I learned that filmmaker plans to shoot in some areas of Romania, hesitating to disclose the destinations that interested him and explaining that now he is afraid not to create problems for the project. The director was for two years with Polish farmers Zueawlow village near Ukraine, filming material for his documentary. During this period, claims he had numerous attempts to contact both Chevron representatives and those of other corporations in the field, but they were not open to dialogue, refusing to give interviews or statements.
by Theodora Lasku
Mr. Kowalski asked if happened during filming to be threatened or bullied by the company employees or the public authorities, stating that avoid being alone when filming with them and received, indeed, threats or even hostile response from the police, often in the United States. The filmmaker believes that contemporary reality fighting large corporations is extremely difficult because they are protected by governmental laws and amendments that works to the detriment of citizens, as if the problem Zurawlowa, corporations get their permits and permissions public authorities bureaucratic procedures, and local citizens have no say.
Lech Kowalski told us that his exhortation to such communities disagree with shale gas, or any other problem of this nature is not to be discouraged by giants like Chevron and act as advocates who, by conviction, often fail to oppose and resist to superior forces.
Can you give some details about the initial stages of the film "The Curse of shale gas " ? How do you find the community that you filmed ?
Most of Poland is where I made another film, "Holy Field, Holy War ," and is about agriculture. For me, the farmers are the last redoubt of the underground, it's something that interests me. I'm Polish. I have done many films in Poland, so I walked through the country almost a year to find a place to shoot the film and I found this place in the East, not far from the border with Ukraine. I spent a lot of time there filming with farmers and during filming, I discovered another problem with which you must deal, shale gas, an issue about which they knew nothing at first.
No it was not operating, and as seismic tests, mice and about this great company that has emerged in the area and treat them as if they were absolutely unimportant. Their opinions did not matter, they were treated as if they were pawns that could be moved to one side to side and farmers were not very receptive to this, to this kind of manipulation. And they were disturbed, they are very good at farming, I know what happens to the environment and the folth is of the people from the urban areas.
And in Pennsylvania was simple, I lived in New York for many years and is right next to New York Pennsylvania. So I was there, I walked around, I spent much time there and became very involved in the lives of these people and their cause. They followed a natural evolution process .
And why did you choose these two places in particular ?
In the U.S., this kind of operation takes place for almost 10 years and Pennsylvania is one of the places where the work is very intense, there are over 10,000 wells, so it had to look for the location. What I wanted to show is how things are in the U.S. and how it might look in Poland. That was the purpose of going there. Because the story polish a question basically theoretical. The idea was to show that these people have real causes concern.
And since technology is a major proportion because it was invented in America, I hit a good balance, you know? Chevron is an American company, many of these energy companies are American, some are from Canada or Germany, but America is the greatest force behind the operations.
Some of the farmers claimed that the film, in fact, at first had nothing against the procedure because it appears to provide significant funding for Poland. Does the media support this theory ?
All governments supporting this type of propaganda. I do not want to talk about topics related to world politics, but everyone needs energy, right ? Except that most of the world's energy comes from several places large and wide. America decided to become energy independent. Have the same concern and countries such as Poland or Romania, who see some sort of energy weapon that can win their independence from countries like Russia, where Eastern Europe.
That's how the idea 's market, let's let these foreign companies to come to the country to extract resources and we will be independant Does this. At first, it was thought that in Poland there is the highest potenţial shale gas in Europe, but to reach 300 years, and many believed that all Poles will be able to retire, money will make their country.
U.S. companies have invested heavily in scouting, so in the meantime, the 300 years there have been 200 , then 30, in the best case, which is very little, in relation to damage that might be caused environment. In addition, the gas will not necessarily be used internally, but will most likely be exported. Nobody said anywhere in any of these countries, the gas will be used internally, as no one has said anything about the price of gas.
Have you tried to chat with the people at Chevron, to present also their views ?
Yes, and not only Chevron but with many companies both in Poland and in the United States, and all have refused. We exchanged emails, I called. It's like " 1984 ", realities and how they are reflected are diametrically opposed. In most countries for which I worked, the environment ministry dealing with this issue, which is not at all normal. In fact, acting as intermediaries, not to protect the environment but to sell.
Your film may fall within activist films, but at the same time, your approach seems to be very personal and inspired by tradition unadorned style of Who 's Verite. Assumed is a choice ?
I'm not an activist, I do not want to be an activist, this is a very dangerous word that conveys the world. These people are categorized in a certain way and after a while, no one pays attention to what they actually say.
Making a film about an issue is very dangerous because you start doing some kind of speech or controversy and the public is becoming suspicious. Is there some kind of rule in journalism, which I find very boring, but it has existed for many years, that both sides have to give the word when treating a subject.
However, many of these issues, there is the other side, which is hidden and is difficult for it to understand it becouse, in this case is represented by gas companies. They have one goal: to make money, to them, it is vital to ensure that people accept a certain thing you do for a long time, accept that they extract resources from the earth in the most silentious possible way so that they obtain maximum profit, which is exactly what they want as employers and shareholders. These are very powerful entities that create a false image, and even sometimes try to obstruct those who are concerned with their field, as journalists and filmmakers. It's like a war.
