The interview common sense media
The Interview Movie Review | Common Sense Media
A Lot or a Little?
The parents' guide to what's in this movie.
What Parents Need to Know
Parents need to know that The Interview is a controversial comedy that was co-written and co-directed by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg and stars Rogen and James Franco as a producer and talk show host tasked with assassinating North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Reportedly due to the movie's subject matter, distributor Sony Pictures was the victim of a huge Internet hack, which they were led to believe was the work of terrorists. Under pressure and responding to threats, Sony first opted to pull the movie but shortly after decided to release it in a limited theatrical run and on VOD. The extra publicity has made the movie quite famous, and parents should know that teens may very well want to sneak a peek. Those who do will be met with extreme foul language and strong sexual innuendo, as well as brief nudity (breasts, bottoms, etc.
) and simulated sex acts. It also has several scenes of blood and gore, shooting, fighting, and explosions, many of which are played for laughs but are still graphic. There are also some scenes of drug use (Ecstasy) and brief drinking, as well as a reference to smoking pot.
Community Reviews
John Hopkins Adult
January 3, 2021
age 11+
Best Seth Rogen Movie!
This movie has very little drugs and alcohol besides at the beginning. The fact that this movie is controversial doesn't matter. My only problem with this movie is the violence and language. At the end of the movie they bite peoples fingers off and shoot 15 people with machine guns.
This title has:
Too much violence
Too much swearing
Flowers4You Adult
February 9, 2020
age 15+
Funny For An Older Audience
The Interview is, for many reasons, a controversial film.
Any movie even the least bit political is sure to be a hot topic for debate, especially considering some of the mature subject matter in this flick. There is slight racism (a character apologizing with a fake Asian accent; a character referring to the USA as "a place where they don't eat dogs" while leaving a nation in Asia), but if your children is well-rounded and has common sense, they'll be able to understand that this was for comedic effect and that comments like those should not be repeated. Though it is vulgar, there is no nudity further than a woman's breasts. There are two scenes where a boner is concealed by clothing. There is language, mild drinking/smoking, and some blood at the end (as well as the brutal destruction of a helicopter, and the shooting of multiple people, all within the final twenty minutes), but there's no denying that, albeit stupid, this film is guaranteed to give quite a few laughs.
This title has:
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
What's the Story?
Dave Skylark (James Franco) is the slick, smarmy host of a popular celebrity TV talk show, an interviewer so skilled that he can even get Eminem to open up about his sexuality.
When Dave and his producer, Aaron Rapaport (Seth Rogen), learn that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un (Randall Park) is a huge fan of the show, they arrange to interview him. But, having learned this, the CIA sends agent Lacey (Lizzy Caplan) to convince the boys to use their opportunity to assassinate Kim instead. Once in Korea, Aaron finds himself attracted to one of Kim's top aides (Diana Bang), and Dave starts developing a bond with Kim himself. Can our heroes do the right thing and still get out of the country alive?
Is It Any Good?
Co-writers/directors Rogen and Evan Goldberg follow up their acclaimed all-star apocalypse comedy This Is the End with THE INTERVIEW, a less metaphysical and more topical comedy. It's an attempt at a political satire, stirring up trouble before its release -- or at least tangentially involved in trouble -- but resulting in less a political satire than a bromance with jokes about body parts and bodily functions.
The best part about The Interview is Franco, whose cheerfully loony performance recalls his award-winning role in Spring Breakers.
Dave Skylark is so comfortable with his inappropriate behavior that he's instantly hilarious. He's incapable of a false note, even though he's all surface. Unfortunately, as the plot begins to kick in and take hold in the second half, less time is given to jokes, and we're left with not much more than yelling, chasing, explosions, and some gratuitous finger-biting and blood spurts.
Talk to Your Kids About ...
Families can talk about the controversy surrounding The Interview. What was the result of Sony being hacked? Who was offended, and who was hurt? How did Sony respond to the threats? Do you agree with their decisions? Did the story surrounding the movie make you more or less interested in seeing it?
How violent is the movie? Is the violence intended for shock, humor, or both? How is it handled? Is it excessive?
How much of the movie's humor is sexual in nature? Who is that content intended to appeal to? Do you think it succeeds?
Did you notice any stereotypes in the movie? How does it portray the North Koreans? Are they all viewed the same way? Do you think the movie would have had the same impact and tone if the target of the plot had been a fictional character from a fictional country?
Why would Dave Skylark's show be popular? What's appealing about celebrity interviews versus "actual" news?
