Baltic Responses to Ban of Russian Channels

Is this a wise decision, I wondered, when i read a text on “Film New Europe” a couple of weeks ago:

Governmental bodies in both Latvia and Lithuania have banned broadcasts of Russian state TV channels. A three month ban began on 8 April 2014. Lithuania first issued a three month ban of the Russian channel NTV Mir two weeks earlier over broadcast of the documentary The Convicted. It later suspended broadcasts of RTR-Planeta (Russia) also for a period of three months. Latvia issued a three-month suspension of rebroadcasts of the channel Rossiya RTR over reports of biased coverage reflecting military propaganda. One-third of Latvia’s population is native Russian-speaking, and 8 percent of Lithuania’s population is comprised of native Russian language speakers…

I decided to ask three very good friends to give me their reactions, Latvian Lelda Ozola who works as Media Desk at the National Film centre, film directors Giedre Beinoriūtė and Audrius Stonys from Lithuania. The answers, the strongest one first, were:

STONYS: Let me answer you what I think about the banning of Russian TV channels in few questions. Would it be possible that ‘Der Stűrmer’ or ‘Vőlkischer Beobachter’ would be published and distributed in London in

1941? Would any European country accept a TV channel which would openly propagate war, violence and national or racial discrimination? What is the difference between Putin and Goebbels propaganda?

The war against Ukraine already started. Also in the information front. The banning of these Russian state TV channels has nothing to do with rights of Russian population in Latvia and Lithuania. Actually a majority of Lithuanian Russians are not supporting war against Ukraine. Lie is a lie and it has nothing to do with a freedom of speech. I follow events in Ukraine and how they are presented in Russian TV channels on the internet. It is mind blowing open and extremely cynical lie. We banned this open lie in our countries, but I think this issue should be taken very seriously in the European context. In XXI century in Europe, a Television is used as a repressive weapon against freedom of another country. How could this be possible?

Audrius Stonys

OZOLA: The things happening in the Ukraine is not fun. Somehow we here take it very personally – the fear is almost physical. Russia is so close and performs so cynically in the Ukraine. We have witnessed provocations here from the Russian speaking population and the state TV channels of Russia broadcast sheer propaganda and lies – they incite hatred on regular basis. So, actually, the ban on the channels is a measure of defence. The pretext for Russia to come and defend their citizens who suffer here seems very close to reality at the moment. That’s why the channels are banned even though it is most probably difficult for you to understand it looking from the media democracy point of view…

Lelda Ozola

BEINORIUTE: I think it is not about just banning the Russian TV channel. Russia is using media as a weapon constantly and deliberately spreading lies and disinformation and inciting hatred. Russia is waging the information war. So I see this ban not as a sanction but as a defence. And I think this ban is the least reaction which should be reacted to. Somebody has just to say: stop.  And I wish Europe would be less faltering.

Giedré Beinoriute

Bill Brummel: Erasing Hate

Danish DR/Dokumania shows tomorrow the American tv (NBC) documentary “Erasing Hate”. I got a link to watch it for a review, I could go through the first third of the film then the link went on strike. So no points are being given but impressions from what I saw and clips found on the internet:

The story is simple: Bryon Widner used to be “ready to kill for the white race.” For 15 years he was a skinhead, he was a neo-nazi. One of the worst, an expert in the field says. Bryon, that is what he says, “became a role model for many”. But he changed his mind when he found Julie, who was also part of the movement, they got a baby and decided to leave their violent past behind. BUT Bryon was tattooed all over, he wanted to get rid of the “signification of a killer”. So, that’s the story… people from an organisation that investigates the far right movements in the US meet with Bryon and Julie, wants to help and an anonymous donor pays for the plastic surgery that is extremely painful.

It is indeed an American documentary: Narration, interviews where you hear the interviewer, close-up of the tattoos, music from “wall to wall”, reenactments, sweet sequences from the family life etc. No surprises, but pretty hard to watch the plastic surgery going on! A quote from the doctor: Your heart has changed, now we need to change the surface…

http://www.erasinghatethemovie.com/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/10/31/erasing-hate-reformed-skinhead-endures-agony-to-remove-hateful-tattoos/

(This article give the whole story in details).

