Despite the record number of Prometheus-Prestige nominations, the circle of laureates was narrow
On my way to the Prometheus-Prestige awards ceremony last Saturday, held in connection with the Man of the Year program, the driver who kindly gave me a lift wondered what kind of concert was on at the Ukraine Palace. When I explained it was a cultural action formally designated nationwide and that practically all the national media had advertised it, the man laughed, “Why hold the contest? Everybody knows the Man of the Year.” I asked who he thought should be named Politician of the Year. “Vyacheslav Chornovil, of course,” he replied. I told him the other nominations and he suggested names he though rated the award, yet none was even on the lists. Does it mean that the laureates were less worthy? Obviously an overstatement, but the strong likelihood remains that the much-advertised event was dramatically far from the people. And from those in power as well. Or maybe the reverse.
The President did not attend. Although everybody knew what those “technical reasons,” due to which the finale of the action was adjourned for two weeks, were all about (to time it with Mr. Kuchma’s return from vacations). Nothing helped. In the absence of the Chief Executive, the political beau monde also ignored the ceremony. In fact, numerous previous laureates and quite a few newly-named winners of the statuette did not show up. That was probably why the ceremony was very much like a private banquet of party functionaries under the Soviets where everyone knew one’s role and place, reading speeches written long in advance. Considering that every now and then mention was made of a certain important figure being absent, the whole thing looked rather entertaining. In this sense, Yevhen Chervonenko outdid everyone else, tearfully thanking the President for his policy of reform, due to which they (young men from nomenklatura families) had been able to reach their current heights in business and politics. To commemorate the occasion, Mr. Chervonenko, named Businessman of the Year, brought to the ceremony his race driver’s awards, won before the USSR’s breakup, as gifts for Mr. Kuchma, the Prime Minister, and Speaker. Unfortunately none were present.
Others that were awarded and presented awards, trying to avoid the bathos generally prevalent at this ceremony, went to the other extreme. As though previously agreed, each told anecdotes, often witless. A trifle? Perhaps, but very eloquent evidence of how much we are given to stereotypes. With speeches this does not matter that much, but the experts are also affected (eighty this year!), as are the members of the Supreme Academic Council. In other words, the same number of names on the entrants’ lists, year in and year out, albeit shuffled between nominations. No outsiders seem to be admitted. And thus from this year’s program it seemed that Volodymyr Semynozhenko was the most popular man in Ukraine. In 1998, he was People’s Deputy of the Year. This time Man of the Year. Interestingly, the laureate is also Chairman of the Supreme Academic Council. Of course, the question arises of what he will win next year? All things considered, his own commentary, shared with The Day’s Tetiana POLISHCHUK, sounds touching: “Quite honestly, I was surprised at the jury’s results after summing up the ratings. I am sure we are on the correct path. We must continue to keep as close as possible to unbiased public opinion. The experts singled out people and events that were truly the best and unforgettable in 1999.”
It is also true, however, that other Council members do not share his enthusiasm. “It appears that we have the same laureates: if not Tayisiya Povaliy (Ukrainian Pop Star of 1998 and this year’s laureate), then it is Ruslana Lyzhychko; if not Lyzhychko, then Povaliy. No one’s denying that they are good singers, but not the only ones with such tremendous potential in Ukraine. We never bother to look for fresh talent,” says Volodymyr Bystriakov.
While Mr. Bystriakov spoke about pop music, his forte, lawmaker Nina Bohuslavska, congratulating Semen Hluzman, the first to win in the new nomination, Human Rights Activist of the Year, voiced a similar idea. She said she wished the laureates’ substitute bench were longer. Then the winners would have every reason to take pride in their trophies and those that awarded them would feel genuinely proud of their fellow citizens.
