"deception that elevates us." Andrei Sergeevich Konchalovsky Low Truths

A. Pushkin about Napoleon. "Low truths", justice or mercy and love?

In the poem “Hero” by A. S. Pushkin there are the following lines:

He pleases idly! - No!
The darkness of low truths is dearer to me
A deception that exalts us...
Leave your heart to the hero! What
Will he be without him? Tyrant...

1. It would seem that the poet curses the “light of truth” and prefers “elevating” to “truths”, albeit “low”, but still “deception”, isn’t there some kind of blasphemy, reprehensibility, wrongness in this?
The great Christian poet is absolutely right.

The darkness of low truths: accusations, gossip, gossip, condemnation, contempt and ridicule by the “light” of people who have done something “indecent” from the point of view of high society is deeply disgusting to the poet. The deprivation by society of a ridiculed, humiliated person of even a hypothetical opportunity for a noble, sublime impulse, action, A.S. Pushkin considers it low and offensive. He himself more than once encountered hostile coldness, ridicule and sarcasm from “high society” on a variety of occasions. And, perhaps, this ultimately became the cause of the death of the Great Poet, rejected, ridiculed and unfairly condemned by “high society” for defending his honor and dignity.

The poet, with his sublime, sympathetic soul, feels that this is wrong, not Christian. A.S. Pushkin prefers to see the best in a person, even if he has not done anything good. The poet wants to believe and believes that every person is capable of selflessness, love, mercy, even if society calls such faith “deception,” but it is “an exalting deception.” He calls denunciation and condemnation of sins “low truths”; what is dearer to him is “the deception that elevates us,” that is, he wants to see and sees in a person his dignity, even if not manifested. He wants to elevate a person, and not destroy and humiliate him with reproaches and accusations.

Let us remember: the Lord GOD, knowing the universal sinfulness of people, admonishes and punishes us like disobedient children, but also tells us: “you are gods,” “Be holy, as I am holy.”
"...there is no man who does not sin" (1 Kings 8:46)
“I said: you are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82:6)
"...be holy, for holy am I the Lord your God." (Lev 11:44.)

It would seem, what kind of “gods” are we? We are weak sinners mired in the passions and temptations of this age? But GOD knows that HE has placed HIS Image in us - the Divine Seed, and we can and must, in spite of everything, become holy, perfect, Gods.
GOD elevates man, lifts him up, restores his self-respect and dignity.

CHRIST, when the Pharisees were about to kill the harlot by stoning her, said: “I do not condemn you; go and sin no more” (John 8:11).
God's mercy is higher and stronger than God's justice. This is how it should be for people.

2. In this poetic dialogue about Napoleon, A.S. Pushkin admires not the greatness of the commander, not heroic battles and victories, nor his high position in society and his glory, but only one fact of his biography - once Napoleon visited a plague barracks and, encouraging the dying soldiers , shook hands with terminally ill people, risking his life. And with this the Emperor undoubtedly showed a brave and merciful heart.

I see a long line of Odrov,
A living corpse lies on everyone,
Branded with a powerful plague,
The queen of diseases... he,
Surrounded by unkind death,
Frowning, he walks between the beds
And coolly shakes hands with the plague
And in a dying mind
Gives birth to vigor... By Heaven
I swear: who with his life
Played before the gloomy illness,
To cheer up the faded gaze,
I swear, he will be a friend to heaven,
Whatever the verdict
Blind earth...

It is not the reckless courage of Napoleon that delights the poet, but the desire of the famous commander to “encourage the faded gaze” of terminally ill people. Pushkin is convinced that for this alone he “will be a friend to heaven,” no matter what the earthly court sentences him to. Of course, the dictator and commander must pay for the millions of lives lost on the battlefield, and are unlikely to escape hell. But, who knows, maybe these torments will not be eternal, and he, like the thief on the Cross, will be pardoned for this small good deed. Good deeds don't burn in hell!

