Интервью

His passionate devotion to Russian patriotic values prompted alarm in some quarters, with many in the artistic community fearing that he would oversee a cultural clampdown – with cinema firmly in his firing line. A year has passed and it is time to admit: not a single crew member has been harmed. So far.
Catherine Mtsitouridze talks to Vladimir Medinsky about what holds back the development of Russian cinema, about the artistic themes which the country should prioritize, about his relationship with the Film Fund, and about Russia’s on-going wait for its own Spielberg.

Catherine Mtsitouridze: Vladimir, because this issue of Variety is Cannes-themed, let's start with festivals. You once said that you were unhappy about how our festival films affect Russia’s international image.
Vladimir Medinsky: To put it mildly, sometimes it seems strange why the selectors pick one film and not another. First of all I mean the so-called "films about our social problems". It’s as if all our country, everyone in Russia, is mired in these “social problems” from dawn to dusk. Of course we have our problems, but no more than anyone else.

Which films have impressed you lately?
I watch a lot of films. I recently watched “Kin-Dza-Dza”, a good movie. Of course it is animated, and it might not make much sense to modern children, but those who remember the old film like it. I think Govorukhin's latest film, “Weekend”, (which is actually based on “Elevator to the Gallows”) is one of Stanislav Sergeevich's best films. I am now speaking as a viewer, not as a minister. Among older movies, “The Island” and “The 9th Company” are also good quality movies. There are some ideological and historical details that I could argue with, we are all wise after the event, but, nevertheless, these are worthy examples. “Kandahar” is of the same ilk. “Match” gets a B+. I watched “The Horde” with great pleasure not long ago. From the latest stuff- “Legenda No 17” is great.
I try not to talk about films that I don’t like. But the one film which simply outraged me was “The Ballad of Uhlans”. I could barely contain myself. This picture discredits the idea of historical cinema.

It has been exactly a year since you became Culture Minister in the country where the film industry is just starting to develop. Do you think if the state finances the films it has the right to dictate the themes?
To determine them – yes. By the way, it is easier in America. I watched “Olympus Has Fallen” recently with my son. If a film like this was made by Mikhalkov, he would have been crucified in our blogosphere. Every minute of the film promotes the American idea, exceptional American heroism and American sacrifice. For seven minutes they show the flag – first it is flapping around, then it is shot, then it is torn down, then it is slowly falling on the bodies of soldiers who died defending the White House. In the end the President triumphs over international evil and makes a speech as the flag is raised back over the White House. That takes another half a minute.

Trust me, “Olympus” had horrible reviews in the US. There is ideology in American cinema, but it’s not as crude as in ours.
Really? What about “Argo”? It is a completely ideological film, 300% ideological; we would call it "socially important".

And it received its Oscar from the White House.
And "Avatar" was ignored because they think the ideological message is wrong. A US army soldier takes the side of God knows who. And they gave the Oscar to a film about the war in Iraq that appeared out of nowhere (“The Hurt Locker” - Variety). I will not even mention “Saving Private Ryan”. There is half-an-ounceof history there, and the rest is the author's fantasy, but it is made really well and the audience believes in it. Our Great Patriotic War offers thousands of stories beyond Spielberg's wildest dreams - why are they not being filmed?

We believe in “Ryan” because the aim there was not to restore the historical truth, but to make a real film. Our producers think that they are being pressured.
There is no pressure. The topics were formulated over several years, but no one has paid attention to it before. And subsidies claimants must not pay attention to any topics. But I would make the topics even more simple than in the competition papers. For example, in a year we will have the 70th Victory anniversary, we need a film about our victory in the Great Patriotic War, or even in the World War II. Simple and understandable.

It seems that people who wrote them only vaguely understand what the topics are, and know even less about the target audience.
The topics are chosen based on sociological questionnaires, based on real problems that concern the people, our audience. The filmmakers are welcome to their opinions about what viewers are interested in, but these are facts. Basically, we’ve just put a long-accepted plan into practice.

