Less than a month has passed since Yevgeny Yevtushenko spoke about his plans to loudly celebrate his 85th anniversary this summer. Did not have time. Last Saturday, the first of April, the poet, who was more than a poet, passed away

Text: Igor Virabov/RG
Photo: Sergey Kuksin/RG

He remained the only one to whom the Polytechnic applauded. It seemed: where does the strength come from - to manage so much? Now he is gone too. “I would like to live and live in the world, but I probably can’t.”

White snow is falling. We would like to achieve in life at least a tenth of what the sixties managed.

On the day of the poet’s death, Channel One decided to repeat the three-part film “Dialogues with Yevgeny Yevtushenko,” in which the poet confessed (as he himself said) to his interlocutor, writer, cultural historian Solomon Volkov. And our conversation with Volkov - already a postscript - about the phenomenon of Yevtushenko in Russian culture.

Solomon Moiseevich, the first thing you associate the name Yevtushenko with is...
Solomon Volkov:... these are two concepts - the thaw and the sixties. Yevgeny Yevtushenko is inextricably linked with them. These concepts - historical and artistic - are largely synonymous, but do not completely coincide. The further in time we move away from them, the more we realize their significance. You remember how, with the beginning of perestroika, such a breakdown occurred in relation to both the thaw and the sixties: both of these concepts began to be interpreted with a clearly negative connotation.

Certainly. And the people of the sixties themselves began to be accused of almost all the mortal sins of our history.
Solomon Volkov: And lately it has become increasingly clear how the Sixties and the Thaw are not only being restored to their rightful place in the history of the Fatherland, but a new aura is emerging around them. New shine. This in itself is incredibly interesting, but also, in my opinion, a natural phenomenon. And I’m talking about this now, because just as Khrushchev became the most important figure of the Thaw, so for me Yevtushenko is the leader, the key and most resonant figure of the sixties.

Recently, when saying goodbye to such major personalities, they often began to utter the phrase: “an era has passed with him”...
Solomon Volkov:...But never in my memory has this been as true as in relation to Yevtushenko. I say this completely sincerely. This figure is absolutely phenomenal and stunning. He was 84 - a respectable age, and yet I would like to call his departure untimely. No matter how paradoxical it may sound. This man was a fountain of energy, it seemed that Yevtushenko had always been - and should always remain. Alas, man is mortal.

You say phenomenal. What is its phenomenon?
Solomon Volkov: This is a very interesting thing. To understand the Yevtushenko phenomenon (as well as the entire sixties), it is important to really delve into the atmosphere of the era and move away from the usual patterns. You see, the thaw would have happened without Khrushchev. Oddly enough, very few people remember (if at all) and think about the facts now. And the facts are as follows. Stalin died on March 5th. Literally in the very first days after his death, Beria and Malenkov, and not Khrushchev, spoke about radical changes in the country’s way of life: both that the doctors’ case was falsified, and that the practice of the cult of personality must be stopped. Another thing is that Khrushchev suddenly seized the initiative - no one expected that he would be more cunning and more energetic than others...

Yes, but what does Yevtushenko have to do with it? What connection there is between this is not very clear.
Solomon Volkov: Young Yevtushenko, in my deep conviction, was pleased by Stalin himself. In 1952, literally in one year, three strange things happened: he, who did not have a matriculation certificate, was kicked out with a wolf ticket, published his first book, “Scouts of the Future.” The same year he was accepted into the Literary Institute and the Writers' Union. In the conditions of late Stalinism, when everyone was afraid to take a step to the side, this was completely extraordinary. This could only happen with a direct sanction from the very top or from someone’s desire to please these top levels - after all, it was enough for the leader to simply say: he’s a good guy - and that’s all, half a hint is enough for the system to work.

Well, yes, this is - as in your dialogues with him - Yevtushenko said: Khrushchev, after one verbal altercation, approached him at an evening in the Kremlin, “so that everyone can see, otherwise they will devour him.” A half-hint would also be enough.
Solomon Volkov: Certainly. But then, during Stalin’s lifetime, Yevtushenko—you need to understand that he was only twenty years old at the time—managed to write a poem about “killer doctors.” He later recalled that he was dissuaded from publishing this poem by the family of friends to whom he had read it. There is a suspicion that he nevertheless sent a letter with that poem to the newspaper. It was not printed - the time was tense, everyone was afraid to under-press or over-press - so the letter could have been written off to the archives. One way or another, Yevtushenko himself recalled this youthful poetic experience.

