“We lack genre cinema”: Yegor Baranov about innovation, the success of “Gogol” and the popularity of Alexander Petrov

- You have repeatedly said that the distribution form of Gogol is to some extent innovative. There are no known precedents, at least in Russia, when the series was produced first in cinemas, and then went on television. What are the advantages of this approach

- If we talk about innovation, we can safely say that there were no such precedents not only in Russia, but also abroad. There were premieres of the first series, say, “Games of Thrones”. Or a demonstration of the whole season in one night. But it was not of a commercial nature, it was not the main income. This was done more as a supplement to the television promotion campaign.

In our case, the series was primarily focused on showing in cinemas, it was the main income, which, in principle, is tantamount to a successful movie rental.

In my opinion, this approach gives a certain freedom. If we tried to release “Gogol” with one film with a large budget, in a rather risky genre and an unusual style, then there would be too many risks for producers, and not the fact that they would dare to go for it.

This way of getting TV shows into film distribution allows you to make very interesting genre stories that are not censored like on the federal channel, and at the same time have the scale of spectacular cinema. Thus, it is possible not to limit our rental of sports dramas, patriotic movies and comedies. The next step after “Gogol” for us will be the “Outpost”, which we are filming with TV channel TV-3. It will be quite bold and mature fiction.

- The author of this innovative format was Alexander Tsekalo?

- Yes. Initially, as far as I know, the idea of ​​"Gogol" belonged to him. Having agreed with producer Valery Fedorovich and TV-3 general producer Yevgeny Nikishov (as well as Igor Mishin, when he was still the general director of TNT), they came to me with this idea. At that time, there was a pilot series script. When we shot it, everyone enjoyed the quality so much that Alexander said: it makes sense to show it in cinemas.

- Has this experiment met the producers' commercial expectations?

- Yes, definitely.

- In general, in your opinion, what is the secret of the success of the Gogol audience?

- Any project, even if it is very good, needs a serious PR campaign. The film itself can be remarkable, but if the viewer does not know about its existence, then no one will see it and it will be impossible to talk about any success.

As for Gogol, he had a wonderful advertising campaign, many people set it up as an example of quite innovative. In a sense, the film itself inspired us to such bold advertising. We had a bright advertising campaign, we heard about Gogol from everywhere.

• A shot from the film “Gogol. Beginning ", 2017
• © kinopoisk.ru

The second success factor I would call the faith of distributors and cinemas, who, having looked at the material, believed that it must really be widely shown in cinemas. Thirdly, the “brand” of Gogol himself also played a role. This is a famous person, his name is at the hearing. Well, in the fourth, the movie itself turned out to be bright, humorous, high-quality.

- You mentioned your new project, Outpost. What stage is it at?

- In the coming days, at a fairly prestigious Cinequest festival in the USA, in Silicon Valley, the premiere of the pilot Outpost series will be held. In fact, it will be a working version, the project is still being completed.

- What do you expect from overseas shows? Do you want producers to be noticed in this way, which will allow you to repeat the experience with the purchase of Netflix series?

- In fact, yes. But this is more a question for the producers. It is obvious that, first of all, we are talking about international sales - such festivals open up the possibilities of this market.

The same "Gogol" - although, perhaps, this is not some noticeable success - is sold for international shows around the world. And it brings a certain profit, maybe insignificant, for producers. The same with “Outpost”: I would like to hope for a broad TV show abroad, which is possible just with the purchase of Netflix and other streaming services.

As for my other projects presented on Netflix - it is, of course, great that they were there. But I imagine Netflix as a large library of films, where my previous projects still lie: Sparta, Farts and Locusts. They are available there in the version with subtitles and are not advertised for Netflix users.

- Do not even duplicate these series?

- Yes, they are not duplicated. It’s not so easy for a foreigner to watch such a movie. It's one thing when there is a dubbing - although in the West they are not very accustomed to dubbing, but nevertheless there are precedents when the project is voiced in English. In this case, his demand for a simple viewer is higher.

- Let's return to the “Outpost”. You have repeatedly said that you are careful about the choice of projects. What is your “hooked” this? What is the main difference between "Outpost" from other films about the collision with extraterrestrial civilizations?

- I am always interested in a project in which there is an opportunity to work with some kind of atmosphere, where I can convey to the viewer a certain feeling, which cannot always be expressed in words. It is not even a matter of history. It seems to me that the movie appears at the time of some understatement.

If we talk about "Outpost", then the story begins with a disaster, the cause of which is unknown. The territory of mankind is narrowed down to a small circle with a radius of a thousand kilometers. Everything outside this circle is plunged into darkness, all living organisms are dying out. And no one understands why.

