A love-hate relationship
A musicians’ spat over Putin is in line with a long Russian tradition of artists getting caught up in politics.
Published: February 6, 2013 (Issue # 1745)
ALEXEI NIKOLSKY / RIA NOVOSTI / AP
Putin (r) shakes hands with viola player Yury Bashmet in the Kremlin last month on Bashmet’s 60th birthday.
MOSCOW — When famed viola player Yuri Bashmet declared that he “adored” President Vladimir Putin, he stirred little controversy in a country where classical musicians have often curried favor with the political elite.
But political drama spilled into the orchestra pit last month when Bashmet refused to condemn a new law prohibiting Americans from adopting Russian children, and in response the beloved singer Sergei Nikitin canceled his appearance at a concert celebrating the violist’s 60th birthday.
The spat joins a long Russian tradition of artists who have jumped — or been dragged — into the political fray. From composer Dmitry Shostakovich, who lived in fear of arrest under dictator Josef Stalin, to the cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, who returned to a liberalizing Soviet Union in 1991 and took up arms to defy Communist hardliners, Russian musicians and other artists have had a habit of becoming politicized figures.
At the core of the argument today is a question about what an artist’s role should be in Putin’s Russia: Attracting generous state funding for bigger and better artistic projects? Or challenging the political system in a way most ordinary citizens cannot afford to do?
Some of Russia’s cultural figures brought their star power to the anti-Putin rallies that rocked Moscow last winter. Others were recruited to back up Putin as he ran for a third term as Russia’s president. As the expression goes: “A poet in Russia is always more than a poet.”
Actor and theater director Yevgeny Mironov appeared in a pro-Putin campaign ad in which he gave heartfelt thanks to Putin for keeping Russia — and his Moscow theater — afloat. Some of his fellow actors loudly refused.
Actress Chulpan Khamatova, who depends on government support for charity work for children, filmed a similar pro-Putin ad, but the delivery appeared strained, as if she were speaking under duress. And she was one of the many cultural figures who signed a petition condemning the adoption bill.
The ban, which went into effect Jan. 1, proved controversial even among many Putin loyalists in the intelligentsia, who see the Kremlin as playing politics at the expense of Russia’s orphans. Tens of thousands of people took part in a Jan. 13 protest march through Moscow, one of the largest anti-Putin demonstrations the city had seen in many months.
The adoption ban was in response to the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law that imposes sanctions on Russians accused of involvement in the prison death of whistleblowing lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and other rights abuses.
Yury Norshtein, Russia’s best loved animator, took Putin to task over Magnitsky during an awards ceremony on Jan. 19. Norshtein noted that Putin had attributed Magnitsky’s death to heart failure, but said that in fact the lawyer had died because of “a failure of Putin’s heart.”
The audience erupted with cheers and applause.
Discontent over the adoption ban entered the classical music world at a news conference Bashmet gave ahead of his birthday jubilee concert on Jan. 24. The floppy-haired violist, who is the conductor of two Moscow orchestras and a famed soloist in his own right, gave an equivocal answer when asked about his stance on the adoption ban, refusing to condemn the law in its entirety.
In an interview with The Associated Press on Jan. 27, Bashmet said he didn’t think the fate of children should be decided by anti-American legislation, but he asserted that the adoption ban would end up helping Russia’s orphans by raising awareness within the country about the tens of thousands of children in need of families.
“There are things that need to be decided within the country, and it’s good that this question has been raised in such a controversial way, so that now the president has decreed that it will be at the center of attention,” Bashmet told the AP. “Our government is now responding to this, to the betterment of these children.”
That stance didn’t sit well with Nikitin, a bard in the Russian folk tradition. He said that it didn’t bother him if “Bashmet adores the president,” but his ambiguous justification of the adoption ban took things too far.
“This [the adoption issue] doesn’t have anything to do with politics,” Nikitin said. “It’s about being humane, being humanitarian, about morality.”
Bashmet may be an extreme example of an artist showing affection for Putin, but classical musicians have rarely been immune to politics.
Valery Gergiev, director of the Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg, has been outspokenly supportive of the Putin regime. After Russia and Georgia fought a brief war in 2008 over the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, he conducted a concert in front of a destroyed government building in the South Ossetian capital.
The cellist Rostropovich, whose support for Soviet dissidents had led to his exile in the United States in the 1970s, returned to the Soviet Union as the Communist regime was crumbling. Wielding a Kalashnikov, he stood with protesters who had rallied around Boris Yeltsin in defiance of Communist hardliners trying to take power in the August 1991 coup.
Other musicians have been much less willing participants when it comes to politics, doing their best to avoid the political fray. This was particularly true when the risks were greater, as they were in Soviet times, when even a discordant note or a suggestive motif could bring accusations of deviating from the political line.
The composer Shostakovich received a scathing critique of his experimentalism in 1936, infamously titled “Muddle Instead of Music” and published in the Soviet Union’s most important newspaper. With the Stalinist purges moving at full throttle, Shostakovich backed away from some of his more avant-garde music, taking more care to adhere to the political line.
But Shostakovich, like his contemporary Sergei Prokofiev, was also protected by his status. Great musicians of the Soviet period became a source of patriotism and a means of challenging the West’s dominance. Despite the heavy weight of Stalinist repression, Shostakovich and Prokofiev created some of the most cherished, experimental and at times critical music of the 20th century.
After Stalin’s death, many of Shostakovich and Prokofiev’s compositions that were interpreted as anti-fascist during the dictator’s life were recast as artistic protests against the Stalinist terror.
Nikitin believes in the examples set by Prokofiev and Shostakovich — great artists who were among the few people who could attempt to oppose, even if only through their music, the existing regime.
“The government and state officials, including the president, should be grateful to these artists, that they give them the opportunity to experience this kind of art, and in this way to make life in our country richer,” he said.
In Soviet times, cinema also was under strict government censorship. When Stalin was in power, he decided personally which films could be shown and which were to be stashed “on the shelf.” Despite this, the Soviet era is remembered as the height of Russian filmmaking, from the early experimentalism of Sergei Eisenstein to the charming, Oscar-winning “Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears.”
After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, things changed drastically for the film industry. A style called “chernukha,” or blackness, became the vogue among many Russian filmmakers, who made dark and violent movies showing contemporary life as a bleak moral vacuum. Others, like director Nikita Mikhalkov, took a different tack by producing upbeat, patriotic films, attracting generous funding in the process.