But then, in the minds of young Yevtushenko, a turning point occurred, one might say, a fateful one?
Solomon Volkov: The turning point for him, as Yevtushenko himself recalled, was Stalin’s funeral - when it was impossible to get to the Hall of Columns, where the coffin stood, and a stampede began, the second Khodynka. No one, of course, kept a count of the victims then, but the best description of the nightmare that happened was given by Yevtushenko in his autobiographical prose. He said that the horror he experienced forever undermined his faith in Stalin.

This is where this comparison with Khrushchev is interesting. If for him the fight against Stalinism was rather a consequence and necessity in the struggle for power - under the sign of his hesitation the Thaw developed, which ultimately destroyed him - then Yevtushenko, on the contrary, went an irrevocable path from a young “Stalinist” to an anti-Stalinist tribune, who became the author of the poem “Stalin’s Heirs.” It was published with the sanction of Khrushchev in Pravda, and the publication of Pravda meant no less than the resolution of the congress. This meant that a return to Stalinism was impossible and that such a return would be fraught with a mortal threat to the country.

This is interesting and important for understanding the poet’s path. He passed this path very quickly, becoming a real leader of the sixties.

The huge country then shuddered and... fell in love. Yevtushenko’s popularity was wild. Notebooks were filled with poems, fans stormed the audience. Someone arrogantly called the sixties “variety performers” - but this did not cancel the love for them. How did Yevtushenko win this love?
Solomon Volkov: It was different for different readers. I was 14-15 years old then. Why did he immediately attract me? Frankness. Talking out loud about something that was completely taboo. About something very human, personal, intimate. “You asked in a whisper: / “And then what?” / And then what?” / The bed was laid out, / and you were confused...”

In the poetry of the post-war years there was a lot of “drumming” (as Yevtushenko described his first book). The timid, naive lyrics of Stepan Shchipachev seemed like a breath of fresh air: “Love is not sighs on a bench / and not walks in the moonlight.” And then suddenly... Was there sex in the USSR? I assure you, I was there even under Stalin. There was a bed. There were simply no poems about her. In poetry and prose, life was correlated with the functionality of combines, tractors, and machine tools. Yevtushenko was the first to speak about the fact that life continues after the machine. And these verses - I remember - were known by heart, repeated, quoted by everyone around me.

Or also, for example: “What do jazz artists sing / in an intimate, in their own circle / untying their tight butterflies? / I can tell you that.” This was what we now call lifestyle - this has never happened before. This replaced all the Dale Carnegies with their books “How to Win Friends”, “How to Stop Worrying” - Yevtushenko also took upon himself teaching modern life rules with his poems.

The sixties, as you know, also rediscovered America. Pushed the boundaries of the world. At least they traveled around the world very regularly - and the world appreciated them, didn’t they?
Solomon Volkov: Yevtushenko was the first to say: “Borders bother me... / I feel embarrassed / not knowing Buenos Aires, / New York.” The statement that he wanted to see the world also seemed unheard of. Before that, we didn’t need the “Turkish coast” - that was the official line. And Yevtushenko started talking about how you can’t do without this, you have to see everything with your own eyes, experience everything and feel it yourself. This had little concern for me and my peers - such a prospect seemed completely unrealistic to us, but for Yevtushenko’s circle it was an important signal...

Later, I had the opportunity to communicate with such outstanding figures as playwright Arthur Miller, poets Stanley Kunitz, Wilbur, Jay Smith, writers John Cheever, Updike - Yevtushenko’s personality made an indelible impression on all of them. What can we talk about if he managed to charm even two people who were obviously skeptical about everything that came from Soviet Russia, like Georgy Adamovich and Igor Stravinsky.

The people of the sixties seemed to be friendly - but not for long. Time passed - and they diverged further and further, and even began to quarrel with each other. From what?
Solomon Volkov: Even the war poets did not have such a feeling - collectivism, shoulder to shoulder. Vanshenkin, Vinokurov, Mezhirov, Lukonin, Slutsky - they could not declare themselves in the USSR as some kind of group united by common program goals, a special ideology, like the “lost generation” in England or the “beatniks” in the States. And Yevtushenko took on these functions - and the future members of the sixties formed around him. And we must give him credit - he carried this throughout his entire life. The only one of them all. Everyone tried to run away. He was retelling a story that Andrei Voznesensky loved to repeat: about how in a dark forest they fell into the hands of robbers, and they tied them to the same tree - this forced fate brought them closer together. It began to seem to them that the most important thing was to prove how different they are, they have different roads and have nothing in common. We must pay tribute to Yevtushenko - he never removed dedications to ex-wives, friends and associates, even to those who turned their backs on him. And Bella Akhmadulina, say, filmed dedications to Yevtushenko...

