Films and projects travel from Sundance to Rotterdam and Rotterdam’s love affair with Latin America becomes apparent.
Making their way from Sundance to Rotterdam, “Lemon” was Opening Night in the International Film Festival Rotterdam, Sloan Prize Winner “Marjorie Prime” played in Voices while director Michael Almereyda was on the Jury of the Hivos Tiger Competition. His documentary, “Escapes” also played in the Regained section of the festival.
“Marjorie Prime”: Director Michael Almereyda, Lois Smith and Jon Hamm
“Chile’s “Family Life” by Alicia Scherson and Cristian Jimenez, Singapore’s “Pop Aye”, “Lady Macbeth” and “Sami Blood” all screened here after premiering in Sundance as well.
Pop Aye director Kirsten Tan won the Big Screen Competition and in addition to the cash prize may also count on a guaranteed release in Dutch cinemas and on TV.
“The Wound” by John Trengove has even longer legs, reaching from Sundance World...
Making their way from Sundance to Rotterdam, “Lemon” was Opening Night in the International Film Festival Rotterdam, Sloan Prize Winner “Marjorie Prime” played in Voices while director Michael Almereyda was on the Jury of the Hivos Tiger Competition. His documentary, “Escapes” also played in the Regained section of the festival.
“Marjorie Prime”: Director Michael Almereyda, Lois Smith and Jon Hamm
“Chile’s “Family Life” by Alicia Scherson and Cristian Jimenez, Singapore’s “Pop Aye”, “Lady Macbeth” and “Sami Blood” all screened here after premiering in Sundance as well.
Pop Aye director Kirsten Tan won the Big Screen Competition and in addition to the cash prize may also count on a guaranteed release in Dutch cinemas and on TV.
“The Wound” by John Trengove has even longer legs, reaching from Sundance World...
- 2/8/2017
- by Sydney Levine
- Sydney's Buzz
The Cinema Tropical Awards, which honor the best in Latin American film production, have announced the nominees for their seventh annual ceremony. They feature 23 films from eight countries nominated in six different categories: Best Feature Film; Best Documentary Film; Best Director, Feature Film; Best Director, Documentary Film; Best First Film and Best U.S. Latino Film.
Read More: LatinoBuzz: Nominees Announced for the 6th Annual Cinema Tropical Awards
The winners will be announced at a special evening ceremony at The New York Times Company headquarters in New York City on Friday, January 13. The winning films will be showcased as part of the Cinema Tropical Festival at Museum of the Moving Image this winter.
The jury for the festival this year includes the following: Carlos Aguilar, film critic and journalist; Fábio Andrade, film critic and screenwriter; Ela Bittencourt, film critic and programmer; Eric Hynes, Associate Curator of Film, Museum of the Moving Image; Toby Lee,...
Read More: LatinoBuzz: Nominees Announced for the 6th Annual Cinema Tropical Awards
The winners will be announced at a special evening ceremony at The New York Times Company headquarters in New York City on Friday, January 13. The winning films will be showcased as part of the Cinema Tropical Festival at Museum of the Moving Image this winter.
The jury for the festival this year includes the following: Carlos Aguilar, film critic and journalist; Fábio Andrade, film critic and screenwriter; Ela Bittencourt, film critic and programmer; Eric Hynes, Associate Curator of Film, Museum of the Moving Image; Toby Lee,...
- 12/14/2016
- by Vikram Murthi
- Indiewire
Director Naré Mkrtchyan on Oscar-Shortlisted Doc ‘The Other Side of Home’ About the Armenian Genocide 100 Years Later
An open wound continues to haunt Armenians, both those living in what remains of their homeland and the even larger Diaspora, a century after their collective family tree was savagely uprooted via a genocide, an act that remains unrecognized by the perpetrators. As Turkey, which in those days was known as the Ottoman Empire, continuously refuses to acknowledge the mass murder of Armenians that began in 1915 as genocide, the Armenian fight for justice grows stronger.
To commemorate the 100th year anniversary of the tragic passage of history, filmmaker Naré Mkrtchyan chose to approach the subject form a singular perspective in search of a common ground between both countries. Rather than accuse and demand answers, Mkrtchyan focused on a Turkish woman, Maya, who discovered her great-grandmother, was an Armenian survivor who hid her identity to save her life.
An open wound continues to haunt Armenians, both those living in what remains of their homeland and the even larger Diaspora, a century after their collective family tree was savagely uprooted via a genocide, an act that remains unrecognized by the perpetrators. As Turkey, which in those days was known as the Ottoman Empire, continuously refuses to acknowledge the mass murder of Armenians that began in 1915 as genocide, the Armenian fight for justice grows stronger.
To commemorate the 100th year anniversary of the tragic passage of history, filmmaker Naré Mkrtchyan chose to approach the subject form a singular perspective in search of a common ground between both countries. Rather than accuse and demand answers, Mkrtchyan focused on a Turkish woman, Maya, who discovered her great-grandmother, was an Armenian survivor who hid her identity to save her life.
- 11/8/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Forging a career out unforgettable performances in both independent classics and studio fare as well countless television roles, Rosie Perez is one of the most successful and well-regarding Latina actresses working in the tumultuous entertainment industry. Her unquestionable talent has helped her surpass the unspoken and hindering stereotypes that plague Hollywood, and though the road has been anything but easy, her prolific body of work speaks for itself.
Perez recently attended the Gasparilla International Film Festival in Tampa to support the film “Puerto Ricans in Paris, “ in which she appears alongside Luis Guzmán , Rosario Dawson, and Edgar Garcia.
We sat down with her to discuss the humorous caper about two Puerto Rican American detectives solving a case in the European capital, her perception on diversity in Hollywood, and how “Fearless” became a surprising success that earned her an Academy Award nomination.
Carlos Aguilar: “Puerto Ricans in Paris” is a project that literally has some of the biggest Puerto Rican talent in Hollywood gathered in one film. How did your involvement with the project come about? I understand you are friends with the mastermind behind the film Luis Guzmán.
Rosie Perez: Louie just called me up and he said, “Mija, I need a favor” [Laughs]. I said, “Ok, that means no money,” and he just started laughing [Laughs]. I said, “Whatever it is you got it. What is it?” Then he said, “Oh it’s this movie that means so much to me.” I went, “Oh shit, send me the script firs!" [Laughs]. He did and I thought it was funny, so I said I’ll do it. That was it. It was as simple as that. There was no agents involved, no managers, it was just that phone call. Later he did forwarded the script to my agent, but literally it was that simple.
Aguilar: Seems like it was one of those rare cases when things work out easily in Hollywood thanks to good relationships and friendships.
Rosie Perez: Yes, that’s very rare.
Aguilar: What did you find appealing about this story? It’s definitely a fish out of water tale about these two men from New York in a culturally foreign environment . Was it simple the fact that it's quite funny, the themes within it, or was it because you knew everyone involved?
Rosie Perez: It’s a little bit of all the above, but I think mainly it was that it was funny and secondly I would say that it’s about friendship and family, so I liked that. I just couldn’t wait to see the club scene. You first see it on paper, but I was like, “Oh I gotta see this!” [Laughs]. It’s a comedy about being someone’s friend and being family, that’s what drew me to it.
Aguilar: You've had a prolific career between your work in television and incredibly memorable film roles. At this point in you career how do you decide what is a role you want to pursue, in particular with Hollywood still unwilling to create more roles for people outside their mold?
Rosie Perez: If it hits me right and if it’s not insulting then I consider it, because as you know, most recently with the Oscars controversy, Hollywood is tough for people of color. When they say, “We are going to create more roles for people of color,” they are stereotypical roles and they are insulting roles, and we are like, “That’s not it people.” I’m going on almost 30 years, I’m lucky and I’m very grateful, but it’s still not a walk in the park. I think it is also because I’m choosy with roles. I’m at an age where I don’t want to do something if I don’t have to do it. Even with the TV show, I had enough. I did it for a year, I was contracted for three years, and I said, “No, I don’t want to do this anymore.” That’s what happens when you get older, you get to that point. You want to enjoy life. You want life to be good. At the end of the day you don’t want to think, “What the hell was I doing?” [Laughs]. “Why did I do this?” or “Why didn’t I walk away from that?" Or “Why did I accept that?” That’s how my decision-making works. With this film I really liked that all my scenes were in New York because I like to stay home a lot. I’m a homebody. I’m a girl who was in the clubs since I was 14-years-old, I’m done with that, I’m over it [Laughs].
Aguilar: It’s definitely important to know when to say no.
Rosie Perez: Exactly, and I say no. I say no a lot. I’m grateful that work still comes my way. Forget about me being of color, I’m a woman. Then when you are over 40, you are like, “Oh shit,” you know? [Laughs].
Aguilar: Hollywood seems to pile on these barriers on people. Being a woman of color over 40 is disgracefully a no-go for studios. Is't insane to think we haven't gotten over all those prejudices, why do you think that's still the case?
Rosie Perez: Because it’s still a male-dominated industry. That said, I have to repeat myself, I’m very fortunate because I know a lot of actresses that are super talented that just don’t get work. They don’t get the offers, they don’t get the auditions, they don’t get the opportunities, and it’s so unfair. I’m really not complaining.
Aguilar: You were were nominated for an Academy Award for “Fearless" back in the 90s, considering the recent Oscar controversy and the state of diversity in Hollywood, how difficult was it to make that happen from getting the role to getting the industry's attention back then?
Rosie Perez: I think “Fearless” happened not because of Hollywood. Hollywood didn’t believe in it. They threw their marketing dollars on a different film. But when the Berlin Film Festival picked up the movie and said, "This was exquisite," and everyone was throwing awards at us, I think that's when the Academy was like, "Wait a minute what is this film." We went over to Europe and it was a smash hit. We'd drive down Champs Élysées and we'd see the movie poster for "Fearless," and I'd go, "Oh my God. This is a dream." I really thought I was in a fairytale. That had never happened to me. I found out about the Oscar nomination while we were still in Berlin. I think that's what happened.
It's wonderful on one end and on the other end it was unfortunate that it took Europe to make America say, "Oh this is a good film and there are really good performances in it." This is one of the instances where the role was not insulting, it wasn't stereotypical, and it wasn't for a Puerto Rican American. I had to fight for it. I think I was like the 80th-something person they had seen. They kept saying, "No, no, no she is not right." All they kept thinking was "White Men Can't Jump." My agents at the time were like, "Just give her a chance," and the director was not from America so he didn't have any prejudices or preconceived notions of what I could do or who I was. I had to do four call backs, and I did it. I didn't complaint not one bit. When you really want something in life you work for it. You go through the mud. Being at the Oscars was great as well was the Golden Globes. That's what I mean when I say I'm not complaining.
Aguilar: iI's strange and unfortunate that sometimes there is a need for outside sources to validate the quality of a film rather than just looking at the performances and the quality of the material.
Rosie Perez: I don't think that's the case all the time, but it is the case sometimes and that's unfortunate. I just have hope for the Academy. I have hope for Hollywood. I'm a very hopeful person in general. Things will change, but it's not about just one minority group. Asians and Native Americans get it the worst and nobody is rooting for them. Let's hope it changes for everyone. That's what I would like to see.
Aguilar: In "Puerto Ricans in Paris" the two Puerto Rican leads are detectives. They are not stereotypical roles that are usually assigned to Latino talent or secondary characters to a white lead. Do you think this has to do with the fact that a big part of the creative talent was Latino?
Rosie Perez: Yes! Louie had to do his own thing. He got the screenwriter with whom he had done "How to Make it in America." Louie is a very forward-thinking person and I hope with this film people start recognizing that. I knew it when I first met him. He was like, "We gotta stick together mama. We are gonna change things," and I was like, "I believe you." Everybody was like,"Nah," but I was like," I believe you," because he said it with such fortitude. And he did it right because in this film I play a middle-class wife. That could have been anybody. It could have been "White People in Paris," "Black People in Paris," or "Asian People in Paris." It could have been anything but it was "Puerto Ricans in Paris" because a Puerto Rican American actor took the initiative and said "I'm going to make this movie and I'm gonna show them that we are just like you. We are not a novelty. We are human beings." That's why this is a great thing. It really is. It came off like a commercial film, but I was pleasantly surprised
Aguilar: But definitely the fact that is a commercial film will help it cross over to any audience. It doesn't have to be just a "Latino film."
Rosie Perez: Thats right!.
Aguilar: Would you say in order to see significant change in the way opportunities are created and offered, we, as minorities, have to create our own opportunities or what would be the best approach?
Rosie Perez: I think you do have to create your own opportunities, but you also have to fight to have opportunities being created for you by the studios. You can't just fight that one fight, you have to fight the good fight and that means covering all the basis. Things are changing, but it is unfortunate that we are still at this point. Things have gotten better but sometimes we take one step forward and two steps back.
Aguilar: "Puerto Ricans in Paris" is going to be released later this year, but you already have several other upcoming projects. Can you tell about your recent role in Maris Curran's film and what other adventures you are embarking on?
Rosie Perez: Well "Five Nights in Maine" was another film that the director didn't see me for but she wanted to meet me, which was weird. I thought, "Why do you want to meet me if you don't see me for the role," but I was like, "Ok I'll meet you whatever." We sat down and we talked and after our luncheon she called Diane Wiest and said, "I think I found the nurse and its Rosie Perez," Diane Wiest just went, "Wonderful!" It was that simple. She wasn't like, "Really?" It's a very dark film. It's beautifully shot, it's very moody, David Oyelowo is excellent in it and so is Diane Wiest. It's a very quiet film, and for it to be so dark there is a ll of light in it. There is a lot of outdoors shots and the house is bright in Maine. I'm glad people have responded to it.
Right now I'm just ping-ponging around between projects. I'm producing a project with Edward Norton's company with executive producer Bill Migliore. It's very exciting to me and very challenging to me because Bill and Edward are very challenging people. They don't want to take one step forward until something is right. Right now we are writing the script. We thought we were done and I said, "We thought you said yes to the script," then they went, "Yeah but now comes the real work." It's been a mind-blowing experience. I'm writing and producing but I'm not acting in it. I'm behind the scenes this time. Louie is attached and so is Zoe Saldana. But right now is all about the script. I get excited because I feel stimulated. When you get off the phone and you just had a four hour script meeting and you are like, "What time is it? Oh my God I have to make dinner for my husband. We've been on the phone for four hours? Are you kidding me?" and you don't feel exhausted, you feel invigorated and you can't wait to go back and star writing off of the notes, it's special. We haven't even made the damn movie and it's just been such a special experience for me. It really has.
Perez recently attended the Gasparilla International Film Festival in Tampa to support the film “Puerto Ricans in Paris, “ in which she appears alongside Luis Guzmán , Rosario Dawson, and Edgar Garcia.
We sat down with her to discuss the humorous caper about two Puerto Rican American detectives solving a case in the European capital, her perception on diversity in Hollywood, and how “Fearless” became a surprising success that earned her an Academy Award nomination.
Carlos Aguilar: “Puerto Ricans in Paris” is a project that literally has some of the biggest Puerto Rican talent in Hollywood gathered in one film. How did your involvement with the project come about? I understand you are friends with the mastermind behind the film Luis Guzmán.
Rosie Perez: Louie just called me up and he said, “Mija, I need a favor” [Laughs]. I said, “Ok, that means no money,” and he just started laughing [Laughs]. I said, “Whatever it is you got it. What is it?” Then he said, “Oh it’s this movie that means so much to me.” I went, “Oh shit, send me the script firs!" [Laughs]. He did and I thought it was funny, so I said I’ll do it. That was it. It was as simple as that. There was no agents involved, no managers, it was just that phone call. Later he did forwarded the script to my agent, but literally it was that simple.
Aguilar: Seems like it was one of those rare cases when things work out easily in Hollywood thanks to good relationships and friendships.
Rosie Perez: Yes, that’s very rare.
Aguilar: What did you find appealing about this story? It’s definitely a fish out of water tale about these two men from New York in a culturally foreign environment . Was it simple the fact that it's quite funny, the themes within it, or was it because you knew everyone involved?
Rosie Perez: It’s a little bit of all the above, but I think mainly it was that it was funny and secondly I would say that it’s about friendship and family, so I liked that. I just couldn’t wait to see the club scene. You first see it on paper, but I was like, “Oh I gotta see this!” [Laughs]. It’s a comedy about being someone’s friend and being family, that’s what drew me to it.
Aguilar: You've had a prolific career between your work in television and incredibly memorable film roles. At this point in you career how do you decide what is a role you want to pursue, in particular with Hollywood still unwilling to create more roles for people outside their mold?
Rosie Perez: If it hits me right and if it’s not insulting then I consider it, because as you know, most recently with the Oscars controversy, Hollywood is tough for people of color. When they say, “We are going to create more roles for people of color,” they are stereotypical roles and they are insulting roles, and we are like, “That’s not it people.” I’m going on almost 30 years, I’m lucky and I’m very grateful, but it’s still not a walk in the park. I think it is also because I’m choosy with roles. I’m at an age where I don’t want to do something if I don’t have to do it. Even with the TV show, I had enough. I did it for a year, I was contracted for three years, and I said, “No, I don’t want to do this anymore.” That’s what happens when you get older, you get to that point. You want to enjoy life. You want life to be good. At the end of the day you don’t want to think, “What the hell was I doing?” [Laughs]. “Why did I do this?” or “Why didn’t I walk away from that?" Or “Why did I accept that?” That’s how my decision-making works. With this film I really liked that all my scenes were in New York because I like to stay home a lot. I’m a homebody. I’m a girl who was in the clubs since I was 14-years-old, I’m done with that, I’m over it [Laughs].
Aguilar: It’s definitely important to know when to say no.
Rosie Perez: Exactly, and I say no. I say no a lot. I’m grateful that work still comes my way. Forget about me being of color, I’m a woman. Then when you are over 40, you are like, “Oh shit,” you know? [Laughs].
Aguilar: Hollywood seems to pile on these barriers on people. Being a woman of color over 40 is disgracefully a no-go for studios. Is't insane to think we haven't gotten over all those prejudices, why do you think that's still the case?
Rosie Perez: Because it’s still a male-dominated industry. That said, I have to repeat myself, I’m very fortunate because I know a lot of actresses that are super talented that just don’t get work. They don’t get the offers, they don’t get the auditions, they don’t get the opportunities, and it’s so unfair. I’m really not complaining.
Aguilar: You were were nominated for an Academy Award for “Fearless" back in the 90s, considering the recent Oscar controversy and the state of diversity in Hollywood, how difficult was it to make that happen from getting the role to getting the industry's attention back then?
Rosie Perez: I think “Fearless” happened not because of Hollywood. Hollywood didn’t believe in it. They threw their marketing dollars on a different film. But when the Berlin Film Festival picked up the movie and said, "This was exquisite," and everyone was throwing awards at us, I think that's when the Academy was like, "Wait a minute what is this film." We went over to Europe and it was a smash hit. We'd drive down Champs Élysées and we'd see the movie poster for "Fearless," and I'd go, "Oh my God. This is a dream." I really thought I was in a fairytale. That had never happened to me. I found out about the Oscar nomination while we were still in Berlin. I think that's what happened.
It's wonderful on one end and on the other end it was unfortunate that it took Europe to make America say, "Oh this is a good film and there are really good performances in it." This is one of the instances where the role was not insulting, it wasn't stereotypical, and it wasn't for a Puerto Rican American. I had to fight for it. I think I was like the 80th-something person they had seen. They kept saying, "No, no, no she is not right." All they kept thinking was "White Men Can't Jump." My agents at the time were like, "Just give her a chance," and the director was not from America so he didn't have any prejudices or preconceived notions of what I could do or who I was. I had to do four call backs, and I did it. I didn't complaint not one bit. When you really want something in life you work for it. You go through the mud. Being at the Oscars was great as well was the Golden Globes. That's what I mean when I say I'm not complaining.
Aguilar: iI's strange and unfortunate that sometimes there is a need for outside sources to validate the quality of a film rather than just looking at the performances and the quality of the material.
Rosie Perez: I don't think that's the case all the time, but it is the case sometimes and that's unfortunate. I just have hope for the Academy. I have hope for Hollywood. I'm a very hopeful person in general. Things will change, but it's not about just one minority group. Asians and Native Americans get it the worst and nobody is rooting for them. Let's hope it changes for everyone. That's what I would like to see.
Aguilar: In "Puerto Ricans in Paris" the two Puerto Rican leads are detectives. They are not stereotypical roles that are usually assigned to Latino talent or secondary characters to a white lead. Do you think this has to do with the fact that a big part of the creative talent was Latino?
Rosie Perez: Yes! Louie had to do his own thing. He got the screenwriter with whom he had done "How to Make it in America." Louie is a very forward-thinking person and I hope with this film people start recognizing that. I knew it when I first met him. He was like, "We gotta stick together mama. We are gonna change things," and I was like, "I believe you." Everybody was like,"Nah," but I was like," I believe you," because he said it with such fortitude. And he did it right because in this film I play a middle-class wife. That could have been anybody. It could have been "White People in Paris," "Black People in Paris," or "Asian People in Paris." It could have been anything but it was "Puerto Ricans in Paris" because a Puerto Rican American actor took the initiative and said "I'm going to make this movie and I'm gonna show them that we are just like you. We are not a novelty. We are human beings." That's why this is a great thing. It really is. It came off like a commercial film, but I was pleasantly surprised
Aguilar: But definitely the fact that is a commercial film will help it cross over to any audience. It doesn't have to be just a "Latino film."
Rosie Perez: Thats right!.
Aguilar: Would you say in order to see significant change in the way opportunities are created and offered, we, as minorities, have to create our own opportunities or what would be the best approach?
Rosie Perez: I think you do have to create your own opportunities, but you also have to fight to have opportunities being created for you by the studios. You can't just fight that one fight, you have to fight the good fight and that means covering all the basis. Things are changing, but it is unfortunate that we are still at this point. Things have gotten better but sometimes we take one step forward and two steps back.
Aguilar: "Puerto Ricans in Paris" is going to be released later this year, but you already have several other upcoming projects. Can you tell about your recent role in Maris Curran's film and what other adventures you are embarking on?
Rosie Perez: Well "Five Nights in Maine" was another film that the director didn't see me for but she wanted to meet me, which was weird. I thought, "Why do you want to meet me if you don't see me for the role," but I was like, "Ok I'll meet you whatever." We sat down and we talked and after our luncheon she called Diane Wiest and said, "I think I found the nurse and its Rosie Perez," Diane Wiest just went, "Wonderful!" It was that simple. She wasn't like, "Really?" It's a very dark film. It's beautifully shot, it's very moody, David Oyelowo is excellent in it and so is Diane Wiest. It's a very quiet film, and for it to be so dark there is a ll of light in it. There is a lot of outdoors shots and the house is bright in Maine. I'm glad people have responded to it.
Right now I'm just ping-ponging around between projects. I'm producing a project with Edward Norton's company with executive producer Bill Migliore. It's very exciting to me and very challenging to me because Bill and Edward are very challenging people. They don't want to take one step forward until something is right. Right now we are writing the script. We thought we were done and I said, "We thought you said yes to the script," then they went, "Yeah but now comes the real work." It's been a mind-blowing experience. I'm writing and producing but I'm not acting in it. I'm behind the scenes this time. Louie is attached and so is Zoe Saldana. But right now is all about the script. I get excited because I feel stimulated. When you get off the phone and you just had a four hour script meeting and you are like, "What time is it? Oh my God I have to make dinner for my husband. We've been on the phone for four hours? Are you kidding me?" and you don't feel exhausted, you feel invigorated and you can't wait to go back and star writing off of the notes, it's special. We haven't even made the damn movie and it's just been such a special experience for me. It really has.
- 4/7/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
'Darling' Dir. Mickey Keating on Being Inspired by Classic Horror to Form Highly Stylized Nightmares
Channeling some of the most legendary masters of tension and fright in cinema history, young auteur Mickey Keating takes an empty New York house and a lonely young woman and molds these two seemingly traditional tropes into a black-and-white nightmare. Plunging into the viewer’s sense with bone-shaking atmospheric sounds and cohesively deranged editing, “Darling” shatters any expectations and delivers an immersive experience of intimate horror. The film’s star, Lauren Ashley Carter is an absolute revelation. Each scream, gesture, and diabolically spoken line of dialogue compliments the elegantly designed frames inspired by 1960s genre gems. Unsettling from its opening frame to its unshakable horrifying conclusion, Keating’s minimalist creation is an alluring and elegantly diabolical vision. An exquisite genre work to be counted among the best horror films of the year.
"Darling" is now playing in NYC at the Village East Cinema and opens April 8 in Los Angeles at the Arena Cinema.
Carlos Aguilar: I made the big mistake of watching "Darling" at night. It was absolutely terrifying. It took me by surprise, because its very economical in its design, but its very powerful in the emotions that it provokes. Tell me a little bit about the inception of the project and the films that you use as references or influences that inspired its visual aesthetics.
Mickey Keating: I think first and foremost its an homage to 1960s psychological horror movies with fractured narratives told with untrustworthy protagonists. Films like "The Haunting," "The Innocents," "Repulsion," "Diabolique," "That Cold Day in the Park" by Robert Altman, which show a much more restrained, psychological decent into madness. That's what really inspired me to write this one. In terms of composition and framing and camerawork, I turned towards a lot of Haneke films and then also restrained Kubrick-ian and Hitchcock-ian type black-and-white horror movies. It was a great eclectic mix of all these insane, beautiful works of art.
Aguilar: While writing "Darling," were you certain from the start that you wanted it to be focused on a single character with a story that takes place in a single location and very economical in its mechanics?
Mickey Keating: Definitely. It was very important for me to have this movie be this way because my two previous films were really about characters that were playing off one another, really interacting, debating and fighting one another, so with this film I wanted to be much quieter. I wanted to focus on one single person predominately. From the very beginning it was this way. If we could have had no characters in the film we would have tried.
Aguilar: Can you talk about your stylistic decisions including choosing to make the film in black-and-white, the unique framing, and the evocative lighting? The film is definitely a departure from what we commonly see today in the horror genre.
Mickey Keating: I think what was really important for me with this movie was a certain level of restraint. Horror movies, especially indie horror movies, in the past 5 years, have been nothing but hand-held footage and not necessarily about anything beyond trying to capture this weird pathetic intensity and also jump scares. What I really wanted to try and do was push back and go in the complete opposite direction of that. From the get go it was supposed to be like this. The script's not very long and it was all about, "Ok, we’re going to try to make every shot a painting." We knew we were going to really fixate on how we could tell the story the best way possible with the composition, which is a much more traditional approach in terms of classical filmmaking techniques. It was very satisfying to strip that back and really get back on the same page as traditional audiences and not have to try to fool them with fake realism or anything like that.
Aguilar: Editing is a crucial part of what makes "Darling" successful. You chose to use intercuts that can be perceived as flashbacks to what brought the character to this point or as premonitions of what's yet to come.
Mickey Keating: Absolutely. While I was writing the movie, we were also watching a whole bunch of 1960s experimental films. Even the works of John Schlesinger, like "Midnight Cowboy," or especially that dream sequence in "The Exorcist."There was this really exciting notion back then that had this fluidity in editing. The editor is just as present as the cinematographer or anyone else on the film. That’s what we kind of wanted to do, create this almost liquid type of storytelling that’s very abrupt and in a weird way upsetting. I think the goal was to make the audience who endured the film really unsettled and uncomfortable and always on edge. I feel like an exciting, effective horror film for me is a horror film that I can never really see where anything is coming from. That’s what we really tried with this one.
Aguilar: What builds the unsettling atmosphere in "Darling" is the fantastic sound work that enhances the imagery on screen. This is clearly of crucial importance in horror films but sometimes it can be feel overused or on-the-nose. Not in this case. Tell me about the process of creating this other layer of emotion through sound.
Mickey Keating: Definitely. Because the film takes place mostly inside in the house, it was really important for me. Sound is a huge passion of mine, sound design is one of my favorite things in the world, and I think that it's often underutilized. Going back to that idea of pure naturalism, it just kind of exists in the space. What I wanted to do from the very beginning of shooting was give each room, each floor, each kind of location in the house its own sound and its own feeling, as if the house is its own being. Darling walks throughout its body. When she gets up to the door on the top floor, that’s like being in its brain and in the middle that’s like being in its lungs. Every single area is set up differently. It's really upsetting in a way because it makes you very disturbed. Where we looked to for that was the video game "Silent Hill." It has the greatest example of sound work in the entire world because the majority of the first game, especially, is walking around. There are very few monsters in that game, but you are so constantly horrified and on edge because you can never anticipate what’s gonna come next because that sound Is always moving, always liquid, and always changing. Very disturbing I feel.
Aguilar: "Darling" is also a period piece even though this is never specified or delved into. It's a very noticeable quality of the film that coincides with the films that inspire you, but is not a definite factor in how we perceive the story.
Mickey Keating: I think if we had decided to go full blown 1960’s black-and-white probably we would have been pushing it a little bit too far. I didn’t want tot make a movie that wouldn’t be able to get an audience on all, or at least some level. My favorite thing I’ve ever read about David Lynch is that his moves exist in a dream-time in a way. They’re very heavy handed 1950s but clearly there’s some from the 80s. All these references make all of his films very anachronistic, and that’s was my intention. While its definitely a 1960s type of horror film, we never explicitly say it. The fact that the world is all black-and-white and New York sounds very strange in the film, it almost seems like it exists on another plane, or at least that was my intention.
Aguilar: Tell me about your star, Lauren Ashley Carter, who is terrific and terrifying beyond belief. Her screams and her facial expressions are really hard to shake off once the film is over.
Mickey Keating: I knew Lauren because she was in my previous film, and in my previous film she's one of the victims. She screams, she’s terrified, and so for this movie I wanted to flip that on its head. I wanted to cast her again and see where else she, as an actor, could go. When I was talking to her I referenced a lot of movies like "The Seventh Continent" by Michael Haneke and we also talked about those old 1920s horror movies where you see those violent screams that burn in your mind. She totally took that and ran with it. It was very exciting to be able to bring her on board. She’s definitely fantastic. It was also very exciting to be able to bring Sean Young on board as well as Brian Morvant, from my previous film, who plays the antagonist in the film. I wanted to flip that again and have him play the victim in this one. It was really a total world of friends making movies with friends, which is very satisfying.
Aguilar: Her character is sort of a blend between a victim and a villain. She has this sort of duality about her throughout the film, which that doesn’t let us know what she really is until late in the film.
Mickey Keating: Absolutely. That even goes back to southern gothic literature or even a movie like "Taxi Driver." When Travis is doing the pushups and we see he has all these scars all up his back, we know he clearly has a very disturbed past, and yet somehow he's still the protagonist. Travis Bickle was always a big point of reference for that as well.
Aguilar: What would you say were some of the most difficult hurdles you had to overcome to make an independent horror film at this scale and with the particularities that "Darling" showcases? How difficult was it to get people on board with the project you envisioned?
Mickey Keating: There are plenty. Its never easy. I think that at all scales of movies there's always stuff that’s very difficult, stressful and horrible to deal with and that never really changes. If you have enough money to solve anybody's problem, then clearly theres somebody who will charge that rate. It's never quite easy. I think the main challenge on a film like this was first and foremost that I wanted to make a black-and-white movie. A lot of people, when I even mentioned it before I even shot it, would say, "Oh don’t do black-and-white because you can't sell it." Clearly that’s not the case, so it's interesting. I feel like if I had brought this to any other production company besides Glass Eye Pix it wouldn't have happened. Nobody wants to be the guy saying, "Alright, lets make a black-and-white period horror movie," but everyone wants to come on board after the fact, which is very very frustrating to me in a lot of ways. I think that’s one of the challenges, being able to step back and say, "No, we're going to find a way to make this. We're going to figure out something. No matter what anyone says we're going to make this movie this way." Another challenge that really kind of comes to mind was, shooting in New York City in November was not easy. It was raining and it was cold. I’m from Florida originally and I live in California, so it was just a nightmare. But I think what’s fortunate about these movies is that we make them for a price so we make the movies that we are excited to make. Hopefully the right people that are drawn to them are drawn to them and everybody is happy at the end of the day. Overall it was a great experience.
Aguilar: The constraints that come with independent filmmaking, whether these are financial or logistical, often force artists to elevate their creativity to new heights in order to find solutions. Of course having more money makes things easier. Creative freedom that comes with a reasonable budget would be ideal.
Mickey Keating: Absolutely, there is a difference between committee filmmaking and having an individual voice. For all these movies that we are referencing and celebrating that used to be a no-brainer. You got a lot of money and you could make something that was very personal. Now, the way that the landscape of filmmaking has changed, every cent that you get that’s more than $1 million comes with a great big asterisk. It was great to be able to do something that was very personal. I had a great support system through Glass Eye Pix, they were totally like, “Yeah, do your thing.” It was great.
Aguilar: How have audiences reacted to the film? There is, of course, a niche audiences that will probaly enjoy the elegant madness of the film. Has that been the case?
Mickey Keating: In general in terms of the movies that I make, people are either very rabidly passionate about them or rabidly hateful towards them [Laughs]. The people who have been supportive of “Darling” have been very vocally supportive. I feel like what’s so fun about a movie like this is that in the first 30 seconds of it you are going to decide whether it’s a movie for you or not. In a way that’s very exciting because people who have stayed on the roller-coaster and gone all the way through are very adamant about how they feel and the emotions that it invoked. To me it just comes down to the fact that you are creating a conversation with your audience. The more you can talk about it, it’s a sign of an effective film and there have been a lot of conversations about this one so far, which is very exciting.
Aguilar: This is a film that takes a seemingly peaceful locations and a passive character and turns those preconceived notions on their head.
Mickey Keating: Definitely, We kind of approached the movie almost like a drug trip using the chapters. I’m not use drugs guy, but I think you can see that at the beginning there is this excitement and the further you get along down the rabbit hole or down the drug trip it becomes more jarring and fractured, and then by the last chapter it’s almost something like a hangover. It was very exciting to try to tell that story that way.
Aguilar: Seems like this is a busy year for you. What is the next frightening trip you are taking us on?
Mickey Keating: I have another movie coming out soon called "Carnage Park" that we premiered at Sudnance and SXSW this year. It'll be out in the summer. I also just wrapped another film called "Psychopaths," which is an ensemble serial killers movie. It's basically a whole bunch of stories about a whole bunch of serial killers over the course of one night in Los Angeles. This film's sensibilities are a bit closer to "Darling's" because "Carnage Park" is definitely a Sam Peckinpah-esque, Neo-Western, survival type movie. "Psychopaths" is much more of a psychedelic fever dream, which we are very excited to start showing people.
"Darling" is now playing in NYC at the Village East Cinema and opens April 8 in Los Angeles at the Arena Cinema.
Carlos Aguilar: I made the big mistake of watching "Darling" at night. It was absolutely terrifying. It took me by surprise, because its very economical in its design, but its very powerful in the emotions that it provokes. Tell me a little bit about the inception of the project and the films that you use as references or influences that inspired its visual aesthetics.
Mickey Keating: I think first and foremost its an homage to 1960s psychological horror movies with fractured narratives told with untrustworthy protagonists. Films like "The Haunting," "The Innocents," "Repulsion," "Diabolique," "That Cold Day in the Park" by Robert Altman, which show a much more restrained, psychological decent into madness. That's what really inspired me to write this one. In terms of composition and framing and camerawork, I turned towards a lot of Haneke films and then also restrained Kubrick-ian and Hitchcock-ian type black-and-white horror movies. It was a great eclectic mix of all these insane, beautiful works of art.
Aguilar: While writing "Darling," were you certain from the start that you wanted it to be focused on a single character with a story that takes place in a single location and very economical in its mechanics?
Mickey Keating: Definitely. It was very important for me to have this movie be this way because my two previous films were really about characters that were playing off one another, really interacting, debating and fighting one another, so with this film I wanted to be much quieter. I wanted to focus on one single person predominately. From the very beginning it was this way. If we could have had no characters in the film we would have tried.
Aguilar: Can you talk about your stylistic decisions including choosing to make the film in black-and-white, the unique framing, and the evocative lighting? The film is definitely a departure from what we commonly see today in the horror genre.
Mickey Keating: I think what was really important for me with this movie was a certain level of restraint. Horror movies, especially indie horror movies, in the past 5 years, have been nothing but hand-held footage and not necessarily about anything beyond trying to capture this weird pathetic intensity and also jump scares. What I really wanted to try and do was push back and go in the complete opposite direction of that. From the get go it was supposed to be like this. The script's not very long and it was all about, "Ok, we’re going to try to make every shot a painting." We knew we were going to really fixate on how we could tell the story the best way possible with the composition, which is a much more traditional approach in terms of classical filmmaking techniques. It was very satisfying to strip that back and really get back on the same page as traditional audiences and not have to try to fool them with fake realism or anything like that.
Aguilar: Editing is a crucial part of what makes "Darling" successful. You chose to use intercuts that can be perceived as flashbacks to what brought the character to this point or as premonitions of what's yet to come.
Mickey Keating: Absolutely. While I was writing the movie, we were also watching a whole bunch of 1960s experimental films. Even the works of John Schlesinger, like "Midnight Cowboy," or especially that dream sequence in "The Exorcist."There was this really exciting notion back then that had this fluidity in editing. The editor is just as present as the cinematographer or anyone else on the film. That’s what we kind of wanted to do, create this almost liquid type of storytelling that’s very abrupt and in a weird way upsetting. I think the goal was to make the audience who endured the film really unsettled and uncomfortable and always on edge. I feel like an exciting, effective horror film for me is a horror film that I can never really see where anything is coming from. That’s what we really tried with this one.
Aguilar: What builds the unsettling atmosphere in "Darling" is the fantastic sound work that enhances the imagery on screen. This is clearly of crucial importance in horror films but sometimes it can be feel overused or on-the-nose. Not in this case. Tell me about the process of creating this other layer of emotion through sound.
Mickey Keating: Definitely. Because the film takes place mostly inside in the house, it was really important for me. Sound is a huge passion of mine, sound design is one of my favorite things in the world, and I think that it's often underutilized. Going back to that idea of pure naturalism, it just kind of exists in the space. What I wanted to do from the very beginning of shooting was give each room, each floor, each kind of location in the house its own sound and its own feeling, as if the house is its own being. Darling walks throughout its body. When she gets up to the door on the top floor, that’s like being in its brain and in the middle that’s like being in its lungs. Every single area is set up differently. It's really upsetting in a way because it makes you very disturbed. Where we looked to for that was the video game "Silent Hill." It has the greatest example of sound work in the entire world because the majority of the first game, especially, is walking around. There are very few monsters in that game, but you are so constantly horrified and on edge because you can never anticipate what’s gonna come next because that sound Is always moving, always liquid, and always changing. Very disturbing I feel.
Aguilar: "Darling" is also a period piece even though this is never specified or delved into. It's a very noticeable quality of the film that coincides with the films that inspire you, but is not a definite factor in how we perceive the story.
Mickey Keating: I think if we had decided to go full blown 1960’s black-and-white probably we would have been pushing it a little bit too far. I didn’t want tot make a movie that wouldn’t be able to get an audience on all, or at least some level. My favorite thing I’ve ever read about David Lynch is that his moves exist in a dream-time in a way. They’re very heavy handed 1950s but clearly there’s some from the 80s. All these references make all of his films very anachronistic, and that’s was my intention. While its definitely a 1960s type of horror film, we never explicitly say it. The fact that the world is all black-and-white and New York sounds very strange in the film, it almost seems like it exists on another plane, or at least that was my intention.
Aguilar: Tell me about your star, Lauren Ashley Carter, who is terrific and terrifying beyond belief. Her screams and her facial expressions are really hard to shake off once the film is over.
Mickey Keating: I knew Lauren because she was in my previous film, and in my previous film she's one of the victims. She screams, she’s terrified, and so for this movie I wanted to flip that on its head. I wanted to cast her again and see where else she, as an actor, could go. When I was talking to her I referenced a lot of movies like "The Seventh Continent" by Michael Haneke and we also talked about those old 1920s horror movies where you see those violent screams that burn in your mind. She totally took that and ran with it. It was very exciting to be able to bring her on board. She’s definitely fantastic. It was also very exciting to be able to bring Sean Young on board as well as Brian Morvant, from my previous film, who plays the antagonist in the film. I wanted to flip that again and have him play the victim in this one. It was really a total world of friends making movies with friends, which is very satisfying.
Aguilar: Her character is sort of a blend between a victim and a villain. She has this sort of duality about her throughout the film, which that doesn’t let us know what she really is until late in the film.
Mickey Keating: Absolutely. That even goes back to southern gothic literature or even a movie like "Taxi Driver." When Travis is doing the pushups and we see he has all these scars all up his back, we know he clearly has a very disturbed past, and yet somehow he's still the protagonist. Travis Bickle was always a big point of reference for that as well.
Aguilar: What would you say were some of the most difficult hurdles you had to overcome to make an independent horror film at this scale and with the particularities that "Darling" showcases? How difficult was it to get people on board with the project you envisioned?
Mickey Keating: There are plenty. Its never easy. I think that at all scales of movies there's always stuff that’s very difficult, stressful and horrible to deal with and that never really changes. If you have enough money to solve anybody's problem, then clearly theres somebody who will charge that rate. It's never quite easy. I think the main challenge on a film like this was first and foremost that I wanted to make a black-and-white movie. A lot of people, when I even mentioned it before I even shot it, would say, "Oh don’t do black-and-white because you can't sell it." Clearly that’s not the case, so it's interesting. I feel like if I had brought this to any other production company besides Glass Eye Pix it wouldn't have happened. Nobody wants to be the guy saying, "Alright, lets make a black-and-white period horror movie," but everyone wants to come on board after the fact, which is very very frustrating to me in a lot of ways. I think that’s one of the challenges, being able to step back and say, "No, we're going to find a way to make this. We're going to figure out something. No matter what anyone says we're going to make this movie this way." Another challenge that really kind of comes to mind was, shooting in New York City in November was not easy. It was raining and it was cold. I’m from Florida originally and I live in California, so it was just a nightmare. But I think what’s fortunate about these movies is that we make them for a price so we make the movies that we are excited to make. Hopefully the right people that are drawn to them are drawn to them and everybody is happy at the end of the day. Overall it was a great experience.
Aguilar: The constraints that come with independent filmmaking, whether these are financial or logistical, often force artists to elevate their creativity to new heights in order to find solutions. Of course having more money makes things easier. Creative freedom that comes with a reasonable budget would be ideal.
Mickey Keating: Absolutely, there is a difference between committee filmmaking and having an individual voice. For all these movies that we are referencing and celebrating that used to be a no-brainer. You got a lot of money and you could make something that was very personal. Now, the way that the landscape of filmmaking has changed, every cent that you get that’s more than $1 million comes with a great big asterisk. It was great to be able to do something that was very personal. I had a great support system through Glass Eye Pix, they were totally like, “Yeah, do your thing.” It was great.
Aguilar: How have audiences reacted to the film? There is, of course, a niche audiences that will probaly enjoy the elegant madness of the film. Has that been the case?
Mickey Keating: In general in terms of the movies that I make, people are either very rabidly passionate about them or rabidly hateful towards them [Laughs]. The people who have been supportive of “Darling” have been very vocally supportive. I feel like what’s so fun about a movie like this is that in the first 30 seconds of it you are going to decide whether it’s a movie for you or not. In a way that’s very exciting because people who have stayed on the roller-coaster and gone all the way through are very adamant about how they feel and the emotions that it invoked. To me it just comes down to the fact that you are creating a conversation with your audience. The more you can talk about it, it’s a sign of an effective film and there have been a lot of conversations about this one so far, which is very exciting.
Aguilar: This is a film that takes a seemingly peaceful locations and a passive character and turns those preconceived notions on their head.
Mickey Keating: Definitely, We kind of approached the movie almost like a drug trip using the chapters. I’m not use drugs guy, but I think you can see that at the beginning there is this excitement and the further you get along down the rabbit hole or down the drug trip it becomes more jarring and fractured, and then by the last chapter it’s almost something like a hangover. It was very exciting to try to tell that story that way.
Aguilar: Seems like this is a busy year for you. What is the next frightening trip you are taking us on?
Mickey Keating: I have another movie coming out soon called "Carnage Park" that we premiered at Sudnance and SXSW this year. It'll be out in the summer. I also just wrapped another film called "Psychopaths," which is an ensemble serial killers movie. It's basically a whole bunch of stories about a whole bunch of serial killers over the course of one night in Los Angeles. This film's sensibilities are a bit closer to "Darling's" because "Carnage Park" is definitely a Sam Peckinpah-esque, Neo-Western, survival type movie. "Psychopaths" is much more of a psychedelic fever dream, which we are very excited to start showing people.
- 4/2/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
In today's crowded film landscape about a dozen new releases hit theaters each weekend, most of which are limited or specialty films that don’t have the budget for large publicity campaigns but which are often the best and most compelling offers.
These films, lucky enough to get theatrical distribution, often only get one-week runs in one or two theaters per city, and even those who managed to get picked up by a larger specialty distributor have to fight to rise above the studio fare. Hoping to highlight some of these films for audiences to discover them, One Week Only is a new weekly podcast exclusively dedicated to international, independent and under-the-radar films that deserve a closer look.
Hosted by filmmaker Conor Holt and I, Carlos Aguilar, One Week Only hopes to be an alternative space for audiences to find out and get excited about cinema beyond the multiplex.
A new episode is released every Friday afternoon. You can follow One Week Only on Facebook and on Twitter.
One Week Only is now available for Free on iTunes!
About the Hosts:
Carlos Aguilar
Originally from Mexico City, Carlos Aguilar is a film journalist and filmmaker based in Los Angeles. Aguilar has written for several publications including Sydney'sBuzz, Indiewire, MovieMaker Magazine, Variety Latino, Creative Screenwriting, among others. In 2014 he was chosen as one of 6 young film critics to take part in the first Roger Ebert Fellowship organized by Indiewire and Sundance Institute. Aguilar is currently working on a short film titled "Probable Cause" and continues to cover international, independent, and animated films across diverse platforms.
Conor Holt
Conor Holt is a Minnesotan filmmaker based in Los Angeles, with a particular fondness for science fiction and animation, whose short film "A Better Life," a sci-fi drama, screened at Fantasia Fest, Sci-Fi London, and the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Film Festival. His latest short film "Alternative" recently premiered at the 2016 Fargo Film Festival. Holt is currently working on an upcoming comedy web series titled "Hipster Jesus," a new short film project, and a feature-length screenplay.
Here is a list of episodes thus far and the films discussed in each of them.
Episode 4: "Krisha"
Films also featured in this episode: "Fireworks Wednesday," "The Clan," "My Golden Days," "The Bronze," "The Brainwashing of My Dad," and "We Like It Like That."
Episode 3: "Creative Control"
Films also featured in this episode: "Cemetery of Splendor," "The Automatic Hate," and "Boom Bust Boom"
Episode 2: "The Boy and the Beast"
Films also featured in this episode: "Knight of Cups" and "The Wave"
Episode 1: "Only Yesterday"
Films also featured in this episode: "They Look Like People," "Embrace of the Serpent," "Boy and the World"...
These films, lucky enough to get theatrical distribution, often only get one-week runs in one or two theaters per city, and even those who managed to get picked up by a larger specialty distributor have to fight to rise above the studio fare. Hoping to highlight some of these films for audiences to discover them, One Week Only is a new weekly podcast exclusively dedicated to international, independent and under-the-radar films that deserve a closer look.
Hosted by filmmaker Conor Holt and I, Carlos Aguilar, One Week Only hopes to be an alternative space for audiences to find out and get excited about cinema beyond the multiplex.
A new episode is released every Friday afternoon. You can follow One Week Only on Facebook and on Twitter.
One Week Only is now available for Free on iTunes!
About the Hosts:
Carlos Aguilar
Originally from Mexico City, Carlos Aguilar is a film journalist and filmmaker based in Los Angeles. Aguilar has written for several publications including Sydney'sBuzz, Indiewire, MovieMaker Magazine, Variety Latino, Creative Screenwriting, among others. In 2014 he was chosen as one of 6 young film critics to take part in the first Roger Ebert Fellowship organized by Indiewire and Sundance Institute. Aguilar is currently working on a short film titled "Probable Cause" and continues to cover international, independent, and animated films across diverse platforms.
Conor Holt
Conor Holt is a Minnesotan filmmaker based in Los Angeles, with a particular fondness for science fiction and animation, whose short film "A Better Life," a sci-fi drama, screened at Fantasia Fest, Sci-Fi London, and the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Film Festival. His latest short film "Alternative" recently premiered at the 2016 Fargo Film Festival. Holt is currently working on an upcoming comedy web series titled "Hipster Jesus," a new short film project, and a feature-length screenplay.
Here is a list of episodes thus far and the films discussed in each of them.
Episode 4: "Krisha"
Films also featured in this episode: "Fireworks Wednesday," "The Clan," "My Golden Days," "The Bronze," "The Brainwashing of My Dad," and "We Like It Like That."
Episode 3: "Creative Control"
Films also featured in this episode: "Cemetery of Splendor," "The Automatic Hate," and "Boom Bust Boom"
Episode 2: "The Boy and the Beast"
Films also featured in this episode: "Knight of Cups" and "The Wave"
Episode 1: "Only Yesterday"
Films also featured in this episode: "They Look Like People," "Embrace of the Serpent," "Boy and the World"...
- 3/21/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Scandinavian cinema is rarely heralded as the testing ground for filmmakers with sensibilities fit for Hollywood’s spectacle-ridden blockbuster production line, yet Norwegian director Roar Uthaug represents that vey anomaly that blends the best of his homeland’s subtle artistic approach with the visual grandeur of a multiplex-worthy disaster film. Departing from a screenplay by John Kåre Raake and Harald Rosenløw-Eeg, Uthaug takes an iconic natural setting, accurate scientific data, and compelling human interactions, to offer a refreshing angle on a genre that is in desperate of invigorating originality with "The Wave."
Carlos Aguilar: Tell me about the region where the story takes place. Were you aware of this particular fjord and the possibility of an event like the one depicted in the film happening?
Roar Uthaug: I’ve known about this place because the Geiranger fjord, where the movie takes place, is the most famous fjord of Norway. If you Google an image of Norway that’s the image that comes up, but I wasn’t aware of these rockslides that fall into the fjord and then create tsumanies. I actually wasn't aware of that until the producer brought me a news article from the newspaper about the disasters that happened in the 30s
CA: Which is what we see at the beginning of the film.
Roar Uthaug: Yes, that's archival footage from the 30s. Today there is a crack in the Geiranger fjord that keeps expanding each year and at some point a giant rockslide will fall into the fjord and it’ll create a 80 meter high tsunami that will hit the local community after 10 minutes -all of that is fact. They don’t know if it will happen in 10 years or in 400 years.
CA: it’s kind of like the big earthquake in La. We know it’s bound to happen but we don’t know when
Roar Uthaug: Exactly, and when this wave first happens people will only have 10 minutes to get out.
CA: In terms of the science how much research did you have to do in order to give the film the necessary realism. Who did you talk to get these facts straight and reproduce them in the fictional story?
Roar Uthaug: We talked to geologists and we talked to tsumani experts who know much more about these things. We also talked with the guys that are monitoring the mountain in real life. We visited them at their work place and they took us in a helicopter up to crack to see it. That’s also where we shot some of the scenes of the movie. When the characters are flying the helicopter up to the mountain, that’s the real crack that will actually fall out. We had the actors and the crew up there.
CA: When you are creating a film that’s heavy on visual effects you clearly want that realism on screen, but how does this element affect the rest of the filmmaking process?
Roar Uthaug: Since the movie is based on fact and things that will happen I think that also influenced how we wanted to tell the story. We wanted truthfulness and a realism to the whole story. That influenced the dialogue we wrote, how the actors should act, how the camera should capture these moments, and, of course, he visual effects that should have total believability. We worked a lot to achieve these things including the visual effects to get them right.
CA: You shot on location and then you brought this footage back to enhance it visually. How was it working with the actors in terms of eliciting realistic performances without actually being confronted with a catastrophe of this magnitude on set?
Roar Uthaug: You just have to remind them what’s happening in that particular scene and try to give them eye-lines. We have place holders so that they have something to act towards. I had to remind them of severity of the situation. It was about etting them pumped up. Reminding them that this could happen in real life.
CA: Disaster films are often about how people react to a certain catastrophe. In your film the characters don't want to leave and they have other struggles besides the monstrous wave coming their way. Why was the human element important to you in a film like "The Wave"?
Roar Uthaug: We worked a lot on the script. We wanted to know who these character are, what’s driving them, what are the little problems that they have to struggle with in daily life. We tried to make them as human as possible and as real as possible. We worked on this via the script and with the actors as well. We wanted to get the dialogue and the small interactions right to make it come alive.
CA: Did you ever think of how you would react to an event like this? Have you ever been in anything remotely close to what we see in the film?
Roar Uthaug: Luckily I’ve not been in a situation anywhere near this, so I have no idea how I would react. I don’t know, I’d probably run for my life [Laughs].
CA: In terms of inspiration what are some of Hollywood disaster films that shaped your vision for “The Wave”?
Roar Uthaug: I grew up watching movies like “Twister,” “Dante’s Peak,” “Armageddon,” “Independence Day” an all those disaster movies in the cinemas. I am, of course, inspired by them but while making this movie we looked more to modern actions thrillers like the “Bourne” films, which have a more grounded and realistic approach to the action scenes. I didn’t really watch that many disasters movies while prepping for “The Wave.” We also looked at family dramas to try to get that part of the film right.
CA; An interesting element in the film is that the family that’s at the center of the story is not only facing physical danger, but everything they know is at risk of being washed away by this wave. They have a deeper connection to this place.
Roar Uthaug: We talked about that while developing the film. We wanted to have that small town feel to it in which everybody is very tight -knit and everybody knows each other. I think that makes it emotionally more powerful because they have a relationship with each other and to the places, the houses, the town. That’s one of the things that appealed to me about the project, taking this small community and really getting to know them and to create a movie where you really feel for the characters.
CA: Fjords are very Norwegian locations, was it your intention to take the disaster film out of Hollywood and into an authentically Norwegian setting?
Roar Uthaug: Yes, we wanted to take a familiar genre and put it in a very Norwegian setting. We wanted to take our Norwegian or European sensibility for characters and mix it together with the effects to create something that you haven’t seen before.
CA: How difficult is it to make a film of this size in Norway? We have seen films like the Oscar-nominated "Kon-Tiki," which also was a big scale film, but for the most part Norwegian films that received international exposure are often art house fare.
Roar Uthaug: I’m not the producer that had to go out and get the money, but my impression is that if your idea or your concept is big enough then money isn’t that hard to get. “Kon-Tiki" was about a national hero who is known all over the world and “The Wave” has the genre element and the spectacular effects but also the family and takes place in a very well-known location. I think that made it a very appealing project to investors.
CA: Given that "The Wave" is a great calling card that can show Hollywood studios your ability for directing big budget films, do you hope to make films in Hollywood next?
Roar Uthaug: I would love to make films in Hollywood. I’ve taken some meetings here and we’ll see if something comes of them. If not, then I have a couple of projects in Norway that are developing. “The Wave” has gotten a very good reception around town so we’ll see.
CA: Were you surprised when "The Wave" was selected as the Norwegian Oscar entry in the Best Foreign Language Film category?
Roar Uthaug: Absolutely. First we were selected as one of three runners-up and I was very surprised that we got on that list because I think usually there is more of an art house feel to the movies that are picked for the Academy Awards. Then the three shortlisted projects went in front of a committee and made our case for why we should be selected. We then got a call an hour later after the committee had met and we were told we had been chosen. We were very happy and very proud to be chosen to represent our country in what,I believe, is the most important award for film in the world.
CA: Has the film been seen by the people living in the Geiranger fjord and do you hope it helps inform them and encourage them to take safety measures?
Roar Uthaug: Yes. We screened it in the local community where the wave will hit before our big Norwegian premiere and they really appreciated it. The weekend the film opened they had this big convention about safety and tsumanies. Hopefully the movie also contributes to raise awareness. We also hope that the people who monitor this possible events get more funding and more exposure in the media so that we can try to find ways to keep people as safe as possible. It’s nature so you can’t predict it fully, but with research hopefully the damage won’t be as bad.
"The Wave" opens today in L.A. at the The Nuart Theatre and in NYC at the Landmark Sunshine Cinema...
Carlos Aguilar: Tell me about the region where the story takes place. Were you aware of this particular fjord and the possibility of an event like the one depicted in the film happening?
Roar Uthaug: I’ve known about this place because the Geiranger fjord, where the movie takes place, is the most famous fjord of Norway. If you Google an image of Norway that’s the image that comes up, but I wasn’t aware of these rockslides that fall into the fjord and then create tsumanies. I actually wasn't aware of that until the producer brought me a news article from the newspaper about the disasters that happened in the 30s
CA: Which is what we see at the beginning of the film.
Roar Uthaug: Yes, that's archival footage from the 30s. Today there is a crack in the Geiranger fjord that keeps expanding each year and at some point a giant rockslide will fall into the fjord and it’ll create a 80 meter high tsunami that will hit the local community after 10 minutes -all of that is fact. They don’t know if it will happen in 10 years or in 400 years.
CA: it’s kind of like the big earthquake in La. We know it’s bound to happen but we don’t know when
Roar Uthaug: Exactly, and when this wave first happens people will only have 10 minutes to get out.
CA: In terms of the science how much research did you have to do in order to give the film the necessary realism. Who did you talk to get these facts straight and reproduce them in the fictional story?
Roar Uthaug: We talked to geologists and we talked to tsumani experts who know much more about these things. We also talked with the guys that are monitoring the mountain in real life. We visited them at their work place and they took us in a helicopter up to crack to see it. That’s also where we shot some of the scenes of the movie. When the characters are flying the helicopter up to the mountain, that’s the real crack that will actually fall out. We had the actors and the crew up there.
CA: When you are creating a film that’s heavy on visual effects you clearly want that realism on screen, but how does this element affect the rest of the filmmaking process?
Roar Uthaug: Since the movie is based on fact and things that will happen I think that also influenced how we wanted to tell the story. We wanted truthfulness and a realism to the whole story. That influenced the dialogue we wrote, how the actors should act, how the camera should capture these moments, and, of course, he visual effects that should have total believability. We worked a lot to achieve these things including the visual effects to get them right.
CA: You shot on location and then you brought this footage back to enhance it visually. How was it working with the actors in terms of eliciting realistic performances without actually being confronted with a catastrophe of this magnitude on set?
Roar Uthaug: You just have to remind them what’s happening in that particular scene and try to give them eye-lines. We have place holders so that they have something to act towards. I had to remind them of severity of the situation. It was about etting them pumped up. Reminding them that this could happen in real life.
CA: Disaster films are often about how people react to a certain catastrophe. In your film the characters don't want to leave and they have other struggles besides the monstrous wave coming their way. Why was the human element important to you in a film like "The Wave"?
Roar Uthaug: We worked a lot on the script. We wanted to know who these character are, what’s driving them, what are the little problems that they have to struggle with in daily life. We tried to make them as human as possible and as real as possible. We worked on this via the script and with the actors as well. We wanted to get the dialogue and the small interactions right to make it come alive.
CA: Did you ever think of how you would react to an event like this? Have you ever been in anything remotely close to what we see in the film?
Roar Uthaug: Luckily I’ve not been in a situation anywhere near this, so I have no idea how I would react. I don’t know, I’d probably run for my life [Laughs].
CA: In terms of inspiration what are some of Hollywood disaster films that shaped your vision for “The Wave”?
Roar Uthaug: I grew up watching movies like “Twister,” “Dante’s Peak,” “Armageddon,” “Independence Day” an all those disaster movies in the cinemas. I am, of course, inspired by them but while making this movie we looked more to modern actions thrillers like the “Bourne” films, which have a more grounded and realistic approach to the action scenes. I didn’t really watch that many disasters movies while prepping for “The Wave.” We also looked at family dramas to try to get that part of the film right.
CA; An interesting element in the film is that the family that’s at the center of the story is not only facing physical danger, but everything they know is at risk of being washed away by this wave. They have a deeper connection to this place.
Roar Uthaug: We talked about that while developing the film. We wanted to have that small town feel to it in which everybody is very tight -knit and everybody knows each other. I think that makes it emotionally more powerful because they have a relationship with each other and to the places, the houses, the town. That’s one of the things that appealed to me about the project, taking this small community and really getting to know them and to create a movie where you really feel for the characters.
CA: Fjords are very Norwegian locations, was it your intention to take the disaster film out of Hollywood and into an authentically Norwegian setting?
Roar Uthaug: Yes, we wanted to take a familiar genre and put it in a very Norwegian setting. We wanted to take our Norwegian or European sensibility for characters and mix it together with the effects to create something that you haven’t seen before.
CA: How difficult is it to make a film of this size in Norway? We have seen films like the Oscar-nominated "Kon-Tiki," which also was a big scale film, but for the most part Norwegian films that received international exposure are often art house fare.
Roar Uthaug: I’m not the producer that had to go out and get the money, but my impression is that if your idea or your concept is big enough then money isn’t that hard to get. “Kon-Tiki" was about a national hero who is known all over the world and “The Wave” has the genre element and the spectacular effects but also the family and takes place in a very well-known location. I think that made it a very appealing project to investors.
CA: Given that "The Wave" is a great calling card that can show Hollywood studios your ability for directing big budget films, do you hope to make films in Hollywood next?
Roar Uthaug: I would love to make films in Hollywood. I’ve taken some meetings here and we’ll see if something comes of them. If not, then I have a couple of projects in Norway that are developing. “The Wave” has gotten a very good reception around town so we’ll see.
CA: Were you surprised when "The Wave" was selected as the Norwegian Oscar entry in the Best Foreign Language Film category?
Roar Uthaug: Absolutely. First we were selected as one of three runners-up and I was very surprised that we got on that list because I think usually there is more of an art house feel to the movies that are picked for the Academy Awards. Then the three shortlisted projects went in front of a committee and made our case for why we should be selected. We then got a call an hour later after the committee had met and we were told we had been chosen. We were very happy and very proud to be chosen to represent our country in what,I believe, is the most important award for film in the world.
CA: Has the film been seen by the people living in the Geiranger fjord and do you hope it helps inform them and encourage them to take safety measures?
Roar Uthaug: Yes. We screened it in the local community where the wave will hit before our big Norwegian premiere and they really appreciated it. The weekend the film opened they had this big convention about safety and tsumanies. Hopefully the movie also contributes to raise awareness. We also hope that the people who monitor this possible events get more funding and more exposure in the media so that we can try to find ways to keep people as safe as possible. It’s nature so you can’t predict it fully, but with research hopefully the damage won’t be as bad.
"The Wave" opens today in L.A. at the The Nuart Theatre and in NYC at the Landmark Sunshine Cinema...
- 3/4/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Set against the backdrop of war or the rigor of religious parameters, several of the Academy Award-nominated shorts this year aim to dissect larger ideas within their limited scope. Yet, one of the five selected works, Benjamin Cleary’s “Stutterer,” is a character study that centers its attention on a regular individual and how his idiosyncratic struggles shape his interpersonal interactions. Cleary’s film is a intimate portrait of a young man eager to express a myriad of ideas and complex emotions, but who is unable to do so by a speech impediment that traps him in his own thoughts. Through evocative voiceover, expertly executed sound design, and a delightful musical score that’s hard to ignore, Greenwood (Matthew Needham), the protagonist, comes alive on the screen, insecurities an all, in a way that goes beyond mere words.
“Stutterer” is Cleary’s first short film and it proudly represents the independent filmmaking spirit. Its production was a true labor of love that had only a couple thousand dollars to bring it all together and relied on the filmmaker and his team’s willingness to go to great lengths to bring it to fruition. An Oscar nomination for a film like this exemplifies that sometimes passion for the craft and an intimate, character-driven premise are the right weapons to stand out and reach unimaginable recognition.
We had the pleasure to chat with Cleary about his fascination with communication, renting out his apartment to finish the film, and what the Oscar nomination changes in his career.
Carlos Aguilar: The film is centered around Greenwood, this peculiar young man who finds it challenging to communicate verbally, how was this character born and why did you find his situation so captivating?
Benjamin Cleary: One day I was online and I came across this guy who was talking about his own stutter. He’d kind of gotten to the point where he was able to speak to people face to face relatively fine, but when he got the phone he just found it very difficult to communicate. I think he was talking about how hard it was because it was just his voice and he didn’t have anyone there to make eye contact with. It was a real barrier for him. That image just really struck a chord with me. It stayed with me and I started thinking about what it would be like for someone in this world dealing with that sort of disadvantage in terms of communication. That was really were the character was born from. A friend of mind growing up had a bad stutter when we were younger and I also started thinking about that. I remember that was very difficult for him. It’s hard enough growing up and navigate life as a boy and then into your teens without having this additional thing, so I supposed it was something that was personally close to me as well. These two things combined.
CA: Tell me about the idea of Greenwood's internal voice. We hear his thoughts and get to know him that way, but he can translate them into spoken words and that alienates from mainstream society.
Benjamin Cleary: I can’t remember exactly at what point that came into play but I think that was one of the things that really interested me as I started developing the idea because in reality I think that’s exactly how it can be. Someone who has this stutter finds it hard to get the words out, but the words are there. They are completely there. I just really wanted to try, in someone way, to represent that on film and the voiceover seemed like the best way to show the disparity between his inner and outer existences. On the inside he is this quite wonderful, charismatic, witty, and intelligent person. On the outside he is shies away from actually speaking to anyone. For me that was one of the things that really hooked me into the idea and kept me really interested going for it. Hopefully it represents what it actually would be like in someway. I can’t speak from personal experience, but in a lot of the research I did that was something people talked about.
CA: He also has an online voice, which is humorous and sarcastic. Online he can be truly himself without fear.
Benjamin Cleary: Totally, and I’m fascinated with how we communicate online. It’s something that’s relatively new to us, and it's still very much developing and it really interests me. Early on in the development of the character it occurred to me that maybe he would have an online relationship whereby he was completely fluent. Both the way he talks and the way Ellie responds to him are very quick. They don't take much time to respond. There is a real fluency and a real quick conversational nature to them online, that was something that I was keen to get across. This is were Greenwood feels comfortable to express himself with her. Tying this in with social media or online communication was an interesting thing to explore.
CA: The ending caught by surprise. Greenwood has trouble communicating, yet he is putting so much effort into learning a new skill that will allow him not to feel lonely. Where did the idea for this subtle twist come from? It definitely emphasizes the theme of communication.
Benjamin Cleary: When you set up a twist I guess you want it to feel organic and not to feel contrived. That’s hard to do and a lot of it comes down to the writing of it first and then the editing of it. You got to make sure that in the edit you put in these little clues or these little things that are going to feed into the end. You have to do it as subtly as you can, but it’s a fine line. I think some people have definitely said, “Oh I saw that coming,” but hopefully most people don’t see it coming. It’s hard to say where that came from but it just felt right and it was something I got in my head very early on. I think that, in general, the scripts that I really stay with are ones where the ending has come quite early on in the writing process. It’s like, “Ok, I know how I can end this. How do I get there?” rather than writing it and seeing where it goes. That ending was something I had quite early on in the process.
CA: He also makes quick observations, or "snap judgements" as he calls them, about people he sees on the street, would you say that the fact that he can’t communicate verbally as easily as most people makes this observations sharper?
Benjamin Cleary: Totally and I think it ties in with how quick he is online with his communication. I think he is on a “snap judgment” 1200 and something and this point. He’s become a seasoned pro at it. For me it’s showing that quickness of mind, but there is a sadness to it as well. He sees these people and he makes these, either funny or touching, observations, but in reality he's never going to go up to them to say these to them. That was something quite emotional for me. I think it’s something a lot of us can in some way empathize with.
CA: Sound, particularly near ending, is a key element in the film and how we learn about Greenwood's internal state. Was sound and the the atmosphere is creates something that was part of the story early on?
Benjamin Cleary: Definitely. That was all in the script. I come from a sound background. I did sound engineering and music technology for a few years prior to getting into film. I really think about the audio very much so in the script. The idea of that rising cacophony towards the end was something that I was really excited about, but also nervous about how we were going to pull it off. Luckily we had a really good guy, Gustaf Jackson, who did our sound mix for us. He and I just got it all together. Matthew Needham, the actor, was amazing when we brought him into the studio. I got him to read a huge page of stuff I’ve written, I stitched it all together in the edit, then Gustaf help me make it all feel slightly seamless. Audio was a massive consideration from very early on. I’m really please with how it worked for the film.
CA: Tell me about working with Matthew Needham, there are two parts to his performance, the one we see on screen and the one hear as voiceover. He definitely carries the film single-handedly.
Benjamin Cleary: Yes that was an interesting one because he is playing two parts in a sense. Within a couple of minutes of meeting Matthew Needham I just thought, “Yes, this guy’s got it.” He was talking about the script with real insight and passion. He really liked it and he really got it. He was a pleasure to work with. For me, he is the film and I think he gives a really touching performance. Then going into the post and having to do the voiceover, I think it was incredible how he was able to represent a completely different side to the character, I personally think, very effectively. That was a lot of fun actually, having the stuff we did on set and then in post having to come with this other feeling for the performance. I think he did a great job.
CA: Tell me the trials and tribulations of making "Stutterer." I've read that you really sacrifice comfort and financial stability in order to make it a reality.
Benjamin Cleary: Obviously the budget was really low and it was self-funded. When it got to the point that we just needed a little bit more money to finish I subletted my room in my flat for a couple of months. I was able to do that thanks to the great generosity of a big group of friend who would let me couch surf in different houses. When a bed would come up they’d me on the phone, “Hey we are going to be away for a few days, come over and stay.” It was great and we used that money that I would have used to pay rent for the film instead. All the people that helped out were just amazing. It was a really nice team effort in that way.
CA: You really have to believe in the idea and its potential in order to be willing to sleep on a different couch every night in order to finish the project.
Benjamin Cleary: [Laughs] Yes, but let me tell you, there were some days at 6 in the morning sitting in the studio that I just thought, “What am I doing? Should I just stop and not go any further?” But something kept us going and the people around me were amazing, my producers Serena Armitage and Shan Christopher Ogilvie, Michael Paleodimos our Dp, and Nico Casal the musical composer. Those people kept me going and kept me believing in the film in those dark moments. Luckily it all worked out in the end.
CA: Do you have any plans to turn "Stutterer" into a feature-length project? It seems that's a common occurrence now, for a filmmaker to adapt his short into a larger version of the story.
Benjamin Cleary: Yes that seems to be quite a common thing happening these days, but “Stutterer” was always its own story. I got a feature in development that’s linked to it thematically. I’m fascinated by the theme of communication and I’ve got a film that’s linked in that sense but not specifically to any of the elements in the short film. I think “Stutterer” is just going to stay as is it, but thematically I’ll be exploring similar things.
CA: The Oscar nomination is already a major achievement in your career. How does this change things for you as a filmmaker going forward?
