Karen Shakhnazarov:
"Each viewer creates the film that he wants to see" Automatic translate

The conversation with the director of Mosfilm Karen Shakhnazarov about the current state and prospects of Russian cinema was conducted by Alexey Serditov and Alexey Firsov. Important, although not the fact, that the attempt to draw a semantic and stylistic border of Russian cinema turned out to be successful. Along the way, it turned out that the "White Tiger" - the last movie symbol of Shakhnazarov - again went on the warpath.

Material prepared by the project
Center for Russian Culture Studies

- Do you see any works or messages, ideas that may be of interest to the European audience in modern Russian cinema?

- As the director of Mosfilm, I can say that we organize all kinds of festivals and shows. Especially now, to the ninetieth anniversary of Mosfilm. All over the world we see very great interest. In any case, we have a feeling that all this is in demand. Moreover, Russian cinema is now quite difficult to get into global distribution. But in all countries there is a fairly stable audience that is interested in Russian cinema.

- Organizers of the festival “KINO. Films from Russia and not only for the second year in a row present the post-Soviet space to the Swiss audience: Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Georgian, Baltic films. Does this idea seem working to you?

- It seems to me that today it makes sense for the festival to focus more on Russian cinema. I think that the idea of ​​the post-Soviet space works within Russia, but in Europe I don’t know. But many do not understand these nuances, people begin to get confused, they do not understand what kind of cinema this is - post-Soviet. For many, this has already taken place: there is Tajikistan, there is Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic states.

- How is a single cultural space no longer perceived?

“I think not today.” It is, say, within the framework of Russian-language cinema, but for the festival, it seems to me, a single idea is important so that people understand where they are coming and what they will watch. They go to Russian cinema.

- What is the actual interest of Europeans in our cinema?

- Today, oddly enough, in connection with all the events, Russia has become even more popular, it interests everyone. So the world is arranged.

- But is it rather negative popularity?

- What does “negative” mean? In Soviet times, it was also negative, but they went and looked at our cinema, because it is a superpower, but people are interested. It is clear that there is Nepalese cinema, but, relatively speaking, nothing depends on it. Therefore, Russian cinema today, perhaps not deserving of it, is attractive to the Western audience in terms of interest in the country.

- What prevents you from making more worthy films in Russia?

- When we talk about the problems of Russian cinema, we must understand that the same problems exist in almost all cinemas in Europe. Maybe in France the situation is more or less good now, but in Italy and Spain it is very difficult.

In Russia, definitely not enough movies are being made. About 70 films were shot last year, which is very few. In Russia, the television industry is developing much more powerful.

- Does the content problem exist?

- The problem of content exists always and everywhere. But if you make 300 paintings, then there are always 30–40 worthy films. If you make 70 paintings, then you yourself understand. Therefore, I think that this is, above all, the issue of production in Russia. In principle, we have a base, capacities, everything is there.

- No idea?

- I can’t say so, because in Russian cinema there are quite interesting pictures. I can’t say that there are fewer ideas in Russian cinema than, say, in German.

- When you watch your “White Tiger”, you assume that some metaphysical idea is sewn inside. The viewer has a certain interpretation of it. What did you want to say and convey with this film? This is not to say that this is just a war film.

- Of course not. There are quite a few topics in the film. If this picture causes controversy, different interpretations, and it is, then it’s good. So, we managed to do something that catches the viewer.

- But when you started working on the White Tiger, there was obviously a certain basic message that you wanted to put into the language of symbols and forms.

- In art, you move quite intuitively. If you immediately formulate an idea, and such a movie happens, it is immediately obvious. In any case, I have never worked like this, always to a large extent intuitively. Of course, I have an idea, but it cannot be said that it can be unambiguously formulated. I think that there are a lot of ideas. Firstly, the idea of ​​the indestructibility of fascism, which, unfortunately, we are seeing now. The idea of ​​the indestructibility of the conflict between Europe and Russia, which is definitely very deep in us, and we see it again. By the way, when I was making the picture, this was not yet so noticeable. But now it’s obvious. This cannot be attributed to "just such a situation."

On the other hand, there is a motive: war gives rise to monsters, but in order to fight monsters, you must possess supernatural.

- Become the same, maybe?

- To a certain extent, yes. Probably, all these topics are somehow present in the picture, but I can’t say that I wrote them down and then thought how to translate them. I moved in many ways intuitively.

By the way, oddly enough, a lot of people bought the picture in Europe.

- And where did she become the most popular? How in Germany, for example, was received?

- In Germany, she went to the box office, caused quite heated debate. All Europe bought, America bought. Although some believe that this picture is anti-Western.

- Not anti-Western, but rather a conflict. Still, we are talking about the internal forces and demons of fascism, and not about European, Western culture. Probably, we can say that fascism is authentic to Western culture, but there was no sensation of an anti-Western front in the picture.

- She is perceived differently, in this sense I never dispute anything. Each viewer, when he watches, creates the film that he wants to see.

- Many say that we live at a turning point in history. And we are used to that our cinema somehow meets the challenge of time. And now for some reason there is no feeling that our cinema will answer current questions. Or is this the wrong feeling, do you think?

- I do not think that cinema, by and large, meets the challenge of time. In my opinion, art cannot generally evaluate the time in which it exists.

- This does not even mean a series of events, but some sensations and expectations of people. Recall perestroika, because your films made it possible to take a different look at what was happening. "Courier" gave a sense of inner freedom. This was in line with the expectations that were in society.

