know, Ivan Wrightman, and those types of people who move down south, they’re making a lot more money than.I could ever dream of making. But, I just am not motivated by that. km: Yeah, well you seem like, you can make the films that you want to make, you have a com- fortable life, and what more would you really need? Well, I’m interested in like, Arsinee, were you married...How did your relationship develop? ae: Well we only got married about a year ago, we’ve been together for about eleven years now, um, I don’t know, I mean, let’s go have a coffee. km: Ha, ha..yeah. ae: Let’s go have a coftee. n Holloway by Terry Dawes Ron Holloway is an American film critic who directed the docu- mentary film “Parajanov: A Req- uiem” which appeared in this years International Film Festival. It con- sists of an interview with Sergei Parajanov, the great Armenian film- maker who was a contemporary and friend of the Russian film-maker Andrei Tarkovsky. Parajanov was jailed and barred from working a great deal but he kept working as a visual artist, producing hundreds of drawings and paintings. He was persecuted by the Soviet state be- cause his films were not socialist realism but were dreamlike and fantastic. Parajanov died in 1990, shortly after his interview with Holloway. “The interesting thing about the encyclopedias of cinema is that they all differ. The Americans have a different view than the French. Parajanov is a man inside the system, who came along in in the fifities and was in that first stream of the New Wave that had brought in people who were already artists in another field. So, his colleagues and the people he was with were all educated people and as a result, when he began to make films, they drew heavily on.the 1930’s which was the heavy period of socialist cinema, Soviet cinema, but a very avant-garde period. The twenties were even more avant-garde. Parajanov was recognized very strongly by people who knew the Structuralists in the twenties and also because of his enormous ability to use colour and vision and fan- tasy and dreams in order to, I guess, go against the grain of socialist cinema: He was one of the very few directors who showed a way to circumvent that. The other man who showed a way was Tarkovsky, so the two of them were mas- ters of making films between the lines, if you like. “The social realist cinema was based on the idea of an ideal hero, first of all. But it was also built on the idea that the socialist state or the socialist way of life was superior to anything else. I think the best way to explain that is to understand that the Russian or Soviet critic would accept Italian neo-realism in Italy because it’s against the state But if you imitate Italian neo-realis.. in the Soviet Union, then you attack the state. So they would immediately then be against neo-realistic cinema inside their own back yard but would appreciate it abroad. “His prison term started in 1974 and finished in 1979, four years and some months. But psychologically, he was forbidden from entering studios and robbed of his profession for a longer period, so fifteen years he was robbed of his profession. So the physical prison period came when it bacame impossible to work with him because he became a sym- bol for a five year period. The symbol began, of course with the making of “Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors” in 1964. When the film was seen in ’65, he became world famous overnight. And then he tried to make another film in ’66, “Kiev Frescoes”, which was very similar to dealing with what his ideal was which was dealing with religion. He admired religion because it had a hold on people but it was also the cradle or the vessel for culture. So when he made that film, all of the intellectuals of Kiev and the Ukraine were on his side and he became a symbol and he was not allowed to work in the studios in the Ukraine. He then stole off and went to Armenia, his home, his home land ina sense. And they allowed him to make the film “Colour of Pomegranites” and this he considered to be his great masterpiece. “And then the break-off takes place because from that point on, for the next fifteen years, and this is at the height of his creative powers, he’s unable to make a film again. He was accused of four things. Basically, one of the major ones was “black marketing, dealing in art objects”, which was basically the fact that his house was filled with souvenirs, artifacts, and antiquities of all sorts. And he would often trade them and give them away and he would receive them, so they called that a criminal act because they said he was doing it for money, black marketing. The other thing is homosexuality, which is a disputed matter. He would probably tell you that, if you wanted him to be a homo- sexual, he became a homosexual. But he was also a heterosexual. He had a wife and a son. He was married twice. He was a man who men and women were equally attracted to. So he became a political figure, a man who was a radical in, I guess you could say, moral questions. So he was - corrupting, inciting to suicide, all this kind of stuff because he was, and there were other reasons they gave, he was disturbing the peace