// Photo: Still from the Posner program

On Thursday, June 22, Channel One showed the final episode of Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone’s project “Interview with Putin,” which shows a series of conversations between the artist and the Russian president. The documentary became one of the most anticipated television premieres of this season and provoked lively discussions among viewers.

The film, which caused a huge resonance, was asked to comment on Vladimir Pozner. He shared his opinion about Oliver Stone's work on his official website. According to Vladimir Vladimirovich, the American director does not have the journalistic skills to conduct interviews. Posner also noted that he does not plan to discuss whether he liked Stone's project or not. At the same time, the presenter admits that the artist is a significant figure in cinema.

“What Stone did, in my opinion, is not an interview at all. This is indeed a documentary film, compiled from materials from four meetings. I'm not going to talk about whether you liked the film or not, in the end it's up to each individual person. But this is not an interview. Stone, of course, is a major film director, but he does not know how to interview, this is not his profession,” says Vladimir Vladimirovich.

// Photo: press service of Channel One

The TV presenter's opinion about Oliver Stone the interviewer is shared by many users social networks. They believe that the director did not ask the interlocutor difficult or awkward questions, and also did not try to catch him in contradictions, as media representatives often do. Journalist Marina Koroleva was among those who critically assessed Stone’s work.

“The real “get out of the profession” is, of course, Oliver Stone. Part of this shame can probably be explained by the fact that he is not a journalist, but a director, producer, screenwriter, etc. Well, make a movie, why take on interviews? (...) And another great idea is to name some number and say: “That’s what they told me.” That is, directly admit that they prepared the material for you and gave you an outline. And you didn't even check! What an amazing anti-work, really,” she noted, accompanying her publication with an example of dialogue from Stone’s film.

Let us also add that in early June, NBC correspondent Megyn Kelly conducted a resonant interview with Vladimir Putin. Speaking about the work of the American journalist, Oliver Stone allowed himself some criticism of her. "I think she was attractive and asked difficult questions, but she wasn't able to argue or contradict him because she didn't know much," the director said.

Follow the link for a recap of the second episode

Sochi. Putin's residence. Beautiful. Oliver Stone didn't get enough sleep, Putin is fresh, he teases Stone, saying I played hockey yesterday, but you're tired, hee hee
This is where Odysseus passed. Points with his finger where he was driving.


Stone wasn't interested.
Ukraine
Put. “There, as soon as they separated, theft and plunder immediately began. The authorities changed, but they stole and robbed the people! Crazy corruption! People are tired. Some are poor, others are enriching themselves!
(is he really talking about Ukraine and not Russia?)
The people there are stupid, what can they get from them, they began to think that if they join the European Union, then everything will be better. Yeah, right now! We had one economy! We still kept our market open to them, ungrateful people.
And we have been joining the WTO for 17 years, and then behind our backs Ukraine and Europe are signing something there! Does this mean our market is under attack? And we are 17 years old!


But we are noble! Let Ukraine do what it wants. But we asked to talk, Europe, us and Ukraine. We were rudely refused!
But Yanukovych just wanted a little, a little! reschedule signing. And then it began! The West and the USA staged a coup d'état! The CIA is there in full force! Here comes the riots
There is a chronicle of unrest


Ol. Stone - There were snipers there on the Maidan, who shot at the police and at civilians!
Put. - Yanukovych did not give orders to shoot.
Ol. Stone - Whose snipers were they then?
Put. - Those who wanted escalation. Why haven’t you guessed who it is yet? Use logic.
And before that, European ministers came and everything seemed to be agreed upon
Ol. Stone - But Yanukovych fled from Kyiv?
Put. - He just went to another city for an event, and the residence, hop, was seized! Coup d'etat? Coup d'etat! And poor Yanukovych sat in Crimea for 10 days and waited for the European ministers to sort everything out. He’s so good, but gullible, he believed the ministers.
Put. - using the monopoly right to the media, you can distort everything and deceive people
(Is he really talking about Ukraine right now?)
It was a coup d'etat, period! They wanted to immediately ban the Russian language. Well, in Donbass people were outraged. And they began to be put in prison. People in Donbass took up arms!

And these, no need to talk, immediately send the army there! Tanks, aircraft and through residential areas! We’re like, “Don’t!” but they want to fight. But when people die it’s a tragedy!
They didn’t listen to us, and that’s why thousands were killed.
And with Obama then we have different views were aware of what was happening
By the way, Putin sometimes says “in Ukraine”
Ol. Stone - but Nuland went there, to Ukraine. McCain hung out with neo-Nazis. Soros supported the militants.

