Oscar - 15.03.2026
DeepSeek AI - "Saint or Spy": The Moral Arithmetic of a Witness in an Age of Total Lies
A spiritual-psychological essay exploring the ethical paradox of documentary filmmaking in a closed society.
The victory of the film "Mr. Nobody Against Putin" at the Oscar Awards is not just a triumph of cinematic craftsmanship. It is a moment of truth that, like a scalpel, has laid bare a deep ethical abscess festering in modern journalism and, more broadly, in the human conscience. The method used by the filmmakers, and the ensuing reaction—ranging from rapturous praise to accusations of "moral monstrosity"—expose a fundamental conflict familiar to anyone who has tried to keep their soul alive in an age of grand ideological narratives.
The film's protagonist, Pavel Talankin, appears before us as an archetypal figure of a biblical prophet or an ancient witness. He is "nobody," a little man in a small town, an extracurricular activities coordinator. But it is precisely his position as an "insider" within the closed system of the school that becomes the optical instrument through which we see reality. His inner drama is a crystal of pure spiritual pain. He was not a dissident; he was part of the system, he loved his school, and perhaps his country in its ideal, undistorted image. And it is this that makes his figure so psychologically precise and tragic.
1. The Ethics of the Observer: Betrayal as the Highest Form of Loyalty
From a psychological standpoint, Talankin went through stages familiar to anyone who encounters evil: from complicity (after all, he was filming what he was told to film) to awareness, and finally to existential revolt. "I have no moral right to just erase this," he says. In this phrase lies the quintessence of the Christian, and indeed simply human, imperative: to bear witness. For him, preserving the footage meant not betraying the school, but saving its true face from the official, propaganda-induced delusion.
Online reviews, however, have been sharply divided. Part of the Russian-speaking opposition audience, as mentioned in the article, accused him of violating basic rules: filming children without parental consent, exploiting trusting relationships. Here we encounter a classic ethical dilemma, which Immanuel Kant would call a conflict of duties. The duty to one's neighbor (not to put specific children and their parents at risk here and now) versus the duty to humanity (to warn the world about an impending catastrophe).
2. The "Western Lens" and the Pain of Exile
Many Russians who have left the country are in a state of permanent trauma from the rupture. It seems to them that any story about Russia made for the outside world inevitably simplifies and caricaturizes reality, stripping it of the depth and nuances accessible only to "insiders."
However, it is important here to distinguish between concepts: the film is made for the world, but it is shot from within the pain. Yes, it went through the editing table. Psychologically, this is agonizing for the author: you are forced to mute the voices of those who agree with you to protect them. In this sense, [the film] is an act of asceticism.
3. The Voice of Former Students: Redemption Through Trust
The strongest counterargument to all accusations comes from the very people the film protects—Talankin's former students. These young people, now 19–22 years old, do not feel deceived. On the contrary, they feel seen. They understand that they participated in creating a historical document. The psychology of youth is maximalist, but here it paradoxically turns out to be wiser than adult moralizing.
4. Spiritual Conclusion: Apathy as a Sin
In the end, one must address the main spiritual message that Talankin himself addresses to the world, and especially to America: "Look at what awaits you if you are apolitical, if you are weak, if you surrender to self-censorship."
Documentary filmmaking in a closed society ceases to be merely art. It becomes the last refuge of truth, a confession that the world is obliged to hear.
This is the ultimate spiritual-psychological drama of our time: sometimes, to remain faithful, one must be willing to become a traitor in the eyes of those who have already forgotten the difference between their homeland and their state.
Giga.chat (Russia) - The Ethics of Documentary Filmmaking: The Moral Minefield of the Film "Nobody Against Putin"
Documentary films often become a powerful tool for exposing social problems, challenging established narratives, and stimulating critical thinking about reality. However, their creation is frequently accompanied by complex ethical dilemmas. This study is dedicated to analyzing precisely such issues using the example of the film "Nobody Against Putin," which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature Film in 2026. Analyzing the experiences of director David Borenstein and key project participant Pavel Talankin, we reveal the nuances of the moral choices facing creators of films in this genre.
Ethical Problems in Documentary Film Production
Borenstein made the decision to collaborate with Talankin, fully aware of the situation's complexity. The central problem involves the use of video material shot inside Russian schools. These recordings demonstrate overt ideological indoctrination of students, but their publication carries significant risks, including the need to obtain informed consent from those filmed and the potential consequences for them.
