“THOSE WHO PREPARED THE UPHEAVAL OF 1991 HAD SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN MIND”
Was it the historical record that prompted you to think about making the film or vice versa?
“Of course, the historical record came first. I wanted to make it alive, to share this unique data.”
What are the main differences, then, between the Euromaidan and the events of 1991?
“I think it can be briefly stated as follows: the ‘revolution’ of 1991 was not made by the people who took to the streets. It was neither their efforts nor their will that brought it. There was something to the events of 1991 which we did not know and did not see then and still do not know and do not see. Those who prepared it all had something totally different in mind, in my opinion.”
What gives you reason to think so?
“Just look at people’s faces in the record. They show surprise, suspicion, failure to understand what is happening, even fear. After all, where did it start? Suddenly, a ‘group of comrades’ reported that a healthy vigorous man had grave health issues, and we better believe it. If you think about it, there are serious reasons to doubt the whole story.”
How was this trick effected?
“If you remember, Kyiv, for example, was silent during the coup. All pricked their ears and watched what happened in Moscow. Freedom and Independence fell to us as a gift, and not because a lot of people sacrificed their lives for them, not because those people wanted freedom. You see, neither territory nor property nor the rights come free. Thus, we received a poisoned gift in 1991, and this sooner or later turns sour: bad people would come for your freedom and demand it back. And they came, as we saw lately. There were people who really fought for it, but there were few of them, like the dissidents, for instance... I agree, Moscow and St. Petersburg did rise up in August 1991. But what did all the rest of the country do? It is just ridiculous. A very good example, I think, is Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s literary relegalization. Journals suddenly began to print his pieces. People had been imprisoned for keeping his works at home, and then they were published here and there. Why, how did it happen? Did Soviet citizens wage a massive, determined struggle for the right to read Solzhenitsyn and not go to prison for it? Should not one ask: where did such generosity come from? It seems that preparations for granting freedom ‘from above’ began five to six years before the events of 1991.”
“I STRONGLY HOPE THAT THE REVOLUTION WILL MAKE US TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE IDEA TO HOLD A TRIAL TO DEAL WITH THE CRIMES OF COMMUNISM”
What about the Euromaidan?
“The Euromaidan was another story. In my opinion, this was the first real anti-Soviet revolution. People understood what they came out to oppose, and I strongly hope that this revolution will make us to take another look at the idea to hold a trial to deal with the crimes of communism.”
The talk about it has been going on for years with a varying degree of intensity.
“Nothing will be done without it. This does not mean we have to symbolically put some long-dead bandits behind the bars. It is necessary to assess from the perspective of the society and the nation the acts that were done here, to establish the extent of their criminality, the means used by the culprits, and to declare that this country will not let it happen ever again. This is a necessary basis to have the country developing and citizens finally trusting their government.
“The most important question, whether the post-Soviet rulers want to raise it or not, is the question of property. What did happen in 1917: was it a legitimate confiscation, and we can act this way in the future, or would we say that it was an unthinkable crime, and make a social contract outlining how we, the citizens of Ukraine, will treat the riches that the country still has left? Restitution or compensation, we need something to happen on these lines. One cannot feign blindness and say: ‘Yes, we killed these guys then, and it does not matter whether their descendants are alive or not, for 1917 was a long time ago.’ No statute of limitations should apply to these crimes.”
Is decommunization a step in the right direction?
“I am talking about a trial, a legal proceeding here. The trial should be a public review of all crimes and how they were committed. How, for example, the famines were organized in Ukraine. It was a long process, taking more than one day. There were certain techniques used, and they are still effective, that is what scares me greatly as I see provocations, promoting divisions and subsequent incitement of people to hate each other because of their linguistic or other differences. There are wonderful memoirs and eyewitness accounts extant. Local residents participated in the crimes, and this too should be discussed. We must name all the names, including the names of the murderers. For example, neither those who murdered Polish officers at Katyn nor murderers of Bykivnia have been named yet. By the way, do you know that no Soviet Ukrainian prosecutor died a natural death before the World War Two? A lot of data is resurfacing, it seems they are going to open the archives. So, decommunization is right as an idea, but the next question is: what specific actions do its initiators have in mind? Renaming cities is a right thing to do, removing all the Communist monuments is also right, because murderers have no claim to have their statues standing in central squares, and no street should be named after them. However, the full realization of what was happening there, of the fact that one fascist regime defeated another and then took hold of a part of Europe – this realization has not come yet. We need this realization to open people’s eyes to what was happening, and have them determine their attitude to it. This is their life, life of their parents, and suffering of many people.”
