Translated material
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg
Dmitry Volchek: In 1996, in the article “The decline of the cinema”, Susan Umbable lamented: “Are there a place for the Great Godard these days, who is forced to make videos about the history of the cinema, or for the dissident of Hans-Jurgen Zibergberg, who generally stopped shooting?”
Search on the Internet for the surname "Zibermberg" issues a giant site - www.syberberg.de - made not by unknown fans, but by the director himself. This is actually the only presence of Zibermberg in a modern movie world, although very noticeable - the director’s online diarrhea read tens of thousands of people.
Unlocked film journalists habitually mention the name of Zibermberg when it comes to the history of the "new wave" of German cinema. I did not dare to ask Zibermberg what he was thinking about Vim Venders and Verner Herzog, because the answer to the question of Fassbder already showed that the director did not intend to put up with his name in this clip.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: We were antipodes. He had a great talent to tell stories. This genre has never been in the center of my attention. In my films, I never told stories, but portrayed a story, resorting to a lyrical, poetic form. In addition, we have a different temperament. Secondly, he is a typical child of the era of the post -war development of West Germany, all that can be described by the English word "trash", i.e. Garbage, rubbish - I mean its aesthetics.
As for me, it should be indicated that the years that I lived until 1945 cannot in no way be called insignificant. I always had a different goal in art, namely the overestimation of reality. But as for passion, pathos, then there was a similarity between us. But he, as a rule, became trivial here, and I played with triviality.
Dmitry Volchek: The first work of Zibermberg after his flight from the GDR to West Germany was documentary shooting of the productions of Bertold Brecht, and it was with the intention to embody the dramatic principles of Brecht Ziberclberg on the screen. Interestingly, the last picture of Lars von Trier Dogville, using the techniques of Brekhtov’s directing, largely inherits the early works of Zibergberg: experimental films-scenes of the 60s.
The film "Theodore Hirnais" became a prologue to the main work of Zibermberg - "German trilogy." Theodore Hirnais is a cook of Ludwig the Second, and the film is based on his memoirs - actor Walter Zedlmeier walks along the empty halls of Ludwig's romantic castles, talks about the habits of the crazy king and shares his favorite dishes.
Fragment of the film: Peacock. A dish for the king. Royal dish. Even the ancient Romans preferred this proud bird. Bavarian royal cuisine ordered peacocks in the vicinity of Rome. King Ludwig often ordered the meat of this bird. After the peacock is pluck, its feathers should be carefully put aside for further use. Then he will be gutted and stuffed with a goose liver, herbs and truffles. Herbs are placed to taste - most often those that the bird itself eats. After the peacock is fried in the way, it is sewn and suspended for several days in a cool place until all the meat is saturated with a delicate aroma of truffles.
Dmitry Volchek: Theodore Hirnais is a sketch of a large film about Ludwig "Requiem for the virgin king." Like other parts of the “German trilogy” - “Karl May” and “Hitler”, the film about Ludwig combines Wagnerian splendor, Brecht's conventions of the decorations and - another sign of the Zibergberg style - excessively long plans (the duration of this, for the longest film of the trilogy - two and a half hours).
Zibermberg said that the main task of his trilogy is the study of German irrationality.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: Yes, I expressed this idea in 1977, when the film "Hitler" was created to characterize the spirit of that time. Then the slogans were popular - "Enlightenment", "rationality". And then I thought - what if I do something in a different way, if I describe it in a different form? So this will be a contrast of rationality? And then, as a provocation, I said - yes, this is irrationality. Always the loss of something huge, as it was after 1945, is also irrationality. Look, Hitler was very rational, he created rockets, built the highway. He would not have reached Stalingrad if he had no logical thinking. The Mojoy thought he was irrational because of his crazy ideas. This is a very complex problem.
Of course, today this game of concepts - Racio "Reasonability" and irrationality is no longer my provocative topic. She was relevant when the film "Hitler" was created.
Dmitry Volchek: "Hitler: a film from Germany" - the last part of the trilogy - remains the most famous picture of Zibermberg. The seven -hour tape removed for half a million stamps for twenty days - in conditional decorations, with surrealistic objects, talking dolls, endless monologues that causes whale decorations and costumes (recall the words about the game of triviality) - remains in the history of cinema with a unique opus, which was acutely compared with the "commemoration of the wake Finnegan "Joyce - the work of a massive, multilayer, unambiguous decryption and decisively ignoring the preferences of the ordinary viewer.
