The film year that began in Kodumaa gained momentum even before the new year, when it became clear that the Estonian Union of Forestry and Wood Industry filed a request against director Martti Helde to have his interviews removed from the film, because according to the union there was no talk of a documentary at all. According to the union, the director had stated in the first letter that the material would be edited into one whole, but the word “film” was not used in the letter sent to them.
There is currently no definitive resolution to the confrontation between the two sides, but nevertheless, Helde and I sat down and talked about the behind the scenes of the production of the new documentary Forestry and whether the film will still be released as planned. at the end of January or not.
Probably many are asking the same question: how did you go from the films “Crosswinds” and “Scandinavian Silence”1 to a documentary on the theme of the forest?
I grew up in the woods near the Rabivere swamp. Nature has always been extremely important to me. Given this context, what was happening to Estonian forests was a topic I could not ignore. The operator Mattias Veermets and I met about three years ago and I realized that this topic unites us strongly. We started together and felt the so-called artist’s responsibility, that it is easier to speak from the heart while addressing the topic than not to do so.
Three years ago you met the cameraman, but when did the more active work on the film begin?
In fact, it all started immediately after the meeting. At first, Mattias and I started going to Estonian forests and filming them. We spent the night in the forest, discussed what is happening in the Estonian forests. Two years ago we did the first interviews, from which the story slowly began to branch out. More active work has taken place in the last two years.
Was the focus and direction you took with the film clear from the start?
We didn’t have a specific direction or goal when we made the film. We want to understand. The debate on forests has been going on for a long time and the information noise is very misleading for the parties. It was important for us to understand where the values of the participants in the debate lie. The goal was to understand their arguments and then look for the crux of the conflict. Create a so-called neutral ground for understanding to arise.
Did you come to an agreement during this process?
It is very difficult to answer clearly. I certainly have a clearer understanding of the nature of the conflict, but the forest problem is very multifaceted and the issue ultimately comes down to values. But yes, I definitely understand, for example, the forestry sector better than before.
There has been a lot of talk about negative trends in the forestry sector, but was there also a positive development in the forestry sector during the making of the film?
Valuing local wood is a mantra that is talked about a lot, but it seems very difficult to achieve. But it’s a noteworthy direction the industry is moving in. The discussion on permanent forestry has started to move through a more public debate, following the example of Finland. In my opinion these are good directions to move towards.
We now come to more practical questions: who and how conducted the interviews that form the core of the film?
All interviews were done by Joonas Hellerma, who was only involved in the recordings. Joonas did not participate in the creative work in any other way. The interviews are structured in the form of flash lectures. This means that the speakers had prepared and agreed on the topics themselves. The flash lesson was followed by a regular interview, but the topics were generally the same.
Are the excerpts from the film from the flash lessons or from the interviews that followed them? Or both?
The film echoes thoughts of both forms of recording. The flash lesson format was chosen primarily for psychological purposes. After all, the speaker is preparing for the shot, which means that his mind is already ready and his thoughts are organized. It is a tool for the director to fix attention and make the material stronger.
Did the people interviewed know that their story would later become a documentary?
It is difficult for me to gauge what understanding the interviewees had of the process. However, I can say that, apart from the representatives of the wood industry, no one else had any misunderstandings about participation. We were open in our written appeals, we had no reason to hide anything.
Late last year, representatives of the Estonian Union of Forestry and Wood Industry filed a request against her to remove the interview with them from the film. How sudden was this request?
We held ourselves accountable and were warned that if we chose to take a more critical view of the industry, we would likely encounter difficulties. So we knew we couldn’t release this movie without any problems. The warnings come from scientists and people close to forestry, who have already faced pressure to defend their positions. The content and timing of the request were, of course, unexpected.
Were you in contact with the Forestry and Wood Industry Union before making this request? Were the complaints preceded by telephone correspondence during which things were not explained clearly?
We stayed in close contact with both industry representatives and their communications agency as they helped us organize the shoot. After the release of the film’s trailer I was contacted by the Akkadian communication agency of the Forestry and Timber Industry Union and from there the communication was lost. I can only subjectively infer that they were disturbed by the film’s critical message. Even though the message of the film is the state of protected forests and the industry is shown in a very neutral way, there is a feeling that they are being attacked.
