the film woe-woe my star became a turning point for him in many ways, we are in 1967, alexander mita has already released three films, he graduated from gik, he studied with andrei torkovsky and vasily shukshin, mikhail's wonderful incredible workshop. according to alexander naumovich, he, well, not that he learned a lot from romm, he understood more when he reread those same lectures published in a book edition. and how great it would be to show how the new soviet art began in the revolution, in the minds of people, at that time, in people connected with art, yes, when they think

about the twenties, in the early twenties, sergei yesenstein, first of all, sellot meir hold and... the idea is to show, and how such an artist, a revolutionary exists not just in a situation when the entire state system is changing, yes, but when in some periods the system changes almost every day, when such places, a very unstable political situation, yes, it is unclear who, who is in charge, yes, what ideology is pressing, how to behave in a situation when the world around is extremely unstable, and how there was a red...

in fact, the name appeared, probably, the very last thing in this film, when we are my star, we pronounce it so easily, but looking at the documents about how the film was created, we see a series of names, which first of all include the name of the main character, first of all they came up with the surname iskri mass, well, this is a creative pseudonym, of course, of course, the art of the revolution mass, apparently, this is what all this content grew out of. actually, we have a photo from the magazine soviet screen, which shows how the main character should have looked if everything happened as mita planned. yes, a hero appeared, at first his name was pavel iskrimas, then vladimir iskrimas, a term for the genre appeared, a definition of the comedy genre about iskrimas, an actor appeared during the writing process, for whom all this was written,

an incredible wonderful actor and director roland bykov, and his iskrimas is an artist who...

every time they swore off working with him after the release of another film, and then they came back he asks them, why? well , others are even worse, of course, history, when the scriptwriters are unhappy with the director - this is an absolute classic, universal for all countries, times of peoples, yes, scriptwriters are always unhappy with what they do with scripts, here it seems, the script was described quite easily and quite quickly, so they submitted an application in the summer of sixty-seventh year, in general, by the end of the year there was already the first version: the script, the script began after the prologue quite festively, in a small southern town a kibitka with a traveling, wandering actor appeared on the way to moscow, we we can watch a fragment, how it looks in the film, in the end, a prodyachiy theater. comrades, the national

theater-experiment, the art of revolution for the masses, the sparkle masses begin a free performance, watch the tragedy of the great shakespeare julius caesar in the adaptation of vladimir of kremvas, you, romans, your emperor is killed, killed by revolutionaries, but the tyrant has friends left. and here is one of them, antony, making a speech about caesar's case. antony, this is ... i, later mita recalled that he was very attracted by this transformation of the kibitka into a theater, the transformation of a small zanavis into

an actor's cloak, everything is so very, what we are talking about now is warm, tube-like, yes, homemade, and how it is really created on the run and should attract viewers, it is clear that we see a completely different actor on the screen , nirolan bykov, and this is the first drama that befell - the filming process, but while bykov appeared, other actors were added to him, who remained in the film in the end, a wonderful character was written for yevgeny leonov, an illusionist, as he was called calls, aleksandr naumevich mitta, that is , the person who is engaged, shows films, well, that is, after bykov was replaced by oleg dabakub, whom we have just seen on the screen, he perfectly, in principle , joined that trio of actors. in which the director himself mita initially saw on the screen among the performers of the main roles, and just here evgeny leonov, who played a cinematographer, an absolutely intoxicated opportunist, this is another such bright

work in this film, but again, who are these characters, why is this a trio of artists, yes on the edge, who do they represent, the third artist is oleg efremov, oleg efremov, yes of course, who does not have a single word in this film, in fact, not a single line, why, because they were in the script , of course, because... that according to legend efremov said, that i have so many problems in the theater, listen, let me just keep quiet and do everything you say, and it turned out great, three characters were supposed to represent, according to the director's idea, such a composite collective image of the artist, intellectual, creator, and what roland bykov played, well, according to later recollections, of course, the meta didn't quite fit into what he wanted, roland bykov was too... worried, these creator's worries, he turned on, frankly. mitya wanted all this to be latent, the tragedy of merhold and

