resurrected, that's what it follows that he is admitting- well, because this is about the truth. yes, either or here is the truth that is proclaimed. yes, what christianity proclaims, or the laws of nature are true, which are not. yes, i think that this is such a reduction that allows us to show this infinite love for christ. that is, even if yes, the apostle says, if we are the most unfortunate of all, and he says, even. if not, then i'm still with him and i'm happy to think about it all the same. i think this is your the interpretation is this. it was quite clear that we had more time. it could be made out, but uh, i'm sure that here it's this very act of love, that is, he says, i stay with you in any situation. so to say, whether the truth was right or not, here, but tolstoy he does not love christ, because

tolstoy dostoevsky draws closer to him. well , i mean, so to speak, the plane in which dostoevsky deliberately descends , so to speak, cut off . here he loves christ he he he he loves rousseau too. that's about the same love. this is what they love about, because he is christ, he competes with christ tolstoy, and he competes with everyone over time. well, that is, the higher, so to speak, the point in humanity, the more he competes with her. that's it in the end. i think that's the feeling, the gospel of miracles and things. it. actually, this is what it is. well, he came. i am a tolstoy teacher of life. why do you even shake someone else, amazing in this sense on sunday, where where is the present uh, the liturgy is a real paska not real? the present e finale, when

the people's reduced pieces of the gospel about them appear, and now he is really on the path of resurrection, otherwise it was not entirely satisfactory for tolstoy, although this is late, of course. tolstoy also needs this, but at the same time tolstoy i even remember talking about this more than once, but tolstoy poses such questions, and without answers, to which our church and, as it were, we, as a community of christians, cannot exist. that is, you can brush it aside, so to speak, and then we no, uh, i mean, we'll stop being christians. that's about the questions of being a person on earth, polls of equality, and the question of their relationship to money. eh, and in general the acquisition. yes, these are all questions that , well, they are quite easily solved at a different level, but for dostoevsky they were practically non-existent. but at the level at

which tolstoy should put them, they are necessary for resolving it, it would be too easy to resolve all these questions and get around them. so to speak, going immediately into the realm of the spirit, where it is really all equal and ignore then inequality. and then this is the feeling, yes, which a person creates when he thinks that due to the fact that the other will feel bad, he can be good. yes, we are not going to decide anything here. yes, we won't go any further. unfortunately, it seems to me that these questions are correct so to say, uh, really. right. he constantly puts, eh, he not only asks questions, but unfortunately he often answers and his answers, unfortunately, because there are answers, because his answers, eh, they give back very much the spirits of his time and, for example, when i read, when i'm sick, uh, war and peace. uh, i'm

recovering somehow. but when i read his journalism and here is such a pilogue, because when we get to the episodes it is written that someone else has come. well, i wrote. well, that's all, after all, well, when you read, for example, about art or hpiri, when it's no good or about what we should of course learn from christian children to write, they don't have us, uh, well, after all . it's uh, i still love lev nikolaevich, the recommendations give very much spirits. uh, jean-jacques rousseau and here, look at the competition. hey, that's also an interesting thing. uh, their relationship to each other. yes, an amazing uh thing, which in our time is badly behaving, probably, it seems to me that contemporaries of that level can imagine, so to speak

, they have never met fame and knowledge about each other in their lives. yes, as far as i understand. once they were together in a room where vladimir sergeevich solovyov was giving a lecture. and moreover, there was fear, yes , who knew both, but it seems like tolstoy said i don’t want to meet anyone, i won’t, and fyodor mikhailovich didn’t recognize lev nikolaevich, what, too, somehow now? yes, and then, uh, i tried, i say, as i was only if i knew that he was there, yes, and then, too, very much. that's how they treated each other, because dostoevsky's dying. tolstoy says. i now realized that closer to this person i was not. after all, they perceived each other's literature very critical dostoevsky, who reads, who are we like this alexandra andreevna and the fat countess gave him a letter to dostoevsky, and he reads and what? and the food of the letter? yes, no one reads and

says something, or something else, but this, however, is not literature. they are like literature, but she herself seemed to be very worried, they say that i was ashamed to give, and such children, so to speak, here. from the point of view of christian children's writing, in a thinker like this , that is, uh, they were just completely always on different levels, really to them in fact. uh. i think it was very difficult for them to speak. i think that the soviet was not very easy to speak at all, but stayed right tomorrow get up. i don't know, i don't say. there are, of course, even more. i would say an existential non-meeting. this, of course, is pushkin and seraphim of sarov, uh, yes, but here, but here, after all. i would think that e lev nikolaevich was quite self-sufficient. i don't know about dostoevsky, but lev nikolaevich uh, hmm

