Interview with Armen Medvedev

Armen Medvedev did not make Professor Moriarty
Tomorrow, Chairman of the Russian State Committee for Cinematography Armen Medvedev celebrates his 60th anniversary, and the next day the IV extraordinary congress of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia opens in the Kremlin. Whether the congress will be a gift for the Minister of Cinematography, as well as for all other members of the Union, is unknown. However, Medvedev has already received one “gift” on the eve of his birthday: the Prosecutor General’s Office, which checked the activities of a number of Goskino leaders at the request of actor and director Vasily Livanov, officially stated that no corruption was found in the film committee. ARMEN MEDVEDEV commented on the situation in a conversation with Kommersant correspondent LIDIA MASLOVA.

— In the heartbreaking story of the creation of the film “Don Quixote Returns,” Livanov acted not only as the director and performer of the title role, but also as a selfless knight who rushed to fight the “film mafia.” How will Goskino respond to the press campaign launched by Livanov?
— Regarding Livanov’s blitz interview in Ogonyok, the case is already in court, and, in addition, Goskino is going to file a lawsuit against the newspaper Top Secret. I understand the desire of the publication to present the material as sensationally as possible, but I also understand that Livanov himself could not even tell them everything that was written there. After all, we are talking not only about corruption. The wildest accusation seems to be that in the 60s, as a “Komsomol leader”, for the sake of my career, I ruined the biography of screenwriter Vadim Trunin, who was expelled from VGIK. My appearance at VGIK and Trunin’s appearance in cinema are separated by a decade and a half. Trunin was neither among the victims nor among the perpetrators of the story in which I allegedly acted as an accuser. There is documentary evidence that Medvedev was not a political accuser.
- Livanov claimed that you lured him to make a film in the creative association "ARK-Film" under the leadership of your friend Vadim Abdrashitov, sent your "saboteur" to the film crew - director Oleg Grigorovich, who in every possible way slowed down the shooting...
— It all started with a call from Armen Dzhigarkhanyan. He came with Livanov, who was delivering a monologue in my office about how he wanted to commit the main act in his life - to play the role of Don Quixote, and then he was ready to leave cinema altogether. I don’t know what Livanov and Grigorovich agreed on between themselves, who will be called the director in the credits or in reality. You might think that with far-reaching goals I imposed Abdrashitov’s unification on Livanov. But the first documents, in particular the agreement with the Bulgarian side, were signed in March 1995, and then Abdrashitov did not yet lead the association. Moreover, I would like Abdrashitov, as a producer, to be more active in this story.
— According to Livanov’s accusations, Abdrashitov’s studio, in collusion with Goskino, very actively spent the money transferred to “Don Quixote” in the bank while the film crew was sitting without a salary. But Goskino did not fulfill its obligations to finance the film and, moreover, appropriated the funds saved by the group on “per diems and rent.”
— In terms of government funding, there is no concept of “savings.” If we signed an estimate for a million dollars, you received it from me, and then it turns out that you shot the picture for eight hundred thousand, it’s called a little differently. How exactly should be determined by the court. The concept of saving is inappropriate, the state does not act as a usurer - we give money at a symbolic interest: five to ten, sometimes fifteen percent of profits. In fact, we act as patrons of the arts.
Livanov claims that when he became a director, Goskino suspended financing of the film. Yes, this is a very serious act for contractual relations. An agreement was signed for Grigorovich - suddenly Grigorovich is removed from the picture, Livanov appears. You can’t arbitrarily change the director: one today, another tomorrow. To clarify the situation, studio director Abdrashitov went to Bulgaria, to the filming location. Here we also looked at the material, then continued financing and paid off all our debts on the film.
— The case with Vasily Livanov is just a clear manifestation of a general problem: the very system of distributing public funds for cinema, due to its imperfections, creates the ground for suspicion and conflicts.
- Undoubtedly. At the same time, the figure of the producer is overly inflated. Who is the producer in this story? Livanov already at the last stage declares himself a producer. On what basis? Based on the power of attorney of the investor - Anatoly Karpov, with whom not a single contractual document was signed. Just because he saved the film and handed over his dollars somewhere down the hall doesn't give him the right to appoint a producer.
Of course, the control system, the reporting system and the observance of rights need to be improved. We can talk about strengthening audit control on the part of Goskino. But with what forces - when the apparatus was brought to a hundred people? True, with the adoption of the Cinema Law in 1996, the very procedure for providing state support became clearer, but they also complain about this. Previously, everyone didn’t like the editors of Goskino, now they don’t like the members of the expert commissions delegated by the Union of Cinematographers who decide whether to give money or not. They say they are subjective. If a person is given money—I emphasize, not a job, but money—he is happy. For example, Emil Loteanu. When his film was supported, he had no better friends than Goskino. When he was denied funding for his next film, there was talk of incompetence and attempts to sue the government and the committee for depriving him of his constitutional right to work.