Movie Details
- In theaters: December 25, 2014
- On DVD or streaming: February 17, 2015
- Cast: Seth Rogen, James Franco, Lizzy Caplan
- Directors: Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen
- Studios: Sony Pictures Releasing, Columbia Pictures
- Genre: Comedy
- Run time: 112 minutes
- MPAA rating: R
- MPAA explanation: pervasive language, crude and sexual humor, nudity, some drug use and bloody violence
- Last updated: January 4, 2023
Kid reviews for The Interview
Duster Teen, 17 years old
April 25, 2022
age 13+
Vulgar comedy but still fairly entertaining
fluffykitten925 Teen, 14 years old
February 22, 2021
age 18+
EXTREMLY OFFENSIVE AND NOT FUNNY MOVIE
Not funny at all.
Extremely offensive. Would never recommend this trashterpiece to anyone.
NirvanaSamurai2003 Child
May 13, 2020
age 15+
this contains Strong violence,Strong language,Explicit sexual references,Alcohol use,Some drug some and Smoking
This title has:
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
After Hour Movies Teen, 13 years old
March 10, 2020
age 16+
The Interview Review
The Interview is a very controversial political comedy. I could totally understand why some may find this movie offensive, and it indeed is very offensive. The Interview was controversial because it portraits Kim Jung-un as essentially a bad dictator. For this review I will not be giving my personal opinions on any of the political things in the film, I will only be stating if I thought the movie was good or not and why.
I found this movie to be very funny. I thought that the comedy was unimpressive. I am a big fan of Seth Rogen comedies, and this is definitely going to be one of my favorites. This film has very many comedic moments. My favorites are the interview with Eminem, the chemistry between David Skylark (James Franco) and Kim Jung-un (Randall Park). In conclusion, I would definitely recommend this film. I thought it was hilarious and very entertaining. I think this film is OK for teens 16 and up because there is lots of language, some brutal comedic violence, and brief nudity.
This title has:
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
Starstone Child
February 2, 2020
age 15+
Hilarious "political" comedy.
This movie is so funny; I found myself laughing out loud at some points, and it has a unique storyline. However, it is not suitable for younger children - there is constant swearing, bloody, graphic violence and crude references.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, it's not boring at all, and touches on some politics and issues in the world today. Watch it if you want a laugh.
This title has:
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
Jey Martin KNOWS BEST Teen, 13 years old
July 2, 2019
age 13+
GREAT
This movie is definitely one of my favorites there is some swearing though but not that bad
This title has:
Too much swearing
natsterll Kid, 11 years old
January 27, 2019
age 12+
Contains some brief nudity and nudity from the back and a obvious violence and drink and drugs.
Good for mature age 10+ mostly for the children who may know about the current situation in North Korea. About a 12+ for the average child or if you feel your child isn't read maybe even 15+
This title has:
Too much violence
Too much swearing
whatdidijustwatch Teen, 13 years old
June 18, 2018
age 16+
What did I Just watch?
This movie is just.
... It is one of these movies that tries to makes the downs of life seem comical. Lets not kids ourselves. This movie isn't the exact thing you want your children to watch. Why 16. This movie has lots of sex references, lots of swearing and way to much smoking and drinking. 16 would seem the age where an average person can cope with this kind of stuff. Personally I loved the movie though i'm sure someone would think it's not appropriate for a 13 year old to be watching this movie
This title has:
Too much swearing
Too much drinking/drugs/smoking
jama2014 Child
March 27, 2018
age 2+
seth rogen+james franco=good movie
This title has:
Great messages
Great role models
wulf2604 Child
March 14, 2018
age 13+
Contains a great message but extremely inappropriate.
This is a movie that really depends on the parent weather they would want to show it to their young teens and kids or not. I would honestly show this to my kids if I was a parent but I do believe that this movie is definitely not age appropriate for the little people XD. As an asian 14 year old, I understood this movie very well. Good to learn about how some other countries have too much propaganda and that North Korea in specific, doesn't have that much liberty as much as most of us here have at this moment. I can tell that if this movie never had any sexual/funny jokes, it would be a very dark movie about a TV star from America killing a North Korean dictator. I personally love this movie a lot, but it depends on how the parents would want to raise their children. If you think your child is mature and are able to take all of this without being too offended, this is a great movie.
This title has:
Great messages
Great role models
Too much sex
Too much swearing
Too much drinking/drugs/smoking
“We hope that common sense will still prevail in Washington” - Kommersant Newspaper No.