You mentioned the 70th anniversary of the war. Would you have given “Burnt by the Sun”'s last two parts state support?
You know, Katya, this film was sunk by its marketing. It was advertised as a “Liberation”-type movie, or a recreation of “The Battle of Moscow”. But “Liberation” is a historical canvas, and “Burnt-2” is like “The Ringof the Nibelungs”, it is an author's epic based on the war.
For example, there really was a battle of the Kremlin cadets, and in reality those fine men, all over six feet tall, in dress uniform were given rifles and thrown onto the front line to stop the Germans. Because the whole country was hanging by a thread. There was nowhere to retreat, Moscow lay behind them. But the fight for Moscow ended quite differently for the Kremlin cadets. These boys held firm against the Wehrmacht's best divisions, which had steamrollered all of Europe before that! The Germans could not move them. That regiment lost more than 70% of its men, but from the survivors the majority were fast-tracked to the officers’ ranks and 18-year-old boys were put in charge of companies and regiments. They were not flattened by the German tanks, like in the film, on the contrary, they demonstrated wonderful military skills and some purely Russian bravado. Once at night, silently, with bayonets, in white camouflage, they counter-attacked the German positions (they did not fortify- they could not imagine being attacked) and took several hundred (!) Germans hostage. Only our guys could have done this.

I do not remember this in the movie.
In the film our cadets died stupidly in half an hour. Of course it is not history. It is an allegory. But the film is powerful.

Doesn't it endanger the quail of the film, if the theme is formulated a year before the event? Everything is late- it is a long-standing tradition in Culture Ministry.
Why late?

For example now, with the Cannes Film Festival. Roskino has been organizing the Russian pavilion for six years now (we personally set it up in 2008). And each year the same problem occurs – the tender for costs is announced a month before the festival. At the same time we start preparing the Cannes events in November.
That’s typical of our bureaucracy. To announce a tender we need to agree on a huge number of formalities in various executive bodies. So these procedures cannot start before April. But for your comfort, Katya, I can say that we are looking into ways to make sure that such delays do not happen next year. But it is our internal business. We are working, Katya, believe me.

We will hope for the best. But let us get back to the topics. Does it all come back to censorship?
I personally know many filmmakers, even from before I became a minister, and I have never had misunderstanding with anyone. We may have different points of view, but we are talking about the same thing. There is an extreme position: “Give us money, and we will decide what to film ourselves, we know best”. That cannot continue, let me assure you. If you come and ask us for money, we will not teach you how to film, but we certainly want to understand what you will film with this money. This is not censorship in any way. Censorship is when you make something yourself, and then have to ask for permission to publish it. But if you are making something yourself, without state funding, go right ahead -- we have freedom of art. But as soon as you ask for state money – and not just in cinema but in all the arts – of course we want to understand what the project is all about.

But there are authors who have a certain world come to life in their head, and this world is transferred to the screen.
The artist has a right to create what he or she wants. But if you want state money, you must conform to certain criteria to receive it. We support not only socially important cinema. We support documentaries, debuts, a lot of animation and experiments. But let us be honest: if you want to make a film that says that Russia is a horrible place to live, and the only option is to fly away, don’t ask the state for money! It is impossible to prevent people from feeling this way and making films about it, but Culture Ministry will no longer offer money for this.

Vladimir, how long would you be interested in working as a minister?
My superiors decide this, not me.

But how long would you personally like to work in this status?
For as long asI can still produce results.

If tomorrow they tell you that you are being moved to a different area, which happens sometimes, for example to defense, would you work there?
No, of course not, I know nothing about it. I would not go. Even in culture I learn something new every day. I try to learn all the time.

How would you like people to talk to you after you leave your ministerial post?
I want them to speak well: in his time wages in the cultural sector rose, Russian cinema returned to the screens, the state started paying more attention to culture, more historical monuments were restored...

Or in Medinsky's time this film was made?
The minister does not make films.

Who is your favorite character on the screen?
There are many. They change with time. You want a specific one? You could say Stirlitz (a famous Soviet spy in the classic drama “17 Moments of Spring” – Variety).

Could you name an ideal historically and socially important film?
It might sound strange, but the Hollywood movie “Braveheart” springs to mind as a good example of a positive historical example. I was in Scotland recently and it seems like every souvenir over there involves Mel Gibson. He’s everywhere – dolls, t-shirts. Mel Gibson is Scotland’s biggest national hero!

Even though he is Australian.
But the marketing here is great, it gave birth to a whole section of national mythology. The Scots are very proud of it.

New Zealand’s national budget is based on “The Lord of the Rings”. And yet our deputies suggest limiting access to foreign crews, not giving them any tax breaks.
It is the first I’ve heard of it.

We discussed it at Stanislav Govorukhin's round table at the State Duma.
Let us work on that. Of course we need to give tax breaks to foreign crews that film in Russia.

