On Friday, February 28th, the film The cannon was hot, directed by Slobodan Skerlić (film director To the bone, 1997, and parts of the TV series Open door, 1995, 2012) based on the novel of the same name by Vladimir Kecmanović, opens this year's Fest. A few days ago, Laguna published a new edition of this novel, announcing that with the story of an eleven-year-old boy of Serbian nationality whose parents were killed during the shelling of Sarajevo, after which he became speechless, and his Muslim neighbor Tidža took care of him, Kecmanović's novel "offers a different perspective, a depersonalized picture of war and of life in Sarajevo under siege". When it was first published, in 2008, The cannon was hot received the "Meša Selimović" award and was shortlisted for the Nino award. Critics spoke of it either in superlatives, or, on the other hand, considered it a nationalist reading. Except for the novel The cannon was hot, Vladimir Kecmanović (1972, Sarajevo) is the author of novels Last chance, Cavity contents, Feliks, Sibir and collections of short stories Crumbling walls. He wrote a book with the historian Predrag Marković Tito, conversation. For the novel Feliks, who was shortlisted for Nino's award, received the "Branko Ćopić" award of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
On the eve of the film's premiere in Belgrade The cannon was hot a sharp polemic broke out between the author of the book and the director of the film, Slobodan Skerlić. First, in an interview with "Politica", Kecmanović asserted that Skerlić in the film, by changing the ending of the novel in which the boy, the main character, after surviving the trauma in besieged Sarajevo, shoots at the city, betrayed his point, and then Skerlić answered him in an interview with "Danas ".
"WEATHER": According to you, therefore, the ending of the film, in which the director's intervention changed its ending, is disputed. Responding to your interview in "Politicians" in which you criticize the director's actions with not at all gentle words, Slobodan Skerlić died in "Today" stated: "His entire interview in 'Politici' is an attempt to ingratiate himself with his bloodthirsty patrons, for whom fear is greater than hope, and to save the possibility that it could be linked to an enterprise that is anti-war. By doing so, he would betray his own social commitment... The film's desire is to put itself on the side of humanity, to the side of the shelled and harassed neighborhood, to refuse to take a position in the ethnic conflict. And the shadow fell on the criminals, to the unscrupulous, disguised as their own nations and denominations... I am a novel., do not like, I did not read it as a warmongering pamphlet, and he would like to be read that way. "
VLADIMIR KECMANOVIĆ: In addition to proving that Slobodan Skerlić hopelessly does not understand the meaning of art, so school knowledge of film technique cannot help him, that interview in "Danas" is excellent material for the analysis of a petty bourgeois, or, as the idol of his intellectual authorities would say, " palanquin" view of the world. Since I don't have time to do such an analysis right now, let's see how things stand with the parts you quoted. Since he has already started to deal with superstitious gossip and questions about who are my "patrons", Skerlić opened the space for me to notice how the years spent on juries for the selection of Miss Beauty have obviously left an indelible mark on him, and I advise him to leave that pleasant , and devote himself to intellectually non-burdening activity again, and that in full capacity. As for the "anti-war venture", a few years ago I spent hours trying to explain to him how artistically they differ from NGO ventures and how there are no war films, just like there are no war novels that are not anti-war, so it saddens me that none of what I told him he didn't remember and that it still remains at the level of work actions and mother tongue lessons in elementary school. Instead of dealing with my "social engagement", it would be better for him to deal with the history of his party, or rather multi-party activities, with a look at the part of the nineties that he spent as a state official. It's nice that he didn't read my novel as a "warmongering pamphlet" because it isn't. However, it is not nice that he did not understand him. And it is very ugly that he tries to attribute his own inability to understand ideas more complicated than those that his candidates dedicated to the fight against ozone holes and for peace in the world communicate to the public...
If we agree to film The cannon was hot it was not by chance that he was chosen to open the Fest, what is being said by that choice?