Zibermberg said that his task was to "cinematographically defeat Hitler, to turn his own weapons against the Fuhrer," i.e. Romantic aesthetics, nationalist pathos. The new myth, built on the foundation of the theatrical aesthetics of Brecht, is designed to defeat the former, Nazi myth.
The release of the picture in the late 70s was accompanied by aggressive polemic, and the tone of many reviews was frankly mocking. Vincent Kinby, the critic "New York Times", compared Zibergberg with a student who, first having tried marijuana, suddenly decided that the whole universe was enclosed in his little finger atoms. Doris Sommer at New York Review of Books said that Zibermberg "builds a picture from ruins, not trying to redo them, so they remain a trash." Francis Ford Coppola, who bought the rights to Hitler for American rental and philosopher Susan Umbrelg, called the picture, called the picture, "one of the greatest works of art of the twentieth century." Umbrella analyzes the film in the essay "Hitler Zibermberg":
Announcer: Zibergberg’s film not only scares away the infinity of his plan, but also confuses, a precisely unwanted child during the period of universal infertility. Zieberberg declares the importance of his art (art of the twentieth century: cinema) and the importance of his topic (Topic Topic: Hitler). Proposals are familiar, simple, plausible. But they do not prepare us for the scale and virtuosity, with which he causes in the imagination there are prohibitive topics: hell, lost paradise, apocalypse, the last days of mankind. Rushing romantic grandeur at the yeast of the modernist irony, Zibermberg creates a performance about the performance: “Big Show”, called history, uniting dramatic forms - a magical fairy tale, a circus representation, a moral, allegorical spectacle, a magical ceremony, a philosophical dialogue, a dance of death - with tens of millions of imaginary actors and themselves The devil as a protagonist.
The landscape strewn with allegories (like a limb, like a moon) is designed to hold human masses in their modern, that is, posthumous form. This is actually the country of the dead, cinematic valgall. Since all the characters of the Nazi catastrophe -myelodrama are dead, their ghosts appear before us - in the form of puppets, spirits, caricatures.
Dmitry Volchek: Hans-Jurgen Zibergberg emphasized that the main topic of his research was not just Hitler, but Hitler, hidden in every Germans, the phenomenon of mass support of the Nazi regime. This approach has become one of the underlying reasons for the unwillingness of German distributors to demonstrate the picture, although its exhausting format served as a formal occasion of obstruction. Susan Umbrelor continues:
Announcer: Zibergberg’s conviction is that his art adequately his great object comes from his idea of cinema as a method of comprehension, provoking the need for a self-reflexive turn. Hitler is depicted through the study of our attitude towards him (the theme of the film is “our Hitler” and “Hitler inside each”), and the horrors of the Nazi era that cannot be learned are represented by Zibergberg in the form of images and signs.
Dmitry Volchek: For documentary material, Zibermberg does not turn to the cinema, but to the audio archives. The speeches of the leaders of the Third Reich are accompanied by a multilayer commentary - meditative -abstract, revealing, burlesque. Suzen Umbrelor comments:
Announcer: Like fiction simulations, an image of atrocities in the form of documentary evidence risks becoming implicitly pornographic. Moreover, the truth, which they, without the participation of intermediaries, report the past, are insignificant. Excerpts of films about the Nazi era do not speak for themselves; They require a voice - explaining, commenting, interpreting. But the sunsid voice in the newsreel, just like the credits in the documentary shooting, usually works as a simple ligament. In contrast to the pseudo -objective style of the story of most documentaries, two reflecting voices filling the picture of Zibermberg, constantly express pain, sorrow, confusion.
Dmitry Volchek: In America, Zibergberg’s film rolled Koppol, and he found such influential defenders as Susan Umbrella, the British film institute published a book about him, but German criticism defeated the picture. Zibergberg’s refusal to go to any compromises with distributors, caustic ridicule over the film industry and journalists also played a role.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: Hitler's film was mainly made not with German money. The Finns, the BBC, France and only one German television company took part in it. Other films - for example, Parsifal - were made with French money. This is a direct consequence of the taboo of my aesthetics in Germany. This is not to say that my film "Hitler" was not understood by the public. Not at all. They did not perceive the unusual form in which it was submitted, which, in turn, is often a kind of tool for overcoming the taboo.
