The image of Pyotr Verkhovensky from F. M. Dostoevsky's novel «Demons»: from the real S. G. Nechaev to new images in the cinema

Ostapenko Anton Sergeevich Postgraduate student, Department of the Theory and History of Screen Culture, Institute of Film and Television (GITR) 32a Khoroshevskoe Sh., Moscow, 123007, Russia suinantoof@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Within the framework of cinematography, various tools are used to reproduce and interpret content, including in the depiction of reality ^[1]. The same applies to film adaptations of literary works, when the creators change the original text in favor of audiovisual perception ^[2].

Consciously or not, the creators of feature films depict current phenomena and events in society through artistic techniques. The very form of image representation in screen culture reflects a person's perception of the world around them. It follows from this that the authors of film productions show the viewer what is relevant in the current cultural and social paradigm ^{[3, p. 14]}. Within the framework of post-Soviet feature films, and not only, one can observe the process of not only representation, but also the emergence of new forms of interpretation of the image of characters, society or the world in a work of fiction. This is a consequence of how the authors reflect on the screen the changes in the socio-cultural space that actually exist for both the viewer and the creators ^{[3, C. 15]}.

The topic of the form of image representation in feature films has been repeatedly raised in the studies of M. G. Makienko, V. I. Mildon, N. A. Lysova, V. A. Tikharova, O. B. Leontieva, etc. However, according to the author, the problem lies in the insufficient disclosure of how changes in the socio-cultural space of modernity affect the interpretation and perception of artistic screen culture. The study of the form of image representation presupposes a versatile approach and methods within the framework of scientific discourse. The author of this article proposes to consider the problem through 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 basis. According to A. Gramsci and his theory of hegemony, the dominance of the ruling class is based in such areas as economics, politics and civil society. In the latter case, the key figure is the intelligentsia ^[4], which is part of the social class, fulfilling its function — "the creation and maintenance of mental images, technologies and organizations that bind together members of the class and the historical block" ^{[5, p. 133]}. The term "historical block" means the maintenance of unity and identity for the dissemination of a common culture through the state ^{[5, p. 132]}. In this case, the intellectual performs the representation of the image and functions as an exponent of the hegemony of the ruling class ^[6].

The author of the article proposes to consider the problem of changing the form of representation of images in the context of social and cultural changes using the example of a film adaptation of the novel by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881) "Demons". This is also due to the fact that the literary work itself occupies a special place in modern cultural and philosophical discourse. The novel "Demons" is very often evaluated and considered in the media sphere by both ordinary people and figures of science, culture, politics, and religion. There is an opinion that by studying Dostoevsky's work better in the past, it "could have saved Russia from revolutionary turmoil." For example, A. Tkachev thinks so, speaking about the series "Demons" by Vladimir Khotinenko in 2014. Or that the characters themselves are representatives of the Russian intelligentsia, carried away by the revolutionary ideas of socialism and anarchism, which are a clear example of harm to Russia not only in the past, but also in the present. In this interpretation, the novel itself begins to have a prophetic message ^[7].

To identify and identify the issues, the author suggests turning to examples of film adaptations of the novel "Demons" in 1992, 2014 and 2024, in which one can trace the change in the forms of representation of the image, using the example of a key character from the original source. "The Demons are the result of Dostoevsky's prophetic vision of how the revolutionary intelligentsia, possessed by mysterious demonic forces, is destroying Christ—faced Russia," Vladimir Palibrk writes in his article, speaking about Stavrogin, the main character of the novel. But he still has his own story and outline, while one of the key and important characters of the novel is Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky.

For an in-depth and better understanding of the image, the author turns not only to the original source and post-Soviet film adaptations in the future, but also to historical prototypes, the features and images of which Dostoevsky himself uses to create his character.

