István Józsa
MIKLÓS JANCSÓ INTERVIEW
ON THE DEVASTATING POWER OF THE WORLD DREAM
|
The film director, Jancsó Miklós was one of the patrons of the East Central European Festival, organized in Szombathely between 26-28th May, 1995 by the Center for European Studies, the HCA Liaison Office for East Central European Cooperation, and the Pedagogical University of Szombathely. The central topic of the presentations and the round-table discussions that followed was migration, meaning both emigration and immigration as well as the „inner emigration” of Eastern and Central European intellectuals. Writers, journalists, artists, politicians and sociologists from about a dozen countries of the region met here and gave account of their own experiences. We had a discussion with the film director Jancsó Miklós about the creator’s prospects both within and outside the borders of the region – naturally related to films.
|
- We must start from the fact that the relation between politics and art has remained unclarified in Central and Eastern Europe in the second part of the century, or rather since the beginning of the domination of fascist ideology; this – on the one hand – meant a certain political pressure, and – on the other hand – a heroic commitment from writers and artists. A consequence of this within culture is a commute between morals and aesthetics in the artistic works, which takes a different form from country to country, but it has the same basic principle. Another – natural – consequence is that a wish for the so-called “clean” aesthetic values has appeared, which is not compromised by political ideologies. Miklós Jancsó, Andrej Tarkovszikj, István Szabó. Some important names in film-history, who succeeded to get close to this ideal not working in emigration.
- These three people have worked in an age when taking open stand was impossible. This does not only mean expedience, we must speak about the nature of the film itself. As the film rarely reaches the borders of art, the film, watched by the audience, always has the same problem. Money. The filmmaker and distributor is always at the mercy of someone, and if he is honest, he would get around the problem. Tarkovszkij, Szabó, Jancsó, Ciulei, Pintilie – in their films it is like this because of the nature of the problem. If the medium were favourable, one could not only take a stand, but also express his own ideology; I am talking about the kind of film that we made in this part of the world, which is different (from the American film) both in its story-telling and its form. We used a secret language. Before the last American wave, it was important for the film to be realistic. Ever since the Star Wars this art form has developed towards the world of fairy-tales or dreams. If until then “reality” was important – and necessary – this kind of film-language became superfluous, dead, it was only needed when the immediate political influence had to be avoided. From the side of the viewer outside the region … I can give you the example of my great friend, Jörg Donner: he is from Finland, a Swede from Finland. He watched the Szegénylegények (The Round-Up) – which is a historical piece, he said. He, the outsider does not understand this language, this code. And that is the same situation with the form as well.
- There are certain alternatives given to the creator by the often-mentioned “medium”: he can give in, resist and assumes the consequences of his resistence, he can escape into the past, traditions – see the “fashion” of historical novels in Transylvania, or the number of historical films in other cultures of the region – or he can retreat into his “inner emigration”. Let us just consider these as “mere” types, because there were others who found a different way of living. Guido Aristarco wrote about Miklós Jancsó, István Szabó that they protested against the “regime” within the “regime”…
- Ciulei and Pintilie are just as good examples. About myself ... Well, I had no other choice. I had to create my own language. István Szabó is outstanding in this respect. He deserved the Oscar, and let us not forget that he didn’t leave Hungary after that either. He was and is aware of the fact that it is not only political, but also economic pressure that has to be fought with. In the case of classic Hollywood-films, the director is not the author, he just makes the film, but the right of the so-called last cut is not his. The producer gives the film to the “editor”, he is the one who cuts the recorded material. In our case this happens together with the director – but not there. These kinds of restrictions determine who remains on the surface. Here István Szabó is the only one who always gets the trust; I care about him, because I am writing a book about him.
- “Hungarian film-making” – is there such a thing and if yes, in what respect?
- There is such a thing, but it has great difficulties. The audience doesn’t want it. Péter Bacsó’s Újra tanú (The Witness) had 80000 viewers, whereas an everage American film has instantly 150-200000 viewers. The Americans have taken over the Hungarian market, I don’t know if this new Budapest slang expression “to take sthg over” is known at Kolozsvar, it means to just easily catch something, take something away. Well, the American film has taken over the market without any resistence in this economically unstable period of Middle and Eastern Europe. However, this fact does not only refer to this region, but this is the “situation” worldwide.
