Since its premiere at the International Critics’ Week in Cannes, 'Ordinary People' by Vladimir Perišiæ hasn’t ceased to intrigue with its style and content. The film talks about ordinary people who, under certain circumstances, are capable of committing worst crimes. It is shot in chronological order, in natural light and authentic ambience, with a nonprofessional cast. We talked to the film’s director about his inspiration, the shooting and the controversies it raised in some local media.

What inspired you to make the film?

The desire to find, through the filmmaking process, my relation toward the violence which went on in Yugoslavia during the 90’s and which has kept on following me during the 2000’s in the scenes such as those from Guantanamo, Abu Graib and the like.

How did the shooting go? Did you have the script or did you develop it during the shooting? How did you work with the cast?

I had a 28 page draft. Before the shooting I had agreed with the crew to leave the draft aside. We wanted to really try out the concept of the film: that the violence in a war situation can be the product of ordinary people who submit to authority. That’s why I decided to put the script aside and shoot scenes as they come. Before every scene I would explain to the amateur actors what the scene was about and asked them how they would react, and then I would compose the scene based on their answers. The film is the result of that work process.

The film was directed in a very particular way: with long static frames, formal compositions and often with mid shots which create a distance from what we see. Can you tell us a bit more about that?

I wanted to avoid the classic position of identification with the lead character in which the viewer usually finds him/herself, which, I think, would be problematic in this kind of film. I wanted to offer to the viewer (but not to impose) a possibility to consider to what extent one can understand the executioner as well as to think about how he or she would act in a similar situation.

Can you explain the title? Is it ironic? How come you left it in English?

No, the title is not ironic at all. It outlines the mentioned concept of the film which, as I already mentioned, we wanted to try out during the shooting. It is in English because it seems to me that individual phenomena can be understood only if we treat them as universal.

To what extent is the political situation important for understanding the film? Is there a concrete event hidden behind the story?

Certainly that behind the need to deal with this subject lies the war in former Yugoslavia. I doubt that I would do it if I grew up somewhere else. However, I wanted to use fiction as an experimental laboratory where we test human behavior in a war situation in order to try to understand how such extreme violence comes about. From this resulted the work process of the film, and this way of thinking and working is a part of what I want to share with the audience.

What is the situation like in Serbia when it comes to war films? In Croatia, war films are still being made even though the audience is not eager to watch war on film.

I didn’t intend to make a film which would belong to the war genre. On the contrary, I tried to reject all common dramatic patterns of the war genre containing meaning (and hence - answers) in order to leave space and time to myself and the viewer so we can ask questions which we don’t necessarily answer. In that respect, this is more about destroying the war genre. As far as the viewer goes, I am always skeptical about claims such as 'the viewers are not eager to watch this or that'. It always ends up in a mild dictatorship of the market. I do my best to choose subjects that frighten me or worry me, and while looking for my relation towards them I keep on going.

The film was screened at the International Critics’ Week in Cannes, and it won the award for the best filmin Sarajevo. What were the reactions like in Serbia?

I think positive. The film also won an award at the Cinema City Festival in Novi Sad.

'Ordinary People' raised a controversy in some Croatian media after its screenings in Cannes and Sarajevo. On one side they resented the political past of the co-producer, Nadežda Perišiæ, and on the other, not mentioning Slavenka Drakuliæ on whose story the film was based. Can you comment on these two issues?

In this whole story the only issue is the mentioned part of Croatian media. The discourse used by their journalists tells more about them than about my film and I don’t have any need to add anything to something which speaks enough for itself.

Have you seen 'The Blacks' by Deviæ and Juriæ? What do you think about it?

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen 'The Blacks'. What I had a chance to read about it made me interested because of the manner in which the authors approached the subject and I would like to see it.

It is interesting that in the region this year emerged two films dealing with war crimes in a rather similar fashion. How do you comment on this fact?

Probably we have reached a time distance which enables us to contemplate on the violence we witnessed. I would like these films to be very different because the phenomenon is very complex and the understanding of it can’t be exhausted by only one film. The more aspects of the phenomena are examined, the greater is our understanding.

What do you expect from the Zagreb premiere?

I’m curious about the audience reactions.

Interviewer: Mario Kozina