Dmitry Puchkov spoke on Rutube about his stance on the jokes of Yevgeny Petrosyan. He described a mixed reaction to the comedian, acknowledging that Petrosyan has a recognizable, successful style of humor while also producing jokes that do not land as well. Puchkov made it clear that he does not personally enjoy Petrosyan’s work, even though the material can resonate with some audiences.
The discussion extended to late comedian Mikhail Zadornov. Puchkov explained that he does not find Zadornov’s political or historical humor funny, emphasizing that his opinion is his own and not a universal verdict. He criticized Zadornov’s films that claimed to illuminate historical subjects, arguing that creators owe accuracy to their audience and should involve qualified historians in their projects. This critique reflects a broader concern about the responsibility that comes with shaping public understanding of history and culture.
Historical themes in Zadornov’s work were a particular focus. The two films that explored Ancient Russia drew criticism from historians who labeled them as pseudo-scientific interpretations rather than rigorous scholarship. Lev Klein, an archaeologist and historian of science, described Zadornov’s tape titled Rurik. Lost Reality as an example of militant amateurism, underscoring the tension between entertainment value and scholarly credibility in media about the past.
In separate remarks, Puchkov previously commented on the controversy surrounding the video game Atomic Heart. He offered a perspective that linked geopolitical and cultural considerations to how different communities react to entertainment media. This thread mirrors his broader tendency to scrutinize how media shapes public perception and memory, especially in topics tied to heritage and national history.
Overall, the discussions illustrate a critic who values clear boundaries between entertainment and factual representation. Puchkov argues for accountability where history and culture are involved in creative projects, urging creators to engage with experts and to avoid presenting unsubstantiated claims as history. His viewpoints reflect a commitment to thoughtful discourse about humor, memory, and the responsibilities of artists and commentators when addressing sensitive historical narratives.