, some kind of jealousy, after all. i think, in any case, these were two teachers who taught different teachers and they were already aware of themselves as by the time they were in the same room. they were fully aware of themselves already in this capacity in this roles, of course, we are very sorry that they did not meet. although god knows it was a little bit. well. yes, maybe, i think it's more likely, like this, the lord arranged. that's because, uh, really. no matter how much it would be to forgive. and here is tolstoy's confession, ah, that there was no person closer than he does not believe in something like that here. well, since the competition is over. he left and such is, well, generously noble, beautiful. here he would remember, he said, counting it. eh, almost notes from house of the dead is called so i found something

to re-read after the release of the karamazov brothers, in general, after this grandiose one in general. well, at some point he also read transfiguration, which he re-read. yes, he took the book. yes , and you said that the notes from the house of the dead. here. well, that is, uh, it's still some. e, something is not right at that moment, he either did it or deliberately did it intentionally wrote, at least visiting optin the topic has other impressions, directly opposite, as you know. say it and a this is still a sufficiently central point for a fat woman to somehow strive all the time, there, anyway, even after everything after weaning. yes, but he also strives, as it were, yes. so i wasn't invited. what is it, yes, uh, no matter how they rendered me? yes, i can’t, how to enter myself,

as if to show, you understand, in order to meet, it was necessary to approach it from the point of view of a student not a student. well, here 's the first step. yes, even there, then it was already possible in the end to start and teach. yes? well, this is the first step to take. and this there was a chance, maybe we don't have much time. i know what else i want, but i want to talk about something, so, returning, uh, to your first potential case, well, in the beginning, which sounded like the dostoevsky area of ​​the spirit, stop there. and the area, and the soul yes, well, that's it. it is clear in such a trichotomous, so to speak, the structure of the personality of souls. but the body is yes , christian, and i can’t forget how one very respected and subtle feeling art of a woman told me why she couldn’t reread dostoevsky. she said, he looks at this in me, what i 'm afraid to look at in myself, and it's hard and

unpleasant for me, and i, in general, therefore do without fyodor mikhailovich well, at best, there is the village of stepanchikov. here are its inhabitants. is this the innocence of the spirit, you won’t go through the breath - this is an illusion that you can argue it, so to speak. e without passing here is the body of the soul in succession. yes, that is, you will not rise. you will have too much. that's what you don't want to look into something, what of you. that's why it doesn't go anywhere and doesn't go away. yes? here is the same most. yes, here is the confession, what is it really designed for? it’s an informal thing, yes, it kind of came up, there the priest called something and they let you in for communion. that is, such a formality to say on the way to involvement. here, but, in principle, confession is e work with what you want to change in yourself, but it hurts. it always hurts, and now you provide, as

they say, a cruel talent. he hurts me. he makes me look into something in myself that i don't want to look into. and until i illuminated everything in general for the columns of my souls. i do not go to the spirit. don't tolstoy look like that, just about this i wanted to say that both tolstoy and any e, i think great e to write. uh, something changes in us, otherwise there is no great writer at all. maybe it's really about dostoevsky this i would say, e is more brutal and more intense, so to speak, eh, but the problem is whether i'm ready for it or not, uh, there is a problem. in this case, it's not so much. the texts themselves, how many e in me and e, here it is only not necessary to confuse, uh, again rationalistic, uh, some such

journalistic statements. e, and. uh, real uh, well, works of art , in the end, both tolstoy and dostoevsky , long before freud, substantiated and described the role of the unconscious. that's it , the ancient monks specially wrote about the unconscious, this dignity was made for one and a half thousand years. yes, it's another matter. yes, after all, we are now talking about ready or not. we it's a big question man doesn't change through consciousness a and dostoevsky again. yes, very often they say a lot can be known without consciously, in fact only when you know something, unconsciously, only then it is truly a claimant. that's why he has such a retreat strategy of dostaevsky. unlike tolstoy, who will say everything many times and repeat just in case, if suddenly something, but still tolstoy writes after the word to chekhov and writes that for some reason

the story is such as darlings, because i roll it out beautiful because it was written unconsciously. uh, tolstoy is precisely tolstoy, but he himself acts, otherwise. but, uh, that's why those who are too fat for whom, so to speak , are cruel dostoevsky yes, because tolstoy poses these questions here, yes, here, illuminating the soul on another plane. he is, as it were , from this plane, yes, that is, his hero is experiencing doubts. and you understand that, well, you kind of can walk this path with them and it's like a normal human life. and when you suddenly look at it from the point of another being higher, firstly, you can see more. secondly, it is seen from a different perspective. that is, tolstoy shows this here as your human, and dostoevsky shows it as yours, preventing you from being a man. and this is a completely different perspective, disturbing.

