I loved Andrey so much and I love him so much that I loved and love everything related to him: his family, his father in particular, his father's poem, his father's image. It happened several times that I saw his father at the Writers' Union and, not being acquainted, I almost approached him and said that I knew your Andrey, that I am a fan of his talent, and also of yours. I knew that it was a little bit related to Armenia. I had not met in Armenia. I didn't even get close to Moscow. What would I say?
The first film of Andrey that I saw - at the higher scriptwriting courses in Moscow, we were shown "Ivan's Childhood". In the frenzy of watching the best foreign films, in the oversaturation, we had a bit of a hard time getting used to Soviet films. They showed the treasures of the world film culture, they showed Antonioni, and we were thirsty, we were teenagers, children, boys, young creators who absorbed all the good things that had been accumulated over the years and were still being done. We had a wonderful time, there was a good rescue in film script and film director courses. they gave us everything, they opened the doors of the world for us, so that they could get artists from us, get a generation that will save the culture, so-called hardened personnel. "Ivan's Childhood" is being shown against the background of world culture and classicism of film heritage created by Fellini, Antonioni, Bergman, Kurosawa, and others. I had an opposition to the culture of Soviet socialist realism, and this opposition spread to the film "Ivan's Childhood". I did not understand well. I was a bit hostile towards that kind of art, the theme of war, brutality. And, in general, the handwriting did not seem to be what Antonioni's wonderful handwriting of Western culture was. To Andrei's credit, I must say that later my attitude was corrected, my attitude towards his case was corrected. Years later I had the opportunity to watch the film again on TV and I saw that the film was a saved film and it was a wonderful film, a wonderful film. The film was viewed from a new perspective. I saw that in the chaos of war, however, a child without an owner, an orphan, a child left completely alone under all the cruel blows of fate, becomes a victim, and he will have to answer. It reminds of our Vahan Teryan's poem "We are all children, we are orphans", but in Andrey's film, the orphan is both an orphan and a child, a child. He is a child and wonderfully responds to the blows of fate, bears his cross wonderfully, becomes a victim and it is inevitable, because he does not become a reptile. Later, that's how I perceived the film. But going back, let me say that already in the screenwriting courses, despite the unfavorable impression I got from the film, I still inherited, took, perceived, took into myself the attitude of the people of the screenwriting courses, my fellow students, towards Andrey, which was extremely positive. I just looked at him as the future savior of Soviet cinema, the one who makes the face of the cinema of this huge country clear, the savior of our generation. It happens so often. It is rare that we give the right assessment with a virginal attitude, we perceive greatness with an unprejudiced attitude. Our attitude is almost always prepared in this way, and my students prepared my attitude towards Andrey. We thought that here, parallel to us, a little ahead of us, we have a person who will be our teacher and friend.
So, I had that inherited attitude, and I had to spend the summer internship of the courses at "Mosfilm", where "Andrei Rublyov" was filmed. I wanted very much and I asked my boss Yezhov that, if possible, I would be attached to Andrei Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" case. Unfortunately for me, the case was already being edited and it was difficult for me to sit at the editing table. I wanted to be by Andrei's side during the process, at the initial stage of the work, during the creation of the script, even the director's version of it. I wanted to make a profit, but the case was already finished, the case was already being closed. At the same time, I didn't consider myself a kind of movie person, I considered myself something like a partisan and, taking advantage of the opportunity, I ran away. So the film was already being edited, and I, not seeing Andrey's face, ran away.
I knew that he had heard about me and had even ordered something through someone. I was already in Yerevan when "Andrei Rublyov" appeared on the screen, four or five years late. There was a lot of talk about the film before it came out, and I knew what I was going to see. I have to say that Andrei Rublev is one of the greatest films I have ever seen. So many years have passed, but the impression has not faded at all. I watched the movie recently and again it was wonderful. I'm just addicted to that movie. I take no reservations, there is nothing to remove in the film. It is an epically gorgeous depiction of medieval Russia, its philosophy and direction are also landmark.