It is good that you are saying it now. Everyone thinks that it is coming from the Culture Ministry.
You can’t believe every blog you read about the ministry.

When you just entered office, you spoke for quotas for Russian films in cinemas.
I believe we must do all we can to increase the audience share for Russian films.

No one is arguing with that, but by what means?
There are various ways to go about it -- there is the French method, and on average French films hold 40% of the box office. We barely had 15% last year.

The French method is quite clear. France does not have quotas for theatrical runs, but there are payments from box office and TV revenue.
And there are cinemas that are rewarded for showing French films. It is a complex system, there are TV quotas. Then there is China's experience, where the quota for Hollywood films is 10-20 films a year. You can create a lot of good product, but if it isn’t easily accessible it will not be seen. The logic of quotas is that your product is on the shelves right next to the cashier.

Producers are not so sure that they will be able to provide a lot of quality product for our cinema shelves.
It is a different issue. But you know, the majority of producers tell us tete-a-tete that they support the quotas. But they will never say it out loud, because they are afraid of upsetting cinema distributors and chain owners.

Maybe the cinemas should be subsidized, their risks from showing Russian cinema covered?
That is impossible to control. They will steal, the reports will be fake. Ideally the state should not subsidize anyone. The state should provide opportunities.

Will you introduce an electronic ticketing system in parallel?
It really does not work. We are not technically ready for it.

So it will not be introduced?
I did not start this electronic system idea. They are working on it elsewhere. The only thing that was done under my control was a law on fines for not joining the electronic system.

Has anyone been fined?
Now we are getting the first data, and in the near future the hearings will start.

Why can't a normal electronic system be introduced, like in the rest of the world?
It can and will. And the ministry is very active in this area now.

France is fighting piracy online. They send a warning to the user's personal computer, then a fine, the third step is a criminal record. In the end they lowered Internet piracy by 70% in several years.
Before meeting with you I was just hosting a meeting on Internet piracy. We are developing another anti-piracy law that imposes fines on providers, hosts and so on.

What reform will take Russian culture to the new level?
A lot of areas need reforms. What does "reform the film system" mean? Stop giving money? Start giving money based on some very different principle? Where is the guarantee that we will succeed? We are constantly working to improve things, without ruining what we have.

What relationship do you have with the Film Fund?
A purely professional, normal relationship. We signed a new agreement with new rules of work. As soon as the package of new projects appears, we will start approving them. The Fund, as our financial agent, first and foremost deals with commercial cinema and is responsible for market share, we work with debuts, experiments, socially important cinema. Everything is extremely clear.

Well, good luck with the reforms. We are all interested in it.
Thank you. Good luck to you too. We have a common cause.

Vladimir Medinsky was born on July 18, 1970 in Smela in Cherkassk region, Ukraine. He graduated from MGIMO with honours, then went on to postgraduate studies. He completed his PhD in 1994 and since then has been a professor in the history department of MGIMO.

1991–1992 USSR Embassy in USA, Washington.
1992 – founded “Corporation YA” PR agency (Russia's best PR agency in 1997 and 2000), which he headed until 1998
1998-1999 -- head of information policy department at Russia's Tax ministry, state councilor of the tax service of the 2nd class
1999-2000 –departmental head of election headquarters for the “Fatherland - All of Russia” party, Member of the “Fatherland” party committee
2000-2002 — advisor to Georgy Boos, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma
2002–2004 – head of the “United Russia”’ party executive committee, head of “United Russia”’s Moscow election headquarters,
2003–2007 – State Duma deputy,
2004–2005 – deputy head of “United Russia”’s central election committee
2007–2011 – State Duma deputy.
2010–2012 – member of the Presidential commission against the falsification of history. In 2011 a presidential order made him a member of the board of “Russky Mir” fund.
2006–2008 – President of Russia's association on public relations.
May 21 2012 appointed minister for culture by order of Russian President.
State Duma deputy.
2003–2011, Chairman of State Duma committee on culture. Member of “United Russia” party high council.
Member of Russian writers union.
Author of a series of books "Myths about Russia": On Russian drinking, laziness and cruelty", "On Russian democracy, dirt, and the ‘prison of the people’", "On Russian theft, special way and patience", "Skeletons from the cupboard of Russian history", and "The War. 1939-45".
In February 2012 Medinsky published his first novel "The Wall".