Contact, the international festival of documentary cinema held at Kyiv’s Zhovten cinema, featured a special program consisting of two films from Jerzy Hoffman’s four-part series entitled Ukraine: Birth of a Nation. The first film of this tetralogy, From Rus’ to Ukraine , which was screened two years ago at the Molodist international film festival, sparked much debate, and everybody was looking forward to subsequent films. The second and third films, Ukraine, or Little Russia? and Together Forever , thrilled some viewers and disappointed others. These two films deal, respectively, with the period from the late 17th to the early 20th century and from 1921 to 1945 (the Yalta Conference). Hoffman says he will complete the final, fourth, installment very soon and will screen it in Kyiv.
I think there will be even more apologists and opponents of this film, and every historical episode depicted may have different, sometimes diametrically opposing, interpretations, depending on the authors’ knowledge. From the cinematographic point of view, the film was made in an extremely simple fashion, without eye- catching innovations or special effects. The video footage and voice-over commentaries hark back to the long-forgotten educational cinema. While it is easy to criticize other people’s work, it should be stressed that Hoffman is the first film maker to turn his attention to a huge chunk of our history in his attempt to understand Ukrainian identity.
Mr. Hoffman, you began your film-directing career by making documentaries. Later, the lion’s share of your feature films was based on very high-quality historical literature. On the one hand, it is easy to understand your interest in Ukraine’s history, but on the other, judging by the literature you turned to, history should be interpreted and examined through the prism of time. What prompted you to focus on the documentary history of Ukraine, all the more so as a considerable part of your four-part film series is devoted to modern history?
“Let me begin from the end, i.e., from the fact that these four films are about the making of a nation and the history of a country and a people because no country as such existed after the Tatar-Mongol invasion. Like Poland, it was torn to pieces. I don’t know what destiny Ukraine and Ukrainians would have been if not for the genius of Taras Shevchenko, who created a genuine modern Ukrainian language.
“I felt the first stirrings of interest when I saw Leonid Kuchma’s book Ukraine Is Not Russia. It never occurred to anybody, let’s say, in Poland to call a book Poland Is Not Russia or Poland Is Not Germany, perhaps because Poland has been an independent state for a longer time, even though there were long gaps when it was partitioned between Prussia, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.
“Ukraine was not independent in fact since the period of Kyivan Rus’. Germanization was carried out in Poland by separating the Slavs from the Germans. The Polish elite was encouraged to join the German elite via education. In Ukraine, Russification took place in a different way: ‘We are the same, we are not different, but we are Great Russia and you are Little Russia.’ This is what shaped the mentality of Russia, including some of its intellectuals: Ukraine is nothing but a part of Russia, and Ukrainians are simply Russians who just speak a somewhat different dialect.
“It became clear to me that if the president himself writes a book with this kind of title, it was really necessary. That surprised me at first but, as I read on, I began to understand the underlying reasons. So I decided to dedicate a film to this subject. At first I intended to make a three-part series. But there was flood of materials coming in. I had to drop many things. For example, I learned that Shevchenko had witnessed the Polish uprising and saw the Polish emperor being stripped of his crown; he also found his first love in Poland. I had to cut this out for lack of space.
“Our history and our destinies were intertwined. For centuries on end, Ukrainians and Poles warred with one another but also encountered each other in exile. Both peoples were in shackles. They were often led to conclude, perhaps tardily: was it really worth fighting?”
Judging by your life story, Russia should be closer and more understandable to you. But judging by the film, you are deliberately distancing yourself from Russia. Why?
“I am trying to distance myself not only from Russia but from Poland, because I want to show causes. I condemn both sides from time to time, and naturally I don’t avoid condemning Ukrainians when necessary. But I love Ukraine: I shot the crowd scenes of The Deluge there. I have a lot of friends and relatives.
