of course, well, the wolf was enriched due to very unusual personalities, it cooperated with foreign directors and cameramen, and dovzhenko really liked to work with josef rona, a german cameraman, who, in principle, became his right-hand man in many projects. and then, and then it was banned because of what? due to the fact that the so-called came into force... stalin, the chief producer of the soviet union, stepped in and himself began to determine already, i was so struck by how much he was, how tangential he was, how much he was active in, so to speak, in producing and ordering movies, and this is what it really is, well, what still needs some kind of very complex research, like who, who was this producer of the creation of the first wolf, what it ... well, it turned out

that it worked so well, because now we see rather a degradation in the management of the cinema, and we see that a lot, well, the cinema now relies on independent initiatives, that is , the representatives of the state rather bring confusion and uncertainty there planned we and we are definitely with you about this at the end, my last question will be exactly this, yes, but it is good that you are now... but for us, that is why vovku's experience is very interesting for us, and, because they are 8 years old, well, there was a policy of ukrainization of coronation, films were shot in ukrainian, and the dovzhenko center managed to find ukrainian intertitles for the film zemlya and restore them, because they were mostly lost, a few of them were preserved there, and the center restored them a few years ago, so we got evidence that which is ours films are in ukrainian. ugh, but in the 30th

year the holiday ended, the wolf was closed, and the ukrainian films that were shot on the territory of ukraine, which were the yalta, odessa and kyiv film studios, were all given to moscow, to white columns, to the guest film fund of russia, where they originated, the negatives are still there, and ukraine already received these films later by purchasing positive copies, that is, them. that is, it all collapsed together with the collapse of ukrainization, in principle , that's how it was, and a big producer was behind it of peoples, who already had other ideas and visions about how things should develop, and we will talk about it later, but we have an arsenal next, a film in the arsenal, and for me, for me it is arsenal and shors, it is for me two movies which just show

the internal discontinuity of dovzhenka arsenal, i will remind you of the film about the bolshevik uprising at the arsenal plant in kyiv, when the bolshevik workers rose up against the unr authorities against the unr army, which actually suppressed this uprising and dovzhenko was in this army.

elena, i read that dovzhenko even served in the same root of the black haydamaks, which dispersed this bolshevik uprising, so at least he had a hat with... a slip hanging in his parents' house. and now i'm sorry,

i'm rude now, maybe it's a very rude analogy, but for me to shoot such a film, yes arsenal, i'm not talking about its artistic value now, yes, i'm talking about the inner eye. the gap is dovzhenka, yes, it is for me to shoot such a film arsenal or shors to a petlyur soldier, it is the same as for our veteran to make a film about - about givi or about motorola well, it's like that, i'm deliberately exaggerating, just what must have happened to a person, how could he turn inside like that, and what is he for , what is this for? well, here i will probably still lack details about what happened to him, but we see that the russian language subtitles are already in the arsenal, and this

is happening as if this is the universalization of the language of cinema, and we need to reach as many as possible. people and we see in the frame very often crowds appear in the frames, and in several tapes of dovzhenko, we observe it, yes, when there is a crowd of people who listen carefully to someone, and we may not even see the speaker himself, but it is very important for us to see what is happening on the faces of these people, how they are there, or disbelief, or on the contrary , they are enraptured, some kind of elation takes place in them. and these things are also in the paintings, because in the national art museum in 16 in the 15th year there was an exhibition of the hero of the inventory attempt, the museum then explored the construct of the hero, how it is formed, and after

maidan, this study changed, because well , maidan influenced the way we look at our heroes, and we decided to be more so restrained, and to give the opportunity... to the audience to evaluate, and here is one of the spaces, these were portraits of lenin, which are stored in an art museum, they have a certain artistic value, but this is a very interesting subject for research, and there were several canvases where lenin only stands with his back, you can see him only from behind, well, we understand from the absence of hair who it is, but in front it is the youth, who is inspired, who is inflamed, whose eyes are burning, who is excited, and according to this reaction... that is , this is the reaction of a witness who is fascinated by something, and it seems to me that dovzhenko received, perhaps caught this wave, that he can influence to change something, but how do you explain to yourself why he shows so scathingly,

