Contemprorary Armenian Cinema Hero – an Authority and Criminal

Who’s the hero of the Armenian cinema: question, which “Kinoashun” Program organized a round table brought together within a certain film critics, film directors, students and journalists.

During the discussion the representatives of film world tried to reveal the film’s hero, to reveal his character, to discuss the issues of cinema. Different opinions were brought about:

“Annual hundreds of films are shot, awards brought. Parajanov would dream to get a tenth part of the prizes that get our young directors. Our film’s cinema is not provincial: and technical means are used, and the style, films differ from each other,- enumerated film master Suren Hasmikyan, focusing on a negative phenomenon, in our films today man is misses, ordinary, normal person. ”

According to the film master, today’s heroes aren’t remembered, they leave no traces in the hearts of people. “We present our hero worse than he is in reality,” he says.

The member of Armenia and the Russian Union of Cinematographers Robert Matossian notes. “Heroes of the Soviet years, film scholars were young physicists, the intelligentsia, who were taking back a whole generation, and today’s heroes are authorities and criminals.

Hasmikyan also voiced about the fact that was evident: very few representatives of the film world were interested in the discussions. “Unfortunately, the outstanding figures of cinema, directors do not participate in such discussions, only a few of Film Critics come, journalists and young filmmakers, he said, adding that it was necessary to start a dialogue, which exists neither in life nor in art. He called the representatives to participate in discussions concerning the cinema and other creative and thinking about problems, not talk about the lack of finance.

One thing is clear. Armenian cinema is not dead and has something to say, but must present the right say. “Kinoashun is good in that it gives us context,” says Hasmikyan, we present a general check-in cinema Armenian cinema and culture in the context “should not repeat or return to the same sources, but they should not also lose the face of the Armenian cinema. “At least a person lose, opposes globalization, which makes it debilization” said Hasmikyann and added,” we should not return, but we must reinvent itself. ”

The next issue of the film is the indifference toward public cinema screening and the lack of cinemas. All are amazed and criticize, say that it is only two good movies there, but no one will notice that very often, even that both are empty, said the evidence also the month of the “kinoashun”. for example, “Moscow” cinema showing “Namus” film was attended by only a few people.

With regard to the past, remember that nostalgia senior generation, and of which we began to dream of we, young people, the mention that I lived a little disappointed when a few days ago, by chance, my hand fell on the Soviet years, published a book in Russian: “Facts and figures “the name of the book was an interesting statistic, every citizen of the Soviet republics to attend the annual Cinema on the average number. Armenia occupies the lowest places, and 1986 in our country in this respect was the saddest state average two times less than the time before us, in neighboring Azerbaijan.

And in terms of attitude and mentality on Saturday more than a unique example of public television has offered. Before that, already, one week on, the TV ad was on Saturday on the broadcast on the Armenian cinema program, and regular advertisements on the issue was given or on what they money is spent in film world. This is already interesting in “Kinoashuni” context, as that same restraint in the information sponsor of the event finally watched this “special report”, which had no connection with the genre of journalistic report: report lion’s share of its author’s personal opinions and the considerations that had a long-thought. All the films that are financed by the film centers, talentless pieces of directors, and that state money not to be spent give them only to public television, only Hrach Keshishian to Davos in such successful films, such as, for example, “The Killed Dove” and “The Artist.”

It is only this fact shows that both film masters that film centers say and do are very true to form public opinion in, and we tend to think that Kinoashun” in this sense is too late, but a good start.