yes, i formulate these perspectives a little differently than tatyana uh, but for me, of course, it is tolstoy's uh that uh. well , i would say, if we say that they are someone else, they are still within the framework of christian culture, this is still on the one hand. christmas tolstoy from here. eh hence the kingdom of god on earth its permanent these that we can in the kingdom of god on earth, and the other - it's still, uh, easter , and both are absolutely necessary for russian culture. eh, although i put the vyshelnik as it is clear, you know, but, nevertheless , both are necessary in order for russian culture to be fully revealed, but you know what i want to talk about. which persons finish? and you will be asked to answer questions like this: what works of one and the other would you definitely recommend in two cases? the first case, a is a foreigner. here

a foreigner wants to read one work. well, let's give such a hypothetical situation , the work of tolstoy gets one work, and the second one is already close to our life. this is an attempt to resolve the dispute early or read in such and such a class. yes, that is, a foreigner and a student must read one work of each. well, as we say lady fift, it means that to a foreigner i would advise anna karenina and, uh, brother romanov. so as for our schoolchildren, i'm afraid you won't meet the minute. yes, because everything is much more complicated. but really. i think uh if it don't, uh that reading, which is our hands, for which we give marks and check whether you coordinate the text. that is, how many mugs did someone have and in what dress? yes, how old is that? yes, yes, yes, yes, er, then this is a good

read for high school students. this is a very good idea. e. well, er, in principle, crime and punishment too, that is, which is really a classic included in the school curriculum. uh, it just needs to be read very well and taught very well. well, in part, i agree, but not quite uh, long page. brothers karamazov, uh, at least a part if they don’t master everything, uh, and uh, war and peace, too, at least part is not anna karenina, even if she is a foreigner, let them read at least uh, the description of napoleon and kutuzov may be better understood by russia, but for a schoolchild the same. well, here i am, although i came up with the ending, and we took it and destroyed it. just thought, we 'll be on the fists, and i'll tell you, honestly, the only thing i'm foreigners. i'm just taking the course. e reference to russian culture identity and understand that nothing will master.

i have a short course of 8 years there, so i ask you to read the boy at christ's tree. well, how can it not only be possible to get closer to dostoevsky, that's everything. well, here's the story. thank you very much. today we gathered our thoughts about tolstoy and dostoevsky tatyana alexandra kasatkina ivan andreevich and saulov and vladimir and goyda. see you again. hello, my name is natalya ryabchikova, i am a film historian. and today we have a podcast called giant 125, it is dedicated to the 125th anniversary of the birth of the wonderful soviet world director theorist teacher sergei mikhailovich einstein my name is artyom sopin.

uh, i'm a film critic and i also welcome you to the engine 125 podcast, eisenstein was born at the very end of the 19th century, when cinema was just beginning , he was one of those who first saw in childhood, and the films of a méliès, for example, the discovery of not only the films themselves, but also some new kind of entertainment. even not yet quite art and funny , he went to study with vsevolod meyerhold , a wonderful innovator director who contrasted himself with the art of konstantin stanislavsky a and a student. wherein. in general, here such a value of denial continued by continuity, when he decided at some point to leave the merd and his own performance, which turns out to be ostrovsky's circeration on every wise man of quite simplicity in the twenty-third year , he leads him and is entrusted to the cinema to make a large state order to make

a film for the twentieth anniversary of the first russian revolution of 1905. and an idea. actually it's to show what's going on in the fifth year in the russian empire. summer 25 . they went to shoot in leningrad, the weather did not indulge, and it was decided to shoot one fragment of a small 12 lines in the libretto of non-gadzhian shortcos, where the action unfolded around the armored potemkin , and from these lines in the libretto in such a tripment, and from the screenplay, einstein built a whole film born from these few lines of the script from einstein, but still i could afford to shoot without a script at all. he came uh to the south, he locked himself in the room for a few days and uh, prescribed a fairly detailed frame-by-frame script, which linka konstantinovich kozlov is a wonderful story, the movie published only in the thaw years, and until the thaw there was a legend that supposedly