- There was The 1st Festival and Fair of Hungarian Diaspora Filmmakers held at Siófok between 12–15 May. The experiences were important both for organizers and participants. In your opinion what could be the role of filmmakers of the Hungarian diaspora?
- Let me reflect on the characteristics of movies first. The filmmaker has to decide whether he is a professional or not. The movie, as means of expression, comes alive if it is used as a pen for taking notes. That is an old truth. The movie is a possible way of communication, and it is not necessarily a professional one. It is a way of talking to myself, to my friends, to the future. I had thought film in Boston, in Cambridge and at Harvard – if it can be thought at all – and there were only three who wanted to become professionals. I call these kinds of films student-films. They are communicational products that have been born as creative self-expression. That’s why I think that the Hungarian film of the diaspora has to decide first of all whether it wants to become professional. If we ask what kind of films run in the cinemas, what is the answer we get? So that’s why I say that it’s not sure it must be professional, that its creator must not necessarily make a living on it. Lots of people think that yes, they must be professional, however, that is not a requirement for the movie.
- If we take into consideration the framework, the “situation”, the system of requirements in which the creator – as we called him, the filmmaker – works, the art – art of filmmaking – as means of communication spread and live through the network which covers the whole world. I’m mainly thinking of the Internet, and of the Video On Line which is in full development. The latter has already created the so-called hipertextual newspaper, the hipermedial newsstand – so anyone anywhere in the world can order the New York Times of the day with a simple click on his computer, and read any of its articles, can “go shopping” with the help of Video On Line, the list of shops and their products appears on the screen, they can be ordered and have them shipped home – thus postal services, ordering films, meteo information, organzing trips, videogames etc., etc. become available to anyone. It seems to overtake the Internet, which is mainly English, complicated and too technical, it’s not reliable, and sometimes it’s slow. The Video On Line works in any language, it easily adapts to its user, facilitates using different services, it is reliable and fast. It shows a yearly 300% growth, there is a new network born every 10 minutes. The company’s presentation took place on the 5th of May in Budapest. Great opportunities – how can they be the promoters of the development of the Hungarian diaspora filmmaking?
- This is a worldwide connection, the Internet itself led to the emergence of a new elite. This can express itself internationally, it has money, has no informational boundaries, so that is a modern means of communication. Nowadays the world market and all kinds of situations are ruled by American films, as they approach the „clean” aesthetic value with no political suppression and with great economical opportunities, which in this part of the world has only been a dream. So American films are dreamfilms. It is a dream that previously could not have even been imagined to be realizable. If I can do this, I only have to work, if not, then I have such handicap to overcome that I have to spend most of my energy on it. I have a screenplay at the moment, which would cost a lot because of technology. If I could do it with the help of electronics, it would be ok. I know how it can be done primitively, but even so there are lots of obstacles in front of me.
- Political, economical? Other? We have a „situation” today ...
- Well, today it cannot be easily defined. When the country slips into the third or fourth world, we become a banana republic, when we know about each politician how much they steal, why would they have to be in prison, then it is really difficult to apprehend the „situation”. This chaos is not a handicap for the graphic artist, nor is it for the poet, however it is very much so for the filmmaker. My main obstacle is that I can’t even know my obstacles. I knew them fifteen years ago, that you needed twenty million maximum to make a film. Whereas now ...
- To what extent could electronics help? The „virtual reality” or „second reality” has been born, and what is fearsome is that it interferes with the only real world that we have only had knowledge of. That life imitates art, is the theory born and developed in the 70’s and 80’s. Now in the cohabitation of the first and „second” reality it is an amazing technical opportunity, but what is awe-inspiring, is the fact that it is difficult to separate one from the other. Michael Douglas’s newest film, the Disclosure is mainly set in the dimension of the information stored on computers. „There” matters of life and death are determined, whereas „here”, in the everyday life, on the level of seemingly friendly conversations there is no trace of any of it... I must add that I am trying to make any evaluatory remarks about the film, I am talking about the relation of the two realities, because – thank God – the film is a true theoretic model of that.