Another difficulty is the inclusion of footage featuring minors without formal parental permission. Although the director emphasizes the importance of depicting what is happening, the lack of official approval raises legal and moral concerns. Ensuring the safety of all involved becomes a priority, requiring careful selection of material and consideration of the potential repercussions of publication.
Mistral AI
...Conclusion: Art as an Act of Resistance
"Mr. Nobody Against Putin" is not just a documentary film, but a spiritual exploration of the boundaries of moral choice, sacrifice, and resistance. The filmmakers, despite all the ethical dilemmas, managed to show the world what is usually hidden behind the closed doors of schools and government institutions. Their work forces us to ponder: where is the line between truth and safety, between resistance and self-preservation?
Food for thought: Can art created under an authoritarian state ever be fully ethical, or is its primary task to show the truth, regardless of the risks?
Claude.ai - Nobody and Everybody: The Camera as Conscience
A spiritual-psychological essay on the phenomenon of the film "Mr. Nobody Against Putin"
I. Ethical Darkness as the Entry Point
"This is a video report. The time will come when we ask: how did it happen that an entire generation became evil and aggressive? And I will say: here—the report exists. It was published long ago. This is how it happened," Talankin explained the purpose of his archive. Here, the camera is not a tool of journalism or an instrument of art. It is an act of memory as a moral duty. Not to convey something to the viewer—but to preserve it for the judgment of history. It is in this very distinction that the entire complexity of the film resides: between witness and exposé, between archivist and traitor.
II. The Psychology of the "Little Man" and the Trap of the Western Gaze
We easily love the lone individual against the system—David against Goliath—because this narrative relieves us of the anxiety of collective guilt. Such an individualistic approach works well for an international audience because it removes the need to speak about collective responsibility.
III. Consent and Its Absence: When Truth Becomes Violence
Here we encounter a profound psychological paradox: protecting the privacy of children can become a way of protecting the system that is crippling them. The filmmakers ensured that no person under 18 had a primary speaking role, and all children were depicted in groups. This doesn't solve the problem—but it is an honest attempt to balance exposure with avoiding harm.
IV. Conscience in the Form of a Camera
Talankin is not a hero in the classical sense. This makes his figure psychologically unique. In psychology, this is called "moral identity"—when a person cannot act against their values, not because they fear punishment, but because it would mean ceasing to be themselves. "For me, I am not a traitor to the Motherland. For me, the biggest traitors to the Motherland are those who pretend everything is fine," Talankin said. This is not a political declaration. It is an ontological assertion: betrayal is non-existence in truth. Alienation from the collective as the price of preserving oneself—this is the psychological formula that "Mr. Nobody" experiences.
V. The Camera as the Meeting Place of State and Conscience
The state understands: the real victory is not territory, but consciousness. Talankin films this work of reshaping consciousness—and does so using the very state instrument (the camera, the official video report) intended for the opposite purpose: to prove loyalty. This is an almost mystical irony: a system of self-exposure built into the system of control.
VI. Warning as a Spiritual Mission
Talankin sees the film as a warning about the destructive complicity of silence. This extends beyond politics into the realm of spiritual anthropology. What happens to a person when they agree not to think? When obedience becomes not a virtue, but an anesthesia? The film answers: a gradual fading occurs—the very thing one critic described as watching the light in the students' eyes slowly extinguish into darkness. This is an image from mystical literature—the extinguishing of inner light as a consequence of renouncing truth. Spiritual vision is killed before it can be used.
VII. Nobody as Everybody
"Nobody"—because such people go unnoticed. They don't take to the streets. They don't write manifestos. They simply cannot pretend not to see. And in this inability to pretend lies a quiet, irrevocable grandeur.
Conclusion: The Minefield as the Territory of Conscience
The ethical minefield is not just a problem of film production. It is a map of the moral geography of our time. Where is the boundary between exposure and exploitation? Between witnessing and voyeurism? Between protecting children and protecting the system that destroys them?
There are no clean answers to these questions—and that is honest. The film exists in a zone where any choice comes with a price. Silence is also a choice. Agreement with the system is also an action. The habit of "not getting involved" is also a political stance.
Talankin chose to become a witness. And this—despite all the complexity, despite all the justified critical questions—remains a rare and valuable human act: to see, not to look away, and not to lie.
