Documentary filmmaker Vitaly Mansky, in a May interview, discussed how funds are allocated across Russian film festivals and alleged that the Moscow International Film Festival, led by Nikita Mikhalkov, had its budget reduced by a large margin. He claimed that only a fraction of the budget remained, suggesting that 85 percent of funding did not reach the festival. Three months later, reports surfaced that the creator of Burnt by the Sun had filed a complaint with the head of Artdocfest. The situation touches on Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which addresses public slander carried out through public messaging or mass media.
According to Mansky, at MIFF, a substantial portion of the budget was diverted. He asserted that, at best, the festival operates on about 15 percent of the funds it receives from the state, a claim he shared on the YouTube channel Attention: Sobchak.
Ksenia Sobchak herself faced a criminal proceeding as a witness in the case.
In a Telegram post, Sobchak reported that she had received a summons for questioning by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. She indicated that Mansky’s words in the interview prompted a public inquiry into the alleged slander, and that a criminal case had been opened. Sobchak testified that she was summoned to provide testimony in the matter.
The documentary side
From Mansky’s vantage point, the only credible rebuttal would be for Mikhalkov to publish MIFF’s documents and budget details, allowing the public to evaluate how funds are allocated.
He suggested that Mikhalkov’s activities have not been the primary focus, but if he seeks to counter what he calls “bloody slanders,” publishing the festival’s financial records would enable the public to assess compensation received for festival work. RTVI reported Mansky’s remarks.
He also noted that MIFF no longer holds international status, having been stripped of its A-category designation this year and effectively excluded from the circle of internationally recognized festivals under the modern system.
In a Telegram post on Attention Media, Mansky stood by his statements, arguing that Mikhalkov had a motive to demonstrate that the budget figures were inaccurate. He stated that MIFF’s standing and influence had diminished, while substantial budgets continued to flow to other events. Mansky contended that MIFF’s exclusion from key guilds and international circles reflected shifting priorities in the festival landscape.
According to Mansky, the dialogue around MIFF is part of a broader contest over transparency and accountability in cultural funding. He stressed that his remarks were grounded in his assessment of how funding was distributed and his expectation that public funds should be disclosed to allow informed judgment by audiences and participants alike.
RBC reported Mansky’s stance that he had not yet received formal notifications from law enforcement and that he was consulting with a lawyer. He indicated that he did not possess official documents and had learned of developments through media coverage. He added that discussions about honor and dignity are part of a larger dispute over whether the director did or did not misuse funds, and that he himself does not reside in Russia and does not participate in its current political climate.
In later remarks to NEWS.ru, Mansky characterized MIFF as showing extreme disregard and described funding as heated talk that may have exaggerated the role of money in festival operations.
“Fighting for Truth”
Mikhalkov’s attorney, Pavel Astakhov, addressed social media outlets about the criminal case, stating that the director is pursuing victory through truth. He called for a public confrontation in court, inviting Mansky to present his evidence for examination and possible validation in court proceedings.
Astakhov’s comments suggested that there are multiple explanations circulating regarding the incident and that all affected parties have submitted formal police complaints. He noted that he was not yet authorized to comment further on the allegations.
Wanted Mansky
Following the developments, reports emerged that a notice related to Mansky had appeared in the database of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The entry indicated that an inquiry was being conducted under unspecified parameters, and no specific case details were listed in the public record.