"We'll have to make a pause": Yuri Bykov about leaving the cinema, the rolling fate of "Plant" and the Russian audience

Thanks to his challenging projects, Yuri Bykov was one of the most discussed Russian directors of recent years. Viewers remember him on the feature films "Fool" and "Major", the series "Method" and "Sleepers." Recently, on the big screens came his new work: the crime drama "Plant". In an interview with RT, the director shared his concerns about the rolling fate of the film and admitted that he was worried about the lack of a clear understanding of his own future in the profession. He also spoke about the scandal around the “Sleepers” and noted that the audience is returning confidence in domestic cinema.

- First of all, we congratulate you on the Russian premiere of Zavod. Tell us why the film was first shown in Toronto?

- We have a distributor who is engaged in international sales. The company is quite serious, working with Cannes directors. It defines the strategy of distribution of the picture abroad and the premiere points of distribution - in general, deals with the foreign fate of the picture. And this company made the decision that there will be Toronto. Still, Toronto is the North American forum, and “The Plant” is a rather genre picture made in the key of, let's say, meaningful thriller. This is not a European format.

Toronto is the largest forum of just such “spectator” paintings. Moreover, there are gathering premieres from around the world. Choose films that the viewer will primarily watch. And the big film market, including, is nearby. I think that it is precisely because of this Toronto. And then you can only guess.

- “The Plant” thought, as far as I understand, as a rather massive movie ...

- I do not really like the word "massive." But he really thought like a genre thriller. I even sometimes, ironically, call the genre a fighter. But in every joke there is some joke ... Indeed, I wanted to go out on a wide screen. My paintings did not come out in wide circulation before.

There were specially curtsies towards the mass audience. This action scenes, and graphics. Filmed it is quite expensive by the standards of the author's cinema. Yes, we tagged a wide audience. I really wanted to make a picture that you need to watch on a wide screen.

- In one of the interviews you called this film epic. What does this mean?

- Bylina is a format. I could say that Zavod is a Western, and probably would be right. Well, purely on the format frames. Indeed, quite mature men find out the relationship with the help of weapons, ask each other very serious everyday questions ... But the western is still a western name. And in our Russian culture, it seems to me, there is a rather clear definition of a conditional exposition of a serious problem.

Take any epic, from “Ilya Muromets” to “Mikula Selyaninovich”, and you will understand that on the one hand this is a kind of legend about a collective image. Almost always it is a powerful enough figure that asks some questions and answers the same questions. At the same time, this is still a conditional bright, convex expression. Therefore, it seems to me that the word “epic” is much more appropriate for the Russian audience, the Russian perception.

- The main character in the press was not compared with anyone: with the hero of Shukshin, and with Danila Bagrov ... how did you imagine him? Who is he - people's avenger?

- I don’t think that he is a national avenger, because he is taking revenge for his own life that has not been formed. And quite thoroughly and without reason it takes revenge on a particular person, the personification of evil, as he imagines it.

I conceived a hero who finds out the relationship primarily with his own ruined fate. I was important to a person who is in search of absolute justice, in a causeless search. I understand his motives perfectly and always say that I sympathize with romantics much more than pragmatists. But in this search, he crosses the line, crossing which you can no longer remain a man. That same tear of Dostoevsky's child.

- The main role in the “Factory” was played by Denis Shvedov, who has repeatedly appeared in your previous films. Why is he again?

- You know, I love Denis so much that every time I have to justify myself on this occasion, I feel a little awkward.

There is a film in my biography, which is now probably my business card. He is called "Fool." And there Denis Shvedov does not play, so you know! There is another great artist playing there, in my opinion, very well - his name is Artem Bystrov.

It seems to me that in terms of the frequency of appearance in my career, Denis began to be considered even as my not a talisman, but an alter ego ... Denis and I practically did not work, God bless me, for almost six years. Therefore, you yourself can understand how much a talisman or alter ego is. It just so happened that in the film "Plant" once again it was a question of a hero of a large, serious emotional scale.