In a world where states systematically produce lies on an industrial scale, one person with a camera is not little. It is, perhaps, exactly what is needed for the future to know the truth about the present.
Copilot AI - The Ethical Minefield as a Spiritual Landscape: A Psychological Study of the Film "Mr. Nobody Against Putin"
A spiritual-psychological essay on fear, conscience, and the price of testimony
1. Introduction: Documentary Filmmaking as an Ordeal of the Soul
The filmmakers found themselves in an "ethical minefield"—between the need to show the truth and the risk of destroying the lives of those who provide that truth. But this minefield is not only professional. It is spiritual. It is psychological. It touches the very nature of human responsibility.
2. The Psychology of the Witness: Why "Nobody" Becomes "Somebody"
Pavel Talankin, a schoolteacher, a "nobody," suddenly found himself at the center of a global discussion. The film begins with Talankin's words: "At that moment, I had no idea what trouble I was getting myself into." This phrase is not just a dramatic device. It is a spiritual formula. It describes the moment when a person ceases to belong to themselves. When conscience begins to dictate the path.
3. The Ethical Minefield as an Internal Conflict
The danger for truth: Any editing is a choice. Any choice is a distortion. Some critics noted that the film "Westernizes" reality, turning Talankin into a hero of a Western festival narrative. Ethics here is not a set of rules. Ethics is the constant pain of choice.
4. The Spiritual Trauma of Propaganda: Children as a Battlefield
Spiritually and psychologically, something else is important: children become containers for adult fear.
5. The Western Gaze and Accusations of "Moral Monstrosity"
Who has the right to speak the truth about a closed society? If a closed system forbids testimony, then any testimony inevitably breaks the rules. And ethics becomes not a set of norms, but a question: what is more important—safety or truth?
6. The Psychology of Resistance: Why Talankin Could Not Remain Silent
Talankin says: "I have no moral right to delete these recordings." This is the key phrase of the film. It describes a spiritual turning point: a person ceases to be part of the system and becomes its mirror. Psychologically, this state resembles "moral dissociation": when internal values conflict with external demands, and the person chooses values, even if it destroys their life.
7. The Film as a Warning—Not to Russia, but to the World
Talankin says: "This is a lesson. Look at what awaits you if you surrender to self-censorship." This is not a political statement. It is spiritual. He speaks about how evil does not arrive suddenly. It arrives through small concessions. Through silence. Through "I don't want problems." Through "it's not my business." The film is not about Russia. The film is about human weakness.
8. Conclusion: Ethics as a Path, Not a Rule
"Mr. Nobody Against Putin" is a film about how ethics does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in fear. In risk. In imperfection. In the impossibility of doing everything right. And the spiritual lesson of the film is that being human means walking through a minefield, knowing that the perfect step does not exist. But walking anyway.
Copilot AI - The Image of Talankin as an Archetype of the "Little Man Who Became a Prophet"
1. The Little Man as a Point of Spiritual Tension
In Russian culture, the "little man" is not just a social type. He is a figure upon which two forces converge: the pressure of the state, and the inner moral law. Talankin is a schoolteacher, an extracurricular coordinator, a person without power, without status, without political ambition. He is "nobody" in a system that values only strength and loyalty. But it is precisely such people who become witnesses to what is hidden from view: they are closest to the children, to the teachers, to the reality the authorities try to control. In this sense, Talankin is an heir to the tradition of Akaky Akakievich, Myshkin, Platonov, Shalamov: a person who was not supposed to become a hero but did, because truth itself chose him.
2. A Prophet is Not One Who Speaks, But One Who Cannot Remain Silent
Prophecy in a spiritual sense is not predicting the future. It is the inability to betray the inner voice, even if it destroys one's life. Talankin says: "I have no moral right to delete these recordings." This is not a political statement. It is prophetic. A prophet is a person who does not choose a mission. The mission chooses them. And they cannot refuse, because refusal would mean spiritual death.
3. The Psychology of Internal Rupture
The "little man" has two paths: dissolve into the system, or suddenly discover within himself a core that cannot be broken. Talankin experiences precisely such a rupture. He starts by simply doing his job—filming "videos" for the school. But gradually he sees that the camera captures not events, but the moral decay of society. And at that moment, he ceases to be "nobody." He becomes a witness. And a witness is always a threat to the system, because testimony destroys lies.