To be shown on DR, Dokumania Tuesday April 22

USA, 91 mins., 2011

Carmen Cobos: Imperfect Harmony

Louis Andriessen, charismatic Dutch composer, and Mariss Jansons, charismatic Latvian chief conductor of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam. The two characters in the fascinating observational documentary drama, which is very well told, interesting and entertaining.

The drama evolves as the days pass. Andriessen has composed music for the 125 year’s anniversary of the Concertgebouw, and enters the building to follow the rehearsals during the last five days before the performance. The camera stays very much on the face of the composer, who appears a bit nervous and confused in the beginning. His relationship to the musicians is warm and generous, while the relationship to the conductor is on the contrary a bit complicated. At some moments, to say the least… ”school teacher”, says Andriessen having discussed details with Jansons, ”he is a pain in the…”. Some of the musicians seem to agree with Jansons and his need for pedantry – it is clear that he in his questions to the composer that this is not the kind of music he favours – others like the more open attitude to interpretation that Andriessen stands for.

It is a very generous film. You get very close to the artistic creation of a fine piece of music, you get a fine impression of how two characters of different temperament get closer to each other, two old proud professionals who have to meet each other, whether they like it ot not. You see how an orchestra works preparing down to the smallest details, asking questions to the composer. Andriessen has very interesting comments to his work, to music and to from where his inspiration comes… Happy Ending, Andriessen walks out of the building, out into windy Amsterdam mission completed.

The film is shown in Tuschinski, Amsterdam May 6 in the context of the 75 birthday of the composer. It deserves an international life.

The Netherlands, 2014, 75 mins.

Cucic & Skoric: Mitch – Diary of a Schizophrenic

It is rough. It is provoking. It is touching, poetic and shocking because you experience the difficulties of a man’s aim to come to terms with himself and life as it goes on in his head and around him in the psychiatric hospital, where he is, has been for 12 years and where he in a film, he is making himself, expresses his despair. Outstanding it is, nothing less!

He does not understand, why he is put up here, ”I am a bohemian, I write poems and songs, I take photographs, why am I here with retarded people”. And Mitch makes this film, together with Damir Cucic, filming himself and patients behind the bars, he is an intelligent well-formulated man, who talks about himself and asks questions in different languages to other patients. They sing songs, they rap and perform. Or sit on a bench, have given up, have been here for 22 years. These patients are not visually recognisable, they have been given silhouettes to cover their identity.

Mitch is a man who has been using many drugs, and you understand quickly that he is locked in because he has committed crimes. He turns the camera (a cellphone?) towards himself, he is filming himself at night time as well, and the director of the film, Damir Cucic, interprets his situation in these and many other

sequences, where the excellent sound score comes in. There is from Cucic established a rythm in the film from Mitch talking all the time to silent sequences, where he observes leaves on a tree, something beautiful, or the camera goes down the corridor ending on closed doors and bars. A place where claustrophobia has an easy take.

He is for some time out of the institution, he travels with his mother, sweet scenes, but back to darkness, tha bars and the metallic sounds that surround the images. The shaky camera movements create a constant atmosphere of nervousness, Mitch talks a lot and quite openly about sex, he sings/raps with other patients, he gets out at some point, meets some girls, says that he is ”making a film about myself and stuff”, wants to look for some cocaine, he is in a workshop, he is out fishing, he is talking drugs… He reflects on his wish to have all his thoughts flow together, be under control. You have total empathy for him from the beginning of a film that never becomes sentimental, thank you for that!

The film ends with a text about Mitch brought in again for some crimes. Back in the shit.

Croatia, 2014, 73 mins.

Epilogue: I should have watched the film at ZagrebDox but that did not happen. The text from the website of the festival:

The documentary film Mitch – Diary of a Schizophrenic directed by Damir Čučić was withdrawn from the programme of the 10th Zagrebdox due to the threat of court proceedings in the event that the film was screened publicly. The film′s producer Sinisa Juricic decided to withdraw the film after the psychiatric hospital where the movie was filmed threatened legal action for unauthorized recording and eavesdropping…

I have asked the producer Sinisha Juricic, who was so kind to give me a link for watching the film, about what has happened since the withdrawal that deserves to travel all over. No answer yet.

