Values and symbolization of success in modern cinema

A set of generally recognized symbols and attributions of success, represented in one way or another in the cultural space, has an axiological nature and forms the basis of cultural tools for evaluating activity as a manifestation of the human condition and/or social community. The use of an assessment system as an objective measure makes it possible to formalize one of the fundamental functions of culture – ensuring the vital activity of a supra-biological nature ^{[6, p. 207]}. Taking into account the fact that world cinema has approached the turn of the last and present centuries in the status of the most advanced, technically and technologically, branch of visual culture, then art itself, as a way of symbolic reflection and transformation of the real space of human existence, has become massively perceived precisely through the images created by this genre of culture.

In fact, the cinematography of the mass cultural reflection of mankind in recent decades has led to the fact that it is the images and symbols of successful activity or the state of the characters of artistic cinema created on the cinema screen that have formed something like an exemplary, in fact, reference, mass representation of human success in all its possible hypostases. Thus, they created something like a canon of success in the form of a kind of catechism offering precedent answers to questions: what is success, how to achieve it, what components the assessment of success consists of, who has the right to evaluate, by whom or by what the rules and norms of demarcation of success from failure are set, etc. Going beyond film communication, these opinions and assessments mediated by mass audience reflection very soon acquired the status of a general cultural norm.

The theme of success has never left the plans of the creators and creators of Russian cinema, also because of its unrelenting ideological relevance, since ideologems and other priorities from the sphere of party leadership of life and culture were thrown into the existing reality and realized in it primarily through literature and art. Ideological meanings were forced to perform the function of success instantiation, which was not quite characteristic of them – that is, creating and representing an ideologically abstracted and accepted list of success patterns and "life examples" of "really successful people". The rigid ideological framework eventually led to many censorship and other restrictive restrictions on the process of practical implementation of the original creative ideas of screenwriters and directors, which resulted in an extremely standardized model of the "successful Soviet man" within the framework of Soviet-era domestic cinema, the necessary attributions of success in the image of which could be counted on the fingers of two hands, since it closely controls the sphere The official ideology simply did not even assume anything else of the "most important of the arts" ^{[7, p. 153]}.

The tragic end of the long-term dominance of this ideology in art, which in an instant exposed both its substantial poverty and the inability to positively influence any creative forms of cultural genesis, naturally denounced any kind of previous restrictions and prohibitions, as meaningless as they were unproductive. Reflecting not only life itself, but also the changes taking place in it, no matter how deep and all-encompassing their nature, cinematography in an extremely short time changed not only the norms and rules, but also the approaches themselves to demonstrating on the cinema screen the image of a successful contemporary, which could rely on new opportunities that appeared after the removal of previous restrictions ^{[15, p. 224]}.

While retaining the status of one of the most important links in the implementation of the general cultural process, modern cinema, having perceived the profound and radical changes in Russian society that have occurred over the past decades, and taking them for granted, has tried to embody these significant changes also in new types of symbolization of success, corresponding to the observed dynamics of rapidly changing times. Approximated to the assessment of real life and stripped of the husk of previous ideologies, success as a cultural determination has been rethought, and thus brought closer to the category of universal categories of culture, which are a measure of the massively recognized value of a specific activity of an individual, a social group, the whole society as a whole, or the state they have achieved. At the same time, success, as an evaluative category, has left behind the functions of describing a significant majority of significant social practices of a person and society throughout the continuity of their implementation of this activity, also performed by this category with the help of symbolic forms of culture, often created purposefully to implement this particular description ^{[13, p. 29]}.

Bypassing the stage of profound and significant changes, modern culture has entered a period of prolonged restructuring, accompanied by a number of intra-system changes, which are also reflected in the cinematic process. Within its borders, attempts are being made to reflect the features of the existing cultural dynamics characterizing the general historical originality of reality represented symbolically on the screen – and just as symbolically, modern cinema art is trying to embody on the screen images of what is being evaluated as success in real life today and more and more often ^{[1, p. 7]}.

Thus, for modern cinema, the system of demarcation of symbols of success from the film symbols of failures, based on the current cultural dynamics, tends to correspond to the rapid change of a number of social parameters, configured in different ways and meaningfully converged in the concept of success at different moments of the intensively changing stages of the general process of evolution of this concept itself. With the characteristic of success, the screen forms of its cinematic symbolization strive to maintain an understandable relationship for the viewer's perception, which is generally characteristic of life and art, reflecting this life in an iconic form ^{[1, p. 3]}.