If we agreed that he was not chosen by chance, knowing the confused Serbian "cultural politics", the answer would be - I have no idea why, nor what he wants to say. But precisely because I know that sad confusion - we cannot agree on that. I am deeply convinced that those who deal with the "management" of Serbian culture have nothing to say to anyone... Look at the composition of the new commissions appointed by the Ministry of Culture. After so many stories about the necessary changes, Vladislava Gordić Petković is there again, a woman who has been on the tax payers' back for years. In the organization of the Book Fair, in the Ministry of Culture, according to various juries... It just didn't start popping out of the can... It turns out that those revelers who recently called for a "cultural revolution" died ingloriously only because they didn't invite that lady to be their leader . So that, like Mao Zedong back then, he leads a revolution against himself... So, if you have a valid and meaningful reason in mind, no - that movie was chosen by chance. Otherwise, some prosaic answer to why he was chosen certainly exists. Maybe someone who decides is beholden to the producer or the director or something. That's how things work here.
How do you think the Belgrade audience will see the film??
Those who understand art, because of the boring and sloppy beginning in which the grandmothers and frogs are stylistically mixed, and because of the imbecile ending, will probably have a bad image of that film. Rightfully so. A less artistic and more emotionally sensitive audience will probably be touched by the poignant story. Neither of them will be able not to be fascinated by the acting of Anita Mančić and the believability of the two boys. The emotionally insensitive will cringe from boredom because the director, having quarreled with irony, and convinced that tragedy and laughter do not go together, has removed most of the black humor that exists in the novel from the screen adaptation. Those who are concerned by the novel and the Sarajevo tragedy will be outraged that the "politically correct" film omits most of the details that point to the responsibility of the Bosniak side in the Bosnian war - from the Serbian young man who, in order not to be turned into a Bosniak clay pigeon, hides in wardrobe, over a Bosniak tank which, for the most part, fires at Serbian positions, but, when the need arises, turns the barrel to the other side as well, to the people who lose their heads because their "search" of the apartment planted photo of the Serbian war leader... Belgrade fans of the cult of Mušan Topalović Caca, just like their Sarajevo "colleagues", despite all these "corrections", including the aforementioned rape of the end of the story and the point of the novel, will find that the film, nevertheless, "Greater Serbian", which will further strengthen the director in his touching belief that he hit the "false patriots" "in the plexus", and not the Limier brothers... In short, how many people, so much temper...
When you mentioned that Sarajevo tank, who shoots the hour there, hour here, because of him you were accused of falsifying facts?
Those who spent the war in Sarajevo know that such tanks existed. Several witnesses confirmed to me the existence of at least one, which was hidden in a tunnel next to the Sarajevo settlement of Ciglane. And whoever does not believe that the Bosniak forces, when it proved "expedient", knew how to shoot their own, if the Serbian testimonies disgust him, he should read the memoirs of the wartime commander of the Bosniak army, Sefer Halilović. After he was dismissed due to some conflict in the Bosniak leadership, a grenade was fired at this man's apartment, killing half of his family. He claims that that grenade was a Bosniak one. If someone wants to say how those who were ready to shoot their commander the day before yesterday refrained from similar actions when it came to some less important people - then it is valid... Therefore, either the Bosniak hero Halilović is also a "Great Serbian" liar, or Those who accuse me of forgery are lying. Or, perhaps, they want to say that Halilović was not shot from a tank, but from some other artillery weapon? They may be right…
The comments your novel has provoked support the opinion that books are no longer read for what they say, but to be (evil)used as support for a position that was declared a historical truth.
Unfortunately, this is the case in many cases. But the charm of art, among other things, is that it can overcome prejudices among those who really love it. It is not a small number of people who like it Top liked even though his story did not fit in at all with the "historical truth" they believed. And that is one of the reasons why doing art will never lose its meaning.
Abdullah Sidran said about your novel that it is Chetnik and that you are a Chetnik writer.
