|
|
|
|
|
|
14.01.08
|
Not Looking For Trouble
|
|
|
Interview by Yevgeny Danilov
|
Vladimir Khotinenko, 55, is the only director so far to have successfully translated the newly-fashionable conservative view of Russian history into film. Khotinenko made a name for himself during the Soviet era and during the 1990s.
Like other filmmakers, he faced hard times as both the audience for Russian cinema and its financing disappeared. But in 2002, Khotinenko made a remarkable comeback with the television series, “The End of an Empire,” which presented the Russian Revolution of 1917 as a result of the moral degradation in Russian society coupled with interference of foreign spies working with extremist elements in Russia itself. This “anti-revolutionary” vision of history, inspired by conservative intellectuals, is evident in his latest film, too.
The costume drama “1612” revisits the Time of Troubles in the 17th century. Recently brought to the forefront by Russia’s newest official holiday, the Day of National Unity which is celebrated on Nov. 4, this is the day when Russian forces led by Russian peasants and a minor nobleman forced Polish troops out of the Kremlin.
Russia Profile Was your idea to make a movie about the Polish occupation of Russia only connected to the new holiday?
Vladimir Khotinenko When I was finished my degree at the Higher School of Cinema Directors in 1981, one of the subjects of my early works was related to the Time of Troubles and its aftermath. And since I like to study the context relating to my projects, I read many books about that period of our history. So the idea of a movie about the Time of Troubles first came to me 25 years before the work on the project actually started.
RP Did you study any archival materials from the period?
VK I read many works of [the 19th century Russian historian Vasily] Klyuchevsky on the subject. The problem is that there are not many documents available from that period. The Time of Troubles was an era when everything was blurred and muddled, including archives.
Now I know that it is impossible for anyone to tell the whole truth about the Time of Troubles – or any other period in history, for that matter. This does not, however, make the work of a historian irrelevant, nor does it make it wrong for an artist to make the most of his right to fantasize, using his artistic intuition in situations where science fails. An artist should feel a little freer than a researcher.
RP Most of the reactions to your movie were negative. People expected something pompously patriotic, with ancient boyars dressed in sable fur coats and instead the movie had more fantasy and adventure elements.
VK If I had not livened up the story a little bit, the movie would have been too difficult for a young audience. People did expect something from a patriotic handbook on Russian history, and they were surprised not to see [Kosma] Minin and [Ivan] Susanin. However, if I had simply filmed a textbook history, I would have been attacked from the other side and their criticism would have been no less vehement. I am not concerned about someone’s expectations not being fully realized. What is important for me is the fact that the movie renewed interest in the Time of Troubles. There was a lively discussion on the Internet. People started looking for answers in books and other potential sources. This is the most important thing, because a movie can’t tell the whole truth. It can only inspire and arouse interest. I wanted to make this film for a mass audience, and there are certain things that must be taken into account when doing that.
RP In the movie, Andrei, the main character, is followed by a white horse with a single horn in his dreams? Why did you choose this symbol?
VK The unicorn is a symbol of purity and love. It can also be an allegory for the trinity. People believed that a unicorn’s horn could protect a person from any kind of poison. In the movie, there is a very beautiful scene in which the unicorn meets an old Christian monk who has refused to stop his penitence until the Time of Troubles ends.
In fact, introducing the unicorn into the movie was my initiative. I am proud that I was able to return the unicorn to its historic motherland. Somehow, everyone believes that the unicorn is a Western symbol, a Western invention. The reason for this false belief is that there are many unicorns on Western European tapestries. But when I began to study the issue, I learned that the legend of the unicorn has deep roots in Russia. There is a picture of a unicorn on the throne of Ivan the Terrible and there is a story that when Ivan the Terrible became the tsar, he bought a unicorn horn for 10,000 gold rubles but that the horn disappeared during the Time of Troubles. Since then, this symbol has disappeared from Russian mythology.