Prototypes and prototypes of Peter Verkhovensky

One of the prototypes of the novel's character was Sergei Gennadievich Nechaev (1847-1882), a revolutionary, nihilist and terrorist of the second half of the XIX century, the creator of the secret society "People's Massacre" and the murderer of a member of his own organization, student I. I. Ivanov. Dostoevsky himself wrote that in the novel he does not touch Nechaev, creating his own image: "My Nechaev's face, of course, does not look like the face of the real Nechaev. I wanted to raise a question and, as clearly as possible, in the form of a novel, give an answer to it: how in our transitional and amazing modern society are possible — not Nechaev, but Nechaev, and how can it happen that these Nechaevs recruit Nechaevites at the end" ^{[9, p. 148]}. The work itself reflects the artistic image of a real person, based on newspaper articles of that time and stories of people familiar to the author, who created the key character of the entire novel, Peter Verkhovensky.

It is worth paying attention to Nechaev himself. We are particularly interested in his activities and participation in events that will be reflected in the words and deeds of the character of Dostoevsky's novel. Eighteen-year-old Sergei Gennadievich joined the circle of anarchists and liberal socialists. Inspired by the works of revolutionaries and thinkers of the 19th century, among whom were social revolutionaries, anarchists and socialists, Nechaev writes his "Catechism of a Revolutionary", which reflects his nihilistic and fatalistic views: "Striving in cold blood and tirelessly towards this goal (revolution – approx.), he (the revolutionary – approx.) must always be ready to perish himself and destroy with his own hands everything that hinders its achievement." "The future organization is undoubtedly being developed from the popular movement and life.  But this is a matter for future generations.  Our cause is passionate, complete, widespread and merciless destruction."^[10]

Nechaev proceeds not only from an anarchic interpretation of the image of a society without a state, but also from the fact that one of the key tools of radical change in society is violence, either on the part of a revolutionary or in relation to him. At the same time, Nechaev's revolutionary is not only a fatalist — to live only for the sake of revolution — but also one who renounces everything in the name of revolution for the sake of revolution. Such theses are like slogans, rather than a clear idea and understanding of what, besides the revolution, and how the supporters of Nechaevism will achieve. And most importantly, what will it give, besides the destruction of the state, at the same time, while the consequences are the concern of "future generations", but not of the current ones.

Nechaev himself, after he went abroad in February 1869, declared that he was a representative of a new wave of the revolutionary movement, on behalf of the supposedly existing "World Revolutionary Union". Having received finances from such persons as Bakunin and Herzen, in Moscow he created a department of the ubiquitous secret society "People's Massacre". But when the Nechaevites met resistance from their like-minded student I. Ivanov, they killed him. Subsequently, while the Nechaev trial was taking place in Russia, Nechaev himself fled abroad.

After these events, Sergei Gennadievich was subjected to crushing criticism by the revolutionaries of Europe themselves, among whom was Bakunin. As a result, Nechaev gained a reputation as a hoaxer, conspirator and deceiver. And besides, Sergey Gennadievich has also shown himself to be an unscrupulous fraudster and murderer, who does not disdain anything to achieve his goals.

But it was not only Nechaev who became the prototype of Verkhovensky. Roman Gafanovich Nazirov in his article "Peter Verkhovensky as an aesthete", referring to Dostoevsky's drafts, writes that "... to the features of Nechaev reflected in the image of Peter Verkhovensky, (The author – approx.) deliberately added the features of MV Butashevich – Petrashevsky ...". At the same time, "Petrashevsky, a talkative and eccentric man, was considered by Dostoevsky to be an empty talker. At the same time, such a combination of Nechaev and Petrashevsky makes the image more tangible and clearer for the author himself" ^[11].

Mikhail Vasilyevich Petrashevsky (1821-1866), linguist and translator, proponent of utopian socialism. At his house, "freethinkers", supporters of the social utopian thought of the XIX century, often gathered, among whom was Dostoevsky himself. Both were arrested. As a result, Fyodor Mikhailovich and Mikhail Vasilyevich were pardoned, but they were replaced by the death penalty for exile, and before that they were subjected to a staged execution.

It is not surprising that Dostoevsky could add to the image of his character the features of a person familiar to him, who would become the original Peter Verkhovensky.