Let us remember the words of CHRIST: “Then the king will say to those on his right hand: Come, you blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry, and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you accepted me; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.” (Matt.25, 34-36)

When the great commander was at the height of his glory, the “high society” idolized, praised and worshiped Napoleon, but when he suffered a crushing and well-deserved defeat from the Russian soldiers, the “high society” mercilessly, with malevolence and slander, toppled him from the pedestal of adoration. At the same time, a fake appeared that supposedly the incident in the plague barracks was fictitious. And the envious, cold, idle “world” was incredibly happy at the complete “debunking” of the hero, depriving him of this truly worthy deed.

A friend in a verse points out to the poet the supposed absence of a fact that he admired: “The poet’s dreams - A strict historian persecutes you! And where is the charm of light! But Pushkin does not believe and does not want such “truth” and “low truths”; he exclaims:

May the light of truth be cursed,
When mediocrity is cold,
Envious, greedy to temptation,
He pleases idly! - No!
The darkness of low truths is dearer to me
A deception that exalts us...
Leave your heart to the hero! What
Will he be without him? Tyrant...

“Leave your heart to the hero!” To deprive a hero of his heart and mercy means admitting that he is an insensitive tyrant. Pushkin doesn’t want to believe it! The fate of the tyrant is terrible; a terrible eternal punishment awaits him. The poet does not wish this on anyone. And his feelings do not deceive; there were moments of mercy for Emperor Napoleon, embittered by battles and power.
But even if A. Pushkin shows mercy towards such a villain, then all the more he tries to see the good in other people. But life often convinced him of the opposite, and then, in a fit of a warm heart, words of anger, indignation, indignation and despair flew from his lips.

3. Nevertheless, the Poet always called for “mercy for the fallen” and desired their justification before people and GOD! He writes: “The darkness of low truths is dearer to me than the deception that elevates us...” And he is right in a Christian way!

Let us remember the Gospel - “Judge not, lest ye be judged, for with the same judgment ye judge, so ye shall be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:1-2) “Do not curse your brother, even if you see him breaking all the commandments. Otherwise you yourself will fall into the hands of your enemies” (Antony the Great).

Mercy is higher than justice! Love does not require justice and retribution; it wants the justification of others, and not their exposure and condemnation. She is the highest Truth, For CHRIST GOD is the Way, Life, Truth and Love.

The Christian GOD is the GOD of Love, and “Love is long-suffering, merciful, love does not envy, love does not exalt itself, is not proud, does not act outrageously, does not seek its own, is not irritated, does not think evil, does not rejoice in untruth, but rejoices with the truth; covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails, although prophecies will cease, and tongues will be silent, and knowledge will be abolished.” (Cor.13:4-8)
“God is Love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16)

The great poet felt, felt, knew love, lived it and was in love, and GOD was in him.

ALEXEY MASHEVSKY

"THE DECEPTION THAT EXTENDS US"

“The darkness of low truths is dearer to me / The deception that elevates us,” Pushkin wrote in 1830. The phrase is mysterious. Its meaning is all the more elusive because one cannot, in fact, assume that the poet is a hypocrite, hiding from an inconvenient truth behind a screen of assenting untruth. Although it is often understood this way. Moreover, such self-indulgent, to put it mildly, slyness has become almost a characteristic feature of the national mentality, when, under the cover of discussions about the greatness of the Russian spirit, frightening signs of everyday and moral squalor are hidden. The exalting deception that proclaims the possibility of making everyone well-fed and rich without sacrifices and decisive market reforms turns out to be more valuable to us than the base truth of the uniform economic laws operating throughout the world. Usually in this case they like to refer to the mysterious Russian specificity, which, in my opinion, consists only in the fact that we, like no one else, are tightly stuck in our problems. Pushkin, however, wrote about something completely different.

