Newspaper Common Opinion (Ermoupolis, 2018)
Interview by George Xanthakis
The "master" of photographic art captures his own perspective, this time behind the lens of the cinematic camera, in a discussion about cinema.
Reading your two exceptional cinematic books, one gets to know the "Evident charm and the hidden emotion of cinema" and gains a deeper and more complete enjoyment of watching movies from the most significant creators of the 7th art. How did you achieve this? Are you considering writing another book that will also refer to other significant directors?
P.R.: "As part of the art photography seminars I've been teaching since 1981, I used to show good movies to develop my students' broader culture. To make them more accessible, I wrote notes with comments that helped their understanding. In short, I tried (and still try) to teach my students to see cinema as an artistic creation and not just as entertainment, as is the cinema most people are familiar with. Since 2000, when I settled permanently in Syros and created a very large and well-equipped screening space for the seminars I teach, I started collecting movies and today have a collection that reaches 10,000 titles. In addition, apart from my photography seminars, I started conducting some seminars focused exclusively on cinema. For example, in Syros, over the last 15 years during the winter, I have delivered more than 130 four-day seminars, each dedicated to one of the approximately 40 directors whose work I know well and love.
Since 1986, I began writing theoretical books about photography to enhance my teaching, so it was logical to do something similar for cinema, especially from 2000 onwards when I began to focus more methodically on teaching it. I have published two books so far that refer to the work of 25 directors I love ("The Evident Charm and the Hidden Emotion of Cinema" - "Without Interruption")."
To what extent do you agree or disagree with André Bazin's statement that "cinema is an open window to the world"?
P.R.: "I don't think it's a matter of agreement or disagreement. It's something that on one hand sounds self-evident, but on the other, is insufficient. Obviously, the outside world is the starting point of all art. But as important as the outside world is, so too, and perhaps more so, is the specific way in which each creator sees it, and even more crucial is the director's inner world. So, what's most interesting is that each artist's work constitutes a new world. And that's what we need."
The perception exists that when we get the instinctive desire, stemming from our childhood years, to go to the cinema and immerse ourselves in its myths, we will see a technically flawless American movie, e.g., by Spielberg. But when we feel the need to delve into the abyss of the human soul, we will prefer European creators like Bergman, Fellini, or Visconti. Do you agree with this dichotomy?
P.R.: "Distinctions based on national criteria do not aid the approach to art. They only serve as lifeboats for historians and teachers. The real creator is not confined or exhausted by national and historical boundaries. The United States has contributed a lot to the history and development of cinema but also smothered it with the unilateral exploitation and utilization of its power, power to impose lifestyles and generate profits. The few great directors who lived and worked in America (but the same goes for every country, as few are truly great) were either forced to seemingly play the game of industrial production to survive and allow their work to be born (e.g., the partially "ours" Elia Kazan) or to move outside the system, becoming known only to a very specialized audience (e.g., the also partially "ours" John Cassavetes). Furthermore, no significant creator, wherever they come from, can be said to be a creator without spirituality (what you called soul). However, what is never enough in art is to be merely a craftsman. The addition of spirit to technique distinguishes between the manufacturer and the creator. Some significant creators, especially in America, discovered how to cover spirituality under craftsmanship. Like John Ford. Others, however, used craftsmanship as a banner and misled many by giving them the illusion of hiding non-existent spirituality. Like Hitchcock. At least Spielberg was more straightforward, hence more honest and, consequently, less dangerous."
In your books about cinema, your love for Fellini and Ozu is evident. What moves you most about their work compared to other great creators?
P.R.: "Anyone involved in an art must be able to recognize the 'High', or simply, the good 'product'. However, one also has personal favorites. For me, in cinema, these are Federico Fellini and Yasuji jiro Ozu. If I became a director, I would lean (due to inclination and temperament) more towards Ozu's style rather than Fellini's. However, both, in different ways, touch upon the enchanting dead ends of life, making it much more interesting."
In a recent lecture, you mentioned the terms "abstraction," "transcendence," "transformation" as necessary components of any artistic film. How can a creator enrich their film with these elements?
P.R.: "Art, like all significant aspects of life, transcends empirical reasoning. It cannot be confined to specific concepts. Thus, when discussing art, we resort to words that, no matter how we define them, remain in a realm of ambiguity. Such, of course, are also the significant words of our lives, such as fear or love. Hence, in talking about art, we're forced to either use another form of art, like poetry, or words for which we accept that they have flexible boundaries and cannot be enclosed in absolute descriptive definitions. The three words I mentioned inevitably arise whenever we attempt to approach the artistic event (and in this case, the cinematic event). However, in trying to approach an artistic work, our reader should not attempt to exhaust it by seeking to understand it, especially by limiting it to that understanding. Something will always escape. And rightly so. Because another word that complements the three mentioned is 'mystery'. Without it, the work of art would be a consumer product. And to answer your question, based on the above, it's impossible for there to be a conscious 'enrichment' of the work. All these emerge, they are not pursued. Otherwise, they wouldn't be mysterious but reproducible."
