Boris KHLEBNIKOV: “A person is shaped by emotional adventures”
At the age of 30 Boris Khlebnikov burst into the world moviemaking community and became its full-fledged member with the movie he shot jointly with Aleksei Popogrebsky, Koktebel. Not only did the movie bring to its makers numerous awards, but it also formed a distinct circle of admirers and audience. After that the Russian director took his own course and drew the attention of the festivals and audience by his Free Voyage, in which he continued a confidential talk about “the most important things.” His further works, from Insane Help to Short Circuit vary in topics and system of presentation of the material, but are connected by the candidness concerning what is shown on the screen. His latest work is uncommon due to the unusual choice of the topic. The movie Till Night Do Us Part based on the conversations of the trendiest characters of present-day secular life overheard in a very fashionable Moscow restaurant. The movie evoked genuine interest and heated discussions.
The movie premiered in Ukraine during the Molodist Festival, which has recently ended, and Boris Khlebnikov was in the main jury of the festival. His stay in Kyiv provided an opportunity for The Day to interview him. Our readers are welcome to read the interview below.
When Popogrebsky and you stirred the boggy silence of the moviemaking process with your Koktebel, which was quite an unusual movie for that time, it produced an impression that two incredibly talented dilettantes suddenly emerged from the middle of nowhere. Later, as I watched your following works, I came up with a conclusion that you disguise yourself very well. Anatomizing a human state in such a way, is this from your first unfinished education of a biologist?
“I don’t agree with your first statement, because in my opinion it was not us who stirred the history at that time. Firstly, there was Zviagintsev of course, but at the moment it is not him whom I recall, rather Buslov and his Bummer. It seems to me that it was the most unusual, living, and the most author’s movie since 2003. It seems to me, Buslov translated a very lively life in this movie, and he was talking to reality, social reality, and described life in a very acute manner. Frankly, in my work of a director you can only discern some attempts to do the same, an attempt to talk to reality and discuss social issues on the whole. I am not sure that I have achieved any serious or big success in this.”
Once, at Kira Muratova’s press conference where I was present someone asked her: do you imagine the audience for which you make the movies? What kind of audience do you have? On the whole, how will the audience perceive all this? She replied, “I don’t care about the audience, I shoot films because I like the process.” I don’t know why, but I think that you either don’t really think about what kind of audience will watch your films.
“Yes, but I think that Spielberg, when making his best movies, did not think about that either. He started to think about that and right away shot a bad film, in my opinion, Schindler’s List. Before that, when he was shooting Jaws or Indiana Jones, or E.T., he was not thinking about that, because he was making the cinema, which was interesting for him personally, and he was very lucky that his inner world became interesting for a huge audience. Similarly, in my opinion, Coppola, Buslov, and Balabanov, and many directors with a huge audience are happy as long as they are doing what they want and don’t care about the audience. Another question is that Kira Muratova or, for example, Otar Iosseliani, have really small audience. It is neither good, nor bad, but this is the fact. That’s all.”
In your opinion, is there any room for author’s cinema in the present-day world we are living now, apart from those who make it?
“Of course, there is. We simply have two different kinds of cinema, mass attraction-like films I like very much as well, this is simply a technical attraction of sorts. Probably, it has no relation to cinema, this is pure entertainment. And there is a huge number of author’s films we are deprived of, because they are not shown in movie theaters. So what? Very few people read good literature. Everyone recognizes that, everyone has accepted that, if you are intelligent you read, and if you are dumb, you don’t. A strange thing is going on with cinema, because it has become increasingly cheap to produce because all technologies have become cheaper, secondly, the state does not need it anymore, whatsoever. Whereas previously it used to perform a propaganda function, today no state needs it, because there are stronger ways to involve the audience and brainwashing, such as the Internet and television. Nobody needs cinema. In this sense, thank God cinema is becoming an art, in the same way as painting and literature, and it is already of person’s interests, whether s/he is interested in thinking and watching.”
Don’t think of my question as a provocation: your latest movie, Till Night Do Us Part has deeply touched me, and the reason is that it is easy, it tells about media persons, you could make a glamorous, glossy film, or you could make a farce. However, in my opinion, in the light of the harsh political situation of these days, you’ve managed to make an absolutely prophetical movie, and I automatically threw a bridge between the film which was conceived and shot earlier to the farcical, full of media persons, election of an alternative Russian parliament. The film does not have any final, it cannot have any, I simply feel terribly sorry for these people, for all of us who live in Ukraine and Russia, anyway we are connected in political and economic ways. After making such a movie what do you think awaits us?
“I don’t know. It seems to me people have never been able to precisely assess the time in which they were living.”
I am sure, you weren’t thinking entirely about politics when you were creating the film, but it turned out this way, very topical.