- The film in the end is a product, a piece of merchandise. And it is a profitable one, too. Today „the” film – and I’m mainly referring to the American film – is the fourth most thriving industry after the commerce with girls, drugs and weapons. Nowadays one can’t loose money on American films. And while other investments (of the same kind) are long-term, this is not. This has become an industry in which it is difficult to invest nowadays. There are networks formed, which have divided the market among themselves on the one hand, and on the other it is difficult for the small ones to interfere in the business of these networks. It is a very profitable industry. It is not only difficult to make films, but it is also hard to sell them on the extremely busy market. It must be globalized; this is a Reebok on my foot, I bought it in South-Korea, I can buy it anywhere in the world – this means that it is globalized. Well, in America the frontline knows that it must make experiments, it plays with „realities”, this is not difficult at all. And they plant this into the audience. About „what the audience wants ...” We have been interested in this for a long time, and now we are not wanted. This American film forms and raises its audience! All sophisticated techniques are at its service, so it can transform from dream to reality virtually anything. Where does this road lead? No one knows the answer. As spectators we are like the man from the joke who met Jesus. And to the question „Where are you headed, my son?” he cannot give an answer. Well, this film knows the answer. It is on the side of the winners, of the strong, of the third, the youngest son. And the spectator translates what the film wants into his own life; just an example: in the former Yugoslavia, when the fights started, people started to kill each other dressed as Sylvester Stallone’s hero, Rambo... So the world dream is not so simple, when it comes true. This is the end of the white man’s culture. As 80% of the world does not stand on the „lucky” side. I would give Iván Völgyessy’s example of how to bring simple people to self-awareness. In Kaposvár the management of a factory stepped in front of the workers announcing that the factory was about to be closed. A worker answered with a question: well, it’s all right that we have to retrain ourselves, but tell us, into what. Völgyessy’s answer: you are a grown-up, thinking person, you must decide that to yourself. – And there are again the financial obstacles. My youngest son goes to an excellent American school; when they asked for the dining fees, one dollar per day, only 30% of the parents could pay it. So where does this retraining lead?
- The question is whether we have a set of values we can use to defend ourselves against this kind of manipulation?
- No, there is nothing. That is a matter of power. Maybe there will be something when this elite interferes again and even more into people’s lives. But for this they need high education and technical means. For now – however – this network does not allow me to communicate in a wider circle. And I’m not talking about Middle- and Eastern-Europe, but about the six billion people, or the five billion nine hundred ninety nine million occluded people.
- These three people have worked in an age when taking open stand was impossible. This does not only mean expedience, we must speak about the nature of the film itself. As the film rarely reaches the borders of art, the film, watched by the audience, always has the same problem. Money. The filmmaker and distributor is always at the mercy of someone, and if he is honest, he would get around the problem. Tarkovszkij, Szabó, Jancsó, Ciulei, Pintilie – in their films it is like this because of the nature of the problem. If the medium were favourable, one could not only take a stand, but also express his own ideology; I am talking about the kind of film that we made in this part of the world, which is different (from the American film) both in its story-telling and its form. We used a secret language. Before the last American wave, it was important for the film to be realistic. Ever since the Star Wars this art form has developed towards the world of fairy-tales or dreams. If until then “reality” was important – and necessary – this kind of film-language became superfluous, dead, it was only needed when the immediate political influence had to be avoided. From the side of the viewer outside the region … I can give you the example of my great friend, Jörg Donner: he is from Finland, a Swede from Finland. He watched the Szegénylegények (The Round-Up) – which is a historical piece, he said. He, the outsider does not understand this language, this code. And that is the same situation with the form as well.
