Nil Jang piše filmske kritike za The Hollywood Reporter i redovno objavljuje između ostalog i u: Sight&Sound (London), Tribune (London), KINO (Ljubljana), veb sajtu IndieWire, MUBI i Jigsaw Lounge. Između 2011. i 2014. godine bio je direktor Bradford International Film Festival –a, takođe je bio  i konsultant za nekoliko evropskih festivala kao što su Viennale (Austrija). Član je FIPRESCI – ja, od 2002. godine i učestvovao je u preko 20 žiriranja, između ostalog i na Kanskoj nedelji kritike.

Kada ste se zainteresovali za film i filmsku kritiku?

Nil Jang: Ne mogu tačno da se setim vremena kada “nisam gledao filmove”,  jer još od pete godine mi je bilo dozvoljeno da ostajem kasno i gledam filmove, naravno ukoliko ujutru nisam imao školu. U tim danima, tokom sedamdesetih, to je značilo prikazivanje horor filmova petkom i subotom, skoro svake nedelje. Želeo sam da saznam nešto više o ovim filmovima i u tome mi je pomogla knjiga Alana Franka, sa jednostavnim nazivom „Horor filmovi“, koja pruža kvalitetnu kritiku i osvrt ovog žanra. Otkrio sam ovu knjigu 1978. godine u lokalnoj biblioteci, tada sam imao osam godina, i zadržao je kod sebe mesecima. Bio sam fasciniran širokim i jezivim kadrovima, kakve nikad pre nisam imao prilike da vidim. Iznova i iznova sam iščitavao tu knjigu, i mogu čak da prepoznam njen kasniji uticaj u mojim filmskim kritikama.

Kako se postaje filmski kritičar? Da li se sećate svoje prve filmske kritike – kada i gde ste je objavili, kakve reakcije je izazvala?

Nil Jang: Moja prva objavljena filmska kritika je kritika filma: „Point Break“. Objavljena je u studentskom časopisu Univerziteta u Mančesteru 1991. godine. Nije izazvala nikakve specijalne reakcije, koliko se sećam, ali kad je čitam danas primećujem da sam bio daleko ispred tadašnje struje filmske kritike u tome, a mnogi kritičari su u to vreme odbacili taj film, ali su mu se vratili kasnije. „Point Break“ je na kraju ispao daleko bolji od običnog komercijalnog ostvarenja. To je veoma prijatan, profesionalni triler, koji iako nije ostvario sve svoje ciljeve uspeo je da bude zanimljiviji od većine holivudskih komercijalnih filmova.

„Kako se postaje filmski kritičar?“ – Ja bih rekao da morate da odgledate što više filmova različitih žanrova i iz različitih epoha, kao i da proučavate i čitate najbolje postojeće filmske kritičare, ali i one iz prošlosti. Takođe smatram da je veoma važno i da čitate i kritičare drugih umetnosti, a ne samo filmske, kao što je džez kritičar Whitney Balliett i AJ Liebling koji je pisao samo o boksu. I dok je izolacija u bioskopu poželjna, ona ne bi smela da dovede i do socijalne izolovanosti čoveka. Kao što je CLR James napisao u svom delu „Iza granica“ parafrazirajući Raдјarda Kiplinga: „Šta oni znaju o cvrčku kad on samo cvrkuće?“.

Koliko filmova mesečno odgledate? Da li preferirate bioskop ili gledanje filmova kod kuće? Koji je Vaš omiljeni žanr?

Nil Jang: Prosečno tokom jednog meseca posetim jedan do dva filmska festivala (2014. godine sam bio na 26 filmskih festivala), odgledam između 25 i 35 dugometražnih i verovatno oko 25 kratkometražnih filmova, što ukupno iznosi između 45 i 60 filmova tokom jednog meseca. Ne volim da pravim razliku između kratkometražnih i dugometražnih filmova, što je nekako veštačko nasleđe koje nanosi više štete nego koristi. Većina filmova je pravljeno za prikazivanje na velikom platnu, i na taj način volim i ja da ih gledam. Kao što je David Thomson napisao: „Televizijski ekran je nefer prema filmu i okrutan prema najboljima“. Naravno da gledam filmove i na televiziji, na svom kućnom katodnom televizoru marke Soni, koji sam kupio još 1995.godine. Nisam ljubitelj velikih modernih televizora koji okupiraju celu dnevnu sobu. Što se tiče omiljenog žanra, već sam spomenuo da sam odrastao na hororu, tako da je i dalje moj omiljeni režiser Džon Karpenter, a filmovi „Don’t Look Now“ i „Suspirija“, su među mojih omiljenih pet.

Da li možete da nam date kratak osvrt na stanje u filmskoj industriji danas? Kakva je budućnost filma po Vama?

