Spoštovani predsednik Republike Slovenije dr. Danilo Turk!
Sem diplomirani filmski režiser. Diplomiral sem v Pragi leta 1997. Študiral sem s štipendijo Ministrstva za kulturo RS, ki sem jo dobil leta 1989 na javnem razpisu MK za študij filmske režije v tujini oziroma v Pragi. Razpis je bil sam po sebi nenavaden.
V Prago se je odhajalo študirat po izmenjavi študentov med socialističnimi republikami, Češkoslovaška in Jugoslavija pa sta takrat to izmenjavo prekinili.
Nenavadno je bilo, da je bila Jugoslavija pripravljena študije plačati. Drugo, kar je bilo nenavadno, pa je, da je bil razpis izrecno namenjen filmski režiji. Noben Slovenec ni prejšne izmenjave s Prago izkoristil za študij filmske režije.
Šlo je torej za načrtno iskanje pridobitve profesionalno šolanega režiserja, ki bi po vrnitvi domov uspel kaj od naučenega presaditi v domača tla.
Za razpis sem zvedel šele teden dni po njegovem roku, a mi je bilo vseeno še dovoljeno oddati vlogo. Bil sem šele v tretjem letniku Družboslovne srednje šole Poljane in s filmom sem se šele začel spoznavati, bil sem zagotovo najmlajši med udeleženci razpisa in hkrati najmanj izkušen, a sem bil vseeno izbran kot prvi in najboljši kandidat.
To še dodatno pokaže na jasen namen tedanje države, da bi bil izbrani kandidat pred svojim odhodom v tujino in vrnitvijo čimmanj pod vplivom domačega okolja. Študij je stal 10.000 USD na leto, 5000 je zahtevala Praga, 5000 je dala Jugoslavija za življenje.
S kratkim šolskim filmom » V tišini sobe » sem zmagal na večih evropskih študentskih festivalih, od katerih mi največ pomeni Grand Prix v Krakowu, ker je žiriji predsedoval Andrzej Wajda. Film sem prinesel na TV SLO, da bi ga lahko videlo kar največ ljudi, a ni bil nikoli prikazan, vsaj da bi o tem jaz kaj vedel ali da bi mi kdo to omenil ne.
Zaradi štipendije in zaradi nagrad sem nazaj v že samostojno Slovenijo prišel z avtomatično pravico do prvega celovečernega filma oziroma z dolžnostjo Filmskega sklada RS, da ga omogoči.
Ko je bil moj scenarij leta 1999 na FSS sprejet, je začelo veljati pravilo, da morajo biti vsi prvi celovečerci posneti v nizkoproračunski produkciji, v kateri so finančna sredstva dana oziroma omejena s tem, da se ne snema na običajnih 35mm in v pogojih za ta format, ampak na 16 ali Super 16mm, ki se ga na 35mm poveča šele po končani montaži. Tako sta nastala » V leru » in » Kruh in mleko ».
Ta postopek snemanja na 16mm in kasnejše povečave samo končne montaže na 35mm je v nizkoproračunskem scenariju, ki je tako ali tako omejen le na igralce in najnižje stroške, sam po sebi čisti nesmisel.
Še posebej, če nastane dober film, ki se ga pokaže svetu in sili gledalce k vprašanju, zakaj slika ni taka kot pri drugih filmih.
Moj scenarij ni potreboval ne 35mm ne 16mm, ampak Super 8mm, natančneje Kodachrome S8mm, format, ki smo ga pred videom in digitalnimi kamerami uporabljali za družinske posnetke in ki ima svojo vejo profesionalne uporabe.
Povečava pri tem formatu je dražja, ker nimaš negativa kot pri 16 ali 35mm, ampak samo direktni pozitiv, in ker je zaradi majhnosti in poškodljivosti originalnih posnetkov zato za končno sestavo potrebno povečati cele posnetke kot so bili posneti, ne le trenutke oziroma kadre kot so bili iz teh posnetkov izbrani na računalniku za sam film.
Originalnih posnetkov si sploh ne smeš niti predvajati na projektorju kot smo to delali doma, da jih ne bi poškodoval ali umazal s prahom, in zato film montiraš le s približnim občutkom za samo sliko in si moraš zato za povečavo in za končno montažo na 35mm pripraviti še rezervne materiale.
A ker je vsa ostala organizacija toliko bolj enostavna kot 16mm ali 35mm, cena razvijanja je na primer všteta že v ceno osnovnega materiala, se je moj scenarij znašel znotraj določenih okvirjev.
Slika, ki nastane s to povečavo, pa ima zaradi velikega kontrasta med formatoma in zaradi močnih barv Kodachrome S8mm, tudi veliko ekspresivnost, ki je pri povečavi s 16mm na 35mm ni niti v najmanjši meri.
Scenarij je bil napisan za impresionistično sliko Edvarda Muncha » Dama na verandi », tako da si lahko sliko povečane S8mm kot naj bi bila že predstavljate.
S tem scenarijem sem nadaljeval že začete stvari, ker je bil Munch oziroma slika osnova že za film » V tišini sobe », le da sem zdaj poskusil čisto obraten pristop.
Namesto klasično režirane fikcije časa, prostora in ljudi sem hotel preizkusiti neponovljivi tok giba Narave na vnaprej dani fikciji, v mojem primeru na Munchovi sliki, ki jo vidiš na začetku filma in potem gledaš, kako se bo to zgodilo pred kamero, če se bo.
Videti sem hotel, če vidim iluzijo Munchove Dame na pravi ženski, na slovenski filmski in gledališki igralki go. Marijani Brecelj ( » Pod njenim oknom » ), zato sem vse podvrgel naključju in da bi dosegel to, sem jo snemal v družbi z ljudmi, ki jih pozna in z nekom, ki ga vidi prvič in zato nima veliko možnosti prikriti nepričakovanih reakcij s svoje strani.
In okrog tega je zgrajena tudi osnovna zgodba filma, srečanje ljudi, ki se v dani zasedbi v neki vasici slovenske Istre vidijo prvič in najverjetneje tudi zadnjič za kratek čas enega poletnega dne.
S8mm je bil med vsemi formati formalno in vsebinsko edini format za ta film.
Težave so se začele takoj v pripravah. Ker so me na Češkem dobro poznali, sem imel možnost skleniti koprodukcijo z njihovim Ministrstvom za kulturo, ne za denar, ampak za usluge vse zvočne in laboratorijske postprodukcije, kar je boljše kot denar, a se slovenski producent g. Danijel Hočevar ni odzival na e-maile češkega koproducenta g. Nemca in je zato v tistih dneh, ko je bilo treba vse formalno in uradno urediti, koprodukcija splavala po vodi.
Jaz sem bil polno zaposlen na lokaciji in v kontaktu s producentom, ta mi ni rekel nič, češka stran pa je samoumevno mislila, da nismo resni. Od tu naprej sem vedel, da v producentu nimam zaveznika in še, da tako mora biti, saj so vsi, ki so delali svoj prvi film, vključno z AGRFT-jevci, delali s tem producentom.
Naslednja stvar se je zgodila na prvem dnevu snemanja in za filme ni neobičajna, taka, precej neverjetna, se mi je pokazala kasneje, ko sem jo lahko v celoti zanaliziral.
Ravno v času, ko smo imeli teste za kamero za sabo in med začetkom snemanja, je firma Kodak spremenila svoj vsem znani nekaj desetletij trajajoč in delujoč patent S8mm kasetk in zamenjala nek detajl v njihovem notranjem mehanizmu.
Brez množičnega opozorila. Material takoj prvi dan snemanja ni normalno tekel iz kasetk skozi kamero, ampak je preskakoval, zato sem moral snemanje četrti dan, ko sem posneto lahko tudi videl za nekaj dni prekiniti, saj je od časa do časa, popolnoma nepredvidljivo, skakala tudi slika. Iskali so druge kasetke po skladiščih, se pravi, da Kodak ni bil pripravljen na kakršnokoli situacijo, ki je v toku priprav na spremembo ne bi predvideli.
Dobili smo nove oziroma stare iz zaloge, a sem moral snemanje po desetih dneh znova prekiniti, ker je napaka v kasetkah poškodovala tudi mehanizem kamere in je morala na popravilo k proizvajalcu.
Za dve vlogi od štirih, mi je manjkal posneti konec, a na srečo za zgodbo, je bila vloga neznanca končana. Bil je konec avgusta 2000 in jesen sem izkoristil za pregled in ureditev posnetega in za pripravo na še možno dokončanje preostalih vlog pozimi kot spomina na poletje tako da imam posneto vse in se lahko za končno obliko zgodbe odločim v končni montaži.
Prekinitve so pri filmih zelo običajne. Kar je neobičajnega, je to, da sem zvedel, da film ni bil zavarovan oziroma še več, da se ne producent ne FSS ne mislijo truditi glede zahteve za odškodnino, čeprav je uradni predstavnik Kodaka v Avstriji napako uradno priznal, in da FSS ne misli upoštevati novo nastalih stroškov niti kot primer višje sile, ki je zapisan kot 13. člen v pogodbi med FSS in producentom in niti kot bistveno spremenjeno okoliščino iz 11. člena te pogodbe zaradi dane neponovljivosti posnetkov pri tem filmu.
Kodaku sem pisal jaz, da sem zaradi njihove napake in zaradi neponovljivosti mojega scenarija moral na novo pisati in snemati popolnoma nove scene, ker starih nisem mogel ponavljati. Hotel sem, da jim je pri Kodaku popolnoma jasno, da je njihov detajl moj film skoraj pokopal.
FSS je v svojem samo spremnem pismu napisal: » Producent je bil seveda primoran ponoviti snemanje vseh tistih prizorov, ki so bili posneti na defektnem materialu. Po izjavi producenta je ocena nastalih dodatnih stroškov v zvezi s ponovljenim snemanjem okrog 80.000 EUR.«
80.000 EUR škode, za katerih točno estimacijo se FSS nikoli prej ne kasneje ni potrudil in popolnoma obratna izjava moji.
Po 3. členu pogodbe med FSS in producentom mora producent podati ob finančnem tudi vsebinsko poročilo o filmu pred vsakim novim vplačilom tranše na producentov račun, a to se ni dogajalo, če FSS, glede na gornjo izjavo, očitno ni vedel niti osnovne stvari, da so posnetki vsebinsko neponovljivi in da je treba, če že, posneti nekaj novega z upoštevanjem tega, kar imaš, ali pa vreči vse skupaj stran.
V primeru, da je FSS le vedel, kaj piše Kodaku, potem pa je ta izjava zmanjševanje škode iz možnosti totalnega propada filma v običajno potrebo po ponovni inscenaciji, kakor bi se dalo razumeti že iz izjave samega producenta za Kodak, prevajam iz angleščine:«Zaradi tehničnih težav povzročenih z neprimernostjo S8 materiala smo se znašli v neprijetni situaciji in porabili ves proračun filma za ponavljanje/nadomeščanje scen filma in za njegovo dokončanje.«
Producent ni bil jasen, FSS pa se je nagnil v popolno nasprotje tega, kar sem pisal jaz.
Producentovo spremno pismo je datirano 22.5.2002, spremno pismo FSS 28.5.2002 in moje pismo 29.5.2002, kar pomeni, da bi moral jaz sestaviti moje pismo takoj naslednji dan po pismu FSS. To je absurd, iz katerega se vidi, da sta producent in FSS svoji pismi pisala že z mojim v svojih rokah.
Kodak je dal ponudbo, ki nikakor ni ustrezala nastali škodi, 2000 USD in dve vrsti njihovega materiala za povečevanje v dolžini 4500m, oboje kot njihovo sponzorstvo mene za dokončanje filma, odgovoril sem v pričakovanju, da bo nadaljevala država, a ni, država ne producent nista napisala nobenega pisma več.
Ker med mano in državo ni pogodbe in ker lahko zato država kadarkoli postopek obnovi, če hoče, sem Kodakovo ponudbo meni sprejel.
Ponudbe, ki sem jo dobil od Kodaka, se ne tiče noben člen pogodbe med FSS in producentom, ker v le-tej ni niti besedice o možnosti tehničnega poškodovanja filma ali filmskih sredstev kot so kamera itd.
S pismi kot sta jih napisala FSS in producent Kodaku je bil kršen 27. člen te pogodbe, ki nalaga pogodbenima strankama delo v dobri veri v smislu najboljšega za film in za dokončanje filma.
Nisem ne prva ne druga pogodbena stran te pogodbe, ne gre za prenašanje pravic ne prve ne druge strani na tretjo in rok dokončanja filma je že bil podaljšan.
V dobri veri bi se nastalo težavo dalo videti ali kot nastop višje sile iz 13. člena ali kot bistveno spremenjeno okoliščino iz 11., a tudi če bi bil FSS pripravljen to urediti tako, se Kodakova ponudba meni ne bi dotikala teh dveh členov, ker ne gre za prenašanje danih pravic.