In modern times, Yevtushenko became a State Duma deputy - but, it seems, after this sad experience he later left for America...
Solomon Volkov: All his parliamentary achievements seem to have been limited to the fact that he, elected from Kharkov, appeared at the meeting in an embroidered shirt that reached his knees. He sought to remove restrictions and bureaucratic obstacles when traveling abroad - unnecessary questionnaires, interviews at which they found out whether the traveler knew the name of the secretary of the Communist Party of Nigeria or other strange details.

He was also offered the post of Minister of Culture, but he refused. Probably, a poet is not at all obliged to have the ability and taste for the work of an official. But, let’s say, the writer Andre Malraux did not refuse in France - and turned out to be a good propagandist and organizer of Gallic culture. Yevtushenko did not have such organizational skills, although until his last days he continued to be concerned with the idea of ​​​​what the national idea should be in Russia. He believed—and one cannot but agree with this—that such a national idea should be Russian literature and poetry. I would say in general - Russian culture. Which, by the way, was demonstrated at the opening of the Olympics in Sochi in 2014. This theme was heard then at the ceremony with extraordinary power - both Russian culture as a whole and such segments as the Russian avant-garde of the beginning of the last century. This is how Thaw art, I have no doubt, will be included in the golden fund of Russian culture.

You said that while working on “Dialogues with Yevtushenko” in Tulsa, you recorded 50 hours of conversations with him. It went on air for about 3 hours. What about the remaining 47 hours?
Solomon Volkov: A huge part of these 47 hours is the recitation of poems, not very often our own, but others’. Yevtushenko remembered other people’s good poems for kilometers, they lived in him. This was a man who consisted of poetry - this was his appeal, his greatness - this was also his “Achilles heel”. He could not help but respond to literally everything that was happening around him. And he had a theory that you need to write as much as possible - on such a wave poetic success arises. Maybe it worked for him, maybe he was right. For some it was different - for example, Brodsky wrote less and selected more carefully.

But Yevtushenko, unlike Brodsky, remained a unifying voice. His love for other people's poems was phenomenal; he did not need to pretend to admire someone's successful poetic line. He could rush with his arms to a poet who was far from him, even attacking him, but Yevtushenko liked his poems!

Yevtushenko and other sixties people knew how to live something like this - dashingly and often recklessly. Has this property been lost by today's writers?
Solomon Volkov: Yes, it's lost. All the major figures I know, compared to the sixties, are very careful, judicious, and calculate everything accurately. It’s also impossible to say that with the sixties everything was entirely spontaneous, but their emotionality was many times greater than that of modern classics. The strength of this emotion among the sixties was such that it overwhelmed all extraneous considerations. In this, Yevtushenko has a lot in common with Rostropovich. They said about him: well, yes, he went to the Berlin Wall to play for self-PR. In response, I always wanted to ask: did you take your cello and go to the Berlin Wall? No, Rostropovich went.

Yevtushenko was listed many times among candidates for the Nobel Prize. If they gave it to him, would that be fair?
Solomon Volkov: All of them, the sixties, wanted the Nobel Prize. It seems to me that in recent years Yevtushenko has devoted too much effort to attracting the attention of the Nobel Committee. He didn’t understand that it was hopeless, because these people in tweed jackets with sleeves - their psychology was formed in the 60s, they gave Dylan an award - like their youth. And Yevtushenko then, after the release of his “Premature Autobiography” - this was his peak - had already begun to emerge from this cage. Note: all of Brodsky's absolute friends received the Nobel Prize - the recently deceased Derek Walcott, Octavio Paz, Czeslaw Milosz - and this is not by chance, it is the result of coordinated efforts. And at the same time, possible opponents, candidates from other spheres, were discredited. He did not understand that this was impossible, but his indomitable energy moved him in this direction.

Would you call Yevtushenko a classic of Russian literature?
Solomon Volkov: If I were to collect Yevtushenko’s best poems now, it would not be a thin volume at all. Moreover, this would include early poems - he was a virtuoso of poetic language from a young age. The poems of the 15-year-old schoolboy Yevtushenko are reminiscent of Pushkin’s lyceum poems: when a boy already knows how to do everything, but does not yet know what to do with this ability. And most importantly, such a collection, where the place of each poem of the poet in the general movement of the era is visible, would certainly reveal to everyone who has not yet understood what a huge place Yevtushenko has already occupied in the history of Russian literature.

A powerful release of completely multidirectional, vivid emotions: a stream of evidence, protests, refutations, reconciliations and insults. Opinions, opinions, adrenaline, adrenaline. What happened on social networks immediately after the screening of the first episode of the film “Solomon Volkov. Dialogues with Yevgeny Yevtushenko” can only be compared to battles based on political precedents. None of the documentaries had such a resonance. Despite the fact that this whole phenomenal mess was stirred up not by a provocation like “Anatomy of Protest,” but by a leisurely three-part television program with the participation of a writer and a musicologist.