61 (7023) dated 04/08/2021 Russian-American relations are at their lowest level since the end of the Cold War. The already tense situation escalated even more after an interview with US President Joe Biden, in which he made a sharp attack on his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolay Patrushev in an interview with a Kommersant correspondent Elena Chernenko told on what conditions Moscow is ready to cooperate with Washington in the future.
Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolay Patrushev
Photo: Dmitry Dukhanin, Kommersant / buy photo
Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolay Patrushev
Photo: Dmitry Dukhanin, Kommersant / buy photo
In recent days, the situation in the Donbass has seriously deteriorated. Does Russia have any "red lines" at the crossing of which it is ready to openly intervene in the conflict in Ukraine? nine0004
— We don't have such plans, no.
But we are monitoring the situation closely. Based on its development, specific measures will be taken.
— And what, in your opinion, is the reason for the current aggravation of the situation in Donbass?
- I am convinced that this is a consequence of serious internal problems in Ukraine, from which the authorities are trying to divert attention in this way. They solve their problems at the expense of the Donbass, while capital from the country has long been flowing abroad, the economy is still supported only by burdensome foreign loans, the debt on which is growing, and Kyiv is selling off those remnants of industry that could stay afloat. foreigners, as they say now, at democratic prices. Even the famous Ukrainian chernozem and timber are exported by trains abroad, depriving the country of this asset as well. And in return - only those pies that the Americans handed out on the Maidan. nine0007
— About the Americans: how serious a blow to the already tense relations between Moscow and Washington was the scandalous interview of US President Joe Biden, in which he answered in the affirmative to a journalist's question, is his Russian colleague a “killer”?
— I would not like to draw parallels, but exactly 75 years ago, in March 1946, Churchill delivered the famous Fulton speech in the presence of President Truman, in which he declared our country, his recent ally in the anti-Hitler coalition, an enemy.
This marked the beginning of the Cold War. nine0007
- Are you saying that a new era of long-term confrontation on the brink of war is coming?
- We would really hate that.
The Russian and American peoples today have no reasons for enmity, we are not divided, as before, by ideology. But the field for cooperation is vast.
The demand for our cooperation is growing given the pandemic, against which the challenges and threats to global stability are intensifying. There is an escalation of military-political tension in a number of regions, an increase in international terrorism and extremism, an aggravation of interstate contradictions, poverty, hunger, a difficult environmental situation ... The list can be continued for a long time, and each of these problems carries a direct threat to humanity. nine0007
The political situation today is really unfavorable, relations between the two countries are at their lowest level since the end of the Cold War.
However, the long history of relations between Russia and the United States shows that at decisive moments our states demonstrated the ability to establish cooperation, despite differences.
Therefore, we still believe that common sense will prevail in Washington and a substantive Russian-American dialogue will be launched on issues that, in principle, cannot be effectively resolved without constructive interaction between our countries. nine0007
— So, is there a readiness for dialogue on the Russian side? What questions could be discussed first?
— First of all, this is the sphere of strategic stability and arms control. There is already a positive example here. This is our common decision to extend the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START - "Kommersant" ), which, of course, was not easy for the American administration. Such an achievement gives a certain hope for the establishment of normal cooperation, despite the fact that the problem itself is very complex and our interests do not always coincide.
nine0007
— It was not possible to agree on this with the administration of the previous US President Donald Trump in four years.
- They tried to put pressure on us, to impose solutions that would be beneficial only to one of the parties - the United States. We could not agree to this, although we showed a willingness to compromise. But this was not enough, Washington wanted to dictate its terms to us.
With the new administration on START, we were able to reach an agreement quite quickly, and on the terms that the Russian side put forward from the very beginning. nine0007
— In what areas is cooperation still possible?
- There is a certain potential for joint work on such issues as the fight against international terrorism and extremism, organized crime and other challenges and threats, as well as on a number of regional topics, including Syria, the Middle East settlement, the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (regarding Iran.
- "Kommersant" ).
Collaboration on acute humanitarian issues such as hunger, environmental pollution, and the fight against climate change is in demand. We must not forget about the destabilizing effect of the pandemic, which can also be overcome together. nine0007
It's long overdue to discuss cybersecurity issues, especially given Russia's concerns and accusations that have been leveled at us for years.
— Vladimir Putin last year sent a comprehensive proposal on cooperation in cyberspace to the White House. Has the new administration shown interest in him?