“The histories of Ukraine and Poland began to intertwine as early as the 14th century. How many Cossacks possessed noble coats- of-arms granted by Polish kings? The Cossacks played an enormous role in all the wars that the Polish Kingdom waged — against Sweden, Russia, Turkey, etc. Is it not clear that an individual who has gained freedom with saber in hand will never let himself be reduced to the level of a serf? This played an extraordinary role in the history of both countries.
“I am distancing myself from Russia because during a certain period it posed the greatest threat to Ukrainian self-identification. It was Russia that heavily influenced the language, culture, etc. Shevchenko’s poetry is a sweeping indictment of tsarism. The great artist was profoundly aware of this and waged a protest in his works. It is no accident that when Shevchenko was banished, the Russian sovereign forbade him to write and paint.”
Russia is being accused of harboring imperial ambitions and a plan to gather as many ‘younger brothers’ as possible under its wing without identifying them too much. Is the European Union today this same kind of centralization, but at a new stage?
“No, it is not because the European Union not only does not discredit its individual members but, on the contrary, cares for the preservation of cultural monuments. Each country, although it pursues a common economic policy, enjoys full independence, sometimes too much, in my opinion. The main thing is that there is no center that subordinates everything: languages, culture, self- identity, etc. A state can be one of the greatest thanks to its powerful and talented human resources, science, and culture, even without staking on its imperial ambitions.”
You were a pioneer, who succeeded in making Polish cinema work in the new conditions. Unfortunately, there is no film industry in Ukraine today, but emphasis is being placed on the historical theme. Can it really give an impetus to the national
cinema and will this kind of cinema be interesting outside Ukraine?”
“I don’t think so. The point is that Poland and Russia have also gone through this kind of crisis, when filmgoers stopped patronizing movie theaters. Now Russia has a burgeoning movie industry. Moreover, Russian cinema is playing the same role in Ukraine as the American one is in the world. This is no surprise because the realities of everyday life, landscape, and the way people dress are the same, as are the problems of young people who are going through their school of life. There is also a great danger here because if the filmgoer does not beat a path to his own country’s films, there won’t be any. And no art patron will help, especially since he will support one film or two, at most. Besides, nobody has succeeded in making a really interesting historical film without an interesting literary basis, without true-to-life characters whom audiences can understand, love, or hate. If there are emotions, you can don any costume and reflect on the present day through the prism of yesterday.
“It is crucial to have people who recognize this as a business. Ukraine is such a large country that it stands a good chance. But one should not be immersed in the past all the time — even in a very important and incredibly beautiful period of Ukrainian cinema, the period of Paradzhanov, Illienko, Osyka, and others. Cinema has come a long way in the past few decades: it tells and sees things differently, and the filmgoer has other demands too. So you have to win the spectator over and only then try to raise the bar so that art does not drown in manure.”
Do you think your tetralogy will be released widely? Will it be interesting to other people besides Ukrainian filmgoers?
“First of all, this film is supposed to become a pioneer of wide release on Ukrainian television. This film should be in all schools, colleges, and universities because it is a concise manual that should arouse interest in delving deeper into this subject. And if this film plays a certain role in the nation’s self-identification, I will be proud of this and consider that I have done a good job.”
You have been accused of bias in your interpretation of history. Do you have arguments to refute them?
“I can accept any kind of criticism, but in spite of all the debates, I really believe that communism was a necessary and useful stress. It truly gave a chance to millions — but at the cost of millions of deaths. I show this in my film. They should be happy that they were not tried like the ones at Nuremberg, because if you count the victims, no one knows which of the two will tip the scales.”
You came here with a film about the history of Ukraine at a very tense moment. What do you think is going on?
“I am not a prophet, naturally, but all I will say is that the hopes that nurtured ordinary people during the Orange Revolution have been thwarted by the personal ambitions of politicians. The country is divided now. Building a state always takes a long time: it took some European countries more than 100 years. And how many years have gone by in Ukraine, 15 or 16? That isn’t even one generation. In terms of history, this is nothing, just a fleeting moment. The fact that a compromise is being sought today and the Orange and White-Blue protesters are spitting at each other but stopping short of stabbing one another inspires huge optimism in me.”