Ossama Mohammed and Wiam Berdirxan: Silvered Water

A mail came in today with the headline: Good News in Bad Times! It came from Orwa Nyrabia from Syrian Proaction Film, together with French Films d’Ici the producer of ”Silvered Water. Syria, An Auto-Portrait”.

Orwa Nyrabia: It is with much pleasure that we share with you, wonderful friends and partners, the news we received while Homs is under merciless shelling. Our new release is premiering in May, and taking the story another step further…

The film in question has been selected for the Festival de Cannes, Official Selection, Special Screenings.

Directed by Ossama Mohammed (photo) and Wiam Berdirxan, the description of the film goes like this, according to the mail received:

“In Syria, everyday, YouTubers film then die; others kill then film. In Paris, driven by my inexhaustible love for Syria, I find that I can only film the sky and edit the footage posted on YouTube. From within the tension between my estrangement in France and the revolution, an encounter happened. A young Kurdish woman from Homs began to chat with me, asking: ‘If your camera were here, in Homs, what would you be filming?”. Silvered Water is the story of that encounter.”

Indeed a Special Screening at the upcoming Cannes Festival!

90min, documentary

Music by Noma Omran

Editing by Maisoun Asaad

In association with Arte France – La Lucarne 

With the Support of CNC, AFAC and Sundance Documentary Fund, Procirep.

Gus Holwerda: The Unbelievers/ 2

Herzog taler sig bestemt ikke igennem filmen (havde han dog bare gjort det…), der er ikke så meget mere end på traileren. Hans rolle er at anbefale filmen, og det gør han ved at anbefale de to unbelievers, biologen Richard Dawkins fra Oxford og fysikeren Lawrence Krauss fra Phoenix. Vi har alle brug for modige mennesker som disse, som taler om nødvendigheden af videnskab og fornuft som grundlag for at forstå vores omverden, siger han.

Herzog speaker altså ikke filmen roligt, indtrængende og skarpt, som han ville kunne, som jeg opfattede traileren lovede, som var min egentlige begrundelse for at åbne for Dokumania i aftes. Han kommer altså slet ikke til orde i filmen, som tværtimod støjende, overfladisk og sjusket prøver at dække Dawkins og Krauss på en verdensturné med foredrag og interviews. Jeg synes, det er uudholdeligt, men de er sympatiske og fascinernede hovedpersoner, og det holder mig fast, for der er dog et par scener, som den på fotoet her, hvor de to vist nok, har jeg på fornemmelsen, vist nok i virkeligheden karismatiske videnskabsmænd begynder at udfolde sig i en ordentlig samtale. Jeg, der ellers er smidt af fortællingen, finder i disse få gode scener ind til, hvad der kunne have været en dokumentarfilm, et værk, som kunne bevæge og flytte mig.

Hvad er der da i vejen? Jeg oplever filmen indforstået, og det plejer bestemt ikke at gøre mig noget, hvis værket ikke tager hensyn til mig af den grund, men her er der en åbenlys arrogance, som forudsætter, at jeg kender de to fra amerikanske shows, så de uden videre kan fortsætte i stilen med fikse hentydninger uden at gå i dybden med noget som helst, men bare klippe til den sjoveste replik, som netop kun er indforstået morsom. Der er imidlertid fem til syv gode scener, hvor et argument føres igennem, hvor en udredning gives plads. Og så er der de tos samvær, hvor en stemning af dokumentarisk ægthed viser sig, om ikke realiseret, så en anet mulighed, et kig bagom den smagløst hæsblæsende konstruktion af overfladiskheder.