- I think that it is the Tiger that creates this feeling. "Tiger" should give a sense of danger, which, in my opinion, is definitely present in our time. We do not know where all this will come, but I have an absolute feeling of great danger. Because everything that I see with my own eyes, in my opinion, will end very sadly. But we cannot say how and what, we cannot predict. We simply can convey a certain sense of danger or discomfort. This movie can do, but not give recipes.

- When you signed the letter in support of Putin’s policy in Crimea, was it a gesture of an artist or a civil gesture for you? Did you sign this letter more as an artist or just as a person who is interested in politics?

- Rather, it was a civil gesture. The thing is that I grew up in a family of politicians and I think that I understand politics quite well. From a young age I have been watching how this happens. Nobody forced me.

- The state order is trying to create a Russian idea in the cinema today, but not very successfully, it seems.

- Now it is hardly possible. In Soviet cinema there was also a government order, but in Soviet society there was an idea. She may or may not like, but it was an idea that stained everything. Therefore, the state order sometimes could well work. In modern Russian society, no idea has yet developed. In principle, why does Russian society exist? What does it want?

- But we do not know what, for example, the Swiss society wants.

- There are countries that cannot exist without an idea. Russia cannot. America cannot. This is the lot of big countries.

- Is the idea or artistic merit of the picture primary in the cinema?

- I think that art is impossible without an idea. The lack of ideas in art is also an idea. This does not mean that you watch a movie and see an idea. It is implicitly present, there is a certain way of thinking that is inherent in one or another part of the world, society.

- Let’s talk about the Russian arthouse. This is something from the realm of intelligence and low-budget financing. Our arthouse cinema is built on such a primitive time-lapse show, not only of Russophobic moments, but illustrating Russia with rather negative things.

- The thing is that arthouse cinema is entirely focused on Western festivals. There, just such a look is welcome. Therefore, artists sometimes make movies for this order.

- Maybe, besides the festival ones, we have no other criteria? Rental criteria are lost.

- Unfortunately, I believe that Russian cinema has become completely divorced from the audience. It absolutely does not depend on the audience, it is fully funded by the state. Therefore, our series have become much more interesting than movies. The series are focused on the viewer, they need a rating, they need money. There is a lot of junk, but there are much more interesting things than in the movies.

- In France, as far as we know, there are some restrictions related to the rental of American tapes, a certain percentage of French must be present. We had such ideas, but were not realized. Do you think we need quotas for national cinema at the box office?

- In France there are no restrictions. The French system is good in that it is very smart, sophisticated. They, for example, have a complete prohibition of movie advertising on television. This is a very tricky move, it is directed against the Americans. But Americans cannot say that this is a violation of market rules, because no one can show ads. The thing is that American companies can afford large advertising budgets, but the French can not. By banning movie advertising on TV, the French actually took a step in favor of their companies. A cunning move, it is very difficult to find fault with him.

On Thursday, it is generally forbidden to show any movie on French television, because on Thursday premieres are released. The French have many such very tricky moves. I have said many times that we need to take all this from them.

If you go through Paris, you will see that out of five paintings at the box office, four are already French.

- That is, your recommendations as an expert - to transfer the French rolling model to Russia?

“I’ve been saying for twenty years:“ Transfer the French model, accept the laws. ” But we have our own lobby, large rental companies that exist at the expense of American cinema. And the deputies who do not want to quarrel with television, because then you will need to speak in some program.

- Do you, as the director of Mosfilm, discuss these issues with the government?

- I participate in all these discussions. What I am telling you, I am telling you everywhere. Mosfilm does not receive budget money. As they say, I’ve been in the market for 15 years and by its nature has already become a pure marketer. My paintings are made mainly without government funds. They refused me at the White Tiger. “Chamber number 6,” I generally did without state support.

- And where is the line between arthouse and wide cinema? “Ward number 6,” apparently, is somewhere on the verge.

- I don’t understand what an arthouse is. There is art, there is no art. For me, art is everything where there is a certain style. Therefore, I don’t understand when they tell me that an arthouse is sure to be boring. For me, Gaidai is also an art, because Gaidai had a style. What is the difference between a very good and professional artist? The fact that you can cut off the credits and understand who filmed it. It is very simple. Gaidai obviously had an absolutely unique style. And the fact that he did eccentric comedies does not mean that he was less an artist than, say, Tarkovsky.

We all came down to the fact that arthouse - it should be boring, boring. I do not understand this. There is simply good art, and there is not art, but commercial cinema, which can also be, by the way, good.

I can tell you the names of outstanding masters who have no style. Spielberg, for example. And Tarantino has a style, because you can immediately see that this is his film. But Tarantino removes what is called an arthouse. And Spielberg does not rent an arthouse.

“Are you working on something now?”

- I, as a producer, finished shooting a military picture. I think she’s not bad. According to the story of Kazakevich “Two in the steppe”. There is such a military story, in my opinion, wonderful. The film was shot by a young director, he studied with me. We seem to have finally decided that the picture will be called "The Road to Berlin." Maybe at the last moment we’ll change our minds, because we have moved away from the name “Two in the steppe”.

- The second consecutive return to the topic of war?

“She is a war, but different than in the Tiger.” It is more made in the Soviet tradition. The young director, it seems to me, dealt with this. The picture is very human, and at the same time it is a fairly large-scale movie. Although the budget is not so big. The Ministry of Culture participated there, but mostly “Mosfilm” is invested. Invested seventy percent of the entire budget.