Director Nikita Mikhalkov declined to describe himself as an informant in a recent episode of the program Besogon. In a brisk, declarative response, Mikhalkov asserted that he had never shared information in a way that would implicate Alexander Ivanovich Bastrykin, never met with Evgenia Berkovich, nor watched her performances, and he expressed a measure of embarrassment about such claims.
This is how the filmmaker replied after journalist Yulia Taratuta, appearing on the Dozhd TV channel, asserted that Mikhalkov had complained about the director of the bathhouse, Evgenia Berkovich Bastrykina, citing her own sources. Dozhd is described by authorities in Russia as a foreign agent and an undesirable organization, a context often invoked in discussions about media freedom and state sensitivity.
According to Mikhalkov, he did not provide information about Berkovich because he believed the term denunciation did not fit the situation. He argued that it would be a mischaracterization to call such actions a denunciation when the historical and cultural dimensions of Berkovich’s work stretch back to the 1920s, with her plays and poems widely read and published over many decades. In his view, the word would misrepresent the nature of any discussion about literary or artistic activities.
In early May 2023, Berkovich and playwright Svetlana Petriychuk faced criminal charges, accused of facilitating or legitimizing terrorism through the play Finist Yasny Falcon. The defendants have consistently denied the charges, maintaining that their artistic expression does not advocate violence or extremism. The case centers on whether the script and its dissemination could be understood as supporting or praising terrorist ideologies, a claim that has ignited debate over freedom of speech and the boundaries of artistic responsibility.
The play Finist Yasny Sokol centers on relationships with women who are connected to radical online networks. Investigators allege that the production’s script contains elements of what they describe as terrorist propaganda, a claim that has fueled ongoing legal proceedings and public discussion about the line between art and incitement within the contemporary cultural landscape.
Recently, the lawyers representing Berkovich and Petriychuk filed an appeal against the sentence, signaling their intent to contest the judgment and to challenge the interpretation of the play’s content within the framework of national security law. The case remains a focal point in conversations about how artistic works are scrutinized when they intersect with sensitive political themes in the region.
Meanwhile, a separate note related to public figures has surfaced in media coverage, indicating vocal demands from parties close to the case that other creative or personal identities associated with the broader controversy be moved away from situations that could be construed as inflammatory. These developments illustrate how closely intertwined legal proceedings, cultural production, and public perception can become in high-profile cases that touch on law, press freedom, and the arts.