I find myself in an oddly conflicted state about this and see both sides here.
I comprehend the cinema's stance; the abrupt change meant they could no longer screen premium content, and the local film industry doesn't appear remotely prepared to contend. They seem to be stuck without a viable solution, and the only effective remedy would entail swift and substantial policy alterations at the federal level.
Conversely, the government's position strikes a chord with me, oddly enough. I'll set aside the perspective of "we aim to boost local films and this influx of free premier content would overwhelm us in competition," even though I concur with that viewpoint.
Even more-so, when considering the country's situation post-war, rebuffing foreign stakeholders even more vehemently than they currently are seems likely to exacerbate the inevitable and substantial post-war recession. If I were a foreign conglomerate contemplating an eventual re-entry into the country, I'd be closely monitoring this situation and I imagine the government officials considering the post-war era know it.
Ultimately the right choice is probably to just let the cinema industry fail, but the responsibility for this predicament lies with neither the ministry of culture nor the cinema industry so I can't help but sympathize with the challenging circumstances a bit.
For Putin's government the key here is censorship of Western content.
Many Western blockbuster movies, Barbie and Oppenheimer included, disseminate ideas that are antagonistic to Putin's fascist narrative. Barbie is, among other things, a play on feminism and on democratic values - think Ken's voting a new Constitution! It's only logical that Putin does not want "foreign agents" distorting the regime's narrative massively distributed to its 83 federal subjects ("federal states").
China has been doing this for ages now by picking a handful of foreign films / year and demanding the Statue of Liberty be removed from film. However, the Chinese market is so yummy that Western blockbuster productions will often self-censor to make sure they make the cut [1]. Putin is getting the opposite in fact, the West is high on anti-Russian sentiments for the last decade or so, and that has trickled down into content. Remember when under Boris Yeltsin that Western productions got plenty of "good Russians" after the Iron Curtain melted down?
They are antagonistic to any other cultural view point, that's how it works. US culture crushes all before it, this is easily observable.
The problem is that plebs of the west mostly don't seem to understand that, or wilfully don't care. Culture wars are a thing and governments have every right to protect against US led liberal hegemony if they want to maintain any sort of collective will.
It's a misunderstanding of Russian mentality, national ethos and the mechanics of their internal propaganda to think that a "message" disseminated by a Hollywood movie poses some kind of threat to it.
Using the example of Oppenheimer, a Russian citizen might see the movie and take away the following conclusions:
1. American leadership makes decisions based on an irrational fear of communism.
2. We are justified in expanding our nuclear arsenal. This is the only way they won't bomb our people in an event of conflict.
3. The Nazis sure were a threat to everyone. I'm glad we defeated them, but they weren't mentioning that in the movie. So ungrateful, typical Americans.
4. The political system of the US is quite unstable. I'm glad we have Putin. That Yeltsin sure was an embarrassment.
5. Whoah, the h-bomb sure is a powerful thing, we should drop that on Ukraine to win the war.
6. History is written by the winners, and whoever is the strongest wins. Thank goodness we're so strong.
7. I'm glad to live in a country where I could torrent this and I don't have to be worried about a 100 million dollar lawsuit.
8. The respect everyone gives us makes me feel so proud to live in Russia, one of the world leaders. We have a great future ahead of us.
It’s interesting watching Russia struggle as it devolves into a lawless hellscape with daily drone attacks on its capital.
The Russian people who are against this nonsense were unfortunately reluctant to speak up due to fear of death, but when good people remain silent we see what happens time and time again.
Yes, because mass protests seem to do well to stop wars. I remember when there were mass protests in the US for the Iraq war and it was over in a month. Remember that time? /s
Mass protests work. But they take time and persistence. It's not the spectacle of the actual mass protest itself, its what they do to create connections and unity between people who previously felt isolated from each other. The most important thing coming out of a protest is not the pictures for the news media, but the "come to this next event" fliers handed out, or mailing lists put together, to continue to build momentum.