Dmitry Volchek: Now Zibermberg posted the full version of Hitler on his website: this must be the longest phenomenon, available today on the network. I asked the director if there was a decision to turn to the Internet show with a protest against the behavior of distributors and distributors.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: The demonstration of my film about Hitler on the Internet was for me the technique with whom I work was experimenting. After all, the film itself lasts 7 hours. As a rule, there are no such long films on the Internet. But we decided to do this, so to speak, for the sake of pleasure. And, of course, we were interested in - what will be the reaction of people around the world. There are several more paintings that I consider interesting for the Internet project - for example, a film about Friedrich Nietzsche. It is also very long. Of the other films, we posted only fragments on the site. Yes, you are right, my films are hard to get. They are neither in the film distribution, nor in stores, nor on television. My "Hitler" in Germany simply does not want. It was shown only in one region of the country. The same thing happened with my other films. They reject not only my paintings, but also my aesthetics, for it differs from the one they want. I am very curious to find out how Tarkovsky or Sokurov could work? These are my colleagues and I am united by the fact that we create things that the public and the media reject.
Dmitry Volchek: Having completed the work on the film about Hitler, Zibergberg conceived a picture of Richard Wagner, but he turned not to the composer’s biography, but to his musical testament - the Parsifal opera. Zieberberg again tried to form a "new myth" due to the usual synthesis of the aesthetics of Wagner and Brecht. This hybrid is manifested, in particular, in the use of a huge reproduction of the posthumous mask of Wagner, replacing the back of the production, photographic projections and the bifurcation of Parsifal himself - Zibergberg invited two actors - a man and a woman to this role.
The last picture of Zibergberg, the film about Friedrich Nietzsche, continues a series of portraits of German cultural heroes. I asked the director if he sees in the post -war history of Germany characters who could take a place in his ambiguous pantheon.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: As a new topic, I chose Ainer Schlifa, who died two years ago. He was born in the GDR in the forties and wrote good books. He staged performances in Eastern and West Germany. By the way, he was the best student of Bertold Brecht. Ainer Glif is just such a hero, in my traditions that you are talking about, but already our post -war era. Moreover, in everything, of course, there is a strong imprint of Gdrov’s life, for he spent most of his life there. This is a very expressive, complex and controversial figure. In the GDR, his work was sharply criticized. By the way, he performed well Nietzsche well, the text in the film "Ecce Homo". And in Russia there was a similar figure - Vladimir Vysotsky. They are both united by their inherent explosives and charm, and dislike of the power of those who are in power. This is the hero of my soul, my heart, while Hitler, of course, is an antihero.
Dmitry Volchek: In recent years, Hans-Jurgen Zibergberg has been engaged in a multimedia project, one of the elements of which is his Internet site. A few years ago, the director received the estate of his father, in the village of Nossendorf, in the eastern land, the estate. The restoration of the estate has become a symbolic, political and artistic act - a performance, the scene of which is the whole village, and the actors are local residents. This summer, the Pompido Paris Center was held by the Zibergberg-Parizh-Nonorf multimedia exhibition, which expanded the Internet version of the project: there are four camcorders in the Nossendorf estate, translating construction landscapes around the clock, and the online diary unites pre-war and modern photographs of the estate.
Hans -Jurgen Zibermberg: I have a film made when I first, three years ago, got to Nossendorf - I just walked and shot about 60 minutes in a row for about 60 minutes. This film was shown entirely on a monitor in Paris. This is approximately as Sokurov shot in Tarkovsky’s house. I posted these images on the Internet on the topic of Nossendorf and copied everything on the discs. And then made a film from the Internet pages in chronological order. And, if you enter my site, you are already in the film, but not in the cinema, but in the exhibition hall. And if I had opportunities, if there was money, then I would continue to work in this style and would bring everything to perfection.