This phrase, which appeared in the poem “Hero,” is all the more strange because it was by the end of the 20s and beginning of the 30s that Pushkin came to a realistic method of depicting life, moreover, he recognized himself as a “poet of reality” (as he would define in a note of 1830 in the almanac "Dennitsa"). Realism opposed previous styles precisely because it sought value in life itself and tried to extract evaluation criteria from historically determined circumstances. Any ideal scheme was no longer imposed on the world (as in romanticism), but was checked for compliance with the objective course of things. Thus, the truth became the writer’s God, no matter how inconvenient it may seem. And this truth was that a person is determined by his social environment, his age horizon, cultural connections, and finally, physiological needs. A whole world of complex psychological crossings of ideal attitudes and real everyday motives has opened up. Life suddenly became a huge laboratory with many objects, the properties of which were not predetermined and were subject to research. It was in this setting that the poem “Hero” was written.

It is dedicated to Napoleon, a largely symbolic person for Pushkin, whose attitude towards him changed over the years, but was never indifferent. The epigraph is typical: “What is truth?” The poem is structured as a dialogue between a certain Friend and the Poet. The latter is asked why the image of Napoleon is so attractive, what is the glory of the conqueror of Europe, the attractive power of his personality? Suddenly it turns out that what is dear to the Poet is not the military genius of Bonaparte, not his audacity as a thief of royal scepters and crowns, not even his tragic fate as a prisoner on a deserted island. This is all the subject of boring romantic speculation. Pushkin is worried about something else:
I see a long line of Odrov,
A living corpse lies on everyone,
Branded with a powerful plague,
The queen of diseases... he,
Surrounded by unkind death,
Frowning, he walks between the beds
And coolly shakes hands with the plague
And in a dying mind
Gives birth to vigor...
Consequently, what is fascinating about Napoleon is his human fearlessness in the face of nothingness, in which, however, the main thing is not proud personal courage, but some kind of high ability to resist death in solidarity with others. Something like a conspiracy against inhuman nothingness, embodied in the plague.

And now the sobering voice of a Friend sounds: according to the “Memoirs”, the author of which was the journalist Vilmar, Napoleon did not touch the plague. This means that reality refutes our lofty ideas about heroism and human dignity. But the poet does not want to agree:
May the light of truth be damned, When mediocrity is cold,
Envious, greedy to temptation,
He pleases idly! - No!
The darkness of low truths is dearer to me
A deception that exalts us...
Leave your heart to the hero! What
Will he be without him? Tyrant...
The thing is that Pushkin was not only the pioneer of the realistic method, he was also the first to understand the threat hidden in such a purely “real” view of the world. A threat that could be called Machiavellianism syndrome. After all, the famous Florentine thinker wanted only one thing: to show that the basis of a politician’s actions should be true reality, in which there is no place for our moral principles and ideas of justice. It is interesting that the stamp of some Machiavellianism is borne by some of Pushkin’s poems - “To the Slanderers of Russia”, “Borodin Anniversary”, in which the bloody massacre of the rebellious Poland is considered as an event arising from historical and political realities.

The new method, which gravitated toward “objective reality,” wittingly or unwittingly left the writer without solid ethical ground (on which, for example, classicism stood unshakably). Man turned out to be deprived of true freedom and completely determined by circumstances, and most importantly, with a scrupulous examination of modernity or historical perspective, the victorious action of moral laws could not be traced anywhere. It turned out that if we approach the world as a laboratory table on which certain objects are laid out, then the presence of such important things for our spiritual essence as conscience, honor, faith, love, heroism, justice is not confirmed. It is not confirmed in the same way as, for example, the presence of a table or chair on which I can sit is confirmed. I can get up, get distracted, go for a walk, come back and again find it in the same place. There is definitely a chair, its existence is automatic and independent of me. But if we now try to “catch” something related to the realm of the spirit in the same way - for example, heroism - we will be disappointed. You cannot, having discovered repentance, love or faith in your soul, go for a walk, and when you return, find them as if “standing still.” They are only there as long as I hold them. I love only insofar as I make a spiritual effort - to love.