Nil Jang: Ne vidim da holivudski monopol gubi na značaju, nažalost. Tužno je što se gradi veliki broj multipleksa čija je sudbina da prikazuju mejnstrim američke kulture. Nezavisna, odnosno umetnička produkcija, se takođe bori u raznim zemljama, uključujući i Veliku Britaniju, a većina njih mora da prikazuje i holivudske hitove kako bi opstali finansijski. Nezavisna produkcija postoji, i ona mora biti podržana jer je to jedini način da radikalna i politička filmska ostvarenja dođu do velikog platna, umesto da završe samo na DVD-u. Što se tiče budućnosti filma, ona je svakako u digitalnom formatu, dok celuloidna traka odbija da izumre, jer će uvek biti ljudi koji žele da vide filmove na medijimu za koji su namenjeni. Tarantino, Nolan, Skorseze i mnogi drugi poznati režiseri, imaju veliku moć da snime svoje filmove u analognom obliku i učine ih dostupnim za 35 milimetarski projekciju. Veoma je ohrabrujuće što je Kanski festival, koji je prešao skroz na digitalni format, ove godine imao i projekciju jednog 35 milimetarskog filmskog ostvarenja „Saulov sin“. U širem smislu budućnosti bioskopa, zabrinut sam, da će u budućnosti samo srednja klasa školovanih filmadžija imati pristup ovom mediju. Dostupnost jeftine digitalne opreme dovela je do radikalne demokratizacije bioskopa, ali ako ljudi rade sve duže za sve manje para, kako i ko će imati vremena da uzme kameru u ruke i pokuša da se izrazi?

Učestvovali ste u žiriranjima na brojnim festivalima do sada. Koji festival po Vašem mišljenju ima najinteresantniji koncept?

Nil Jang: Pre nekoliko godina bio sam član novinarskog žirija na međunarodnom filmskom festivalu u Beču, dok sam danas samo konsultant. Iako nisam baš objektivan, smatram da je ovaj festival model koji bi svi trebalo da prate, a upotreba celuloidne trake je, naravno, samo još jedan veliki plus.

Kako će biti koncipirano Vaše predavanje u Domu omladine Beograda?

Nil Jang: Prikazaću kratak film austrijskog eksperimentalnog režisera, a onda ću započeti diskusiju na temu karijere američkog filmskog kritičara iz tridesetih godina Kyle Crichtona, koji je pisao kritike pod pseudonimom Robert Forsythe.

Da li poznajete filmsku produkciju u Srbiji i kakvo je Vaše mišljenje o srpskim ostvarenjima?

Nil Jang: Pre nekoliko dana sam odgledao novi film Želimira Žilnika, „Destinacija Serbistan“. On je režiser sa kojim želim da budem u kontaktu, zato sam i organizovao prvu englesku projekciju njegove triologije “Kenedi” pre nekoliko godina kada sam bio selektor na Bradford International Film Festival u Velikoj Britaniji. Znam da je situacija u Srbiji veoma teška za mlade režisere i zato je veoma važno da postoji mogućnost da svoja ostvarenja prikažu na mestima kao što su Novi bioskop Zvezda, Dom omladine Beograda, festival na Paliću i Festival novog filma i videa (AFV) koji sam posetio u decembru i o kojem sam pisao za časopis Sight&Sound. Na AFV-u sam prvi put video film Ljubomira Šimunića „Gerda, zločesta veštica“, četrnaestominutni eksperimentalni film iz 1976. godine, koji me je oduševio i koji bi trebao da bude inspiracija mnogim mladim umetnicima koji žele da izraze sebe koristeći pokretne slike.

Preporučite nam neke od novih filmova koje bi obavezno trebalo da pogledamo.

Nil Jang: Najbolji novi dugometražni film koji sam video ove godine je film Nila Blomkampa, naučna fantastika „Čapi“, koju je većina kritičara odbacila. Film Terensa Malika, “Vitez pehara”, je takođe loše ocenjen, čija je premijera u Berlinu u februaru i predstavlja njegov najbolji rad još od filma „Tanka crvena linija“, i nagrade Zlatne palme za pobednički film „Drvo života.“

 

————————————————————————–

How did you start with interest for movies and especially with film criticism?

Neil Young: I can’t remember a time when I *wasn’t* watching films, and from the age of five I was allowed to stay up late on nights when I wasn’t at school the next day and watch whatever was on TV. In those days, the mid-70s, that meant horror films on Friday and Saturday nights, almost without exception, week after week. I wanted to know more about these bizarre works, and an important element in that was a book by Alan Frank, simply entitled Horror Films, which provided a critical overview of the genre from its silent roots. I discovered this book in my local library in around 1978 or 1979 (I was seven or eight) and would keep it on perpetual “borrow” for months on end, fascinated by the extensive, lurid stills – most of them from stills I had never seen. But I read and re-read the text as well, and I can trace my interest in writing on film back to that particular book.

 

How does one become a film critic? Do you remember your first film review – when and where you’ve published, any reaction is caused?

Neil Young: The first one which appeared in print was Point Break, for the student newspaper at Manchester University, Mancunion, in 1991. I reproduced it online at my website Jigsaw Lounge, not that it is any kind of shining exemplar of film criticism! It didn’t provoke any particular reaction that I can recall, but reading it now I see that I was ahead of the “wave” a little bit in that I found merit in a film that many critics dismissed at the time but many now look back at with appreciation and fondness: “Point Break turns out to be far from the sell-out rubbish it could have been. It’s a very enjoyable, expertly handled thriller which, while not achieving all of its aims, manages to be a lot more interesting than most commercial Hollywood products.”

