Filip Remunda • Director of Happiness to All
“The story encapsulates the rise of Putinism and populism, and the false hopes of the 21st century”
- Cineuropa spoke to the Ji.hlava winner about the challenges of filming in Russia, discovering his eccentric protagonist and the dynamics of observational documentary filmmaking
Happiness to All [+see also:
film review
interview: Filip Remunda
film profile] by Filip Remunda, about a Russian nuclear physicist-turned-bricklayer and his growing disillusionment with modern Russia’s capitalist system, has just clinched the Best Central and Eastern European Documentary Award at the 28th edition of the Ji.hlava International Documentary Film Festival (see the news). Cineuropa sat down with the director to discuss shooting in Russia before and after the invasion, finding his eccentric protagonist, and the dynamics of observational and hybrid documentary filmmaking.
Cineuropa: How did you find your protagonist, Vitaly Panasyuk?
Filip Remunda: Initially, we were working on a completely different film, centred on a singer with kitschy pro-Putin songs. We saw potential in this story about someone pushing self-presentation to political extremes. But then, by chance, we discovered Vitaly. The test footage impressed our editor at the time, Jana Vlčková, far more than anything with the singer, so she urged us to focus on Vitaly. On our next trip, we learned that his parents were scientists who helped establish an academic town in the Soviet era, a notable hub for science and education. His father still works in a lab. Their story encapsulates the rise of Putinism and populism, and the false hopes of the 21st century.
Vitaly appears to be a rather eccentric protagonist.
He’s what’s known as an “active citizen” – someone who regularly files complaints with local government offices. In the footage from his video blog, we saw officials unsure of how to handle him; he’s somewhat “inconvenient”. When no one was listening, he started this video blog, although it went largely unnoticed. I believe one reason he worked with us was the feeling that someone was finally paying attention – especially a film crew from “Czechoslovakia”, or Europe, as they see it, giving his efforts some amplification.
How did Vitaly and his family react to the presence of the camera?
The reason why we chose this family was that they were so open and natural, which allowed the material to feel authentic. They discussed topics that others might have shied away from, like their economic struggles – a subject often avoided in Russia owing to the shame it entails. Many Russians feel a sense of frustration and bitterness over their living conditions, as they’re pressured by propaganda to present Russia as the best country in the world. When reality doesn’t match this narrative, it creates shame, especially in front of foreigners.
Did you work in observation mode, or were there any reconstructed scenes?
Most of the scenes were filmed observationally, following certain, previously agreed moments. Vitaly was a natural improviser, making any kind of planning nearly impossible, which was a challenge. We’d intended to reconstruct a few events that had happened before we arrived, like when he was evicted from his flat, which was, in reality, kind of an art project of Vitaly’s – he invited journalists to his apartment, where he held a “press conference” and held banners stating: “Mortgages are the slavery of the 21st century.” However, logistical constraints made it impossible. The only scene we recreated was his wedding in the ice hole, which had happened two years earlier. It was such a powerful moment that captured his spirit, so we felt it belonged in the film, giving it a hybrid quality.
What was the shooting process like?
Initially, we used standard equipment; Michal Gábor had a full audio set, including a boom mic, which naturally attracted more attention. Our DoP, Jakub Halousek, was working with Angeniéux lenses. For the final session, we switched to clip-on mics that could be hidden under a shirt, and we even had a camera concealed in a bag.
How long did you spend shooting Vitaly and his family?
I calculated that, altogether, we spent roughly 100 days filming. But not every day was spent shooting. There were long trips and average shooting periods of between eight and 14 days each time. Looking back, it was very physically demanding, which is something I’ll remember for the rest of my life.
What was the shooting experience in Russia like?
The final phase was conducted in secrecy. After Russia invaded Ukraine, entering the country as filmmakers became highly unpredictable. We avoided public spaces, hid our camera, and even used a local cameraman. Despite these precautions, the police monitored us. We were interrogated by the FSB. They examined our phones and told us they’d been tracking our every step for nearly 20 years. It was classic police intimidation: they wanted us to believe they knew everything. By the end, they said, “Russia doesn’t need people like you. Don’t come back.” Even after we boarded the plane, I was still paranoid that they might drag us off before take-off.