- They do not want to cooperate with us in this area, accusing us of cyberattacks on their resources absolutely unreasonably. They do not present any evidence of the involvement of the Russian authorities in these incidents either to us or to the general public, but they present Russia as almost the main aggressor in cyberspace. nine0007
- U.S. authorities suspect Russia of being behind the SolarWinds software hack that allegedly compromised tens of thousands of devices in the U.
S. public and private sectors.
- This is another sweeping accusation against us. Our state has nothing to do with this hack. We do not rule out that hackers, including those living in Russia or having Russian citizenship, may be involved in certain computer sabotage, but the state has nothing to do with it. We have repeatedly told the Americans: if you have suspicions, send us specific information, we will sort it out. Do not give. nine0007
— Is it planned to continue contacts with the US through the Security Council of the Russian Federation?
- They continue. At the end of March, in particular, I had a telephone conversation with US National Security Assistant Mr. Sullivan...
— On whose initiative did the conversation take place?
- American. By the way, it was held in a calm, business-like atmosphere, we communicated quite thoroughly and constructively. Similar contacts take place both through our deputies and at the expert level.
nine0007
Another thing is that the dialogue should not be limited to official negotiations. There is also the so-called diplomacy of the second track, and it has a very solid potential. I mean contacts between the scientific communities of the two countries in the field of culture, art, and humanitarian cooperation.
These areas of partnership are often unfairly relegated to the background. But it is at this level that the foundations of mutual respect and trust are laid, the deficit of which is observed today in relations between Russia and the United States. nine0007
- Going back to the Joe Biden interview. Still, I would very much like to understand how this statement, after which the Russian ambassador to the United States was even recalled to Moscow, will affect bilateral relations. Can it be called unprecedented?
— I find it difficult to remember something like that, even if we take into account the times of confrontation between the USSR and the USA.
The most fanatical opponents of our country, such as Truman or Reagan, tried to be more restrained in public statements. Although today, when the American archives are gradually being opened and the personal papers of their associates are being published, we understand how rabid Russophobia they preached behind closed doors. But still they understood that politics has its limits and they should be respected. True, it cannot be ruled out that the American president was deliberately provoked into such a statement by circles interested in growing tensions in bilateral relations...
— And after this, are summit meetings possible at all?
- We would not want this incident to cross out such prospects. Nevertheless, as I said, it is unprecedented. We hope that Washington also understands the situation that has developed.
— Now what? Is the Kremlin waiting for an apology?
— No. As practice shows, the Americans, in principle, are not able to admit guilt under any circumstances .
..
Even Bush Sr. publicly announced that America will never apologize to anyone. It is easier for the American elite to sum up any mistake with a sophisticated theory explaining why it was necessary to do so. I would call it the Hiroshima Syndrome.
After all, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan completely unnecessarily, although they knew very well that the Red Army was starting military operations against the Japanese grouping in Manchuria, they knew that Tokyo was ready to capitulate. And the Japanese, and indeed the whole world, have been told for three quarters of a century that atomic strikes were inevitable. Even expose it as a kind of punishment from above. Remember what Obama said in his Hiroshima mourning speech? "Death has fallen from heaven." And he did not want to say that this death fell from an American plane on the orders of the American president. History is being rewritten before our very eyes. It is not surprising that Japanese children already have little idea of which country destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Someone even thinks that the USSR. nine0007
- Returning to the present. What does Moscow expect from Washington? Conciliatory gestures?
— Assessing the prospects for Russian-American dialogue today, we need to look at things soberly.
It's time to admit that relations with our country are not decisive for the American establishment. Russia is viewed exclusively through the prism of internal political struggle.
And given the unprecedentedly difficult nature of the internal situation in the United States today, the forecasts for the further development of relations can hardly be called encouraging. Nevertheless, as I said, we are committed to dialogue in areas of mutual interest and we hope that the United States will show the same interest. nine0007
- The US authorities call Russia a "threat" to their security. Does Russia also see the US as a “threat”?
— We now see the main threat in the pandemic. For the United States, by the way, it turned out to be the moment of truth.
The problems that American politicians hid from their fellow citizens, including diverting their attention to the legends of "aggressive Russia", became apparent.
It turned out that the main threat to the life of Americans is not malicious Moscow at all. In the United States, the death toll from the epidemic has exceeded 560,000 people - after all, this is more than their losses in both world wars combined. About the same number died during the bloodiest conflict in US history, the Civil War of 1861-1865. And everything happened clearly not through the fault of Russia. nine0007
At the same time, America considers itself entitled to dictate rules to the whole world, to determine the fate of mankind. However, the question arises: does a country that could not protect the lives of more than half a million of its citizens from the disease have such a right?