(Nuland - we invested $5 billion to help Ukraine become prosperous and democratic)
Put. — (sarcastically) I don’t understand the logic of our Western partners.
And to keep your own people in the Atlantic camp in line, you need an external enemy.
Ol. Stone - So to prevent NATO from falling apart, they appointed Russia as the enemy?
Put. - This is true! I feel it!!!
Crimea
Ol. Stone - do you regret the annexation of Crimea? And then sanctions in general. Annexation is illegal from the point of view of the rest of the world
Put. — (giggles) It wasn’t us who annexed Crimea, it was the people in Crimea who decided to join us. Their parliament, referendum - everything is chick-peek! They were very afraid of violence back then. And we had troops there under the agreement, 20 thousand, yes. So we ensured peace there.

And in Donbass civil war has begun. GDP has fallen! Their inflation is 47%!
And Ukrainians and Russians are practically one people, well, Ukrainians with peculiarities, of course.
Ol.Stone - But that’s it, they’re gone, they’re not going to destroy your country. And I don’t see a threat to Russia from NATO
Put. - And I see!!!

Putin predicts the future. Everyone will soon understand that Russia poses no threat. That Russia is not an aggressor. That there is no need to be afraid of Russia. And everyone will begin to pay attention to their national interests. Hints that NATO will collapse.
Put. — The paradigm needs to be changed!
Kremlin. Winter.


Ol.Stone - Everything here is great! How do you heat?
Put. “Somehow everything happens here on its own, but not with firewood.”

Ol.Stone - Aren't you lonely at night when you wander the corridors?
Put. - I don't wander through the corridors
Putin's office


Putin's desktop


Table

height=”580″ />
Behind the office wall


Put. — This is my dad in Sevastopol
Ol. Stone - is that why Crimea was taken away?
Put. - (hee hee)
Putin has many offices.


Ol.Stone starts again about surveillance of citizens and Snowden. He has such a thing.

Ol. Stone - Have you passed a law about total surveillance of your citizens?
Put. - Not! It's just a law to keep data longer. And not only are your citizens being watched, but also the leaders of the allied states! And we have 4.4 thousand of our citizens fighting here in Syria, so we need to be careful to fight terrorism. 45 terrorist attacks were prevented in a year!


Putin leads the country via Skype


Putin is directing the war in Syria via Skype. The connection is lagging.
At the other end, a military man reports the situation, behind him are screens with war, with airplanes
Ol.Stone - These are real there fighting show?
Put. — (without blinking an eye) Of course, in real time. The pictures of the fighting went on a loop (oops!!).
We talked about the military budget. Our economy is efficient, so our army is combat-ready! I have a military budget less than that of Saudi Arabia!

Good news! The military budget within 3 years will become 2.8% of GDP
Syria
In general, we are fighting there for peace in the region. We are there at the invitation of the government. But the rest - no! And Türkiye allows terrorists’ oil to pass through. And everyone knows about it. And we are fighting ISIS there.
(lots of footage of executions. Cruel! Will they show this on First? And will they show flags with ISIS symbols?)
Putin can control everything from an iPhone


Again about Crimea
An American ship, a destroyer, was heading there, and then turned around and sailed away. This is because Crimea is now part of Russia. Well, we also placed missiles there. Bastion. We are for peace, but we have to blah blah blah. Why did the West support the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine, I am perplexed? And we are for dialogue.

Oliver Stone's four-part film about Putin, shown last week on HBO, will air on First from Monday to Thursday, and, hand on heart, we have to admit that this makes no sense: “An Interview with Putin,” as this project is called in the original, cinema is not for everyone and, first of all, not for us.

The point is not that the film, which consists mostly of conversations between the director and the Russian president, recorded between July 2015 and February 2017, contains some kind of sedition that could undermine the foundations and unravel the bonds. God forbid - there is nothing like it even close there. We just don’t learn anything new from it: Stone shows Putin as he is perceived in Russia, to the rest of the world, where they are used to seeing him either as a bloody tyrant, firmly seated on the throne, with his knees spread wide apart, like an ill-mannered neighbor on the subway, or demonic a character from comics, a kind of Anti-Neo of our suspended Matrix, who hacks servers with the power of thought. The Putin of Oliver Stone is the Putin of our television, and it is no coincidence that “The Interview” was released in the United States simultaneously with the next session of communication between the Russian president and the people. Strictly speaking, this is “Direct Line” for the Americans - with the same timing (slightly less than four hours), the same severity of questions and the same degree of approximation to the real situation.