Dmitry Volchek: I asked Hans-Yurgen Zibergberg, which is why he, the director, avant-garde, took up the project in which the social nevertheless prevails over the aesthetic.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: Yes, it surprised me too. But, you know, if I remember my childhood, the times when my father was the owner of the estate, this was just the direction. In German, my profession is called "director", in other languages, somehow in a different way, for example, in English-"director". My father did not call himself the director and was not so. He controlled the estate, led people. But, if you think about it, his activity is very close to the director’s field. True, unlike the director, he did not invent any plots, did not invent stories, but lived with them. In the morning, he went out into the yard and, depending on the weather, discussed with his people plans for the day. After that, everyone diverged in their places, who in the field - sow, harvest; Who in the stable is to care for pigs, horses, cows. Everyone clearly knew his duties and, of course, there were people who looked after everything to work properly. In today's film studio, a similar situation. Everything happens according to the script. The studio also distributes roles, so there is a certain similarity.
What I did before, I did not call directing. Please note that in the credits of my films it is not worth it: “Director Zibermberg” or “directing under the leadership of Zibermberg” is just a surname without any explanation ... Well, since the cover of the book is only indicated - Lev Tolstoy, and not “The author of the novel Leo Tolstoy”. I did not think that what I did was directing. I didn't like it. In addition, my work was different from the work of other directors. I did everything differently. But now, everything that I do in Nossendorf is very similar to the fact that I had previously rejected internally, that is, comparable to directing in the classical sense. Only now this is happening in reality. Another thing is that what I do on the Internet has nothing to do with directing. Here I work more like the author - with photographs and text.
Dmitry Volchek: But why was the Nossendorf project embodied in the form of an exhibition and an Internet site, not a film?
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: This is a forced measure, by no means a voluntary decision. The circumstances forced me: there was simply no necessary funds. And the implementation of such a project costs a lot of money. I was not going to move there, and therefore I had two opportunities: either make a film about my life in the spirit of Ingmar Bergman, or, as now, arrange an exhibition in Paris. By the way, a similar exhibition in Brussels will soon be held. If I decided to tell the story of my childhood, I would do it with the help of a film. But now I am doing this in stages, thanks to sponsorship, various invitations to act - in short, with the help of others, and not myself, as it would be in case of filming. All this happens very productively and dramatic, because all the inhabitants of Nossendorf participate in this process. There is nothing commercial in this project, large firms are not involved in it. I have simple artisans, they themselves erect walls, cover the roofs, carry out water supply and electricity. We can say that the village is rebuilt itself. So far, it is only about the father’s estate, but I also have a plan to restore the church nearby. By the way, since the estate is located near the church, it, of course, is striking.
Dmitry Volchek: I asked the director, how far his plans stretch - does he intend to restore only one estate or the whole village?
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: In general, yes. If everything goes according to plan. But sometimes my interests and interests of other homeowners diverge. Yes, over time, I would like to bring not only the streets, ponds, but also at home in the village. At least, so that they at least look approximately as before. For example, there is a residential quarter that was built during the GDR from block-concrete slabs- so to speak, the modern of those times, with all amenities, by then standards, with baths and garages. All this is built of materials typical of construction ethics and Honneker style. By its nature, all this is alien to the landscape, does not fit into it. I would like to replace this kind of building. Maybe on a modern Western style, but not concrete-block. Create a kind of model for further buildings. I mean not only this village, but also other rural areas, where a lot has been launched and people are unhappy. It would be nice to find some solution to help people move to other houses. Who knows, maybe such a model will be interested in other areas in the East and even other Eastern European countries. I would like to do so that this project, quite possible with some changes, is of interest to other countries.
Dmitry Volchek: Standard metamorphosis: a rebel and marginal in old age becomes a laureate, authority, classic. Zieberberg did not become an academician, in Germany he to this day is an outsider. The magazine "Spiegel" called him "a crazy egocentric, obsessed with the mania of persecution." I asked the director if his confrontation with the German intellectual establishment and film industry continues.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: Yes. After the exhibition in Paris, it again became obvious that such tension still exists. The reviews of some newspapers were very aggressive. But, thank God, now this does not affect my existence. It used to be hard - I depended entirely on public money, and with bad reviews it was impossible to get it. Well, today I do not need it and I do not depend on anyone.
Dmitry Volchek: “Cinema,” says Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg “should not be mass art, fast-food fast-food, shame-based coin of the entertainment industry.” Answering the question of the correspondent of "Dee Zait", what would he do if he became the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, the director replied:
“Oh, that would be terrible. I would destroy everything. First of all, cars; instead of them, they would produce decent boots in which you can stand, and all these nudists would have laid grass ... A lot would have changed. The first ten years will be difficult, but then, people will get used to it. I promise it.”