Otherwise word is certain to spread sooner or later about rigged nominations and awards, and not necessarily due to pressure from above (something all the council members adamantly deny), but the closed procedures and stagnant nature of the whole program. All this can eventually discredit the project. Worst of all, it can destroy what positive aspects it has. Of course, we must not allow belittling the merits of those really worthy of the award. People like 16-year- old Viktor Ishchuk, student at Kyiv’s Kyianochka specialized choreography lyceum, winner of international ballet contests in Austria and Germany, currently named Young Talent of the Year, netting perhaps the most important of all nominations. Too bad the organizing committee did not put him on the list of those addressing the audience. Also Ukrainian orchestra conductor Roman Kofman (Cultural Figure of the Year); the celebrated Ukrainian Bohdan Stupka (Actor of the Year); Andriy Shevchenko (Soccer Player of the Year) or the unmatched Sofiya Rotaru (Best Singer of Twenty-First Century Ukraine); the brothers Klychko (special prize called Pride of Ukraine). Neither Shevchenko, nor Klychko could attend the ceremony, yet the audience greeted their names with ovations, for once forgetting about all those backstage dealings, clannish interests, and conflicting ambitions. I would not want to sound melodramatic, but I think that such moments can warm one’s heart and even bestir it with that sweet sentiment called patriotism, although the notion has of late been exposed to speculation and been devaluated somewhat. We should face it: living without it is very difficult. The program helped us remember it and experience it, which is very good. It is very important, but is it enough?
The program has exhausted itself, all lobby talk seemed focused on the subject. I have mentioned one of the reasons. Many believe another reason is the time, with one election campaign just over and the next one being rather far off. Others consider that the program’s standing orders should be revised, distinguishing between the humanities and political blocs. This year, the President, Premier, Speaker, Chairman of the Constitutional Court, and General Prosecutor were not on the entrants’ lists, a fact that explains the lower level of competition.
There is another danger lurking ahead for the program. “It reminds one of a large plate of solianka [the Slavic answer to Mulligan stew —Ed.],” says Serhiy Teriokhyn (People’s Deputy of the Year and member of the Academic Council). “It is very difficult to choose the Politician of the Year, even more so Woman of the Year.”
Oleksandr Rodniansky agrees: “I think that such ceremonies should be made professional, with a clear delimitation. The financiers should have their own elite club where they would chose the winner from among themselves. In that case the trophy would be really coveted. As it is, the awards are adjudicated by people mostly ignorant about the nuances of certain lines of business, finance, or investment. The same applies to politicians, journalists, and cultural figures. If we are to use serious criteria, everything must be done in a professional environment and never otherwise.”
The ceremony was broadcast live on UT-1, so little can be added to what one could watch on television, except that the spectacle was as eclectic as the entire program, meaning that all its positive and negative aspects originate from those of the program. Thus, the organizing committee happened to select an excellent modern ballet group, made up of performers from different companies and nightclubs. Led by Mykola Baranov, the ballet show was the gem of the soiree, but again, it would have been perfect if there had been a bit less to digest. The stage design was quite original but a bit on the superfluous side as well. Prometheus and his flame meant the whole stage afire. There were enough laser beams for a scene from Star Wars. And of course, the downpour of eulogizing verbiage that few could bear without getting wet to the bone. Too bad, for among that spilling out of official praise one could glimpse undisguised truth. For example, when Yuliya Valeyeva, hostess of the “Novyny Zvidusil” (News from Everywhere) program, greeting her colleagues, could not suppress her emotions, saying the program would no longer be on ICTV and Gravis for want of funding and wishing all fellow television journalists to avoid the sad lot, everybody realized that the festivities would end and the next day would bring in the sober reality. Actually, all our future festivities will depend on how well we can cope with these realities. No stage director can do this the way life can.
P.S.: Since every work of art, science, or technology should be judged by the laws governing the given field, let me tell you an anecdote. A man walks into a barbershop for a shave. He is seated and the barber is shaving him. The man says the foam is not thick enough and he wants a different kind of lather. The barber brings another spray can. Then the razor appears not sharp enough. It is replaced. The towel is not clean enough. Again. Finally the barber can bear it no longer, “Now look, mister, you don’t like this, you don’t like that, you don’t like anything.” “That’s right, there is nothing I like,” the man replies.” “Really? But why start with the barbershop?”