Most of this circle fell on the territory of Russia, as well as a number of CIS countries. Including survived Moscow and St. Petersburg. We begin the story in Moscow, in Russia, which are in some kind of isolation, because this is the only zone in which life has been preserved. And people have a feeling of insecurity in the future. It is not clear what is happening and what will happen tomorrow. Will this quarantine zone begin to narrow further?

- What will the atmosphere be like in this movie? I remember that “Gogol” caused associations with “Sleepy Hollow”: the same gloomy, beautiful, measured aesthetics.

- I do not like these labels, which we often hang in Russia, regardless of whether they are deserved or not. Of course, after Ridley Scott shot The Blade Runner, any film about the future is somehow compared automatically with this tape. When viewing any movie where there is a night future with holograms and neon advertising, other associations do not arise, because Scott has established a certain genre.

• Shot from the series “Sparta”, 2017
• © kinopoisk.ru

- Neonuar.

- Yes, such a neonuar. I am sure that the audience will compare with this film. It is impossible not to be inspired by such pictures: after all, a certain film language was created in them. But our story is completely different, it will develop differently. I think that such associations will disappear very quickly. "Outpost" is a mixture of neo-voir and a military film. With "Black Hawk Down", roughly speaking.

- Have you been inspired by some post-apocalyptic films, TV shows like “The Walking Dead”?

- I watched it all, but I can not say that we were inspired by it or somehow used. In our film, it is interesting that for a very long time we do not understand the essence of what is happening, the suspense is based on the absence of the enemy. Therefore, in the very first frames, relatively speaking, we will not see a zombie. It was an interesting trick: in the absence of an obvious enemy to create an action on the screen, the feeling that something is constantly happening.

- The main roles in this picture performed ...

- We have a very good composition. Peter Fedorov, Alexey Chadov, Svetlana Ivanova, Lukerya Ilyashenko, Ksenia Kutepova and Konstantin Lavronenko. This is the main core.

- This time without Alexander Petrov.

- Yes (Laughs) . I love working with Sasha, but I already wanted to relax a little from each other.

- They say that Petrov is a new star of our time. In your opinion, why did he manage to reach such heights? What is special about it?

- To be successful in Russia, you have to work a lot. Sasha is a hard-working guy. He carefully works on the roles, comes prepared for the casting, which is actually rare among actors in Russian cinema. Very few people who, coming to try for a role, not only read the script, at least come up with a character for themselves ... What seems obvious.

The actor does not have to wait for the director, with the producer and the writers, to tell him how they want him to play the role. No, he should come, having read the text, and offer his vision of the character ... In such a situation, if the actor plays well and is always prepared, and gives 100% on samples that we then see on the screen, it always captivates.

- What do you think, what techniques, methods of work could our domestic filmmakers borrow from foreign colleagues? What should directors and screenwriters pay attention to fill in the gaps that exist in our industry?

- In our industry I lack genre cinema. It seems to me that our range of films is very limited. Sometimes breakthroughs happen: for example, now horror films have begun to appear, although cinematographers have hardly resorted to this genre before. Now he begins to manifest.

- Successfully, in your opinion?

- I would not say that successfully. Although it is still some way. But still.

I am not criticizing the whole industry right now, no. But it seems to me that we have no diversity. On the one hand, there is an author movie. It is not very inventive, although there are good films. But if we look at copyright cinema in the West, we will see: it is not all about the grim social everyday life. It is extremely inventive. For example, the film "Man - Swiss Knife", in which Daniel Radcliffe plays a corpse. Or something in the style of director Wes Anderson, this is also an author movie. But we don’t have such an inventive, fun copyright cinema, it is necessarily social.

If we are talking about genre cinema or what may be called mainstream, which makes up the lion’s share of our film distribution, then these are either comedies, which, however, are few, because they are bored with people, or horror films, sports dramas or, more generally, , pictures about the feat of the Soviet man. How much can you watch this movie? I want some genre stories, bold, original and unusual. They appear, but very few. This is not enough. This is not a question of some techniques, it is a question of the intention and the desire of the authors just to tell an interesting tale.

- You said that the cinematic aesthetics of the USSR died, but the new one has not yet been invented. Are steps being taken in this direction now? Can we say that the new aesthetics takes shape, that we are moving in the right direction?

- It is clearly being formed. In fact, I have not felt it until the end. There are very different directions. If we talk about Soviet cinema, then you can’t call Tarkovsky and Gaidai films a Soviet aesthetics. These are very different things. In this case, both directors are among the best representatives of Soviet cinema.

It is also difficult to define common Russian aesthetics here. In contrast to the 2000s, some tendencies are already emerging, there are examples of the organic existence of aesthetics. However, to identify some of its principles, I would not dare.

• Shot from the series "Farts", 2015
• © kinopoisk.ru

- Do you have a treasured book or script that you want to film?