we deliberately chose this moment, where he shows the members of the central council, these bourgeois, that's all, this is so emphasized, this is how he shows these people, yury shevelyov wrote in letters to roman korogotsky means he wrote, that this is a compensatory mechanism of self-justification through the slanderers of program competitions. and i will quote now: why are those scumbags from the second camp needed in the arsenal, and why are they so vile, vile, so, so disgusting? and here we have the key, because they did not manage to win, it turns out that they are to blame for the lost for the lost war, so this is not a tribute to official requirements, but the sincere truth that has been removed and suffered, i am all in the anthem, but i

am not for that i answer, and i answer, come to life, and that's why they need to be depicted that way, although dovzhenko, he was always ironic, he... his first films, he wanted to make comedies, the first films there were vasya the reformer and yagidka kohannya, these are typical, by the way, silent films of the european style, because in zvenigore and in the arsenal and in zemlya, dovzhenko is already inventing his own language, but these two films, vasya the reformer and yagidka, they were so typical with make-up, they were urban stories, they were very playful. on the posters , dovzhenko also depicted bourgeois in the clutches of the soviet government, he also depicted them as unsympathetic and unattractive, and i actually remember his

kharkiv period, when he also drew political cartoons at the visnyk publishing house on the unattractive petliura vennichenko skoropadskyi, that is, people who were supposedly close to him in terms of value, but let's look at the next film zemlya, which of course is the most famous, i think ukrainian the film now in the world, which brought world fame was brought by dovzhenka's film about collectivization, which was supposed to glorify collectivization, but showed absolutely the opposite, yes showed the disconnection of people with the land, with the roots and with nature.

and now this film earth is released, and i understand that it is in the box office for nine days, and on

the ninth day an article by the kremlin trumpeter demyan bedny comes out, i just can't hold back, i quote demyan bedny, he writes in the news such a devastating article, and in particular he writes, the film thing zemlya ilyech would have been unhappy, he would have assessed it with the disdainful word intolerable abomination and the matter was over. to which dovzhenko reacts in such a way that he wanted to kill the bull, and at the same time, in parallel, in parallel to this abomination written by dymyan bedny, suddenly such a movement begins, so in the world, so this film is recognized, dovzhenko becomes a star abroad in europe, in america and so on, in what, how, like you, in why force what was the innovation of the film, why did the world suddenly accept this film? for

many, he became, if not instructive, but he became a model of a view of nature, probably, and in this film you can feel a kind of dovzhenkiv's task, and there is a big gap there. strongly felt, such an impression that he is already beginning to doubt his impulse, that is, it is such a story about not being himself and losing himself, and this dualism, maybe he would have strengthened the voice of this film, and by the way, this is a very interesting idea, and at once soviet the authorities felt it, this dualism and this gap with... itself, maybe because the film was, well, you are now asking why the film was so popular,

dovzhenko was in it, he still couldn't, no matter how he was there did not try to play along with the authorities somewhere, to please, or to play in such a revolution reshaping its inhabitants and trying to raise them, as it were, to a higher level. now i have lost my mind, well, i will come back, but there, but dovzhenko, he was a pantheist in his essence, that is, he was not a christian, or very atypical, he lost his faith during his studies, probably, but he was completely embedded in nature, and for his nature is that, that was all, and if you look further there, then the film ivan is there. who filmed the construction of dniproges, and together with the tapes of other

directors, it resembles such a very painful realization that something is wrong with us is happening and we are being led somewhere wrong, and they are trying to change us to the point of destroying us, so that we are gone, and there are these typical ukrainians in the land, who, if something should be done with them... or change them, or hide them further from civilization, eh, there are already people of a new generation, and there is simply a great nature that captures all this, against the background of which it takes place, where there is almost such a mythical thinking, where the old man in goodness goes to another world, where there is a naked woman, which was also a very, revolutionary move at the time, and this was his wife, it was yulia sontseva, who later, with whom he