basically. By throw- ing him in prison in 1974, they thought they were rid of him but the outcry was great. When he came out of prison, he still wasn’t able to work. He couldn’t work until Gorbachev came along in’85, finally he was able to work again. He made three films after that, two features and one documentary.” Shirao by Terry Dawes Kazuhiro Shirao is a twenty-four year old Japanese film-maker. His film “Industry and Sex Doll” won the grand prize at 1994’s Image Forum Festival in Tokyo and played at this year’s Vancouver International Film Festival. He is nowa recognized figure among Japanese experi- mental film-makers, He spent a couple of weeks working on the actual film but almost a year to perfect the technique which he used. According to him, it cost about $1200 of his own money but the total budget was approximately $4500 Cdn. and the remainder was obtained through his school. It’s 38 minutes long. The film was shot initially in Super 8, transferred to video, and then finally shot onto 16mm film. At every stage he worked the image until it became aston- ishingly distorted. The resultant image is extremely rich in texture and colour. It was inspired by a late night drive he took to an industrial park in which he encoun- tered a vending machine full of inflatable sex dolls. The film sets up a lucid tension between sound and image punctuated by garish shots, yet the film in its totality is somehow subtle and beautiful. There is a strong sense of foreboding and playful- ness to this film. Eventually, the film creates its own landscape for the viewer to sink into. It’s a landscape full of repetitious industrial noises and silence, shots of disconcerting clarity mixed with distorted layers of colour. Ultimately, it is a vindication of human spirit in the face of technological decay. I must take this time to say that I’m absolutely impressed by the Film Festival’s bold selections for not only this program of young Japanese film-makers but also in their program of Japanese films made by women. Both programs allowed a strong selection of 16mm film, video, and even Super 8 (!!!) film. It was so exciting to actually see the film splices roll through the projector and to see out of focus shots and voice-overs with bad sound. It takes guts to realize that this kind of work isn’t just borne out of amateurism but out of a necessity of working within one’s means. This work is just as vital as that of more monied projects and more so because it needs to get out. It has no market value. Hats off to Tony Rayns for programming these vital and excellent films. know, Ivan Wrightman, and those types of people who move down south, they’re making a lot more money than I could ever dream of making. But, I just am not motivated by that. km: Yeah, well you seem like, you can make the films that you want to make, you have a com- fortable life, and what more would you really need? Well, I’m interested in like, Arsinee, were you married...How did your relationship develop? ae: Well we only got married about a year ago, we've been together for about eleven years now, um, I don’t know, I mean, let’s go have a coffee. km: Ha, ha..yeah. ae: Let’s go have a coffee. An Interview With Ron Holloway by Terry Dawes Ron Holloway ts an American film critic who directed the docu- mentary film “Parajanov: A Req- uiem” which appeared in this years International Film Festival. It con- sists of an interview with Sergei Parajanov, the great Armenian film- maker who was a contemporary and friend of the Russian film-maker Andrei Tarkovsky. Parajanov was jailed and barred from working a great deal but he kept working as a visual artist, producing hundreds of drawings and paintings. He was persecuted by the Soviet state be- cause his films were not socialist realism but were dreamlike and fantastic. Parajanov died in 1990, shortly after his interview with Holloway. “The interesting thing about the encyclopedias of cinema is that they all differ. The Americans have a different view than the French. Parajanov is aman inside the system, who came along in in the fifities and was in that first stream of the New Wave that had brought in people who were already artists in another field. So, his colleagues and the people he was with were all educated people and as a result, when he began to make films, they drew heavily on.the 1930's which was the heavy period of socialist cinema, Soviet cinema, but a very avant-garde period. The twenties were even more avant-garde. Parajanov was recognized very strongly by people who knew the Structuralists in the twenties and also because of his enormous ability to use colour and vision and fan- tasy and dreams in order to, I guess, go against the grain of socialist cinema. He ‘was one of the very few directors who showed a way to circumvent that. The other man who showed a way was Tarkovsky, so the two of them were mas- ters of making films between the lines, if you like. “The social realist cinema was based. on the idea of an ideal hero, first of all But it was also built on the idea that the socialist state or the socialist way of life was superior to anything else. I think the best way to explain that is to understand that