The Director on Her Own Route

The second film by director Mira Fornay, My Dog Killer (Môj pes Killer), has achieved several international successes since its international première at Rotterdam IFF 2013 where it won the main award – the Hivos Tiger Award for best full-length feature film. This only goes to show that its subject is topical across countries.

My Dog Killer was made as a co-production with the Czech Republic, where you found a partner willing to accept your method of working...

– I work with Mr. Schwarcz from Cineart TV production and this co-production is based on our mutual understanding of the project and on certain obvious levels of enthusiasm and, of course, mutual trust. I don’t believe in co-productions solely on the basis of financing, as that can only bring problems. For me, only if the co-production partner is dedicated and involved in the project deeply enough, both mentally and creatively, only then will he/she seek out a route for the film, not for themselves.

Have you encountered any negative experience?

– There is no such thing as a bad experience; I always learn from every experience and any experience is largely good, however hard it might be. I have learned that I have to give careful consideration to whoever I am going to work with on a project, because I am not good at making compromises on my own route, and I now understand my way as being that of the auteurist film.

Is it imperative for filmmakers from a small country to look for a foreign co-producer?

– I wouldn’t call it imperative. In order to make a good film, it is necessary for the conditions to be as ideal as possible, so to have enough money is important – not too little and not too much. And if the local system of my town, city, region or state has limited finances to support me, I think I should try to find the right partner without the limitation of size imposed by my country and nationality.

My Dog Killer is as much of an auteurist film as your début Foxes (Líštičky). Do you consider that to be a creative necessity?

– I believe that to be creative, original, daring and open to observation is a necessity for making an auteurist film and an a film is the best way for me to communicate my ideas and images with others, as I believe in the gift of critical thinking. I’m interested in filmmakers with clear signatures and the courage to develop their ideas, their own specific way and never to repeat themselves just for the sake of success. But to have only auteur cinema would be dangerous and, in a way, boring. Filmmakers must have the opportunity to make their choices and choose a direction to exhibit their strongest talent. For me, cinema is a road to understanding not only myself, but other people.

What is your opinion of the various creative workshops which a script goes through, even for a number of years?

– Every project needs something different. I started developing the Killer under the Nipkow programme in Berlin and it suited me well, as it gave me a space for my work. Then I continued working on it on my own with help from my script editors. Both were able to express their opinion clearly, which was important. Waffling around only confuses me. I believe that residential programmes are great – you are given the space, solitude, freedom and time to write. But workshops, where you have to pay to be taught something or to be led somewhere? I’m not sure. However, as I said, it’s not for me, but it might be great for someone else for sure. For me, most of these “development programmes” are killing the basic idea of auteurist film, which is based on finding the original way of doing film in a specific way, not according to rules established by others. This is only my opinion.

What provoked you into making a film about racism?

– Prejudices are dangerous and racism is based on the most dangerous of them all. I was intrigued by the increasing number of young people who are joining the club of extreme movements in my countries of Slovakia and the Czech Republic. I started to deal with this issue because it was difficult for me to understand this sudden political movement. And if I am not able to understand something, film presents the opportunity to clarify and find out more about the dark sides of our human race. I decided to do it from an inner point of view – from an intimate perception of one of the young extremist boys and show his ordinary life without commentary and surely I put him under the pressure of an absurd conflict. I tried to understand and raised questions in my film why this is happening and I would like the audience to ask with me.

Domestic appraisals of My Dog Killer frequently mention that the film is European...

– I’m very happy about this, as I think national identity shouldn’t be the primary identity for any film or filmmaker. A film should have its signature; the author should be visible behind it. European film was always about authorship which always trumped Hollywood productions not on the financial level, but on the mental level. I understand that reviewers/film critics need new waves, national waves, and I very much under-stand that we – the people – need labels to have easier orientation in the huge amount of information around us but as for me, as an author, I can’t think in national terms. Maybe it’s because of my complicated family background, but mainly thinking nationally in the first place would deny the principles that I maintain in my work. I am grateful for the national funds because without them I wouldn’t be able to make my films, but I am also grateful that these days there are some very wise people that let me observe a concept of national identification and allow me to be critical about it and express my opinion in freedom and without any persecution. That’s great.

