“Too believing” is translated as “fanatic.” In relation to the Orthodox, it sounded wildly until recently. It is as if on Easter Day an Orthodox would go to the mosque during namaz and with a cry of "Christ is risen" would activate a backpack with explosives.
Apparently, everything is still ahead.
Incidents are alarming. And the actions of Mrs. Poklonskaya, who are so active both in violating the second commandment and using the administrative resource for the fight against a film she dislikes, are alarming.
It is alarming that some fans have appeared, who, following the example of their guru, begin to act precisely from a position of strength.
From the very beginning, for some reason, there was absolutely no reasoned controversy regarding the "Matilda". Exceptionally squeals on the topic “To ban, this is an insult to the feelings of believers!” More precisely, one individual believer, who simply has more opportunities. Do not happen Poklonskaya in the State Duma, you see, and no one would have heard the scream.
Meanwhile, the film was tested by the General Prosecutor's Office: nothing offensive was found.
But even in this case, it would be possible to leave it all on her conscience. Everyone has his own idol, each turns his head as he sees fit.
But the arsons of the studio, cars, rams of cinemas, threats - this is like over the edge.
We have already got used to the fact that religious fanaticism is more inherent in certain trends of Islam. Some, because not every Muslim is a fanatical believer, the overwhelming majority of people are quite reasonable and peaceful.
It turns out now that in the Orthodox environment everything is no better. And the prospect is so-so, because after the attack with “Molotov cocktails,” then you can expect anything. With what, in general, I congratulate the entire Orthodox world. Survived.
Total: no one saw the discussion, but the actions of a frankly terrorist nature are obvious.
I personally really liked the reaction of the ROC. From the press secretary of the patriarch to ordinary priests. It is fat to emphasize that, despite the fact that they did not like the essence of the film, None of the ROC did not raise the question of banning the film.
Alexander Volkov, a spokesman for Patriarch of All Russia Cyril, said the words that I greatly liked:
“You ask: should the church officially rebuke? It is important that the evaluation of this film, like any other cultural work, does not come from the church, from the pulpit. It should be strictly avoided that the priest, standing on the ambo, said in a sermon: this is a good work, but this is bad, you cannot go to this film, and go there to burn movie theaters. This, of course, is impossible.
It is necessary for everyone to be patient when this film comes out on the screens in order to have an objective assessment of it. ”
Competently? Full Balanced? Definitely.
Moreover, many priests just condemned all acts of terrorism.
Dionisy Kostomarov, priest:
“For me, as for a priest and a Christian, these actions, which we heard about — in St. Petersburg, in Moscow, in Yekaterinburg — the arsons of cinemas, film studios, cars — this is barbarism, not Christianity. It has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. ”
Igor Prekup, Archpriest:
“We have too long ignored“ Orthodox gopnichestvo ”as detrimental to the church identity and discrediting the phenomenon. Not all, of course, one of us was outraged before, but there was not a sufficiently authoritative and consistent rejection of this abomination, hiding behind the mask of “Boz jealousy”. And it’s good that now at the proper level, both on the part of the ROC and the state, there was a categorical rejection of quasi-Orthodox pogrom sentiments and actions. ”
So, representatives of the Orthodox Church openly call “offended believers” barbarians and gopniki.
However, the position of the position, but how to continue to be? Who is responsible for those who with the name of the Lord on their lips promises to set fire to and destroy? Sorry, but this is not what the “Prophet’s Banner” or the “Holy Jihad” is doing today in Russia. This is done by the officially registered organization "Christian State - Holy Russia."
What, it turns out, we have drew a state-authorized terrorist organization? So, what is next? And, most importantly, who will further slow down these terrorists from Christ?
Very surprised by the sheer inaction of the relevant departments and the ROC. What do you have to ask, the church? Well, the analogy is simple. If the fans of “Spartacus” smash the stadium of another club and fight with the fans, then the club is responsible. Fines, empty stands and so on.
Oh yeah, our church is separated from the state ... So what? Does not matter shepherds are responsible for the affairs of the flock. Thugs Mr. Kalinin not with the name of Magomed or Navalny go to arson. Where then are the anathemas? Where are the relevant programs on the TV channel “Spas” and the radio “Radonezh”?
As I understand it, the ROC is happy with everything for now. They disown, and that's all.
But no, not all.
But as a layman, I am interested in another alignment around the film. And here I would argue even with some representatives of the ROC. For example, with Bishop Yegoryevsky Tikhon.
When asked whether the church would demand a ban on the film, Bishop Tikhon stressed that this is “an absolutely dead-end and wrong path” and not demands for prohibitions, “but a warning about truth and untruth is a goal that can and should be set in connection with the upcoming wide screening of the film. "
Where is untrue? Where is fiction?
Well, Nikolai Romanov was canonized as a martyr and passion-bearer. I do not dispute, although I have a slightly different opinion about holiness. Anyway.
The film is not about the saint.
