Yuri Grymov: “Rolan Bykov filmed his Scarecrow not for the sake of earning money”

The State Duma adopted a law on 100% state financing of children’s cinema. Hooray! Finally! A miracle happened, which means that now our children will be brought up not by American cinema, but by domestic cinema, which has many years of experience and outstanding achievements in this field. But if you carefully read the long-awaited law, you understand that it’s too early to rejoice. Here, as they say, the devil is in the details. And as a result, it can turn out exclusively according to Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin – they wanted the best, but it turned out as always.

It really seems like a miracle that the law on state financing of children’s films, and one hundred percent, can be called a miracle. True, in this case a miracle can be with reservations and notes. I’ll try to explain what I mean. For about eight years, I probably toyed with my anxiety about children’s movies. Or rather, about his absence in the country. Our children were brought up by American cinema. Not the worst, but education is such a responsible process that one would not want to give into the wrong hands.

I remember the Gorky film studio, where I also did something, I remember the wonderful Soyuzmultfilm. And he kept waiting: when will someone start sounding the alarm? Well, well: the State Duma adopted a law on 100% state financing of children’s films. Miracle? Miracle!

But then the notes begin. It has always surprised and still surprises: why do we so stubbornly want to return to those rakes that once or twice have already hit us on the forehead, and selflessly march on them again – in rows and columns ?! What I mean is that the need to support children’s cinema is an axiom, and thank God that the state has finally agreed with this. It also takes time to prove an axiom. But I was shocked by the wording of the new law: the State Duma believes that children’s films are films for an audience under the age of 18. Up to eighteen! “And what’s wrong with that?” – you ask. I explain – watch your hands. World statistics show that today the main audience of cinemas is teenagers from 14 to 17 years old. That is, it is these viewers that bring the bulk of the income in the industry. And nowhere in the world is cinema aimed at this audience considered childish. This is a teen movie, youth; anything but childish. In these films, almost everything can be shown and almost everything can be spoken openly. Which, in general, is understandable: our boys and girls in their fourteen already receive passports, which is already. This is the semantic content, so to speak. But what about children from 5 to 10 and from 10 to 14? Cinema for them is not at all like for 14+.

Another question – in terms of form: why was there no distinction between commercial and non-commercial children’s films? And yet it must be done. Who needs support first and foremost? Independent, not the most formatted, but the most accurate, deep and sincere authors who created their films not for profit. For them, something else was important – the small spectator himself. It was this viewer that they wanted to cheer, console, support, teach something, suggest something to him. What, Rolan Bykov filmed his “Scarecrow” for the sake of earning money?

The new law tightly closes the way for such authors to the big screen. Because other people will come for big state money. That is – what does it mean they will come: they are already there – in these very quiet offices, where serious issues are resolved with serious numbers in the “funding” column. They dug in there a long time ago, and to wedge into this dense line – I don’t know how hard the teeth, elbows and forehead, and how flexible the spine must be: one is fitted there without a gap, so that no cement is needed – the builders of the Egyptian pyramids will envy!

Now very well-known producers will come to grips with children’s films, but I would not be in a hurry to rejoice. These are the same quick-witted people who have made bad commercial films up until now. We have practically no good stuff, so it can be said less roundly: those producers and directors will deal with children’s films, for whom it doesn’t matter at all what, about what and for whom to shoot, as long as there is money. What do you think: will children’s cinematography benefit from this decision?

You will laugh, but the financial triumph of Cheburashka, for example, frankly scares me. Those wishing to repeat this “success story” are legion, and, mark my word, in the very near future we are waiting for battalions of Cheburashkas and regiments of Gen Crocodiles. Very mediocre made – but who cares if the state pays for everything? I’m afraid there will hardly be a place for the new “Scarecrow” in these orderly ranks.

Three years ago, I met with the then new Minister of Culture, Olga Lyubimova. Perhaps the main topic of that conversation was the problem of children’s cinema. I talked about the film “Polyanna”, that we can do this too and just have to make a good movie for children. “Wonderful! Great idea, gotta do it! then the minister said. She was nice, understanding everything, it was a very pleasant conversation, but… I see and I know that the ministry is working, and there is something to praise it for. I also understand that, probably, children’s cinema today is not a primary concern, but still.

Returning to the rake. Children’s cinema at one time killed Disney. It was this company that expanded the age limits of the audience for family films. Everything is for profit. So, now we are jumping exactly on this same rake, repeating the same scenario. Instead of separating teenage and youth cinema from children’s and dealing with each of these areas separately, we mix everything and everything together: we have children – both six and sixteen! In one go! I sympathize with our children (and maybe, God forbid, and grandchildren?): it seems that they will not see good domestic cinema.

Nevertheless, I can state officially: I, director Yuri Grymov, am very glad that things have moved forward. True, that’s good. Now we need to move on: to finalize the adopted law, to “ground” and test it, to achieve greater meaningfulness and efficiency. I welcomed and still welcome any impulses coming from government offices and related to the desire to help Russian cinema, theater, museums, libraries. Culture is an area where almost any sound idea, any good undertaking has its beneficial consequences in the future. This is especially true for everything that is done for children. Is everything Soviet fashionable now? So I will end with a Soviet cliché: children are our future. You just need to remember that the future has such a strange feature: it always comes earlier than expected.