Nikita Kologrivy spoke candidly about his cinematic influences and the acting legends he admires, naming a range of Soviet-era artists alongside contemporary talents. In a recent interview aired on Channel Five, the actor reflected on the qualities that make certain performers stand out and the ways in which their work resonates with audiences across generations. His comments touched on the flexibility and adaptability he associates with some of the most respected figures in Russian cinema, a trait he believes marks true longevity in the profession. Alongside his praise for classic figures, Kologrivy also referenced several modern actors, highlighting how their performances contribute to the evolving landscape of Russian theater and film.
He noted that some artists possess a remarkable versatility, able to slip between dramatic gravitas and lighter, more approachable tones with ease. In discussing this range, he drew comparisons to a group of esteemed colleagues, mentioning Oleg Yankovsky and Sergei Garmash as examples of the same adaptable spirit. This emphasis on flexibility reflects his view that acting thrives when performers can inhabit a wide spectrum of characters, moods, and social contexts—an ability he admires in those who consistently engage audiences with authenticity.
During the conversation, Kologrivy posed a provocative comparison: he suggested that certain figures from the past, particularly Vasily Shukshin, hold a genetic or cultural closeness to contemporary audiences that newer actors sometimes struggle to replicate. He challenged listeners to consider the depth and immediacy that Shukshin’s work conveys, arguing that comparing him to others who came after might fail to capture the unique warmth and directness of his storytelling. In his view, Shukshin’s connection to the public feels more than professional skill; it feels almost communal, a bridge between the screen and real life that keeps viewers coming back for more.
The actor expressed a desire to be seen as someone who belongs to the people, hoping to be accepted not as a distant performer but as a familiar face who shares in everyday experiences. He spoke about the importance of being approachable to audiences, a quality he believes strengthens the bond between actor and viewer and helps sustain the cultural relevance of a performer across generations. This aspiration to be “one of their own” reflects a broader philosophy about acting as a public service of sorts—an art that thrives when it remains rooted in the shared realities of life as lived by ordinary people.
Earlier in the year, Kologrivy stirred conversation by questioning the craft of certain new actors, including Sasha Bortich, and by offering pointed remarks about other contemporary talents. His critique extended to the pervasive trend of hype around emerging performers, which he felt sometimes eclipsed the subtler, more disciplined work of established artists. He also described Danila Kozlovsky’s talent in blunt terms, referring to him as a “fake artist” while expressing a nuanced view of the era’s productions. In his critique of works such as The Boy’s Word, Kologrivy signaled a broader conversation about artistic integrity and the standards that define a great performance in any era. His stance did not aim to diminish the achievements of his peers but to spark a dialogue about how best to honor the craft while remaining true to personal artistic principles.
Public discussion around these remarks was notable for its intensity, yet it also underscored the ongoing tension between reverence for the past and the evolving expectations of contemporary audiences. Kologrivy’s wife publicly defended the actor, reminding viewers that conversations about art and talent are often layered, personal, and multifaceted. Her support highlighted how family perspectives can influence the reception of a public figure’s words, especially when those words touch on deeply held beliefs about national cinema and the actors who defined it. The episode serves as a reminder that public discourse about art rarely exists in a vacuum; it is always interwoven with personal histories, reputations, and the ever-present scrutiny of media and fans alike.
In sum, the dialogue around Kologrivy’s comments reveals a performer who is deeply engaged with the continuum of Russian acting. He acknowledges the enduring impact of classic stars like Shukshin while also recognizing the evolving contributions of modern performers. The conversation invites audiences to reexamine what makes an actor resonate with people: the ability to be authentic, to listen to a crowd, and to carry a piece of the culture with them into every role. Whether celebrating the past or evaluating the present, the discussion affirms that acting remains a living dialogue between artist, work, and viewer, a conversation that continues to shape the future of Russian cinema and theater as it travels beyond national borders to reach new audiences and future generations. [citation: Channel Five interview]