"We continue to live in a crazy world"

Director Agneshka Holland completes the shooting of Gareth Jones. This is the story of a Welsh journalist who went to Ukraine and became a witness to mass hunger. He writes about the series of articles what he saw, but almost no one believes him, because official messages from the USSR do not confirm this information. Jones dies under mysterious circumstances, without having to live up to 30 years. In an interview with Radio, Liberty Agneshka Holland talks about her new film why historical facts are important for cinema, what she thinks of historical memory in Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Your browser does not support HTML5

Director Agnieshka Holland - about the new film, historical memory and Vladimir Putin

- Several of your films - about how historical events affect a person and society. In your opinion, history is an important component of a movie or are you more likely using historical events as a tool for constructing a plot?

- Both that and the other. For me, the past is also the present. I do not see the past linear, I think that what happened in the past forms the majority, an important part of what is happening now. This is the present in the present. Thus, when I work on a historical film, I do not perceive this task as a reproduction of some long-gone era. My interest in history is associated with events that are in touch with what is happening now, with modern sensations and dangers, with victories and losses. All my historical films, especially those related to the history of the 20th century, are modern.

- If your films about the past are films about the present, what are you striving to convey to the viewer?

Stalin's victims are Russians, among them there are not only Ukrainians who died from hunger

- In my films, I do not make intellectual conclusions. I make a movie, and cinema is about emotions, about empathy. In other words, I do not want to show the mechanisms of history, I want to show how a person lives, his fate. It is these destinies, as I hope, that are able to cause empathy, empathy of the viewer. They allow you to see to what extent people become victims of the mechanism of history, and this can be like what kind of life we live. For example, when I am talking about the Holocaust in several films, I understand, of course, that the Holocaust is in the past and this was the most terrible crime, a perfect part of humanity, but at the same time, when I shot these films, I had the feeling that the Second World War did not end, that it was simply temporarily suspended, became a frozen conflict and at any moment can resume again. After all, we did not resolve the problem of this part of the human being, a part of mankind, which pushes people to such crimes and allows them to commit them, we did not solve the problem of state power and the power of ideology. Now we see the revival of nationalist movements in a number of countries, including in Europe, even in states that turned out to be victims of World War II. That is, we see that the war has not ended, that it can happen again and that the questions asking us are not yet received the final answer. It all healed for a while, and the vaccination made in those days still acts-at least in Europe, but its action weakens, and, perhaps, we will see crimes of the same order. On the other hand, it seems that during the years of calm after the Second World War we witnessed the war in Yugoslavia, crimes against the humanity that happened during this war. There was Rwanda, there was campaign, wars continued, murders and genocide too. We need to understand what this means for us as people. Now I am making a film about the Holodomor - Stalin's hunger in Ukraine. This is a story about a young British journalist who went there and is trying to tell the world what is happening, about the terrible truth that opened to him. And the world does not want to hear anything about it, and some even lie, such as the New York Times correspondent in Moscow Walter Duranti, who denied this reality, knowing very well that this is true. This is a story about fake news, alternative reality, a crisis of media and the cowardice of governments. Unfortunately, this is relevant today.

- Then you can draw parallels with Russia. What happened in the past is in the present. This is propaganda, and fake news, and alternative reality, and the silence of the truth.

- For most Russians, history remains a problem. They want to forget about their own victims. The victims of Stalin are Russians, among them there are not only Ukrainians who died from hunger. Yes, and the hunger itself was in Russia too. Millions of Russians were thrown into prison and killed, they spent years or died in a Gulag. But not only that. There is a reaction of Stalin at the beginning of World War II. His neglect of the war, the fact that he blessed the Soviet army in the late 30s. This led to the deaths of millions of soldiers, and this could be avoided. The victims made by Stalin are unimaginable, their number is more than Hitler's victims. Stalin was given much more time on execution. But the Russians, obviously, do not want to remember this. They no longer want to remember. It was a short period after the collapse of the USSR, when these topics were discussed, including in the cinema, but then everything stopped. Apparently, the Russian consciousness does not care at all. Stalin is considered one of the greatest heroes of Russia. It is difficult to imagine that Hitler was considered a hero in Germany. Of course, Hitler lost the war, and Stalin won it. For peoples, the difference is obvious. But imagine if everything was the other way around. Imagine that Hitler died of illness, and only after his death, one of the faithful generals came and said that he was a mass killer. And after 40 years we say: Okay, but he, you know, returned the greatness of Germany again. In other words, we continue to live in a crazy world, when the good and bad is not so easy to accept and distinguish.

- You are now working on the film about Gariet Jones - a Welsh journalist who was the first to tell the world about the Holodomor in Ukraine. Do you affect Russia in this film, where there was also hunger in the 30s?

- I do not talk about the Holodomor in Russia, because Jones went to Ukraine and it was the largest number of victims there. The paradox of the Holodomor is felt stronger precisely in Ukraine, and not in other places, because there is the most fertile land of Russia. Russia has been fed for centuries from this land. It is impossible to understand the fact that it was there that people were dying of hunger. In addition, independent Ukraine is building its identity at this event, hunger as a genocide. This country recognizes its victims, its dead, unlike Russia, which prefers to forget about the dead. And it seems to me that it is the Russian director who should remind of these victims.

Actor James Norton played a major role in the film "Gareth Jones"

- Do you watch modern Russian films? Do you like Russian cinema?

