MOSCOW — That a film about Russia’s last czar, Nicholas II, has been grabbing headlines here isn’t necessarily unusual: This year marks the centenary of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution that overthrew the monarchy in this country and ushered in more than 70 years of state communism.
But the upcoming Oct. 26 release of “Matilda” has generated a different kind of pre-premiere buzz: widespread public protests punctuated by the burning of cars and movie theaters. The cause of the unrest? The film depicts young Nicholas, before being crowned czar, of having an affair with the Polish ballerina Matilda Kshessinska more than two decades before the Russian Empire collapsed.
[IMAGE]
Sure enough, Orthodox activists and social conservatives, who have seen their influence grow under the rule of President Vladimir Putin, have demanded the film be banned. The Russian Orthodox Church has canonized Nicholas and views him and his family as martyred saints. A liaison that didn’t end in marriage challenges that image and makes Nicholas appear more earthly.
Authorities, however, haven’t stopped the premiere, an unusual precedent in a country where “offending believers’ feelings” is a criminal offense and a legitimate reason to cancel theater plays, rationalize vandalizing exhibitions and prosecute people for atheistic comments on social networks.
As a result, the film has exposed a divide between pro-Kremlin social conservatives in Russia, who have grown in influence in the country, and liberals, who defend freedom of expression. More critically, observers say the debate over the film also exposes a divide among Russia’s ruling elites as the Kremlin searches for a new doctrine ahead of next year’s presidential elections that will sway the public.
Battle for ‘Matilda’
The drama around “Matilda,” a film directed by prominent filmmaker Alexei Uchitel, began in November 2016 when the movie was still in production. Only a short trailer was available, which depicted the passionate affection young Nicholas II had for Kshessinska in the 1890s.
That did not sit well with Natalya Poklonskaya, former prosecutor of Crimea and now a lawmaker for the State Duma, or legislature. Poklonskaya is known for her obsession with Nicholas II: Media reports have linked her to “czar-worshippers” — a wing of Orthodox believers who consider Nicholas II to be a savior on par with Jesus Christ who sacrificed his life for Russians and their sins. Poklonskaya launched an aggressive campaign against the film, filing complaints to law enforcement authorities and demanding they investigate the film’s producers for various violations of the law.
Poklonskaya’s protests agitated social conservatives who might have ordinarily remained silent; She insisted that she acted on behalf of tens of thousands of people who filed complaints to her office and once compared the film to “a bucket of scum.” Soon enough, her campaign was supported by Orthodox activists who took to the streets and organized protests. Leaders of conservative Muslim regions such as Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia also weighed in, condemning the film as “insulting to Russia’s great history” and demanding it be banned.
In response, Uchitel says he complained to authorities about Poklonskaya’s alleged defamatory public statements and of Orthodox organizations threatening those who support the film with violence. For months, however, both Orthodox Church leaders and Kremlin officials shrugged the conflict off, saying that each party was entitled to expressing their opinions.
The standoff intensified on Aug. 10, when Russia’s Culture Ministry approved the wide release of the film. Within weeks, confrontations turned violent. In Yekaterinburg, a city more than 1,000 miles east of Moscow in Russia’s interior, a protester drove his van into a movie theater and set it on fire. In St. Petersburg, a person threw Molotov cocktails into the film studio where Uchitel works. In Moscow, two cars were burned down near the office of Uchitel’s lawyer. Flyers saying “Burn for Matilda” were found at the scene.
Only then did Kremlin and Church spokespeople release statements condemning the violence. In late September, police arrested a leader of one of the radical Orthodox organizations.
The violence has had a chilling effect. In mid-October, Reuters reported that the two stars of the film say they will skip the Russian premiere of the film, due to safety reasons. Earlier in October Formula Kino, one of Moscow’s biggest movie theater chains, announced it would screen the film, walking back a September announcement that security concerns were too great to show the film. Company spokespeople say they are assured law enforcement officials take their security concerns seriously.
Other Orthodox organizational leaders promise more protests in the meantime, and as the premiere approaches, the question of what to expect next remains open. Neither Poklonskaya nor Uchitel responded to requests for comments.