What Stone has taken on is an incredibly interesting task, no matter what country and what leader you take. Of course, it is always necessary and important to understand the thoughts, feelings and motivations of the conditional Trump, but it would also be nice to imagine yourself in the place of some resident of the American outback in order to understand who the person with the ridiculous lock of hair hovering above his bald head is to him. To feel all this: the corn didn’t grow, the neighbor’s daughter hanged herself in the sawmill, the Mexicans are coming out of every crack, crazy evil women are coughing from the screen - and then Donald Trump comes out, all in white and with Melania.

Oliver Stone is trying to do roughly the same thing with Putin, so the film becomes an attempt to understand not the Russian president, but the Russian people - to find out what we found in him, what image of him settled in the heads of the viewers of the Vesti program and the witnesses of Ekaterina Andreeva. Putin himself, it seems, does not need to be understood at all - this is not happiness. “Do you think our goal is to prove something to someone?” - the president asks the director, and he, even if he had similar thoughts, immediately renounces them. Of course not. No proof is required, and if you need to explain, then, of course, there is no need to explain. This whole enterprise reeks of a slight senselessness. Stone seems to realize that in America the film will be of little interest to anyone - all the roles have long been written out, the masks have been handed out, the labels have been sewn on tightly.

As a result, we will watch how two elderly people, one disheveled and poorly shaven, the other smooth and neat, either out of a sense of duty, or out of sympathy for each other, will spend four hours doing a boring and hopeless task that is not will bring neither glory nor forgiveness to any of them. Stone will ask obvious questions, Putin will give predictable answers, and no one will want to delve into the problems, as if afraid of ruining the beginning of a wonderful friendship. Perhaps the cameramen will circle around the president, climb with their cameras from all sides, trying to find a chink in his armor, to capture the telltale trembling of his left calf, but they will eventually sink tiredly onto the parquet floor of the next state hall. Their catch is small: Putin is hiding thumb into his fist, now shaking specks of dust from his trousers, talking about American support for Chechen terrorists. Not much, but why should he lose his temper? Both interlocutors treat each other with extraordinary courtesy - just watch how Putin brings Stone coffee, how he gives him rides in a car with a flashing light, how they watch a movie together.

At times they seem to come to their senses and, remembering that they are making a film, begin to act out their roles again. Stone tries to catch his interlocutor: “And you met your first wife there? That is, what I say is the last wife. The only wife,” and Putin inserts trademark words and idioms into his speech: “there are no pockets in the coffin,” “until they carry us in white slippers to the cemetery.” However, he saves the main punchline (almost literally) for the very end, when, upon parting, he unexpectedly asks: “Have you never been beaten in your life?” - and in this parting gift, in this phrase, which is so convenient to end the film, there is so much tenderness and attention to the interlocutor that it is enough for ten “Titanics”.

However, their joint efforts are also of little use. Putin, it seems, does not react at all to minor provocations - one can, for example, make various guesses why during the “direct line” he said that his second grandson was born recently, but in a conversation with Stone almost two years ago they were talking about grandchildren in plural, but all this conspiracy theory seems to lead nowhere. Perhaps he decided not to correct his interlocutor out of delicacy. Or I thought that additional clarifications would raise unnecessary questions. Or he’s just not very interested in talking about his grandchildren. Conversation through an interpreter also does not contribute to sharp revelations: Putin seems to understand English quite well, and even when the translation sounds almost simultaneously, he always has at least a couple of extra seconds to think. The translation also ruins the president’s attempts to show off a sharp word - the same phrase about white slippers turned in the subtitles into a boring “until they carry us to the cemetery to bury us,” causing, however, even in this form delight in Stone: “Oh, this is very -Russians! Very Dostoevsky!”

“An Interview with Putin” turns into a film not even about the difficulties of translation, but about the tragic impossibility of communication between two intelligent and clearly sympathetic people, who are still monstrously far from each other - due to different education, upbringing, life experience. When Stone, speaking about the war and the sacrifices of the Soviet people, tells how people gave their jewelry and their last dollar to help the Stalinist government in the fight against Nazism, it becomes clear that even he, who went through Vietnam, has little idea of ​​​​a war on his own territory: Putin has to give him a short lecture about how this was, rather, the last drop of blood. And when Putin says that he doesn’t have bad days because he’s not a woman, the director doesn’t seem to understand that the president is trying to joke about PMS—apparently, such jokes are no longer common in America. The quintessence of all this awkwardness will be the scene that will be shown at the beginning of the fourth episode. Oliver Stone wants to film how Putin comes out to meet him and greets him, as if they had met for the first time, and the president seems to understand everything and goes to his starting position, but disappears into the depths of the building, and the director and translator sadly shout into the void: “Action!” and “We're starting filming!” - Bye main character doesn't suddenly appear with two cups of coffee in his hands. “How are you doing? Long time no see!” - “No sugar here.”