there was no script, and, in general, the spontaneity of filming often offered really an interesting decision in the process of film production. uh, because the question arose of where to find the battleship itself, because the most authentic potemkin was brought to that time, there was no time, but then two identical battleships were released potemkin and armored 12 apostles. and now brings the 12 apostles to the mid- twenties, he still existed, but he just stood in the bay and he could never swim anymore. it’s just that it was in such a technical condition that here is the only frame in the film and we can also see fragments with uh about how uh, here uh, the deck looks like, that is, this is the only point from which the rocks were not visible, but around. uh, only in this version, however, in the frame there is one single shot with uh, the whole armadillo. this is the frame

layout. uh, since, respectively, the real one could be shot only in this way, respectively, the layout. here it was, uh, delivered. yes, in the sandunov baths and there, uh, this wonderful shot was taken. in addition, he also used the chronicle, and some warships that he called. yes, even official statements of indignation seem to be in england when everyone was interested in the question. where did such wonderful warships that we see in the soviet state come from? and in one of the frames of the film, i initially knew about this i knew about this request and it will be a lot of fun, because in fact, he took the old chrony. it is the english fleet, but uh, the history is important here, not only uh, factual such, but very important. this very model of the historical processes that took place in the potemkin film, which uh, shows, uh, very important accents in how a person, uh, fights for your

right to respect. for not being fed. with this very wormy meat of people, that this is unacceptable for the existence of a person and is unacceptable, and it is unacceptable to mock people, and treat them like slaves. and in general, this one here, but a protest against humiliation. it's absolutely universal where it's not even a communist idea. this is not an idea. this soviet idea is precisely the general civilizational world of any. yes, that is, this is, uh, such a general humanistic idea , absolutely, by the way, correlating with the idea of ​​russian literature of russian culture of the 19th century. he believed that the unit of theatrical action, and then any action on the screen, and this attraction is what affects the viewer for eisenstein, the attraction is both the actor’s dialect and the firecracker that he places under the seat of the viewer, in fact, then he specified what he had in mind much

more broadly. and in general, everything that is a trequette, that is, everything that can affect the viewer, that is, in fact , any artistic medium is an attraction to one degree or another, and the installation of attractions is all the placement of artistic means even before how he became world famous said his installation. it's not uh, the connection of meaning is the clash of meaning. this is conflict. he was interested. not just art such he was interested in the construction of art and life through this, but the connection of pieces. and if a has a person in our frame, then we should immediately understand who this is? a theory of characterization appears, this manifests itself in the battleship of darkness, once it is necessary to show the mass, we see a short separate frame, that is, a hero and we may no longer see him, but we understand what kind of person he is, what kind of biography he has in his appearance, because he holds on because he is clothed. here we see,

for example, a teacher. yes, yes, we immediately understand what kind of person this allowed for helmet to use actors not actors. and you even bring patents to your own mother. he didn’t fall in love with remembering that his mother also participated there on the odessa stairs, for example, we see e as uh, the protesters are running up the stairs. we see their faces from the other side. we see only the boots of these same cossacks who march down absolutely without hesitation, following this cruel , uh, murderous order, and uh, the story is known about how eisenstein, uh, after many, many years, they told about how uh in america showed in some small cinema. uh, the battleship potemkin, and uh, he was surprised to learn that there was only one spectator. once taken out. just in hysterics almost hall. this man sobbed. uh, and uh, couldn't

stop. and then the owner of this small movie theater asked. but what happened? why did your loved ones suffer so painfully there, perhaps you yourself were on that very staircase, to which the weeping man replied that no. he was one of those cossacks who walked and fired at unarmed people, and uh, in general, it was just when he saw this film that he saw people's faces up close. although these were already types, of course, the film was shot 20 years later, only then did he realize his guilt. actually, when the film came out, there was a very curious cut of responses. uh, directly in the winter of 25. the sixth year, when in the cinema newspaper, uh, on the one hand, uh, his friends and peers are young, even younger young avant-garde artists are completely grigory koznits tralberg, uh from leningrad uh his review. e. dali in just three syllables ha good, and on the other hand, leningradsky is also the director of the older generation, alexander