- There are certain alternatives given to the creator by the often-mentioned “medium”: he can give in, resist and assumes the consequences of his resistence, he can escape into the past, traditions – see the “fashion” of historical novels in Transylvania, or the number of historical films in other cultures of the region – or he can retreat into his “inner emigration”. Let us just consider these as “mere” types, because there were others who found a different way of living. Guido Aristarco wrote about Miklós Jancsó, István Szabó that they protested against the “regime” within the “regime”…
- Ciulei and Pintilie are just as good examples. About myself ... Well, I had no other choice. I had to create my own language. István Szabó is outstanding in this respect. He deserved the Oscar, and let us not forget that he didn’t leave Hungary after that either. He was and is aware of the fact that it is not only political, but also economic pressure that has to be fought with. In the case of classic Hollywood-films, the director is not the author, he just makes the film, but the right of the so-called last cut is not his. The producer gives the film to the “editor”, he is the one who cuts the recorded material. In our case this happens together with the director – but not there. These kinds of restrictions determine who remains on the surface. Here István Szabó is the only one who always gets the trust; I care about him, because I am writing a book about him.
- “Hungarian film-making” – is there such a thing and if yes, in what respect?
- There is such a thing, but it has great difficulties. The audience doesn’t want it. Péter Bacsó’s Újra tanú (The Witness) had 80000 viewers, whereas an everage American film has instantly 150-200000 viewers. The Americans have taken over the Hungarian market, I don’t know if this new Budapest slang expression “to take sthg over” is known at Kolozsvar, it means to just easily catch something, take something away. Well, the American film has taken over the market without any resistence in this economically unstable period of Middle and Eastern Europe. However, this fact does not only refer to this region, but this is the “situation” worldwide.
- There was The 1st Festival and Fair of Hungarian Diaspora Filmmakers held at Siófok between 12–15 May. The experiences were important both for organizers and participants. In your opinion what could be the role of filmmakers of the Hungarian diaspora?
- Let me reflect on the characteristics of movies first. The filmmaker has to decide whether he is a professional or not. The movie, as means of expression, comes alive if it is used as a pen for taking notes. That is an old truth. The movie is a possible way of communication, and it is not necessarily a professional one. It is a way of talking to myself, to my friends, to the future. I had thought film in Boston, in Cambridge and at Harvard – if it can be thought at all – and there were only three who wanted to become professionals. I call these kinds of films student-films. They are communicational products that have been born as creative self-expression. That’s why I think that the Hungarian film of the diaspora has to decide first of all whether it wants to become professional. If we ask what kind of films run in the cinemas, what is the answer we get? So that’s why I say that it’s not sure it must be professional, that its creator must not necessarily make a living on it. Lots of people think that yes, they must be professional, however, that is not a requirement for the movie.
- If we take into consideration the framework, the “situation”, the system of requirements in which the creator – as we called him, the filmmaker – works, the art – art of filmmaking – as means of communication spread and live through the network which covers the whole world. I’m mainly thinking of the Internet, and of the Video On Line which is in full development. The latter has already created the so-called hipertextual newspaper, the hipermedial newsstand – so anyone anywhere in the world can order the New York Times of the day with a simple click on his computer, and read any of its articles, can “go shopping” with the help of Video On Line, the list of shops and their products appears on the screen, they can be ordered and have them shipped home – thus postal services, ordering films, meteo information, organzing trips, videogames etc., etc. become available to anyone. It seems to overtake the Internet, which is mainly English, complicated and too technical, it’s not reliable, and sometimes it’s slow. The Video On Line works in any language, it easily adapts to its user, facilitates using different services, it is reliable and fast. It shows a yearly 300% growth, there is a new network born every 10 minutes. The company’s presentation took place on the 5th of May in Budapest. Great opportunities – how can they be the promoters of the development of the Hungarian diaspora filmmaking?
- This is a worldwide connection, the Internet itself led to the emergence of a new elite. This can express itself internationally, it has money, has no informational boundaries, so that is a modern means of communication. Nowadays the world market and all kinds of situations are ruled by American films, as they approach the „clean” aesthetic value with no political suppression and with great economical opportunities, which in this part of the world has only been a dream. So American films are dreamfilms. It is a dream that previously could not have even been imagined to be realizable. If I can do this, I only have to work, if not, then I have such handicap to overcome that I have to spend most of my energy on it. I have a screenplay at the moment, which would cost a lot because of technology. If I could do it with the help of electronics, it would be ok. I know how it can be done primitively, but even so there are lots of obstacles in front of me.