Regarding the wording: did you write to the union representatives that the interviews would be collected in an “all” or in an “all film”?
We talked about the film throughout our correspondence, even after the initial email. What went unnoticed is the fact that on the morning of the recording of Henrik Välja’s interview I spoke on the phone with the Akkadian representative, to whom I also told about the film.
Lawyers from the Forestry and Timber Industry Union tried to find interpretations in our correspondence that would help argue the opposite. And I personally understand that this is the only legal way to distance yourself from our film.
Specifically, what part of the movie don’t they want to see? Do you want to remove the entire forestry and lumber industry part from the film?
The Union of Forestry and Wood Industries requested that the interviews of Henrik Välja and Margus Kohava be cut from the film. In other words, we are not allowed to use recordings of two people in the film.
Are there alternative solutions suitable for them? Did they offer anything other than removal?
They did not offer any alternatives. From their statement we can read that they did not want to participate in the debate. They even went so far as to deny us access to news clippings and archives.
Do they have a legal basis for this?
The Union of Forestry and Timber Industries has received terrible legal advice. Whether they asked for legal advice in their communication. When using archives, including news clippings, the interviewee does not own the copyright. So they have no basis to prohibit the director from using other materials.
It would be unthinkable. This would mean the end of any critical treatment.
It is still an unprecedented case for a professional association to try to prevent the production of a documentary made with public funds. Do you know if something like this has already happened in Estonia?
The only parallels I can think of are with the US tobacco industry in the 1970s. How the lobby and communication of the tobacco industry have tried by all means to suppress knowledge about the harmful effects of tobacco and to hide the truth with half-science. There are no other cartels in Estonia that have such an urgent need to shape public opinion.
The latest news on this claim became public at the end of the year. Has anything else happened in the meantime?
Our lawyers unequivocally rejected the content of the complaint from the Union of Forestry and Wood Industries. We offered industry representatives several ways to break the deadlock. Currently (Monday 8 I – ed.) representatives of RMK and EMPL are watching the film, and by mid-week it should be clear which path they will take.
The paradox of this whole statement lies in the fact that I was able to freely remove the scene from the film. But the only one to lose is the industry itself. Because their voice is lost.
What were the possible solutions you proposed?
We are already assembling a replacement section from industry. There is enough material for this in public sources. We gave them the option that, even after seeing the film, if they wanted to withdraw from the interviews, we would replace the recordings with an interpretation by the author.
The film’s premiere is just a few weeks away. Do you dare say now that the film will be released at the end of January?
We have decided that the film will be released at the end of January anyway. But it’s really extraordinary that at the moment I, as a director, don’t know what it’s going to be like. The events of the next few weeks will put the blocks back in place.
Documentary is a living form, especially when it comes to a forestry topic. (Laughs.)
So, are you prepared for the fact that you might have to re-edit the film on the last day before the premiere?
We still have to set the set of images a week before the premiere, otherwise we technically won’t be able to finish all the details. But the next two weeks will certainly be full of changes.
In a strange way, this requirement is also an excellent marketing campaign for her film, even comparable to Brigitte Susanne Hund’s book “The Married Princess” published last year, which after conflicts with Ekspress Media has become a a work that everyone wanted to keep and read. Maybe you’ll get even more viewers now?
Any scandal is a successful marketing mechanism, but it happens at the expense of nerve cells and stress.
Would it be expensive even if the legal fees blew the film’s projected budget?
It’s really alienating to pay for the opportunity to express your opinion, but it’s unavoidable when dealing with controversial topics. In these situations for me as a director it is important that the networks work. By networks I mean professional associations and institutions, including the Association of Estonian Audiovisual Authors, the Estonian Film Association, the Estonian Film Institute, the Estonian Film Directors’ Guild, etc. These institutions represent the creation and producers of films. A case like this is a wake-up call.
Do you think these networks are currently not working as well as they could?
I feel like they work. The Association of Audiovisual Authors offered me legal assistance, the EFI shared the problem we had with the public. Colleagues offered comprehensive support. I don’t feel alone. This is a big problem.
* “Crosswinds”, Martti Helde, 2014; “Scandinavian silence”, Martti Helde, 2019.
2024-01-12 07:49:00
martti-helde-the-aim-of-the-film-vara-kyps-is-to-understand-the-arguments-of-the-parties-movie