Protest was most likely a huge factor in keeping Canada (and probably other potential "allies") out of the war, no matter what Chretien says in retrospect. The federal Liberals in power at the time were on the fence, but the mass protests that week (and leading up to it) were the largest in history and the government clearly saw it would cost them. (But then they turned around and provided backchannel support, and were still involved in Afghanistan, etc. so...)
I suspect getting involved there was also a big factor in the implosion of the UK Labour Party since then...
I marched in the protests that week in Toronto. They were the largest mass street protests -- and probably the most emotional -- I've ever been in. It got pretty heated outside the US embassy, too.
Seems to me the problem in the US with the Iraq war is that Americans are on the whole brought up to be extremely pro-military, "support our troops" at all cost. Lots of ra-ra patriotism stuff that is about the only thing in US society that is not partisan.
Many of the "liberals" I know there still give me shitty excuses why they initially supported what was clearly, to anybody who was thinking a terrible imperialist war. Anybody with half a brain knew it wasn't about "weapons of mass destruction", and people still using that "they lied to us" excuse are being intellectually dishonest. They supported because of nationalism.
And you know what, instead of Russians using this historical example as a "What About?" moment to point fingers at the US -- which accomplishes nothing -- they should be absorbing the actual lesson about the awful things that imperialist nationalism makes people and nations do... and get a spine.
I expected Americans to get a spine then and stop the war, and I expect Russians to do so now. Disappointed both times, so far.
No, the US population was in favor of the war overall, especially at the beginning. I don't know how this compares to the Vietnam war. But the Vietnam war involved conscription, so I'd bet that had more domestic opposition.
Technically speaking, it became mafia-run the moment Eltsin got guarantees for himself and his family and agreed to give-up power to mafia-KGB-chimera representative Putin.
By this logic it's mafias all the way up. Every government takes protection money / taxes whether you like it or not, and will send men with guns if you don't pay. It's all about who has a monopoly on violence.
Democratic government is by far the best solution to this dilemma.
I'd be averse to protesting if flying bullets were involved too.
Here in the West we have a sense of rights and freedoms that developed only after centuries of civil wars, revolutions, bloody struggles, and endless debates and propaganda. It's now baked into the Western psyche.
But other areas aren't so lucky, and some are still in the above process.
Protests and revolutions happen in non-Western countries quite frequently. Let’s not absolve Russians for their apathy and subservience in this respect.
To be fair, they just had an attempted revolution the other day, and there's been a steady stream of Putin critics meeting unlikely fates over the years. Do not underestimate the power of an oppressive government with a wide reach.
Learn how to overthrow your government, lose several regions to a larger neighbour's invasion, become significantly poorer, and then get dragged to die on the front in a hot war against it?
But at least they don't have that president they didn't like, who was an obstacle for them joining the EU.
Learning things from Euromaidan is arguably why Russia is still in coherent state under so much pressure. Russians are very aware of the abyss that may open in place of an even previously super peaceful country when a revolution happens. Got three shots of that vaccine.
Somehow the assumption is that without Euromaidan, Ukraine would still be intact and not in a war.
"Not in a war" part is correct. The government was preparing to give Ukraine to Russia as a whole. Ukrainian paratroopers has an exercise in Summer 2013 to subdue an insurgency in Western Ukraine.
If Russians are afraid to get to jail or get shot, they can always commit self-immolation in protest. (There was a case actually last year, but not against the war. Only against conscription.)
Nobody suggested that it was a smooth or easy path to remove yourself as a vassal state of Moscow. But in the long run, the process will likely be worth it.
Russia is still in a coherent state because they’re just sending all their rural poor, ethnic minorities, and prisoners to die in Ukraine. Once they’ve sacrificed all their undesirables and need to conscript from their major cities, we will see how “non-political” Russians actually are.
Who do you think Ukraine is sending? Rural poor. The rich males have fled. Ukraine software developers are working abroad not shooting weapons. The US and Canada do the same.
Trying to draw a line is difficult when both groups are on the same side. The rich decide on wars and the poor fight them.
In the end they are two sides of the same coin. If you think there are good guys and bad guys and the good guys are always on my side then I will remind you that this isn't a movie. For every action any actor took there is a reason and justification that can be made.
