Why did you decide to shoot films about science?
My movies are not popular science, they are more like documentaries — about people, their search, the problems they face. There were several reasons why I've decided to shoot movies about scientists. I grew up in this environment: my father is a professor, I graduated from the Soil Sciences Department of the Moscow State University, so I have many friends who work in science. For instance, the first film I ever shot about science was about my friend, Ph. D. Alexander Ermakov. He graduated from the Biology Department of the Moscow State University and left for Scotland right after, to study stem cells in one of the best research centers in the field. Then he's decided to return to Russia. So we got an idea to shoot a film about his return, about how he came back and how difficult it was for him to get employed. As a result, we shot the film "The Return of AlexandrSergeevich" that got many good reviews. As of now, my friend lives in Saint Petersburg, he sometimes reads open lectures.
Dmitry Zavigelsky Credit: personal archive
So you look for ideas in your friends work, aren’t you?
In essence, yes. When you work on a film, you always meet new people, and each has his own story in science. I like to tell about their lives, about the complex philosophical problems they have to solve. For example, in the "Waiting for Waves and Particles", I show the work of physicists, who spent their lives on searching for gravitational waves, axions, magnetic monofields — the phenomena that have been predicted, are yet to be confirmed. Thus, the characters search for something they can well never find. And I show why they continue at it, what motivates them.
Do you plan to do popular science films?
Actually, the "Waiting for Waves and Particles" already combines documentary with popular science — no one has ever done this before. We also work on a similar film about such social and Internet phenomena as the Dissernet. This is a community of people that try to fight against plagiarism in theses and expose disreputable scientists. Apart from the members of Dissernet, Professor Alexandr Makarov, a famous science writer and author of many popular books helps us with the film.
From the film "Waiting for Waves and Particles"
Why there're so few popular science films in Russia?
There are two main reasons to it. First is the lack of financing. The Ministry of Culture didn't allocate any funds on popular science films this year, and in 2014 only "Waiting for Waves and Particles" got funding. This year I was part of the jury of the popular science film festival "360 Degrees", and there were no Russian films in its program. At the same time, documentaries are financed quite well, every year several hundred teams get financial support. Still, the quality of documentaries does not depend on investments much — as finding interesting characters and working on the plot are more essential. In case of popular science films, funding is a lot more important, as such things as DCV or going abroad are often necessary, and that contributes to a bigger budget. Another reason is that there is plenty of pseudoscience in our country. Unfortunately, many directors take the lead of fringe scientists and bring their ideas to the general public.
So, why directors do that?
It's really simple. As talented as they can be, directors seldom possess knowledge in the field of science. That means it’s easy to inspire them with some idea and create a pseudoscience film. I got lucky: not only did I get my technical education at the Moscow State University; I also have many friends that do real science. Yet, if a director mostly possesses humanitarian knowledge, he has to be really careful about choosing a science advisor — in essence, that would be the person who'll explain which ideas and concepts should be included in the film, and which shouldn’t. During the filming of the "Waiting for Waves and Particles" I was consulted by an astrophysicist, Professor Sergei Petrov of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
From the film "Waiting for Waves and Particles"
And are scientists ready to cooperate with directors and media representatives?
In the Soviet Union, each popular science film had a science advisor. Those were the people who wanted to make science popular. Now this idea is being brought back with the support from such organizations as the "Evolution" foundation, the "Trajectory" foundation for supporting scientific, educational and cultural initiatives. The scientists officially read lectures all around Russia. In large cities, different event take place, like the "World of Knowledge" in Saint Petersburg, for instance. But that’s done on some local level, by several people and for a small audience.
Some say that popular science is something bad, as it gives people an incomplete representation of this or that research. And what do you think — is there more benefit from sci-pop or more harm?
Surely, more benefit. If a film or a lecture tells of real facts, inventions or achievements, people have to know of it. Unfortunately, most Russian citizens have quite a vague, even mythological understanding of what affects their quality of life. In large cities, the situation is a bit better, there, people try to find out something new, improve their lifestyle. But if you leave Saint Petersburg or Moscow and go a couple of hundred kilometers away — it's a different country, different people. Knowledge, enlightenment is power. It was always like this. Thirst for knowledge is natural for a human being; all you have to do is give the opportunities.
From the film "Gravity"
And what is your opinion of such popular science films like "Gravity" or "The Martian", where the topic of mankind's scientific achievements is exploited?
All in all — I'm positive. They shoot spectacular films in Hollywood, they have great budgets. As far as I know, most directors consult with scientists to avoid gross slips in their films. So these movies contribute to the popularity of science, as well. So, why not?
