Interview with writer and publicist Tigran Paskevichyan

- In your opinion, what was the reason for so much noise around the film "Choice"?

- I think the noise about "Choice" is artificial since by freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution the film not only should have had no problem with the hall but also should have been demonstrated on TV. This noise is the consequence of various restrictions when the declared freedom of speech has no chance of manifestation. This is not a unique case which allows making such a categorical conclusion. In October 2008 another of my films - "Alienation", was prohibited for demonstration in "Moscow" cinema. Besides, there is a big list of non-government organizations and seminars that have been rejected halls by hotels, business centers and creative unions. Applications of different organizations for holding seminars, discussions and demonstrations have been rejected 20-22 times. So this is not something new. 

- And where should we look for sources of such work style?         

- The sources are generally at the top. Though I am not sure that in this very case the demonstration of the film was banned by the direct instruction of top leadership. I think this is done by some middle ranking employee, most probably by the personal initiative of Levon Igityan, Director of Aesthetic Center. It can be seen from the fact that the Ministry of Education and Science is in confusion and presents absurd argumentations day after day.     

- Are those argumentations convincing?

- What I was told on April 16 in the Ministry naturally cannot be convincing. The charter they presented did not have a single word about demonstrating or not demonstrating films, and I am not going to found a political organization it mentions. They understood the absurdity of it themselves and after three days said that they banned the demonstration because there was no contract. I have used that hall several times and never with a contract. I paid for the hall and took the invoice. But even if the Ministry of Education and Science is right, they shouldn't have banned the demonstration; they could have warned or sent a contract to sign, there was a lot of time. The reason for ban is political, and it is indisputable. What do you think, if I go now and offer them to sign a contract, will they give a hall? No way.

- The pro-government press wrote that in 10 minutes Tigran Paskevichyan became famous and his film "Choice" a masterpiece. How do you feel about this?

- The pro-government press confirms that we live in an abnormal country. If the pro-government press and their patrons do not want me to become famous and my film a masterpiece in 10 minutes, let them kindly respect the Republic of Armenia Constitution, in particular, Article 27. 

- You finally found the way to demonstrate the film in some other place - Erebuni office of Armenian National Congress. How many people did have a chance to watch it?

- You know, I can every day invite some 20 people to my place and demonstrate the film. Thousands of people copy DVDs and pass to each other, dozens of thousands of people watch it in internet but that does not replace my and audience's right to demonstrate/watch the film in public places. After all any big or small hall is public property and if Levon Igityan has under vague circumstances "inherited" it from his older brother, it does not mean that he has a right to undertake the role of a censor.

- Do you think that public tension has declined after the last presidential elections?

- If it had declined, halls would not be closed, TV companies would be free, state apparatus with its oppressive mechanisms would not stand against "GALA". There is and there will be tension as long as there are political prisoners, oppression, persecution and pursuit. The film "Choice" on the large scale is just about it - how persecution unites people and forges public will.

- But the society is not given a chance for choice. What dangers and consequences can such a tendency lead?

- Your question probably concerns the title of the film - "Choice". Yes, it has some inner casuistry: the god given right to make a choice is separated from the political ceremony called "elections". We have a society that for many years makes its choice. Our society is against tyranny, corruption, lawlessness and other vicious phenomena. That is why it always elects opposition candidates, i.e. chooses change. And a group of people that concentrated all levers in their hands dictate rules of the game. But that group of people is not reasonable enough to understand that by arresting people, closing halls and TV-companies one cannot change public mood. Current authorities are people of my age or a little older who lived in Soviet epoch. At the end of 1980s we were explaining all these things to instructors and department heads of Young Communist League. Now we have to explain it to Armen Ashotyan. On the large scale there is no difference between those instructors and these ones and, I am sure, between those times and these times. Everything will end in the same way.

- What would the alternative, the alternative word give to the society that is so scared of?

- It would give the society an opportunity to make comparative judgment. People watch controlled TV channels and actually are deprived of alternative, of opportunity of making comparative judgment. People cannot see the light and the shade, the right and the wrong etc. They try to deprive people of the right to choose, but since it is not the grace of authorities that it can deprive people of, they attempt to sow mistrust.

- What can be the result of decline of mistrust in this case?

- It can pursue one aim - reduce society to despair, make it indifferent, convince that nothing can be done against them - that they can close a hall or the roads or a TV-company if they wish. Now they have started an outrageous campaign against "GALA" using tax, customs and national security services. The aim is to show - look, we do what we want. And our aim is to prevent that. And I think we will prevent it because it is impossible to continue like that.  

- Let's assume that "A1+" was not closed; could March 1 be excluded in that case?

- Yes, it would be possible not only to avoid March 1, but the social-political situation in Armenia would also be absolutely different. I believe both current authorities and TV-companies are afraid of "A1+" opening because in that case the former would have to change their work-style and the latter their program policies. And the competition will be not between soap operas, but between news reports and social-political programs. And free competition in the information field will increase the chances for free political competition. I think Robert Kocharyan understood this quite well that is why he closed "A1+".

- Why no scandal breaks in our society? Recently 24-year-old Vahan Khalafyan was stabbed to death at the Charentsavan police. A few media report on it for several days but the "boom" does not mature enough to catch the hand of the same policeman next time. What is the reason in your opinion?

- I think it has two explanations. The first is that the society is not informed enough. Limited number of people read newspapers; number of readers in regions and villages is very small. TV-companies keep silent about such cases. News reaches people in oral, non checked and unreliable state. And unreliable and non checked news cannot cause reaction. The second reason is that unaware society cannot substantiate its actions. In this case the reaction of the society has to be expressed by non-government organizations and that expression has to be unanimous. In that case there will be some background. Whereas now human rights activist Arthur Sakunts announces that RA Police head's resignation has to be demanded but it looks like no non-government organization joins him.

Interviewer Zaruhi Mejlumyan