Tweet
WHETHER WE REALLY NEED `GOLDEN APRICOT'
`HAYOTS ASHKHARH'
14 July 07
The fourth international film festival `Golden Apricot' prompts us
about the futility of the existence.
Had a similar event taken place in our reality around 20 years back
it would have definitely been a real event in our social life, while
nowadays it is an imperceptible and unremarkable event.
Those who are ex-officio obliged to fulfill their duties they did
so, the other part of the society is quite indifferent towards it.
Of course it has an external reason as well.
During the Soviet times festival movies were windows towards the
great and prohibited world. People used to attack the movie halls to
watch these movies with half an eye. Whilst the demand of the
prohibited fruit was manifested not only in cinematography but also in
the markets where the cost of one pair of jeans was equal to one-month
salary.
By the way the admiration that prevailed not only in the cultural
but also political life was also conditioned by the before mentioned
phenomenon. Foreign press was considered to be the highest instance
truth and the wise and just political structure of the countries on the
other side of the iron curtain.
In the everyday mythology of that period it was considered a
`different kingdom' an island of dreams where golden pears grew on
poplars. Today nothing is left from the pure and bright conviction.
Not because our reality seems perfect, but because people understand
that anything can happen in the `island of the dreams'. Sometimes
astonishing justice triumphs, sometimes a gentleman talks to a
gentleman about something and reaches an agreement.
Thus we can't say that we are horned devils and they are angels with
wings. You can't say that life is bad in the West and you can't also
say that it is worthy of admiration.
This is the external reason of the indifference towards `Golden
Apricot', but there is a very important internal reason as well.
The festival proved - better overlooked then discredited. The latter
usually lies in ambush, when you don't manage to bring your desires in
conformity with your abilities, but you want pretend that things should
be like that. The international jury, formed in a hurried manner
introduced names quite unheard of. Probably these people where also
surprised to receive invitations.
During the days of the festival there was a feeling of shame for the
extremely weak and bad competition. With the persistency typical of the
fox that complains about the quality of the fruit when it fails to
reach for it, they were trying to clarify the principle of the festival
saying that they put emphasis on the young film-producers and films
produced by the authors. Probably world-famous masters who also
expressed desire to participate in the `Golden Apricot' were given the
same explanation.
The organization failings, old-fashioned techniques, the jury, the
empty halls, the self-admiration and pathos of the organizers, the
complaints about lack of money, all this was very shameful. By the way
most of this money belongs to us ` taxpayers. What do they spend it on?
And who benefits from the classical question of law. Most probably they
want to mislead the authorities regarding the place of the `Golden
Apricot' on the world film-map. And this place is usually characterized
by a word that is not proper to be published in the newspaper.
We don't appeal to radical measures ` such as `Do Away with Golden
Apricot'. But lets think about protecting the festival from shame. They
simply don't want to bring proper movies and provide a proper level,
even in case their financial means provide this opportunity. So why do
we need to hold festivals every year, in case when neither films nor
stars want to visit us. Let's find other ways.
Of course it is a pleasant and helpful job to be among the
organizers of International Film Festival. It brings money, foreign
tours, respect and good contacts. Should they conduct it by their own
financial means `Golden Apricot' would have been a real treasure.
`HAYOTS ASHKHARH'
14 July 07
The fourth international film festival `Golden Apricot' prompts us
about the futility of the existence.
Had a similar event taken place in our reality around 20 years back
it would have definitely been a real event in our social life, while
nowadays it is an imperceptible and unremarkable event.
Those who are ex-officio obliged to fulfill their duties they did
so, the other part of the society is quite indifferent towards it.
Of course it has an external reason as well.
During the Soviet times festival movies were windows towards the
great and prohibited world. People used to attack the movie halls to
watch these movies with half an eye. Whilst the demand of the
prohibited fruit was manifested not only in cinematography but also in
the markets where the cost of one pair of jeans was equal to one-month
salary.
By the way the admiration that prevailed not only in the cultural
but also political life was also conditioned by the before mentioned
phenomenon. Foreign press was considered to be the highest instance
truth and the wise and just political structure of the countries on the
other side of the iron curtain.
In the everyday mythology of that period it was considered a
`different kingdom' an island of dreams where golden pears grew on
poplars. Today nothing is left from the pure and bright conviction.
Not because our reality seems perfect, but because people understand
that anything can happen in the `island of the dreams'. Sometimes
astonishing justice triumphs, sometimes a gentleman talks to a
gentleman about something and reaches an agreement.
Thus we can't say that we are horned devils and they are angels with
wings. You can't say that life is bad in the West and you can't also
say that it is worthy of admiration.
This is the external reason of the indifference towards `Golden
Apricot', but there is a very important internal reason as well.
The festival proved - better overlooked then discredited. The latter
usually lies in ambush, when you don't manage to bring your desires in
conformity with your abilities, but you want pretend that things should
be like that. The international jury, formed in a hurried manner
introduced names quite unheard of. Probably these people where also
surprised to receive invitations.
During the days of the festival there was a feeling of shame for the
extremely weak and bad competition. With the persistency typical of the
fox that complains about the quality of the fruit when it fails to
reach for it, they were trying to clarify the principle of the festival
saying that they put emphasis on the young film-producers and films
produced by the authors. Probably world-famous masters who also
expressed desire to participate in the `Golden Apricot' were given the
same explanation.
The organization failings, old-fashioned techniques, the jury, the
empty halls, the self-admiration and pathos of the organizers, the
complaints about lack of money, all this was very shameful. By the way
most of this money belongs to us ` taxpayers. What do they spend it on?
And who benefits from the classical question of law. Most probably they
want to mislead the authorities regarding the place of the `Golden
Apricot' on the world film-map. And this place is usually characterized
by a word that is not proper to be published in the newspaper.
We don't appeal to radical measures ` such as `Do Away with Golden
Apricot'. But lets think about protecting the festival from shame. They
simply don't want to bring proper movies and provide a proper level,
even in case their financial means provide this opportunity. So why do
we need to hold festivals every year, in case when neither films nor
stars want to visit us. Let's find other ways.
Of course it is a pleasant and helpful job to be among the
organizers of International Film Festival. It brings money, foreign
tours, respect and good contacts. Should they conduct it by their own
financial means `Golden Apricot' would have been a real treasure.