Kan dette være rigtigt? Jeg ser filmen en gang til og undrer mig. Der er ikke mere, den kommer ikke længere, ikke dybere. Og jeg konkluderer med at tildele den to penne af seks (den ene pen ekstra alene for for de længere scener med de to medvirkende alene i et foredrag, alene sammen i denne samtale, som er så vigtig og så forsømt), og jeg finder nogle anmeldelser frem (i tvivl, er det kun mig, som ser den film sådan?) og ser, at den ikke blev særlig godt modtaget i USA, og jeg vil gøre The New York Times’ Jeannette Catsoulis’ beskrivelse i hendes anmeldelse (12. december 2013) til min. Netop sådan tænkte jeg faktisk, da jeg så filmen:

”Accompanying the respected scientists and atheists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on a triple-continent series of public engagements, Gus Holwerda’s unforgivably superficial documentary is too busy drooling over its subjects to flesh out their body of work. Whether debating Muslims in Canberra, Australia, or making rhetorical mincemeat of the archbishop of Sydney; bantering with Stephen Colbert in New York City; or holding forth at the 2012 Reason Rally in Washington, this genial tag team is photographed with the deference of star-struck teenagers. Train, cab and airplane journeys between locations are pointlessly recorded, as is Mr. Krauss’s spell in a makeup chair and the vibrant hue of his pink sneakers — as though to underscore their wearer’s nonconformity…” Og Jeannette Catsoulis konkluderer: ”Too slight to Persuade, ’The Unbelievers’ is also too poorly made to entertain. The rational roots of atheism deserve a much better movie that this.”

USA, 2013, 75 min.

Audrius Stonys og Filmkommentaren

Jeg satte for nogen tid siden dette still ind som nyt gruppebillede på Filmkommentarens Facebookside. Sevara Pan så straks, at det måtte være fra en film, og spurgte fra hvilken, og Tue Steen Müller synes, jeg skal rykke ud med hele historien. Den er så her. Billedet er fra ENSOM (VIENA / ALONE), 2001, 16 min. af Audrius Stonys fra Vilnius. Filmen er fotograferet af RIMVYDAS LEIPUS.

OM FILMKOMMENTAREN

Da vi begyndte august 2007, skulle grafikeren, som lavede vores blog, have et visuelt forlæg. Vi valgte dette still fra Stonys film, scenen, hvor den lille pige i en travelling går langs fængslets mur hen mod porten for at blive lukket ind til sin mor. På besøg.

Grafikeren brugte murens struktur, som herefter minder os om adskillelse og menneskets tilværelse og ensomhed i den og, ved vi, som har set filmen, skønheden og glæden i kærlighedsmødet. Filmkommentaren indrømmer noget sent lånet af disse fotos og krediterer på det taknemmeligste Rimvydas Leipus og Audrius Stonys for deres definition af vores filmkunstneriske profil. Som vi gør, hvad vi kan, for at leve op til.

OM FILMEN

Den handler om cinematografiens sublime evne til at skabe en mere virkelig virkelighed. Jeg plejer at se den som en etude, på én gang et katalog over en række filmiske greb og så også en ganske lille gribende og smuk fortælling om ubodelig ensomhed. Fortællingen rives hele tiden i stykker ved det Brechtske verfremdungsgreb (husk, dette er film…), men derved understreges alene fortællingens og filmens styrke.

OM INSTRUKTØREN

Han begyndte at skrive og at lave film, da Litauen var en del af Sovjetunionen, og han har siden som uafhængig filminstruktør og producent lavet 14 film. Hans film har vundet adskillige internationale filmpriser. 2004-2005 var Stonys lærer i dokumentarfilm på filmhøjskolen i Ebeltoft. Siden 2006 har han undervist på Tokyo Waseda Universitet. Audrius Stony er af den overbevisning, at frihed i film er det centrale, det er vigtigere end nogen æstetisk opfattelse. Særligt når der har været forsøg på at begrænse denne frihed har det vist sig, at filmene kun har ændret deres ydre skal. Dette synes at være særligt tydeligt i dokumentarfilmene, som forsøges presset ind i en standard ramme af en slags produktion af information, underholdning, følelser og undervisning. I modsætning til dette mener Stonys, at dokumentarfilmen ikke er sat i verden med ønsket om at informere. Den er født af undren med opdagelsen af muligheden for at standse tiden og fordybe sig tænksomt i tilværelsens mirakel. (Efter http://dafilms.dk/ hvorfra flere af hans film kan streames)