Benjamin Cleary: We are all still in mild shock. We never thought the film was going to get anywhere near here. It’s quite lovely and quite amazing, and a great tribute to all of the people who worked on it and did such a good job. In terms of what it changes, hopefully it’s going to open some doors. It’s my first film, so I’m really starting out my career and I hope that this is going to be a good springboard. I’m already meeting some really great people and hopefully it’s going to be great for everyone who was involved in the film.
You can watch "Stutterer" as part of Shorts HD's theatrical release of the 2016 Oscar Nominated Short Films - Live Action playing in theaters across the country now.
“Stutterer” is Cleary’s first short film and it proudly represents the independent filmmaking spirit. Its production was a true labor of love that had only a couple thousand dollars to bring it all together and relied on the filmmaker and his team’s willingness to go to great lengths to bring it to fruition. An Oscar nomination for a film like this exemplifies that sometimes passion for the craft and an intimate, character-driven premise are the right weapons to stand out and reach unimaginable recognition.
We had the pleasure to chat with Cleary about his fascination with communication, renting out his apartment to finish the film, and what the Oscar nomination changes in his career.
Carlos Aguilar: The film is centered around Greenwood, this peculiar young man who finds it challenging to communicate verbally, how was this character born and why did you find his situation so captivating?
Benjamin Cleary: One day I was online and I came across this guy who was talking about his own stutter. He’d kind of gotten to the point where he was able to speak to people face to face relatively fine, but when he got the phone he just found it very difficult to communicate. I think he was talking about how hard it was because it was just his voice and he didn’t have anyone there to make eye contact with. It was a real barrier for him. That image just really struck a chord with me. It stayed with me and I started thinking about what it would be like for someone in this world dealing with that sort of disadvantage in terms of communication. That was really were the character was born from. A friend of mind growing up had a bad stutter when we were younger and I also started thinking about that. I remember that was very difficult for him. It’s hard enough growing up and navigate life as a boy and then into your teens without having this additional thing, so I supposed it was something that was personally close to me as well. These two things combined.
CA: Tell me about the idea of Greenwood's internal voice. We hear his thoughts and get to know him that way, but he can translate them into spoken words and that alienates from mainstream society.
Benjamin Cleary: I can’t remember exactly at what point that came into play but I think that was one of the things that really interested me as I started developing the idea because in reality I think that’s exactly how it can be. Someone who has this stutter finds it hard to get the words out, but the words are there. They are completely there. I just really wanted to try, in someone way, to represent that on film and the voiceover seemed like the best way to show the disparity between his inner and outer existences. On the inside he is this quite wonderful, charismatic, witty, and intelligent person. On the outside he is shies away from actually speaking to anyone. For me that was one of the things that really hooked me into the idea and kept me really interested going for it. Hopefully it represents what it actually would be like in someway. I can’t speak from personal experience, but in a lot of the research I did that was something people talked about.
CA: He also has an online voice, which is humorous and sarcastic. Online he can be truly himself without fear.
Benjamin Cleary: Totally, and I’m fascinated with how we communicate online. It’s something that’s relatively new to us, and it's still very much developing and it really interests me. Early on in the development of the character it occurred to me that maybe he would have an online relationship whereby he was completely fluent. Both the way he talks and the way Ellie responds to him are very quick. They don't take much time to respond. There is a real fluency and a real quick conversational nature to them online, that was something that I was keen to get across. This is were Greenwood feels comfortable to express himself with her. Tying this in with social media or online communication was an interesting thing to explore.
CA: The ending caught by surprise. Greenwood has trouble communicating, yet he is putting so much effort into learning a new skill that will allow him not to feel lonely. Where did the idea for this subtle twist come from? It definitely emphasizes the theme of communication.
Benjamin Cleary: When you set up a twist I guess you want it to feel organic and not to feel contrived. That’s hard to do and a lot of it comes down to the writing of it first and then the editing of it. You got to make sure that in the edit you put in these little clues or these little things that are going to feed into the end. You have to do it as subtly as you can, but it’s a fine line. I think some people have definitely said, “Oh I saw that coming,” but hopefully most people don’t see it coming. It’s hard to say where that came from but it just felt right and it was something I got in my head very early on. I think that, in general, the scripts that I really stay with are ones where the ending has come quite early on in the writing process. It’s like, “Ok, I know how I can end this. How do I get there?” rather than writing it and seeing where it goes. That ending was something I had quite early on in the process.
CA: He also makes quick observations, or "snap judgements" as he calls them, about people he sees on the street, would you say that the fact that he can’t communicate verbally as easily as most people makes this observations sharper?
Benjamin Cleary: Totally and I think it ties in with how quick he is online with his communication. I think he is on a “snap judgment” 1200 and something and this point. He’s become a seasoned pro at it. For me it’s showing that quickness of mind, but there is a sadness to it as well. He sees these people and he makes these, either funny or touching, observations, but in reality he's never going to go up to them to say these to them. That was something quite emotional for me. I think it’s something a lot of us can in some way empathize with.
CA: Sound, particularly near ending, is a key element in the film and how we learn about Greenwood's internal state. Was sound and the the atmosphere is creates something that was part of the story early on?
Benjamin Cleary: Definitely. That was all in the script. I come from a sound background. I did sound engineering and music technology for a few years prior to getting into film. I really think about the audio very much so in the script. The idea of that rising cacophony towards the end was something that I was really excited about, but also nervous about how we were going to pull it off. Luckily we had a really good guy, Gustaf Jackson, who did our sound mix for us. He and I just got it all together. Matthew Needham, the actor, was amazing when we brought him into the studio. I got him to read a huge page of stuff I’ve written, I stitched it all together in the edit, then Gustaf help me make it all feel slightly seamless. Audio was a massive consideration from very early on. I’m really please with how it worked for the film.
CA: Tell me about working with Matthew Needham, there are two parts to his performance, the one we see on screen and the one hear as voiceover. He definitely carries the film single-handedly.
Benjamin Cleary: Yes that was an interesting one because he is playing two parts in a sense. Within a couple of minutes of meeting Matthew Needham I just thought, “Yes, this guy’s got it.” He was talking about the script with real insight and passion. He really liked it and he really got it. He was a pleasure to work with. For me, he is the film and I think he gives a really touching performance. Then going into the post and having to do the voiceover, I think it was incredible how he was able to represent a completely different side to the character, I personally think, very effectively. That was a lot of fun actually, having the stuff we did on set and then in post having to come with this other feeling for the performance. I think he did a great job.
CA: Tell me the trials and tribulations of making "Stutterer." I've read that you really sacrifice comfort and financial stability in order to make it a reality.
Benjamin Cleary: Obviously the budget was really low and it was self-funded. When it got to the point that we just needed a little bit more money to finish I subletted my room in my flat for a couple of months. I was able to do that thanks to the great generosity of a big group of friend who would let me couch surf in different houses. When a bed would come up they’d me on the phone, “Hey we are going to be away for a few days, come over and stay.” It was great and we used that money that I would have used to pay rent for the film instead. All the people that helped out were just amazing. It was a really nice team effort in that way.
CA: You really have to believe in the idea and its potential in order to be willing to sleep on a different couch every night in order to finish the project.
Benjamin Cleary: [Laughs] Yes, but let me tell you, there were some days at 6 in the morning sitting in the studio that I just thought, “What am I doing? Should I just stop and not go any further?” But something kept us going and the people around me were amazing, my producers Serena Armitage and Shan Christopher Ogilvie, Michael Paleodimos our Dp, and Nico Casal the musical composer. Those people kept me going and kept me believing in the film in those dark moments. Luckily it all worked out in the end.
CA: Do you have any plans to turn "Stutterer" into a feature-length project? It seems that's a common occurrence now, for a filmmaker to adapt his short into a larger version of the story.
Benjamin Cleary: Yes that seems to be quite a common thing happening these days, but “Stutterer” was always its own story. I got a feature in development that’s linked to it thematically. I’m fascinated by the theme of communication and I’ve got a film that’s linked in that sense but not specifically to any of the elements in the short film. I think “Stutterer” is just going to stay as is it, but thematically I’ll be exploring similar things.
CA: The Oscar nomination is already a major achievement in your career. How does this change things for you as a filmmaker going forward?
Benjamin Cleary: We are all still in mild shock. We never thought the film was going to get anywhere near here. It’s quite lovely and quite amazing, and a great tribute to all of the people who worked on it and did such a good job. In terms of what it changes, hopefully it’s going to open some doors. It’s my first film, so I’m really starting out my career and I hope that this is going to be a good springboard. I’m already meeting some really great people and hopefully it’s going to be great for everyone who was involved in the film.
You can watch "Stutterer" as part of Shorts HD's theatrical release of the 2016 Oscar Nominated Short Films - Live Action playing in theaters across the country now.
- 2/25/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Oscar-Nominee 'Bear Story' Dir. Gabriel Osorio on His Grandfather's Exile & Latin American Animation
With two Academy Award nominations this year and the increased overall quality of productions made in the region, Latin American animation is rapidly evolving from a technique sporadically employed in those territories to a viable alternative medium for artists to explore both local and universal stories.
“Bear Story” (“Historia de un oso”) by Chilean animator Gabriel Osorio - currently nominated in the Best Animated Short category next to works by three previously nominated filmmakers and a Pixar production - tackles one of the darkest chapter’s in his country’s history through a personal CG animated narrative about a bear who copes with loss by sharing his story using an intricate diorama with handcrafted metal figurines.
Touching and delicately textured, the story, inspired by Osorio’s grandfather’s experiences, is sophistically written to be satisfying on an emotional level and carry its historical undertones subtly. Osorio talked to us about the memories that marked his childhood making animation in Chile, and storytellers’ responsibility to give us hope.
Carlos Aguilar: I know that your grandfather inspired “Bear Story." Tell me about his story and how did it become the basis for this animated short?
Gabriel Osorio: Mi grandfather was imprisoned after the coup d’état of 1973, during Pinochet’s dictatorship, and was then exiled to England simply because he was a public official during the socialist government. When I was born my grandfather was still living in exile and I grew up with this image of a grandfather that for some reason was forbidden from returning to the country and be with his family. That marked a great part of my childhood and that somehow pushed me tell the story of this character that is forcibly separated from his family and how terrible it is to return after many years in exile and realize that nothing is like it used to be.
CA: Though the short film works perfectly for a young audience, adults will understand the political and historical nuances that are also part of the story. Why was it important for you to have these two readings within the film?
Gabriel Osorio: From the very beginning I thought of making a story that could be seen by anyone, children or adults, for that reason it was important not to be literal or focus only on the historical or political aspects, but instead create a story that could speak about feelings and emotions with which any person can identify. In that sense, it was very important for me to have these distinct levels of interpretation, because they creates the possibility for new interpretations to be generated based on the experiences of each audience member. That’s always been the type of cinema that I want to make, which creates a dialogue with the audience and leaves spaces open for interpretation.
CA: How did the idea of using a bear and his story of being separated from his family and locked away in a circus as a metaphor to talk about your country’s dark past come about?
Gabriel Osorio: I met my grandfather when I was 10-years-old and what caught my attention the most was seeing how tall and big he was. He was like a bear. I believe that the use of this particular animal comes from that and the metaphor comes from trying to find an analogy between what he lived and what our family suffered living so many years away from him. For our team it was very important to convey a message about family and the importance of families remaining together.
CA: Tell me about the two visual styles that are you used in “Bear Story.” The present has a very particular elegant design, while the metal world of the music box seems even more meticulously crafted.
Gabriel Osorio: Both visual styles were a challenge in terms of the technical aspects because it in fact required us to make two different short films. In terms of the design and the art of the film, which was done by Antonia Herrera, it was important to show the details in the world of the metallic figures. I believe that the textures and the worn out details, contribute to creating the idea that there is a story behind the objects. They support the idea of this nostalgia and the idea that things were different in the past. It was also important to reflect the hard work and affection that the bear puts into the making of those figures because for him they represent his family, his memories. This also relates to the work we did as animators.
CA: The bear in the film is a storyteller himself and used the music box to share his story. Why did you feel this was the right
storytelling device for the film?
Gabriel Osorio: Besides my grandfather’s story, the idea of a bear as a storyteller has to do with a metaphor about our work as animators and filmmakers. Despite the fact that the bear knows his life is not like he would like it to be, he still tries to pass along a positive message of hope. I think that we as animators have the responsibility of giving hope to the new generations, to understand that injustices exist and will always exist in the world, but we can always do our part so these stories don’t happen again.
CA: “Bear Story” is entirely a visual short. Why did you decide dialogue was unnecessary for the story you were trying to tell?
Gabriel Osorio: It was a decision based mostly on my personal preferences and the nostalgia for a type of cinema that is rare these days. One of my favorite films is “City Lights” by Chaplin, and I personally believe that if you can express yourself simply with images, those ideas will stay with the viewer. It also has to do with my training in Fine Arts. I specialized in oil paintings and the use of images.
CA; “Bear Story” has connected with audiences from different nationalities and ages, even though perhaps some of them might not know of the historical context. What do you think makes it a universal tale?
Gabriel Osorio: The film has screened in many festivals around the world and it has won awards in Taiwan, Australia, the U.S., Greece, the Netherlands, etc. It’s definitely a universal story, which was always our objective. I think this is due to the fact that it’s a very human tale, very sad and nostalgic, that captivates audiences and generates empathy for the character. After every screening people always ask the same thing, “What happened to the bear’s family?” People are intrigued after watching it.
Some people in Europe have associated the short with the Russian revolution and people in Taiwan with the Japanese invasion, so even though this happened in Chile, exile is something that has happened everywhere in the world and that’s why many people see themselves reflected in the film
CA: How hard is it to make animation in Chile in terms of financing and resources?
Gabriel Osorio: Within the region, Chile stands out in terms of programs and initiatives that support the making of audiovisual works, both in film and television. In recent years these programs have opened specific opportunities for animation, which has increased the production of animated works. What’s complicated is that the resources granted by these funds are still too low for the entire production of an animated feature and one can only submit a project for consideration once a year, which means that productions that don’t get these resources are stalled.
CA: Would you say Latin American animation is going through a period of growth and greater international exposure? If so, why do you think that is?
Gabriel Osorio: Without a doubt, Latin American animation is going trough a great moment, and proof of this is that “Bear Story” is nominated for Best Animated Short and “Boy and the World” for Best Animated Feature. Added to this, animated features and animated television series are being produced in the majority of the region’s countries, which stimulates the possibilities for co-productions and opens the window for the exhibition of Latin American animated cinema in Latin America and the world.
I believe this growth is due to the specialization of professionals working in animation and an interest for the content being produced to cross borders. Projects are being developed thinking in the global market, which allows them to reach more territories and screens.
CA: What was your reaction when you found out about the Oscar nomination?
Gabriel Osorio: It was a total surprise. Although we were hopeful since we got on the shortlist, it was still a dream that seemed far away and is now a reality. Two years ago I would have never imagined we would be in this position. The best part is that the nomination is not only positive for Punkrobot as an independent animation studio, but it’s also a tremendous accomplishment for Chile and Latin American animation I general.
CA: Do you plan to make an animated feature in the near future?
Gabriel Osorio: Yes we have a couple ideas on file and we are eager to make an animated feature. We feel that having made two animated series with 40 episodes in total, besides the short film, has given us the necessary experience to achieve it. We want to continue making stories that connect on an emotional level with the audience through messages and themes that are simple and universal.
You can watch "Bear Story" as part of Shorts HD's theatrical release of the 2016 Oscar Nominated Short Films - Animation playing in cities around the country now.
“Bear Story” (“Historia de un oso”) by Chilean animator Gabriel Osorio - currently nominated in the Best Animated Short category next to works by three previously nominated filmmakers and a Pixar production - tackles one of the darkest chapter’s in his country’s history through a personal CG animated narrative about a bear who copes with loss by sharing his story using an intricate diorama with handcrafted metal figurines.
Touching and delicately textured, the story, inspired by Osorio’s grandfather’s experiences, is sophistically written to be satisfying on an emotional level and carry its historical undertones subtly. Osorio talked to us about the memories that marked his childhood making animation in Chile, and storytellers’ responsibility to give us hope.
Carlos Aguilar: I know that your grandfather inspired “Bear Story." Tell me about his story and how did it become the basis for this animated short?
Gabriel Osorio: Mi grandfather was imprisoned after the coup d’état of 1973, during Pinochet’s dictatorship, and was then exiled to England simply because he was a public official during the socialist government. When I was born my grandfather was still living in exile and I grew up with this image of a grandfather that for some reason was forbidden from returning to the country and be with his family. That marked a great part of my childhood and that somehow pushed me tell the story of this character that is forcibly separated from his family and how terrible it is to return after many years in exile and realize that nothing is like it used to be.
CA: Though the short film works perfectly for a young audience, adults will understand the political and historical nuances that are also part of the story. Why was it important for you to have these two readings within the film?
Gabriel Osorio: From the very beginning I thought of making a story that could be seen by anyone, children or adults, for that reason it was important not to be literal or focus only on the historical or political aspects, but instead create a story that could speak about feelings and emotions with which any person can identify. In that sense, it was very important for me to have these distinct levels of interpretation, because they creates the possibility for new interpretations to be generated based on the experiences of each audience member. That’s always been the type of cinema that I want to make, which creates a dialogue with the audience and leaves spaces open for interpretation.
CA: How did the idea of using a bear and his story of being separated from his family and locked away in a circus as a metaphor to talk about your country’s dark past come about?
Gabriel Osorio: I met my grandfather when I was 10-years-old and what caught my attention the most was seeing how tall and big he was. He was like a bear. I believe that the use of this particular animal comes from that and the metaphor comes from trying to find an analogy between what he lived and what our family suffered living so many years away from him. For our team it was very important to convey a message about family and the importance of families remaining together.
CA: Tell me about the two visual styles that are you used in “Bear Story.” The present has a very particular elegant design, while the metal world of the music box seems even more meticulously crafted.
Gabriel Osorio: Both visual styles were a challenge in terms of the technical aspects because it in fact required us to make two different short films. In terms of the design and the art of the film, which was done by Antonia Herrera, it was important to show the details in the world of the metallic figures. I believe that the textures and the worn out details, contribute to creating the idea that there is a story behind the objects. They support the idea of this nostalgia and the idea that things were different in the past. It was also important to reflect the hard work and affection that the bear puts into the making of those figures because for him they represent his family, his memories. This also relates to the work we did as animators.
CA: The bear in the film is a storyteller himself and used the music box to share his story. Why did you feel this was the right
storytelling device for the film?
Gabriel Osorio: Besides my grandfather’s story, the idea of a bear as a storyteller has to do with a metaphor about our work as animators and filmmakers. Despite the fact that the bear knows his life is not like he would like it to be, he still tries to pass along a positive message of hope. I think that we as animators have the responsibility of giving hope to the new generations, to understand that injustices exist and will always exist in the world, but we can always do our part so these stories don’t happen again.
CA: “Bear Story” is entirely a visual short. Why did you decide dialogue was unnecessary for the story you were trying to tell?
Gabriel Osorio: It was a decision based mostly on my personal preferences and the nostalgia for a type of cinema that is rare these days. One of my favorite films is “City Lights” by Chaplin, and I personally believe that if you can express yourself simply with images, those ideas will stay with the viewer. It also has to do with my training in Fine Arts. I specialized in oil paintings and the use of images.
CA; “Bear Story” has connected with audiences from different nationalities and ages, even though perhaps some of them might not know of the historical context. What do you think makes it a universal tale?
Gabriel Osorio: The film has screened in many festivals around the world and it has won awards in Taiwan, Australia, the U.S., Greece, the Netherlands, etc. It’s definitely a universal story, which was always our objective. I think this is due to the fact that it’s a very human tale, very sad and nostalgic, that captivates audiences and generates empathy for the character. After every screening people always ask the same thing, “What happened to the bear’s family?” People are intrigued after watching it.
Some people in Europe have associated the short with the Russian revolution and people in Taiwan with the Japanese invasion, so even though this happened in Chile, exile is something that has happened everywhere in the world and that’s why many people see themselves reflected in the film
CA: How hard is it to make animation in Chile in terms of financing and resources?
Gabriel Osorio: Within the region, Chile stands out in terms of programs and initiatives that support the making of audiovisual works, both in film and television. In recent years these programs have opened specific opportunities for animation, which has increased the production of animated works. What’s complicated is that the resources granted by these funds are still too low for the entire production of an animated feature and one can only submit a project for consideration once a year, which means that productions that don’t get these resources are stalled.
CA: Would you say Latin American animation is going through a period of growth and greater international exposure? If so, why do you think that is?
Gabriel Osorio: Without a doubt, Latin American animation is going trough a great moment, and proof of this is that “Bear Story” is nominated for Best Animated Short and “Boy and the World” for Best Animated Feature. Added to this, animated features and animated television series are being produced in the majority of the region’s countries, which stimulates the possibilities for co-productions and opens the window for the exhibition of Latin American animated cinema in Latin America and the world.
I believe this growth is due to the specialization of professionals working in animation and an interest for the content being produced to cross borders. Projects are being developed thinking in the global market, which allows them to reach more territories and screens.
CA: What was your reaction when you found out about the Oscar nomination?
Gabriel Osorio: It was a total surprise. Although we were hopeful since we got on the shortlist, it was still a dream that seemed far away and is now a reality. Two years ago I would have never imagined we would be in this position. The best part is that the nomination is not only positive for Punkrobot as an independent animation studio, but it’s also a tremendous accomplishment for Chile and Latin American animation I general.
CA: Do you plan to make an animated feature in the near future?
Gabriel Osorio: Yes we have a couple ideas on file and we are eager to make an animated feature. We feel that having made two animated series with 40 episodes in total, besides the short film, has given us the necessary experience to achieve it. We want to continue making stories that connect on an emotional level with the audience through messages and themes that are simple and universal.
You can watch "Bear Story" as part of Shorts HD's theatrical release of the 2016 Oscar Nominated Short Films - Animation playing in cities around the country now.
- 2/23/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Oversimplification is a dangerous practice when speaking about justice and punishment. Deciding what is right and what is wrong is never a clear-cut affair whether the situation being judged is a simple offense or a mortal sin. To come a conclusion on the moral quality of a someone’s actions is a game ridden with subjectivity and susceptible to biased observations or assumptions, which becomes terrifyingly dangerous when a person’s fate is on the line. But to see the world with such a definitive gaze is not something Danish auteur Tobias Lindholm would ever be accused of. Like in his previous directorial effort, “A Hijacking,” his latest searing drama, “A War,” explores a story where a single act is simultaneously considered heroic and barbaric depending on who you ask. Both are rational interpretations of the same events, but is Tobias mission to eliminate the idea of a nicely wrapped resolution and focus on the vast gray space between these two perceptions of the truth.
In “A War,” we meet company commander Claus M. Pedersen (Pilou Asbæk) first in action as he leads his team’s mission in Afghanistan and then in a gloomy courtroom, an equally threatening battlefront, where he must face the consequences of a choice made during an unnerving incident. Freedom will not bring him closure and incarceration will only expand the ripples of pain already caused. Lindholm leaves his protagonist without a single easy decision while always cautiously considering their repercussions, thus guilt becomes the prevalent looming entity that dictates the narrative. It’s such the level of commitment to resembling reality in Tobias Lindholm’s every artistic move that it’s nearly impossible not to be riveted by the mere humanity of its characters.
We sat down with Tobias Lindholm and lead actor Pilou Asbæk to talk about the extreme steps taken to ensure every ounce of effort put into “A War” worked towards making an honest film and why the real world fascinates Lindholm much more than his own imagination.
The film is currently nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award.
Note: Several of Lindholm and Asbæk's answers contain spoilers and specific plot details that some readers might want to avoid till after watching the film
Carlos Aguilar: There is a lot of moral ambiguity in "A War," but the recurrent emotion that seems to torture the protagonist and drive the narrative is guilt. It doesn't matter what the resolution is, Claus can't rid himself of that guilt. Why did you feel this needed to be the central concept of the story?
Tobias Lindholm: I think that the phase the world is in right now looking at Afghanistan is a guilty phase. We need to cope with that and understand what happened and for me to materialize that into a human being, one single individual's life, was the whole point. A natural and typical Scandinavian ending would be sending him off to jail and making it dark. But to free him and then trap or making him captive inside himself as he watches those feet getting thrown back knowing, "I will never be able to forgive myself for what happened," was a much more nuanced and interesting story.
Thinking of it, I believe I learned that from "The Hunt." When we wrote that ending, the natural ending for that film as an Scandinavian movie would be to shoot Mads. That would be the dark and gritty side of it, but it just wasn't fulfilling. I was afraid of getting away with this because there are so many emotional setups in the film. Having them compels an ending with him sitting there coping with all these feelings. To be honest we shot both endings because I needed that ending in the editing room. If I hadn't done my job good enough throughout the film at least I knew, "I have an ending that people will respond to because they don't want this guy, this kids' father to go to jail." I knew we could do that, but the truth is that the real ending is a guy who can't live with himself afterwards and is very far away from being freed as he sits in the courtyard.
That guilt became a theme throughout the film in all aspects and I always thought that the best title for this film was already taken and it's "The Goodwill." I think that's an extremely interesting human dilemma because you can't walk into the sun without drawing a shade and, by drawing that shade, you will steal the sun from somebody and that makes you feel guilty. It's kind of a ground rule in life. You can't get away from that. That guilt became, for me, the most important thing to deal with throughout the film; therefore, she is not allowed to have the Afghan family live in the camp. She feels guilty about it but there is no way around it. Everything, no matter what you do, there are no easy choices, and there is always a slice of guilt for you in the big plate of life for you.
CA: How did you Pilou, as an actor, interpret the guilt your character is feeling? What was your approach to such a complex character whose actions might be justifiable depending on who you ask and what moral standpoint you take?
Pilou Asbæk: The guilt is always there no matter what you do, especially when you become a father. It becomes even worse. The script is 120 pages long, I only got 115, so I didn’t know what this guy was hiding. I didn’t know the ending. I didn’t know if the character was guilty or not guilty. I knew that we would end up in a courtroom. I knew I would be prosecuted, but I didn’t know if I was guilty or not guilty. That was never important to me. We made the very early decision that I had a job to portray a professional soldier, but is not just a professional soldier, he is a dad, he is a husband, he is a son. He is all these other things, much more than just a professional soldier. That was the most important for me. I’ll tell you something, if this was a real thing that happened and you’d ask me what I would have done, I would say, “I would have done the same thing." I think that’s what’s interesting. I’m defending my character, and while we were shooting it I would still think that when Maria (Tuva Novotny) was sitting in the car saying, “You Pid. Say it! You might have killed 8 children, but you have three alive at home." I would still be in doubt. In the film I’m a military guy and I trained 20 years for this. This is not ethically correct. Life is not black and white, there is some gray nuance to it.
CA: One of the most thought-provoking lines in the film is when the Afghan man seeking refuge in the Danish camp confronts Claus about how his kids are in a safe place while his might die that night. It's difficult to judge either of the two men because their worldviews are based on different experiences.
Tobias Lindholm: I enjoy the complexity of life. I think that during my childhood, growing up in the 80s, for some reason it became Ok to be politically judgmental and to say, “You are a blond man and not homosexual, so you are privileged.“ That could be right from a political point of view, but on a personal point of view it’s not necessarily true. It could be really hard to be that person. At the same, “Oh there is a black woman in a wheelchair. What a pity. It must be so hard to be her. “ Not necessarily. From a political point of view yes, but on a human level not necessarily. I think it’s time to tell all the complexity of being a human being. I do believe that Klaus is right when he says, “I understand how you feel. I have three kids,” because he identified with this person.
At the same time, the Afghan man has a good point saying, “Yeah, well they are back home. You might miss them but your problem is not as big as mine because my kids are going to die tonight if you don’t help me,” and that’s true as well. If both things are right, then we’ve at least proven the complexity of the world. If we defend both voices or both stances in this film, and in “A Hijacking” as well, if we are able to do that, we will get pretty close to the truth of what it means to be human in this world. That’s the whole point of doing that. Not pointing at anybody saying, “He is a bad” or “He is a good guy.” I do believe that we are all just human beings and we are caught up in our own world. We try to relate to the rest of the world and that is a really hard job.
For some reason right now in our time we have Twitter and Facebook and we try to simplify everything - to communicate. Even our politicians, when they do interviews they know that they need a punch line in 15 seconds explaining the whole problem of a war or a financial crisis. They only have 15 seconds because they want to make it to the news. That’s way too simple because the problem is the world is complex. I do believe that we have a responsibility as storytellers. We have the audience for two hours, so let’s admit that it’s complex and try to create a story knowing that. That was the idea.
CA: In terms of the writing process, how did you tackle a story in which you are juxtaposing two completely distinct settings: a war zone and a courtroom? You did something similar in "A Hijacking," though in that film it was simultaneous, here you first you expose the incident and then analyze its consequences. How do you balance these two battlegrounds?
Tobias Lindholm: I think, as a writer at the beginning is a gut feeling. I had to think about, "When have I been long enough in Afghanistan so that I can allow myself to go home and when have I been home long enough that I want to go have back and see what happened to the guys down there?" The structure is challenging in this one because we have two arenas that we go back and forth to until he is home. Then it all transforms into this courtroom drama and we are in this cold, gray, room where it’s not about right or wrong, it’s about whether you can prove what’s right or wrong. The whole coldness of that was challenging. It was a challenge to go there, but I felt that we had done well and learned a lot in “A Hijacking.” I thought, “Let’s try to see if, without using flashbacks, we can create scenes that will recall emotions from early on.” I do believe that the performance of Dar Salim in the courtroom, the soldier who is uniform, is so important because it calls back emotions to the whole war thing. Butcher is important because he is a game-changer in the courtroom, but the guy that actually puts the war there and reminds me of the war is Dar Salim, particularly when he says, “You have no idea what’s like to be out there.” When I saw that during editing I was like, “Yes! We got it,” because I could feel my brain would start to remember images from what had happened in the war and that made it work.
CA: Pilou, what was different about portraying a character like Claus and the one you play in Tobias' previous film "A Hijacking"? They are both caught up in a situation bigger than themselves but one has clearly more power and options than the other when facing these extraordinary circumstances.
Pilou Asbæk: One is a very external character and one is a very internal character. I do it in a collaboration with the director, which in this case is also the writer. Thank God, because when something didn't work he could rewrite new scenes or new lines for me. I don’t think any character is the same, so I don’t think the approach to any character is the same. With “A Hijacking” I didn’t talked to anyone who had been hijacked, but with “A War” I talked to as many soldiers as possible trying to understand how is it in Afghanistan. Things like, "Are you going around being constantly stressed because you are in a war zone or you forget about it and talk about women? How do you communicate? How are you a leader for your soldiers?" In “A Hijacking” the characters are low status people. That character was a pawn, I’m the king now in this film [Laughs]. That was a complete new way of approaching the character that Tobias created because I’m not a natural king and that’s one of the reasons why he brought in professional soldiers, guys who have served in Afghanistan or served in Iraq. He knew that if I could create the character he would create environments that would protect my acting.
Ca: But being the king is more difficult right? What sort of discussions would you have with Tobias about the character and how did this affect the way you became Klaus?
Pilou Asbæk: You know what they say, at the top of the hill the view is the best. It’s lonely up there, but the view is the best. You have to make decisions. We would discuss this. Every single day I would go and have a discussion with Tobias saying, “Is this the right decision?” and he would be like, “Let’s see. Do the scene.” I’d ask, “Should I call a medic? Should I call the chopper? Should I call the bomb,” he’d answer, “We gotta do the scene.Let’s see.” That constantly frustrating communication between me as an actor and the director transformed into the character Claus. We were discussing the level of stress in that scene. "Is he screaming into the microphone or is he not screaming? What level of stress could a good leader handle?" When we shot the scene I didn’t knot when the explosions were coming and I didn’t know when people would be shooting at us. He created this whole circus and he put us all in it so we would navigate it naturally. It’s the funnest job I’ve ever had.
CA: Tobias, why did you feel it was important for you as a director to create this artificial sense of reality and bring this element of surprise for the actors? In a sense they are as lost as the characters themselves not knowing what comes next or what the protagonist fate will be.
Tobias Lindholm: Because life surprises us and I don’t like the actors to act. I like them to react to the environment around them That’s what we do in real life. Adding those elements of surprise and of real life gives us an edge because everybody needs to be alert all the time and nobody is just waiting for their time to say their line. Everybody needs to listen to what’s going on because things can change around you. Pilou wouldn’t get the lines that the Afghan characters would say, he would only get his own lines. Sometimes they weren’t even lines, I would read the scenes and we would talk about motivation but when talking to the Afghan locals Pilou didn’t know what they were going to say. He just waited for the interpreter to translate it and then react to it. You can feel that because he needs to listen, so his emotions are not something he had decided two weeks before like, “I’m going to react emotionally like this.” It’s all in the moment, “I need to be here right now.” It’s like free jazz, once in a while you do a recording of two hours and it’s really bad and once in a while you do five minutes of magic. We shoot digitally so we can keep on shooting [Laughs].
Pilou Asbæk: That’s scene is 100% written in the script, but when we did the scene Tobias would say, “Is this interesting? We have a whole day. We could shoot this scene the whole day.” Then he went to the Afghan family and I didn’t know shit because I was sitting all alone because that’s the actor I am. I want to concentrate. I want to give it everything. He would say to the Afghan cast, which I found out afterwards, “You don’t want to leave the camp. You are not going to leave the camp. When you enter that door, you, your wife, and your two little children are going to stay. So whatever happens none of you is going to leave the camp.” Then I’m sitting there and Tobias came to me and said, “They can’t stay. Right now I don’t know what’s going to happen in that scene, but I want you to get them out.” To have the director doing this is crazy, but what he was asking was my job. I’m the voice of reason, “We cannot have these people here because this is not a refugee camp.” Then suddenly I had to try to persuade them you, to try to communicate, then you try to get them out physically, all these different things and that’s what I love. That’s why I love working with him.
CA: One of the standout supporting characters in the film is prosecutor Lisbeth Danning. She is brutally unemotional and fiercely resolute about punishing Klaus and making an example out of him. She is not in the film for very long, but she definitely makes an impact.
Tobias Lindholm: I wrote it for Charlotte Munck, I had wanted to work with her for a long time. I think she is extremely brilliant. I think that for some reason, and I don’t get it, she is not working enough. Maybe it’s because she is picky and doesn’t want to do just anything. She is doing a lot of theater and she is extremely good. I felt so confident in her knowing that she would deliver. We didn’t see her before in the story and suddenly she is there. She is so important in the end, but normally I would follow the rules and say, “ I will not introduce any new characters after the middle of the film because we need to have seen everything before climax," but in this case we are in a whole new world for the ending. She was just really honest and precise. I would have the real military prosecutor in Denmark beside her throughout the whole shoot. Whenever she was in doubt I wouldn’t direct her, he would, which gave her that documentary feeling of not seeking emotional expression with me. She was just a tool in the box going for it and that became so clean. There was no fat on that bone. That made it work for me. She decisively avoided any emotion.
At some I really disliked her and felt angry towards her relentlessness. When she was questioning Claus my first instinct was to think, “You don’t know what he went through. You weren’t there!” But at the same time I knew why he was there.
Tobias Lindholm: [Laughs] That’s the moral compass going all sorts of ways because 14 civilians did die after all.
CA: On that same note, the judge was another character that added much more to the films nuanced ethical dilemmas despite being on screen for a very small time. When the verdict was read, something in me told me that she knew the truth and still made that decision.
Tobias Lindholm: When you work like we do there are a lot of obstacles and problems, but one of the gifts is that the audience reads these characters as real human beings. You are invested in them. You try to read them, which is why you are looking for signs. I didn’t talk to her about that. It’s not part of my direction and it’s not part of my intention, but it happens because she is human. She is a real judge and she’s controlled courtrooms before, so she knows what she was doing. I believe that people will read a lot of stuff into that because we are not trying to push feelings and emotions down your throat. We opened up for you to invest in them and by doing that you’ll find truth in these people. In this case, she knew that he was going to be freed from the beginning.
Pilou Asbæk: She did? I didn’t know that because I didn’t have those pages.
Tobias Lindholm: She knew because I needed her to justify it from a legal perspective. I needed to know if could do this or not. She helped me build the whole thing. In real life we are experts in walking around this world reading people, that’s what we do. We enter rooms with strangers and rapidly adapt to what happens there. That’s not something we leave outside a movie theater. We bring it in. If we allow the audience to be invested like that in a movie, they’ll will find truth in what happens no matter what happens.
Pilou Asbæk: It’s interesting because, the way we shot some o the war scenes in Afghanistan was the same way we shot some of the scenes in the courtroom. We would do it as realistic as possible. People wouldn’t be chitchatting. This is a real life courtroom and they treat it with respect. We filmed it chronologically. We had to because we didn’t know the ending. The judge would have all the prosecutor’s arguments, the defense’s arguments, and some days I was sitting there in the courtroom thinking, “She fucking got me,” because I didn’t know my character's fate. I would look at Søren Malling, who played my defense lawyer, and he would say, “Yeah, this is not good,” but the following day was his turn to defend me. It was surreal. When you shoot that way you make it possible for reality to happen. Just like with the kids, and I don’t want to blow our own horn, but I’ve never seen kids be as realistic in a film.
Tobias Lindholm: The key for that was not to write any lines for the kids. I just let them be kids.
CA: I’m going to assume that you’ve never been to Afghanistan, that you’ve never been to war, and that you’ve never been tried. So where did the inspiration come from to create this character and represent this experience so realistically? Did you have extensive conversations with soldiers and people involved? What obstacles did face in your quest to bring as much realism as possible to the screen?
Tobias Lindholm: Exactly. I talked to soldiers, I talked to soldiers’ wives, I talked to Afghan refugees that escaped the war, I talked to Taliban warriors, I talked to defense lawyers, I talked to prosecutors, I talked to judges, kids whose parents have been to war, and in this whole research process I was trying to cope with, from a human standpoint, what is the logic of this story. We went to an Afghan refugee camp in Turkey and cast these locals that were from Helmand, Afghanistan, which is where the Danish soldiers that were part of the film were. After casting them one of the guys told me, “I used to fight for the Taliban.” Suddenly I felt bad. It was a dilemma. I thought, “What is the right choice? What do I do?” So I asked Rene Ezra, my producer, in Danish, so nobody else understood, “Could you please just fake a phone call, tell me that is really important and say that I have to step outside so that we have a chance to talk about this?” So he said, “I’m so sorry to interrupt, there is a phone call for him and we have to go?” I had a tear in my eye and I was choking. I felt that I had gotten so close to reality and I didn’t know what to do with it.
Then I called one of the soldiers who helped build the whole thing, he was kind of responsible for finding the fright guys for me to cast, and I said to him, “What do I do?” He said, “Do what you do all the time. Be honest. Let’s gather all the guys and tell them.” We came home and I sat with all these real soldiers and I said, “I’ve cast this guy. I’m not sure if he is going to be in the film but we are going to work with him because he knows a lot of stuff, but he is former Taliban. He may have been in a firefight with you and he may have even killed one of your friends. How do you feel about that?” Surprisingly the answer was, “Let’s meet him. “
We went back down to Turkey, we met him and we had tea at his house and it ended up being a beautiful conversation where former enemies sat down and actually, on a professional level, had a discussion. They'd ask, “How did you do that? How did you dig those tunnels so you could put in that ID?” and he would answer. Then one of the Danes turned to me and said, “Don’t be nervous. I understand him better than I understand you. He fought the war. You just stayed home and had fun.” I was like, “Ok, got it,” and we started working. He helped us throughout the process making sure that point of view was defended as well, that we didn’t lie about their methods, and that we didn’t tell something that wasn’t true about the way that they would fight. That, of course, gave our Dane soldiers a lot of realty to channel in their acting.
Pilou Asbæk: I remember Tobias having this meeting with this refugee who had been fighting for the Taliban. He called me at night when I was Copenhagen and he said, “Pilou, would you mind acting in a film where we have real ex-Taliban and real life Danish soldiers?” I said, “I don’t know what do you think?,” and Tobias goes, “I'm not sure, but I can tell you one thing, even if the film sucks, the behind the scenes is going to be great!”
CA: There numerous films about the American experience in Afghanistan, "A War" is clearly a story of that same war from a Danish perspective. Although it might be from a specific cultural point of view the universal qualities embedded in these characters and the drama are undeniably compelling regardless of what is our personal idea of a war like this.
Tobias Lindholm: I think the only thing we can contribute in this world is honesty. For me trying to have an American point of view in a film would be impossible, but I do believe that the reason that a film like this can translate and can be seen all over the world is the fact that it’s really honest and bound to a local identity because then one can relate to that. Had we tried to change the Danish reality so that it looked a little more like an American reality we wouldn’t have gained this honesty and we would have kept the audience from connecting to the characters. I don’t like my own imagination. I’m not entertained by it. I think it’s pretty boring to sit there and make stuff up, but I love the world around me. The world that I can access is a Danish world, I’m from there, so it makes so much sense to just go in a portray that. Of course, we are proud and happy that it’s now traveling and we are fortunate enough to travel with it, show it, and meet people that have seen it and have these conversations. It makes it all worth it. We don’t have careers, we have lives and they have to make sense. It definitely makes sense to sit here and talk with you and then show an audience our little Danish film.
"A War" will opens today in La the Sundance Cinemas and Laemmle Royal and in NYC at the Landmark Sunshine Cinema and AMC Empire 25...
In “A War,” we meet company commander Claus M. Pedersen (Pilou Asbæk) first in action as he leads his team’s mission in Afghanistan and then in a gloomy courtroom, an equally threatening battlefront, where he must face the consequences of a choice made during an unnerving incident. Freedom will not bring him closure and incarceration will only expand the ripples of pain already caused. Lindholm leaves his protagonist without a single easy decision while always cautiously considering their repercussions, thus guilt becomes the prevalent looming entity that dictates the narrative. It’s such the level of commitment to resembling reality in Tobias Lindholm’s every artistic move that it’s nearly impossible not to be riveted by the mere humanity of its characters.
We sat down with Tobias Lindholm and lead actor Pilou Asbæk to talk about the extreme steps taken to ensure every ounce of effort put into “A War” worked towards making an honest film and why the real world fascinates Lindholm much more than his own imagination.
The film is currently nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award.
Note: Several of Lindholm and Asbæk's answers contain spoilers and specific plot details that some readers might want to avoid till after watching the film
Carlos Aguilar: There is a lot of moral ambiguity in "A War," but the recurrent emotion that seems to torture the protagonist and drive the narrative is guilt. It doesn't matter what the resolution is, Claus can't rid himself of that guilt. Why did you feel this needed to be the central concept of the story?
Tobias Lindholm: I think that the phase the world is in right now looking at Afghanistan is a guilty phase. We need to cope with that and understand what happened and for me to materialize that into a human being, one single individual's life, was the whole point. A natural and typical Scandinavian ending would be sending him off to jail and making it dark. But to free him and then trap or making him captive inside himself as he watches those feet getting thrown back knowing, "I will never be able to forgive myself for what happened," was a much more nuanced and interesting story.
Thinking of it, I believe I learned that from "The Hunt." When we wrote that ending, the natural ending for that film as an Scandinavian movie would be to shoot Mads. That would be the dark and gritty side of it, but it just wasn't fulfilling. I was afraid of getting away with this because there are so many emotional setups in the film. Having them compels an ending with him sitting there coping with all these feelings. To be honest we shot both endings because I needed that ending in the editing room. If I hadn't done my job good enough throughout the film at least I knew, "I have an ending that people will respond to because they don't want this guy, this kids' father to go to jail." I knew we could do that, but the truth is that the real ending is a guy who can't live with himself afterwards and is very far away from being freed as he sits in the courtyard.
That guilt became a theme throughout the film in all aspects and I always thought that the best title for this film was already taken and it's "The Goodwill." I think that's an extremely interesting human dilemma because you can't walk into the sun without drawing a shade and, by drawing that shade, you will steal the sun from somebody and that makes you feel guilty. It's kind of a ground rule in life. You can't get away from that. That guilt became, for me, the most important thing to deal with throughout the film; therefore, she is not allowed to have the Afghan family live in the camp. She feels guilty about it but there is no way around it. Everything, no matter what you do, there are no easy choices, and there is always a slice of guilt for you in the big plate of life for you.
CA: How did you Pilou, as an actor, interpret the guilt your character is feeling? What was your approach to such a complex character whose actions might be justifiable depending on who you ask and what moral standpoint you take?
Pilou Asbæk: The guilt is always there no matter what you do, especially when you become a father. It becomes even worse. The script is 120 pages long, I only got 115, so I didn’t know what this guy was hiding. I didn’t know the ending. I didn’t know if the character was guilty or not guilty. I knew that we would end up in a courtroom. I knew I would be prosecuted, but I didn’t know if I was guilty or not guilty. That was never important to me. We made the very early decision that I had a job to portray a professional soldier, but is not just a professional soldier, he is a dad, he is a husband, he is a son. He is all these other things, much more than just a professional soldier. That was the most important for me. I’ll tell you something, if this was a real thing that happened and you’d ask me what I would have done, I would say, “I would have done the same thing." I think that’s what’s interesting. I’m defending my character, and while we were shooting it I would still think that when Maria (Tuva Novotny) was sitting in the car saying, “You Pid. Say it! You might have killed 8 children, but you have three alive at home." I would still be in doubt. In the film I’m a military guy and I trained 20 years for this. This is not ethically correct. Life is not black and white, there is some gray nuance to it.
CA: One of the most thought-provoking lines in the film is when the Afghan man seeking refuge in the Danish camp confronts Claus about how his kids are in a safe place while his might die that night. It's difficult to judge either of the two men because their worldviews are based on different experiences.
Tobias Lindholm: I enjoy the complexity of life. I think that during my childhood, growing up in the 80s, for some reason it became Ok to be politically judgmental and to say, “You are a blond man and not homosexual, so you are privileged.“ That could be right from a political point of view, but on a personal point of view it’s not necessarily true. It could be really hard to be that person. At the same, “Oh there is a black woman in a wheelchair. What a pity. It must be so hard to be her. “ Not necessarily. From a political point of view yes, but on a human level not necessarily. I think it’s time to tell all the complexity of being a human being. I do believe that Klaus is right when he says, “I understand how you feel. I have three kids,” because he identified with this person.
At the same time, the Afghan man has a good point saying, “Yeah, well they are back home. You might miss them but your problem is not as big as mine because my kids are going to die tonight if you don’t help me,” and that’s true as well. If both things are right, then we’ve at least proven the complexity of the world. If we defend both voices or both stances in this film, and in “A Hijacking” as well, if we are able to do that, we will get pretty close to the truth of what it means to be human in this world. That’s the whole point of doing that. Not pointing at anybody saying, “He is a bad” or “He is a good guy.” I do believe that we are all just human beings and we are caught up in our own world. We try to relate to the rest of the world and that is a really hard job.
For some reason right now in our time we have Twitter and Facebook and we try to simplify everything - to communicate. Even our politicians, when they do interviews they know that they need a punch line in 15 seconds explaining the whole problem of a war or a financial crisis. They only have 15 seconds because they want to make it to the news. That’s way too simple because the problem is the world is complex. I do believe that we have a responsibility as storytellers. We have the audience for two hours, so let’s admit that it’s complex and try to create a story knowing that. That was the idea.
CA: In terms of the writing process, how did you tackle a story in which you are juxtaposing two completely distinct settings: a war zone and a courtroom? You did something similar in "A Hijacking," though in that film it was simultaneous, here you first you expose the incident and then analyze its consequences. How do you balance these two battlegrounds?
Tobias Lindholm: I think, as a writer at the beginning is a gut feeling. I had to think about, "When have I been long enough in Afghanistan so that I can allow myself to go home and when have I been home long enough that I want to go have back and see what happened to the guys down there?" The structure is challenging in this one because we have two arenas that we go back and forth to until he is home. Then it all transforms into this courtroom drama and we are in this cold, gray, room where it’s not about right or wrong, it’s about whether you can prove what’s right or wrong. The whole coldness of that was challenging. It was a challenge to go there, but I felt that we had done well and learned a lot in “A Hijacking.” I thought, “Let’s try to see if, without using flashbacks, we can create scenes that will recall emotions from early on.” I do believe that the performance of Dar Salim in the courtroom, the soldier who is uniform, is so important because it calls back emotions to the whole war thing. Butcher is important because he is a game-changer in the courtroom, but the guy that actually puts the war there and reminds me of the war is Dar Salim, particularly when he says, “You have no idea what’s like to be out there.” When I saw that during editing I was like, “Yes! We got it,” because I could feel my brain would start to remember images from what had happened in the war and that made it work.
CA: Pilou, what was different about portraying a character like Claus and the one you play in Tobias' previous film "A Hijacking"? They are both caught up in a situation bigger than themselves but one has clearly more power and options than the other when facing these extraordinary circumstances.
Pilou Asbæk: One is a very external character and one is a very internal character. I do it in a collaboration with the director, which in this case is also the writer. Thank God, because when something didn't work he could rewrite new scenes or new lines for me. I don’t think any character is the same, so I don’t think the approach to any character is the same. With “A Hijacking” I didn’t talked to anyone who had been hijacked, but with “A War” I talked to as many soldiers as possible trying to understand how is it in Afghanistan. Things like, "Are you going around being constantly stressed because you are in a war zone or you forget about it and talk about women? How do you communicate? How are you a leader for your soldiers?" In “A Hijacking” the characters are low status people. That character was a pawn, I’m the king now in this film [Laughs]. That was a complete new way of approaching the character that Tobias created because I’m not a natural king and that’s one of the reasons why he brought in professional soldiers, guys who have served in Afghanistan or served in Iraq. He knew that if I could create the character he would create environments that would protect my acting.
Ca: But being the king is more difficult right? What sort of discussions would you have with Tobias about the character and how did this affect the way you became Klaus?
Pilou Asbæk: You know what they say, at the top of the hill the view is the best. It’s lonely up there, but the view is the best. You have to make decisions. We would discuss this. Every single day I would go and have a discussion with Tobias saying, “Is this the right decision?” and he would be like, “Let’s see. Do the scene.” I’d ask, “Should I call a medic? Should I call the chopper? Should I call the bomb,” he’d answer, “We gotta do the scene.Let’s see.” That constantly frustrating communication between me as an actor and the director transformed into the character Claus. We were discussing the level of stress in that scene. "Is he screaming into the microphone or is he not screaming? What level of stress could a good leader handle?" When we shot the scene I didn’t knot when the explosions were coming and I didn’t know when people would be shooting at us. He created this whole circus and he put us all in it so we would navigate it naturally. It’s the funnest job I’ve ever had.
CA: Tobias, why did you feel it was important for you as a director to create this artificial sense of reality and bring this element of surprise for the actors? In a sense they are as lost as the characters themselves not knowing what comes next or what the protagonist fate will be.
Tobias Lindholm: Because life surprises us and I don’t like the actors to act. I like them to react to the environment around them That’s what we do in real life. Adding those elements of surprise and of real life gives us an edge because everybody needs to be alert all the time and nobody is just waiting for their time to say their line. Everybody needs to listen to what’s going on because things can change around you. Pilou wouldn’t get the lines that the Afghan characters would say, he would only get his own lines. Sometimes they weren’t even lines, I would read the scenes and we would talk about motivation but when talking to the Afghan locals Pilou didn’t know what they were going to say. He just waited for the interpreter to translate it and then react to it. You can feel that because he needs to listen, so his emotions are not something he had decided two weeks before like, “I’m going to react emotionally like this.” It’s all in the moment, “I need to be here right now.” It’s like free jazz, once in a while you do a recording of two hours and it’s really bad and once in a while you do five minutes of magic. We shoot digitally so we can keep on shooting [Laughs].
Pilou Asbæk: That’s scene is 100% written in the script, but when we did the scene Tobias would say, “Is this interesting? We have a whole day. We could shoot this scene the whole day.” Then he went to the Afghan family and I didn’t know shit because I was sitting all alone because that’s the actor I am. I want to concentrate. I want to give it everything. He would say to the Afghan cast, which I found out afterwards, “You don’t want to leave the camp. You are not going to leave the camp. When you enter that door, you, your wife, and your two little children are going to stay. So whatever happens none of you is going to leave the camp.” Then I’m sitting there and Tobias came to me and said, “They can’t stay. Right now I don’t know what’s going to happen in that scene, but I want you to get them out.” To have the director doing this is crazy, but what he was asking was my job. I’m the voice of reason, “We cannot have these people here because this is not a refugee camp.” Then suddenly I had to try to persuade them you, to try to communicate, then you try to get them out physically, all these different things and that’s what I love. That’s why I love working with him.
CA: One of the standout supporting characters in the film is prosecutor Lisbeth Danning. She is brutally unemotional and fiercely resolute about punishing Klaus and making an example out of him. She is not in the film for very long, but she definitely makes an impact.
Tobias Lindholm: I wrote it for Charlotte Munck, I had wanted to work with her for a long time. I think she is extremely brilliant. I think that for some reason, and I don’t get it, she is not working enough. Maybe it’s because she is picky and doesn’t want to do just anything. She is doing a lot of theater and she is extremely good. I felt so confident in her knowing that she would deliver. We didn’t see her before in the story and suddenly she is there. She is so important in the end, but normally I would follow the rules and say, “ I will not introduce any new characters after the middle of the film because we need to have seen everything before climax," but in this case we are in a whole new world for the ending. She was just really honest and precise. I would have the real military prosecutor in Denmark beside her throughout the whole shoot. Whenever she was in doubt I wouldn’t direct her, he would, which gave her that documentary feeling of not seeking emotional expression with me. She was just a tool in the box going for it and that became so clean. There was no fat on that bone. That made it work for me. She decisively avoided any emotion.
At some I really disliked her and felt angry towards her relentlessness. When she was questioning Claus my first instinct was to think, “You don’t know what he went through. You weren’t there!” But at the same time I knew why he was there.
Tobias Lindholm: [Laughs] That’s the moral compass going all sorts of ways because 14 civilians did die after all.
CA: On that same note, the judge was another character that added much more to the films nuanced ethical dilemmas despite being on screen for a very small time. When the verdict was read, something in me told me that she knew the truth and still made that decision.
Tobias Lindholm: When you work like we do there are a lot of obstacles and problems, but one of the gifts is that the audience reads these characters as real human beings. You are invested in them. You try to read them, which is why you are looking for signs. I didn’t talk to her about that. It’s not part of my direction and it’s not part of my intention, but it happens because she is human. She is a real judge and she’s controlled courtrooms before, so she knows what she was doing. I believe that people will read a lot of stuff into that because we are not trying to push feelings and emotions down your throat. We opened up for you to invest in them and by doing that you’ll find truth in these people. In this case, she knew that he was going to be freed from the beginning.
Pilou Asbæk: She did? I didn’t know that because I didn’t have those pages.
Tobias Lindholm: She knew because I needed her to justify it from a legal perspective. I needed to know if could do this or not. She helped me build the whole thing. In real life we are experts in walking around this world reading people, that’s what we do. We enter rooms with strangers and rapidly adapt to what happens there. That’s not something we leave outside a movie theater. We bring it in. If we allow the audience to be invested like that in a movie, they’ll will find truth in what happens no matter what happens.
Pilou Asbæk: It’s interesting because, the way we shot some o the war scenes in Afghanistan was the same way we shot some of the scenes in the courtroom. We would do it as realistic as possible. People wouldn’t be chitchatting. This is a real life courtroom and they treat it with respect. We filmed it chronologically. We had to because we didn’t know the ending. The judge would have all the prosecutor’s arguments, the defense’s arguments, and some days I was sitting there in the courtroom thinking, “She fucking got me,” because I didn’t know my character's fate. I would look at Søren Malling, who played my defense lawyer, and he would say, “Yeah, this is not good,” but the following day was his turn to defend me. It was surreal. When you shoot that way you make it possible for reality to happen. Just like with the kids, and I don’t want to blow our own horn, but I’ve never seen kids be as realistic in a film.
Tobias Lindholm: The key for that was not to write any lines for the kids. I just let them be kids.
CA: I’m going to assume that you’ve never been to Afghanistan, that you’ve never been to war, and that you’ve never been tried. So where did the inspiration come from to create this character and represent this experience so realistically? Did you have extensive conversations with soldiers and people involved? What obstacles did face in your quest to bring as much realism as possible to the screen?
Tobias Lindholm: Exactly. I talked to soldiers, I talked to soldiers’ wives, I talked to Afghan refugees that escaped the war, I talked to Taliban warriors, I talked to defense lawyers, I talked to prosecutors, I talked to judges, kids whose parents have been to war, and in this whole research process I was trying to cope with, from a human standpoint, what is the logic of this story. We went to an Afghan refugee camp in Turkey and cast these locals that were from Helmand, Afghanistan, which is where the Danish soldiers that were part of the film were. After casting them one of the guys told me, “I used to fight for the Taliban.” Suddenly I felt bad. It was a dilemma. I thought, “What is the right choice? What do I do?” So I asked Rene Ezra, my producer, in Danish, so nobody else understood, “Could you please just fake a phone call, tell me that is really important and say that I have to step outside so that we have a chance to talk about this?” So he said, “I’m so sorry to interrupt, there is a phone call for him and we have to go?” I had a tear in my eye and I was choking. I felt that I had gotten so close to reality and I didn’t know what to do with it.
Then I called one of the soldiers who helped build the whole thing, he was kind of responsible for finding the fright guys for me to cast, and I said to him, “What do I do?” He said, “Do what you do all the time. Be honest. Let’s gather all the guys and tell them.” We came home and I sat with all these real soldiers and I said, “I’ve cast this guy. I’m not sure if he is going to be in the film but we are going to work with him because he knows a lot of stuff, but he is former Taliban. He may have been in a firefight with you and he may have even killed one of your friends. How do you feel about that?” Surprisingly the answer was, “Let’s meet him. “
We went back down to Turkey, we met him and we had tea at his house and it ended up being a beautiful conversation where former enemies sat down and actually, on a professional level, had a discussion. They'd ask, “How did you do that? How did you dig those tunnels so you could put in that ID?” and he would answer. Then one of the Danes turned to me and said, “Don’t be nervous. I understand him better than I understand you. He fought the war. You just stayed home and had fun.” I was like, “Ok, got it,” and we started working. He helped us throughout the process making sure that point of view was defended as well, that we didn’t lie about their methods, and that we didn’t tell something that wasn’t true about the way that they would fight. That, of course, gave our Dane soldiers a lot of realty to channel in their acting.
Pilou Asbæk: I remember Tobias having this meeting with this refugee who had been fighting for the Taliban. He called me at night when I was Copenhagen and he said, “Pilou, would you mind acting in a film where we have real ex-Taliban and real life Danish soldiers?” I said, “I don’t know what do you think?,” and Tobias goes, “I'm not sure, but I can tell you one thing, even if the film sucks, the behind the scenes is going to be great!”
CA: There numerous films about the American experience in Afghanistan, "A War" is clearly a story of that same war from a Danish perspective. Although it might be from a specific cultural point of view the universal qualities embedded in these characters and the drama are undeniably compelling regardless of what is our personal idea of a war like this.
Tobias Lindholm: I think the only thing we can contribute in this world is honesty. For me trying to have an American point of view in a film would be impossible, but I do believe that the reason that a film like this can translate and can be seen all over the world is the fact that it’s really honest and bound to a local identity because then one can relate to that. Had we tried to change the Danish reality so that it looked a little more like an American reality we wouldn’t have gained this honesty and we would have kept the audience from connecting to the characters. I don’t like my own imagination. I’m not entertained by it. I think it’s pretty boring to sit there and make stuff up, but I love the world around me. The world that I can access is a Danish world, I’m from there, so it makes so much sense to just go in a portray that. Of course, we are proud and happy that it’s now traveling and we are fortunate enough to travel with it, show it, and meet people that have seen it and have these conversations. It makes it all worth it. We don’t have careers, we have lives and they have to make sense. It definitely makes sense to sit here and talk with you and then show an audience our little Danish film.
"A War" will opens today in La the Sundance Cinemas and Laemmle Royal and in NYC at the Landmark Sunshine Cinema and AMC Empire 25...
- 2/13/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Rough tenderness forged from a life of silent hard work and self-imposed isolation is the defining quality of Grímur Hákonarson’s
characters and the trials they endure in “Rams,” a story about brotherly love gone awry set in the vast Icelandic countryside mostly populated by highly-regarded sheep. As is often the case with Scandinavian cinema, the film’s narrative is enhanced by its clever and precise use of dark and dry humor. However, Hákonarson’s rural portrayal of a relationship in need of mending is grounded on compelling human interpersonal afflictions, which serves as a sensible vehicle for the comedy to be delivered.
During a local competition between sheep farmers, Gummi, a levelheaded man who enjoys the pleasures of solitude, notices that his brother Kiddi’s most precious ram shows signs of a scrapie, a deadly and infectious disease that can kill entire flocks. Though the simplest way to ensure the safety of everyone’s sheep would be to talk to his brother, Gummi is aware this is not a viable path because, despite living on the same property they entire lives, they haven’t spoken in several decades. The looming possibility of losing their shared livelihood will widen the emotional gap between the two, one that can only be resolved if they join forces against the mortal virus and the authorities. Authentically Icelandic in content and execution, "Rams" was Iceland's official entry in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the 88th Academy Awards.
In our recent conversation with the Cannes-winning Icelandic filmmakers, Hákonarson discussed the relationship between the location and the film's visual approach, his homelands deeply ingrained love for sheep, the emerging local film industry, and the casting process to find the right four-legged stars for "Rams."
Carlos Aguilar: Tell me about the importance of sheep in Icelandic culture. Why do you think Icelandic people relate to these animals in such endearing fashion? They seem to not only be part of the pastoral lifestyle but of their interpersonal relationships.
Grímur Hákonarson: When the first settlers came to Iceland, the Vikings who came from Norway, they brought the sheep with them. Sheep were the main livelihood throughout the centuries. They used the wool for clothing and the meat and milk to feed themselves. It was their main livelihood. We didn’t have so many cows. People ate or use every part of the sheep except the anus. The anus was the only part people didn’t utilize. It stayed that way until the 20th century. Older people lived in farms until the 19th century and then it totally changed. Now older people live in the cities. There is this historical and cultural connection between Icelandic people and sheep. The farmers take the sheep to the highlands in the spring, then they have a competition, they hang around drinking and singing songs about sheep, so there is definitely a culture around sheep. But there also seems to be some kind of unexplained spiritual connection between farmers and their sheep. Many farmers say they relate in a stronger emotional way to sheep than to cows. Numerous farmers have told me this. I know farmers that have lost their sheep because of scrapie, and even though they had horses and cows, it was somehow much more difficult for them to get over losing their sheep.
CA: What was the motivation for using a story of two estrange brothers to tackle this singular aspect about Icelandic culture? Was any part of the premise based on actual events or stories you heard from people who made a living as sheep farmers?
Grímur Hákonarson: The film is based on a true story that my father told me years ago about two brothers who lived on the same land next to each other for 40 years and didn’t speak. I thought that story was interesting. I think it’s very Icelandic and it describes us a bit as a nation being an island and being isolated. People tend to be very independent and nationalistic. I also thought these idea could be a tragicomedy. The basic idea of these brothers is funny and sad at the same time. It’s sad that they don’t speak, but it’s also unique situation. I though that was interesting, and on the other hand I also wanted to make a film about this relationship with sheep, so I combined these two ideas.
CA: Both brothers seem to very territorial and they use concrete, not always well-intentioned, acts rather than using language to express their feelings.
Grímur Hákonarson: The reason they don’t speak to each other, of course, is because they don’t need to speak to each other. They act more than they talk. They rather speak to the sheep and they become very close with them. That’s also the reason there is not a lot of dialogue in the movie. It’s told mainly through images and through actions. The story I’m telling affected the filmmaking process in a way because it creates a unique kind of atmosphere. I was trying to capture life in this part of the world, which is kind of slow and relaxed. People live alongside sheep. The visual style of the film is also a bit slow-paced. This visual style is also trying to capture this way of living and its atmosphere.
CA: Did you based these two brothers on real life characters in the story your father told you, were they the result of different traits from people you know, or were they entirely fictitious? Once you have brought them to life on paper, how challenging was it to match them with the right actors?
Grímur Hákonarson: I had some prototypes to base them on. The real life characters died in the 90s because it’s an old story. I never met them, but I had some prototypes based on a pair of brothers I know. These brothers were living together and they were good friends, but they were very different characters. One of them was an introverts and the other was more of an extrovert. One was an alcoholic and the other was more feminine and cleaned and took care of things. I used these guys as prototypes for the characters, and when I selected the actors I knew the actor a little bit and I knew they shared some personality elements with the characters. In a way they were typed-cast both mentally and physically, Sigurður Sigurjónsson who plays Gummi is a small guy, and Theodór Júlíusson, who plays Kiddi, looks more macho and is bigger. They were physically and mentally perfect for the roles. I think that’s a good thing when you are picking an actor. It's important that the actor has experienced something similar or knows something about the inner emotions of the character.
CA: Loneliness comes across as an underlying theme in "Rams." These brothers who live so close to each other are still very lonely by choice. Is this concept something that you decisively considered when creating the characters?
Grímur Hákonarson: Of course, that makes it really tragic. They actually need to talk to each other but they are so stubborn that they never call a mediator or psychiatrist. The dog is the only link between them. Of course there is loneliness. Gummi, the main character, I think he is an introvert and he enjoys his life a lot. He enjoys his life, he is not unhappy. He is quite satisfied with his life, but his older brother is not and that’s because of this division of the land. He is unhappy. The idea was that the older brother Kiddi had had some girlfriends or wives before, but they got sick of him and moved out. Gummi, on the hand, was kind of this puritan who had never had any sex in his life. This loneliness is one of the reasons we shot on CinemaScope with anamorphic lenses. Also, the framing, which is kind of wide and static, was trying to capture this loneliness. They live lonely lives.
CA: In terms of the visual style and your decisions regarding the film's cinematography, how did the landscape and the nature of the story influenced these choices?
Grímur Hákonarson: The characters are living very close to nature and they spend a lot of time on the field with the sheep, so we wanted to capture the landscape and the nature around them and to connect them to it. That’s why we shot it using anamorphic lenses. I think 10 years ago we probably would have shot it on 35mm or 16mm because it’s that kind of film. It’s about these old farmers stuck in the past and it takes place in nature, so we tried to imitate this film look with the anamorphic lenses. The look of the film it’s a bit like a Western, if it had cows perhaps they would look like cowboys. We might have been a bit inspired by a movie like “There Will Be Blood.” There are some shots and scenes in “Rams” that were shot very similarly to those in “There Will Be Blood.” It’s an Icelandic Western with sheep and guns.
CA: I'm curious to know how was the casting process and working dynamic with the sheep. They are the stars of the film. Were they difficult to work with in a film like ths in which they play a very integral part? How did you know which sheep were the right ones to appear on camera?
Grímur Hákonarson: The most important thing was to find the right sheep. We had to select the right sheep and we did sheep casting. We saw a lot of sheep because the sheep that were living on the farm were too afraid of people. They would just ran away from you. We then found these sheep that looked really pretty because they are a good breed, but they were also very calm and they ere used to people. The reason for that is that their owners treat them as pets. They talk to them and pet them like if they were dogs. Those sheep were not afraid of humans. Then we hired a professional sheep farmer to train them and to be with us on set. We rehearsed all the sheep scenes before shooting them, like when Gummi bathes the ram. We said, “Ok lets bathe this ram,” and we found out that we needed five people to hold the ram in the bathtub but we couldn’t have all of them in the shot. When we filmed I told the actor, “ Ok Sigurður they are going to hold the ram but then they are going to run away and you just have to do it yourself and we’ll see what happens.” I said, “Action,” and the guys ran away and the actor was alone trying to hold the ram - it was interesting.
Thomas Vinterberg, who made “Far from the Madding Crowd,“ said that it was a disaster to work with sheep and that it was very difficult, but I have a different opinion about that. We usually didn’t have to shoot many takes with the sheep. Usually we did less than five takes in the scenes involving sheep. The sheep were very professional. Some of the actors went to 12 or 15 takes, but the sheep usually didn’t. They were one-take sheep.
CA: When the disease, scrapie, threatens the farmers way of life in the film a lot of them contemplate leaving it all behind and moving away. Would you say this this way of living is slowly dying not only because of occurrences like this but also because it's being overpowered by modern farming practices?
Grímur Hákonarson: Today there are not many sheep farmers like these brothers who live only from their sheep. It’s becoming more like a hobby today. It’s lees of a business. It’s difficult to make a living from sheep farming. There are not so many farmers like the brothers in the film who can only live from that. They have a tough life. They are quite poor. They can’t afford much. Sheep farming in Iceland has been declining and it’s struggling. It’s always going to be there and it’s always going to be a part of our culture, but it’s becoming more and more difficult to live from it. The brothers in the film are a bit like the last Mohicans. They are the last remains of this old farming society. This disease, scrapie, has caused a lot of harm in Iceland. Sheep are becoming less abundant. About 30 years ago, in the 1980s, there were three times more sheep in Iceland.
CA: Scandinavian humor is clearly idiosyncratic and definitely dry, but you managed to blend the comedy elicited from the characters' circumstance with the emotional poignancy of the story rather organically. How did merging these two tonal elements come about when crafting the film?
Grímur Hákonarson: The basic idea about these brothers living so close together but not speaking to each other is a good premise for black comedy. It has a tragicomic element. That’s why humor is a naturally underlying element throughout the whole film because the basic idea is a bit humorous itself. Then there are some scenes that are very funny of course, and those are supposed to make you laugh. I don’t like to make films that are too serious or too heavy. I try to pick stories that have a little bit of lightness in them and in “Rams,” maybe, I managed to master this balance. Some people cry in “Rams” and it can get really emotional. It has a strong message, but it’s also entertaining. I’m inspired by filmmakers like Aki Kaurismäki, known for his Finnish dark comedies, Bent Hamer in Norway, or Swedish director Roy Andersson. I’m inspired by these Scandinavian directors. My humor is pretty dry and people who know me see Grímur’s humor in the film. If I wasn’t a humorous person I would make different films.
CA: Despite the overall comedic tone of the film, the ending is particularly moving and shows a tenderness we hadn't fully seen before in the film. Why did you feel this was the correct way to conclude this tale about two brothers whose broken relationship gets a second chance thanks to the sheep?
Grímur Hákonarson: I think the ending is symbolic. It’s about these two brothers and their relationship. It’ a very powerful ending and it’s also an open ending. It makes people think and it stays with people. I’m really happy with it. It’s also a kind of risky ending, many people who read the screenplay warned me, “Grímur, you really think it should end like this? You don’t want to explain it a bit more?” But I went for this ending. When I was shooting, making the ending work was one of the most difficult things. It was worth the risk.
CA: Do you have any brothers? If so, is anything in "Rams" specifically related to your personal relationship with your brothers or siblings and what did they think of that being depiction in the film?
Grímur Hákonarson: Yes I have a brother. We were just Skyping recently. He’s seen the film and I think he never though it was about him because we have a good relationship. There is nothing in my family like in the film. My family is quite peaceful, so the story of the brothers is not connected to me personally. What’s connected to me personally is that my mother passed away when I was writing the script. The film is dedicated to her. She grew up on a sheep farm, so I feel like “Rams” is a bit a film about my ancestors, my family, and where we come from.