Channel One expected some controversy and some interest from the “55+” audience. But for the share of “18+” viewers to approach the programs of Urgant or Posner - no. And so that Facebook, traditionally arrogant towards television, would be in a fever. Colta, as if on order, rolled out its “white piano” from the bushes - that same Viennese interview with Joseph Brodsky - no one expected anything like this.

It’s worth deciding right away: what we’re actually going to analyze – a controversy on social networks as an event or a film as such. According to my observations, the line of separation between the interlocutors from each other in every dispute generated by these “Dialogues” runs along a surface already red-hot by both Bolotnaya and “Virgin Mary Drive Putin Away.” In addition, the slogan “We are “Jean-Jacques”, you are “Yolki-Palki”, which is relevant for enlightened Moscow, and here, of course, was embodied in a variety of formats from “This Yevtushenko is lying again” to “What a scoundrel your Brodsky is.” " Therefore, starting from the discussion, let’s move on to considering its object – the film.

So. Scriptwriter and director Anna Nelson, together with writer Solomon Volkov, exactly a year ago, in December 2012, finished filming a fifty-hour interview with Yevgeny Yevtushenko in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

But before the film crew went to Yevtushenko for ten days...
Before Channel One decided to launch the film, Yevtushenko himself wrote a few words to Solomon Volkov: “...Our conversation will be the only big interview summing up all these 80 years of the life of the poet, who was called great in different countries during his lifetime. But whether this is true or not, we still need to figure it out. So figure it out, if, of course, you are interested. I honestly say that I would not give this interview to any person in the world except you.”

Having accepted the offer to “deal with greatness,” the author of “Dialogues with Joseph Brodsky” began to create a book with the working title “Dialogues with Yevgeny Yevtushenko.” And it was necessary to solve the most important technical question: on what medium should their dialogue be recorded? After all, conversations with Brodsky were recorded on a tape recorder and the author always has at his disposal material evidence of what his interlocutor said. But, for example, there were no, so to speak, audiovisual traces left from Volkov’s conversations with Shostakovich. Being careful and far-sighted people, Volkov and Yevtushenko thought about the possible legal consequences of the discussion ahead of them.

Debut director Anna Nelson not only helps the two masters solve a technical problem, the Vremya program correspondent in New York turns the book into a film, the writer and radio host Volkov into a TV star and - which is absolutely incredible - quickly returns Yevtushenko from Oklahoma to Russia. This is happening contrary to our established media patterns, without any participation from the powers that be and in complete bewilderment of the creative class.

If we go a little further than Moscow in search of a “poet in Russia,” then by mid-autumn 2013 we discovered that there has been no Evgeny Yevtushenko in our lives for a long time. Because if there was, it would mean, in full accordance with the status of the once popularly loved one: aired by Urgant, Malakhov, Solovyov, Mamontov, Posner and Gordon, as well as on “Echo” - by everyone. This would mean: an attitude towards Snowden, Pussy Riot and gay propaganda, an attitude towards a suitcase on Red Square and a naked guy with a nail in a causal place on the same square (in verse). And also: attitude to the Olympic torch, Israeli snow, Cheburashka (in verse and in form from Bosco). We would be sick of this Yevtushenko. “Russia is great, but there is no one to invite to the studio?”

"Solomon Volkov. Dialogues with Evgeny Yevtushenko"

And suddenly - Yevtushenko is really on the air! But not with Erofeev, Weller and Irina Miroshnichenko in “Let Them Talk,” but in the exquisite surroundings of the greatest characters of the twentieth century, including Marlene Dietrich, Nikita Khrushchev, Jack Nixon, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Vysotsky and Joseph Brodsky himself. In his own presentation, Yevtushenko appears to the public as a character on the scale of Lawrence of Arabia or Bond. He speaks calmly about the incredible, easily juggles these names, these cults. He himself was once iconic, similar to the Beatles. In the film, Volkov recalls Yevtushenko’s performances at stadiums with thousands of people everywhere: in the USSR, the USA, Latin America. “Is it true? - we think. “Or maybe I dreamed?”

Yevtushenko, it would seem, is simply giving an interview, but he is again at the center of a scandal. His memories hurt and irritate. I want to bring him into the open: “So did you work for the KGB or not?” But Volkov and Yevtushenko do not talk about politics in the film. They create a delightful action about Superman from the USSR. We must applaud. Urgently work on the comic book “Yevtushenko against collective farms.” We can’t because we don’t believe. Because - yes, you supported Gorbachev, yes, Prokhanov’s Stalinists burned your effigy in the center of Moscow... But you, Evgeny Aleksandrovich, still answer us about the KGB!