Directly or indirectly, realism assumes the world to exist as an object independent of the subject observing it. Something is analyzed that is already present in itself, as if automatically renewing itself in time. These are natural, social processes that develop according to their own laws, or “low truths,” as Pushkin says.

But in this way one can never testify to the presence in the world of something that does not exist independently of the observer himself, the person himself. Because conscience, goodness, heroism are concepts that receive their meaning only in the human (and not just human, but personal) dimension. They exist only as long as there is a subject who holds and reproduces them. From the point of view of a natural or social process, heroism is only an “elevating deception.” But it is no accident that Pushkin emphasizes the words that are dearer to me (not to us - but this phrase is often quoted in this form). Because to me, honesty, let’s say, does not exist in this world at all, not for someone out there, but only when I (namely, I) myself act honestly.

The meaning of Pushkin’s phrase is not that a person will always prefer a sweet illusion to a bitter truth, but that spiritual truth does not exist on its own and is born only by my elevating effort within a certain kind of deception. Deception, from the point of view of a detached observer who, in order to believe in heroism and love, first demands evidence of their presence from others and only then turns to himself. No, it will never work out that way. The only reliable way to prove the existence of good in this world is to immediately begin to create it yourself.

This problem, which boils down to the fact that any truth paradoxically reveals itself in a special kind of illusion, worried Pushkin all the time. After all, the main thing here, as we have already understood, is the state of investment of the soul. But this is a question of love, faith, understanding. Here you can discover a lot of unexpected things, reading, for example, “Eugene Onegin”.

Let us pay attention to a strange circumstance: the poet’s favorite heroine Tatyana Larina falls in love with Onegin in a completely “literary” way. Initially, he is not a real person for her - a St. Petersburg dandy bored in the village - but either Grandison or Lovlace. Tatyana's feeling is genuine, but it is born in the illusory perception of the hero, however, then, precisely thanks to its authenticity, it turns out to be able to discern a real person in Onegin.

Even more interesting is the metamorphosis that happened to Eugene. Why does “that same Tatyana” leave him indifferent in the rural wilderness and drive him crazy in a secular drawing room? Because for the second time a completely different image appears before him (by the way, an illusory one, as the heroine herself says, admitting that she yearns for the simplicity and naturalness of her former life in the village, which is alien to the brilliant secular tinsel). The paradox is that Onegin is an intelligent and honest person, moreover, he, of course, perfectly remembers the old village Tatyana, to whom he quite casually and truthfully explained that he did not love her. But now... But now that old honesty of his, resulting from knowing himself, his habits, etc. and so on. (that is, from the “darkness of low truths”), suddenly turns out to be nothing more than blindness (and, in essence, a lie) in the face of the “uplifting deception” of the coming feeling. The feelings in which he invested, and immediately things that were absolutely impossible from the point of view of his nature (he remained the same, still “not created for bliss” and “unworthy of the perfections” of the woman he loved), became desirable and possible. What are these things? - Love, care, self-sacrifice, pangs of conscience. - Why? - Because they do not exist and did not exist on their own, but now they have become a reality, supported by the effort of his soul, from contact with the familiar-unfamiliar, a beautiful phantom.

This theme of divided, as it were, untruth, which can only become the basis of the feeling that turns illusion into reality, is very significant for Pushkin. We always first experience sympathy, attraction, first fall in love, and then get to know the person. The feeling does not arise outside this field of “elevating deception”, and then it is only required through the efforts of the soul to make it true. But this is a disaster, because only the joint efforts of two can make an illusion true. Onegin, during the first explanation with Tatyana, clearly refuses to play the role intended for him for completely honest reasons (which, as it later becomes clear, will turn out to be simply stupidity, blindness). It is no coincidence that the lyrical digression born from the hero’s monologue leads Pushkin to pose a tragic question:
Whom to love? Who to believe?
Who won't cheat on us alone?
Who measures all deeds and all speeches?
Helpfully to our arshin?
That is, who, in solidarity with us, will support the illusion, who will lead it to the truth? Family, friends, lovers? No! Everyone has their own reasons, their own seductions.