— In Russia, the official numbers of deaths from coronavirus are five times lower — at the level of 100,000, but Rosstat reports that, in general, the excess mortality reaches the same 500,000 compared to the pre-pandemic year.
Doesn’t this mean that Is everything as sad with the coronavirus in Russia as it is in the USA? nine0004
- We have official statistics on deaths from coronavirus, and there is no reason not to trust them. Indeed, we were not ready for the fact that everything would develop in this way and so rapidly, no one was ready, but we managed. And now we are actively helping others, unlike the United States, which is selfish. Meanwhile, today it is in our power to stop the march of the virus across the planet and save not thousands, but millions of lives. Including thanks to vaccines developed by Russian scientists. In the first place, of course, we have the vaccination of our population, but at the same time we have a growing opportunity and willingness to share them with everyone, regardless of their political course or place on the world stage. Russia has never been involved in political games at the expense of the life and health of people, we have always looked at humanity as a single global community that cannot be divided according to nationality, race, or religious beliefs.
"Black Lives Matter" ("Black Lives Matter") or "White Lives Matter" ("White Lives Matter") - let them decide in the West. For our country, the only correct slogan is “All Lives Matter” (“All Lives Matter”). Our vaccines are further proof of this. nine0007
- The mission of the World Health Organization (WHO) did not find traces of the artificial origin of the virus. Nevertheless, the version that China deliberately provoked the pandemic is still widespread.
- I suggest you pay attention to the fact that in the world, more and more new biological laboratories under the control of the United States are growing by leaps and bounds. Moreover, by a strange coincidence - mainly at the Russian and Chinese borders. They are assured that these are research centers where Americans help local scientists develop new ways to deal with dangerous diseases. True, the authorities of those countries where these facilities are located have no real idea of what is happening within their walls.
nine0007
Of course, we and our Chinese partners have questions. We are told that peaceful sanitary and epidemiological stations operate near our borders, but for some reason they are more reminiscent of Fort Detrick in Maryland, where Americans have been working in the field of military biology for decades. By the way, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that outbreaks of diseases that are not typical for these regions are recorded in the surrounding areas.
— Are you saying that the Americans are developing biological weapons there?
— We have good reason to believe that this is the case.
— And what are the Russian authorities going to do about it?
— We will work with our partners, primarily in the post-Soviet space. Conclude agreements with them on cooperation in the field of biological safety.
I want to remind you that the Americans are also not all right with chemical weapons. At the headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW.
— “Kommersant” ) in The Hague, not a day goes by that the Americans and their allies do not come forward with another chapter of the anti-Russian chemical dossier.
- Yes, they accuse Russia of developing and using chemical weapons, including against Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, as well as Alexei Navalny.
— But there is zero evidence, there is also no argumentation, only conjectures, and they do not even stand up to elementary verification. I remember the classic question: who are the judges? Russia, in accordance with the OPCW, destroyed all of its stockpiles of chemical weapons, and even in record time. What about the USA? Initially, they had less chemical weapons than Russia, by about a third, but we no longer have it, and they still have it in their warehouses. They destroy it, of course, but without enthusiasm, the deadlines were extended until 2023. The OPCW is not very worried about this situation, Washington is not asked unnecessary questions.
nine0007
On the other hand, when chemical incidents took place in Syria, conclusions were drawn instantly, and based on information from the notorious White Helmets. This organization was so "successful" that it sometimes published its reports even before the actual incidents. True, the date and place of the incident changed, and the conclusions were all carbon copies, everywhere Bashar al-Assad and Russia. It is already known what income from these provocations, under the guise of donations, the leaders of the White Helmets received.
- On the eve of the pandemic, Russia called on the West to temporarily lift sanctions against Syria, Venezuela and other states in a difficult humanitarian situation. But the initiative did not find a wide response. Why do you think? nine0004
— It's all about the geopolitical strategy that the United States and its allies are implementing, ruining the whole world and defending their own hegemony as the only acceptable variant of the world order.
As General de Gaulle once said with irony: stand behind America in a column of two, otherwise it will be bad.