continued to work a lot already in moscow, she was his assistant, and then grew into an independent director. if we have time, i will also ask you about yulia sontseva, but before that i want to ask about, you said that you flirted with the authorities, for me the relationship between stalin and dovzhenko remains a kind of paradox. why did stalin not destroy dovzhenko like kurbas, like this entire generation, why did he even, according to dovzhenko, save him several times, so dovzhenko believed, why? well, you can only fantasize here, because we don't know what's going on stalin was on his mind, and what, in your opinion, did stalin fascinate dovzhenko? here is irena tsymbal, a literary researcher, she believes, she is a researcher of the actually shot revival, and she believes that because dovzhenko was so authoritarian himself, well, he was impressed by the power and authoritarianism of stalin

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

and stalin listens to him, but this, this now... this is my guess, because dovzhenko, it seems that he constantly doubted this decision, and i saw this opinion that stalin, for example, offered him to move to moscow in the year 33, it seems, dovzhenko, when you left, he offered him so that dovzhenko would not see the famine taking place in ukraine, so that he could not, somehow, witness it very closely, although dovzhenko could not but... know, of course, that his parents were here , but his parents were here, and it touched them, but that's it in the 32nd year, he shot ivan on the dniproges, ugh, which also fell on the shelf, although it was shown at the venice festival, it was the first at the first festival in venice, and

perhaps the fact that both earth and ivan played a role here were enlightened already abroad. they were seen there, and as in the case of perodzhanov, when the publicity of his film, which did not manage to be hidden in time, raised the voices of the world film community, and perhaps that is why with dovzhenko, well, in this way it was done, and the next film after the 32nd, it was already the 35th year, the airport, which he filmed at mosfilmi already for stalin's idea, in fact, maybe this was one of the reasons as well, but i agree with you that... i also think that it is because of his world fame and because stalin may have understood, that it is better to use him, and stalin used him to the fullest, i think, and that it is also good for shchors, because shchors was also stalin's idea, to shoot the ukrainian chapaev in this way, as if, yes, and there in both films, in principle,

very , it is very well traced if there are still a few hesitations in the land, and there are also a lot of them in ivan. whether this transformation is good and where it leads, therefore that dovzhenko puts these doubts in the mouths of his characters, they certainly do not look very motivating for those who start to build, then the aerograt and the shors, they are already quite like that, they are not a reflection of reality, they are clear constructs like them. .. it should be, and megalomania is very well written in aerograd, and here is such a desire for something gigantic, gigantic, big. to conquer, take away, subjugate the majestic, ugh, and this is also something that is not characteristic of ukrainians. i also planned to ask you to talk about

in my opinion , dovzhenko's most tragic script, which is called ukraine of fire, is a script, a film script, which he wrote in 1942, if i'm not mistaken, yes, we found his address where he says these words. ukraine is on fire, this is at the beginning of the war, he is making an appeal, it seems interesting to us just to look at the temperament of oleksandr dovdzhenko. ukraine is on fire. on our wide spaces, so beautiful and joyful in the recent past, cities and villages have been relentlessly burning for two years now, the mavelatan jokers. that illuminate the great tragedy of our time. listen to the contemporaries of the great era, ukrainians of the burning

fire of ukraine. the decisive time of the willless struggle is coming, let us be worthy sons of our great time. in general, in this film script, you know what is impressive? it is amazing how much it hurts him, this catastrophe of ukraine, which happened... in 1943, and listen just now, this way, these days, this way, at this historical point, how painful it is to read and how it hurt dovzhenko himself, he writes: ukraine is destroyed like no other country in the world, all our cities are destroyed and looted there are no schools, no institutes, no museums, no libraries, she died. our historical archives, painting, sculpture, architecture have perished, all bridges and roads have been destroyed, the war has ruined the national economy, destroyed people, beaten,

hanged, driven into slavery, we have almost no scientists, not enough artists, so he writes a movie script, shows khrushchev, yes, khrushchev, somehow, i don't know if it's khrushchev, or somehow this movie script gets to beria. dovzhenkom, he is terribly indignant, and we also chose a quote from stalin, just what says that this scenario of dovzhenko, ukraine is on fire is a revision of leninism. on january 31, 1944, imagine that a special meeting of the cpsu was convened, stalin called a special meeting of the communist party of ukraine, and gave a speech, there is a transcript of