Among other things, both were clearly tired - both from the difficulties of this communication and from what awaits them in big world, where Stone, as his interlocutor predicted, will begin to be beaten for these interviews, and Putin will have meetings with other American journalists, with whom he will have to be on his guard and, willy-nilly, snap back. It is no coincidence that the topic of sleep constantly comes up in conversations: either the president tells the director that he did not want to wake him up after a long flight, or both advise each other to get some sleep and rest. “If a person in power feels that he has lost this nerve,” says Putin, when it comes to how power changes a person, “he must leave his place.” “...Then it’s time for him to leave,” the translator offers his own version, and Stone immediately asks what time it is. “It’s time,” they answer him, and Putin rises from his seat, taking off the microphone’s buttonhole. Finally, we will once again be shown the empty state rooms where the interviews took place, as if hinting at the possibility of relaxation, but we see Christ the Pantocrator sternly looking down from the arches of the Palace of Facets, and Ivan the Terrible with a halo on his head peeking out from the corner. We know: peace is only a dream, there is still a lot to do - Stone again mixed everything up and did not understand anything.

17:11 — REGNUM To film a person of such magnitude as the President of Russia Vladimir Putin“This is hellish work,” said the Novosibirsk director and screenwriter Peter Dikarev, commenting to the correspondent IA REGNUM your impressions of watching the first film Oliver Stone"Putin."

“In fact, it’s still simply brilliant. I liked that the film is not slick. It creates a feeling of reality. I notice details, see how many cameras are working. And maybe someone didn’t pay attention to the fact that the camera bag with lenses sticks out in the background. Of course, the director saw this in the editing. But these flaws were left on purpose. They add this sense of reality. There was no secret about how it was filmed. Dmitry Peskov(Press Secretary of the President of Russia - approx. IA REGNUM) holds a fishing rod with a microphone", — Peter Dikarev spoke about some points.

The Novosibirsk director notes that Vladimir Putin is “an objectively historical person, live part history,” and emphasizes that there is no servility in his words. And the status, according to Dikarev, imposes a “purely physically wild number of restrictions”: on the use of equipment, even simply on the organization of the filming process. The director understands that behind the scenes Stone did not have the hundreds of people who are usually with him on set - “this was impossible, this is a documentary.” Frames overlap beautiful pictures, a lot of archives. But Pyotr Dikarev notes “first of all, the talent of the director and interviewer, which helps the personality to reveal itself.”

“Technically, there is nothing so surprising or unusual in the film, but the very way he simply decided it all, how he was able to arrange it... I believe that Putin, as we see him and as far as we can know, is quite closed person. Here it is also a matter of the scale of the individual. I think that Putin would not talk to anyone. For Vladimir Putin, such a conversation is a substantive entry into history. Years will pass, and after the same hundred years, Putin will be judged based on some archival footage. I don’t presume to say that in the first place, but in many ways it was based on these shots. Of course, he chose a chronicler for himself,” says Dikarev.

The director noted that so far he likes what he sees. I like “precisely this kind of roughness.” Petr Dikarev is sure that if Stone wanted to improve something somewhere, he would have done it: with the same sound, “he could have made it all more beautiful and more tinsel.”

"Here we see very simple work. One of my friends said, and he was a gourmet, that simple dishes cooking is very difficult. IN in this case we see a simple dish, but which is very difficult to prepare. No matter who the director shoots, a person of such a level, there is a very big temptation to make everything perfect and sweet. As a documentarian, I, of course, try it on myself and understand that in my life I have never encountered a figure larger than a governor or a plenipotentiary representative, but even this was very difficult. I don’t know who Stone took in or out of frame, but we see Putin much more humane than in straight lines. We see how nervous he is on some questions. This can be seen in his hands when he shakes off non-existent dust from his trousers. We see some gestures. I think that the footage was watched and censored, this is natural. And most likely there was a great temptation to not allow these shots to literally and figuratively not have a single speck of dust in the frame. Of course, there was a temptation; they are officials first and foremost. But, probably, Stone’s charm and trust in him as a master played a role,” he noted in a conversation with a correspondent IA REGNUM Dikarev.

