2.2.7 LA DEPRESIÓN EN LA ADOLESCENCIA:

In the next chapter the study will deal more thoroughly with co-production and

Russian transnational cinema, but just as with Urga in the previous chapter, this mode of production is encountered in Window to Paris. Although the film speaks

exclusively, or at least largely, to a Russian audience and that, despite its mode of production, it still has a few transnational viewer strategies, including the casting of Agnès Soral, an actress who had already shown her comic talent in other films.14 The presence of her name in the film’s credits would make it marketable to French

viewers. Mamin’s film was released in several European countries,15 including France where the co-producing film companies originate. These French film companies are: La Sept Cinéma Production Company, Sodaperaga Productions and Fontaine

S.A.R.L. The important ones are the first two companies; the latter was a one-off company set up for the making of the film.16 Sodaperaga Productions was formed by Guy Seligmann,17 who is also credited as the producer of Window to Paris. La Sept

14 _{Agnès Soral was nominated for French César awards for her supporting role in Tchao pantin (1993)}

by Claude Berri. Soral’s official website writes, “she has proved however, whenever she has been given the chance, that she deserves much better. This is evident from the unrecognised Après Après- demain by Gérard Froz-Cotaz and Window on Paris by Yuri Mamin” Agnès Soral, Présentation, 08 09 2008 <http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jp.philippe/agnessoral/present.html>.

15 _{The Lumiere Database has screenings of the film in three countries: Belgium, The Netherlands and}

Spain, the latter country having the most viewers (about 40,000). However, the database only starts in 1996 and Window to Paris was released in 1994 (in fact, even in 1993 in Russia), hence there are no figures for the French and German viewers.

16 _{S.A.R.L.stands for Société à responsabillité limitée and the company made only Window to Paris .} 17 _{Guy Seligmann also produced Aleksei German’s Khrustalev, machinu!/Khrustalyov, My Car! (1998)}

Cinéma Production Company is a corporate part of the French-German ARTE Television Broadcast.18

Yuri Mamin would need these companies, and their financial backing, to create a film from a script, which partly takes place in Paris. Mamin and his Russian production company, Troitskii Most,19 could have chosen to build a Paris set in St Petersburg, which is the case for the shooting of the two dream sequences, but instead chose to make a co-production. For some critics, this has consequences for the film’s

reception. For example, Christina Stojanova says of post-Soviet Russian filmmakers co-producing with French filmmakers,

French producers seem to have a special affinity for Russia, and the films usually reflect this benevolent spirit of co-operation (Burnt By the Sun, 1994 by Nikita Mikhalkov and Window in Paris, 1994 by J. Mamin). The co-production, however, has lost its exclusive status as the shortest cut to fame and glory, and is being treated for what it is -- an arduous business partnership (Stojanova 1998).

With regard to this thesis, there is nothing ‘benevolent’ in the making of Window to Paris, with the French producers seeing the film as profitable to their home markets and hence agreeing to participate. The casting of the French Agnès Soral indicates

18 _{ARTE was set up in the early 1990s establishing the foundations of a European Culture Channel.}

This stately level of establishment makes La Sept Cinéma international rather than transnational – thus referring to an “interstate treaty” that was signed in 1990 between the French Republic and the eleven German Länder. The mission of ARTE Cultural Channel, according to their website, “is to create and produce television programs of a cultural and international nature in the broadest sense, to be broadcast by itself or by other channels, via satellite or any other medium. These programs should aim to

promote mutual understanding and unity among the peoples of Europe.” ARTE, Structure, 08 09 2008 <http://archives.arte-tv.com/arteinfo/etext/general/struktur.html>.

19 _{Founded 1989 and run by Igor Maslennikov, who directed the popular television series, Zimnaya} vishnya/Winter Cherries (1985, 1990, 1995), which is a sort of Russian national Chronicle.

Maslennikov’s series has its female protagonist migrating to Los Angeles. She leaves behind the love of her life and they are only reunited in the third series, when she masterminds her lover’s exit from Russia by letting him know that he is from aristocratic blood and has inherited a house in Belgium. Europe, here, is the midway meeting point for the two characters, which is neither the flashy US nor the dull doldrums of native Russia.

Part 1: Russian Cinema

Chapter 4: Russians Abroad in Comedies 


this. Another indicator that points towards Mamin initially scripting the film for Russian audiences is the fact that several important (Russian) scenes are omitted from the DVD version, which is marketed to non-Russian viewers.20 For example, the scenes of the Russian émigré being taken back to St Petersburg, which are central to the Russian version, are deemed too nationally-specific for foreign viewers. This emphasises that for the non-Russian viewer there are scenes that do not make much sense. Also for the foreign critic the film is a rather dull play on national stereotypes (Maslin 1995). However, this investigation argues that the deleted scenes are of importance for the Russian viewer.

The co-production feature of the film is addressed in an issue of Seans, where the editors ask a dozen Russian filmmakers the question of whether they are for or against this production mode. The issue also carries a double review of Window to Paris, which well illustrates the film’s significant Russian reception. Irina Pavlova is happy with Mamin’s film, underlining that there exist two versions of the film, one for home viewers and one for distribution abroad. However, this does not tamper with the film’s expression, rather it improves the cross-cultural recognition. According to Pavlova, “we understand the comic differently (therefore it has two versions) and we live differently (this is what the film is about)” (Pavlova 1994, 84). On the other hand, Karina Dobrotvorskaya points out that the film is ambiguous because of the fact that it is a co-production. She says that according to the film, “Russia is our country, and it depends on us to change it, to return from Paris. [But] there [France] is heaven, and here [Russia] is hell, there is the light, and here is darkness” (Dobrotvorskaya 1994, 








85). Under these circumstances, Dobrotvorskaya would rather be in Paris: to see Paris and die, so to speak.

The two viewpoints cannot, though, deny the fact that at the time of production, the early 1990s, the Russian film industry was in dire straits in terms of funding,

exhibition and studio facilities. This is not denied by the respondents in Seans, rather it becomes a question of whether one accepts the change this has entailed for

filmmakers, films and audiences. On the back of Russian films that have become successful abroad,21 the critics are asking whether something has been lost in the process. As Elena Plakhova notes, the filmmaker now has to speak English, have a foreign shooting location (e.g. Paris), know who is who in the European film industry, be able to shoot on themes of European values, and not least, understand that even a ‘ten million dollar’ project can be produced for a minimum of finances (Plakhova 1994, 2). As Plakhova aptly obverses, these co-productions were pointing to the future of Russian cinema, first addressing the need for finances, then turning to the issues that appeal to Russian audiences. In this way, Window to Paris is situated inbetween Urga and Brother 2 in its production method. While not denying its intentions of appealing to the festival circuit (c.f. Urga), Window to Paris is trying to locate popular Russian audiences, which became identified with the post-Soviet blockbuster of Brother 2. Having noted the production difference, the theoretical

21 _{Mikhalkov’s Burnt by the Sun (1994) won an Academy Award for best foreign film, Pavel Lungin’s} Luna Park (1992) had been nominated at Cannes and Andrei Knochalovsky’s The Inner Circle (1991) at Berlin. Aleksander Rogozhkin’s Zhizn s Idiotom/Living with an Idiot (1993) won the KFN award at Rotterdam International Film Festival. These are all films that have been produced with Western film companies.

Part 1: Russian Cinema

Chapter 4: Russians Abroad in Comedies 


framework for analysing Window to Paris will be the same as with the previous chapter.