The complete hopelessness of such a situation, its torment (not excluding, however, slight irony over one’s own experiences) is expressed with particular clarity by Pushkin in the poem “Confession,” addressed to Alexandra Ivanovna Osipova:
Alina! have pity on me.
I dare not demand love:
Perhaps for my sins,
My angel, I'm not worth love!
But pretend! This look
Everything can be expressed so wonderfully!
Ah, it’s not difficult to deceive me!..
I'm happy to be deceived myself!
It is interesting that if you compare Onegin’s letter and Tatiana’s letter, it turns out that the heroine explains her feelings (even sincere feelings) in a completely literary, even romantic way (you can see almost direct borrowings from Rousseau’s “New Heloise”). In his message, Onegin, although he embellishes his previous attitude towards Tatyana, although he breaks into exclamations of offended pride, does not think according to a literary template. And it is striking that Pushkin’s sympathies are not on the side of the “realist” Onegin (although the poet himself writes a realistic novel and makes fun of elegiac and romantic cliches, ironizing, in particular, Lensky). Pushkin clearly gives preference to the “literary” but sincere Tatyana. What's the matter? Apparently, in creating his novel - not a text, but, as it were, “life itself” - the poet remembered that truth (love, understanding, etc.) can only be born in the spirit, the pure sphere of which is not everyday life, but art. Therefore, for separation, for love, for happiness, a “magic crystal” of illusion is required, which we will make true with the power of our soul. Onegin at one time was afraid to invest, he preferred to stop at the point of stating the true state of affairs (and this true state of affairs is true only in line with his expectations, his social orientation, within the framework of which love for a village girl is not visible) - and he was mistaken and was punished.

"Hero" Alexander Pushkin

What is truth?

Yes, fame is free according to whims.
Like a fiery tongue she
It flies through selected chapters,
With one disappears today
And on the other one it’s already visible.
Run humbly for novelty
People are used to being senseless;
But that forehead is sacred to us,
Over which this tongue flashed.
On the throne, on the bloody field,
Between citizens on the other side
Of these chosen ones, who is the most
Does your soul rule?

All of him, all of him is this abusive alien,
Before whom did the kings humble themselves?
This warrior, crowned with liberty,
Disappeared like the shadow of dawn.

When does it strike your mind?
Your wonderful star?
Then how does he look from the Alps
To the bottom of Italy the saint;
Then, as the banner is grabbed
Or a dictatorial rod; then,
How he drives around and into the distance
Wars are a swift flame,
And a series of victories flies by
Above him, one after the other;
Then how the hero's army splashes
In front of the huge pyramids,
Or how Moscow shines desertedly,
Accepting him, and remaining silent?

No, not in the bosom of happiness
I see him, not in battle,
Not Caesar's son-in-law on the throne;
Not where on your rock
Sitting down, we torture the execution of peace,
Laughed at by the hero's nickname,
He fades away motionless
Covered with a combat cloak.
The wrong picture is in front of me!
I see a long line of Odrov,
A living corpse lies on everyone,
Branded with a powerful plague,
The queen of diseases... he,
Surrounded by unkind death,
Frowning, he walks between the beds
And coolly shakes hands with the plague
And in a dying mind
Gives birth to vigor... By Heaven
I swear: who with his life
Played before the gloomy illness,
To cheer up the faded gaze,
I swear, he will be a friend to heaven,
Whatever the verdict
Blind earth...

The poet's dreams -
The strict historian is persecuting you!
Alas! his voice rang out,
And where is the charm of light!

May the light of truth be cursed,
When mediocrity is cold,
Envious, greedy to temptation,
He pleases idly! - No!
The darkness of low truths is dearer to me
A deception that exalts us...
Leave your heart to the hero! What
Will he be without him? Tyrant…

Comfort yourself……..