It seems to me that it is very difficult to find a deep, almost neurasthenic character warehouse of the hero on our today's screen. Denis is not just suitable in size. He has a very bare nerve. This is a big huge man with absolutely naked nerves. A rare combination for this texture!

Usually, any good artist can connect emotionally, but Denis has a rare property: he is an incredible Samoyed. He is an incredible, in a good way, a neurotic actor. This is a rare combination of the hero and neurasthenic, in fact, led him to the main role in the “Plant”.

- Often you write your own script for your films and compose music, and you shoot them yourself. This time you delegated some of the tasks. Why?

- There appeared people in my life who were not there before and who are professional enough to share with me the responsibilities that I had completely placed on myself before. But this does not mean that I do not participate in the process ...

Of course, the director (if he is a director!) Takes part in everything. I think a person can not call himself a director if he just sat on the sofa, looked at the monitor and said: "I like it." Although I have heard the statements of an outstanding enough person that the director’s main task is simply to say whether he likes or dislikes, since he is what is called the ultimate truth. But I still think that the director is, among other things, the person who inspires the process, sets the motion vector in the search for this “good” and “bad”.

I both participated in all processes, and I participate. Just there were people who can offer for their part very good options. And we are in dialogue with them. Before that, it was hard for me.

- Before the “Plant” feature films did not come out for about five years. Why did this happen?

- There was an attempt to become a big industrial, commercial director.

- Succeeded?

- I'm afraid not. You see, because it’s not just the ability to work. And also in the ability to be a diplomat, or something ... Any commercial activity is, above all, diplomacy. Now I'm not just about the movie.

Commercial activity involves a permanent compromise with the customer, with the consumer. And the artist is a little bit about the other.

I had achievements in industrial cinema. But it still relates more to professionalism. Soul somehow here, see, did not find peace and harmony in contact with industry. I feel that I can’t even better or more: I can be much more provocative, tougher, sharper. And in the framework of industrial cinema it rarely works. They still need to very carefully deal with the target audience.

The mass audience is having fun. She is resting. It is very dangerous to stir it up and provoke something very dangerous, the producers are afraid of it. And they are doing the right thing: you understand, cinema is still a lot of money that needs to be returned. To endlessly invest in great art is impossible, there are not even such examples.

Yes, there are some one-off phenomena, artists who, really, must exist and work. Because then, after 10, 20, 30, 40 years, it will become clear that this is our intellectual cultural baggage. But, first, I do not enter their number. And secondly, there units are needed, by and large. The rest is industry. And, actually, how to work in it is a very big question. Because you need to work in a compromise.

- You are frank enough to say that after the release of the movie "Fool" fell into depression.

- Yes, long before. I, it seems to me, never left it.

- Has the same happened to you after the scandal around the series “The Sleepers”?

- The series “Sleepers” is a multi-layered, complex situation, both industrial and political. There was nothing new that happened in my life before. Before that, there were reproaches against me too.

Do you think I was praised for “The Fool”, perhaps? .. The viewer does not drop me to the level of directors who no one likes (we will not name names now, we will be correct). Although, by the way, they successfully shoot films, their films are released at the box office and earn good money. But great professionals - critics, movie fans - do not lift me to serious heights, and they are right. With the same "Fool" I had almost more negative reviews! Despite the fact that Andrei Petrovich Zvyagintsev gave me the prize for the script at the Kinotavr, I came from there with a huge baggage of negative impressions of the picture. And "Sleepers" - this is another plus, and politics as well.

Although, it seems to me, what happened with the Sleepers, including my appeal to the audience, is quite emotional and impulsive, even in the plus worked. That is the word "HYIP". Well, it turned out so that, it seems to me, this to producers, maybe, even was useful.

But in general, there have always been very difficult reviews in my career. Almost always negative in the professional community. And this phenomenon, it seems to me, is purely Russian. After all, we have a country of extremes: either all or nothing. Either you are filming Tarkovsky, or not at all. It seems to me sometimes.

