This year, for the first time in history, a Ukrainian film received one of the main awards at the prestigious Sundance independent film festival. The documentary film “Russian Woodpecker” was awarded the Grand Prix of the jury. This picture is groping for the bottom of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
The author of the idea for the film, Fyodor Alexandrovich, also played the main role in it. Together with other authors of the film, Fedor told how difficult it was to find classified information about the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, what kind of “Russian Woodpecker” signal it was that was jamming Western radio stations, and what this picture has in common with Parajanov’s creations.
Your film argues the point of view that the Chernobyl accident was planned by the Kremlin. And the cause of the explosion was a failure in the construction of the most powerful locator “Duga”, which stood not far from the nuclear power plant. Are there documents that confirm that this was the reason?
The fact that the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was planned was officially confirmed by the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which formulates the accident as “planned negligence.” During filming, we collected a huge amount of documents. And we have indirect evidence that the accident at the power plant was staged due to a failure to create this locator. It is difficult to conduct a more detailed investigation. After all, the archives on the Chernobyl accident remain closed. Ukraine submitted a request to Moscow three times to familiarize itself with these documents. But I never received them. True, we did not set ourselves the goal of giving definitive answers to the question of what this “Arc” actually was. We wanted, first of all, to draw attention to this problem.
While collecting the necessary information, did you go to Moscow?
Yes, however, without Fedor. On the eve of the trip, he received some strange messages, calls, and we decided that it would be safer for him to simply not go.
How did you first learn about Arc and what made you want to make a film about this man-made monster?
There is a lot of information about her on the Internet. But almost all the versions presented there are incorrect. For example, it is written that it worked perfectly and was a miracle of engineering. But in fact, they did not have time to complete it, and it did not operate. It is also written that it was built specifically near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant because it consumed too much energy. But in fact, it was the receiving “Arc”, and it needed relatively little energy. We checked all these versions for approximately two years. It seems to me that most of these versions were created specifically to distract from the true motives. This “Arc” is a symbol of the Soviet Union. This is what most resembles the Iron Curtain.
What’s happening with the Duga locator today?
They tried to dismantle it, but they thought it would cost more than just leaving it. Other similar locators throughout the USSR were dismantled at the very beginning of the 90s. They were located in Nikolaev, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and also not far from Chernobyl in the city of Lyubich. It was a transmitting arc, and in the film we talk about another – the receiving arc. Some kind of emergency happened with all these locators. And if you conduct investigations on the other locators, then not everything is clean there.
And in 2013, a new arc appeared near Moscow, which knocks in a very similar way. This locator is aimed at Europe and looks a little different. Why it emits a similar signal is not clear.
Why was the “Russian Woodpecker” signal broadcast?
The Americans called it that because it resembled the sound of a woodpecker. It appeared in 1976. There was no special content in it. It was broadcast on the frequency on which SOS signals were transmitted, as well as radio and television broadcasts, which it interrupted. Many people then thought that the signal was distributed as a stub, but this was not the case.
Who was the initiator of this film?
About two years ago, director Chad Grazia came to Kyiv and planned to stage a play based on Anna Karenina here. Fedor was the production designer for this performance, where we met. At that time we already had a script and we started filming together. It was thanks to Chad that “Russian Woodpecker” grew into an investigative film. At first we filmed at our own expense. When we had enough footage, we edited it and showed it to Mike Lerner. This is how we got a British producer.
It is interesting when it is an artist, and not a historian or sociologist, who undertakes the study of a social or historical problem. In this case, what unique thing can a person who is engaged in creativity, and not science, suggest?
An amateur has a fresh look at the problem. In the film I position myself as an ordinary person. I would like for Ukraine to finally move away from labels and begin to focus on the human, and not on the status. After all, we are all, first of all, people, and only then journalists, economists, scientists, etc. We need to look less at positions. It’s easier for a person of art in this regard, because in his case there are no career hierarchies. While filming Russian Woodpecker, I was interested in asking some questions. And as a result, some thoughts appeared.
making this film was just an adventure with friends.
Receiving a prize at Sundance, you said from the stage that if Russia is not stopped now, the actions of our northeastern neighbor could lead to a third world war.
Unfortunately, we have already passed the point of no return. Today we need to treat each other very carefully. After all, the current situation in the country makes us think that we may be seeing our friends and loved ones for the last time. Now we need to appreciate every moment.
I think it’s too pessimistic…
No… it’s realistic. This is clear from recent events. I can’t imagine how one can be optimistic in this situation.
What were the reviews of the film from foreign audiences?
One of the Sundance jury members said that “Russian Woodpecker” opens Ukraine to the world in the same creative and original way as Parajanov did in his time. Our film is aimed at Western audiences. Many Ukrainians have their own opinions about Euromaidan, Chernobyl and many other things that are generally understandable to us. Therefore, some episodes in the film may seem naive to our viewer. With our film we wanted to popularize Ukraine. “Russian Woodpecker” is not so much about Chernobyl or the locator, but about the Kremlin’s historical aggression towards Ukraine.
What do you think of Parajanov’s work?
Well, it’s difficult to be negative or positive about the work of a classic of such caliber as Parajanov. I’ve watched all his films. Just like Parajanov in his latest works, during the filming of “Russian Woodpecker” we created a picture without a script. We followed the material and watched where it would take us. It’s a little wrong to shoot an investigative documentary film according to a strictly prescribed script. Besides, if you could describe something in words, then why else show it visually? Visual language is self-sufficient.
Mark Cousins, who headed the Sundance jury this year, noted that “Russian Woodpecker,” like Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane,” discovered unexpected techniques in filmmaking. In this film he announced new laws of documentary cinema. After all, Chad Grazia is, first and foremost, a theater playwright. But in the USA, the playwright is responsible for the concept of the play, and not for the texts of the play. In short, Grazia shot the film according to new rules. We were also advised on editing by the living classic Allan Berliner.
I know that you are already working on a new film.
Yes, we have already finished filming the film “Bride of the Snakes”. Her script is based on a Lithuanian fairy tale. Events take place after a nuclear war, in a post-apocalyptic world. Now we just have to finish the sound.