Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Karen Shakhnazarov, general manager of the concern "Mosfilm"
We see that there are few film projects.
Our work is more and more connected to the TV.
70 percent of what we do is one way or another connected to the TV.
This is either television series or just broadcasts.
But there is less and less cinema.
However, there is, in my opinion, an overall trend, which will concern, apparently,
the fate of all the big studios in the future, because, you know,
the big studios in Europe are facing dramatic period.
We know that Cinicita has a lot of problems, it is, in my opinion, even being closed;
Bavaria has also come to us.
It seems that it does not have a lot of orders.
In this sense, we are doing relatively well, but I think that there is a revolutionary moment;
the cinema becomes "digital".
This, respectively, raises the question of the fate of the big studios,
about how they will continue to grow, because the big studios were established mostly in the 1920-1930's.
They were focused on the film stock with its opportunities, on large-scale construction of pavilions,
because there was a lot of light, and everyone was trying to build a pavilion and needed big studios.
Today, the transition to "digital video" makes it clear that modern films are made in the interiors,
they need less light.
And they do not need such large-scale, big studios.
That is, the old studios can only make large historical projects.
But it is a known fact that there are few such projects both in the Russian Federation and in Europe.
Therefore, the further development of the big studios is doubtful.
We have a laboratory, for example, which is one of the best in the country;
we have about 60% of the market.
It is clear that in 1.5-2 years it will just be closed.
Because we know that, for example, in France, all the laboratories were closed.
France has completely switched to digital video and digital projection.
In Germany, 70% of film theaters use digital projection.
This means that the positive copies are not necessary, which means that the laboratory will be closed,
and this is a fairly large segment of the major studios.
We have a quite successful laboratory.
The transition to digital video is a real revolution.
This is more than the transition to the sound at the time.
Because the "digital video” is essential.
That is the film stock leaves, and it was the beginning of the cinema.
We need a single center of the cinema.
In principle, we must return to the system of Goskino, as it was in the USSR.
We need a united Center which deals with the film industry.
And we must give support not to studios and companies but to specific projects.
In my opinion, the support of studios is not justified.
And the very idea that some companies are more successful and some are less successful ...
I can definitely say that there is only one company that is really profitable in the country
and does not spend the budget funds.
This is the "Mosfilm".
It would be reasonable after all to return to a single center.
Another question is its name - foundation, Ministry of Cinema, agency within Ministry of Cinema.
The state will deal with this issue.
But, in my opinion, this should be a single center, which deals with all the problems of cinema:
supporting cinema, releases, everything connected with the film industry,
the development of technology, and more.
Everything should be centralized in the hands of one office.
The second point is, in my opinion, very important:
support should be given for a specific project, no matter whose the studio is, whether it is big or small.
If the project is interesting, the state supports it.
The third important point is the need to get away from the system of anonymous voting.
Today scenario projects are accepted by secret vote, that is, in fact no one is responsible for anything.
It is declared as a certain kind of freedom and fairness,
but in fact it turns out that it is much worse than the "cursed" Soviet cinema.
What happened in the Soviet cinema?
You come to the Editorial Board, there is an editor-in-chief there, and he has a name.
He says, "Your scenario does not work, because your character says "Down with Brezhnev!" in the third page.
This cannot be done."
But he can say: "Please remove this, perhaps, this will be accepted."
In fact, it often concerned artistic moments.
That is, you can make corrections, and your script can pass.
This forces you to work on the script.
The strength of the Soviet system, in my opinion, was in the fact
that authors and creators had to work closely with the script.
If your application was received, you should write three versions, even if the second version was brilliant.
That does not matter, you still had to write a third one.
It was recorded, and it was the rule.
But in fact this forced the authors to work closely on the script.
Today everything is quite different.
I often receive scripts and say: "Yes, the idea is not bad, but it is good to work on it".
The author disappears, and in a year he starts his projects at the "Mosfilm".
I say: “Let me read the script”.
And I understand that they have the same one.
He goes to the "stars," or someone else, and the stars vote "for" the script.
After that he does not need anything, and he gets a lot of money.
In addition, we still have our eternal Russian ambition - to be equal to Hollywood.
But Hollywood works well with the scripts, above all.
We must return to a system of editorial boards, Goskino or something of the kind;
there should be a person with a name who will be responsible for it.
Yes, he will be subjective, but there is no other way in the cinema.
In the cinema, everything is subjective, there is no objectivity in the movie, as well as in real life.
The Institute of Cinematography (VGIK) must be further developed.
On the other hand, I would advise them to close the director courses,
or just to come back to free education.
But not VGIK but the government should deal with this issue.
I understand the leadership of VGIK in this situation:
it is forced to provide a fee-based education because the salaries of the professors are low.
But, strictly speaking, from the point of view of the state it is not justified.
Today it is very hard for a man like Vasili Shukshin to enter VGIK, it just hard to arrive in Moscow.
You see, the price for the ticket from the Altai is quite high.
A lot of people cannot afford this.
In my opinion, we simply cut off a huge number of people who could become important actors in the cinema.
And, of course, another question that cannot be solved,
and I have raised it many times at different meetings, is a higher education.
VGIK is forced to take money for higher education.
We must understand that traditionally large number of people,
the best people of our cinema came to this field with degrees.
It is clear that this is a profession of mature people who have a life experience,
and they are always welcome, by the way.
VGIK always welcomed the arrival of people with higher education
- Vladimir Abdrashidov, Elem Klimov, Gleb Panfilov -
you can recall a lot of people who came to VGIK, having already graduated.
Today, practically, we cut them off, because it is impossible - it is very expensive.
I myself graduated from the course, I had a course of higher education.
I just saw that the guys were tormented.
They had to pay for everything.
I tried to help them as the director of "Mosfilm", but it was also impossible.
They needed camera, they needed post-production, etc.
Generally, it is not justified.
And many times this question is raised, VGIK also raised it many times, but somehow it is not resolved.
It is not so clear, why the situation is like this, because this issue concerns a few dozen people.
I think we just have to help VGIK with some problems.
And I think it is developing very well.
Some things are good there.