Search on the Internet for the surname "Zibermberg" issues a giant site - www.syberberg.de - made not by unknown fans, but by the director himself. This is actually the only presence of Zibermberg in a modern movie world, although very noticeable - the director’s online diarrhea read tens of thousands of people.
Unlocked film journalists habitually mention the name of Zibermberg when it comes to the history of the "new wave" of German cinema. I did not dare to ask Zibermberg what he was thinking about Vim Venders and Verner Herzog, because the answer to the question of Fassbder already showed that the director did not intend to put up with his name in this clip.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: We were antipodes. He had a great talent to tell stories. This genre has never been in the center of my attention. In my films, I never told stories, but portrayed a story, resorting to a lyrical, poetic form. In addition, we have a different temperament. Secondly, he is a typical child of the era of the post -war development of West Germany, all that can be described by the English word "trash", i.e. Garbage, rubbish - I mean its aesthetics.
As for me, it should be indicated that the years that I lived until 1945 cannot in no way be called insignificant. I always had a different goal in art, namely the overestimation of reality. But as for passion, pathos, then there was a similarity between us. But he, as a rule, became trivial here, and I played with triviality.
Dmitry Volchek: The first work of Zibermberg after his flight from the GDR to West Germany was documentary shooting of the productions of Bertold Brecht, and it was with the intention to embody the dramatic principles of Brecht Ziberclberg on the screen. Interestingly, the last picture of Lars von Trier Dogville, using the techniques of Brekhtov’s directing, largely inherits the early works of Zibergberg: experimental films-scenes of the 60s.
The film "Theodore Hirnais" became a prologue to the main work of Zibermberg - "German trilogy." Theodore Hirnais is a cook of Ludwig the Second, and the film is based on his memoirs - actor Walter Zedlmeier walks along the empty halls of Ludwig's romantic castles, talks about the habits of the crazy king and shares his favorite dishes.
Fragment of the film: Peacock. A dish for the king. Royal dish. Even the ancient Romans preferred this proud bird. Bavarian royal cuisine ordered peacocks in the vicinity of Rome. King Ludwig often ordered the meat of this bird. After the peacock is pluck, its feathers should be carefully put aside for further use. Then he will be gutted and stuffed with a goose liver, herbs and truffles. Herbs are placed to taste - most often those that the bird itself eats. After the peacock is fried in the way, it is sewn and suspended for several days in a cool place until all the meat is saturated with a delicate aroma of truffles.
Dmitry Volchek: Theodore Hirnais is a sketch of a large film about Ludwig "Requiem for the virgin king." Like other parts of the “German trilogy” - “Karl May” and “Hitler”, the film about Ludwig combines Wagnerian splendor, Brecht's conventions of the decorations and - another sign of the Zibergberg style - excessively long plans (the duration of this, for the longest film of the trilogy - two and a half hours).
Zibermberg said that the main task of his trilogy is the study of German irrationality.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: Yes, I expressed this idea in 1977, when the film "Hitler" was created to characterize the spirit of that time. Then the slogans were popular - "Enlightenment", "rationality". And then I thought - what if I do something in a different way, if I describe it in a different form? So this will be a contrast of rationality? And then, as a provocation, I said - yes, this is irrationality. Always the loss of something huge, as it was after 1945, is also irrationality. Look, Hitler was very rational, he created rockets, built the highway. He would not have reached Stalingrad if he had no logical thinking. The Mojoy thought he was irrational because of his crazy ideas. This is a very complex problem.
Of course, today this game of concepts - Racio "Reasonability" and irrationality is no longer my provocative topic. She was relevant when the film "Hitler" was created.
Dmitry Volchek: "Hitler: a film from Germany" - the last part of the trilogy - remains the most famous picture of Zibermberg. The seven -hour tape removed for half a million stamps for twenty days - in conditional decorations, with surrealistic objects, talking dolls, endless monologues that causes whale decorations and costumes (recall the words about the game of triviality) - remains in the history of cinema with a unique opus, which was acutely compared with the "commemoration of the wake Finnegan "Joyce - the work of a massive, multilayer, unambiguous decryption and decisively ignoring the preferences of the ordinary viewer.
