After the festival, the film began its journey to the audience in cinemas in Latvia, including in Liepāja – the city where its main character was born.
The plot of the film is based on A. Imermanis’ expressed wish after death – to be scattered in the Red Light District of Paris “to always be in the company of beautiful girls”.
When the contemporary poet Aleksandrs Zapols (pseudonym Semyons Hanins), who considers himself a soulmate of A. Imermanis, decides to fulfill the writer’s last wish, it turns out that the urn with ashes has disappeared.
This is how the detective begins, and the authors of the film become investigators themselves.
After the screening in the “Balle” cinema, director Jānis Ābele and cameraman Toms Škēle met with the audience. “It is really a great pleasure that we can show the film right in the hometown of Anatol Imermanis,” said the director, addressing the audience.
Although several rows of chairs in the hall remained empty, in his opinion the audience gathered was quite large for Latvian documentary cinema, and he thanked the audience for their interest.
“The idea came about completely by accident,” said J. Ábele, answering a question from a viewer.
“The author of the screenplay of this film is the writer Jānis Jonevs. On the eve of the screening of our previous joint work – “Jelgava ’94” – we had a conversation in which we chatted about everything, except for that film, because it was quite a stressful time to finish the film.
I had read the poetry of Anatol Imermans, which I found interesting, so I asked Jonev why he, such an author, is so forgotten. Jānis replied that he didn’t really know, but he could tell one witty story. It was the story of the lost urn of ashes.
I thought it was charming material – maybe for a short film or even a little comedy about the afterlife.”
However, when they started calling the contemporaries of A. Imermanis and researching what happened, it was revealed that the writer’s wishes were not fulfilled and the urn disappeared when the Writers’ Union moved here and there.
“The detective line entered the story quite organically – and since Imermanis himself was the author of detective novels, we understood that we ourselves had become participants in his last detective,” the director reasoned.
Let’s find out that the filming team will be able to find what they are looking for in one of the buildings where the Writers’ Union used to be located. Among the things stored in the attic.
“When we went to this potential place, I realized that it is my current workplace,”
operator T. Šēle remarked with a smile.
There were also moments when the plot seemed stuck. “One was what the screenwriter and I originally intended to do, but many plot paths simply did not open,” admitted J. Ābele.
“For example, Imerman’s last great life muse currently holds a high position and deliberately avoids any association with him, even though she would be a very interesting documentary character. However, these impasses led us to other creative solutions.”
Were there options to finish the film if the urn was not found?
“As they say, the journey is often more important than the destination, because that’s where you learn the most.
There were various options for how the film could be concluded – we even considered smoking cigars in the finale (it was one of A. Imermanis’ passions, just like coffee and women – L. K.-A.) or let’s do something symbolic. However, in my opinion, the film gained much more from the fact that we actually found the urn and were able to fulfill Imerman’s last wish.”
Director J. Ābele described the film as a “documentary detective, which at times turns into an erotic mystery”.
“Anatol Imermanis was an extremely controversial personality,” explained the director when the film was released. “Dissident or freethinker? Dandy or pervert? There are many contrasts in his life.”
The screenwriter J. Jonevs also called the main character a person full of contrasts: “Suffered by Soviet power, but not digested by the regime. Dissident bohemian and “factory of legends”.
Crazy about women but dead lonely. Once famous, today forgotten.”
The family of A. Imermans did not participate in the film, but was informed about the plan. “I contacted his daughter, told her everything we were going to do, and she gave her blessing. She didn’t want to film herself, which is partly related not only to personal feelings, but also to her work. After the premiere, she called me and said that everything was very honest and good,” revealed the director.
Although the majority of viewers are those who have experienced Soviet times, the authors of the film believe that it can also appeal to the younger generation.
“We didn’t want the viewer to necessarily know who Imermanis was,” admitted J. Ābele. “It is important that he gets to know it during the course of the film – as a person who has lived a full-blooded life, with his passions, mistakes and oddities.”
The director said that he was attracted by the fact that this word is no longer in everyday circulation: “I don’t know if every life is worth a movie.
I think the most important thing is how you tell the story and from what perspective.
In this respect, I even felt liberated, because if I were to make a film about, for example, Imanta Ziedoni or Ojaras Väiceti, the audience would probably be larger, but I would also be obliged to mention the awards, the fact that everyone read them, etc.
On the other hand, I did not feel such an obligation about Anatola Imermani – he is hardly talked about nowadays, and this allowed me to create the story more freely. Maybe that’s why this film turned out to be more honest.”