The name Alishera Khamdamov and little known to a wide range of film lovers - he did not receive prestigious prizes his films did not participate in international forums and festivals. His fate so developed that having finished in the mid-60s VGIK, he today shot only two full-length films: “The Golden Head of the Avenger” and “Harem of Stepan Guslyakov” – pictures differing in subtle inner psychologism and rare spiritual fullness. After watching his “Harem...” any even the most inexperienced moviegoer
more
The name Alishera Khamdamov and little known to a wide range of film lovers - he did not receive prestigious prizes his films did not participate in international forums and festivals. His fate so developed that having finished in the mid-60s VGIK, he today shot only two full-length films: “The Golden Head of the Avenger” and “Harem of Stepan Guslyakov” – pictures differing in subtle inner psychologism and rare spiritual fullness. After watching his “Harem...” any even the most inexperienced moviegoer will remember it forever as a “cool movie” (at least) to which over the years I want to return again and again. I think Alisher Khamdamov - director of the future. A lot of incarnate ideas and scenarios lie as they say “in his desk” and wait for their time.
Our acquaintance happened unexpectedly - probably only so unpredictable and a feeling called true friendship should begin. Our meetings are regular and our conversations are endless. So, on a recent long December night, our quite ordinary conversation took place (the only unusual thing was that I quietly turned on the recorder and these seemingly ordinary for Alisher and thoughts became the property of first magnetic tape and then a sheet of paper). My questions Alisher I left as they say behind the scenes "blinding" thereby a small monologue - "grain" seemed to me the most interesting from the point of view of the reader which I offer to your attention.
What has always been the most important thing in cinema? I think human feelings and attitude towards a person are timeless beyond any opportunistic requirements. Of course, there is sometimes a certain reference to any event that occurred in a particular year or century and it is up to critics to determine only later when the film is shot to which genre it belongs and what it is stylistically. But often true art is timeless. I'll explain. There is a wonderful film Chukhrai Jr. “The Thief”. And although the action in this picture takes place for the most part in the forties, it is a very modern film because it is made today and it has a modern attitude of thinking. Therefore, I can not say that some ideas of the script that I dreamed of implementing a long time ago 10-15 years ago have become obsolete waste paper that is needed only to justify their past years for complacency. Every idea I have ever wanted to embody reflects my worldview unchanged over the years. And to any such idea, I treat first of all as a moviegoer going to the cinema and choosing what to see today. And if it warms me personally, regardless of anyone's opinion, I will take it to embody.
When we in our youth, during our studies at VGIK, were going to make our own cinema, we had some moral guidelines in front of us – Kalik Kalatozov Fellini... Then there were other directors, but strangely enough, what was left was what was real and as such entered our blood into our consciousness. Russian literature has thrown firewood into our imagination. For example, Alexander Green is still not fully appreciated and not in demand by our filmmakers (there were several attempts not particularly successful). Andrey Platonov was somewhat more fortunate in this regard. One can recall the “Homeland of Electricity” by Larisa Shepitko Bulat Mansurov “Slave” from the story “Takyr”.
There is a long-standing debate among filmmakers and critics about what national cinema is. I think national cinema is a film created by a director belonging to a particular nationality. That is, the theme of the film can be any even dedicated to a completely different country, but if it was shot for example by Georgians, it will be Georgian cinema because behind this author or director is his story of his genes he was born and raised in the traditions of his country. And if he is interesting in himself just as a person, then he will be interesting to all of us. And if this director is empty and gray, You know how it happens initially was a good plot interesting idea talented cameraman great actors and the film did not work. And vice versa, the film can be naive to it you can dig up from a professional point of view to present a lot of claims but the film somehow touches. So I'm sure it doesn't matter what the movie is about, where it takes place, and so on. And what matters is who made it, that is, there must be a person in the cinema first. And the second one applies to the first one he did, but this is the second one. Because if this is a person, then the palette of his drawing will be more interesting and the quality of what we will see depends on the scale of his personality. What distinguishes a talented director, or at least should? Probably a sense of responsibility to those who help him in this in front of the entire film crew. Because in principle, these people work for this director, they give him their time, and if the film is made for a year, it means that the whole year of their lives they have to spend on unknown things. For example, you lit them and they believed you, which means that you have no right to “fuck” and thereby betray their trust. For a whole year, the film crew becomes one family and only you depend on whether this year will be interesting for them and whether they will feel their own. You called them to conquer Jomolungma, and if one person doesn't hit pegs in the right place, you won't climb that mountain yourself. Sometimes you drag them, but most often they drag you. Once upon a time, during admission to VGIK, the most terrible thing for us - applicants - was to answer the question: why did you decide that you could become a film director? So I refused to answer this question I can not remember how to justify my refusal. Perhaps it is impossible to answer this question correctly. Filmmaking is not a mass profession. In the same film crew can be ten workers and five illuminators and the director-director - only one. I also worship architects or surgeons. What's a movie? Or is filmmaking irrelevant to documentary art? It's always fear of the unknown. This is a war of resistance. You resist everything ordinary and ordinary in the end to yourself, that is, all your vices and weaknesses. Cinema for a real director is a daily process, even if you are not currently filming. It turns out that if you don't approach the camera, if you don't have a crew, you're still in constant search. Cinema is an obsession with disease. No matter what you read, no matter what you communicate with, you perceive everything through the pupil of the camera. All the life that surrounds us, it still seems to us only completely unfilmed films. Every day we all have a bunch of disappointment stories. In principle, each of these stories could be a film. Then, after some time, a natural weeding happens - something is forgotten. And what remains then can result in a screenplay that you will wear for many years at different instances (as it was in previous years) and in our time – by producers. Probably, the level of development of society is determined by the number of people of its citizens who still believe in the magic of the screen and who would like something to continue to be born in their society. The more experiments are done in any field, and in this case in cinema, the more returns will be tomorrow.