so on. and bykovka broke it too frankly. but mitya couldn't do anything about it, again, according to him. and in his opinion, fortunately for him , attention was paid to the film soon after the filming, well, they had already reached somewhere around 1/5 of the useful footage. after soviet tanks entered czechoslovakia, and this is important because attention was immediately drawn to what was happening inside the country, after watching it, the studios said that the film, in general, perhaps, should be closed, this hero is too sad, tragic, melancholic and generally not in line with what we should now show the soviet viewer, then aleksandrta suggested replacing the actor and... tabakov, who created some incredibly enchanting, sparkling performance of this very sparkler, yes, he really sparkles there, very athletic, it is clear that he is younger than

bykov, and although they made him a little thin and sad here, but later he is more energetic, more optimistic, this was in the spirit of what was needed, who are these three artists that we see on the screen, well , as samita said, this is such a collective portrait. artists, what he himself would like to be, yes, one, who he would like to be, probably will never be, one, who he is afraid to be, an opportunist, and the third, who he most likely is, such here is not very stable, inclined to compromise with a grimace, well, and the opportunist is of course a filmmaker, and here mita walked through them, well, together with the scriptwriters , it's quite fun, let's watch a fragment where the character of yevgeny leonov... shows the audience, the residents of this city a film, a devolutionary film, obviously, yes, filmed back in the 1910s, a drama at sea. a drama at sea,

laughter for the men, grief for the women. city lady, they are not ashamed, here is a moscow front-line ally, beware ladies, young mothers! "here he is, on the move soles, attracts a woman's pain, actually he turns the pedals because it is necessary that the dynamo machine, with the help of which

the film is shown, always gave for..." electric charge actually animated photographs appeared on the screen, as they would say then, why do we say that this film is on the one hand about the twenties, on the other hand about modernity then and today, because this little film, which was made especially for metta's film, we see three times throughout our big film comedy baskrimase or gorimaya zvezda, each time it is accompanied by a new text and the context changes completely, for one viewer this, for another viewer this. for a third viewer the third, in general, the meta shows us, including the kitchen of the soviet filmmaker, how we can edit, re-sound, in general , play with the next one, that cinema in general is a rather opportunistic art, and of course it is funny how then at the end almost the original pre-revolutionary text returns, when the whites come to the city, and then the hero gineleonova reproduces this

nostalgic intonation for the times that... are over, and what times are over? after all, what is escrimas fighting against? escrimas, after all, is not a bolshevik, he is not a stranger to some ideology, he is fighting in principle for the creation of a new art, to replace that frozen old art, the academic art that dominated the theater, well, in cinema, in many ways, in the 1910s, after all, the new generation of artists of the twenties, it was just building itself up from this daddy's, well, not cinema, but daddy's theater, which seemed to them well boring. well not revolutionary, and of course, the revolution breathed life into a bunch of young people who decided to change everything, but at the same time iskremas is very worried that there are people who do not listen to him, do not want to watch his revolutionary drama, but run to watch this tearful melodrama, and he is especially worried that the girl he picks up, even a girl, who becomes his companion throughout

the film, who... he is so attached to and tries to protect him somehow from the hardships of life, understands that he is feeble-minded, and this girl is played by elena proklova, this is not her first role, but she was actually given such a path into art by alexander mitta 4 years before this film, when he took her to act, after a huge long search for the heroine, in his film they are ringing, open the door, then elena prokolova was not yet 12 years old and ... she was brought to the shooting after some doubts by the second director alexander mitta, who was also her relative grandfather, and after that lena proklova started acting, in general mita already had it in her head, yes , she already knew the candidacy of the actress for the role of christina or krysya, as they call her in the film, she had already worked with leonov, she had worked with roland bykov, she had worked, in my opinion, even with efremov

by that time. and in general she was almost ready to play a more serious role, in this film this communication with contemporary stars, with tabakov and efremov, according to her, led her to the fact that she entered school the following year studiokhat, the film itself about art, about how an artist lives this art, for her it became the stimulus that she may have lacked, she was just finishing school, in order to really start... working in the profession, that is, before that it was such a childish, maybe a hobby, an indulgence, in this film she consciously felt like a future actress, well, it seems to me, the most curious thing for the context of the era is that she plays not an ordinary person, but jeanne d'arc, a play that is staged from the crisis, this is very relevant, important the heroine, of course, of course, then in the 60s, the end of the 60s she appears as a heroine of the revolution in a broad sense, but look, gleb ponfilov addresses the same topic, the film