“THE CONCEPT OF ‘HERO’ IS BACK”
How have you personally been changed by the events in Ukraine?
“I have been rather surprised. Suddenly, I do not know from where, some living thing sprouted forth after almost a century of oppression and purges. The people have come back, not pale shadows, but real people. Life has restarted. Note, please: the concept of ‘hero’ is back. You can now believe a film hero in Ukraine. If you make a film, you can create a hero without hypocrisy.”
What is the reason for it?
“Tragedy has become possible. Neither grotesque nor melodrama, but tragedy. We have something real now, for which people are willing to sacrifice their lives. When it is present, the very concept of tragedy reappears. Note, please, that it was absent in the late Soviet period. Eldar Ryazanov’s comedies provide a good example. It is significant that this genre was so prosperous then.”
“I WOULD NEVER FILM UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES”
What makes for a documentary filmmaker’s success? For you, is there such a thing at all?
“When one goes out into the world with a camera, one always has certain intentions. One switches it on expecting that something may happen. We expect all of this, we cannot live otherwise, we always project the future. We live by a split second ahead of the present, guessing how the world will change around us. The human brain is made to work this way.
“So, when one shoots suddenly something unexpected, it is a success. In The Landscape, we were filming people at a bus stop. Of course, I was interested in faces. Look at a frame. A person feeds pigeons and throws them seeds. Panorama moves from left to right, we see a girl, a pigeon, someone’s foot, the camera moves – and suddenly an arm enters the frame from the top, grabs this pigeon and scoops it up. The person who was waiting at the bus stop grabbed a pigeon in predator-like manner after feeding it. This gesture reflects a lot of things, including aggression and freakishness... They did not see that I was filming, they did it for themselves, succumbing to their internal impulse, and the gesture made it all clear. To give credit where credit is due, my cameraman was not startled and kept filming and doing a panorama. It was just such an unexpected success. I have one to three such fortunate flukes in every film, and it is such moments that make me realize that He who directed me to come to this place with a camera put me in the right flow of events.”
To speak the language of drama, why is the central character in your documentaries always the choir and never the protagonist?
“I would really like to avoid distortions in the film, and when I have a hero, I inevitably get drawn in their field, and they get drawn into mine, and I see then not them alone, but them and the camera, and their projection of themselves in the image that they want to make of themselves. This is not really them anymore. No matter how sincere they are, it still happens. And secondly, there are intimate areas in which I would not like to intrude. This is not mine, and I have no right to know it. When you approach people that close, and with a camera to boot, the inevitable ethical conflict starts. How much am I entitled to know about the life of another person? And even if I am, may I share it with others? This constrains me.”
Is the distance so important?
“Yes. I would never film under some circumstances.”
But another approach involves the director living with their character, filming them, and good works are created in this way as well.
“Yes, and I wish every success to them. I am not interested in this approach.”
“REALISTIC MANNER IS A FORM OF ILLUSION”
Is there a fundamental difference, then, between feature films and documentaries?
“There is not. Both are different means to embody one’s speech and prompt the viewer to think. The book is the same, just in a different way, using a different language, but who cares if you are left open-mouthed for half a day after reading it? Who cares if it was achieved by films, books, music or paintings, or even occurred to me as an artist in the street when I saw a combination of impressive circumstances, things, people?”
What is the realistic manner and realism, then?
“It is some form of illusion. There are serious studies of the way the model of the world is constructed in our minds. What we are dealing with is a model we perceive as something immutable, predetermined. In fact, it all depends on a multitude of most varied circumstances. Two individuals from different cultures would construct two starkly different models in one and the same place. Both would have the right to exist, and both would fail to some extent to reflect what really is there.”
“SEPARATION OF ART FROM SCIENCE IS UNFAIR”
Finally, a strange question: why does the humankind need films?
“It is a way of exploring the world, just like all other ways. Why do people explore it? In my opinion, the most valuable thing we have is our brain as the carrier of consciousness. So, the filmmaking art is a tool of it, just like science. Long-standing separation of art from science is unfair. Did you know that the movie camera was originally invented for research use? Only later did it become the means of producing entertainment. There were a number of directors who could combine entertainment and research. Alfred Hitchcock was one of them, Luis Bunuel another. I, too, like to work in this direction, to study the human being.”
