Interview with Krzysztof Zanussi, special guest of the 13. PFF
* originally published (in Macedonian) on June 3, 2023 at УМНО
People who are more advanced, more ambitious, who have higher aspirations, they change the world. And they would love cinema forever, I guess. And they are never going to abandon cinema.
The film “Perfect Number” by one of the greatest European directors and screenwriters today, Krzysztof Zanussi from Poland, will have its Macedonian premiere on June 8 at the Cinematheque, within the framework of the 13. Philosophical Film Festival. The legendary film director, winner of the “Golden Lion” in Venice in 1984, awarded at Cannes, Locarno, Berlin, Montreal, Tokyo – Zanussi – will be a guest at the festival. He is one of the 40 founding members of the European Film Academy, headed by Ingmar Bergman.
Scene from „Perfect Number“
The Philosophical Film Festival in Skopje is one of the rare festivals in the world which nurtures, apart from film aesthetics, the relationship (or maybe synergy) between film and philosophy, with a whole plethora of open questions and provocative themes philosophy is exploring. What was your main motivation to submit Perfect Number, your latest film, for participation at the 13. Philosophical Film Festival?
– Well, my motivation is exactly identical with your words, because I made a film where I ask questions that we call philosophical questions or existential questions, and I hope that at this festival I will find the audience and the critics who will be smart enough to get involved in this kind of debate, because the average film critic today is somebody who has very little knowledge of philosophy, and usually the reviews are just telling us what was the action, and not the reflection that action is evoking. So, I think it is a perfect address, and I am very happy that you have invited my film, and I will be very happy also to accompany the film and take part in your debate.
Do you think that philosophy in a way is essential also for filmmaking or for the cinematic experience?
– Yes, because narrative art is giving us an experience that we haven’t lived personally. And if you want to make this remarkable and larger, of all beings that are alive, only humans could accumulate the experience of previous generations. I have eight dogs; none of them knows the life of their grandfather. And I do know the life, not only of my grandfather, but also of Julius Caesar and Moses and many other great human beings that were alive well before I was born. So, narrative art is accumulating experience and reflection on life, and that is why it is so precious. And this applies to the novel, to the theatre, to the stage play, and of course narrative art today is cinema, TV series, it is all audiovisual work based on fiction.
Mr. Zanussi, you are one of the greatest active directors of our times. What does cinema as an art form represent to you and what do you consider as the most important when you are creating a film?
– Well, I would like to pose this question to the people who write about my films, because they have more of an objective view. But I know that life is a challenge. It is not an easy task. And in your country that suffers so much, you probably understand this more than in other countries, which are safe and secure. But once you know that life is a challenge, that life may be very easily lost, that life may be wasted by your own mistakes or by circumstances, then what is my motivation to make films is to bring people some hope and some warning. Because they have to be warned about mistakes that other people commit, that we should avoid. One should learn from other people’s mistakes, because life is irreversible. So whatever you do wrong, you do it wrong forever.
You have studied philosophy at the Jagelonian University in Kraków and you have also studied physics in Warsaw, before you went into filmmaking at the Film Academy in Łódź. How did all this melange, this constellation of these three disciplines, merge into what we know as Zanussi’s work?
– Well, I am deeply in love with physics, even today. But physics was never deeply in love with me. So I was mediocre and I understood after four years that I have no chance to be anything better than just average. And I was too ambitious to accept that. Philosophy was a transition point. Very fruitful one, however. I studied free philosophy in a communist country, because that was the exceptional case of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków – that even under communist regime, after the protests of ’56, after this period of liberation, we had a regular curriculum, and not a Marxist one, even in philosophy. So it was very inspiring, but it was definitely not my profession. And as I was making films and getting many prizes for my films on various festivals, I realized that maybe that is what I should do. And I applied to the film school or film academy in Łódź, the same one that Polanski and others have finished. I was admitted, but after three years I was kicked out. Nonetheless, it was quite an important experience. Because then you know how fragile career can be and how unstable the judgments are. Originally I was considered the most promising and, after three years, I was considered a non-promising student. However, school allowed me to reapply and finally I graduated. Since then I know that even when I am getting prizes, I may be also destroyed by another critic. And your position is never certain, even if you are as old as I am.
Scene from „Perfect Number“
Perfect Number raises so many philosophical questions from metaphysical, ethical and religious nature. What was the main catalyst of the idea to start shooting this film? Was it rooted in the creative drive of a mature film author, but also of a man with a philosophical habitus in a phase of internalized wisdom?
– Well, first of all, the film, most of my films are based on my scripts. I write observing people and there were some models that I have used in this film. Some real characters that I depicted. But the real message of the film is to say that success is not a real value. That the only value that in life is confirmed is love. And that is what both of my characters have to learn. Because the old one has achieved all one could achieve in the material world. He is healthy, he is rich, fabulously rich. He has power. But he did not love anybody. So he feels miserable in his critical day. And the young one maybe will learn from him and try to improve his egoistic character. And I think this is the message. The message also is that there is a spiritual dimension of life. Not only material. And that materialism is very deeply rooted in the 19th century. But it is not progressive anymore. It was progressive in the past, but it is not more. And that is what we have to implement in the arts. Show that other dimensions, not only the material ones, count.