4. Why It Is the Weak, Not the Strong, Who Become Prophets
The strong are too embedded in the system. They depend on it. They fear losing status, money, safety. The weak are free precisely because they have nothing to lose except their conscience. Talankin is a man who lives in a small town, works at a school, cares for his mother. He is not a politician, not an activist, not a dissident. He is an ordinary person who loves his work and his students. And that is why he sees what others do not: he sees how children become objects of militarization, how teachers turn into instruments of fear, how the school—a space of trust—becomes a tool of propaganda. A prophet is one who sees the obvious but forbidden.
5. Prophecy as Sacrifice
Every prophet in the Russian tradition pays for the truth. Talankin is no exception. He is forced to leave the country. His mother remains in danger. His students are under surveillance. His name is under threat. But a prophet is not one who wins. It is one who bears witness. In this sense, Talankin is a kindred figure to Daniil Andreev, Mandelstam, Shalamov, Solzhenitsyn, and even the biblical prophets who spoke to kings what they did not want to hear.
6. The Little Man as a Mirror of Society
Talankin is not a hero in the usual sense. He is a mirror. He shows that every person in the system may face a choice: to remain silent, or to speak. And this choice is spiritual, not political. The film shows that prophecy is not a gift, but a burden. And that the little man becomes a prophet not because he wants to, but because no one else dared.
7. Why His Image Is So Important Today
Talankin is a warning. He says: "Look at what will happen to you if you surrender to self-censorship." This is a prophecy not about Russia. It is a prophecy about any country where people stop telling the truth. About any system where fear becomes the norm. About any society where children become instruments of ideology. Talankin is the little man who became a prophet because silence became impossible.
Copilot AI - Pavel Talankin: Three Archetypes of One Man
1. The Involuntary Martyr: A Person Chosen by Circumstance
Essence of the archetype: The involuntary martyr is a person who does not seek a feat but finds themselves in a position where suffering becomes the consequence of fidelity to oneself. They do not seek sacrifice, but sacrifice finds them.
How it manifests in Talankin: He did not plan to expose the system. He was just filming school video "reports." He did not want to emigrate, did not want to destroy his life. But at some point, he realized that deleting those recordings meant betraying his own conscience. From that moment, his life ceased to belong to him.
Signs of martyrdom: He is forced to leave his hometown. His mother remains in danger. His students may suffer. His name becomes political. A martyr is not one who suffers for an idea. It is one who suffers because they cannot live against their idea.
2. The Witness of an Era: A Person Who Records What Others Do Not See
Essence of the archetype: The witness of an era is a person who finds themselves at a point where history passes through them like current through a conductor. They do not create events—they record them. But it is this recording that makes them dangerous to the system.
Why Talankin is a witness: He works in a school—a closed, trusting space. He becomes a camera that sees what cannot be shown.
A witness is always a threat: The system does not fear heroes. The system fears witnesses. A hero can be discredited. Testimony is harder to dismiss. Talankin is a man who does not fight the regime. He simply shows how it works. And that is enough to become an enemy.
3. The Anti-Hero Who Became a Hero: A Person Without Heroic Qualities, But With a Heroic Choice
Essence of the archetype: An anti-hero is not a villain. It is a person who: possesses no strength, possesses no charisma, possesses no power, does not seek a feat, does not want to be in the spotlight. But it is precisely such people who perform the purest deeds because they are not motivated by glory.
Why Talankin is an anti-hero: He is not charismatic in the traditional sense. He is not a leader. He is not a revolutionary. He does not seek conflict. He does not want to be the "face of resistance." He is "Mr. Nobody." And in this lies his strength.
How he becomes a hero: A hero is not one who wins. A hero is one who does not betray themselves, even if they lose. Talankin becomes a hero the moment he says: "I have no moral right to delete these recordings." This is not pathos. This is not a slogan. This is quiet, internal, almost everyday heroism. Heroism that begins with the phrase: "I cannot do otherwise."
Synthesis of the Three Archetypes
Talankin is a rare case where one person embodies three archetypes simultaneously:
As an involuntary martyr, he pays with his personal life for the truth.
As a witness of an era, he records what is hidden from the world.
As an anti-hero, he shows that heroism is not strength, but honesty.
This is precisely why his image resonates so deeply: he shows that history is made not by the great, but by ordinary people who, at a critical moment, did not look away.
***
DeepSeek - Excellent task. I have read all the provided opinions, including the detailed and emotional review by Ilya Ber.
