“We didn’t see a maniac”: what’s wrong with Ksenia Sobchak’s film about Viktor Mokhov

On March 22, a film by Ksenia Sobchak about Viktor Mokhov, the “Skopin maniac”, was released, who kidnapped and then kept in the basement for almost 4 years and raped 14-year-old Ekaterina Martynova and 17-year-old Elena Samokhina. After serving 17 years in prison, he was released.

In an interview, Mokhov told his version of events: according to his version, he is a good person without negative character traits, who “stumbled a little” and has already atoned for his guilt. He “fell in love” with Catherine, and as a result he was taken hostage himself: “I was afraid to let them go, I could not kill them. And they suffered, and I also suffered.”

Among other things, the “Skopin maniac” noted that he liked the increased attention to his personality, and at the end of the film he asked for forgiveness for the suffering and humiliation that his victims had to endure. But he emphasized that he always treated them with respect.

On March 24, Ekaterina Martynova announced that she would apply to the prosecutor’s office with a demand to open a criminal case against Mokhov because of threats against her and the second victim. In her opinion, the statements in the interview should be the reason for his repeated detention and arrest. Probably, Mokhov’s words are meant that “we need to do it again” with Catherine, who had previously become pregnant from him, and after captivity did not give birth to children.

We asked experts to share their opinion: is it worth giving people who have committed such crimes the opportunity to speak out, and what could be the consequences of such interviews?

“A culture of violence literally pervades our society”

Vladimir Dashevsky – psychotherapist, regular contributor to Psychologies

Is it possible to interview people who have committed such crimes? In this matter, the position of the interviewer and, in fact, the author of violence are also important. And, of course, the way the interview is done and presented. We have freely available films like the documentary series “Criminal Russia”, freely available on Youtube are videos where children beat children, people mock each other – and they are popular.

The first thing that can be said about the interview is the glorification of a maniac, that is, turning him into a hero. Crime becomes an easy way to become famous: you commit violence, and now journalists want to interview you, you are paid money. And now you are a star. This, in my opinion, is completely unacceptable.

This interview is an advertisement for the culture of violence that literally pervades our society. I don’t know what needs to happen for this to change. The interview of Ksenia Sobchak is another brick in the monumental castle of the culture of violence.

The second is retraumatization of the victim. Re-traumatization for these girls who are in an absolutely terrible situation, and tens of thousands of similar victims, who, I am sure, were shaking with small shivers when they found out that such an interview was possible. They instantly found themselves in that trauma again, finding themselves re-living their agony—being raped, beaten, tortured, and held for long periods of time. And when a rapist says that since one of his victims is now unable to get pregnant, then “she needs to be dealt with again” is a nightmare. I can’t imagine what’s going on in the soul of the one he’s talking about.

Such interviews inevitably shift the focus of society to the behavior of the victim: “What did you do so that you were not raped? There was nothing to get into this car … “It’s terrible! This provokes victimblaming, shifting the blame from the rapist to the injured person. It also increases fear, gives rise to controlling behavior. Allegedly “correct” girls, if they do everything right, do not fall into a trap. And here is the lie. They do, unfortunately.

The form of submission of such materials is important. It’s definitely not worth making a film about a criminal a week after he was released from prison, when he doesn’t repent and is crazy about being in the spotlight … When people watch, comment, agree: “Well, he served 17 years, stumbled, well, it doesn’t happen to anyone, ”this seems to legitimize violence in our society, increases tolerance towards it. This is a real dehumanization in relation to the victims of the crime.

What could this film look like and under what conditions could it be made? I think it only makes sense if he’s being interviewed 10 years after his release. And after he begs for forgiveness for a long time, on his knees he asks him to confess. The hero is filmed in backlight, that is, illuminating from the back. Or is he even behind the scenes.

Or such an interview could be done by professional psychiatrists who are writing a dissertation about such deviant forms of behavior.

“We saw that you can do this and continue to live your life”

Anna Rivina – Director of the Center for Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence “Violence.net” *

I can say that this is not the first time I have observed that Ksenia Sobchak carelessly treats victims of violence. When I went to see her at the release of the DocTok show about the Khachaturian sisters, Aurelia, the mother of the girls, was discussed all over the country. They talked about how Mikhail Khachaturian raped her, with an imitation of everything that happened on the screen. Colleagues who share a similar point of view and I have said that this is unacceptable. Ksenia insisted that this was journalism and that she wanted to understand everything. I think it’s cruel, and, in general, it’s not about journalism.

I would compare the interview with Viktor Mokhov with Sasha Sulim’s film about the Angarsk maniac, since Ksenia likes to use him as an example – they say, why don’t they attack Sasha then. When we watch a film about Viktor Popkov, who is now behind bars, we understand that he is a terrible person, that he committed an insane amount of murders. And his victims “turn” from units of statistics into living women who were lost by their husbands, mothers, fathers. According to the documents – 78 victims. And that’s it, period. But for us, they seem to come alive.

In an interview with Ksenia Sobchak, we see that Mokhov (whose crimes, in my opinion, were misclassified in court because he should not have been released) is absolutely happy with everything that happens and enjoys the process.

There is such a term – the glorification of a criminal. When it happens, not only is there no ban on mentioning this person, but, on the contrary, he is allowed to revel in his fame and attention to himself. And in such a situation, we cannot talk about objective journalism. The Sobchak team is a little socially “stroking” Mokhov, who continues to threaten his victims through this film.

Based on my experience of working with the topic of domestic violence, I can say that, roughly speaking, women who have experienced it are divided into 2 categories. Some want to forget what happened forever and never raise this topic again, while the second, having received support and restored themselves, want to help even more women. This is a psychotherapeutic way that helps to somehow come to terms with what happened in their life.

I endlessly bow before the courage of Katya Martynova to talk about what happened. And it’s not just about the book she wrote, not just about the fund for victims of violence, which she plans to open. At the same time, there are many accusations against her that she “uses” her injury. I am sure that for her all this is a difficult test.

As for the second victim… We don’t know what’s going on in her soul. But even in my feed on social networks, I saw messages from girls who have been silent all their lives about the rape they were subjected to. They saw this film and now they just roar. They are scared, they feel bad. And I think that there is a very high probability of hurting people somehow. I did not have such a terrible experience, but after watching this movie, I felt sick and sick.

I think it’s a very tough job. We have seen that it is possible to do this and continue to live our lives. Drinking tea, getting attention and even money… In addition, the film does not create the impression that we have a monster, a maniac in front of us: on the contrary, it is as if humanity has been added to it. Although I am against dehumanization, I consider it unacceptable.

^* On the territory of the Russian Federation, the organization is recognized as a “foreign agent”