Po 4.členu pogodbe med FSS in producentom avtor v Sloveniji podpiše s producentom pogodbo, v kateri se odpove vsem materialnim pravicam in zadrži le moralne, ker da država oziroma davkoplačevalci 70%-80% denarja za film in producent le ostalih 20-30% in je zato taka pogodba razumljiva in sprejemljiva.
Sponzoriranje mene za dokončanje filma, ne pa specifično za povečavo, pa je Kodakovo plačilo za moje moralne avtorske pravice, ki so bile prizadete z njihovo tehnično napako.
Kako to, da državna pogodba za film ne vsebuje ničesar o najpogostejši škodi pri filmski produkciji, o tehnični škodi?
Zakaj filmi niso zavarovani na kakršenkoli način, na primer kot vsi filmi FSS v paketu?
Zakaj je avtorsko delo in cela kariera nekega avtorja lahko prepuščena enostavni tehnični škodi?
V neki domnevno civilizirani državi sredi Evrope v 21.stoletju?
Denarja ni bilo veliko, ponujeni material pa je bilo za vreči stran, ker je pokvarljiv oziroma ga je treba hraniti v specifičnih pogojih, ker se ga kupuje, če že, v večjih količinah kot je bila ponujena meni, 4500m na primer do milimetra natančno ustreza 2 uram in pol moje grobe montaže skupaj z rezervnimi materiali kot končne verzije, kar je popoln nesmisel, kratki filmi, ki potrebujejo za končno obdelavo ravno ta material, pa se ne snemajo vsak dan, material ni uporaben za snemanje in jaz sem v končni fazi potreboval za povečavo material FUJI ne pa Kodakovega.
Vsega tega so se dobro zavedali tako pri Kodaku kot producent in FSS drugače točno taka ponudba meni ne bi bila mogoča.
Poleg države lahko ostali avtorji filma od Kodaka še vedno zahtevajo izterjavo za svoje moralne pravice.
Zaradi preskoka zgodbe v zimski čas, sem moral glavno igralko posneti dodatno še v gledališču, ko dela, tako da je njen razlog vračanja na svoj vikend v Istri pozimi popolnoma jasen.
Ga. Marijana Brecelj je takrat igrala v znani gledališki uspešnici » Balkanski špijon » g. Branka Đurića-Đure in odločil sem se, da jo posnamem v začetni sceni predstave skupaj s slovenskima igralcema g. Borisom Cavazzo in g. Janezom Hočevarjem-Rifletom.
Ker sem bil pri organiziranju sam, sem bil odvisen od časa in dobre volje Špas Teatra in nisem mogel izvesti zimskega snemanja in snemanja v gledališču vsega naenkrat, najprej sem lahko posnel zimo in šele kasneje, šele po poletnih počitnicah in čakanju na ponoven štart predstave, ko se je vse skupaj izšlo samo, se je našel en dan za to sekvenco z glavno igralko.
Vmesni čas sem lahko izkoristil le za montažo poletnega materiala skupaj z zimskim in za preizkus različnih verzij le-tega.
Ko sem vso zgodbo na tak način le rešil pred napako Kodaka in sem imel grobo montažo pripravljeno za ogled, mi je producent dejal, da je ves denar, tudi njegov 30% vložek iz pogodbe za moj film, skopnel.
Film sem v grobi montaži dal na ogled FSS in tedanji direktor sklada g. Filip Robar- Dorin je želel, da grobo montažo filma skrajšam, a sem to zavrnil.
Po pogodbi med FSS in producentom naj bi imel film le predvidenih 75 minut, ne pa striktnih, tako da je dolžina filma popolnoma moja stvar.
Sestanku je prisostvoval tudi producent in direktor je na mojo zavrnitev krajšanja dejal, da bo krajšati treba zato, ker je zmanjkalo denarja.
Zavarovalnine ni, odškodnine ni, nadomestnih sredstev sklad žal nima in še producentskega vložka ni več.
Pogledal sem producenta in ta je temu le tiho prikimal.
Producent v mesecih po tem sestanku ni za film delal več nič in zgodba s Kodakom se je končala kot sem opisal.
Ker so na FSS vztrajali na svojem glede krajšanja z razlogom denarja in ker producentu in njegovemu delu za film že dolgo nisem mogel več zaupati, sem se moral zdaj upreti temu, da je denarja zmanjkalo in se obrniti na Nadzorni svet in na g. Stojana Pelka s svojim izračunom porabljenih sredstev, saj sem lahko kljub dodatnim stroškom ves čas kontroliral enostavni S8mm postopek in kljub dejstvu, da kot režiser in avtor nisem nikoli dobil možnosti vpogleda v producentovo knjigo stroškov in v račune.
Po mojem bi moral biti producentov 30% vložek kljub vsemu še cel in da bi nujni stroški plus škoda vzeli ves vložek FSS sem tudi dvomil.
Po mojem izračunu sem porabil 100.000 Eur, 80.000 je bila res vsa škoda in to je bilo torej 180.000 Eur FSS vložka, 70.000 Eur producentovega, pa bi moralo biti še na voljo. Imel pa sem pravico še do najmanj 100.000 Eur dodatnih sredstev, ki jih za samo postprodukcijo dobi vsak slovenski film. Po izračunu sem imel za samo postprodukcijo čisto normalno še najmanj 250.000 Eur.
Na eni strani vse normalno za postprodukcijo, na drugi pa vse moje moralno-avtorske pravice prepuščene samo v roke države, ker me producent ni podprl.
G. Pelko se je le izognil vsem vprašanjem.
80.000 EUR škode zaradi Kodaka od 180.000 EUR vsega vložka FSS, izgubljene koprodukcije, možnosti ohranjenega producentovega deleža in členov 11. in 13. iz pogodbe med FSS in producentom sploh ni komentiral in je dejal le, da je o nekaterih vprašanjih glede tega projekta slišal že od drugod in da se ne more vmešavati v pogodbena razmerja med mano in producentom.
V ta se pa seveda res ne more vmešavati iz preprostega razloga, ker jih ni, 4.člen, s katerim izgubim vse materialne avtorske pravice in ohranim vse moralne.
G. Pelko, ki je danes državni sekretar za kulturo, se je torej 4.členu pogodbe med producentom in FSS s svojim odgovorom posmehnil, saj mu potem odnosa med FSS in producentom v nadaljevanju meni kot avtorju ni potrebno pojasnjevati, ker FSS z avtorjem nima nobene pogodbe.
Čakal sem na zamenjavo direktorja FSS, ki je bila takrat v teku, moral sem napisati predlog dokončanja filma v vsakem primeru in ga napisal glede na njegovo stanje in pod novo upravo za sanacijo dobil odobrenih 30. MIL. starih SIT in 10.000m FUJI materiala.
Ob 80.000 EUR škode iz izjave producenta in FSS je vsakomur takoj jasno, da bi moral film zopet ali krajšati, če bi s tem denarjem hotel plačati vse, kar je ostalo, povečavo, končno montažo, zvočno postprodukcijo, laboratorij, promocijo, distribucijo in honorarje, ali pa znova iskati koprodukcijo.
Uradno sem zahteval vse, kar mi pripada, a sem bil vseeno pripravljen sprejeti to državno odločitev, če zamenja producenta in če moram iskati koprodukcijo.
FSS pa se je s tem strinjal s pogojem, da bi novi producent le vstopil v že tekočo produkcijo oziroma nase nujno prevzel vso tekočo knjigo računov.
Nova uprava mi je takrat omogočila tudi vpogled v knjigo računov, našel sem take, ki k meni ne spadajo, a se uprava FSS po producentovem pojasnilu, ob katerem nisem bil prisoten, z mano ni strinjala.
Izhod sem iskal tudi na Ministrstvu za kulturo pri tedanji ministrici g. Rihter in ji razložil, da FSS špara s 35mm za začetne filme, ko bi moralo biti ravno obratno, a ona je ponovila odgovor g. Pelka in nenadno prepolovitev proračuna za moj film iz pogodbe med FSS in producentom utemeljila s tem, da je film po mnenju meni neznane strokovne komisije šibek in da sem s štipendijo že tako ali tako od države dobil zadosti denarja.
Vstopa novega producenta kot so ga predlagali na FSS ne bi storil noben resen producent in jaz ne morem od nikogar pričakovati, da bi zame karkoli tvegal, zato je bilo popolnoma nemogoče sprejeti 30. MIL. SIT in z njimi film dokončati v celoti brez krajšanja grobe montaže.
300m 35mm je deset minut filma.
20.000m povečave kot jo potrebujem, če že moram pozabiti na svojo začetniško avtorsko natančnost in če se, kot slovenski avtor, že prav moram ukvarjati s proračunom filma, stane s popustom 150.000 EUR, 10.000m kot so jih bili očitno pripravljeni povečati na FSS torej 80.000 EUR, če pa bi na primer povečal le 4500m, torej grobo montažo kot že končno, pa 40.000 EUR.
30. MIL. SIT oziroma 150.000 EUR za povečavo in za vse, kar še ostane, torej v nobenem primeru ne zadošča brez krajšanja filma takega kot je in prav noben dogovor, brez krajšanja, ni bil možen.
Postprodukcije nisem mogel začeti niti v primeru, da bi zopet delal z g. Hočevarjem, iskal koprodukcijo z njim in povečeval le koščke kadrov kot pri negativu 16mm, ker je FSS nameraval poleti 2003 izplačati 50.000 Eur, ostalo pa enkrat leta 2004, ker je to jasen znak katerikoli možni koprodukciji, da država filma ne podpira.
Nesmiselnost zahtevka po nujnosti golega vstopa novega producenta v tekočo produkcijo je v prvi vrsti zaprla možnost iskanja koprodukcije sploh in zato je ta zahtevek tako tendenco države v zvezi s tem filmom že pokazal.
Država je bila pripravljena pustiti film pri njenih danih 150.000 Eurih, kar pomeni, da bi ostal film ali nedokončan ali pa bi zopet moral biti krajšan, če bi hotel plačati vse potrebno.
In še, če bi le šel v povečavo v takih razmerah in bi se potem vse to zgodilo, ne bi imel povečanih nobenih rezervnih materialov in če bi hotel zdaj na primer film le prilagajati in ga krajšati, bi moral znova montirati na računalniku, metati ven in dodajati nove koščke za nove spoje in zopet bi potreboval denar za povečevanje zdaj le-teh.
Delitev 150.000 Eur na 50.000 Eur in na ostalo enkrat čez pol leta ni bila nikakor utemeljena, vodila pa je v popolno norost iz vseh pogledov.
Na tiskovno konferenco pa nisem mogel iti, ker v rokah nisem imel prav ničesar trdnega in ker bi država ob takem nespoštovanju pogodbe med FSS in producentom in ob takem ravnanju s filmi kot sem ga prikazal bila vedno sposobna tudi prirediti vse račune, če bi to bilo potrebno, da me prisili v krajšanje filma.
Hrana pri filmih, na primer, je strošek, ki ga lahko prikažeš z računi od koderkoli drugod.
Država bi z lahkoto odbila kakršenkoli možni press pritisk na podlagi argumentov denarja in na podlagi slabe ocene filma.
Članek, ki je poročal o razdelitvi denarja FSS za leti 2003/4 je že vseboval podcenjevalni ton nasproti mojemu filmu, saj je pisalo, da je 150.000 Eur že dodaten denar, ne pa nadomestni kot je bilo v resnici.
Poleg vsega tega pa državi za filme takrat ni manjkalo denarja, saj je v programu FSS za leti 2003/4 ponosno pisalo, da jim je po razrezanju cele torte ostalo prostih še približno 700.000 Eur.
Celotna odločitev je bila torej premalo denarja, onemogočenje vstopa kateregakoli drugega domačega producenta, slabo izhodišče za iskanje tujega in film bi lahko ostal nedokončan še celo v primeru, da bi ga hotel krajšati kasneje kot primer žal neuspelega eksperimenta s formatom, ki ga drugače uporabljamo za domačo rabo.
Finančna škoda ne bi bila tako velika in bi se vse samo pozabilo.
Ker bi denar sprejel, bi se razumelo, da mi je budget resnično ušel iz vajeti in pošiljanje filma kot dela v nastajanju na festivale, bi bilo isto kot iskanje koprodukcije, a zdaj z res zelo slabim izhodiščem, pred ali po iskanju koprodukcij, oboje isto.
Iti na festivale takoj takrat brez pojasnila glede producenta filma pa je za festivale pravno nesprejemljivo.
Edino, kar mi je zares preostalo, je bila ovadba na policiji in na Uradu za korupcijo, in policija je res zaplenila knjigo računov na FSS in lahko sem videl, da ves denar res še ni bil porabljen.
Producentov delež, za katerega sem mislil, da bi v vsakem primeru še moral biti, je bil prikazan z računi, ki ne spadajo v moj film.
Torej, z nasmehom, res, neupoštevanje tehnične škode in nujnost porabljenosti vsega denarja.
Na tiskovno še vedno nisem mogel, ker sem moral zdaj čakati na razvoj uradnega procesa, lahko sem javnosti podal le svojo izjavo o stanju filma in jo objavil na internetni strani narolki.4t.com.