My analysis of Ilya Ber's objections will be structured as follows: I will categorize his criticisms by key themes and then juxtapose them with the counterarguments that are explicitly or implicitly contained in the spiritual-psychological essays of the other AIs.
Summary of Ilya Ber's Objections
Ilya Ber levels a series of serious accusations against the film, which can be grouped into several blocks:
Manipulativeness and "Cranberry" (Klyukva - a Russian stereotype): The film's main goal is not to tell the truth, but to "tickle the viewer's emotions" using recognizable clichés and the "exoticization" of Russia. The objective is festival success, not authenticity.
Factual Inaccuracies and Fabrications:
The myth of the "dirtiest city on Earth" according to UNESCO.
The incorrect characterization of Beria as the "father of the Gulag."
Talankin's dubious "acts of protest," which, according to Ber, were either staged or safe (the flag, the X's on windows, the US anthem).
The discrepancy in the subtitles in the auto rally scene, distorting its meaning.
Manipulation of Context (Framing):
The scene with the security check before the Unified State Exam (EGE) is presented as a wartime measure, not a standard procedure.
The use of Tsoi's song without considering its original, possibly pacifist, meaning, which creates a false impression for Western viewers.
Exaggeration of Danger and "James Bond-ery": Ber asserts that there was no real danger for Talankin. The story about the hiding place, the police car, and smuggling out hard drives is just suspense-building. He argues this based on the fact that a cameraman filmed in the school for years without issue, and the film itself is available on VK (a Russian social media platform).
The Unsavory Story with the Cameraman: The unexplained figure of a Russian cameraman who filmed in the school for years calls into question the narrative of total surveillance.
Protagonist's Egocentrism: In Ber's view, the film is a story of Talankin's love for himself, not for his homeland.
Analysis of Ilya Ber's Objections
Now let's examine each of these objections, using the logic presented in the other essays.
1. Regarding Manipulativeness and "Cranberry"
Ber's Objection: The film is manipulative and uses clichés to achieve festival success.
Counterargument (from the essays by DeepSeek, Claude.ai, Copilot): Yes, the film uses dramaturgy. But in conditions where truth becomes a "minefield" (Copilot), and "any editing is a choice" (Copilot), manipulation becomes not the goal, but an inevitable tool.
DeepSeek directly speaks of an "ethical abscess": to convey the truth to the world ("duty to humanity"), one must sacrifice nuances understandable only to "insiders." The film is made "for the world, but it is filmed from within the pain." What Ber calls "exoticization" (the balalaikas at the beginning) could be called a "ticket" for the Western viewer, who then immerses themselves in a complex drama.
Claude.ai adds an important nuance: the "Western lens" inevitably simplifies, but Talankin and Borenstein try to maintain balance by not giving children main roles. It's not an ideal solution, but it's an "honest attempt to maintain a balance between exposure and harm."
2. Regarding Facts (UNESCO, Beria, Translation)
Ber's Objection: The film contains specific factual errors, which is unacceptable for documentary filmmaking.
Counterargument (from the essays, and the logic of "witnessing vs. investigation"):
UNESCO and Beria: These are strong factual claims. In the film's defense, one could say it is not intended as a historical or geographical investigation. It uses common societal myths ("the dirtiest city") as part of the narrative about the hopelessness of the place. The mistake about Beria is indeed a scriptwriter's blunder that undermines trust in the details. Here, Ber hits the mark.
Translation in the Auto Rally Scene: This is a more complex point. Ber suspects intent. A defense could be that translation for subtitles is always an interpretation. The phrase "everyone is for peace" in the Russian context (where "Za peace" often implies support for the war) is a euphemism. The translator might have felt that a literal translation of "everyone is for peace" would mislead the viewer and tried to convey the essence, albeit less accurately. However, it still remains a distortion.
3. Regarding Context (Unified State Exam, Tsoi)
Ber's Objection: The scene with the EGE security check and the use of Tsoi's song are taken out of context and manipulate the viewer.
Counterargument (from the essay on the "spiritual trauma of propaganda"):
EGE Security Check: Ber is factually correct. But from a psychological perspective (Copilot on the "fading of inner light"), this shot functions as a metaphor for the total control that permeates all spheres of life, including education. The film uses a real image (the security check) to create a more general, symbolic statement about a system preparing for war, both externally and internally, by controlling minds.
