The phenomenon of post-truth in the representation of the documentary image of the historical past in documentary-publicistic cinema (S. S. Govorukhin and Y. A. Dud')

Ostapenko Anton Sergeevich postgraduate student; Department of Theory and History of Screen Culture; Autonomous non-profit Organization of Higher Education 'Institute of Cinema and Television (GITR)' 32a Khoroshevskoe Sh., Moscow, 123007, Russia suinantoof@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Documentary cinema is an audiovisual medium of the current time, in which the authors use a variety of creative and technological possibilities to embody an idea and consistently involve the viewer in the context of the processes and events being covered ^[1].

In order to achieve this task, the creators formulate what is called a "documentary image" — it acts as one of the ways to comprehend reality, which is reflected through a documentary film. An important factor is the inseparability of the image from the personality of the author, who passes through the prism of his own opinion and reflects his vision and interpretation of facts, processes and events within the framework of the actual surrounding reality ^[2].

In turn, this affects changes in the viewer's perception due to what is being shown — a reflection in relation to what is related to reality ^[3] or what does not relate to it, but is positioned as an integral part of it ^[4].

In the latter case, this refers to the phenomenon of post—truth, when it is not the fact of reliability or truth itself that matters in assessing the processes of human society or the surrounding world, but a point of view, a "different view" in interpreting real events or phenomena ^[5]. The main factor is the preservation of the dominant political conjuncture, proceeding from the predominance of the emotional and subjective over the rational and objective, within which it is possible to construct distorted information and further protect it, for example, in the form of unjustified labeling of opponents or ignoring counterarguments ^[6].

The topic of the peculiarities of the documentary film genre, the variety of technical and artistic tools, as well as the form of representation of certain images has been repeatedly raised in the studies of V. A. Babenko, V. V. Smirnova, D. N. Semibratov, A. N. Shirobokov, K. B. Baryshnikov, A. A. Korobov, S. A. Serebryakov, L. M. Nemchenko, etc.

However, according to the author, there is a problem in the use of political conjuncture by individual authors in documentary films, which, due to the ideological and propaganda dominant agenda, overshadow worthy examples of domestic documentary filmmaking, undermining the authority and value of the entire genre. In addition, the question of how much changes in the socio-cultural space of recent or current modernity affect the interpretation and perception of the historical past in the context of the phenomenon of post-truth is insufficiently disclosed. It is worth noting that in the future, only particular examples of documentary screen culture will be considered, which do not reflect the multifaceted trends and processes in the entire domestic documentary film industry.

The study of the form of representation of the documentary image in the context of post-truth presupposes a versatile approach and methods within the framework of current scientific discourse. The author of this article proposes to consider the problem by referring to the theory of cultural hegemony by A. Gramsci.

The socio-cultural sphere is directly dependent on changes in the social superstructure, reflecting the ongoing processes in the economic base. According to A. Gramsci and his theory of cultural hegemony, the dominance of the ruling class is based in such areas as economics, politics and civil society. And the key figure of influence in the socio-cultural sphere is the intelligentsia ^[7], which acts as that part of the social class that performs its function of creating and maintaining those images, technical and organizational capabilities that connect members of the class and classes into a historical block ^{[8, p. 133]}.

The term "historical block" by A. Gramsci implies the maintenance of unity and identity of the idea for the dissemination of a common culture through the state to all strata of society ^{[8, p. 132]}. Thus, a representative of the intelligentsia, i.e. an intellectual, performs the representation of the image and functions as an exponent of the hegemony of the ruling class ^[9].

The author of this article proposes to consider in detail the problem of changing the form of representation of documentary images of Russia's past in the context of socio-cultural changes and the phenomenon of post-truth using the example of two post-Soviet documentary and journalistic films: "The Russia we Lost" (1992) by S. S. Govorukhin and "Kolyma is the Homeland of our Fear" (2019) by Yu. A. Dudya.

The relevance of the considered documentary films is due to the fact that their authors involve the viewer in understanding the historical processes of the Soviet past, which is based on the interpretation of facts, where not only errors or shortcomings, but also unreliable data are used as an unambiguous and unconditional argument for evaluating the processes of the past. It also reflects the features and specifics of the socio—cultural context of the time, both in the case of coverage of historical events and in the case of perception by the viewer. 