CA: Considering the acclaim and attention "Rams" received abroad, how as the reaction to the film in Iceland? Was it embrace by your compatriots?
Grímur Hákonarson: It was good. We decided to go straight to cinemas after Cannes to use the attention we got there. We won the Un Certain Regard Prize, it was a big prize for the Icelandic film industry. It’s maybe the biggest prize an Icelandic film has won, so of course it was a big thing. Iceland is a small country. People were really proud of it. I think about 10% of the nation’s population saw the film.
CA: How difficult, financially and logistically, is it to make films in Iceland? It appears that in recent years there has been an explosion of talent that has made a mark in the international festival scenes. What makes these new Icelandic voices distinct from the rest of the world?
Grímur Hákonarson: It’s a small industry. The Icelandic Film Fund is not very big, so we depend on doing co-productions and getting money from abroad. Icelandic films are cheaper to make than those in the rest of Scandinavia - like three times cheaper. “Rams” was made for 1 million Euros, mostly made up of Icelandic money. We got maybe 15% of the money from the Danish Film Fund. We don’t make so many movies so we have to be practical and we have to make contemporary simple stories. We can’t really make an expensive sci-fi film or large period movies in Icelandic. Maybe it’s a bit sad that we haven’t. I think it would be nice to do a costume drama set in the 30s, but it’s not possible to do that in Iceland.
What connect these new directors from Iceland like me, Dagur Kári, Rúnar Rúnarsson, or Benedikt Erlingsson, is that we are making contemporary, humanistic, and simple stories. We are not trying to hunt Hollywood. We are not trying to make blockbusters. Maybe because we don’t have so much money we have to make simple stories and we make films taken from Icelandic reality. Maybe that’s the right recipe for our films. Maybe that’s the reason they are special. Maybe that’s the reason people want to see them.
"Rams" is currently playing in La at the Laemmle Royal and in NYC at the Film Forum and Lincoln Plaza Cinemas...
characters and the trials they endure in “Rams,” a story about brotherly love gone awry set in the vast Icelandic countryside mostly populated by highly-regarded sheep. As is often the case with Scandinavian cinema, the film’s narrative is enhanced by its clever and precise use of dark and dry humor. However, Hákonarson’s rural portrayal of a relationship in need of mending is grounded on compelling human interpersonal afflictions, which serves as a sensible vehicle for the comedy to be delivered.
During a local competition between sheep farmers, Gummi, a levelheaded man who enjoys the pleasures of solitude, notices that his brother Kiddi’s most precious ram shows signs of a scrapie, a deadly and infectious disease that can kill entire flocks. Though the simplest way to ensure the safety of everyone’s sheep would be to talk to his brother, Gummi is aware this is not a viable path because, despite living on the same property they entire lives, they haven’t spoken in several decades. The looming possibility of losing their shared livelihood will widen the emotional gap between the two, one that can only be resolved if they join forces against the mortal virus and the authorities. Authentically Icelandic in content and execution, "Rams" was Iceland's official entry in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the 88th Academy Awards.
In our recent conversation with the Cannes-winning Icelandic filmmakers, Hákonarson discussed the relationship between the location and the film's visual approach, his homelands deeply ingrained love for sheep, the emerging local film industry, and the casting process to find the right four-legged stars for "Rams."
Carlos Aguilar: Tell me about the importance of sheep in Icelandic culture. Why do you think Icelandic people relate to these animals in such endearing fashion? They seem to not only be part of the pastoral lifestyle but of their interpersonal relationships.
Grímur Hákonarson: When the first settlers came to Iceland, the Vikings who came from Norway, they brought the sheep with them. Sheep were the main livelihood throughout the centuries. They used the wool for clothing and the meat and milk to feed themselves. It was their main livelihood. We didn’t have so many cows. People ate or use every part of the sheep except the anus. The anus was the only part people didn’t utilize. It stayed that way until the 20th century. Older people lived in farms until the 19th century and then it totally changed. Now older people live in the cities. There is this historical and cultural connection between Icelandic people and sheep. The farmers take the sheep to the highlands in the spring, then they have a competition, they hang around drinking and singing songs about sheep, so there is definitely a culture around sheep. But there also seems to be some kind of unexplained spiritual connection between farmers and their sheep. Many farmers say they relate in a stronger emotional way to sheep than to cows. Numerous farmers have told me this. I know farmers that have lost their sheep because of scrapie, and even though they had horses and cows, it was somehow much more difficult for them to get over losing their sheep.
CA: What was the motivation for using a story of two estrange brothers to tackle this singular aspect about Icelandic culture? Was any part of the premise based on actual events or stories you heard from people who made a living as sheep farmers?
Grímur Hákonarson: The film is based on a true story that my father told me years ago about two brothers who lived on the same land next to each other for 40 years and didn’t speak. I thought that story was interesting. I think it’s very Icelandic and it describes us a bit as a nation being an island and being isolated. People tend to be very independent and nationalistic. I also thought these idea could be a tragicomedy. The basic idea of these brothers is funny and sad at the same time. It’s sad that they don’t speak, but it’s also unique situation. I though that was interesting, and on the other hand I also wanted to make a film about this relationship with sheep, so I combined these two ideas.
CA: Both brothers seem to very territorial and they use concrete, not always well-intentioned, acts rather than using language to express their feelings.
Grímur Hákonarson: The reason they don’t speak to each other, of course, is because they don’t need to speak to each other. They act more than they talk. They rather speak to the sheep and they become very close with them. That’s also the reason there is not a lot of dialogue in the movie. It’s told mainly through images and through actions. The story I’m telling affected the filmmaking process in a way because it creates a unique kind of atmosphere. I was trying to capture life in this part of the world, which is kind of slow and relaxed. People live alongside sheep. The visual style of the film is also a bit slow-paced. This visual style is also trying to capture this way of living and its atmosphere.
CA: Did you based these two brothers on real life characters in the story your father told you, were they the result of different traits from people you know, or were they entirely fictitious? Once you have brought them to life on paper, how challenging was it to match them with the right actors?
Grímur Hákonarson: I had some prototypes to base them on. The real life characters died in the 90s because it’s an old story. I never met them, but I had some prototypes based on a pair of brothers I know. These brothers were living together and they were good friends, but they were very different characters. One of them was an introverts and the other was more of an extrovert. One was an alcoholic and the other was more feminine and cleaned and took care of things. I used these guys as prototypes for the characters, and when I selected the actors I knew the actor a little bit and I knew they shared some personality elements with the characters. In a way they were typed-cast both mentally and physically, Sigurður Sigurjónsson who plays Gummi is a small guy, and Theodór Júlíusson, who plays Kiddi, looks more macho and is bigger. They were physically and mentally perfect for the roles. I think that’s a good thing when you are picking an actor. It's important that the actor has experienced something similar or knows something about the inner emotions of the character.
CA: Loneliness comes across as an underlying theme in "Rams." These brothers who live so close to each other are still very lonely by choice. Is this concept something that you decisively considered when creating the characters?
Grímur Hákonarson: Of course, that makes it really tragic. They actually need to talk to each other but they are so stubborn that they never call a mediator or psychiatrist. The dog is the only link between them. Of course there is loneliness. Gummi, the main character, I think he is an introvert and he enjoys his life a lot. He enjoys his life, he is not unhappy. He is quite satisfied with his life, but his older brother is not and that’s because of this division of the land. He is unhappy. The idea was that the older brother Kiddi had had some girlfriends or wives before, but they got sick of him and moved out. Gummi, on the hand, was kind of this puritan who had never had any sex in his life. This loneliness is one of the reasons we shot on CinemaScope with anamorphic lenses. Also, the framing, which is kind of wide and static, was trying to capture this loneliness. They live lonely lives.
CA: In terms of the visual style and your decisions regarding the film's cinematography, how did the landscape and the nature of the story influenced these choices?
Grímur Hákonarson: The characters are living very close to nature and they spend a lot of time on the field with the sheep, so we wanted to capture the landscape and the nature around them and to connect them to it. That’s why we shot it using anamorphic lenses. I think 10 years ago we probably would have shot it on 35mm or 16mm because it’s that kind of film. It’s about these old farmers stuck in the past and it takes place in nature, so we tried to imitate this film look with the anamorphic lenses. The look of the film it’s a bit like a Western, if it had cows perhaps they would look like cowboys. We might have been a bit inspired by a movie like “There Will Be Blood.” There are some shots and scenes in “Rams” that were shot very similarly to those in “There Will Be Blood.” It’s an Icelandic Western with sheep and guns.
CA: I'm curious to know how was the casting process and working dynamic with the sheep. They are the stars of the film. Were they difficult to work with in a film like ths in which they play a very integral part? How did you know which sheep were the right ones to appear on camera?
Grímur Hákonarson: The most important thing was to find the right sheep. We had to select the right sheep and we did sheep casting. We saw a lot of sheep because the sheep that were living on the farm were too afraid of people. They would just ran away from you. We then found these sheep that looked really pretty because they are a good breed, but they were also very calm and they ere used to people. The reason for that is that their owners treat them as pets. They talk to them and pet them like if they were dogs. Those sheep were not afraid of humans. Then we hired a professional sheep farmer to train them and to be with us on set. We rehearsed all the sheep scenes before shooting them, like when Gummi bathes the ram. We said, “Ok lets bathe this ram,” and we found out that we needed five people to hold the ram in the bathtub but we couldn’t have all of them in the shot. When we filmed I told the actor, “ Ok Sigurður they are going to hold the ram but then they are going to run away and you just have to do it yourself and we’ll see what happens.” I said, “Action,” and the guys ran away and the actor was alone trying to hold the ram - it was interesting.
Thomas Vinterberg, who made “Far from the Madding Crowd,“ said that it was a disaster to work with sheep and that it was very difficult, but I have a different opinion about that. We usually didn’t have to shoot many takes with the sheep. Usually we did less than five takes in the scenes involving sheep. The sheep were very professional. Some of the actors went to 12 or 15 takes, but the sheep usually didn’t. They were one-take sheep.
CA: When the disease, scrapie, threatens the farmers way of life in the film a lot of them contemplate leaving it all behind and moving away. Would you say this this way of living is slowly dying not only because of occurrences like this but also because it's being overpowered by modern farming practices?
Grímur Hákonarson: Today there are not many sheep farmers like these brothers who live only from their sheep. It’s becoming more like a hobby today. It’s lees of a business. It’s difficult to make a living from sheep farming. There are not so many farmers like the brothers in the film who can only live from that. They have a tough life. They are quite poor. They can’t afford much. Sheep farming in Iceland has been declining and it’s struggling. It’s always going to be there and it’s always going to be a part of our culture, but it’s becoming more and more difficult to live from it. The brothers in the film are a bit like the last Mohicans. They are the last remains of this old farming society. This disease, scrapie, has caused a lot of harm in Iceland. Sheep are becoming less abundant. About 30 years ago, in the 1980s, there were three times more sheep in Iceland.
CA: Scandinavian humor is clearly idiosyncratic and definitely dry, but you managed to blend the comedy elicited from the characters' circumstance with the emotional poignancy of the story rather organically. How did merging these two tonal elements come about when crafting the film?
Grímur Hákonarson: The basic idea about these brothers living so close together but not speaking to each other is a good premise for black comedy. It has a tragicomic element. That’s why humor is a naturally underlying element throughout the whole film because the basic idea is a bit humorous itself. Then there are some scenes that are very funny of course, and those are supposed to make you laugh. I don’t like to make films that are too serious or too heavy. I try to pick stories that have a little bit of lightness in them and in “Rams,” maybe, I managed to master this balance. Some people cry in “Rams” and it can get really emotional. It has a strong message, but it’s also entertaining. I’m inspired by filmmakers like Aki Kaurismäki, known for his Finnish dark comedies, Bent Hamer in Norway, or Swedish director Roy Andersson. I’m inspired by these Scandinavian directors. My humor is pretty dry and people who know me see Grímur’s humor in the film. If I wasn’t a humorous person I would make different films.
CA: Despite the overall comedic tone of the film, the ending is particularly moving and shows a tenderness we hadn't fully seen before in the film. Why did you feel this was the correct way to conclude this tale about two brothers whose broken relationship gets a second chance thanks to the sheep?
Grímur Hákonarson: I think the ending is symbolic. It’s about these two brothers and their relationship. It’ a very powerful ending and it’s also an open ending. It makes people think and it stays with people. I’m really happy with it. It’s also a kind of risky ending, many people who read the screenplay warned me, “Grímur, you really think it should end like this? You don’t want to explain it a bit more?” But I went for this ending. When I was shooting, making the ending work was one of the most difficult things. It was worth the risk.
CA: Do you have any brothers? If so, is anything in "Rams" specifically related to your personal relationship with your brothers or siblings and what did they think of that being depiction in the film?
Grímur Hákonarson: Yes I have a brother. We were just Skyping recently. He’s seen the film and I think he never though it was about him because we have a good relationship. There is nothing in my family like in the film. My family is quite peaceful, so the story of the brothers is not connected to me personally. What’s connected to me personally is that my mother passed away when I was writing the script. The film is dedicated to her. She grew up on a sheep farm, so I feel like “Rams” is a bit a film about my ancestors, my family, and where we come from.
CA: Considering the acclaim and attention "Rams" received abroad, how as the reaction to the film in Iceland? Was it embrace by your compatriots?
Grímur Hákonarson: It was good. We decided to go straight to cinemas after Cannes to use the attention we got there. We won the Un Certain Regard Prize, it was a big prize for the Icelandic film industry. It’s maybe the biggest prize an Icelandic film has won, so of course it was a big thing. Iceland is a small country. People were really proud of it. I think about 10% of the nation’s population saw the film.
CA: How difficult, financially and logistically, is it to make films in Iceland? It appears that in recent years there has been an explosion of talent that has made a mark in the international festival scenes. What makes these new Icelandic voices distinct from the rest of the world?
Grímur Hákonarson: It’s a small industry. The Icelandic Film Fund is not very big, so we depend on doing co-productions and getting money from abroad. Icelandic films are cheaper to make than those in the rest of Scandinavia - like three times cheaper. “Rams” was made for 1 million Euros, mostly made up of Icelandic money. We got maybe 15% of the money from the Danish Film Fund. We don’t make so many movies so we have to be practical and we have to make contemporary simple stories. We can’t really make an expensive sci-fi film or large period movies in Icelandic. Maybe it’s a bit sad that we haven’t. I think it would be nice to do a costume drama set in the 30s, but it’s not possible to do that in Iceland.
What connect these new directors from Iceland like me, Dagur Kári, Rúnar Rúnarsson, or Benedikt Erlingsson, is that we are making contemporary, humanistic, and simple stories. We are not trying to hunt Hollywood. We are not trying to make blockbusters. Maybe because we don’t have so much money we have to make simple stories and we make films taken from Icelandic reality. Maybe that’s the right recipe for our films. Maybe that’s the reason they are special. Maybe that’s the reason people want to see them.
"Rams" is currently playing in La at the Laemmle Royal and in NYC at the Film Forum and Lincoln Plaza Cinemas...
- 2/5/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Say what you will about AMPAS, the Academy Award nomination process, or the lack of minority representation in the acting categories, but when it comes to the branch that selects the Best Animated Feature and Best Animated Short Film nominees, one has to agree they are by far the group that is most willing to look outside what studios are producing and truly champion the quality of the craft ignoring lavish campaigns for true artistry.
Read More: 6 International and Independent 2D-Animated Features in the Oscar Race
This year, while most experts and pundits had their predictions fixated on films such as “The Peanuts Movie, “a well-liked homage to Schultz’ characters, or Pixar’s less prodigious candidate “The Good Dinosaur,” members of the animation committee seemed to ignore the speculation and in a highly unexpected move bestowed the coveted recognition on two five films that reflect the eclectic and broad spectrum of the medium. Curiously enough, the popular choice, “Inside Out,” is in the outlier here, because it’s the only CG film nominated in the category. The other four finalists are handcrafted projects created outside the box-office smashing and toy-selling strategies of large corporations.
One is a stop-motion romance aimed at mature audiences; there is also a critically acclaimed Aardman Studios production inspired by one of its most beloved characters, and two are hand-drawn international features prompted to this level of exposure solely by their undeniable craftsmanship and compelling visual storytelling. These last two candidates couldn’t be more different in stylistic approach and cultural intricacies; however, the fact that they both belong to New York-based independent distributor Gkids’ catalog, places them within an elite collection of animated gems known for their unconventional excellence.
Read More: Review: Why Alê Abreu's Sublime 'Boy and the World' is the Best Animated Film of the Year
On January 14th as the as the nominees in the Best Animated Feature category at the 88th Academy Award were revealed, the most shocking appearance, at least for those not familiar with the title, was that of a completely independent and visionary work from Brazil. Alê Abreu‘s mesmerizing musical extravaganza “Boy and the World” has been profoundly adored by those who have given a chance from the very beginning, but that doesn’t always translate into the mass appreciation - much less into Oscar love. Its nomination represents a triumph for uncompromising artists and in particular for Latin American animation. “Boy and the World” is the region’s first nominee and undoubtedly the most achieved animated project ever produced there.
Abreu’s film is utterly unforgettable and can’t fully be compared to anything previously done in the medium. Such colorful singularity and its endearingly transcendent messages certainly stroke a chord with voters. Nostalgic childhood memories, social justice concerns, artistic rebellion against oppression, and a myriad of other poignant ideas expressed nonverbally with multiple dynamic techniques and a vivid score resonated far beyond the reach of cocktail parties. “Boy and the World” is animation in its purest, most inspired and most heartfelt form. Is art directly from the artist hand, and that’s invaluable.
Read More: How "Boy and the World" Director Alê Abreu Handcrafted His Heartfelt & Dazzling Animated Masterpiece
Moved by the unexpected nomination director Alê Abreu said, “I am so honored and happy to have our film recognized by the Academy, I have no words. Thank you! It was a great year for animation around the globe, and the Academy's continued recognition of our work will continue to inspire."
That morning, as Guillermo Del Toro read the names of the chosen films, another Gkids nominee was announced to most people’s disbelief. Ghibli is no stranger the Oscar race, but their latest and, for the time being, final film from the legendary Japanese studio, “When Marnie Was There,” opened back in May and seemed to have lost traction as larger productions appeared to dominate not only the box-office but also the collective consciousness of what films would be recognized by the Academy. But one should never ignore Ghibli’s magical way to connect emotionally with audiences and the painstaking effort that takes to create such beautifully drawn treasures. The inclusion of Hiromasa Yonebayashi’s touching coming-of-age story based on a British novel by the same name, rounds up one of the strongest and most distinct group of nominees to have competed for the Best Animated Feature Academy Award.
Ead More: Review: Wondrous 'When Marnie Was There' is One of Ghibli's Most Profoundly Moving Works
Humbled and grateful for the mention Yonebayashi noted, "I am delighted and honored that 'When Marnie Was There' has been selected by the Academy as a nominee for 'Best Animated Film' of 2015. The selection of the film truly is a tribute to the entire production staff of the film, to whom I express my sincere appreciation. I will continue to endeavor to make films that will be seen and enjoyed by many people. Thank you very much for this honor."
Since 2010 when it earned its first nomination for Tomm Moore’s “The Secret of Kells,” Gkids has collected a total of eight nominations making it a powerhouse in the category - one that pundits should stop underestimating. Gkids’ first double nomination came in 2012 with two very different offers, the moody, Hitchcockian “A Cat in Paris” and the Cuba-set Spanish production “Chico & Rita,“ which is one of the few adult-oriented animated features to have ever been nominated. With the adorable and delicately executed “Ernest & Celestine” Gkids earned its 4th nomination in 2014.
Read More: Why 'Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet' is a Cinematic Out-Of-Body Experience Brimming with Animated Wisdom
Last year’s frontrunner “The Lego Movie” was shut out, and while one can argue that the movie deserved to be included among that year’s achievements in the medium, when compared to what Moore and Isao Takahata did in their respective hand-drawn masterpieces “Song of the Sea” and the “The Tale of the Princess Kaguya,” it’s simply evident that the best films did in fact make the nominees list. the Princess Kaguya,” it’s simply evident that the best films did in fact make the nominees list. What’s unacceptable, however, is that a company with such a marvelous track record as Gkids is often only considered to be a contender at the nominations stage and has not won the award with any of their superb offers. Once winners reflect the diversity of the nominees in the category then there will finally be a level playing field.
Unfortunately, it’s true that when compared based on their domestic financial success Gkids films are miles away from reaching the large audiences that Pixar and DreamWorks do. Such fact is certainly not based on the achievements of their filmmakers, but on the system with few spaces for alternative options. What the Oscar nominations can do for films like "Boy and the World" and "When Marnie Was There" is to encourage those unaware of their existence to seek them out and allow themselves an experience that could not be provided under the pressures of a studio. At the same time, it proves that, occasionally and as it should be, making a fantastic film is enough to break through.
Read More: Carlos Aguilar's Best Films of 2015 (A Very Personal List)
For 2016, the independent company already has at least two films lined up to amuse their devout following and hopefully expose new audiences to the joys of animation from a global perspective. With French features “April and the Extraordinary World” and “Phantom Boy,” and the first-ever U.S. theatrical release of Takahata’s “Only Yesterday” Gkids will remain at the forefront of what global animation can be outside the multiplex.
Read More: 6 International and Independent 2D-Animated Features in the Oscar Race
This year, while most experts and pundits had their predictions fixated on films such as “The Peanuts Movie, “a well-liked homage to Schultz’ characters, or Pixar’s less prodigious candidate “The Good Dinosaur,” members of the animation committee seemed to ignore the speculation and in a highly unexpected move bestowed the coveted recognition on two five films that reflect the eclectic and broad spectrum of the medium. Curiously enough, the popular choice, “Inside Out,” is in the outlier here, because it’s the only CG film nominated in the category. The other four finalists are handcrafted projects created outside the box-office smashing and toy-selling strategies of large corporations.
One is a stop-motion romance aimed at mature audiences; there is also a critically acclaimed Aardman Studios production inspired by one of its most beloved characters, and two are hand-drawn international features prompted to this level of exposure solely by their undeniable craftsmanship and compelling visual storytelling. These last two candidates couldn’t be more different in stylistic approach and cultural intricacies; however, the fact that they both belong to New York-based independent distributor Gkids’ catalog, places them within an elite collection of animated gems known for their unconventional excellence.
Read More: Review: Why Alê Abreu's Sublime 'Boy and the World' is the Best Animated Film of the Year
On January 14th as the as the nominees in the Best Animated Feature category at the 88th Academy Award were revealed, the most shocking appearance, at least for those not familiar with the title, was that of a completely independent and visionary work from Brazil. Alê Abreu‘s mesmerizing musical extravaganza “Boy and the World” has been profoundly adored by those who have given a chance from the very beginning, but that doesn’t always translate into the mass appreciation - much less into Oscar love. Its nomination represents a triumph for uncompromising artists and in particular for Latin American animation. “Boy and the World” is the region’s first nominee and undoubtedly the most achieved animated project ever produced there.
Abreu’s film is utterly unforgettable and can’t fully be compared to anything previously done in the medium. Such colorful singularity and its endearingly transcendent messages certainly stroke a chord with voters. Nostalgic childhood memories, social justice concerns, artistic rebellion against oppression, and a myriad of other poignant ideas expressed nonverbally with multiple dynamic techniques and a vivid score resonated far beyond the reach of cocktail parties. “Boy and the World” is animation in its purest, most inspired and most heartfelt form. Is art directly from the artist hand, and that’s invaluable.
Read More: How "Boy and the World" Director Alê Abreu Handcrafted His Heartfelt & Dazzling Animated Masterpiece
Moved by the unexpected nomination director Alê Abreu said, “I am so honored and happy to have our film recognized by the Academy, I have no words. Thank you! It was a great year for animation around the globe, and the Academy's continued recognition of our work will continue to inspire."
That morning, as Guillermo Del Toro read the names of the chosen films, another Gkids nominee was announced to most people’s disbelief. Ghibli is no stranger the Oscar race, but their latest and, for the time being, final film from the legendary Japanese studio, “When Marnie Was There,” opened back in May and seemed to have lost traction as larger productions appeared to dominate not only the box-office but also the collective consciousness of what films would be recognized by the Academy. But one should never ignore Ghibli’s magical way to connect emotionally with audiences and the painstaking effort that takes to create such beautifully drawn treasures. The inclusion of Hiromasa Yonebayashi’s touching coming-of-age story based on a British novel by the same name, rounds up one of the strongest and most distinct group of nominees to have competed for the Best Animated Feature Academy Award.
Ead More: Review: Wondrous 'When Marnie Was There' is One of Ghibli's Most Profoundly Moving Works
Humbled and grateful for the mention Yonebayashi noted, "I am delighted and honored that 'When Marnie Was There' has been selected by the Academy as a nominee for 'Best Animated Film' of 2015. The selection of the film truly is a tribute to the entire production staff of the film, to whom I express my sincere appreciation. I will continue to endeavor to make films that will be seen and enjoyed by many people. Thank you very much for this honor."
Since 2010 when it earned its first nomination for Tomm Moore’s “The Secret of Kells,” Gkids has collected a total of eight nominations making it a powerhouse in the category - one that pundits should stop underestimating. Gkids’ first double nomination came in 2012 with two very different offers, the moody, Hitchcockian “A Cat in Paris” and the Cuba-set Spanish production “Chico & Rita,“ which is one of the few adult-oriented animated features to have ever been nominated. With the adorable and delicately executed “Ernest & Celestine” Gkids earned its 4th nomination in 2014.
Read More: Why 'Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet' is a Cinematic Out-Of-Body Experience Brimming with Animated Wisdom
Last year’s frontrunner “The Lego Movie” was shut out, and while one can argue that the movie deserved to be included among that year’s achievements in the medium, when compared to what Moore and Isao Takahata did in their respective hand-drawn masterpieces “Song of the Sea” and the “The Tale of the Princess Kaguya,” it’s simply evident that the best films did in fact make the nominees list. the Princess Kaguya,” it’s simply evident that the best films did in fact make the nominees list. What’s unacceptable, however, is that a company with such a marvelous track record as Gkids is often only considered to be a contender at the nominations stage and has not won the award with any of their superb offers. Once winners reflect the diversity of the nominees in the category then there will finally be a level playing field.
Unfortunately, it’s true that when compared based on their domestic financial success Gkids films are miles away from reaching the large audiences that Pixar and DreamWorks do. Such fact is certainly not based on the achievements of their filmmakers, but on the system with few spaces for alternative options. What the Oscar nominations can do for films like "Boy and the World" and "When Marnie Was There" is to encourage those unaware of their existence to seek them out and allow themselves an experience that could not be provided under the pressures of a studio. At the same time, it proves that, occasionally and as it should be, making a fantastic film is enough to break through.
Read More: Carlos Aguilar's Best Films of 2015 (A Very Personal List)
For 2016, the independent company already has at least two films lined up to amuse their devout following and hopefully expose new audiences to the joys of animation from a global perspective. With French features “April and the Extraordinary World” and “Phantom Boy,” and the first-ever U.S. theatrical release of Takahata’s “Only Yesterday” Gkids will remain at the forefront of what global animation can be outside the multiplex.
- 1/21/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
'The Boy and the Beast' Dir. Mamoru Hosoda on Shared Fatherhood & Why His Films Deal with Two Worlds
Populated by fantastical creatures that stem from the inexhaustible imagination of one of the most important figures in Japanese animation today, the realms depicted in Mamoru Hosoda’s films might visually appear to be removed from our world by design; however, the profoundly wise artist makes use of their absorbing façade to insightfully address some of the most emotionally relevant human tribulations.
Constantly setting his tales of unconventional families and young people at a crossroads in two parallel worlds, Hosoda emphasize our longing for significance, connection and belonging by observing them from the vantage point of an alternate reality. For his latest epic animated saga, “The Boy and the Beast,” the seasoned director, who has worked in films based on classic anime series such as Dragon Ball, Digimon, and Sailor Moon, concentrates on fatherhood and the relationship between a boy and the multiple role models he encounters along the unstable road from angry childhood to young manhood.
Though he is often referred to as Hayao Miyazaki’s successor (an artist whom he does credit as one of the catalysts that sparked his love for animation), Hosoda’s works feature they very own mythologies, thematic concerns and stylistic particularities that differ from the signature magical characteristics associated with Ghibli. In Hosoda’s stories the concept of identity in relationship to parenthood is a striking force that drives the narrative. His characters yearn to find meaning in their origin or find an outside source that can provide a sense of community. Clearly, the clash between the real and the extraordinary transform his impressively intimate premises into mesmerizing animated visions, but their essence remains grounded on Hosoda’s compassionate and inspirational view of mankind.
His most recent marvel is a martial arts adventure ruled by its very own mythology, yet grounded on his usual universal thematic elements. Following his mother’s death, Ren runs away from home and accidentally finds his way into Jutengai, a kingdom inhabited by beasts. Reluctantly, young Ren is taken in by Kumatetsu, a bear-like brute desperate to train a disciple in order to be selected as the realm’s new leader. Despite countless arguments and numerous rough patches, a profound bond that transcends the divide between their worlds forms between the two lonely fighters.
Mr. Hosoda opened up about his marked interest in identities composed of what’s on the surface and what lies beneath, the concept of shared fatherhood, and the films that inspired him to work in this medium.
"The Boy and the Beast" is nominated for the Best Animated Feature-Independent Annie Award and will be released theatrically in the spring by Funimation
Carlos Aguilar: One recurrent subject in your films is the battle between two worlds, our human world and some sort of alternate reality, why does this interest you in particular? The non-human worlds in your films, including that in “The Boy and the Beast,” teach us a lot about human emotions.
Mamoru Hosoda: The depiction of two worlds is directly connected to the idea of identity. For example, in "Wolf Children," the difference in the ways Yuki and Ame live constitutes two worlds, and the "country" and the "city" are also two different worlds. And I’m not saying that one of these two worlds is good, and one is bad, either. On the contrary, I think that they are both right. In the case of "Digimon," you have analog and digital; it's not that either one is greater than the other, it's that by having both halves, you get one single world.
Usually, people tend to see someone on the surface and think that that's who that person is. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who think that what is on the outside is a complete falsehood, and that their true self is what's on the inside; their public face is a fabrication, and what they really feel is actually who they are. However, I think both of those approaches are mistaken. I think the inner and outer aspects of the self together make one person. People who are open about their own faults, especially, often want to ferret out “inner feelings” beneath the surface and expose any falsehood, and they think that it's in their inner feelings that the truth lies. But I don't think that's the truth. I think that this one-or-the-other-is-right way of thinking is nonsense. I think that it takes both halves to make a single whole.
It is for that reason that I always have two different components in my movies. I also don't say which one of those two is better. People have two sides, and a person first becomes appealing when you discover both of those sides--and worlds work exactly the same way. Shibuya works the same way. I believe it's having both Shibuya and the Jutengai that makes the film’s setting an interesting one.
Another element that appears often in your films is the relationship between parents and children. Can you talk about why this topic is important to you as an artist?
Mamoru Hosoda: I fear that the image of the family that is necessary to live in these times, as well as the times to come, is in a very uncertain state. We are on the verge of losing the traditional idea of the family, especially in Japan, where the declining birth rate shows no signs of stopping. This is precisely why I think we should consider with a sense of urgency what the new image of “family” should be like, and not fall into the nostalgism that days gone by were just better.
In “The Boy and the Beast” Ren has a two father figures. His biological father and Kumatetsu, what do you think is the role of each of them in his life? Fatherhood appears to be very important in your film.
Mamoru Hosoda: In this movie, representing fathers, there is the "Kumatetsu and Kyuta" thread and the "biological father and Ren" thread. Outside of those, you also have "Hyakushubo & Tatara and Kyuta" thread, and the "Kaede and Ren" thread running through it as well. There is also the "Iozen and Ichirohiko" thread, the "Iozen and Jiromaru" thread, and so on. That might even go for Kaede and her father, as well. In any case, they are all fatherhood concepts, with different types of father-child relationships appearing, and each one of them is slightly different.
It's a seemingly simple story--and this also goes for the traditional model of friction and tension between father and child--but ours is not an age which has an ideal model for parent-child relationships, which we then go about trying to adhere to.
Rather, I was deliberately trying to express how possible it might be for unmarried men and adults not blessed with biological children to become "fathers of choice." In an old-fashioned, traditional world, this might not matter. But I think that it's probably going to become terribly relevant as time goes on. Anyone could end up like Tatara or Hyakushubo, in that they could be put in the role of Hyakushubo yelling at Kyuta, or Tatara holding him in tears. Maybe everyone will eventually get a role to play doing these things that parents do with children. By doing so, they might experience the fulfillment of being a parent. That’s why, with those things in mind, I wanted to present one possible form for the parent-child relationship to take in the years to come.
Also, the reason why I wanted to present a parent and child in this film, although in a pseudo-family, was in order to depict growth. I wanted to put them forward to show that process. For example, if you were to ask how much Kumatetsu discernibly grew during this movie, who can quantify that? Kyuta did not completely grow into a young man, either. I do think, however, that the relationship between Kumatetsu and Kyuta did change dramatically.
As to whether Kumatetsu is the ideal father, no, he might not be the ideal. That goes for Kyuta, too—I don’t map ideals onto the individual characters. But I did relay my ideals through the relationship fostered by the two of them. At first, they were on edge with each other, but in the end, the bond between them is strong enough to become tangible and visible. I portrayed it in an interpersonal relationship, as a type of yearning admiration.
Your films deal with teenagers or young people coming to terms with who they are, their purpose, and their origins. Why do you think you are so attracted to stories about people at this particular stage in their lives?
Mamoru Hosoda: I think of movies as depicting moments of change. Change is growth, and that change also possesses the same dynamism that movies do. The most shining example of the dynamism of that change is children. This is exactly why I empathize with and wish to support those who have that kind of independence and resolve, who carve out their own futures. It is the solidarity between those individuals that I portray in movies, and I’d like us all to share that solidarity and head into the future with them.
Do you think that working on films based on anime series like “Dragon Ball,” “Sailor Moon,” or “Digimon,” has influenced the type of stories you like to tell?
Mamoru Hosoda: I learned a lot of things from the history and context provided by the personal jumping-off point that Toei Doga (now Toei Animation) was for me. For example, I learned from Shigeyasu Yamauchi, director of many "Dragon Ball" movies, what movies and being a director consisted of, and he taught me uncompromising strength for the sake of the product.
Visually Jutengai, the alternative world in “The Boy and the Beast,” seems more mythological instead of futuristic like the world in “Summer Wars.” What was the visual inspiration or style you wanted to use in this particular film for both the world and the characters?
Mamoru Hosoda: I was influenced by the culture and history of Japan. When I thought about untangling our history anew from the westernization of Japan, these were the ideas that arose from it.
Tell me about designing the creatures in the beast world. Every single one of them blends human and animal qualities.
Mamoru Hosoda: It struck me that when we read picture books to children, we parents, and people as a whole, do not appear in them very much, and that they are more constructed to be a world of children and animals. That got me thinking that before children live in the world of their parents and other people, they must learn the principles, truths, and important things they need to live in the world of animals, so I created the characters with an animal motif.
Do you animate your films yourself? What do you think is special or unique about hand-drawn animation in comparison to films made entirely using CGI?
Mamoru Hosoda: I do not draw any of the pictures for my movies as an animator. The reason for that is that I am terribly lucky to have many staff members who I look up to, and who are overflowing with talent, that work with me on each project.
As far as CGI and hand-drawn animation, I consider them both nothing more than tools for drawing pictures, the same as crayons or oils. Which is why, to me, the most important thing is what it is you are drawing, and in the themes that I depict, I think hand-drawing is the most effective.
What’s your favorite part about the process of creating a new film? Is it writing the story or bringing these worlds to life with through animation? Why?
Mamoru Hosoda: The process of producing a project is one long string of delight and anxiety, but I think the real thrill of animation would have to be drawing the pictures.
Tell me about creating Kumatetsu. He is a great character. He is at once funny, stubborn, but with a big heart underneath. Where did he come from?
Mamoru Hosoda: I wanted to ponder, "What is the significance of a father's existence to children?" Digging back through the events of the past, I found that there have been all sorts of people who had a greater effect on us than our own fathers. Perhaps an adult that we wanted to become like, or someone with such a strong presence that even now, they remain in our hearts—someone who might be referred to as a "father of choice." I think that sooner or later, everyone has someone like this. I, too, realize that there have been many people, both famous and unknown, who have been like that to me, and have had a greater influence on me growing up than my own father. The Kumatetsu-as-father-figure that we have here is not about him being someone who takes the place of a biological father. It’s more about there being multiple people out there in society who fill a fatherly role, and it is these people who come together to raise a child.
I imagine men of all different types gathering together to watch over a child. What's more, not all of them are necessarily going to be older adults. Like when you enter middle school, and you have classmates who are surprisingly well-versed in western music, or know a lot about railroads. There are fellow students who, despite being the same age, know a lot more about the world than you do, and are nice enough to teach you about this and that without you even having to ask them. In other words, though classmates, they also sufficiently fulfill a fatherly role.
So I think that for a child, there are many different patterns to what an essential father figure is. What becomes interesting when you think about it that way is that one may not be able to fulfill a fatherly role with one's own child, but on the other hand, and this goes for me as well, one might still be a "father of choice" to someone else out there in the world. Fatherhood is something that can be shared worldwide. Meaning that in terms of the substance of a father’s role, perhaps we are all pseudo-fathers. It is out of that idea that Kumatestsu came about.
Animation is a boundless medium. What attracted you to it in the first place? Why do you think it’s the best way for you to tell your stories?
Mamoru Hosoda: The impetus for me to get into the world of animated movies was seeing two movies in the summer of 1979. One of them was the Rintaro-directed "Galaxy Express 999," and the other was the Hayao Miyazaki-directed "Lupin the Third: The Castle of Cagliostro." I want to take themes that are shared throughout the world, express them through animation, and make movies from them. And with the assumption that animation is a medium for children, I want to make movies that reaffirm the future, and let them know that this world is a world worth living in.
Why did you feel Ren had to have two names, Ren in the human world and Kyuta in the world of beasts?
Mamoru Hosoda: I thought it would be necessary in order to express the identity uncertainty and tension of wondering who he really was. I wrote the story with the hope that those children who were lost in their own lives would find some kind of answer in this movie, and be able to share in it as well.
Ren reminds me of one of your characters in “Wolf Children,” are there any conscious or unconscious relationships between the characters in your films?
Mamoru Hosoda: Kyuta's growth is a growth of the heart, where he deals successfully with the question of his identity, develops independence and resolve, and proactively carves out his own life for himself, so you could say that his character has that in common with the main characters of my other films.
After the success of “The Boy and the Beast” in Japan, are you working on a anew film? Or are there any ideas that you want to explore in your next project?
Mamoru Hosoda: I really am grateful to have so many people watch, and to be given the chance to create my next projects. I want to once again tackle the boundless possibilities of animated movies, and I hope to be able to create something that will leave both children and adults thinking that this world is a sparkling, brightly shining place.
"The Boy and the World" is nominated for the Best Animated Feature-Independent Annie Award and will be released theatrically in the spring by Funimation...
Constantly setting his tales of unconventional families and young people at a crossroads in two parallel worlds, Hosoda emphasize our longing for significance, connection and belonging by observing them from the vantage point of an alternate reality. For his latest epic animated saga, “The Boy and the Beast,” the seasoned director, who has worked in films based on classic anime series such as Dragon Ball, Digimon, and Sailor Moon, concentrates on fatherhood and the relationship between a boy and the multiple role models he encounters along the unstable road from angry childhood to young manhood.
Though he is often referred to as Hayao Miyazaki’s successor (an artist whom he does credit as one of the catalysts that sparked his love for animation), Hosoda’s works feature they very own mythologies, thematic concerns and stylistic particularities that differ from the signature magical characteristics associated with Ghibli. In Hosoda’s stories the concept of identity in relationship to parenthood is a striking force that drives the narrative. His characters yearn to find meaning in their origin or find an outside source that can provide a sense of community. Clearly, the clash between the real and the extraordinary transform his impressively intimate premises into mesmerizing animated visions, but their essence remains grounded on Hosoda’s compassionate and inspirational view of mankind.
His most recent marvel is a martial arts adventure ruled by its very own mythology, yet grounded on his usual universal thematic elements. Following his mother’s death, Ren runs away from home and accidentally finds his way into Jutengai, a kingdom inhabited by beasts. Reluctantly, young Ren is taken in by Kumatetsu, a bear-like brute desperate to train a disciple in order to be selected as the realm’s new leader. Despite countless arguments and numerous rough patches, a profound bond that transcends the divide between their worlds forms between the two lonely fighters.
Mr. Hosoda opened up about his marked interest in identities composed of what’s on the surface and what lies beneath, the concept of shared fatherhood, and the films that inspired him to work in this medium.
"The Boy and the Beast" is nominated for the Best Animated Feature-Independent Annie Award and will be released theatrically in the spring by Funimation
Carlos Aguilar: One recurrent subject in your films is the battle between two worlds, our human world and some sort of alternate reality, why does this interest you in particular? The non-human worlds in your films, including that in “The Boy and the Beast,” teach us a lot about human emotions.
Mamoru Hosoda: The depiction of two worlds is directly connected to the idea of identity. For example, in "Wolf Children," the difference in the ways Yuki and Ame live constitutes two worlds, and the "country" and the "city" are also two different worlds. And I’m not saying that one of these two worlds is good, and one is bad, either. On the contrary, I think that they are both right. In the case of "Digimon," you have analog and digital; it's not that either one is greater than the other, it's that by having both halves, you get one single world.
Usually, people tend to see someone on the surface and think that that's who that person is. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who think that what is on the outside is a complete falsehood, and that their true self is what's on the inside; their public face is a fabrication, and what they really feel is actually who they are. However, I think both of those approaches are mistaken. I think the inner and outer aspects of the self together make one person. People who are open about their own faults, especially, often want to ferret out “inner feelings” beneath the surface and expose any falsehood, and they think that it's in their inner feelings that the truth lies. But I don't think that's the truth. I think that this one-or-the-other-is-right way of thinking is nonsense. I think that it takes both halves to make a single whole.
It is for that reason that I always have two different components in my movies. I also don't say which one of those two is better. People have two sides, and a person first becomes appealing when you discover both of those sides--and worlds work exactly the same way. Shibuya works the same way. I believe it's having both Shibuya and the Jutengai that makes the film’s setting an interesting one.
Another element that appears often in your films is the relationship between parents and children. Can you talk about why this topic is important to you as an artist?
Mamoru Hosoda: I fear that the image of the family that is necessary to live in these times, as well as the times to come, is in a very uncertain state. We are on the verge of losing the traditional idea of the family, especially in Japan, where the declining birth rate shows no signs of stopping. This is precisely why I think we should consider with a sense of urgency what the new image of “family” should be like, and not fall into the nostalgism that days gone by were just better.
In “The Boy and the Beast” Ren has a two father figures. His biological father and Kumatetsu, what do you think is the role of each of them in his life? Fatherhood appears to be very important in your film.
Mamoru Hosoda: In this movie, representing fathers, there is the "Kumatetsu and Kyuta" thread and the "biological father and Ren" thread. Outside of those, you also have "Hyakushubo & Tatara and Kyuta" thread, and the "Kaede and Ren" thread running through it as well. There is also the "Iozen and Ichirohiko" thread, the "Iozen and Jiromaru" thread, and so on. That might even go for Kaede and her father, as well. In any case, they are all fatherhood concepts, with different types of father-child relationships appearing, and each one of them is slightly different.
It's a seemingly simple story--and this also goes for the traditional model of friction and tension between father and child--but ours is not an age which has an ideal model for parent-child relationships, which we then go about trying to adhere to.
Rather, I was deliberately trying to express how possible it might be for unmarried men and adults not blessed with biological children to become "fathers of choice." In an old-fashioned, traditional world, this might not matter. But I think that it's probably going to become terribly relevant as time goes on. Anyone could end up like Tatara or Hyakushubo, in that they could be put in the role of Hyakushubo yelling at Kyuta, or Tatara holding him in tears. Maybe everyone will eventually get a role to play doing these things that parents do with children. By doing so, they might experience the fulfillment of being a parent. That’s why, with those things in mind, I wanted to present one possible form for the parent-child relationship to take in the years to come.
Also, the reason why I wanted to present a parent and child in this film, although in a pseudo-family, was in order to depict growth. I wanted to put them forward to show that process. For example, if you were to ask how much Kumatetsu discernibly grew during this movie, who can quantify that? Kyuta did not completely grow into a young man, either. I do think, however, that the relationship between Kumatetsu and Kyuta did change dramatically.
As to whether Kumatetsu is the ideal father, no, he might not be the ideal. That goes for Kyuta, too—I don’t map ideals onto the individual characters. But I did relay my ideals through the relationship fostered by the two of them. At first, they were on edge with each other, but in the end, the bond between them is strong enough to become tangible and visible. I portrayed it in an interpersonal relationship, as a type of yearning admiration.
Your films deal with teenagers or young people coming to terms with who they are, their purpose, and their origins. Why do you think you are so attracted to stories about people at this particular stage in their lives?
Mamoru Hosoda: I think of movies as depicting moments of change. Change is growth, and that change also possesses the same dynamism that movies do. The most shining example of the dynamism of that change is children. This is exactly why I empathize with and wish to support those who have that kind of independence and resolve, who carve out their own futures. It is the solidarity between those individuals that I portray in movies, and I’d like us all to share that solidarity and head into the future with them.
Do you think that working on films based on anime series like “Dragon Ball,” “Sailor Moon,” or “Digimon,” has influenced the type of stories you like to tell?
Mamoru Hosoda: I learned a lot of things from the history and context provided by the personal jumping-off point that Toei Doga (now Toei Animation) was for me. For example, I learned from Shigeyasu Yamauchi, director of many "Dragon Ball" movies, what movies and being a director consisted of, and he taught me uncompromising strength for the sake of the product.
Visually Jutengai, the alternative world in “The Boy and the Beast,” seems more mythological instead of futuristic like the world in “Summer Wars.” What was the visual inspiration or style you wanted to use in this particular film for both the world and the characters?
Mamoru Hosoda: I was influenced by the culture and history of Japan. When I thought about untangling our history anew from the westernization of Japan, these were the ideas that arose from it.
Tell me about designing the creatures in the beast world. Every single one of them blends human and animal qualities.
Mamoru Hosoda: It struck me that when we read picture books to children, we parents, and people as a whole, do not appear in them very much, and that they are more constructed to be a world of children and animals. That got me thinking that before children live in the world of their parents and other people, they must learn the principles, truths, and important things they need to live in the world of animals, so I created the characters with an animal motif.
Do you animate your films yourself? What do you think is special or unique about hand-drawn animation in comparison to films made entirely using CGI?
Mamoru Hosoda: I do not draw any of the pictures for my movies as an animator. The reason for that is that I am terribly lucky to have many staff members who I look up to, and who are overflowing with talent, that work with me on each project.
As far as CGI and hand-drawn animation, I consider them both nothing more than tools for drawing pictures, the same as crayons or oils. Which is why, to me, the most important thing is what it is you are drawing, and in the themes that I depict, I think hand-drawing is the most effective.
What’s your favorite part about the process of creating a new film? Is it writing the story or bringing these worlds to life with through animation? Why?
Mamoru Hosoda: The process of producing a project is one long string of delight and anxiety, but I think the real thrill of animation would have to be drawing the pictures.
Tell me about creating Kumatetsu. He is a great character. He is at once funny, stubborn, but with a big heart underneath. Where did he come from?
Mamoru Hosoda: I wanted to ponder, "What is the significance of a father's existence to children?" Digging back through the events of the past, I found that there have been all sorts of people who had a greater effect on us than our own fathers. Perhaps an adult that we wanted to become like, or someone with such a strong presence that even now, they remain in our hearts—someone who might be referred to as a "father of choice." I think that sooner or later, everyone has someone like this. I, too, realize that there have been many people, both famous and unknown, who have been like that to me, and have had a greater influence on me growing up than my own father. The Kumatetsu-as-father-figure that we have here is not about him being someone who takes the place of a biological father. It’s more about there being multiple people out there in society who fill a fatherly role, and it is these people who come together to raise a child.
I imagine men of all different types gathering together to watch over a child. What's more, not all of them are necessarily going to be older adults. Like when you enter middle school, and you have classmates who are surprisingly well-versed in western music, or know a lot about railroads. There are fellow students who, despite being the same age, know a lot more about the world than you do, and are nice enough to teach you about this and that without you even having to ask them. In other words, though classmates, they also sufficiently fulfill a fatherly role.
So I think that for a child, there are many different patterns to what an essential father figure is. What becomes interesting when you think about it that way is that one may not be able to fulfill a fatherly role with one's own child, but on the other hand, and this goes for me as well, one might still be a "father of choice" to someone else out there in the world. Fatherhood is something that can be shared worldwide. Meaning that in terms of the substance of a father’s role, perhaps we are all pseudo-fathers. It is out of that idea that Kumatestsu came about.
Animation is a boundless medium. What attracted you to it in the first place? Why do you think it’s the best way for you to tell your stories?
Mamoru Hosoda: The impetus for me to get into the world of animated movies was seeing two movies in the summer of 1979. One of them was the Rintaro-directed "Galaxy Express 999," and the other was the Hayao Miyazaki-directed "Lupin the Third: The Castle of Cagliostro." I want to take themes that are shared throughout the world, express them through animation, and make movies from them. And with the assumption that animation is a medium for children, I want to make movies that reaffirm the future, and let them know that this world is a world worth living in.
Why did you feel Ren had to have two names, Ren in the human world and Kyuta in the world of beasts?
Mamoru Hosoda: I thought it would be necessary in order to express the identity uncertainty and tension of wondering who he really was. I wrote the story with the hope that those children who were lost in their own lives would find some kind of answer in this movie, and be able to share in it as well.
Ren reminds me of one of your characters in “Wolf Children,” are there any conscious or unconscious relationships between the characters in your films?
Mamoru Hosoda: Kyuta's growth is a growth of the heart, where he deals successfully with the question of his identity, develops independence and resolve, and proactively carves out his own life for himself, so you could say that his character has that in common with the main characters of my other films.
After the success of “The Boy and the Beast” in Japan, are you working on a anew film? Or are there any ideas that you want to explore in your next project?
Mamoru Hosoda: I really am grateful to have so many people watch, and to be given the chance to create my next projects. I want to once again tackle the boundless possibilities of animated movies, and I hope to be able to create something that will leave both children and adults thinking that this world is a sparkling, brightly shining place.
"The Boy and the World" is nominated for the Best Animated Feature-Independent Annie Award and will be released theatrically in the spring by Funimation...
- 1/16/2016
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Charlie Kaufman’s first venture into animation, co-directed by stop-motion wizard Duke Johnson, is the story of an alienated, married, mild-mannered, middle-aged customer-relations guru on a business trip to Cincinnati. Lonely, he calls an old girlfriend, but their reunion in the hotel bar is a disaster. Then he sets his eyes on Lisa, and his world is transformed... Sex too.
Read More: Human at the Seams: Charlie Kaufman and Duke Johnson Make Yearning Tangible in 'Anomalisa'
And this all done by realistic looking puppets filmed stop-motion. Quite touching really. At this Psiff (Palm Springs) I saw Kaufman questioned twice about 'meaning', his film etc and wonderfully each time he refused to answer any questions and simply said, 'See the film.' What a cool guy.
The film, made by the man who dreamed up "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", takes the ordinary and twists it into wondrous, disturbing and haunting visions.
Though we are watching puppets, this is Kaufman’s most human, emotionally direct movie, one that will hit close to home to anyone who has ever spent a night in an anonymous hotel room in a strange city. And then met a romantic character....
Featuring brilliant voice work from David Thewlis, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tom Noonan (who plays multiple parts), "Anomalisa" tells us uncomfortable truths about relationships, solipsism, work and the way we live (and love) now. It just may be a masterpiece.
Read More: Carlos Aguilar's Best Films of 2015 (A Very Personal List)
"Anomalisa" won the Grand Jury Prize at Venice Film Festival, Best Fantastic Film and Best Director at Fantastic Fest, and it's now nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Animated Feature.
Paramount opened the film in limited released on December 30, 2015.
Read More: Human at the Seams: Charlie Kaufman and Duke Johnson Make Yearning Tangible in 'Anomalisa'
And this all done by realistic looking puppets filmed stop-motion. Quite touching really. At this Psiff (Palm Springs) I saw Kaufman questioned twice about 'meaning', his film etc and wonderfully each time he refused to answer any questions and simply said, 'See the film.' What a cool guy.
The film, made by the man who dreamed up "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", takes the ordinary and twists it into wondrous, disturbing and haunting visions.
Though we are watching puppets, this is Kaufman’s most human, emotionally direct movie, one that will hit close to home to anyone who has ever spent a night in an anonymous hotel room in a strange city. And then met a romantic character....
Featuring brilliant voice work from David Thewlis, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tom Noonan (who plays multiple parts), "Anomalisa" tells us uncomfortable truths about relationships, solipsism, work and the way we live (and love) now. It just may be a masterpiece.
Read More: Carlos Aguilar's Best Films of 2015 (A Very Personal List)
"Anomalisa" won the Grand Jury Prize at Venice Film Festival, Best Fantastic Film and Best Director at Fantastic Fest, and it's now nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Animated Feature.
Paramount opened the film in limited released on December 30, 2015.
- 1/5/2016
- by Peter Belsito
- Sydney's Buzz
When darkness overpowers light, the need for hope, in anything, becomes urgent. Few chapters in the history of mankind have witnessed such treacherous and bleak atrocities as those perpetrated during the Holocaust. Under such inconceivably inhumane circumstances, the absence of hope became commonplace. There was no spiritual comfort, only physical existence at its bare minimum. Prisoners in the camps were alive only on a physiological level; they were nothing more than shadows waiting to be swallowed by the voracious darkness of the Nazi killing machine.
Read More : 9 Foreign Language Films Advance in Oscar Race
Conscious of such crude reality, first-time director László Nemes decided to look at the terrifying apparatus behind the genocide from the perspective of a group of men whose experience was exponentially more harrowing than that of the average victim. The Sonderkommando was a group of Jewish prisoners chosen to dispose of bodies, clean the gas chambers, collect valuables, and aid the Nazis in the extermination of their own people. Nemes focuses on a particular man, Saul (Géza Röhrig), a fictional character created from the limited information available on this special group and the filmmaker’s artistic sensibilities. Unlike the rest of the Sonderkommando members in the film, Saul has found a purpose by which he regains a glimpse of the humanity stripped away by his monstrous captors. By adopting a young boy’s dead body as if he was his own son and battling everything around him to give him a proper burial, Saul becomes the last bastion of divinity in this nightmarish world.
“Son of Saul” is not only the best film of the year, but also the most ambitious debut in ages. Both conceptually and visually, the dynamic, yet organically contemplative vision of one man’s ordeal as he walks through the gates the hell is the work of a master auteur.
Carlos Aguilar of SydneysBuzz talked to Nemes and star Géza Röhrig about their Golden Globe-nominated and Academy Award-shortlisted masterpiece.
"Son of Saul" opened December 18, 2015 in L.A. and the Nuart Theater and in NYC at the Film Forum and Lincoln Plaza Cinemas through Sony Pictures Classics.
1. On the significance of the line “You failed the living for the dead,” which Abraham, one of the Sonderkommando men, tells Saul.
Géza Röhrig: I think that’s a key sentence in the movie. There is this certain dynamic between Saul and his surrounding. First it’s just potential, but then there is the actualizing of the conflict that they are heading towards different directions. They are on different orbits. The other men are planning to revolt and he is single-mindedly and tirelessly invested in this body that he feels he must bury. I think what’s interested in that scene is that this is a very well formed sentence and it’s told in expectation of it having an effect. Abraham, who says this to Saul, is expecting some sort of an effect because it’s a very condensed and powerful sentence. It could be in a Greek drama. It’s a very strong sentence, but apparently it falls short for Saul. He is out. He is not part of this. His inner conflict is on a different context. He is not even reacting to this sentence at all. That’s when we know the split is final. That’s what I think Abraham is really realizing. It’s incorrigible. No argument or deed can bring Saul back to the fold. I think this is the make or break moment in terms of the script. For the viewers this is when it really hits home that it’s over between these people, who are probably from the same town as they seem to be close and like they might have shared some aspects of their past with each other.
László Nemes: We almost ended up taking this sentence out of the screenplay because some people were telling me, “Oh it’s too much,” “It’s too direct,” or “It’s too on the nose.” I didn’t think so, but since this film, for the most part, kept itself from stating things in this way, this sentence is still feels like a bit of a commentary. Because of the way it was filmed and the way it’s said, I think it was good to have this sentence at this moment, but it really raises the issue of what the main character is trying to achieve and whether it can make any sense to the audience because it doesn’t make sense to the people in the Sonderkommando. It also raises the question, “Is there a possibility for anything that’s meaningful in the context of the concentration camp?”
2. On the possibility of Saul having a life after his ordeal
László Nemes: What kind of life? That’s the question. Is it possible to still have an internal life when you are in the middle of this kind of extreme situation beyond hell, beyond dehumanization, of the concentration camp? Is it still possible to have some kind of humanity?
3. On Saul's motivations and how he perceives and deals with his circumstances
László Nemes: I think he is very instinctive. He is not reflecting. I think reflection is something that would be very hard to do in a concentration camp.
Géza Röhrig: I also think that Saul is not really presenting himself as a thinker in this movie. I don’t think anybody would mistake him for an intellectual. I think he is a smart man. His intellectual faculties are in good shape but he is not a brainy type of person. I don’t think thought process is what’s guiding in his actions. He is a person living with his guts. He feels what’s right and he does it in a wholesome way. I don’t believe he thinks this is a better way to cope or that what’s happening with him is for everybody, but he has to be true to his experience and to what happened to him. He has this boy and nobody else has this boy. If he doesn’t bury him no one is going to do it. Again, he is not looking down on or disagreeing with that the rest of the men are planning to do. The negative is more tangible from the collective towards him, “You are betraying us.”
4. On understand the horrifically unique role of the Sonderkommando within the concentration camp
László Nemes: When I read the text about the Sonderkommando members I knew there is nothing about them that shouldn’t be met with extreme empathy. These people are in the middle hell and definitely not on purpose. They are forced to assist the Nazis in the extermination process. We approached them with humanity. I always thought that these people were in the worst possible situation within the concentration camp even if they had more latitude, because this latitude just gave them more possibilities of seeing and witnessing and not being to do anything. However, they were trying to and they did because the rebellion did take place. What I did was try to recreate the experience of one human being with the limitations of one human being within the concentration camp. I think being with the Sonderkommando throughout the film gives a measure of the limitations and the despair that these people must have experienced.
5. On marrying the important thematic elements with the technical and visual concept including the choreographed background action
László Nemes: The technical challenge was secondary, first we had to define what we wanted to do and that was to make a portrait - the portrait of a man. We defined a set of rules for ourselves saying that this should be an eye-level experience constantly staying with one person and be very organic in following in this person throughout the film whatever happens. Then the fact that a lot of things were happening to him because of how his day works, because of his journey, and because of all the transgressions that he is making in the film, it meant that we had to go to places in a particular technical way, which meant a series of things such as going onto a truck or going into the water.
We needed an extreme form of cooperation between the crewmembers, but this principle was very clear-cut and simple in a sense. It was very raw. What this meant was that we had to make the camera very dynamic and mobile so it could go to places that were difficult to reach and having all this choreography around mean that the background action had to be well directed.I hired a friend of mine, who is a director himself, to direct the backgrounds. Since I had a filmmaker directing backgrounds and not an Ad directing them, it meant that the background is not just background in the film. It is a living thing that interacts with the foreground and it had to be believable.
The fact that we had an immersive strategy where space and time were captains as one also meant that the crew and the cast believed it all much more. When they were shooting they could perceive what was going on as something real as opposed as if we had more cut out pieces. As an experience during shooting, that would have been more distant. We were immersive also in the way we were shooting and that also immersed the people who were making the film much more.
6. On deciding what and how much to show in order to remain truthful to the Sonderkommando's experience
László Nemes: We wanted to be truthful to the experience of the Sonderkommando and what was going on during one day in the lives of these crematorium workers. What went on was a list of things. We didn’t show every single thing on this list because we didn’t want to do a “best of” of everything. At the same time we knew that we would want to go to certain places and that his quest would lead him to certain places. We couldn’t not go there.
The simplicity of it had to be kept without trying to add superfluous elements. What we had was the experience of the camp as we felt that it was. The experience of the camp was about limitations, lack of knowledge, and lack of predictability. You didn’t know what was going to happen in the next minute. These were elements that were at the core of the strategy and for that we had to find a filmic language to convey them. I think that the fact that editor was on set and the Dp was with me fully on this adventure helped me better find the language and the steps that would make the journey possible.
7. On the writing process and creating stories instinctively
László Nemes: It was very instinctive when we wrote the film. We found a very simple story, a primitive and archaic story to deal with these matters. I think in my life I’ve been very much influenced by very primitive tales and stories. I’m very much drawn to those primitive or Biblical stories. These are stories that make sense in a universal way or on a metaphysical way. It was natural. We don’t self-analyze it because we didn’t do it while we were writing it back then. It was natural for us to tell a story with very simple elements, again, in a very instinctive way. We were not analyzing why we were making the film.
The episodes came naturally in the creative process, but you can argue that the film has an archaic structure or also archaic elements of motifs. It really questions whether or not in this total darkness there is a possibility for a journey. Is there a possibility to have a glimpse of light in the sort inner God or goodness that lives in Saul? There is no more God, there is no more law, and there is nothing else. Is there still a greater law beyond this absent law?
8. On grappling with immeasurable evil
Géza Röhrig: There were genocides before Auschwitz but somehow, to me at least, Auschwitz represents absolute evil in its purest and most direct form. This was an assault. It was a state-sponsored, full-scale genocide right in the heart of European civilization. The Germans clearly knew what they were doing. Despite that they went along and proceeded with intention and even relished. How did Auschwitz come to being? Is there any sort of civilized anything in this monstrous reality that we can show as hope or something else? It’s a very hard question.
9. On looking at the Holocaust from the German perspective
László Nemes: When I talked to Uwe Lauer, he was one of the German actors in the film who played an SS officer and who is from Frankfurt, he mentioned his experience as a child and as a young adult with the stories and the atmosphere that were communicated to him by his family, his father and mother. I think it was hard for him as well. He is between 45 and 50-years old, and I think he feels horribly about what Germany did. He is frustrated by it very much so. He feels numb and helpless. He wasn’t complaining at all, but I think it was interesting to have this kind of internal view of what it was like.
At the same time he was completely supportive of this kind of uncompromising view that we had in this film. We were not trying to please anybody. In this film you cannot say, “He is the bad guy,” and project all the bad feelings on this bad guy because this is a machine that was already in place. The sense that this machine was built by people is something that’s very difficult to accept for those who are used to this sort of post-war discourse that unconsciously makes the Holocaust more relative by saying, “Ok, there was a Holocaust but also many other people were trying to resist,” and things of that nature.
10. On the devastating ethical dilemma the Sonderkommando members had to face
Géza Röhrig: By inclination I am a purist, in other words, growing up in a communist country I was very well aware of the existence of informers. At some point there were thousands and thousands of informers in the Hungarian system, never as many as in East Germany but plenty. This ethical dilemma of the charge of collaboration for the Sonderkommando has hit me really hard because I have to tell you that I have the utmost respect for the Sonderkommando members who committed suicide. I still believe there was a choice to be made but I suspend judgment. I would never say, “This was the only right thing to do.” I believe there was a terrible choice between bad and worse. It was a terrible choice. It’s easy for me to be a purist because I obviously did not have to pay with my life for it. When I started to read about their situation or what it meant to be a Sonderkommando member I was struggling with questions like, “What would I have done?” It’s good to meditate on their situation with pity and with rigor but never passing judgment because I don’t think we are in a position to say one way or the other.
11. On ambitious cinema and resisting television
László Nemes: I think we are losing the experience of having films that are ambitious in their meaning, in their scope, in their way of looking at a question, or in their innovation more and more because television is eating and killing cinema. Here I think we only wanted to make a proposition of cinema that not only gives the viewer a new experience or view of the concentration camp, but that also tries to speak about the experience of watching a film and how different at times cinema can be. I think we are also trying to make a form of resistance to television, and in this sense it was very important to have a curated crew who really helped me shape this film by always asking and pushing me in a relentless way to answer the questions even when I didn’t want to answer those questions. The cinematographer, the production designer, Géza, a lot, the editor, the screenwriter, we kind of form a little community trying to make the same film and I think that was the most rewarding part of it.
12. On the conversations "Son of Saul" sparks and how we look at the Holocaust 70 years later
Géza Röhrig: For me the conversations or the discourses that this movie sparks are very important because that way we can talk about the it and then we can talk about the subject matter of the movie, which is more important that the movie itself. I just can’t get passed that initial shock about this type of barbarism that allegedly should belong to the past, and that’s usually also what this movie gives to the viewer. This barbarism should belong to the wars of Genghis Khan. This has no place in the 20th century. Weren’t we all told this type of savagery was eclipsed by the Enlightenment and rationalism? Still, right in our face there is this humongous genocide, which again required and received help from every sector of the German society and we are talking about a sophisticated society. These are the best and brightest of Europe. What, how and what went wrong?
We lost something along the way and I think there is a need for revisionists to try to say, “This was just a byproduct,” “This is not characteristic, “ or they list the usual things to justify it like the unfair treaty against Germany, how they lost the war, inflation, the threat of Communism, etc, but even if you add all these up it still does not explain the level of cruelty that was manifested here. Many countries faced similar issues and it doesn’t mean that they went and in the most systematic, law-abiding way, try to exterminate a race from the Earth. This is really so extreme that you can’t block it out.
These conversations after the movie start with, “What now?” or “Is it over?” In what sense is our world different now? I understand the dragon got the virgin so to speak, so now it feels like its stomach is full, but I can still hear the dragon if you now what I mean by this childish metaphor. I still can hear the dragon snoring in the mountains. It’s not something that is gone. We can’t say, “Oh we fixed it.” I don’t think you can fix it.
László Nemes: We gave the dragon enough tools.
Géza Röhrig: Who knows what race or religious group will be targeted next, but the demon is among us and that’s the kind of helplessness I see on faces when share our feelings about this. This happened 70 years ago, but it’s still the same world. I don’t see any sort of guarantee or development that would make me feel better and to say, “Ok guys that was really terrible but it’s over.” I don’t see the lesson learned. If just that, these conversations bring us together to really realize in a shameful way that this is how long we sank, altogether, the human family. The funny thing is, and I just read this recently, that right on the year Hitler got to power, which was 1933, the world fair was here in Chicago and the city was full of banners with slogans that said the 20th century was the century of progress. There was this really inherent optimism in the Euro-Atlantic civilization that believed things like, “Religion is a medieval thing,” “Science is taking over”, “There is individual liberty.“ Then everything darkened. Some people saw that coming. People say Nietzsche killed God by saying, “God is Dead,” but that’s not what he said. He said, “God is dead. And we have killed God.” The questions we are facing in this movie are the questions of today as well.
"Son of Saul" is represented worldwide by Films Distribution who has licensed it to date to:Canada--Métropole Films, Denmark--Camera Film A/S, Estonia-Feb 04, 2016-Must Kasi (Blac, Finland--Future Film, France--Ad Vitam, Greece--Filmtrade, Hungary-- Mozinet, Italy--,Teodora Film, Japan--Fine Films, Inc, S. Korea --Beetwin F&I Inc, Spain--Avalon, Switzerland-Nov 04, 2015-Agora Films, Taiwan--Maison Motion, Thailand--Mongkol Major, Turkey--Fabula Films, U.K.--Artificial Eye, U.S.--Spc.
Funding for the film was received by Claims Conference in the U.S., Cinéfondation Residence in France, Jerusalem International Film Lab in Israel and Sarajevo CineLink in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Read More: L.A. Times December 19: “Géza Röhrig finds a difficult truth in 'Son of Saul' and horrors of the Holocaust” by Steven Zeitchik, Géza Röhrig: We're not living after Auschwitz. We're living in the times of Auschwitz."...
Read More : 9 Foreign Language Films Advance in Oscar Race
Conscious of such crude reality, first-time director László Nemes decided to look at the terrifying apparatus behind the genocide from the perspective of a group of men whose experience was exponentially more harrowing than that of the average victim. The Sonderkommando was a group of Jewish prisoners chosen to dispose of bodies, clean the gas chambers, collect valuables, and aid the Nazis in the extermination of their own people. Nemes focuses on a particular man, Saul (Géza Röhrig), a fictional character created from the limited information available on this special group and the filmmaker’s artistic sensibilities. Unlike the rest of the Sonderkommando members in the film, Saul has found a purpose by which he regains a glimpse of the humanity stripped away by his monstrous captors. By adopting a young boy’s dead body as if he was his own son and battling everything around him to give him a proper burial, Saul becomes the last bastion of divinity in this nightmarish world.
“Son of Saul” is not only the best film of the year, but also the most ambitious debut in ages. Both conceptually and visually, the dynamic, yet organically contemplative vision of one man’s ordeal as he walks through the gates the hell is the work of a master auteur.
Carlos Aguilar of SydneysBuzz talked to Nemes and star Géza Röhrig about their Golden Globe-nominated and Academy Award-shortlisted masterpiece.
"Son of Saul" opened December 18, 2015 in L.A. and the Nuart Theater and in NYC at the Film Forum and Lincoln Plaza Cinemas through Sony Pictures Classics.
1. On the significance of the line “You failed the living for the dead,” which Abraham, one of the Sonderkommando men, tells Saul.
Géza Röhrig: I think that’s a key sentence in the movie. There is this certain dynamic between Saul and his surrounding. First it’s just potential, but then there is the actualizing of the conflict that they are heading towards different directions. They are on different orbits. The other men are planning to revolt and he is single-mindedly and tirelessly invested in this body that he feels he must bury. I think what’s interested in that scene is that this is a very well formed sentence and it’s told in expectation of it having an effect. Abraham, who says this to Saul, is expecting some sort of an effect because it’s a very condensed and powerful sentence. It could be in a Greek drama. It’s a very strong sentence, but apparently it falls short for Saul. He is out. He is not part of this. His inner conflict is on a different context. He is not even reacting to this sentence at all. That’s when we know the split is final. That’s what I think Abraham is really realizing. It’s incorrigible. No argument or deed can bring Saul back to the fold. I think this is the make or break moment in terms of the script. For the viewers this is when it really hits home that it’s over between these people, who are probably from the same town as they seem to be close and like they might have shared some aspects of their past with each other.
