[ad_1]
Following Konchalovsky, Kirill Razlogov poured oil on the fire, in gratitude for the appointment as president, he lied that “very many took their pictures from the“ White Elephant ”award and that“ the decision to award the special prize “Event of the Year” was made on the basis of 21 votes out of 54 “. The general director of Mosfilm Karen Shakhnazarov also distinguished himself: “This“ White Elephant ”expresses the views of Matizen first of all, and no one else, in my opinion. Mr. Matizen himself determines basically what, to whom, what to give. Well, Matizen is not a figure on the scale to define it. ” How miraculously Mr. Matizen, who, like all the other 53 members of the EC, has one vote, and does not have any power, can determine to whom, what and for what to issue the prize, only Mr. Shakhnazarov knows, believes that the “White Elephant” has the same structure as the “Golden Eagle”, where everything is really determined by one figure of “that scale”.
The penultimate act of the described tragicomedy was the letter from Razlogov mentioned at the beginning of this article, in which he announced that the guild he led was ceasing to support the White Elephant Prize and no longer had anything to do with it. Needless to add, this decision was not discussed by the Guild board and was not voted on, thus marking the transition from the former guild democracy to an authoritarian regime.
It remains to add that the Expert Council of the Prize, the majority of which are members of the Guild, was not embarrassed and held the ceremony at his own expense, having gathered the winners with the nominees at three venues in Moscow and St. Petersburg and organized its synchronous broadcast on the Internet. In response to this, Razlogov announced the establishment of a new Guild prize to replace the “White Elephant”, agreed with the secretariat of the UK. The story of Nikita Mikhalkov’s vexation with the Nika Prize and the creation of the Golden Eagle is repeated in the form of a farce.
PS One thing can be said about the new award, which has neither a name nor a regulation: it starts its journey in an ethical situation that is extremely unfavorable for it. For it is clear to everyone that its organizers are motivated not by the desire to celebrate the best films, but by external pressure, fear and servility. The rest is elementary: the leadership of the Investigative Committee may not even say a word about their priorities – Kirill Razlogov has a nose, known for his sensitivity to the direction of the wind, and everything else is a matter of technique, well known to him from his activities in the Golden Eagle. Correct selection of voters, sleight of hand – and as they say in the “Way to Life” – no fraud.
As for the “White Elephant” expelled from the House of Cinema, it has the main thing: a high reputation, which was recognized even by Andrei Konchalovsky, who refused the award. Under favorable financial circumstances, it will be conducted by an expert council in the usual format, and with unfavorable ones, it has a minimum program in reserve, according to which film critics of many countries act: nominees and laureates are determined by general electronic voting with the possibility of checking for lice, and the results are sent to the Internet together with diplomas certifying critical recognition. After all, the main thing is not a statuette, but honor.
[ad_2]
Source link
