STATEMENT

The producer Pavel Bardin had shot a film “Russia 88”. This is a film about Russian Nazi-skinheads. During recent years the youth fascist bands activated their actions abruptly. They resort to crueler and crueler violence beating systematically and killing those whom they consider to be “racially inferior”. Quantity of their victims numbering lots of dozens grows all the time. It is clear that the skinheads are an immediate threat for security of Russia. Bardin’s film that tells about this threat emotionally and brightly could play a serious role in its recognition by our society. 

But “Russia 88” is not admitted to the cinemas. Bardin’s troubles started after the film got a triumphal reception early in February 2009 at Berlin cinema festival. Late in that month, before showing at festival “Spirit of fire” in Khanty-Mansiysk, some high-ranking person demanded to exclude the film out of the program from jury. The jury did not agree to this but, due to unprecedented pressure, it awarded not the main prize to the film (as it was going) but a special prize. 

Moreover, the film show in Moscow failed more than once. Thus, on April 18, 2009, before the film showing in “Rolan” cinema, the bosses of special militia detachment stated the “impossibility of providing safety of the spectators”. As a result, “Russia 88” was replaced by another film – “I always wanted to be a gangster” (this one is all right - here you are!). The same took place later in other Moscow cinemas (it was prohibited “for technical reasons”, by order of FSB employees etc). 

But more than that. In December 2009 Samara regional public prosecutor, after the action of two dubious citizens, addressed the court with demand to acknowledge Bardin’s film extremist, include it into the federal list of extremist materials, “withdraw it from the civil circulation” and ban its showing. In case of making such a decision by Samara regional court, the film would be banned for showing on the whole territory of Russia. The public prosecutor’s reasons are: the film presents the statements of modern neo-fascists and contains the account of ideology of skinhead organization. And besides “it contains the scenes of physical violence towards the persons with non-Slavic appearance, episodes of anti-Semitic orientation, and this enables incitement of interethnic dissension”. 

Bardin’s film is an art film stylized as a documentary. It includes the mentioned scenes and mentioned episodes indeed. But it excites the feeling of disgust towards Russian neo-Nazis and ends with a martyrology – list of their victims (80 persons during the single 2008). If we follow the logic of Samara public prosecutor, then the films should be urgently prohibited and “withdrawn from the civil circulation” - “Common fascism” by Romm, “Seventeen instants of spring”, dozens if not hundreds of other Russian films, as well as Western classics – “The Great Dictator” by Charlie Chaplin, “Judgment at Nuremberg” by Stanley Kramer, “Roma citta aperta” (“Rome, open city”) by Roberto Rossellini, “La caduta degli dei” (“The Damned”) by Luchino Visconti, “Cabaret” by Bob Fosse, “Amarcord” by Federico Fellini, “The Conformist” by Bernardo Bertolucci etc etc. All these films also contain the scenes of physical violence towards the Jews and other “non-Aryans”, episodes of anti-Semitic orientation etc. But isn’t the moral and political orientation of these films more important? 

“Russia 88” is the anti-fascist film. It got the special prize “Event of the year” of National prize of cinema critique and cinema press “White elephant” of 2009. And still it had a big success (however at closed viewings) in various regions of Russia. According to mass media data, “during conduction of investigation and search operations by Samara directorate of FSB it was ascertained that the film could be bought in free sale in Samara”. Meanwhile the Nazi literature published with mass editions is sold everywhere in Russia and exhibited at book exhibitions. And nobody prohibits it. Real Nazi propaganda (on the radio, on the Internet, during “Russian marches”) is not suppressed by anybody. The aggressive xenophobic film “Brother-2” is shown on TV all the time as well as programs and films propagating violence, cruelty, and migrant-phobia. Vulgarity, moronizing of the spectator and Russian TV became the synonyms. 

The circumstance causes the special concern that while making such a resonant decision the employees of office of public prosecutor cite the most dubious expert’s report of the most suspicious scholar. Some Makhmudov signed the Act of expert examination as the professor of Samara state university, and this is not true. He is the professor of pedagogical institute which is now officially called Volga state social-humanitarian academy. Nothing is known about his competence in the sphere of art history. It’s impossible to explain why this person proved to be a specialist on this subject. In the scholarly world of Samara this “expert” has the most dubious reputation. 

The producer Pavel Bardin can count on support of human rights community in securing the guarantees of unbiased examination of claims filed against him. We are positive that it would be much more efficient to call back the claims of office of public prosecutor and court being dubious in their legal and ethical aspects and conduct full-fledged public prosecutor’s inspection concerning all the circumstances of appearing of the most unpleasant “local extreme”. 

Samara regional court postponed the examination of the case on accusation of Bardin’s film of extremism to January 14 due to malady of the judge. The decision on this shameful case will be symbolic. 

Alexander Brod, member of the Public chamber of RF;

Alla Gerber, member of the Public chamber of RF;

Vladimir Ilyushenko, chairman of club “Moscow tribune”;

Boris Panteleyev, director of Agency of legal information “Man and Law”;

Yevgeny Proshechkin, chairman of Moscow anti-fascist center. 
 