Despite the constant changes in the cinematic practice of creating screen products in recent years, nevertheless, the art of cinema is trying to maintain a tendency to follow those historically formed canons of representing success, which managed to avoid at one time the dictate of the former one-party ideology, or deformations caused by its long-term influence. The signs and attributes of success in its modern version, symbolically reproduced and represented by the art of cinema in the space of the screen, nevertheless retain the desire for a symbolic typologization of the forms adopted in the cinematic process. We emphasize that the movement of screen signs and frames is subordinated to the semantics of the general dynamics of changes occurring within the entire cultural system.

It seems that such tactics can be assessed as forced for two main reasons, which latently determined the directions of evolutionary change of the previous and the formation of new cinematic approaches. Firstly, it is the desire to preserve the currently dominant norm of cultural semiosis. And, secondly, to avoid contradictions within the general conceptual sphere of culture by maintaining the norm of positioning the meaningful and symbolic side of the created cinematographic products in relation to the rest of the unified cultural context. Today there is no reason to deny that, bypassing the stage of a deep cultural turning point and a long period of multiple symbolic transformations following it, modern domestic cinema was put in a position of having to go through a number of meaningfully isolated stages of the general cultural process, historically and chronologically following one another.

In relation to the dominant trends in the creation and embodiment of symbols of success on the cinema screen, it should be noted, firstly, the stage of disintegration of the previously dominant "ideological" tendency to symbolize and represent the actual phenomenology of success on the cinema screen; secondly, the stage of axiological instability and ambivalence unevenly manifested in the scenario and staging part in the evaluation of symbols of success and, in particularThirdly, the formation and consolidation of new cinematic trends through the constant convergence of private symbols of success, unevenly manifested both in reality and on the cinema screen, and accompanied by constant attempts at their non-contextual universalization. All these stages can be clearly traced, starting with the film production of Russian cinema during the last decades of its history.

In 1979, director V. Menshov created the film "Moscow does not believe in tears" ("Moscow does not believe in tears" is the worst film. directed by V. Menshov, melodrama, Mosfilm, 1979), which, in addition to the specified genre affiliation, presents to the viewer Katya Tikhomirova, one of the three main characters of the film, as the head of a large enterprise, which, judging by the plot, she achieved in life herself. Perhaps that is why the film, which is not only a "Love story", of which there are enough films in the West, but also a very specific "success story", so adored by pragmatic Western culture, literally a couple of years after its release, received an Oscar from the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts. The film symbol of this success: self-belief, perseverance, the ability to overcome difficulties and not give up before failures, the ability to learn throughout your career, independence, elegance, light sarcasm. Especially valuable for the domestic moviegoer was the fact that Katya Tikhomirova became the first film embodiment of the success of the Soviet era, whose character achieved such a high post "not along the party line" that ten years ago, from the moment of the film's release, it was simply impossible to imagine not only in the cinema, but also in life. Whereas for the Western moviegoer, the image of Katya Tikhomirova became a real "self-made-woman" ("a woman who made herself" – English) – which, most likely, tipped the scales of the Oscar jury in favor of the Soviet film.

The film "The Forgotten Melody for the Flute" ("The Forgotten Melody for the Flute" – hood. film, directed by E. Ryazanov, satirical comedy, Mosfilm, 1987), created in 1987 by director E. Ryazanov, is designated as a "satirical comedy", although, in terms of philosophy F.Nietzsche, for example, his genre affiliation can also be defined as "G?tzen-D?mmerung" ("Twilight of Idols" – German), since the main character, Leonid Semyonovich Filimonov, performed by L. Filatov, is revealed to the viewer as a symbol of false and undeserved success, since his father-in-law "pulled" him to a high bureaucratic post – the father of the main character's wife, whom he doesn't really love. The object of evil and impartial satire in this case are the symbols of this anti-success of the main character: patronage, lack of personal qualities necessary for a leader, complete disinterest in the results of his work, duplicity and personal cowardice (Leonid Semenovich thinks and wants to say one thing, but at numerous meetings he is forced to bear the exact opposite out of a desire to please his superiors and for fear of being fired by him). In fact, this comedy by E. Ryazanov completes the first stage of the disintegration (see above) of the former ideologies and film symbols of success in its "Soviet" version. The metaphorical representation of the bureaucratic crowd inside the space of the train car, moving along which all the former representatives – symbols of success, now completely disavowed, perform in front of the rest of the passengers with music and songs in the collection mode "who will give how much", in fact becomes a symbol of a rapidly departing system, rushing, like the whole train, into an alarming and a frightening unknown.