Analysis of Pushkin's poem "Hero"

The Boldino autumn became for Alexander Pushkin not only a serious test of feelings, but also one of the most fruitful periods of creativity. At this moment, a rethinking of many life values occurs, and the poet begins to perceive many historical events from a different perspective. Pushkin's position in society cannot be called stable. Despite the fact that he received the support of the emperor himself, the poet’s relations with those in power are quite contradictory. Thinking about what was really happening, in September 1830 Pushkin published the poem “Hero”, in which he tries to answer a simple and, at the same time, quite complex question: who can be considered the chosen ones of this world?

The poem is constructed in the form of a dialogue between the poet and an unknown friend. Moreover, the conversation is more reminiscent of an argument in which a mysterious stranger acts as an accuser. It is he who reproaches Pushkin for the fact that the entire current generation of young rebels pays tribute only to those who are covered in glory. “The senseless people are accustomed to running humbly after novelty,” notes the poet’s interlocutor. Really, it is the crowd that creates heroes for itself, very often attributing to them the actions and thoughts of other people. That is why the poet asks the question of who really rules his soul, and for whom is the honorable place of a real hero reserved in it?

As a result, he comes to the conclusion that neither generals nor great warriors evoke in him such great respect as “this foul stranger, before whom the kings humbled themselves.” First of all, Pushkin means the Decembrists, who were able to cause panic among the government. However, if we consider that during this period Pushkin was actively interested in historical research and at the same time working on prose, then we can assume that the author draws a parallel with many other Russian heroes, including Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev. Thus, the hero for the poet becomes the one who tries to restore justice, and often does this at the cost of his own life. Pushkin emphasizes that such a hero is destined for an unenviable fate; he will not become a famous commander and will not take the royal throne. “I see a long line of firewood, on each of them lies a living corpse,” notes the poet. This means that all those heroes who tried to fight for the happiness of others were mercilessly destroyed. However, the author is convinced that “he will be a friend to heaven, no matter what the verdict,” hinting that time will judge us all, and the names of the true heroes will remain not only in history, but also in the memory of people.

Souvenir kiosk in KhHS. According to a statement in court by a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, all this is
objects of religious worship. Photo: Slon.ru

The Moscow Magistrate's Court fined Mikhail Anshakov, head of the Society for the Protection of Consumer Rights (OCPP), finding him guilty of slandering the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Foundation. RIA Novosti reported this on Friday, April 17.

The court found the testimony of the witnesses consistent and proving Anshakov’s guilt. The verdict has not yet entered into force and, according to the law, the parties have ten days to appeal it. Until the court decision comes into force, Anshakov will remain under recognizance not to leave. He himself was not present at the announcement of the verdict.

The reason for initiating the case was Anshakov’s interview with Novaya Gazeta, published by the publication in September 2012 under the headline “The product is consecrated. Cannot be exchanged or returned." In it, the head of the OPP, in particular, stated that the foundation of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior had actually turned the temple complex into a business center; on the territory of the complex there are dry cleaners, car washes, laundries above the altar, and a company selling seafood.
The executive director of the fund, Vasily Poddevalin, was the victim in the case.

“Previously, according to my information, he was sitting on cash flows that were allocated for construction. After that, he earned the trust of certain people, and he was put in charge of all the property of the complex. That is, this is a fairly large-scale and serious scam,” this is exactly what Anshakov said, According to the court, it is slander, the BBC Russian Service clarifies.

Magistrate Dina Gusakova, having sentenced the head of the OPP to a fine, nevertheless softened the prosecutor’s demand - he asked to recover 500 thousand rubles from Anshakov. The state prosecution justified its demands by the “increased public danger” of the crime charged to the head of the OZPP. In turn, Anshakov’s defense insisted on his full acquittal. The lawyer believes that the prosecutor's office failed to prove his client's guilt.

Anshakov is going to appeal the verdict in the Presnensky District Court. “The decision is absurd: for the first time in judicial practice, a value judgment is equated to slander,” he said, noting that his words in an interview with the newspaper were recognized as a “negative value judgment” by the experts who conducted the examination. In his opinion, this precedent does not threaten anything good for either human rights activists or journalists. He recalled that the case against him was the first case brought after the return of the article on libel to the Criminal Code.