Mariana Jaremková

The Slovak Film Institute Was Almost Shut Down

The Slovak Film Institute celebrates its fiftieth anniversary; during its existence it has undergone several changes, from almost ceasing to exist to finally becoming a respected institution. It has been working steadily since 1999 under its General Director Peter Dubecký and today it most certainly does not trail behind the Central European standard.

The adoption of the Audiovisual Act in 2008 was a milestone in the existence of the Slovak Film Institute (SFI). How did it fare in practice?

– I think that the Audiovisual Act fundamentally changed the position of the SFI as it is a legal empowerment which clearly stipulates the duties of the SFI as a memory and collection institution. It created the room for the systemic solution of the issue of archiving of audiovisual works; I have in mind in particular the acquisition and deposit obligation which had not previously been defined by law. Hence, in the past, we witnessed the making of many films, in the 35 mm format at that time, of which the SFI received combined copies, solely thanks to good relations, but no documentation to these films, such as scripts, stills, posters, production lists, etc. Consequently, it was a very necessary step in order to maintain the audiovisual heritage. On the other hand, I was glad that – with one exception – all authors of Slovak films made up to 1991 with the state having a majority share accepted this solution with regard to the exertion of the producer’s rights. Ultimately, the Act significantly helped to prepare the Digital Audiovision national project as these copyrights were crucial for the project. I would like to thank all those who supported the Audiovisual Act – Members of Parliament and, of course, the old and new management of the Ministry of Culture who fostered this Act and succeeded in its implementation. All Slovak filmmakers can be proud of the fact that the Minister of Culture Marek Maďarič managed to put into force two key audiovisual laws, the Audiovisual Act and the Act on the Audiovisual Fund.

Does the Act respond to the demands of rapidly changing circumstances in the audiovisual environment? Was it amended?

– Of course, it’s possible to imagine some modifications and I think that circumstances may require a minor amendment to the Audiovisual Act in the coming three to five years, but I perceive the amendments as cosmetic rather than fundamental. The Act in its current form is definitely very good and there is not much in it that needs changing. Those changes that I perceive, from the SFI’s perspective and from the perspective of the deposit and acquisition obligations, are related to completely new media that were not defined five to six years ago. At that time, cinema operators did not know much about DCP; they only suspected that a change was anticipated. At that time no one assumed that in 2013 only a few Slovak films would be made on 35mm material. The SFI has undergone changes to adapt to this trend. I do hope that putting the Digital Audiovision project into operation this year will resolve the issue that was most pressing, i.e. that the digital workplaces in Cinema Lumière will be completed and the entire process will move forward just as planned.

It took eighteen years to adopt the Audiovisual Act. Do you feel the handicap from those eighteen years?

– Definitely, yes. I stated previously that all Slovak filmmakers are happy except one. It is a drain on the resources of the SFI to have to litigate for years with director Juraj Jakubisko as to who is authorised to exert the producer’s rights, as the SFI is the legitimate legal successor of the original producers of films made prior to 1991 and it never questioned Juraj Jakubisko’s copyrights. However, I regard this as the price to be paid for mistakes made in the past. You have to take into consideration that the 1990s were extremely difficult for Slovak cinematography. When looking back at the SFI’s fifty years of existence, it is also necessary to state that the SFI was just one step away from being virtually eliminated. When I started working here in 1999, delegated by the then Minister of Culture, Milan Kňažko, not only did I find this institution in total disarray, but actually the question of what to do with the building in which the SFI is housed was being considered, i.e. we were already taking the deeds from the Real Estates Register. I regard the years 1998 and 1999 as having been extremely difficult and I am glad that, together with my close colleagues who I managed to win for the SFI’s vision, we survived the harsh (also) political position, as the ending of the Mečiarism period brought about very serious problems. It was not easy to discover that dentist’s offices were already being planned in the premises of the Documentation Department (the dentist was the son of the General Director of the Koliba Film Studios of that time). It is good that one does not wish to remember the bad, that we erase it from the memory and rather remember the positive things. We have to realise that this institution had never before been in such serious jeopardy and it was really tough to seek out ways for starting the processes of getting the SFI in a sustainable condition.

Was the archive itself, i.e. the national film heritage, jeopardised too?