László Nemes: We almost ended up taking this sentence out of the screenplay because some people were telling me, “Oh it’s too much,” “It’s too direct,” or “It’s too on the nose.” I didn’t think so, but since this film, for the most part, kept itself from stating things in this way, this sentence is still feels like a bit of a commentary. Because of the way it was filmed and the way it’s said, I think it was good to have this sentence at this moment, but it really raises the issue of what the main character is trying to achieve and whether it can make any sense to the audience because it doesn’t make sense to the people in the Sonderkommando. It also raises the question, “Is there a possibility for anything that’s meaningful in the context of the concentration camp?”
2. On the possibility of Saul having a life after his ordeal
László Nemes: What kind of life? That’s the question. Is it possible to still have an internal life when you are in the middle of this kind of extreme situation beyond hell, beyond dehumanization, of the concentration camp? Is it still possible to have some kind of humanity?
3. On Saul's motivations and how he perceives and deals with his circumstances
László Nemes: I think he is very instinctive. He is not reflecting. I think reflection is something that would be very hard to do in a concentration camp.
Géza Röhrig: I also think that Saul is not really presenting himself as a thinker in this movie. I don’t think anybody would mistake him for an intellectual. I think he is a smart man. His intellectual faculties are in good shape but he is not a brainy type of person. I don’t think thought process is what’s guiding in his actions. He is a person living with his guts. He feels what’s right and he does it in a wholesome way. I don’t believe he thinks this is a better way to cope or that what’s happening with him is for everybody, but he has to be true to his experience and to what happened to him. He has this boy and nobody else has this boy. If he doesn’t bury him no one is going to do it. Again, he is not looking down on or disagreeing with that the rest of the men are planning to do. The negative is more tangible from the collective towards him, “You are betraying us.”
4. On understand the horrifically unique role of the Sonderkommando within the concentration camp
László Nemes: When I read the text about the Sonderkommando members I knew there is nothing about them that shouldn’t be met with extreme empathy. These people are in the middle hell and definitely not on purpose. They are forced to assist the Nazis in the extermination process. We approached them with humanity. I always thought that these people were in the worst possible situation within the concentration camp even if they had more latitude, because this latitude just gave them more possibilities of seeing and witnessing and not being to do anything. However, they were trying to and they did because the rebellion did take place. What I did was try to recreate the experience of one human being with the limitations of one human being within the concentration camp. I think being with the Sonderkommando throughout the film gives a measure of the limitations and the despair that these people must have experienced.
5. On marrying the important thematic elements with the technical and visual concept including the choreographed background action
László Nemes: The technical challenge was secondary, first we had to define what we wanted to do and that was to make a portrait - the portrait of a man. We defined a set of rules for ourselves saying that this should be an eye-level experience constantly staying with one person and be very organic in following in this person throughout the film whatever happens. Then the fact that a lot of things were happening to him because of how his day works, because of his journey, and because of all the transgressions that he is making in the film, it meant that we had to go to places in a particular technical way, which meant a series of things such as going onto a truck or going into the water.
We needed an extreme form of cooperation between the crewmembers, but this principle was very clear-cut and simple in a sense. It was very raw. What this meant was that we had to make the camera very dynamic and mobile so it could go to places that were difficult to reach and having all this choreography around mean that the background action had to be well directed.I hired a friend of mine, who is a director himself, to direct the backgrounds. Since I had a filmmaker directing backgrounds and not an Ad directing them, it meant that the background is not just background in the film. It is a living thing that interacts with the foreground and it had to be believable.
The fact that we had an immersive strategy where space and time were captains as one also meant that the crew and the cast believed it all much more. When they were shooting they could perceive what was going on as something real as opposed as if we had more cut out pieces. As an experience during shooting, that would have been more distant. We were immersive also in the way we were shooting and that also immersed the people who were making the film much more.
6. On deciding what and how much to show in order to remain truthful to the Sonderkommando's experience
László Nemes: We wanted to be truthful to the experience of the Sonderkommando and what was going on during one day in the lives of these crematorium workers. What went on was a list of things. We didn’t show every single thing on this list because we didn’t want to do a “best of” of everything. At the same time we knew that we would want to go to certain places and that his quest would lead him to certain places. We couldn’t not go there.
The simplicity of it had to be kept without trying to add superfluous elements. What we had was the experience of the camp as we felt that it was. The experience of the camp was about limitations, lack of knowledge, and lack of predictability. You didn’t know what was going to happen in the next minute. These were elements that were at the core of the strategy and for that we had to find a filmic language to convey them. I think that the fact that editor was on set and the Dp was with me fully on this adventure helped me better find the language and the steps that would make the journey possible.
7. On the writing process and creating stories instinctively
László Nemes: It was very instinctive when we wrote the film. We found a very simple story, a primitive and archaic story to deal with these matters. I think in my life I’ve been very much influenced by very primitive tales and stories. I’m very much drawn to those primitive or Biblical stories. These are stories that make sense in a universal way or on a metaphysical way. It was natural. We don’t self-analyze it because we didn’t do it while we were writing it back then. It was natural for us to tell a story with very simple elements, again, in a very instinctive way. We were not analyzing why we were making the film.
The episodes came naturally in the creative process, but you can argue that the film has an archaic structure or also archaic elements of motifs. It really questions whether or not in this total darkness there is a possibility for a journey. Is there a possibility to have a glimpse of light in the sort inner God or goodness that lives in Saul? There is no more God, there is no more law, and there is nothing else. Is there still a greater law beyond this absent law?
8. On grappling with immeasurable evil
Géza Röhrig: There were genocides before Auschwitz but somehow, to me at least, Auschwitz represents absolute evil in its purest and most direct form. This was an assault. It was a state-sponsored, full-scale genocide right in the heart of European civilization. The Germans clearly knew what they were doing. Despite that they went along and proceeded with intention and even relished. How did Auschwitz come to being? Is there any sort of civilized anything in this monstrous reality that we can show as hope or something else? It’s a very hard question.
9. On looking at the Holocaust from the German perspective
László Nemes: When I talked to Uwe Lauer, he was one of the German actors in the film who played an SS officer and who is from Frankfurt, he mentioned his experience as a child and as a young adult with the stories and the atmosphere that were communicated to him by his family, his father and mother. I think it was hard for him as well. He is between 45 and 50-years old, and I think he feels horribly about what Germany did. He is frustrated by it very much so. He feels numb and helpless. He wasn’t complaining at all, but I think it was interesting to have this kind of internal view of what it was like.
At the same time he was completely supportive of this kind of uncompromising view that we had in this film. We were not trying to please anybody. In this film you cannot say, “He is the bad guy,” and project all the bad feelings on this bad guy because this is a machine that was already in place. The sense that this machine was built by people is something that’s very difficult to accept for those who are used to this sort of post-war discourse that unconsciously makes the Holocaust more relative by saying, “Ok, there was a Holocaust but also many other people were trying to resist,” and things of that nature.
10. On the devastating ethical dilemma the Sonderkommando members had to face
Géza Röhrig: By inclination I am a purist, in other words, growing up in a communist country I was very well aware of the existence of informers. At some point there were thousands and thousands of informers in the Hungarian system, never as many as in East Germany but plenty. This ethical dilemma of the charge of collaboration for the Sonderkommando has hit me really hard because I have to tell you that I have the utmost respect for the Sonderkommando members who committed suicide. I still believe there was a choice to be made but I suspend judgment. I would never say, “This was the only right thing to do.” I believe there was a terrible choice between bad and worse. It was a terrible choice. It’s easy for me to be a purist because I obviously did not have to pay with my life for it. When I started to read about their situation or what it meant to be a Sonderkommando member I was struggling with questions like, “What would I have done?” It’s good to meditate on their situation with pity and with rigor but never passing judgment because I don’t think we are in a position to say one way or the other.
11. On ambitious cinema and resisting television
László Nemes: I think we are losing the experience of having films that are ambitious in their meaning, in their scope, in their way of looking at a question, or in their innovation more and more because television is eating and killing cinema. Here I think we only wanted to make a proposition of cinema that not only gives the viewer a new experience or view of the concentration camp, but that also tries to speak about the experience of watching a film and how different at times cinema can be. I think we are also trying to make a form of resistance to television, and in this sense it was very important to have a curated crew who really helped me shape this film by always asking and pushing me in a relentless way to answer the questions even when I didn’t want to answer those questions. The cinematographer, the production designer, Géza, a lot, the editor, the screenwriter, we kind of form a little community trying to make the same film and I think that was the most rewarding part of it.
12. On the conversations "Son of Saul" sparks and how we look at the Holocaust 70 years later
Géza Röhrig: For me the conversations or the discourses that this movie sparks are very important because that way we can talk about the it and then we can talk about the subject matter of the movie, which is more important that the movie itself. I just can’t get passed that initial shock about this type of barbarism that allegedly should belong to the past, and that’s usually also what this movie gives to the viewer. This barbarism should belong to the wars of Genghis Khan. This has no place in the 20th century. Weren’t we all told this type of savagery was eclipsed by the Enlightenment and rationalism? Still, right in our face there is this humongous genocide, which again required and received help from every sector of the German society and we are talking about a sophisticated society. These are the best and brightest of Europe. What, how and what went wrong?
We lost something along the way and I think there is a need for revisionists to try to say, “This was just a byproduct,” “This is not characteristic, “ or they list the usual things to justify it like the unfair treaty against Germany, how they lost the war, inflation, the threat of Communism, etc, but even if you add all these up it still does not explain the level of cruelty that was manifested here. Many countries faced similar issues and it doesn’t mean that they went and in the most systematic, law-abiding way, try to exterminate a race from the Earth. This is really so extreme that you can’t block it out.
These conversations after the movie start with, “What now?” or “Is it over?” In what sense is our world different now? I understand the dragon got the virgin so to speak, so now it feels like its stomach is full, but I can still hear the dragon if you now what I mean by this childish metaphor. I still can hear the dragon snoring in the mountains. It’s not something that is gone. We can’t say, “Oh we fixed it.” I don’t think you can fix it.
László Nemes: We gave the dragon enough tools.
Géza Röhrig: Who knows what race or religious group will be targeted next, but the demon is among us and that’s the kind of helplessness I see on faces when share our feelings about this. This happened 70 years ago, but it’s still the same world. I don’t see any sort of guarantee or development that would make me feel better and to say, “Ok guys that was really terrible but it’s over.” I don’t see the lesson learned. If just that, these conversations bring us together to really realize in a shameful way that this is how long we sank, altogether, the human family. The funny thing is, and I just read this recently, that right on the year Hitler got to power, which was 1933, the world fair was here in Chicago and the city was full of banners with slogans that said the 20th century was the century of progress. There was this really inherent optimism in the Euro-Atlantic civilization that believed things like, “Religion is a medieval thing,” “Science is taking over”, “There is individual liberty.“ Then everything darkened. Some people saw that coming. People say Nietzsche killed God by saying, “God is Dead,” but that’s not what he said. He said, “God is dead. And we have killed God.” The questions we are facing in this movie are the questions of today as well.
"Son of Saul" is represented worldwide by Films Distribution who has licensed it to date to:Canada--Métropole Films, Denmark--Camera Film A/S, Estonia-Feb 04, 2016-Must Kasi (Blac, Finland--Future Film, France--Ad Vitam, Greece--Filmtrade, Hungary-- Mozinet, Italy--,Teodora Film, Japan--Fine Films, Inc, S. Korea --Beetwin F&I Inc, Spain--Avalon, Switzerland-Nov 04, 2015-Agora Films, Taiwan--Maison Motion, Thailand--Mongkol Major, Turkey--Fabula Films, U.K.--Artificial Eye, U.S.--Spc.
Funding for the film was received by Claims Conference in the U.S., Cinéfondation Residence in France, Jerusalem International Film Lab in Israel and Sarajevo CineLink in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Read More: L.A. Times December 19: “Géza Röhrig finds a difficult truth in 'Son of Saul' and horrors of the Holocaust” by Steven Zeitchik, Géza Röhrig: We're not living after Auschwitz. We're living in the times of Auschwitz."...
- 12/18/2015
- by Sydney Levine and Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
How "Boy and the World" Director Alê Abreu Handcrafted His Heartfelt & Dazzling Animated Masterpiece
"Boy and the World" is on the Oscar shortlist for Best Animated Feature and it opens on December 11 in L.A. at Laemmle's North Hollywood and in NYC at IFC Center
Textured dreams laced with thoughtful observations on the modern human experience construct Alê Abreu’s stirring fantasia “Boy and the World,” a film so viscerally enchanting and dazzlingly beautiful that it enraptures you from the moment its subtle opening sequence appears on screen. A little boy leaves his home in the peaceful countryside to see the grandeur of urban civilization and find his beloved father, but as this musical odyssey exposes him to both unimaginable desolation and mesmerizing beauty, he finds comfort in endearing memories and future hopes.
This Brazilian animated feature showcases handcraft in a uniquely imaginative manner that resembles the simple magic that could come from a child’s imagination. Colorful backgrounds with eclectic aesthetics and an adorable protagonist serve as the vehicle for Abreu to discuss complex subjects like consumerism, oppression, discrimination, and poverty. It’s all as clever as it’s charming, and it's by far the best and most sophisticated animated film to hit cinemas stateside this year.
Chatting with Abreu is as delightful as watching the film itself. His ever-present fervor for the animation medium and its yet unexplored possibilities is contagious. While he is fully aware of the uphill battle that a film like his faces in a cinematic landscape saturated by commercially-friendly product often devoid of any meaningful artistry. Yet, Abreu remains enthusiastically focused on the boundless creative freedom that working outside the preset productions models allows him.
A film like “Boy and the World” could only come from the intersection between meticulous handcraft and sheer kindness. Alê Abreu will tell you that his film came from a personal place to express his passion to explore what it means to be a human being. I believe him, because every brush stroke, pencil drawing, and colorful design shines with a glossy coat of loving warmth.
Review: Why Alê Abreu's Sublime 'Boy and the World' is the Best Animated Film of the Year
Carlos Aguilar: This is your second feature film and it's stylistically very different from what you've done previously. The designs and lyrical quality of the animation is remarkable and it brilliantly evokes innocence and wonder. Where did the concept for "Boy and the World" and its adorable protagonist come from?
Alê Abreu: I have the feeling that I didn’t make it by myself, but that I was conducted by feelings that were completely different from those in my previous work. When I start making a film I don’t know what I’m doing. I made this film without knowing what I was doing. I simply found the character in a sketchbook. I had drawn it some time before. There were many drawings from the research I did for the film “Canto Latino,” the animadoc or animated documentary about Latin America. I did a lot research about protest music from the 60s and 70s, and I think that’s what guided me to the story of this boy. One day I discovered the figure of this boy in those research notebooks. I felt like this boy was calling me to follow him into this world and to discover his story. I was very happy to hear the little boy’s voice. He was really the director of the film.
Making a film from the point of view of a young boy’s eyes opened the door to another universe with lots of freedom and to explore a new dimension. This was achieved as I started doing things that were close to what exists in a child’s universe. I built the film this way. I gathered all the tools I usually use such as brushes, color pencils, crayons, watercolors, and everything else I found in my studio, and I put them on top of a table. I had this feeling of freedom and possibility like if I was this boy. I was using the boy’s freedom to create this film.
CA: In a sense you created a film from this boy's perspective and how he would tell this story.
Alê Abreu: I tried to exploit such freedom to create those drawings like if I was a boy. I tried to draw with that freedom and that love that I remember from being a child and spending a day drawing without worrying about whether what I’m drawing is real or strange. I’m being sincere and I’m being human. I’m making mistakes or I’m doing things correctly, but I’m being human regardless. I’m talking about my pain and my joy, and I’m not saying it with words but mainly with colors and shapes. That’s what I tried to do with the utmost sincerity and humility of a child.
CA: For an independent production like this, how difficult was it to achieve the desired look and how big was your team of collaborators during this process?
Alê Abreu: Our team was very small during these three years of work. There were about 15 people helping me, but I produced all the animations and backgrounds myself. We had to discover our own production process. From what type of software could help us make a movie faster to everything else regarding the textures. Some might think, ”It’s probably very easy to make a film with those textures,” but it’s much more difficult than what it appears to be. We had to discover a faster process because otherwise it could have taken us 10 years to make it.
CA: This is definitely a work of love. Is the film entirely hand-drawn or how how big was the role of modern technology in its production?
Alê Abreu: A little bit more than 50% of what you see on screen is handcrafted and the other 50% was about emulating these textures on the computer. However, for us, when we were making it, we had to believe it was all handcrafted. I always told my team, “You have to believe that you are not in front of a computer, but that your canvas is a piece of paper. You have to believe this even if you have a computer in front of you.”
CA: Tell me about selecting the diverse musical pieces that score the film. There are multiple genres from rap to samba, but they all seamlessly connect with the images.
Alê Abreu: That was a very natural process because as I was creating the animatic I added music clips as reference of the kind of music I wanted in the film. These were from musicians like Naná Vasconcelos and Barbatuques, the body percussion group. Nana Vasconcelos was called because his music speaks to the point of view of the older man in the film. The rapper Emicida came on board at the end of the entire process when we started thinking about what we could play as the final credits rolled. We thought that using rap would draw a parallel with the protest music from the 60s and 70s that we found through the research for animadoc. When we thought about rap, Emicida immediately came to mind and we decided to call him to create this song bring the audience back to earth and put their feet on the ground. Emicida’s song is the only one that has lyrics in actual understandable Portuguese.
CA: Do you believe that you were thinking musically while making the film? It clearly feels as if music becomes a unique and alive element in the film.
Alê Abreu: Is as if the music is another character or as if it was a part of this great opera. I also through about this project as a structure or as a sculpture made out of colors, rhythm, characters, and brush strokes, but with every single one of these always supporting one another. If I have a blank piece of paper and I draw a red figure, immediately this brings sounds and shapes to my mind. I tried to make a film in which every component supports the others while giving each other space and stimulating the creation of what’s yet to come.
CA: One song in particular stands out, “Airgela,” which we hear throughout the film in very distinct version. This song connects the boy with the his father, with his memories, and with the world beyond his hometown.
Alê Abreu: “Airgela” is “Alegria” backwards and “Alegria” means “Joy” or “Happiness.” This is a fundamental word in this film. It’s very important. Symbolically “Alegria” is crucial word in the creation of this project. Although it wasn’t present from the beginning, as we were working on the music it became symbolic.
CA: Why did it become symbolic?
Alê Abreu: Because I feel that joy is the basic emotion of life and of human beings. It’s what supports everything. We are here to be happy. We are to enjoy “alegria.”
CA: We are born happy and full of joy, sadness and all other emotions come after.
Alê Abreu: Absolutely. “Alegria” is the first word in that song, but then there are seven other words. The first one is “Alegria” and the last one is “Voz” or “Voice.” You start with “Alegria,“ then “Libertad,” or "Freedom" and then other words until you have a “Voice.” You depart from joy until you get a voice. These seven words were carefully selected for the song, which was written by Gustavo Kurlat, one of the film's composers.
CA: The dialogue we hear in the film is a language you created by assembling sentences using Portuguese words written backwards. This also applies to any billboards or signs in the film. Why was the lack of understandable spoken and written language important to you? Even without a single word you manage to express very complex ideas about the world and how it works.
Alê Abreu: The entire time I was following the feelings experienced by children, so the feeling of not understanding what adults say was very important to put the audience in this frequency to understand the world through his eyes. We discovered this halfway through the process. When we started making the film there were some lines of dialogue in Portuguese, but we then changed our minds. The film started from very specific issues in the world, in particular Latin America, but halfway through the journey we felt the necessity to have more universal ideas that were not so specific. They didn’t need to be specifically South American or Latin American. Instead we discovered we were talking about human beings in general. We realized that these are not issues only pertinent to Latin America: poverty, misery, consumerism, etc.
The world’s geography is not realistic. Geography is not real. Borders are only closed to people but they are open to products. There is another type of geography outside of this matrix. Because of this we noticed we were talking about much more than just Latin America. That was very important to put the film on another level. Based on this idea, we knew that we were not in this world any longer. We were in another planet and we were reaching for something closer to a fable. It was something fabulous. I started looking at the film as if it happened in another planet and that allowed me even more freedom.
Looking through a child’s eyes and knowing this was another planet, we decided to design the machines with eyes and bodies like animals, we also decided that this planet has two moons, and we decided that anything else we wanted to do was allowed. It was a new perspective to make the film. That’s when I thought, “I don’t need these few dialogue lines in Portuguese. What are we going to do? We are going to create a language in which the words are pronounced backwards and we are going to put subtitles on the screen.” Then we realized it wasn’t necessary to put them. There is no reason to understand what they are saying. Each person can understand it however they like.
CA: There were no limitations
Alê Abreu: No. We were breaking away from anything that linked us to this world, but by doing that those ideas remained even stronger. Fables represent the basis for what I wanted to say about human beings.
CA: This idea of machines replacing the human touch in almost all endeavors also speaks to the way animation is being produced today. Digitally made films with very specific financial purposes have taken over market leaving little room for handcrafted works.
Alê Abreu: On another level this film talks about that. We had tremendous freedom while making this film. We never thought about marketing. It wasn’t a film made to sell merchandise or products or to reach millions of people around the world. It was a film made to say what I really felt. It’s a film made in a very radical creative manner. It was possible because we didn’t have to pander to capitalism. I think the film is also a humanistic cry for help for animation. It’s a film with sensitivities completely opposite to what the market wants to sell.
CA: Since those films are designed for mass appeal they take very few risks regarding the ideas or issues they deal with. It's hard to imagine a studio animated feature tackling the social justice concerns "Boy and the World" touches on.
Alê Abreu: The film gave me the possibility to create a new language. Animation is a very rich medium but hasn’t fully been exploited by artists. Often artists are trapped by words. Films are born from screenplays and they are guided by words. They are born very limited and there is no space for real creation: graphic creation, pictorial creation, or audiovisual creation. If we really want to use the art of animation with all its strength, we have to rethink the processes by which it’s made because the medium is the message. The way a film is made tells you about its message. The processes are the same as the products. We made the film starting from processes that allowed us to find these complex ideas. Director and producers have to take all the risks they can. We developed this film with the possibility to create departing from a blank page and to discover things as the process went along and as we understood the things that at first we couldn’t understand in words.
CA: Would you say that everything, even challenging political concepts, can be expressed truly visually without the need for words?
Alê Abreu: I think so, but each film has its processes. It doesn’t mean that all animated films have to be like “Boy and the World,” but creators have to have total freedom. There are films that are born with the purpose to sell. They are still admirable films with great artists and great visuals, but we wanted to use a more radical approach to create art. That’s what we tried to do.
CA: "Boy and the World" deals with our childhood memories and what we learn as we grow older and face the powers that rule our lives. Did you ever consider what elements of the film would appeal to younger viewers and which ideas would be better understood by adults? Sadly, we tend to underestimate how sophisticated young audiences can be.
Alê Abreu: During the entire process of making this film I never thought about whom I was making it for. I always thought that the film was for me, but I didn’t think of any of that. I just did what I thought I had to do. I didn’t think, “This is what children are going to think” or “This is what adults will understand.” At the end of the process we called a market research company to find out whom the film was for or what was the target audience. We didn’t have a lot of money to release the film, so in order for it to play in cinemas, which are dominated by films with much larger marketing budgets, we had to discover whom the film was for.
We hired this company and we rented a theater in a multiplex for 200 people. The first time the film was screened I was hidden, but part of my team was in the audience. There were a lot of kids and I was very nervous, but on this day I discovered the film spoke to everyone. After the screening there was a Q&A. There were people asking questions and we had a sort of debate. An adult said that he hadn’t understood the relationship between the three characters and a child raised his hand to explain it to him. At that moment I understood it wasn’t a film for children or for adults, but for everyone. It’s a very universal film.
Following this screening there was only one thing I changed because at the end of the film I felt a profound sadness. In there first version, where we now have a colorful village with a new musical bird emerging and this small band of children, there was instead a sequence were garbage from the city engulfed the boy’s house and his tree and there was a shot of all the things inside the house destroyed. It was very heavy. It didn’t have a glimpse of hope. I understood that the film was a beautiful piece of music but at that point it ended in a low note. I had to bring that final note higher.
We went back to the studio and I didn’t sleep for two or three nights until my assistant director told me to think about the small children band, which represents the new generation, but he suggested adding it during the credits. It was too much jumping around. We then experimented with other possibilities. We added the band, we eliminated the garbage, and we added this new village developing. When we saw it was like a completely nee film. At that moment I had the feeling that the film was finally done.
CA: Music takes on physical form in the film. Each note becomes a colorful floating sphere that belongs to a greater whole - the bird. How did this peculiar and poignant storytelling device originate?
Alê Abreu: I’m not sure. In one of those sketchbooks I used while doing the research for “Canto Latino,” there was a drawing of this boy with these colorful spheres around him that I had drawn, but at that point I didn’t know what they meant. My job was like that of a detective looking to make sense out things that I had felt and drawn before. The drawing precedes the explanation. The film was born out of sensations transformed into graphic images and then I tried to make poetic sense of them. For example if you give me three words I’ll try to make a poem with only those three words. You can write any words, but the meaning you are going to give these words comes from what you are feeling. The creative process happened that way.
I draw things on the paper very freely but believing there is meaning to them already. There is already meaning in the colors, I don’t need to be guided by words. I draw them and the meaning comes after. Every time we would start a new sequence we would change everything. We had 40 sequences in the film and for me a sequence in a film is like a phrase in a poem. We were trying to understand what each sequence meant in two or three words. We had a film with 40 lines, some stanzas, and some words.
CA: There is a moment in the film where the animated realm gives in to the destruction taking place in the real world. Fire comes in an we are taken into live-action footage that shows our voracity against nature. Why did you feel it was necessary to include this powerful clip?
Alê Abreu: It’s very interesting because that has to do with the language that I mentioned. The film started with a blank page where we created a young boy with a simple pencil drawing and then the world opens itself up for the boy and at the same time we add the pastels, inks, watercolors, and many other elements. As the boy goes from the city and what’s more mundane back home, we started cutting newspapers and made a collage to create the mundane and artificial aspect that mankind had given to nature.
We put all these things on top the blank page, which represents where we come from and where are going. The film starts on a blank page and ends on a blank page. That blank space is the most abstract thing. When we are born the memories we have are from an abstract space. I think we don’t die, but we instead travel to an abstract space like a blank page.
I wanted to translate that anguish of this oppressive situation in an audiovisual way. We tried to do it with collages but it wasn’t enough. Since we continued to work as animators and as artist with the freedom of adding things we first thought collages could work, but we couldn’t do that there, so we decided to completely rip this dream apart and added the live-action. We had to break away from animation. Poetically speaking, if you eliminate the animation you eliminate dreams. Adding the live-action sequence was as if we had destroyed the fable to not dream anymore. There are not dreams, no animation, no characters, but only the sad truth of what we are living now.
CA: This sequence is a heart-wrenching call for action. It urges us to open our eyes and react
Alê Abreu: I tried to translate that into this language and in this audiovisual poem with all the mixture of elements. In the midst of this mixture of techniques what would symbolize breaking away from the dream was to cut the animation completely because animation is the glue that gives you all the freedom.
CA: Tell me about the reaction to the film in Brazil. "Boy and the World" has received international acclaim, it's won numerous awards, and has screened at countless festivals, but was the reception at home as great given that you had to compete with animated offers from abroad?
Alê Abreu: It wasn’t great. The critical reception was really good, but we didn’t find a commercial space to screen the film, only in art house cinemas. We opened in 35 theaters in the entire country and we had 35,000 attendees. However, in France we opened on 90 screens for 7 months and we had over 120,000 attendees. In France “Boy and the World” was one of the tree best reviewed films by critics that year. It was very special. For local films in countries like Brazil or Mexico establishing commercial relationships is not easy. It’s very difficult for independent local films, for our films. It’s like having a supermarket where there is no room on the shelves or the marquee for your product. The market is completely taken. It’s an economic issue, but above all it’s political. For me it’s very simple, there is no space on the marquee for our films. People go to the supermarket not knowing what they want. They go and see what’s there. The company offering the products is more important. If the films were there people would see them. If you have a product and there is space on the shelves for it, there is a chance people will buy it. Right now there are no spaces for our films in our countries.
"Boy and the World" opens on December 11 in L.A. at Laemmle's North Hollywood and in NYC at IFC Center...
Textured dreams laced with thoughtful observations on the modern human experience construct Alê Abreu’s stirring fantasia “Boy and the World,” a film so viscerally enchanting and dazzlingly beautiful that it enraptures you from the moment its subtle opening sequence appears on screen. A little boy leaves his home in the peaceful countryside to see the grandeur of urban civilization and find his beloved father, but as this musical odyssey exposes him to both unimaginable desolation and mesmerizing beauty, he finds comfort in endearing memories and future hopes.
This Brazilian animated feature showcases handcraft in a uniquely imaginative manner that resembles the simple magic that could come from a child’s imagination. Colorful backgrounds with eclectic aesthetics and an adorable protagonist serve as the vehicle for Abreu to discuss complex subjects like consumerism, oppression, discrimination, and poverty. It’s all as clever as it’s charming, and it's by far the best and most sophisticated animated film to hit cinemas stateside this year.
Chatting with Abreu is as delightful as watching the film itself. His ever-present fervor for the animation medium and its yet unexplored possibilities is contagious. While he is fully aware of the uphill battle that a film like his faces in a cinematic landscape saturated by commercially-friendly product often devoid of any meaningful artistry. Yet, Abreu remains enthusiastically focused on the boundless creative freedom that working outside the preset productions models allows him.
A film like “Boy and the World” could only come from the intersection between meticulous handcraft and sheer kindness. Alê Abreu will tell you that his film came from a personal place to express his passion to explore what it means to be a human being. I believe him, because every brush stroke, pencil drawing, and colorful design shines with a glossy coat of loving warmth.
Review: Why Alê Abreu's Sublime 'Boy and the World' is the Best Animated Film of the Year
Carlos Aguilar: This is your second feature film and it's stylistically very different from what you've done previously. The designs and lyrical quality of the animation is remarkable and it brilliantly evokes innocence and wonder. Where did the concept for "Boy and the World" and its adorable protagonist come from?
Alê Abreu: I have the feeling that I didn’t make it by myself, but that I was conducted by feelings that were completely different from those in my previous work. When I start making a film I don’t know what I’m doing. I made this film without knowing what I was doing. I simply found the character in a sketchbook. I had drawn it some time before. There were many drawings from the research I did for the film “Canto Latino,” the animadoc or animated documentary about Latin America. I did a lot research about protest music from the 60s and 70s, and I think that’s what guided me to the story of this boy. One day I discovered the figure of this boy in those research notebooks. I felt like this boy was calling me to follow him into this world and to discover his story. I was very happy to hear the little boy’s voice. He was really the director of the film.
Making a film from the point of view of a young boy’s eyes opened the door to another universe with lots of freedom and to explore a new dimension. This was achieved as I started doing things that were close to what exists in a child’s universe. I built the film this way. I gathered all the tools I usually use such as brushes, color pencils, crayons, watercolors, and everything else I found in my studio, and I put them on top of a table. I had this feeling of freedom and possibility like if I was this boy. I was using the boy’s freedom to create this film.
CA: In a sense you created a film from this boy's perspective and how he would tell this story.
Alê Abreu: I tried to exploit such freedom to create those drawings like if I was a boy. I tried to draw with that freedom and that love that I remember from being a child and spending a day drawing without worrying about whether what I’m drawing is real or strange. I’m being sincere and I’m being human. I’m making mistakes or I’m doing things correctly, but I’m being human regardless. I’m talking about my pain and my joy, and I’m not saying it with words but mainly with colors and shapes. That’s what I tried to do with the utmost sincerity and humility of a child.
CA: For an independent production like this, how difficult was it to achieve the desired look and how big was your team of collaborators during this process?
Alê Abreu: Our team was very small during these three years of work. There were about 15 people helping me, but I produced all the animations and backgrounds myself. We had to discover our own production process. From what type of software could help us make a movie faster to everything else regarding the textures. Some might think, ”It’s probably very easy to make a film with those textures,” but it’s much more difficult than what it appears to be. We had to discover a faster process because otherwise it could have taken us 10 years to make it.
CA: This is definitely a work of love. Is the film entirely hand-drawn or how how big was the role of modern technology in its production?
Alê Abreu: A little bit more than 50% of what you see on screen is handcrafted and the other 50% was about emulating these textures on the computer. However, for us, when we were making it, we had to believe it was all handcrafted. I always told my team, “You have to believe that you are not in front of a computer, but that your canvas is a piece of paper. You have to believe this even if you have a computer in front of you.”
CA: Tell me about selecting the diverse musical pieces that score the film. There are multiple genres from rap to samba, but they all seamlessly connect with the images.
Alê Abreu: That was a very natural process because as I was creating the animatic I added music clips as reference of the kind of music I wanted in the film. These were from musicians like Naná Vasconcelos and Barbatuques, the body percussion group. Nana Vasconcelos was called because his music speaks to the point of view of the older man in the film. The rapper Emicida came on board at the end of the entire process when we started thinking about what we could play as the final credits rolled. We thought that using rap would draw a parallel with the protest music from the 60s and 70s that we found through the research for animadoc. When we thought about rap, Emicida immediately came to mind and we decided to call him to create this song bring the audience back to earth and put their feet on the ground. Emicida’s song is the only one that has lyrics in actual understandable Portuguese.
CA: Do you believe that you were thinking musically while making the film? It clearly feels as if music becomes a unique and alive element in the film.
Alê Abreu: Is as if the music is another character or as if it was a part of this great opera. I also through about this project as a structure or as a sculpture made out of colors, rhythm, characters, and brush strokes, but with every single one of these always supporting one another. If I have a blank piece of paper and I draw a red figure, immediately this brings sounds and shapes to my mind. I tried to make a film in which every component supports the others while giving each other space and stimulating the creation of what’s yet to come.
CA: One song in particular stands out, “Airgela,” which we hear throughout the film in very distinct version. This song connects the boy with the his father, with his memories, and with the world beyond his hometown.
Alê Abreu: “Airgela” is “Alegria” backwards and “Alegria” means “Joy” or “Happiness.” This is a fundamental word in this film. It’s very important. Symbolically “Alegria” is crucial word in the creation of this project. Although it wasn’t present from the beginning, as we were working on the music it became symbolic.
CA: Why did it become symbolic?
Alê Abreu: Because I feel that joy is the basic emotion of life and of human beings. It’s what supports everything. We are here to be happy. We are to enjoy “alegria.”
CA: We are born happy and full of joy, sadness and all other emotions come after.
Alê Abreu: Absolutely. “Alegria” is the first word in that song, but then there are seven other words. The first one is “Alegria” and the last one is “Voz” or “Voice.” You start with “Alegria,“ then “Libertad,” or "Freedom" and then other words until you have a “Voice.” You depart from joy until you get a voice. These seven words were carefully selected for the song, which was written by Gustavo Kurlat, one of the film's composers.
CA: The dialogue we hear in the film is a language you created by assembling sentences using Portuguese words written backwards. This also applies to any billboards or signs in the film. Why was the lack of understandable spoken and written language important to you? Even without a single word you manage to express very complex ideas about the world and how it works.
Alê Abreu: The entire time I was following the feelings experienced by children, so the feeling of not understanding what adults say was very important to put the audience in this frequency to understand the world through his eyes. We discovered this halfway through the process. When we started making the film there were some lines of dialogue in Portuguese, but we then changed our minds. The film started from very specific issues in the world, in particular Latin America, but halfway through the journey we felt the necessity to have more universal ideas that were not so specific. They didn’t need to be specifically South American or Latin American. Instead we discovered we were talking about human beings in general. We realized that these are not issues only pertinent to Latin America: poverty, misery, consumerism, etc.
The world’s geography is not realistic. Geography is not real. Borders are only closed to people but they are open to products. There is another type of geography outside of this matrix. Because of this we noticed we were talking about much more than just Latin America. That was very important to put the film on another level. Based on this idea, we knew that we were not in this world any longer. We were in another planet and we were reaching for something closer to a fable. It was something fabulous. I started looking at the film as if it happened in another planet and that allowed me even more freedom.
Looking through a child’s eyes and knowing this was another planet, we decided to design the machines with eyes and bodies like animals, we also decided that this planet has two moons, and we decided that anything else we wanted to do was allowed. It was a new perspective to make the film. That’s when I thought, “I don’t need these few dialogue lines in Portuguese. What are we going to do? We are going to create a language in which the words are pronounced backwards and we are going to put subtitles on the screen.” Then we realized it wasn’t necessary to put them. There is no reason to understand what they are saying. Each person can understand it however they like.
CA: There were no limitations
Alê Abreu: No. We were breaking away from anything that linked us to this world, but by doing that those ideas remained even stronger. Fables represent the basis for what I wanted to say about human beings.
CA: This idea of machines replacing the human touch in almost all endeavors also speaks to the way animation is being produced today. Digitally made films with very specific financial purposes have taken over market leaving little room for handcrafted works.
Alê Abreu: On another level this film talks about that. We had tremendous freedom while making this film. We never thought about marketing. It wasn’t a film made to sell merchandise or products or to reach millions of people around the world. It was a film made to say what I really felt. It’s a film made in a very radical creative manner. It was possible because we didn’t have to pander to capitalism. I think the film is also a humanistic cry for help for animation. It’s a film with sensitivities completely opposite to what the market wants to sell.
CA: Since those films are designed for mass appeal they take very few risks regarding the ideas or issues they deal with. It's hard to imagine a studio animated feature tackling the social justice concerns "Boy and the World" touches on.
Alê Abreu: The film gave me the possibility to create a new language. Animation is a very rich medium but hasn’t fully been exploited by artists. Often artists are trapped by words. Films are born from screenplays and they are guided by words. They are born very limited and there is no space for real creation: graphic creation, pictorial creation, or audiovisual creation. If we really want to use the art of animation with all its strength, we have to rethink the processes by which it’s made because the medium is the message. The way a film is made tells you about its message. The processes are the same as the products. We made the film starting from processes that allowed us to find these complex ideas. Director and producers have to take all the risks they can. We developed this film with the possibility to create departing from a blank page and to discover things as the process went along and as we understood the things that at first we couldn’t understand in words.
CA: Would you say that everything, even challenging political concepts, can be expressed truly visually without the need for words?
Alê Abreu: I think so, but each film has its processes. It doesn’t mean that all animated films have to be like “Boy and the World,” but creators have to have total freedom. There are films that are born with the purpose to sell. They are still admirable films with great artists and great visuals, but we wanted to use a more radical approach to create art. That’s what we tried to do.
CA: "Boy and the World" deals with our childhood memories and what we learn as we grow older and face the powers that rule our lives. Did you ever consider what elements of the film would appeal to younger viewers and which ideas would be better understood by adults? Sadly, we tend to underestimate how sophisticated young audiences can be.
Alê Abreu: During the entire process of making this film I never thought about whom I was making it for. I always thought that the film was for me, but I didn’t think of any of that. I just did what I thought I had to do. I didn’t think, “This is what children are going to think” or “This is what adults will understand.” At the end of the process we called a market research company to find out whom the film was for or what was the target audience. We didn’t have a lot of money to release the film, so in order for it to play in cinemas, which are dominated by films with much larger marketing budgets, we had to discover whom the film was for.
We hired this company and we rented a theater in a multiplex for 200 people. The first time the film was screened I was hidden, but part of my team was in the audience. There were a lot of kids and I was very nervous, but on this day I discovered the film spoke to everyone. After the screening there was a Q&A. There were people asking questions and we had a sort of debate. An adult said that he hadn’t understood the relationship between the three characters and a child raised his hand to explain it to him. At that moment I understood it wasn’t a film for children or for adults, but for everyone. It’s a very universal film.
Following this screening there was only one thing I changed because at the end of the film I felt a profound sadness. In there first version, where we now have a colorful village with a new musical bird emerging and this small band of children, there was instead a sequence were garbage from the city engulfed the boy’s house and his tree and there was a shot of all the things inside the house destroyed. It was very heavy. It didn’t have a glimpse of hope. I understood that the film was a beautiful piece of music but at that point it ended in a low note. I had to bring that final note higher.
We went back to the studio and I didn’t sleep for two or three nights until my assistant director told me to think about the small children band, which represents the new generation, but he suggested adding it during the credits. It was too much jumping around. We then experimented with other possibilities. We added the band, we eliminated the garbage, and we added this new village developing. When we saw it was like a completely nee film. At that moment I had the feeling that the film was finally done.
CA: Music takes on physical form in the film. Each note becomes a colorful floating sphere that belongs to a greater whole - the bird. How did this peculiar and poignant storytelling device originate?
Alê Abreu: I’m not sure. In one of those sketchbooks I used while doing the research for “Canto Latino,” there was a drawing of this boy with these colorful spheres around him that I had drawn, but at that point I didn’t know what they meant. My job was like that of a detective looking to make sense out things that I had felt and drawn before. The drawing precedes the explanation. The film was born out of sensations transformed into graphic images and then I tried to make poetic sense of them. For example if you give me three words I’ll try to make a poem with only those three words. You can write any words, but the meaning you are going to give these words comes from what you are feeling. The creative process happened that way.
I draw things on the paper very freely but believing there is meaning to them already. There is already meaning in the colors, I don’t need to be guided by words. I draw them and the meaning comes after. Every time we would start a new sequence we would change everything. We had 40 sequences in the film and for me a sequence in a film is like a phrase in a poem. We were trying to understand what each sequence meant in two or three words. We had a film with 40 lines, some stanzas, and some words.
CA: There is a moment in the film where the animated realm gives in to the destruction taking place in the real world. Fire comes in an we are taken into live-action footage that shows our voracity against nature. Why did you feel it was necessary to include this powerful clip?
Alê Abreu: It’s very interesting because that has to do with the language that I mentioned. The film started with a blank page where we created a young boy with a simple pencil drawing and then the world opens itself up for the boy and at the same time we add the pastels, inks, watercolors, and many other elements. As the boy goes from the city and what’s more mundane back home, we started cutting newspapers and made a collage to create the mundane and artificial aspect that mankind had given to nature.
We put all these things on top the blank page, which represents where we come from and where are going. The film starts on a blank page and ends on a blank page. That blank space is the most abstract thing. When we are born the memories we have are from an abstract space. I think we don’t die, but we instead travel to an abstract space like a blank page.
I wanted to translate that anguish of this oppressive situation in an audiovisual way. We tried to do it with collages but it wasn’t enough. Since we continued to work as animators and as artist with the freedom of adding things we first thought collages could work, but we couldn’t do that there, so we decided to completely rip this dream apart and added the live-action. We had to break away from animation. Poetically speaking, if you eliminate the animation you eliminate dreams. Adding the live-action sequence was as if we had destroyed the fable to not dream anymore. There are not dreams, no animation, no characters, but only the sad truth of what we are living now.
CA: This sequence is a heart-wrenching call for action. It urges us to open our eyes and react
Alê Abreu: I tried to translate that into this language and in this audiovisual poem with all the mixture of elements. In the midst of this mixture of techniques what would symbolize breaking away from the dream was to cut the animation completely because animation is the glue that gives you all the freedom.
CA: Tell me about the reaction to the film in Brazil. "Boy and the World" has received international acclaim, it's won numerous awards, and has screened at countless festivals, but was the reception at home as great given that you had to compete with animated offers from abroad?
Alê Abreu: It wasn’t great. The critical reception was really good, but we didn’t find a commercial space to screen the film, only in art house cinemas. We opened in 35 theaters in the entire country and we had 35,000 attendees. However, in France we opened on 90 screens for 7 months and we had over 120,000 attendees. In France “Boy and the World” was one of the tree best reviewed films by critics that year. It was very special. For local films in countries like Brazil or Mexico establishing commercial relationships is not easy. It’s very difficult for independent local films, for our films. It’s like having a supermarket where there is no room on the shelves or the marquee for your product. The market is completely taken. It’s an economic issue, but above all it’s political. For me it’s very simple, there is no space on the marquee for our films. People go to the supermarket not knowing what they want. They go and see what’s there. The company offering the products is more important. If the films were there people would see them. If you have a product and there is space on the shelves for it, there is a chance people will buy it. Right now there are no spaces for our films in our countries.
"Boy and the World" opens on December 11 in L.A. at Laemmle's North Hollywood and in NYC at IFC Center...
- 12/10/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
"Ixcanul" is Guatemala's Official Submission in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the 88th Academy Awards. Isa: Film Factory Entertainment. U.S. Distributor: Kino Lorber
Ingrained millenary practices and forbidding modern concerns unfold simultaneously against the backdrop of dark volcanic stone, colorful attires, rural duties, and perpetual mysticism, in a film that’s as aesthetically exquisite as it’s gruelingly bold in its quest to be fueled by unrestrained reality. Jayro Bustamante’s “Ixcanul” is an ethereal masterpiece whose breathtaking beauty is layered with sociopolitical undertones while always honoring the indigenous people at its center and, more specifically, its women's unwavering and restrained strength waiting to be unleashed.
This profoundly affecting story follows Maria (María Mercedes Coroy), a Kaqchikel Mayan young woman, who lives with her parents near in the outskirts of a volcano near a coffee plantation. This land, its scent, its colors, and its people are all she’s ever known and all she’s ever wanted until now. When an arranged marriage threatens to put an end to her apparent freedom, Maria considers the possibility of venturing far from home and seeing what’s beyond the mountains, but her naïve eagerness to escape will place her in the crossfire between romantic betrayal, dangerous rituals, and the unwelcoming urban world.
Bustamante juxtaposes Maria’s unnerving coming of age story with her mother Juana’s (María Telón) efforts to salvage the family’s future by abiding by tradition. Within these two parallel experiences there is an urgency to bring attention to the vulnerability of Guatemala’s Mayan population who are rarely given a voice.“Ixcanul” is a fierce artistic triumph coated with complexity, subtle poetry, and a delicate ability for capturing its characters’ introspective dilemmas through its imagery. Such showcase of attuned sensibilities is expected from a seasoned auteur at the peak of his creative powers, but Jayro Bustamante has accomplished just that with his astonishing debut feature. No wonder “Ixcanul” is Guatemala’s most acclaimed film ever and the winner of numerous international awards including the Alfred Bauer Award at the Berlin International Film festival.
We talked to Bustamante about the his relationship to the Mayan community where the film was shot, the male chauvinist societies that hinder women’s growth, his homeland’s institutionalize discrimination against indigenous people, and the incomparable visual allure of “Ixcanul.”
Kino Lorber will release "Ixcanul" in early 2016.
Carlos Aguilar: The film focuses on these two women who are every strong in distinct ways; however, they are faced with extraordinary circumstances that test that strength. How did the idea to write a story about these two connected characters come about?
Jayro Bustamante: The idea was born from a real story, the story of a real Maria. What’s really inspired in her life is the third act, the problematic situation with the baby. Based on that I started to create this fictional screenplay but always grounded on real things that I had seen in Guatemala. I grew up in that region and I asked myself, “How does one become the perfect victim?” just as Maria is in the film. That’s how I started building this story. I had two very clear themes I wanted to work on: one was loss and the other maternity. In order for the loss and that sort of prohibition to become a mother that is imposed on Maria to feel as powerful as they do in the movie, I needed to construct a kind of maternity that was beautiful, without idealizing it but highlighting it. That’s why I created the relationship between these two women. Throughout the process I always worked with the actresses as if the two characters were one. We always thought that Maria, if she had been given the chance, would have become Juana. She would have been just as strong as her. That’s how we worked on these two characters.
While Juana is the matriarch and often appears to be charge, she still lives in a male-driven society where her needs and desires are secondary to those of the men around. Was it important for you to depict the internal strength of these Mayan women while also being honest about the world they live in?
Jayro Bustamante: From the beginning my intention was to adhere to reality, except for the magical realist touches that I also wanted the film to have because they were very important. Magical realism doesn’t work if the real reality doesn’t exist. There is a great contradiction in male chauvinist societies, and that is that they are usually composed of matriarchal groups. A woman reigns but she always reigns in a small space that the man left for her. She reigns when the man needs someone to be in charge of things that he doesn’t want to take care of. For me that matriarchy is till is part of this male chauvinism or "machismo" and that matriarchy continues to feed it. If I’m against male chauvinism, I should also be against matriarchy because both extremes are bad and one is derived from the other.
What I really wanted to demonstrate was that there is a waste of feminine energy that happens in male chauvinist societies.To get from point A to point B, a woman has to embark on an incredible journey through everything that’s in between these two points and have a great strategy to be able to get there. This journey would be so much easier if we would let her take those steps and then with her own strength she can get wherever she wants to go. I wanted to talk about that strength and that’s why there is that parallel relationship between Maria and the volcano. There is something symbolic about it. For me, Mayan women in Guatemala today are like that volcano that rumbles and resounds but hasn’t yet erupted. Real change will happen when these women erupt and release what they have inside. That’s the metaphor we wanted to convey, the connection between these women and the volcano.
One of the greatest achievements of the film is that it refrains from observing the characters from an ethnographic perspective or with an air of exoticism. These are people. Yes, people with different traditions and experiences from what many consider normal, but they are still as human as anybody else.
Jayro Bustamante: Definitely. I never had that temptation or that perspective because I grew up there, so for me there is no difference between us. I wouldn’t do it with any other culture. That’s something I can’t understand, to think there are people that one can observe like if they were in a zoo. I don’t think that’s right. Rich cultural differences show us the diversity that exists in the world, but if you explore any of these differences you’ll see that we all have the same human feelings. That’s what allowed me to make a story that was very local but that at the same time could have certain international repercussion. I wrote a film about a woman whose problems take us into the problems of a family and that in turn takes us into the larger social problems. That’s what we wanted to do from the beginnings. That can’t be done if the feelings that belong to the universal language are not present.
Indigenous languages are rarely used in modern cinema and because of this indigenous people have in a sense become both faceless and voiceless. How crucial was it for you to make the film in the Mayan language?
Jayro Bustamante: It was very important. Perhaps there is a bit of melancholy because as I said I grew up there. I had a nanny that taught me a lot of things, a lot of traditional stories, and who also taught me that language when I was a young child. Maybe this melancholy is there, but above all this, language is the clearest example to demonstrate how a large portion of the country lives without the tools to grow and evolve in its own country. They are foreigners in their own country, but they are the majority. Today statistics say that these people represent only 40% of the Guatemalan population, but that’s a lie. Discrimination is so strong that if you are Mayan and during the census or on a survey they ask you, “Are you Mayan?” you prefer to say that you are mestizo or mixed because you are ashamed to say who you really are. The social fracture is so big that in Guatemala the worse insult you can tell somebody is calling him or her an “Indian.”
Something similar happens in Mexico, where I'm from. People tend to associate indigenous languages, features, or traditions with negative ideas or as something that's less sophisticated or worthy, which is terrible.
Jayro Bustamante: When you think about it, if the worse insult is to be who you are, even if you are the majority in a country, it means that the majority of the country has a terrible complex regarding their identity. If you are trying to improve yourself or overcome this circumstances, these ideas make very complicated emotionally. There are many themes that we touch on in the film that are derived from discrimination. When I travel abroad I get asked a lot, “Why does Pepe want to go to the Us?” Maybe you and I can understand why this young man wants to leave. The reason why he wants to leave is obvious to those of us who are from countries like Mexico and Guatemala. He earns one dollar a day in Guatemala and in the U.S. he could earn, let’s say, $15 an hour. It’s true that in the U.S. he could be discriminated for being Latino, but he is already being discriminated in Guatemala, his own country, because his Mayan. He has a lot more to win than to lose by leaving. That’s very sad.
Tell me about the process of finding your actors and how challenging this was. You evidently needed people who were Mayan and who spoke the language, but also that could pull off the intricate performances the film required.
Jayro Bustamante: That was the most beautiful part of the process, to work with the actors. I started hosting workshops, more regarding social issues, in the place were I grew up. I grew up in the outskirts of the Atitlán Lake in the highlands, which is a volcanic lake. It’s about two hours away from the location where we were going to shoot. I was accompanied by a social worker. The idea was to open spaces to discuss the problems facing the Mayan community so that the social worker could hear their concerns and follow up. This would help me enrich the screenplay and find the actresses there.
In a way this also reflected the reality of the country, although there were many women that were interested in working with me, there were also many of them that didn’t want to be part of the project. I thought all of them would want to, but I was wrong, a lot of them didn’t. Those that I wanted to work with and that wanted to work with me had another problem. Their husbands, their brother, their sons, or any other male in charge wouldn’t give them permissions to participate. They couldn’t come be part of the project because they had to stay home to serve them.
While this was happening and we were trying to figure things out, I met Maria Telón, who plays Juana. She is part of a street theater group. It’s a militant theater group that advocates for indigenous rights and women rights. They were putting on a play at that time, and I started following her performances from town to town. When we finally got to her community, I discovered that this community is very prosperous and very curious about the arts. I decided to stay there to do the casting. We held auditions at the local market. We set up our own stand among fruits and vegetable stands and we put up a sign that said, “Casting.” We had a camera and a notepad. Nobody came.
The next day we change the sign to, “Help Wanted,” and the entire town came. Thanks to that we were able to meet everyone in town and that’s where we cast the actors. We worked with them for threes months before filming the first scene. It was a very enriching process because besides the fact that they were Kaqchikel Mayans they had nothing in common with the characters. They live in a very prosperous society with all the basic services. Maria Mercedes is a student and Maria Telón is an actress and a saleswoman. She has a very different life form the character of the mother. Manuel Antún, the man who played Maria’s father, is a dentist, and Marvin Coroy, the guy who plays El Pepe, is a poet. We really did a lot of work to characterize this family so they could really look like a family and like they live in this very different situation.
Once you had cast them, what was your approach to eliciting the emotions you wanted from the actors. María Mercedes Coroy's performance in particular is very quiet but marvelously moving.
Jayro Bustamante: We didn’t have a particular technique. We worked a lot on trusting one another. With Maria Mercedes we worked on her confidence as a woman. It wasn’t that she wasn’t a confident woman, but we talked a lot about the strength that she had within herself. She was worried about playing a character that might falsely seem passive. It’s not that the character is passive, but on paper it might seem that way because everything is internalized. I believe this is one of the hardest types of characters to bring to life. We also worked on the power of her gaze. She allowed me to explore her personal life and her past in order to find in her own experiences emotions she could use while we were shooting. One week we decided to kiss tress. We went to a forest and we decided to kiss trees. She started kissing tress on one side of the forest and I did it in the other. In the end we ended up kissing the same one [Laughs]. It was about earning each other trust and losing all shame.
Visually the film is absolutely breathtaking. There is the natural beauty of the locations and a very evocative atmosphere throughout the entire film. How did you and your Dp, Luis Armando Arteaga, approach to the cinematography and minimalist aesthetic of the story, which is definitely a fantastic element of "Ixcanul"?
Jayro Bustamante: We’ve known each other for along time. We worked together on my last short film and we have developed other projects together. He is someone who has a vision of cinema that goes beyond that of a Dp. We did something very interesting, which was to go to a festival that’s sort of like the Cannes Film Festival for short films. It’s called Clermont-Ferrand International Film Festival. We were there for a week watching all the short films. Our interest was to watch as many as possible because filmmakers are more daring when making short films. There are new technologies that they are willing to try on short films and there is less financial risk. You can watch a lot of them in a short period of time. A big part of our job was watching these short films.
After that we talked a lot about the trap that this location could be because it’s a really beautiful location. You can drop your camera by accident and the photo that’s taken is already a postcard. Of course, I’m exaggerating but it’s really that beautiful. We talked about finding that postcard-like image and getting as far away from it as possible. We wanted to stay within the characters’ intimacy. We both really wanted to shoot it on 16mm, and we couldn’t because of financial constraints, so we shot it on a digital camera. Since we shot on digital, we did a lot of work to create that grainy quality that film gives you. We used the volcano’s dust and a lot of smoke. We had someone who would create smoke for every scene. Every single scene you see in the film had smoke, in varying densities, but they all had smoke. Then we were able to do the post-production in France in one of the best studios, which was amazing.
There is a certain mysticism to the story that we see through several rituals and this community's connection to nature, and the volcano in particular. Tell me about including these otherworldly beliefs and spiritual offerings in the narrative. Why did you feel they were an important characteristic of this society?
Jayro Bustamante: All of these elements are things that I’ve seen myself or that still exist. In terms of the mysticism, for me, instead of trying to tell a spiritual story I wanted to tell a purely religious story. There is a Mayan religion today that’s a mix between Catholicism and the Mayan beliefs that remained after the Spanish empire fell. My characters live in a grave situation, one in which the only thing they do is try resolve their multiple problems. That’s why whenever a new problem arrives they act in such a tolerant manner, because they can’t add fuel to the fire. What they have to do is put it out. When you are in situations like these, normally human beings have the tendency to seek answers and hope in something bigger than them. If they were a Catholic family I would have focused on the Catholic religion. I wanted to also talk about the problem with religions. Religions are dogmas and rules represented by a leader that could lead you into the wrong path. This was the message. It was more of a religious message than a spiritual or Mayan message.
Regarding the rituals you see in the film, they are all based on rituals that are still being practiced today. Even us, before shooting we would lit a sacred fire to ask the volcano for permission. When we shot in the coffee plantation we also had a sacred fire there. It’s a very nice thing because you lit a fire and the ceremony lasts till the fire extinguishes by itself. It’s the fire that tells you when the ceremony is over. In the meantime you are sharing energy with the people around you. You tell the earth what you are going to be doing there. It’s about communicating and about the energy flow. When the fire is out you end up way too relaxed, so we started substituting the sacred fires for the yoga exercises. [Laughs]. It’s very interesting and it’s something that’s still done all the time.
In the final act you take your characters out of their community and expose them to urban Guatemala. In that moment these two worlds seem to clash and how little their know about each other.
Jayro Bustamante: The film was constructed in crescendo from the beginning. I was lucky enough to conceive the ending very early on in the process and because of this I started working backwards towards the beginning of the story. Instead of wanting to say, “Oh poor indigenous people” or “Wow these westerners are terrible,” what I wanted to talk about was the lack of social tools they have and how in this country a large segment of the population is left without basic services. Well, in Guatemala today even people who have all the tools and resources can still be left without the basic services because politicians stole all the money and nothing is working. But for indigenous people things are even worse. They are even lower in the list of the government’s priorities. That was the intention behind taking the characters out of their environment and into the city.
Has the film started a conversation or a dialogue regarding about discrimination and other issues currently affecting this segment of the population and Guatemala in general?
Jayro Bustamante: Yes, I’m really amazed about it. When I started speaking to the press in Guatemala about the film, I said that Guatemalans needed to learn how to watch films because it appeared to me that people were unable to analyze films. When “Ixcanul” opened in movie theaters it became a small success considering that it’s an art house film. We were in theaters for 7 weeks, which was great. After that, I found a lot reviews and articles about the film written by Guatemalans. These were profound analyzes and very well written.
Some were very self-critical regarding the country’s situation. I realized that I was wrong, Guatemalans are able to do these analyzes, but they get to see very few films that warrant it. You are not going to write a profound analysis about “Fast and Furious,” there is not much to analyze there. You watch it and you talk about it candidly, but you don’t spend much time thinking about an American blockbuster. That was very surprising and very gratifying for me, to see that people in Guatemala wrote criticism and self-analyze the country through the film. Soon after the film’s premier one of the most important newspapers in Guatemala published an article entitled, Ixcanul is a Slap on Guatemala’s Face. The journalist wrote about the country’s current social situation in relation to the film.
When you are in another country does it surprise you that perhaps your film is the first contact people abroad have with Guatemala as a country and even more so with its cinema? "Ixcanul" is by far the most talked about and the most internationally acclaimed Guatemalan film ever.
Jayro Bustamante: No, it doesn’t surprise me that we are not a very well known country or that we are country only known because of the difficult political situations we are going through. It doesn’t surprise me because we as a country haven’t done anything for this to be different. Everything we’ve done prompted people outside to see us just the way they see us. It’s what we deserve in a sense. We are also a very small country. When it comes to tourism we are very interesting country, but we are very small country that has been in an arm conflict for so long that obviously tourists don’t come. Then there are all the problems with the gangs, cartels, kidnappings, and all the other bad things you can think of.
It’s understandable that we are not well known. At first I believed that the point of entry could be the Mayan civilization because I thought that would be well known abroad, and I’ve realized that not so much. There is still a lot to teach and share about Guatemala with the world, which is good. Something that I still find especially surprising is this idea that the Mayans disappeared or vanished. It’s crazy to me that people still believe that, but I can understand why. It’s very interesting to me that people around world, even in places as far as Japan, connect with the emotions that the film exudes. That’s the nicest compliment. I’ve also had people in other countries tell me, “You are the firs Guatemalan I’ve ever seen.” I tell them, “Touch me! I’m real” [Laughs].
Kino Lorber will release "Ixcanul" in early 2016.
Ingrained millenary practices and forbidding modern concerns unfold simultaneously against the backdrop of dark volcanic stone, colorful attires, rural duties, and perpetual mysticism, in a film that’s as aesthetically exquisite as it’s gruelingly bold in its quest to be fueled by unrestrained reality. Jayro Bustamante’s “Ixcanul” is an ethereal masterpiece whose breathtaking beauty is layered with sociopolitical undertones while always honoring the indigenous people at its center and, more specifically, its women's unwavering and restrained strength waiting to be unleashed.
This profoundly affecting story follows Maria (María Mercedes Coroy), a Kaqchikel Mayan young woman, who lives with her parents near in the outskirts of a volcano near a coffee plantation. This land, its scent, its colors, and its people are all she’s ever known and all she’s ever wanted until now. When an arranged marriage threatens to put an end to her apparent freedom, Maria considers the possibility of venturing far from home and seeing what’s beyond the mountains, but her naïve eagerness to escape will place her in the crossfire between romantic betrayal, dangerous rituals, and the unwelcoming urban world.
Bustamante juxtaposes Maria’s unnerving coming of age story with her mother Juana’s (María Telón) efforts to salvage the family’s future by abiding by tradition. Within these two parallel experiences there is an urgency to bring attention to the vulnerability of Guatemala’s Mayan population who are rarely given a voice.“Ixcanul” is a fierce artistic triumph coated with complexity, subtle poetry, and a delicate ability for capturing its characters’ introspective dilemmas through its imagery. Such showcase of attuned sensibilities is expected from a seasoned auteur at the peak of his creative powers, but Jayro Bustamante has accomplished just that with his astonishing debut feature. No wonder “Ixcanul” is Guatemala’s most acclaimed film ever and the winner of numerous international awards including the Alfred Bauer Award at the Berlin International Film festival.
We talked to Bustamante about the his relationship to the Mayan community where the film was shot, the male chauvinist societies that hinder women’s growth, his homeland’s institutionalize discrimination against indigenous people, and the incomparable visual allure of “Ixcanul.”
Kino Lorber will release "Ixcanul" in early 2016.
Carlos Aguilar: The film focuses on these two women who are every strong in distinct ways; however, they are faced with extraordinary circumstances that test that strength. How did the idea to write a story about these two connected characters come about?
Jayro Bustamante: The idea was born from a real story, the story of a real Maria. What’s really inspired in her life is the third act, the problematic situation with the baby. Based on that I started to create this fictional screenplay but always grounded on real things that I had seen in Guatemala. I grew up in that region and I asked myself, “How does one become the perfect victim?” just as Maria is in the film. That’s how I started building this story. I had two very clear themes I wanted to work on: one was loss and the other maternity. In order for the loss and that sort of prohibition to become a mother that is imposed on Maria to feel as powerful as they do in the movie, I needed to construct a kind of maternity that was beautiful, without idealizing it but highlighting it. That’s why I created the relationship between these two women. Throughout the process I always worked with the actresses as if the two characters were one. We always thought that Maria, if she had been given the chance, would have become Juana. She would have been just as strong as her. That’s how we worked on these two characters.
While Juana is the matriarch and often appears to be charge, she still lives in a male-driven society where her needs and desires are secondary to those of the men around. Was it important for you to depict the internal strength of these Mayan women while also being honest about the world they live in?
Jayro Bustamante: From the beginning my intention was to adhere to reality, except for the magical realist touches that I also wanted the film to have because they were very important. Magical realism doesn’t work if the real reality doesn’t exist. There is a great contradiction in male chauvinist societies, and that is that they are usually composed of matriarchal groups. A woman reigns but she always reigns in a small space that the man left for her. She reigns when the man needs someone to be in charge of things that he doesn’t want to take care of. For me that matriarchy is till is part of this male chauvinism or "machismo" and that matriarchy continues to feed it. If I’m against male chauvinism, I should also be against matriarchy because both extremes are bad and one is derived from the other.
What I really wanted to demonstrate was that there is a waste of feminine energy that happens in male chauvinist societies.To get from point A to point B, a woman has to embark on an incredible journey through everything that’s in between these two points and have a great strategy to be able to get there. This journey would be so much easier if we would let her take those steps and then with her own strength she can get wherever she wants to go. I wanted to talk about that strength and that’s why there is that parallel relationship between Maria and the volcano. There is something symbolic about it. For me, Mayan women in Guatemala today are like that volcano that rumbles and resounds but hasn’t yet erupted. Real change will happen when these women erupt and release what they have inside. That’s the metaphor we wanted to convey, the connection between these women and the volcano.
One of the greatest achievements of the film is that it refrains from observing the characters from an ethnographic perspective or with an air of exoticism. These are people. Yes, people with different traditions and experiences from what many consider normal, but they are still as human as anybody else.
Jayro Bustamante: Definitely. I never had that temptation or that perspective because I grew up there, so for me there is no difference between us. I wouldn’t do it with any other culture. That’s something I can’t understand, to think there are people that one can observe like if they were in a zoo. I don’t think that’s right. Rich cultural differences show us the diversity that exists in the world, but if you explore any of these differences you’ll see that we all have the same human feelings. That’s what allowed me to make a story that was very local but that at the same time could have certain international repercussion. I wrote a film about a woman whose problems take us into the problems of a family and that in turn takes us into the larger social problems. That’s what we wanted to do from the beginnings. That can’t be done if the feelings that belong to the universal language are not present.
Indigenous languages are rarely used in modern cinema and because of this indigenous people have in a sense become both faceless and voiceless. How crucial was it for you to make the film in the Mayan language?
Jayro Bustamante: It was very important. Perhaps there is a bit of melancholy because as I said I grew up there. I had a nanny that taught me a lot of things, a lot of traditional stories, and who also taught me that language when I was a young child. Maybe this melancholy is there, but above all this, language is the clearest example to demonstrate how a large portion of the country lives without the tools to grow and evolve in its own country. They are foreigners in their own country, but they are the majority. Today statistics say that these people represent only 40% of the Guatemalan population, but that’s a lie. Discrimination is so strong that if you are Mayan and during the census or on a survey they ask you, “Are you Mayan?” you prefer to say that you are mestizo or mixed because you are ashamed to say who you really are. The social fracture is so big that in Guatemala the worse insult you can tell somebody is calling him or her an “Indian.”
Something similar happens in Mexico, where I'm from. People tend to associate indigenous languages, features, or traditions with negative ideas or as something that's less sophisticated or worthy, which is terrible.
Jayro Bustamante: When you think about it, if the worse insult is to be who you are, even if you are the majority in a country, it means that the majority of the country has a terrible complex regarding their identity. If you are trying to improve yourself or overcome this circumstances, these ideas make very complicated emotionally. There are many themes that we touch on in the film that are derived from discrimination. When I travel abroad I get asked a lot, “Why does Pepe want to go to the Us?” Maybe you and I can understand why this young man wants to leave. The reason why he wants to leave is obvious to those of us who are from countries like Mexico and Guatemala. He earns one dollar a day in Guatemala and in the U.S. he could earn, let’s say, $15 an hour. It’s true that in the U.S. he could be discriminated for being Latino, but he is already being discriminated in Guatemala, his own country, because his Mayan. He has a lot more to win than to lose by leaving. That’s very sad.
Tell me about the process of finding your actors and how challenging this was. You evidently needed people who were Mayan and who spoke the language, but also that could pull off the intricate performances the film required.
Jayro Bustamante: That was the most beautiful part of the process, to work with the actors. I started hosting workshops, more regarding social issues, in the place were I grew up. I grew up in the outskirts of the Atitlán Lake in the highlands, which is a volcanic lake. It’s about two hours away from the location where we were going to shoot. I was accompanied by a social worker. The idea was to open spaces to discuss the problems facing the Mayan community so that the social worker could hear their concerns and follow up. This would help me enrich the screenplay and find the actresses there.
In a way this also reflected the reality of the country, although there were many women that were interested in working with me, there were also many of them that didn’t want to be part of the project. I thought all of them would want to, but I was wrong, a lot of them didn’t. Those that I wanted to work with and that wanted to work with me had another problem. Their husbands, their brother, their sons, or any other male in charge wouldn’t give them permissions to participate. They couldn’t come be part of the project because they had to stay home to serve them.
While this was happening and we were trying to figure things out, I met Maria Telón, who plays Juana. She is part of a street theater group. It’s a militant theater group that advocates for indigenous rights and women rights. They were putting on a play at that time, and I started following her performances from town to town. When we finally got to her community, I discovered that this community is very prosperous and very curious about the arts. I decided to stay there to do the casting. We held auditions at the local market. We set up our own stand among fruits and vegetable stands and we put up a sign that said, “Casting.” We had a camera and a notepad. Nobody came.
The next day we change the sign to, “Help Wanted,” and the entire town came. Thanks to that we were able to meet everyone in town and that’s where we cast the actors. We worked with them for threes months before filming the first scene. It was a very enriching process because besides the fact that they were Kaqchikel Mayans they had nothing in common with the characters. They live in a very prosperous society with all the basic services. Maria Mercedes is a student and Maria Telón is an actress and a saleswoman. She has a very different life form the character of the mother. Manuel Antún, the man who played Maria’s father, is a dentist, and Marvin Coroy, the guy who plays El Pepe, is a poet. We really did a lot of work to characterize this family so they could really look like a family and like they live in this very different situation.
Once you had cast them, what was your approach to eliciting the emotions you wanted from the actors. María Mercedes Coroy's performance in particular is very quiet but marvelously moving.
Jayro Bustamante: We didn’t have a particular technique. We worked a lot on trusting one another. With Maria Mercedes we worked on her confidence as a woman. It wasn’t that she wasn’t a confident woman, but we talked a lot about the strength that she had within herself. She was worried about playing a character that might falsely seem passive. It’s not that the character is passive, but on paper it might seem that way because everything is internalized. I believe this is one of the hardest types of characters to bring to life. We also worked on the power of her gaze. She allowed me to explore her personal life and her past in order to find in her own experiences emotions she could use while we were shooting. One week we decided to kiss tress. We went to a forest and we decided to kiss trees. She started kissing tress on one side of the forest and I did it in the other. In the end we ended up kissing the same one [Laughs]. It was about earning each other trust and losing all shame.
Visually the film is absolutely breathtaking. There is the natural beauty of the locations and a very evocative atmosphere throughout the entire film. How did you and your Dp, Luis Armando Arteaga, approach to the cinematography and minimalist aesthetic of the story, which is definitely a fantastic element of "Ixcanul"?