FSS je potem po postopku zaradi nedokončanega filma tožil producenta g. Hočevarja, a brez argumenta računov, saj bi se tako zgodba končala še preden bi g. Hočevar tožil mene.
G. Hočevar me je tožil ob nezaključeni tožbi FSS proti njemu z razlogom, da trpi škodo zato, ker jaz nisem končal montaže, a sodišče ga je zavrnilo, ker dejanske škode še ni utrpel oziroma zato, ker tožba FSS, kot sem ravnokar dejal, še ni zaključena.
G. Hočevar je zahteval revizijo in jaz sem nanjo pristal s tem, da sem sodišču poslal jasen dokument, na katerem sam FSS piše, da želijo krajšanje in se s tem vmešavajo v moje moralne avtorske pravice na osnovi ogleda videokasete z mojim filmom.
Torej, g. Hočevarja pred FSS jaz nisem nikakor onemogočal, a se zdaj sodišče ni javilo nazaj, da bi revizijo odobrilo ali zavrnilo.
Poslal sem novo ovadbo na policijo in na Urad za korupcijo, policija me je ponovno zaslišala in predala svoje poročilo državnemu tožilstvu.
To je primer zavrnilo kot neutemeljen, v izjavi g. Pelka ne prepoznajo izogibanja odgovornosti in s tem korupcije in prava analiza računov sploh ni bila opravljena, ne s strani policije ne Računskega sodišča, kamor je Urad za korupcijo zadevo poslal že pred leti, a je ostala brez odgovora z njihove strani.
In računi niso v redu, če me policija na prvem sestanku ob knjigi računov ni poslala stran.
Zdaj v drugo pa na policiji knjige nismo niti odprli več.
Nedavno je g. Prodnik kot nov direktor uprave FSS, peti ali šesti v vrsti, ne vem več, želel, da mu dam DVD filma, ker se VHS videokasete po njegovih besedah ne da gledati, a kvaliteta slike je tu ista.
Da bi gledala originalne, nezmontirane posnetke na primer, se pa, kot sem razložil, pred povečavo ne sme.
V smislu dokončevanja filma brez krajšanja se do danes torej ni zgodilo še nič.
Poskusil sem vse možnosti dogovora in ves državni sistem, a od nobenega od vseh organov v bistvu sploh nisem dobil nobenega odgovora.
Gola neprijaznost domače konkurence ali pa priviligiranost producenta bi težko držala v šahu celo državo.
Zakaj?
Ker sem se po eni strani sem se z vsem tem rešil natolcevanja z denarjem, po drugi strani pa je še nastalo vprašanje zakaj vse to oziroma ali je imela zahteva FSS po krajšanju filma res kakšen razlog?
V filmu ni političnih vsebin, ki bi kompromitirale Slovenijo.
Je pa v njem nekaj, česar se zavedam od končanja grobe montaže dalje.
Zaradi mojega načina snemanja je s tem filmom popolnoma spontano, brez mojega vnaprejšnega načrtovanja le-te, nastala popolna prezentacija določenega naravnega pojava, ki se imenuje Ogledalo in ki že cela stoletja predstavlja trn v peti katoliški cerkvi in Vatikanu.
Moj film pa je prvi in edini film na svetu, ki ta naravni pojav v okviru filmskega medija prezentira v njegovi popolnosti.
FSS ni zahteval krajšanja filma v njegovi celoti, ampak samo v uvodnih sekvencah, v katerih se Zrcalo vzpostavi, postane očitno, nazorno in brez katerih, tako kot so, se Zrcala v nadaljevanju filma ne bi moglo več ne prepoznati ne mu slediti do samega konca filma.
Film je bil drugače v ostalih sekvencah po besedah tedanja direktorja sklada g. Dorina na tistem sestanku označen kot biserček ali cukrček, tega se ne spomnim več natančno.
Zrcalo je zrcalo, odsev nekoga ali nečesa, popolna prezentacija Zrcala pa je prikaz obojega naenkrat, tako obraza ali stvari in zraven še odseva le-tega.
Film se začne z gledališčem in z glavno igralko in ko se potem nadaljujejo kadri, ki jih je posnela z mano, opazimo, da se zgodba iz gledališča kar nadaljuje in da se pojavljajo isti liki, ki govorijo in počnejo iste stvari kot v gledališču. Obraz in odsev.
Iz načina snemanja pa se vidi, da je bilo popolnoma prepuščeno naključju oziroma da ljudje pred kamero niso imeli napisanega teksta, ampak govorijo, kar njim samim v tistem trenutku pade na pamet.
To, kar je edinstveno je, da še noben režiser ni uspel postopka snemanja slike in zvoka tako popolnoma prepustiti le toku naključnega dogajanja kot jaz in obenem in kljub temu vseeno ohraniti razumljivost in sledljivost. Popolnost oziroma nepretrganost odseva.
Ta nepretrganost odseva v času dveh ur in pol kolikor traja film pa je dokaz naravnosti pojava.
Naravnosti ne samo v času, ampak tudi v prostoru, saj kje drugje se naravno nepretrgani čas tega filma lahko odvija, če ne tudi v naravni nepretrganosti prostora kot je?
To, da sta si identični, kot boste videli na DVD-ju, še celo scenografija predstave in notranjost poletne hiše, v kateri smo snemali, ni več kot le podčrtanje pojava Zrcala v Naravi.
Za prvo predstavitev pojava na filmu v znanstvenem smislu je ta identičnost namreč nesprejemljiv podatek, ker je film kot tak tudi sam prostorski medij in ker se ga zato vedno da uporabiti za manipulacije s podatki o prostoru.
Obstoj Zrcala v prostoru bodo lahko ljudje na filmih jemali kot nekaj naravnega in nesimuliranega šele, ko bo Zrcalo najprej obče spoznano kot dejstvo v samem življenju, ko bodo ljudje najprej sami začeli opažati, da se odsev v življenju nadaljuje še celo v istosti izgleda prostorov od enega dogodka do drugega in da je to potem nekaj popolnoma normalnega tudi na filmih.
Krajšanje tega filma na samem začetku pomeni izničenje samega prikaza pojava, zmanjšanje njegove celotne minutaže pa izgubo argumenta o njegovem obstoju.
Noben znanstven dokaz kateregakoli pojava ne more biti več kot le določena prezentacija določenega pojava, zato izničenje tega pojava na tem filmu pomeni zaustavljanje procesa ozaveščanja ljudi o njem.
Uvodne sekvence so tri, dve daljši, Gledališče in Kavica, med njima pa ena kratka, Intervju.
Tega ali so na FSS omenili tudi krajšanje kratkega Intervjuja ali ne, se ne spomnim, a sem v napisih pred filmom na DVD zdaj namerno pustil napako, da ga v slovenskih napisih ne omenjam, v angleških podnapisih pa.
To sem storil kot cukrček za poznavalce. Nepoznavalci lahko to vzamejo za napako in gredo dalje, poznavalci pojava pa se lahko zamislijo in dobijo nekaj zanimivega.
V Intervjuju sem namreč vključen tudi jaz z glasom in s točno določenimi vnaprej pripravljenimi vprašanji, torej ne bi moglo iti v nobenem primeru za Ogledalo, ki je lahko le v čistem naključju ali pa ga ni, a če si predstavljaš, da je to bil sam začetek vsega snemanja, potem je prav neverjetno, kako točno sem postavljal tista svoja vprašanja kot da bi vnaprej vedel, kaj se bo dogajalo in kaj se bo posnelo.
Kot da bi vnaprej vedel, da se bo zgodba s stanovanji oziroma prostorom razvila prav do konca in dobila še obrat v zgodbo Zrcala v prostoru glede na čas in z identičnostjo scenografij obraza in odseva.
Ogledalo zna očitno odsevati tudi prihodnost. Zato je zanimivo, kako so na to sceno gledali na FSS.
Za Shakespeara se reče, da je uporabljal zrcaljenje iz scene v sceno kot svoj osnovni dramaturški princip in s tem iz komedije in tragedije sestavil tragikomedijo.
To ni točno. Točno bi bilo reči, da je Shakespeare zelo dobro poznal Zrcalo kot normalni naravni pojav in ga zato popolnoma razumljivo uporabljal pri opisovanju življenja v svojih knjigah.
Shakespeara se režira kot obraz, njegov odsev, nov obraz in nov odsev in tako do konca.
V resnici pa on ne uvaja samo novih in novih obrazov, ampak tudi sledi odsevu tako kot je v življenju, odsevu prvega obraza sledi kakor potuje skozi celo igro vse do zadnje scene.
To je velika razlika, taka kot je med statiko in dinamiko, a noben režiser še nikoli ni zrežiral niti ene njegove igre tako. Zakaj?
Prvič zato, ker Zrcalo ni obče ozaveščen naravni pojav, ampak le kot nek zanimiv dramaturški pristop, ki ga lahko uporabiš ali pa ne, in drugič zato, ker je bilo to ozaveščanje nekoč že prepovedano, prekinjeno, javno zamolčano in tako še do danes nevarno za vsakogar, ki bi ga hotel uporabiti z razmahom.
Shakespeare govori o tem sam. Zavedal se je, da je stvar napadena, pisal je o čarovnicah, pisal je o škratih in vilah, pisal je o prenekaterem zahbtnem umoru in napisal je Hamleta.
V prvem dejanju Hamlet prisili sošolca Horatia k zaobljubi, da bo molčal o tisti skrivnostni noči in ga v tretjem dejanju pokliče k sebi in mu reče naj budno pazi na reakcije njegovega strica med igro, saj lahko tako, kot neodvisni opazovalec, potrdi skrivnost, ki mu jo je zaupal Duh o smrti njegovega očeta. To mu reče in ga opazuje v obraz.
Horatio pa mirno odvrne, da bo pazil tako budno, da če mu karkoli uide, sam poplača. A kaj to slišimo od našega sošolca Horatia?
Če budno pazimo na odseve obrazov?
Ali pa na sence v našem primeru?
Nesmisel, čisti nesmisel, ker Hamlet ni Horatiu rekel nič o tem, kar je govoril Duh in Horatia, niti, da omenjam, takrat niti ni bilo zraven, ko se je Hamlet pogovarjal z Duhom.
O nobeni skrivnosti glede smrti Hamletovega očeta Horatio ne more vedeti ničesar, saj mu Hamlet nikoli ni povedal ali je bil Duh res duh umrlega očeta ali le kakšen dečko zavržen h kopanju v kleti, a vseeno pravi, da bo budno pazil.
Hamlet je še manj rekel karkoli o zastrupljanju očeta skozi ušesno votlino, a Horatiu je po igri vse kristalno jasno.
Hamlet si potem zaželi glasbe, veselja za ušesa, in igra se nadaljuje s slavno sceno o podlasicah na steni, pri kateri Horatio še vedno prisostvuje ne da bi karkoli rekel.
Je Shakespeare zdaj slab pisatelj in Horatio in Hamlet oba nesmiselna lika, ker Hamlet niti z očesom ne trepne na prijateljevo prelomljeno zaobljubo?
Shakespeare je vedel, da bodo njegov nesmisel raje igrali kot velik in globok človeški smisel kot pa po resnici.
Sledila je Inkvizicija, panika podgan v mišnici takorekoč, in poboj 8 milijonov moških, žensk in otrok, izginila je Shakespearjeva kultura in kultura njegovega jezika, ki je poznala Zrcalo in vedela kakšno je življenje, če Zrcalo poznaš.
Shakespearjeva zgodba o Hamletu pa vseeno lahko teče dalje ob eni domnevi, tej, da zna Horatio brati misli ali slišati ne da bi bil prisoten.
Da. Če ponovno preberemo ostala Shakespearjeva dela, lahko vidimo, da so take reči, danes bi jim rekli astralno življenje, pri njem nekaj čisto običajnega.
Če samo omenim Macbetha, njegovo videnje duha mrtvega Banqua ali njegove vizije noža, ki se kar znajde v njegovi roki, medtem ko Lady Macbeth v temi čaka na dobro novico in ki na koncu znori tudi sama polna vizij.
Ogledalo v Naravi pomeni, da Človek vidi Zunaj odsev cele svoje Duše in zato je Ogledalo praktično zelo uporabna stvar, saj se z njim lahko orientiraš v Sebi in v Svetu.
Branje misli pa je nevarno in mora zato biti pod strogim nadzorom.
A kaj se zgodi, če daš ti dve stvari skupaj?
Če je Ogledalo naš popoln odsev v prostoru, potem ni nobenega problema za odprto, javno in vseobče življenje vseh ljudi v astralu v popolni slišnosti vseh naših misli v času in v prostoru kjerkoli že smo.
Oziroma, če to obrnemo na glavo, če Zrcalo umaknemo, potem imamo vsak razlog za striktno nadzorovanje ljudi in za pošteno pretipanje vsakogar preden komurkoli odpremo Tretje Oko.
Spet zelo uporabno. To je Vatikanov Raj, za moje pojme pa Pekel na Zemlji.
