Scientist and Artist

A couple of things make Zanussi particularly interesting as a director. Firstly, there's his background in science. Its influence could be strongly felt in Behind The Wall (and apparently the rest of the films too.) Not in any cold, clinical way, nor in the mere fact that his protagonists are themselves scientists, but in the sense one gets of a questioning, a controlled probing into what makes people tick, what shapes their own values and the way they relate to others. In Behind The Wall the camera closes in like a microscope on the characters, never flinching from the centre of interest. As their conversation becomes more and more personal and soul-baring, there are fewer and fewer cuts. This fascination with the uniquely human, Zanussi suggests, was part of the reason for nil disillusionment with science. 'My interest', he says, 'was more in people than in matter.....Perhaps I had to understand very early on that physics was unable-that science was unable — to give universal answers to many philosophical and elementary questions about the nature of our existence.'

Being a film-maker in Poland also has interesting influence on his work: '........ there are two interfering elements: difference of systems and difference of cultures You are an extension of the Anglo-Saxon [unclear: of] American conception of life, we are not-are Europeans. You are living in a [unclear: Capita] country, and we are not. Both these things are responsible for totally different [unclear: outlo] on things. You are probably aware of [unclear: soi] economic differences, while our production is totally subsidized. We get our money regularly and it is not connected with the income films make. It is easier to explain-or more difficult to explain — that this conception is considered completely natural, because film, and indeed all our cultural needs are considered elementary needs, whereas in this country they are not.

'If you look at semantics....when you say "success" in your language you naturally this "commercial success", whereas for us it is a [unclear: ect] pattern of speech to say a film was [unclear: "very] popular but totally unsuccessful". It mean [unclear: the] it was stupid, bad. Of course many people [unclear: feed] it, but it is not quantity that decides [unclear: we] have in mind other criteria like, for example Would people remember this film? Would this film or this novel influence their life or their attitudes? If it doesn't, it does not [unclear: roter] if they have not seen it or not - they may all have seen it and forgotten it. So you [unclear: u tand] that the fact that films are subsidize is natural for us, something that should be done

'Film is more important in terms of the health of society, in terms of the proper [unclear: fuctioning] of society. From that point of view we have a chance of getting money to make our next film each time without many problems. I have to have a script approved and this is another chapter because whatever is subsidized by the State is controlled by the State and the State would not permit me to make things which express ideas [unclear: contradic] to the policy of the State. But there is a [unclear: certain] margin of tolerance and freedom of [unclear: el] ression, which I try to explore in my films.'

(Quotations thieved from Cinema Papers)