Beautiful and terrible “Cheburashka”: how much can you travel on the Soviet legacy

“Cheburashka” – there are no more words, only applause remained. Dmitry Dyachenko’s painting continues to collect billions. The comedy finally broke through the ceilings in terms of finances and the number of viewers set by the former New Year’s leaders of the box office, such as Klim Shipenko’s Serf and James Cameron’s Avatar. So, our highest grossing film tells the story of a funny little animal. Is this good or bad?

While the producers and authors of the film are giving out interviews, and the distributors are happily counting the profits, people are breaking spears on social networks, arguing on the topic: “Is Cheburashka a big-eared creature or does it have a right?” Moviegoers-“Westerners” cynically grin: the comedy topped the list of rolling hits in the absence of Hollywood novelties, the main character was generated by clumsy computer graphics – there is a backwardness of domestic technologies from foreign ones, and the story itself is only at first glance knocked down tightly – if you look closely, there are gaping logical holes. Some representatives of the film industry support skeptics: they say, yes, in one episode the reaction of the characters was not played out, and in another … the great Stanislavsky would have shouted his already iconic “I don’t believe!” “So what? – the spectators fiercely defend the champion, loving the brainchild of Eduard Uspensky even more. – But the film is kind, sunny, sincere! You can watch it with the whole family or with friends, relax together, cry and laugh!”

It would be nice if only the Networks – “Cheburashka” went and, let’s say, into politics. Press Secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov said: “Of course, we rejoice together with the authors of this film.” And on January 25, the painting was shown within the walls of the State Duma. Some parliamentarians joined a little earlier, among them there are those who are dissatisfied: the actor and deputy Dmitry Pevtsov harshly criticized the comedy, calling it boring, meaningless and in places very vulgar.

It has long been known that what causes polarized assessments, to a greater or lesser extent, fits under the concept of “phenomenon”. “Cheburashka” has really become a phenomenon, the uniqueness of which is due to the producers’ flair for the viability of old brands, the talent of authors and actors, and also (this is purely my opinion) the peculiarity of the socio-political situation in the country and the world. When hostilities take place near the borders, economic sanctions make themselves felt, relations with most European states are frozen, people want more sincerity and warmth. Adults are pleased with the prospect of returning to childhood at least for a moment, their children and grandchildren – to get into the cinema world, which seems to be real, but at the same time fabulous. And now they are handing us a New Year’s dish … Bah! Before my eyes, a funny and familiar furry creature scurries back and forth, peeling the peel from an orange in an instant – it’s already good. It also smiles touchingly or sadly. At first, he silently claps his eyes, and then gains the gift of speech. It’s a total delight! Cheburashka is a new cat. Given our love for cats, it would be strange if we accepted him coolly.

What else should be taken into account: the human brain is arranged in such a way that when we see children on the screen hugging a “nameless toy”, we experience almost the same sensations as the guys. And in the course of one of the experiments, Western scientists found out that the psychological comfort from pleasant touches is sometimes much more important for us than even food. So here it is, the secret weapon of the eared hero, which seems to be capable of melting the Arctic ice.

However, what is alarming: in the victorious euphoria, the voices of the producers are heard that another film about Cheburashka is planned, and then another and another … This, of course, is wonderful. At the same time, common sense prompts us to ask: will we continue to exploit the glorious Soviet legacy? It is, of course, rich. You can shake off the dust of time from Murzilka (does anyone remember?), Pencil, Samodelkin. Reshoot Pinocchio – why not? Everyone will be interested. Journalist and TV presenter Leonid Parfyonov 15 (or even more) years ago in the author’s project “The Other Day” accurately noted: “We live in the era of the renaissance of Soviet reality.” It seems that this “revival” is still with us, albeit fragmentary.

What’s bad about it? One could say that there is no catastrophe, but we just live differently than, for example, a year ago. The economy, which has suffered several shocks, is being transformed. In order for this process to be as successful as possible (read – so that we live, if not better than before, but at least slightly worse), technological sovereignty and digitalization are necessary. To put it simply and familiarly, innovation is important. And they flourish in the appropriate environment – in a society that does not squeeze the last drop of juice from what has long been invented, but forms a field for new ideas, encourages the creation of something original, fresh – at the cultural level as well. Those who believe that this connection is very indirect, one is far from the other, I refer to the recently published book of the doctor of economic sciences Alexander Auzan “Cultural codes of the economy. How Values ​​Affect Competition, Democracy and the Welfare of the People, where the author convincingly proves that such a pattern as the cultural code of economic success, not only exists, but works. And if, for example, religion (it is directly related to the code) affirms the value of labor, then in the states where it is professed, economic growth is observed. The innovative potential is influenced by such constituent codes as the individualism or collectivism of the nation. “On the basis of individualism, so-called radical innovations leading to a revolution arise, and on the basis of collectivism, the so-called incremental: slow, constant improvements,” explains the economist.

The peculiarity of Russia is that its economic culture contains two cores – both individualistic and collectivist. These two motors block each other, and I think that the best way to strengthen the first, a breakthrough one, could be just innovations in the field of culture and cinema.

There are opportunities for this, and there are backlogs. After all, returning to Cheburashka, what else propelled the film to the waves of audience love? The originality of one of the leading, visually enhanced messages: a creature of unusual origin, being among people, is in no hurry to become a man, the highest species on the planet! This was one of the first to be noticed by an independent critic Lidia Maslova, and if we continue the thought, then after all, once we had a movie that the robot Elektronik was sleeping and seeing him become a real, living boy like a schoolboy Syroezhkin. It turns out that entertaining cinema reflected the change in humanity in, shall we say, not the prettiest side? Seems Yes. This is sad at first glance, but for all subsequent ones it is very good. There is a mirror, looking into which we can begin to change our minuses for pluses. Cheburashka, comes out, and our reflection. Strong – what else to say?