Vitaly Milonov: ''I suggest inviting Mel Gibson to make a film about Tsar Nicholas II''
The scandalous deputy tells why he starred in the documentary Matilda’s Lie and debunked the myths imposed by Alexey Uchitel
State Duma Deputy Vitaly Milonov took part in filming of the documentary by Sergey Aliyev Matilda's Lie, which is to show before the premiere of the controversial film by Alexey Uchitel. In the author's column in Realnoe Vremya, the parlamentarian told what prompted him to join the campaign of Natalia Poklonskaya against Matilda. Besides, the columnist of our newspaper shares his ideas who would be able to direct a ''right'' film about Tsar Nicholas II and laments a lack of good Russian historical films.
''It is rather Uchitel's lie than Matilda's''
Matilda's Lie is not a feature film. I have not read the script, and, as I understand it, this film is composed of several interviews. Its creators asked me to express my point of view about the personality of Nicholas II and the possibility of using it in the film. In fact, I shared my opinion, which I have never changed. And nobody paid me for acting. It is frustrating when people try to draw attention to themselves using historical half-truths.
It is not a documentary. It's not Uchitel who took some actors and filmed his ideas in fantastic versions. They could not be compared in any case. I wouldn't even call it Matilda's Lie. It is rather Uchitel's lie than Matilda's. If we want to make a film about the film, I would better make a film about the truth. I'm not interested in sorting dirty linen of Uchitel. Let him do it himself with his attorney Konstantin Dobrynin.
Many people would be interested to see a normal film about the tsar because such pictures have not been filmed. I understand why such film will not appear today. Directors have a corporate solidarity, mutual responsibility. No matter how patriotic a filmmaker is at a rally, but when it comes to guild solidarity, they all become quiet. Such figures cover for each other, and our film makers, most likely, will not film such movies.
''Many people would be interested to see a normal film about the tsar because such pictures have not been filmed. I understand why such film will not appear today. Directors have a corporate solidarity, mutual responsibility.'' Photo: rockfilm.ru
''Gibson is a talented director, free from the brotherhood of the Union of cinematographers''
It is necessary to make good films and for that I offer to invite a good director. I know such man: he will not dissemble, looking at corporate friendship. Mel Gibson could make a film The Last Years of the Tsar or The Last Days of Nicholas. I suggest inviting to make a film about the last Russian Tsar. There is no doubt, it would be another masterpiece. Gibson is a talented director, free from the brotherhood of the Union of cinematographers, a Massolit, where at the same table there sit his members and eat only pikes.
Mel Gibson makes very good films based on historical events. His films are always very beautiful and interesting. Yes, his films The Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto and others cause a serious reaction. He's a talented man, and his current film Hacksaw Ridge once again only confirmed it. The director doesn't take his lead from the environment. He wasn't scared of the English nobility, who did not like the film Braveheart. He was not afraid of people who didn't like the film The Passion of the Christ.
Who accused him that The Passion of the Christ is a deceitful film? Yes, perhaps it is exaggerated. But who condemned him for the film? Those who didn't like the plot itself. By the way, it is not about modern Israel, and about betrayal. Only an idiot would find in it some kind of anti-semitism. The film shows that all those who followed Jesus Christ are Jews, and the Apostle Peter is the first of them.
It is those in the first place look for Jew-hatred in this film for whom it is benefitial that the anti-Semitism existed. This is a historic event, and let's not argue. It is wrong to shield your nation, completely abandoning the facts in the history that did take place. The film, after all, was not a story about Jews.
''Mel Gibson would made a film The Last Years of the Tsar or The Last Days of Nicholas. I suggest inviting to make a film about the last Russian Tsar. There is no doubt, it would be another masterpiece.'' Photo: catholicherald.co.uk
''Nicholas II was one of the greatest humanists''
Personally I am not acquainted with Alexey Uchitel. I'm not a guest at all sorts of glamorous cocktail parties, red carpets, partying with ladies in dresses with plunging neckline. They are boiled in their porridge and I have nothing to do them. Unfortunately, I don't like any film by Uchitel, although I do not rule out that he is probably talented.
His film gives us several myths. The first is about some relations of Cesarevitch Nicholas with a ballet dancer Mathilde Kschessinska. It is a product of the liberals of Moscow coffee shops who try to project their putrid life on others. It is hard for them to feel that they are ugly, that is why they try to wear all the others in the same ugly shape.
The second myth is the ''bloody tsar''. This pattern, which was imposed by the Bolsheviks: all sorts of Trotsky, Lenin, Bukharin. The fake term ''Nicholas the bloody'' is actively promoted among the lumpens. By the way, Putin mentioned that we have a terrible attitude to our own history: some believe Nicholas to be holy, others — bloody. Thank God that the truth prevails.
The supporters of the theory of ''Nicholas the bloody'' remember the Khodynka Tragedy and other unpleasant incidents during his reign. But it is impossible to compare events, standards and norms of the early 20th century with the current humanistic principles. There were other times, the death penalty was everywhere. We can say that Nicholas II was one of the greatest humanists. Unlike his fellow European dynasties, he did not hang many revolutionaries who became the Bolsheviks. That is why they multiplied like worms. He could use vitriol against them, but he was a very humane ruler. So there appeared all sorts of Lenin on Nevsky Prospekt, Krupskaya girls and other nasty Zinovievs, Volodarskys, Kamenevs and Trotskys. If Nicholas was bloody, the relatives of many of today's liberals would be hanging on yards as traitors of the motherland in the beginning of 20th century. All this revolutionary riffraff would have been hanged, and the country would not have sunk into the darkness of the red terror and madness.
''The supporters of the theory of ''Nicholas the bloody'' remember the Khodynka Tragedy and other unpleasant incidents during his reign. But it is impossible to compare events, standards and norms of the early 20th century with the current humanistic principles.'' Photo: pravoslavnye.ru
Wittingly or unwittingly, but all films like Matilda are filmed in favour of anti-national forces that struggle against our government. Unwinding this tangle, we come to the conclusion that this will be another cunning scheme of our enemies. We will know it later: some retired person from the State Department in the end will say: ''We did it. We were good.'' And the fact that now Uchitel are surrounded by outspoken enemies of our people — the Trotskyites and Bukharinites who protect the director only shows that to a good osinka there will not cling bad oranges.