The 1981 Soviet two-part feature television film directed by Konstantin Khudyakov "From Evening to Noon", shot according to the original author's version of the play of the same name by Viktor Rozov, demonstrates recognizable attributes of success for the late USSR: a large apartment in the Stalin high-rise on Vosstaniya Square, the writer's fame and published novels of the owner of the apartment, sports achievements and the prestigious work of the owner's son, knowledge of several foreign languages by the grandson of the owner. Personal drama, pain, loneliness, creative unrealization of each character, dissonant with the listed forms of success, determine the defense of the main characters from fugitives and opportunists, "achievers", called horsemen in the film. This is a criticism of the new cult of horsemen's success, expressed by those who consider themselves "chosen ones" who deserve the true "external" success of the heroes (Andrei Konstantinovich's early novels; Kim's sporting victories), but did not find happiness. The acceleration, fervor and superficiality of the new riders all the more appears as a threat of semantic and value devastation.

The 1984 film "Success" by the same director is interesting in the context of the research presented in the article. The life of the main character G.M. Fetisov (actor L. Filatov), evaluated in the categories of success/ failure, was, frankly, not successful. Because of his harsh nature, his inner intransigence to circumstances, he leaves Moscow, goes to a provincial theater, driven by the goal of staging Chekhov's "The Seagull". The inability to realize his directorial goal in the capital is explained, in our opinion, not only by the personal motives of the hero, but also by the psychological characteristics of the actors, theater managers with whom Fetisov worked. It was almost impossible to "bend" them under themselves, to force them to trust the director's vision, to change the classical theatrical-Chekhov interpretation of the play, because all of them felt support and stability in the form of success in this metropolitan life. On the contrary, the personal and professional failure of the protagonist, the failed life in Moscow are the reasons that prompted Fetisov to seek creative happiness in the "far country". On the periphery, in a provincial theater group, the director achieves the goal, using sometimes immoral means. The achieved professional success, the director's ability to bend to his will the actors who turned out to be understanding, even to the detriment of themselves, their goals and ambitions, does not allow the hero to feel like a winner. The film, created in a culture of socialist realism conditioned by the prevailing ideology, raises the problem of personal success, which does not always correspond to professional success.

The crime drama "Moscow" ("Moscow": hood. film, directed by A. Zeldovich, crime drama, Kinopoisk Studio, 2000), released at the turn of 2000 – 2001, was actually filmed for a long time and painfully, and genre can also be defined as a detailed film description of the face the Russian capital of the last decade of the last century, as well as everything that was happening there at that time. V. Sorokin's script does not imply the allocation of any one protagonist, there are six main characters in the film - three men and three women, and the "New Russian" spirit in "Moscow" is imbued not only with what surrounds them directly, but also the entire plot space of the picture. The naked purity of the "wild market" and the gangster New Russian capitalism sculpt their symbols of success in this space. So, for example, with regard to the character of A. Baluyev (Mike), it is almost impossible for the viewer to understand who he is more: an important "businessman" or an ordinary bandit, but this is a symbol of the success of that time. The Israeli psychoanalyst Mark (actor V. Gvozditsky) returned to Russia, because here for a long time he belonged to the conditional "estate" of the so-called "golden youth", the only bases for whose success were financial opportunities and parental patronage, as well as other mechanisms of social ascription associated with them. Mark's "leadership" has been left somewhere far, far behind, but he really wants it back, and for lack of real opportunities for this, the whole film itself is in complete melancholy. The character of S. Pavlov (Lev) is at first an inconspicuous courier of the "bratva" under the mask of a "true Jew", who eventually awaits the final plot "success".

The women – Irina, Maria and Olga – are in extremely confusing relationships with all the above characters, whose priorities are constantly changing during the development of the plot, since all the ladies can not understand what the gentlemen of their hearts are really doing (Olga's character has psychopathological reasons for this). The overall picture of "Moscow" forms the viewer's most reliable idea of what "success" is in Russia during the "wild market" period, as well as who and how achieves this kind of "success" by stepping over the corpses of their competitors, both figuratively and in the most literal sense. The visual space of the film's plot – "bratva", "strelka", nightclubs, drugs, "black cash", "obshchak", joint gatherings of bohemians with crime – leaves the viewer with a creepy, depressing impression of the almost complete impotence of the government corrupted by bandits and business, and the equally complete disenfranchisement of a man whose life is on the desert There is absolutely nothing worth doing on the streets of the capital with automatic shooting. "Success" in such unnatural conditions is reduced to the lowest biological level and is equated with simple survival – "if you're lucky."