It is worth noting separately that the film "Russia that we Lost" (1992), like other documentary and journalistic films by the Soviet director, are rarely considered in the scientific community as an independent film production, with the exception of several studies ^[10], where the authors analyze it in the context of similar works within a specific era ^[11].

In the case of "Kolyma is the Birthplace of our Fear" (2019), the discussion is limited to discussing the reaction of the viewer ^[12], the resonance in society ^[13] and the interpretation of the image of the historical past in the Internet environment ^[14], when how this film document remains aloof from detailed and detailed study within the framework of the phenomenon of post—truth in screen culture.

For an in-depth and better understanding of the phenomenon of post-truth in the representation of documentary images of Russian history, the author refers not only to documentaries, but also to historical epochs, events and personalities, against which the positioning of the assessment of the past by the authors is built.

"The Russia we Lost": contrasting two images of the past

"The Russia We Lost" (1992) is the second film in Stanislav Sergeevich Govorukhin's documentary and journalistic trilogy. According to the director, the documentary is devoted to the fact that society knows nothing about pre-revolutionary Russia ^{[15, p. 3]}, historical figures (Alexander III, Nicholas II, I. A. Ilyin, V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin, etc.), events and processes of the XIX-XX centuries.

In the process of analyzing the film, attention will also be paid to the book of the same name, which was published a year before the premiere. In it, the director tells about the impressions of a man "who began to learn the history of his own country, already at an advanced age" ^{[15, p. 4]}.

The book is a sketch for the script of a future film with unfinished chapters and is executed in an artistic style, with frequent reference to the reader. In addition, it is not provided with a list of sources that director Govorukhin could refer to in matters of history, provided that the documents will be shown to the viewer as factual evidence in the film itself.

The task, according to Govorukhin, is to emphasize those moments from the history of Russia from which negative experience can be extracted for understanding and further possible solutions to urgent problems ^{[15, pp. 38-39]}. To do this, the author of the film demonstrates photographs, newsreels and documents from the beginning of the 20th century, which are replaced by shots with the director or those he interviews while a voiceover is broadcasting in the background.

Close attention is paid to the representation of the documentary image of pre-revolutionary Russia, which is presented as an actively developing, progressive state with exceptionally positive qualities. While all the shortcomings and mistakes are attributed to another image — Soviet Russia and the Communists, as the only culprits in all the events and processes that can be described as negative. 

Based on the analysis of the "history of one's own country", one can find out how such positioning is justified and relevant in this work by director Govorukhin.

For example, the film, as well as the book, mentions the statement of the French economist E. Teri that, while maintaining the trends of the early twentieth century, by the middle of this century the Russian Empire will dominate Europe in all spheres of activity ^{[15, p. 5]}.

It is noteworthy that this statement is often referred to even now in the media environment. For example, A.V. Stasevich wrote in his article "The Measure of Freedom" that this quote "exposes the myth" that "... it was only thanks to the violent Stalinist industrialization that Russia became a powerful state."

In addition, both in the book and in the film, Govorukhin already refers to another thesis by E. Teri, but about the increase in the population of Russia of 343.9 million people by 1948, which subsequently leads the author to surprise, and further reasoning about why the researcher's conclusions do not meet his own expectations ^{[15, p. 6]}.

The above statements are based on quotations from a French economist, denying the historical context and further events in favor of possible subjective preferences in the interpretation of the past by the author.

Another example is the statement that in the Russian Empire women "did not hunch over hard work" ^{[15, p. 6]}, ignoring the existence of a document entitled "Complaint of women, wives of Lena workers, to district engineer Tulchinsky" dated March 24, 1912, in which they wrote about coercion by the Lensky administration for example, to work against their will, low wages or lack thereof, as well as cases of sexual harassment.

In addition, in his film, the famous Soviet director claims that the composition of V. I. Lebedev-Kumach "Holy War" was originally written by an allegedly Russified German from Rybinsk, A. A. Bode, who "foresaw" the coming World War. This became known for the first time after an article by journalist A.V. Malgin, published in Stolitsa magazine in 1991, and subsequently the relatives of the famous poet had to prove his authorship in court.

