Untimely Reflections on <I>Mazepa </I>
The Prayer for Hetman Mazepa was premiered as befits the presentation of a high-budget blockbuster. Although there were no such excesses as hot-air balloons, fireworks, or super-models on a catwalk, there really was a carpet rolled out to the steps of the Ukrayina Movie Theater, live musicians in the foyer, a string of VIPs, a slew of television cameras, unbreakable security, and free drinks
I would not say the house was full, but this does not matter for the film’s further destiny. It should be admitted that Mazepa is the first film in the history of the Ukrainian cinema released after a wise and carefully-considered promotional campaign. The PR managers and project authors managed to use and turn to good advantage everything: the name of director Yury Illienko, the film’s plot, its participation in the off-competition showing at the latest Berlin Festival, the notorious history of the film’s funding, a months- long delay of the premiere, and even the movie’s failures. Everything was in use: even the most negative reviews became the fertile ground for further advertising. The aggressive style and consistent policy bore fruit: the film is now being discussed even by people who are very far from cinema art, especially that of Ukraine. In this sense, it is undoubtedly a victory for Illienko and his team.
In any case, the historiography of Ukrainian cinema cannot avoid mentioning this film, and any culture-study reflections on the Mazepa myth will from now have to cite the Prayer.
Indeed, this is a most important, fruitful, and accurately selected subject. In addition, from the historical standpoint, Mazepa is not the most interesting figure — his record is short of outstanding deeds, such as those that immortalized, say, Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Yet, it is he who became one of the key figures in world culture.
The confrontation between Mazepa and Peter the First, one of the greatest and most terrible tyrants, made the Ukrainian hetman’s life an extremely attractive story for the geniuses of European romanticism, who rejected all despotism. Ukraine has found itself in a paradox: Mazepa seems to be re- exported to us from outside, for we just do not have a suitable tradition of understanding his personality. Thus Illienko’s film is by far the first major attempt to create this tradition.
Then, in all probability, one must pass judgment as to whether this attempt was a success or a failure. However, in this case I am going to depart from my own unwritten rule not to emphasize my own views. In other words, I will not write about the film itself — not because my journalist colleagues have already said and written very much about it. I simply have not the slightest desire to take part in the act of public sadomasochism which has obviously replaced civilized public discussion, with one side unable to hear the other. It looks like a war of utter destruction. The film’s authors are attacking, without a shadow of a doubt, their real and imaginary opponents, characterizing their brainchild only in superlatives and indiscriminately applying the word, genius, to its acting, direction, camera work, etc. The media, in their turn, seem to be competing in wit, character assassination, knowledge of the details of funding for culture and movie production — and this they do not without malice.
The main question is: what is there to be malicious about? That our government has never learned to wisely support the cinema? That filmmaking itself, given its richest imaginable heritage and decade of relative freedom, still produces mostly clumsy pseudo-historical travesties? That one of our best cameramen and directors has exhausted and burnt up his indisputable talent? That what is occurring in our cinema is not its fault but, much worse, its profound woe? Should I give the wounded lion the coup de grace? Should I beat a dead dog?
Sorry, I am not going to do all this. For I love the cinema too well — even one that does not exist.
Editors’ note. We are convinced that our correspondent Dmytro Desiateryk has the right to his own point of view. However, this will not keep us from discussing again the artistic and esthetic — true or false — importance of the film.
