Jan Kaus: You are both film directors, and Andres is also an active film critic. We could perhaps talk about the full-length feature films of recent years. As is typical in Estonia, there are not that many. In 2001-2 four such films were made: "Bear's Heart" and "Good Hands" in 2001 and "Names in Marble" and "Agent Wild Duck" in 2002. It nevertheless seems that a contradiction has emerged between these four films: two "mass films" ("Names" and "Bear's Heart"), characterised by serious simple feelings and serious simple symbols, and two "intellectual" films, with a more complicated narrative. They seem to form two pairs, the first of which relies more on emotions and the second on intellect.

Andres Maimik: In a film environment where one or two full-length features are made each year, all generalisations inevitably remain rather conjectural and dubious. Here each film stands for itself: one tries to be grand and appeal to nationalist sentiments, using simplified schemes while presenting a significant stage in the War of Independence - all directed at the widest possible social sphere. This is indeed a "mass film". The second film you called a "mass film", "Bear's Heart", also had a good run in cinemas and similarly plays around with myths, but these myths are considerably more esoteric, even intellectual. The fact that "Bear's Heart" became a mass film was actually somewhat surprising because it was considered too distant from people. Instead, another film, "Good Hands", was expected to become hugely popular, but actually the box office was modest. In my opinion "Good Hands" is basically a savoury village farce with various layers added to it afterwards. Such a scheme tried to continue the series of "village slapsticks" made in the 1970s and regularly shown on TV today. These slapsticks have a secure place in Estonians' collective consciousness. This time, however, the scheme did not work, to the surprise of many. Those people who thought they had described the necessary prerequisites for a "mass film" in Estonia turned out to be wrong. Idyllic depiction of rural and village life in changing circumstances no longer attracts an audience as it did in the 1970s. The fourth film, "Agent Wild Duck" was not an intellectual meditation either, but rather a social-critical satire. None of these films was born out of the marriage of reason and film art; they all rely on feelings, as it were.

Jan Kaus: You said people were wrong in describing prerequisites for a "mass film". Are there such prerequisites in Estonia at all, or is a box office hit very much a chance thing in our cultural space?

jan kaus

Andres Maimik: One thing here that always causes great excitement is how much a film costs. Money was a constant topic of conversation before "Bear's Heart" was premiered. This film was considered "too clever", but managed to attract a considerable number of viewers (over 20 000, not bad by Estonian standards). This might be the lingering "poor man complex", a wannabe Estonian who aspires to greatness at all costs. With "Names", the role of the media cannot be overestimated: well before the film reached cinemas, it became almost compulsory viewing.

Jan Kaus: Elsewhere in the world, the scheme in which the names of directors, producers or actors will guarantee a more or less satisfactory box office success works rather well. Maybe the smallness of the Estonian film environment has brought about a situation where every film director has become a certain "brand", a known sign. Everything is already visible during the filming, and the reaction of both critics and the audience is fixed well before the premiere.

Andres Maimik: The film director's fame and the predictable nature of his future films may, but does not necessarily, influence box office success. The self-myth is sometimes truly powerful, but "predictions", on the other hand, are occasionally quite harmful to the film. In a small society such as Estonia's, advertising and media noise can exert an immense influence. Besides - since the number of films is tiny, each full-length feature inevitably attracts keen interest in the media, and not a single film is ignored.

Jan Kaus: Is it possible that, although attention is there, the impact of reception is quite the opposite?

andres maimik

Andres Maimik: Certainly. Description of a film beforehand is crucial for a mass film to appear. Hopes for the box office success of "Agent Wild Duck", although it did not even aspire to be a mass film, were crushed by the description of the film as a "confusing story of a young man". Calling the film "cool" is not crucial to its success either. However, a somewhat mass-audience-friendlier prior reception would have perhaps added a mere few thousand viewers. For a certain type of film, there is an approximate number of viewers in Estonia and deviations cannot be very large. Surprises are thus scarce, and practically non-existent elsewhere in the world.

Jaak Kilmi: One phenomenon of Estonian film may be the fact that the local film environment and cinema audiences are simply not able to consume two mass films at the same time. It is wise to save energy for one, place your bet on one card, because it is just not possible to produce two box office successes in Estonia within a short period of time - there are not enough viewers and not enough attention.

Jan Kaus: Although I accept that it is difficult to make generalisations about Estonian films, I still ask whether the films of the last decade perhaps make it possible to draw some conclusions?

Andres Maimik: Generalisations can rather be made about the future of Estonian film. Until now film-making has been quite sporadic. Now the state, which is also the main financial backer and commissioner of films, wishes to produce them for a specific target group (e.g. children's films) or to make so-called mass films for all types of viewers. The existence of a "mass film" in Estonia will probably entirely depend on state commission. "Estonian films must be popular with Estonian audiences", seems to be the principle for the future. In the mid-1990s the "Danish model" was still in favour, in which other film-makers are able to follow in the wake of a few prominent film directors. Now, however, a lack of money and other reasons have led to a situation where the domestic public is offered genre films, from polka to rock, as it were. Film-making is becoming increasingly Americanised as well, i.e. a film must turn a profit even under Estonian conditions, which is a quite utopian notion. Estonian films, including "mass" ones, are never cost-effective, it being only a question of the size of the deficit.

jaak kilmi & jan kaus

Jaak Kilmi: One reason for such a future vision is the modest popularity of cinema in Estonia, which is not something peculiar to the 1990s, but has always been the case. People do not want to see domestic films, whereas in other European countries local films are nearly always at the top in terms of box office success. There are only a few hits, and even those are mainly seen on TV. It is only natural that the reputation of Estonian films is pretty low among the policy-makers who decide about the financial side. The question "What is Estonian cinema?" is quite commonplace. Hence the need for grand "films for people" that can be presented as a pretext to get the state to support film-making. Maimik's thought: 3000 is a huge number for a novel and everybody is happy, but a film is expected to draw a much larger number of viewers.

Jan Kaus: Although the state is the main sponsor of Estonian films, there are certain peculiarities in our mass films, namely their unexpected connections with national clichˇs. Compared with Hollywood movies, epitomes of mass film where nationalist sentiments are constantly expressed (e.g. "Saving Private Ryan"), Estonian hits have treated various national characteristics through irony, through a sort of eradicating prism. "Names in Marble" was probably the first film to treat patriotism sincerely and in a positive light. Elsewhere, mockery and anarchy prevail.

Andres Maimik: Direct emphasis on nationalist sentiments is indeed, in my opinion, a bit old-fashioned; national identity is not a special sign for me. I thought that the sweeping nationalist sentiments of the late 1980s and early 1990s were well over, but the unexpected success of "Names in Marble" proves otherwise. This film, relying on the structure of myth and fairy tale, was a hit. However, I do not think that other Estonian films will enjoy any greater success because of this one "mass film". Interest in films remains modest, and this prevents the emergence of a more pretentious "mass film".