Vatikan je od Renesanse dalje prisoten v vseh deželah sveta, vsaka kultura pa, ko je prava in iskrena, še vedno prikaže svoje Zrcalo, ki ga je Vatikan takrat kot naravni pojav umaknil stran.
Zato sta tako interes kot možnost Vatikana, da se od takrat do danes vmešava v kulturno dogajanje povsod po svetu samo logična.
Pri nas je to majhna in enostavna slika, kmetija, gostilna, šola, cerkev, pokopališče, travnik, gozd in polje, oziroma vprašanje, ali bo fajmošter izrinil učitelja iz gostilne?
Ob celotnem postopku produkcije tega posnetka, ki je kadarkoli preverljiv s strani karegakoli drugega avtorja, je dobra vidljivost na nezrežiranost posamičnih reakcij ljudi pred kamero, na celotni tok njihovih medsebojnih odnosov in na obnašanje svetlobe v prostoru ostala kot edina nitka, za katero bi se skeptiki pojava Ogledala v Naravi na tem filmu lahko držali.
Iz tega razloga so napisi pred filmom na njegovi sedanji digitalni verziji nujni, v primeru povečave in končne montaže na dobro vidni 35mm sliki kot bi morala biti narejena po vseh normalnih standardih, pa bi ti prednapisi postali nepotrebni.
Vabim Vas k ogledu filma » Nemir » kot se je imenoval od vsega začetka, na spletni strani pa sta Tragedija Dr. Fausta in Hamlet v moji transkripciji originalov in dokumenti, iz katerih v končni fazi zdaj nastaja vprašanje ali niso vsa biznisiranja na račun umetnika v Sloveniji, neobstoj pravnih podlag za avtorje, neobstoj privatnega kapitala v slovenski kulturi, itd., itd., vsa vpliv fajmoštra na življenje v tako majhni vasi kot je Slovenija?
V mojem primeru so bile vse luknje našega sistema uporabljene v fajmoštrovo korist.
Iz slovenskega filma so izginjale cele generacije možnih bodočih filmarjev, zgodb takšnih in drugačnih iz vseh ravni našega kulturnega življenja je vse polno, spontani tok duha in narave sta osnovi za vso umetnost, sploh pa filma, in take dokumentacije dialoga s pristojnimi organi, kot Vam jo predlagam, ni.
Ta dokumentacija je dokaz, da v Sloveniji svobode govora ni niti v najmanjši meri.
Iz nje izpostavljam g. Pelka zaradi izogibanja odgovornosti z uporabo Horatijeve šale in Otona Župančiča, katerega prevod Hamleta me je navedel na raziskavo originala v prvem koraku.
Prevod zdrži original do njegovega zadnjega odtenka.
In to ne glede na Shakespearjev manjši urok, recimo, da zadnjo besedo o Hamletu zopet prepusti Horatiu.
Kljub dvomljivim možnostim sem koprodukcijo vseeno iskal, pri ameriškem režiserju g. Davidu Lynchu, ko se je mudil na Poljskem, ker je v filmu » Mulholland Drive », ki ga je takrat naredil, govoril o glasbi, ki igra sama, to je brez orkestra.
Odnesel sem mu film, a mi ni odgovoril.
» Notranje kraljestvo » ali » Notranje zadeve » kot se je pri nas imenoval njegov naslednji film je po njegovi izjavi posnet brez scenarija.
A v filmu nima ničesar, kar bi mu narekovalo scenarij, ki ga sam ni napisal, tako kot je to pri meni bil dan, točno določen razvoj medsebojnega spoznavanja ljudi neposredno pred kamero.
Če v filmu nimaš ničesar, kar jasno in vidno na samem filmu narekuje zgodbo popolnoma neodvisno od tebe, potem ne moreš z ničemer dokazati, da nisi imel scenarija na skrivaj napisanega pred ali med snemanjem.
Če imaš v filmu posnet jasen in viden izvor nareka zgodbe, potem ga z nobeno montažo ne moreš več izbrisati, z montažo se potem lahko samo vključiš v dialog s tem narekom ali pa poškoduješ celo zgodbo, to pa se potem v vsakem primeru vidi.
Pri meni vidiš začetek in končno ustalitev odnosa in zato lahko sam odmeriš resničnost vsega, kar je v filmu vmes ne glede na mojo montažo.
G. Lynch ima v filmu le igralce in neko fiktivno zgodbo, s tem pa si je možno na snemanju zmišljevati prav karkoli in te nič ne sili nepreklicno samo v določeno smer, ki jo moraš vzeti ali pustiti.
Scenarija zato morda res ni napisal za mizo, ga je pa zagotovo na snemanju, ker, kot sem dejal, z igralci kot takimi in s fiktivno zgodbo si vedno samo nekaj zmišljuješ, isto kot to počneš, ko sam pišeš scenarij.
Njegov film se tudi ni oblikoval v aristotelovsko zgodbo z začetkom in koncem, ampak v fragmente, se pravi, da se njegovo snemanje brez scenarija ni razvilo v scenarij, kar je edino smiselno ali pa je vse skupaj brez veze. Če se ti to zgodi na snemanju brez scenarija, potem je edino pošteno zapakirati material nazaj v škatle za nadaljni razmislek, ne pa reči, da je to film, le da je brez scenarija.
Naslednjič je bolje nekaj napisati in to lepo pridno posneti.
G. Lynch je snemal z digitalno kamero, kar je najslabša od vseh možnih izbir za snemanje filma brez scenarija, ker digitalna slika tehnično nikoli ne bo paralela naključju kot je to filmski trak s kemičnimi reakcijami na svetlobo, ki so vedno nepredvidljive ne glede na standardiziranost izdelanega in v škatle spravljenega filmskega traku.
Digitalna slika s svojim 1-0 zapisom bo vedno le neko povprečje dogodkov, ne pa naključje.
S pristopom kot ga je ubral, Ogledala na njegovem filmu ni niti na 1 kvadratnem milimetru platna, kar je dosežek svoje vrste.
Ogledalo je pri njem glede na fragmentarnost razbito na kosce in steklo glede na digitalni zapis presnovljeno.
Težko verjamem, da se g. David Lynch ne bi zavedal, kaj je to pravi film brez scenarija, zato ubiranje prav nasprotnega v vsem štejem za prvo točko njegovega neobstoječega scenarija.
Da se ob tem zgodi še uničenje Zrcala pa je zanimiv primer t.i. kolateralne škode, če naj bi mu verjel.
In naključje je tu to, da se to dogaja po mojem filmu, ki ga je videl.
V primeru diskusije o Ogledalu bi lahko zdaj, po dani izjavi g. Davida Lyncha, kdorkoli izpostavil njegov film » Notranje zadeve » kot primer, kako se da izdelati Ogledalo.
To bi potem bilo isto kot če jaz ne bi naredil ničesar, saj bi nekdo trdil, da je izdelava okvirja in odsevne površine za Ogledalo čisto isto kot slikanje slike na platno in da med našo sliko v Ogledalu in našo sliko na slikarskem avtoportretu kot tako ni nobene razlike.
Preobrat mojih pointov v nasprotje, uporaba različnih pogojev in moj film in celotna kariera na izbrisu. Ne eno, ampak že štiri naključna naključja.
Po ogledu filma » Notranje zadeve » ali » Notranje kraljestvo », odvisno na katerem kontinentu ga greš gledat, dvomim tudi o njegovem filmu » Mulholland Drive ».
Za le-tega g. Lynch ne trdi, da je narejen brez scenarija, a zdaj poseduje moje pismo, v katerem pravim jaz sam, da sta najina filma zrcalni podobi.
Ta film je začel pripravljati leta 1999, isto kot jaz, delal ga je popolnoma paralelno z mano, le končal ga je pred mano.
Ob tem pa bi lahko g. Lynch čisto normalno vedel zame.
» V tišini sobe » je dobil dve veliki nagradi na Poljskem in sam po sebi je nekaj posebnega, saj kaže na nek mlad talent, ki zna v samo 6 minutah in pol posneti celo dramo z vsem, kar v dramo po Aristotelu sodi.
Lahko si velik talent, a tako velik talent je res velika redkost.
Opazil me je Andrzej Wajda in noben zmagovalni študentski film ne gre mimo ne da bi ga poznali vsi največji svetovni profesionalci, tako kot je to v nogometu ali pri košarki.
Takoj z naslednjim filmom » Nathalie! », ki sem ga delal na šoli in prav tako po sliki, pa sem prekoračil še mejo med filmom kot dramo in začel delati Ogledalo.
Glede na njegovo knjigo » Loviti velike ribe » slišnost prostora za g. Lyncha ni nobena novost, saj se z meditacijo ukvarja, kot piše, že približno trideset let.
V vsakem primeru ostaja zame vprašanje, zakaj se je moral zlagati, da je posnel film brez scenarija.
Ta izjava in » Notranje zadeve » sta zelo koristna za skeptike Ogledala v Naravi, saj jim dajeta možnost debatiranja in nevedenja ničesar o različnih pogojih.
Najboljša knjiga, kar jih poznam sam o vseh omenjenih pojavih, je v slovenščino prevedeni roman Thomasa Pynchona » Mavrica težnosti », ki predstavlja zgodovinsko-geografski presek skozi zgodbo naključij od renesanse vse do danes s poudarkom na čas bombardiranja Londona med 2. svetovno vojno in to tako, da pusti odsevanju ene stvari na drugo popolnoma prosto pot.
Te reči so mnogo bolj resne kot se zdijo.
Nepomembne pa se zdijo le zaradi naše neozaveščenosti, kaj bi z Zrcalom lahko bili in kako revni smo v resnici zdaj, ko nam je prepovedano.
Kdor vzame v roko Pynchonovo knjigo in jo samo preleti s prelistanjem, se bo začudil, kako natančno čas Londona med 2. svetovno vojno odseva na primer današnjo recesijo in občutke ljudi v njej in se vprašal, kako je to mogoče?
Tako knjigo lahko napiše samo nekdo, ki se dobesedno sprehaja po Mavrici.
In kdor se zna sprehajati po Mavrici, zna preživeti tudi takšne čase kot so danes.
In še več, mnogo več.
Če veš na primer to, da je nekoč na polju začela kositi Smrt in da je od takrat od tam nismo pregnali, potem lahko vidiš, da je z vojno v Iraku Smrt izgubila koso v pesku, a da je niti ne bo potrebovala, če bo polje samo prepustila plevelu, ko bo znova raslo.
Obubožanje večine ljudi po svetu je namen, ne pa težko obvladljiva težava.
Če bi bilo vse v redu, bi vsi, ki so izgubili službe, dobivali denar za mesečno življenje zato, da bi na ta način pomagali vsem ostalim ohranjati pretok denarja.
To, kar je dobrega v tej verziji prihodnosti kot nam je dana je, da niti Smrt ne bo mogla hoditi po polju lepa kot majska deklica, ker ne bo cvetlic, ki bi ji lahko krasile glavo.
To, kar slišimo, da iščejo svetovni voditelji kot nov princip, po katerim bi se lahko ravnala in živela taka družba kot je naša globalna, je samo Ogledalo, drugega pa nič.
V tej smeri je, kot vemo, iskal že bivši predsednik g. Janez Drnovšek in morda se odločite s to potjo nadaljevati tudi Vi.
Klasične premiere žal ne morem organizirati in Vas povabiti, ker je kakorkoli že produkcija pravno nerazrešena oziroma zamrznjena.
Zaradi tukaj objavljene vsebine filma še vedno ni čas za tiskovno konferenco, dati moram le drugo izjavo.
Ker se to pismo Vam tiče vseh socialno-komunikacijskih slojev ob tem, da mora biti podano v dolžini kot je, sem se odločil za to vrsto njegove objave, preko interneta in obvestila časopisom.
Upam, da me boste razumeli.
Pismo je skupaj z dokumentacijo objavljeno na www.narolki.4t.com, film pa se da pogledati na www.watch-movie-online.net/unrest/.
Objavljena dokumentacija ne obsega mojih prijav, odgovorov policije, Urada za korupcijo in Državnega tožilstva, ker je film še vedno na sodišču in ker ima Državno tožilstvo vse dokumente pri sebi.
Objavljena je vsa dokumentacija tožbe g. Hočevarja proti meni z Okrožnega in Višjega sodišča, pogodba med FSS in producentom, reklamacija, pisma in priznanje Kodaka, odgovor g. Pelka, g. Jovanovića, go. Rihter, go. Jurič glede vstopa novega producenta, predračun povečave, moj predlog dokončanja filma iz leta 2003, program FSS za leti 2003/4, moja prva uradna izjava skupaj z omembo podcenjevalnega članka, tekst napisov pred filmom in nagrade za film » V tišini sobe ».
Film je na voljo tudi kot darilo na DVD z ovitkom, ki podaja vse informacije in obvešča o odprtem pismu Vam na spletni strani.
Po seznanjenju gledalcev z vsebino odprtega pisma bom organiziral projekciji filma v Istri in Ljubljani.