Jayro Bustamante: We’ve known each other for along time. We worked together on my last short film and we have developed other projects together. He is someone who has a vision of cinema that goes beyond that of a Dp. We did something very interesting, which was to go to a festival that’s sort of like the Cannes Film Festival for short films. It’s called Clermont-Ferrand International Film Festival. We were there for a week watching all the short films. Our interest was to watch as many as possible because filmmakers are more daring when making short films. There are new technologies that they are willing to try on short films and there is less financial risk. You can watch a lot of them in a short period of time. A big part of our job was watching these short films.
After that we talked a lot about the trap that this location could be because it’s a really beautiful location. You can drop your camera by accident and the photo that’s taken is already a postcard. Of course, I’m exaggerating but it’s really that beautiful. We talked about finding that postcard-like image and getting as far away from it as possible. We wanted to stay within the characters’ intimacy. We both really wanted to shoot it on 16mm, and we couldn’t because of financial constraints, so we shot it on a digital camera. Since we shot on digital, we did a lot of work to create that grainy quality that film gives you. We used the volcano’s dust and a lot of smoke. We had someone who would create smoke for every scene. Every single scene you see in the film had smoke, in varying densities, but they all had smoke. Then we were able to do the post-production in France in one of the best studios, which was amazing.
There is a certain mysticism to the story that we see through several rituals and this community's connection to nature, and the volcano in particular. Tell me about including these otherworldly beliefs and spiritual offerings in the narrative. Why did you feel they were an important characteristic of this society?
Jayro Bustamante: All of these elements are things that I’ve seen myself or that still exist. In terms of the mysticism, for me, instead of trying to tell a spiritual story I wanted to tell a purely religious story. There is a Mayan religion today that’s a mix between Catholicism and the Mayan beliefs that remained after the Spanish empire fell. My characters live in a grave situation, one in which the only thing they do is try resolve their multiple problems. That’s why whenever a new problem arrives they act in such a tolerant manner, because they can’t add fuel to the fire. What they have to do is put it out. When you are in situations like these, normally human beings have the tendency to seek answers and hope in something bigger than them. If they were a Catholic family I would have focused on the Catholic religion. I wanted to also talk about the problem with religions. Religions are dogmas and rules represented by a leader that could lead you into the wrong path. This was the message. It was more of a religious message than a spiritual or Mayan message.
Regarding the rituals you see in the film, they are all based on rituals that are still being practiced today. Even us, before shooting we would lit a sacred fire to ask the volcano for permission. When we shot in the coffee plantation we also had a sacred fire there. It’s a very nice thing because you lit a fire and the ceremony lasts till the fire extinguishes by itself. It’s the fire that tells you when the ceremony is over. In the meantime you are sharing energy with the people around you. You tell the earth what you are going to be doing there. It’s about communicating and about the energy flow. When the fire is out you end up way too relaxed, so we started substituting the sacred fires for the yoga exercises. [Laughs]. It’s very interesting and it’s something that’s still done all the time.
In the final act you take your characters out of their community and expose them to urban Guatemala. In that moment these two worlds seem to clash and how little their know about each other.
Jayro Bustamante: The film was constructed in crescendo from the beginning. I was lucky enough to conceive the ending very early on in the process and because of this I started working backwards towards the beginning of the story. Instead of wanting to say, “Oh poor indigenous people” or “Wow these westerners are terrible,” what I wanted to talk about was the lack of social tools they have and how in this country a large segment of the population is left without basic services. Well, in Guatemala today even people who have all the tools and resources can still be left without the basic services because politicians stole all the money and nothing is working. But for indigenous people things are even worse. They are even lower in the list of the government’s priorities. That was the intention behind taking the characters out of their environment and into the city.
Has the film started a conversation or a dialogue regarding about discrimination and other issues currently affecting this segment of the population and Guatemala in general?
Jayro Bustamante: Yes, I’m really amazed about it. When I started speaking to the press in Guatemala about the film, I said that Guatemalans needed to learn how to watch films because it appeared to me that people were unable to analyze films. When “Ixcanul” opened in movie theaters it became a small success considering that it’s an art house film. We were in theaters for 7 weeks, which was great. After that, I found a lot reviews and articles about the film written by Guatemalans. These were profound analyzes and very well written.
Some were very self-critical regarding the country’s situation. I realized that I was wrong, Guatemalans are able to do these analyzes, but they get to see very few films that warrant it. You are not going to write a profound analysis about “Fast and Furious,” there is not much to analyze there. You watch it and you talk about it candidly, but you don’t spend much time thinking about an American blockbuster. That was very surprising and very gratifying for me, to see that people in Guatemala wrote criticism and self-analyze the country through the film. Soon after the film’s premier one of the most important newspapers in Guatemala published an article entitled, Ixcanul is a Slap on Guatemala’s Face. The journalist wrote about the country’s current social situation in relation to the film.
When you are in another country does it surprise you that perhaps your film is the first contact people abroad have with Guatemala as a country and even more so with its cinema? "Ixcanul" is by far the most talked about and the most internationally acclaimed Guatemalan film ever.
Jayro Bustamante: No, it doesn’t surprise me that we are not a very well known country or that we are country only known because of the difficult political situations we are going through. It doesn’t surprise me because we as a country haven’t done anything for this to be different. Everything we’ve done prompted people outside to see us just the way they see us. It’s what we deserve in a sense. We are also a very small country. When it comes to tourism we are very interesting country, but we are very small country that has been in an arm conflict for so long that obviously tourists don’t come. Then there are all the problems with the gangs, cartels, kidnappings, and all the other bad things you can think of.
It’s understandable that we are not well known. At first I believed that the point of entry could be the Mayan civilization because I thought that would be well known abroad, and I’ve realized that not so much. There is still a lot to teach and share about Guatemala with the world, which is good. Something that I still find especially surprising is this idea that the Mayans disappeared or vanished. It’s crazy to me that people still believe that, but I can understand why. It’s very interesting to me that people around world, even in places as far as Japan, connect with the emotions that the film exudes. That’s the nicest compliment. I’ve also had people in other countries tell me, “You are the firs Guatemalan I’ve ever seen.” I tell them, “Touch me! I’m real” [Laughs].
Kino Lorber will release "Ixcanul" in early 2016.
- 12/1/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
"Viva" is Ireland's Official Submission in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the 88th Academy Awards. Isa: Mongrel International. U.S. Distributor: Magnolia Pictures
Authenticity is what filmmakers strive for when their characters are grounded on real life hardships and situations. To be able to capture a cinematic version of truth and put it up on the screen is an accomplishment not many can claim. The search for this dramatic honesty becomes immeasurably more elusive when dealing with experiences that are foreign to us, those that take place in places far away from our comfort zone, and where people face daily life in ways that could seem unfathomable for outsiders. It’s due to fact that he successfully created a truly authentic film under those circumstances that Paddy Breathnach’s “Viva,” an Irish production set in Havana, Cuba, has been met with acclaim and admiration since its debut in Telluride this fall.
The idea of an Irish director making a film about Cuban drag performers could make many suspicious or dubious about his intentions or raise concerns about Cuban representation, but all these should be put to rest because in “Viva” Cuba shines with its own light in a vibrant manner that never hints at the fact that the film was crafted by foreign hands. It’s impeccably genuine.
The film’s protagonist, Jesus (Héctor Medina), a young gay man, discovers that the only time he is free from life’s pressures and struggles is when he is on stage transformed into Viva, his beautiful alter ego that bares her soul on stage lip-syncing to classics songs of unattainable love and raw pain. His dream, however, clashes with his alcoholic father’s standards of masculinity. Angel (Jorge Perugorría), a macho ex-boxer who spent several years in prison and who was never part of Jesus’ life, returns to impose restrictions on how his son can live his life. Their mutual need for affection, their financial instability, and their opposing views create constant confrontations as they seek to reach common ground.
“Viva” is a striking blow of emotion that disarms you with the unflinching heartbreak of the musical performances, the tragic humor of its world, and the passionately nuanced acting on display. Here is our conversation with the Breathnach on the peculiarities of making an Irish film in Cuba, his love for visceral transformation, and finding one’s identity both individually and within those who we accept as family.
"Viva" will open in theaters in U.S. through Magnolia Pictures by on February 5th, 2016
Carlos Aguilar: What sparked your interest to make a film about this particular type of performers in a country like Cuba ? One of your producers, Robert Walpole, has mentioned the idea came from a show you attended while visiting the island.
Paddy Breathnach: The film had a couple starts. What Rob talked about was the genesis of our desire to make a film in that world. There was a moment that evening when a performer got up on stage and was singing this incredible and emotional song. We had been talking to two women sitting beside us. One of them started crying and I turned to her and said, “Why are you crying?” She said, “That’s my brother, and this is the only time he is happy, when he is on stage.” I thought, “That’s a world that’s interesting. There is something about that world that I have to explore more. “ The visceral power of that performer miming to these wonderful songs, the effect that it has on family, and what’s behind the performance, that’s what was very interesting.
That was the genesis of my interest in doing something in that world, and then we went and got Mark O'Halloran, the writer. Mark writes in a very authentic and realistic way, his research would be meticulous, and he has very fine intuitive senses. He had a sense of responsibility towards portraying this culture in the right way. He wouldn’t take it lightly and he has the instincts to know when he is not doing that or when he is stepping right on the mark. I went over to Cuba with him quite a few times to do research. Then he’d write, and then we’d go back to do more research on that world. We talked to a lot of the performers. I filmed a lot of those performances and the songs being performed. I built up a library that included the type of music that I wanted, the nuances those performances had, why they were powerful, and why I liked them. There was a lot of research done in advance.
The story, the dialogue, and the performances feel incredibly authentic. Did you have any fears or hesitation about the challenges of crafting a film in a foreign language and in a foreign country?
Paddy Breathnach: There is still trepidation about going into something like this. Once it was done we delivered the script to Cuban talent for the translation process - it was written in English. We wanted to make sure that we hadn’t stepped on any landmines or that we weren’t inauthentic in some ways. They couldn’t believe that a Cuban hadn’t written this script. I was involved in the translation process as I’d spent some time learning Spanish and I knew the script backwards both in English and in Spanish. I knew the language of the film, and I could communicate that in Spanish. It felt I had a basis, but until I started working with the actors I was very conscious that I could have missed nuances and that there were certain things I could be blind to. I had to very careful about that.
Once the audition process started it became clear to me that 90% of it was instinct and intuition. My choices and judgments were always the same as the casting directors. We chimed on that and I knew that I was able to make certain judgments in the right way. I felt confident about my judgments. There were some areas, particularly with humor, where they might be some difficulty in the translation. If you know there is something that isn't working about the scene - even if you don't know what it is - or if there is an element missing, you dig into the line, you dig into what it's supposed to be, and you discover what that was. I ironed must of that out through the rehearsal and the audition process.
What was your approach while on set in terms of working with the actors? Did the language barrier influenced the way you interacted with them and in turn their performances?
Paddy Breathnach: I worked on a lot of the dialogue with the actors in terms of just conversations about what it was, what I felt it meant, and what the characters were. When it came to shooting I had done my work. I didn't know what to expect, but I was hoping that I wouldn’t have to construct the performances. Luckily I had very good actors and because of that it worked out well. I think it's difficult when you are directing in a language that isn't your first language when you have actors that aren’t good because then you need your language to construct that performance. With good actors you can say something to them in whatever language you have, engage with them, and instinctively they’ll understand what you are talking about. Good actors get up to speed on that very quickly and I found that to be the case here.
I found that I was able to just take a nuance and say something, like an optional choice, and it would come back to m. I understood that it had come back to me in the way that I wanted it to. Also I had a very good translator. The first Ad was also an interpreter, and sometimes I called on him. Equally, I discovered that actually my own body language and my own energy was as important as my definite in language. If I used an interpreter they missed my inflections and my feeling. As I said, with good actors, they read that and they know what you want. In any case, my Spanish was reasonably good at the time. I could work in it. I was nervous, but I began to learn that I didn’t need to be that nervous because I had a lot of tools that I could draw upon and the most important ones I had. I began to realize this in the audition process. I knew that it wasn’t going to be a disaster [Laughs].
The political and economic situation of the country is present and unavoidable. We are aware of it but it never becomes the focus of the film, which is what might happen when you make a film about such a politically charged place as Cuba. How did you work around this in order to make a humanistic film rather than a political one?
Paddy Breathnach: Domestic films have a voice in one way and then there are films that are made by people that come from outside and those are another type of cinema. Cuba has a romance about it and a certain atmosphere, and a lot of the times the films made by people who come from outside romanticize the country in a way that contains a lot of clichés. We very quickly said, “Ok, we are going to be careful about anything that possibly resembles a cliché.” Mark again, as a writer, would be very good at that. He has a strong intuition on that. We sort of avoided those moments.
I’m not a political filmmaker with a capital “P.” I came form a philosophy background in college and university and I was very interested in a particular philosopher called Herbert Marcuse, who was a political philosopher in many ways. However, his view was that the power of art is in the beautiful. It’s not in its overt ideas of what is political. It’s in its substance, in its sensuality of what characters desire to be. That’s more important than the political ideas around that. I don’t know if I completely hold to that, because of course certain films need to be political, but I wouldn’t be a political filmmaker with a capital “P.” I don’t have the ability to be that. My own tone would be to avoid that overt political calling and try and bury and charge those ideas into something that’s a little bit more in the substance of the story or the texture of the story.
At some point we thought we should call the film it “Transformista,” because that’s the name for Cuban drag artists. They are known as Cuban “transformistas.” This is a film about transformation. There is transformation in lots of different ways. It’s a film about a country that is changing and needs to change at a particular time. It very much needs to change in the context of generosity. If it’s a very rapid change and it’s a change that isn’t grounded in it’s own culture, it could end up being a very savage and dangerous change. Equally, if it doesn’t move forward through the generosity of the older generation, that younger generation, who may have been repressed in terms of their talents, won’t have the energy or the ability to push that through in a coherent way. It has to be a marrying of the past and the future for that change to develop. These were some of the ideas that I had in the background so they didn’t need to be in the foreground. It’s not a political film.
Tell me about your decision to not subtitle the lyrics of the songs in the performances. These verses are very profound and heartbreaking, but in a sense the performances speak for themselves emotionally. Did you feel subtitles would take the audiences away from the scene?
Paddy Breathnach: That’s a question that’s come up at festivals. It splits the audience. My answer, I think, wins over the audience generally, but there are still people who don’t agree and I might be wrong. The songs and the performances have a real visceral power and I felt that if they were subtitled you would be in the process of reading and not watching. You wouldn’t be completely present to the power of those performances and in a way the power of those performances is what drew me to make a film in the first place. I made the decision not to do that. Spanish speakers get a little bit of an extra element to it, and maybe in the future on whatever platforms the film is available you might be able to have the option to subtitle that part. Maybe a distributor will twist my arm, who knows. I wanted, particularly in the two final performances, to have that strong, visceral, physical, energy dominate and I didn’t want an interface between that and us. Even though you might think, “I want to know what he is singing about,” I think you feel it. It’s a very emotional film, so the feeling has to be unbridled.
What did you want to convey with such a stunning character like Viva, who is essentially Jesus’ alter ego? Viva is freer and happier version of himself. Viva also means alive in Spanish, which seems like a fitting description for how Jesus feels once he has transformed.
Paddy Breathnach: For me he is a character that has to find his voice in life. It’s not enough for him just to choose that voice. He has to find it in a way where he is both the master of this own individual identity but also of his group identity. He needs to know he has a place within the group because those two aspects of our identity are very powerful to us. He needed to have a sense of family and community and also a sense of his won distinctive individual voice. That’s what his journey is about, to try and reconcile those two things. In the end when he performs there is a sort of triumphalism about it even though there is a little bit of grief in the performance as well. Still, there is a sense of triumph that he’s married those two things. At that moment, in the very last couple frames, you see him and say, “He is Viva now.” At that point he is completely Viva. He’s become Jesus a little bit before that in a fuller way as well, but Viva exist as its own character at the end. This other character is now there. I talked a lot to Hector about it and the need for a progression. We had to arrive at that moment at end. He couldn’t be good too early. He had to still maintain some of Jesus in those performances early on, but by the end we had to release the full power of Viva. Luckily I had a very good actor who was able to make that journey.
Watching Héctor Medina's performance one could think that he comes from that world because it seems so natural and real, but I've heard his personal experience is nothing like Jesus'.
Paddy Breathnach: He is a straight guy who likes women a lot and who is very gregarious. He is the center of fun and likes to go out and party, but there is a part of him that’s like Jesus in the sense that he is a very good person. He is a good man. He is a very kind and descent person, I know that because of how he treated me and the other cast members. Generally he is just a descent person.
How difficult was that transformation for him as an actor? It's an emotionally demanding role that has two distinct sides to it.
Paddy Breathnach: For him initially there was a huge sense of fun about it because it meant it was a challenge and he had to go there. By the end of the shoot I think it was hard for him. There were a couple moments in particular. One was when we shot the finale. I had to reshoot a little bit of that because he peaked and spent himself emotionally too soon. He gave me the anger and grief the first time and the second time I got the contentment, the sort of sense of completion, and the triumph about it. I marry the two sequences. I pushed him and then he pushed himself more. He pushed himself so far emotionally that I think by the end of the last two or three days of the shoot he’d given everything to us. He is the sort of actor that wouldn’t talk too much about it. He goes deep into a place to get there. He’d go to a dark deep place.
There seems to be a recurring theme or concern regarding Jesus. It seems like he doesn't think he is a good person despite the fact that everyone reminds him how kind he is. He forgives his father, which is a great personal feat.
Paddy Breathnach: I don’t think he thinks he is bad, but there is a lack of confidence in himself. He doesn’t value his own voice and he doesn’t value his won pain. Maybe the goodness, or being a good boy, is mixed with being used. The other side of the coin is being used. He is willing to help people, he is willing to give, but he is used. It’s a double edge sword in that regard. But then as he develops that confidence his sense of himself is given worth and value and that encompasses his goodness. It gives him conviction and confidence. It’s important for him to treat his father with love, and because he does he enables the father to express his own emotional life to Jesus in a way that he wants to but is too inarticulate to do so. He frees his father and in doing so in the end allows himself to be freed because of that goodness. This lets him become the master of those two worlds: his group and his own identity.
Jorge Perugorría, who plays Jesus’ father Angel, was in an Academy Award-nominated Cuban film called “Strawberry and Chocolate” back in 1993. It's interesting to see him in this hypermasculine role here, which is the opposite of the character he played then.
Paddy Breathnach: Yes, he played the gay character in that film. I’d seen “Strawberry and Chocolate” and I looked at him and said, “I don’t know if he’ll ever do this,” because his name came up as a person of interest. I researched a few other films and I saw a film called “Guantanamera” that he made, which is by the same director Gutierrez Alea. He is like a Cuban George Clooney, this is like 20 years ago, and he is so handsome, but masculine as well. Suddenly I said, “Ok, I’ve seen him in this other film where he plays a gay character, and I’ve seen him in this now, so he is obviously a good actor and he can do it.” He also had that charm that you need when you are playing a character that is so horrible in many ways and who treats his son so badly. His language is rough, he is trough, and even brutish. You need that charm to be there because that way the audience hates him but they hope he’ll turn. That charm is what let that hope live and Jorge had that. He’s been working for a long time in Cuba and he is a successful actor, but it’s lovely to have this as a marker to his career that includes “Strawberry and Chocolate” and now this film. I think there is a nice journey between these two films. For the world audience to see him again I think it’s kind of a nice journey.
In terms of the cinematography, was the visual approach shaped by the limitations or constraints of shooting in Cuba regarding equipment or production facilities? There is definitely film production there, but tools are probably not as available as in countries where there is a larger industry.
Paddy Breathnach: We limited ourselves partially because we had a tight budget, so that was a restriction. We didn't want to load the cranes, dollies, tracks and all that. I said, "Ok, we don't need them." Luckily it makes it an easier type of shoot. It suited the aesthetics and the practicalities. I think when you are making a low budget movie the aesthetic has to honor the practicalities, because if you try to fight them it just doesn't work. You have to marry the two and choose a style that works. We tended to light 360. We used very fast lenses so we could shoot in most locations we were going to be and shoot in every direction, which allowed the actors great freedom. This allowed me to respond to the actors’ performance. My Dp, Cathal Watters, is also a very good handheld-cameraman in terms of reading actors as well and capturing little movements and nuances. He brought in a lot of those moments.
What about the locations? Did you use spaces and items that were already there or did you have to construct the character's world from scratch with your art department?
Paddy Breathnach: We didn't have a huge amount of money for the art department, but I also didn't want to spend money on the art department because I wanted to choose real locations. I wanted to shoot in real locations as much as possible and use the relationship between one apartment and another apartment. Where Cecilia lives and where Jesus lives they are just around the corner and you can make that journey. We do it in the film when he walks around. What we tended to do was clean things out a little bit in terms of de-propping spaces and be very specific about where we chose to put the props. I had a very good production designer who is excellent at set dressing as well. It was more about control. It wasn’t about big spends or getting lots of things. Also, in Cuba you could walk to somebody's house next door and they’d have like 20 table lamps that go from the 1930s to the 1950s. If those were here they'd be fetching thousands of dollars as collector’s items, but there they are available for people to use. There were a lot of resources on the ground that were available to us. It was about saying, "What style and what technique do we want that maximizes the value out of the place that we are in. “ It was an organic style.
All things considered, what would you say was the most difficult challenge, logistical or otherwise, about making the film on location in Cuba? Did the limitations helped your creative process in any way?
Paddy Breathnach: The biggest challenge for me was that going into it I didn't know how good the actors were going to be. Until I started auditioning I thought I was going to shoot it in a naturalistic style, and I might have gone even more naturalistic than I did if I hadn’t discovered how great the actors were. Once I discovered how good they were, I allowed the style to be a little bit more beyond complete naturalism because I just knew they would bring something special to that. I knew it was a challenge, but it also became a big opportunity. As soon as I realized that was there, it expanded the horizons of the film for me a lot.
There were definitely production problems in terms of transferring money from A to B. Also, in Cuba you can’t just walk down to a shop and buy costumes, but I really didn’t want to do that. I wanted costumes that somebody else had already worn. It suited the film. Small things we had to get in advance. One of the characters has tattoos and you can’t just walk down and buy tattoo transfer, so we had to make sure that came over from Ireland. Another thing were wigs. The things we found difficult to find there are the same things artists find difficult to get. Getting shoes, getting wigs, getting make up, those sort of things had to come from outside. We already knew that from our research because we’d go back and forth between Ireland and Cuba and bring stuff back as present for some of the drag performers because we understood they needed them. We knew they had value there. We already knew those sorts of things and factored that it.
I would say that there were more opportunities than challenges. The limitations completely worked for us. I was aware of them going into it and I knew we had to honor and find the opportunity within them. A lot of films I’ve seen made by people from outside tend to light Cuba in way that tries to double up on its colorfulness. They use color gels and all of sorts of lights that bring all these mucky colors in and that’s not what Havana is. It doesn’t look that way. They tend to over-light things. It’s over-lighting without a lot of big lighting equipment. It’s a weird thing. Trying to light too much with limited resources is an awful thing to do. We’d seen that problem and we tried not to make that mistake.
Would you say "Viva" is an Irish film, a Cuban film, a Cuban film seen through and Irish lens, or an Irish film about a Cuban story? What's your take on this relationship between the story and the talent behind the scenes?
Paddy Breathnach: I think every film becomes itself. It has its own journey. You make it and then the rest of the world will see what happens with it. It’s a very Irish film to the extend that it has an Irish director, an Irish writer, it was an Irish idea, and it’s Irish financed. It was conceived in Ireland and a couple of other key creators are Irish as well. But we are sort of vagabonds in the sense that people from small countries always travel. You use up your curiosity fairly quickly in a small country. You need to travel and go. It’s in the history of our country. We’ve gone to all sorts of places as a nation to find something interesting for ourselves. Even that in itself is quite an Irish thing, but I think the story is an important story in Cuban terms at the moment.
The Cuban cast and the Cuban crew completely embrace it as theirs, see it as theirs, and celebrate it as theirs, so I would like to think that it’s a sort of marriage between the two. I’d like to think that’s what it is. Now, I know that ‘s true of the crew and the cast, whether it’s true of the public we don’t know because they haven’t seen it. I’ll be very excited and nervous when they see it. It’s not important that they like it, but it’s important that it’s true. It’s important that they feel there is truth in it. They don’t have to agree with it, but I hope they feel that it doesn’t misrepresent them. I don’t want to steal their voice. It’s very important that we don’t rob their voice.
Ireland is a country that was colonized, so we understand that. We have an intuitive sense, and I think Cubans recognize that about us. We are both island countries and have both have a history of colonization. We just have an awareness of the importance of that. I think we’ve done Ok by doing that but I can’t know yet. Somebody else would have to say that, but I think there was a very fruitful relationship and genuine engagement between us both. We needed to get that and I think they were very generous to offer that to us.
Drag performers are often associated with satire, comedy or exaggerated personas, but the ones depicted in your film embrace a much more dramatic type of performance. They are really heartbreaking and raw. Is this what you think makes them different from similar acts in other countries?
Paddy Breathnach: They do have comedy there, but what really stroke me were two specific things. One was the emotional power of the performances and the particular type of songs, which aren’t all Cuban songs. Some of them are Puerto Rican, Argentine or Mexican songs. It was that raw emotional power that drew me. It’s something you see in the drag world there. We really liked that.
The other thing that I think is very interesting and unique I witnessed in one of my visits. I’d just got off the plane and went to a show, because I was hungry to see as many shows as I could. You don’t always know whether there were going to be any shows or not. I went to one that was sort of in a blue-collar suburb and blue-collar crowd, it was a small backward. They put up a red curtain and one spotlight and that was a theater. I thought the alchemy of transforming this ordinary backyard into a place of dreams, theater and magic by just putting one curtain and one spotlight, cut to the heart of transformation. It says something about how the human spirit can become something else and how it pushes on to become something else. It tell us about what is it about art that allows us to imagine beyond our here and now into something really special. That was something that I think their situation and circumstances brings to that world of drag that another country doesn’t have.
Their economic deprivation and the history of it needing to be clandestine, it doesn’t need to be clandestine anymore but when I started making the project it was clandestine, bring a certain power to that world. Singers like Lucecita Benitez, whose songs we wanted to use but we couldn’t clear them in the end, were the type of singers that I wanted to use. Maggie Carles was another one, and we actually used some her songs. These are many of the songs that Luis Alberto García's character, Mama, sings in the film. They are raw and powerful songs by women in their 40s talking about loss and plaintively asking questions, “Why did you do this to me?” and all those raw emotions. I love that about that world.
There are many Vivas in the world, people trying to discover who they are and a way to show to the world. Do you hope the film connects with people at a crossroads in this discovery?
Paddy Breathnach: I think so. I think there is part of that world that's about finding your own sexual identity, but I think that in a broader sense it’s about finding your place and being both yourself and also being able to be part of your family. Increasingly I think individual identity is important. We’ve gone through a period where the need to discover our own individual identities was so important, but I think we have to reconcile that with our community as well because it’s part of our identity. We are ourselves as individuals but we are also members of group whether that is nations, genders, or political groups. We belong to things in groups and that’s a really important instinct that we have. I think the film can appeal to people in that universal way.
There are several instances in which Jesus' clothing or even his umbrella resemble the colors of the Irish flag. Was this a small way to pay homage to your homeland or was it subconscious?
Paddy Breathnach: It isn’t actually [Laughs]. It wasn’t deliberate. It was about what colors would work in those places. If you look at the very beginning of the film there is a strange moment, which was the very first shot we took. Jesus is with Cecilia and she asks him to go out because she wants the apartment. Jesus is walking across a square just before he meets Don. As he walks, there is somebody, who isn’t an extra, coming towards the camera as we are panning with Jesus. This Cuban man was wearing a t-shirt that says "Ireland" on it. I didn’t do it! I thought to myself, “People are going to think I did this!” It was just weird.
The sequence that plays during the credits where Don, the male prostitute, reappears, tells us a lot about what a family could be and also about the lives this characters will continue to live. Was that an important final message you wanted to get across? I've also heard your daughter appears in the film.
Paddy Breathnach: She is in the film, at the very end of the film. She is the little baby. At the time she was eight months and she became like a mascot for the crew. At lunchtime everyday they hand her around. She knew them all. We scripted that scene, but I think we scripted it during the shot actually. Don, the character, is in the film s few times and I said “Wouldn’t it be great if he comes back and the next time around with a cast on his leg?” Then we thought, if we do it a second time then we had to finish with the guy,” so we gave him a neck brace. I always feel that when you finish a movie it’s always great to finish it with a bit of energy at the end, so that it gives people something to talk about. If you conclude the film too much in the film itself, it’s all answered. You want the audience to finish the film on their own. I wanted to say that there is life for these characters after the film, that there are different types of families, and that this world is changing. Although it’s a positive moment, partially we are also saying this character is still selling sexual favors. We are not saying that there are magic wands being waved and everybody can stop doing that. The truth is those necessities and the reasons they do it run deep. We wanted to end it on something positive and have that happy feeling about it, but at the same time you are also saying, “Well, some things have changed, but other things haven’t.”
The final performance is such a riveting moment. It's a triumphant scene, but it's also devastating. Viva wins her battle in a sense.
Paddy Breathnach: I’m very happy with that scene. That song is great.We did a take where he finishes defiant and I didn’t want it to be defiant. I wanted one that said, “I’ve arrived. I’m here.” I wanted that openness, because that’s what the triumph. Not that he wins, but that he wins by being himself and being open and truth to his emotional spirit. That’s the real triumph, that you can win by being truth to yourself.
"Viva" will open in theaters on February 5th, 2016...
Authenticity is what filmmakers strive for when their characters are grounded on real life hardships and situations. To be able to capture a cinematic version of truth and put it up on the screen is an accomplishment not many can claim. The search for this dramatic honesty becomes immeasurably more elusive when dealing with experiences that are foreign to us, those that take place in places far away from our comfort zone, and where people face daily life in ways that could seem unfathomable for outsiders. It’s due to fact that he successfully created a truly authentic film under those circumstances that Paddy Breathnach’s “Viva,” an Irish production set in Havana, Cuba, has been met with acclaim and admiration since its debut in Telluride this fall.
The idea of an Irish director making a film about Cuban drag performers could make many suspicious or dubious about his intentions or raise concerns about Cuban representation, but all these should be put to rest because in “Viva” Cuba shines with its own light in a vibrant manner that never hints at the fact that the film was crafted by foreign hands. It’s impeccably genuine.
The film’s protagonist, Jesus (Héctor Medina), a young gay man, discovers that the only time he is free from life’s pressures and struggles is when he is on stage transformed into Viva, his beautiful alter ego that bares her soul on stage lip-syncing to classics songs of unattainable love and raw pain. His dream, however, clashes with his alcoholic father’s standards of masculinity. Angel (Jorge Perugorría), a macho ex-boxer who spent several years in prison and who was never part of Jesus’ life, returns to impose restrictions on how his son can live his life. Their mutual need for affection, their financial instability, and their opposing views create constant confrontations as they seek to reach common ground.
“Viva” is a striking blow of emotion that disarms you with the unflinching heartbreak of the musical performances, the tragic humor of its world, and the passionately nuanced acting on display. Here is our conversation with the Breathnach on the peculiarities of making an Irish film in Cuba, his love for visceral transformation, and finding one’s identity both individually and within those who we accept as family.
"Viva" will open in theaters in U.S. through Magnolia Pictures by on February 5th, 2016
Carlos Aguilar: What sparked your interest to make a film about this particular type of performers in a country like Cuba ? One of your producers, Robert Walpole, has mentioned the idea came from a show you attended while visiting the island.
Paddy Breathnach: The film had a couple starts. What Rob talked about was the genesis of our desire to make a film in that world. There was a moment that evening when a performer got up on stage and was singing this incredible and emotional song. We had been talking to two women sitting beside us. One of them started crying and I turned to her and said, “Why are you crying?” She said, “That’s my brother, and this is the only time he is happy, when he is on stage.” I thought, “That’s a world that’s interesting. There is something about that world that I have to explore more. “ The visceral power of that performer miming to these wonderful songs, the effect that it has on family, and what’s behind the performance, that’s what was very interesting.
That was the genesis of my interest in doing something in that world, and then we went and got Mark O'Halloran, the writer. Mark writes in a very authentic and realistic way, his research would be meticulous, and he has very fine intuitive senses. He had a sense of responsibility towards portraying this culture in the right way. He wouldn’t take it lightly and he has the instincts to know when he is not doing that or when he is stepping right on the mark. I went over to Cuba with him quite a few times to do research. Then he’d write, and then we’d go back to do more research on that world. We talked to a lot of the performers. I filmed a lot of those performances and the songs being performed. I built up a library that included the type of music that I wanted, the nuances those performances had, why they were powerful, and why I liked them. There was a lot of research done in advance.
The story, the dialogue, and the performances feel incredibly authentic. Did you have any fears or hesitation about the challenges of crafting a film in a foreign language and in a foreign country?
Paddy Breathnach: There is still trepidation about going into something like this. Once it was done we delivered the script to Cuban talent for the translation process - it was written in English. We wanted to make sure that we hadn’t stepped on any landmines or that we weren’t inauthentic in some ways. They couldn’t believe that a Cuban hadn’t written this script. I was involved in the translation process as I’d spent some time learning Spanish and I knew the script backwards both in English and in Spanish. I knew the language of the film, and I could communicate that in Spanish. It felt I had a basis, but until I started working with the actors I was very conscious that I could have missed nuances and that there were certain things I could be blind to. I had to very careful about that.
Once the audition process started it became clear to me that 90% of it was instinct and intuition. My choices and judgments were always the same as the casting directors. We chimed on that and I knew that I was able to make certain judgments in the right way. I felt confident about my judgments. There were some areas, particularly with humor, where they might be some difficulty in the translation. If you know there is something that isn't working about the scene - even if you don't know what it is - or if there is an element missing, you dig into the line, you dig into what it's supposed to be, and you discover what that was. I ironed must of that out through the rehearsal and the audition process.
What was your approach while on set in terms of working with the actors? Did the language barrier influenced the way you interacted with them and in turn their performances?
Paddy Breathnach: I worked on a lot of the dialogue with the actors in terms of just conversations about what it was, what I felt it meant, and what the characters were. When it came to shooting I had done my work. I didn't know what to expect, but I was hoping that I wouldn’t have to construct the performances. Luckily I had very good actors and because of that it worked out well. I think it's difficult when you are directing in a language that isn't your first language when you have actors that aren’t good because then you need your language to construct that performance. With good actors you can say something to them in whatever language you have, engage with them, and instinctively they’ll understand what you are talking about. Good actors get up to speed on that very quickly and I found that to be the case here.
I found that I was able to just take a nuance and say something, like an optional choice, and it would come back to m. I understood that it had come back to me in the way that I wanted it to. Also I had a very good translator. The first Ad was also an interpreter, and sometimes I called on him. Equally, I discovered that actually my own body language and my own energy was as important as my definite in language. If I used an interpreter they missed my inflections and my feeling. As I said, with good actors, they read that and they know what you want. In any case, my Spanish was reasonably good at the time. I could work in it. I was nervous, but I began to learn that I didn’t need to be that nervous because I had a lot of tools that I could draw upon and the most important ones I had. I began to realize this in the audition process. I knew that it wasn’t going to be a disaster [Laughs].
The political and economic situation of the country is present and unavoidable. We are aware of it but it never becomes the focus of the film, which is what might happen when you make a film about such a politically charged place as Cuba. How did you work around this in order to make a humanistic film rather than a political one?
Paddy Breathnach: Domestic films have a voice in one way and then there are films that are made by people that come from outside and those are another type of cinema. Cuba has a romance about it and a certain atmosphere, and a lot of the times the films made by people who come from outside romanticize the country in a way that contains a lot of clichés. We very quickly said, “Ok, we are going to be careful about anything that possibly resembles a cliché.” Mark again, as a writer, would be very good at that. He has a strong intuition on that. We sort of avoided those moments.
I’m not a political filmmaker with a capital “P.” I came form a philosophy background in college and university and I was very interested in a particular philosopher called Herbert Marcuse, who was a political philosopher in many ways. However, his view was that the power of art is in the beautiful. It’s not in its overt ideas of what is political. It’s in its substance, in its sensuality of what characters desire to be. That’s more important than the political ideas around that. I don’t know if I completely hold to that, because of course certain films need to be political, but I wouldn’t be a political filmmaker with a capital “P.” I don’t have the ability to be that. My own tone would be to avoid that overt political calling and try and bury and charge those ideas into something that’s a little bit more in the substance of the story or the texture of the story.
At some point we thought we should call the film it “Transformista,” because that’s the name for Cuban drag artists. They are known as Cuban “transformistas.” This is a film about transformation. There is transformation in lots of different ways. It’s a film about a country that is changing and needs to change at a particular time. It very much needs to change in the context of generosity. If it’s a very rapid change and it’s a change that isn’t grounded in it’s own culture, it could end up being a very savage and dangerous change. Equally, if it doesn’t move forward through the generosity of the older generation, that younger generation, who may have been repressed in terms of their talents, won’t have the energy or the ability to push that through in a coherent way. It has to be a marrying of the past and the future for that change to develop. These were some of the ideas that I had in the background so they didn’t need to be in the foreground. It’s not a political film.
Tell me about your decision to not subtitle the lyrics of the songs in the performances. These verses are very profound and heartbreaking, but in a sense the performances speak for themselves emotionally. Did you feel subtitles would take the audiences away from the scene?
Paddy Breathnach: That’s a question that’s come up at festivals. It splits the audience. My answer, I think, wins over the audience generally, but there are still people who don’t agree and I might be wrong. The songs and the performances have a real visceral power and I felt that if they were subtitled you would be in the process of reading and not watching. You wouldn’t be completely present to the power of those performances and in a way the power of those performances is what drew me to make a film in the first place. I made the decision not to do that. Spanish speakers get a little bit of an extra element to it, and maybe in the future on whatever platforms the film is available you might be able to have the option to subtitle that part. Maybe a distributor will twist my arm, who knows. I wanted, particularly in the two final performances, to have that strong, visceral, physical, energy dominate and I didn’t want an interface between that and us. Even though you might think, “I want to know what he is singing about,” I think you feel it. It’s a very emotional film, so the feeling has to be unbridled.
What did you want to convey with such a stunning character like Viva, who is essentially Jesus’ alter ego? Viva is freer and happier version of himself. Viva also means alive in Spanish, which seems like a fitting description for how Jesus feels once he has transformed.
Paddy Breathnach: For me he is a character that has to find his voice in life. It’s not enough for him just to choose that voice. He has to find it in a way where he is both the master of this own individual identity but also of his group identity. He needs to know he has a place within the group because those two aspects of our identity are very powerful to us. He needed to have a sense of family and community and also a sense of his won distinctive individual voice. That’s what his journey is about, to try and reconcile those two things. In the end when he performs there is a sort of triumphalism about it even though there is a little bit of grief in the performance as well. Still, there is a sense of triumph that he’s married those two things. At that moment, in the very last couple frames, you see him and say, “He is Viva now.” At that point he is completely Viva. He’s become Jesus a little bit before that in a fuller way as well, but Viva exist as its own character at the end. This other character is now there. I talked a lot to Hector about it and the need for a progression. We had to arrive at that moment at end. He couldn’t be good too early. He had to still maintain some of Jesus in those performances early on, but by the end we had to release the full power of Viva. Luckily I had a very good actor who was able to make that journey.
Watching Héctor Medina's performance one could think that he comes from that world because it seems so natural and real, but I've heard his personal experience is nothing like Jesus'.
Paddy Breathnach: He is a straight guy who likes women a lot and who is very gregarious. He is the center of fun and likes to go out and party, but there is a part of him that’s like Jesus in the sense that he is a very good person. He is a good man. He is a very kind and descent person, I know that because of how he treated me and the other cast members. Generally he is just a descent person.
How difficult was that transformation for him as an actor? It's an emotionally demanding role that has two distinct sides to it.
Paddy Breathnach: For him initially there was a huge sense of fun about it because it meant it was a challenge and he had to go there. By the end of the shoot I think it was hard for him. There were a couple moments in particular. One was when we shot the finale. I had to reshoot a little bit of that because he peaked and spent himself emotionally too soon. He gave me the anger and grief the first time and the second time I got the contentment, the sort of sense of completion, and the triumph about it. I marry the two sequences. I pushed him and then he pushed himself more. He pushed himself so far emotionally that I think by the end of the last two or three days of the shoot he’d given everything to us. He is the sort of actor that wouldn’t talk too much about it. He goes deep into a place to get there. He’d go to a dark deep place.
There seems to be a recurring theme or concern regarding Jesus. It seems like he doesn't think he is a good person despite the fact that everyone reminds him how kind he is. He forgives his father, which is a great personal feat.
Paddy Breathnach: I don’t think he thinks he is bad, but there is a lack of confidence in himself. He doesn’t value his own voice and he doesn’t value his won pain. Maybe the goodness, or being a good boy, is mixed with being used. The other side of the coin is being used. He is willing to help people, he is willing to give, but he is used. It’s a double edge sword in that regard. But then as he develops that confidence his sense of himself is given worth and value and that encompasses his goodness. It gives him conviction and confidence. It’s important for him to treat his father with love, and because he does he enables the father to express his own emotional life to Jesus in a way that he wants to but is too inarticulate to do so. He frees his father and in doing so in the end allows himself to be freed because of that goodness. This lets him become the master of those two worlds: his group and his own identity.
Jorge Perugorría, who plays Jesus’ father Angel, was in an Academy Award-nominated Cuban film called “Strawberry and Chocolate” back in 1993. It's interesting to see him in this hypermasculine role here, which is the opposite of the character he played then.
Paddy Breathnach: Yes, he played the gay character in that film. I’d seen “Strawberry and Chocolate” and I looked at him and said, “I don’t know if he’ll ever do this,” because his name came up as a person of interest. I researched a few other films and I saw a film called “Guantanamera” that he made, which is by the same director Gutierrez Alea. He is like a Cuban George Clooney, this is like 20 years ago, and he is so handsome, but masculine as well. Suddenly I said, “Ok, I’ve seen him in this other film where he plays a gay character, and I’ve seen him in this now, so he is obviously a good actor and he can do it.” He also had that charm that you need when you are playing a character that is so horrible in many ways and who treats his son so badly. His language is rough, he is trough, and even brutish. You need that charm to be there because that way the audience hates him but they hope he’ll turn. That charm is what let that hope live and Jorge had that. He’s been working for a long time in Cuba and he is a successful actor, but it’s lovely to have this as a marker to his career that includes “Strawberry and Chocolate” and now this film. I think there is a nice journey between these two films. For the world audience to see him again I think it’s kind of a nice journey.
In terms of the cinematography, was the visual approach shaped by the limitations or constraints of shooting in Cuba regarding equipment or production facilities? There is definitely film production there, but tools are probably not as available as in countries where there is a larger industry.
Paddy Breathnach: We limited ourselves partially because we had a tight budget, so that was a restriction. We didn't want to load the cranes, dollies, tracks and all that. I said, "Ok, we don't need them." Luckily it makes it an easier type of shoot. It suited the aesthetics and the practicalities. I think when you are making a low budget movie the aesthetic has to honor the practicalities, because if you try to fight them it just doesn't work. You have to marry the two and choose a style that works. We tended to light 360. We used very fast lenses so we could shoot in most locations we were going to be and shoot in every direction, which allowed the actors great freedom. This allowed me to respond to the actors’ performance. My Dp, Cathal Watters, is also a very good handheld-cameraman in terms of reading actors as well and capturing little movements and nuances. He brought in a lot of those moments.
What about the locations? Did you use spaces and items that were already there or did you have to construct the character's world from scratch with your art department?
Paddy Breathnach: We didn't have a huge amount of money for the art department, but I also didn't want to spend money on the art department because I wanted to choose real locations. I wanted to shoot in real locations as much as possible and use the relationship between one apartment and another apartment. Where Cecilia lives and where Jesus lives they are just around the corner and you can make that journey. We do it in the film when he walks around. What we tended to do was clean things out a little bit in terms of de-propping spaces and be very specific about where we chose to put the props. I had a very good production designer who is excellent at set dressing as well. It was more about control. It wasn’t about big spends or getting lots of things. Also, in Cuba you could walk to somebody's house next door and they’d have like 20 table lamps that go from the 1930s to the 1950s. If those were here they'd be fetching thousands of dollars as collector’s items, but there they are available for people to use. There were a lot of resources on the ground that were available to us. It was about saying, "What style and what technique do we want that maximizes the value out of the place that we are in. “ It was an organic style.
All things considered, what would you say was the most difficult challenge, logistical or otherwise, about making the film on location in Cuba? Did the limitations helped your creative process in any way?
Paddy Breathnach: The biggest challenge for me was that going into it I didn't know how good the actors were going to be. Until I started auditioning I thought I was going to shoot it in a naturalistic style, and I might have gone even more naturalistic than I did if I hadn’t discovered how great the actors were. Once I discovered how good they were, I allowed the style to be a little bit more beyond complete naturalism because I just knew they would bring something special to that. I knew it was a challenge, but it also became a big opportunity. As soon as I realized that was there, it expanded the horizons of the film for me a lot.
There were definitely production problems in terms of transferring money from A to B. Also, in Cuba you can’t just walk down to a shop and buy costumes, but I really didn’t want to do that. I wanted costumes that somebody else had already worn. It suited the film. Small things we had to get in advance. One of the characters has tattoos and you can’t just walk down and buy tattoo transfer, so we had to make sure that came over from Ireland. Another thing were wigs. The things we found difficult to find there are the same things artists find difficult to get. Getting shoes, getting wigs, getting make up, those sort of things had to come from outside. We already knew that from our research because we’d go back and forth between Ireland and Cuba and bring stuff back as present for some of the drag performers because we understood they needed them. We knew they had value there. We already knew those sorts of things and factored that it.
I would say that there were more opportunities than challenges. The limitations completely worked for us. I was aware of them going into it and I knew we had to honor and find the opportunity within them. A lot of films I’ve seen made by people from outside tend to light Cuba in way that tries to double up on its colorfulness. They use color gels and all of sorts of lights that bring all these mucky colors in and that’s not what Havana is. It doesn’t look that way. They tend to over-light things. It’s over-lighting without a lot of big lighting equipment. It’s a weird thing. Trying to light too much with limited resources is an awful thing to do. We’d seen that problem and we tried not to make that mistake.
Would you say "Viva" is an Irish film, a Cuban film, a Cuban film seen through and Irish lens, or an Irish film about a Cuban story? What's your take on this relationship between the story and the talent behind the scenes?
Paddy Breathnach: I think every film becomes itself. It has its own journey. You make it and then the rest of the world will see what happens with it. It’s a very Irish film to the extend that it has an Irish director, an Irish writer, it was an Irish idea, and it’s Irish financed. It was conceived in Ireland and a couple of other key creators are Irish as well. But we are sort of vagabonds in the sense that people from small countries always travel. You use up your curiosity fairly quickly in a small country. You need to travel and go. It’s in the history of our country. We’ve gone to all sorts of places as a nation to find something interesting for ourselves. Even that in itself is quite an Irish thing, but I think the story is an important story in Cuban terms at the moment.
The Cuban cast and the Cuban crew completely embrace it as theirs, see it as theirs, and celebrate it as theirs, so I would like to think that it’s a sort of marriage between the two. I’d like to think that’s what it is. Now, I know that ‘s true of the crew and the cast, whether it’s true of the public we don’t know because they haven’t seen it. I’ll be very excited and nervous when they see it. It’s not important that they like it, but it’s important that it’s true. It’s important that they feel there is truth in it. They don’t have to agree with it, but I hope they feel that it doesn’t misrepresent them. I don’t want to steal their voice. It’s very important that we don’t rob their voice.
Ireland is a country that was colonized, so we understand that. We have an intuitive sense, and I think Cubans recognize that about us. We are both island countries and have both have a history of colonization. We just have an awareness of the importance of that. I think we’ve done Ok by doing that but I can’t know yet. Somebody else would have to say that, but I think there was a very fruitful relationship and genuine engagement between us both. We needed to get that and I think they were very generous to offer that to us.
Drag performers are often associated with satire, comedy or exaggerated personas, but the ones depicted in your film embrace a much more dramatic type of performance. They are really heartbreaking and raw. Is this what you think makes them different from similar acts in other countries?
Paddy Breathnach: They do have comedy there, but what really stroke me were two specific things. One was the emotional power of the performances and the particular type of songs, which aren’t all Cuban songs. Some of them are Puerto Rican, Argentine or Mexican songs. It was that raw emotional power that drew me. It’s something you see in the drag world there. We really liked that.
The other thing that I think is very interesting and unique I witnessed in one of my visits. I’d just got off the plane and went to a show, because I was hungry to see as many shows as I could. You don’t always know whether there were going to be any shows or not. I went to one that was sort of in a blue-collar suburb and blue-collar crowd, it was a small backward. They put up a red curtain and one spotlight and that was a theater. I thought the alchemy of transforming this ordinary backyard into a place of dreams, theater and magic by just putting one curtain and one spotlight, cut to the heart of transformation. It says something about how the human spirit can become something else and how it pushes on to become something else. It tell us about what is it about art that allows us to imagine beyond our here and now into something really special. That was something that I think their situation and circumstances brings to that world of drag that another country doesn’t have.
Their economic deprivation and the history of it needing to be clandestine, it doesn’t need to be clandestine anymore but when I started making the project it was clandestine, bring a certain power to that world. Singers like Lucecita Benitez, whose songs we wanted to use but we couldn’t clear them in the end, were the type of singers that I wanted to use. Maggie Carles was another one, and we actually used some her songs. These are many of the songs that Luis Alberto García's character, Mama, sings in the film. They are raw and powerful songs by women in their 40s talking about loss and plaintively asking questions, “Why did you do this to me?” and all those raw emotions. I love that about that world.
There are many Vivas in the world, people trying to discover who they are and a way to show to the world. Do you hope the film connects with people at a crossroads in this discovery?
Paddy Breathnach: I think so. I think there is part of that world that's about finding your own sexual identity, but I think that in a broader sense it’s about finding your place and being both yourself and also being able to be part of your family. Increasingly I think individual identity is important. We’ve gone through a period where the need to discover our own individual identities was so important, but I think we have to reconcile that with our community as well because it’s part of our identity. We are ourselves as individuals but we are also members of group whether that is nations, genders, or political groups. We belong to things in groups and that’s a really important instinct that we have. I think the film can appeal to people in that universal way.
There are several instances in which Jesus' clothing or even his umbrella resemble the colors of the Irish flag. Was this a small way to pay homage to your homeland or was it subconscious?
Paddy Breathnach: It isn’t actually [Laughs]. It wasn’t deliberate. It was about what colors would work in those places. If you look at the very beginning of the film there is a strange moment, which was the very first shot we took. Jesus is with Cecilia and she asks him to go out because she wants the apartment. Jesus is walking across a square just before he meets Don. As he walks, there is somebody, who isn’t an extra, coming towards the camera as we are panning with Jesus. This Cuban man was wearing a t-shirt that says "Ireland" on it. I didn’t do it! I thought to myself, “People are going to think I did this!” It was just weird.
The sequence that plays during the credits where Don, the male prostitute, reappears, tells us a lot about what a family could be and also about the lives this characters will continue to live. Was that an important final message you wanted to get across? I've also heard your daughter appears in the film.
Paddy Breathnach: She is in the film, at the very end of the film. She is the little baby. At the time she was eight months and she became like a mascot for the crew. At lunchtime everyday they hand her around. She knew them all. We scripted that scene, but I think we scripted it during the shot actually. Don, the character, is in the film s few times and I said “Wouldn’t it be great if he comes back and the next time around with a cast on his leg?” Then we thought, if we do it a second time then we had to finish with the guy,” so we gave him a neck brace. I always feel that when you finish a movie it’s always great to finish it with a bit of energy at the end, so that it gives people something to talk about. If you conclude the film too much in the film itself, it’s all answered. You want the audience to finish the film on their own. I wanted to say that there is life for these characters after the film, that there are different types of families, and that this world is changing. Although it’s a positive moment, partially we are also saying this character is still selling sexual favors. We are not saying that there are magic wands being waved and everybody can stop doing that. The truth is those necessities and the reasons they do it run deep. We wanted to end it on something positive and have that happy feeling about it, but at the same time you are also saying, “Well, some things have changed, but other things haven’t.”
The final performance is such a riveting moment. It's a triumphant scene, but it's also devastating. Viva wins her battle in a sense.
Paddy Breathnach: I’m very happy with that scene. That song is great.We did a take where he finishes defiant and I didn’t want it to be defiant. I wanted one that said, “I’ve arrived. I’m here.” I wanted that openness, because that’s what the triumph. Not that he wins, but that he wins by being himself and being open and truth to his emotional spirit. That’s the real triumph, that you can win by being truth to yourself.
"Viva" will open in theaters on February 5th, 2016...
- 11/30/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
"Mustang" is France's Official Submission in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the 88th Academy Awards. Isa: Kinology. U.S. Rights: Cohen Media Group.
Adolescent discovery impaired by tradition is what afflicts the five untamable souls in Deniz Gamze Ergüven’s “Mustang,” a nuanced portrayal of blossoming womanhood that refuses to be anything but free. Set in a small Turkish town, the film introduces us to a group of sisters who yearn for the simple pleasures of youth. They want to laugh, to play, to spend time under the sun, to meet boys, and to openly express their desires even when these don’t align with the values of a male-dominated society. Arranged marriages lurk like an impending threat to their freedom and their bond. Still, sisterhood can’t be broken even when their spirits are prevented from running in the wind.
Its cast’s luminous charm and the filmmaker’s authentic vision have made “Mustang” a critical and audience favorite since it premiered at Cannes last May. The film’s profile reached even greater heights when France selected it as its Oscar entry instead of eligible films by other veteran directors. To have a Turkish-language French production represent one of the powerhouses in the Best Foreign Language Film category speaks volumes of the changing cultural identity of the country at a crucial time in history when acceptance and inclusion are of paramount importance.
Beyond the accolades, Deniz Gamze Ergüven’s debut feature is a thing of beauty and triumphant perseverance. It’s a film about five warriors in a battle fought indoors always looking for the small victories that offer a glimpse into a world beyond the confinement of conventions. Here is our in-depth conversation with a terrific talent.
Carlos Aguilar: When writing the screenplay for "Mustang," how difficult was it to give each character her own space and personality within the collective narrative?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: That was actually quite an issue, to distinguish them very strongly from one another because I always perceived them as one character with five heads. Think of a little hydra. In the film, for me, each time a girl gets out of the story is as if they’ve lost a battle. Then they recompose after a shock, reshape, and continue on fighting. Maybe that’s the reason why the end feeling of the film is sweet and sour, because it’s victorious and glorious, but at the same time you feel so sad because it’s shaded by everything that has been lost in the way. All the exists of those other girls into a different phase were quite sad actually. The temper of the girls came quite naturally. The film is really constructed like a little clock. If you take anything out, it falls apart. At some point I was asked to cut characters because of financial constraints, but it didn’t work out. They were all reacting to the previous girl. One was necessarily the underdog of the other, so the equilibriums were extremely clear: Sonay had a more dominant personality, the second one was afraid of flies, then there is the more mysterious and edgy one. When you start digging into the characters you discover them. Each of them is so singular.
How did these personalities and roles change when the actresses came in to bring the pages to life?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: They bring beautiful life to them in a sense. At some point I tried every girl for every part, even when it was very obvious that a girl had the nature of a character. For example, Ilayda was very close to Sonay. She has an immense trust in herself and she is a bit of a Lolita exactly like the character was, but I still auditioned her for every single part to be sure. It was obvious. Then when it came to casting Lale, the actress was different from the character. She had the intelligence and the wits of the character, but the actress, Günes Sensoy, she like knitting and is afraid of flies, leaves, and nature. There was always something of the real character in them and the fact that they had real acting qualities enabled them to compose. They brought exuberant life to them. They are all very solar.
Where did the specific experiences and cultural details come from? How close is your relationship to Turkey since you move to France and did these come from your personal experience growing up there?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: My family life was Turkish even if I was living in France. I went back and forth a lot between Turkey and France because most of my family was there - even my mother. A lot of stories cam from my family, for example, the little scandal that the girls trigger when they sit on the boy’s shoulders, that was something we did in the family. The things they are told was what we were told, but we didn’t react at all like the characters. I was mortified and stared at my shows, whereas the characters start breaking the chairs and saying, “These chairs touch our asshole, is that disgusting?” That’s heroic, so that’s not true. I was a complete coward in real life. The girls beaten in the order of their age, that was something that my mother’s generation went through.
There were also things that were documented for the needs of the script. There are lots of little things, which in some way reflect something real. Of course, when you work with actors and when you work on a script everything that you know about the human experience can’t possibly go in. With a screenwriter and with the actors there is always an environment of trust. You can say anything, all your secrets, and you know that it won’t get out of that room. Sometimes it’s huge, like you have a huge segment inspired by real life that goes in the film, and sometimes it’s just a shot,like the way that you look at someone if you saw something on his skin. You’ll focus your shot exactly the way you looked at someone that day. It’s about big and small mirrors, sometimes it's metaphoric. You say something but it’s not down to earth or the way it happened
Rebellious things only become rebellious when oppression comes in. Things that are so normal to most girls become controversial in the context of the film.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: Of course, each of these represents defiance. It’s a battle. There is always a conflict at the bottom of each one of those scenes. Sometimes the girls win a little and that’s the joy of victory, like when they go to the football game. They have shapeless, shit-colored dresses, but they can tear them up. These are little victories, and of course you can’t reveal against nothing.
Has the film been shown in Turkey and what how was it received there in comparison to the rest of the world ? Did some of the themes explored in the film upset conservative people?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: Very different from everywhere else. The film generated a sense of conquering in France. The audience adopted the film, they like the girls, there was something special in France. I think I was hoping that even people who could feel criticized by the subject of the film in Turkey would be charmed by the girls and that they would generate empathy, but it’s been different. People who like it, like it emotionally very strongly and people who hate it are very virulent against it. It’s inevitable. We are taking very taboo things.
It's hard to think someone could hate the film. Were these negative reactions something that concerned or worry you?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: There have been very violent reactions. The major media outlets are behind the film. The important journalists and the important film critics are behind the film. But on social media people have Gilles de la Tourette, the syndrome that makes people insult compulsively without being able to refrain themselves. I feel it’s violent. There was this woman,which I don’t know if it’s a woman because the profile is anonymous with a woman’s name, who had been insulting me for weeks and weeks. Once I was in Turkey she published information on all the places where I was during the day, “She is going to be at this TV station," or “She is going to be presenting the film at this movie theater.” It was awful.
Was it because she or he felt the film was against tradition or was it something beyond that?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: She would say things like, “The film is a huge lie. It was made to degrade the face of Turkey.” The thing is that there’s been one movie made on Turkey, which was “Midnight Express,” and it was awful for the image of Turkey. It’s one of those territories where you have little films to come out of it, so the responsibility of what you show is very important. We are showing things that are taboo and not always glorious like the sexual abuse and all those things. Of course sometimes the reactions are, “Why are showing this?” They would like me to show something heroic or chevalier, and that’s not the case. We are embracing humans as they are.
"Mustang" has been talked about a lot in terms of female empowerment because of the themes it observes and the strong vision behind it. What’s your stance on being labeled a “female filmmaker” or the fact that the film could be considered a "feminist film"? The way femininity is depicted in your film is definitely out of the norm compared to what we see in mainstream cinema.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: I used to not see it. When I was in film school and people asked about female cinema or male cinema, I didn’t really related to that debate until “Mustang" because of the fact that it’s about what it is to be a woman. There was something about it that made me perceive that in art history and in cinema history we have been seeing the world through the eyes of men. Women have always been objectified and there are very few figures of womanhood that literally look like us and who work like us in terms of our desires, hopes and all these things - like real females do. Literally, this is the first in a movie where I can completely relate to the characters. The metaphor I use is that masculinity is like New York in cinema. If you are not a New Yorker, when you arrive there for the first time you have the impression you grew up there because you’ve seen it in so many films. It’s been filmed from every single angle and by so many different filmmakers that you know the streets, the sidewalks, the architecture, the cabs, the temper of the people, all that you know. Whereas femininity is that village behind that hill with the bad road. Nobody goes there. There is no camera. We don’t know what it looks like. It’s pioneering to crisscross those territories.
For example, every step of the way of the experience of being a woman I always though, “Damn, nobody told be about this, or this, or this.” After I was a mother for the first time I thought, “Where did you see breastfeeding in cinema?” Almost nowhere. There was one film by Bergman that takes place in the Middle Ages where you have people going completely crazy because there is an epidemic of the plague. They start dancing and walking from one city to another. It’s an eruption of collective madness, and in that city there is one guy who has his eye dangling out of his face, then you have a guy carrying a cross, and a mother who is breastfeeding. That’s the only time you see a woman breastfeeding in cinema. It’s crazy! All those things which are so common in our lives and that are there in every step of the way in our lives, are not there.
Would you say femininity and feminism have become taboo in cinema?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: It’s not taboo, but men, not only in Turkish society but everywhere, have been the bosses in terms of creation. If you look at art history, women were the objects. The fact that it’s not been made by women means that the subjects are not women. You can’t have empathy with characters who are not the subjects because they are objects. That’s important.
There characters in your film are not victims, but more importantly they are not archetypes of fragility and weakness.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: The situations are terrible, but I really wanted them to be figures of courage, intelligence, perseverance, all those values that are never given to women.
Why was it important for you to make your debut feature in Turkey and to tell this particular story?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: This is my second feature project, but the first one to go into production. For me it’s very important that all my preoccupations about the world are at the bottom of a project. At that time with “Mustang” that preoccupation was the position of women and there was an urge to tell this story.
The title of the film is a compelling visual reference that really encompasses the girl's spirit. Where did it come from?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: Etymologically the word “mustang” means “without master.” One word had to describe the temper of these girls, which was untamable. There was also this visual line between these five girls with their long hair running around the village. They have something of wild animals. The first line of the script says, “Lale has something of a wild animal,” I had to find which animal it was and represented these girls who have been growing up without parents and playing around outside after dark. Also, one of my cousins’ names literally means “wild horse,” so it made sense.
The film is being released at a time when there is a difficult political atmosphere in Turkey. A film about freedom in times likes these is more than appropriate.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: Right now Turkey is extremely preoccupying. I hope this film will be seen there, if not in movie theaters I hope it’s pirated and seen. It’s important that it reaches people.
The girls’ grandmother is a very interesting character. She is helping perpetuate this traditional lifestyle, but that’s all she knows. She thinks she is doing the right thing, but in a sense women like her encourage and accept this inequality.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: In some ways she does it with the best intentions and with the means she has. I can’t say no one is pure evil, but she is not. She does whatever she can. Women perpetuate machismo. For example, in France, when people asked me, “Are you a feminist?” I used to say, “No,” when we released the film there. If you say, “Yes,” people won’t go and see your film. People think there is something ugly about feminists. There are so many actress like Marion Cotillard who say they are not feminist because is as if there are all these negative attributes associated with it. But feminism is exactly as any kind of combat for equal rights. It’s exactly the same as people fighting for civil rights and in most parts of the world you can say there is some kind of apartheid against women. It varies and it’s not always the same scale of inequality, but there is really a huge problem regarding the position of women. We are perpetuating this inequality. That grandmother is perpetuating it without questioning things that she has lived, and that’s true and it’s true in different ways in different cultures. For example, excision or female circumcision, women do it to other women in the cultures where it’s practiced. You would think that if you had been victim of something like that you would know better, but it’s not true. We don’t accept that this is exactly like any other fight for equal rights. We think it’s not glamorous to be a feminist. We think it’s just about women with hairy armpits and stuff like that, but that’s not true. It’s just a desire to be equal. The fact that we are not very articulate about it makes characters like the grandmother exist.
There is an evocative quality to the film's cinematography. Did you decide this approach from the screenplay stage or was it something that developed during production?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: First of all, we had to make something glorious and very full of life. From the script stage there were always passages or movements from light to darkness. The beginning of the film had to be extremely sunny: the age of innocence, fun, joy. We had to capture the life and the power of these girls. Then, as the characters leave the story it becomes darker and darker everywhere and it’s colder. Eventually it turns into complete darkness like in the last wedding. You have that movement in the dramatization of the light. There was something about the characters being full of life and the light they reflected that was glorious. At the end of the film we see dawn again. There was also something musical about the film in terms of the drama. I remember at some point I had written a part with trumpets and then all of a sudden I had this little interlude. I was thinking, “Now once you have the trumpets you can’t stop. You are not allowed to do this,” so I took that and threw it away. There were natural movements of light, maybe it was metaphorically musical, but all of them were natural movements of strength.
Was shooting a film like this in Turkey a difficult task based on the content and the situations it deals with? It seems like this small town was perfect for the film in multiple ways.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: I was trying to be under the radar as much as possible. For a long time when I was going back and forth to that little town I would never say what I was doing there. Ultimately I came with my team and it took two hours and then everybody in the city knew what we were doing there. There is so much gossip in Turkey, if you sneeze somewhere someone in another village will say, “Bless you.” People know everything about what you are doing. It was a very conservative place. I loved that because people were extremely welcoming, but some people were against the film too. Women in the restaurants there eat on the first floor and the men eat downstairs. I didn’t immediately understand that, so I would eat downstairs with the men and then I thought, “I’m just going to do it the way they do it." People were extremely respectful with me and with the girls, but of course I didn’t share the content of the script with anyone. I would say, “It’s a fairy tale about being a girl.”
I'm sure you've read tons of reviews and pieces comparing the film to Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides.” What are your thoughts on this at this point?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: I understand. There is this one shot when the girls are in the room and I understand that’s why. For me these girls are like the hydra: a body with five heads. They’ve been going through a shock and they are not at all like those in “The Virgin Suicides.” The fact that there is are a group of girls in the bedroom seems to spark that comparison. The book and the film say so many things about sisterhood, but when you see two people kissing in a film you don’t necessarily think about “Casablanca." There are less films about sisterhood, so of course it resonates in that particular spot. I’ve read the book and I’ve seen the film. I was disturbed after a while when people asked the question over and over again, so I thought, “Ok, I’m going to give in.” In the book they talk about when teenage girls have their periods it’s such a big deal, and I’m sorry to say this because it’s private, but in the group of actresses that is always a subject. Who has had it, who hasn’t, etc, and it’s a big discussion each time. That’s exactly like in the book. It’s true. That’s what happens in sisterhood when there are a lot of teenage girls. So I see how it resonates.
It seems like a lot of people finding puzzling to see France submitting a film set in Turkey and in Turkish as its Oscar entry in the Best Foreign Language category. What does this mean to you? How surprising was it for you and your team?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: It came out quite organically and I think it’s a beautiful thing. For me it’s very touching. I’m originally Turkish, then French. I’ve been going to this film school in France where they take six directors per year after a long contest. Then for four years you make films and you have all these professionals come in and out. You grow up as a filmmaker in front of the eyes of the industry. I had already run representing France at the Cannes Film Festival with a short film in Turkish years ago. Nobody ever asked because the film was obviously French. “Mustang” was initiated by France, my producer is French and my team is French. Once we made the film it was immediacy embraced by the ministry of culture, there was no distinction between our film and all the other French films released this year.
We hadn’t even finished the film when it was selected for Cannes and we were invited by the ministry of culture as part of a celebration of French cinema. They embraced me with my different origins and it’s a way of saying, “Look at who we are. France now is this, with people from different backgrounds.” It’s such a big statement for them to do that. It moves me very much particularly because I had very complicated relationship to France. Plus, the Foreign Language Oscar goes to the country, not to the director or the producer. It’s a huge responsibility.
The minute they told us we were stuck to the ceiling out of joy. We literally needed someone to bring us down. After that there was such a sense of responsibility. We’ve been entrusted with this. My favorite quality about French cinema is this diversity. There are a lot of international films supported by France; then there is the Cannes Film Festival, which is the place where people are most curious about cinema and different points of view from all over the world; and then there is the French audience, which is curious to see films in any possible language. There are more movie theaters in Paris than in any other city in the world and audiences there are so curious. We are at a time when Europe is moving towards values that are extremely right-wing and all of a sudden France says, “Bam! We are behind this film with a different origin and the values of this specific cinema.” It goes straight to my heart.
"Mustang" is now playing in L.A. and NYC.
Adolescent discovery impaired by tradition is what afflicts the five untamable souls in Deniz Gamze Ergüven’s “Mustang,” a nuanced portrayal of blossoming womanhood that refuses to be anything but free. Set in a small Turkish town, the film introduces us to a group of sisters who yearn for the simple pleasures of youth. They want to laugh, to play, to spend time under the sun, to meet boys, and to openly express their desires even when these don’t align with the values of a male-dominated society. Arranged marriages lurk like an impending threat to their freedom and their bond. Still, sisterhood can’t be broken even when their spirits are prevented from running in the wind.
Its cast’s luminous charm and the filmmaker’s authentic vision have made “Mustang” a critical and audience favorite since it premiered at Cannes last May. The film’s profile reached even greater heights when France selected it as its Oscar entry instead of eligible films by other veteran directors. To have a Turkish-language French production represent one of the powerhouses in the Best Foreign Language Film category speaks volumes of the changing cultural identity of the country at a crucial time in history when acceptance and inclusion are of paramount importance.
Beyond the accolades, Deniz Gamze Ergüven’s debut feature is a thing of beauty and triumphant perseverance. It’s a film about five warriors in a battle fought indoors always looking for the small victories that offer a glimpse into a world beyond the confinement of conventions. Here is our in-depth conversation with a terrific talent.
Carlos Aguilar: When writing the screenplay for "Mustang," how difficult was it to give each character her own space and personality within the collective narrative?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: That was actually quite an issue, to distinguish them very strongly from one another because I always perceived them as one character with five heads. Think of a little hydra. In the film, for me, each time a girl gets out of the story is as if they’ve lost a battle. Then they recompose after a shock, reshape, and continue on fighting. Maybe that’s the reason why the end feeling of the film is sweet and sour, because it’s victorious and glorious, but at the same time you feel so sad because it’s shaded by everything that has been lost in the way. All the exists of those other girls into a different phase were quite sad actually. The temper of the girls came quite naturally. The film is really constructed like a little clock. If you take anything out, it falls apart. At some point I was asked to cut characters because of financial constraints, but it didn’t work out. They were all reacting to the previous girl. One was necessarily the underdog of the other, so the equilibriums were extremely clear: Sonay had a more dominant personality, the second one was afraid of flies, then there is the more mysterious and edgy one. When you start digging into the characters you discover them. Each of them is so singular.
How did these personalities and roles change when the actresses came in to bring the pages to life?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: They bring beautiful life to them in a sense. At some point I tried every girl for every part, even when it was very obvious that a girl had the nature of a character. For example, Ilayda was very close to Sonay. She has an immense trust in herself and she is a bit of a Lolita exactly like the character was, but I still auditioned her for every single part to be sure. It was obvious. Then when it came to casting Lale, the actress was different from the character. She had the intelligence and the wits of the character, but the actress, Günes Sensoy, she like knitting and is afraid of flies, leaves, and nature. There was always something of the real character in them and the fact that they had real acting qualities enabled them to compose. They brought exuberant life to them. They are all very solar.