— As evidenced by the epic filming of Don Quixote, there are too many random mechanisms at work in the system of state film financing. Is there any way to reduce this element of randomness?
- The fact is that initially the expert jury refused to allocate funds to Livanov - due to the quality of the script, due to the inadequacy of creative ambitions. Few people remember this now. I took responsibility because there was a proposal from the Bulgarian side, which had already given money. And I thought that we need to restore ties and, as an exception, we can support this joint production. Instead of precise calculation and strict adherence to the law, emotions and political considerations intervened. If everything happened under new conditions in full accordance with the law, there would be less of what you call an accident.
— Is the law intended to exclude the possibility of individual decision-making?
- This is not about me personally. Making these kinds of decisions should not be a bureaucratic act, it should be a creative social act. When they say: “Let’s check how they distribute the money,” I take it calmly. You can familiarize yourself with all the minutes of the meetings of the expert jury; everything is known - who voted “for”, who “against” and for what reasons.
— The issue of division of functions and cooperation between state and public structures, in particular between Goskino and the Union of Cinematographers, becomes especially relevant on the eve of the IV Extraordinary Congress of the Investigative Committee of Russia.
- A state matter is a state matter. A public matter, even one based on creative authority and personal connections, is a public matter. Although we complain about lawlessness, in fact it is noticeable that the law is beginning to work in the country and a division of powers is taking place. Over the six years that the film committee has existed, a number of government documents have been developed, and a concept for the development of Russian cinema has been approved. You can try to remove Medvedev, although it will be very difficult. But it is impossible to break the machine itself - we already went through this, after the V Congress of the USSR Investigative Committee in 1988, when we talked about “public-state” management of cinema. So until now, no one has understood what it is... Public opinion, of course, will matter if tomorrow, for example, it is proven that Medvedev or someone else is using the influence given to him by public office to the detriment of the cause . I had by no means an easy relationship with the past chairmen of the Union of Cinematographers - with Elem Klimov, and a completely unidyllic relationship with Sergei Solovyov. There was an episode that was very important for the fate of cinema, when we had to carefully, delicately, with complete reverence, but firmly talk about the unreality of fulfilling one order of the president.
— On what issues might disagreements arise between Goskino and the Union of Cinematographers?
- On principle. Several creative unions affiliate with the Ministry of Culture. If in other committees there is generally no such strong creative union, which must be taken into account and cooperate, then at all times we have had a partnership between Goskino and the union. We are concerned about the same problems, we are responsible for the state of affairs in Russian cinema. And if we disagree on the concept of its development, a conflict may arise.
— In the common territory that you have to share, is a real division of functions possible, or is a mixing of areas of competence inevitable?
— Our interests do not collide. The conversation can be about ways to achieve a particular goal. But so far this has not happened. Now, in preparation for the congress, we are coming to an agreement on a number of issues, even if we initially did not agree on our assessments.
— What do you expect from the IV Congress of the UK as a member of the union?
— Clarity of the charter and some recovery of the union financially. The Union must once again become an instrument of powerful social and creative protection for filmmakers.
— A month ago, delegates to the Third Congress of the Moscow Investigative Committee were excited by the news that the new Prime Minister Kiriyenko was going to abolish Goskino and merge it with the Ministry of Culture. This threat generally arises from time to time... But sometimes one gets the feeling that Goskino rests not on the objective need for it, but on the personal efforts of individual influential individuals.
— The role of personality in history cannot be denied. But when it was decided six years ago that it was necessary to recreate the authorized state body for cinematography, then the main thing happened. Everything else is nuances, conjuncture, rumors. And the new government once again confirmed the need for industry independence.
— What will happen if Goskino does not exist?
— There will be no lobbying for the interests of the industry. We spent six years scratching a sore on the body of our society called “cinema.” Six or seven years ago it was believed that the market would bring it out on its own, and so it did: let’s remember what Russian film production was like between 1992 and 1995 and what the growing inattention to cinema led to.
— There is a radical point of view that state tutelage spoils filmmakers who go to offices instead of looking for money themselves. Maybe they should be thrown into the water like puppies?
— I have no doubt that cinema will always be in Russia. The problem is what it will be, whether society will influence it, whether it will be an instrument of social therapy or a purely market phenomenon - such as some thriving industries that are difficult to attribute to culture and which are destructive in the minds of people. Whether the state and society will demand cinema as a great noble force capable of creation is really a question. This is what we are fighting for.

Newspaper "Kommersant" No. 93 dated May 27, 1998, p. 14

Authors:

Lidiya Maslova