For all cinephiles, there's a list of favorite (as the term 'best' is improper in art) movies, those we watch over and again with the same or even greater pleasure. Would you like to share yours with us?
P.R.: "I'll disagree with the term you used above. 'Beautiful' or 'ugly' are mistaken terms. Works of art are mostly 'indifferent' and rarely 'good'. Furthermore, 'best' is important because enjoyment in art arises from comparison. The very great directors (and artists in general) are those who (let's say a bit exaggeratedly for clarity) build their own worlds. Or, as Marcel Proust said, those who reveal new Galaxies to us, which otherwise we would ignore. Or (more simply) who make their surname an adjective. Like when we say something is Felliniesque or Pasolinian. But I also adore those who transform what we already know. Clearly, Ettore Scola is not as 'great', 'good', 'notable', or 'important' as Federico Fellini (and I remind you all these terms are essentially abstract), but cinema wouldn't be as significant if it were missing one (any one) of these directors. Those I admire and love (these verbs often intertwine in my life) are those I deal with in my books. Logically. I mention them (without evaluation and mixed up) for our readers' information: Carl Theodor Dreyer, Ingmar Bergman, Andrei Tarkovsky, Luchino Visconti, Federico Fellini, Pier-Paolo Pasolini, Antonioni (partially), Jacques Tati, Buster Keaton, Yasujiro Ozu, Kenji Mizoguchi, Luis Bunuel, Ettore Scola, David W. Griffith, Nicholas Ray, Elia Kazan, Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, John Cassavetes, Frank Capra, Vittorio De Sica, Victor Sjostrom, and the still living and active Ermanno Olmi, Wim Wenders, Nanni Moretti, Pedro Almodovar, and I add those I would like to include in one or more books in the future: Jean Renoir, John Ford, Roberto Rossellini, Frank Borzage, Max Ophuls, Douglas Sirk, Jacques Becker, and the also living Jim Jarmusch, Paolo Virzi, Ferzan Ozpetek, Carlos Sorin, Naoko Ogigami. No one has made only good movies. But, from a good director, even a mediocre movie will interest us. Because a good director is 'your friend', and whatever a friend does should interest you. That's why I insist on the concept of a good director (or good photographer) more than a good movie (or good photo)."
What's your opinion on modern cinema? Is there a director who could be considered a successor to the giants of the past?
P.R.: "The above names include contemporaries. However, the era we are going through - the very last few years - is not as fruitful as the immediately preceding one. But in the history of art, these short fluctuations are not significant. Significant artists, directors in this case, exist and will continue to exist. The most important, and possibly worrying, thing is whether and for how long there will be an audience for them. Even if it's a small one. Because without an audience, an artist withers and gives up."
Young people who are caught in the overwhelming surge of "Blockbusters" and "entertainment movies," how will they manage to come into contact with the classic masterpieces of the 7th art that are perpetually "exiled" even from television?
P.R.: "I hope there will always be some, even if only a few, who will seek them out. At least, that's what I see from my own classes. I remain optimistic. Of course, without arguments. Otherwise, it wouldn't be optimism. Fashions pass, and saturation heals and renews. And the few will be enough."
What is your opinion on the free access to movies via the internet? Does it constitute piracy, or might it ultimately, in the long run, educate an audience that could have access to rare classic masterpieces?
P.R.: "I don't believe that free distribution of knowledge, information, works of art, etc., via the internet elevates the level of culture. The experience to date does not show that education and critical thinking have improved since the advent of the internet. The photographs of great photographers that I once collected with difficulty for my classes from books are now all available on the internet, and many people view them on their own. But they don't understand what they see. And that's the problem. Rising standards don't mean I have at my disposal or have seen. But rather, I want to see, I search, I find, I watch with eagerness and enjoy. The important thing is that almost all movies are now available to anyone who wants to see them badly enough. And at very affordable prices. Making them entirely free, I don't believe will increase the thirst. And if a small price helps them to continue to exist, I don't think it's bad. After all, someone, somehow, somewhere profits from all free things."
Why did you choose Syros as your permanent residence? And has the community of Syros "capitalized" on your presence there as much as you would have wished?
P.R.: "I loved it and visited it since I was a child. I first came at the age of eleven to a Jesuit camp in Delagratsia. So, my decision to leave Athens easily found its destination. Contributing factors were the (once) good communication with Athens and the presence of a hospital. Society as a whole doesn't mean much. Good and likable people can be found everywhere. And people who seek what I can offer are anyway few everywhere. However, after living on the island for 18 years, I have not regretted it for a moment."