Vladimir Dolinsky Shares Views on Mikhalkov, Ryazanov and Their Legacy in Russian Cinema
In a candid exchange, actor Vladimir Dolinsky offered reflections on relationships among some of Russia’s most celebrated filmmakers and performers. He noted that director Nikita Mikhalkov did not feel the need to conceal his opinions when commenting on Eldar Ryazanov, signaling a culture where outspoken viewpoints among leading figures are part of the artistic conversation. Dolinsky stressed that personal taste plays a natural role in how people respond to art, and that there is no obligation for everyone to share the same views.
Dolinsky pointed out that taste is inherently subjective. Some viewers admire Doronina, while others may not connect with her work. The same can be said for Yulia Konstantinovna Borisova and a broad array of other outstanding artists who have left a lasting imprint on the country’s artistic landscape. He underscored that the contributions of all these talents, regardless of individual opinions, have shaped the culture and art scene in a meaningful way.
In December, Mikhalkov spoke about Eldar Ryazanov’s films, offering a nuanced take on what cinema represents. He suggested that Ryazanov’s work should be seen as cinema, even if some audiences perceive it primarily through the lens of drama or humor. Mikhalkov described cinema as a living entity that evolves with time, an idea that invites ongoing discussion about how films should be experienced and valued.
Further, Mikhalkov expressed a personal view on what constitutes a quintessential Russian film. He mentioned the comedy The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath!, as a strong example of cinematic craft, noting that it harmonizes dramaturgy with compelling performance. His broader argument was that the best films align storytelling with effective acting, producing a cohesive and resonant viewing experience. The conversation highlighted that good cinema often transcends a single genre and resonates through its enduring craft and emotional impact.
Earlier, Boris Galkin weighed in, disagreeing with Mikhalkov’s assessment that Ryazanov’s films are not cinema. This exchange illustrates a vibrant disagreement among peers about how to define the boundaries of national cinema and what makes a film truly resonate with audiences. The dialogue underscores the diversity of opinion that has long characterized discussions about art in Russia, where critics and artists frequently challenge one another while acknowledging shared achievements.
[citation] These exchanges capture a snapshot of how prominent figures discuss art, influence public perception, and contribute to a continuing dialogue about the evolution of film in the country. The conversations reflect a broader cultural moment where legacy, taste, and artistic identity intersect in dynamic ways.