In the film, the poet is somehow sensational in a new way and, perhaps, because of this he is completely implausible. Even though some of the episodes discussed with Volkov were already described by Yevtushenko in his memoirs “Six Paratroopers”. But the presence of the poet in the frame enlarges the narrative many times over: here he and Bobby Kennedy prevented a palace coup in the USSR, and here is the famous John Steinbeck in Yevtushenko’s kitchen. Here he is on a business trip in Cuba, but in the Vietnam War... Life would not be enough for any normal person to initiate even a hundredth part of all these stories. Marina Vladi, whom he, it turns out, introduced to Vysotsky? And the naked Dietrich with a towel on her head? At this point you will have to return to Facebook again. Dietrich the poet was accused to the fullest extent of the blogosphere. “She had a beautiful body,” says Yevtushenko. Well, who will believe you? What are you talking about? Here are the memoirs of Dietrich’s daughter, where in black and white: the mother’s body was not at all beautiful, not young. And tell me, poet Yevtushenko, who will we believe: the daughter whom we have never seen, or you, whom we have known all our lives? That’s right, “our people don’t take taxis to the bakery!”, this is a classic.

Meanwhile, it is precisely this story about Dietrich’s prank at Yevtushenko’s party that begins the conversation with Volkov “about the greatness of the poet” in the film. Strange choice? Why, more than justified and completely justified as a director - the life of a bohemian: this is a poet, this is a lyricist and this is a scandal. In the very first scene, Nelson presents his hero to the public in an exceptional light - and not even arm-in-arm with a superstar at the MIFF reception, but tête-à-tête with the goddess of the screen. From an eighty-year-old, thin and pale, he turns before our eyes into a young, impudent and victorious one. Oh, don’t tell me “there was no sex in the USSR”... This is how you need to attract an audience: the old will envy, the young will be surprised. And the conversation will take place.

The lyrical in the film is present on a par with the epochal. If Yevtushenko confesses, it is in stories about his wives and several nameless ladies of his heart. It's touching when the famous ladies' man sheds a tear. It’s interesting that some poems are dedicated to Bella, who loved cakes with beer, and some - completely different. How they met, why they broke up, what’s to blame – lyrics. Anna Nelson and Solomon Volkov promised us at the very beginning of the film: “no one has ever seen Yevtushenko like this.” And they kept that promise. I have never seen or expected to see Yevtushenko so not weak, but defenseless: open emotion in the frame, tears. All this touches and returns to poetry, which is completely useful in a conversation with a poet. Moreover, Yevtushenko reads little poetry in this film, and from what he read, what remains in his memory is almost heartbreaking - in the current context of his rejection, old age and illness - at the end of the second episode: “But I will come to an agreement with my descendants / one way or another / almost openly. / Almost dying. / Almost at the end.”

Agree with descendants. Deal with the past. Define greatness. To apologize. “Citizens, listen to me!”, “This is what is happening to me...” All this - Yevtushenko at eighty years old, barely walking on his then-not-yet-cut-off sore leg.

In order to lower the painful degree of what is happening to the main character, in the prologue of the first two episodes scenes of preparation for filming appear: Yevtushenko and Volkov in makeup. And this technique works, in combination with the sounds of a playing orchestra, it gives us theatricality and warns us against excessive reactions. But where Yevtushenko is, there is an intensity of passions: the hero covers all the staging techniques, performs solo, and his, as always, unimaginable outfit in no way wants to be just a costume. Like words, it also becomes a sentence.

Obviously, from the fifty hours of material, the very best was selected for the film: the best filmed, the best told, the most interestingly presented, the most vivid in emotion, the most delicate in relation to the living, the most important from the point of view of the hero, the most interesting to the viewer from the point of view author.

Everything that is not included in Nelson’s film will be published in Volkov’s book. As far as I know, nothing about the fate of the homeland. Not a word about Putin. About friends and comrades - yes, of course. Anna Nelson told me that it took about a month to transcribe and ended up with almost a thousand pages of text. On the one hand, she understood that the footage was “a quiet, intimate dialogue, not at all television, very complex and confusing.” On the other hand, she was sure that “we need to make a film that will not leave the viewer indifferent, will help him finally hear Yevtushenko and, perhaps, will be a blow.” As a result, she discarded everything secondary or not obvious from a visual point of view and composed a narrative of “stories that would have been heard for the first time - with such details. And also - from significant things that would characterize not only Yevtushenko himself, but somehow create a portrait of the era.”

