Bonus (film)
1975 Soviet drama film by Sergey Mikaelyan

Bonus (Russian: Премия, romanized: Premija) is a 1975 Soviet drama film directed by Sergey Mikaelyan. The film is based on the novel of the same name by Alexander Gelman.
Plot
At a meeting of the Communist Party committee of a construction trust (Russian: строительного треста), one of the supervisors, Vasily Potapov, makes a surprise announcement. He and his team refuse to receive the bonus awarded for the alleged overfulfillment of plan targets. According to Potapov, the trust’s management routinely lowers targets so that the trust appears to exceed them easily. Potapov supports his argument with compelling economic data, gathered in collaboration with planner Dina Milenina, showing that the real issue lies with inefficient internal organization, not the uncontrollable factors that management blames.
Initially, the trust’s director, Batarcev, dismisses Potapov’s claims and tries to brand him as a "troublemaker" to deflect from the scandal. However, the Party Secretary Solomakhin unexpectedly sides with Potapov, sparking a debate among the committee members about the ethics of keeping the bonus. Just as Potapov’s argument gains traction, a phone call reveals that some of his team members have already accepted the bonus, leaving Potapov disillusioned. Nevertheless, Solomakhin insists that Potapov’s exit does not erase the issue.
“Bonus (film)” enters the record as 1975 Soviet drama film by Sergey Mikaelyan. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Bonus, film and Soviet can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Bonus (film)” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Bonus, film and Soviet provides the most credible route into that argument.
Attribution, date and provenance are strongest when supported by the original work, a catalogue record and documented transmission. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4376921. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1975.
Later fame can flatten the distinction between original context, subsequent adaptation and institutional collecting history. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Separate the work, its editions or performances, and its later reception. Catalogue records, publication histories and object files often preserve different parts of that story.
- Identifying works and editions
- Tracing reception history
- Finding collection records
The original object or edition, catalogue raisonné, performance record, rights file and holding institution.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Bonus (film)”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Bonus (film) primary sources, Bonus (film) archive and Bonus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Bonus (film)”?
- Which edition, object, performance or recording is being described?
- How did later circulation or interpretation alter the work’s reception?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Bonus (film)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.