AK: She dreams about a lot of things, she likes to sing – she is always practicing her favorite song, probably she is dreaming about becoming a singer, but most of all she would like to have a different life. So she has a lot of goals, but collecting yogurt labels, beer cups and to participate in different kinds of competitions – according to Krisztina Szabó – is the only way to change her monotonous life. She is working in a factory and she is not able to change her life because she has never learned to manage herself. Therefore she believes in miracles. I think lots of people live that way.

CL: Was your third short A Virus intended as some sort of satire on the health service?

AK: No, it wasn't our intention. The protagonist is a virologist who gets a mysterious infection. Gradually his whole body becomes red and nobody knows what it is. While he is lying ill in the hospital he realizes how his relationships were empty. In the film there is also the fear from the unknown, from the diversity, that's why his fellow humans just leave him alone immediately as his illness comes out. The question is: How strong can the emotional bonds in our lives be, the affection for the other person we love, and how strong is the will to survive - the instincts and the rational thinking? Can our protagonist continue his life facing the deepest and darkest side of the human being, knowing that it is all normal?

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} I prefer it if the audience has a chance to discover the things we put in the film. I don't want to tell them what to see, how to think. I believe that every film is supposed to be a puzzle, and in a certain way a detective story, where the spectator is the detective, and the film itself the thing to discover so that the spectator has to put together the elements, understand the connections. {/niftybox}

CL: There seems to be a visual language running through your films, from your shorts and now to your first feature Fresh Air, particularly long scenes with little or no dialogue. How do you explain this approach?

AK: For me almost every story can be interesting, the important thing is how the story is told. I realized for example that many times I cannot remember the stories of even my favorite films, but I can almost always recognize the images that I've already seen. For me it is the atmosphere of the films which remains, and I try to concentrate on this aspect. I think a film - and I consider it an art - is not about storytelling. It is about expressing things through different tools like image, sound, acting, and also the story, combined together to make a FILM. Unfortunately, image and sound is usually only used to tell the story. A shot is made only to show the actors acting. I think that done like this a film remains a documentation of the acting, even if the compositions are good and the lighting is nice. I think that film is capable of expressing much more. I like to use the images as if they were paintings, where you just watch them and understand many things without expressing it through acting. I don't like to use strong effects (by that I mean in music, acting, camera work, etc.), I think that by using them it is too easy to reach what you want - I prefer it if the audience has a chance to discover the things we put in the film. I don't want to tell them what to see, how to think. I believe that every film is supposed to be a puzzle, and in a certain way a detective story, where the spectator is the detective, and the film itself the thing to discover so that the spectator has to put together the elements, understand the connections. I don't want to give signs, and underline the things I considered important. I like the kind of films where I, as a viewer, have a chance to think, to try different concepts, to change my mind during the film about what is happening, etc. I like to give more space to the audience as I consider them to be adults. For me this is a kind of communication.

CL: Also, why do you not use close-ups or non-diegetic music?

There are times when music really complements the image and gives it a more complex meaning, but I think if there is music underscoring a scene then that really determines the atmosphere. Therefore, it changes the original atmosphere of the scene, or just strengthens it, depending how you use it. For the kind of films I do now I don't like either of them. Maybe, in the future, I will do different films that will need underscore music. I think it fits to more abstract films where the music can be a real part of the picture so therefore creating an atmosphere together, but for me it has nothing to do with the story. For me music is very important, even too much, so I like it if there is a real artistic purpose in using it. If I need music, then I need to know that when I do the scene. So if I add some diegetic music, that means that in the scene there is the source of the music, for instance a radio. Mostly we plan it already in the script but sometimes the decision is made during the shooting or later; it can even be that we add it in the editing process.

CL: Would it be fair to say that your short films are quite open-ended and seem more like chapters in what could be an expanded piece? In fact, is it feasible to extrapolate chapters of Fresh Air as being shorts in themselves (e.g. the failed hitch to Italy)?

AK: It is true that many shorts end with a punch line but I don't think that the characteristic of a short film is to have a closed end. The way you chose the end of your film also comes from your personality. As for myself, I wouldn't like to tell people the 'truth' or 'my truth' as I don't know anything of myself for certain. I just see things that are worth thinking about, trying to show different and deeper sides of things, and trying to ask important questions, hoping that people will continue to think about them. Therefore I like more open-ended stories. Fresh Air has an open-end but the scenes themselves, as well the scene hitch-hiking to Italy, seem perhaps to have a beginning and an end, so is the dramaturgy of a possible short, and maybe would be funny. But without the scenes before and after, alone, they wouldn't have a further meaning, a thought that makes a film what it is, at least for me. The scenes (edited) together add up to the whole of what Fresh Air is talking about.

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} For me it is the atmosphere of the films which remains, and I try to concentrate on this aspect. I think a film - and I consider it an art - is not about storytelling. It is about expressing things through different tools like image, sound, acting, and also the story, combined together to make a FILM. {/niftybox}

CL: How did it feel to win awards for these shorts and how much did it help in the funding of Fresh Air?