In the original meaning, Chetniks are fighters classified into small, guerilla units, and have existed since ancient times. In recent times, for example, some members of the Yugoslav Army in the homeland of General Draža Mihailović, during the Second World War, were called Chetniks. Some members of the Republika Srpska Army, as well as some volunteer formations in the Balkan wars fought in the nineties of the last century, called themselves Chetniks. In that sense, what would a Chetnik novel or a Chetnik writer be? A writer promoting some of those units, in one of the wars I mentioned? The author of the literary, war and mini version of the TV series "Military Academy", with more action and less sex in the hint? I don't think there would be anything wrong with that promotion, if it resulted in quality prose, but I, at least for now, have not dealt with it. So, since he's not stupid, Sidran doesn't think about it. Sidran by the term "Chetnik" means a colloquial, pejorative, and Nazi expression by which Sarajevo, and some other bazaars, denote all Serbs. Or - if not all - almost all. The exception - and only conditionally and until the first opportunity - are those Serbs who are currently willing guardians of the cult of the already mentioned Mušan Topalović Caca, known for the fact that - for the information of the uninitiated - in the early nineties of the twentieth century, he used to cut off the heads of Serbs with a saber. Since I am a Serb and I have no intention of pleasing the devotees of that cult, then, in that sense, I admit, I am a Chetnik. And God forbid it's the opposite... And as for Sidran's consistency and the weight of his statements - not to recount the happy experiences that the production of the film had with him The cannon was hot, determined to establish "regional cooperation" at any cost, even though I warned them in a friendly manner that the mana was a workaholic - let's let him speak "for himself". In one of the interviews, he was asked if it was true that he was offered to be a co-screenwriter Cannon. He says it's true, and he resolutely refused because it was Chetnik work. Then they ask him if it is true that he was also offered a role in that film. He says, yes, but they didn't agree on the fee!? It is true that the problem with the collaboration on the screenplay was the fee, and that the "highly ethical" Sidran would gladly try to write the real, Chetnik novel, which I did not write, for a suitable fee...
And accusations of nationalism?
There is nothing controversial about someone being a nationalist, why should that be an accusation?
Pa, are you?
If nationalism means that I will not call the Serbian language I speak and write a "bhscg" language - then, yes. I am a nationalist. And isn't he a nationalist who previously decided to call the Serbian language he speaks Bosnian or Montenegrin for political reasons? So when the linguistic senselessness of that political rape began to bother him too - because, naturally, he felt cramped in the ghetto he had created for himself, he came up with the idea of creating a hybrid name... In fact, he did not come, the colonizers came who in order to destroy a culture, they first encouraged him to commit this linguistic antics, and then, after the task was completed, they remembered that, after all, it was a language, which, however, must not have a name, because the name is tied with identity, and identity should be replaced by brands. And brands should be marked with abbreviations... If we are going to go even further - the term Serbo-Croatian language was a political, not a linguistic category, because the Croats, having decided on the Štokavian variant as a literary one, accepted the Serbian language as their own. However, that term was the result of a political agreement on South Slavic unification, which I don't think was well, nor smartly, nor fairly achieved, but it was some kind of an agreement. Bosnian, more precisely Bosniak and Montenegrin languages are not the result of any agreement, unless by agreement we mean the agreement of a number of Bosniaks and a number of Montenegrins with themselves. And although I think they made a very stupid deal with themselves, it does not occur to me to challenge their right to call the language they speak whatever they want. Only, I reserve the same right for myself. And the fact that my right, unlike theirs, is also backed by linguistics should not be an aggravating circumstance, at the very least.
And that's all?
If nationalism means that I will not call Serbian literature, to which I belong, "Serbian" - yes. I am a nationalist. I would not accept the term "Serbian" because it is meaningless, even if I didn't know that it was invented a long time ago by the enemies of the Serbs and Serbia, in order to reduce one nation to less than half of the territory it inhabits. That term was invented by those who invented Jasenovac. And if it was not invented for those reasons, it is called that, precisely because it is meaningless, no one would even remember, and there would be nothing to accept or not accept...
Your critics say that behind the cultural battle you are fighting is a political one, "Great Serbian" goal?
Culture battles are often a cover for others. Only, in this case, they started the cultural battle. So they should ask themselves what their ulterior motive is. Those who want to reduce Serbian literature to "Serbian" are the aggressors. And I, in my own name, defend myself because I will not be reduced to less than half of the spiritual space, nor to less than half of the territorial space on which the people to whom I belong live...
You want to say how are those who insist on an appointment "Serbian literature" enemies of the Serbs?
Not only Serbs, but also other South Slavic peoples. The violent division of one language and literature into several small, invented ones - aims at destroying the identity of the Balkan peoples, turning them into an amorphous "bhscg" mass - as the poet would say, a "hypnotized crowd" - ideal for colonizing manipulation. Because identity is - those commissioners will tell you - a "dangerous thing". Of course he's dangerous. And life is a dangerous thing. But even more dangerous than his identity is the attempt to kill him by those officers. They know little about their own culture, and they know nothing about the cultures of other peoples, with which they would supposedly get closer. Thus, at Serbian festivals, people perform in honor of Krleži who, by their own admission, have not read a single word of his, and poetry anthologies expressing declarative love for Albanians are edited by guys who are ready to cold-bloodedly declare that they are surprised by the presence of Christian motifs in Albanian poetry. And to present Buñuel's assumption, how can it be thanks to the influence of Ibrahim Rugova!? The "editors", therefore, have never heard that there is a significant percentage of Christians among Albanians!? They don't care. What does a child know what three hundred kilos are...
