Krzysztof Zanussi at Columbia

February 18, 2009

On Wednesday, February 18, 2009, Krzysztof Zanussi appeared to a small but eager crowd assembled in Barnard’s Schemerhorn Hall.  Hosted by the Polish Studies Program and the Ukrainian Film Club with the support of the Harriman Institute, the Columbia University Film School, and the Institute for Central and Eastern Europe, the event featured a discussion led by Zanussi followed by a screening of his Persona Non Grata (2005).  Though he is known primarily as an internationally renowned Polish film director, the former physicist is now embedded within the political world of Poland andthe evening’s conversation loomed greatly on elements of diplomacy in Polish-Ukrainian-Russian relations.

Zanussi began his talk by referencing a conference that he had recently visited that was comprised of Polish diplomats and intellectuals and their Russian counterparts.  At the conference, Slavonic brotherhood was lauded and “the notion of exclusion” made explicit. As a Polish man, his Italian identity aside, Zanussi noted the Eastern-Western divide inherent in his and his nation’s consciousness, finding his roots to be both Latin and Slavonic.  Both at the conference and now, he resents the idea that he must choose between the two.  Though he did not reject the Slavonic soul, which he described as often being characterized as “messy, disorganized, [and] inconsistent,” he discarded the colonialist notion, specifically the Soviet mentality, that all roots extend from Russian soil. 

K. Zanussi with Ukrainian film director Lesya Kalynska at the event in Barnard College.

Though he recently turned down a position as Polish ambassador to Moscow, Zanussi will continue to remain acutely aware of the recent reorientation of Russian foreign policy and Russia’s assertion of rights of influence over ex-Soviet territory. Zanussi invoked Churchill’s characterization of Russian politics as a battle of two dogs under a rug, stating that there is a visible crisis at the epicenter of Russian power.  Having “wasted a decade,” Russia has been crippled by its failure to develop “grassroot” initiatives, modeling its economy, instead, on countries like Saudi Arabia.  While this economic instability is certainly not exclusively relevant to Russia, the response of the masses and popular unrest is a growing concern and “nothing can be more dangerous than repressed feelings.”  Zanussi claimed that the ultimate litmus test for citizens’ faith in the nation is the size of the line at the consulate.  There are no lines in front of the Russian consulate, he said, “People don’t believe in [Russia.]”

Indeed, he told a joke about President Medvedev’s trip to distant town in Siberia, where Medvedev introduced himself as «President Medvedev» (in Russian 'Medvedev' can also mean 'of bears'), to which a local responded: «And where is the President of people?»  The enduring theme of Zanussi's responses was that there is no room in the contemporary world for a Russian Empire or a single, dominating ethnic group in general.  Those notions are anarchronistic, Zanussi proclaimed.  But is Russia ready for this present if it has not accepted its past?  Has it begun a process of "soul searching," questioned Professor Yuri Shevchuk of the Columbia Slavic Department?  Zanussi postulated, citing Erofeev, that the self-destructive Russian soul has only begun a process of reconciling past events.  In terms of Russo-Ukrainian diplomacy, however, he said: "[Russia] will not touch Ukraine" and if Russia were ever to admit that Ukraine viably existed, it would only be as a "temporary misunderstanding."  This turning point—this looming moment of introspection—is not illusory, however.  If anything, it will only be achieved if it is approached equally by both the colonizer and the colonized.  What's more, solidarity among the colonized cannot be overlooked.  In terms of Polish-Ukrainian relations, Zanussi could not be more positive; that Ukraine is a “safe” neighbor and a cultural exchange exists is undeniable.  Never before has the Polish intelligentsia been so driven to familiarize itself with contemporary Ukrainian writers.

In an age where it is “fashionable to feel different,” (he proudly cited the Gaussian Curve as proof that the majority is always wrong) what was his advice for the former Soviet states?  He called for the development of a home that is “attractive enough to overcome nostalgia.”  He valiantly asserted that now it is apparently visible that both Poland and Ukraine are “real” countries, no longer “remains of the Soviet Union.”  Now is the time, he claimed, for citizens and artists alike to reclaim their cultural roots and to formulate their hero, one that is unique for each nation and is “emblematic for [its] dreams.”  With this ironic perversion of social realism, nations can fight for self-consciousness and self-worth.

Tanah Spencer
Bachelor of Arts Candidate, Slavic Studies
Columbia College 2011.

Other viewer’s thoughts on Zanussi’s “Persona Non Grata":

“We were shown top-drawer theatrical filmmaking craftsmanship: script, casting, direction, location, photography/lighting, editing, projection. Perhaps the film was even made at reasonable cost -- in languages spoken by people living in the country from which it was produced: Poland (foreign audiences could title or dub as eventually agreed). Zanussi confirmed later during the discussion, that he believes all countries should make films that way, especially the small ones who he believes should not use another (bigger) language just to attract income sufficient to repay investors. (I would build on this to mean that Ukrainians should make films in local languages, not in Russian -- nor even bowing to Kievan-Poltavan "official" Ukrainian but producing in Galician and Lemko and Rusyn languages.) Just heard a piece early this morning (March 9, 2009 on BBC via WNYC820am) telling of African filmmakers doing that, producing from within their own local cultures and showing almost anywhere practical, including portable outdoor "theaters."

Set within the locations and governmental structures presented to high-level professionals of the diplomatic corps, "Persona ..." tells how a small group of people could have lived out their fundamentally ordinary lives -- negotiating sexual passion, love, marriage, trust, suspicion,  manipulation in ways that we all could find as familiar as in any soap opera, truly shy of operatic tragedy. How come, if these are apparatchiks from historically antagonistic national governments? Aren't there more powerful forces at work? Not necessarily. The individuals commissioned to represent Governments of nation-states may be capable of getting along on more or less reasonably -- as compared with the least or most of the others.” Daniel Bavolak