How is it different to participate at the film week as a jury member, not as a competitor?
It is best to have your film in competition at the film week because then you are represented by what you created and it will be judged partly by audiences and partly by the jury. As for being a member of the jury, it is not good. Five people will have to coordinate their opinions and that will inevitably require some compromises. Sometimes a bigger compromise, sometimes a smaller one. But when you have to accept a big compromise, it gives you a headache because it makes you feel that you are unable to represent your opinion.
What are the basic criteria and considerations that you use to evaluate films?
The more I can forget about having a special function when watching a film, the better. In the best case, when the lights go off, I feel so involved that I cannot pay attention to anything else, which means I become an ordinary viewer. My main criterion is that the film should involve me and make me a viewer.
To what extent does the prestige of the film week influence the film industry?
I think it does not influence the film industry at all. There are unnatural distinctions between feature films. Auteur films and popular films and nowadays even art films are divided into categories, which is all total nonsense. There are only good films and bad films. There are few films, such as The Investigator, which are loved by audiences and at the same time can offer serious cultural value. Such films as SOS Love and my terrifying Miracle Film will never get any kind of recognition at a film festival, in the best case they will get an audience award. But audiences actually grant their awards as soon as they go to see a film, and such films don't depend on the recognition to be received at festivals. Basically those filmmakers need and deserve recognition who would not otherwise get a chance to attract attention.
So the festival influences the prestige of films and filmmakers rather than affecting the industry?
The snob alarm often goes off at such festivals, as a significant part of Hungarian critics tend to give more respect to films that differ from the average, something very avant-garde, which may not represent any value but is definitely unusual. Being in the shadow of global trends, they often support films that I simply consider a bluff or rather the victory of snobbery. There are a number of filmmakers who are most concerned about what's trendy in the world, what kind of films win at various international festivals, what is the current fashion, straight cut or boot cut. This is their compass as against our classic, and it seems an outdated compass.
What do you think about Hungarian film today? Many people have projected its demise.
There is nothing wrong with Hungarian film. As long as I can remember, everyone has been complaining, but in the meantime, many films have been made, even more than in previous years. There is an interesting process, which is about the efforts to leave the "a Hungarian film will only work in Hungary" cage. This is a great ambition for many young filmmakers. The question is whether it would be worth it. What will the filmmaker loose by trying to make a film for European or global audiences and what will he win by talking about things that can really only take place here and create a film of local flavours. Hungarian film has always been famous for its social responsibility. The present is more difficult to depict today than it was 25 years ago because it is more complex. Even those who formulate our world cannot fully understand every detail, let alone everyday people. If you are making a film about the present, then you should offer a lesson to be learnt. But what shall this lesson be?
Interviewer: Éva Kelemen
Photo: port.hu