Zibermberg said that his task was to "cinematographically defeat Hitler, to turn his own weapons against the Fuhrer," i.e. Romantic aesthetics, nationalist pathos. The new myth, built on the foundation of the theatrical aesthetics of Brecht, is designed to defeat the former, Nazi myth.
The release of the picture in the late 70s was accompanied by aggressive polemic, and the tone of many reviews was frankly mocking. Vincent Kinby, the critic "New York Times", compared Zibergberg with a student who, first having tried marijuana, suddenly decided that the whole universe was enclosed in his little finger atoms. Doris Sommer at New York Review of Books said that Zibermberg "builds a picture from ruins, not trying to redo them, so they remain a trash." Francis Ford Coppola, who bought the rights to Hitler for American rental and philosopher Susan Umbrelg, called the picture, called the picture, "one of the greatest works of art of the twentieth century." Umbrella analyzes the film in the essay "Hitler Zibermberg":
Announcer: Zibergberg’s film not only scares away the infinity of his plan, but also confuses, a precisely unwanted child during the period of universal infertility. Zieberberg declares the importance of his art (art of the twentieth century: cinema) and the importance of his topic (Topic Topic: Hitler). Proposals are familiar, simple, plausible. But they do not prepare us for the scale and virtuosity, with which he causes in the imagination there are prohibitive topics: hell, lost paradise, apocalypse, the last days of mankind. Rushing romantic grandeur at the yeast of the modernist irony, Zibermberg creates a performance about the performance: “Big Show”, called history, uniting dramatic forms - a magical fairy tale, a circus representation, a moral, allegorical spectacle, a magical ceremony, a philosophical dialogue, a dance of death - with tens of millions of imaginary actors and themselves The devil as a protagonist.
The landscape strewn with allegories (like a limb, like a moon) is designed to hold human masses in their modern, that is, posthumous form. This is actually the country of the dead, cinematic valgall. Since all the characters of the Nazi catastrophe -myelodrama are dead, their ghosts appear before us - in the form of puppets, spirits, caricatures.
Dmitry Volchek: Hans-Jurgen Zibergberg emphasized that the main topic of his research was not just Hitler, but Hitler, hidden in every Germans, the phenomenon of mass support of the Nazi regime. This approach has become one of the underlying reasons for the unwillingness of German distributors to demonstrate the picture, although its exhausting format served as a formal occasion of obstruction. Susan Umbrelor continues:
Announcer: Zibergberg’s conviction is that his art adequately his great object comes from his idea of cinema as a method of comprehension, provoking the need for a self-reflexive turn. Hitler is depicted through the study of our attitude towards him (the theme of the film is “our Hitler” and “Hitler inside each”), and the horrors of the Nazi era that cannot be learned are represented by Zibergberg in the form of images and signs.
Dmitry Volchek: For documentary material, Zibermberg does not turn to the cinema, but to the audio archives. The speeches of the leaders of the Third Reich are accompanied by a multilayer commentary - meditative -abstract, revealing, burlesque. Suzen Umbrelor comments:
Announcer: Like fiction simulations, an image of atrocities in the form of documentary evidence risks becoming implicitly pornographic. Moreover, the truth, which they, without the participation of intermediaries, report the past, are insignificant. Excerpts of films about the Nazi era do not speak for themselves; They require a voice - explaining, commenting, interpreting. But the sunsid voice in the newsreel, just like the credits in the documentary shooting, usually works as a simple ligament. In contrast to the pseudo -objective style of the story of most documentaries, two reflecting voices filling the picture of Zibermberg, constantly express pain, sorrow, confusion.
Dmitry Volchek: In America, Zibergberg’s film rolled Koppol, and he found such influential defenders as Susan Umbrella, the British film institute published a book about him, but German criticism defeated the picture. Zibergberg’s refusal to go to any compromises with distributors, caustic ridicule over the film industry and journalists also played a role.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: Hitler's film was mainly made not with German money. The Finns, the BBC, France and only one German television company took part in it. Other films - for example, Parsifal - were made with French money. This is a direct consequence of the taboo of my aesthetics in Germany. This is not to say that my film "Hitler" was not understood by the public. Not at all. They did not perceive the unusual form in which it was submitted, which, in turn, is often a kind of tool for overcoming the taboo.