Human rights, the rule of law, the free market, respect for sovereignty—these values are shouted about by Westerners at every corner. But vaunted Western liberalism is for the elite. But with those countries that the US and Europe do not consider democratic, the conversation is completely different. Here you can do whatever you want. Any sanctions under the most insignificant pretexts, the imposition of onerous loans, blackmail, confiscation of assets, shameless interference in internal affairs... I'm not talking about the hunt for citizens of sovereign states launched by American justice. There is no legality at all here, these are some gangster methods that have nothing to do with international law. nine0007
If an individual or many states are unfortunate enough to cross the path of Western elites, you can be sure that no international treaties on immunity or progressive laws on the inviolability of property and banking secrecy will save him.
What happened to Libyan assets after the assassination of Gaddafi? Where did the reserves of Venezuela disappear after the attempt to overthrow Maduro? In the West, it seems, it has already become a habit to live, among other things, at the expense of the ruin of other countries. It seems that the colonial regimes fell long ago, but the habits remained. The Americans probably forgot that they were once a colony and they themselves were ruined by the British then ...
- Well, the US does not always take into account the interests of its Western partners either. At least that's how it was under Trump. Biden promised to rectify the situation and is already taking steps in this direction.
- There is such a term in the preference - "American assistance". The player ostensibly receives some help, but actually loses significantly. God forbid any country to live to see such help.
But it all started not under Trump, but under another president, Woodrow Wilson.
If you remember, at the end of the First World War, he sent troops to Europe to help Britain and France. How much later did not only the defeated Germans pay for this, but also the British and the French themselves? Only when Hitler announced that he was preparing for a campaign in the East, Germany's debts were written off. nine0007
How did Washington behave towards its allies during World War II? At the beginning of the conversation, we remembered Churchill, let's cite his other statement, already about the Americans. “We thought that they would skin us, and they would also take the meat from the bones.” He exclaimed this when the United States forced him to exchange a dozen military bases in the colonies for fifty rusty destroyers, which were about to be cut into scrap metal. That's Atlantic solidarity for you.
— But that was a long time ago, yet now the Americans have a different model of relations with their allies, even though it was seriously tested under Trump.
nine0004
- The model is still the same. It is no longer a secret to anyone that joining NATO for states, especially small ones, is tantamount to losing part of their sovereignty. Some of our partners from Europe confidingly admit that they are well aware of the futility of the anti-Russian course imposed on them, but they cannot do anything - Washington and Brussels decide everything for them.
The alliance is said to contain Russia. Let's see who NATO is actually holding back. It would seem that during the crisis it is possible to stop saber-rattling and take on more pressing tasks. Nothing like this. NATO's spending increased in the same year, calls were again made to bring it up to 2%, and as a result, the total budget of the alliance is already 24 times higher than the military budget of our country. nine0007
- But this is in absolute terms. If you look at the real difference in potentials, then it is not so significant.
- You can't argue with absolute numbers.
The question arises: who is restraining whom? Are Washington and Brussels holding back Russia, or is it their task to hold back the development of Germany, France, Italy and other European states?
In general, NATO can hardly be called a military-political bloc. Do you remember how, in the days of feudalism, vassals were obliged, at the first request of the master, to come to him with their army? Only today they still have to buy weapons from the patron, regardless of their financial situation, otherwise questions about their loyalty will arise. This should be remembered by all candidates for NATO membership, including those who participate in programs such as "Partnership for Peace". The goal of all these initiatives is the same - to prevent sovereign players from raising their heads and pursuing a pragmatic policy aimed at their own development. nine0007
— Since we are talking about Europe, I would like to ask about the recent visit of the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell to Moscow.
Upon his return, he immediately came under a flurry of criticism - they say, he gave in to the Russians and failed his mission. Following this, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a statement that Russia was ready to make a complete break with Europe. Is this a real scenario?
- I support the words of Sergei Viktorovich. We will not knock on closed doors, but we are ready for cooperation. nine0007
Interaction with Europe is important. But being together with Europe at any cost is not a fixed idea of Russian geopolitics. Nevertheless, we keep the doors open, because we understand very well that there is a momentary situation that Western politicians are guided by, and at the same time there are historical ties that have been developing between Russians and Europeans for centuries. It would be unreasonable to tear them apart just because the market situation has changed. We are ready to see European partners at the same table with us in solving key regional problems.
We are ready to cooperate in a wide range of areas in the economic sphere, in the field of science, culture and technology. Today, in the midst of a pandemic, this is especially important. Now Europe needs help, many European countries are asking us to share vaccines in order to save the lives of their citizens. And if our help is needed, we are ready to provide it. nine0007
— In your opinion, will cooperation with the US and the EU be normalized sooner or later?
