“Our society is in the state of latent war of ideologies”

By Vestnik Kavkaza

Karen Shakhnazarov, general director of Mosfilm, told journalists about his vision on the problems of Mosfilm which produced 70% of Russian movies and the Russian cinema. The meeting was devoted to the 85th anniversary of Mosfilm.

“Today Mosfilm feels very confident,” Shakhnazarov states. “The main thing that we managed to do is the modernization of the studio. I am very proud of it. Despite all the rumours and gossip, we did it completely without state support. So when some very emotional taxpayers say that it was made at their expense... Not only did we not spend any taxpayers money, we have also paid 3 billion roubles in taxes in the last 9-10 years that allows us to reply. We are very proud. All this money was earned, not by me, although I participated, but it would have been impossible without the entire team of Mosfilm. Today Mosfilm, in my opinion, is not inferior to any other studio from the point of view of technology.  We can talk about the problems that all big studios experience because of digitalization, the problems with the organization of Russian cinema that, of course, is not perfect.  But Mosfilm feels confident. Although the last year was worse than the previous one. We are now observing the decline of Russian cinematography in general, and of course it worries us and affects us.”

Commenting a discussion in Russia of the so-called 100 mandatory movies for school, Shakhnazaov said: “The list provoked fierce debates, if not in the entire society, then at least in the cinema world. It only confirms that our cinema world is split, both artistically and ideologically. Our society is generally split, I think, it is in the state of latent civil war. Fortunately, this is not developing and, I hope, will not develop into a real war. Passions are boiling, also in the cinema. You understand -someone got included, someone not. It is perceived very sensitively. For instance, we have a complete misunderstanding with film critics. It is clear that the part of the cinema world that deals with criticism stands in such a different position, artistic and ideological, that it is, to put it mildly, confusing. This affects, for instance, relations with international film festivals, because the film critics choose the pictures to send. This provokes debates around the list.

In my opinion, the idea itself is not bad. I do not understand, though, how it can be put into practice, how can all the schools get the specialists and what kind of specialists they will be. This is unclear. Will the children be forced to stay after classes and watch the movies? I do not really understand it, but the idea in general is good. There is nothing bad in it. You can choose this or that film. It is clear for me, and I have said it on several occasions, that the movies of the last 20 years should not be included.  20 years is the time when a film is most discussed, it is too close. 

We put many of our movies online, we have 500 movies on our website and 200 on YouTube, all for free. Parents can recommend the movies that they like, because parents will not wish something bad for their children. 

The idea is good, but it is not clear how it can be implemented. As for debates, our society is split, and the cinema as well, It is impossible to agree. It is clear that some will not accept this list, while others will not accept the ideas of their opponents.  It seems that a compromise will not be found, it went too far.”

As for national studios, Shakhnazarov said that “if we compare it to the Soviet times, it can be said they do not exist. There is no Belorussian cinema in the understanding of those who grew up in the USSR. It is not seen. We cannot see the cinematography of the other former republics of the USSR, these were relatively powerful studios. Georgian, Ukrainian, Central Asian, Kazakh. We hear something about Kazakh films. It is developing. But, as far as I understand, the state pays much attention to it. Generally, the situation is not really good. Maybe this is logical. In the USSR the state supported national cinema, it was considered necessary, money was invested in it and in professionals. It is a very difficult thing to create a cinema industry. Very difficult. In my opinion, many responsible people and the press do not understand how difficult it is. Everything is limited to talk about the directors and actors. In fact, the cinema is very much about the medium layer. In mass quantity, this is the eternal complex of Russian cinema and journalists that constantly asks why we are not Hollywood. The main difference between Hollywood and Russian cinema is that in Hollywood there are tens of thousands professionals. Tens of thousands of professionals.  There one has a fantastic choice of people dealing with sounds, tricks, costumes, make-up, technology, video, cameras - all the components. Tens of thousands. And in Russia in some segments we have only two people who can do it, and in some only one.”