Would Trudeau and Freeland be so pro war if Freeland and her sister owned 5 apartment buildings in Russia instead of the Ukraine? Would Biden be so pro war if his sin had dealings with Russia instead of the Ukraine?
Find me a pure moral action and I'll raise you two selfish actions.
Two sides of the same coin. One side is an imperialist aggressor seeking revanchism. The other side is defending their lands trying to get out from under the boot of Russian subjugation.
Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin.
> Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin.
I think this kinda of language takes agency away from countries like Russia, Russia chose to invade and was not forced by anyone, given the rhetoric in some of there now deleted articles I think theres evidence that it was for imperialistic reasons and not because of NATO.
After all NATO doesn't appear at all in the now deleted Russian media victory article.
NATO fired the first shots? Believe me, if NATO was firing anything there would be tanks in the streets of Moscow right now. NATO is winning this war with Russia without sacrificing a single soldier, and by largely using up their stockpiles of Cold War-era hand-me-downs. How humiliating for Russia.
If you feel that way, surely you wouldn’t mind me moving into your house, sleeping in your bed, eating your food, etc. After all, there is no right or wrong, everything is grey, and reductionist logic can be applied to deflect from any argument that is inconvenient to one’s simplistic worldviews.
So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course.
To the contrary, you are saying this course of action was right and should be taken as a guidance, because it averted even larger catastrophe (which I have trouble contemplating) and because it will all pay off at the end (are they gambling?)
That's not even grey area, that's bungee jumping.
Another piece of discussion where a person suggested self-immolation to other parties.
Reminds me of 3 reasons why one would consider sitting on a hedgehog.
> So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course.
What if what led a country to become involved in a hot war its larger neighbour was entirely on its larger neighbour.
As a gingerbread man, your first priority would be that you make sure nobody eats you. This is very important!
As a country, your first priority is that nobody attacks you, especially a larger party. On whom this is, becomes irrelevant.
I've often seen tourist guides telling tourists to not flash expensive jewelry and electronics on the street. They never seem to say "do what you want, you are an independent human being, if somebody decides to rob you it's entirely on them".
But that's exactly what the world was telling Ukraine for decades. Still keeps telling. Teaches others to follow that history of success.
From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead.
> From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead.
I think Russia would have attacked and taken over Ukraine either way (either by political force or military might) and that the plan was always to do this.
I don’t think Ukraine could have avoided this fate by not keeping its belongings its car.
Sometimes cars get broken into anyway, and I think this is that case.
I think it’s very telling that the victory article Russian media posted then deleted suddenly on what would be the 4 or 5th day of the war talked heavily about writing historical wrongs (Ukraines independence) and didn’t really mention a coup or NATO or anything like that.
As far as I remember, the victory article Russian media posted then deleted suddently, also did not really mention annexing Ukraine or even parts of it. I suggest you dust off that text and re-read it.
Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation.
Indeed there is an example of Belarus, which is a smaller country that is still independent (in the sense that it has its own statehood, laws and international relations) and intact. If that is what you mean by independence, then if Belarus pulls it, Ukraine could also.
If by independence you mean the ability to persistently ignore your largest, trigger happy neighbour concerns - indeed such independence was likely doomed from the start. That's the "flashing jewelry" part for you.
And again, I'm not really talking about personal choices (maybe Ukraine did have to go through Second Independence War like USA did), but about the desirability of such scenario to be copied by other countries.
> Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation.
That was off the table in 2014 when they did the exact same thing to Crimea, so theres no real change there, not that it changes the status of any of the territory they still remain areas of Ukraine (like Crimea) they are just temporarily occupied.
> If by independence you mean the ability to persistently ignore your largest, trigger happy neighbour concerns - indeed such independence was likely doomed from the start. That's the "flashing jewelry" part for you.
Independence means the right to choose whatever you want for your alliance. Which Ukraine has the right to do.
> And again, I'm not really talking about personal choices (maybe Ukraine did have to go through Second Independence War like USA did), but about the desirability of such scenario to be copied by other countries.
I think it should be desirable for other countries to be independent and not subjugated by their bigger neighbours.
