1. You are often branded an Armenian Bunuel or
Tarkovsky. Are these comparisons accurate or – if not – how would You
define Your filmmaker poetics? As a magic realism?
Don Askarian:
These are attempts to describe films. Bunuel and Tarkovsky are legendary,
almost heroic figures. These comparisons are correct for those who draw
them as a result of their cinematographic experiences. Every critic anew
searches, finds and describes comparisons: One compared my films for
example with works by Dali, Miklós Jancsó, Deren, Sergey Paradjanov as
well... Just the mere listing of all these names leads to absurdity.
Because all these mentioned men and Ms. Deren are esthetically unique,
radical, subjective, hardheaded and irreproducible. In this sense I would
be glad if these comparisons would be correct, but as I said this
filmmakers are incomparable in a programmatic sense.
Magic? Not like an unwashed dervish, who obsessively stamps the dust and
not like the colorful decorated folkloristic priest who holds in one hand
an bloody obsidian knife and in the other hand an torn out, yet beating
heart.
To subordinate to film and its laws and to experience or even to film the
moment of cinematographic truth - yes, this could be magical.
To a certain degree this makes also clear my filmmaker poetics. I don’t
know if I have a verbalized established film philosophy. God forbid: If
one develops something of this kind, one should change ones profession.
Therefore every single film demands its own poetic, and that is much more
exciting than to go to work with prefabricated standards. The director’s
search for solutions (in particular live, on location, during the
shooting) is a refreshing quality comparable to the musical improvisation.
2. Since 1976, You lived, studied, and worked as
production assistant and filmc critic in Moscow. There, You were
arrested and imprisoned in 1975. What was the official reason? How do
You recall the totalitarian regime and following years of emigration?
D.A.:
The refusal of the military service in the Red Army, an army who also had
occupied your state.
In our dormitory, in Moscow, Usachyova Street 64, there lived some
Czechoslovakian students.
In 1968 and also afterwards I couldn’t look into their eyes, as if I had
given the platoons of tanks the order to roll into Czechoslovakia.
Although I never voted for the Communists, although my country as well has
been occupied for a long time, anyway I felt myself responsible for the
invasion of the Soviets, because I had a passport of that country in my
pocket.
This experience of 1968 probably added to my decision under no
circumstances to serve in this army.
Totalitarian regimes are a real plague for the population, for the people,
for nature and for themselves. That I left the country and namely for the
West – was the right decision. After the first detention I could have been
forcibly brought farther to the East, I could have been sentenced to a
second detention. It was the right moment to emigrate and I had still a
proper amount of cheekiness (my gunpowder was dry, it still crackled
because of the wish to shoot), of which one could make good use in the
West too. Another reason was the idea not to pass through cinematographic
barracks and communist film controls. From the beginning I wanted to
realize my idea of film. That was not that easy at that time in the Soviet
Union.
In 1979 I came to Germany, to West Berlin, but I worked in other European
countries as well, like the Netherlands or Greece.
I think that the EU could have a chance if it would give leeway to all its
members – without regional-jingoistic, provincial-racist-religious
ambitions and machinations, which are deathly for society.
Should I congratulate you on joining the EU? With pleasure!
Until now the European Film lost its competition with the American Film
even on its own territory. The EU means a big chance for film as well.
3. During this Art Film, You will show Your crucial works: Der Baar/The
Bear, Komitas, Avetik, Paradjanov, On the Old Roman Road and The
Musicians. Which one means for You the most personal message and why?
D. A.:
All my films were very personal and honest to me at the time of making
them, but you change over the years, with every finished film. From
today’s perspective the films on which I’m working now are the most
personal ones. Now I’m working on the projects ARARAT, San-Lazzaro, The
Moth, in which my present-day understanding of film, the things I’m
concerned with will meet with response.
4. I know that You will exhibit Your photographs on the Art Film as well.
Do they relate to Your films, or are they just individual artistic
messages? A part of the Art Film will be also drawings of Federico
Fellini. A whole block will be dedicated to him. What is Your relationship
to this great Italian director?
D. A.:
Some of the photographs relate to my films, but there are also photos,
which are not directly connected to the films, like shots of nature or
female models.
Fellini is one of the most important Italian directors. As a student I saw
his films with big interest: Anthony Quinn und Guilietta Masina in ‚La
Strada‘, or Anouk Aimee in ‘8 ½‘ will remain in my memory. His later films
became more baroque. He was an excaptionally gifted drawer as well.
5. I know You are recently completing a new film called San Lazzaro. What
will it be about?
D. A.:
The story begins in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia. A series of strange
events befalls a young man, Wahram Martirossian.
He becomes a witness of several killings and suicides. He has the
inexplicable feeling that someone is following him. Wahram has to decide,
whether to stay in Armenia or to leave the country.
Then he goes to the island San-Lazzaro in order to collect some material
for his book concerning the Armenian-Catholic Order and his founder Abbot
Mekhitar. He spends three weeks on the island. One of the monks tells him
stories about people, who visited the island in the past, such as Napoleon
and Lord Byron. In this way we will reconstruct some historical sequences
related to San-Lazzaro.
The journey to San-Lazzaro forces Wahram to reflect on himself, on the
cultural identity of Armenia, which, in his opinion, was lost in
consequence of the tragic events of the Genocide of 1915 in Turkey and as
a result of 70 years of Soviet regime.
Historical episodes of the film will be recreated through the eyes of
Wahram Martirossian.
The inner world of the writer enables me to present the story in different
time layers. A comparison of the island and its history with contemporary
Armenia will show that today’s fundamental motivation, justification and
necessity of the existence of San-Lazzaro is its quality in being the
island of peace, meditation and mental exercises – like the ARMENIAN
KASTALIA, the ideal spiritual place.
However the existence of the Order and the biography of its founder
Mekhitar are accusations against the cruelty, ignorance and stupidity of
Asia – that’s why the gigantic work is so valuable: the work which is
carried out by Mekhitarists in the fields of Armenian literature, language
and history.
The film should show not only the beauties of Venice, but also mirror its
destruction, which makes the aesthetic-emotional level of the perception
of the city more intense.
Poetry of death.
Patina of the time accelerated by flowing water.
Immortal beauty.