Læs mere om Audrius Stonys film her: http://www.filmkommentaren.dk/blog/

Gus Holwerda: The Unbelievers

To erfarne videnskabsmænd, en biolog og en fysiker, sidder på en café og fortsætter en lang samtale, de har gang i, om, forstår jeg på pressemeddelelsen, hvordan videnskaben kan tage diskussionen med religionen, ateismen mod gudstroen. Jeg kender i forvejen intet til de to mænd og deres videnskabelige arbejde, googler dem og bliver yderligere interesseret. Sådan en film vil jeg da gerne se. Den bliver sendt i DR2 DOKUMANIA i morgen tirsdag aften. Se den veloplagte trailer (link herunder), det ser da muntert ud, det vil jeg da se det hele af, de to veltalende og intelligente og charmerende hovedpersoner, the unbelievers, vil jeg da glæde mig til at være i stue med på tirsdag en god times tid. Jeg vil glæde mig til scener som den her på et still fra filmen, hvor de på lige vidende fod sidder og drøfter det rationelle, videnskabeligt begrundede svar til de religiøse fundamentalisters teorier om skaberens intelligente design. Det helt afgørende er mig imidlertid, at trailerens første scene er fra et interview med Werner Herzog, alene hans velkendte, trygt foruroligende stemme er nok. Jeg er med på den historie. Traileren virker.

USA, 2013, 75 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxDLkoK8vQQ (Trailer)

Vladislava Plancikova: Felvidek

… with the subtitle ”Caught in Between”. ”An Animated Documentary” it is said in the press material, and indeed it is, including all kind of animation techniques that I don’t have knowledge enough to characterise correctly. But what I can say is that I don’t remember to be so wonderfully surprised as I did with this film by a director, who does not hesitate to use the film language in all its beautiful range of possibilities within the animadoc genre: archive material, photos, interviews, ”normal” documentary footage in ”normal” speed and in fast motion, a personal commentary…

”A director’s quote from the press material: …the film was inspired by my family history. I was intrigued to hear a casual comment which my grandmother made one day: My great-grandmother – her mother – never got used to living in Slovakia. When I learnt that my grandmother’s family only moved to Slovakia after they had left Hungary – their homeland – I was stunned. My grandmother was only four years old and, naturally, she doesn’t recall much about the events of those days. Yet she remembers that the turbulent times after World War II dramatically affected the lives of numerous Slovaks and Hungarians. Today Felvidek is a Slovak territory largely populated by ethnic Hungarians. But back in the 1940s, thousands of people were forced to leave their homes and resettle. I never knew that! The postwar resettlement was never mentioned at school… Hungarians had to relocate from Slovakia to Hungary. 89 660 Hungarians left their homes in Slovakia at that time and 71 787 Slovaks from Hungary returned to Slovakia. My film has an ambition to show how postwar events affected the fates of people in both counties.”

It is a complicated story that the director wants to tell and sometimes along the watching of the film I found the explanatory text too dominating but that is a detail compared to the many superb poetic sequences, where images tell

the story of love and pain and sorrow in such an original and personal tone. The director’s voice has the tone of the naïve girl, who in her childhood never heard about these horrible resettlements that she lets come alive through beans, that are moved around to give us the the moving borders, or shoes that move from one side of the image to the other, or earthworms making their way up the soil or some pieces of wood being placed and re-placed and decorated with photos, family trees, and suddenly comes up a beautiful song with a text related to the theme of the film. It is one constant flow of images that are brought to you, cinematic history writing based on witnesses, diaries, emotions but also information, and an actual perspective from the young director who you see filming other young people from Telvik. They talk about who they are, about identity questions. What a journey… that ended with this viewer having tears in his eyes because of the end where earth from Hungarian Komlos is brought back to grandmother for her to place it in her parents grave in Slovakia. Wow for a climax!

The film has not yet been selected for intl. festivals. Let it happen!