Septembra je v Benetkah MOSTRA in film sem poslal na filmski festival.
Predsednik festivala g. Marco Mueller je voljan pripeljati tudi filme s cenzorskimi problemi in če dobim nagrado, potem bo morda to koprodukcija, ki sem jo dobil brez spremstva države in brez producenta.
G. Muellerju sem poleg pisma Vam poslal še bolj specifično pojasnilo glede Ogledala na mojem filmu in to pojasnilo je prav tako med dokumentacijo na spletni strani.
Film je narejen za gledanje na velikem platnu, ne na TV ekranu.
Slika je zdaj seveda bolj razločna na monitorju, a film lahko zares začutiš šele na velikem platnu, čeprav sta slika in zvok kot sem dejal čisto na spodnjem robu sprejemljivosti.
Zaradi osnovnega formata in zaradi drugačnega pristopa kot pri večini filmov pa sprejemaš ga že zdaj.
Same Istre se v filmu zdaj, ker ni barv in zvoka kot je treba, ne čuti, ampak samo razume.
Z barvo in zvokom na tem filmu gledalec ne bi gledal Istre, ampak bi tam bil ne glede na to, kje bi se film predvajal.
Včeraj, 30.5.2009, sem prejel vabilo sodišča, da 2.9.2009 pridem kot priča v primeru SSFF proti g. Hočevarju zaradi 143.000 Eur, ki jih je za moj film prejel na svoj račun. Vabilo je prišlo v moj poštni nabiralnik kot obvestilo, da dvignem pismo na pošti 29.5.2009, istega dne kot sem izpolnil elektronski formular prijave na izbor za MOSTRO.
Njihov primer se je začel leta 2005, čakal na tožbo g. Hočevarja proti meni in na njen izzid, zdaj so začeli skrbeti za denar, za sam film pa še vedno ne.
V primerih kot je moj bi se moralo obravnavati zadeve denarja in sam film ločeno, a žal ni tako.
Vabilo na sodišče in email MOSTRE, da so prejeli mojo prijavo na izbor, sta prav tako v dokumentaciji.
Ovitek vsebuje še DVD s filmoma » V tišini sobe » in » Nathalie! », ki sem ga dokončal prav pred diplomo leta 1997 in ga nisem pošiljal po festivalih, ker sem si moral z vrnitvijo domov reorganizirati življenje in ker sem počasi že začel dobivati idejo za naslednji film po sliki in z njim sestaviti resnični niz, ki bi skupaj govoril o odnosu slike in časa.
Zdaj so tu tako trije filmi s tremi različnimi osnovnimi pristopi k dani temi in ker vsi trije dosegajo isti rezultat, je Ogledalo, ki ga zdaj poznam kot naravni pojav, prikazano še po tej strani in za nazaj.
Če se bo v javnosti na moje pismo pojavila katerakoli reakcija, na katero ne bom odgovoril, pomeni, da smatram, da je odgovor že zaobsežen v pismu.
Drugače pa bodo moji odgovori na dani spletni strani.
G. predsednik dr. Danilo Turk, najlepše se Vam zahvaljujem za Vaš posluh,
mag. Andrej Žumbergar
V Ljubljani, 31.5.2009
Dear President of Republic of Slovenia dr. Danilo Tuerk!
I am a movie director. I have graduated at FAMU in Prague in the year 1997. I have studied with scholarship of Ministery of culture of Slovenia, which I have got on a public advertisment of Ministery of culture for studying movie direction abroad, in Prague, in the year 1989. The advertisment by itself was unusual.
There was student exchange between ex-socialistic republics, but Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had just ended it. It was unusual that Yugoslavia was straight ready to pay for the studies instead. The second thing that was unusual on the advertisment was that it was meant only for studying movie direction. None of slovenian students had not used the former exchange for studying movie direction.
So, the advertisment was intentionally looking for getting a profesionally schooled director, who could bring some new seeds to home ground.
I got to know about the advertisment a week over due, but I was let to sign in my application anyway. I was the third year of Secondary School Poljane at the time and I was only a movie beginner, I was surely the youngest and the least experienced candidate, yet I was chosen as the first and the best one nevertheless.
This only underlines the clear intention of the state at the time to find a candidate, who was not under influence of environment in any way. The costs of studies were 10.000 USD per year, 5000 for the school, 5000 for the life.
With a short FAMU movie » In the quiet of a chamber » I won several european student festivals, but the award that means the most to me is Grand Prix in Krakow since the jury was presided by Mr. Andrzej Wajda. I brought the movie to TV Slovenia to show it so that as many people as possible could see it, but it was never shown, at least not to my knowledge.
Because of the scholarship and because of the awards I have returned to already independant Slovenia by the time with automatic right to make my first long feature movie or better say, with duty of Slovenian State Film Fund ( SSFF ) to make it happen.
When in the year 1999 my script was accepted by SSFF, there was a new rule going on, a rule by which all long feature debut movies should be made in low budget production. This in fact meant that one couldn't shoot on usual 35mm and in the conditions given for that format, but on 16 or Super 16mm, which are then blown up after the final cut. That's the way how » Idle Run » and » Bread and Milk » were produced.
This procedure in low production is non-sense by itself, since low budget scripts are reduced to actors and lowest cost conditions in any case.
Especially so, if a good movie comes out, because when it's shown to the world people ask themselves, why the picture is different than with other movies.
My script did not need neither 35 nor 16mm, but Super 8mm format, Kodachrome S8mm more precisely, which we had been using for family shots before video and digital and which has its own branch of professional use.
Its blow up is costlier, because with the stock you don't get negative like on 16 or 35mm, but only direct positive and because it is smaller and more vulnerable one has to blow up whole shots as they were taken not just the bits chosen on computer for edit.
One can't run the original material through projector so to keep it perfectly clean and safe and so one edits the movie with only aproximate feeling of the image. Because of that one has to prepare also reserve scenes and materials for the final cut on 35mm as well as the rough cut itself.
But since all the rest of organisation is so much more simplier than 35 or 16mm, the price of rushes is included in the stock price for example, my script found itself in the given limits.
The image after the blow up is very expressive due to the big contrast between the formats and due to the strong colours of Kodachrome S8mm, it has an expression, which the 16mm blow up completely lacks.
Script was written upon an impressionist painting by Edvard Munch » Lady on verandah » so you may imagine the image after the blow up from S8mm ahead.
With this script I was continuing things that I had already been doing before, since » In the quiet of a chamber » had been based upon a Munch painting as well, I just chose the completely opposite approach.
Instead of classically built fiction of time and space and characters I intended to try out unrepeatable flow of time as it is given us in Nature upon a fiction that is just given ahead of shooting, on Munch's painting, which you see at the start of the movie and then you watch how it is going to happen in Nature in front of the camera, if it will at all, of course.
I wanted to check out, if I see the illusion of the painting on the right, concrete woman, on slovenian film and theatre actress Mrs. Marijana Brecelj ( » Under her window » ), so I let the coincidences take the control of everything and to grab that by the horns I have shot her in the company of some people which she knew and with somebody, whom she saw for the first time just in front of the camera and did not have much chances to cover unexpected reactions from her side in that way.
And around that I have framed the basic story of the movie, a meeting of people, who see each other in the given constellation for the first and probably the last time on that one summer day in a little village of Slovenian Istria.
S8mm was formally the best choice for that particular content.
Problems started to arise right with the preparations. Because they knew me well in Prague, I had a chance to get a co-production with Czech Ministery of culture, not in money, but in all their sound and labs postproduction service, which is even better than money, but slovenian producer Mr. Danijel Hočevar did not react to e-mails of Czech co-producer Mr. Rychard Nemec and so in the days, when the papers should be arranged and signed, the co-production chance was missed.
I was fully employed on the preparation of the location and in contact with the producer, he said nothing to me and Czech side naturally did not consider us serious. From this point on I understood that I have no ally in my producer and more, that it has to be this way since everybody including students of slovenian film academy worked with that producer on their debuts.
Next thing happened on the first shooting day, a thing that is not unusual for movie making, but it has appeared to me as such, unusual, when I later analysed it.
Right in the mean time, when we have finnished camera tests and started shooting, Kodak changed the traditional, a few decades functional patent of Kodachrome S8mm cassetes and replaced a detail in their coinstruction for something else.
Without massively informing anybody about it. Stock did not run properly out from the cassete to the camera, it was jumping, so the fourth day, when I saw the first telecined rushes, I had to break the shooting for a few days, because the picture itself was jumping, perfectly unexpectedly from time to time without any rule. They went looking for other cassetes in their depots, which means that Kodak was not prepared for any unforseen situation that might occur due to the change.
We eventually received new or old cassetes, but I had to break the shooting again after ten days, because the cassetes have ruined the mechanism of camera as well and it had to return to its constructor for repairation.
I was missing conclusion for two roles out of four of them altogether, but luckily for the story, the role of the stranger was completed with technically valid image.
It was end of August 2000 and I used the autumn to check and organise the shots and to prepare a possible end of the rest of the roles in the winter time as their memory on the summer together and so to have the possibility to choose the actual endings of the roles in the final cut.
Breaks are usual in movie making. The unusual thing is that I was told only at that time that the movie was not insured at all and more over, that neither producer nor SSFF do not intend to make any effort to get a compensation from Kodak, although the official represantative of Kodak in Austria admitted their mistake and that SSFF does not intend to take the costs that have arised from the mistake as an example of Higher Force, which stands written as 13. particle of the contract between producer and SSFF nor as substancionally changed circumstance from the 11th particle of the contract due to unreplacability of the shots of the particular movie.
It was me, who was writing to Kodak, saying that due to their mistake and the entirely spontaneous nature of my script I had to write it anew and shoot completely new scenes, because I could not repeat scenes. I made it clear that their mistake in a detail almost buried my movie.
SSFF wrote just an accompanying letter to mine and it said, I'm translating it from Slovene: » Producer was, of course, forced to repeat the shooting of all the scenes, which were shot on defected stock. As to producer's statement the costs that have arisen additionally are about 80.000 Euros. »
80.000 Euros of damage for which precise estimation SSFF has never made the effort to the present day and a statement, which is completely the opposite to mine.
According to the 3rd particle of the contract must the producer add a content report about the movie's progress to the financial one before every new installment of state money on the producer's personal bank account, but this has never happened, if SSFF obviously was not aware even of the basic thing of this movie, one time shots only, and that one can only shoot something new in relation to what one has already got or just throw everything away.
In the case that SSFF knew very well about that nevertheless then this statement means intentional lessening of the damage down from the chance of total collapse to usual need of re-inscenation as one was able to grasp it all also from the accompanying letter of the producer Mr. Hočevar himself:
» Due to the unpleasant situation, in which we found ourselves because of the technical difficulties, caused by the improper Super 8 stock, we spent the whole budget of the film for repeating/replacing the improper scenes and finnishing the shooting. »
The producer was misty and SSFF turned the direction completely around.
Producer's letter is dated 22.5.2002, the letter of SSFF 28.5.2002 and mine just one day later, 29.5.2002, which means that I should compose my letter in one day. This is absurd that shows that the producer and SSFF were writing their letters with mine in hands.
Kodak gave me an offer that by no means corresponded to the damage, 2000 USD and two types of their stock for blowing up in the length of 4500m as their sponsorship for me to finnish the movie and I replied in hope that the state would take over now, but it did not, nor the state nor the producer wrote no more letters to Kodak.
Because there is no contract between me and SSFF and because the state can re-start the procedure against Kodak whenever still I took Kodak's offer to me.
The offer of Kodak to me does not concern any particle of the contract between SSFF and producer, because in that contract there is not even a word about possible techical damages that might occur during production.
Letters of SSFF and the producers have broken the 27th particle of their contract, because they haven't acted in the good faith for the movie.
I am not the first neither the second party of the contract, the offer is not handing the rights over to third party and the due date of finnishing the movie was already prolongued.
In good faith one could easily accept the trouble as Higher Force or as substancionally changed circumstance, but even if that was actually the case, the offer of Kodak to me would not be touching their contract, because, as I have said, this is no handing the rights over to third party.
As to the 4th particle of the contract an author in Slovenia must sign to producer an agreement with which the author agrees to loose all the material rights and keep only the moral ones and that is acceptable and understandable, because the money is 70-80% the money of tax-payers and only 20-30% of it is the producer's share.
Kodak's sponsoring me to finnish the movie, not specifically for the blow up, is thereby Kodak's pay for my moral rights damaged by their technical mishap.
How come that slovenian state contract for a movie does not include one word for the most usual of all troubles with movies, the technical mishaps?
Why the movies in Slovenia don't happen to be insured in whatever way, like in one pack all together, for example?
How come that author work and even a whole career of an author may hang on a simple techical damage?
In some presumably civilised country in the middle of Europe and on the start of 21. century?
The offer was poor and the given stock was there just to throw it away, because it spoils, if not kept right, because it is bought, if already, in greater quantaties than given to me, 4500m, for example, corresponded to my needs exactly to the milimeter, which is complete nonsense, short movies that need precisely that stock are not shot on daily basis, the stock is not made for shooting as such and for the blow up I needed FUJI stock actually and not Kodak at all.
