Alexander Pashutin, a People’s Artist of Russia noted for works such as Walking Through Torments and Midshipmen, addressed recent remarks by Latvian actor Ivars Kalnins. Kalnins had described Russia as an evil empire and stated he would no longer act in Russian cinema. Pashutin cited these statements in a discussion reported by Arguments and Facts, framing Kalnins’ stance as part of a broader public conversation about artistic collaboration across borders.
Pashutin observed that after the Soviet Union dissolved, Kalnins continued to appear in Russian productions rather than Latvian ones. He recalled that Kalnins performed on Russian stages, participated in shows, and received invitations to numerous film festivals in Russia. The actor was warmly welcomed by Russian colleagues, and Kalnins enjoyed a level of appreciation that signified strong cross-national artistic ties despite shifting geopolitical dynamics. Kalnins was repeatedly invited to participate in projects and events where his talents were highly valued, a testament to the enduring connections between actors across the region.
The recollection also brought up a dinner hosted by Channel One four years prior, a moment that Pashutin described with a light touch and a hint of irony. He reminded Kalnins of a gathering where red wine was shared and lines were drawn between loyalties and professional opportunities tied to the channel. Pashutin suggested that Kalnins consider returning any fees earned in Russia, saying that some experiences should be remembered with gratitude rather than forgotten. He called for a reassessment of the compensation he had received for films, performances, and festival appearances in the Russian Federation, urging a reflection on how past collaborations are perceived in the present moment.
Kalnins responded by acknowledging the complexity of the situation, noting that tensions often arise from mutual misunderstandings. He stated that the frustration might come not from a single country but from the evolving web of national identities and professional loyalties that shape a global acting career. In this light, the debate took on a broader dimension: it highlighted how artists who work across borders navigate national expectations, personal memories, and the pressures of public opinion. The exchange underscored the enduring difficulty of balancing artistic freedom with national sentiment, especially for performers whose careers traverse several languages, cultures, and political eras, and whose choices are frequently interpreted through the lens of current events.