—Each country determines its own national priorities and lines up on the world stage as it sees fit. Dialogue for the sake of dialogue, and even more so for the sake of an exchange of mutual reproaches, I think, is of no interest to anyone.
Nevertheless, we proceed from the premise that in the current difficult international situation, the scenario of normalizing relations would be optimal. It would correspond not only to the interests of Moscow and Washington. That would be better for all mankind.
Let me reiterate what we started the conversation with. There are a number of problems in the world today that, in principle, cannot be solved without normal cooperation between the world's leading players - Russia, the USA, the EU, China, and India. nine0007
We are no longer in the era when it was enough to have a strong army and navy for global leadership.
In today's world, only those countries win in the long term that promote and implement a positive agenda aimed not at creating dividing lines, but at uniting the efforts of mankind in the name of universal development and prosperity. Russia proposes such an agenda and is ready for its joint implementation.
Patrushev Nikolay Platonovich nine0243
Born on July 11, 1951 in Leningrad. He graduated from the Leningrad Shipbuilding Institute with a degree in mechanical engineering (1974), the higher courses of the KGB in Minsk (1975).
Since 1975, he worked in the counterintelligence divisions of the KGB department of the USSR in the Leningrad region.
In 1992 he was appointed Minister of Security of the Republic of Karelia. Since 1994 - the head of a number of departments of the Federal Counterintelligence Service, later - the FSB.
In 1998, he was appointed Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of Russia - Head of the Main Control Department, from October 1998 worked as deputy director of the FSB, head of the department of economic security. From 1999 to 2008 - director of the FSB. In 2001-2003, he led counter-terrorist operations in the North Caucasus.
Since May 12, 2008 - Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. Chairman of the interdepartmental commission of the Security Council on strategic planning and scientific council under the department. He heads the Supervisory Board of the All-Russian Volleyball Federation.
Army general. Hero of Russia. Full Cavalier of the Order "For Services to the Fatherland", awarded the Orders of Alexander Nevsky, Courage, Honor, "For Military Merit", "For Merit at Sea".
Doctor of Law. Married, has two sons: Dmitry is the Minister of Agriculture of Russia, Andrey is an entrepreneur. nine0007 90,000 in the Russian Federation appeared "Party of Common Mean" - DW - 06/01/2019
Demonstration in Arkhangelsk against the construction of the garbage training ground Photo: DW
Politics
Vladimir Esipov
June 1, 2019
Former owner of the Kommersant publishing house Vladimir Yakovlev in an interview with DW about freedom of speech in Russia, the media as a business and common sense as a precondition for changes for the better in the country.
https://p.dw.com/p/3JYCj
Advertising
Vladimir Yakovlev is one of the most famous journalists and media managers in Russia. He is the founder, the first chief editor and in the past the main owner of the Kommersant publishing house, which in the early 90s became a symbol of the new Russian journalism.
In 1999, 100% of the ID shares were acquired by Boris Berezovsky and Badri Patarkatsishvili.
Subsequently, Yakovlev participated in various media projects, in particular, in 2008, together with billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, he created the Zhivi! media group, which included the Snob magazine and Internet project. At the end of 2011, he resigned as president of the Zhivi! media group. and soon launched his own project dedicated to active aging. Repatriated to Israel. nine0007
In an interview with DW, Vladimir Yakovlev spoke about the situation in modern Russian journalism, answered the question whether it is necessary to leave Russia now, and explained the power of common sense.
DW : Vladimir, five years ago, the Deputy Minister of Telecom and Mass Communications of Russia said in an interview that " the best way to increase the competitiveness of Russian journalism is to create a large number of unemployed journalists, as this greatly stimulates people to something to work better "A week and a half ago another dozen unemployed journalists appeared in Russia.
How much will this increase the competitiveness of Russian journalism? Kommersant"? Of course, no matter how much. In Russia, a very curious situation is a country in which two realities exist simultaneously. And they are not divided on political grounds, as it was before.
One reality is a reality devoid of common sense. And the other is a reality built around common sense. In this reality, there are two journalism. One is state and near-state journalism, the other is non-state.
This is similar to what happened in the late 1970s - when there was party reality, on the one hand, and on the other hand, what people were saying to each other in the kitchen. But then that other, separate journalism existed abroad. And now it's all together. nine0007
State propaganda journalism has nothing to do with what is happening in the country. But there is an alternative to this journalism. For example, The Bell, which I really like and which is the same publication from the standpoint of common sense.
- A " Kommersant " ? Is this state journalism?