Of course, nobody was going to give Crimea to them in this case. But they could end up with Medvedchuk and all the remaining regions, some of them in federative state. The thing is, every next option they get is progressively worse.
> it should be desirable for other countries to be independent
So you are OK with some other people dying so that you have a pleasant feeling about them.
Much like when you read in a newspaper how a brave tourist has resisted the thugs who tried to rob him. But the actual good advice to tourists is to stay out of trouble, and if it is already happening, try not to die by complying.
Anything that got you in a brawl with local thugs over your fancy camera is bad advice.
It's not that I think countries should not be independent and get subjugated by their bigger neighbours. It's just they should find a way to do this in a smart fashion and without full scale war. Ukraine is actually getting subjugated by their bigger neighbour right now. The policy you recommend led to an outcome that you find undesirable. Then you say the policy is not to blame, the outcome could not be avoided in the first place.
So the US Founding Fathers were wrong to declare independence from Britain because the Revolutionary War was bloody and painful? Instead the US should have remained colonies and everything would have turned out better?
There is USA, there is Canada which has never declared independence, and I can't say outright that Canada is a worse country than USA, or has less self-determination, after taking population and geography into account. USA did lose quite a large amount of men in independence-related wars, though.
The same question about the French Revolution. Yes, they have no choice but praise it now, but Britain had no revolution and we are all now writing in English. Had France averted Revolution, it is likely that we would all be writing in French now, and English would be a niche language of England and some very backwards African ex-colonies. Was it worth it? Sure, French Revolution led to Napoleon, who could be a success had he not jump under the Russian steamroller.
The best thing about revolutions is not having them and waiting for a bigger sucker to have one. The benefits of somebody out there having a revolution seem to be shared, whereas the cost seems to be footed by the ones who did it to their country.
These suckers then have no choice but to make their largest failure the central point of their ideology. France did, so did USSR and arguably USA, however here it's not as clear-cut.
Some of the urbanized, well-off guys with that specific inclination volunteer to fight, on both sides. They also end up dead eventually.
Of course, they try to find an arrangement to do it on their own terms.
Some of even more rich and powerful will participate in some "tik tok batallion" where they're fairly sure they're the last ones to actually risk their lives. But once it ends they will boast their military prowess and use it as social capital.
"Russia loves America" is similiar level of simplification as "post-soviet countries love democracy". In reality, people here don't value democracy as much as they just want German cars, French clothes and American movies and politicians are adapting to the demand.
I find it difficult to understand whether your second sentence refers to Russia or those 'post-soviet countries'.
If it is the latter, I want to note that as a person from a Baltic country I have no doubt that my fellow citizens value self-determination and democracy a lot more than consumer goods.
That was a reckless generalization on my part, I meant both. It was my cynical take on the atmosphere in Hungary, Slovakia and Poland as well as (anecdotally) in Russia. Clearly Baltics have made a much bigger progress.
Could Barbie have been made (and had the marketing muscle put behind it) anywhere else but America though? Would Givenchy have grown to the brand that it is in a France that wasn't democratic? You can say or even think you don't like America, but what does that really mean when you seek out things that have thrived because of it?
The meaning of "Russian soul" is secretly adoring and mimicking the West (for centuries), while overtly threatening to burn it to the ground. The wives and progeny of some of the most ardent haters live in Europe and give birth in the United States for American citizenship.
> "Russian soul" is secretly adoring and mimicking the West
Pretty sure it's not secret at all. St Petersburg founded in the 1700s (and then made the capital of Tsarist Russia) was literally an attempt to westernize Russia.
I think the "Russian soul" is more of an inner conflict between the desire to live a Western life while under the heavy influence of non-Western traditions and culture
Western in the early 18th century referred generally to the cultural reaction of (mostly Western) Europe to the enlightenment that was happening at the time. Russia did not have that movement, so Peter the Great attempted to "Westernize" by bringing some of the ideas into Russia via St. Petersburg, while still maintaining the traditional non-Western Russian Tsarism (I don't know of a better word than non-Western because Eastern doesn't really correspond to a broad culture similar to Westernism as thought of in Western Europe)
This is the internal conflict of the "Russian soul"
The problem with Kremlins ("ardent haters of the West") is that they are
a) In for money or because it is a part of their job description.
b) Not too Russian. It's a distinct ethno-political subgroup.