- I like many Russian films, I am a big fan of several Russian directors. Starting with the classics, sixties, Chuhrai and Calatozov, Andrei Tarkovsky became an important director for me. After him, I saw several Russian films, but not one made a big impression on me. As for the present, I can say about my two favorites. This is Andrei Zvyagintsev, I like Elena, Leviathan and Lyubov. He has a special feature: not to mention politics, he manages to touch on what lies in the depths - the real problems and suffering of people. And this says more than a movie that openly criticizes the regime. I like Tetralogy of Alexander Sokurov.

As the Chairman of the Board of the European Film Academy, I am entering the Council, which annually chooses the 50 best European films to present them to members of the organization that vote in the nominations, and then for the best film. Usually we try to include in this list no more than two or three films from each large country, and one or two of the film from the smaller countries. This year we had to violate the rules and turn on five Russian films. All of them, in my opinion, are very interesting. This is the "arrhythmia" of Khlebnikov, the "war of Anna" Fedorchenko, the "Aika" of the Palace, who received a prize in Cannes, "Summer" Serebrennikov and "Dovlatov" by German Jr..

Shot from the movie "Summer"

- One person from this list, Kirill Serebrennikov, is still under investigation. Another director, Oleg Sentsov, is in prison. Do you continue to monitor how the situation is developing?

- Certainly. The movie academia also tried to intervene in the situation. We wrote letters and provided personal assistance. Fortunately for Serebrennikov, he is not in prison, not in Siberia, like Sentsov, but in his apartment. But how his fate will develop, we do not know. In an authoritarian country, it all depends on the whims of one person. I don’t know what Putin will do, I don’t know how long he will be in power, how long will live and what will happen after he leaves. But what delights me is courage and stamina of my colleagues. In these unpredictable conditions, they do what, as they believe, is called creative freedom.

Agnieshka Holland calls for the release of Oleg Sentsov

- The European Film Academy wrote several letters with a request to free Oleg Sentsov. Under them is your signature. You received a response from Vladimir Putin, because, in addition to other officials, he was one of the addressees?

- There were many reactions from our Russian colleagues who support the idea of the liberation of Oleg Sentsov. Some of them, for example, Alexander Sokurov, asked Putin to consider the possibility of liberation. But we did not receive any answer from Russian officials to our letter. There was only a statement for everyone who was praying for mercy that Sentsov should ask about it himself. This, it seems to me, indicates that we are talking about the personal vendett of Vladimir Putin, who wants to humiliate Sentsov. But Oleg is a strong enough person not to submit to him.

-Have you expected some answer? How do you evaluate such an official reaction to a letter?

- I have no great illusions about love and freedom or decent, when it comes to Vladimir Putin. I think he does only what is good for his power. In his imagination, this is good for his country, but in reality he is just a selfish politician. He does not care about the rights of man, justice, about other peoples, he bakes about himself.

- If we talk about politics, do you think that it is important for cinema?

- In those days when politics becomes an important topic, it becomes important for the cinema. This is good, because then the cinema acquires weight, it becomes that it arouses the consciousness of people and helps to imbue sympathy for the victims, to unknown heroes.

- The series "Card of the House", in which you took part as a director, tells about power and politics. Why did you agree to its shooting?

- This is a very popular series, very interesting. This Shakespearean approach to Washington politics unequivocally seems very attractive to me. When I worked on the fifth season of the series, the shooting took place during the US presidential election. Then I realized that we began to remove a slightly opera anti-utopia, but it turned out that we remove the reality show. Reality was much more complicated than the scriptwriters could imagine.

- Now they say that the film industry is experiencing a crisis, do you agree with this? You can compare, as you shoot both in the USA and in Europe. What problems does European cinema face compared to the American?

If censorship is too strong, nothing is impossible to do

- This is the ability to tell history, and the lack of money, technical capabilities, and world distribution covers much more American films than European ones. From this, European cinema suffers very much. European cinema also has big problems, as for the ability to tell history. This succeeded in the 1960s, 1970s and even in the 1980s, but now we can talk about a kind of crisis. But American cinema is also in crisis, if you do not take into account family films and adventures of superheroes. There are too few films on serious topics, and if they are shot, then almost no one notices them. It so happened that the series replaced a serious movie, but I do not think that it will last a long time. Now I am observing the same scenario crisis in the series: there are a lot of them, and they began to repeat. Maybe the full -length movie will return again. In general, bad times are good for cinema. These are the times as now, when people are scared, manipulated, finally confused in everything ... At such a time, the influence that the movie has on the viewer may be stronger. A week ago, the premiere of the new film took place in Poland. For the first time in very Catholic Poland, where the Church, in fact, merged with the state, is shown the clergy from the extremely negative side: the film talks about pedophilia, political and financial corruption, hypocrisy, lies. In a week he was watched by half a million people. He became a large public event, he is discussed even contrary to the fact that nothing new was said in it. But the fact that these circumstances were clothed in the form of a screen narrative, which can directly speak with the viewer, caused a shock. This shows the importance of cinema for the present.

- You say that the film needs bad times, but at the dawn of your directorial career you made a movie in the circumstances of very difficult. How did this affect your work?

- In fact, at that time the regime in Poland was not cruel - compared to Czechoslovakia. That is why, neither in the Czech Republic, nor in Slovakia at that time, important films were made. If censorship is too strong, nothing is impossible to do. But in Poland, censorship was not so cruel, and we fought, and collectively. There was a kind of solidarity among directors and producers, which has been preserved, from my point of view, so far. And we managed to make films that turned out to be important for our society at that time. They had a certain influence even contrary to the fact that they were censored. They were watched in undergrand, they caused a discussion not only in the cinema community, but entailed a discussion by the audience of the social and political situation of that time. Yes, times were difficult, but it was not like in a totalitarian country, when the artist was thrown into prison or killed.