Where did the specific experiences and cultural details come from? How close is your relationship to Turkey since you move to France and did these come from your personal experience growing up there?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: My family life was Turkish even if I was living in France. I went back and forth a lot between Turkey and France because most of my family was there - even my mother. A lot of stories cam from my family, for example, the little scandal that the girls trigger when they sit on the boy’s shoulders, that was something we did in the family. The things they are told was what we were told, but we didn’t react at all like the characters. I was mortified and stared at my shows, whereas the characters start breaking the chairs and saying, “These chairs touch our asshole, is that disgusting?” That’s heroic, so that’s not true. I was a complete coward in real life. The girls beaten in the order of their age, that was something that my mother’s generation went through.
There were also things that were documented for the needs of the script. There are lots of little things, which in some way reflect something real. Of course, when you work with actors and when you work on a script everything that you know about the human experience can’t possibly go in. With a screenwriter and with the actors there is always an environment of trust. You can say anything, all your secrets, and you know that it won’t get out of that room. Sometimes it’s huge, like you have a huge segment inspired by real life that goes in the film, and sometimes it’s just a shot,like the way that you look at someone if you saw something on his skin. You’ll focus your shot exactly the way you looked at someone that day. It’s about big and small mirrors, sometimes it's metaphoric. You say something but it’s not down to earth or the way it happened
Rebellious things only become rebellious when oppression comes in. Things that are so normal to most girls become controversial in the context of the film.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: Of course, each of these represents defiance. It’s a battle. There is always a conflict at the bottom of each one of those scenes. Sometimes the girls win a little and that’s the joy of victory, like when they go to the football game. They have shapeless, shit-colored dresses, but they can tear them up. These are little victories, and of course you can’t reveal against nothing.
Has the film been shown in Turkey and what how was it received there in comparison to the rest of the world ? Did some of the themes explored in the film upset conservative people?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: Very different from everywhere else. The film generated a sense of conquering in France. The audience adopted the film, they like the girls, there was something special in France. I think I was hoping that even people who could feel criticized by the subject of the film in Turkey would be charmed by the girls and that they would generate empathy, but it’s been different. People who like it, like it emotionally very strongly and people who hate it are very virulent against it. It’s inevitable. We are taking very taboo things.
It's hard to think someone could hate the film. Were these negative reactions something that concerned or worry you?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: There have been very violent reactions. The major media outlets are behind the film. The important journalists and the important film critics are behind the film. But on social media people have Gilles de la Tourette, the syndrome that makes people insult compulsively without being able to refrain themselves. I feel it’s violent. There was this woman,which I don’t know if it’s a woman because the profile is anonymous with a woman’s name, who had been insulting me for weeks and weeks. Once I was in Turkey she published information on all the places where I was during the day, “She is going to be at this TV station," or “She is going to be presenting the film at this movie theater.” It was awful.
Was it because she or he felt the film was against tradition or was it something beyond that?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: She would say things like, “The film is a huge lie. It was made to degrade the face of Turkey.” The thing is that there’s been one movie made on Turkey, which was “Midnight Express,” and it was awful for the image of Turkey. It’s one of those territories where you have little films to come out of it, so the responsibility of what you show is very important. We are showing things that are taboo and not always glorious like the sexual abuse and all those things. Of course sometimes the reactions are, “Why are showing this?” They would like me to show something heroic or chevalier, and that’s not the case. We are embracing humans as they are.
"Mustang" has been talked about a lot in terms of female empowerment because of the themes it observes and the strong vision behind it. What’s your stance on being labeled a “female filmmaker” or the fact that the film could be considered a "feminist film"? The way femininity is depicted in your film is definitely out of the norm compared to what we see in mainstream cinema.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: I used to not see it. When I was in film school and people asked about female cinema or male cinema, I didn’t really related to that debate until “Mustang" because of the fact that it’s about what it is to be a woman. There was something about it that made me perceive that in art history and in cinema history we have been seeing the world through the eyes of men. Women have always been objectified and there are very few figures of womanhood that literally look like us and who work like us in terms of our desires, hopes and all these things - like real females do. Literally, this is the first in a movie where I can completely relate to the characters. The metaphor I use is that masculinity is like New York in cinema. If you are not a New Yorker, when you arrive there for the first time you have the impression you grew up there because you’ve seen it in so many films. It’s been filmed from every single angle and by so many different filmmakers that you know the streets, the sidewalks, the architecture, the cabs, the temper of the people, all that you know. Whereas femininity is that village behind that hill with the bad road. Nobody goes there. There is no camera. We don’t know what it looks like. It’s pioneering to crisscross those territories.
For example, every step of the way of the experience of being a woman I always though, “Damn, nobody told be about this, or this, or this.” After I was a mother for the first time I thought, “Where did you see breastfeeding in cinema?” Almost nowhere. There was one film by Bergman that takes place in the Middle Ages where you have people going completely crazy because there is an epidemic of the plague. They start dancing and walking from one city to another. It’s an eruption of collective madness, and in that city there is one guy who has his eye dangling out of his face, then you have a guy carrying a cross, and a mother who is breastfeeding. That’s the only time you see a woman breastfeeding in cinema. It’s crazy! All those things which are so common in our lives and that are there in every step of the way in our lives, are not there.
Would you say femininity and feminism have become taboo in cinema?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: It’s not taboo, but men, not only in Turkish society but everywhere, have been the bosses in terms of creation. If you look at art history, women were the objects. The fact that it’s not been made by women means that the subjects are not women. You can’t have empathy with characters who are not the subjects because they are objects. That’s important.
There characters in your film are not victims, but more importantly they are not archetypes of fragility and weakness.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: The situations are terrible, but I really wanted them to be figures of courage, intelligence, perseverance, all those values that are never given to women.
Why was it important for you to make your debut feature in Turkey and to tell this particular story?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: This is my second feature project, but the first one to go into production. For me it’s very important that all my preoccupations about the world are at the bottom of a project. At that time with “Mustang” that preoccupation was the position of women and there was an urge to tell this story.
The title of the film is a compelling visual reference that really encompasses the girl's spirit. Where did it come from?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: Etymologically the word “mustang” means “without master.” One word had to describe the temper of these girls, which was untamable. There was also this visual line between these five girls with their long hair running around the village. They have something of wild animals. The first line of the script says, “Lale has something of a wild animal,” I had to find which animal it was and represented these girls who have been growing up without parents and playing around outside after dark. Also, one of my cousins’ names literally means “wild horse,” so it made sense.
The film is being released at a time when there is a difficult political atmosphere in Turkey. A film about freedom in times likes these is more than appropriate.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: Right now Turkey is extremely preoccupying. I hope this film will be seen there, if not in movie theaters I hope it’s pirated and seen. It’s important that it reaches people.
The girls’ grandmother is a very interesting character. She is helping perpetuate this traditional lifestyle, but that’s all she knows. She thinks she is doing the right thing, but in a sense women like her encourage and accept this inequality.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: In some ways she does it with the best intentions and with the means she has. I can’t say no one is pure evil, but she is not. She does whatever she can. Women perpetuate machismo. For example, in France, when people asked me, “Are you a feminist?” I used to say, “No,” when we released the film there. If you say, “Yes,” people won’t go and see your film. People think there is something ugly about feminists. There are so many actress like Marion Cotillard who say they are not feminist because is as if there are all these negative attributes associated with it. But feminism is exactly as any kind of combat for equal rights. It’s exactly the same as people fighting for civil rights and in most parts of the world you can say there is some kind of apartheid against women. It varies and it’s not always the same scale of inequality, but there is really a huge problem regarding the position of women. We are perpetuating this inequality. That grandmother is perpetuating it without questioning things that she has lived, and that’s true and it’s true in different ways in different cultures. For example, excision or female circumcision, women do it to other women in the cultures where it’s practiced. You would think that if you had been victim of something like that you would know better, but it’s not true. We don’t accept that this is exactly like any other fight for equal rights. We think it’s not glamorous to be a feminist. We think it’s just about women with hairy armpits and stuff like that, but that’s not true. It’s just a desire to be equal. The fact that we are not very articulate about it makes characters like the grandmother exist.
There is an evocative quality to the film's cinematography. Did you decide this approach from the screenplay stage or was it something that developed during production?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: First of all, we had to make something glorious and very full of life. From the script stage there were always passages or movements from light to darkness. The beginning of the film had to be extremely sunny: the age of innocence, fun, joy. We had to capture the life and the power of these girls. Then, as the characters leave the story it becomes darker and darker everywhere and it’s colder. Eventually it turns into complete darkness like in the last wedding. You have that movement in the dramatization of the light. There was something about the characters being full of life and the light they reflected that was glorious. At the end of the film we see dawn again. There was also something musical about the film in terms of the drama. I remember at some point I had written a part with trumpets and then all of a sudden I had this little interlude. I was thinking, “Now once you have the trumpets you can’t stop. You are not allowed to do this,” so I took that and threw it away. There were natural movements of light, maybe it was metaphorically musical, but all of them were natural movements of strength.
Was shooting a film like this in Turkey a difficult task based on the content and the situations it deals with? It seems like this small town was perfect for the film in multiple ways.
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: I was trying to be under the radar as much as possible. For a long time when I was going back and forth to that little town I would never say what I was doing there. Ultimately I came with my team and it took two hours and then everybody in the city knew what we were doing there. There is so much gossip in Turkey, if you sneeze somewhere someone in another village will say, “Bless you.” People know everything about what you are doing. It was a very conservative place. I loved that because people were extremely welcoming, but some people were against the film too. Women in the restaurants there eat on the first floor and the men eat downstairs. I didn’t immediately understand that, so I would eat downstairs with the men and then I thought, “I’m just going to do it the way they do it." People were extremely respectful with me and with the girls, but of course I didn’t share the content of the script with anyone. I would say, “It’s a fairy tale about being a girl.”
I'm sure you've read tons of reviews and pieces comparing the film to Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides.” What are your thoughts on this at this point?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: I understand. There is this one shot when the girls are in the room and I understand that’s why. For me these girls are like the hydra: a body with five heads. They’ve been going through a shock and they are not at all like those in “The Virgin Suicides.” The fact that there is are a group of girls in the bedroom seems to spark that comparison. The book and the film say so many things about sisterhood, but when you see two people kissing in a film you don’t necessarily think about “Casablanca." There are less films about sisterhood, so of course it resonates in that particular spot. I’ve read the book and I’ve seen the film. I was disturbed after a while when people asked the question over and over again, so I thought, “Ok, I’m going to give in.” In the book they talk about when teenage girls have their periods it’s such a big deal, and I’m sorry to say this because it’s private, but in the group of actresses that is always a subject. Who has had it, who hasn’t, etc, and it’s a big discussion each time. That’s exactly like in the book. It’s true. That’s what happens in sisterhood when there are a lot of teenage girls. So I see how it resonates.
It seems like a lot of people finding puzzling to see France submitting a film set in Turkey and in Turkish as its Oscar entry in the Best Foreign Language category. What does this mean to you? How surprising was it for you and your team?
Deniz Gamze Ergüven: It came out quite organically and I think it’s a beautiful thing. For me it’s very touching. I’m originally Turkish, then French. I’ve been going to this film school in France where they take six directors per year after a long contest. Then for four years you make films and you have all these professionals come in and out. You grow up as a filmmaker in front of the eyes of the industry. I had already run representing France at the Cannes Film Festival with a short film in Turkish years ago. Nobody ever asked because the film was obviously French. “Mustang” was initiated by France, my producer is French and my team is French. Once we made the film it was immediacy embraced by the ministry of culture, there was no distinction between our film and all the other French films released this year.
We hadn’t even finished the film when it was selected for Cannes and we were invited by the ministry of culture as part of a celebration of French cinema. They embraced me with my different origins and it’s a way of saying, “Look at who we are. France now is this, with people from different backgrounds.” It’s such a big statement for them to do that. It moves me very much particularly because I had very complicated relationship to France. Plus, the Foreign Language Oscar goes to the country, not to the director or the producer. It’s a huge responsibility.
The minute they told us we were stuck to the ceiling out of joy. We literally needed someone to bring us down. After that there was such a sense of responsibility. We’ve been entrusted with this. My favorite quality about French cinema is this diversity. There are a lot of international films supported by France; then there is the Cannes Film Festival, which is the place where people are most curious about cinema and different points of view from all over the world; and then there is the French audience, which is curious to see films in any possible language. There are more movie theaters in Paris than in any other city in the world and audiences there are so curious. We are at a time when Europe is moving towards values that are extremely right-wing and all of a sudden France says, “Bam! We are behind this film with a different origin and the values of this specific cinema.” It goes straight to my heart.
"Mustang" is now playing in L.A. and NYC.
- 11/25/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
The Art House Convergence is taking theatrical exhibition and distribution to the next level. The Ahc members’ e-letter recently had a most interesting view of programming for shorts. I believe “The Animation Show of Shows” offers the very first look at the likely Oscar-nominated animated shorts - before anyone else gets to see them.
Carlos Aguilar, SydneysBuzz correspondent reviewed them here .
The letters about this reveal their point of origination:
Dear Ahc,
I am pleased to present a new animation compilation called “The Animation Show Of Shows”.
This compilation is a blessed return to the varied and sophisticated animator's art that was new and popular 30 years ago.
The compilation is curated by Ron Diamond who is a recognized expert in international animation. Ron has presented “The Animation Show of Shows” annually for 16 years to animation students and professionals from the top studios. The 162 shorts that Ron has curated include 14 Academy Award® winners, as well as 37 nominees, and other films that have won major prizes at Cannes, Annecy, Zagreb, Ottawa, and Berlin. Ron shows his compilation annually in the 6,500 seat theater at Comi-Con. This work has been a labor of love for Ron. He wants the world to love and understand the artistry and power of the animated short film.
For the first time ever, The 17th Annual Animation Show of Shows will play publicly in cinemas across the U.S.
This film was a huge Kickstarter success - far exceeding the original ask. Animation fans are rabid fans and will come out to see these shorts in force.
We premiered in L.A. on Sept. 24 at The Arclight, Hollywood.
Ron has asked me to go to all of the indie theaters first for this compilation, so that they'll have their chance at the huge grosses that these shorts can bring in.
Please let me know if we you would like more information.
Thanks,
Susanne
Take a look at a sampling of some of the shorts that await in the full program: Here
Gary Meyer wrote:
Finally a chance for a really high quality animation show again. Ron was part of the team that created the Tournee of Animation and Animation Celebrations shows we packaged during the 70-s-90s [with Terry Thoren]. He works with the world's best animators and has been taking a package around for private screenings for animators for several years. He has finally decided to bring a new show to rest of us. Between the shorts are brief interviews with some of the animators...sort of like DVD extras on the big screen.
If you do well with the Oscar animated shorts this should be at least as good at the polar opposite tie of the year.
And you know it won’t be playing at the multiplex down the road.
Susanne added:
I'm delighted to share with you that we have had a very positive response to the “The 17th Annual Animation Show of Shows”. Those programmers and the press who have seen it have been enchanted by this feature presentation of 11 curated international animated short films.
Since I mentioned the Oscars, it might also be reassuring to some to know that all of the press and promotional materials for this program have been submitted to The Academy and that they have been approved as acceptable.
Carlos Aguilar, SydneysBuzz correspondent reviewed them here .
The letters about this reveal their point of origination:
Dear Ahc,
I am pleased to present a new animation compilation called “The Animation Show Of Shows”.
This compilation is a blessed return to the varied and sophisticated animator's art that was new and popular 30 years ago.
The compilation is curated by Ron Diamond who is a recognized expert in international animation. Ron has presented “The Animation Show of Shows” annually for 16 years to animation students and professionals from the top studios. The 162 shorts that Ron has curated include 14 Academy Award® winners, as well as 37 nominees, and other films that have won major prizes at Cannes, Annecy, Zagreb, Ottawa, and Berlin. Ron shows his compilation annually in the 6,500 seat theater at Comi-Con. This work has been a labor of love for Ron. He wants the world to love and understand the artistry and power of the animated short film.
For the first time ever, The 17th Annual Animation Show of Shows will play publicly in cinemas across the U.S.
This film was a huge Kickstarter success - far exceeding the original ask. Animation fans are rabid fans and will come out to see these shorts in force.
We premiered in L.A. on Sept. 24 at The Arclight, Hollywood.
Ron has asked me to go to all of the indie theaters first for this compilation, so that they'll have their chance at the huge grosses that these shorts can bring in.
Please let me know if we you would like more information.
Thanks,
Susanne
Take a look at a sampling of some of the shorts that await in the full program: Here
Gary Meyer wrote:
Finally a chance for a really high quality animation show again. Ron was part of the team that created the Tournee of Animation and Animation Celebrations shows we packaged during the 70-s-90s [with Terry Thoren]. He works with the world's best animators and has been taking a package around for private screenings for animators for several years. He has finally decided to bring a new show to rest of us. Between the shorts are brief interviews with some of the animators...sort of like DVD extras on the big screen.
If you do well with the Oscar animated shorts this should be at least as good at the polar opposite tie of the year.
And you know it won’t be playing at the multiplex down the road.
Susanne added:
I'm delighted to share with you that we have had a very positive response to the “The 17th Annual Animation Show of Shows”. Those programmers and the press who have seen it have been enchanted by this feature presentation of 11 curated international animated short films.
Since I mentioned the Oscars, it might also be reassuring to some to know that all of the press and promotional materials for this program have been submitted to The Academy and that they have been approved as acceptable.
- 9/30/2015
- by Sydney Levine
- Sydney's Buzz
The Institute of Cinematography and Audiovisual Arts of Spain (Icaa) alongsie the American Cinematheque and Egeda, announced the 21st edition of Recent Spanish Cinema series, a showcase of the most outstanding recent Spanish films at the Egyptian Theatre. The film screenings will take place October 15-18, 2015. This year the producers of this annual film series will collaborate with Spanish Filmmaker, journalist, writer and producer Guillermo Fesser, who has created the poster and the promo spot with theme “Let your Spanish side out” bringing his sense of humor and unique Spanish style to the marketing campaign.
Read More: MiamiFF Review: 'Marshland' is a Provocative Thriller with Unique Political Undertones
The full schedule will be announced October 1st , but several of the films to screen as part of this exciting program have already been revealed. Take a look at some of the highlights below including "Marshland," which our writer Carlos Aguilar described as "a technically immaculate production that feels like a major motion picture while retaining its art house appeal."
- "Off Course" (Perdiendo el Norte) , 2015, 102 min. Dir. Nacho G Velilla.International Distribution: DeAPlaneta International.Hugo (Yon González) and Braulio (Julián López) both have university degrees but no jobs, and think they can escape the economic doldrums by leaving Spain for Germany. But what looked like a land of opportunity on TV presents more challenges to the two friends than they expected in this sparkling comedy. In Castillan and German with English subtitles. One of the biggest Box office hits in 2015 .
- "Happy 140" (Felices 140), 2015, 98 min. Dir. Gracia Querejeta. International Sales: Latido Films. Elia (Maribel Verdu) has just hit the jackpot – literally. One of the things she spends her 140 million euro lottery prize on is a 40th birthday bash in the Canary Islands, to which she invites a motley group of family and friends, including the ex she still pines for. But proximity to wealth can warp even the closest relationships, and the reunion soon takes a shocking turn.
-"Shrew's Nest" (Musarañas), 2014, 95 min. International Sales: Film Factory. First-time feature directors Juan Fernando Andres and Esteban Roel (and producer Alex De La Iglesia) lead viewers through a terrifying psychological maze in 1950s Spain. At its center is the apartment of Montse (Macarena Gómez, in one of the wildest performances you’ll see all year), who has raised her younger sister to the brink of adulthood. But agoraphobia and religious ritual have taken their toll on Montse, and when an injured young man (Hugo Silva) turns up at the door, help is the last thing she gives him. With Luis Tosar as the spectral father figure. In Spanish with English subtitles.
-"Magical Girl," 2014, 127 min. Dir. Carlos Vermut. International Sales: Films Distribution. Luis (Luis Bermejo) has a 12-year-old daughter with a terminal illness and a last wish – to have a dress just like the main character of her favorite Japanese anime series. The unemployed professor doesn’t have the money to purchase the dress, but thinks he can get it with a little help from a former teacher (José Sacristán) and an unbalanced young woman (Goya and Feroz winner Bárbara Lennie). Vermut’s sure directorial hand weaves multiple storylines together in this haunting (and occasionally intense) drama. In Spanish with English subtitles.
"Sidetracked" (Las Overjas No Pierden El Tren), 2014, 103 min. Dir. Alvaro Fernandez Armero. International Sales: Film Factory. The mid-life crises of three Spanish couples provide the laughs in this gleeful ensemble comedy. Luisa (Inma Cuesta of Three Many Weddings) and Alberto (Raúl Arévalo) move to the countryside, thinking it a better place to raise kids, though the change puts a damper on their sex life. Luisa’s sister (Candela Peña) and Alberto’s brother (Alberto San Juan) have their own relationship challenges - her obsessive pursuit scares men away, while his much-younger girlfriend is a little on the impulsive side.
"Requirements to Be a Normal Person (Requisitos Para Ser Una Persona Norma), 2015, 90 min.Everybody tries to fit in, but few people go about it as methodically as Maria de la Montana (writer-director Leticia Dolera), who hopes to reach normality through a 7-item checklist. Her mentally challenged younger brother (Jordi Llodra) and overweight friend (Manuel Burque) seem to have most of the bases covered, and the success of Maria’s quest may boil down to just being herself. Brightly colored and boasting a jangly folk score from Luthea Salom, this romantic comedy is, as one might hope from its title, charmingly eccentric. Winner of the Best New Screenwriter, Cinematography and Editing Awards at the Málaga Spanish Film Festival.
"Marshland" (La Isla Minima), 2014, 105 min. Dir. Alberto Rodriguez. Us Distribution: Outsider Pictures. Spain’s democracy was still on wobbly legs in 1980, particularly in the backwater of Andalucia where this tense crime drama is set. City cops Juan (Javier Gutiérrez) and Pedro (Raúl Arévalo) are dispatched to the depressed rural area to investigate the disappearance of two sisters; their differing backgrounds – one a ruthless veteran and the other an idealistic rookie – lead to increasingly unsettling discoveries. Winner of 10 Goya Awards, including Best Film, Director, Lead Actor (Gutiérrez) and Cinematography (Alex Catalán’s aerial shots are truly dazzling).
Read More: MiamiFF Review: 'Marshland' is a Provocative Thriller with Unique Political Undertones
The full schedule will be announced October 1st , but several of the films to screen as part of this exciting program have already been revealed. Take a look at some of the highlights below including "Marshland," which our writer Carlos Aguilar described as "a technically immaculate production that feels like a major motion picture while retaining its art house appeal."
- "Off Course" (Perdiendo el Norte) , 2015, 102 min. Dir. Nacho G Velilla.International Distribution: DeAPlaneta International.Hugo (Yon González) and Braulio (Julián López) both have university degrees but no jobs, and think they can escape the economic doldrums by leaving Spain for Germany. But what looked like a land of opportunity on TV presents more challenges to the two friends than they expected in this sparkling comedy. In Castillan and German with English subtitles. One of the biggest Box office hits in 2015 .
- "Happy 140" (Felices 140), 2015, 98 min. Dir. Gracia Querejeta. International Sales: Latido Films. Elia (Maribel Verdu) has just hit the jackpot – literally. One of the things she spends her 140 million euro lottery prize on is a 40th birthday bash in the Canary Islands, to which she invites a motley group of family and friends, including the ex she still pines for. But proximity to wealth can warp even the closest relationships, and the reunion soon takes a shocking turn.
-"Shrew's Nest" (Musarañas), 2014, 95 min. International Sales: Film Factory. First-time feature directors Juan Fernando Andres and Esteban Roel (and producer Alex De La Iglesia) lead viewers through a terrifying psychological maze in 1950s Spain. At its center is the apartment of Montse (Macarena Gómez, in one of the wildest performances you’ll see all year), who has raised her younger sister to the brink of adulthood. But agoraphobia and religious ritual have taken their toll on Montse, and when an injured young man (Hugo Silva) turns up at the door, help is the last thing she gives him. With Luis Tosar as the spectral father figure. In Spanish with English subtitles.
-"Magical Girl," 2014, 127 min. Dir. Carlos Vermut. International Sales: Films Distribution. Luis (Luis Bermejo) has a 12-year-old daughter with a terminal illness and a last wish – to have a dress just like the main character of her favorite Japanese anime series. The unemployed professor doesn’t have the money to purchase the dress, but thinks he can get it with a little help from a former teacher (José Sacristán) and an unbalanced young woman (Goya and Feroz winner Bárbara Lennie). Vermut’s sure directorial hand weaves multiple storylines together in this haunting (and occasionally intense) drama. In Spanish with English subtitles.
"Sidetracked" (Las Overjas No Pierden El Tren), 2014, 103 min. Dir. Alvaro Fernandez Armero. International Sales: Film Factory. The mid-life crises of three Spanish couples provide the laughs in this gleeful ensemble comedy. Luisa (Inma Cuesta of Three Many Weddings) and Alberto (Raúl Arévalo) move to the countryside, thinking it a better place to raise kids, though the change puts a damper on their sex life. Luisa’s sister (Candela Peña) and Alberto’s brother (Alberto San Juan) have their own relationship challenges - her obsessive pursuit scares men away, while his much-younger girlfriend is a little on the impulsive side.
"Requirements to Be a Normal Person (Requisitos Para Ser Una Persona Norma), 2015, 90 min.Everybody tries to fit in, but few people go about it as methodically as Maria de la Montana (writer-director Leticia Dolera), who hopes to reach normality through a 7-item checklist. Her mentally challenged younger brother (Jordi Llodra) and overweight friend (Manuel Burque) seem to have most of the bases covered, and the success of Maria’s quest may boil down to just being herself. Brightly colored and boasting a jangly folk score from Luthea Salom, this romantic comedy is, as one might hope from its title, charmingly eccentric. Winner of the Best New Screenwriter, Cinematography and Editing Awards at the Málaga Spanish Film Festival.
"Marshland" (La Isla Minima), 2014, 105 min. Dir. Alberto Rodriguez. Us Distribution: Outsider Pictures. Spain’s democracy was still on wobbly legs in 1980, particularly in the backwater of Andalucia where this tense crime drama is set. City cops Juan (Javier Gutiérrez) and Pedro (Raúl Arévalo) are dispatched to the depressed rural area to investigate the disappearance of two sisters; their differing backgrounds – one a ruthless veteran and the other an idealistic rookie – lead to increasingly unsettling discoveries. Winner of 10 Goya Awards, including Best Film, Director, Lead Actor (Gutiérrez) and Cinematography (Alex Catalán’s aerial shots are truly dazzling).
- 9/7/2015
- by Sydney Levine
- Sydney's Buzz
Using one of the most cosmopolitan and complex cities in the world as his canvas, Mexican filmmaker Alonso Ruizpalacios has delivered an audaciously original story that delves into many unique aspects of Mexican society wrapped up into a road trip adventure that helps two estrange brothers reconnect. Set in Mexico City during the 1999 Unam (Mexico’s National University) protests, “Güeros” is a black-and-white sophisticated comedy that uses a teenager’s desire to meet a washed up iconic singer as its driving force.
Sombra (Tenoch Huerta) and Santos (Leonardo Ortizgris) are two college-age slackers who lived aimlessly in a disheveled apartment. The pair doesn’t care much for the student movement, anything else really, until Sombra’s younger brother Tomas (Sebastián Aguirre) arrives in the city after getting in trouble in his coastal hometown. Joined by fierce protester and Sombra’s failed love interest, Ana (Ilse Salas), the group travels across the beautifully chaotic metropolis in search of Epigmenio Cruz, Tomas’ musical idol.
The title is a term that refers to light-skinned or blonde people, but it’s also often used in Mexico as synonym for the upper class. In the film, Ruizpalacios is clever enough to tackle the implications of the word in a way that comments on the Mexican society’s views on race, while remaining accessible and darkly comedic. “Güeros” is a deeply intelligent film that blends numerous ideas in a bold and successful fashion. It’s a revitalizing work, and one of the best Mexican films of the last decade.
The director's next projects include a film titled “Mueseo,” which deals with a theft to Mexico City’s Anthropology Museum in 1985 and another film that’s an adaptation from a play called “The Kitchen,” which is about Mexican immigrants in New York. We had the chance to talk with Ruiz Palacios about his acclaimed debut and the city that inspired it.
"Güeros" is currently playing in NYC at the Film Forum and its being distributed by Kino Lorber
*Note this interview took place prior to the film's release in its native Mexico.
Carlos Aguilar: Was a making a film that highlighted Mexico City as a unique location your original intent? If not, how did the concept for “Güeros” originated?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: The origin of the film was the need to make a love letter to Mexico City, which is the city where I’ve lived my whole life. Most people who grew up there spent a lot of time in their cars. We essentially lived in our cars, we eat in our cars, we fuck there, and we get into fights there. The city and cars are very connected. It felt logical. Once I started making the film I also had this need to get to know the city better, because you can’t ever get to know it fully. It’s a city that has a lot of borders and it has places were you can’t really go. There are certain taboos about some places within the city. Therefore, this idea of crossing these borders, to get to know the city more, and to become one with it, was one of the main objectives of making the film. Another thing was the memory of something my friends used to do to kill time when they were in the 99 protests, which was to get in one of their cars and drive without a destination as far as they could go. This idea of driving without destination and rediscovering Mexico City were part of the images I had in mind when making the film.
Aguilar: The film touches on a lot of issues within Mexican society, one of them is the class divide that is often tied to racial prejudices. It's something we are all aware of, but it's hardly ever discussed.
Alonso Ruizpalacios: That’s definitely one of the themes, but I wouldn’t say is the central theme. I think that when making a film about Mexico City you can’t avoid portraying the class differences, the classism, and racism that exists. Often times this is not as evident as in other countries or as it was in other time periods, we supposedly have reached a certain level of acceptance or equality, but in reality there is a lot of social tension. Dealing with this is very complex because it’s a sensitive topic that not even we, as Mexicans, dare to accept. It’s important to start by accepting its existence. People are still racist, in a way dark skinned people dissociated themselves from the “güeros” [Light-skinned people], and vice versa, the “güeros” dissociated themselves from dark-skinned people.
I feel like our works of fiction, novels or films, have not really looked at that aspect of “Mexicaness”or Mexican identity. It’s something that’s rarely talked about. In the U.S there is a tradition or openness to talk about racial issues, but in Mexico we pretend like they don’t exist. When you actually show them it becomes a sensitive topic, that’s why I think comedy is the perfect tool to discuss anything. Comedy has “carte blanche” to deal with any subject. There have been people that have told me the film is racist, and I react like “What?” It’s absurd. Just because the film talks about racism doesn’t mean it’s a racist film.
Aguilar: What has been the Mexican audience's reaction so far?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: The film hasn’t opened in Mexico, so the only thermometer we had was the Morelia Film Festival where the film had its Mexican premiere. Reactions were very positive. Besides winning Best Film we also won the Audience Award, which is very significant. However, it’s also a film that has received impassioned negative responses. People have sent us hate mail mostly regarding the protests, some people who were part of those protests felt that the way the events are portrayed is offensive or that we are poking fun at them. I don’t see it that way. Of course, there is a hint of irony in the way we look at the events, but there are also elements that vindicate those student movements and the idea of being young and being revolutionary.
Aguilar: It seems like a great number of Mexican films, particularly those we get to see abroad, come from a very dark place and focus on the violent and political situation of the country. Your film touches on this in a comical manner, even making fun of itself.
Alonso Ruizpalacios: I think that’s true. Lately, Mexican cinema has been very present at international film festivals, my film included, but I also have to say that “Güeros” is also a self-parody regarding this. You can’t create a parody if you don’t make fun of yourself first. The films we make in Mexico are often made thinking on their foreign potential rather than for Mexican people to enjoy. In some of these films we sell an image of Mexico, as “Sombra” says in the film, in which we are portrayed as cheaters, atheists, “putañero” (whoremongers), “malacopas” (bad drinkers), insecure,
Aguilar: In that sense would you say "Güeros" offers a refreshing, more optimistic, perspective?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: I do feel it’s a luminous film in the sense that we made with the intention to allow ourselves to be surprised by the city. To allow yourself to be surprised is very important, it’s one of the ways in which one can get out of a rot. The characters are trapped in this limbo of inactivity and routine because they haven’t left their apartment in a long time. It’s only when they go out and discover new things that their lives improve. I think the central theme is the change from being static to being in movement. Healing through movement.
Aguilar: One of the most enjoyable and sophisticated elements of the films is the dialogue. It's definitely hilarious and poignant at the same time. How did you manage to achieve this natural and easygoing feel while still hitting all the right emotional notes?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: I knew that I wanted a percentage of the film to be improvised and to be fresh. We knew we wouldn’t get something natural if we wrote it all very rigidly. I designated a few specific scenes for the actors to improvise, but the rest of the film was very well structured. I wrote the script with Gibran Portela, with whom I had worked in theater before. In theater you get really involved in the dialogue, so for the film we really worked on it for it to have a peculiar rhythm. The film is a strange mix between very well structured sequences, very refined, and others much more improvised to find this freshness. For example, the part where “Sombra” and Ana do a scene from Buñuel’s “Los Olvidados,” was a sequence we improvised. We gave the actors a bottle of mezcal and got them drunk. We were shooting them as they joked around. But there were also other moments in which I didn’t want them change any of the words from the screenplay.
Aguilar: Tell me about your thought process when deciding the visual look of the film. What inspired your choices in terms of the spectacular cinematography/
Alonso Ruizpalacios: Making a film is about finding the right rules that work for that film specifically. In that sense, I think among the rules we found while in the process of developing the film and then shooting it, the first one was that we wanted the camera to be very static at first to emphasize the guys’ inactivity, and once they leave the apartment we wanted the camera to move more freely and to be playful. We wanted the camera to be another character that had a life of its own and curiosity, which for me represents Tomas’ curiosity as a teenager. The camera are his eyes discovering things as he sees them, how he sees the city or perhaps how he sees the events they go through as scarier than they are. What we were trying to create was a certain subjectivity from Tomas’s point of view. He is an outsider that comes to Mexico City, and suddenly is immersed in the entrails of the city.
Aguilar: How difficult was it to include all these distinct thematic elements in one cohesive film: the protests, the road trip, the social commentary, among many others?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: Write the screenplay was a long process, rewriting, and rewriting again, and then cutting. Just like when I do theater, there are lots of ideas, but then we have to polish them. For this film the first version was about 160 pages, extremely long, and it took a lot of hard work to make it 100 pages and get rid off the other 60, which was very painful but necessary. Once we shot it, it became long again, the first cut was three hours. W had to trim and polish it a lot.
Aguilar: The singer, Epigmenio, is this almost mythical character that serves as catalyst for the story and as connecting point for the two brothers. Where did he come from?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: Epigmenio was inspired by one of Bob Dylan’s anecdotes about going to New York to meet his idol Woody Guthrie, a folk singer famous during the 40s and 50s. Dylan learned that Guthrie was agonizing in a Brooklyn hospital as he suffered from Huntington’s disease, so he decided to embark on a journey from Minnesota to NYC by hitchhiking and by train. He wanted to get to that hospital to meet woody before he died. This idea of a young boy traveling across the country to meet his idol always interested me, but I knew that I would never be able to buy the rights for that story, so I created my own with Epigmenio. It was important to me that the encounter was disappointing because these encounters are usually that way. One creates a dialogue with the artwork not with the person behind it.
Aguilar: Coming from a theater background, what was your approach with the actors for this project?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: I worked a lot with the actors, there were a lot of rehearsals, particularly with Tenoch and Sebastian, who plays Tomas. The work we did was aimed for them to establish a brotherly relationship. We would take Sebastian to play basketball or billiards with us so that they would spend a lot of time together. I told Tenoch he had to really become his brother, when we started shooting there was a lot of affection between them. Then I asked Tenoch to treat him badly, just like older brothers do sometimes. What you are looking for when working with actors are moments of truth, authenticity, and situations that involve risk.
Aguilar: Shooting in a car in one of the most complex cities in the world, how much of a challenge was it?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: It was very complicated. Shooting in a car is very uncomfortable, especially in such a small car. It wasn’t pleasant, but I think that was part of the idea. Shooting on digital also allowed us to shoot a few things on the fly. We could turn on the camera somewhere and find something great to shoot. Mexico City is that way, there are unexpected things happening all the time. The film is full of lucky moments.
Sombra (Tenoch Huerta) and Santos (Leonardo Ortizgris) are two college-age slackers who lived aimlessly in a disheveled apartment. The pair doesn’t care much for the student movement, anything else really, until Sombra’s younger brother Tomas (Sebastián Aguirre) arrives in the city after getting in trouble in his coastal hometown. Joined by fierce protester and Sombra’s failed love interest, Ana (Ilse Salas), the group travels across the beautifully chaotic metropolis in search of Epigmenio Cruz, Tomas’ musical idol.
The title is a term that refers to light-skinned or blonde people, but it’s also often used in Mexico as synonym for the upper class. In the film, Ruizpalacios is clever enough to tackle the implications of the word in a way that comments on the Mexican society’s views on race, while remaining accessible and darkly comedic. “Güeros” is a deeply intelligent film that blends numerous ideas in a bold and successful fashion. It’s a revitalizing work, and one of the best Mexican films of the last decade.
The director's next projects include a film titled “Mueseo,” which deals with a theft to Mexico City’s Anthropology Museum in 1985 and another film that’s an adaptation from a play called “The Kitchen,” which is about Mexican immigrants in New York. We had the chance to talk with Ruiz Palacios about his acclaimed debut and the city that inspired it.
"Güeros" is currently playing in NYC at the Film Forum and its being distributed by Kino Lorber
*Note this interview took place prior to the film's release in its native Mexico.
Carlos Aguilar: Was a making a film that highlighted Mexico City as a unique location your original intent? If not, how did the concept for “Güeros” originated?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: The origin of the film was the need to make a love letter to Mexico City, which is the city where I’ve lived my whole life. Most people who grew up there spent a lot of time in their cars. We essentially lived in our cars, we eat in our cars, we fuck there, and we get into fights there. The city and cars are very connected. It felt logical. Once I started making the film I also had this need to get to know the city better, because you can’t ever get to know it fully. It’s a city that has a lot of borders and it has places were you can’t really go. There are certain taboos about some places within the city. Therefore, this idea of crossing these borders, to get to know the city more, and to become one with it, was one of the main objectives of making the film. Another thing was the memory of something my friends used to do to kill time when they were in the 99 protests, which was to get in one of their cars and drive without a destination as far as they could go. This idea of driving without destination and rediscovering Mexico City were part of the images I had in mind when making the film.
Aguilar: The film touches on a lot of issues within Mexican society, one of them is the class divide that is often tied to racial prejudices. It's something we are all aware of, but it's hardly ever discussed.
Alonso Ruizpalacios: That’s definitely one of the themes, but I wouldn’t say is the central theme. I think that when making a film about Mexico City you can’t avoid portraying the class differences, the classism, and racism that exists. Often times this is not as evident as in other countries or as it was in other time periods, we supposedly have reached a certain level of acceptance or equality, but in reality there is a lot of social tension. Dealing with this is very complex because it’s a sensitive topic that not even we, as Mexicans, dare to accept. It’s important to start by accepting its existence. People are still racist, in a way dark skinned people dissociated themselves from the “güeros” [Light-skinned people], and vice versa, the “güeros” dissociated themselves from dark-skinned people.
I feel like our works of fiction, novels or films, have not really looked at that aspect of “Mexicaness”or Mexican identity. It’s something that’s rarely talked about. In the U.S there is a tradition or openness to talk about racial issues, but in Mexico we pretend like they don’t exist. When you actually show them it becomes a sensitive topic, that’s why I think comedy is the perfect tool to discuss anything. Comedy has “carte blanche” to deal with any subject. There have been people that have told me the film is racist, and I react like “What?” It’s absurd. Just because the film talks about racism doesn’t mean it’s a racist film.
Aguilar: What has been the Mexican audience's reaction so far?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: The film hasn’t opened in Mexico, so the only thermometer we had was the Morelia Film Festival where the film had its Mexican premiere. Reactions were very positive. Besides winning Best Film we also won the Audience Award, which is very significant. However, it’s also a film that has received impassioned negative responses. People have sent us hate mail mostly regarding the protests, some people who were part of those protests felt that the way the events are portrayed is offensive or that we are poking fun at them. I don’t see it that way. Of course, there is a hint of irony in the way we look at the events, but there are also elements that vindicate those student movements and the idea of being young and being revolutionary.
Aguilar: It seems like a great number of Mexican films, particularly those we get to see abroad, come from a very dark place and focus on the violent and political situation of the country. Your film touches on this in a comical manner, even making fun of itself.
Alonso Ruizpalacios: I think that’s true. Lately, Mexican cinema has been very present at international film festivals, my film included, but I also have to say that “Güeros” is also a self-parody regarding this. You can’t create a parody if you don’t make fun of yourself first. The films we make in Mexico are often made thinking on their foreign potential rather than for Mexican people to enjoy. In some of these films we sell an image of Mexico, as “Sombra” says in the film, in which we are portrayed as cheaters, atheists, “putañero” (whoremongers), “malacopas” (bad drinkers), insecure,
Aguilar: In that sense would you say "Güeros" offers a refreshing, more optimistic, perspective?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: I do feel it’s a luminous film in the sense that we made with the intention to allow ourselves to be surprised by the city. To allow yourself to be surprised is very important, it’s one of the ways in which one can get out of a rot. The characters are trapped in this limbo of inactivity and routine because they haven’t left their apartment in a long time. It’s only when they go out and discover new things that their lives improve. I think the central theme is the change from being static to being in movement. Healing through movement.
Aguilar: One of the most enjoyable and sophisticated elements of the films is the dialogue. It's definitely hilarious and poignant at the same time. How did you manage to achieve this natural and easygoing feel while still hitting all the right emotional notes?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: I knew that I wanted a percentage of the film to be improvised and to be fresh. We knew we wouldn’t get something natural if we wrote it all very rigidly. I designated a few specific scenes for the actors to improvise, but the rest of the film was very well structured. I wrote the script with Gibran Portela, with whom I had worked in theater before. In theater you get really involved in the dialogue, so for the film we really worked on it for it to have a peculiar rhythm. The film is a strange mix between very well structured sequences, very refined, and others much more improvised to find this freshness. For example, the part where “Sombra” and Ana do a scene from Buñuel’s “Los Olvidados,” was a sequence we improvised. We gave the actors a bottle of mezcal and got them drunk. We were shooting them as they joked around. But there were also other moments in which I didn’t want them change any of the words from the screenplay.
Aguilar: Tell me about your thought process when deciding the visual look of the film. What inspired your choices in terms of the spectacular cinematography/
Alonso Ruizpalacios: Making a film is about finding the right rules that work for that film specifically. In that sense, I think among the rules we found while in the process of developing the film and then shooting it, the first one was that we wanted the camera to be very static at first to emphasize the guys’ inactivity, and once they leave the apartment we wanted the camera to move more freely and to be playful. We wanted the camera to be another character that had a life of its own and curiosity, which for me represents Tomas’ curiosity as a teenager. The camera are his eyes discovering things as he sees them, how he sees the city or perhaps how he sees the events they go through as scarier than they are. What we were trying to create was a certain subjectivity from Tomas’s point of view. He is an outsider that comes to Mexico City, and suddenly is immersed in the entrails of the city.
Aguilar: How difficult was it to include all these distinct thematic elements in one cohesive film: the protests, the road trip, the social commentary, among many others?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: Write the screenplay was a long process, rewriting, and rewriting again, and then cutting. Just like when I do theater, there are lots of ideas, but then we have to polish them. For this film the first version was about 160 pages, extremely long, and it took a lot of hard work to make it 100 pages and get rid off the other 60, which was very painful but necessary. Once we shot it, it became long again, the first cut was three hours. W had to trim and polish it a lot.
Aguilar: The singer, Epigmenio, is this almost mythical character that serves as catalyst for the story and as connecting point for the two brothers. Where did he come from?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: Epigmenio was inspired by one of Bob Dylan’s anecdotes about going to New York to meet his idol Woody Guthrie, a folk singer famous during the 40s and 50s. Dylan learned that Guthrie was agonizing in a Brooklyn hospital as he suffered from Huntington’s disease, so he decided to embark on a journey from Minnesota to NYC by hitchhiking and by train. He wanted to get to that hospital to meet woody before he died. This idea of a young boy traveling across the country to meet his idol always interested me, but I knew that I would never be able to buy the rights for that story, so I created my own with Epigmenio. It was important to me that the encounter was disappointing because these encounters are usually that way. One creates a dialogue with the artwork not with the person behind it.
Aguilar: Coming from a theater background, what was your approach with the actors for this project?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: I worked a lot with the actors, there were a lot of rehearsals, particularly with Tenoch and Sebastian, who plays Tomas. The work we did was aimed for them to establish a brotherly relationship. We would take Sebastian to play basketball or billiards with us so that they would spend a lot of time together. I told Tenoch he had to really become his brother, when we started shooting there was a lot of affection between them. Then I asked Tenoch to treat him badly, just like older brothers do sometimes. What you are looking for when working with actors are moments of truth, authenticity, and situations that involve risk.
Aguilar: Shooting in a car in one of the most complex cities in the world, how much of a challenge was it?
Alonso Ruizpalacios: It was very complicated. Shooting in a car is very uncomfortable, especially in such a small car. It wasn’t pleasant, but I think that was part of the idea. Shooting on digital also allowed us to shoot a few things on the fly. We could turn on the camera somewhere and find something great to shoot. Mexico City is that way, there are unexpected things happening all the time. The film is full of lucky moments.
- 5/21/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
With several successful miniseries, a film, and memorable TV episodes under his belt, British director Jonny Campbell has built a career that has allowed him to work on diverse genres and formats. Winning a slew of awards, including a BAFTA, for TV series like zombie dramedy “In the Flesh” or the iconic “Doctor Who” episode “Vincent and the Doctor,” Campbell has become one of the most respected and versatile helmers working in the U.K. today. His most recent project “The Casual Vacancy” is based on J.K Rowling’s adult-oriented novel by the same name and it’s available through HBO now. Campbell plans to spend some time in Los Angeles this month to seek opportunities this side of the Atlantic and it wouldn’t be surprising to see him land projects as interesting as his already eclectic body of work is.
We had the chance to talk to him about his unorthodox start in the industry, the stories that speak to him, and why he prefers directing over the solitude of writing.
Carlos Aguilar: I understand that you didn't get involved in the entertainment business in a traditional way or following the film school route. How did you get started?
Jonny Campbell: I got started sort of by accident. I studied languages in university, French and German. I wanted to get into marketing or advertizing when I left university, but there was an economic crisis at the time. I had to look into other fields and I just happened to be on set one day with a family friend who said, “Come and have a look at what I do for a living.” I was almost like an apprentice helping on a live TV show holding the sound cables. I thought, “Oh this looks like an interesting place to work.”
I had no experience in television. I had just done some acting and directing theater in school. I didn’t know much about that world. While I was there I asked someone if I could come back and watch what they do, watch the director and the studio, because it was a world I wanted to work in. Then I carried on getting on people’s nerves until they let me do more stuff. Eventually they needed a runner, so I started as a runner, and then I worked with a filmmaking crew doing short documentaries.
Aguilar: Seems like you've work in very diverse projects throughout your career including some really unique ones.
Jonny Campbell: I’ve done quite a lot of different shows for television in the U.K, some commercials, I also made a movie a few years ago, and more recently I’ve concentrated on miniseries because the canvas is just a bit larger to tell a story and to develop the characters. My last project before the “The Casual Vacancy” was called “In the Flesh,” which is a mini series about a family coping with a zombie apocalypse in Northern Britain, but played quite straightforward. There is dark humor and heart, Wired Magazine labeled it “a thinking person’s ‘Walking Dead’” It’s quite different.
Aguilar: Are you currently developing any projects after the success of the miniseries?
Jonny Campbell: I don’t know what I’m doing next. I’m just reading lots of scripts and having lots of meetings. I’m going to L.A. for a couple weeks to reconnect with some people and meet new people. You have to see which stories stay with you, there are some many things out there swirling around. It’s difficult to pair up with material that suits you.
Aguilar: What were some of your concerns when working on “The Casual Vacancy" by J.K. Rowling? And was it about the project that intrigued you?
Jonny Campbell: Obviously you are always going to be conscious of how famous J.K. Rowling is as a writer and why she is famous. It's because of the nature of the stories that people have fallen in love with them for some many years and they have become such a huge success. This interested me because it shows her changing directions. It’s her looking to tell a story for an adult audience, in that sense it made her the underdog. It had to be surprising. More important than working with such a famous author, was to feel an affinity with the material and for the story to move me.
That’s what it did and that’s why I wanted to tell that story. It didn’t matter who’d written it. I felt it was a story that needed to be told because it tapped into a lot of themes that I like. It deals with certain issues like grief and problems within these families. It’s a very character driven piece and as a director something like this with over two dozen characters to focus on never gets boring [Laughs]. You’ve got to bring so many different lives, houses, and locations to life. It was a real challenge.
Aguilar: You've worked extensively in television, more so than in film. In your experience, do you find these two formats very different ?
Jonny Campbell: I think that the more experience you get as a director you feel like you are aiming towards doing film, but actually what’s happened is that television is really coming to its own. It offers another opportunity to tell really intricate stories in a very cinematic way. The lines of division between film and television are sort of irrelevant now. You just have to get with the material. Some stories are suited to be told over 96 minutes and other stories need a ten part series. I think you just have to figure out which type of stories stay in your head and make you really want to do them.
Aguilar: You've directed episodes of the popular show "Doctor Who" and a post-apocalyptic zombie series, are you a fan of the science fiction genre?
Jonny Campbell: I don’t actively seek it out. I do like it and I’ve done a tad bit of it, but it always starts with the story. “Doctor Who” didn’t really appeal to me as a thing to do just to do because it was science fiction. It was the story about Vincent van Gogh and how the Doctor uses the time machine to bring him to the present day to help him with his depression by showing him how loved he is as an artist today. That moved me and made me think, “How amazing is this.” Although that can’t happen, with the beauty of storytelling you can make these stories come to life, and through that you can create stories about human nature and move audiences. That’s what attracted me about that story not necessarily the genre, but the genre allows you to do unusual things.
The same with “In the Flesh,” which is about bringing people back from the death. That premise allows you to explore how a child talks to his parents after he’s committed suicide. It’s a horrible scenario, but as people experience grief one of the things they want the most is for their loved one to come back. It’s part of the human psyche, part of what we yearn for, so to actually dramatize that is very fulfilling. Still, ultimately it was about the family issues and the character development that was interesting in those stories, not the genre itself. The genre is a means to an end, and it’s exciting to play with whether it's time travel in “Doctor Who” or zombies. In “The Casual Vacancy,” it was nice to have the opportunity to imagine someone’s nightmare, which again is a fantastical way of portraying the characters’ thoughts.
Aguilar: Working in television you have to deal with large groups of actors, what's your approach to getting the results you aimed for on screen ?
Jonny Campbell: I think I understand what an actor has to go through to get the performance. I always have an idea in my mind of how I want the actor to perform in a particular scene or speech. Then you rehearse and you talk about the scene, so hopefully it feels like the actor is saying the words for themselves rather than just repeating what they’ve learned. It’s all part of the process to allow the actor to be that character. Ultimately the actor will know that character best because they’ve spent all this time thinking about it. All you can do as a director is notch here and there.
Obviously if something is going disastrously wrong then you intervene and you have a conversation to make it better, or you cut some parts of the scene if it doesn’t work at all. That’s very rare. Hopefully all the choices you made from the person you chose to play that part, to the rehearsals, to the lines of dialogue, feel right for the story and they can be believable and interesting. You have to make sure you appreciate what they are going through in front of the camera, which is different from what you are doing behind the camera. I’ve done a bit of acting myself so I kind of know how difficult it is and I appreciate the comfort of being able to sit behind the camera watching some fantastic actors grapple with the material.
Aguilar: Is there any material you’ve written that you would like to bring to the screen or do you find it easier to just focus on the directing aspect of storytelling?
Jonny Campbell: There are a lot of stories that I come across with that I’d like to turn into a script, but I do get a lot of enjoyment and fulfillment from working with writers. Writers are a different breed. I think I’m good at knowing what works on a script and what doesn’t, but staring at the blank page and generating the material in the first place is not necessarily my forte. I might generate an idea but then I want to find the right writer to take it on and then collaborate with them. That’s what I really enjoy. The process of solitude where you come up with the ideas to put on the screen doesn’t entice me in the same way. I’ve been fortunate enough to work with some really fantastic writers at the top of their game. It’s been a very rewarding experience.
Aguilar: In terms of the visual aesthetics of your work, how do you decide what fits a certain project and what doesn't?
Jonny Campbell: I try to let the material tell me how it needs to be told in terms of the visuals. I’m not a big fan of over-stylizing, I think a project can be stylish without being overly dependent on a particular style. It should always be about the storytelling so that the director almost becomes invisible. The story has to exist without letting people know about all the decisions that lead to what they are watching. What you really want to do is take them on a journey and tap into their emotions, their funny bone, or their sense of wonder. Hopefully they learn or question something about the human condition that might be thought provoking.
Aguilar: Are you anxious about your upcoming meetings in Hollywood or do you see this next step as another challenge?
Jonny Campbell: I did a series of meetings a few years ago and I think the more projects you do the more confident you get. You get to know your own mind and what stories you want to tell. It’ll be interesting to find kindred spirits or people that when you talk about a project also get exited about it. That's when you know those are the people you can work with because you might share some of the same sensibilities. That’s the point where I’m now. I’m ready to pull myself out of my comfort zone and explore other avenues. It’s an adventure. Lets see what comes of that.
We had the chance to talk to him about his unorthodox start in the industry, the stories that speak to him, and why he prefers directing over the solitude of writing.
Carlos Aguilar: I understand that you didn't get involved in the entertainment business in a traditional way or following the film school route. How did you get started?
Jonny Campbell: I got started sort of by accident. I studied languages in university, French and German. I wanted to get into marketing or advertizing when I left university, but there was an economic crisis at the time. I had to look into other fields and I just happened to be on set one day with a family friend who said, “Come and have a look at what I do for a living.” I was almost like an apprentice helping on a live TV show holding the sound cables. I thought, “Oh this looks like an interesting place to work.”
I had no experience in television. I had just done some acting and directing theater in school. I didn’t know much about that world. While I was there I asked someone if I could come back and watch what they do, watch the director and the studio, because it was a world I wanted to work in. Then I carried on getting on people’s nerves until they let me do more stuff. Eventually they needed a runner, so I started as a runner, and then I worked with a filmmaking crew doing short documentaries.
Aguilar: Seems like you've work in very diverse projects throughout your career including some really unique ones.
Jonny Campbell: I’ve done quite a lot of different shows for television in the U.K, some commercials, I also made a movie a few years ago, and more recently I’ve concentrated on miniseries because the canvas is just a bit larger to tell a story and to develop the characters. My last project before the “The Casual Vacancy” was called “In the Flesh,” which is a mini series about a family coping with a zombie apocalypse in Northern Britain, but played quite straightforward. There is dark humor and heart, Wired Magazine labeled it “a thinking person’s ‘Walking Dead’” It’s quite different.
Aguilar: Are you currently developing any projects after the success of the miniseries?
Jonny Campbell: I don’t know what I’m doing next. I’m just reading lots of scripts and having lots of meetings. I’m going to L.A. for a couple weeks to reconnect with some people and meet new people. You have to see which stories stay with you, there are some many things out there swirling around. It’s difficult to pair up with material that suits you.
Aguilar: What were some of your concerns when working on “The Casual Vacancy" by J.K. Rowling? And was it about the project that intrigued you?
Jonny Campbell: Obviously you are always going to be conscious of how famous J.K. Rowling is as a writer and why she is famous. It's because of the nature of the stories that people have fallen in love with them for some many years and they have become such a huge success. This interested me because it shows her changing directions. It’s her looking to tell a story for an adult audience, in that sense it made her the underdog. It had to be surprising. More important than working with such a famous author, was to feel an affinity with the material and for the story to move me.
That’s what it did and that’s why I wanted to tell that story. It didn’t matter who’d written it. I felt it was a story that needed to be told because it tapped into a lot of themes that I like. It deals with certain issues like grief and problems within these families. It’s a very character driven piece and as a director something like this with over two dozen characters to focus on never gets boring [Laughs]. You’ve got to bring so many different lives, houses, and locations to life. It was a real challenge.
Aguilar: You've worked extensively in television, more so than in film. In your experience, do you find these two formats very different ?
Jonny Campbell: I think that the more experience you get as a director you feel like you are aiming towards doing film, but actually what’s happened is that television is really coming to its own. It offers another opportunity to tell really intricate stories in a very cinematic way. The lines of division between film and television are sort of irrelevant now. You just have to get with the material. Some stories are suited to be told over 96 minutes and other stories need a ten part series. I think you just have to figure out which type of stories stay in your head and make you really want to do them.
Aguilar: You've directed episodes of the popular show "Doctor Who" and a post-apocalyptic zombie series, are you a fan of the science fiction genre?
Jonny Campbell: I don’t actively seek it out. I do like it and I’ve done a tad bit of it, but it always starts with the story. “Doctor Who” didn’t really appeal to me as a thing to do just to do because it was science fiction. It was the story about Vincent van Gogh and how the Doctor uses the time machine to bring him to the present day to help him with his depression by showing him how loved he is as an artist today. That moved me and made me think, “How amazing is this.” Although that can’t happen, with the beauty of storytelling you can make these stories come to life, and through that you can create stories about human nature and move audiences. That’s what attracted me about that story not necessarily the genre, but the genre allows you to do unusual things.
The same with “In the Flesh,” which is about bringing people back from the death. That premise allows you to explore how a child talks to his parents after he’s committed suicide. It’s a horrible scenario, but as people experience grief one of the things they want the most is for their loved one to come back. It’s part of the human psyche, part of what we yearn for, so to actually dramatize that is very fulfilling. Still, ultimately it was about the family issues and the character development that was interesting in those stories, not the genre itself. The genre is a means to an end, and it’s exciting to play with whether it's time travel in “Doctor Who” or zombies. In “The Casual Vacancy,” it was nice to have the opportunity to imagine someone’s nightmare, which again is a fantastical way of portraying the characters’ thoughts.
Aguilar: Working in television you have to deal with large groups of actors, what's your approach to getting the results you aimed for on screen ?
Jonny Campbell: I think I understand what an actor has to go through to get the performance. I always have an idea in my mind of how I want the actor to perform in a particular scene or speech. Then you rehearse and you talk about the scene, so hopefully it feels like the actor is saying the words for themselves rather than just repeating what they’ve learned. It’s all part of the process to allow the actor to be that character. Ultimately the actor will know that character best because they’ve spent all this time thinking about it. All you can do as a director is notch here and there.
Obviously if something is going disastrously wrong then you intervene and you have a conversation to make it better, or you cut some parts of the scene if it doesn’t work at all. That’s very rare. Hopefully all the choices you made from the person you chose to play that part, to the rehearsals, to the lines of dialogue, feel right for the story and they can be believable and interesting. You have to make sure you appreciate what they are going through in front of the camera, which is different from what you are doing behind the camera. I’ve done a bit of acting myself so I kind of know how difficult it is and I appreciate the comfort of being able to sit behind the camera watching some fantastic actors grapple with the material.
Aguilar: Is there any material you’ve written that you would like to bring to the screen or do you find it easier to just focus on the directing aspect of storytelling?
Jonny Campbell: There are a lot of stories that I come across with that I’d like to turn into a script, but I do get a lot of enjoyment and fulfillment from working with writers. Writers are a different breed. I think I’m good at knowing what works on a script and what doesn’t, but staring at the blank page and generating the material in the first place is not necessarily my forte. I might generate an idea but then I want to find the right writer to take it on and then collaborate with them. That’s what I really enjoy. The process of solitude where you come up with the ideas to put on the screen doesn’t entice me in the same way. I’ve been fortunate enough to work with some really fantastic writers at the top of their game. It’s been a very rewarding experience.
Aguilar: In terms of the visual aesthetics of your work, how do you decide what fits a certain project and what doesn't?
Jonny Campbell: I try to let the material tell me how it needs to be told in terms of the visuals. I’m not a big fan of over-stylizing, I think a project can be stylish without being overly dependent on a particular style. It should always be about the storytelling so that the director almost becomes invisible. The story has to exist without letting people know about all the decisions that lead to what they are watching. What you really want to do is take them on a journey and tap into their emotions, their funny bone, or their sense of wonder. Hopefully they learn or question something about the human condition that might be thought provoking.
Aguilar: Are you anxious about your upcoming meetings in Hollywood or do you see this next step as another challenge?
Jonny Campbell: I did a series of meetings a few years ago and I think the more projects you do the more confident you get. You get to know your own mind and what stories you want to tell. It’ll be interesting to find kindred spirits or people that when you talk about a project also get exited about it. That's when you know those are the people you can work with because you might share some of the same sensibilities. That’s the point where I’m now. I’m ready to pull myself out of my comfort zone and explore other avenues. It’s an adventure. Lets see what comes of that.
- 5/13/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
In the culminant moments of Kornél Mundruczó’s latest feature, an army made up of hundreds of angry mixed-breed dogs haunt the streets of Budapest deliberately targeting their human tormentors. Such visually riveting and thematically provocative sequence makes of “White God” one of the most daring revenge films in recent memory. Yet, Mundruczó’s audacious perspective goes beyond simply showing us what a group of oppressed creatures could be capable of doing if given the chance. His film touches on real social threats like xenophobia and people’s indifference to the suffering of others, whether humans or animals.
Crafted like a brutally visceral dark fairytale, “White God” showcases topnotch cinematic technique with strong social commentary in the form of powerful metaphors. The story centers on Lili (Zsófia Psotta), a teenage girl searching for her lost dog Hagen after her father abandons the animal fearful of a law that taxes people who own mixed-breed dogs. From that moment on the film juxtaposes Lili’s struggle to fit in the complex world of adolescent relationships and Hagen’s terrifying transformation into a savage killer. Not surprisingly the film won the Un Certain Regard Prize in Cannes earlier this year for it’s very unique point of view.
“White God” is Hungary’s official submission for the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. It will be released theatrically by Magnolia Pictures early next year. "White God" will also screen at the Sundance Film Festival 2015 in the Spotlight section.
Director Kornél Mundruczó was in L.A. recently and talked to us about his ferociously beautiful film.
Carlos Aguilar: This is an incredibly powerful film both in its imagery and in the themes it touches on. Particularly, it seems to me that it’s a metaphor for the power struggle between the people and the system. Those who have been marginalized suddenly rebel. Does this reflect your perception of Hungarian society and the issues the country faces?
Kornél Mundruczó: Freedom is too difficult for our nation sometimes. Politicians are usually the ones who have the power. Certainly living as part of a minority in Hungary is not easy. I tried to make this my most “Hungarian” film and to clearly criticize the society I live in. Then I recognized that at the same this is the most internationally appealing film I’ve made as well. Maybe this means that our fear is a common thing nowadays. It’s a contemporary fear. After the economic crisis there was an unfounded fear of all these different segments of the population, minorities, and refugees not only in Hungary but also all over Europe.
I fervently believe in equality. I believe we all share the world. We share the entire planet not only with humans but also with animals. We share the entire planet with them and humans easily forget that. Similarly, society and politicians easily forget that there should be equality amongst everyone. That's very scary, but that's why I'd like to use such unique characters for the film. This movie is a fairytale. It's not about realism at all. It looks realistic but it's much more about my personal view of the reality I'm living in. This movie is much closer to a David Lynch movie than to realism.
Aguilar: The film has a very unique cinematic language. It changes in tone and focus throughout the story. Where you inspired by any cinematic style or genre in particular?
Kornél Mundruczó: Eastern Europe has completely changed in the last 5 to 10 years. It's not slowly paced or filled with melancholy, we are not behind the Iron Curtain anymore. Now it's the complete opposite. It's fast, aggressive, and extreme. Of course, when I recognized this about Eastern Europe today I tried to find a new cinematic language. “White God” is a horror movie, a political satire, a fantasy, and a melodrama. All the post-Soviet ideas came together [Laughs]. That’s what I wanted to use as a cinematic language for this film. There are lots of twists and turns. It starts as a Disney movie or as Spielberg’s "E.T," then it turns into a social drama and a coming-of-age story, then it’s a thriller, and the very end is like a horror film.
Aguilar: Certainly your film is very layered and deals with numerous complex ideas. There is Lili’s story, which is the human perspective, and there is Hagen’s point of view, the dog’s story. Can you tell me about the writing process of merging these two sides to create something that shows how connected both worlds are?
Kornél Mundruczó: I decided to make this film because I was very moved by something I experienced while working on a stage project from a novel called Disgrace by a South African author named Coetzee. In the novel there is a woman who works in a dog shelter. I told the actors, “Let’s go to a dog shelter and see how it looks.” We went and I was standing there looking at the dog’s eyes. I felt such shame and I asked myself, “How can this happen? I’m also part of this system.” I felt like I had the responsibility to do something against this. That’s why I started working on this film.
It’s incredible to see these animals there. They are there to die. When I talked to one of my writing partners, Kata Wéber, I told her, “I want to make a very radical movie about one dog in Budapest. “ She said, “That’s not enough” and I asked her, “Why not?” She replied, “They are in these shelters because of society, so we need to show the society behind this to mirror their experiences. This society is creating monsters. The animals are not monsters because they want to be. “
It was Kata’s idea to make the main character an innocent girl. She is in a state in between. She is not a child but not yet an adult. We decided to create a story about the friendship between the girl and the dog. In the real world these dogs’ stories end in a dog shelter were they are killed, no one comes to rescue them. Once they are there they get two weeks to live and then they can be killed. That’s the law. Therefore, I thought, “Ok, we have to “kill” the dog at the end of the movie because that’s the reality.” Then Kata said, “No, we have to root for the dogs. Let’s do a revenge story from the dog’s perspective. The dogs are the ones that have morals. Society has no morals. Let’s give the morals to the dogs.” Our two main were to build a story about friendship and then make it into a huge dog revolution against society or against bad humans. This creates the dark fairytale tone.
Aguilar: The dogs represent freedom of all those oppressed whether it’s animals or human unjustly treated. Hagen becomes a symbol for humanity without being human.
Kornél Mundruczó: Absolutely. I wanted to use a good hero who had high morals and who makes good decisions. In a normal film such a character can easily become pathetic or boring, but with a dog you can have an interesting hero. I felt that the dogs are more human than we are. This is why I was able to use a sort of classic narrative structure. Hagen, our main dog, is like Humphrey Bogart [Laughs]. Today if you have a hero like Humphrey Bogart people would find him silly because we are not as naïve anymore, but if it’s a dog I think it works.
Aguilar: I think it also works because the main human character is a young girl who is not cynical. She hasn’t been poisoned by the system yet.
Kornél Mundruczó: Yes, she hasn’t lost her innocence. She is on the edge of losing it. She is on the border between adulthood and childhood. I know the film is thought of as a “dog movie” and that might be the most interesting part, but for me the life of this little girl is absolutely important. She is like me. She is much more me than the dog. I’m not as heroic as the dog. I’m just a human [Laughs].
Aguilar: We believe that animals need humans to fight for them, but in your film it’s different, the dogs fight for themselves. Was it important for you to show the animals perspective prominently? In a sense you are giving them a voice.
Kornél Mundruczó: Yes. We actually had two mandates while making the film: we only used mixed-breed dogs and we didn’t use any CGI. We chose to do this so we could see the dogs’ own emotions. What you see in the film are their real emotions. I think that’s what blows people away. It’s different from a human illustrating the image of an animal or manufacturing what an animal thinks or feels. For example, in the film “Life of Pi” by Ang Lee the tiger is the idea of a tiger created by a human. It’s not better or worse than using a real animal, but it’s just totally different. I wanted to do the opposite and show what a dog’s real emotions look like. If you look into their eyes you recognize something you know in a being that’s unknown to you and through this you become closer.
Aguilar: How exciting or frightening was to wok with the dogs, which I assume can be unpredictable actors? Was losing control to an extent difficult for you?
Kornél Mundruczó: I’m such a control freak that it was difficult at the beginning [Laughs]. I think in the end in turned into a sort of therapy. It made me better personally because I learned a lot about me. Trust is better than control and I trusted the animals. We rotated between shooting one week and the following week we would dedicate it exclusively to working with the dogs. We adapted the screenplay as we went on taking into account what the dogs were or were not able to do. It was great to see that two species, humans and dogs, can cooperate in one project. [Laughs].
Aguilar: Tell me about those amazing sequences in which we see the dogs running while through the streets of Budapest. What where the challenges of creating such impressive images?
Kornél Mundruczó: Working with 280 dogs was very difficult. We tried to socialize them to avoid any fights, and they seemed to enjoy being together. They are just like actors. We were very careful not to harm any of them. They were all trained. It was difficult because of all the fences and diverse elements in the scenes. We had 50 trainers on set and 6 cameras. It was a huge set. We shot the film in 55 days, 40 with the dogs, and 15 for all of the human scenes. We had these huge, expensive scenes with the dogs and the other scenes we shot them like you would in a very low budget film. Sometimes we would do 3 or 4 scenes a day with the human actors like in a soap opera, just in a total hurry “ Come on, come on, let’s do it.” [Laughs]. All the money went to the dogs. They were the starts. [Laughs] They had their own budget, they had their specific times to rest, and they were fed regularly. They were the real stars.
Aguilar: You mention this is your most “Hungarian” film, but how has it connected with audiences abroad in countries with similar issues?
Kornél Mundruczó: The film has been very well received in Europe. Fear doesn’t only exist in Hungary, even if we are a very strange country and quiet extreme in terms of how we react to social and economic problems. Our system is slowly becoming closer to the Putin system more than to the Western European system, which is very strange. Still, everywhere in Europe and around the world people understand what this film is about. I was in Mexico recently for the Morelia Film Festival, and people there also understood the film as I intended. Mexicans know about colonization, about being a minority, or being the underdog. Regarding the U.S, I feel like the audience here is a little bit more naïve. “White God” is a emotionally strong film and I hope it can touch Americans as well. I always wonder if people will stay in the theater for the entire film because it’s tough to watch at times. If the stay to see the whole film they usually like it. I know some scenes in the film are hard to look at, but it’s important for me to tell the truth.
Aguilar: The violence in “White God” might be an issue for some people, but I feel it’s worse not to face it or to shy away from it.
Kornél Mundruczó: Yes. It’s strange what people react to because if you watch the news on TV you are exposed to tons of hours of brutal images filled with violence. On the other hand, all these issues are part of our lives and if you don’t face it you can’t solve it. Some people prefer to pretend they live in another world where they don’t have to face any real problems. I hope violence is not a problem for American audiences to see the film. The audience in the U.K. liked the film very much. Hopefully we have a similar reaction here.