– When I was delegated to manage the SFI, the staff were ready to depart the building. All the archival collections were contracted to be kept in the Koliba Film Studios. That means that we had rented premises which were totally unsuitable for the archiving of film material, not to mention the film negatives – damp cellars with unstable temperature, where the film materials were considerably damaged. When I was appointed Director, the contract was already signed by one party, Mr. Ondruš, the Director of the Koliba Film Studios at that time, and the other party, represented by the previous director of the SFI, Marián Kováčik, only wanted to have the contract stamped and put into force as soon as possible. They sent a driver with the contract, but I got hold of it and asked someone to hide it, promising that we would send it subsequently. I am glad that we succeeded in recovering the collection from Koliba and started the restoration and preservation of the audiovisual heritage. We took over the entire document archive of the Koliba Film Studios, including scripts, documentation which is slowly awaiting processing, as a great number of these documents have been garnered since 1948. It was a significant moment that helped to renew confidence in this institution. Moreover, there were huge debts to be paid to copyright organisations, royalties for filmmakers, which was one of the first things that we resolved. Therefore I think that the relation of the audiovisual environment to the SFI is correct and open in the long run.

With regard to filmmakers, it is necessary to mention the role of the SFI in the presentation of Slovak film abroad.

– We managed to stabilise the participation of Slovakia in the Marché du Film in Cannes and also in the European Film Market at the Berlin Film Festival. The entry of the SFI into European Film Promotion was important and we now have our representative there. The representative of Slovakia in Eurimages, Professor Zuzana Gindl-Tatárová, also has her background in our institution. The promotion of Slovak works abroad is nowadays clearly visible.

What has filled you with gratification and satisfaction over the last five years?

– As a director looking back at the past five years, I have to say that, in addition to the results of the work of all departments, I am pleased that for the first time we have released a series of Slovak films in France (and for the francophone market) and further series are in preparation. I hope that this year we will also manage to break into the English market. We are preparing the release of The Sun in a Net (Slnko v sieti) in collaboration with a London publisher, as well as films by directors Hanák, Jakubisko and Solan. All this would not be possible if the audiovisual heritage restoration and preservation project did not function and if films were not being restored and digitised. It is fantastic that My Dog Killer (Môj pes Killer) won in Rotterdam, but it is important, during the presentation of Slovak film abroad, to show that our cinematography has a history. I am also pleased that we managed to publish several fundamental monographs of filmmakers that had been missing up to that point – Štefan Uher, Juraj Jakubisko, Albert Marenčin, Paľo Bielik, Ján Kadár, and others. I am glad that the SFI has maintained its position in Slovak culture and people have a positive relation to it.

What position has the SFI managed to achieve in the context of post-communist countries?

– We are definitely not lagging behind in anything. As for the volume of archived collections, ours is incomparably smaller than in the neighbouring countries – the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary – not to mention the fact that the Czechoslovak Film Institute Prague partially took the place of Slovakia in the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) where it represented us up to the partition in 1993. I consider 2001 to be a crucial year, as the SFI became a full member of FIAF in that year, which made it possible to standardise some activities in the SFI, especially with regard to the National Film Archive. We enjoy very good relations with Poland and Hungary but, naturally, we collaborate mostly with our Czech colleagues. As far as the technological basis is concerned, we started from scratch in many things. We built new depositaries, many things were fully recatalogued, the only filmological library in Slovakia started to be systematically built… Speaking of financing, I think that many of our neighbouring countries envy us. It’s probably not appropriate to say that one of the institutes is better than the others. What is important is that we are not lagging behind in the Central European ambit. As for digitisation, along with Poland we are even leaders in the Central European region.

What challenge does the SFI face now?

– I would like to conclude some outstanding issues and continue in others. I will build my concept on the evident priorities, whether it is the restoration and preservation of audiovisual heritage, the Digital Audiovision project, SK CINEMA project or Cinema Lumière. It is also important for me to extend the SFI’s activities towards new media.

What has the SFI become after fifty years of existence?

– The SFI is currently an audiovisual institution not to be disregarded. It not only takes care of archive collections, paper, documentation, film, audiovisual and digital collections, but also forms an excellent bridge between our audiovisual past and the audiovisual present. I think that this link could function in the future as well, because, thanks to the fact that we have managed to stabilise the basic foundation of the SFI, we can currently look forward to seeing the activities branching out to the work of individual experts and the entire very pleasant team at the SFI. All of us are keeping our fingers crossed.

