Fliegauf said he had ?dreamt about? the structure of the film a decade ago, showing the life of a family from the morning when they say goodbye to each other to the evening when everyone returns home. However, the project started only after he had read a series of articles by journalist Zoltán Tábori published in Hungarian papers in 2009 and 2010. And the real trigger was ?a dream - a nightmare, I saw a hut, and the ghostly shadow of a muzzle flash,? he said. Commenting on the suggestion that the appalling living circumstances presented in the film might make people think that all Roma live that way, Fliegauf said that used to be his impression too, before starting a year-long research to prepare for the shoot. ?These are the stereotypes that we like to use. They just make life easier,? he added.
He said what he had found everywhere he travelled, and what he pictured in the film, was poverty. ?The total, absolute poverty, from which there seems to be no way out. Believe me, these people do not enjoy living this way. There is, for example a scene in the film where a terribly drunk woman is looking for her teeth on the ground. She was not Roma. But because she lives there in the dirt, you're willing to think, she would be. This poverty has nothing to do with the culture and the identity of the Roma and Sinti,? Fliegauf said.
Asked whether the film would be perceived differently in Hungary as a result of the fact that it was shown in competition at the Berlinale, Fliegauf said ?everyone in Hungary? has a very good opinion of the film now and many ?officials? say how much they had always supported it. Asked whether this was a lie, Fliegauf said in the case of some people it was indeed not true. ?A few months ago, there was still a wish by the state to tone down the grievances shown in the film to a less dramatic level. But because only ten percent of the budget came from the state, these wishes could not be enforced,? he said.
The interviewer commented that this meant, in other words, that there was film censorship in Hungary, to which Fliegauf responded ?I would be careful with that. I do not know what would have happened if 90 percent of the money had come from the state. No one tried to stop the project. That's what I would mean by censorship.?
Asked what he was told why he should make changes to the film, Fliegauf said ?there is currently a development in Hungary, which I do not understand. It is controlled by fear. We were told that we should always keep in mind that we might present a bad image of Hungary in Europe. But because I think as an artist, I really cannot take that into consideration. I want to make a good movie.?
Fliegauf said he still saw Hungary as a democracy and he was proud to be a Hungarian. But he said he also saw a trend that facing up to problems was being neglected. ?My biggest concern is that we declare democracy in Europe a failed experiment and go the Chinese way,? he added.
His new film will be shown in Hungary in March. ?Already, I feel a certain excitement in the country. I do not know what will happen. Maybe we'll be celebrated for the film. But maybe I will be forced to emigrate if they accept the opinion of those right-wing guys who say I soiled Hungarian society, Fliegauf said.
Die Welt also published a commentary which mentioned Fliegauf?s film. In a piece entitled ?Rejuvenated Bears,? the critic Hanns-Georg Rodek said the 62nd Berlinale was a parade of young talent but the jury decided to grant the Golden Bear to the elderly Taviani brothers. The main prize should not be used as a lifetime achievement award, the writer said. Fliegauf?s film deserved not just the Silver Bear, but the Golden Bear too, he added.
Source: Hungarian News Agency (MTI)