Aguilar: In your film the dogs rebel against those humans that have hurt them, do you think film can be a tool to ignite social change? Not necessarily to rebel but to create awareness and think about certain issues.
Kornél Mundruczó: Absolutely. My film is about a rebel, which in this case the dog. I think this is a very simple moral story but it’s still important to retell these moral stories. When it comes to art it is always very important to know from which perspective you are looking at something, It’s also interesting to see how a society reacts to stories or films like this and what results from this reaction.
Aguilar: Films with social commentary sometimes have difficulties finding audiences because some moviegoers prefer to think of cinema as entertainment rather than something more intellectually stimulating.
Kornél Mundruczó: That’s true but can you imagine a Kubrick movie without the social commentary component, or Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now” without the last half hour? I love films by Fassbinder, Douglas Sirk, or Bergman, but they can really be brutal sometimes. They are absolute tragedies. We’ve been dealing with tragedies since the Greeks, and tragedies make you think. That’s their function. I think I’m very classical in that sense in terms of my films. Watching dramas one can have a catharsis because they help you understand all the contradictions in this world and you might think “This is how the world is, but I would like to make it a better world.” When I was young and even know, I feel like I have a catharsis with certain films or novels and I think “Now I understand more about my reality than I did yesterday because of this piece of art.” This is the miracle of great art and why it has worked since the Greeks thousands of years ago.
Aguilar: You won the Un Certain Regard Prize in Cannes and “White God” is now representing Hungary at the Academy Awards. Tell about this journey with the film.
Kornél Mundruczó: All of this is always unexpected. I was so surprised and very proud after winning that prize in Cannes, but the most important thing for me was that the audience came to see the film. They had two extra screenings at Cannes and they were both sold out as well. We also won four other awards at other festivals, but I’m totally a virgin when it comes to the Oscars [Laughs]. None of my previous films had been selected by the Hungarian committee to represent the country at the Oscars. I’m very happy that they have given me their trust to represent Hungary, but you just never know what’s going to happen. In a sense is like being a first time filmmaker. It’s all very new.
Crafted like a brutally visceral dark fairytale, “White God” showcases topnotch cinematic technique with strong social commentary in the form of powerful metaphors. The story centers on Lili (Zsófia Psotta), a teenage girl searching for her lost dog Hagen after her father abandons the animal fearful of a law that taxes people who own mixed-breed dogs. From that moment on the film juxtaposes Lili’s struggle to fit in the complex world of adolescent relationships and Hagen’s terrifying transformation into a savage killer. Not surprisingly the film won the Un Certain Regard Prize in Cannes earlier this year for it’s very unique point of view.
“White God” is Hungary’s official submission for the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. It will be released theatrically by Magnolia Pictures early next year. "White God" will also screen at the Sundance Film Festival 2015 in the Spotlight section.
Director Kornél Mundruczó was in L.A. recently and talked to us about his ferociously beautiful film.
Carlos Aguilar: This is an incredibly powerful film both in its imagery and in the themes it touches on. Particularly, it seems to me that it’s a metaphor for the power struggle between the people and the system. Those who have been marginalized suddenly rebel. Does this reflect your perception of Hungarian society and the issues the country faces?
Kornél Mundruczó: Freedom is too difficult for our nation sometimes. Politicians are usually the ones who have the power. Certainly living as part of a minority in Hungary is not easy. I tried to make this my most “Hungarian” film and to clearly criticize the society I live in. Then I recognized that at the same this is the most internationally appealing film I’ve made as well. Maybe this means that our fear is a common thing nowadays. It’s a contemporary fear. After the economic crisis there was an unfounded fear of all these different segments of the population, minorities, and refugees not only in Hungary but also all over Europe.
I fervently believe in equality. I believe we all share the world. We share the entire planet not only with humans but also with animals. We share the entire planet with them and humans easily forget that. Similarly, society and politicians easily forget that there should be equality amongst everyone. That's very scary, but that's why I'd like to use such unique characters for the film. This movie is a fairytale. It's not about realism at all. It looks realistic but it's much more about my personal view of the reality I'm living in. This movie is much closer to a David Lynch movie than to realism.
Aguilar: The film has a very unique cinematic language. It changes in tone and focus throughout the story. Where you inspired by any cinematic style or genre in particular?
Kornél Mundruczó: Eastern Europe has completely changed in the last 5 to 10 years. It's not slowly paced or filled with melancholy, we are not behind the Iron Curtain anymore. Now it's the complete opposite. It's fast, aggressive, and extreme. Of course, when I recognized this about Eastern Europe today I tried to find a new cinematic language. “White God” is a horror movie, a political satire, a fantasy, and a melodrama. All the post-Soviet ideas came together [Laughs]. That’s what I wanted to use as a cinematic language for this film. There are lots of twists and turns. It starts as a Disney movie or as Spielberg’s "E.T," then it turns into a social drama and a coming-of-age story, then it’s a thriller, and the very end is like a horror film.
Aguilar: Certainly your film is very layered and deals with numerous complex ideas. There is Lili’s story, which is the human perspective, and there is Hagen’s point of view, the dog’s story. Can you tell me about the writing process of merging these two sides to create something that shows how connected both worlds are?
Kornél Mundruczó: I decided to make this film because I was very moved by something I experienced while working on a stage project from a novel called Disgrace by a South African author named Coetzee. In the novel there is a woman who works in a dog shelter. I told the actors, “Let’s go to a dog shelter and see how it looks.” We went and I was standing there looking at the dog’s eyes. I felt such shame and I asked myself, “How can this happen? I’m also part of this system.” I felt like I had the responsibility to do something against this. That’s why I started working on this film.
It’s incredible to see these animals there. They are there to die. When I talked to one of my writing partners, Kata Wéber, I told her, “I want to make a very radical movie about one dog in Budapest. “ She said, “That’s not enough” and I asked her, “Why not?” She replied, “They are in these shelters because of society, so we need to show the society behind this to mirror their experiences. This society is creating monsters. The animals are not monsters because they want to be. “
It was Kata’s idea to make the main character an innocent girl. She is in a state in between. She is not a child but not yet an adult. We decided to create a story about the friendship between the girl and the dog. In the real world these dogs’ stories end in a dog shelter were they are killed, no one comes to rescue them. Once they are there they get two weeks to live and then they can be killed. That’s the law. Therefore, I thought, “Ok, we have to “kill” the dog at the end of the movie because that’s the reality.” Then Kata said, “No, we have to root for the dogs. Let’s do a revenge story from the dog’s perspective. The dogs are the ones that have morals. Society has no morals. Let’s give the morals to the dogs.” Our two main were to build a story about friendship and then make it into a huge dog revolution against society or against bad humans. This creates the dark fairytale tone.
Aguilar: The dogs represent freedom of all those oppressed whether it’s animals or human unjustly treated. Hagen becomes a symbol for humanity without being human.
Kornél Mundruczó: Absolutely. I wanted to use a good hero who had high morals and who makes good decisions. In a normal film such a character can easily become pathetic or boring, but with a dog you can have an interesting hero. I felt that the dogs are more human than we are. This is why I was able to use a sort of classic narrative structure. Hagen, our main dog, is like Humphrey Bogart [Laughs]. Today if you have a hero like Humphrey Bogart people would find him silly because we are not as naïve anymore, but if it’s a dog I think it works.
Aguilar: I think it also works because the main human character is a young girl who is not cynical. She hasn’t been poisoned by the system yet.
Kornél Mundruczó: Yes, she hasn’t lost her innocence. She is on the edge of losing it. She is on the border between adulthood and childhood. I know the film is thought of as a “dog movie” and that might be the most interesting part, but for me the life of this little girl is absolutely important. She is like me. She is much more me than the dog. I’m not as heroic as the dog. I’m just a human [Laughs].
Aguilar: We believe that animals need humans to fight for them, but in your film it’s different, the dogs fight for themselves. Was it important for you to show the animals perspective prominently? In a sense you are giving them a voice.
Kornél Mundruczó: Yes. We actually had two mandates while making the film: we only used mixed-breed dogs and we didn’t use any CGI. We chose to do this so we could see the dogs’ own emotions. What you see in the film are their real emotions. I think that’s what blows people away. It’s different from a human illustrating the image of an animal or manufacturing what an animal thinks or feels. For example, in the film “Life of Pi” by Ang Lee the tiger is the idea of a tiger created by a human. It’s not better or worse than using a real animal, but it’s just totally different. I wanted to do the opposite and show what a dog’s real emotions look like. If you look into their eyes you recognize something you know in a being that’s unknown to you and through this you become closer.
Aguilar: How exciting or frightening was to wok with the dogs, which I assume can be unpredictable actors? Was losing control to an extent difficult for you?
Kornél Mundruczó: I’m such a control freak that it was difficult at the beginning [Laughs]. I think in the end in turned into a sort of therapy. It made me better personally because I learned a lot about me. Trust is better than control and I trusted the animals. We rotated between shooting one week and the following week we would dedicate it exclusively to working with the dogs. We adapted the screenplay as we went on taking into account what the dogs were or were not able to do. It was great to see that two species, humans and dogs, can cooperate in one project. [Laughs].
Aguilar: Tell me about those amazing sequences in which we see the dogs running while through the streets of Budapest. What where the challenges of creating such impressive images?
Kornél Mundruczó: Working with 280 dogs was very difficult. We tried to socialize them to avoid any fights, and they seemed to enjoy being together. They are just like actors. We were very careful not to harm any of them. They were all trained. It was difficult because of all the fences and diverse elements in the scenes. We had 50 trainers on set and 6 cameras. It was a huge set. We shot the film in 55 days, 40 with the dogs, and 15 for all of the human scenes. We had these huge, expensive scenes with the dogs and the other scenes we shot them like you would in a very low budget film. Sometimes we would do 3 or 4 scenes a day with the human actors like in a soap opera, just in a total hurry “ Come on, come on, let’s do it.” [Laughs]. All the money went to the dogs. They were the starts. [Laughs] They had their own budget, they had their specific times to rest, and they were fed regularly. They were the real stars.
Aguilar: You mention this is your most “Hungarian” film, but how has it connected with audiences abroad in countries with similar issues?
Kornél Mundruczó: The film has been very well received in Europe. Fear doesn’t only exist in Hungary, even if we are a very strange country and quiet extreme in terms of how we react to social and economic problems. Our system is slowly becoming closer to the Putin system more than to the Western European system, which is very strange. Still, everywhere in Europe and around the world people understand what this film is about. I was in Mexico recently for the Morelia Film Festival, and people there also understood the film as I intended. Mexicans know about colonization, about being a minority, or being the underdog. Regarding the U.S, I feel like the audience here is a little bit more naïve. “White God” is a emotionally strong film and I hope it can touch Americans as well. I always wonder if people will stay in the theater for the entire film because it’s tough to watch at times. If the stay to see the whole film they usually like it. I know some scenes in the film are hard to look at, but it’s important for me to tell the truth.
Aguilar: The violence in “White God” might be an issue for some people, but I feel it’s worse not to face it or to shy away from it.
Kornél Mundruczó: Yes. It’s strange what people react to because if you watch the news on TV you are exposed to tons of hours of brutal images filled with violence. On the other hand, all these issues are part of our lives and if you don’t face it you can’t solve it. Some people prefer to pretend they live in another world where they don’t have to face any real problems. I hope violence is not a problem for American audiences to see the film. The audience in the U.K. liked the film very much. Hopefully we have a similar reaction here.
Aguilar: In your film the dogs rebel against those humans that have hurt them, do you think film can be a tool to ignite social change? Not necessarily to rebel but to create awareness and think about certain issues.
Kornél Mundruczó: Absolutely. My film is about a rebel, which in this case the dog. I think this is a very simple moral story but it’s still important to retell these moral stories. When it comes to art it is always very important to know from which perspective you are looking at something, It’s also interesting to see how a society reacts to stories or films like this and what results from this reaction.
Aguilar: Films with social commentary sometimes have difficulties finding audiences because some moviegoers prefer to think of cinema as entertainment rather than something more intellectually stimulating.
Kornél Mundruczó: That’s true but can you imagine a Kubrick movie without the social commentary component, or Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now” without the last half hour? I love films by Fassbinder, Douglas Sirk, or Bergman, but they can really be brutal sometimes. They are absolute tragedies. We’ve been dealing with tragedies since the Greeks, and tragedies make you think. That’s their function. I think I’m very classical in that sense in terms of my films. Watching dramas one can have a catharsis because they help you understand all the contradictions in this world and you might think “This is how the world is, but I would like to make it a better world.” When I was young and even know, I feel like I have a catharsis with certain films or novels and I think “Now I understand more about my reality than I did yesterday because of this piece of art.” This is the miracle of great art and why it has worked since the Greeks thousands of years ago.
Aguilar: You won the Un Certain Regard Prize in Cannes and “White God” is now representing Hungary at the Academy Awards. Tell about this journey with the film.
Kornél Mundruczó: All of this is always unexpected. I was so surprised and very proud after winning that prize in Cannes, but the most important thing for me was that the audience came to see the film. They had two extra screenings at Cannes and they were both sold out as well. We also won four other awards at other festivals, but I’m totally a virgin when it comes to the Oscars [Laughs]. None of my previous films had been selected by the Hungarian committee to represent the country at the Oscars. I’m very happy that they have given me their trust to represent Hungary, but you just never know what’s going to happen. In a sense is like being a first time filmmaker. It’s all very new.
- 4/3/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
In Patrick Süskind’s novel “Perfume” (which was turned into a film back in 2006 by German helmer Tom Tykwer) the central character is born with no body odor and becomes fascinated with the scent of others. This defining trait affects his relationship with the world around him terribly hindering his social skills. Even though tonally both stories couldn’t be more disparate, filmmaker Analeine Cal y Mayor’s debut feature “Treading Water” revolves around a protagonist who suffers from essentially the opposite problem: his body secretes a fetid smell, which resembles that of fish, and there is nothing he can do to change it. And just like the murderous protagonist in the German tale, the hero here is also shaped negatively by his unique relationship with bodily aromas.
Born to a Mexican mother, Sophie (Ariadna Gil), and an American, mostly absent father, Richard (Don McKellar), curly-haired boy Mica (played by Brian Bridger and Douglas Smith) learns very early on that people are repulsed by him. Though it’s clear this reaction is nothing personal, it has an atrocious effect on his self-esteem. As if such strange physiological condition wasn’t enough to make him feel abnormal, Mica and his family live in a house that’s actually a museum honoring legendary Mexican singer Guillermo Garibai (Gonzalo Vega) – a fictional character that appears to be based on classic performers from a bygone era. Sophie is the defacto tour guide, but not surprisingly Mica’s smell becomes a problem for the visitors - a clientele made up almost entirely of elderly women. Isolated and wearing a tree-shaped air freshener around his neck, grade-school-age Mica gets used to navigating life on his own having his therapist Catherine (Carrie-Anne Moss) as his only friend.
Cal y Mayor’s visual and tonal approach, particularly in the opening sequences, is reminiscent of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s “Amelie,” even with in the darkly comedic way that a tragic death is handled. The quirky nature of the world allows for the filmmaker to showcase its eccentricities in all aspects of the story. Ostentatious portraits of Garibai, colorful wallpapers, a vintage gramophone, and many other bizarre objects and mementos conform the delightfully elaborate production design. A unique narcissistic shrine like this is fitting for this often irreverent coming-of-ager.
Fast-forwarding a few years, teenage Mica has become a skillful swimmer, as he knows that while underwater his smell isn’t as noticeable. Used to his lonesome path, he has decided not to go to college and instead runs the house/museum by himself. The only source of care and human interaction he knows is Catherine, who has definitely gone beyond her professional duties to help him. Unavoidably, this cycle is broken when a love interest emerges. Running into each other at the local pool, Laura (played by charismatic “Divergent” actress Zoë Kravitz), and Mica begin a romance that is not dictated by his uncommon stink or her secret life as a janitor.
Laced with magical realist elements, “Treading Water” suffers from an uneven use of its collection of odd qualities that loses sight of what makes it special and relies on safe genre conventions for leverage. It centers on an abruptly conceived relationship that drives the attention away from the initial self-discovery premise and introduces an easy solution to the lead character’s core issue. Mica doesn’t really overcome his struggle with his unchangeable “curse,” but instead hopes that by finding someone who likes him enough to ignore, he might also accept it – the familiar “love cures all” card comes into play.
Interestingly enough, even if the film rushes to find a feel-good conclusion, there are multiple instances in which Cal y Mayor confronts her characters with more somber truths. Mica is perpetually depressed and craves companionship so much that he confuses platonic love with sexual attraction. Cynicism consumes him. When Catherine tries to reassure him, he explicitly calls himself a “freak” and attacks her for what he considers default, empty statements to make him better. These responses read as sincere from a person who has experienced alienation from birth, and it’s here that the film conveys engaging sincerity.
Exuding genuine emotions while in such singular surroundings, fresh-faced Douglas Smith is a talented discovery. His receptive demeanor and gullible personality blend with the surreal reality and weird fairytale–like occurrences: renowned Mexican actor Gonzalo Vega has one scene in which he is basically a funny fairy-godfather dealing with high cholesterol. Despite it all, Smith is promising and was able to carry “Treading Water” by making such an unordinary concept into something relatable, and occasionally moving. An added bonus is the subtle way the director imbued the film with her Mexican roots through the use of traditional music, even if the story doesn’t reflect it as much thematically.
Aesthetically amusing and with a handful of notable components, “Treading Water” is hit-and-miss, yet enjoyable offbeat romantic comedy. With this imaginative tale, Cal y Mayor establishes her fondness for idiosyncratic storytelling, and though this might not be a perfect example of her abilities, it sure smells like her work promises to have a memorable fragrance
"Treading Water" is playing now in Los Angeles and New York, and it's also available on VOD
Follow SydneysBuzz on Twitter @sydneysbuzz and on Facebook
Follow Carlos Aguilar on Twitter @Carlos_Film and on Instagram @carlosfilm...
Born to a Mexican mother, Sophie (Ariadna Gil), and an American, mostly absent father, Richard (Don McKellar), curly-haired boy Mica (played by Brian Bridger and Douglas Smith) learns very early on that people are repulsed by him. Though it’s clear this reaction is nothing personal, it has an atrocious effect on his self-esteem. As if such strange physiological condition wasn’t enough to make him feel abnormal, Mica and his family live in a house that’s actually a museum honoring legendary Mexican singer Guillermo Garibai (Gonzalo Vega) – a fictional character that appears to be based on classic performers from a bygone era. Sophie is the defacto tour guide, but not surprisingly Mica’s smell becomes a problem for the visitors - a clientele made up almost entirely of elderly women. Isolated and wearing a tree-shaped air freshener around his neck, grade-school-age Mica gets used to navigating life on his own having his therapist Catherine (Carrie-Anne Moss) as his only friend.
Cal y Mayor’s visual and tonal approach, particularly in the opening sequences, is reminiscent of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s “Amelie,” even with in the darkly comedic way that a tragic death is handled. The quirky nature of the world allows for the filmmaker to showcase its eccentricities in all aspects of the story. Ostentatious portraits of Garibai, colorful wallpapers, a vintage gramophone, and many other bizarre objects and mementos conform the delightfully elaborate production design. A unique narcissistic shrine like this is fitting for this often irreverent coming-of-ager.
Fast-forwarding a few years, teenage Mica has become a skillful swimmer, as he knows that while underwater his smell isn’t as noticeable. Used to his lonesome path, he has decided not to go to college and instead runs the house/museum by himself. The only source of care and human interaction he knows is Catherine, who has definitely gone beyond her professional duties to help him. Unavoidably, this cycle is broken when a love interest emerges. Running into each other at the local pool, Laura (played by charismatic “Divergent” actress Zoë Kravitz), and Mica begin a romance that is not dictated by his uncommon stink or her secret life as a janitor.
Laced with magical realist elements, “Treading Water” suffers from an uneven use of its collection of odd qualities that loses sight of what makes it special and relies on safe genre conventions for leverage. It centers on an abruptly conceived relationship that drives the attention away from the initial self-discovery premise and introduces an easy solution to the lead character’s core issue. Mica doesn’t really overcome his struggle with his unchangeable “curse,” but instead hopes that by finding someone who likes him enough to ignore, he might also accept it – the familiar “love cures all” card comes into play.
Interestingly enough, even if the film rushes to find a feel-good conclusion, there are multiple instances in which Cal y Mayor confronts her characters with more somber truths. Mica is perpetually depressed and craves companionship so much that he confuses platonic love with sexual attraction. Cynicism consumes him. When Catherine tries to reassure him, he explicitly calls himself a “freak” and attacks her for what he considers default, empty statements to make him better. These responses read as sincere from a person who has experienced alienation from birth, and it’s here that the film conveys engaging sincerity.
Exuding genuine emotions while in such singular surroundings, fresh-faced Douglas Smith is a talented discovery. His receptive demeanor and gullible personality blend with the surreal reality and weird fairytale–like occurrences: renowned Mexican actor Gonzalo Vega has one scene in which he is basically a funny fairy-godfather dealing with high cholesterol. Despite it all, Smith is promising and was able to carry “Treading Water” by making such an unordinary concept into something relatable, and occasionally moving. An added bonus is the subtle way the director imbued the film with her Mexican roots through the use of traditional music, even if the story doesn’t reflect it as much thematically.
Aesthetically amusing and with a handful of notable components, “Treading Water” is hit-and-miss, yet enjoyable offbeat romantic comedy. With this imaginative tale, Cal y Mayor establishes her fondness for idiosyncratic storytelling, and though this might not be a perfect example of her abilities, it sure smells like her work promises to have a memorable fragrance
"Treading Water" is playing now in Los Angeles and New York, and it's also available on VOD
Follow SydneysBuzz on Twitter @sydneysbuzz and on Facebook
Follow Carlos Aguilar on Twitter @Carlos_Film and on Instagram @carlosfilm...
- 3/19/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
"A Second Chance" had its U.S. Premiere at the Miami Dade College's Miami International Film Festival last week - Isa: TrustNordisk, U.S. Distribution: None Yet.
Tugging at the audience’s heartstrings is one of Danish director Susanne Bier’s most pronounced talents. By constructing intricate stories that place her characters in extreme moral dilemmas, the director often makes it difficult for the viewer to decide if their actions are rational, justifiable, or a consequence of an uncontrollable emotional outburst. Such fervent ambivalence is rather conspicuous in her latest homegrown drama “A Second Chance,” in which all parties involved seek the vindication the title hints at. But as the plot advances through a series of startling revelations, the shifting nature of the truth shows that the one person who will learn the most from this ordeal is, of course, whom we least expect.
Enjoying a seemingly idyllic life in a gorgeous house by the sea, Andreas (Game of Thrones' Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), a police officer, couldn’t ask for much else. His loving wife Anna (Maria Bonnevie) and their baby boy Alexander fill his existence with purpose. This apparent stability at home helps him maintain balance given the stress associated with his career. Ethereal landscapes, sunsets, and sunrises, adorn the visual aesthetic crafted by cinematographer Michael Snyman, which provides a certain melancholic beauty. It enhances the idea of a picture perfect setting, whilst also suggesting there might be bleakness forthcoming.
During a routine raid to a shabby apartment alongside his partner Simon (played by a convincingly distressed Ulrich Thomsen), Andreas recognizes fauxhawk-wearing brute Tristan (Nikolaj Lie Kaas), a physically imposing and ruthlessly violent junkie he had dealt with back in Copenhagen. Sanne (May Andersen), Tristan’s girlfriend in turn, also lives in the filthy place and is often forcefully drugged by him to prevent her from leaving. As the officers subdue the delinquents, a baby’s faint cries can be heard coming from a nearby closet. Andreas finds the couple's child, Sofus, covered in his own feces, a sign of the horrendous neglect he’s experienced. Juxtaposed with the exemplary household mentioned above, this image bluntly questions the qualities attached to someone fit to be a parent.
Profoundly affected by such gut-wrenching sight, and evidently thinking of his own son, Andreas urges his superiors to get Sofus away from his revolting parents before things take an even worse turn. Unexpectedly, notwithstanding the child’s appearance, the authorities reveal Sofus is not malnourished or hurt, thus he can’t be removed from Tristan’s grip. Unable to do much more Andreas returns to his family. He shares with Anna the sleepless nights that come with raising a child and the joy of witnessing its development. It’s all mostly ordinary till now, but when tragedy strikes, unthinkably drastic decisions will emerge.
Bouncing between his role as a father and as cop, Coster-Waldau plays Andreas with the utmost internal strength. It’s not unfounded bravado, but well-rounded confidence. He is ready to drag his friend Simon out of the dirt as the latter struggles with personal troubles related to his own son and his ex-wife. He turns to alcohol and women to appease his demons. Obviously Andreas is the more grounded of the two, and this leads one to believe that won’t crumble when confronted with pain. This is an erroneous assumption.
Slowly, Bier and her writing partner, Anders Thomas Jensen (Oscar-winning “In a Better World”), expose the fractured reality that wasn’t visible through the initial curtain of false perfection. Irritable and drained, Anna starts showing signs of an unstable emotional state, to which Andreas responds with patience and compassion. Subtly but effectively Bonnevie conveys Anna's anguish and unpredictable behavior, which eventually scalates aggressively. One morning, an unspeakable nightmare materializes when Anna wakes up and finds their son, Alexander, dead. Impulsively and afraid that Anna will hurt herself facing such terrible truth, Andreas decides to walk into Tristan and Sanne’s apartment to switch Sofus for lifeless Alexander.
The idea is asinine by anyone’s measures. Only a filmmaker like Bier - one who has proven to have a notable ability to explore major themes within ornate premises - would dare to push human drama to such shamelessly unfeasible territory. But as contrived as it all might sound, “A Second Chance” successfully convinces us to suppress our disbelief and to be touched by the protagonist’s Calvary. Once Andreas presents Anna with their new "adopted" baby, a series of rattling plot twist unravel. Meanwhile, Tristan designs an elaborate scheme to dispose of the body and defend his innocence, while Sanne maintains that the deceased boy is not her son.
Gasping at each increasingly more perplexing occurrence is inevitable. Andreas shattered world unfolds before us and his reactions are charged with heartbreaking desperation. Sorrow impairs his judgment. Fortunately, the circumstantial and often far-fetched realizations become palatable because the writers, via their characters, admit that what is taking place is beyond out of the ordinary, even surreal. If there were ever a film that could claim the idea that reality is often stranger than fiction as an inspiration, this would be it. Although somehow predictable, the resolution feels a bit more contrived than the rest of film probably due to its simplicity, but it could be the director’s way to imbue the film with some much needed reassurance.
Offering an array of incredibly riveting performances, Bier delivers a fascinating, if flawed, study on redemption. We as an audience are subconsciously interrogated about our expectations and preconceived notions of what being a “noble citizen” or a “wrongdoer” entail: How do we measure evil? What crimes are more despicable? What are we willing to forgive? Bier’s characters here range from the one-dimensional Tristan, to the marvelously layered Andreas - played superbly by nuanced Coster-Waldau– but they all play a compelling part in the cause-and-effect mechanic that reigns the film. Be prepared to accept that second chances or a personal transformation can come in a mysterious shape. An officer doesn’t have to become a sergeant to become a better person.
“A Second Chance” is an utterly powerful and deeply touching experience. It hits you like a shockwave to the heart with such intensity that is impossible to be indifferent to its stirring questions. Could it be accused of being manipulative? Sure. Does it succeed at being a stimulating and memorable cinematic work despite its shortcomings? Absolutely.
Follow SydneysBuzz on Twitter @sydneysbuzz and on Facebook
Follow Carlos Aguilar on Twitter @Carlos_Film and on Instagram @carlosfilm...
Tugging at the audience’s heartstrings is one of Danish director Susanne Bier’s most pronounced talents. By constructing intricate stories that place her characters in extreme moral dilemmas, the director often makes it difficult for the viewer to decide if their actions are rational, justifiable, or a consequence of an uncontrollable emotional outburst. Such fervent ambivalence is rather conspicuous in her latest homegrown drama “A Second Chance,” in which all parties involved seek the vindication the title hints at. But as the plot advances through a series of startling revelations, the shifting nature of the truth shows that the one person who will learn the most from this ordeal is, of course, whom we least expect.
Enjoying a seemingly idyllic life in a gorgeous house by the sea, Andreas (Game of Thrones' Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), a police officer, couldn’t ask for much else. His loving wife Anna (Maria Bonnevie) and their baby boy Alexander fill his existence with purpose. This apparent stability at home helps him maintain balance given the stress associated with his career. Ethereal landscapes, sunsets, and sunrises, adorn the visual aesthetic crafted by cinematographer Michael Snyman, which provides a certain melancholic beauty. It enhances the idea of a picture perfect setting, whilst also suggesting there might be bleakness forthcoming.
During a routine raid to a shabby apartment alongside his partner Simon (played by a convincingly distressed Ulrich Thomsen), Andreas recognizes fauxhawk-wearing brute Tristan (Nikolaj Lie Kaas), a physically imposing and ruthlessly violent junkie he had dealt with back in Copenhagen. Sanne (May Andersen), Tristan’s girlfriend in turn, also lives in the filthy place and is often forcefully drugged by him to prevent her from leaving. As the officers subdue the delinquents, a baby’s faint cries can be heard coming from a nearby closet. Andreas finds the couple's child, Sofus, covered in his own feces, a sign of the horrendous neglect he’s experienced. Juxtaposed with the exemplary household mentioned above, this image bluntly questions the qualities attached to someone fit to be a parent.
Profoundly affected by such gut-wrenching sight, and evidently thinking of his own son, Andreas urges his superiors to get Sofus away from his revolting parents before things take an even worse turn. Unexpectedly, notwithstanding the child’s appearance, the authorities reveal Sofus is not malnourished or hurt, thus he can’t be removed from Tristan’s grip. Unable to do much more Andreas returns to his family. He shares with Anna the sleepless nights that come with raising a child and the joy of witnessing its development. It’s all mostly ordinary till now, but when tragedy strikes, unthinkably drastic decisions will emerge.
Bouncing between his role as a father and as cop, Coster-Waldau plays Andreas with the utmost internal strength. It’s not unfounded bravado, but well-rounded confidence. He is ready to drag his friend Simon out of the dirt as the latter struggles with personal troubles related to his own son and his ex-wife. He turns to alcohol and women to appease his demons. Obviously Andreas is the more grounded of the two, and this leads one to believe that won’t crumble when confronted with pain. This is an erroneous assumption.
Slowly, Bier and her writing partner, Anders Thomas Jensen (Oscar-winning “In a Better World”), expose the fractured reality that wasn’t visible through the initial curtain of false perfection. Irritable and drained, Anna starts showing signs of an unstable emotional state, to which Andreas responds with patience and compassion. Subtly but effectively Bonnevie conveys Anna's anguish and unpredictable behavior, which eventually scalates aggressively. One morning, an unspeakable nightmare materializes when Anna wakes up and finds their son, Alexander, dead. Impulsively and afraid that Anna will hurt herself facing such terrible truth, Andreas decides to walk into Tristan and Sanne’s apartment to switch Sofus for lifeless Alexander.
The idea is asinine by anyone’s measures. Only a filmmaker like Bier - one who has proven to have a notable ability to explore major themes within ornate premises - would dare to push human drama to such shamelessly unfeasible territory. But as contrived as it all might sound, “A Second Chance” successfully convinces us to suppress our disbelief and to be touched by the protagonist’s Calvary. Once Andreas presents Anna with their new "adopted" baby, a series of rattling plot twist unravel. Meanwhile, Tristan designs an elaborate scheme to dispose of the body and defend his innocence, while Sanne maintains that the deceased boy is not her son.
Gasping at each increasingly more perplexing occurrence is inevitable. Andreas shattered world unfolds before us and his reactions are charged with heartbreaking desperation. Sorrow impairs his judgment. Fortunately, the circumstantial and often far-fetched realizations become palatable because the writers, via their characters, admit that what is taking place is beyond out of the ordinary, even surreal. If there were ever a film that could claim the idea that reality is often stranger than fiction as an inspiration, this would be it. Although somehow predictable, the resolution feels a bit more contrived than the rest of film probably due to its simplicity, but it could be the director’s way to imbue the film with some much needed reassurance.
Offering an array of incredibly riveting performances, Bier delivers a fascinating, if flawed, study on redemption. We as an audience are subconsciously interrogated about our expectations and preconceived notions of what being a “noble citizen” or a “wrongdoer” entail: How do we measure evil? What crimes are more despicable? What are we willing to forgive? Bier’s characters here range from the one-dimensional Tristan, to the marvelously layered Andreas - played superbly by nuanced Coster-Waldau– but they all play a compelling part in the cause-and-effect mechanic that reigns the film. Be prepared to accept that second chances or a personal transformation can come in a mysterious shape. An officer doesn’t have to become a sergeant to become a better person.
“A Second Chance” is an utterly powerful and deeply touching experience. It hits you like a shockwave to the heart with such intensity that is impossible to be indifferent to its stirring questions. Could it be accused of being manipulative? Sure. Does it succeed at being a stimulating and memorable cinematic work despite its shortcomings? Absolutely.
Follow SydneysBuzz on Twitter @sydneysbuzz and on Facebook
Follow Carlos Aguilar on Twitter @Carlos_Film and on Instagram @carlosfilm...
- 3/16/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
"Marshland" (La Isla Minima) had its U.S. Premier at the Miami Dade College's Miami International Film Festival on March 12, 2015 - Isa: Film Factory Entertainment, U.S. Distribution: Outsider Pictures
Tight-sealed secrets begin to come undone in a ramshackle Spanish small town when a gruesome discovery brings a pair of outsiders to investigate in Alberto Rodríguez’ enigmatic thriller “Marshland” (La Isla Minima). Set in the 1980s post-Franco era, the mysterious events carry deep-rooted fears and an ever-present sense of mistrust associated with the fact that the "democratic state" is still something new.
Brutal repression and corruption were the norm for many decades here, and to think it all has changed so fast is more an illusion than anything anyone really believes. This murky divide between the new Spain that exists in theory and the darkness that lies underneath corroding society is encompassed in a film that deliberately opens many cans of worms but doesn't focus on tying all the lose ends, is in that vagueness that Rodriguez achieves brilliance.
Removed from their original posts in the city due to undisclosed circumstances, two homicide detectives are entrusted with the mission of finding two missing teenage girls in the wetlands of Rio Guadalquivir in southern Spain. For Pedro (Raúl Arévalo), the youngest and more idealistic of the two, this assignment feels like a punishment. He plays by the rules and does his job with an unflinching sense of duty. Pedro has definitely more at stake than his partner, Juan (Javier Gutiérrez), who is outspoken about not wishing to become a hero. While both may have unflattering baggage, Juan's past quickly reveals itself to be one helmed by ruthless violence. Polarizing ideologies an all, the odd duo must reach a middle ground in order to successfully find the girls, or those who might have hurt them.
The well-known good cop/bad cop dynamic comes into play when Juan and Pedro try to get information from the frightened locals. On the surface Juan’s approach is much more relaxed and goes along with the idiosyncrasies of this remote place. He speaks calmly and even appears sympathetic to everyone’s concerns. This is a man with experience, even if it was forged by questionable practices during the military dictatorship. Gutierrez marvelously imbues his character with unnerving ambiguity as if every decision he makes is somewhere in between a genuine intention to solve the case and a self-serving tactic to take advantage of the situation. Honest Pedro abides by opposite principles and comes off as an insensitive snub at first in the eyes of the townspeople. His family back home is a constant reminder that he needs to remain focused and get this done fast. Contrasting with Gutierrez’ seemingly nonchalant performance, Arevalo exudes trustworthiness still untainted by cynicism. Both thespians give “Marshland” a set of balanced perspectives needed to take on what will be thrown at them.
Guiding us through a tapestry of deceit with every twist, Rodriguez reveals small glimpses of what could be the truth in every scene. Insignificant pieces of new information that slowly build a puzzle far more complex than expected. Following several visits to the missing girls' parents, their classmates, and other people who might have seen something, the two detectives are pointed to Quini (Jesús Castro), the town’s Casanova. The blue-eyed young man is known as “El Guapo” or “The Handsome One,” and has an arrogant attitude that makes him a prime suspect in the investigation. But when the girl’s bodies are found raped, tortured, and mutilated, Juan and Pedro realize that these murders are just the tip of the iceberg in an intricate criminal network fueled by hopelessness.
Supporting the director's piercing vision of his homeland at a crucial and transformative time is Alex Catalán's exquisite cinematography, which matches the caliber of any American studio production. Especially stunning is the opening credit sequence that highlights the otherworldly landscapes of the region adding to the story’s allure. By focusing on the vastness and isolation that mark this rice-producing part of the country, the film allows for the horrendous to hide in plain sight and become all the more intriguing.
Once the lifeless victims appear, the protagonists’ quest turns into a manhunt to track down whoever is behind it before he or she kills again, but the motivations are as difficult to pinpoint as the perpetrators. Poverty is at the center of most vices that afflict this community. People here - particularly young girls - want to escape the lack of opportunities and see any job prospects in the city as a magical chance for a new life. Those who abducted and murdered the sisters preyed on that desire and their naïve hopes. Underscoring the central conflict are other subtle indicators that the reason behind these events is dubious. There are farm workers on strike asking for better wages from the local tycoon who indiscriminately profits from the land, and an overall atmosphere of desperation permeates most households.
Under such strenuous financial pressures it’s not surprising that people are willing to venture into illegal activities, but with every new uncovered clue the detectives have to shift their attention from drug trafficking, to what could be some sort of snuff photography, to the possibility of the girls’ families being involved. It’s a tricky plot to wrap one’s head around. Eventually - and elevating the tension to even greater heights - Juan’s turbulent history is presented to Pedro by an avid journalist, but by now a supportive relationship has developed between the two partners. Instinctively Pedro refuses to believe the Juan he knows and the one from his past are the same person, but caution is his best ally.
Even with the countless subplots and red herrings that construct it, “Marshland” never loses sight of its core subject that resides within Pedro and Juan’s shaky bond. One represents the romanticized idea of justice that should reign over a nation reborn, while the other works as a reminder that the malevolent practices that savagely oppressed them never perished. Arevalo and Goya Award-winner Gutierrez are superb in every turn of this maze-like mystery. They manage to encapsulate the complexities of two opposing visions of Spain in their performances. Their rapport is so effective on screen that at times Arevalo‘s Pedro takes on the violent qualities of his fellow detective, and the lines between the two dramatically blur.
Certainty and unquestionable answers aren’t included in “Marshland,” and that could be problematic for the spectator that looks for closure, but by forfeiting the notion that everything must be resolved, Rodriguez crafts a much more enthralling film. He distills the troubles of modern Spain into a classically arranged thriller, and through that familiar premise the filmmaker manages to create so much more. One small town and a handful of characters express more about the country’s societal division than a larger scale story could. “Marshland” is also a technically immaculate production on all fronts from the costume design to its chilling musical score. It feels like a major motion picture while retaining its art house appeal. With a film like this, it would seem like Alberto Rodriguez is ready for Hollywood, but let’s hope he continues to make works as thought provoking as this, because “Marshland” is definitely an extraordinary, career-defining achievement.
Follow SydneysBuzz on Twitter @sydneysbuzz and on Facebook
Follow Carlos Aguilar on Twitter @Carlos_Film and on Instagram @carlosfilm...
Tight-sealed secrets begin to come undone in a ramshackle Spanish small town when a gruesome discovery brings a pair of outsiders to investigate in Alberto Rodríguez’ enigmatic thriller “Marshland” (La Isla Minima). Set in the 1980s post-Franco era, the mysterious events carry deep-rooted fears and an ever-present sense of mistrust associated with the fact that the "democratic state" is still something new.
Brutal repression and corruption were the norm for many decades here, and to think it all has changed so fast is more an illusion than anything anyone really believes. This murky divide between the new Spain that exists in theory and the darkness that lies underneath corroding society is encompassed in a film that deliberately opens many cans of worms but doesn't focus on tying all the lose ends, is in that vagueness that Rodriguez achieves brilliance.
Removed from their original posts in the city due to undisclosed circumstances, two homicide detectives are entrusted with the mission of finding two missing teenage girls in the wetlands of Rio Guadalquivir in southern Spain. For Pedro (Raúl Arévalo), the youngest and more idealistic of the two, this assignment feels like a punishment. He plays by the rules and does his job with an unflinching sense of duty. Pedro has definitely more at stake than his partner, Juan (Javier Gutiérrez), who is outspoken about not wishing to become a hero. While both may have unflattering baggage, Juan's past quickly reveals itself to be one helmed by ruthless violence. Polarizing ideologies an all, the odd duo must reach a middle ground in order to successfully find the girls, or those who might have hurt them.
The well-known good cop/bad cop dynamic comes into play when Juan and Pedro try to get information from the frightened locals. On the surface Juan’s approach is much more relaxed and goes along with the idiosyncrasies of this remote place. He speaks calmly and even appears sympathetic to everyone’s concerns. This is a man with experience, even if it was forged by questionable practices during the military dictatorship. Gutierrez marvelously imbues his character with unnerving ambiguity as if every decision he makes is somewhere in between a genuine intention to solve the case and a self-serving tactic to take advantage of the situation. Honest Pedro abides by opposite principles and comes off as an insensitive snub at first in the eyes of the townspeople. His family back home is a constant reminder that he needs to remain focused and get this done fast. Contrasting with Gutierrez’ seemingly nonchalant performance, Arevalo exudes trustworthiness still untainted by cynicism. Both thespians give “Marshland” a set of balanced perspectives needed to take on what will be thrown at them.
Guiding us through a tapestry of deceit with every twist, Rodriguez reveals small glimpses of what could be the truth in every scene. Insignificant pieces of new information that slowly build a puzzle far more complex than expected. Following several visits to the missing girls' parents, their classmates, and other people who might have seen something, the two detectives are pointed to Quini (Jesús Castro), the town’s Casanova. The blue-eyed young man is known as “El Guapo” or “The Handsome One,” and has an arrogant attitude that makes him a prime suspect in the investigation. But when the girl’s bodies are found raped, tortured, and mutilated, Juan and Pedro realize that these murders are just the tip of the iceberg in an intricate criminal network fueled by hopelessness.
Supporting the director's piercing vision of his homeland at a crucial and transformative time is Alex Catalán's exquisite cinematography, which matches the caliber of any American studio production. Especially stunning is the opening credit sequence that highlights the otherworldly landscapes of the region adding to the story’s allure. By focusing on the vastness and isolation that mark this rice-producing part of the country, the film allows for the horrendous to hide in plain sight and become all the more intriguing.
Once the lifeless victims appear, the protagonists’ quest turns into a manhunt to track down whoever is behind it before he or she kills again, but the motivations are as difficult to pinpoint as the perpetrators. Poverty is at the center of most vices that afflict this community. People here - particularly young girls - want to escape the lack of opportunities and see any job prospects in the city as a magical chance for a new life. Those who abducted and murdered the sisters preyed on that desire and their naïve hopes. Underscoring the central conflict are other subtle indicators that the reason behind these events is dubious. There are farm workers on strike asking for better wages from the local tycoon who indiscriminately profits from the land, and an overall atmosphere of desperation permeates most households.
Under such strenuous financial pressures it’s not surprising that people are willing to venture into illegal activities, but with every new uncovered clue the detectives have to shift their attention from drug trafficking, to what could be some sort of snuff photography, to the possibility of the girls’ families being involved. It’s a tricky plot to wrap one’s head around. Eventually - and elevating the tension to even greater heights - Juan’s turbulent history is presented to Pedro by an avid journalist, but by now a supportive relationship has developed between the two partners. Instinctively Pedro refuses to believe the Juan he knows and the one from his past are the same person, but caution is his best ally.
Even with the countless subplots and red herrings that construct it, “Marshland” never loses sight of its core subject that resides within Pedro and Juan’s shaky bond. One represents the romanticized idea of justice that should reign over a nation reborn, while the other works as a reminder that the malevolent practices that savagely oppressed them never perished. Arevalo and Goya Award-winner Gutierrez are superb in every turn of this maze-like mystery. They manage to encapsulate the complexities of two opposing visions of Spain in their performances. Their rapport is so effective on screen that at times Arevalo‘s Pedro takes on the violent qualities of his fellow detective, and the lines between the two dramatically blur.
Certainty and unquestionable answers aren’t included in “Marshland,” and that could be problematic for the spectator that looks for closure, but by forfeiting the notion that everything must be resolved, Rodriguez crafts a much more enthralling film. He distills the troubles of modern Spain into a classically arranged thriller, and through that familiar premise the filmmaker manages to create so much more. One small town and a handful of characters express more about the country’s societal division than a larger scale story could. “Marshland” is also a technically immaculate production on all fronts from the costume design to its chilling musical score. It feels like a major motion picture while retaining its art house appeal. With a film like this, it would seem like Alberto Rodriguez is ready for Hollywood, but let’s hope he continues to make works as thought provoking as this, because “Marshland” is definitely an extraordinary, career-defining achievement.
Follow SydneysBuzz on Twitter @sydneysbuzz and on Facebook
Follow Carlos Aguilar on Twitter @Carlos_Film and on Instagram @carlosfilm...
- 3/13/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Tyrants wish to silence the sounds of joy with fear. They seek to impose their depraved vision of the world on other by means of brute force. Often the only result is senseless violence and the absence of reason. This is the reality experienced in many places around the world where extremism reigns and tolerance has evaporated. Today, perhaps more than ever, a film like Abderrahmane Sissako’s spellbinding “Timbuktu” is imperative. Capturing some of the most beautiful African landscapes ever seen on film and delicately arranging his stories to create a tapestry of human experiences, Sissako’s latest doesn’t abide by any political or religious dogma. Instead, his vision preaches openness and denounces the terrifying absurdity of the world according to extremist.
We had a chance to talk to the revered African director during the most recent New York Film Festival about the city that inspired it all, the images that struck him, and the version of Islam he wanted to depict.
"Timbuktu" is currently playing in theaters (distributed b Cohen Media Group) and it's nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film
Carlos Aguilar: Why was this devastating image of woman being stoned so important to you and your film?
Abderrahmane Sissako: For me, to think about two people whose only crime was to have two children together going through this is really an incredible thing. It’s a man and a woman. They are a symbolic. How can they be capable killing two people simply for having given birth to children?
Aguilar: What makes this city, Timbuktu, so particular? Why did you decide to set the film there rather than in your native Mauritania?
Abderrahmane Sissako: The film was shot in Mauritania, but the story takes place in Timbuktu, Mali. I chose Timbuktu because it’s a symbol. I’m sure you’ve heard the name Timbuktu, you’ll probably never go there, but you know it exists. You have an idea of what it is. I think what was important for me was that this was a city that had been taken hostage. It was important for me to tell the story about what’s happening there. It was taken hostage precisely because it’s a symbolic city. It’s a city where Islam is the dominant faith, but it’s a very open faith, it’s not dogmatic in any way. Timbuktu is a city where people have discussions, conversations. It’s a very open city. Also, it’s because of this very openness that they were taken hostage by these extremists.
Aguilar: The jihadists want to homogenize Islam as a bloodthirsty religion where there is no room for diversity or conflicting opinions. But your film shows a mosaic of what Islam is, those who want peace and does who seek violence.
Abderrahmane Sissako: One of the things I wanted to show in making this film is that the first victim of the jihadists is Islam itself. Islam never tells people to go out and kill other people. However, this is something that has happened in history and with all religions, every religion has had people going out and killing in the name of it. But that’s not what religion is. I also wanted to show this other face of Islam, the kind of Islam that was practice there, which was very open and very tolerant. Having been brought up in it myself I think that my own tolerance and my own openness is due to that. What the imam in the film says, that’s my vision of what Islam is.
Aguilar: Do you think that by prohibiting all forms of entertainment or enjoyment they want to vanish any individuality or to induce a state of perpetual fear?
Abderrahmane Sissako: I wanted to show exactly what you are saying, that they do everything under their image of what Islam is. In their way of thinking everything is forbidden, is haram. Music is not allowed, soccer is not allowed, cinema is no allowed, and television is also not allowed. Everything is haram. According to them, the only thing you are supposed to do is to go listen to the preachers preach. None of this is part of what Islam is, and it’s really taken to the point of absurdity. Here is a place where they’ll say, “You stole something, we’ll cut off your hand,” and they don’t just threaten to do that. They actually do it.
Aguilar: Music seems to be a very important element in your characters’ lives. It’s almost used as a way to rebel against the absurd tyrannical rule of these extremists.
Abderrahmane Sissako: Music is one of the most beautiful things in the world. It’s universal. Some of the music that nourished me were songs that people would sing in English, and I had no idea what they would sing about. But they were important for me because I felt them. Music is human vibration. It makes humans vibrate and takes them someplace else. Somebody who prohibits that definitely has a problem. Somebody who looks at a woman and says, “She needs to be completely covered, you can’t even look at her eyes,” is somebody that has a problem. They want women to be covered; yet they ask men to roll their pants up so that they are exposed. Is as if they are trying to discover themselves by covering up the women.
Aguilar: The jihadists, the villains, have doubts about their “mission” and they also other common interests. Was it important for you to humanize them? Are they victims of the circumstances as well?
Abderrahmane Sissako: They are not 100% sure of that they are doing because they are human. They all had a life before, and whatever it is that brought them to this point and to become part of this group, might be very different from what compels other people to join. Humanizing them doesn’t mean accepting what they are doing. It’s not a question of “Do I humanize them or not.” They are human beings already. They are interested in soccer, and are interested in different soccer teams like Barcelona as well as other things. When they talk about these things they revert back to being whom they really are. Maybe that is not how it actually is, maybe that’s my invention, but I think this is a way of showing they still have a certain human quality within them.
Aguilar: With everything that is happening around the world regarding Islamist extremism, do you think your film is more important now than ever?
Abderrahmane Sissako: All I can say is that it’s true that because of the events happening right now many more people will take notice of the film.
Aguilar: Was you cast conformed of mostly non-professional actors, or did you use people with different levels of experience? Is there a difference in the way you work with each type of cast member?
Abderrahmane Sissako: They were several professional actors in the cast. The fish seller, she is young, but she is a professional actress. Abel Jafri, the jihadist who is after the married woman, he is an actor. He lives in Paris. The jihadist who dances, he is also an actor. For the most part the rest of the cast were not professional actors, but they were people who were really into what I was doing. They wanted to become part of the adventure the film was. For me, when you direct actors, a large part of it is coming to an agreement with them, reaching a mutual understanding. It’s something that’s based on trust. The chief jihadist who does the interrogation, he is a professional actor from Mauritania, but he rarely has an opportunity to act in films because they aren’t any. The last time he was able to act in a film was in 2001, and that was in another one of my films.
Aguilar: Another interesting aspect in the film is the use of technology. Cell phone and cameras are used as tools by the extremists to promote their war.
Abderrahmane Sissako: Of course, technology is very important now. It’s there, its available. It’s there to be use however you see fit. You can use it and the jihadist can use it. In their case they have been very effective at making use of technology, particularly with websites. It’s primarily through these websites that they do their recruiting. But it’s not technology that makes them that way.
Aguilar: Even in the midst of all the terrible things happening to the characters, your film captures a side of Africa’s beauty we rarely get to see.
Abderrahmane Sissako: The beauty is there. I just filmed it. Whether I’m filming it or not the beauty is always there.
Aguilar: The scene in which a group of kids play “imaginary soccer,” without a ball, is particularly powerful. What was your intention?
Abderrahmane Sissako: First of all, it was there to show how absurd the prohibition of playing soccer was. I wanted to show that these people could never win by prohibiting things like these. I think that people don’t necessary fight with or aren’t necessarily beaten by weapons, but it’ through their minds and what they think they can do.
Aguilar: With the international success that “Timbuktu” has had, would you ever consider making a film outside of Africa?
Abderrahmane Sissako: Being an African filmmaker, Africa is what’s important for me. If I were to shot a film in France or elsewhere it would only be because the story that was being told was something that concerned me, and that really called me or needed to be shown on the screen. But France has hundreds and hundreds of filmmakers. Therefore, doing it for the sake of making a film is not what I’m interested in. I’m the only Mauritanian filmmaker so it wouldn’t make sense to make a film in France. I could shoot outside of my own country if the story was something that called for it. Africa really has to be the reason for me to make a new film.
Aguilar: Are you surprised at how the film has reached people from across the globe?
Abderrahmane Sissako: Everything I did in the film I did with a specific purpose, but I didn’t have the certainly that what I was doing was going to reach people or to affect them. The fact that it has is really a plus for me.
Aguilar: Are excited to know that your film is the first one ever to represent Mauritania at the Academy Awards?
Abderrahmane Sissako: I’m thrilled and hope we at least make it to the shortlist because I have the entire country, without exception, behind me. Actually, not only an entire country, an entire continent.
We had a chance to talk to the revered African director during the most recent New York Film Festival about the city that inspired it all, the images that struck him, and the version of Islam he wanted to depict.
"Timbuktu" is currently playing in theaters (distributed b Cohen Media Group) and it's nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film
Carlos Aguilar: Why was this devastating image of woman being stoned so important to you and your film?
Abderrahmane Sissako: For me, to think about two people whose only crime was to have two children together going through this is really an incredible thing. It’s a man and a woman. They are a symbolic. How can they be capable killing two people simply for having given birth to children?
Aguilar: What makes this city, Timbuktu, so particular? Why did you decide to set the film there rather than in your native Mauritania?
Abderrahmane Sissako: The film was shot in Mauritania, but the story takes place in Timbuktu, Mali. I chose Timbuktu because it’s a symbol. I’m sure you’ve heard the name Timbuktu, you’ll probably never go there, but you know it exists. You have an idea of what it is. I think what was important for me was that this was a city that had been taken hostage. It was important for me to tell the story about what’s happening there. It was taken hostage precisely because it’s a symbolic city. It’s a city where Islam is the dominant faith, but it’s a very open faith, it’s not dogmatic in any way. Timbuktu is a city where people have discussions, conversations. It’s a very open city. Also, it’s because of this very openness that they were taken hostage by these extremists.
Aguilar: The jihadists want to homogenize Islam as a bloodthirsty religion where there is no room for diversity or conflicting opinions. But your film shows a mosaic of what Islam is, those who want peace and does who seek violence.
Abderrahmane Sissako: One of the things I wanted to show in making this film is that the first victim of the jihadists is Islam itself. Islam never tells people to go out and kill other people. However, this is something that has happened in history and with all religions, every religion has had people going out and killing in the name of it. But that’s not what religion is. I also wanted to show this other face of Islam, the kind of Islam that was practice there, which was very open and very tolerant. Having been brought up in it myself I think that my own tolerance and my own openness is due to that. What the imam in the film says, that’s my vision of what Islam is.
Aguilar: Do you think that by prohibiting all forms of entertainment or enjoyment they want to vanish any individuality or to induce a state of perpetual fear?
Abderrahmane Sissako: I wanted to show exactly what you are saying, that they do everything under their image of what Islam is. In their way of thinking everything is forbidden, is haram. Music is not allowed, soccer is not allowed, cinema is no allowed, and television is also not allowed. Everything is haram. According to them, the only thing you are supposed to do is to go listen to the preachers preach. None of this is part of what Islam is, and it’s really taken to the point of absurdity. Here is a place where they’ll say, “You stole something, we’ll cut off your hand,” and they don’t just threaten to do that. They actually do it.
Aguilar: Music seems to be a very important element in your characters’ lives. It’s almost used as a way to rebel against the absurd tyrannical rule of these extremists.
Abderrahmane Sissako: Music is one of the most beautiful things in the world. It’s universal. Some of the music that nourished me were songs that people would sing in English, and I had no idea what they would sing about. But they were important for me because I felt them. Music is human vibration. It makes humans vibrate and takes them someplace else. Somebody who prohibits that definitely has a problem. Somebody who looks at a woman and says, “She needs to be completely covered, you can’t even look at her eyes,” is somebody that has a problem. They want women to be covered; yet they ask men to roll their pants up so that they are exposed. Is as if they are trying to discover themselves by covering up the women.
Aguilar: The jihadists, the villains, have doubts about their “mission” and they also other common interests. Was it important for you to humanize them? Are they victims of the circumstances as well?
Abderrahmane Sissako: They are not 100% sure of that they are doing because they are human. They all had a life before, and whatever it is that brought them to this point and to become part of this group, might be very different from what compels other people to join. Humanizing them doesn’t mean accepting what they are doing. It’s not a question of “Do I humanize them or not.” They are human beings already. They are interested in soccer, and are interested in different soccer teams like Barcelona as well as other things. When they talk about these things they revert back to being whom they really are. Maybe that is not how it actually is, maybe that’s my invention, but I think this is a way of showing they still have a certain human quality within them.
Aguilar: With everything that is happening around the world regarding Islamist extremism, do you think your film is more important now than ever?
Abderrahmane Sissako: All I can say is that it’s true that because of the events happening right now many more people will take notice of the film.
Aguilar: Was you cast conformed of mostly non-professional actors, or did you use people with different levels of experience? Is there a difference in the way you work with each type of cast member?
Abderrahmane Sissako: They were several professional actors in the cast. The fish seller, she is young, but she is a professional actress. Abel Jafri, the jihadist who is after the married woman, he is an actor. He lives in Paris. The jihadist who dances, he is also an actor. For the most part the rest of the cast were not professional actors, but they were people who were really into what I was doing. They wanted to become part of the adventure the film was. For me, when you direct actors, a large part of it is coming to an agreement with them, reaching a mutual understanding. It’s something that’s based on trust. The chief jihadist who does the interrogation, he is a professional actor from Mauritania, but he rarely has an opportunity to act in films because they aren’t any. The last time he was able to act in a film was in 2001, and that was in another one of my films.
Aguilar: Another interesting aspect in the film is the use of technology. Cell phone and cameras are used as tools by the extremists to promote their war.
Abderrahmane Sissako: Of course, technology is very important now. It’s there, its available. It’s there to be use however you see fit. You can use it and the jihadist can use it. In their case they have been very effective at making use of technology, particularly with websites. It’s primarily through these websites that they do their recruiting. But it’s not technology that makes them that way.
Aguilar: Even in the midst of all the terrible things happening to the characters, your film captures a side of Africa’s beauty we rarely get to see.
Abderrahmane Sissako: The beauty is there. I just filmed it. Whether I’m filming it or not the beauty is always there.
Aguilar: The scene in which a group of kids play “imaginary soccer,” without a ball, is particularly powerful. What was your intention?
Abderrahmane Sissako: First of all, it was there to show how absurd the prohibition of playing soccer was. I wanted to show that these people could never win by prohibiting things like these. I think that people don’t necessary fight with or aren’t necessarily beaten by weapons, but it’ through their minds and what they think they can do.
Aguilar: With the international success that “Timbuktu” has had, would you ever consider making a film outside of Africa?
Abderrahmane Sissako: Being an African filmmaker, Africa is what’s important for me. If I were to shot a film in France or elsewhere it would only be because the story that was being told was something that concerned me, and that really called me or needed to be shown on the screen. But France has hundreds and hundreds of filmmakers. Therefore, doing it for the sake of making a film is not what I’m interested in. I’m the only Mauritanian filmmaker so it wouldn’t make sense to make a film in France. I could shoot outside of my own country if the story was something that called for it. Africa really has to be the reason for me to make a new film.
Aguilar: Are you surprised at how the film has reached people from across the globe?
Abderrahmane Sissako: Everything I did in the film I did with a specific purpose, but I didn’t have the certainly that what I was doing was going to reach people or to affect them. The fact that it has is really a plus for me.
Aguilar: Are excited to know that your film is the first one ever to represent Mauritania at the Academy Awards?
Abderrahmane Sissako: I’m thrilled and hope we at least make it to the shortlist because I have the entire country, without exception, behind me. Actually, not only an entire country, an entire continent.
- 2/20/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
If one examines the women and young men that take part in Xavier Dolan's often luscious, but always beautifully hard-hitting emotional adventures, it’s not difficult to come to the conclusion that his cinema is a choreographed dance between energy and truth. His dosage is precise, although it looks absolutely spontaneous. Every move is fueled by his characters unavoidable necessity to live on the edge of self-destruction while holding on tight to their very unique version of what it means to be loved. His actors are fully exposed showing a raw sensibility, which is only possible because Dolan is himself unapologetic and brutally sincere.
In his latest passionate frenzy, “Mommy,” the young filmmaker assembles a film that is purely intoxicating by aligning his talent to mold performances with an exotically rich audiovisual palette. Celine Dion, Lana del Rey, and Oasis’ music have never felt more poetic than when Dolan uses them to make heartbreaking, memorable moments in his protagonists' lives. Die (Anne Dorval), an unconventional mother, and her unstable son Steve (Antoine-Olivier Pilon), befriend their gentle neighbor Kyla (Suzanne Clément). Out of this concoction of distinct personalities a rare, delicate potion emerges that brims with hope, hate, disappointment, and indomitable love.
We recently had the chance to talk to the talented director about his internationally acclaimed, but very personal film.
Carlos Aguilar: You’ve worked with Anne Dorval before, and in that previous occasion she also played a mother who had an unusual relationship with his son. What did you envision when casting her for the role in “Mommy”?
Xavier Dolan: The motivation or what I wanted to achieve with that character was to offer a vehicle for [Anne Dorval] to explore completely different things to those she had explored in “ I Killed My Mother” and that she’s been exploring her entire life. As a director you want to have actors, not only surpassing themselves, but also going somewhere, going different places. A lot of choices were made in order to create a character as different as possible from the character she played in “I Killed My Mother.”
Aguilar: The music choices in the film fit perfectly with its tone and the emotional sensibility of the characters. They are pop songs that are transformed into something more profound through their ordeal.
Xavier Dolan: I think the idea was to just please people. I wanted to have music that made sense for the characters, emotionally speaking. It’s music that would elicit emotion without trying too hard. The music all comes from this mix-tape that’s been given by the father. Steve’s father made a mix-tape based on whatever songs they heard while driving on a road trip in California. The three of them went on this road trip before he died and he made a mix-tape with all the songs from that road trip. That’s what Die explains in that Celine Dion scene. That’s where the songs come from. It’s a way to use music that’s diagetic. It’s not me playing music on the film. It’s music playing in the film. The characters are in sole control of that soundtrack.
Aguilar: Besides writing and directing, you’ve acted in several of your films before. How do you differentiate between your roles as a director and as an actor? Which one is the most rewarding?
Xavier Dolan: I don’t need to over think that. A lot of people have asked me that question, but the truth is there is no such thing as dividing your brain into two halves. I don’t think, “Now I’m a director” or “Now I’m an actor.” You are all at once. As much as I’m a director I’m also a costume designer and an editor. I’m editing the movie as I’m directing the movie. I’m simultaneously editing the movie thinking,” Is this going to work?” Acting is just another field, but it’s the most important and largest field in filmmaking to me. It occupies the most space in my heart and my brain. Acting is everything to me and it’s at the core of every decision. Whatever importance costumes, details, lights, camera, dialogue and everything else have, if the acting is bad, cheap, or overdone everything else is just gone.
Aguilar: On that note, can you tell about the work you do with your actors? Do you put yourself in their position and wonder how you would bring that certain character to life?
Xavier Dolan: We create the characters together. I give them all of my ideas as an actor myself. I share all of my idea. I direct a scene not as I would direct it but as I would act it. What motivates every other decision artistically or technically is the acting. This is what motivates everything. Never can a camera move be incompatible with the emotion of the actor at that moment. The movement, the style, the atmosphere, everything is dictated by the actor. Everything has to be compatible with what the actor is feeling and what the actor is doing. It’s got to be symbiotic.
Aguilar: Among the narrative devices you utilize the notable manipulation of the aspect ratio is definitely a brilliant stand out.
Xavier Dolan: It mirrors how he feels and how the story feels. I would have never done that in a moment where it would have been only about me as a director or an artist doing that. There is no point in that. I’m not doing it, he is doing. The character is doing it.
Aguilar: It seems like your characters are driven by uninhibited emotion, does this decision come from a personal place? How much of yourself is in your characters, particularly in Steve?
Xavier Dolan: Steve is the character that is most like me. I can be very violent and very angry. I have a lot of angst in me and sometimes I don’t know how to dispose of that angst and anger.
Aguilar: “The Death and Life of John F. Donovan” will be your English-language debut and you will also be working with a bigger budget. Are you afraid of having less creative freedom?
Xavier Dolan: Is not about freedom. I couldn’t afford to do something in a context in which I would have less freedom. I wouldn’t want to do whit typical clichéd mistake of the foreign director or actor venturing into new, foreign territory and trying to go American. I want to do things my way, with the people I love, and who I’ve been working with for a long time. I think of it as my next film, not as an American movie. I treat this movie like I treat every other movie.
Aguilar: Despite their evidently flawed relationships with others and with themselves, your characters exude honesty. The unapologetic way with which they take on their imperfect lives is an intense thing to witness.
Xavier Dolan: Yes, I try to be honest. I try to treat the characters in an honest way. They fully embrace who they are and they fully accept it. They have no shame. They’re fierce. I don’t treat characters like figurines that you can mock or place in a corner and observe, or prey on like you are camera looking at an animal in a cage. I hate treating characters like that.
Aguilar: Is there room for improvisation in your approach?
Xavier Dolan: Of course, constantly. Whether is on my end as both a director and an actor who is giving cues to other actors to add a certain line or to do things a certain way like looking at through the window, and sighting, and whispering, and then furrowing their brow. There is always improvisation whether is on my end or their end.
Aguilar: What would you like to do as an actor? What kind of films would you like to pursue?
Xavier Dolan: Act, just act. I’d like to do something meaningful in the smallest ways, not just words or idiotic writing. I’d love to perform with other actors and act with actors, true actors. I would like to be in a movie and have full room for acting. I’d like to be taken in charge of as an actor, not to be abandoned with asinine dialogue and meaningless actions or stereotyped characters. I’d like to feel like I’m in a character driven story.
Aguilar: What directors would you like to work with?
Xavier Dolan: I’d like to work with Alfonso Cuaron, Inarritu, Paul Thomas Anderson, or Scorsese. Directors who are not afraid of emotions.
Aguilar: “Mommy” is a devastating emotional experience. It’s exhilarating, touching, and often inspiring. Don’t you wish every film was like this, so full of vivid emotions?
Xavier Dolan: If a film doesn’t reach people, then what is it? If it doesn’t touch people what sort of movie is it? Is it a movie? What sort of experience is an experience that is not emotionally engaging? Whether it’s an exciting way or a touching way. What is it if there are no emotions? Emotions are not only tears and pain, is many different things. A movie that is unable to elicit emotion isn’t a movie. If nothing is striking you as either touching, or hilarious, or interesting, or compelling, or troubling, what is it? It’s got to be a sensorial experience. It’s got to be an experience.
Aguilar: The passionate way in which you speak about your films makes it clear that you put a lot of yourself into your films.
Xavier Dolan: All of me. It’s always the same emotions, but they are presented differently. Is always the same problem, the same story about characters whoa are trying to communicate, trying to love each other and whose lives separate in the end.
Aguilar: What’s the origin of your affinity for films about mothers and sons?
Xavier Dolan: Moms, more than moms and sons. Obvious reasons I guess, I’ve had a very special relationship with my mom. Is it very special or is it completely ordinary? I don’t know, but it’s inspired me. If I knew exactly why I probably wouldn’t be writing about it.
Aguilar: What does your mom think about your films?
Xavier Dolan: She loves the films. In a very cute way she’s been bullying her friends into going to the theaters to see the movie once, and twice, and trice.
"Mommy" opens January 23, 2015...
In his latest passionate frenzy, “Mommy,” the young filmmaker assembles a film that is purely intoxicating by aligning his talent to mold performances with an exotically rich audiovisual palette. Celine Dion, Lana del Rey, and Oasis’ music have never felt more poetic than when Dolan uses them to make heartbreaking, memorable moments in his protagonists' lives. Die (Anne Dorval), an unconventional mother, and her unstable son Steve (Antoine-Olivier Pilon), befriend their gentle neighbor Kyla (Suzanne Clément). Out of this concoction of distinct personalities a rare, delicate potion emerges that brims with hope, hate, disappointment, and indomitable love.
We recently had the chance to talk to the talented director about his internationally acclaimed, but very personal film.
Carlos Aguilar: You’ve worked with Anne Dorval before, and in that previous occasion she also played a mother who had an unusual relationship with his son. What did you envision when casting her for the role in “Mommy”?
Xavier Dolan: The motivation or what I wanted to achieve with that character was to offer a vehicle for [Anne Dorval] to explore completely different things to those she had explored in “ I Killed My Mother” and that she’s been exploring her entire life. As a director you want to have actors, not only surpassing themselves, but also going somewhere, going different places. A lot of choices were made in order to create a character as different as possible from the character she played in “I Killed My Mother.”
Aguilar: The music choices in the film fit perfectly with its tone and the emotional sensibility of the characters. They are pop songs that are transformed into something more profound through their ordeal.
Xavier Dolan: I think the idea was to just please people. I wanted to have music that made sense for the characters, emotionally speaking. It’s music that would elicit emotion without trying too hard. The music all comes from this mix-tape that’s been given by the father. Steve’s father made a mix-tape based on whatever songs they heard while driving on a road trip in California. The three of them went on this road trip before he died and he made a mix-tape with all the songs from that road trip. That’s what Die explains in that Celine Dion scene. That’s where the songs come from. It’s a way to use music that’s diagetic. It’s not me playing music on the film. It’s music playing in the film. The characters are in sole control of that soundtrack.
Aguilar: Besides writing and directing, you’ve acted in several of your films before. How do you differentiate between your roles as a director and as an actor? Which one is the most rewarding?
Xavier Dolan: I don’t need to over think that. A lot of people have asked me that question, but the truth is there is no such thing as dividing your brain into two halves. I don’t think, “Now I’m a director” or “Now I’m an actor.” You are all at once. As much as I’m a director I’m also a costume designer and an editor. I’m editing the movie as I’m directing the movie. I’m simultaneously editing the movie thinking,” Is this going to work?” Acting is just another field, but it’s the most important and largest field in filmmaking to me. It occupies the most space in my heart and my brain. Acting is everything to me and it’s at the core of every decision. Whatever importance costumes, details, lights, camera, dialogue and everything else have, if the acting is bad, cheap, or overdone everything else is just gone.
Aguilar: On that note, can you tell about the work you do with your actors? Do you put yourself in their position and wonder how you would bring that certain character to life?
Xavier Dolan: We create the characters together. I give them all of my ideas as an actor myself. I share all of my idea. I direct a scene not as I would direct it but as I would act it. What motivates every other decision artistically or technically is the acting. This is what motivates everything. Never can a camera move be incompatible with the emotion of the actor at that moment. The movement, the style, the atmosphere, everything is dictated by the actor. Everything has to be compatible with what the actor is feeling and what the actor is doing. It’s got to be symbiotic.
Aguilar: Among the narrative devices you utilize the notable manipulation of the aspect ratio is definitely a brilliant stand out.
Xavier Dolan: It mirrors how he feels and how the story feels. I would have never done that in a moment where it would have been only about me as a director or an artist doing that. There is no point in that. I’m not doing it, he is doing. The character is doing it.
