In a recent public statement shared by aif.ru, actor Boris Galkin weighed in on the ongoing debate about Eldar Ryazanov and the position taken by director Nikita Mikhalkov. Galkin did not echo Mikhalkov’s critical stance regarding Ryazanov, signaling a nuanced appreciation for the filmmaker whose work has long divided opinion in the Russian cinema landscape. Galkin’s perspective centers on recognizing Ryazanov as a true cinematic voice whose impact extends beyond conventional boundaries of storytelling.
Galkin emphasized that Ryazanov’s films deserve a place in the canon of genuine cinema. He described Ryazanov as a reclusive, singular figure whose work embodies an original, almost rare artistic vision. This portrayal rests on a conviction that Ryazanov’s storytelling carries depth, emotional resonance, and a clarity of voice that transcends trends and fleeting fashion in film culture. The actor suggested that Ryazanov’s poetry-like dialogue and cinematic phrasing reveal a depth that rewards patient viewers, even when some projects may challenge conventional taste.
As evidence of his admiration, Galkin pointed to the emotional intensity and creative honesty found in Ryazanov’s body of work. He noted that reading Ryazanov’s verses offers a window into the filmmaker’s inner life and artistic sensibility, illustrating how lyricism and precise observation can elevate cinema into a higher realm of art. While admitting he did not fully grasp the painting Old Nags when he recently watched it on television, he affirmed that, overall, every Ryazanov film stands at the pinnacle of cinematic artistry in his eyes. The takeaway is not merely personal preference but a conviction that Ryazanov consistently achieves something substantial and enduring in film craft, even if certain titles elicit mixed responses among critics and viewers alike.
Meanwhile, Mikhalkov has articulated a different, though related, set of ideas about what cinema should be. In December, he reaffirmed his view that Ryazanov’s contributions, while strong in terms of dramatic effect and viewer enjoyment, do not always align with his broader definition of cinema as a living, dynamic organism. For Mikhalkov, cinema is not just about what appears on the screen but about the ongoing conversation between form, memory, and cultural experience. He has described Ryazanov’s work as well-crafted and entertaining, a testament to strong dramatic sensibilities, even as he argues that cinema expands beyond any single filmmaker’s repertoire.
In his own terms, Mikhalkov has suggested that films should function within the expansive framework of cinema as a living art form, rather than resting on a fixed set of conventions. He has lauded Ryazanov’s ability to entertain and evoke emotion, while clarifying his belief that the most lasting cinematic achievements are those that demonstrate a balance of dramaturgy, technical mastery, and an evolving sense of cinema’s mission within society. This stance reflects a broader discourse about what constitutes enduring cinematic quality and how different creators contribute to the medium’s ongoing evolution.
Looking at Ryazanov’s most celebrated work, Mikhalkov singled out The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! as a prime example of classic film craftsmanship, highlighting its enduring appeal and the way it brings together humor, character-driven storytelling, and memorable performances. He underscored that the alignment of dramaturgy and performance excellence is central to his assessment of cinema, a criterion that resonates with many viewers who value the sustained impact of well-made comedies and dramas alike. The dialogue between these two prominent figures underscores a key point: cinema thrives on diverse viewpoints about what constitutes the art form, and both legacy and innovation can coexist within a rich cinematic ecosystem.
Additionally, there was mention of the recent cancellation of the television premiere of the series The Boy’s Promise, an event that many perceive as part of the larger conversation about how media, timing, and audience reception intersect within the industry. This development serves as a reminder that production decisions and broadcast strategies can influence public perception and legacy, especially when established names and storied franchises are involved. The broader takeaway for audiences in Canada and the United States is to view Ryazanov’s legacy through a lens that respects historical context while remaining open to contemporary interpretation, recognizing the enduring relevance of his work in the larger tapestry of world cinema. [CITATION: aif.ru]