In a conversation with actress Larisa Luzhina, the topic touched on director Nikita Mikhalkov’s stance regarding Eldar Ryazanov. Luzhina did not share Mikhalkov’s position, offering a distinct perspective on Ryazanov’s legacy and its place in Russian cinema. Her remarks emphasize a belief that Ryazanov’s body of work remains a meaningful cultural artifact that continues to resonate with audiences today. According to Luzhina, the films of Eldar Ryazanov are closely woven into the fabric of Russian life, reflecting collective memories and everyday experiences that viewers still watch with interest.
She observed a shift in film production over time, noting that the late works of Ryazanov, including Old Nags and other post-perestroika projects, signaled a change in the industry. Yet Luzhina asserts that these later films still hold artistic value and offer worthwhile cinematic experiences. She acknowledged that Nikita Sergeevich Mikhalkov possesses a deeper professional understanding of cinema, while her own view remains that Ryazanov’s cinema speaks to viewers on an emotional level. “I love Eldar’s cinema,” Luzhina stated, highlighting the emotional connection audiences feel with Ryazanov’s storytelling.
In December, Mikhalkov himself expressed a nuanced stance, saying he did not classify Eldar Ryazanov’s work strictly as cinema in the traditional sense. He described Ryazanov’s films as strong in dramatic terms and enjoyable to watch, while reserving a broader definition of cinema as a living, evolving art form. The director suggested that Ryazanov’s approach was valuable for what it offered, even if it did not fit his personal criteria for what cinema entirely should be.
Furthermore, Mikhalkov affirmed that cinema should inhabit space in the way Ryazanov’s films did, and he singled out The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! as a peak example. He argued that the alignment of dramaturgy and performance in that film exemplified what he considers to be essential elements of cinema. This viewpoint reflects a broader discussion about how different generations of filmmakers define and measure cinematic excellence, and how those definitions evolve over time. Attribution: aif.ru
Earlier, actor Dolinsky commented that Mikhalkov was free to express his opinions about Ryazanov openly, implying that the dialogue between these prominent figures is part of a larger conversation about the meaning and value of film in Russian culture. This exchange illustrates how professional respect can coexist with divergent interpretations of what constitutes cinema and what it represents to audiences in Russia and beyond. Attribution: aif.ru