The Novosibirsk director considered “another interesting point” - this is the “brilliantly chosen translator.”

“I don’t know who this translator is, but obviously it’s some of our people who did the simultaneous translation. It's brilliantly chosen. I can't remember his face, although he is constantly present in the frame. Of course, here the composition is built and the focus is worked, however, it does not shine so much that it does not interfere. The illusion of the presence of two interlocutors in the frame is created,” he said.

Petr Dikarev also emphasized that it is worth taking into account the fact that “all this is happening at an acute moment both between our countries and within our country.”

“In the end, not only is there a cold information war going on by NATO countries and this is openly admitted, but I also believe that there is also a cold civil war going on. This is not an official assessment, this is my perception of the world. And in such a difficult time, we see a difficult film by a difficult Stone about a difficult Putin. This is a very planned event, serious. This is not sudden. And the fact that this film is being played now means there is a feeling that this is a prelude to change. I want to believe that they will be for the better,” — concluded Novosibirsk director and screenwriter Pyotr Dikarev.

As previously reported IA REGNUM, June 19 at Russian television the premiere took place documentary film American director Oliver Stone's "Putin". The film consists of four recorded conversations between the director and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The interviews were recorded over two years in the Kremlin, in Sochi and at the presidential residence near Moscow.

Oliver Stone's four-part film about Putin, shown last week on HBO, will air on First from Monday to Thursday, and, hand on heart, we have to admit that this makes no sense: “An Interview with Putin,” as this project is called in the original, cinema is not for everyone and, first of all, not for us. The point is not that the film, which consists mostly of conversations between the director and the Russian president, recorded between July 2015 and February 2017, contains some kind of sedition that could undermine the foundations and unravel the bonds. God forbid - there is nothing like it even close. We just don’t learn anything new from it: Stone shows Putin as he is perceived in Russia, to the rest of the world, where they are used to seeing him either as a bloody tyrant, firmly seated on the throne, with his knees spread wide apart, like an ill-mannered neighbor on the subway, or demonic a character from comics, a kind of Anti-Neo of our suspended Matrix, who hacks servers with the power of thought. The Putin of Oliver Stone is the Putin of our television, and it is no coincidence that “The Interview” was released in the United States simultaneously with the next session of communication between the Russian president and the people. Strictly speaking, this is “Direct Line” for Americans - with the same timing (just under four hours), the same severity of questions and the same degree of approximation to the real situation.

What Stone has taken on is an incredibly interesting task, no matter what country or leader you take. Of course, it is always necessary and important to understand the thoughts, feelings and motivations of the conditional Trump, but it would also be nice to imagine yourself in the place of some resident of the American outback in order to understand who the person with the ridiculous lock of hair hovering above his bald head is to him. To feel all this: the corn didn’t grow, the neighbor’s daughter hanged herself in the sawmill, the Mexicans are coming out of every crack, crazy evil women are coughing from the screen - and then Donald Trump comes out, all in white and with Melania.

Oliver Stone is trying to do roughly the same thing with Putin, so the film becomes an attempt to understand not the Russian president, but the Russian people - to find out what we found in him, what image of him settled in the heads of the viewers of the Vesti program and the witnesses of Ekaterina Andreeva. Putin himself, it seems, does not need to be understood at all - this is not happiness. “Do you think our goal is to prove something to someone?” - the president asks the director, and he, even if he had such thoughts, immediately renounces them. Of course not. No proof is required, and if you need to explain, then, of course, there is no need to explain. This whole enterprise reeks of a slight senselessness. Stone seems to realize that in America the film will be of little interest to anyone - all the roles have long been written out, masks have been handed out, labels have been sewn tightly on.

Here Putin hides his thumb in his fist, here he shakes specks of dust off his trousers, talking about American support for Chechen terrorists. Not much, but why should he lose his temper?

As a result, we will watch how two elderly people, one disheveled and poorly shaven, the other smooth and neat, either out of a sense of duty or out of sympathy for each other, will spend four hours doing a boring and hopeless task that is not will bring neither glory nor forgiveness to any of them. Stone will ask obvious questions, Putin will give predictable answers, and no one will want to delve into the problems, as if afraid of ruining the beginning of a wonderful friendship. Perhaps the cameramen will circle around the president, climb with their cameras from all sides, trying to find a chink in his armor, to capture the telltale trembling of his left calf, but they will eventually sink tiredly onto the parquet floor of the next state hall. Their catch is not big: Putin hides his thumb in his fist, shakes off specks of dust from his trousers, talking about American support for Chechen terrorists. Not much, but why should he lose his temper? Both interlocutors treat each other with extraordinary courtesy - just watch how Putin brings Stone coffee, how he gives him rides in a car with a flashing light, how they watch a movie together.