They were all aware of all that, Kodak, Slovenia and the producer, otherwise such an offer to me could never be possible.
The same as the state also the rest of the authors of this movie can still go and pursue their compensation of their moral rights from Kodak.
Because of the jump of the story ahead to winter time, I had to shoot the actress also in the theatre on stage to show her working and to make the reason of her coming back to her summer house thereby perfectly clear.
Mrs. Marijana Brecelj was acting at the time in a theatre hit » The Balcan Spy » in the direction of Mr. Branko Đurić- Đuro and I decided to shoot the opening scene of the piece together with known slovenian actors Mr. Boris Cavazza and Mr. Janez Hočevar- Rifle.
Since I had to organise all by myself, I depended on the time and good will of Špas Theatre and I was not able to realise the winter shooting in correspondance with theatre shooting as well, I just had to do first the winter only and wait for theatre after summer and after the start of the new season, when it all came together just by itself.
The mean time I was able to use only for editing of the summer together with the winter now and to try different versions of this.
When I saved the story from Kodak's mishap finally and had the rough cut finnished, the producer told me that the money is all gone, his share as well.
I showed the movie in the rough cut to SSFF and its director at the time Mr. Filip Robar- Dorin wanted me to make the rough cut shorter, which I refused.
According to the contract between SSFF and the producer the movie was to have supposed 75 minutes, but ony supposed, not strict, so the decision of its length is in any case all just mine.
The meeting was attended by the producer as well and the director of SSFF replied to me that I would have to shorten the movie since the money is gone.
There's no insurance, no compensation, regretfully no spare money in the fond and producer's share is gone.
I looked at the producer and he nodded silently.
In the months after this meeting the producer stopped working for this movie and the story with Kodak took its end as I have described.
Because SSFF insisted on shortening of the movie on the money ground on and because I could not trust the producer and his work for a long time I had to oppose the total loss of money now and turn to the Controlling Body of SSFF as it is called in Slovenia and on Mr. Stojan Pelko as its president at the time with my calculation of the costs, since I was able to control the costs of the procedure despite damage and despite having had no admission to look in the producer's book of costs as the author at any time.
As to me the producer's share should still be untouched despite everything and I did not believe that all the money of the state was spent neither.
As to my calculation I have spent altogether 100.000 Eur, 80.000 Eur was really the whole damage, so that was 180.000 Eur of SSFF's share and 70.000 Eur of the producer's share should still be all free. I was even entitled to at least 100.000 Eur still as additional money that each slovenian movie gets, when it goes for postproduction. So, I should still have at least 250.000 Eur normally available for my movie in postproduction.
One one hand everything normal for postproduction and on the other all my moral rights left just to the hands of the state, because the producer didn't support me.
Mr. Pelko just avoided all the questions.
He did not comment nothing, not 80.000 Eur of damage out of 180.000 Eur of all SSFF's share, not the lost co-production, not the 11th or the 13th particle, he reserved himself to saying that he had heard about the project from some other sources and that he cannot mix himself into contracting relations between me and the producer.
Which is true since there are none, as to the 4th particle I have no material rights.
Mr. Pelko, who is slovenian secretary at the Ministery of culture today, has in fact laughed the slovenian way of making movies out, because there is no contract between an author and the state and because he does not hold any responsibility therefore.
I waited for replacement of the directors of the SSFF, which was going on at the time, I had to write my plan for finnishing the movie in any case and I wrote it as to its state and under the new director I was offered 150.000 Eur and 10.000m of FUJI stock.
With 80.000 Eur of damage from the producer's and state's statements in mind, it is clear to anyone that I was again pushed either to cut the movie shorter, if I wanted to pay all that was remaining with that money, the blow up, final cut, sound postproduction, labs, promotion, distribution and pay the authors or I should again look for a co-production.
I have officially demanded all that belonged to me, yet I was even ready to accept the state's decision, but with the replacement of the producer for some other one, if I was to look for a co-production.
SSFF agreed with the replacement of the producers under the condition that the new producer should necessarily just enter into the already running production and take over all the bills for the movie as they are in the book of costs as it is.
The new director of SSFF Mr. Sašo Jovanović had also opened the book for me at the time and I found bills that I could not relate to my movie, but the new director in the end listened to the producer's explanation and did not confront us both together over the book.
I was looking for an exit from the situation also with the minister of culture Mrs. Andreja Rihter at the time and I explained to her that the state is saving money on debut movies, when it should be just opposite, but she repeated Mr. Pelko's answer and grounded the sudden cut of my budget to half less with informing me that some expert jury unknown to me had evaluated my movie weak and that I had received enough money from the state with the scholarship already.
No serious new producer would not make the entry into the postproduction as it was demanded by SSFF and I cannot expect nobody to risk anything for me, so there was no way for me to take 150.000 Euros and try to finnish the movie without shortening the movie.
300m of 35mm is 10 minutes of movie.
20.000m of blow up as I need it, if I am already forced to forget my beginner's precision and if I, as a slovenian author, just must deal with the movie's budget, costs with discount 150.000 Eur, 10.000m as SSFF was obviously ready to see then 80.000 Eur and in the case that I blew only 4500m up, the rough cut as the final one that is, so 40.000 Euros.
150.000 Euros without shortening do not finnish the movie in all and there was no agreement possible.
I was not able to start the postproduction even in the case that I agreed to work with Mr. Hočevar on, look for a co-production with him and blow up only pieces of shots as with 16mm negative, because SSFF planned to give first just 50.000 Eur in the summer of 2003 and the rest only some times in the following year of 2004, since this is a clear sign to any possible co-producer that the state is not convinced or standing behind this movie.
The mentioned non logical demand for any new producer's way of entering into the postproduction has closed the clear way of searching any new co-production in the first place, so such tendency of the state for that movie was being only pursued on. The state was ready to leave the movie with its 150.000 Euros only, which means that it either remains unfinnished or it has to be cut in its length again to pay it all with the money.
And more, if I went for blow up in such circumstances and then all this happened, I would have no reserve materials blown up and if I wanted to cut and adjust the movie now, for example, I would have to edit on computer again, throw things out and put in new bits for new edits and I would need money again to blow up these now.
Splitting of 150.000 Euros on 50.000 and the rest sometimes after half a year was not argumented anyhow and it was leading into complete insanity from all views.
To call a press conference had no sense neither, because I did not hold anything firm in my hands and because the state was always able to do whatever with the bills, if all what I have described until now was possible.
Food on movies, for example, is a cost that you can show with bills from wherever else.
The state could stand the press of any press no problem and go on demanding the shortening of the movie on money basis and on the bad evaluation easily.
An article of a journalist with the discrediting tone upon the occasion of informing the public about giving me 150.000 Euros pointed that out at the time as well. The journalist said that 150.000 Euros was already additional money, when it was in fact replacing.
And moreover, the state was not short of money at the time, since some 700.000 Euros remained free after all the cutting of the cake as SSFF's programme for 2003/4 was saying proudly itself.
The whole decision then was not enough money, impossible entry of any new home producer, bad credit card for looking any foreign one and the movie could remain unfinnished even in the case of my shortening it like an example of a miscarried experiment with a format, which is usually used for amateur needs.
Financial loss wouldn't be that big and all would be forgotten.
And because the offered sum of money was taken, one would understand that the director truly misjudged the budget.
Sending of the movie to the festivals were like looking for coproduction then, but with a very bad credit card in that case now, before or after looking for actual coproductions, both the same.
And going for the festivals straight away was not possible, since the festivals can't move legally without any explanation about the production.
All that I could really still do was to write to police and to the Office against corruption and the police really took the book of bills and I could see beyond any doubt that the money was not spent.
Producer's share was shown with bills not belonging to my movie.
So, truly, with a smile, no considering of the tecnical damage whatsoever and the necessity of the money being spent.
I still couldn't go for the press conference, because now I had to wait for the legal procedure to take all its turn, I just gave my public statement about the movie's state and published it on internet on www.narolki.4t.com.
As to legal procedure SSFF had to sue the producer for not having finnished the movie, but SSFF did so without bringing up the argument of the book on police or their case would have been finnished long time by now.
The producer sued me for not having finnished the cut of the movie, but got refused, because he hasn't suffered any damage from SSFF case against him yet.
Producer demanded revision of his case against me and I agreed with it and sent to the court a clear document, where SSFF itself says that it was watching a cassette of my movie so I could not in no occasion endanger the producer in front of SSFF.
SSFF in the same lines says that it wants shortening and thereby admits its interfering with my moral rights.
The court did not answer back anything, not approving not refusing the revision of the case.
I wrote to police and to Office against corruption again, I was heard by the police again and it passed on its own official report to the State Prosecutor.
State Prosecution turned the case down as ungrounded, the statement of Mr. Pelko is not seen as avoiding responsibility and as corruption and the real analyse of the book of bills has not been done, not from the side of police nor at Bills Court, where the Office against corruption had sent the case already years ago.
And the bills are not alright or the police would have just sent me away the first time I was talking with them over the book.
This second time on police now we haven't even opened it again.
Lately Mr. Prodnik as a new director of SSFF, fifth or sixth in the row, I don't know anymore, asked me to give him DVD of the movie, because the VHS is not watchable, but the picture quality is here the same.
And to watch the originals, uncut as they are, for example, is as I have explained not possible.
In the sense of finnishing the movie without demand for its shortening has to this day not happened anything yet.
I have tried all the possibilities of agreement and all the state's system and I have in fact received no answer at all from none of its offices.
Pure unkindness of home concurence or the privilige of the producer could hardly keep all the state in blockade as it is the case here.
Why?
Because on one side I have namely freed myself from the money trap with all of this and on the other there has even arisen the question, why all this or did SSFF have some real reason to demand the shortening?
In the movie there are no political contents that could be compromiting Slovenia.
But there is something in the movie of which I am aware since finnishing its rough cut.
Because of the way I was shooting the movie it has spontaneously, without my intending it, grown into the perfect presentation of a natural phenomenon called the Mirror and which is representing a real problem to catholic church and Vatican for centuries.
My movie is the first and only movie in the world, which represents this natural phenomenon in the means of movie expression in its totality.
SSFF did not want to cut this movie as a whole, but only its starting sequences, where the Mirror appears, becomes obvious and starts moving on and on and without the sequences being just as they are the Mirror would cease being recognisable and could not be followed by the audience to the very end of the movie.
The movie in its other sequences was by the words of Mr. Filip Robar- Dorin on that meeting described as a pearl or a sweetie, I can't remember this exactly.
Mirror is a mirror, reflection of somebody or something, and its perfect presentation is showing of both at the same time, a face or a thing and its reflection to it as well.
The movie starts with the theatre and with the main actress and when the shots, which she did with me, go on we notice that the story from the theatre is just still there, going on in the same characters, same actions and same words like in the theatre. The face and its reflection.
And from the way it is all shot one can see that it is all left to coincidence and that the people in front of the camera just talk whatever they feel like in the moment.
The thing that makes my movie unique is that no director yet has not succeded to leave the process of shooting the sound and picture so entirely to the free flow of coincidences and kept the continuity despite it. A reflection that never breaks or jumps ahead not even for a second on all 2 and a half hours of the movie.
This turns the movie into a proof of naturality of the phenomenon.
Its naturality not only in time, but also in space since where else can continuous time roll itself if not in the naturally continuous space as it is?
The fact that the insides of the summer house and the scenography of the theatre come identical together, as You will see on the movie, does not mean more than just underlining of the phenomenon's existance in Nature.
For the scientifical represantation of the Mirror this information cannot be acceptable since the movies are also spacial medium and so it can always be used to manipulate this kind of information.
People will be able to take the existance of Mirror as something usual and unsimulated on movies only when it is widely recognised in their lives as such, when they will notice the identical visages of events from one to another first on their own and then nod to it on the movies really as well.
Shortening of this movie's beginning means destroying of the appearance of this phenomenon on this one and cutting of this movie's length means the loss of the argument of the Mirror's existance.
No scientifical proof of no phenomenon cannot be more than its certain presentation so the ruining of its appearance on this movie means stopping of the process of getting aware about it.
The starting sequences are three, two longer ones, Theatre and Coffee and one short in between the two, Interview.
I don't remember, if the short Interview was mentioned to be cut as well and I have intentionally left a mistake in the titles and subtitles ahead of the movie, where in slovenian titles I don't mention the Interview and in English subtitles I do.
I did that as a candy for the connoisseurs. The unaware may take it as a mistake and go on and the connoisseurs get something to think about and find something interesting.
I am included in the Interview with my voice and with certain definite questions that I had clearly prepared ahead of shooting, so this could in no case be the Mirror, if the Mirror is in pure coincidence or there is not, but if you imagine that this scene was the very start of all the shooting then it's quite unbelievable how precisely these questions were chosen for later it looks as though I knew what would be going on and even what would get shot or recorded on the track.