RP What was the reaction of young people to your film?
VK The young people I talked to had a very positive and lively reaction. I would have been satisfied if their reaction had only been superficial, but there was much more than that. The movie stimulated a lively discussion and lots of detailed reactions. After the movie’s release, I made a lot of discoveries myself. One of these is that our society is more politicized than educated, and that is indeed sad. One of my critics was surprised that one of the characters in the movie was a monk who lived on top of a pillar and did not know that there were many such saints in Russian history.
Nevertheless, I think that the movie’s release and the discussion it stimulated were positive developments. At least, next year more people will know why we are celebrating Nov. 4.
RP What was the Time of Troubles?
VK Officially, the Time of Troubles lasted from 1604 until 1613, when Mikhail Romanov was chosen as the new tsar. Actually, every country in Europe and even in Asia had its own Time of Troubles. Japan’s was roughly at the same time as Russia’s; European countries went through religious wars and dynastic uncertainties also in the 16th and 17th centuries. It is interesting to note that in other countries these periods were not called by such a negative name. Obviously, for Russians the absence of a ruler was particularly painful psychologically.
The main troubles happened not in Russia’s political system, but in the minds of the people. The average Russian could not live with the idea that there was no legal state power in the country, and this is why I used the symbol of an empty throne. Although, when some people saw this, they said I was calling for a monarchy on the eve of the presidential election at the request of the state. That is stupid, of course.
RP But didn’t the state budget finance part of the cost of the film, which totaled about $12 million?
VK Any talk of me accepting orders from the state is just laughable. I would be happy to receive from the state the amount of support Soviet cinema once got, but in reality the amount of state support was wretchedly small. I was not given any guidelines. I did not have to act within any frameworks, either ideological or artistic. As for gearing the movie to the young audience, I chose to do it this way myself since young people make up most of the moviegoing audience.
I pity those critics who came to my movie expecting a state-sanctioned textbook history and got something else. I understand their irritation, but that’s their problem. For many critics, their opinion had been formed before even seeing the movie.
What I don’t understand is why my movie provoked such an outburst of fury in the media. If it is such a cheesy film, why bother attacking it?
RP Maybe the media was annoyed by the fact that the movie was produced by Nikita Mikhalkov, who has irritated a lot of people by saying that President Vladimir Putin has played a positive role in Russian history and that he would not object to Putin staying in power. Was Mikhalkov’s role in the production that big?
VK Nikita Mikhalkov called me and asked if I wanted to make a movie about the Time of Troubles and I said yes. I met Mikhalkov during the work on the script and we watched some of the material later, but he was very delicate and subtle with my work. I took into account some of his recommendations and disregarded other ones.
RP Nikita Mikhalkov does not make a secret out of his sympathy for monarchist ideas, and the critics of your movie immediately noticed the presence of the monarchical theme in your movie. Some of your critics even made a link between the publishing of the book “Project Russia,” where the restoration of monarchy is presented as a viable option for Russia, and the release of your movie.
VK It is absurd to say that Mikhalkov somehow forced on me the idea of monarchism. I was already a monarchist myself. An American newspaper published an article about our movie, including a good quote from me. I told this paper that I had nothing against democracy per se, but that the nature of our society is a tsarist one. It is quite possible that our state will make a return to the monarchy. No one knows if this will happen.
RP You use a lot of special effects in your movie, including excellent computer graphics. Aren’t you afraid of being called an imitator of Western blockbusters?
VK I am a great enthusiast of computer graphics. This is not simply a gimmick, but an absolutely natural new phase in the cinema industry. Thanks to computer graphics, you can create everything, any kind of spaces or constructions. In my television series "The End of an Empire," there is a scene with an early 20th century battleship appearing in the fog. You can see rusty metal plates, heavy artillery, a sailor throwing a cigarette butt out. Computer graphics are a great aid in using cinema to make your dreams come true. |
| The source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The virtual community for English-speaking expats and Russians