Mariana Jaremková

Slovak Cinema Is Becoming More Visible

The National Cinematographic Centre (NCC) is a part of the Slovak Film Institute (SFI). What is concealed behind this name that arouses respect? A lot of work, organising, travelling,… All this in the interest of Slovak film. The Director of NCC, Alexandra Strelková, could talk about all this (and much more), so let us give her the floor.

The NCC plays a crucial role in the promotion of Slovak cinema. What does film promotion mean to you and when is it most efficient?

– Within the SFI, the NCC is the body taking Slovak films as close as possible to professionals and the public, both at home and abroad. We are quite a specific film centre as we operate under a single roof with the National Film Archive (NFA) and are also responsible for promotion of the Slovak audiovisual heritage. With this background, we differ from many other countries where archives and film centres, working mainly with current film production, are separate entities. Work with archives is extremely interesting for me, it overlaps with the presentation of new films and, I dare say, we really do represent Slovak cinema as a whole. The disadvantage is that, if archives abroad have their promotional departments and, in parallel, there is also a film centre, more people specialise in the activities, while in our case the entire promotional work rests on the shoulders of just a few people. Still, I enjoy it very much when Iveta Grófová’s début Made in Ash is co-presented by the producer Barbara Kipsová at its world première at the Karlovy Vary IFF and, the day after, her father, Stanislav Szomolányi, presents The Sun in a Net which is introduced at the Festival amongst the treasures from the archives. This is, of course, an exceptional case, but I’d like to say that what is most efficient is to present films in the broadest possible context. After having discovered good new Slovak films, festival programmers show interest in our archives, and vice versa. So, we collaborate with film festivals and forums for upcoming films, we connect people, provide them with contacts and information about the Slovak audiovisual industry, we supply databases and statistics, prepare promotional catalogues, with the NFA we publish books and DVDs of Slovak films, etc.

Let’s talk about international promotion. The awareness of Slovak cinema and collaboration at the international level are certainly developing. Could you describe this development?

– I think that today we are more “visible” than, let’s say, ten years ago, and the position of Slovakia and the presentation of our cinema is at a level comparable with other countries in our region; this is thanks to projects carried out at film markets, such as the presentation pavilion in Cannes, which we organise together with Czech colleagues, or the stand of three countries at the Berlin market. These are activities without which we would nowadays be absolutely lost in the sea of the film industry. It is also thanks to those films that were made and were successful at international forums in the past few years. Also thanks to our producers and directors who have started to travel more, network and collaborate with foreign partners. The upsurge in documentary filmmakers continues and we are becoming more visible with our feature film production, films made by female directors, etc. However, that does not mean there is nothing to improve, or that we have resources (financial, personnel) for everything that needs to be done. Quite the contrary. In any case, I would like to have Slovak films talked about more as “European” than branded “Central European” and, of course, I would like “Slovak cinema” to operate as a trademark.

Filmmakers and producers themselves, their awareness, ambitions, courage, language skills, consistency, responsibility… also evolve. Have you noted any perceptible changes in this respect?

– Yes. The ambitions, courage, consistency, and others are personal traits which are a prerequisite for professionalism; awareness and language skills are matters of personal development and education and enhance professionalism. It is positive for our work that Slovak filmmakers are showing more direct interest in their international promotion, they take part in workshops, co-production projects, etc. They realise that they have to think about the presentation of their projects much earlier than with the distribution print of their film in their hands, not only with regard to the marketing strategy, but also in terms of financing.

The SFI is a member of European Film Promotion (EFP); what are the advantages of this membership for the local audiovisual environment and what are the obligations?

– There are thirty-five European film organisations in EFP dealing with the promotion of their national films and talent. It is a network of people and contacts. We carry out joint projects aimed at actors, producers and directors; at the same time, the promotion of films at selected markets beyond Europe can be supported through EFP. Each country gets involved in the projects when it has a suitable representative, a suitable project, when filmmakers show interest and when there are enough funds, as most of the projects incur some costs. In EFP, we deal with specific issues in working groups, exchange experience, contacts, references to festivals, producers, media… No network can work without such collaboration. Then I use informational input in our work with Slovak films and filmmakers.

More and more foreign experts have visited Slovakia recently, and most of them say that, in order for Slovak films to succeed worldwide, they should air the leading questions and deal with the topics typical of our region. Do you agree?