From this explanation, the choice of structure becomes even clearer, which, however, already seems to me optimal for a three-part presentation. First, a bright run in two parts on the biography of the hero: with a large number of events, addresses and characters, including superstars, parents, grandfather Gangnus, wives and children. And in conclusion - large, detailed, sensational, for the first time from the lips of Yevtushenko, for an entire series - the story of a broken relationship with Brodsky. Passing either a thin red line or a sweeping black line through all these apparently victorious decades. A story whose existence, before the publication of Volkov’s book “Dialogues with Joseph Brodsky,” was known only to the initiated, and only in retellings.

The role of Solomon Volkov as an interviewer in this project is enormous and is even interpreted by many as the role of a full-fledged co-author of Nelson. In the end, it was he who asked the poet questions all these fifty hours. Obviously, he also wrote the voiceovers for all the atmospheric and action-summarizing episodes. However, it seems to me that in Nelson’s film he is more of an insinuating reasoner.

In the dialogue, Volkov is not a guiding force; he gives Yevtushenko the opportunity to open up on his own, only occasionally teasing with his memorable, almost hooligan clarifications: “And how exactly were you going to commit suicide?” or “The KGB is setting you up with a beautiful woman. What’s so unpleasant about that?” Despite the fact that many people thought this manner was too frivolous, I am completely on Volkov’s side. After all, this frivolity, as well as the scenes in the dressing room, saves the picture from pathos. He imparts humor to her, which Yevtushenko himself does not reflect in his own stories. This frivolity brings the poet back to earth. She elegantly and impartially relieves Volkov from fulfilling that very promise - to deal with the greatness of Yevtushenko. Greatness goes into eternity, and Yevtushenko returns to us.

And he returns with Brodsky. The third episode is no longer a dialogue, but a kind of verbal pas de trois with the participation of the late Nobel laureate. As a paraphrase for each of Yevtushenko’s statements, Volkov demonstrates a recording of his famous conversation with Joseph Brodsky. The story receives the necessary volume, Yevtushenko's revelation turns into a duet with Brodsky. Both poets, almost word for word, repeat each other’s testimony about what happened between them in Moscow and New York. In the film, Solomon Volkov interrupts this not-so-friendly unison a little before Brodsky completes the story of Yevtushenko’s duplicity in “Dialogues.”

In the film we hear Yevtushenko’s story that, having offered Brodsky help in organizing the arrival of his parents in the USA, no matter how hard he tried, he simply could not do anything. Of course, I was upset, but I didn’t explain or apologize. Brodsky had a different opinion, which we read about in Volkov’s book: “...Eutuch in Moscow was babbling about how in New York this bastard Brodsky came running to his hotel and began to beg him to help his parents go to the States. But he, Yevtushenko, does not help traitors to the Motherland. Something like that. That’s why I got him in the eye!”

Yevgeny Yevtushenko, one might say, the main poet and main witness of the Soviet and, partially, post-Soviet era, having lived his 80 years intensely, decided to take stock. The first, as he himself says, is 80 years. And he turned to the writer Solomon Volkov, the same one who created the famous book of dialogues with I. Brodsky. Yevtushenko’s conversation with Volkov lasted 50 hours.
Three parts of this interesting conversation have appeared on the Internet. So many famous people! How many meetings!
Of particular interest is third part of "Dialogues", which is dedicated to great psychological trauma, a real drama in Yevtushenko’s life - his relationship with the poet I. Brodsky.

The poet’s confession, and Volkov’s original production, evoked various responses. Which is natural. Everyone passes what they hear through their own experience, their developed belief system, and their own rating scale.
Many, especially those who attended Yevtushenko’s performances, admire the poet, his powerful energy, and his brilliant gift as an actor and storyteller.
People remember how this extraordinary man was able to “hold” the hall.
Some people are surprised and alarmed by the attempt to justify oneself in an unpleasant relationship with the great Brodsky, which was significantly late in time.

We discussed this topic with friends.
Yevtushenko is so easy in life, brave - he flutters, doesn’t break down, everything works out for him without major problems, he writes good poetry, sometimes amazing. He is kind, he helps people in need - he helped Brodsky seriously and more than once - both in the Union (to free himself) and in the States (to get a job).
Yes, he uses his name, yes, he also makes useful acquaintances, including the KGB, from his stupid life. But not mean. Not a traitor. Sincere. Of course I was wrong. Who isn't?