Anshakov became accused in January of this year. In February he was questioned in court. The victim Poddevalin then confirmed that, according to the agreements, there are about 17 tenants on the territory of the KhHS. (In an interview, Anshakov spoke about approximately the same number of organizations operating on the territory of the temple complex - Ed.) In addition, the head of the foundation admitted that the founders of one of the companies that owns the car wash are his children. Meanwhile, Poddevalin told the court that only 2.5% of the premises were leased to commercial enterprises. Regarding Anshakov’s words about “cash flows,” Poddevalin said: “He lied in this article, since I came to the fund already when the temple was built.”

Previously, a case was brought against Anshakov for an administrative offense under the article “Slander”, but due to the lack of evidence of guilt, the proceedings were discontinued. Then the reason for the lawsuit was not Anshakov’s words in the media, but his lawsuit against the Russian Orthodox Church dated July 24, 2012. It claimed that more than 93% of the KHS area is being used for other purposes. The prosecutor's office filed a lawsuit against Anshakov, while ignoring his statement.

At the end of December 2012, Anshakov was beaten on the street with a tire iron. He also connected this incident with his conflict with the leadership of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Foundation.

The interior design used:

– photographs by Dmitry Korobeinikov, Mikhail Ozersky, Ekaterina Chesnokova / RIA Novosti; Georgy Ter-Ovanesov, Valeria Plotnikova / Russian Look; Alexandra Sternina; B. M. Baldina; Vl. Uvarova

– stills from the films: “Maria's Lovers”, directed by A. Konchalovsky, 1984: Archives du 7e Art / PHOTO 12 / FOTOLINK; “Runaway Train”, directed by A. Konchalovsky , 1985: PHOTO 12 / FOTOLINK; “Homer And Eddie”, directed by A. Konchalovsky, 1989: Archives du 7e Art / PHOTO 12 / FOTOLINK; “The Inner Circle”, directed ". A. Konchalovsky, 1991: Archives du 7e Art / PHOTO 12 / FOTOLINK; "The Odyssey", directed by A. Konchalovsky, 1997: PHOTO 12 / FOTOLINK; "The story of Asya Klyachina, who loved, but not got married", directed by A. Konchalovsky © Cinema Concern "Mosfilm", 1967; "Romance of Lovers", directed by A. Konchalovsky © Cinema Concern "Mosfilm", 1974; "Siberiada", directed by A. Konchalovsky © Cinema Concern " Mosfilm", 1978

– photo from the film set: “The Story of Asya Klyachina, Who Loved but Didn’t Get Married,” dir. A. Konchalovsky © Mosfilm Cinema Concern, 1967; "The Nobles' Nest", dir. A. Konchalovsky © Mosfilm Cinema Concern, 1969; "Uncle Vanya", dir. A. Konchalovsky © Mosfilm Cinema Concern, 1970; “Romance of Lovers”, dir. A. Konchalovsky © Mosfilm Cinema Concern, 1974; "Siberiada", dir. A. Konchalovsky © Mosfilm Cinema Concern, 1978

– photographs from the personal archive of Andrei Konchalovsky

All rights reserved. No part of the electronic version of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet or corporate networks, for private or public use without the written permission of the copyright owner.

Low Truths

Part one

“I would like my father or mother, or even both of them together - after all, this responsibility lay equally on both of them - to reflect on what they were doing at the time when they conceived me. If they had properly considered how much depends on what they were then occupied with - and that it is not only a matter of producing an intelligent being, but that, in all likelihood, his happy constitution and temperament, perhaps his his talents and the very turn of his mind - and even, who knows, the fate of his entire family - are determined by their own nature and well-being - if they, having properly weighed and thought about all this, acted accordingly - then, I am firmly convinced, I would occupy a completely different position in the world than the one in which the reader will probably see me... But I was conceived and born on my own grief...” This is from the English classics. XVIII century. Laurence Stern. "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman".