Analysis of the image of Peter Verkhovensky in the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky

Who is Peter Verkhovensky in Dostoevsky's novel? According to Fyodor Mikhailovich himself, it turns out that "neither Nechaev, nor Ivanov, nor the circumstances of that murder" he did not know, "except from newspapers," and takes that event as an "accomplished fact." "My fantasy may be extremely different from the former reality, and my Pyotr Verkhovensky may not resemble Nechaev at all; but it seems to me that in my amazed mind the imagination has created that face, that type that corresponds to this villainy" ^{[9, p. 464]}.

Pyotr Verkhovensky, the son of the liberal idealist Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky ^[12], the leader of the "five", has a lot of unclear things in his past. However, he appears to the reader as an unambiguous cynic, liar and scoundrel, striving through fear and blood to subdue the members of his organization around him ^[13]. Here is a small fragment in which Dostoevsky describes Verkhovensky: "He speaks quickly, hurriedly, but at the same time confidently, and does not go into his pocket for a word. His thoughts are calm, despite his hurried appearance, distinct and final, and this is especially evident..." "You somehow begin to imagine that the tongue in his mouth must be of some special shape, some unusually long and thin..." ^{[9, p. 173]}. 

The hero appears to the reader as a man with a split personality, who only outwardly seems to be a model of nobility and intelligence. But inside, hiding his dark ideas and desire to destroy the existing order. He is a symbol of anarchy and madness, who tries to destroy everything that is considered normal and stable ^[14]. The novel "Demons" demonstrates the destructive evil that exists to create chaos. The image is frightening and repulsive, not shy about hiding true intentions. A demon in human form, in a permanent state of overexcitation.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in the works of Fyodor Mikhailovich, revolutionaries appear either in the image of dangerous scoundrels, as in the case of Pyotr Verkhovensky and his Five, or hypocrites and deluded. For example, one of the Karamazov brothers from the novel of the same name, Ivan Fedorovich, appears as a socialist. He declares that "if there is no God, then everything is allowed," like engineer Kirillov from Verkhovensky's organization. But at the same time, the second of the Karamazov brothers acts as a defender of religion. However, this topic deserves special attention and study.

Through the prism of his own life experience, as well as his established beliefs about the revolutionary movement of the XIX century ^[15], Dostoevsky creates his own artistic image of a revolutionary, one of the extremes of which is Verkhovensky ^[16].

The author's negative attitude towards Pyotr Verkhovensky is more pronounced than towards the other members of the "five". There are deceived or mistaken people in the organization, inspired by the ideas of freedom and justice, with the exception of Shigalev's character. Pyotr Verkhovensky realizes what he wants to achieve — turmoil and upheaval in society through individual terror and seizure of power ^{[9, p. 394]}. That is why Dostoevsky pays attention to the image of the character he describes. What can be hidden behind beautiful words, which brings confusion into the hearts of people, is what Verkhovensky is dangerous for.

Speaking about the novel "Demons", in the context of Dostoevsky's work, it is worth remembering the pain and suffering that he, like his contemporaries, endured. Fyodor Mikhailovich transferred all feelings and emotions, as well as images, into his works, which reflect the fears of the era, and the prerequisites were real events and the reflection of the author himself.

So, Dostoevsky's character in the novel "Demons" combines the cruelty and immorality of Nechaev, and at the same time the verbosity and pathos of Petrashevsky, from which Peter Verkhovensky emerges, is an unprincipled, self—confident, cruel and dangerous man. And having an idea of the literary image of the character, we can consider how it corresponds or differs from how it was shown in film adaptations.

From the 90s to the present day: the image of Peter Verkhovensky in film adaptations

Through his characters, Dostoevsky in his novel tried to depict the motives of those people who, with statements about nobility and justice, can hide their cruel inclinations. How was Peter Verkhovensky shown in the film adaptations? To what extent could the image of the literary source have changed, and how does this affect the viewer's perception?