The stain on his reputation torments him. Old already. He doesn't want to leave dirty. And reasonable people don’t lie near care.
Several times I tried to “resolve” the conflict and clarify the situation. And Brodsky formally agreed, but in fact continued to stigmatize him. And they believed Brodsky. Great authority. And it’s easier for us to believe bad things about others. That's how it's designed...

It is interesting, by the way, that E. himself predicted Brodsky in his life. Poems about that 15-year-old boy - more talented, deeper, who did not pass by what the poet himself passed by, who noticed what he missed... This is about B. And throughout their lives, throughout all relationships, this line ran competitiveness, competition... Alas.

Brodsky's behavior surprised and upset me. For some reason, he remained silent when Yevtushenko read the poems to him on the death of R. Kennedy. He remained silent... Not a word! And the poems are wonderful... But he suggested going to the farewell ceremony, making jokes along the way that they would let you go everywhere...
Having agreed, even formally, that he could have been mistaken in his opinion about E.’s unseemly role in his expulsion from the Union, he continued to speak badly about it...
And his efforts to prevent E. from being hired (in the same place, by the way, where he once got him a job)... He presented the very same poems as anti-American, which was not the case at all... And snobbery...
Of course, he was convinced that he was right. And stubborn. Like most of us.
A brilliant poet - yes, a complex person.

Maybe we sometimes suspect others of what we ourselves may be capable of?
I don't blame you at all. I think, I reason... We are all just people. And circumstances in life are different. Not everyone, not everyone, can go their entire way cleanly. There are only a few of them.

Not Mozart and Salieri, of course, not Cain and Abel. Two people. Two talents. Bigger and smaller, yes. A bad feeling is envy. Let it not touch anyone's soul.

Small addition. A friend told me an interesting story. Her mother worked as a sales manager in some Belarusian city. In a second-hand bookstore. One fine day, Yevtushenko came into the store, where they met. The poet handed over an order for an extensive list of books he needed. Philosophical, historical, artistic. Which my friend keeps to this day.
So, the list of books alone impresses with the broad interests of Yevtushenko himself.

I’m quoting an interesting post, as always from her, by belan-olga. And the comments on it are interesting.
I don't agree with everything. From the mosaic of opinions, a more complete assessment is compiled.
And for those who want to watch “Dialogues” in full, they are after the post.

Original taken from belan_olga The big snows are falling, painfully light, covering both my and other people’s tracks...

**************************************** **************************************** **************************************** **********

Solomon Volkov. Dialogues with Yevgeny Yevtushenko. Parts 1, 2

You need to know people - this is the most difficult of all sciences. Long is the knowledge of man. Don't completely trust what a person says. Because everyone wears masks, hiding their true nature under them. If you forget about yourself, completely renounce your thoughts, feelings and experiences and focus your consciousness on your interlocutor, without preconditioning any personal thoughts, then his hidden essence will begin to speak for itself. And when you feel that outwardly a person wants to close himself off from you, you can open him up internally with the key of heightened sensitivity. But we can’t do that. We're always in a hurry. Always busy with their own things. And we grow mistrust, resentment, suspicion.

Therefore, let's keep for ourselves the best that these wonderful poets gave to people. And let's bow. With thanks.

WATCH ON LIVE

Broadcast time: Monday - Wednesday, 23:35.
These Dialogues- an interview with Yevtushenko recorded on camera, which became a kind of confession about his life.

The idea of ​​Dialogues was born under unusual circumstances. Yevtushenko, starting in the 70s, argued with Joseph Brodsky, the only poet whom he considered his equal and rival. This correspondence dispute between Yevtushenko and Brodsky essentially boiled down to the main question - a painful point: which of them is the first poet of modern Russia. In this dispute, the dialogues between Joseph Brodsky and Solomon Volkov, published many years ago, became of utmost importance.

Writer and musicologist Solomon Volkov gained fame as an interviewer of Dmitry Shostakovich (“Testimony”) and Joseph Brodsky (“Dialogues with Joseph Brodsky”). Both books, published abroad in Soviet times, caused a great resonance. Conversations with Shostakovich radically changed the composer’s image in the West, and conversations with Brodsky “deciphered” the poet’s personality for a wide audience. Both books became cultural milestones for Russia.

The impetus for the creation of this film was a letter from Yevtushenko to Volkov:

“Dear Solomon! I have a proposal for you. I'm ready to talk. If you are interested, our conversation will be the only big interview summing up all these 80 years of the life of the poet, who was called great in different countries during his lifetime. But whether this is true or not, we still need to figure it out.