Politics of the Drama
Today’s tensions over “Matilda” can be traced to 2012 with the controversial prosecution of the feminist protest rock group Pussy Riot, says Roman Lunkin, head of the center for the study of Religion and Society at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ European Institute. By allowing that prosecution to go forward, authorities appeared to side with “offended believers” over the country’s liberal intelligentsia. Orthodox activists realized they were a political force and became more vocal about their demands.
For the movie “Matilda,” however, social conservatives chose to attack a person who is distinctively not a political opposition figure. Uchitel, whose 2010 film, “The Edge” was selected as Russia’s entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 83rd Academy Awards, is considered friendly to President Putin. In March 2014, he signed onto a letter supporting the military annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. This past June Putin mentioned in comments to the press that he “personally” knows Uchitel and respects him as a “very talented” artist.
As a result, the tension stirred by “Matilda” doesn’t reflect conflict between the conservative state and liberal opposition, says political analyst Abbas Gallyamov. Rather, it is a clash between two forces within the state: traditionalists and those who realize it is time to loosen — albeit slightly — social controls in Russia. “The ‘traditional values’ doctrine worked great in 2014-2015, when the Kremlin hysterically fought various enemies and traitors,” Gallyamov says. “But the society is tired of it, so it won’t work anymore. And there are people in the government who understand that.”
If Putin makes “Matilda” critics such as Poklonskaya back off and ensures a quiet, safe screening of the film, he can score some political points ahead of next year’s elections, Gallyamov says. “It is the oldest trick in the book — first create a problem, then solve it.”
The movie’s controversy also diverts attention from the centenary of the 1917 revolution — something authorities would rather avoid having a public discussion about, says Nikita Sokolov, historian and one of the founders of the Free Historic Society, a nongovernmental organization that advocates scientific approaches to evaluating Russian history.
“‘Revolution’ has become a profane word for them, because they immediately think of all the ‘color revolutions’ (political upheavals that happened in neighboring countries in recent years),” he says. “Moreover, the 1917 revolution was about social fairness and social equality — things also dangerous to have a public discussion about.”
Orthodox Perspective
As far as the film itself goes, there is nothing wrong with showing Nicholas II having an affair, historians and theologians say. First, it is a historically documented fact, argues Coryne Hall, a British historian who wrote a book about Kshessinska: The relationship did take place.
Second, such a relationship doesn’t undermine Nicholas’ sanctity, says Rev. Andrei Kurayev, an Orthodox missionary and informal spokesman for the church’s liberal wing.
“Nicholas II was canonized as a passion bearer — a saint of the lowest rank,” he says. “Passion bearer is someone who suffered something unfair and undeserved and chose not to plot revenge, and he is rewarded for that. Just like with martyrs, what he did during his life is not taken into account.”
Moreover, when Nicholas II was canonized in 2000, church leaders specifically said all of the czar’s deeds were considered saintly, Kurayev adds.
However, unofficially Nicholas II has been hallowed by Orthodox believers since the Soviet times, says Lunkin: “He was considered a patron of the faith, and this belief has been rooted deep in many Orthodox Russians’ faith.”
“Czar-worshipping” grew out of this belief and became its exaggerated version, he says. In 2007, Alexiy II, then-patriarch of Russia, deemed it heresy. This year, Orthodox Church officials seem to support neither Poklonskaya or supporters of the film.
The Church doesn’t want to pick sides because it doesn’t want to lose supporters, argues theologian Andrei Desnitsky. “If it supports Poklonskaya, (a) significant amount of people will turn their backs on the Church. If it supports ‘Matilda,’ another significant amount of people will leave.”
Despite its image of power and influence, the Russian Orthodox Church has to tread carefully in a country where 80 percent of people call themselves Orthodox, yet half of them admit to pollsters they don’t believe in God, Desnitsky says.
More from U.S. News
Russian Authorities Increase Crackdown on Cultural Dissent
3 Years of Sanctions Changes Russia’s Food Market
100 Years after Revolution, Film Shows Russia’s Divide Over Czar’s Love Affair originally appeared on usnews.com