“Politics, in what things does it exist in our lives, can you tell me? I would suggest, for example, making movies about all of our speeches, Bolotnaya Square, so that the heroes whose roles are performed by Oksana Fandera and Lyubov Tolkalina talked about politics. You see, the thing is as follows. If I am fed up, conditionally speaking, with the existing political situation, to the same extent this history of protests seems ridiculous and uninteresting to me. The same media people, this is a new Moscow trend. It has no relation, unfortunately, to any living being. This is very sad, but again, coming back to your question, I was not serving the time, and I was not describing it. I described Moscow the way it has always been and will remain. It is a city of merchants, a big city of niggards, yet a very lively and joyful, a very welcoming megalopolis, like a weed in the best and worst meanings of the word. I love Moscow very much, but it is as it is. This is a merchant, a very bright and original one, which is doing hell knows what with this money.”
And what takes place in Moscow has practically no relation to what is going on in other places, which may be not very remote from Moscow.
“You’re absolutely right.”
Can you tell the same thing about Ukraine?
“I think there could be the same story about Kyiv. But the story of St. Petersburg would be different. This is a tender city, somewhat sluggish and sleepy. Nothing of this kind could ever exist there.”
Tell me, by what principle were you guided during the casting to the movie? Or you knew from the beginning what would be the names?
“No. I had several principles. Let me present them one by one. I needed a forbidden world, which evokes unhealthy interest. Actually, the world of yellow press, people’s interest, when they read who married whom, who divorced whom, and whose kid fell out of the window. I wanted to exploit and provoke this repellent interest. So, I needed famous actors, because such audience takes interest in watching after them, this is a part of what I was going to do. Another part was absolutely technical. I was at the same time shooting a movie about a farmer with Sasha Yatsenko in the leading role, and he worked much with his hands when he was preparing. He needed to make a poultry yard, cages for birds, so to say, and he did not allow the artists to do this, he was drilling and sawing, because he needed to develop the movements. I say absolutely without any contempt, I am absolutely serious that there are special movements of staying in an expensive restaurant, as well of that of walking in an expensive gown, and talking to a waiter. Therefore in this sense we also needed people capable of doing this. That was the second reason. The third one is that I am not acquainted with many actors, maybe with a half of them. In fact that was an occasion (50 actors took place in the movie) to meet and work in the shooting area with the actors it is interesting for me to communicate with and with whom I wanted to work. I cannot imagine Tolkalina or Fandera in my previous movie. I very much like them as actresses, like for example, Lagashkin. Those are 50 actors I like very much.”
I think in this film, more than in any other, the costume designer and make-up artist were really important. How was this bridge built between the actors who play practically themselves, people who have gotten accustomed to looking this way or another and present themselves in a certain way, and your demands, what you wanted to see in the screen?
“Our movie cost three kopeks. It had a tiny budget, we all were working free of charge, including the actors. But at the same time we right away made a step which at the beginning seemed absolutely paradoxical and absurd to me: the producer of the film suggested that our costume designer and I go with her to Italy and buy all costumes in a sale. Indeed, we took 6,000 dollars with us and that was enough for us, we bought a large part of clothes. For some actors, like Elena Doletskaya, Fandera, Tolkalina we needed some recent collections. That was important. So, we made an agreement with our rich fashionable shop and it gave us these clothes for two or three days, the actresses chose the outfits. But that was important for me too, because it is their taste, the outfits comfortable for them. Frankly, when a person tries on an outfit, I always look her/him in the eyes. This is a very interesting thing, you don’t have to look at the costume, but in the eyes, they are either bright or disappear somewhere. This turned out to be a very simple thing, which I always apply. In this sense people not always are able to choose a costume for themselves, so that their face started to play.”
At first sight, you change the topics and interests very often. You have previously mentioned that you had shot a movie about a farmer, and you had a television project Churchill, which is your third image, history. Free Voyage is a fourth one. You are always in the state of exploration and in such a way you try to formulate from one movie to another something that is very important for you, but probably, because you were not heard or you are unsatisfied with yourself, you take up so many things at a time.
“No, for me it is interesting to play and in a way break what I am able to do. So to say, it is boring to solve one and the same puzzle again for the 15th time. I want to take up something new. I treat this like a toy, it is simply interesting for me to do something new.”
What is a low budget for a movie today?
“A small budget, when everyone gets paid in Russia, is about 1-1.2 million dollars. Our budget was 100,000 dollars.”
Is it possible? Only due to good attitude when everyone refused from honoraria?
“They indeed refused from honoraria, but our system was not about me and producer saying ‘thank you’ to the entire group. That was a story we had thought out very well. We offered everyone an interest from the screenings. We divided the 100 percent of income in different shares between all the participants. That was quite an accurate calculation, because it is hard to return a million dollars, I would say even problematic. As for 100,000 dollars, when the screenings started, we already returned the sum.”
Did you expect such a high box-office? You have very good indices.
“They are not very good, they are normal. We have returned twice what we put into the movie. And there will be also sales to television channels, there is also Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Poland which is eager to screen the movie, Finland, DVD sales. I think we will pay all the participants of the process quite decently.”