The film, if anything, about the 20-year-old heir to the throne, a very nice young man. And about Malechka Kshesinskaya, 18 years old. And, as her contemporaries say in the memoirs, at that time it was still a sex bomb.
Could Nikolai Aleksandrovich "bother" at the ballerina? Not only could, but realized it. If for someone the relationship of a couple is a secret, it is not for St. Petersburg at that time. The facts were in bulk. Yes, and no one (!!!), I emphasize, did not hide this.
So, the heir to the throne, not the king, Tsarevich Nikolai Romanov fell in love with a beautiful woman. And how can this offend the religious feelings of the Orthodox? Yes, any priest signs under the words that "God is love."
And then, where it is said that since Nicholas was destined to become an emperor, then he had to be a monk, shy away from female beauty? In addition, it was all before his official wedding. And Matilda was not a lover. In love.
And indeed, in his place, each of us would hoo turn. Is not it?
Speaking from face stories, and what to make a film when it comes to the last emperor?
The fact that he could not cope with a gang of his relatives, earning huge fortunes on military supplies?
About the lost Russian-Japanese war?
The fact that when in the 1905, it was necessary to speak, and he agreed that it was necessary to shoot?
Or that when you really had to shoot, in 1917, he denied it?
Or about Rasputin?
If by and large, the emperor from Nicholas was, to put it mildly, unsuccessful. If you make films, why not about first love? Well, you can still about how after the defeat in the Russian-Japanese war, Nikolai did a lot for the army. Really a lot. But it will not be as interesting as a beautiful story about two young people. And about the end of this story, very instructive.
Well, the ROC voted for his canonization as a martyr. There is generally a controversial issue, we have millions of such martyrs. And even among them there are more worthy ones for canonization. The only question is that canonization is not an indication that there is nothing more to be said about holiness.
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was a normal man. Overly romantic, yes. No sovereign is also true. But as a husband and father, there is no question here, a positive example. And with Matilda behaved really like a king. No complaints.
And why not show it? Or is it necessary to tell everyone that Nikolai only had sex with Alexandra? And did it only five times in your life? And the physiology carried rainbow?
By the way, many people from the world of cinema spoke very positively about the film. For example, People's Artist of the USSR Inna Churikova, who in the cinema understands something, I think, and Sergey Selyanov, the producer of my favorite films “Brother” and “Brother-2”.
But to hell with the movie.
And then, where is democracy and the right of personal choice?
Why some lady from Ukraine, quickly turning over to the Russian woman, along with the “barbarians and Gopnik” religious movements that nobody knows (now, according to representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church) will decide which actions of historical characters fall out of history and which are not?
Why will these obviously inadequate people decide with the help of gasoline and kerosene, which movie can I watch, and which one should I not? What can you shoot a movie, and what can not?
Sorry, this is not Ukraine. Here is Russia. And here the issues of freedom are not decided by Ukrainian standards. Not "Molotov cocktails." It may be difficult to get used to and difficult to understand, however.
But, dear, this jumble smells disgusting. Religious fanatics plus football "ultras" plus "Molotov cocktails" and overt threats, what does it smell like?
You know, it smells of Odessa in May.
Yes, there were no religious fanatics. But the cocktails and the "ultras" were. And that was enough.
Where, tell me, were all these people, when the story was spat upon in the “Standing Up”, “Citadel”, “Vikings” and “Stalingrad”? Let them go there too. Either sit quietly in the holes, or applaud such film masterpieces.
And we ourselves will figure out whether this film is worth something or not. But with Ukrainian zakosy in beliefs - dismiss. All these cases, law enforcement agencies are obliged not only to do, but to find real customers and performers and punish them to the fullest extent.
By the way, the authorities themselves must be extremely interested in this. Today the Molotov cocktails flew into the objectionable studio of the Teacher and the cars, tomorrow at the cinema, which showed the objectionable according to some of the film, and the day after tomorrow?
Yes, the most interesting question: where to the day after tomorrow?
Maybe in a private school, where the Directorate does not want to introduce the lessons of the law of God? Or in barbecue during the post? To restaurants? In the mosque to the cries of "For Russia Orthodox!"?
But fly. For a fanatic, to do justice is the highest grace! And when there is someone to shove into the fanatical brain another idea, with which antichrist to fight ...
So, apparently, “there will be more blood.” At least for now this is the case. While in the State Duma there are people suffering from chronic idleness and trying to carry out the cultivation of a new prohibitive marasmus.
However, all this has already passed. In Ukraine.
There were "onizhedeti", remember? And we have? And we have "Orthodox who want to give their lives for Christ, for the saints who laid down their lives for us. For the Tsar and their Fatherland." Yes, beauty, what else to say. Your energy would be "Orthodox", but for peaceful purposes ... You would not have a price.
P.S.
On the "Matilda" will definitely go. And because it is interesting, and because historically in that era it is grounded. And I will definitely write, as I wrote on the “Sevastopol Battle”, “28 Panfilov Heroes” a detailed review. And if all the assaults on this film will be groundless, then I will definitely return to this topic.