In a candid conversation with mk.ru, Maxim Averin opened up about what he dislikes about the process of making films. He spoke plainly about how the spotlight often shines on directors, editors, screenwriters, and the rest of the crew, while the actor’s influence can feel limited. Averin argued that an actor may be asked to re-voice or alter a scene that was filmed months or even a year earlier, underscoring the time gap between production and the final cut.
Six months can pass in the blink of an eye. In that span, a performer might look back and think about how differently the moment could have carried the character. Averin emphasized that it would be unwise for an actor to claim too much leverage in shaping the finished product. He described the creation of a film as a collaborative enterprise where the director, cameraman, and editor hold the chief stake at the editing table, while the actor’s contribution, though significant, is tempered by the long edit path that follows filming. Once shooting is complete, the actor’s personal weight in the overall outcome naturally diminishes, which is a reality many performers must accept.
Still, Averin is drawn to the on-set experience because it leaves room for growth. He noted that his favorite moments come from the chance to revisit a performance after it has been recorded. In the process of viewing dailies, revising takes, and reinterpreting scenes, he can refine his portrayal and experiment with different readings of a character. He believes that over the course of ten productions after the premiere, actors often reveal entirely new facets of their roles as they deepen their understanding of the character and the evolving film world around them. This ongoing reinterpretation keeps the craft alive and continually fresh for the performer.
Earlier, Averin also touched on his relationship with online critics. He suggested that their motivations sometimes escape his full understanding, acknowledging that online discourse can be volatile and at times misaligned with the intentions of the creators. He did not see critics as a final judge of artistic merit, instead viewing their opinions as one of many viewpoints that circulate in a broad, ongoing conversation about cinema. This perspective reflects a mature stance toward the feedback cycle that accompanies contemporary film culture, where audience response, editorial decisions, and the filmmaker’s vision intersect in unpredictable ways.