The latter would be apparent from reading the "Early Life" section of Wikipedia, or any source of the same effect.
A Russian will not want to harm Europe unless it's kill or be killed situation - because Russia is a part of Europe and is not viable without it. A Russian will also not want to hurt Russian people or the country. Kremlins talk about the former and do the latter, all the time.
I think this article is missing the point. State sponsored cinemas should have a high standard. Playing something with shady copyright, would stain their reputation. Americans would not also play cheap porn in Super Imax theater...
Nobody in Russia cares if some local private/municipal theater plays DVD rip of Barbie...
Wow, the audacity. The movie bosses remind me of the parents protesting in China that cheating should be allowed.
I understand there is an entire industry around discouraging pirating, but that would seem completely ineffectual in a case of state-sponsored piracy, or piracy in a state that will not prosecute.
At this point the only thing preventing open large scale piracy is the Russian government's proactive steps to keep it underwater.
Obviously, if government intervention wasn't there and you would start distributing Barbie, who can sue you? The movie company? They has exited the market and don't have local presense. If they do, just move the office to LPR and make them file their complaints to "Lugansk People's Republic, Russia".
The massive irony of wanting a movie like Barbie - nightly the TV propogandists rail against the decedent west and their immorality and that Russia is somehow involved in fighting a holy war in Ukraine.
Just another Russian cultural casualty caused by the Kremlin's war on Ukraine and The West. It's baffling at times. As Churchill said, Russia "is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".
We're used to the Will of The People being something that matters (at the very least it's taken into account) in Western culture.
The more I pay attention to what's been going on these last few years, the more I'm convinced that Russia is simply a Mafia State with Putin as the Don. Might makes right, those at the top protect their interests, warring with each other when necessary, to the detriment of everything else. The people don't matter, and they've been beaten down to the point they just accept this as part of life. It's engrained in their culture now. To quote The Godfather "Killing him was just business".
This can't continue forever. This may not be the end, or the beginning of the end, but we're well past the end of the beginning. Not sure how this gets resolved, but many more Ukrainians and Russians will suffer before something changes. The movie industry is the least of their problems.
Russia is just centuries of unending melancholy and tragedy - from the beginning with the Tsars, the Communists and then Yeltsin and now Putin - it has always been the Tsar (Putin) vs the Boyars (regional leaders/oligarchs) - the common folk don't really matter.
It seems that it's on a collision course with modernity. Which was always inevitable, but seems to be accelerating as of late probably due to the continued integration of markets and capital around the world.
Not sure both the West and Russia (in it's current form) can continue to coexist in an increasingly interconnected world.
> A furious cinema chief has accused the fund and government of protecting Western copyright holders. He says that Russia needs pirated copies of Barbie in cinemas, sooner rather than later.
The grass is green, the water is wet, a capitalist wanting back his 100 per cent is totally okay to trample on human laws, other news at 11.
I comprehend the cinema's stance; the abrupt change meant they could no longer screen premium content, and the local film industry doesn't appear remotely prepared to contend. They seem to be stuck without a viable solution, and the only effective remedy would entail swift and substantial policy alterations at the federal level.
Conversely, the government's position strikes a chord with me, oddly enough. I'll set aside the perspective of "we aim to boost local films and this influx of free premier content would overwhelm us in competition," even though I concur with that viewpoint.
Even more-so, when considering the country's situation post-war, rebuffing foreign stakeholders even more vehemently than they currently are seems likely to exacerbate the inevitable and substantial post-war recession. If I were a foreign conglomerate contemplating an eventual re-entry into the country, I'd be closely monitoring this situation and I imagine the government officials considering the post-war era know it.
Ultimately the right choice is probably to just let the cinema industry fail, but the responsibility for this predicament lies with neither the ministry of culture nor the cinema industry so I can't help but sympathize with the challenging circumstances a bit.