It is noteworthy that the historian and musicologist Yu. E. Biryukov found and described in detail the drafts of Lebedev-Kumach with author's notes, currently located in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI), on which the lines of the "Holy War" were written ^[16].

Nevertheless, journalist Malgin continues to claim that the results of the scientist-historian are "falsification", and the author, according to him, is A. A. Bode, from whom the famous poet "stole" the text. However, the original drafts, handwritten by A. A. Bode himself, have not been found until today.

Also in his film, director Govorukhin tells about V. I. Zasulich that she shot at the mayor F. F. Trepov with a pistol, with which they "go to the bears", and after the trial she was "carried out in her arms", as was said in the book ^{[15, p. 10]}.

A special place in "Russia that we have Lost" is occupied by chapters related to historical figures, on the example of Nicholas II and V. I. Lenin. This representation of images is necessary to further contrast them with each other. On the one hand, the last of the Romanov family, according to the director, was a loving family man, educated, fond of art and a deeply religious person ^{[15, pp. 23-24]}.

On the other hand, V. I. Lenin, who not only lived abroad, but also had nothing to do with the October Revolution of 1917, wanted to achieve power for the sake of power itself and committed exclusively crimes against the people, deceiving with promises about bread, factories, peace, etc. ^{[15, pp. 25-26, 32-33]}.

Throughout the film, the Soviet director formulates an unambiguous and one-sided assessment of pre-revolutionary Russia, while belittling all the facts and achievements in the USSR. It is noteworthy that the very name of the film has become a household name for the idealized image of the Russian Empire in modern discourse ^[17].

"Kolyma is the Birthplace of our Fear": recreating the image of Soviet history

A few years ago, a documentary and journalistic film authored by TV journalist Yu A. Dudya "Kolyma - the birthplace of our fear" in 2019 was released on the Internet, which caused a public outcry.

After the premiere, the scientific community raised questions about cultural traumas in assessing the past in modern discussion on the example of political repression, as well as the problem of reproduction and interpretation of historical narrative in Internet media, by such researchers as D. O. Khlevnyuk, A. S. Maksimova, V. Y. Grushevskaya, I. V. Griban, G. I. Zvereva, L. B. Zubanova et al.

As Yu. A. Dud himself states in his film, "... fear (of injustice - approx.) it originated in the last century and reached us through generations," and "one of the places where this fear appeared is Kolyma" ^[18].

"Kolyma is the birthplace of our fear" is a documentary film that uses the opinions and statements of expert historians, museum staff and relatives of participants in the events about the Soviet past. And this distinguishes him from the background of the documentary and journalistic trilogy by S. S. Govorukhin, where only occasionally they use the interview format and relate to the present, current time. At the same time, the film itself quite clearly emphasizes the "crimes of the Soviet regime" in order to create a demonized image of the USSR. 

One of the problems of Kolyma is the lack of a starting point in the coverage of the historical epoch, and especially the historical context in judicial and legal practices relevant to those years in the USSR, to which the authors refer. Because of this, for the viewer, there may be a misconception about the Soviet era, and not only, after creating a picture consisting of verified people, their destinies, events, causes, consequences, etc.

After the premiere of Kolyma, a number of critical videos were released on the Internet, whose authors analyzed the documentary image of the film, and one of the notable ones is a series of videos authored by Egor Ivanov - "Kolyma, Dud and ... A Bad Signal" (2019-2020), in which aspects of the film are analyzed in detail, referring to documents and materials on the topic. 

For example, the creators of Kolyma pay attention to the "legendary" "special prison" called "Serpentine", which is also known as the "NKVD investigative prison", "death row prison", "Sevvostlag camp unit", "special camp", "camp point", "firing camp", "death camp"or "penal camp". This place is known only from works of art (A. I. Solzhenitsyn, V. T. Shalamov, etc.), or from memoirs (I. F. Taratin, M. E. Vygon, etc.), whose authors were not there, but claimed to know about it, thanks to memories, rumors and conversations.

Nevertheless, archival documents on the existence of such a place as "Serpentine" on Kolyma have not been found. There are no articles, monographs, studies, or results of geological expeditions that would confirm the fact of existence. If there are mentions in scientific papers, then their authors write that these are just rumors ^[19]. It is worth noting that the mythical "Serpentine execution prison", depending on the author of the source, changes its location, purpose, number of victims, etc.