Slovakia/Czech Republic, 2014, 75 mins. (a tv-version also exists)

http://www.hornazem.eu/o-filme/

http://vimeo.com/33685516 (Felvidek, trailer)

For alle danskere/ 5

Jeg er ved langsomt at lære FILMCENTRALEN / FOR ALLE at kende. Den er ikke Statsbiblioteket eller Det Kongelige Bibliotek, jeg kan ikke bare komme med min seddel over de filminstrktører, jeg har brug for i mit arbejde, og så bare finde deres værker. Men jeg prøver alligevel lige med de seks, som lige disse dage er aktuelle i min verden: Per Kirkeby (1 film og 4 links til film), Jytte Rex (4 film og 2 links), Jesper Jargil (1 film og 4 links), Steen Møller Rasmussen (1 film og 3 links), Ada Bligaard Søby (0 film, men 3 links) og Michael Madsen (1 film, men ikke ”Into Eternity”, som der er link til, og videre links til Netflix og YouBio) Det må jeg så prøve. Men hvor er de vigtige tidlige film ”Himmelnattens kejser” og ”Til Damaskus”?

FILMCENTRALEN / FOR ALLE er altså ikke noget bibliotek eller arkiv, ikke en samling. Jeg ser nu, den er tænkt ind i biografkulturen, det her er ikke til arbejde, det er til oplevelse og underholdning. FILMCENTRALEN / FOR ALLE kaster sig ind i den nutidige webbaserede biografkultur, ind blandt denne kulturs stadigt voksende mylder af streamingmuligheder med gadeskilte, indgange og billetluger. Med programmer og profiler, jeg nødvendigvis må orientere mig i og styre efter. Det statslige ansvar, som er bevaret, er den generøse henvisning til de andre webbiografer ved en effektiv og garanteret opdateret linkservice. Det vil vise sig at blive det, jeg især vil benytte mig af i det daglige.

Og når jeg så i dag tager en filmaften i sofaen, vil jeg kigge på programmet i udhængsskabet, på opslagstavlen: Hvad har jeg lyst til? ”Fede streger til de yngste”? Nej, det tror jeg ikke. ”De udvalgte fra Burma til Danmark”, Katrine Philps film, som jeg bestemt bør se? Lad mig nu lige først se på ”Litteratur på film”. Det viser sig at være et overdådigt program at tage fat på fra begyndelsen med Jørgen Leths hver gang overraskende ”Dansk Litteratur”. Men det bliver nu altså filminstruktørerne og deres værker det gælder denne aften, weekend, ferie i sofaen, ikke digterne i første omgang. Ud over Leth er der Li, Roos, Bohm, Preisler, Johansson, Kestner, Rex, Braad Thomsen, Elling, Poher Rasmussen / Anostoni, Movin / Møller Rasmussen, Holbek Trier, Skjødt Jensen og Østergaard. Imidlertid er denne række vigtige navne ikke i  forgrunden af FILMCENTRALENS tema, de skal hittes frem ved yderligere klik. Men er det selvfølgeligt? Jeg kunne spørge: når litteratur er tema for film, når vi bruger udtrykket forfatterfilm, hvem er så autor? FILMCENTRALEN er vist ikke i tvivl. Jeg er…

Still: Michael Madsen: ”Into Eternity”. ”Vi er som hos Tarkovskij i det smukkeste landskab kontrasteret til det foruroligende i et filmfotografi, som ikke svigter. Det er usvigeligt og sikkert, vi vil blive bragt til en slutning, kompetent. Vi er igen mellem de betydningsladede replikker (det har måske gjort indtryk, at Madsen var via Strindberg i To Damascus) her dybt musikalsk klippet til filmens langsomme dialog af dæmpede stemmer. Den undersøgende (den rejsende, den ukendte, den indtrængende) stiller enkle, ofte naive spørgsmål. Svarene kommer tøvende, de er uafbrudt tænksomme, kompliceret-enkle. Rytmen er uendelig langsom: pause, pause, indholdsmættet udsagn, pause, udsagn igen, pause, pause, pause og sådan videre. Den citerede musik er af Sibelius, Varèse, Pärt, Kraftwerk…”

http://filmcentralen.dk/alle

http://filmcentralen.dk/alle/tema/litteratur-paa-film

http://www.filmkommentaren.dk/blog/blogpost/2643/  (“Forfatterfilm, hvem er så autor?”, blogindlæg af ABN)