Once “Soyuzmultfilm” was the pride of the domestic animation, but today the main animation Studio, recently celebrated its 81st anniversary, raises more questions than answers: do not cease ongoing debate about possible privatization, discusses the problems and prospects of the genre in General, as much at the presidential level , constantly talking about a possible “under-strap”, about the transformation of animated art in “catering”. These and other questions we have discussed with the master of Russian animation Yuri Norstein, and he was cruel in the responses and judgments, the soul-it hurts…
tent/uploads/2017/07/47804ea802152ffd6d607a4a15591363.jpg” style=”display: block;” />
photo: Gennady Cherkasov
— Yuri, there were rumors about the privatization of the Studio…
— About privatization — it was already specific plans, and was signed by the speaker, who then came under investigation. If the Studio is privatized, it will straighten out as you like: this will also apply to copyright payments, and possession of the collection, and so on. I understand if one Medinsky said clearly: no privatization, Studio of the state, the collection belongs to the Studio, payments to authors, Studio – unity creative individuals. Here the conditions under which “Soyuzmultfilm” could be revived. But Medinsky has odusevila only after the President’s response to the famous speech Shvartsman: on the same evening the call to hold with the promise of copyright payments. And then a hasty meeting with the animators, with the promise of all that he wills creators. But it’s a facade. From the back porch there is a push for privatization of the Studio. Another would be: “gold collection” gives a comfortable existence for many of the hungry.
— And at the moment all debts to multiples paid?
— Of course not.
— The Ministry of culture, like, report…
— No, it’s, again, another deceit. The Treasury empty Studio. Was paid on debt for 2015. But the money came from the Funds of Nikita Mikhalkov as an aid. Well, our colleagues came to the rescue, but where is the money “Soyuzmultfilm”? The authors have 20% movies – where are they? Putin said regarding the “Soyuzmultfilm” that everything should be transparent. But we do not know what the contract was concluded, considered income as they are sent. And why is it possible to usurp the rights of artists to created their characters? Openly violated the law, and the Ministry, it turns out, is let go. And if not the words of the artist, in General, this moment would be erased, washed away, and we would never be told what is happening at “Soyuzmultfilm”.
But the gunfire does not cease by weaning the copyright “What copyright?”, – heard from the Ministry, – “the Authors have done this in a production job!”. But not to talk to them, as it was at “Soyuzmultfilm” in the Soviet years. Then the Studio owned the rights only for the film itself, and the creators owned the rights to those works that they created for the film: script, visual solutions, frames, etc. and today the Studio, if he wants to use the works of authors of the Soviet cartoons, is obliged to enter into personal contracts with writers, art Directors, cameramen …
— And what should ideally be a situation? I understand that the artist’s strange to ask about the economic models…
— Why? I can answer that. Today we have all overwhelmed the market. From market made God. Of anyone not to do God. God is one. As to the economy, the Soviet Union scenario the 10-minute film, the average cost is 1/20 of the film’s budget. And when the film — if it successful — went into wide release, the writer received 250% of your fee. That is, if you construct a relative equation of payments, today, the writer would have to get a 10-minute film to 850 thousand rubles. But none of that amount today scenario is not getting!
During the Soviet era the Director between films three months, received 60% of his salary, and this gave him the opportunity to comfortably prepare for the next film.
And if so paid, and demanded no less. So the result was. Prove to me that the market is the same system, which gives a person freedom… But if the market, what are you running to the Ministry? 500 million rubles, allocated by results of the meeting with Putin in 2011, divided between commercial Studio Selyanov and Popov. “Soyuzmultfilm”, the problems which were in the center of the letters 2011, got three percent. But if you are commercial producers in the West – take chances!
I stifled the anger from the swagger with which the Ministry of culture of Russia handles the state of the Studio “Soyuzmultfilm”. For 5 years, the Minister did not bother to meet with the authors. But managed to change five Directors, among which only the first, Nikolai Makovsky, appointed at the insistence of multiobjective, came to work and not to fish for himself “money.” For personal reasons he was forced to leave the Studio, but for 2 years of work, not only managed to bring it out of the crisis, but left in the black – 35 million rubles. All future appointees Medina everyone in their own way dismantled the Studio.
— Well, as for the creative side?
—The Studio was working on “riding” the production pipeline, but it was a large number of paintings. Therefore, the constellation of distinguished names Khitruk, Ivanov-Vano, Nazarov, Serebryakov, Kurchevsky, Anatoly Petrov, Stepantsev, Atamans, Colonels, Kotenochkin, Dezhkin, and others —appeared because of a variety of handwritings. What film Studio in the world can boast such an abundance of creative individuals?
At the may meeting with Putin, the producers talked about the success of the recent “Snow Queen”… But enough to remember the 1957 film “the snow Queen” by Leo Atamanova (artists Leonid Shvartsman and his friend Sasha Vinokurov), it becomes obvious how far we have fallen in animation with its commercial manners. The latest technology will not save poor directing and not the script. It will only emphasize their helplessness. This is called globalization of aesthetics. That is the most terrible what can happen in art. It’s everywhere, everywhere, everywhere. If one author does all the movies, if the sound is voiced, if the artist mastyryat. Where did the diversity of writing?! And it disappeared…
— And you met with Putin in 2011, and there raised this issue — creative and the economic fate of “Soyuzmultfilm”…
— Yes, but in the Studio these past six years, almost nothing has changed. Separate decent movie. But the Ministry here at anything. This is a consequence of the work of Nikolai Makovsky and his team. And all these solemn reports — deceit. Medina and Slascheva at the meeting on 31 may vexed questions of “Soyuzmultfilm” mixed into one with the victorious marches of the Russian commercial animation. The fact that the Studio collapsed, and has not reached the ears of the President. We, the signatories of 2011, is not considered necessary to invite to talk to the head of the country.
— And if you understand the essence?
— Of course, without Commerce there can be not one, I understand. But if not be creative individuals, “Soyuzmultfilm”, you can close and open the business center. Creative shots melt instantly. We will not soon teachers of the classical school of animation. You need to collect free courses – three biennial flood for twenty people. The theme was identified 6 years ago. But now the meeting with Putin once again talking about training.
— The Studio needs to be a stable state?
— Soyuzmultfilm, and especially the right to a national treasure, “the gold collection” should stay in the public lot. Even though it will be state-owned enterprise.
For art is disastrous, if the market is ahead of the creativity. External technological lure destroy independence of thought. Child “‘ll get yourself all hot” to the screen, but will be overwhelmed by the number of collapsed on him and the delusions. The idea is to keep the viewer’s screen at any price ineffective in some point it will turn into vulgarity. To paraphrase Norbert Wiener, I will say – “Simple faith in the market is the conviction of force and obedience, and hence of weakness.”
Commerce leaves no mystery, and mystery is the most important property of art.
While this is a topic for a separate serious conversation.