At the annual Oscars ceremony held on March 12, the prize in the category “Best Documentary Feature” was awarded to the American film “Navalny”. This fact provoked a mixed reaction from Russia and Ukraine . RTVI Special Envoy Alexei Krizhevsky discusses whether film academics can be bribed and what Navalny’s Oscar means for Russia and Russian culture.
Is it possible to bribe film academics
There is a common cliché used by pro-state media and self-proclaimed patriot-affiliated media to accuse the Oscars of being politicized and colluding with certain political forces to award prizes to the films they nominate. And today the Russian President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov has already expressed himself on the presence of a “political element” in the awarding of the Oscars for the film “Navalny”. It seems to me that it is one of those qualities that does not really belong at this price.
Yes, the Oscar gave a statuette to a documentary about a Russian opposition leader. But to accuse film academics of being guided not by artistic but by political criteria is like explaining the triumph of the film “Everything, everywhere and immediately” solely by the fact that a Chinese woman plays the role main, and a Chinese family is at the center of the story.
Still from the film “Navalny” / director Daniel Roer, composer Marius De Vries, Matt Robertson / CNN Films
Several hundred film scholars from different countries vote for the winners in different categories, and they do so without prompting, as they see fit. Suspecting that someone took them and bribed them is just ridiculous. That is why, among other things, the victory of the film “Navalny” in the nomination “feature documentary” (which, voluntarily or not, became the main one for Russians this year) is interesting.
If we were to assume for a second that there was political collusion between American film scholars, then it probably would have happened at the nomination stage.
Simply put, he would have had obviously weak opponents, who “don’t feel sorry”. But no, Navalny had a strong and convincing competitor – the international co-production House of Chips, which tells about the battles in eastern Ukraine and was filmed, among other things, with the money of Ukrainian Goskino.
The film’s victory over a Russian politician has already caused discontent among Ukrainians, which they actively express in social networks. In addition, the World Congress of Ukrainians in a special statement demanded that the film “Top Gun 2: Maverick” be removed from the competition due to the fact that one of the investors was, as they claimed, the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev, against whom Ukraine imposed sanctions. This, of course, is not related to the quality of the film, but to the desire to deprive Russia of representation at world-class events in any form. But the Oscars and the American Film Academy politely ignored this requirement.
What does the victory of the film “Navalny” mean for Russia
Documentary nominations are perhaps the only ones in which film scholars can make it clear which real-life stories are most interesting. An amazing paradox appeared: it turned out that the story about Russia, and not about Ukraine, turned out to be more important and interesting for them (although I personally believe that modern history is being written now , of course, on the territory of this neighboring country). Full of incredible twists on the life, death threat and long-term imprisonment of a key opposition politician.
Of course, it is difficult to imagine this, but here the Ministry of Culture and the presidential administration should have experienced, as they said in Brezhnev’s time, “deep moral satisfaction.” It is believed to be at their suggestion that after February 2022 many towns in Russia were hung with posters about ‘cancellation of Russian culture’, and the loyalist press was filled with lamentations over the exclusion of the Russian context of world, cultural and sports politics.
Well, Russia is in the spotlight again, but probably not at all what the aforementioned ministry and department would like.
In his interview a year ago, which writer and publicist Alexander Genis gave to RTVI, he said that according to his observation, against the background of any escalation of tensions related to the USSR, the number of people wishing learning Russian was increasing rapidly in the United States.
Chris Pizzello/AP
The current price at Navalny comes from this series. Russia has lost nothing as an object of attention. Another thing is that the nature of this attention can be of interest to an unpredictable and strong opponent. But in general, the history of the current Oscar shows that it depends only on Russia which films about our country will win Oscars. And the form in which the country will present these stories to filmmakers.
What is the Oscar now?
At the same time, the Oscar itself, as an award, must be properly evaluated and considered in its dynamics. It never positioned itself as a measure of taste, rather – as an annual chart of film industry ratings. This award covers both popular cinema and arthouse, as well as the mainstream art between them. And if in previous years its function was to recommend paints and even set trends, now it is different. “Oscar” captures trends, sums up what’s happened in theaters over the past year, and doesn’t determine what we’ll watch in the future.
Therefore, one must think that the Oscar winner was “Everything Everywhere and At Once” by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert – an extraordinary picture about the adventures of a Chinese housewife in many dimensions. In the main nominations, the unquestionably distinguished Brendan Fraser was also awarded, which changed beyond recognition in The Whale by arthouse director Darren Aronofsky. There was also a figurine for the wonderful Guillermo del Toro with his fully animated Pinocchio.
There’s something to scold the Oscar for – one of the most defining films, the dismal Banshee of Inisherin by Irish master Martin McDona (author of Three Billboards on the Border of Ebbing, Missouri), highlighted in four categories, was not honored with a victory in any of them.
All this probably indicates that the Oscars, previously accused of being too fond of social images and sentimental stories, are finally getting into diversity. That is to say, the very quality by which modern culture progresses – both popular and elevated.
It is precisely this that is literally dwindling in Russia before our eyes against the background of the cancellation of concerts, film rentals and the departure of cultural personalities from Russia. Alexander Genis, mentioned above, predicted that an explosion of cautious interest in all things Russian would be followed by complete oblivion and a shift to the periphery. Well, since Russia is still interesting for everyone in the context of maintaining diversity, we have to use it.
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the editors