The authors in the film do not consider how necessary it is to raise the issue of human deaths, combining this with the desire to show the "ambiguity" and "criminality of the regime" of the past in the opinions of individuals or expert historians. For example, the film mentions a man like Sigmas Baukus, who is called "illegally repressed." However, according to the investigative file stored in the Central Archive of the MGB of the Lithuanian SSR, he was engaged in theft, anti-Soviet agitation and killed the Red Army soldier R. S. Mustafin.

Another example is the story of S. P. Korolev's arrest, where the authors expose the Soviet scientist as the only person who developed domestic cosmonautics, also mentioning the story about "broken jaws in the camp", or about informing on him by fellow scientists, with the omission of the fact that he himself wrote denunciations.

An episode is noteworthy when the authors of the film turned to the director of the State Museum of the History of the GULAG, R. V. Romanov, who, in turn, told a story about a repressed ice cream saleswoman who fed her friends, forgot to put money in the cash register and was arrested for this. 

After the premiere of the film, when viewers and Internet users asked about the sources of information on this issue, a quote from the document was presented, which, according to the museum staff, "is classified and stored in the Russian Academy of Sciences" — no introduction to scientific circulation, no analysis, no evidence that what was voiced corresponds to what was written, and also, there is no complete context of all the material. At the same time, as proof, the museum refers to other stories, already with confirmed documents

And on the one hand, Yu. A. Dudya's film caused a discussion around, first itself, and then the historical, social and political component, in assessing the Soviet era in the history of Russia. But on the other hand, its creators paid attention to dubious sources and the personal view of an individual, mixing individual facts with fiction, and objective data with subjective opinion. 

Representation of the documentary image of the past as a reflection of current trends

The content and content of a documentary varies not only from the director or from the time when the film was released for the first time, but also from the socio-cultural context and the conjuncture of its time for each film. It is necessary to consider the difference in the representation of the documentary image of Russia's past when understanding the influence of the socio-cultural layer of the epoch on society, and, consequently, on the creators.

S. S. Govorukhin's film "Russia that We Lost" in 1992 was released a year after the end of the existence of the USSR (1991). At the same time, the perestroika frenzy and anti—Soviet sentiments were still relevant for the authors of film productions, both in game and non-game format. Prior to that, the Soviet director released the first film from the documentary-journalistic film trilogy entitled "You can't Live like This" in 1990, in which the emphasis was placed on Soviet reality and the problems of society at the height of perestroika (1985-1991).

At that time, the creative intelligentsia had more opportunities and freedoms for creative self-realization, and ways of expressing different opinions and points of view, within which the transformation and deconstruction of the image of the Soviet Union took place in the context of current events ^[20]. The changes in the Soviet cultural life of that time were the result of the policy pursued by General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and Secretary of the Central Committee A. N. Yakovlev, both to confront opponents of reforms and to legitimize changes in society through the authoritative status of leaders of public opinion ^[21].

At that moment, a cultural stratum was forming, where the philistine, disappointed in what was happening, was desperately trying to find answers to his questions and, perhaps, new guidelines, which were guided by cultural figures, i.e. creative intelligentsia, who openly talked in their works about the terrible crimes of the past, and it should be abandoned, about repentance for the sins of their predecessors, about the falsehood and hypocrisy of the Soviet system, about the noble image of pre-revolutionary Russia, etc. ^[22].

That is why in the film "Russia that We have Lost", S. S. Govorukhin insists on denouncing the USSR and ennobling the Russian Empire by distorting facts and referring to dubious sources, which were popular and relevant not only for their time, but also now. For example, the credits note "special thanks" to A. I. Solzhenitsyn and his second wife "for their invaluable help in working on the film", as well as an appeal to the archives. All this is necessary to substantiate the "documentality" of the created image, built on the authority of the above-mentioned sources of information.

It is noteworthy that in 1994 S. S. Govorukhin's film "The Great Criminal Revolution" will be released, the final part in a documentary and journalistic trilogy in which the director will express sincere bewilderment due to the consequences of the collapse of the USSR in 1991: "if nothing was possible before, now everything is possible" ^[23]. The increased crime rate, the pronounced "triumph of immorality", "the self-consciousness of society has shifted to the criminal side," etc.