The beginning of the "third stage" was laid by such films as, for example, A. Smirnova's drama "Svyaz" in 2006 ("Svyaz": hood. film directed by A. Smirnova, drama, TV show "Rock", 2006). The main characters are Ilya (M. Porechenkov's character) and Nina (A. Mikhalkova's character). Ilya is a Muscovite, the owner of a chain of leisure goods stores for hunting and fishing. Nina is a St. Petersburg advertising manager. Both have complete order at home, in the family and at work, which in itself can be considered a symbol of the success of that time. They are established representatives of the new Russian "middle class", tired of politics and protests about the injustice that is happening in this policy – and, busy with their business, they read almost nothing, do not go to the theater, do not develop spiritually in any way. As a result: in the process of Ilya's communication with Nina, syntax, vocabulary, and stylistics periodically fall apart – it is unclear how they sometimes understand each other. Fate brings them together and gives them at first a feeling of mutual affection, which gradually clearly develops into something more, and everything begins to go wrong. The mid-2000s have long passed, but "The Connection" remains the most vivid portrait film illustration of the "success" of that time.

Films by R. Prygunov's "Duhless" ("Duhless": hood. film, directed by R. Prygunov, drama, Kinoslovo, Art Pictures Group, Universal Pictures, 2011) and "Duhless-2" ("Duhless-2": hood. film, directed by R. Prygunov, psychological drama, Kinoslovo, 2015) according to the novel of the same name by S.S. Minaev, they demonstrate to their moviegoer not so much the actual success of the main character of both paintings – Max (the character of D. Kozlovsky) – as his external appearance. Despite the fact that Max is a leader, a "manager" of the "top level" and a major investment banker, this external "success" does not bring him any personal happiness. Max goes to restaurants and vernissages, sniffs coke, pours whiskey into himself, listlessly engages in some kind of "anti-globalization" just because it is now "fashionable", and embarks on extremely dubious, on the verge of crime, business projects.

The frenzied riot of glamour, which almost completely replaced the gloomy gangster lawlessness of 10-15 years ago, makes sense of the meaningful side of any form of activity, leaving only an empty and familiar gloss. The "success" achieved by Max turns out to be exactly the same gloss, from the monotony of which, paradoxically, he is already completely tired, as well as tired of all that he has to do to maintain his own "successful" status, and in general from this whole life. It is no coincidence that in the 2015 film, Max "suddenly" turns into an actual downshifter, completely inverting his own "success". Abandoning this "success", the hero flies to Bali, where he takes a deep breath for some plot time, and then he has to return to what he was running from.

In the terminology of A. Rand, this is such an "initially successful Atlantean" who first straightened his shoulders, and then suddenly folded them (fleeing to Bali); then (after resting and gathering his strength) straightened again – apparently out of habit, but the second film of Prygunov is the answer to the question – why did he do it again? – leaves it open for the viewer. The latter can only marvel at the evolution of the cinematic version of the "Russian dream" that has happened before his eyes: from the image of the director of the combine Katya Tikhomirova in 1979 "edition" to the image of a glamorous "top manager" that is now modern to him. The tragedy of this hero is that he no longer knows where to run from the current life – to "coke", to alcohol, to "anti–globalization", to "leftist" dividends - or immediately to Bali, that is, far away from all of the above. In the latter respect, "Spiritless-2" is actually transformed from a meaningfully ambiguous film symbolization of success into a concrete explanatory film description of modern downshifting.

Summing up this review, it should be noted that modern Russian cinema with great difficulty makes its way in the process of searching for authenticity in symbolization and on-screen demonstration of what rapidly changing Russian society tends to define as success yesterday, today and tomorrow. In addition, and this seems to be not unfounded at the present time, the creators of modern domestic film production should exercise some caution in this direction, since the dominant cultural determinants and stereotypes of success, in fact, intensively occurring changes in society, may begin to compete with those public assumptions and preferences of success that are declared by official government bodies as desirable ^{[14, p. 4]}. There may also be a certain danger here that a deep cultural and philosophical analysis of the dominant models and types of symbolization of success on the cinema screen may provide clues to understanding and revealing the true essence of political populism, which some politicians so willingly continue to resort to.