In the 1992 film "Demons (Nikolai Stavrogin)" directed by Igor Talankin, his role was played by Pyotr Yurchenkov. Despite the quality of the film and sound, the stinginess of the exposition, the tangible lack of a sufficient budget for the implementation of the environment, the presentation of what is happening and controversial scenario decisions, the strength of this film is the cast. Verkhovensky's character in the film, from the very first scene of a conversation with Stavrogin in the carriage, shows himself as a cool-minded, calm person who seeks to control not only the situation, but also the people around him. And this image remains unchanged throughout the film. The rarer his presence in the frame, the more fear and obsession there is in the next scene. The authors of this film have tried to preserve the basis of the novel, as can be seen from the example of the representation of the character of Peter Verkhovensky.

Let's turn now to the next example, a 4-episode 2014 film. "Demons" by Vladimir Khotinenko, the role of Verkhovensky in which Anton Shagin performed. "I have a pretty clear image of Verkhovensky — I represented Johnny Depp in this role, for example. Do you understand what type I'm talking about?" - this is how in his interview the film director described one of the main and key characters in the television series based on Dostoevsky's novel. The character was shown to the viewer, if not comically, then definitely not seriously. After that, the question of what kind of clear type we are talking about, using the example of Johnny Depp, remains unanswered. Because in the series, the viewer sees the image of a stupid and hysterical young man, and not an overbearing and cruel man who tramples on morality as such, who, in order to achieve his desired goal, crosses over human lives, or vice versa, a fraudster who understands what he wants from his organization and its members.

And on the one hand, the character of Verkhovensky in this film adaptation is a comic image expressed in the absurd and frivolous behavior of the hero. On the other hand, the horror that the viewer must experience lies in light and superficial personalities, for whom moral norms have been leveled and transformed, and talking about ideas is a screen for the realization of their desires and goals.

Dostoevsky's contemporaries wrote about the character of Verkhovensky from the novel that he was like Mephistopheles ^[17] — a seductive, tempting and dangerous evil. On the other hand, some critics called the hero a flat and one-sided killer. In the case of the 2014 film adaptation, the image of a one-sided and flat tyrant is clearly expressed. The viewer may have the feeling that the character himself does not understand what he is doing and for what, and if he does, then for entertainment or chaos, he makes speeches, organizes people, kills a student, etc.

"Anton Shagin gives an infernal one—man show here, after which viewers who have become unaccustomed to Russian cinema will call him the Russian Cumberbatch and DiCaprio for a long time, although in fact he is above any comparisons," writes Egor Moskvitin in his article about the image of the character Verkhovensky in the film adaptation of Vladimir Khotinenko. "Infernal one—man show" is a suitable definition of what Verkhovensky's character is doing throughout the entire 4-episode film. Constant performances, going from extreme to extreme, from laughter to hysteria. However, behind the buffoonery lies the danger and horror of what the hero has done, and what Dostoevsky himself criticized in his novel.

The last one worth mentioning is the recent mini-series "Clipot" 2024 directed by Sergei Arlanov, which, according to the screenwriters, "has parallels with Dostoevsky's "Demons"." "The parallels with Dostoevsky's Demons are obvious, but this series is by no means a film adaptation in the classical sense. The authors of the series ask the same eternal questions as the great writer, but transfer them to modern realities and modern society," says Alexey Goreslavsky, Director General of the Institute for Internet Development (IRI), about the series. According to the authors and those involved in the project, the plot tells about the "golden youth" in modern Russia, who decided to create a secret society, which exposes the government and the people involved in it. The film production itself deserves a separate and detailed study and analysis, as well as the "parallels" with Dostoevsky's "Demons": how well-founded are they, what questions do the authors raise, what do they pay attention to within the framework of their work, etc.

