A few days ago I received two screenplays on the theme of Georgy Saakadze: one by Antonovskaya and Cherny, the other by Leonidze.

In my opinion, Leonidze's screenplay is unsuccessful. It is poor in its artistic aspects. It is somewhat primitive in terms of the selection and use of historical material.

The screenplay by Antonovskaya and Cherny is free of similar shortcomings. However it has another shortcoming. It ends with the victory as the apotheosis of Saakadze's policy and Saakadze himself. Such a finale, though, as we know, does not correspond to historical reality and creates a false impression of Georgia's past. In fact, as history tells us, Saakadze's policy, although it was progressive from the standpoint of Georgia's future prospects, suffered a defeat (and Saakadze himself perished), since Georgia in the time of Saakadze had still not matured enough for that kind of policy, i.e., for its unification into a single state by means of affirming tsarist absolutism and eliminating the power of the princes. The reason is clear: the princes and feudalism proved more powerful, and the tsar and nobility weaker, than Saakadze had assumed. Saakadze felt this inner weakness of Georgia and conceived the idea of getting around that by attracting to the cause an outside (foreign) power. But the foreign power could not compensate for the country's internal weakness. And that is what occurred, as we know. Given these insoluble contradictions, Saakadze's policy had to—and in fact did—suffer defeat.

I think that this historical truth should be restored in the screenplay by Antonovskaya and Cherny.

And if it is restored, the screenplay of Antonovskaya and Cherny could be characterized as one of the best works of Soviet cinematography.