As if I knew ahead that the story with the flats and space would develop itself right to the end of the movie and even get the dramatical turn into identicality of scenographies of the face and of its reflection.
Mirror is obviously reflecting the future as well. That's why it is interesting still, how SSFF looked on that at the time.
Shakespeare is said to have used the mirroring of one scene to another one as his basical dramaturgical approach and thereby joined comedy and tragedy into one design of tragicomedy.
That's not correct. To say it correctly one should say that Shakespeare knew the Mirror as one of Nature's things just normally and that he therefore used it for designing life in his books just normally.
Shakespeare is directed as a face, its reflection, a new face and a new reflection and so till the end.
But truly he does not only introduce new and new faces, but also follows the reflections as it is with this thing in life, he does not let the reflection of the first face disappear from his design not for one line of his stories, but watches it travelling through the whole play up to its end.
That's a big difference, such as between statics and dynamics, but no director has never ever directed no play of his in that way. Why?
Firstly, because the Mirror is not widely recognised as a thing of Nature, but only as some very interesting dramaturgical approach, which you may use or not, and secondly, because the awareness of it was already forbidden, interrupted and publically silenced down once and because it has remained dangerous to this day still for anyone who would like to sail it on open sea.
Shakespeare talks of that himself. He knew that the thing is under siege, he wrote about witches, about dwarfes and fairies, he wrote about many a hideous murder and he wrote Hamlet.
In the first act Hamlet forces his schoolmate Horatio to a vow that he would keep his mouth shut about that mysterious night and in the third act he calls him and asks him to give a carefull heed on his uncle's reactions during the play for, in this way, he would as an independant eye be able to confirm the secret that the Ghost had revealed to him about the death of his father. He tells him this and watches Horatio in the face.
And Horatio calmly replies that he would pay such a heedful attention that if he misses anything, he'll pay for it. But what do we hear from our schoolmate Horatio?
If we observe the reflections with the care?
Or the shadows in our case?
Non-sense, pure non-sense, because Hamlet did not tell anything to Horatio about his dialogue with the Ghost from that night and needless to say, Horatio was not present at it.
Horatio can't know a thing about no secret of Hamlet's father's death, since Hamlet never trusted him, if the Ghost was really his father's or just some boy's left to dig in the cellar, yet Horatio still says that he'll pay the careful heed requested of him.
Hamlet said even less anything about poisoning father through his ear, yet it's all so cristally clear to Horatio's eyes.
Hamlet wishes for some merry music then, for some joy of our ears, and the play goes on with that famous scene about the weasels on the wall with Horatio still present, but covered in the perfect silence now.
Is Shakespeare a bad writer now and Horatio and Hamlet both nonsensical roles, because Hamlet does not even wink after his friend's broken vow?
Shakespeare knew that they would rather play his non-sense as some high, deep and heavy human sense than by its truth.
Inquisition followed, the panic of rats in the tropical mousetrap, so to say, and killing of 8 million men, women and children, gone was Shakespeare's culture and gone was the language, which knew about the Mirror and how the life looks like, if you know it.
Shakespeare's story about Hamlet does run fluently on, if we suppose one thing, which is that Horatio was able to read minds and hear things without being present.
Yes. If we read Shakespeare we see that such things, we would call them life in astral today, are usual for his plays.
If I just mention Macbeth, his vision of dead Banquo's ghost or his vision of the knife that just appears in his hand, while his wife lady Macbeth sits in some dark corner of their room and waits for the good news to return to her and who goes mad too full of visions in the end.
Mirror in Nature means that a man sees his soul outside as its reflection and that's how the Mirror happens to be a very practical thing, one has it as a compass in oneself and in the world around.
Reading of the mind, on the other hand, is very dangerous and must be kept under strictest control.
But what, if we put these two things in one?
If the Mirror is our perfect picture in space, then there is absolutely no problem for open, public life of astral in perfect audibility of all our thoughts in the space wherever we are.
Or, if we turn this up side down and remove the Mirror away, then we have every reason to control people and open each one's head before we open his or hers third eye.
Very practical again. That's the Paradiso of Vatican, but hell on Earth as to me.
From the times of Renaissance on Vatican is present in every country today and every and each culture, when it's true and sincere, still shows just its Mirror, exactly the same one as Vatican has removed away.
That's why the interest as well as the possibility of Vatican's interfering with any culture of the world today and during all these five centuries now are just logical.
Here, in our Slovenia, it is a small and simple picture, farmhouse, pub, school, church, graveyard, meadow, forest and field, or the question, whether the priest will kick the teacher out of the pub or not?
With the whole process of making this shot, which is checkable from the side of any other author, the good visibility on it, on the spontaneity of the reactions of the people in front of the camera, on the whole development of their relation and on the light in the space and time is the only one thin thread, which the sceptics of Mirror in Nature could try to take hold at, if this movie happened to become the subject of their debate.
From this reason the titles ahead of the movie are necessary in its digital form now, but in the case of the blow up and of the final cut as it should be done by all normal standards on the good 35mm picture these titles would not be needed anymore.
I am inviting You to see the movie » Unrest » as it has been called from the start, and on the internet page You will also be able to read » Tragedy of Dr. Faustus » and » Hamlet » in my transcriptions of originals together with documents that lead to this final question whether all the busy businesses on the account of slovenian artists, whether the non-existance of law grounds for authors in Slovenia, whether the non-participation of private capital in slovenian culture etc., etc. are not really just the influence of the priest on life in such a small village as Slovenia is?
All the holes of our system have been used in the priest's interest in my case.
Whole generations of slovenian movie makers have been disappearing, there are all kind of stories going around from all our cultural life, spontaneous flow of spirit and Nature are the basics of all art, especially of the movies, and there is no such documentation of dialogue with our state as I am giving to Your attention.
It is the proof in fact that there is no freedom of speech in Slovenia not even in its least.
I am putting out only Mr. Pelko, because he avoids responsibility with using Horatio's joke and our poet Oton Župančič, whose translation of Hamlet has led me to checking its original in the first place.
The translation holds the original to its last nuance.
And that despite Shakespeare's little jinx, so to call it, to leave the last report about Hamlet to Horatio again.
Despite vague chances for a coproduction I was looking for it nevertheless with american director Mr. David Lynch, when he was busy in Poland, because he talked about music that plays by itself at the time without orchestra in his movie » Mulholland Drive ».
I took my movie to him personally, but he did not answer me.
» Inland Empire » as his next movie was titled or » Internal Affairs » as the title was translated in Slovenia is as to his statement shot without a script.
But he's got nothing in the movie that would dictate him the script that he didn't write as I have had the unavoidable certain development of human relation directly in front of the camera.
If you have nothing that dictates you the story perfectly independantly from your will shot clearly on the movie itself, then there is no way you could prove, whether you had some script prepared affore hand or not.
If you have the source of the dictate perfectly visible on the movie, then there is no cut that could cut it out, with editing you can only join in the dialogue with that dictate or you ruin the story, which is noticeable in any case.
You see the start in my movie and also the ending settlement of the relation and you can in this way always measure the reality of all in between by yourself.
Mr. Lynch has only actors and some fictious story in his movie and with that you can come up with just whatever you like during the shooting and there is nothing that would push you in a certain direction and take it or leave it all situation.
He maybe really did not write anything at the table, but he surely was doing so on the shooting for what is inventing of just anything you feel like other than writing a script that so pleases your heart?
His movie also did not form itself into Aristotelian story with beginning, peak and the end, but it came out in fragments, so his scriptless shooting did not result in a script, which is the only thing that makes such shooting sensible at all.
If this does not happen on your scriptless shooting, then it's only the honest thing to pack the material back in the boxes and leave it to some further meditations, but not say that this is the movie, just that it is without script.
It's better to sit down and write and work something out next time.
Mr. Lynch was shooting with digital camera, which is the worst choice for shooting a scriptless genre movie, because the digital image will technically never match coincidence as does movie stock with its unpredictable chemical reactions on light no matter how hardly the stock is standardized into the boxes in the first place.
Digital image with its 1-0 tick down will always be just a certain aproximation of events, but never the coincidence.
With approach as he constructed it there is not even one quadrat milimeter of the Mirror on his screen, which is an achievement of its own.
His Mirror is broken to pieces according to the fragmentarity and the glass is recycled according to the digital way of ticking the light down.
I can hardly take it that Mr. Lynch wouldn't know what a movie without a script really is and so I take his way of going it just oppositely in all as the first point of his non-existant script.
If I am to believe him, then the total removal of the Mirror from the screen must be just an interesting case of the so-called collateral damage.
And coincidence that we can find in this is then that this is all happening just after my movie, which he did see.
In the case of open debate about the Mirror anybody could show on his movie as on an example of how to make a Mirror, since there we have Mr. Lynches clear statement that it was made without script.
Such a turn of the debate's course would mean no less than complete ruining of all that I have done, for example, for someone here just proclaimed that the making of the frame and of the reflecting surface is in fact the same as painting a painting and that there is basically no difference between the picture of our face in the Mirror and a picture of our face on our self-portrait painting.
All my points turned up side down, usage of different conditions and my movie and my whole career on delete button. Not one, but already four coincidences merrily by now.
After seeing » Inland Empire » or » Internal Affairs », depends on which continent you watch it, I must say that I sincerely doubt » Mulholland Drive » as well.
He does not claim that one as scriptless, but he owns now a letter of mine in which I say myself that our movies are Mirror images to one another.
He started preparing » Mulholland Drive » in the year 1999, the same as I, he worked on it paralelly with me, he only finnished it before me.
And there wouldn't be much to wonder about, if Mr. Lynch knew about me in fact.
» In the quiet of a chamber » received two big prices in Poland and it is something very special, because it is showing on a really rare talent, who is able to make a whole drama with all that drama requires by Aristotle in only 6 minutes.
One may be big talent, but that big is truly a rarity.
I was noticed by Mr. Wajda and none of the student winners doesn't really go by the professionals unseen, that's just the same as in football or in basketball.
And right with my next school movie » Nathalie! », which I did also by a painting, I crossed the border of drama and started making a Mirror.
As to his book » Catching big fish » the audability of the space does not represent no novelty to him at all, since, as he writes, he's been practising mediatation for about three decades already.
In any case it remains a question to me, why he had to lie about making a movie without script.
This statement and » Inland Empire » are very useful for the Mirror's sceptics, because they give them a chance to dispute and just know nothing about different conditions.
The best book that I know about all these things is a novel » Gravity's Rainbow » of Thomas Pynchon, which is translated in Slovene, too, and represents a historical and geographical overview of the coincidences story from the time of Renaissance up till today with pointing out the time of bombing London during the 2. World War and that so that it leaves the reflections perfectly free way.
These things are much more serious than they appear to be.
And this appearance of non-importance is due just to public unawareness of what we could have been with the Mirror and how poor we really are now, when we are forbidden to live it.
Who ever takes Pynchon's book in hands and just looks into it briefly, will wonder how precisely this time of London reflects our time of recession for example and the feelings of people and will ask oneself, how is that possible?
Such a book can only be written by someone, who is literally strolling upon the Rainbow.
And whoever knows how to do that can survive the times as ours now.
And much, much more.
If you know that Death was reaping the field once upon a time, for example, and that we haven't chased it away from since, then you can see that in Iraq the scythe was lost in sand, but that Death won't even need it, if It just leaves the field to the weeds, when all starts growing again.
Misery of the majority of the world's population is aim and not hardly solvable problem.
If all was really alright, then all the people, who lost their jobs, would be given money to live month by month so to help everybody else keep the cash flow.
What's good on that version of our possible future as we are given is that not even Death won't be able to stroll on the field like a beautiful girl of May, because there'll be no flowers to beautify Its head.
We hear that the leaders of the World are looking for some new principle upon which our global society could strive on just well, but that's only the Mirror, the long lost Mirror and nothing else.
Our former president Mr. Janez Drnovšek, as we know, was already searching those ways and maybe You decide to continue to do so as well.
Regretfully I can't organise the normal premiere and invite You, because the production is frozen.
Because of here published content I still cannot go for press conference, all I must do is give my second statement.
Since this letter to You concerns all social and communication levels and because it must be given in the length as it is I have decided again to publish it through internet and through informing newspapers about it.
I hope that You will understand me.
The letter is published on internet page www.narolki.4t.com and the movie can be seen and checkable for public on www.watch-movie-online.net/unrest/.
The documentation, which is published does not contain my letters to police, to Office against corruption and to State Prosecution and their answers, because the movie is still on court and because the State Prosecutor has all of it.
But there is all the case with Mr. Hočevar against me, the contract between SSFF and him, reclamation on stock, letters to Kodak and its offer to me, answer of Mr. Pelko, Mr. Jovanović, Ms. Rihter, Ms. Jurič about the entry of a new producer, budget of blow up, my plan of finnishing the movie, programme od SSFF for 2003/4, my first official statement with mentioning of the discrediting article, text of titles ahead of the movie and awards for » In the quiet of a chamber ».
The movie is available also on DVD as a gift and with the information about my letter to You on its cover.