Then why don't you do something about South Slavic cultural cooperation?
The history of the South Slavs, unfortunately, unlike the collective history of war, is not characterized by collective peacetime exploits. Peacetime successes among the South Slavs belong to individuals. And that is not good in many areas. In art, which is usually an individual activity, this is the least of the problems. I participate in the South Slavic cooperation just by writing. Other authentic South Slavic artists collaborate with me in their artistic activity. Whether it was the Bosniak writer Muharem Bazdulj, whom I personally know quite well, or the Croatian writer Vedrana Rudan, with whom I only had the honor to speak once, or the Balkan genius in voluntary exile, Branimir Joni Štulić, whom I never met... As my great the Serbian poet Milena Marković is no less close now, when, since she avoids the pub, we see each other less often than before, when we knew how to sit down and let's drink some more... Authentic artists are close to me, regardless of whether I meet them or not and regardless of which nation they belong to, and inauthentic ones are just as far away. Their last names were Mustafić or Srbljanović - it's the same...
Some also say that you are right-wing?
The division into right and left in the West and in the colonies of the West has long since lost all meaning. It's pure makeup. There is only the brutal, corporate right, which holds everything in its hands, and there are tent leftists who are financed by that right, to act as court fools for its needs. True leftists are today, like the early Christians, driven into the catacombs. They are almost invisible in public. And those who get media space to present themselves as leftists are subscribers to various right-wing foundations, declaratively concerned about the endangerment of minority groups, and blatantly uninterested in the question of what the members of those groups, just like everyone else, will live on. The slave-owning exploitation of the majority of the planet's population, including millions of citizens of the most developed countries - not to mention the citizens of colonies such as the one we live in - that, those leftists will tell you, is not part of what the modern left deals with. Great! So, their "engagement" is limited to the struggle to hold the gay parade. And if a few days after the event some of the participants die of hunger - that is not their concern. At least those who starved to death, in addition to being homosexuals, were also members of a national minority, including abused women. Humanistically, nothing! And then such types tell you that you are right-wing!? Well, for them I am Ernesto Che Guevara.
You have stated that the film adaptation of your novel led you to write film and television scripts. If I'm not mistaken, now you are preparing a TV series about Nemanjići?
Not just the TV series. The idea is to make a movie about Nemanjići, with which the series would go in a package. Dejan Stojiljković and I should write the script. The director would be Dragan Bjelogrlić. It is a big challenge, both in terms of screenwriting, directing, and production. I think the biggest problem, however, is production. Honestly, I would be skeptical about the possibility of something so big being realized, if the role of the producer did not belong to Bjelogrlic, who, in the most difficult times, pushing out a masterpiece Beautiful Village, Pretty Flame even in times of economic crisis, he managed to record the spectacle as it is Montevideo, proved that he is capable of breaking through the horizons of the expected...
Commenting on the recent unrest in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you expressed your doubt that the media had exaggerated it, that there were significantly fewer participants than was announced. Why would the media lie?
I don't know why, but here they are again... For God's sake, the media do almost nothing else but lie. And in the text you allude to, I didn't say they were lying, I just gave one obvious example of spin. A television reporter who - naive and those who pretend to be naive will say by accident - played a significant role in the "branding" of the "Arab Spring", reports from the streets of Sarajevo. There are no people around her, smoke can be seen behind her. Honestly amazed, she says that a building was set on fire, but how, a hundred meters from that place, people are peacefully drinking coffee. Her boss in the studio realizes that the information does not fit into the given concept: "But that is characteristic of these kinds of protests," he almost exclaims. "I was in Egypt, where terrible things happened, and people still drank coffee!" If you don't believe a "rightist" like me that the hungry people on the streets of Bosnia are victims of colonization manipulation, I hope you will believe a " leftists" such as Sonja Biserko. We recently guested together on the show, where she clearly said that the protests in Bosnia were expected, since the Dayton review in the centers of world power is on the agenda!? When I drew her attention to the fact that she herself admitted that these protests were not spontaneous, she instantly turned from a naive journalist into her editor who clumsily tries to clean up the stains. So she started claiming that she didn't say that. And she said - there are both video and audio recordings.