You’ve mentioned the screenings will take place in Ukraine in the near future. In your opinion, what the perception here will be, compared to Moscow?
“I have shown the movie, not in Moscow, in other cities, Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, and Kaliningrad. I don’t think the question here is about perception of Moscow, which is more or less the same. Moscow is a separate case. I have noticed that the non-Moscow audience has a very pleasant bonus, it was the same in Warsaw. It was the same in Vladivostok and Novosibirsk, the audience find out that they were right, ‘we thought so, Moscow residents are jerks.’ This is a separate pleasant bonus which serves the movie.”
You have visited Kinotavr, therefore you can answer the following question. The jury of the festival was specific, it included film directors, which is a rare case. It creates a kind of difficulty, but it may also be easy to agree about things. In your opinion, why Aleksandr Proshkin’s new movie Convoy was unanimously ignored, suffering a public slap in the face, in the year that marked the 25th anniversary of another movie by him which I love and which is absolutely topical today, I mean The Cold Summer of 1953?
“Firstly, I totally disagree with this decision, because like you I think that Proshkin shot a wonderful film, and I would not treat seriously the jury’s decision. Secondly, what does a slap in the face mean? I think if there is a competition, nobody has any regalia or privileges. In this sense I like Proshkin’s position very much, because he dared to come to Kinotavr, which showed second, third, and debut movies, and take part in the competition. I simply think he is a well-functioning director, and I think he himself wants to fight on equal terms, doesn’t he? And that was only a decision of concrete five members of jury, that’s all.”
Your nice and very serious attitude to the word is very close to me. It is a rare thing for moviemakers, rather it is typical of serious litterateurs. Where does this talent of yours come from?
“I don’t write screenplays; rather I come up with ideas and invent scenes. All our scripts were created by Aleksandr Rodionov, a wonderful script writer, I don’t know where did he get it, but he knows absolutely everything. He is immensely curious, and once he told me that you should go to the place you don’t go, where you feel scary. He always looks for the ways, where he feels uncomfortable, and this absolutely a documentary, social, and poetic exploration.”
What would you like to talk about in the near future? Not in an interview, with the audience. For you are involved in a dialogue with the audience all the time.
“I take interest in absolutely different genres, it is interesting for me to do different things. What I know for sure is that I have always taken interest only in social cinema, social art. Other things leave me indifferent.”
You see, on the one hand, sociality coincides very much with the line of power, on the other hand, what you say and what they promise are absolutely different things.
“No, our line of power is patriotic. Patriotism and morality are two whales which one uses to cover the most disgusting things. I am not going to be involved in this, whereas social side is quite an objective thing which has no relation either to morality, or patriotism, it is related with some objective things.”
Isn’t morality an objective thing?
“Morality is what one uses to cover all most disgusting things.”
What if it is not used as a cover of words, what about morality as a notion?
“I think we cannot pronounce any of these words, because this is an innermost and personal thing, which even should not be discussed. Either you can do this or not, consider something moral or immoral for yourself. Announcing some things moral or amoral always sounds to me as either huge uncivilizedness or some disgusting plan. What is now being said concerning creation of patriotic cinema is the question of service. If we lie and praise the existing mode of life, this is patriotic, but if we tell the truth and do not praise it, it is unpatriotic. This is absurd, and it is absolutely not interesting to play this game.”
What is patriotism in your opinion?
“I don’t want to pronounce it and think about it.”
You have already pronounced it.
“No, I won’t speak about this, honestly. And vice versa, I will speak about the life that surrounds me and people I work with, I have a very young team aged between 23 and 29. I feel huge interest and sympathy for them, they are very energetic, very intelligent, absolutely different, absolutely uncorrupted. This is the second wave of business and entrepreneurship, which seems absolutely different for me. It is much purer and much more interesting. These are not the people who sit in my restaurant, rather their children who treat business as something interesting and honest. Therefore I feel admiration about the generation that is not much younger than me.”
Today I cannot imagine very well how a little son comes to his father and asks what is good and what is right. Do you imagine?
“Has anything changed?”
It is not that the world has become duller, no, people of any formation or political system will always be people. Has anything changed since the time of ancient Egypt, ancient China, Kyivan Rus’?
“Of course, it has. Because the world has become maximum more humane since those times. This is apparent. First, nearly 80 percent of the Earth’s population has secondary education in our time, we have no legalized tortures, etc. Anyway, our social conditions are absolutely different. I simply share with my son the music I listen to, I give him books to read, I work, and he observes. That’s all. What else do you need? I don’t believe that one can explain children with the help of words what is good and what is bad. Firstly, they observe and see very clearly what is going on around them and how we behave. There is no way you can deceive them. Whatever you say, they will see how you live. This is very important for me that they wanted to work and found an interesting job, that’s all. This is the most important thing.”