- This is near-state journalism. There is an incredible irony in this. At one time, we created Kommersant as an alternative to state journalism. And today "Kommersant" is absolutely what, as an alternative to what we once created it...
- Do you feel sorry?
- Sometimes it's a pity. But it's like children - born, raised, went and became what he became. Although sometimes it’s a pity, because today journalism has such fantastic opportunities that have never been in its history, which is a pity that such a brand as Kommersant has nothing to do with it.
But the uniqueness of the situation lies elsewhere. There has always been a lot of ideological division in Russia - one publication supports one group or idea, another publication also strongly supports another idea. Some are for Putin, others are against Putin. But in this concept there is no alternative to Putin.
And now it seems to me that there is an alternative. nine0007
- What does it mean?
- In switching from political positions, from the struggle of political ideas to positions of common sense. Moreover, these ideas are beginning to penetrate into the sphere of work of the state apparatus.
- The same Deputy Minister of Mass Communications in the same interview said that the market will put everything in its place. Is it possible to say that there is a mass media market in Russia today?
- Yes and no. It does not exist in the state media. In the part in which there are media that are not directly related to the state, it certainly exists - small, very weak and very active. If you take the same Yuri Dudya and his wonderful film about Kolyma, this is a different kind of journalism. This is a completely new approach. nine0007
- The same minister said that one can be a journalist without any ideals. That the new generation of journalists in Russia will live without ideals, but will buy themselves good cars.
Is it possible to be a journalist without ideals?
- No! Is it possible to be a doctor and not love people? Or be an engineer and not think about the strength of building structures? It seems to me that journalism itself is built on one great ideal - serving the reader. Without it, this is not journalism. And what is happening in the public sector today is not journalism. If you take such publications as Izvestia, this is ridiculous...
- What is it, if not journalism?
- Well, apparently, the second oldest profession. At her worst, in my opinion. But this was also the case in the Soviet Union at one time.
- But the Soviet Union suffered a rather sad fate. Russia shows no signs of instability.
- Yes. But oddly enough, for the first time in quite a long time, I have a good feeling about what is happening in Russia. nine0007
- What has changed? Five or five years ago, you called on Russians to flee the country.
..
- For me, a very big change was the emergence of a large number of people for whom the principles of common sense are more important than ideological struggle. And more important than belonging to a certain type of people. If you look at the recent protest stories, they are all about common sense. A kind of "party of common sense" appeared.
- Is your call to leave the country still valid?
- I don't take back my call from five years ago, then, of course, it was so. But now I don't have such an unambiguous approach. It seems to me that changes for the better are coming in Russia, and maybe now I would not leave. I have a feeling that the situation in Russia has really begun to change for the better. These changes do not come from above, but from below. They concern the changing ideology of society.
- And this is not part of the trend - moving away from global political issues into a small, bourgeois, cozy and convenient world? That we are not trying to change the whole country at once, but only improve our lives.
- The whole country at once in Russia has been changed so many times and with so much blood that I somehow don’t want to change the whole country at once. For me, a very important understanding was that people are more important than ideas. This is the same common sense I'm talking about. I don't believe in political ideas. I believe in those things that really change people's lives for the better. nine0007
I was brought up in an environment that was all about ideas. My father (journalist and writer Yegor Yakovlev, author of books about Lenin, editor-in-chief of Moscow News during the perestroika period. - Rev. ) was a man who followed ideas all his life. My grandfather (VChK officer Vladimir Yakovlev. - Rev. ) - too.
I have lived most of my life with the feeling that it is very important to follow right, noble ideas. And that following ideas justifies a lot. And I paid quite a lot to understand that this is complete bullshit. nine0007
- Is this deideologization part of a global trend?
- In a way, yes.
But for Russia, this is a deeper process, because it is a process of getting rid of a very terrible cross-generational trauma. Everything that happens in Russia is connected with the most severe trauma of the past that has not been fully worked out. With millions of dead and repressed. This trauma is passed down from generation to generation and affects people's minds no less today than it did 50 or 60 years ago. nine0007
- What to do about this injury? In Russia, unlike in Germany, when it comes to history, as a rule, they do not talk about what was bad.
- Yes, and it's terrible. This is one of Russia's greatest problems. In general, I believe that the future of Russia is in the past. In the sense that to deal with the past - to accept it and understand. And in this sense, Germany is the first example that Russia should follow.
Because when Germany was talking about its past and dealing with the trauma of Nazism and World War II, one of the biggest things that was done was that evil was called evil.