the beginning. and a similar character appears in his previous film, there is no ford in the fire, even tarkovsky dreams of staging jeanne d'arc, who writes about this in his diaries. in general, this is a very relevant figure for, well , not so much for that era, but for the revolution as a whole, and the anniversary of the revolution, of course, makes everyone think, comprehend, how it could be paid for on the screen, well, and skrema copes with the means that are at hand, and almost sets the theater on fire. mnogomaev.

let me remind you that this is a podcast witnesses from einstein, where we talk about who and how created classic, cult, little-known, forgotten soviet films, and today we are talking about one of these films, it can be called cult, burn-burn my star, we are doing this in connection with

the ninetieth anniversary of its director alexander naumovich metta. in principle, this is an unusual film for soviet cinema, also because it is, well, you could say, multimedia, it has a story about the theater. it has cinematography, the third hypostasis is painting, you could even say it is frescoes, it is sculpture, that is , static visual art, and this was helped to be embodied on the screen by the wonderful production designer boris blank and two artists from the soyuz cartoon studio, who actually created these incredible colorful drawings, statues, painted apples on a tree, which...

this artistic style, in which part of the animation came, was embodied on the screen, so, so, i understand, you want me to leave quickly, but i am just in the mood to sit, sit and chat, well , sit down, honor. so-so-so. well, step aside. step aside. interesting. interesting.

yevgeny leonov's character, a cinematographer, was the first to tremble and sit down. these paintings that we see on the walls were compared to the works of niko perasmania during the filming and after the release of the film, we can compare these works with chagall, for some reason this name was not used then, one of the his last films, called shagalavich, which was filmed several years ago, and this theme of art interested him throughout his career, this white officer. also very similar to someone, but not to an actor, to a director, well, actually, this is director vladimir naumov, and in addition to director vladimir naumov , marlen khutsyev also starred in the film, for example, in whose film alexander naumovich mita himself played in

the film yule rain, where he played such a botanist who likes to collect various factually everything at the same time happens, they change each other, they were even reproached later for creating some kind of cabarets on the screen, that different directors are filming each other's... to discuss, it is clear that leonov's hero is a negative example, this is the very compromise that should not be in the life of an artist of the revolution, and he was perceived, let's say, by reviewers with some apprehension, he

seems to be negative, but somehow leonov plays him somehow contradictorily, we like him, we get used to him, we generally also understand his pain and his desire to survive. with the passage of decades, yes, and aleksandromovich meta, turning his gaze to this film, recalls this phrase of leonov to survive, as in general what consisted of... the task of the soviet artist, well, to survive in art, yes, so that your film is not closed, you need to change the actor, you need to make some editing adjustments, you need to maneuver all the time, the trick is that they could not close the film just like that, it was quite difficult, because the reporting is complex, money, a loan was taken from the bank, and in order to shoot any film, any soviet studio took out a loan from a bank, which then after the film was accepted by the state, goskino, was compensated with the help of goskino funds. from the film and this money was sort of returned by the studio to the bank,

so it was a rather complicated system, so it was practically impossible to just take and refuse some project, well, yes, that is, it is a loss, who will cover this loss, and for the meta - this is of course a school in life in a certain sense, this film, because he had to fit into a limited budget, and what we see on the screen is, in fact, in many ways a compromise option, how to save money and still make a good film, he does it perfectly.

they said that isenshtein is the prototype of the hero created by oleg tobakov. all here, she raises the stations of retribution, because of this the exploiters of the people even burned her at the stake. saving townspeople, we will make her porazeito and kanyo.