In connection with the screening of "Andrei Rublyov" in Yerevan, he was invited, and he brought "Solaris" with him. He invited me to watch his new film, but I watched "Andrei Rublyov" just the day before and I told him that I will not consciously come to watch your new film, because I am afraid that the impression I got from "Rublyov" will be tarnished a bit, the image of you created in me will be tarnished a bit. I said that I leave time space in me for "Andrei Rublyov". And I didn't go to see "Solaris" anyway. Then I saw random snippets from Solaris. Those random bits convinced me that Andrey remains Andrey.
During his time in Yerevan, we became friends a little. Another meeting took place in our house. We talked for a long time and although I considered myself a writer without ambitions, here I was his usual audience and fan. That's how I always become an ordinary spectator and reader in front of great talents, I treat them with deep respect. The meeting at our house impressed me as a demonstration of mutual understanding and mutual love. We became friends that day, so much so that when I went to the writers' convention in Moscow later, they said that they wanted to meet me. I went with my friends to their house. He accepted like a relative. Unfortunately, I was a little sick, and that meeting didn't happen for a while. His wife accepted us as a sister-in-law, for which I am very grateful...
My best impression is from the movie "Mirror". When the film was shown, I said to myself, "Andrei Rublyov" time slot has already passed. Let me go see what my brother has done. And I went to see the movie with my friends. The impression was wonderful. A female student of the medical institute expressed the best impression of the film, who after watching the film said that she did not understand anything from the film, but not a single image left her mind, the whole chain of images remained in her mind. I haven't forgotten anything either, all the images stayed with me. "Mirror" is a very large artistic phenomenon. I don't know if there was something in that film that made the bureaucrats uncomfortable or not, but there was anxiety in it from that point of view. I must also say that "The Mirror" made a big impression, especially in the sense of looking for the edges of the metaphysical relationship of the secret. It was a very beautiful structure, and Andrey achieved all this with ordinary means. Was there an opposition to the past and our present reality in that case? In my opinion, there was not, in my opinion, opposition arises only when there is artistic imperfection. I didn't see any artistic imperfection here. And artistic perfections, in my opinion, under all regimes, even under fascist regimes, should have an easy way, because, in my opinion, true art should not have enemies. I don't know, I don't understand what kind of executioner's hand was raised, what kind of executioner's eyes were raised, that he saw something in this case, for which Andrei was harassed, insulted, not allowed to create freely, not allowed to flare up and fully serve us his twenty-year life. During our phone conversations before going abroad, he didn't seem to want to say that he was going to shoot a film there. He went and it seems that he died for me, he was lost, we, the filmgoers of this country, were simply deprived of him. It's like my brother left me, got lost. It appears to have been his first death. Of course, the world is not so narrow. He also created for this country and glory and honor abroad for giving the opportunity to the dissidents who were dismissed and persecuted by us to continue. They give the opportunity to create there, and they really did something for this country, for the future culture of Russia. Something that should have been done for this country was done there. What gave the impression of a desert here was done there.
Nevertheless, I find that frustration is frustration, the Romanovs and Yermashes in their turn, nevertheless, there was a kind of agony in his stay in Italy, creating there, there was a kind of end. He, of course, knew better, he felt better, yet he managed to accomplish a great deal in his short life. I am not familiar with his theoretical works and if I say I am looking for it, it would not be correct. I'm a bit of a strange person in the sense that just after meeting each new name, after meeting a few of his works, after meeting a few of his words, when I assure myself that he really exists, a complete existence, I'm already calm, I know that something will be done there and it won't go away from there. I am familiar with one of Andrey's interviews, I have read the minutes of the meeting with the students of Moscow University. It was wonderful. It was as if I was talking to the students, they gave my answers. It was also wonderful that what I was not, he was a filmmaker, but if I were a filmmaker, I would want to do what he was doing. It was new and it was my thinking man. He was doing exactly what I was doing. Of course, there would be differences. Like, I wouldn't be so symbolic. It turns out that he was such a great person that he was able to prove from afar and say that this is the truth. That interview, the transcript of the meeting, a verbal statement about this filmmaker, this person were just accurate. I remember his anxiety, I remember his anger. There was anxiety in it, there was a moth, there was a moth all the time. He knew that art is not yet reality, the reality transferred on film tape or paper is not yet art and it is necessary to go to the other side of reality, from that side, to bring something from another world, to bring something from the seventh heaven, to create something. He was one of our scouts. He was a detective to us all. He was one of the first to open a path in the unknown of the jungle. Despite our difficulties, the difficulties of our life, he was able to stand. He took place. He just washed away the shame of our generation in front of future generations. Our generation was not barren in itself, and the achievement of his generation was the achievement of our generation.
