However, for example, throughout the Soviet period, directors of the Armenian SSR could not make a film about the genocide and relations with Turkey. So, Mikael Stambolkian recalled the imperial model of relations between the central authorities and the film studio “Armenfilm”, “If there is anything that the Armenian people have, it is their history. Only three historical films have been made in the 65 years of existence. One is dedicated to the taking of the fortress of Yerevan by the troops of general Paskevich and the annexation of Eastern Armenia to Russia. In the second film where the action takes place 100 years earlier, in the very end, suddenly, a Russian detachment comes to the aid of the commander Mkhitar. This tail sewn with white threads to the novel of Sero Khansadyan who is very well known in Armenia was needed as a screen pass. Neither those who thought it up nor those who accepted it were interested in the fact that in the early 17th century, there was no helicopter landing, and in no other way Russian troops could appear in a given geographical point at that time. It was simply believed that the only way to save the people and save the film is if it was contrary to history, geography, and even common sense.”
The sudden criticism of the system from the regions led to the meeting of the fifth plenum of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR in 1988 entitled “Democratization of society and national cinematography under conditions of perestroika”, during which the “cinematographic brotherhood” will be called “to be free, but united, united, but free”.
Prospects of perestroika here were questioned by the first secretary of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR A. S. Smirnov (it was impossible to present such a thing under L. Kulijanov as the head of the USSR SK), “…the enormous resistance of the administrative system which in words supports the ideas of perestroika is still fiercely resisting their implementation in practice.” Or, “it seems that the notorious Administrative-Command System has secretly decided and successfully carried out a severe massacre of the audacious filmmakers who were among the first in the country to try to weaken its oppressive power.”
Rikhard Peaks, Studio Director and General Director of “Latviaskino” in 1988 compares the system of film studios with the administrative structure of the state, “A few words about the danger that we have. We have developed a model: pluralism, autonomy, and the sovereignty of different films. But here, the opposite tendencies are felt. The same is happening now with the republics in general and with the project for amendments to the Constitution of the USSR. We discussed this issue and came to the conclusion that there can be no independence of separate links in the framework of all-Union relations without the sovereignty of these links, whether it be cinema or a republic. In this context, the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the USSR seem to us to come from the consciousness that has been nurtured in us for years, and from the consciousness of centralism, they do not imply this sovereignty. It seems to us that first, it would be necessary to work out the constitutions of the republics, and then, the general Soviet Constitution. No one should ever be afraid that if someone is given more conscious freedom, someone will run away. We all know that the dog that is on the chain is angrier than the one that walks freely, it knows its owner.”