In the image of the modern Peter Verkhovensky, the character Nikolai Shustov appears here, performed by actor Ivan Mulin. On the one hand, he is a provocateur, sharp-tongued, knows how to communicate with politicians to resolve issues, the head of the club of interests, which will become the very organization "Klipot" according to the plot. In addition, judging by the finale of the series, the character achieves what he aspired to — once abroad, Shustov creates a fund to fight the "brutal regime" in Russia, because the accomplices of his own group were imprisoned in a "fabricated case", and he acts as a "fighter for democracy". In other words, a fraudster, as Verkhovensky's character said about himself in Dostoevsky's novel ^{[9, p. 395]}. On the other hand, according to the series, it may seem that it is not entirely clear how and why the hero comes to such a finale. The beliefs of Shustov's character, as well as the views of his associates, are expressed sparingly and even crumpled, limiting themselves to remarks: "This is not Europe, but Russia," denunciation of those in power, etc. And the authors use this description of the image of the heroes to reveal the topic: incompetent and superficial people become executors of their leader, who understands what he wants and implements his plan with someone else's hands.

It is noteworthy that in Dostoevsky's novel, that in the 2024 miniseries Stepan Trofimovich and Shustov Sr. are teachers whose beliefs and views were idealistic in nature. This formed the heroes in such a way that, together with the protest moods of young people, as well as a lack of understanding of historical processes, leads them to create the Klipot organization — rebellious youth are dissatisfied with the ongoing processes in society and are ready to follow and carry out the orders of their leader.

Separately, it should be said that the so-called organization itself, an analogue of the "five" from Dostoevsky's novel, consists of adult children of politicians, intellectuals, workers, etc., each of whom is a special and unique personality. This is to the question of why the authors refer to the "golden youth" — young people tend to have a heightened sense of justice, and, against the background of youthful maximalism, this is expressed in protest moods and in the desire for permanent change throughout society. The study of cause-and-effect relationships, ongoing or past processes and events, requires understanding, perseverance and attention. However, the desire for change does not require analysis, but only action, which is reflected in almost all members of the Clipot organization.

Throughout all four episodes, the main characters rage: they arrange meetings in the apartment, swear among themselves or with their parents from scratch, constant changes in behavior (from composure to hysteria), etc. The authors suggest considering the problem posed to the viewer from this angle: moody and hysterical boys and girls do what they want while their parents They are trying to resolve issues at the legislative level. The reason why the characters behave this way is that representatives of the "golden youth" consider themselves to be among the elite of society by birthright. They are not burdened with questions of survival, life or career, because their parents already have all this, and leisure is reduced either to entertainment, from drinking alcohol to shooting firearms while intoxicated (as shown in the mini-series "Clipot"), or to organizing a society where there is an imaginary feeling involvement in a cause important to society. The logical result of the organization of the series is the murder of a friend, the arrest of all members of the society, with the release of Shustov. All the blame, according to the plot, fell on Stavrogin's analogue. Shustov himself kills his father, flees abroad, creates a fund for the "release of friends from prison"

Prerequisites for the difference in the images of Peter Verkhovensky in the film adaptations

If we talk about the images that are presented by the authors of the film adaptations, then they correspond in form to Peter Verkhovensky from the novel "Demons". However, the content and content itself varies not only from the director, but also from the social and cultural context of his time for each film. It is necessary to consider the difference in the representation of the form of the image of the character of Verkhovensky in particular, as well as the film adaptation of Dostoevsky's novel in general, when understanding the influence of the socio-cultural layer of the epoch on society.

In Igor Talankin's 1992 film, Verkhovensky appears as an image of revolutionaries in general, which was especially relevant against the background of the collapse of the Soviet Union and anti-Soviet propaganda at the end of the 20th century. A year has passed since 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. For example, Stanislav Sergeevich Govorukhin releases the second documentary and journalistic film "Russia that we Lost" in 1992, in which the director tells not only about the Russian Empire, its achievements and "progress", but also about the crimes of the "bloody Soviet regime" ^{[6, p. 16]}. In the same year, the feature film "The Chekist" directed by Alexander Rogozhkin was released, where the "red terror", the Cheka, as well as the victims of their massacres are shown hyperbolically, with an emphasis on chernukha. All this was an echo of perestroika (1985-1991), when the authors had more opportunities and freedoms in creativity and self-expression. By that time, a cultural stratum had formed in which the philistine, disappointed in what was happening, was desperately trying to find answers to his questions and, perhaps, new guidelines. And they became all kinds of personalities — directors, writers, scientists, musicians — some of whom already at that time openly talked about the terrible past, for which one must repent, about the lies of the Soviet system, about the noble image of pre-revolutionary Russia, etc. In the 1992 film, we see a semi-mystical image of a revolutionary that suddenly appears and disappears in front of the viewer. He wants to rule people so that they obey him, in order to implement terrible plans to destroy Russia, which we have lost.