So I tried to be the kind of person who does not fall into the trap and expose them. That was a problem to film because it was made for prime time television in France and Germany, broadcast at 20 and was the first time I made a film with this kind of audience.
After lengthy discussions with the editor, I found that it's vulnerable point of a film: the people who stay at home and watch TV at 20 will be fun, first and second have the power to change anytime program, so we have to pull it back every two minutes, because every second they are not focused, you risk losing them.
It was a challenge to make a film that is where my style and to comply with all rules and television, so I opted for voice-over, which is my uncharacteristic. But I experimented with this and that movie came out ! However, I decided to avoid doing the kind of film where both sides are given the word, a classic journalistic approach. The problem of such a film is trying to show the truth without doing it too obvious. What interests me is to be a storyteller, not an activist, because I think most film productions can not change the world. However, some movies can have an impact, and the main idea is to create a space for dialogue. Many movies are clearly dialectical becoming propaganda.
Is there a different stylistic way how you approached shooting the Polish and American community ? Looks like you spent more time with the Poles.
Story building was difficult from this point of view, because I was with Polish farmers from the beginning. I knew very well, so I had an organic narrative that prepare over the real story. In Pennsylvania was artificial, which was a problem. Pennsylvania story building was designed to illustrate something, and one in Poland has been an evolution. That development had to inject illustrations, while connections were not visual, were based on my text .
When I went to Pennsylvania, I had a story to follow, because there are no such thing. I could have developed and there 's a story if I spent more time with them, but there were very specific reasons that people were not given, but industry, and had to work quickly for financial reasons – I could not spend months and months there.
What I wanted to do in Pennsylvania was the next thing to catch the story in a visual way, visceral, to expose the problem, and I wanted to show my industry issues. In my type of movie that I basically luck is very important, but you make your own luck and so when the site safety manager for drilling came to me and started to tell me about the problems they have because of the drilling, I was surprised.
At the same time, i didn't want to be beaten or have trouble with the police, so I waved sound engineer who recorded everything mobile, and this was a way to get the truth, which is something else than official version of the truth.
Your film ends with an optimistic tone: sometimes the man in the street can be successful. On the other hand, the last frame shows us a drill in Pennsylvania, indicating somehow that future Polish communities have filmed.
Look, there is a real problem with all this, because, from my point of view, my films should have a sense of humor, which is not always obvious. Also, that sense of humor must contain a note of optimism, otherwise you make a film that does not help anyone. But it's an optimistic end of the movie, because in the end we return to Pennsylvania and see what happens there.
Feel so that through your movies, can cause a change?
This is a classic question, can change things cinema. I think some types of film can help people to want to fight for what is truth. Now, if they just change something that is an entirely different question. But mostly they have to give people a reason to fight. And I do not mean the kind of fight against the system in the sense that traditional communist "let's destroy the bourgeoisie " , but the NCE want to continue to exist in a way that makes you think about what are personal freedoms, and good to have the possibility to buy the new car or clothes, to look at things a little differently.
From my point of view, if you people think about it, in the struggle !
What do you believe is your Connector of the first films that were in the forefront of the American underground scene, and your recent films?
I think all the movies I've done have in the center the same theme of escape – people trying to live, to survive and to do all kinds of things outside, whether it's about the cultural system, such as punk site (which speaks a lot about the revolt against corporate music ) or a reaction against certain events that took place in those days, such as the war in Vietnam. There are many ways in which you can analyze what is going on, and I was interested in all subjects, even those related to sexuality, but broadly the subjects related to people who do not want to integrate into the system.
It is difficult to do now kind of film that you do, because what has happened is that documentaries are focused on issues that I think are tedious and boring. When you are forced to watch such films, I often think that getting a lesson, which is very good sometimes, but sometimes it is really boring. People are revolutionaries, become outsiders, and that's what interests me.
Basically, how you position over the process to take some pictures or sequences from other films, in order to illustrate a point of view radically different from the initial targets were they used ?
I am for the deconstruction as many things, because it's like rewriting history. It's very interesting to do this. What I mean is that when it comes to cinema, historically, new coming filmmakers take the cinema styles, while adding their own elements. It's like mixing music, when you use the sounds to get something new.
We're in that kind of reality we reinvent ourselves with our collective past and I 'm pretty cool, I am for all the way. What results from this later, I can not know.
Judging Cinematograff Eco section of the festival, participating in your film consists entirely of high school students. What is your opinion in relation to this and why you think that the organizers have made this choice ?
I think it's great, because it's a platform for these young people to become critical, in that they must make a decision about what they consider to be a good movie. Young people tend to relate to things that are visceral. Something must not pass through the filter of academic or historical ideas related to evolution cinema, stuff like that. So what I think is that the film should tell them something like a pop song, you know, which is the most successful ? Well, this song makes me want to dance. It's perfectly fine to take a decision based on things like that .
This interview was taken from ParagrAFF newspaper Astra International Film Festival 2013.
5 reasons why you can become an Add-Energy Renewable Romania PARTNER
To register your Company as ADD ENERGY PARTNER , please access 
For other informations click to 