– Selection of the topic is important. However, the form and the overall treatment of the topic are crucial. We frequently see very similar stories coming from various countries, and their reach and success really depend on how original they are and in what quality they are made. Sometimes the content dominates the form and I don’t like it when, after a film is screened at a festival, you feel (and hear) that the film was shown at the festival “only” because it would have been “politically incorrect” to reject it. A film should have everything that makes up a film, i.e. it should possess a topic which is treated in an original, conceptual and honest manner in filmmaking terms, an innovative or experimental approach is welcome, and you should gather from the film that the authors have a rapport with their work, they know why they made it and what they want their work to say – locally or universally. And I also need to feel that they know why they are presenting it where they are presenting it.

How can the SFI help filmmakers in the production phase or in the initial phase of the preparation of film and audiovisual projects and then in their presentation abroad?

– Our options depend on the phase at which we get to know the project, on the author’s ambition and how prepared he/she is to collaborate with us. As there are just a few of us in the NCC and we do a variety of things, we cannot go through the entire cycle from development to international screening with each project in an intensive manner. Within our capacities, we consult on the possibilities of presentation at various international forums, we try to help with contacts, with the planning of the festival strategy and with the onward festival life of the completed film. We do not support projects financially, but we share our experience, contacts, promotion channels, help them with networking and travel…

The distribution of information from abroad to Slovakia by way of conferences, workshops, presentations of films, literature, is also important. What are demand and supply in this area?

– In addition to our newsletters, information on deadlines for various projects, events and grants on our website and in Film.sk, we are partners to international events in Slovakia. Film festivals are important, we have a number of them (Art Film Fest, Bratislava IFF, Febiofest, Cinematik, Fest Anča and others) and I am happy that several international events have become regulars to Slovakia – MIDPOINT for screenwriters, MAIA for producers, DOK.Incubator for documentary filmmakers. Film students of the Academy of Performing Arts have established the Visegrad Film Forum. FORUM is another important event where we organise a regular panel of upcoming films. There are also other more or less regular events, so there are sufficient events on offer and interest is growing. These events help filmmakers to become knowledgeable, boost their courage and present themselves in a better way, which, in return, helps our work.

Which conditions in your profession would require optimisation?

– We can always complain about the lack of funds and, really, there is never enough money for all the projects I have in mind. I am glad that our activities have now received additional financing from the Ministry of Culture and the Audiovisual Fund. The Fund also supports the individual presentation of films and filmmakers, and the workshops already mentioned. However, there are also many things that are not so greatly dependent on money, i.e. the functioning of our audiovisual environment: how we collaborate, how we combine things and events towards the greatest possible synergy. Communication and the logical interconnection of projects are often lacking. The SFI is funded in part from the state budget and within our work we cover as much as possible from our audiovision without neglecting or discriminating against anyone. However, the conditions for collaboration with the independent environment have not really been standardised yet. We need contact persons in production companies who deal with promotion, and we also need “organised partners”, i.e. associations of creative professionals – producers, directors, cinematographers, composers, actors, who are interested in how their profession is developing and in what could be improved. Together we could determine certain standard conditions, reciprocity of collaboration, we could complement each other within individual projects. There is a real lack of a film commission in Slovakia, irrespective of whether or not we have tax incentives. Last but not least, we must improve the quality of presentation through electronic media.

Which of this year’s planned events and activities of the NCC do you consider to be a priority?

– We are celebrating several anniversaries this year. It’s the fiftieth anniversary of our Institute, twenty years of the independent Slovak Republic, hence, “new” Slovak cinema; there are several significant anniversaries of Slovak films and filmmakers. Also, our film centre is ten years old. On this occasion, SFI has published an interesting book, Best of Slovak Film (in English) with Peter Hames presenting classical Slovak films. We are launching a new website, releasing our first Blu-ray discs, and continuing in the production of digitally restored archives on DCP… We organise profiles and retrospective screenings in Slovakia and abroad: the Slovak and Czech film showcase took place in Ljubljana in April, a Slovak focus is announced for June at Transylvania IFF in Cluj, in Melbourne we will screen our treasure The Sun in a Net, a big showcase of Slovak films will be organised in Tbilisi in the autumn… We continue with presentations at film markets in Berlin and Cannes. With the successful launch of Slovak films at IFF Rotterdam and the Hivos Tiger Award for My Dog Killer, 2013 has so far been really Slovak-film-friendly. For me, everything we do is a priority.

Daniel Bernát