ivanovsky, on the contrary. e wrote in the spirit that e. in general, here. eh, the picture, of course, is done correctly, but to a young man. we still need to study and study at a time when avant-garde directors were saying that we need a hero, they are love triangles. yes, in the same darkness, no, viktor borisovichsky saw just a love triangle and said about it from ein. do you know that you actually made the same triangle, but on other material, how to do that viktor borisovich, known for his wit, said, well, how do you have an armadillo, you have it, the city mass, yes, the population that supports it here it separates them, the royal troops, all the same directly logical on the other hand. most for stein students. he said that he used, but editing techniques and structure, and in the final , wester in american, but he said, i used it in such a way that no one guesses. i moved the editing structure. this is

the acceleration of parallel editing, which developed by griffith in the 10s. their idol is an american director. yes, i took this structure, but transferred it to these very ships that are rushing towards each other, and we don’t know, and how it will all end is important it’s very important that this final meeting with the frame, when we see this solidarity itself again there is an image of brothers. let's look at how here, uh, once upon a time hands up. uh, the admiral's footage again. e. here they first rise , we see how the sailors are worried. and actually in credits. we see a shot or here is almost such a hitchcockian suspense, all the spectators are waiting, what will be shot in the remaining potemkins or not, and the exclamation of the brothers? gives us to understand that it is not, that the admiral squadron passes potemkin and lowers it.

uh, blew, potemkin's guns are leaving, but we know that he will be arrested, but, but in the film it is not shown in the film it is shown that potemkin leaves proudly, flying a red flag. and uh, here is this rush to freedom, with which the film ends, this is what is important. by the way , with regard to the red flag, then, unfortunately, in those copies that we can now show the flag does not look painted, because it was hand-painted by hand on the film, the very original films, and in which the flag was painted, they did not reach us and it is known that from einstein, uh, just uh- e first copy, even a u- he himself with his assistants. e discussed. how to color the flag. and then they already entrusted this to the installers who were involved in this, in general , it must be said that when the cinema had just appeared at the very beginning of the 20th century then. many films have tried entirely paint by hand. it looked rather rudely sticky, generally curious. as in silent movies, uh, cinematography gradually lost color from

fully colored frames. here are these absurd ones in the ninth or tenth year, then in the middle of the tenths. uh, the frame was painted entirely in some one tone, and potemkin. in general, here eisenstein fundamentally, just refused to color the film as a whole. it was a tougher picture. it was more of an uh, sympathetic decision what to show it was. this is radical styling. uh, it is the principled rejection of color throughout the film and the concentration of color. only here are some such red ones, but these accents, because the red flag. he's red as blood. it is interesting that einstein was interested not only in the fact that the frames are not only in the way they are combined. well, how the whole film is organized. in general, ah, there is a red flag here. one of these attractions, another one was to be the finale of the film at the premiere at

this solemn meeting, and in honor of the twentieth anniversary since the time of the first russian revolutions, and they went in thinking, and the nose of an armadillo, like this one, tearing up the approaching camera, and such a dark wing , a dark corner that was supposed to, break the physical screen and further dispersed, as if in his imagination, these halves of the screen, like a curtain, the curtain parted and this one appeared on the stage, and a festive table for meetings with e. actually, the people who survived that time, and uh, such a showman's decision. it, unfortunately, did not work out, but did not have time. they prepared it , only this final most uh, frame remained, a nose and an armadillo, but nevertheless a big premiere was organized in the artistic cinema where the very facade of the cinema was. eh, processed. uh,

an armadillo design was created. the whole team of coppeldiners and the people who handed out checked tickets handed out programs, but were dressed in a sailor's uniform, and we even have chronicle footage from this premiere - it really was like that. here. uh, a public event that was interesting enough to spend a film on, but tonight we're watching from the potemkin. actually. and why does this seem like a movie to me at the maximum? and from eisenstein at this moment he thinks about how to involve the viewer entirely in emotions, and the physiology of feelings reason and its viewer are a person who, perhaps, is not even going to watch it on the air, but he sits down and allows himself, and to be imbued with these and he is actually created from einstein, which means i am despite the fact that he is often called such a director a dictator. yes, he did not say cinema voice, we need to find a fist. he

what he wants to say is born exactly in head of the viewer, and with you were film critic artyom ryabchikov's story goodbye, goodbye. slime gun