Can Perfect Number, then, in a way be seen also as a synthesis of your work so far? It seems like you are coming back or revisiting many of the themes that you are also working on in your previous films. And, also on another point, you are stressing often that you see it as a film ‘about mathematics and God’. Can you please elaborate about these two points and how much your work actually gravitates around this topic?
– Well it does. Because I am in a way maybe a little more competent than many of my colleagues because I have this scientific background. And I think that people of science are far more advanced in their outlook on life than people with humanistic background who are still very deeply rooted in 19th century science. In Feuerbach, Renan, Engels and many other thinkers. With Nietzsche, who proclaimed the death of God. And, today, with quantum physics, we have totally different vision of what matter is. And when we say that it is very likely that the material world is not the only world that it exists, this is something very modern and very avant-garde. And that is what science is telling us today. That is why I am very much attached to this scientific edge of knowledge. And I think we should take advantage of this great progress that was done. To use the new instruments of thinking, of reasoning, when we are also trying in philosophy to exploit what science is offering us. As an instrument, as a method.
This year the Festival is doing an homage to Godard, or as we call it – Focus Godard. We wanted to give respect to a filmmaker who has also propelled us to reflect and to think and to be brave and daring in cinema. There is this one thought of Godard in the (Hi)stories of cinema – „Cinema is a form that thinks“. There was also a Macedonian professor, Stefan Sidovski-Sido, who has been the pioneer in exploring both film and philosophy in Macedonia (considered here as a master or amateur filmmaking) and he was oftentimes also saying that “Cinema is thinking in images”. Would you agree with this way of seeing cinema? Whether with Godard or with Stefan Sidovski in just how you approach film art?
– Well, I had the privilege of knowing Godard personally. And I have read many of his statements, and I have seen many of his films. He was definitely a great explorer. I definitely disagree with most of his views. But I appreciate very highly how outspoken and how philosophical he was. And he definitely shaped cinema by his views and also by his films. So I am very glad that you celebrate him this year because his achievements were great. However, I disagree with many of his opinions. I think he was very much dependent on 19th century materialism. But he was very well intellectually equipped to write about his own creations and the creations of others. So, in other words, even if I deeply disagree with most of Godard’s views, I highly respect them, as well as his work and his personality.
We would like to contextualize this in today’s time. What do you consider to be the role of the filmmaker in the complex discourse of contemporary society? And, taking into account the state of affairs today, what do you think is the future of cinema? It is a big question, we are aware, but we are really curious to hear your point of view.
– I try to distinguish between two questions which are parallel. I don’t know what is the future of cinema. I love cinema, which is a dark room, which offers me 100% of attention of my viewers. But even if today some of the films produced are viewed on cell phones, still it is a narrative art which has audiovisual form. And I have no doubt that the audiovisual has great future. The time of Gutenberg is over and the future is in the audiovisual. However, I hope we will differentiate and we will have this more intense expression, which you can watch only in the dark room, and this, let us say, more superficial storytelling, which you can watch on the cell phone. Both are extremes. But what I care for always is the avant-garde, that is, what the most advanced part of society is watching. And the rest is following the avant-garde. So I think the avant-garde is not going [leaving], it sounds very elitist, but in a way the avant-garde is an elite. And we have to admit it, even if you do not like the word. People who are more advanced, more ambitious, who have higher aspirations, they change the world. And they would love cinema forever, I guess. And they are never going to abandon cinema.
No matter how tight that circle of people is, you think that it is worthwhile doing these kind of projects, very niche, very specific?
– Right, but look, 2000 years ago, there were only 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. And they changed the reality of the antique world totally. They changed, they destroyed the Roman Empire. And they were only 12. So the idea is that if there is a small minority that is very motivated and has some relevant message, they may win over a great majority which is suffering inertia and which is following, but not moving by their own power.
Scene of the film „A Year of the Quiet Sun“
What should we expect next from your creative, artistic/philosophical laboratory? What is the next project on which Zanussi is working?
– Well, I am working on a couple of projects. And I am very keen to exploit something that I find very specific to cinema. It is the flow of time. In literature, we have very far more limited possibilities. But in cinema, we may really fly over time, go back and forward. And our perception of time, we know that now in life, it is partial. And each of us is living in different time. I think this can be expressed in cinema. And this is what my next two projects are about.
It sounds like a wonderful challenge and we are really looking forward to seeing it. After all, cinema is also time art. And this idea of ‘sculpting in time’ from Tarkovsky onwards is something that we hold dearly to heart. By the way, this year, we are also working on the first Macedonian translation of Sculpting in Time in Macedonian. I am sure that all of us will be excited to also see your next work.
– Thank you very much. That is very kind of you. I was a close friend of Tarkovsky. I would be happy to tell you some stories about him when we meet.
Writing: Kiril Trajchev & Ana Dishlieska Mitova