|
Magazine
IN CONVERSATION
Break from the past
|
Kazakh cinema, after the break from the Soviet cinematic ideology, has thrown up quite a few surprises.
|
THE apple-cheeked lady with the upswept hairdo caught many an eye at the recently concluded second Asian film festival in Mumbai. Gulnara Abikeyeva, a film historian and critic, is currently working as Programmes Coordinator with the Soros Foundation in Almaty. Kazakhstan brought three contemporary Kazakh films for screening at the Chavan Centre. Harking back to the Soviet authority in Kazakhstan, Stalin's camps and the results of nuclear and ecological experiments, she told RONITA TORCATO that Kazakh cinema had matured in the past decade.
Kazakh cinema has been compared to French New Wave. Could you elaborate on that?
Basically, Kazakh filmmakers were making a break from the ironclad Soviet cinematic ideology. Young people rebelled against the Soviet mindset through rock music and cinema. Historically, we are nomads, who adapted to various cultural influences. We became settlers, changed our food habits. We have a very large landmass, the ninth largest in the world, with a small population, 14 million, about half of which comprises Russians, Germans, Ukrainians and Koreans who deported from their country. Under the Soviet regime, Kazakh freedom was curtailed, two million ethnic Kazakhs died of starvation, many were killed. Our land was a fertile field for nuclear experiments. But Kazakh films showed our distinct ability to adapt, which surprised the world, which perhaps saw us as a closed, primitive society. Some of our films have been compared to those made by Truffaut and Godard, Bresson and Bunuel and Antonioni. Kazakh filmmakers were influenced by Western cinema just like American influenced the French.
Were any of the filmmakers former critics who loved American cinema?
No, there were no critics, but they were people who didn't use sets or actors. Because they believed acting was artificial; they used only non-professional actors and shot in the documentary style. It was important to go out into the streets and show real people, real life situations. However, the productions in the 1980s were called "dark" (chernukha) films because they showed the dark side of the Soviet period, and highlighted the problems that remained.
So, these films were going from extreme to the other, from one end of the spectrum when the Soviet-style communism brooked no criticism, demanded artistic allegiance to the party and rosy portrayals of life.
That's right. Life was supposed to be wonderful under the Soviet regime, after Independence, everything was viewed as black, a dark and joyless existence. There were a number of critics who said these "dark" films were being made only so that the filmmaker could go to the West. Such criticism was normal, because in the Soviet period, no one made such films. Everyone made films that were "pink".
Your essay in the Festival brochure notes that filmmakers like Serik Aperimov and Rashid Nugmanov made films that attacked not only Soviet ideology, but also the ethnic and paved the way for attitudinal change. Was that the most important thing about glasnost and openness?
I'd like to talk about Serik Aperimov in particular. In his films, he showed the quality of life in his own village and he was not allowed to return to his village for some years.
Exiled because they were unable to take criticism?
At least they didn't kill him. But he became very popular in the Soviet Union, the number one director to be invited to as many as 40 festivals. He lived for a couple of years in London, didn't make any films abroad, but came home.
So, he was certainly not the type who made "dark" films in order to leave the U..S.S.R.?
Gulnara Abikeyeva
No, of course not. He went home to become an adviser on the Presidential team, made one unsuccessful film about urban life. He had a lot of opportunities to go and stay abroad, but he returned to make a second film about the same village, Aksuat, that is the real name of his village — on the subject of a mafia clan, alcoholism, corrupt police. He used the same characters in the sequel. In the first film, the principal character decides to leave. In the second, the hero decides to stay even when the people try to throw him out.
Autobiographical films, I would say.
Not just autobiographical. Serik's films also take a position, underlining his moral values.
Pity his films aren't being shown here. Are there other filmmakers like him?
Not more than six or seven. Some changed their profession, went to advertising and TV.
Orson Welles did that too. Could you say how many films are being made in Kazakhstan?
The film industry in Kazakhstan began only in the 1930s. The price of a cinema ticket is 600 tangie or four dollars. People go for entertainment so our cinemas show 100 per cent American films. There are no avenues for screening Kazakh films, which can be seen only at festivals abroad (laughs). Actually, our films can be seen on TV depending on the channels which usually show old Soviet films because they don't want to pay for new Kazakh films but only for Western or Russian ones.
Some of our filmmakers have a hard time though the press is sympathetic to those who run into problems with the Establishment. I'm sorry; things are even more difficult for you.
It's gratifying to know you have so much news about cinema, the arts and culture in the Indian press. We don't have much coverage back home. There are no film magazines in Kazakh. (Wistfully) How many film magazines do you have? (I volunteer a statistic.) We try to show our films by finding sponsors. We had a "Week of Kirghiz films" in Kirghizstan where, at the initiative of a single award-winning filmmaker, Akthan Abdikalikor, three films were shown in 25 villages and three cities. He has won awards in Tokyo, San Francisco. If Kazakh filmmakers want to show their films, they do the same thing. From October 1-5 this year, we will have a Festival of contemporary Kazakh Cinema in Almaty. These are 16 films made between 1998 and 2003 half of which have won prizes like the FIPRESCI award at Cannes, the Grand Prix at the Indian CineFan, and in Tokyo. Earlier, the wealthy funded some films, but now the government supports film production, but not where the films are going. There is no National Cultural Policy like in France, which earmarks 10-15 per cent time for French productions or even Georgia, which has a 30 per cent slot for Georgian films on TV. In 1991, 11 films were made. In 1993, there were 13. In 1997, only one. In 1998, two. In 2002, there were three, of which two are being screened in Mumbai.
We make three films a day.
I know. Which is why India has such an important role to play in formulating an Asian identity in society.
What do you envisage for the future of Kazakh cinema?
We are keen on co-production and artistic collaborations with India and other Asian countries.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