I am grateful to you for the rest of my life for the fact that you are the only person in the world who objected to Brodsky when he undeservedly insulted me. This is worth a lot in my eyes. In no way is this interview associated with any vindictive thoughts. I consider Brodsky to be a person with whom we have not yet reached an agreement. (...) Maybe this story that happened between us (...) will serve as a warning to all others, (...) not to lose each other during life. Don’t lose mutual understanding”...

They met in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where Yevtushenko had lived and worked for more than two decades. This intense conversation, which lasted 10 days and took more than 50 hours, took place in the presence of Channel One correspondent Anna Nelson, who was just starting work on a three-part documentary. The result was the most detailed, sincere and emotional cinematic autobiography of the poet - from his childhood to recent events. The viewer will see Yevtushenko openly talking about many previously hidden episodes of his long life. The film uses unique photo and video materials.

When asked whether the presence of cameras influenced the course of Volkov’s conversation with Yevtushenko, Anna Nelson replies: “On the contrary, the cameras added spice to the dialogue, they spurred the seriously ill Yevtushenko to even greater emotionality and frankness. All participants in the shooting witnessed a miracle: at the command “Motor!” Yevtushenko instantly transformed, forgetting about his age and illness. “The Light of Jupiters” poured strength into him.”

According to Volkov, not only Yevtushenko’s personal fate was revealed to him in all its brightness and inconsistency, but also the significance and uniqueness of the entire era of the 60s, which, after many years of underestimation and ironic attitude towards it, again appears before us as one of the most important stages of Russian life in the 20th century.

These Dialogues are an interview with Yevtushenko recorded on camera, which became a kind of confession of the poet.

The idea of ​​Dialogues was born under unusual circumstances. Yevtushenko, starting in the 70s, argued with Joseph Brodsky, the only poet whom he considered his equal and rival. This correspondence dispute between Yevtushenko and Brodsky essentially boiled down to the main question - a painful point: which of them is the first poet of modern Russia. In this dispute, the dialogues between Joseph Brodsky and Solomon Volkov, published many years ago, became of utmost importance.

Writer and musicologist Solomon Volkov gained fame as an interviewer of Dmitry Shostakovich (“Testimony”) and Joseph Brodsky (“Dialogues with Joseph Brodsky”). Both books, published abroad in Soviet times, caused a great resonance. Conversations with Shostakovich radically changed the composer’s image in the West, and conversations with Brodsky “deciphered” the poet’s personality for a wide audience. Both books became cultural milestones for Russia.

The impetus for the creation of this film was a letter from Yevtushenko to Volkov:

“Dear Solomon! I have a proposal for you. I'm ready to talk. If you are interested, our conversation will be the only big interview summing up all these 80 years of the life of the poet, who was called great in different countries during his lifetime. But whether this is true or not - we still need to figure it out.

I am grateful to you for the rest of my life for the fact that you are the only person in the world who objected to Brodsky when he undeservedly insulted me. This is worth a lot in my eyes. In no way is this interview associated with any vindictive thoughts. I consider Brodsky to be a person with whom we have not yet reached an agreement. (...) Maybe this story that happened between us (...) will serve as a warning to all others, (...) not to lose each other during life. Don’t lose mutual understanding”...

They met in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where Yevtushenko has lived and worked for more than 20 years. This intense conversation, which lasted 10 days and took more than 50 hours, took place in the presence of Channel One correspondent Anna Nelson, who began work on a three-part documentary. Its screening will begin on October 22. The result was the most detailed, sincere and emotional film autobiography of the poet - from his childhood to recent events. The viewer will see Yevtushenko openly talking about many previously hidden episodes of his long life. The film uses unique photo and video materials.

When asked whether the presence of cameras influenced the course of Volkov’s conversation with Yevtushenko, Anna Nelson replies:

On the contrary, the cameras added spice to the dialogue; they spurred the seriously ill Yevtushenko to even greater emotionality and frankness. All participants in the shooting witnessed a miracle: at the command “Motor!” Yevtushenko instantly transformed, forgetting about his age and illness. The “Light of Jupiters” poured strength into him.

According to Volkov, not only Yevtushenko’s personal fate was revealed to him in all its brightness and inconsistency, but also the significance and uniqueness of the entire era of the 60s, which, after many years of underestimation and ironic attitude towards it, again appears before us as one of the most important stages of Russian life in the 20th century.

In the first episode of the film, Yevgeny Yevtushenko talks about his real name and his parents’ divorce, which never happened; about the events in Czechoslovakia and how he came to the brink of suicide; about how his uncle amazed the American writer John Steinbeck; about marriage to the poet Bella Akhmadulina and Galina Sokol-Lukonina; about the trial of Sinyavsky and Daniel and the secret conversation with Robert Kennedy; about a clash with Khrushchev at a meeting between the leader and the creative elite.