EXPERT’S REPORT CONCERNING ORIENTATION OF THE FILM BY PAVEL BARDIN “RUSSIA 88”

I, Matizen Viktor Eduardovich, president of the Guild of film experts and film critics of Russia, cinema observer of newspaper “Noviye Izvestia”, graduated from VGIK (State institute of cinematography) in 1986 with specialty “study of the film art”, have a length of professional experience of 23 years and was attracted more than once as an expert for examination of the legal cases concerning contemporary art. This expert’s report was composed at the request of Moscow bureau for human rights. 

For estimation of the orientation of an artwork, it is necessary to consider its aesthetic system, and it is impossible to make correct conclusions concerning its intentions without its preliminary analysis. In particular, there is no sense to estimate the statements of the heroes without clarification of the author’s position. There may be not a single “positive” hero on the screen (like in Gogol’s “The Inspector General” or in “American history X”) but this does not mean at all that the film author is on the side of the evil forces and propagates the evil. It should be also known that the author’s position is often expressed indirectly, without immediate inclusion of the author’s voice or the text comment providing the estimation of the heroes and events of the film. 

For the mentioned reasons the fact causes surprise that the office of public prosecutor of Samara addressed the professor of department of linguistics of Samara pedagogical institute Makhmudov Sh.A. with request to provide the expert’s report concerning the film but not a high-skilled specialist-film expert from VGIK or All-Russian research institute of cinematography who can analyze the film as an artistic whole. Makhmudov Sh.A. is not a specialist in the language of cinema which fundamentally differs from the language of the characters that is examined by prof. Makhmudov in his expert’s report. So his conclusions can’t have any force a priori regarding the world outlook and pathos of the film itself. 

Everything written by prof. Makhmudov concerns exclusively the film characters. There was no need for the author of the expert’s report to spend so many efforts for proving the evident things – that the film characters are extremists, that their speeches contain illegal appeals and that they, if they would really exist, could be called to account in court. 

One of two principal characters of “Russia 88” is the miserable Jewish youngster-radical with too many hang-ups resembling the hero of the film by Henry Bean “Fanatic” – this film participated in the contest of Moscow international festival and received several prizes during it. That film had no positive characters either but this did not prevent the jury members from understanding it correctly and estimating its pathos as unmasking-anti-fascist. The second character of “Russia 88” is a wild Russian nationalist who kills his sister in helpless fury as she fell in love with a Caucasian lad, and commits suicide. Already this brief retelling makes clear that none of them can serve as an object for imitation even for immature youngsters ready to join the extremists. The perception of the film is determined not at all by what the characters say but is expressed in author’s attitude towards the characters’ slogans and their social behavior shown in its artistic system. This attitude is stably negative, being sometimes fastidious and sometimes scoffing-sympathetic. Even prof. Makhmudov noted during examination of the scene with the hero’s dog named Zig that the verbal pathos of the characters is reduced and refuted by the representation, but this takes place not in a single episode but permanently. Poor atmosphere created by the heroes around them, their moral wretchedness, solecism and obvious complexes – all this demonstrated by the film authors mercilessly serves denunciation of the skinhead movement but not it’s varnishing and glorification at all. It’s quite enough to watch the films with Nazi author’s position - “Hitlerjunge Quex” and others really propagating fascism for understanding that aesthetics of these films differ strikingly from the aesthetics of the film “Russia 88”. 

The fact how the film was interpreted by various social groups is also the evidence in favor of its anti-fascist character. According to reviews on Imhonet and on other websites it can be clearly seen that the spectators of nationalistic orientation are discontented by the film, and unbiased people characterize it as undoubtedly anti-fascist. The fact that the premiere took place at Berlin film festival known by its anti-fascist orientation is the evidence of the same as well as the prize “Event of the year” it was awarded with by the Guild of film experts and film critics of Russia. It would be useful to add that if “Russia 88” would be an extremist film then Russian fascists would put it on a pedestal at once. Meanwhile their attitude towards the film is negative. 

Some words should be also said about the critical charge directed by the film authors towards some authority representatives who support the skinheads indirectly. Prof. Makhmudov feels sedition in this criticism too – he says it may suggest an idea that “it’s time to overthrow this two-faced government”. If we follow the logic of the Doctor of pedagogy, then the films denouncing corruption of the state officials should be also prohibited as well as those showing up the militiamen-werewolves and all the films of social-critical orientation at all. 

In connection with all the above-stated it looks most strange that Samara office of public prosecutor demands to acknowledge the film “Russia 88” extremist. Tertium non datur – either the employees of the office of public prosecutor know nothing at all about the art or they impute deliberately false fault to the film because they adhere to the nationalistic views themselves. As for the court, the legal verdict against ant-fascist film is possible only in fascist state. 

President of the Guild of film experts and film critics of Russia V.Matizen. 

28.12.2009