In Barvikha on 83 year of life has died film Director, screenwriter and actor, years MP state Duma and the winner of dozens of film and state awards Eldar. Govorukhin, in one way or another, had a hand in some of the most popular and famous Russian movies. Nevertheless, his legacy — in the broadest sense of the word — is doomed to remain controversial.
When he dies a figure so immense, ambitious and noted cases in as many areas as Stanislav Govorukhin, begs banality that people managed to live several lives. In the case of the filmmaker and political activist, despite the popularity of truism in what manner it should speak about the dead, and does certainly sound words that even in our lifetime there were two Govorukhin is so difficult to reconcile some of the manifestations of this enormous personality, his talent, will and character with others.
the First reply was the closest friend and colleague of such authority, as Vysotsky. Even the profession of Director, he came up with the “Vertical” film, to a certain extent encapsulates the poetics of Vladimir Vysotsky. Took a few pictures, kristallizovannyj inherent in Soviet iconography and mythology and the validity of the 60s and 70s, romantic, adventure dust and even sacrificial humanism: “the Wind “Hopes” the”, “White explosion”, “angel’s Day”. Was subtle and thoughtful, persistent in the pursuit of raising the viewer above all human values, the author of the film adaptations of Daniel Defoe and Jules Verne, Mark TWAIN Agatha Christie.
Not scared monumental, in fact, the actor’s task — as the role of the artist in “asse” and a number of minor characters, key to the films in which they appeared, and sold them on screen is undeniable — it seems innate — magnetism. Not only created one of the most rewarding, exciting and stable in its popularity of works by Soviet television detective series “the meeting Place cannot be changed”, but also announced it fundamental that remains relevant base of national philosophy and morality. Would probably be fair to say that his strict, discreet and straightforward directorial style in General, have largely shaped the principles by which in the last half century removed popular films in Russia.
But can not be ignored and a conditional second Govorukhin. The one that for twenty-five years was part of the state Duma — with all this implies, including participation in discrediting of public policy as a field for discussion, the signing of certain odious laws and shameless statements about the nature of lobbying your MP. The one whose always obvious, rhetorically violent thirst for justice often translates into moralism, homily and rejection of opposing views, attitudes and lifestyles. One that is not shy about a certain revisionism in relation to their own positions: one, it is quite forgivable thing — frequent change of orientation in policy from Yeltsin Zyuganov, and from that to Putin; it is quite another — a sharp, offensive statements even not about individuals, but about whole communities, generations and even Nations (primarily about Ukrainians and specifically the Odessa, at the Odessa film Studio Govorukhin worked for more than 20 years). The classicist style in the direction which is closer to the end of his career mutated into obscurantism at the level of content and form, in the habit of not without arrogance to lecture and shame the audience and capricious, up to misanthropy, resentment at the fact that the mass audience of his films is inevitably lost.
However, of course, the question here is not about two different Govoruhina, and even the reincarnation of the once great filmmaker in a much more complex and controversial person. All this — and a genius, and evil, and integrity of character, and inconsistent statements and actions, and systematic way of thinking and values, and the inconsistency of their manifestation, and humanism, and the Patriarchal arrogance — could coexist in one person, and at all times of his life, only manifesting itself differently. Yes, Govorukhin so fiercely defended their moral principles, and — especially in the last few decades — so often proclaimed bearer of the national conscience that, it seems, and I believe in their right to judge and condemn not only the characters, but also real people (it is no coincidence that the great Kira Muratova took him in his film “Among grey stones” on the role of the judge and her picture Govorukhin eventually hated). In this sense, is probably true most Govorukhin, on the contrary, not to judge, but it only flares up brighter than a passion for didactics, teaching, vospityvanii to satisfy learning a lesson from his own biography. This lesson can only be that the knowledge of the layering and complexity into human nature, her vulnerability and tendency to retouch their weaknesses by the power of the public image, about the enduring power of creating fictions and seductive risk of turning into a fiction of his own life.