Dmitry Volchek: Now Zibermberg posted the full version of Hitler on his website: this must be the longest phenomenon, available today on the network. I asked the director if there was a decision to turn to the Internet show with a protest against the behavior of distributors and distributors.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: The demonstration of my film about Hitler on the Internet was for me the technique with whom I work was experimenting. After all, the film itself lasts 7 hours. As a rule, there are no such long films on the Internet. But we decided to do this, so to speak, for the sake of pleasure. And, of course, we were interested in - what will be the reaction of people around the world. There are several more paintings that I consider interesting for the Internet project - for example, a film about Friedrich Nietzsche. It is also very long. Of the other films, we posted only fragments on the site. Yes, you are right, my films are hard to get. They are neither in the film distribution, nor in stores, nor on television. My "Hitler" in Germany simply does not want. It was shown only in one region of the country. The same thing happened with my other films. They reject not only my paintings, but also my aesthetics, for it differs from the one they want. I am very curious to find out how Tarkovsky or Sokurov could work? These are my colleagues and I am united by the fact that we create things that the public and the media reject.
Dmitry Volchek: Having completed the work on the film about Hitler, Zibergberg conceived a picture of Richard Wagner, but he turned not to the composer’s biography, but to his musical testament - the Parsifal opera. Zieberberg again tried to form a "new myth" due to the usual synthesis of the aesthetics of Wagner and Brecht. This hybrid is manifested, in particular, in the use of a huge reproduction of the posthumous mask of Wagner, replacing the back of the production, photographic projections and the bifurcation of Parsifal himself - Zibergberg invited two actors - a man and a woman to this role.
The last picture of Zibergberg, the film about Friedrich Nietzsche, continues a series of portraits of German cultural heroes. I asked the director if he sees in the post -war history of Germany characters who could take a place in his ambiguous pantheon.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: As a new topic, I chose Ainer Schlifa, who died two years ago. He was born in the GDR in the forties and wrote good books. He staged performances in Eastern and West Germany. By the way, he was the best student of Bertold Brecht. Ainer Glif is just such a hero, in my traditions that you are talking about, but already our post -war era. Moreover, in everything, of course, there is a strong imprint of Gdrov’s life, for he spent most of his life there. This is a very expressive, complex and controversial figure. In the GDR, his work was sharply criticized. By the way, he performed well Nietzsche well, the text in the film "Ecce Homo". And in Russia there was a similar figure - Vladimir Vysotsky. They are both united by their inherent explosives and charm, and dislike of the power of those who are in power. This is the hero of my soul, my heart, while Hitler, of course, is an antihero.
Dmitry Volchek: In recent years, Hans-Jurgen Zibergberg has been engaged in a multimedia project, one of the elements of which is his Internet site. A few years ago, the director received the estate of his father, in the village of Nossendorf, in the eastern land, the estate. The restoration of the estate has become a symbolic, political and artistic act - a performance, the scene of which is the whole village, and the actors are local residents. This summer, the Pompido Paris Center was held by the Zibergberg-Parizh-Nonorf multimedia exhibition, which expanded the Internet version of the project: there are four camcorders in the Nossendorf estate, translating construction landscapes around the clock, and the online diary unites pre-war and modern photographs of the estate.
Hans -Jurgen Zibermberg: I have a film made when I first, three years ago, got to Nossendorf - I just walked and shot about 60 minutes in a row for about 60 minutes. This film was shown entirely on a monitor in Paris. This is approximately as Sokurov shot in Tarkovsky’s house. I posted these images on the Internet on the topic of Nossendorf and copied everything on the discs. And then made a film from the Internet pages in chronological order. And, if you enter my site, you are already in the film, but not in the cinema, but in the exhibition hall. And if I had opportunities, if there was money, then I would continue to work in this style and would bring everything to perfection.
Dmitry Volchek: I asked Hans-Yurgen Zibergberg, which is why he, the director, avant-garde, took up the project in which the social nevertheless prevails over the aesthetic.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: Yes, it surprised me too. But, you know, if I remember my childhood, the times when my father was the owner of the estate, this was just the direction. In German, my profession is called "director", in other languages, somehow in a different way, for example, in English-"director". My father did not call himself the director and was not so. He controlled the estate, led people. But, if you think about it, his activity is very close to the director’s field. True, unlike the director, he did not invent any plots, did not invent stories, but lived with them. In the morning, he went out into the yard and, depending on the weather, discussed with his people plans for the day. After that, everyone diverged in their places, who in the field - sow, harvest; Who in the stable is to care for pigs, horses, cows. Everyone clearly knew his duties and, of course, there were people who looked after everything to work properly. In today's film studio, a similar situation. Everything happens according to the script. The studio also distributes roles, so there is a certain similarity.