How does one become a film critic? I’d say that you have to watch a decent number of films across as many genres and from as many periods as possible, and also study the best existing critics from the past and present. But I think it’s important that you read outstanding critics and writers who have never written about cinema at all, especially ones with outstanding prose styles (I’m thinking of the jazz critic Whitney Balliett, and AJ Liebling, who wrote manly about boxing). And while an immersion in cinema is desirable, it should not result in a disengagement from the wider world as cinema does not and should not exist in a social vacuum. As CLR James famously wrote in Beyond A Boundary, paraphrasing Rudyard Kipling, “What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?”

 

How many films do you see each month? Do you prefer watching films in cinema or at home? What is your favorite genre?

Neil Young: In an average month I would attend between one and two film-festivals (during 2014 I managed to get to 26 of them) and I would watch around 25 to 35 feature-length pictures plus probably 20 to 25 shorts, making a total between 45 and 60 – these days I am trying not to make distinctions between short, medium and feature-length works, as it’s an artificial tradition which is more harm than help. The vast majority of films are made to be seen on the big screen, and that is how I prefer to view them – as David Thomson wrote, the TV screen is unfair to all films, and cruel to great ones. But of course I do watch films on TV – at home I have a bulky little cathode-ray Sony which I bought in 1995. I am not a fan of huge lightweight modern TVs that dominate so many living-rooms. In terms of genre, as I said I grew up on horror films and John Carpenter remains my favourite director – Don’t Look Now and Suspiria are also in my all-time top five.

 

Can you give us a short brief on the state of film industry nowadays? According to you: how will the future of film look like?

Neil Young: I can’t see any prospect of Hollywood’s hegemony fading significantly within my lifetime, unfortunately, and it’s depressing that so many multiplexes are being built which will be destined to be dominated by mainstream American production. Independent or “arthouse” cinemas are also struggling in many countries, including the UK, and many of them have to show Hollywood and mainstream fare in order to remain financially viable. Grassroots, genuinely independent exhibition does exist, however, and must be supported as this is often the only way radical and political work can get exposure on the big screen rather than online/DVD circulation. In terms of the “future of film” digital is, regrettably, here to stay but celluloid refuses to die and there will always be people who want to see films in the medium for which they were intended. Many well-known directors – Tarantino, Nolan, Scorsese, for example – have sufficient clout that they can make their films in an analogue way, and make them available via 35mm prints. And it was very encouraging that Cannes Film Festival, whose embrace of digital seemed so all-encompassing, had a 35mm projection of a main-competition film this year (Son Of Saul). But in the wider sense of cinema’s future, I am very concerned that only middle-class film-school graduates are getting access to the medium, as this will necessarily result in a narrowing of the stories told and the social milieu depicted. The availability of cheap digital equipment should be leading to a radical democratisation of cinema, but if people are working longer hours for less money how are they going to find time to pick up a camera and express their point of view?

 

You were participating in jury selection at many festivals. Which festival, in your opinion, has the most interesting concept?

Neil Young: I was on the press-jury at the Viennale (Vienna International Film Festival, which takes place in late October) a few years ago and now work for the festival as a consultant. So while I am not exactly unbiased, I do think that the festival’s balance of new and old films is a model which all such events should follow, and its staunch commitment to celluloid is of course another major plus.

 

What is the concept of your lecture at Dom omladine Beograda (Belgrade Youth Center)?

Neil Young: I will show a short film by an experimental Austrian director, then discuss the career of the American film-critic from the 1930s, Kyle Crichton, who wrote under the nom-de-plume Robert Forsythe.

 

Are you familiar with film production in Serbia and what is your opinion on the Serbian accomplishments in this field of art?

Neil Young: A few days ago I saw the new film by Želimir Žilnik, Logbook Serbistan. He is a director I try to keep up with whenever possible, and I organised the first UK showings of his Kenedi trilogy a few years ago when I was programming the Bradford International Film Festival in the UK. I know that it is very tough for young and emerging directors to work within cinema in Serbia, and so it’s very important than they are able to obtain exhibition possibilities for their work in spaces like Zvezda and DOB, and festivals such as Palic and the Alternative Film & Video festival in Belgrade which I visited in December and wrote about for Sight & Sound. It was at AFV that I saw for the first time Ljubomir Šimunić’s, Gerdy, The Wicked Witch, a 14-minute experimental film from 1976 which blew me away and which should be an inspiration to young artists who want to express themselves using moving images.

 

Could you suggest us some of the new films we should definitely watch?

Neil Young: The best new feature-length film I have seen this year is Neill Blomkamp’s science-fiction picture Chappie, which the majority of critics dismissed. Terrence Malick’s Knight of Cups was similarly under-rated when it premiered at Berlin in February, but for me it’s his best since The Thin Red Line and several cuts above his Palme d’Or winner The Tree of Life.