I will organise projections of the movie some time after publishing this letter, when people will already know my statement.
There is MOSTRA in Venice in September so I am sending the movie to the festival. Its president Mr. Marco Mueller has the will to show movies even if they are meeting censoring problems and if I get an award then this might be my co-production found without state and without producer.
Beside the letter to You I have sent to Mr. Mueller a specification about the Mirror on my movie and it is included in the documentation on the internet page.
The movie is made for cinema screen not for TV.
The image is clearer on TV monitor now, but it works right on the screen despite the picture and the sound being on the lowest level of acceptance.
But since the approach is different than mojority of movies one receives it already now.
Due to the lack of colours and sound as they are one doesn't feel Istria now, one only understands it.
With the colour and the right sound there one wouldn't watch Istria, but one would be there no matter, where the projection took its place.
Yesterday, on 30.5.2009 I have received an invitation from court to be a witness in the case of SSFF suing Mr. Hočevar to pay back 143.000 Euros that he received on his account for my movie from SSFF. The session is going to take place on 2.9.2009. The invitation was brought to me on the very same day, when I filled in the electronic selection form for MOSTRA. It was left to me on 29.5.2009 in the post box as post leaflet to pick up the letter at post office.
That case started in 2005, waited till Mr. Hočevar's suing me proceeded and ended as it did, now they are taking care of the money, but still not about the movie's finish.
In cases such as mine money things and movie as such should be taken care of separately, but they are not.
Invitation to be the witness and copy of MOSTRA email to me about the receival of my entry form are in the documents as well.
The cover of DVD includes also » In the quiet of a chamber » and » Nathalie! », which I have finnished right with graduating FAMU and which I have not sent to no festivals yet since I had to re-organise my life at the time and since I was already starting to get a new idea for a new movie and make a real series about the relation of image and time.
Now there are three movies with three different approaches and getting the same result, which is proving the Mirror also in that way and in review.
If in public appears any reaction on which I will not respond, it means that I consider it answered already.
Otherwise, my answers will be on the same web page.
Mr. President dr. Danilo Tuerk, I thank You very much for Your special attention,
mag. Andrej Žumbergar
Ljubljana, 31.5.2009
Dear Mr. Marco Mueller!
» Unrest », my movie that I am sending for selection to Your festival on MOSTRA 2009 under reference code number SX110616, has been censored by my state, Slovenia.
It has not be let in postproduction and finnishing and it is in the state of rough cut, with only digitalised picture and umixed sound.
It is my first long-feature movie that I have done after graduating FAMU in Prague in the class of Mrs. Vera Chytilova.
At FAMU I have made a short movie » In the quiet of a chamber » and won several student festivals. I won also Krakow film festival, when the chairman of the jury was Mr. Andrzej Wajda and when the members of the jury were Mr. Daniel Bergman, Mr. Slawomir Idziak and Mrs. Margarethe von Trotta.
In my selection form for Your festival I have written that the movie was not yet on internet to make it pass, but I did put it on internet just lately, because I have written an open letter to the president of Slovenia Dr. Danilo Tuerk about my movie and because I had to enable public see it so to fight for it.
I am sending my letter to our president to You as well, because it's all explained in it.
In the letter I am also saying that I am sending the movie to MOSTRA with this letter to You and this letter to You is included among the rest of the documents available to public.
As I am saying in the letter the cause of the censoring is the interest of Catholic Church to remove any real presentation of the natural phenomenon called the Mirror from the eyes of wide public.
I am specifying to You as a moviemaker my reasons, why I see that my movie is the first movie in the world that succeeds to be the complete presentation of Mirror with the means of movies.
I am not a theoretic and of course my claim should be supported with a thorough theoretic analyse, so here I am giving You only my basic view and You will be able to think about it all after seeing the movie and weighing all pro's and contra's Yourself.
Every movie is a Mirror, but its presentation as a natural phenomenon can only be one, because the next one can only remain in the given frame of the first one or the first one wasn't the first one.
The presentation of the Mirror on movie, if it is one, has separate grounds, grounds for science on one side and for art on the other.
As for science I can add the sound record to my movie, because I have recorded on sound every shooting session in its entirety and the camera had an extra microphone attached to it so that one can always hear, when the camera was running and when not and what was being said on the session at that moment. The dialogues were all left to whatever the actors felt like, so one could not be wise enough to know what is wise to shoot for the picture and what not. From that, from the gaps of the camera's runs, from what is heard on them, from their durations and from the shots eventually used in the movie one can establish in the end that all the movie was shot with one camera and left to perfect coincidence.
But this does not concern audience in the cinema.
To present the Mirror for audience in an art form one can only fulfill the basic condition for showing it and express the feelings that we have, when we perceive and follow the Mirror in our daily life.
The basic condition is that one has at least two unrelated events going on, unrelated in the sense that they are happening independantly on one another.
If they make the Mirror effect together, it means that the art form, which is including them both, has presented the face and its reflection separately and in one.
In my movie I have a theatre performance, which was very popular in Slovenia, and of which I was not the author, and my own movie with the main actress of this performance.
This is all clear in the movie as the whole.
And the feelings that one has while perceiving the world like the Mirror are basically two, surprise at unfailing order in things that are happening just by themselves, where there was chaos before, there is now sense, and the second feeling is a sense of travelling through reality as it happens, because the Mirror is constant, it's there every new second and keeps being there after a long time period none the less.
» Unrest » is in fact all shot on Kodachrome S8mm 2 and half minutes cassetes and is supposed to be blown up on 35mm in postproduction.
S8mm is a format, which is still very much present in the consciousness of the largest audience and this movie therefore contains their suprise at watching on screen something that was always at least a bit » hairy » at their home projections, but now in a perfect cut, brush and polish with sound and picture and sense always perfectly together like in one uncut shot despite bits of the happening missing here just the same as it was always missing on their home and holiday shoots as well.
The bits of happening are missing, because cameraman had to interrupt his shooting to change the cassetes each time, while the happening on the set and on sound was going on without stop just like on any amateur shooting.
The continuity on this professional S8mm kept despite the bits of happening missing just the same as on amateur shots of S8mm is what comes to large audiences from my movie as subconscious surprise, but as for art that's enough.
As for moviemakers as such there are many jokes in the movie about showing the unfailing continuity despite trying to break it in numerous ways that You will see on the movie Yourself, from obstinate sticking to close-ups of the faces and making a wide shot only after a cut futher in time from summer to winter on.
The movie uses all known styles of moviemaking from pure fiction to pure documentary with all their specifics, including TV set interviews' illusion as well, but the Mirror stays there and the story travels on nevertheless in one unified image all the time.
And as for me, I know that this presentation of the Mirror came out unexpected, spontaneously, because I have not planned it. Before shooting I was not aware of this phenomenon being a natural principle even and of its importance for the history of Catholic Church even less so.
I have discovered all that, while I was fighting for the movie not to be cut short.
The last joke is that after my movie it becomes totally clear that it is not even important what science thinks.
If a bridge of sense over incidental time gaps is the proof for science than the proof is the same as the subject of exploration itself or to say it simply, a thing proves itself with itself in science then.
This is like another bridge, now back to Renaissance debates, and it is saying once again that dividing activities of human spirit on left and right side, on science and art is non-sense.
Art was always enough to make the Mirror public and wide acknowledged common fact.
And when You read my letter to our president Dr. Danilo Tuerk You will see that science in my story was moved to express itself towards the result of my movie and kept the gaps running on to see, if the movie will survive or stay there still or not.
I am sending my movie with its materials to MOSTRA official address and to You separately, but this letter to You is in both and I hope that it will reach You just normally.
The DVD's are my present to You.
Beside » Unrest » there is also a DVD with my two school movies, because all three of them are made after paintings, each in different approach and because they are showing the Mirror in that way, too.
» In the quiet of the chamber » was shown at many student festivals and the second one » Nathalie! » was shown only at slovenian film festival in Portorose years back and got no award.
In the rules of Your festival I haven't found a possibility for an author to show more than one movie at the same occasion, but maybe You can find a way for cases as mine.
If not, then I am sending only » Unrest » for the selection of Your festival.
Thank You very much for Your special attention and for Your understanding,
Yours sincerely,
Andrej Žumbergar
Ljubljana, 31.5.2009
ZAČETNA ŠPICA
- Film, ki ga boste videli, Vam predstavljamo v obliki grobe montaže in rezervnih materialov.
- Originalno je posnet na domač Super 8mm format, to pa je digitalizirana kopija njegovega VHS video posnetka. Zvok ni zmixan, scenska glasba pa ni v avtorskem namenu.
- Spozoriral ga je Filmski sklad Slovenije, a ga ni povečal na 35mm in dokončal na podlagi laži, da je zmanjkalo denarja. Avtorju v šestih letih nagovarjanja vseh obstoječih pristojnih institucij, vključno s policijo in sodiščem, ni uspelo prepričati države niti da bi odprla mapo s primerom.
- Edino, v čemer film izstopa, je popolnost posnetka zrcalne podobe, saj je prvi film na svetu, ki mu je uspelo zrcalno podobo sveta posneti ne samo v času, ampak tudi v prostoru.
- Pojav zrcala je naravno fizično dejstvo kot je to za primer dejstvo, da je Zemlja okrogla.
- Najbolj znan dramatik, ki se je ukvarjal s pojavom zrcalne podobe je William Shakespeare, katerega dela pa zaradi delovanja katoliške Inkvizicije še do danes niso popolnoma razumljena do te mere, da je neznana celo njegova resnična identiteta.
- Resnični avtor vseh Shakespearjevih del je Christopher Marlowe, a je priznan le kot njegov predhodnik, ker je s scene kot mlad skrivnostno izginil oziroma je bil ubit v nepojasnjenih okoliščinah.
- Med privrženci Christopherja Marlowa je tudi veliki Alfred Hitchcock, ki je na to temo posnel komedijo Težave s Harryjem.
- Filmski sklad Slovenije je zahteval krajšanje filma v tistih sekvencah, kjer je zrcalna podoba najbolj nazorna, to je med uvodnima sekvencama Gledališča in Kavice.
Film prepuščamo Vaši presoji.
Film je inspiriran po sliki Edvarda Muncha Dama na Verandi.
NEMIR
KONČNA ŠPICA
KONEC
Igrali
Marijana Brecelj
Chengis Aktar
Elvira Hadžić
Hakim Hadžić
Adi in Alema Hadžić
Boris Cavazza
Janez Hočevar- Rifle
Glas v off-u
Andrej Žumbergar
Kamera
Goran Stoisavljević
Zvok
Matija Starič
Groba montaža
Miloš Kalusek
Izvršni producent
Marko Puh
Scenograf
Ira Zorko- Biffio
Fotograf
Denis Dautović
Tonska tehnika
Danijel Kušakovič
Dragan Živković
Tomi Valant
Zvočni design
Ing. Ivo Špalj
Supervizija
Borko Radeščak
Asistent režije
Matej Babnik
Asistent kamere
Darja Stoisavljević
Asistent izvršne produkcije
Mateja Bergoč
Tehnična oprema
Viba
Off line
Inpass
Posebna zahvala
Produkcija Špas Teater
Đuro Đurić- Đuro
Kavarna Evropa
Družina Bergoč
Družina Kozlovič
Maja Katarina- Tratar
Posneto na lokaciji vas Jurasi
Slovenska Istra
Leta 2000
NEMIR
The movie is in the state of rough cut with extras.
It's shot originally on Super8 mm and this is its digital copy. The sound is not mixed and the scenic music is not in author's intention.
The movie was sponsored by Film Fund of Slovenia, but it was not blown up on 35mm on the ground of a lie that money got missing from the project.
Author was trying to convince all the existing state institutions including police and court, but the state did not even open the map with the case.
The only specialty of this movie is that it is the first movie in the world with the perfect Mirror image, showing it not only in time, but also in space.
Mirror image is a natural, physical phenomenon and a fact such as for example that Earth is round.
The most known dramatic, who has explored the Mirror image phenomenon is William Shakespeare, but his works are to this date still misunderstood due to
Manipultations of catholic Inquisition and today we still don't know who Shakespeare really was.
The true author of all works signed by the name of Shakespeare is Christopher Marlowe, but he is acknowledged only as his predecessor since he vanished
From the scene as a young man supposedly killed in unexplained circumstances.
Among Marlowe's fans is even the great Alfred Hitchcock, who has shot a comedy on the theme called Troubles with Harry.
Film Fund of Slovenia demanded cutting of those scenes, where the Mirror image is the most schematic,
That is in the starting scenes of Theater, Interview and Coffee.
We are letting the movie to Your own judgement.
The movie is inspired by the painting of Edvard Munch Lady on verandah.
UNREST
KONČNA ŠPICA
Actors
Off
Cinematographer
Sound recording
Rough cut
Executive producer
Scenographer
Photos
Sound technicians
Sound design
Supervision
Direction assistent
Camera assistant
Production assistent
Technics
Off-line
Written and directed by
Special thanks
Shot on location of the village Jurasi
Slovenian Istra
In the year 2000
|
