Was “Clergy” a necessary film to make?
With Tofifest being a rebellious festival, Wojciech Smarzowski is certainly one of those filmmakers, who simply must be included in it. In 2016, he won a Golden Angel for Artistic Insolence, and not long ago made “Clergy,” one of the most controversial Polish films in recent years. He came to Tofifest in the company of screenwriter Wojciech Rzehak. The heat of the debate was the responsibility of Jaroslaw Jaworski and Mateusz Lapinski, i.e. the founding fathers of Klub Zasadniczo Dyskusyjny (a discussion club), which organised the discussion panel.
The title of the debate was the following question: Was “Clergy” a necessary film to make? The unanimous answer of both the authors of the film and the audience was “yes, it was.” However, there were many other important questions asked about the subjects discussed in the films, during the meeting. For example, about the intention of portraying the Church is that particular way, the purpose of criticising the Church, or whether it was an attacked aimed at anybody in particular.
It is worth mentioning that work on the film started back in 2013, which makes all suggestions that the film is politically involved pointless. Nonetheless, Smarzowski emphasised the fact that the film premièred at the perfect moment, since new reports about sex abuse scandals in the Church had surfaced in the past few months, which only added to the gravity of the message conveyed in the film.
We criticise the institution, not faith itself
One of the questions asked by a member of the audience was, whether focusing on the problem of paedophilia among Catholic priests was an oversimplification. The authors emphasised that there would not have been a powerful organisation to offer backup, had the scandal involved some other group, for example blacksmiths or teachers. Certainly, it would not have been swept under the carpet, with the perpetrator transferred to a different workshop or school. On several occasions, Smarzowski pointed to the fact that “Clergy” criticised the institution, and not faith in itself.
The director added that he was not interested in a biased reaction of atheists to the film: I do realise that some people may feel offended, but in the long run, the film has done more good than evil. The film is addressed to Catholics, and to people like me. What I care about is whether the viewers, when leaving the cinema, feel that they are jointly responsible for the story they just saw, because they have given their consent for it to happen. I hope that this film will encourage Catholics to see priests as people, not saints.
The purpose of provoking a discussion among Catholics was certainly reached – the majority of the people voicing their opinions yesterday identified with Catholicism, although some of them claimed not feeling co-responsible for the transgressions of the Church as an institution. Some of the Christians among the audience openly criticised bad behaviour among the clergy.
Rzehak weighed in with his opinion that he still had the accounts of victims of sexual abuses of priests resonating in his mind, which he considered a point of no return, where any compromise was out of the question. One cannot avoid such a topic, even as painful as this one. In reaction to suggestions that there might be no positive outcome, the authors replied that they had made “Clergy” not to offer ready solutions ex cathedra, but to make people think for themselves.
Are astronauts only allowed to make films about space?
Jaroslaw Jaworski asked both filmmakers about their opinion on the arguments of those opposing the film, who based their judgements on the assumption that only its members have the authority to talk about the Church. Smarzowski replied that following that type of logic would lead to the conclusion that films about space could only be made by astronauts. More than that, he also concluded that if made by a Catholic, such a film would certainly be biased and “have the director kneeling on at least one knee.”
The filmmakers emphasised the fact that “Clergy” was a fictional film, not a documentary, although the stories depicted in it had a factual foundation. When working on the script, Rzehak consulted with former priests, among others, and Smarzowski mentioned a number of emails sent by priests with suggestions for some additional ideas – he had kept the emails in his private mailbox. The ideas were so many that it would suffice “Clergy 2: A Clash of Priests.” There is little chance for such a film to ever come to life, though.
Finally, there was also a question about the generally hopeless message conveyed in his films and its source. Well, I always see the glass half empty – cannot help that, replied the director. He also added that he makes his films with the hope to make the world a bit better to live.
Marek Sofij
Also in this section
- Idea
- Sections
- Awards
- Jury of 2024 On Air Competion
- Archive