the Russian or Soviet critic would accept Italian neo-realism in Italy because it’s against the state But if you imitate Italian neo-realis.a in the Soviet Union, then you attack the state. So they would immediately then be against neo-realistic cinema inside their own back yard but would appreciate it abroad. “His prison term started in 1974 and finished in 1979, four years and some months. But psychologically, he was forbidden from entering studios and robbed of his profession for a longer period, so fifteen years he was robbed of his profession. So the physical prison period came when it bacame impossible to work with him because he became a sym- bol for a five year period. The symbol began, of course with the making of “Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors” in 1964. When the film was seen in ’65, he became world famous overnight. And then he tried to make another film in '66, “Kiev Frescoes”, which was very similar to dealing with what his ideal was which was dealing with religion. He admired religion because it had a hold on people but it was also the cradle or the vessel for culture. So when he made that film, all of the intellectuals of Kiev and the Ukraine were on his side and he became a symbol and he was not allowed to work in the studios in the Ukraine, He then stole off and went to Armenia, his home, his home land in a sense. And they allowed him to make the film “Colour of Pomegranites” and this he considered to be his great masterpiece. “And then the break-off takes place because from that point on, for the next fifteen years, and this is at the height of his creative powers, he’s unable to make a film again. He was accused of four things. Basically, one of the major ones was “black marketing, dealing in art objects”, which was basically the fact that his house was filled with souvenirs, artifacts, and antiquities of all sorts. And he would often trade them and give them away and he would receive them, so they called that a criminal act because they said he was doing it for money, black marketing. The other thing is homosexuality, which is a disputed matter. He would probably tell you that, if you wanted him to be a homo- Sexual, he became a homosexual. But he was also a heterosexual. He had a wife anda son, He was married twice. He was a man who men and women were equally attracted to. So he became a political figure, a man who was a radical in, I guess you could say, moral questions. So he was corrupting, inciting to suicide, all this kind of stuff because he was, and there were other reasons they gave, he was disturbing the peace basically. By throw- ing him in prison in 1974, they thought they were rid of him but the outcry was, great. When he came out of prison, he still wasn’t able to work. He couldn't work until Gorbachev came along in’85, finally he was able to work again. He made three films after that, two features and one documentary.” Shirao by Terry Dawes Kazuhiro Shirao is a twenty-four year old Japanese film-maker. His film “Industry and Sex Doll” won the grand prize at 1994’s Image Forum Festival in ‘Tokyo and played at this year’s Vancouver International Film Festival. He is now a recognized figure among Japanese experi- mental film-makers, He spent a couple of weeks working on the actual film but almost a year to perfect the technique which he used. According to him, it cost about $1200 of his own money but the total budget was approximately $4500 Cdn. and the remainder was obtained through his school. It’s 38 minutes long. The film was shot initially in Super 8, transferred to video, and then finally shot onto 16mm film. At every stage he worked the image until it became aston- ishingly distorted. The resultant image is extremely rich in texture and colour. It was inspired by a late night drive he took to an industrial park in which he encoun- tered a vending machine full of inflatable sex dolls. The film sets up a lucid tension between sound and image punctuated by garish shots, yet the film in its totality is somehow subtle and beautiful. There is a strong sense of foreboding and playful- ness to this film, Eventually, the film creates its own landscape for the viewer to sink into, It’s a landscape full of repetitious industrial noises and silence, shots ot disconcerting clarity mixed with distorted layers of colour. Ultimately, it is a vindication of human spirit in the face of technological decay. I must take this time to say that I'm absolutely impressed by the Film Festival’s bold selections for not only this program of young Japanese film-makers but also in their program of Japanese films made by women, Both programs allowed a strong selection of 16mm film, video, and even Super 8 ({!!) film. It was so exciting to actually see the film splices roll through the projector and to see out of focus shots and voice-overs with bad sound. It takes guts to realize that this kind of work isn’t just borne out of amateurism but out of a necessity of working within one’s means. This work is just as vital as that of more monied projects and more so because it needs to get out. It has no market value Hats off to Tony Rayns for programming these vital and excellent films.