new creative accomplishment, opening to the creation of new theaters, and looking at the fog, elena proklova, the girl kysya, says that look, a very political comparison, we call it all that the hare brews beer, and beskremman agrees with her, they gave some dialogues and they seem to disappear behind the horizon, in the film mas dies saving kysya, drives away the cart, actually dies from a bandit's bullet, as he said, in place of one of those... the main character in soviet

cinema could die in the twenties and even in the first half of the thirties, for example, chipaev, then it meant that he was a victim of the future revolution, so that the revolution could to be accomplished, a sacred sacrifice, in the sixties this was no longer accepted, it violated the principle of happy, optimism and so on, how could it be? you were allowed to do it, well, he was allowed to do it, because well, the film was unconvincingly put together, because the other artists, well, in general, also perish, and iskremass should also perish after them, only lionov remains, he is alive in many ways, these are the real artists, like the artist played by efremov and like eskremas, here they are dying among us, unfortunately in this tragedy of the revolution, which does not spare no one on its way, not even its creators and those who... create its well, artistic world, artistic seamy side. again,

the tragic ending, it was approved, the film turned out, but how was this film received, how was it assessed by contemporaries of mita's colleague? well, this is a complicated story, for me, it is still a bit mysterious, because meta himself says that the film was shelved. what do we see from the documents? according to the documents, the film was accepted at the end of sixty-nine, the film was shown at the opening of the season at the cinema house, it was then called a comedy about askrimas, then they showed up. they assessed it exactly like this, what it was. for gerasimov, the ending was unconvincing, too rounded, but he really liked this primitivist painting. it turned out that he himself really liked this kind of painting, despite the fact that he made his films very socialist realist, very correct, very boring, in the opinion of some. and someone said that the viewers in

the film, those who watch the works from krimas, somehow do not react to them very violently, somehow they do not like all this, it seems that... sometimes in a very unpleasant way, but it was impossible to say so frankly then, so meta convinced everyone that well, this is just such an accident, a tragedy, he dies there several times throughout the film, and this is a reality that interferes with our game and so on, but nevertheless his art continues, and it is precisely with this

continuation of art that the change of the title is connected, because the film had already been accepted, suddenly in the production documents at the state cinema... a letter signed by alexander meta appears, this is already the beginning seventieth year, the letter is addressed personally to the head of all soviet cinematography, alexander romanov, and mita writes that we talked to you, you advised us to change the name, and we got together here and thought that in one of our scenes our heroic artists sing an old romance burn-burn my star, it seems to us that this burning, this stardom, yes, this is some kind of symbol of this very art that continues... to live, does not die, in spite of everything, and so on and so forth, allow us to change the name, and there is a remark, not i object, it seems normal, the film changed its name, but it even had a premiere in irkutsk, and a film crew went there, it was in the winter of the seventies, then there was emptiness,

then there was some kind of failure, there are reviews, but there is no film in cinemas, according to alexander meta, the film was lying on the shelf. according to the documents, this is not very noticeable, not very visible. meta recalls that no one could write a positive review, everyone only scolded, but this is not true, everyone generally praised the film, not everyone understood, right? the shelf is when the film is put down, they really put copies of the film in the state fund on a separate shelf, and it no longer gets on the screen from there, that is, copies of the film cannot be seen in any cinema, but according to the documents, the film was released. third category, this means that it simply had a very limited release, it was shown in a very small number of copies in a very small number of non- central cinemas, and not immediately after this very premiere in the winter of the seventies, it was released in the fall of the seventies, that is, of course, they marinated it, held it, showed it a little, and there is one clipping,

let's say from an irkutsk newspaper, where the reviewer writes such a wonderful film, very useful, interesting for a wide audience. fascinating, but unfortunately, if you want to watch it, its distribution has already ended, although those who want to watch it still remain, let's return this film to the screens of irkutsk, i don't know whether they returned it or not, well , i think that - the same story happened with the film, as with many other films that are considered cult today, thanks to reruns on television, color films, after all, yes, for color televisions it is the best, well, by the way, the original film was supposed to be black and white, then... they changed the possibilities of shooting it in color, for the same money, for the same money, this was actually another creative challenge for alexander naumich, yes, how for the same budget, to make an even more spectacular film, well , a typical situation for a capitalist economy, not for a socialist one, but mita took on obligations and fulfilled them, and the films are interesting.