It is worth noting that S. S. Govorukhin was popular in the USSR as a personality, director and representative of the intelligentsia, thanks to which a credit of trust was formed in his activities. When the creator "lives in society", he creates for the mass audience, the latter gives him recognition of his work and fame in return. However, when the creator tries to "be free" from the latter, due to personal prejudices, bias or inconsistency of class interests, the author moves away and limits himself to his views, within which it is possible to openly ideologize his work, including documentary.

Speaking about the film "Kolyma is the Birthplace of our Fear", it is worth noting that, according to Yu. A. Dudya himself, one of the reasons for making the film was a VTSIOM study from 2018, which showed that almost half of young people in Russia, aged 18 to 24, had never heard of Stalin's repressions. In order to correct this situation, the authors turn to the image of the USSR exclusively from the side of shortcomings for a negative assessment of the past, and the lack of historical context, in turn, contributes to a distorted perception, which may result in an illusory solidity of epochs in history — "what then, what now, is all the same."

On the other hand, such a documentary image in the film is not a particularly prominent example of such an interpretation. Within the framework of Russian screen culture, both in fiction and non—fiction films, for quite a long time such an assessment has become an integral part of modern discourse in a society where bias, misconceptions, bias prevail, which the authors justify and justify by saying that "you need to remember", "you need to know", etc. And in turn, it is precisely such mainstream films, in the context of post-truth, that overshadow by themselves and their ideological agenda the value and diversity of Russian documentary films, whose creators strive to highlight the current and pressing problems of the surrounding reality.

On the third hand, it is important to note that the constant use of the negative image of the USSR in politicized discourse and its implantation in society, under the guise of a documentary and journalistic film, leads not so much to the acceptance of such an assessment, as to the subsequent independent study of the history of Russia by the viewer and the rejection of such works in the future, leading the authors of such films to the position of an outcast, not in demand by society. This is an illustrative example of when the phenomenon of post-truth forces us to study materials, due to an excessive irrational interpretation of facts combined with myths or with outright "blackness" for the sake of ideologization.

Against the background of numerous interviews by Yu.A. Dudya with famous personalities in the media and online media, the image of the interviewer is being built, which asks uncomfortable, vulgar and provocative questions to its guests. In the case of Kolyma, it turns out differently, because the film turned out to be relevant and popular only because of its politicization and the creation of another negative image of the history of the USSR. 

In particular, the appeal for help to the director of the State Museum of the History of the GULAG is due to the fact that the activities of this organization are based on the popularization of mass repressions in the USSR for modern society. However, not from the standpoint of a scientific and historical approach, but from the irrational and subjective side, it is verified through creative events, street art, performances, monuments, foundations and other actions, including through the film by Yu. A. Dudya.

It is unlikely to fully assess historical events and phenomena, as well as errors and shortcomings, outside of cause-and-effect relationships and context, when ideologization and emotional background dominate in the study of a particular topic. Subsequently, this may lead to the creation of another image of the past in the context of the current post-truth, but not to the study and analysis of what happened based on the data available to the scientific community. 

Conclusion

Considering the forms of representation of the documentary image and the phenomenon of post-truth on the example of S. S. Govorukhin's documentary and journalistic films "Russia that We Lost" in 1992 and Yu. A. Dudya "Kolyma is the Birthplace of our Fear" in 2019, it is possible to trace changes in the socio—cultural sphere of a particular era. In addition, this also allows us to identify the processes and trends based on the example of the authors' works that themselves draw the viewer's attention in the context of political conjuncture. 

The formed past of Russia on the example of the above-mentioned mainstream film documentaries, as a rule, is not always a directly conscious decision of the authors. First of all, this is directly related to the interpretation of the relevant in the context of society and culture through the personal prism of the creators. An important factor here is the phenomenon of post-truth and compliance with the ideological conjuncture, in which it is not the surrounding reality that is important, but an irrational and idealized assessment of certain historical events in order to maintain one's own conviction and political agenda.

The image reflects a person's perception of the multifaceted world around them, which allows us to conclude that documentary films are a very valuable source of knowledge not only about audiovisual content, but also about how and through what the vision and positioning of society, politics and culture within the framework of screen culture is formed and changed.