Okategoriserade What Did the Father Say?
Comment on Pussy Riot: Reflections on Receptions The story of innocence and corruption, bad motherhood and bad influences presented in […]
Published on balticworlds.com on december 20, 2012
The story of innocence and corruption, bad motherhood and bad influences presented in the program was probably not exclusively the result of the producers’ imagination but rather a leak from the police who maybe were constructing the legal case with the same scenario. During the investigation, Samutsevich’s father was cheated by the police into giving evidence against Tolokonnikova, a story that is reminiscent of the scenario developed in The Provocateurs. In his story (which he later on took back but it was still included in the trial proceedings), he developed the line of “bad influence” which led to a conflict with the father, and the corrupting effects of the “so called contemporary art” (below is an extract from the verdict where these collisions are outlined):
According to the police investigation, Pussy Riot member Samutsevich is his (Stanislav Samutsevich’s) only daughter. … His daughter Samutsevich is baptised, they visit churches and have icons at home. …
His daughter Samutsevich is not registered at the psychiatric-neurological or narcologic outpatient clinic, has not experienced head traumas, has never suffered from severe illnesses or depressions, has not taken antidepressants. In 2007, she was admitted to the Rodchenko school of photography. At the school, she got acquainted with the adherents of the so called contemporary art which was taught to her by the followers of Oleg Kulik – Ekaterina Degot’ and others – who call themselves avant-garde artists. Due to her interest to this so called avantgarde art, his daughter made the acquaintance of students from the department of philosophy of Moscow State University. Among those latter, there were Tolokonnikova and Verzilov. Following this meeting, he (Samutsevich) noticed a radical change in his daughter’s behavior: she stopped discussing with him her studies and her new interests because of his strongly negative statements concerning this contemporary art. In 2011, Tolokonnikova often came to visit them at home, with whom his daughter was busy doing something on a desk-top computer in her room. What exactly it was, he does not know.
He also added some personal observation as to how his daughter had been “zombied by the so-called feminist movement”. The court verdict continues:
He (the father) knows that Tolokonnikova involved his daughter in the so called feminist movement. In this connection, he more than once criticized the idea itself of feminism in Russia as he does not believe that this movement is adequate to the Russian civilization as opposed to the West. Also visiting his home together with Tolokonnikova were some unknown two or three girls with whom he is not acquainted. In October 2011, he was invited to visit the department of the ministry of internal affairs at the Aeroport underground station. The police informed him that his daughter had been detained for committing an act of hooliganism at the Airport underground station. He was informed that his daughter together with Tolokonnikova and another unknown girl had been singing a song wearing masks with holes for the eyes and the mouth. A protocol registering the infringement of law was composed. What was the result of this incident he does not know. In connection with the incident he strictly forbade Tolokonnikova to appear in their apartment. Of all further actions that Tolokonnikova and his daughter carried out he learned from the internet. This was how he came to know about the incident in the Christ the Savior Cathedral carried out by Pussy Riot where his daughter, to his regret, was member.
After she made Tolokonnikova’s acquaintance, his daughter Katya changed drastically. Sometimes it seemed to him that she had been zombie and became member of a sect of fanatics: she refused to listen to the voice of logic and reason, existed in her own irreal world and committed silly, unpremeditated actions which would have never been committed by a reasonable person. At the same time he is almost 100% certain that his daughter was not taking any drugs, did not consume alcoholic drinks, and all changes in her behavior and her mind result from the influence by stronger persons such as Tolokonnikova.