- Yes there is. For two of them already make a movie, unfortunately. Since I was still in school, I wanted to film "The Master and Margarita" and "We" Zamyatin. A third book should not be removed here, because it is not our story, but it is the most cherished thing. I would like to shoot Moby Dick. This is my dream.

- Concerning Zamyatin. Domestic and foreign fiction has always been different. They dealt with different conflicts. Is it possible to say that modern Russian cinema fiction is very different from Western models?

- I would not say that they are very different. Of course, there is still a certain discount on our social environment. Although fantasy and about tomorrow, but in fact she tells about today. We are shooting about today's man, his fears, which he has today about tomorrow. Hollywood with its budgets and stories went a little forward, so often we still appeal to their experience. Although there are examples when we go our own way - as, for example, in “Kin-dza-dza!” By Georgiy Danelia.

- Your pictures, as a rule, have an interesting visual solution. It can be seen that on the set of shots increased attention is paid. Many directors seek to fully define what it will be. What do you prefer to do: do you go into all the details yourself, or trust it to your colleagues?

- I really love the form. In the movie, it is very important how everything looks. I do not really understand the directors who say: "I will work with the actors, and deal with the rest yourself." This is then no longer a cinema, because cinema is a visual art.

It is very important to me how the movie will be made stylistically. I do not release this process at any stage. It is important for me to set the direction that we discuss further with the film crew, with the cameraman, with the artists. It is important to infect them with an idea, so that some kind of response proposals will come from them. It is wrong to say: “I thought it up, and you all shut up and do it.”

Cinema is a collective work, and here it is more important to plant some grain in your partner in this film, so that it will further develop in it as his personal idea. And then he starts to bring you his ideas that work for the common cause.

After this, the director's task is to sift out the unnecessary. This is the same as working with an actor. The actor begins to offer a bunch of options for how his character behaves in the scene, but only the director can determine what is important from this that will not destroy the scene. Because the actor sees, first of all, his character, and the director can also consider that in this scene this character is not the most important, and his goal is to help the other hero to reveal himself. The same applies to the scenery, working with the operator.

• © kinopoisk.ru

- This year you won the Golden Eagle award for the series Sparta. How do you feel? Did the reward give you confidence or, on the contrary, put an even greater burden of responsibility?

- I am very calm about awards. With all due respect and gratitude for what it is, but for me it did not change anything. It's nice. In the case of Sparta, this is especially pleasant, considering that the project was quite ready for a long time on the shelf due to the fact that it was afraid to show it because of its subject matter and certain provocativeness.

It's a shame that he came out much later than his time. When it was shot, it was not yet a global trend.

When we finished it, only three episodes of the “Mr. Robot” series were released, which then received all the awards for three years in a row. And stylistically it seemed that we were going one way. We could go out at the same time and go on par with what is happening in the whole world. Not to mention the fact that no “First Player to Prepare” yet existed. There was a book, of course, which I did not read - but there was no film.

As a result, we came out after three years, when the VR technologies advanced, and “First Player to Get Ready” came out. And they showed the show at night in the summer, when everyone watched football during the World Cup. But I wanted Spart to watch as many viewers as possible.

The fact that Spartu was recognized by the industry, and this award was presented to us, inspired us with some hope that someone else would pay attention and look at it.

- Have you been revisiting your first full-length film "Suicides"?

- I haven't reviewed it for a long time, but sometimes I leaf through it. Surprisingly: I still meet people who say that this is their favorite movie. With that, I understand - it is in many ways very naive. I am not ashamed of him in any way, but I understand that, compared to that time, I have now greatly grown as a director.

My position is this: if the director looked at his first job, and it seemed ideal to him, then it’s time for such a director to retire. There must always be dissatisfaction with oneself, some kind of growth, the eternal work on mistakes. Only in this way can we continue to grow and set new goals for ourselves.

- You defended just this film ...

- I was lucky to shoot a full meter even while studying at the institute. Instead of creating a thesis short work, I did this entire fifth year of this film, without doing anything else at the institute. In the end, I defended with a full meter.

- What kind of universal advice would you give to young directors, say, second-year students, so that they succeed in the profession and find their way?

- No need to wait for someone to come and teach you everything. The only way to learn is practice. In VGIK, it is customary to film three short films for the entire duration of the training. This is extremely small. Students themselves should always want to shoot, they should have a lot of ideas, they should implement them. Now you can shoot even on the phone.

All short films are important to complete. Even if at the level of filming you realize that something did not work out, you have to finish, mount, squeeze everything. And only then will you be able to draw conclusions about what went wrong, what did not work out, and how to make it happen next time. Just stuffing these bumps can come to something.

Training time is the time when a student forms his portfolio. If it consists of only three works, of which two did not work out, you will not go far with this portfolio. It is important to shoot as much as possible, to gain experience.