It was beautiful that he had no national complexes. To me, that's kind of a measure of greatness. In today's difficult conditions, when we say that the situation in Armenia has become very difficult and the best of the best just keep their heads, give their heads back, he was the great artist for whom there were no borders and for whom it would not be difficult to say a word of protection to us. Indeed, the symbol of his art, the pure spirit of his art erased national borders. He himself as a person, as a part of his works, was beyond national borders and became a direct global achievement. He was becoming a man of the world, a world that has nationalized, nationalized and the square of internationalism and internationalism remains empty due to the absence of great people. Especially among us there is that idleness, lack of internationalism.
He was accurate, he knew the truth. In general, there seems to be a god sitting among great people, so much so that it seems that they created the world and wherever they go, it is familiar to them, they know its origins. they know the origins of creation and everywhere the world seems familiar and close to them. It seems that he was aware of the secrets of the creation of Armenia and came here as a son, as a creator, as a participant in the construction of this house. It is no coincidence that there is enough Armenian symbolism in his work. He gave importance to Christianity as a part of our spiritual life and as something that created our spiritual life, something that was not an accident here, but a symbol that he wanted to see. I think he felt bad that the best things are not being done here. He felt bad as much as every decent and honest person should feel bad. As a man with a broad soul, he saw opportunity in everyone and encouraged everyone's even small success. Encouraged and regretted when they didn't park. It's a very nice feature. William Saroyan also had that wonderful feature. wanted to awaken self-confidence in a person, widen a person's step, make his step steady. It's a beautiful quality to elevate a person, a wonderful quality.
In the course of contacts with the intelligentsia, particularly the Moscow intelligentsia, when it often came to Andrey, I saw that, at best, they did not share my admiration. I saw that there are no people, there are such people who, let's say, do not share my admiration for "Rublev", they do not share my admiration for "Mirror" and, on the contrary, they were kind of happy to note that, let's say, "Hamlet" did not take place in "Taganka". I have not seen the performance and I cannot say whether it took place or not. Apparently not a huge success. But why did they take it with joy? And his departure from this country was actually the victory of the force of reaction. The reaction managed to push him out, the reaction won, drove him out of here. In fact, there was an alliance between those who did not want to, those who did not want to, and the bureaucrats at the top, those bureaucrats who did not want this type of genius, did not tolerate this type of talent. And if it weren't for him, their job would be very good, their job would be easy. He was not a provincial, he was in the capital and was able to confront and clash with the leadership. The relationship was clear, and I longed for him to be somewhere else, that he wanted to be where he wouldn't be disturbed. There's always that reluctance to big, bright talents, they're maddenedly happy when they fall, when they're not. They are always met with hostility and are delighted when they are able to defeat, bring to their knees, and destroy them with hostility. How does William Saroyan say - he says: "Don't die, reader. You have despaired, he says, but I ask you one thing, listen and don't die. Do you think the dog boys next to you will sympathize with you? They will not sympathize, there will be no need at all when you die. So, put your hand in your pocket - you have a couple of cents left in your pocket - go buy some bread and cheese, go sit in the sun and eat with appetite and slowly listen to the universe, the world, the sun. Then get rid of those thoughts and go about your business. Don't die - don't think that you will have mourners after you."