Also, regarding the unrest in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you recommended that potential future demonstrators put a picture of Gavrilo Princip on their banners, which would indicate the hope that something fundamentally changed.
No, I didn't recommend anything to anyone. But I pointed out that the image of Gavrilo Princip, a man who symbolizes one of the rare moments when at least the best representatives of the South Slavic peoples were sincerely united, could offer hope that behind formally just economic protests there is no chauvinist goal hidden behind. And since Princip symbolizes one of the rare moments when the South Slavic resistance was authentic - his image would offer hope that the colonizers are not behind the organization... But perhaps that hope would prove to be in vain. Chauvinists and colonizers would probably manage to abuse such protests... And maybe with this story I give them an idea for some new spins...
Some see such an attitude as a conspiracy theory?
Conspiracy theories are complicated, this is simple. Go to any "Western Balkan" wolf-hole and see how things work there. You have a local strongman, who holds the purse strings, who appoints the local government and who controls the local journalists. Journalists and the government may or may not be in direct contact. The one who finances both is in charge of "coordination"... The whole world, unfortunately, is one big wolf, which functions in an identical way. Only there are incomparably more actors, so the matter is less obvious...
The centenary of the Sarajevo assassination is the occasion for polemics about the blame for the start of the First World War.
The truth is simple: Princip shot the occupier. And even if his act, which it didn't, could have caused a world war, there would still be no question of guilt...
You announced your book on the Principle?
It is an essay based on historical data, motivated by the need to pay tribute to Princip and his comrades. Who fought for freedom. And freedom was not possible without expelling the occupiers - not only from Bosnia but also from Bosnians. Because, as the great Croatian poet Avgustin Tin Ujević said: "It is not the greatest misfortune of Croats that they are in Austria; it is the greatest misfortune that Austria is among them". Four years after Princip's sacrifice, Austria-Hungary was expelled from Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia. But, to this day, she lives in the souls of her former slaves, forcing them to commit unprecedented crimes and follies. Today, Austria-Hungary - and take that term partly literally, and partly as a metaphor for the occupier and colonizer - lives both in Serbia and in the hearts of a large number of Serbs... Therefore, reminding Princip and his brothers - the best Serbian, Croatian and Muslim sons of their time - represents, rather above all, a moral act.
Recently, as a participant in a debate on European integration, you expressed doubt about the European Union. Are you just an opportunist or do you know something that most do not?
If I were an opportunist, I would express enthusiasm for the European Union, as it is lucrative. There is a whole army of people who live off "Eurofanaticism". I wouldn't even say that I know something that others don't. I'm just not pretending not to know what almost everyone knows. And almost everyone knows that the European Union is in a major, economic and not only economic crisis, that it is already, formally and informally, divided into three classes of countries, and that, if they accept us at all, we have a place in the third, the most disenfranchised, if in our honor, they do not form an even worse, fourth league... That in such a situation that Union turns into a kind of cover for neo-colonialism, in which, of course, we are not intended to play the role of colonizer but of the colonized... That you negotiate with the Union they resemble a combination of Kafka's Trap, Orwell's 1984. and "real-socialist-self-governing" nonsense in which the meaning and essence are partly obscured, partly replaced by filling in some idiotic forms... And at the same time, I do not claim that the solution is to terminate those negotiations, since we - and to which, it should be noted, our multi-year "wise" policy - brought to the point where we beg like beggars for crumbs to be thrown at us... I do not claim that this is the solution, just as I do not claim that it is not, but I am sure that there is no place for any "Eurofanaticism"... If, as I said, you don't get paid for that enthusiasm...
You are too - columnist. What is your experience?, based on personal practice, on the influence of public speech?
In the multitude of words that are spoken publicly every day, the immediate impact is almost non-existent. But there is an intermediary. At least a small part of the public heard that word. Especially because what the majority of the public listens to and hears cannot have any particular impact. The fact that it is marketed daily to a large part of the public and does not aim to influence, but to prevent the influence of something meaningful. Or, at least, to slow down that influence... But, you see, you, for example, work in a newspaper that does not have a large circulation, and yet many, I would say rightly, attribute to them the influence...