At times they seem to come to their senses and, remembering that they are making a film, begin to act out their roles again. Stone tries to catch his interlocutor: “And you met your first wife there? That is, what I say is the last wife. My only wife,” and Putin inserts trademark words and idioms into his speech: “there are no pockets in the coffin,” “until they carry us in white slippers to the cemetery.” However, he saves the main punchline (almost literally) for the very end, when, upon parting, he unexpectedly asks: “Have you never been beaten in your life?” - and in this parting gift, in this phrase, which is so convenient to end the film, there is so much tenderness and attention to the interlocutor that it is enough for ten “Titanics”.

One can make various guesses why during the “direct line” Putin said that his second grandson was born recently, but in a conversation with Stone almost two years ago we are talking about grandchildren in the plural

However, their joint efforts are also of little use. Putin, it seems, does not react at all to minor provocations - one can, for example, make various guesses why during the “direct line” he said that his second grandson was born recently, but in a conversation with Stone almost two years ago we are talking about grandchildren in plural, but all this conspiracy theory seems to lead nowhere. Perhaps he decided not to correct his interlocutor out of delicacy. Or I thought that additional clarifications would raise unnecessary questions. Or he’s just not very interested in talking about his grandchildren. Conversation through an interpreter also does not contribute to sharp revelations: Putin seems to understand English quite well, and even when the translation sounds almost simultaneously, he always has at least a couple of extra seconds to think. The translation also ruins the president’s attempts to show off a sharp word - the same phrase about white slippers turned in the subtitles into a boring “until they carry us to the cemetery to bury”, causing, however, even in this form delight in Stone: “Oh, this is very -Russians! Very Dostoevsky!”

“An Interview with Putin” turns into a film not even about the difficulties of translation, but about the tragic impossibility of communication between two intelligent and clearly sympathetic people, who are still monstrously far from each other - due to different education, upbringing, and life experiences. When Stone, speaking about the war and the sacrifices of the Soviet people, tells how people gave their jewelry and their last dollar to help the Stalinist government in the fight against Nazism, it becomes clear that even he, who went through Vietnam, has little idea of ​​​​a war on his own territory: Putin has to give him a short lecture about how this was, rather, the last drop of blood. And when Putin says that he doesn’t have bad days because he’s not a woman, the director doesn’t seem to understand that the president is trying to make a joke about PMS—apparently, such jokes are no longer common in America. The quintessence of all this awkwardness will be the scene that will be shown at the beginning of the fourth episode. Oliver Stone wants to film how Putin comes out to meet him and greets him, as if they had met for the first time, and the president seems to understand everything and goes to his starting position, but disappears into the depths of the building, and the director and translator sadly shout into the void: “Action!” and “We’re starting filming!” until the main character suddenly appears with two cups of coffee in his hands. “How are you doing? Long time no see!” - “No sugar here.”

From the arches of the Faceted Chamber Christ the Pantocrator looks sternly, and Ivan the Terrible with a halo on his head looks out from the corner. And we know: peace is only a dream, there is still a lot to do - Stone again mixed everything up and did not understand anything

Among other things, both are clearly tired - both from the difficulties of this communication, and from what awaits them in the big world, where Stone, as his interlocutor predicted, will begin to be beaten for these interviews, and Putin will have meetings with other American journalists, with which you will have to be on guard and, willy-nilly, snap back. It is no coincidence that the topic of sleep constantly comes up in conversations: either the president tells the director that he did not want to wake him up after a long flight, or both advise each other to get some sleep and rest. “If a person in power feels that he has lost this nerve,” Putin says, when it comes to how power changes a person, “he should leave his place.” “...Then it’s time for him to leave,” the translator offers his version, and Stone immediately asks what time it is. “It’s time,” they answer him, and Putin gets up from his seat, taking off the microphone’s buttonhole. Finally, we will once again be shown the empty state rooms where the interviews took place, as if hinting at the possibility of relaxation, but we see Christ the Pantocrator sternly looking down from the arches of the Palace of Facets, and Ivan the Terrible with a halo on his head peeking out from the corner. We know: peace is only a dream, there is still a lot to do - Stone again mixed everything up and did not understand anything.