By Vladimir Golstein
So I am still thinking about this Chernobyl special, which somehow managed to touch a nerve. A lot of people, far from politics, were very moved by the way it was shot, with coloring reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Stalker. Grim Soviet reality that somehow looks cool and artsy when shot through specially tinted lenses. Tarkovsky, apparently, wanted this look, and had to ostracize a lot of people when he decided to re-shoot Stalker, because the original tape was defected by his standards.
In any case, the director, Craig Mazin, must be a talented dude. Yet, the film was obviously more that an artistic project. There must be some CIA/MI5 money involved. Like they do in all other stupid projects of theirs, especially when they feel that it is time to counterbalance Russians. So let's pour money into White Helmets, and all sorts of propaganda films. But why stop there. If the plight of the free world is at stake, let's give money to Armstrong, and Pollack, and Faulkner, and Elton John, and all other important western artists who should promote western values.
And the artists do take money and keep on doing their art! Should we condemn them? All these modernists who were on the CIA take? But if we don't condemn them --these greats of the XX century --why do we condemn the Soviet artists, who took money from their government: Shostakovich, and Eisenstein, and Sholokhov and so on?
"Brave" Solzhenitsyn had a nerve to condemn Eisenstein in his "One day," decrying the "pseudo" genius, who condones violence on the cue from the tyrant. Implying -- following Pushkin - that a genius -- can't serve evil. But didn't he see the irony? Didn't he imagine himself a genius, while being on the take from the west, serving the American imperialism and getting western money in the forms of prizes, and contracts and all other accouterments? So if you take western money, you are OK, if you take Soviet money, you are a sell-out? A new doctrine and strange!
How are we to judge? Should we use this criteria (where the money are coming from) or should we just convince out selves, that we are following art?
I think the source of money is important, yet, it does not really matter to me, where they are coming from: east or west, communists or capitalists, Arabs or Zionsists, and so on. What should matter is who is an underdog!
If Craig Mazin, or White Helmets take money from the bullying and controlling regime, which is ready to kill for the sake of its hegemony, they are serving the devil. If the money are coming from an underdog, fighting for its independence or existence, that's a different story. There is a moral responsibility, but it is unrelated to a story, while directly related to who is using the story. If the Jews in Polish Ghetto hired me to tell their story and paid me with gold that they've collected, it is one thing. If the Nazis hellbent on destroying them, are paying me with the gold, this gold sucks. And so is the story!
Source: https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.golstein/posts/10214266894962058
So I am still thinking about this Chernobyl special, which somehow managed to touch a nerve. A lot of people, far from politics, were very moved by the way it was shot, with coloring reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Stalker. Grim Soviet reality that somehow looks cool and artsy when shot through specially tinted lenses. Tarkovsky, apparently, wanted this look, and had to ostracize a lot of people when he decided to re-shoot Stalker, because the original tape was defected by his standards.
In any case, the director, Craig Mazin, must be a talented dude. Yet, the film was obviously more that an artistic project. There must be some CIA/MI5 money involved. Like they do in all other stupid projects of theirs, especially when they feel that it is time to counterbalance Russians. So let's pour money into White Helmets, and all sorts of propaganda films. But why stop there. If the plight of the free world is at stake, let's give money to Armstrong, and Pollack, and Faulkner, and Elton John, and all other important western artists who should promote western values.
And the artists do take money and keep on doing their art! Should we condemn them? All these modernists who were on the CIA take? But if we don't condemn them --these greats of the XX century --why do we condemn the Soviet artists, who took money from their government: Shostakovich, and Eisenstein, and Sholokhov and so on?
"Brave" Solzhenitsyn had a nerve to condemn Eisenstein in his "One day," decrying the "pseudo" genius, who condones violence on the cue from the tyrant. Implying -- following Pushkin - that a genius -- can't serve evil. But didn't he see the irony? Didn't he imagine himself a genius, while being on the take from the west, serving the American imperialism and getting western money in the forms of prizes, and contracts and all other accouterments? So if you take western money, you are OK, if you take Soviet money, you are a sell-out? A new doctrine and strange!
How are we to judge? Should we use this criteria (where the money are coming from) or should we just convince out selves, that we are following art?
I think the source of money is important, yet, it does not really matter to me, where they are coming from: east or west, communists or capitalists, Arabs or Zionsists, and so on. What should matter is who is an underdog!
If Craig Mazin, or White Helmets take money from the bullying and controlling regime, which is ready to kill for the sake of its hegemony, they are serving the devil. If the money are coming from an underdog, fighting for its independence or existence, that's a different story. There is a moral responsibility, but it is unrelated to a story, while directly related to who is using the story. If the Jews in Polish Ghetto hired me to tell their story and paid me with gold that they've collected, it is one thing. If the Nazis hellbent on destroying them, are paying me with the gold, this gold sucks. And so is the story!
Source: https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.golstein/posts/10214266894962058
Liberteon