In the 4-episode 2014 film Vladimir Khotinenko Verkhovensky is a caricature of the pro-liberal and oppositional part of the modern public. The image of the character is filled with other meanings, changing the content of the hero — he turned from a scoundrel into a buffoon. In 2013-2014, against the background of high-profile events around the world, media personalities of different views, especially pro-liberal ones, actively speak out. Sometimes the most absurd and ridiculous theses were heard in the media from such figures. And at the same time, there is a conflict in society between those who defend pro-Western and pro-Russian positions. And so in the 2014 film we see the image of a liberal-minded troublemaker and a troublemaker who wants to create chaos for the sake of chaos. A ridiculous clown that rages against the background of a clean city and its inhabitants of the Russian Empire. Ridiculing and demonstrating the absurdity of the pseudo-revolutionary Verkhovensky and the absurdity of his worldview gives a completely different perception of the character.

In Sergei Arlanov's 2024 miniseries, Verkhovensky appears as a caricature of anti-Russian figures and pseudo-revolutionaries who built their reputation on the deception and betrayal of their associates. At the turn of the 2010-2020s, several criminal cases involving young people thundered in Russia (the Rostov case, the case of the "New Greatness", the case of the "Network"), which caused a public outcry. The result of which, among other things, was Sergey Arlanov's "Clipot". In the 2024 miniseries, the viewer is shown that there is a feminist, an anti-fascist and an eco-activist in the organization. The creators need this to emphasize the image of the characters, referring to the cases described above.

In fairness, we note that this film adaptation is more closely connected with the character and the world of Dostoevsky's novel than the above ones. The authors of the latest film adaptation showed the nature of "evil", which Dostoevsky spoke about in his novel — what deception is based on, how this very "evil" is dangerous, how attractive it is at first glance, involving young people in their machinations. Referring to Dostoevsky's novel, the creators tell a story in our time. The emphasis on the conflict between generations emphasizes what is happening in the series, reflecting the essence of the literary source. The members of the Clipot organization in the series do nothing but gather and talk about how they will change the world, or the use of alcoholic beverages. The governor of the city tells Shustov directly about the depravity of the system, of which he is a part. The father of the Verkhovensky analogue in the series was an oppositionist and a "fighter against oligarchs", working on the radio.

The above shows not only how much the authors correspond to Dostoevsky's original text, but also convey his main idea — fear of the destructive power of people who cover cruelty with noble goals. What is combined with the problem in modern society, when representatives of the younger generation engage in destructive activities, being misled or are themselves part of the organization.

Returning to the image of Pyotr Verkhovensky, in the 2024 miniseries we see a modern analogue of the character from Dostoevsky's novel, who is a kind of hybrid of a young man of our time and an experienced fraudster. The hero knows what he wants and how to achieve it. And in the end, he creates a foreign fund to fight the "totalitarian regime." And if in Dostoevsky's novel the characters themselves sought to destroy everything, then the mini-series 2024 shows an external threat and support for protest movements from the outside.

Conclusion

By examining the forms of interpretation of the character of Peter Verkhovensky in the post-Soviet film adaptations of the novel "Demons" in 1992, 2014 and 2024, it is possible to trace changes in the socio-cultural sphere, and identify those moods and trends that the authors pay attention to in their works. What is shown is not always a conscious decision of the authors, it is directly related to the representation of the relevant in the context of society and culture. The image, having an artistic content, reflects a person's perception of the multifaceted world around them. This allows us to conclude that cinema is a source of knowledge about how and by what means the vision of society, politics and culture is formed and changed within the framework of screen culture.