Do you understand what the problem is, in fact, and the "Plant", including? I want to make a meaningful audience movie, to bring it to wide screens so that it would be necessary for the viewer. And all the time the prevailing situation hints at you that either you are shooting a very arthouse film (and then festivals, the love of critics, perhaps. And this is one niche), or you collect a huge cashier, but you simplify the meaning to the maximum. The audience chews you for a week or two, then swallows or spits out and forgets. But this is some kind of split consciousness. This is when not "And - and", but "Either - or."

Yury Bykov
RIA News

- Doesn't it seem to you that, as before, despite the success of, say, “Move up” and “Attraction”, the Russian audience treats Russian cinema with a certain caution?

- No, it does not. To be honest, big blockbusters returned confidence in the Russian cinema from the mass audience. As for the intellectual viewer, in my opinion, everything is in order too. And the “Arrhythmia” collected quite a lot of money, and Zvyagintsev collected it with “Dislike”. "Dovlatov" collected.

It just seems to me that the credibility of Russian cinema is returning. Another thing is that this trust should be supported as much as possible, including professionally. And here I have a claim to myself, because the “Plant” charges are low. In this sense, I really do not want to drop the bar that other people raised with a rather great difficulty. It is better not to interfere, as they say.

Yes, there were releases this year, which, unfortunately, did not rise to the level of the same “Arrhythmia”. Although the films, in my opinion, are wonderful. There is the “Heart of the World”, and “Acid”, and “The Story of a Single Destination.” For all the charges are not so great. But, in general, I think people want to watch Russian cinema.

Can you imagine how much negative attitude to Russian cinema was before? There are a huge number of bloggers who, strictly speaking, and ... Although one of them helped me a lot - Zhenya Bazhenov (the creator of the BadComedian blog. - RT ). I think that in general thanks to him “Fool” took place as a film event. But what he does, including criticism of Russian cinema. There was a lot of such content, when people were only engaged in finding wormholes in Russian cinema (and it’s absolutely not unreasonable, I must say). And the last two or three years, it seems to me, has been both producers, and artists, and directors have done a very good job. This is the bar, the main thing is not to drop it, not to prevent the Russian audience from having confidence in the national cinema.

- After the “Factory” is expected your new film, “Watchman”. All you probably ask: you then what are you planning? Will you leave the cinema or continue?

- Do you mean after this appeal? As I said, I say that I need a huge pause. You can not imagine how many questions I have accumulated.

Now I sit, watch the fate of the “Plant” and ask myself so many questions! There is not even to appeal. Here it is much more global and serious processes. Where, strictly speaking, to get money for copyright cinema? And how to monetize it? And how to sell it? Therefore, partly the reflexive, impulsive my appeal about the series “The Sleepers” is getting stronger and stronger.

I have a feeling of panic, actually. I do not really understand what I will do next, precisely because what I would like to do does not have a way of realization. And in this sense, at least for the one, at least for the other, at least for a third reason, it is really necessary to make a pause. At least just to find funding.

The painting “Plant” has been seeking funding for four years. And it is still unknown what the results will be and whether there will be someone in the red. If we are talking about TV shows, in order to simply earn a piece of bread, this is probably possible. But as far as cinema is concerned, this is a very big question what will happen next. That is, in my career, I absolutely definitely have no plans right now, no points of support or understanding of what will happen to my film career. And this I absolutely tell you.

I understand that everybody is a little intriguing when they say: “Well, what, he said - so leave!”. Yes, in general, and succeed. For a long time, at least.

- But still you will not leave forever?

- Forever leave only in another world. We are all living people, we all make mistakes sometimes.

When people get married (so far, thank God, this is still happening in our social everyday reality), very often they say: “Until death doom,” “For life” and so on. And then you see, you know, - and the person has the sixth marriage! And everyone loves each other.

I think a person is a creature who loves to promise something, but maybe it’s not always necessary to take it seriously. Although there are key moments in the life of each person, which, no matter how he wants, are determined regardless of his desire. I am afraid that such a moment in my life has come.

Watch the full interview at RTD.

"We'll have to make a pause": Yuri Bykov about leaving the cinema, the rolling fate of "Plant" and the Russian audience

Trends 24h

Latest