- Political, economical? Other? We have a „situation” today ...
- Well, today it cannot be easily defined. When the country slips into the third or fourth world, we become a banana republic, when we know about each politician how much they steal, why would they have to be in prison, then it is really difficult to apprehend the „situation”. This chaos is not a handicap for the graphic artist, nor is it for the poet, however it is very much so for the filmmaker. My main obstacle is that I can’t even know my obstacles. I knew them fifteen years ago, that you needed twenty million maximum to make a film. Whereas now ...
- To what extent could electronics help? The „virtual reality” or „second reality” has been born, and what is fearsome is that it interferes with the only real world that we have only had knowledge of. That life imitates art, is the theory born and developed in the 70’s and 80’s. Now in the cohabitation of the first and „second” reality it is an amazing technical opportunity, but what is awe-inspiring, is the fact that it is difficult to separate one from the other. Michael Douglas’s newest film, the Disclosure is mainly set in the dimension of the information stored on computers. „There” matters of life and death are determined, whereas „here”, in the everyday life, on the level of seemingly friendly conversations there is no trace of any of it... I must add that I am trying to make any evaluatory remarks about the film, I am talking about the relation of the two realities, because – thank God – the film is a true theoretic model of that.
- The film in the end is a product, a piece of merchandise. And it is a profitable one, too. Today „the” film – and I’m mainly referring to the American film – is the fourth most thriving industry after the commerce with girls, drugs and weapons. Nowadays one can’t loose money on American films. And while other investments (of the same kind) are long-term, this is not. This has become an industry in which it is difficult to invest nowadays. There are networks formed, which have divided the market among themselves on the one hand, and on the other it is difficult for the small ones to interfere in the business of these networks. It is a very profitable industry. It is not only difficult to make films, but it is also hard to sell them on the extremely busy market. It must be globalized; this is a Reebok on my foot, I bought it in South-Korea, I can buy it anywhere in the world – this means that it is globalized. Well, in America the frontline knows that it must make experiments, it plays with „realities”, this is not difficult at all. And they plant this into the audience. About „what the audience wants ...” We have been interested in this for a long time, and now we are not wanted. This American film forms and raises its audience! All sophisticated techniques are at its service, so it can transform from dream to reality virtually anything. Where does this road lead? No one knows the answer. As spectators we are like the man from the joke who met Jesus. And to the question „Where are you headed, my son?” he cannot give an answer. Well, this film knows the answer. It is on the side of the winners, of the strong, of the third, the youngest son. And the spectator translates what the film wants into his own life; just an example: in the former Yugoslavia, when the fights started, people started to kill each other dressed as Sylvester Stallone’s hero, Rambo... So the world dream is not so simple, when it comes true. This is the end of the white man’s culture. As 80% of the world does not stand on the „lucky” side. I would give Iván Völgyessy’s example of how to bring simple people to self-awareness. In Kaposvár the management of a factory stepped in front of the workers announcing that the factory was about to be closed. A worker answered with a question: well, it’s all right that we have to retrain ourselves, but tell us, into what. Völgyessy’s answer: you are a grown-up, thinking person, you must decide that to yourself. – And there are again the financial obstacles. My youngest son goes to an excellent American school; when they asked for the dining fees, one dollar per day, only 30% of the parents could pay it. So where does this retraining lead?
- The question is whether we have a set of values we can use to defend ourselves against this kind of manipulation?
- No, there is nothing. That is a matter of power. Maybe there will be something when this elite interferes again and even more into people’s lives. But for this they need high education and technical means. For now – however – this network does not allow me to communicate in a wider circle. And I’m not talking about Middle- and Eastern-Europe, but about the six billion people, or the five billion nine hundred ninety nine million occluded people.