Continuing the thoughts of this intelligent author, I note that if my father and mother at a similar moment had thought about what year they were going to give birth to me, then, I do not rule out, they would have abandoned their intention. In turn, if I knew that I was being conceived, and knew what the year 1937 would be like, in which I would be born, and if, moreover, I had the opportunity to choose whether to be born or not, then, most likely, I would have preferred would be the latter - from horror of the future. It would be logical. But the ways of the Lord are mysterious. Having been born in the year of the most terrible Stalinist terror and having lived for a sufficient number of years, I can say that I was lucky to be born. A significant part of this luck is the family into which I was born, on my mother’s side in particular, and on my father’s side too.

I am going to talk about this luck in this book. And I am going to do this with all possible truthfulness. Yes, you can’t always tell the truth about everything, but you can always avoid lying. There are no lies in this book. In any case, I think there is none. That's enough for me.

So what will I write about here? About Me. About the people I met. About the films he made. About actions that he did or did not do. About thoughts that changed my mind.

“The darkness of low truths is dearer to us than the deception that elevates us,” said Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. What are “low truths”?

They are what you know about yourself, but what it is unpleasant to know, much less hear from others. What you drive away from yourself. Something that requires you to think about it makes you feel uncomfortable. But in general – to grow. Elevating deception does not promote growth. “Chicken Ryaba” is a film about “low truths.” I think that's why many people don't accept it.

Why wasn’t Chaadaev accepted, why was he declared crazy? Others still categorically deny it. Although he was largely right. But he spoke about “low truths” that caused a feeling of discomfort, which were not customary to talk about. No one has ever been sent to an insane asylum for “exalting deception.” And enough has suffered for the “low truths.” As a rule, it is for them.

And this is true not only in Russia - no one in the world needs the frightening truth. It is needed to hide it. So that only a few would know her and not allow others to see her. What is “political correctness” if not hiding the truth? Now this term is very popular, especially in the West. The implication is that there are things that are best not said out loud. About races, about the fact that not everyone is equal, that there was no brotherhood, no, and never will be. It is known, for example, that some studies on the physiology and psychology of different races are prohibited from publication because they lead to politically incorrect conclusions.

Sometimes political correctness means suppressing the truth. After all, it is obvious that democracy in Russia is akin to democracy in Zaire or Ethiopia, but everyone continues to talk about democratic elections.

I once read: nothing in the world has any other meaning than the one you put into it. This thought is one of those that allows me not only to draw energy from moments of failure, but also to justify myself, although it must be admitted that it excludes the concept of morality and is thus quite merciless to the generally accepted system of values.

What is love and why is it not eternal? How many times did it seem that you found exactly what you were looking for, what you really needed! How many times were you sure that this was forever! And then suddenly the feeling came that it was all over. Okay love for a woman! Take love for your friends. It seems like you can't spill it with water. So why does this end? Is it because the meaning of relationships changes, and you yourself give them meaning? It's especially difficult with friends. It has happened more than once in my life that I was completely alone.

Defeat may seem like a disaster, but two years later you remember it as a great happiness. It's a strange thing - human nature! She is all of contrasts, of opposites. It seems everything is clear: I love. But it turns out, more precisely, I love and hate. Happy are the people who do not know mutually negating poles!

My experience of the world is divided into a number of periods in which I professed radically different truths. Truths that at that moment seemed unshakable. The first, still a child, assumed that everything was going as it should. In the second, which began with de-Stalinization, the Khrushchev thaw, it was revealed that not everything was as it seemed and as we thought about it. Many things began to be questioned, the truth began to seem relative. Dmitry Konchalovsky’s book “The Ways of Russia” played a very serious role in all this; we will talk about it further. The same period includes VGIK, and friendship with Andrei Tarkovsky, and work with him. Along the way, I gained experience, expanded my horizons, acquired new truths, beliefs, a new philosophy, and became familiar with a religion that had previously seemed boring.