DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2019-3-305-319

The meaning of Andrey Zvyagintsev’s works: experience of typological research

Vladimir A. Rybin
Doctor of Philosophy, Docent,
Professor of the Department of Philosophy

Chelyabinsk State University,
129, Kashirin brothers str., Chelyabinsk, 454001, Russia;
e-mail: wlad@csu.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3343-1048

Works of the modern Russian film director Andrey Zvyagintsev is a vivid example of the contradiction between the not advanced (and sometimes reactionary) political views of cultural figures — on the one hand, and the objectively progressive, positively significant philosophical and aesthetic content of their creative works — on the other, this phenomenon being first noticed by classics of Marxism. In socio-political terms, Zvyagintsev adheres to the liberal market position, while in his works, especially in the last three films on the screen, he concentrates a wealth of material for socio-philosophical understanding, critically assessing the social and anthropological situation that has developed in Russia over the three decades of its capitalist transformation. The results of applying methodology of the typological approach to the theoretically modified system of images specific to Zvyagintsev’s films demonstrate that the basic reason for all destructions experienced by the Russian society is the focus of modern culture on the mass reproduction of a certain human type — the consuming individual. Using the artistic means of cinema, the director reveals the futility and ruinousness of the worldview typical of the consumption-oriented part of the modern Russian population. Elena’s super-idea is criticism of the mass man; Leviathan is a demonstration of the dead-end and market path, and attempts to return to traditional values; and Loveless is a proof of the stillbirth of the Russian middle class. Detailed analytical analysis of the first two of these films gives grounds to assert that in Zvyagintsev’s films we have an outstanding — not only in artistic, but also in theoretical terms — analysis of the state and prospects of the Russian society of the first decades of the XXI century.

Keywords: philosophy, methodology, type, person, society, power, Russia, capitalism, humanity, prospects.

References

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1995). Sotsal’noe konstruirovanie real’nosti [The social construction of reality]. Moscow: Medium Publ., 308 p.

Byzov, L.G. (2013). Kontury novorusskoy transformatsii. Sotsiokul’turnye aspekty formirovaniya sovremennoy rossiyskoy natsii i evolutsiya sotsial’no-politicheskoy sistemy [Contours of a new Russian transformation. Socio-cultural aspects of the formation of the modern Russian nation and the evolution of socio-political system]. Moscow: ROSSPEN Publ., 390 p.

Engels, F. (1965). Pis’mo Margaret Harkness [Letter to Margaret Harkness]. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 37, pp. 35–37.

Jung, K.G. (1994). Problemy dushi nashego vremeni [Problems of soul of our time]. Moscow: Progress Publ., 336 p.

Kemerov, V.E and Kerimov, T. Kh. (eds.) (2015). Sovremennyy filosofskiy slovar’ [Modern philosophical dictionary]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy Proekt Publ.; Yekaterinburg: Delovaya Kniga Publ., 823 p.

Lenin, V.I. (1976). L.N. Tolstoy i ego epokha [L.N. Tolstoy and his epoch]. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy: v 55 t. [Complete works: in 55 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 20, pp. 100–104.

Lenin, V.I. (1968). Lev Tolstoy, kak zerkalo russkoy revolutsii [Leo Tolstoy as the mirror of the Russian revolution]. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy: v 55 t. [Complete works: in 55 vols]. Moskow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 17, pp. 206–213.

Lifshitz, M.A. (2013). Problema Dostoevskogo (Razgovor s chertom) [The problem of Dostoevsky (The conversation with the devil)]. Moscow: Academicheskii Proekt Publ., Kul’tura Publ., 267 p.

Mareev, S.N. (2008). Iz istorii sovetskoy filosofii: Lukacs – Vygotsky – Il’enkov [From the history of Soviet philosophy: Lukacs – Vygotsky – Ilyenkov]. Moscow: Kul’turnaya Revolutstiya Publ., 448 p.

Marx, K. (1974). Ekonomichesko-filosofskie rukopisi 1844 goda [Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844]. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 42, pp. 41–174.

Marx, K. (1964). Pis’mo M.M. Kovalevskomu [Letter to M.M. Kovalevsky]. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 34, pp. 286–287.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1955). Nemetskaya ideologia [The German ideology]. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 3, pp. 7–544.

Mashevskaya, I. (2014). Teorema Zvyagintseva [Zvyagintsev’s theorem]. Dykhanie kamnya: Mir fil’mov Andreya Zvyagintseva [The Breath of the Stone: The Myth of Andrei Zviagintsev’s Films]. Moscow: NLO Publ., pp. 105–126.

Osipova, E.V. (1977). Sotsiologiya Emilya Durkgeima [Sociology of Emile Durkheim]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 280 p.

Shpranger, E. (2015). Formy zhizni: Gumanitarnaya psikhologiya i etika lichnosti [Forms of life: Humanitarian psychology and ethics of personality]. Moscow: Kanon+ Publ., 400 p.

Received 18.03.2019

For citation:

Rybin V.A. The meaning of Andrey Zvyagintsev’s works: experience of typological research // Perm University Herald. Series «Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology». 2019. Iss. 3 P. 305–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2019-3-305-319