stalin’s speech, which says the following: if the war is judged, let dovzhenko lead, then representatives of all of the peoples of the ussr, only ukrainians participate in it, which means that here again, spravdo and dovzhenko, his film story, are not in good terms. is anti-soviet, a vivid manifestation of nationalism, a narrow nationalism limitations, and of course, it is impossible to make this movie, absolutely everything is chopped up, and dovzhenko writes this famous phrase of his in his diary, he writes that on january 31 , 1944, i was brought to the kremlin, there i was chopped to pieces and the blood-stained parts of my soul were... scattered in disgrace and slaughter in all gatherings, i held on for a year and fell, my heart could not bear the burden of untruth and evil, i was born and lived for goodness and love, i was killed by the hatred of the great just at the moment

their smallness, whether or not this is the moment truths for dovzhenko, this story with ukraine on fire, is there a moment of truth for him, but on the other hand, he continues to film something even further, he then films michuri. that is, it’s not the end yet, no, it ’s not the end yet, and during, well, actually during the war , he also shot a chronicle film, well, it ’s like notes about the war, but then there remained a simple america in the 51st year, and also proshkovaya america was like that, absolutely also a propaganda film, and it is about the criminal activities of the american special services on diplomats, well, actually in 1956, dovzhenko was gone, but in this interval. there was also a poem about the sea, i don’t know if it was an epiphany or, well, maybe the moment of truth, the moment when he expressed it already, he had it a little earlier...

there is such a phrase that our film experts included in the exhibition, the river the pitchfork screamed like a wounded animal, this is a story about a film study of how the dnipro changed due to the construction of the hydroelectric cascade, ugh, and actually is the instrument of what the construction of this gigantic project was for the soviet authorities, and that movement back. who we later dealt with after the russians blew up the kokhovskaya hessian railway, and now zaporizhzhia has also suffered, and dovzhenko, sometime in the 20s and 30s, he had a saying that between truth and beauty, i choose beauty and i think it's his, and again, it's my fantasy, but it's a lot like his political manifesto, because he had to either construct the truth, and

maybe it's also... one of the reasons why he was under stalin, because stalin valued artists, he understood who was capable of what, but having dovzhenko was nearby, it was easier for him to control him, and he, because what, what meanness dovzhenko did, publicizing ukraine in flames, it was really such a blow in the back for stalin, i we'. in this program , we talk about the continuation of his legacy and how to tell the truth, how to understand dovzhenko, how to find a language that would narrate, yes, that would convey the entire complex, yes, what it consisted of, yes , the worldview of this person, the mentality of this person and so on, now the critical question is not only the return of the creative heritage a debt, but also a return. dovzhenko center,

yes, the institution you lead, yes, not returning, preserving, in fact, for people who do not know about the history of the dovzhenko center, i would like to remind you that in 2022 there was a decision of the ukrainian authorities to reorganize the dovzhenko center, this actually meant the liquidation of the devzhenka center, the cultural community supported you, the court recognized the order. the film about the reorganization is illegal, but now, as far as we know, there is an appeal, so what is the current situation with the dovzhanko center? uh, the situation in the center is difficult, because we already we do not receive state funding for several months, and this greatly affects the efficiency or motivation for work, but people, museum workers or... archivists,

film archivists - this is a very specific category of people who for some reason protect what in fact does not belong to them, we we protect what belongs to the country, and if the country does not need its own film fund, then i have a question, what are we fighting for, but my colleagues who are currently working in the center, they understand very well their responsibility and their importance in work with those films that... we have are stored, this is actually the largest collection, the only collection of ukrainian cinema that exists in ukraine, eh, and here the connection with dovzhenko is also direct, i believe, because he had an idea even when he worked at vovko, he had an idea , that they are ukrainian, that the films need a film archive, or a fund where they will be stored, because the films were treated so carelessly, they easily burned and spoiled.