The interviewer asked how the role of Ferapontov found its actor. Was the character written with a specific performer in mind, or did the process involve auditions or a personal invitation?
The actor replied that designing a role around a performer can feel odd. It is something directors wrestle with more than actors. He was clear that there were no rivals for the part, and there was no formal casting for either him or Vitya. They joined the project with a sense of ease, feeling that the opportunity was nearly by fate. It was a project he hadn’t pursued in a long time, and his description echoed the same sentiment from Vitya about their paths aligning in this film.
People also asked about the meaning behind the film’s title, “Five Percent.” The actor explained that it reflects the division of image rights and the slow, careful sharing of profits. The sense is that after the transactions and allocations, there is little left for anyone, a subtle commentary on ownership and value in a creative economy.
The conversation then turned to the film’s difficult journey. The project had a reputation for delays and lengthy development, and it was a struggle to keep the calendar intact. The actor recalled how the shoot was repeatedly postponed, sometimes for reasons outside anyone’s control. Yet both he and Vitya kept faith in the project. They postponed other engagements and made sacrifices to see the story come to life on screen. There were moments when fixing the schedule felt nearly impossible, but the determination to realize the story kept them going.
When asked about the obstacles faced, the discussion centered on money. Financing proved to be a major hurdle. This was not a light, crowd-pleasing film that could be rushed into production. The stakes were higher, and the financial landscape slowed progress at every turn.
Why stay with the script, and what drew him to the project in the first place? The actor preferred not to dissect the script in detail. He highlighted two anchors that mattered deeply. First, the invitation to participate came from Mitya Svetozarov. For him, the project stood out not because of a typical storyline, but because it carried the imprint of someone he already trusted. It marked the third collaboration with Svetozarov, and the actor respected the exacting standards and thorough preparation that the director brings to every frame. The result, he felt, was a film crafted with discernment and a genuine cinematic sensibility that aligns with Petersburg cinema’s traditions. Second, the presence of Sukhorukov mattered immensely. The actor candidly admitted that he would not have taken part if Vitya hadn’t been involved, underscoring the personal connection and mutual conviction that sustained their joint effort.
The discussion then moved to the importance of Vitya’s involvement. The two performers share roots that go back nearly five decades, beginning as classmates who shared living spaces, growing up with a steady, humane regard for one another. While they had never collaborated on a feature film before, their long history created a meaningful, almost familial dynamic. Their past did not translate into a formal partnership, yet it did shape a powerful, undeniable rapport in front of the camera. Their shared history offered a subtle, symbolic resonance during the graduation-performance scene they once shared in the past, providing a quiet undercurrent to the new collaboration. This time, they would appear together as two closely linked characters on screen for the very first time.
One of the questions touched on the setting and whether St. Petersburg itself would be a draw for audiences. The actor affirmed that even in a film where the city might not appear as an idealized postcard, the sense of St. Petersburg would endure. The characters and the stories are rooted in the city’s atmosphere, its people, and the interiors where filming occurred. The city’s influence on the narrative is deeply personal: it shapes the life of the protagonist and grounds the film in a distinct local texture that both loves and resists the place at the same time.
As for the film’s appeal to younger viewers, the actor offered a candid view. He noted that younger audiences tend to respond to stories about their own age group, which is natural. Whether teenagers would flock to this film is hard to determine. He did not position himself as a publicist or a marketer, and he acknowledged the challenge of predicting reception. In his view, the work may reach different groups in unexpected ways, and the timing of the film’s release could bring in a varied audience. He did sense that a segment of viewers, including some younger people, could connect with the themes, even if the protagonists are not adolescents themselves. He spoke about the potential for broad resonance, explaining that audience fit is not always a simple equation, and perception can shift with exposure and conversation around the film.
Some curiosity lingered about whether the film’s success with a prior project, “Vampires of the Middle Group,” had any influence on its reception. The actor attributed some of the public interest to Vitya’s earlier works finding new momentum. He mentioned that a film like “Gorodok,” which gained unexpected life on modern platforms and social networks, might contribute to fresh attention. The way the film was cut and presented made it easy for audiences to engage with particular moments and comments, amplifying its reach in contemporary media spaces. This broader visibility, he suggested, could help new viewers discover the performers and the story in a way that resonates beyond traditional channels.