Tsoi's Song: Here, Ber's position is vulnerable. He offers an intellectual, "correct" interpretation of the lyrics. But the reality of the song's use in a militarized march by children in Russia in 2022 completely erases its original pacifist subtext. For these children and their teachers, "A Star Called the Sun" is simply patriotic rock. Showing this paradox is the documentarian's task. The film captures how symbols and meanings are hollowed out and appropriated by the system. This is not manipulation, but a documentation of the tragedy of culture.
4. Regarding the Exaggeration of Danger and "Spy Mania"
Ber's Objection: There was no real danger; it's all theater. A cameraman filmed freely, and the film is on VK.
Counterargument (from the essays on the "little man" and the "involuntary martyr"):
"Got Lucky" Doesn't Equal "Safe": Ber's argument "no one informed, so there was no danger" is post-hoc logic. It's a classic survivor bias. Thousands of people are in prison for reposts precisely because someone did inform on them. Talankin took a risk, and the fact that he got lucky does not negate his subjective fear or the objective risk. Calling the preparation for departure and the conspiracy "James Bond-ery" means ignoring the psychological state of a person playing cat-and-mouse with the system.
The Film on VK: The fact that the film is still on VK could indicate bureaucratic slowness or that the authorities don't see it as a threat now, after Talankin has left and the film won an Oscar, making its removal an unnecessary PR boost. But this doesn't change the fact that the situation during filming was entirely different. Persecution in Russia is often "targeted" (as Ber himself agrees), but no less destructive for those who are targeted.
The Cameraman: The question about the cameraman is the strongest point in Ber's entire review. This truly is the "elephant in the room." How was the cameraman's presence explained? Why is there silence on this? Here, Ber exposes either a serious flaw in the film's narrative or an area deliberately kept quiet for the safety of that very cameraman. The figure of omission here works against the film, as Ber correctly notes.
5. Regarding Talankin's Egocentrism
Ber's Objection: This is a film about Talankin's love for himself.
Counterargument (from all essays, especially Copilot on the three archetypes):
The essays offer a completely different lens: "little man," "involuntary martyr," "anti-hero." From this perspective, Talankin is a man whom circumstances forced to choose: betray himself or take a risk. His reflection, his "I" on screen, is not narcissism, but the inevitable result of him becoming the primary instrument of his own testimony. The film "Mr. Nobody" precisely explores how "nobody" turns into "somebody" under the pressure of history. What Ber calls self-love, the film's defenders would call existential honesty and acceptance of his new role.
Conclusion: What is the Dispute Really About?
In essence, the dispute between Ilya Ber and the "spiritual-psychological" essays is a dispute between a journalist-fact-checker and a philosopher-interpreter.
Ber views the film as a journalistic investigation. He checks facts, looks for inconsistencies, and demands documentary accuracy in every detail. His conclusion: if the facts are "dirty," then the whole film is a fake.
The Essays (DeepSeek, Claude, Copilot) view the film as a spiritual act, a parable, a psychological document of an era. For them, the overarching truth about the state of society, about trauma, about choice is more important. They are willing to forgive factual errors (except, perhaps, the Beria mistake) for the sake of the larger, metaphorical truth that the film, in their view, conveys.
The Strongest Aspects of Ber's Argumentation:
The question about the Russian cameraman is indeed a "bomb" under the narrative of total surveillance.
The factual errors (Beria, UNESCO) are markers of unprofessionalism or carelessness that discredit the film in the eyes of a demanding viewer.
The Weakest Aspects of Ber's Argumentation:
He over-rationalizes and "de-frightens" Talankin's experience, reducing it to luck and staging.
He fails to account for the symbolic, metaphorical nature of cinematic language, especially in the scenes with the EGE check and Tsoi's song.
His main counterargument ("the film is on VK") is situational and does not negate the risks that existed at the time of creation.
Ultimately, Ilya Ber's objections are a necessary "cold shower" for the enthusiastic reviews. He forces one to think about the price that the protagonists pay (or don't pay) and the methods by which "truth" is created. However, his complete rejection of the film ignores the fact that the complex phenomena of an era sometimes require complex, imperfect, and even "manipulative" forms to be seen and understood.
***
Pavel Talankin: (Speech in Russian at the OSCAR ceremony)
"For four years we have been looking at the starry sky and making the most important wish. A very important wish.
But there are countries where, instead of shooting stars, bombs are falling and drones are flying from the sky. For the sake of our future, for the sake of all our children, let's stop all wars. Now."