What I did before, I did not call directing. Please note that in the credits of my films it is not worth it: “Director Zibermberg” or “directing under the leadership of Zibermberg” is just a surname without any explanation ... Well, since the cover of the book is only indicated - Lev Tolstoy, and not “The author of the novel Leo Tolstoy”. I did not think that what I did was directing. I didn't like it. In addition, my work was different from the work of other directors. I did everything differently. But now, everything that I do in Nossendorf is very similar to the fact that I had previously rejected internally, that is, comparable to directing in the classical sense. Only now this is happening in reality. Another thing is that what I do on the Internet has nothing to do with directing. Here I work more like the author - with photographs and text.
Dmitry Volchek: But why was the Nossendorf project embodied in the form of an exhibition and an Internet site, not a film?
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: This is a forced measure, by no means a voluntary decision. The circumstances forced me: there was simply no necessary funds. And the implementation of such a project costs a lot of money. I was not going to move there, and therefore I had two opportunities: either make a film about my life in the spirit of Ingmar Bergman, or, as now, arrange an exhibition in Paris. By the way, a similar exhibition in Brussels will soon be held. If I decided to tell the story of my childhood, I would do it with the help of a film. But now I am doing this in stages, thanks to sponsorship, various invitations to act - in short, with the help of others, and not myself, as it would be in case of filming. All this happens very productively and dramatic, because all the inhabitants of Nossendorf participate in this process. There is nothing commercial in this project, large firms are not involved in it. I have simple artisans, they themselves erect walls, cover the roofs, carry out water supply and electricity. We can say that the village is rebuilt itself. So far, it is only about the father’s estate, but I also have a plan to restore the church nearby. By the way, since the estate is located near the church, it, of course, is striking.
Dmitry Volchek: I asked the director, how far his plans stretch - does he intend to restore only one estate or the whole village?
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: In general, yes. If everything goes according to plan. But sometimes my interests and interests of other homeowners diverge. Yes, over time, I would like to bring not only the streets, ponds, but also at home in the village. At least, so that they at least look approximately as before. For example, there is a residential quarter that was built during the GDR from block-concrete slabs- so to speak, the modern of those times, with all amenities, by then standards, with baths and garages. All this is built of materials typical of construction ethics and Honneker style. By its nature, all this is alien to the landscape, does not fit into it. I would like to replace this kind of building. Maybe on a modern Western style, but not concrete-block. Create a kind of model for further buildings. I mean not only this village, but also other rural areas, where a lot has been launched and people are unhappy. It would be nice to find some solution to help people move to other houses. Who knows, maybe such a model will be interested in other areas in the East and even other Eastern European countries. I would like to do so that this project, quite possible with some changes, is of interest to other countries.
Dmitry Volchek: Standard metamorphosis: a rebel and marginal in old age becomes a laureate, authority, classic. Zieberberg did not become an academician, in Germany he to this day is an outsider. The magazine "Spiegel" called him "a crazy egocentric, obsessed with the mania of persecution." I asked the director if his confrontation with the German intellectual establishment and film industry continues.
Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg: Yes. After the exhibition in Paris, it again became obvious that such tension still exists. The reviews of some newspapers were very aggressive. But, thank God, now this does not affect my existence. It used to be hard - I depended entirely on public money, and with bad reviews it was impossible to get it. Well, today I do not need it and I do not depend on anyone.
Dmitry Volchek: “Cinema,” says Hans-Jurgen Zibermberg “should not be mass art, fast-food fast-food, shame-based coin of the entertainment industry.” Answering the question of the correspondent of "Dee Zait", what would he do if he became the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, the director replied:
“Oh, that would be terrible. I would destroy everything. First of all, cars; instead of them, they would produce decent boots in which you can stand, and all these nudists would have laid grass ... A lot would have changed. The first ten years will be difficult, but then, people will get used to it. I promise it.”