Aguilar: It seems like your characters are driven by uninhibited emotion, does this decision come from a personal place? How much of yourself is in your characters, particularly in Steve?
Xavier Dolan: Steve is the character that is most like me. I can be very violent and very angry. I have a lot of angst in me and sometimes I don’t know how to dispose of that angst and anger.
Aguilar: “The Death and Life of John F. Donovan” will be your English-language debut and you will also be working with a bigger budget. Are you afraid of having less creative freedom?
Xavier Dolan: Is not about freedom. I couldn’t afford to do something in a context in which I would have less freedom. I wouldn’t want to do whit typical clichéd mistake of the foreign director or actor venturing into new, foreign territory and trying to go American. I want to do things my way, with the people I love, and who I’ve been working with for a long time. I think of it as my next film, not as an American movie. I treat this movie like I treat every other movie.
Aguilar: Despite their evidently flawed relationships with others and with themselves, your characters exude honesty. The unapologetic way with which they take on their imperfect lives is an intense thing to witness.
Xavier Dolan: Yes, I try to be honest. I try to treat the characters in an honest way. They fully embrace who they are and they fully accept it. They have no shame. They’re fierce. I don’t treat characters like figurines that you can mock or place in a corner and observe, or prey on like you are camera looking at an animal in a cage. I hate treating characters like that.
Aguilar: Is there room for improvisation in your approach?
Xavier Dolan: Of course, constantly. Whether is on my end as both a director and an actor who is giving cues to other actors to add a certain line or to do things a certain way like looking at through the window, and sighting, and whispering, and then furrowing their brow. There is always improvisation whether is on my end or their end.
Aguilar: What would you like to do as an actor? What kind of films would you like to pursue?
Xavier Dolan: Act, just act. I’d like to do something meaningful in the smallest ways, not just words or idiotic writing. I’d love to perform with other actors and act with actors, true actors. I would like to be in a movie and have full room for acting. I’d like to be taken in charge of as an actor, not to be abandoned with asinine dialogue and meaningless actions or stereotyped characters. I’d like to feel like I’m in a character driven story.
Aguilar: What directors would you like to work with?
Xavier Dolan: I’d like to work with Alfonso Cuaron, Inarritu, Paul Thomas Anderson, or Scorsese. Directors who are not afraid of emotions.
Aguilar: “Mommy” is a devastating emotional experience. It’s exhilarating, touching, and often inspiring. Don’t you wish every film was like this, so full of vivid emotions?
Xavier Dolan: If a film doesn’t reach people, then what is it? If it doesn’t touch people what sort of movie is it? Is it a movie? What sort of experience is an experience that is not emotionally engaging? Whether it’s an exciting way or a touching way. What is it if there are no emotions? Emotions are not only tears and pain, is many different things. A movie that is unable to elicit emotion isn’t a movie. If nothing is striking you as either touching, or hilarious, or interesting, or compelling, or troubling, what is it? It’s got to be a sensorial experience. It’s got to be an experience.
Aguilar: The passionate way in which you speak about your films makes it clear that you put a lot of yourself into your films.
Xavier Dolan: All of me. It’s always the same emotions, but they are presented differently. Is always the same problem, the same story about characters whoa are trying to communicate, trying to love each other and whose lives separate in the end.
Aguilar: What’s the origin of your affinity for films about mothers and sons?
Xavier Dolan: Moms, more than moms and sons. Obvious reasons I guess, I’ve had a very special relationship with my mom. Is it very special or is it completely ordinary? I don’t know, but it’s inspired me. If I knew exactly why I probably wouldn’t be writing about it.
Aguilar: What does your mom think about your films?
Xavier Dolan: She loves the films. In a very cute way she’s been bullying her friends into going to the theaters to see the movie once, and twice, and trice.
"Mommy" opens January 23, 2015...
- 1/22/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Those who follow our content know that the Best Foreign Language Film race is one of the ones we follow closely, if not the closest. Tomorrow morning the five nominees for the Academy Award in this category will be announced bringing the months long journey to an end. The real climax will happen once the winner is announced in February, but for the five lucky finalists, a nomination is already a miraculous feat. It has been a long road in which many factors besides the quality of the films come into play.
The first few submissions were announced in mid-August and from that point on dozens of countries selected a film to participate. That’s the first cut. Each film had to compete against all the other eligible films released in their respective country that year. In some cases the competition might be slight, but in territories with a sizable film industry the selection process is not as clear-cut.
Once the submission deadline arrived, a total of 83 nations had submitted an entry - a record number. Several entries came from countries submitting for the first time. Out of those 83 films I personally managed to watch a little over 60 via festivals, screenings, and screeners. I was able to chat with about 30 of the films’ directors and learn about their personal stories and how differently they each approach the filmmaking process. Every year this is really a lesson on artistic diversity, industry development, and political and social sensitivities from across the globe. It’s truly amazing.
There were many great and memorable films among the entries I was able to watch and I hope all of them get distributions deals eventually. However, as with everything, we all have our favorites. The 12 films listed below are some of the best cinematic works I witness in the past year overall, not only among those in a foreign language. Several of them are among my ten favorite films of the year and others are included in my longer year-end list. “Timbuktu,” “Gett,” “White God,” and hopefully “Tangerines” will be among my 2015 favorites.
It has been a great year for World Cinema. Go out there and see these films. They are all incredible works of art each in its own right.
Read More: Carlos Aguilar's Top 60 Films of 2014
Read More: 83 Submissions for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award
Argentina
"Wild Tales" (Relatos Salvajes)
Dir: Damián Szifrón
Language: Spanish
U.S Distribution: Sony Pictures Classics
Isa: Film Factory Entertainment
Trailer
Where to Watch? The film will screen at Sundance 2015 in the Spotlight section later this month. It will open theatrically on February 20, 2015. "Wild Tales" will also be the Miami International Film Festival's Opening Night Film on March 6, 2015.
Read More: Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Wild Tales"
Belgium
"Two Days, One Night" (Deux jours, une nuit)
Dir: Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne
Language: French/Arabic
U.S Distribution: Sundance Selects
Isa: Wild Bunch
Trailer
Where to Watch? Currently playing in NYC (opened Dec. 24, 2014) and L.A. (Opened January 9, 2015)
Read More: The Dardenne Brothers on "Trow Days, One Night" and Marion Cotillard
Canada
"Mommy"
Dir: Xavier Dolan
Language: French/English
U.S Distribution: Roadside Attractions
Isa: Seville International
Trailer
Where to Watch? Opens Friday January 23, in L.A. and NYC
Estonia
"Tangerines" (Mandariinid)
Dir: Zaza Urushadze
Language: Estonian/Russian
U.S Distribution: None Yet
Isa: Cinemavault
Trailer
Where to Watch? The film doesn't a U.S. distribution deal yet. Hopefully the attention given by both the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards will change that soon.
Hungary
"White God" (Fehér isten)
Dir: Kornél Mundruczó
Language: Hungarian/English
U.S Distribution: Magnolia Pictures
Isa: The Match Factory
Trailer
Where to Watch? As part of the Spotlight section the film will screen at this year's Sundance Film Festival. The theatrical release is scheduled for March 27, 2015.
Read More: Kornel Mundruczo on "White God"
Israel
"Gett, the Trial of Viviane Amsalem" (Gett: Le Procès de Viviane Amsalem)
Dir: Ronit Elkabetz♀ & Shlomi Elkabetz
Language: Hebrew/French/Arabic
U.S Distribution: Music Box Films
Isa: Films Distribution
Trailer
Where to Watch? Opens in L.A. and NYC on February 13, 2015
Read More: Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz on "Gett, the Trial of Viviane Amalem"
Latvia
"Rocks in My Pockets" (Akmeņi manās kabatās)
Dir: Signe Baumane ♀
Language: Latvian
U.S Distribution: Zeitgeist Films
Isa: New Europe Film Sales
Trailer
Where to Watch? The film still has a few theatrical engagements around the country, which can be found on the distributor's site. It will also be released on DVD and digital platforms on January 29, 2015.
Read More: Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Rocks in My Pockets"
Mauritania
"Timbuktu"
Dir: Abderrahmane Sissako
Language: French/Arabic/Bambara/English/Songhay/Tamasheq
U.S Distribution: Cohen Media Group
Isa: Le Pacte
Trailer
Where to Watch? Opens in NYC January 28, 2015 and in L.A. January 30, 2015
Poland
"Ida"
Dir: Pawel Pawlikowski
Language: Polish
U.S Distribution: Music Box Films
Isa: Portobello Film Sales
Trailer
Where to Watch? Available on Blu-ray/DVD and digital platforms. It's also available for instant streaming for Netflix subscribers.
Read More: Pawel Pawlikowski on "Ida"
Read More: Review - "Ida"
Russia
"Leviathan" (Левиафан)
Dir: Andrey Zvyagintsev
Language: Russian
U.S Distribution: Sony Pictures Classics
Isa: Pyramide International
Trailer
Where to Watch? Currently playing in NYC (Opened Dec. 25, 2014) and L.A. (Opened Dec. 31, 2014)
Read More: Andrey Zvyagintsev on "Leviathan"
Sweden
"Force Majeure" (Turist)
Dir: Ruben Östlund
Language: Swedish/English
U.S Distribution: Magnolia Pictures
Isa: Coproduction Office (Paris)
Trailer
Where to Watch? Still playing in select theaters around the country. It will be released on Blu-ray/DVD and digital platforms on February 10, 2015.
Read More: Ruben Östlund and Johannes Kuhnke on "Force Majeure"
Turkey
"Winter Sleep" (Kis uykusu)
Dir: Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Language: Turkish/English
U.S Distribution: Adopt Films
Isa: Memento Films International
Trailer
Where to Watch? Currently playing in NYC (Opened Dec. 19, 2014). The film opens in select theaters around the country on January 16, 2015 and in L.A. on January 23, 2015.
The first few submissions were announced in mid-August and from that point on dozens of countries selected a film to participate. That’s the first cut. Each film had to compete against all the other eligible films released in their respective country that year. In some cases the competition might be slight, but in territories with a sizable film industry the selection process is not as clear-cut.
Once the submission deadline arrived, a total of 83 nations had submitted an entry - a record number. Several entries came from countries submitting for the first time. Out of those 83 films I personally managed to watch a little over 60 via festivals, screenings, and screeners. I was able to chat with about 30 of the films’ directors and learn about their personal stories and how differently they each approach the filmmaking process. Every year this is really a lesson on artistic diversity, industry development, and political and social sensitivities from across the globe. It’s truly amazing.
There were many great and memorable films among the entries I was able to watch and I hope all of them get distributions deals eventually. However, as with everything, we all have our favorites. The 12 films listed below are some of the best cinematic works I witness in the past year overall, not only among those in a foreign language. Several of them are among my ten favorite films of the year and others are included in my longer year-end list. “Timbuktu,” “Gett,” “White God,” and hopefully “Tangerines” will be among my 2015 favorites.
It has been a great year for World Cinema. Go out there and see these films. They are all incredible works of art each in its own right.
Read More: Carlos Aguilar's Top 60 Films of 2014
Read More: 83 Submissions for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award
Argentina
"Wild Tales" (Relatos Salvajes)
Dir: Damián Szifrón
Language: Spanish
U.S Distribution: Sony Pictures Classics
Isa: Film Factory Entertainment
Trailer
Where to Watch? The film will screen at Sundance 2015 in the Spotlight section later this month. It will open theatrically on February 20, 2015. "Wild Tales" will also be the Miami International Film Festival's Opening Night Film on March 6, 2015.
Read More: Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Wild Tales"
Belgium
"Two Days, One Night" (Deux jours, une nuit)
Dir: Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne
Language: French/Arabic
U.S Distribution: Sundance Selects
Isa: Wild Bunch
Trailer
Where to Watch? Currently playing in NYC (opened Dec. 24, 2014) and L.A. (Opened January 9, 2015)
Read More: The Dardenne Brothers on "Trow Days, One Night" and Marion Cotillard
Canada
"Mommy"
Dir: Xavier Dolan
Language: French/English
U.S Distribution: Roadside Attractions
Isa: Seville International
Trailer
Where to Watch? Opens Friday January 23, in L.A. and NYC
Estonia
"Tangerines" (Mandariinid)
Dir: Zaza Urushadze
Language: Estonian/Russian
U.S Distribution: None Yet
Isa: Cinemavault
Trailer
Where to Watch? The film doesn't a U.S. distribution deal yet. Hopefully the attention given by both the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards will change that soon.
Hungary
"White God" (Fehér isten)
Dir: Kornél Mundruczó
Language: Hungarian/English
U.S Distribution: Magnolia Pictures
Isa: The Match Factory
Trailer
Where to Watch? As part of the Spotlight section the film will screen at this year's Sundance Film Festival. The theatrical release is scheduled for March 27, 2015.
Read More: Kornel Mundruczo on "White God"
Israel
"Gett, the Trial of Viviane Amsalem" (Gett: Le Procès de Viviane Amsalem)
Dir: Ronit Elkabetz♀ & Shlomi Elkabetz
Language: Hebrew/French/Arabic
U.S Distribution: Music Box Films
Isa: Films Distribution
Trailer
Where to Watch? Opens in L.A. and NYC on February 13, 2015
Read More: Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz on "Gett, the Trial of Viviane Amalem"
Latvia
"Rocks in My Pockets" (Akmeņi manās kabatās)
Dir: Signe Baumane ♀
Language: Latvian
U.S Distribution: Zeitgeist Films
Isa: New Europe Film Sales
Trailer
Where to Watch? The film still has a few theatrical engagements around the country, which can be found on the distributor's site. It will also be released on DVD and digital platforms on January 29, 2015.
Read More: Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Rocks in My Pockets"
Mauritania
"Timbuktu"
Dir: Abderrahmane Sissako
Language: French/Arabic/Bambara/English/Songhay/Tamasheq
U.S Distribution: Cohen Media Group
Isa: Le Pacte
Trailer
Where to Watch? Opens in NYC January 28, 2015 and in L.A. January 30, 2015
Poland
"Ida"
Dir: Pawel Pawlikowski
Language: Polish
U.S Distribution: Music Box Films
Isa: Portobello Film Sales
Trailer
Where to Watch? Available on Blu-ray/DVD and digital platforms. It's also available for instant streaming for Netflix subscribers.
Read More: Pawel Pawlikowski on "Ida"
Read More: Review - "Ida"
Russia
"Leviathan" (Левиафан)
Dir: Andrey Zvyagintsev
Language: Russian
U.S Distribution: Sony Pictures Classics
Isa: Pyramide International
Trailer
Where to Watch? Currently playing in NYC (Opened Dec. 25, 2014) and L.A. (Opened Dec. 31, 2014)
Read More: Andrey Zvyagintsev on "Leviathan"
Sweden
"Force Majeure" (Turist)
Dir: Ruben Östlund
Language: Swedish/English
U.S Distribution: Magnolia Pictures
Isa: Coproduction Office (Paris)
Trailer
Where to Watch? Still playing in select theaters around the country. It will be released on Blu-ray/DVD and digital platforms on February 10, 2015.
Read More: Ruben Östlund and Johannes Kuhnke on "Force Majeure"
Turkey
"Winter Sleep" (Kis uykusu)
Dir: Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Language: Turkish/English
U.S Distribution: Adopt Films
Isa: Memento Films International
Trailer
Where to Watch? Currently playing in NYC (Opened Dec. 19, 2014). The film opens in select theaters around the country on January 16, 2015 and in L.A. on January 23, 2015.
- 1/14/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Golden Globes are considering “Ida” directed and co-written by Pawel Pawlikowski (“Last Resort", “My Summer of Love"), a moving and intimate drama about a young novitiate nun in 1960's Poland who, on the verge of taking her vows, discovers a dark family secret dating from the terrible years of the Nazi occupation. The film premiered at the 2013 Telluride Film Festival and was also featured at the 2013 Toronto and 2014 Sundance film festivals.
“Ida” won the 2014 European Film Awards for Best European Film, Best European Director, Best European Screenwriter, Best European Cinematographer and the People’s Choice Award. The film was named the Best Foreign Language Film by the New York Film Critics Circle and won the 2014 Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards for Best Supporting Actress (Agata Kulesza) and Best Foreign Language Film. "Ida" is also nominated for the 2014 Film Independent Spirit Award for Best International Film. It's also the Polish Oscar® entry and has made the 9-film shortlist.
Below is my interview with director Pawel Pawlikowski published last year prior to the film theatrical release:
I happen to love Jewish films and so when I saw "Ida" was playing in Toronto, it was first on my list of “must-sees”. However, I am no longer an “acquisitions” person, nor am I a film reviewer. My work keeps me out of the screening room because we work with filmmakers looking to get their films into the hands of those who will show their films. In other words, we advise and strategize for getting new films into the film circuit’s festivals, distributors' and international sales agents’ hands.
So I missed Ida at its Tiff debut. In Cartagena, where I was invited to cover the festival for SydneysBuzz and where I was gathering information for the book I have just completed on Iberoamerican Film Financing, it showed again in the jewel-box of a theater in this jewel-box of a city. But when I saw the first shots – and fell in love with it – I also saw it was subtitled in Spanish and rather than strain over translating, I left the theater. Later on, Pawel Pawlikowski and I sat next to each other at a fabulous dinner in one of Cartagena’s many outdoor squares, and we discussed the title of my book rather than his films which was a big loss on one hand but a big gain for me on the other because we got to speak as “civilians” rather than keeping the conversation on a “professional” level.
Read More: Review 'Ida' by Carlos Aguilar
Now Music Box is opening Ida in L.A. on May 2, 2014 at the Laemmle in L.A. and in N.Y. and I made sure to take advantage of my press status, not only to see the film but to interview Pawel on himself and the film.
There were two ways to look at this film: as a conceit, as in, “what a great story – a girl about to take her vows in the convent which raised her discovers she is Jewish and returns to the society which destroyed her family” -- or as a journey of a fresh soul into the heart of humanity and finds that she is blessed by being able to decide upon her own destiny within it.
Parenthetically, this seems to me to be a companion piece to the Berlinale film "Stations of the Cross", another journey of a fresh soul into the spiritual life of religion as she struggles in the society which formed her.
And so I began my interview with Pawel:
I could look at this film in two ways, I’ve heard the audiences talk about whether the film is Anti-Polish or Anti-Semitic, but that is not my concern, I want to know if it is just a great story or does it go deeper than that?
Pawel immediately responded, I Think he said, “I am not a professional filmmaker, and I do not make a ‘certain type of film’. I make films depending on where I am in life. A film about exile, a film about first love. Films mark where I am in my life.
In the '60s, when I was a kid and first saw the world this was how I depicted it in this film…seeing the world for the first time…life is a journey and filmmaking marks where you (the audience) are in life and it marks where I am in life. Each film is different as a result.
After making "Woman on the 5th," about the hero’s (in my own head) being lost in Paris, a weird sort of production – directed by a Polish director with a British and an American actor and actress, I craved solid ground, a familiar place or a “return” to important things of the past, and I returned to a certain period in Poland which I found very much alive, for myself then and again as I made this movie and in Polish history itself.
Ida takes place 17 years after the war and shortly after after Stalin’s crimes were being made public by Krushchev. The Totalitarian State of Poland bent a bit; censorship was lifted a bit and a new culture was developing. Music was jazz and rock and roll. Poland was very alive then: the spirit of going your own way, not caring what anyone thinks, creating a style in cinema, in art, music...
I myself was a young boy in the '60s and I left Poland in '71 when I was 13 to stay with my mother in England where she had married a Brit. My father lived in the West; they were divorced and I went for a holiday and stayed.
I went to school in the U.K. but at 13, I was thrown out and I went to Germany where my father lived and matriculated there. I couldn’t go back to Poland as I had left illegally and was only allowed back in to visit in the late '70s. I returned in 1980 during Solidarity and from 1989 to the fall of the Wall, I went back often.
Ida is a film about identity, family, faith, guilt, socialism and music. I wanted to make a film about history that wouldnʼt feel like a historical film— a film that is moral, but has no lessons to offer. I wanted to tell a story in which ʻeveryone has their reasonsʼ; a story closer to poetry than plot. Most of all, I wanted to steer clear of the usual rhetoric of the Polish cinema. The Poland in "Ida" is shown by an ʻoutsiderʼ with no ax to grind, filtered through personal memory and emotion, the sounds and images of childhood…
I read you are going to make another film about Poland…
It is not about Poland but it is set in Poland. I am working on three projects, which is how I work. I keep writing and find one of them has the legs to carry me…which one is not yet known.
You mentioned in an interview with Sight and Sound your top 10 films…
Yes, which ones did you like? They ask me this every year and every year the list changes for me. There are other good ones, like Once Upon a Time in Anatolia…they are not all the old classics and they are not necessarily my favorites or what I think are “the best”. Again they depend on where I am in my own life.
The ones I like on your list were Ashes and Diamonds which I saw in New York in my freshman year in college, "La Dolce Vita" …"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Some Like It Hot."
I actually think "8 ½" is more remarkable than "La Dolce Vita." I also like "Loves of a Blonde" very much….
I found "Ashes and Diamonds" so extraordinary, I then had to see the actor in "Man of Marble" which took me to the next "Man of Steel" and Man of…whatever... until I thought I knew Wadja. What did you make of this film?
I saw it later as I was too young when it came out in the '60s. I saw it in the '70s when it was already a classic. Its impact on me was that it was well-done and about something. It is a comment about a man who decides whether to fight or to live. It could be remade in any country coming out of civil war.
To return to Ida, I noticed stylistic choices you made that I would like you to comment on.
The landscapes and interiors were very large and sparse. Interiors always had someone in the back ground moving, arranging or walking by in silence.
Yes there is always some life and the movements of people in the background are like music in the film, though it is not really music…
Yes, the music in the film is great. The magnificence of the classical music someone is playing, like the aunt…
Yes I only want to use real music at times that real music is part of the story. I didn’t want film music. I wanted it to come out of silence. It is part of the scene like the background movement of people. Each piece means something. The pop songs were key from the start. They were fatally imprinted on my childhood memory. They really color the landscape. Coltrane and stuff came from my adult self.
Incidentally, the late '50s and early '60s were great for jazz in Poland. There was a real explosion: Komeda, Namyslowski, Stanko, Wroblewski... Apart from telling Idaʼs story, I wanted to conjure up a certain image of Poland, an image that I hold dear. My country may have been grey, oppressive and enslaved in the early '60s, but in some ways it was 'cooler' and more original than the Poland of today, and somehow more universally resonant.
Iʼm sure that lots of Poles with a chip on their shoulder, and there are many, will fail to notice the beauty, the love that went into our film—and will accuse me of damaging Poland's image by focusing on the melancholy, the provincial, the grotesque… And then there's the matter of a Polish farmer killing a Jewish family… thereʼs bound to be trouble. On the other hand, thereʼs also a Stalinist state prosecutor of Jewish origins, which might land me in hot water in other quarters. Still, I hope the film is sufficiently specific and un-rhetorical enough to be understood on its own terms.
The music Ida’s aunt was playing before she…what are your thoughts about her aunt?
Neither Ida nor her aunt is typical. Wanda’s imprimatur is that she has no self-pity, no regrets, no sentimentality.
She had fought in the resistance rather than raise a family. She had been a super idealistic Marxist, became a part of the New Establishment and got drawn into the games and hypocrisy, sending people to death for “impeding progress”.
She reminds me of my father in some ways. Her acerbic sense of humor. I gave her some of my father’s lines.
Where Did The Character Of Wanda Come From?
When I was doing my post-graduate degree at Oxford in the early '80s I befriended Professor Brus, a genial economist and reformist Marxist who left Poland in ʻ68. I was particularly fond of his wife Helena, who smoked, drank, joked and told great stories. She didn't suffer fools gladly, but she struck me as a warm and generous woman. I lost touch with the Bruses when I left Oxford, but some 10 years later I heard on BBC News that the Polish government was requesting the extradition of one Helena Brus-Wolinska, resident in Oxford, on the grounds of crimes against humanity. It turned out that the charming old lady had been a Stalinist prosecutor in her late twenties. Among other things, she engineered the death in a show trial of a completely innocent man and a real hero of the Resistance, General ‘Nil’ Fieldorf. It was a bit of a shock. I couldn't square the warm, ironic woman I knew with the ruthless fanatic and Stalinist hangman. This paradox has haunted me for years. I even tried to write a film about her, but couldnʼt get my head around or into someone so contradictory. Putting her into Idaʼs story helped bring that character to life. Conversely, putting the ex-believer with blood on her hands next to Ida helped me define the character and the journey of the young nun.
By 1956, illusions about society were gone. Stalin’s crimes were revealed in 1961, there was a change of government, a new generation was coming of age. Wanda was a judge they called “Red Wanda” and had sent enemies of the state to their deaths. The older generation was left high and dry. Communism had become a shabby reality. Her despair was apparent– she had been heroic and now the system was a joke.
And then some creature from the past pops up and makes her reveal all she had swept under the carpet. She drank too much, there was no love in her life, only casual sex. But still she was straight-ahead, directed and unstoppable.
And then after the revelations of what had become of their parents and her child, her sister returns to the convent. There is nowhere for her to go. She hits a wall. She is heroic and there is no place for her in society anymore.
And Ida? Why did you choose such a person?
Ida has multiple origins, the most interesting ones probably not quite conscious. Let's say that I come from a family full of mysteries and contradictions and have lived in one sort of exile or another for most of my life. Questions of identity, family, blood, faith, belonging, and history have always been present.
I'd been playing for years with the story of a Catholic nun who discovers sheʼs Jewish. I originally set it in ʻ68, the year of student protests and the Communist Party sponsored anti-Semitic purges in Poland. The story involved a nun a bit older than Ida, as well as an embattled bishop and a state security officer, and the whole thing was more steeped in the politics of the day. The script was turning out a little too schematic, thriller-ish and plotty for my liking, so I put Ida aside for a while and went to Paris to make The Woman In The Fifth . I was in a different place at the time.
When I came back to Ida, I had a much clearer idea of what I wanted the film to be. My cowriter Rebecca Lenkiewicz and I stripped the whole thing down, made it less plotty, the characters richer and less functional. Ida became younger, more inexperienced, more of a blank slate, a young girl on the brink of life. Also we moved the story to ʻ62, a more nondescript period in Poland, but also a time of which I have most vivid memories, my own impressions as a child - unaware of what was going on in the adult world, but all the more sensitive to images and sounds. Some shots in the film couldʼve come from my family album.
In the course of the film, Ida undergoes a change. She becomes energized. When she returns to the convent you can see it in her body movements. It is the only time we used a hand-held camera to depict the new energy she has acquired. She is going into the spiritual in a different way. The old way elicited a giggle from her; she had seen the sensuality of the novice nun bathing…whether she is returning to the convent to stay is left to the viewer to decide.
The viewer is brought into a space of associations they make on their own, the film is more like poetry where the feeling of the viewer is the private one of the viewer, not one the film imposes.
Yes, each woman enters a new reality and comes out changed, and I was left thinking there was nothing better of the two life choices, the “normal” life of love and family and the “spiritual” life of simple living and silent devotion. There needs to be some balance between the two, but what is that? I still don’t know.
On a last note: I noticed in the end credits you thanked Alfonso Cuarón. Why was that?
Yes he liked the film a lot. There were many people I thanked, like Agnieszka Holland. These are friends I can show my work to. They protect me against critics and festivals. This group of friends can also be nasty, but they are honest friends.
Thank you so much Pawel for your insights. I look forward to meeting you again “on the circuit”.
To my readers, here are the nuts and bolts of the film:
Music Box Films is the proud U.S. distributor of "Ida," the award-winning film written and directed by Pawel Pawlikowski. Ida world premiered at Telluride 2013 and Toronto International Film Festival, where it won the Fipresci Award for Best Film; then played the London Film Festival where it won Best Film, and was the Grand Prix winner at the Warsaw Film Festival. It played as an Official Selection in the 2014 Sundance and New York Jewish Film Festivals.
Poland 1962. Anna (newcomer Agata Trzebuchowska) is a beautiful eighteen-year-old woman, preparing to become a nun at the convent where she has lived since orphaned as a child. She learns she has a living relative she must visit before taking her vows, her mother’s sister Wanda. Her aunt, she learns, is not only a former hard-line Communist state prosecutor notorious for sentencing priests and others to death, but also a Jew. Anna learns from her aunt that she too is Jewish - and that her real name is Ida. This revelation sets Anna, now Ida, on a journey to uncover her roots and confront the truth about her family. Together, the two women embark on a voyage of discovery of each other and their past. Ida has to choose between her birth identity and the religion that saved her from the massacres of the Nazi occupation of Poland. And Wanda must confront decisions she made during the War when she chose loyalty to the cause before family.
Following his breakthrough films "Last Resort" and BAFTA-award winning "My Summer of Love," "Ida" marks Polish-born, British writer-director Pawel Pawlikowski's first film set in his homeland. Ida stars Agata Trzebuchowska and Agata Kulesza. It will open in Los Angeles on May 2 at the Laemmle's Royal. (Music Box Films, 80 minutes, unrated).
Its international producers, Eric Abraham (Portobello Pictures), Ewa Puszczynska (Opus Film), Piotr Dzieciol (Opus Film) and coproducer, Christian Falkenberg Husum of Denmark sold about 30 territories in Toronto and to date it has sold to 43 territories where the film has opened.
Argentina - Cdi Films, Australia - Curious Film, Austria - Polyfilm is still playing it and to date it has grossed Us$10,733. Benelux – Cineart where it is also still playing and has grossed Us$185,026 in Belgium and Us$131,247 in The Netherlands, Canada – Eyesteelfilm and Films We Like, Czech Republic – Aerofilms, Denmark - Camera Film, Denmark - Portobello Film Sales, France - Memento Films Distribution where in three weeks it grossed $3,192,706, Germany - Arsenal and Maxmedien where it grossed $24,010, Greece - Strada Films, Hungary - Mozinet Ltd., Israel - Lev Films (Shani Films), Italy - Parthenos where it grossed $681,460., Norway – Arthaus grossed $59,920, Poland – Soloban where it grossed $333,714, Portugal - Midas Filmes, Spain - Caramel Films is still playing it and to date it has grossed $408,085, Sweden - Folkets Bio, Switzerland - Frenetic, Taiwan - Andrews Film Co. Ltd, U.K. - Artificial Eye and Curzon, U.S. – Music Box and Film Forum.
Production
(Poland) An Opus Film, Phoenix Film production in association with Portobello Pictures in coproduction with Canal Plus Poland, Phoenix Film Poland. (International sales: Fandango Portobello, Copenhagen.) Produced by Eric Abraham, Piotr Dzieciol, Ewa Puszczynska. Coproducer, Christian Falkenberg Husum.
Crew
Directed by Pawel Pawlikowski. Screenplay, Pawlikowski, Rebecca Lenkiewicz. Camera (B&W), Lukasz Zal, Ryszard Lenczewski; editor, Jaroslaw Kaminski; production designers, Katarzyna Sobanska, Marcel Slawinski; costume designer, Aleksandra Staszko; Kristian Selin Eidnes Andersen; supervising sound editor, Claus Lynge; re-recording mixers, Lynge, Andreas Kongsgaard; visual effects, Stage 2; line producer, Magdalena Malisz; associate producer, Sofie Wanting Hassing.
With
Agata Kulesza, Agata Trzebuchowska, Dawid Ogrodnik, Joanna Kulig.
“Ida” won the 2014 European Film Awards for Best European Film, Best European Director, Best European Screenwriter, Best European Cinematographer and the People’s Choice Award. The film was named the Best Foreign Language Film by the New York Film Critics Circle and won the 2014 Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards for Best Supporting Actress (Agata Kulesza) and Best Foreign Language Film. "Ida" is also nominated for the 2014 Film Independent Spirit Award for Best International Film. It's also the Polish Oscar® entry and has made the 9-film shortlist.
Below is my interview with director Pawel Pawlikowski published last year prior to the film theatrical release:
I happen to love Jewish films and so when I saw "Ida" was playing in Toronto, it was first on my list of “must-sees”. However, I am no longer an “acquisitions” person, nor am I a film reviewer. My work keeps me out of the screening room because we work with filmmakers looking to get their films into the hands of those who will show their films. In other words, we advise and strategize for getting new films into the film circuit’s festivals, distributors' and international sales agents’ hands.
So I missed Ida at its Tiff debut. In Cartagena, where I was invited to cover the festival for SydneysBuzz and where I was gathering information for the book I have just completed on Iberoamerican Film Financing, it showed again in the jewel-box of a theater in this jewel-box of a city. But when I saw the first shots – and fell in love with it – I also saw it was subtitled in Spanish and rather than strain over translating, I left the theater. Later on, Pawel Pawlikowski and I sat next to each other at a fabulous dinner in one of Cartagena’s many outdoor squares, and we discussed the title of my book rather than his films which was a big loss on one hand but a big gain for me on the other because we got to speak as “civilians” rather than keeping the conversation on a “professional” level.
Read More: Review 'Ida' by Carlos Aguilar
Now Music Box is opening Ida in L.A. on May 2, 2014 at the Laemmle in L.A. and in N.Y. and I made sure to take advantage of my press status, not only to see the film but to interview Pawel on himself and the film.
There were two ways to look at this film: as a conceit, as in, “what a great story – a girl about to take her vows in the convent which raised her discovers she is Jewish and returns to the society which destroyed her family” -- or as a journey of a fresh soul into the heart of humanity and finds that she is blessed by being able to decide upon her own destiny within it.
Parenthetically, this seems to me to be a companion piece to the Berlinale film "Stations of the Cross", another journey of a fresh soul into the spiritual life of religion as she struggles in the society which formed her.
And so I began my interview with Pawel:
I could look at this film in two ways, I’ve heard the audiences talk about whether the film is Anti-Polish or Anti-Semitic, but that is not my concern, I want to know if it is just a great story or does it go deeper than that?
Pawel immediately responded, I Think he said, “I am not a professional filmmaker, and I do not make a ‘certain type of film’. I make films depending on where I am in life. A film about exile, a film about first love. Films mark where I am in my life.
In the '60s, when I was a kid and first saw the world this was how I depicted it in this film…seeing the world for the first time…life is a journey and filmmaking marks where you (the audience) are in life and it marks where I am in life. Each film is different as a result.
After making "Woman on the 5th," about the hero’s (in my own head) being lost in Paris, a weird sort of production – directed by a Polish director with a British and an American actor and actress, I craved solid ground, a familiar place or a “return” to important things of the past, and I returned to a certain period in Poland which I found very much alive, for myself then and again as I made this movie and in Polish history itself.
Ida takes place 17 years after the war and shortly after after Stalin’s crimes were being made public by Krushchev. The Totalitarian State of Poland bent a bit; censorship was lifted a bit and a new culture was developing. Music was jazz and rock and roll. Poland was very alive then: the spirit of going your own way, not caring what anyone thinks, creating a style in cinema, in art, music...
I myself was a young boy in the '60s and I left Poland in '71 when I was 13 to stay with my mother in England where she had married a Brit. My father lived in the West; they were divorced and I went for a holiday and stayed.
I went to school in the U.K. but at 13, I was thrown out and I went to Germany where my father lived and matriculated there. I couldn’t go back to Poland as I had left illegally and was only allowed back in to visit in the late '70s. I returned in 1980 during Solidarity and from 1989 to the fall of the Wall, I went back often.
Ida is a film about identity, family, faith, guilt, socialism and music. I wanted to make a film about history that wouldnʼt feel like a historical film— a film that is moral, but has no lessons to offer. I wanted to tell a story in which ʻeveryone has their reasonsʼ; a story closer to poetry than plot. Most of all, I wanted to steer clear of the usual rhetoric of the Polish cinema. The Poland in "Ida" is shown by an ʻoutsiderʼ with no ax to grind, filtered through personal memory and emotion, the sounds and images of childhood…
I read you are going to make another film about Poland…
It is not about Poland but it is set in Poland. I am working on three projects, which is how I work. I keep writing and find one of them has the legs to carry me…which one is not yet known.
You mentioned in an interview with Sight and Sound your top 10 films…
Yes, which ones did you like? They ask me this every year and every year the list changes for me. There are other good ones, like Once Upon a Time in Anatolia…they are not all the old classics and they are not necessarily my favorites or what I think are “the best”. Again they depend on where I am in my own life.
The ones I like on your list were Ashes and Diamonds which I saw in New York in my freshman year in college, "La Dolce Vita" …"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Some Like It Hot."
I actually think "8 ½" is more remarkable than "La Dolce Vita." I also like "Loves of a Blonde" very much….
I found "Ashes and Diamonds" so extraordinary, I then had to see the actor in "Man of Marble" which took me to the next "Man of Steel" and Man of…whatever... until I thought I knew Wadja. What did you make of this film?
I saw it later as I was too young when it came out in the '60s. I saw it in the '70s when it was already a classic. Its impact on me was that it was well-done and about something. It is a comment about a man who decides whether to fight or to live. It could be remade in any country coming out of civil war.
To return to Ida, I noticed stylistic choices you made that I would like you to comment on.
The landscapes and interiors were very large and sparse. Interiors always had someone in the back ground moving, arranging or walking by in silence.
Yes there is always some life and the movements of people in the background are like music in the film, though it is not really music…
Yes, the music in the film is great. The magnificence of the classical music someone is playing, like the aunt…
Yes I only want to use real music at times that real music is part of the story. I didn’t want film music. I wanted it to come out of silence. It is part of the scene like the background movement of people. Each piece means something. The pop songs were key from the start. They were fatally imprinted on my childhood memory. They really color the landscape. Coltrane and stuff came from my adult self.
Incidentally, the late '50s and early '60s were great for jazz in Poland. There was a real explosion: Komeda, Namyslowski, Stanko, Wroblewski... Apart from telling Idaʼs story, I wanted to conjure up a certain image of Poland, an image that I hold dear. My country may have been grey, oppressive and enslaved in the early '60s, but in some ways it was 'cooler' and more original than the Poland of today, and somehow more universally resonant.
Iʼm sure that lots of Poles with a chip on their shoulder, and there are many, will fail to notice the beauty, the love that went into our film—and will accuse me of damaging Poland's image by focusing on the melancholy, the provincial, the grotesque… And then there's the matter of a Polish farmer killing a Jewish family… thereʼs bound to be trouble. On the other hand, thereʼs also a Stalinist state prosecutor of Jewish origins, which might land me in hot water in other quarters. Still, I hope the film is sufficiently specific and un-rhetorical enough to be understood on its own terms.
The music Ida’s aunt was playing before she…what are your thoughts about her aunt?
Neither Ida nor her aunt is typical. Wanda’s imprimatur is that she has no self-pity, no regrets, no sentimentality.
She had fought in the resistance rather than raise a family. She had been a super idealistic Marxist, became a part of the New Establishment and got drawn into the games and hypocrisy, sending people to death for “impeding progress”.
She reminds me of my father in some ways. Her acerbic sense of humor. I gave her some of my father’s lines.
Where Did The Character Of Wanda Come From?
When I was doing my post-graduate degree at Oxford in the early '80s I befriended Professor Brus, a genial economist and reformist Marxist who left Poland in ʻ68. I was particularly fond of his wife Helena, who smoked, drank, joked and told great stories. She didn't suffer fools gladly, but she struck me as a warm and generous woman. I lost touch with the Bruses when I left Oxford, but some 10 years later I heard on BBC News that the Polish government was requesting the extradition of one Helena Brus-Wolinska, resident in Oxford, on the grounds of crimes against humanity. It turned out that the charming old lady had been a Stalinist prosecutor in her late twenties. Among other things, she engineered the death in a show trial of a completely innocent man and a real hero of the Resistance, General ‘Nil’ Fieldorf. It was a bit of a shock. I couldn't square the warm, ironic woman I knew with the ruthless fanatic and Stalinist hangman. This paradox has haunted me for years. I even tried to write a film about her, but couldnʼt get my head around or into someone so contradictory. Putting her into Idaʼs story helped bring that character to life. Conversely, putting the ex-believer with blood on her hands next to Ida helped me define the character and the journey of the young nun.
By 1956, illusions about society were gone. Stalin’s crimes were revealed in 1961, there was a change of government, a new generation was coming of age. Wanda was a judge they called “Red Wanda” and had sent enemies of the state to their deaths. The older generation was left high and dry. Communism had become a shabby reality. Her despair was apparent– she had been heroic and now the system was a joke.
And then some creature from the past pops up and makes her reveal all she had swept under the carpet. She drank too much, there was no love in her life, only casual sex. But still she was straight-ahead, directed and unstoppable.
And then after the revelations of what had become of their parents and her child, her sister returns to the convent. There is nowhere for her to go. She hits a wall. She is heroic and there is no place for her in society anymore.
And Ida? Why did you choose such a person?
Ida has multiple origins, the most interesting ones probably not quite conscious. Let's say that I come from a family full of mysteries and contradictions and have lived in one sort of exile or another for most of my life. Questions of identity, family, blood, faith, belonging, and history have always been present.
I'd been playing for years with the story of a Catholic nun who discovers sheʼs Jewish. I originally set it in ʻ68, the year of student protests and the Communist Party sponsored anti-Semitic purges in Poland. The story involved a nun a bit older than Ida, as well as an embattled bishop and a state security officer, and the whole thing was more steeped in the politics of the day. The script was turning out a little too schematic, thriller-ish and plotty for my liking, so I put Ida aside for a while and went to Paris to make The Woman In The Fifth . I was in a different place at the time.
When I came back to Ida, I had a much clearer idea of what I wanted the film to be. My cowriter Rebecca Lenkiewicz and I stripped the whole thing down, made it less plotty, the characters richer and less functional. Ida became younger, more inexperienced, more of a blank slate, a young girl on the brink of life. Also we moved the story to ʻ62, a more nondescript period in Poland, but also a time of which I have most vivid memories, my own impressions as a child - unaware of what was going on in the adult world, but all the more sensitive to images and sounds. Some shots in the film couldʼve come from my family album.
In the course of the film, Ida undergoes a change. She becomes energized. When she returns to the convent you can see it in her body movements. It is the only time we used a hand-held camera to depict the new energy she has acquired. She is going into the spiritual in a different way. The old way elicited a giggle from her; she had seen the sensuality of the novice nun bathing…whether she is returning to the convent to stay is left to the viewer to decide.
The viewer is brought into a space of associations they make on their own, the film is more like poetry where the feeling of the viewer is the private one of the viewer, not one the film imposes.
Yes, each woman enters a new reality and comes out changed, and I was left thinking there was nothing better of the two life choices, the “normal” life of love and family and the “spiritual” life of simple living and silent devotion. There needs to be some balance between the two, but what is that? I still don’t know.
On a last note: I noticed in the end credits you thanked Alfonso Cuarón. Why was that?
Yes he liked the film a lot. There were many people I thanked, like Agnieszka Holland. These are friends I can show my work to. They protect me against critics and festivals. This group of friends can also be nasty, but they are honest friends.
Thank you so much Pawel for your insights. I look forward to meeting you again “on the circuit”.
To my readers, here are the nuts and bolts of the film:
Music Box Films is the proud U.S. distributor of "Ida," the award-winning film written and directed by Pawel Pawlikowski. Ida world premiered at Telluride 2013 and Toronto International Film Festival, where it won the Fipresci Award for Best Film; then played the London Film Festival where it won Best Film, and was the Grand Prix winner at the Warsaw Film Festival. It played as an Official Selection in the 2014 Sundance and New York Jewish Film Festivals.
Poland 1962. Anna (newcomer Agata Trzebuchowska) is a beautiful eighteen-year-old woman, preparing to become a nun at the convent where she has lived since orphaned as a child. She learns she has a living relative she must visit before taking her vows, her mother’s sister Wanda. Her aunt, she learns, is not only a former hard-line Communist state prosecutor notorious for sentencing priests and others to death, but also a Jew. Anna learns from her aunt that she too is Jewish - and that her real name is Ida. This revelation sets Anna, now Ida, on a journey to uncover her roots and confront the truth about her family. Together, the two women embark on a voyage of discovery of each other and their past. Ida has to choose between her birth identity and the religion that saved her from the massacres of the Nazi occupation of Poland. And Wanda must confront decisions she made during the War when she chose loyalty to the cause before family.
Following his breakthrough films "Last Resort" and BAFTA-award winning "My Summer of Love," "Ida" marks Polish-born, British writer-director Pawel Pawlikowski's first film set in his homeland. Ida stars Agata Trzebuchowska and Agata Kulesza. It will open in Los Angeles on May 2 at the Laemmle's Royal. (Music Box Films, 80 minutes, unrated).
Its international producers, Eric Abraham (Portobello Pictures), Ewa Puszczynska (Opus Film), Piotr Dzieciol (Opus Film) and coproducer, Christian Falkenberg Husum of Denmark sold about 30 territories in Toronto and to date it has sold to 43 territories where the film has opened.
Argentina - Cdi Films, Australia - Curious Film, Austria - Polyfilm is still playing it and to date it has grossed Us$10,733. Benelux – Cineart where it is also still playing and has grossed Us$185,026 in Belgium and Us$131,247 in The Netherlands, Canada – Eyesteelfilm and Films We Like, Czech Republic – Aerofilms, Denmark - Camera Film, Denmark - Portobello Film Sales, France - Memento Films Distribution where in three weeks it grossed $3,192,706, Germany - Arsenal and Maxmedien where it grossed $24,010, Greece - Strada Films, Hungary - Mozinet Ltd., Israel - Lev Films (Shani Films), Italy - Parthenos where it grossed $681,460., Norway – Arthaus grossed $59,920, Poland – Soloban where it grossed $333,714, Portugal - Midas Filmes, Spain - Caramel Films is still playing it and to date it has grossed $408,085, Sweden - Folkets Bio, Switzerland - Frenetic, Taiwan - Andrews Film Co. Ltd, U.K. - Artificial Eye and Curzon, U.S. – Music Box and Film Forum.
Production
(Poland) An Opus Film, Phoenix Film production in association with Portobello Pictures in coproduction with Canal Plus Poland, Phoenix Film Poland. (International sales: Fandango Portobello, Copenhagen.) Produced by Eric Abraham, Piotr Dzieciol, Ewa Puszczynska. Coproducer, Christian Falkenberg Husum.
Crew
Directed by Pawel Pawlikowski. Screenplay, Pawlikowski, Rebecca Lenkiewicz. Camera (B&W), Lukasz Zal, Ryszard Lenczewski; editor, Jaroslaw Kaminski; production designers, Katarzyna Sobanska, Marcel Slawinski; costume designer, Aleksandra Staszko; Kristian Selin Eidnes Andersen; supervising sound editor, Claus Lynge; re-recording mixers, Lynge, Andreas Kongsgaard; visual effects, Stage 2; line producer, Magdalena Malisz; associate producer, Sofie Wanting Hassing.
With
Agata Kulesza, Agata Trzebuchowska, Dawid Ogrodnik, Joanna Kulig.
- 1/8/2015
- by Sydney Levine
- Sydney's Buzz
Yes, that’s a six and a zero. It’s not a typo. While excessive might be the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at a year-end list with 60 films, it was the only way that I was able to highlight all the great works that I was able to watch this year. Even with such an extensive best-of countdown I was forced to leave at least another dozen great films. In 2014 I watched around 300 theatrically released films, and about 130 more between unreleased films from the festival circuit, the Oscar Foreign Language Submissions, and new films I watched as a screener for a couple festivals. Taking all these into consideration, a Top 60 list did not seem like an outrageous feat.
There were many other films that I did in fact watch but didn’t make the list, such as “Wild,” “Interstellar,” “The Imitation Game,” “Unbroken,” “The Theory of Everything,” “Big Hero 6,” “Big Eyes,” "A Most Violent Year" and “Into the Woods.” Although none of these ended up among my favorites, many of them served as vehicles for the cast to deliver outstanding performances or showcased great cinematography and VFX. I mention this to clarify that their omission was a conscious decision.
Evidently, there were several acclaimed films I did not manage to watch, which could have made a difference. These include films like "Love is Strange," “Maps to the Stars,” “Stray Dogs,” “Top Five,” and “Rosewater.”
The films on this list include films that had a regular release in 2014, films that some consider to be 2013 films but which got a full release in 2014, and films that had a one-week qualifying run in 2014 but which will officially open in 2015. Other amazing films that I saw at festivals, but which did not have a theatrical release of any form this year will be included in next year’s list. Examples of these include “The Tribe,” “Timbuktu,” “The Voices” “Gueros,” “Viktoria,” and “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.”
Like with all lists, this is a very personal selection of films that connected with me on different levels. Some choices might be strange, others expected, but all of them speak to what I find interesting or great about cinema. I hope that with this list you can find titles you haven’t hear of or others you might have forgotten about. It has been such a terrific year for films. Here is hoping for 2015 to be even more inspiring.
Feel free to share with us what your favorite films of 2014 were in the comments section.
Honorary Mention for Favorite TV Series: "Over the Garden Wall"
In Patrick McHale’s enchanting Cartoon Network miniseries, “Over the Garden Wall,” brothers Wirt (Elijah Wood) and adorable Greg (Collin Dean) travel through the Unknown, a magical forest filled with peculiar characters. Blending a classic fable look with witty humor and catchy songs for a fantastically refreshing 2D cartoon, the show is rapidly - and deservingly - becoming a fan favorite. Once you see little Greg performing the sweet tune Potatoes and Molasses, it will all make sense.
Top 60 Films Of 2014
60. "Happy Christmas"
Anna Kendrick is an irresponsible, yet charming, young woman in Joe Swanberg’s holiday-infused family dramedy. “Happy Christmas” is small in scope but big in subtle amusement. Baby Jude Swanberg steals every scene.
59."Mood Indigo"
Whimsical, ingenious, and uniquely confected, Michel Gondry’s adaption of Boris Vian’s novel stars Audrey Tautou and Romain Duris. His latest romantic fantasy is heartwarming visual candy.
Review "Mood Indigo"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Tautou
58. "Lilting"
A cross-cultural connection in the aftermath of tragedy is at the center of Hong Khaou’s touching debut. Through great performances and ethereal cinematography the filmmaker reassures us love is the only language that matters.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Hong Khaou
57. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
With an intelligent and fun screenplay, this new entry in the Marvel universe showed us that - despite all the badassery he is capable of - all that Steve Rogers wants is his best friend back.
Review "Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
56. "Oculus"
Mike Flanagan doesn’t resort to excessive gore or a monumental story to instill fear. Instead, he uses the effective mechanics of his story to turn a room with an old mirror, a camera, and a pair of youngsters into a terrifying space.
55. "Rich Hill"
Looking at a segment of the American population from a uniquely compassionate and insightful perspective, “Rich Hill” cherishes the humanity of its subject rather than patronizing them.
54. "The Notebook"
The brutality of war is observed through the eyes of a pair of twin brothers who decide to detach themselves from any emotional connection in order to survive. Unflinching and powerful, “The Notebook” is part dark fairytale and part historical drama.
Review "The Notebook"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with János Szász
53. "Blue Ruin"
This gritty and unpredictable thriller follows a man whose thirst for revenge becomes his death sentence. Macon Blair’s character goes from passively hiding in the shadows to becoming a ruthless rookie assassin. Tension is the name of the game here.
52. "The Book of Life"
The ancient Mexican celebration of Day of the Death comes to life in this vibrant and surprisingly authentic animated feature from Jorge Gutierrez and producer Guillermo del Toro. It’s a colorful and intricately designed vision of beloved tradition.
51. "The German Doctor" (Wakolda)
Lucia Puenzo’s captivating mystery focuses on infamous Nazi physician Josef Mengele, as he tries to test his disturbing practices on family while hiding in the Argentine countryside. Elegantly executed and definitely unsettling
Review "The German Doctor"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Lucia Puenzo
Sydney Levine's Case Study on "The German Doctor"
50. "Still Alice"
Lost, confused, but still fighting to preserve her individuality while facing the imminent effects of Alzheimer’s disease, Alice refuses to give up. Julianne Moor is absolutely stunning and heartbreaking.
49. "American Sniper"
Eastwood’s best film in a long time packs thrilling combat sequences as it looks at post-9/11 American patriotism via a simple man turned murder weapon. Bradley Cooper delivers the best performance of his career.
48. "The Lego Movie "
Pop culture has never been as hilarious and witty as in this uniquely animated story about individuality, the nature of heroism, and the power of a child’s imagination. With cameos galore and jokes aplenty, everything is indeed awesome.
47. "Manuscripts Don't Burn "
Mohammad Rasoulof’s fearless cinematic statement denouncing the Iranian regime is an incredible testament to the power of film as a cultural weapon against injustice. Not only is the film politically relevant, but also an all-around gripping thriller.
Review "Manuscripts Don't Burn"
46. "Guardians of the Galaxy "
This summer Marvel outdid itself with the truly enjoyable first installment of its newest franchise. Charismatic Chris Pratt as Star Lord, a more than memorable soundtrack, and an eclectic group of sidekicks made this the smartest summer hit.
45. "In Bloom"
Set in Tbilisi, Georgia, this unique coming-of-age tale is a riveting hidden gem that sports mesmerizing performances from its young cast. The filmmakers find evocative, everyday beauty in the hardships of life in a war-torn country.
Review "In Bloom"
44. "Goodbye to Language"
Godard’s use of 3D in this highly experimental work produces a physical reaction on the viewer that proves how alive the auteur’s vision still is. He is as cryptic, curious, innovative, unapologetic, and brilliant as he was over 50 years ago.
43. "Mistaken for Strangers"
Tom Berninger’s personal documentary is not a film about The National, but about a man trying to find his own path while reconnecting with his older brother – who happens to be a rock star. Fun, heartfelt, and honest.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Tom and Matt Berninger
42. "Manakamana"
Simple on the surface but hauntingly poetic, this documentary focuses on a series of people as they travel up to a sacred shrine in Nepal. Their faces speak in silences, laughter, and visible sadness, which form a language far more stirring than ephemeral words.
41. "Whiplash"
J.K. Simmons is a nightmarish instructor in Damien Chazelle’s fascinating debut about a young drummer by obsessive passion. The final sequence is an astonishing showstopper that sports marvelous, flawless editing
40. "The Overnighters"
What starts as the story about a Good Samaritan helping those in need despite criticisms, turns into an examination of a conflicted man. Faith, lies, regret and the judgmental eyes of an entire community will become his agonizing cross to bear.
39. "Rocks in My Pockets"
Latvian artist Signe Baumane uses 2D animation to work through her insecurities, her relationships with her estrange family, and depression. Craft and substance merge to construct an absorbing personal statement that is unexpectedly relatable.
Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Rocks in My Pockets"
38. "The Missing Picture"
To reconstruct his family’s past, and by extension that of his homeland under the Khmer Rouge, director Rithy Panh uses clay figurines and evocative narration in the absence of images from the time. One of the most original documentaries ever made.
Review "The Missing Picture"
37. "Snowpiercer"
Art house sensibilities imbedded into a powerful post-apocalyptic tale from South Korean director Bong Joon-ho gave us a superbly sophisticated actioner. Chris Evans delivers a different, but equally great heroic performance. However, Tilda Swinton takes the prize here.
36. "Life Itself"
Roger Ebert’s love for life and movies was endless. Despite major health issues near the end, his spirits and voice were never weakened. Steve James intimate documentary captures both the man and the critic in a lovely manner.
35. "Gone Girl"
Fincher’s latest focuses on a media circus fueled by a couple’s despicable lies and the public’s voyeuristic desire to find a villain and a victim. While Ben Affleck is good here, the film thrives on Rosamund Pike’s wickedly clever role.
34. "Two Days, One Night"
Only the Dardenne brothers can transform seemingly banal situations into compelling narratives that question the morality of their characters. In their latest masterful effort Marion Cotillard’s talent shines as she balances desperation, pride, and hope.
33. "Foxcatcher"
Driven by a trifecta of great performances, Bennett Miller’s drama shows a disturbed man in search of recognition and validation by any means necessary. Channing Tatum deserves more praise for his nuanced work here.
32. "Omar"
At once timeless and decisively current, Hany Abu-Asad’s Shakespearean crime drama deals with Israeli-Palestinian relations from a humanistic point of view. The political issues that serve as context become more urgent when seen through the characters’ struggles.
Review "Omar"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Hany Abu-Assad
31. "Mr. Turner"
The awe-inspiring cinematography and Timothy Spall’s grumpy, yet endearing portrayal of one of Britain’s most revered painters make of “Mr. Turner” another successful addition to Mike Leigh’s near-perfect track record.
30. "Nymphomaniac"
Blasphemous, explicit, and cerebral as most of Lars von Trier’s works, this two-part recollection of the anecdotes takes us into the tortured mind of a sex addict. There is no sugarcoating or redemption to be found here, only a skillful provocateur who loves to revel in the playful bleakness of it all.
Review "Nymphomaniac Vol. 1"
Review "Nymphomaniac Vol. 2"
29. "Gloria"
A middle-aged woman takes control of her life in this excellent Chilean dramedy. The title character, played by the lovely Paulina Garcia, wants to find love once again and to live without restrains. As she dances the night away we are certain that, despite the hardships, she will.
Review "Gloria"
Sydney Levine's interview with Sebastian Lelio and Paulina Garcia
28. "The Babadook"
A vicious boogieman terrorizes a mother and her son in this Australian horror masterpiece. Like with the best films in the genre, is what you don’t see that’s the most disturbing. Dir. Jennifer Kent uses creepy guttural sounds, shadows, and a malevolent children’s book to psychologically inflict fear.
27. "Ernest & Celestine"
Delightfully crafted to look like a collection of gorgeous moving watercolors, this French animated feature based on Gabrielle Vincent’s books is a visual treat and reminds us of the innocent fables from yesteryear.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Benjamin Renner
26. "Hide Your Smiling Faces"
Two brothers growing up in a small town are confronted with the notion of death and the complexities of the adult world in this remarkably done debut by Daniel Patrick Carbone. An absolute must-see that deserves a wider audience.
Review "Hide Your Smiling Faces"
25. "Stranger by the Lake"
In Alain Guiraudie’s beachside mystery, a murderous romance hides underneath warm weather and desire. This provocative, darkly comedic and splendidly acted slow-burner shows that danger is sometimes the most lethal aphrodisiac.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Alain Guiraudie
24. "Heli"
Amat Escalante’s brave and brutally honest depiction of Mexico’s violent present is unquestionably a difficult cinematic experience. However, the filmmaker is capable of finding resilient hope in the midst of overwhelming despair.
Review "Heli"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Amat Escalante
23. "CitizenFour"
Few embellishments are needed when you have such a shocking and important story told not from an outsider’s perspective, but from its source. Fiction falls short in comparison to the truths and secrets encompassed in Laura Poitras account of the Edward Snowden case.
22. "Force Majeure"
Gender roles are questioned with humorous but poignant observations on marriage and societal expectations in this Swedish hit from Ruben Östlund. Laugh-out-loud moments galore and an unforgettable “man cry” sequence are the result of a catastrophic controlled avalanche.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Ruben Östlund and Johannes Kuhnke
21. "The Guest"
Adam Wingard’s perversely comedic stunner about a devilishly deceiving visitor was by far one of the most outrageously fun films I saw this year. It’s a masterwork of madness. I can’t wait to see what Wingard, writer Simon Barrett, and star Dan Stevens do next.
20. "Obvious Child"
Jenny Slate’s Donna Stern is navigating adulthood through laughter. Her standup performances are unfiltered, moving, and often hilariously distasteful, but always sincere. Slate and director Gillian Robespierre are a match made in comedy heaven.
Review "Obvious Child"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Gillian Robespierre and Jenny Slate
19. "Inherent Vice"
There are numerous wacky characters and subplots in Paul Thomas Anderson’s adaption of Thomas Pynchon novel, but the real magic happens when Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin are together on screen. “Motto panukeiku!” is all I have to say.
18. "Starred Up"
Jack O’Connell’s award-deserving performance packs raw energy, ferocious anger, and tragic vulnerability. Violence and respect are the only useful currencies in this potent prison drama that’s as thrilling as it’s emotionally devastating.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with David Mackenzie
17. "Listen Up Philip"
Brimming with originality and uncompromising humor, Alex Ross Perry’s look at the writing craft is pure brilliance. Jason Schwartzman stars as an obnoxious, self-centered young author. He is as utterly amusing and revels in his character’s hilarious arrogance.
16. "Boyhood"
Thanks to Richard Linklater’s perseverance we were able to experience an incredible and incomparable cinematic journey. Filled with small, but affecting moments of sorrow and joy, a child’s life - and that of those around him - literally unfolds on screen somewhere between reality and fiction.
15. "Selma"
Avoiding all the dreaded biopic clichés, director Ava DuVernay created a powerful historical drama that couldn’t be more opportune. Among a star-studded cast, David Oyelowo delivers a knockout performance as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
14. "Under the Skin"
Life on earth as seen by a seductive alien is simultaneously frightening and revelatory in Jonathan Glazer’s dazzling sci-fi character study. Scarlett Johansson is superb as a creature intrigued by the virtues and shortcomings of human nature.
Review "Under the Skin"
13. "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Everything we love about Wes Anderson and much more is included in this stylized beauty of a film. Ralph Fiennes is an irreverent, classy, womanizer that gets into trouble with an array of quirky villains played by a topnotch cast. From its score to the production design, this is Anderson at his best.
12. "The Boxtrolls"
Laika’s craftsmanship reached a new level of delightful greatness with this darkly comedic period piece. Their brand of stop-motion animation is impeccable. Each character is meticulously created with a wonderful physicality that no other medium can provide.
Review "The Boxtrolls"
11. "Leviathan"
Andrey Zvyagintsev’s masterpiece dissects the complexity of Russian society through a family drama that is as intimate as it is monumental in the themes it explores. Religion, government, and betrayal are all monsters haunting a righteous man at the mercy or their powers.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Andrey Zvyagintsev
10. "Only Lovers Left Alive"
Between desolated Detroit and a moody Marrakesh, Jim Jarmusch's darkly comedic film delivers an incredibly original tale about familiar bloodsuckers. Permeated in groovy rock and roll music, vintage wardrobe, blissful production design, and an otherworldly atmosphere, “Only Lovers Left Alive” reclaims vampires as graceful, complex, and cultured beings, rather than the vehicle for teenage fantasies
Review "Only Lovers Left Alive"
9. "Nightcrawler"
Brutally unapologetic about the bloodthirsty practices of today’s media, Dan Gilroy’s directorial debut is a fantastic vehicle for Jake Gyllenhaal to deliver a performance unlike anything he’s done before. Outrageously insightful, Gilroy’s writing is a perverse delight that is at once analytical and utterly entertaining.
8. "Birdman"
While definitely hilarious, Inarritu’s latest work offers sharp observations on the nature of art and artists. This is a giant leap into new territory for the acclaimed Mexican filmmaker. His undeniable talent directing actors is what elevates his work from just a brilliant idea to a work that thrives on touching human vulnerability. Added to this, Emanuel Lubeski’s work in the cinematography department is a visual treat.
7. "Wild Tales"
This insanely inventive collection of deranged stories questions violence and revenge from a comedic angle. Besides being a complete riot that packs in uproarious humor, Damian Szifron’s film demonstrates his ability to create a cohesive film out of diverse vignettes united by the dark side of human nature. From start to finish, “Wild Tales” is truly a savagely fun trip.
Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Wild Tales"
6. "The Tale of the Princess Kaguya"
Studio Ghibli’s co-founder Isao Takahata demonstrates once more that his work is as spectacular as anything else the studio has created. His brand of handcrafted animation is of a uniquely exquisite kind that flows on the screen like streams of vibrant beauty. ‘The Tale of the Princess Kaguya” is perhaps his most striking work
5. "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night"
This black and white, Persian-language vampire film is a revelation. Style and story elegantly arranged to be poetic and ethereal throughout. Undoubtedly the most dazzling feature debut of the year. Ana Lily Amirpour has a unique vision forged out of her fascination with genre films, music, and other peculiar interests, all of which blend into a delightful cocktail of beauty, danger, and pure originality.
4. "Winter Sleep"
Nuri Bilge Ceylan defines what being an auteur means every times he is behind the camera. Palme d’Or or not, “Winter Sleep” is the only film over 3 hours that has kept me fully engaged for every second of it. Every line of dialogue is as thought provoking as the next without being pretentious. He finds the fibers of human behavior and stretches them to their limit in every single scene. Absolutely mesmerizing
Review "Winter Sleep"
Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Winter Sleep" from Cannes
3. "Mommy"
The tenderly violent love between a mother and a son make for an intoxicating tour de force. Xavier Dolan plays with aspect ratios, music, evocative cinematography and raw, maddening emotions to produce one of the most heartbreaking and intense experiences I’ve ever had watching a film. I was in a complete state of exhilaration until the very last, perfect, frame.
2. "Ida"
There is not a single miscalculation in Pawel Pawlikowski’s immaculate post-Holocaust drama. Each frame is a stunning work of sheer perfection. Flawless cinematography, riveting performances by both leading actresses, and a story that is subtle on the surface but carries intense undertones about spirituality and the consequences of guilt, make of “Ida” a masterwork to be cherished for years to come
Review "Ida"
Sydney Levine's interview with Pawel Pawlikowski
1. "Song of the Sea"
I'm certain some people will think me crazy for choosing this film as my favorite of the year, but witnessing Tomm Moore’s gorgeous and ethereal craftsmanship was an unforgettable experience. What he was able to achieve here, both in technique and emotional poignancy, is absolutely outstanding. "Song of the Sea" is one of the most blissfully beautiful animated films ever made. It is a gem beaming with awe-inspiring, heartwarming magic. It will be a long time before animation reaches this level of mesmerizing artistry again.
Review "Song of the Sea"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Tomm Moore...
There were many other films that I did in fact watch but didn’t make the list, such as “Wild,” “Interstellar,” “The Imitation Game,” “Unbroken,” “The Theory of Everything,” “Big Hero 6,” “Big Eyes,” "A Most Violent Year" and “Into the Woods.” Although none of these ended up among my favorites, many of them served as vehicles for the cast to deliver outstanding performances or showcased great cinematography and VFX. I mention this to clarify that their omission was a conscious decision.
Evidently, there were several acclaimed films I did not manage to watch, which could have made a difference. These include films like "Love is Strange," “Maps to the Stars,” “Stray Dogs,” “Top Five,” and “Rosewater.”
The films on this list include films that had a regular release in 2014, films that some consider to be 2013 films but which got a full release in 2014, and films that had a one-week qualifying run in 2014 but which will officially open in 2015. Other amazing films that I saw at festivals, but which did not have a theatrical release of any form this year will be included in next year’s list. Examples of these include “The Tribe,” “Timbuktu,” “The Voices” “Gueros,” “Viktoria,” and “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.”
Like with all lists, this is a very personal selection of films that connected with me on different levels. Some choices might be strange, others expected, but all of them speak to what I find interesting or great about cinema. I hope that with this list you can find titles you haven’t hear of or others you might have forgotten about. It has been such a terrific year for films. Here is hoping for 2015 to be even more inspiring.
Feel free to share with us what your favorite films of 2014 were in the comments section.
Honorary Mention for Favorite TV Series: "Over the Garden Wall"
In Patrick McHale’s enchanting Cartoon Network miniseries, “Over the Garden Wall,” brothers Wirt (Elijah Wood) and adorable Greg (Collin Dean) travel through the Unknown, a magical forest filled with peculiar characters. Blending a classic fable look with witty humor and catchy songs for a fantastically refreshing 2D cartoon, the show is rapidly - and deservingly - becoming a fan favorite. Once you see little Greg performing the sweet tune Potatoes and Molasses, it will all make sense.
Top 60 Films Of 2014
60. "Happy Christmas"
Anna Kendrick is an irresponsible, yet charming, young woman in Joe Swanberg’s holiday-infused family dramedy. “Happy Christmas” is small in scope but big in subtle amusement. Baby Jude Swanberg steals every scene.
59."Mood Indigo"
Whimsical, ingenious, and uniquely confected, Michel Gondry’s adaption of Boris Vian’s novel stars Audrey Tautou and Romain Duris. His latest romantic fantasy is heartwarming visual candy.
Review "Mood Indigo"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Tautou
58. "Lilting"
A cross-cultural connection in the aftermath of tragedy is at the center of Hong Khaou’s touching debut. Through great performances and ethereal cinematography the filmmaker reassures us love is the only language that matters.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Hong Khaou
57. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
With an intelligent and fun screenplay, this new entry in the Marvel universe showed us that - despite all the badassery he is capable of - all that Steve Rogers wants is his best friend back.
Review "Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
56. "Oculus"
Mike Flanagan doesn’t resort to excessive gore or a monumental story to instill fear. Instead, he uses the effective mechanics of his story to turn a room with an old mirror, a camera, and a pair of youngsters into a terrifying space.
55. "Rich Hill"
Looking at a segment of the American population from a uniquely compassionate and insightful perspective, “Rich Hill” cherishes the humanity of its subject rather than patronizing them.
54. "The Notebook"
The brutality of war is observed through the eyes of a pair of twin brothers who decide to detach themselves from any emotional connection in order to survive. Unflinching and powerful, “The Notebook” is part dark fairytale and part historical drama.
Review "The Notebook"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with János Szász
53. "Blue Ruin"
This gritty and unpredictable thriller follows a man whose thirst for revenge becomes his death sentence. Macon Blair’s character goes from passively hiding in the shadows to becoming a ruthless rookie assassin. Tension is the name of the game here.
52. "The Book of Life"
The ancient Mexican celebration of Day of the Death comes to life in this vibrant and surprisingly authentic animated feature from Jorge Gutierrez and producer Guillermo del Toro. It’s a colorful and intricately designed vision of beloved tradition.
51. "The German Doctor" (Wakolda)
Lucia Puenzo’s captivating mystery focuses on infamous Nazi physician Josef Mengele, as he tries to test his disturbing practices on family while hiding in the Argentine countryside. Elegantly executed and definitely unsettling
Review "The German Doctor"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Lucia Puenzo
Sydney Levine's Case Study on "The German Doctor"
50. "Still Alice"
Lost, confused, but still fighting to preserve her individuality while facing the imminent effects of Alzheimer’s disease, Alice refuses to give up. Julianne Moor is absolutely stunning and heartbreaking.
49. "American Sniper"
Eastwood’s best film in a long time packs thrilling combat sequences as it looks at post-9/11 American patriotism via a simple man turned murder weapon. Bradley Cooper delivers the best performance of his career.
48. "The Lego Movie "
Pop culture has never been as hilarious and witty as in this uniquely animated story about individuality, the nature of heroism, and the power of a child’s imagination. With cameos galore and jokes aplenty, everything is indeed awesome.
47. "Manuscripts Don't Burn "
Mohammad Rasoulof’s fearless cinematic statement denouncing the Iranian regime is an incredible testament to the power of film as a cultural weapon against injustice. Not only is the film politically relevant, but also an all-around gripping thriller.
Review "Manuscripts Don't Burn"
46. "Guardians of the Galaxy "
This summer Marvel outdid itself with the truly enjoyable first installment of its newest franchise. Charismatic Chris Pratt as Star Lord, a more than memorable soundtrack, and an eclectic group of sidekicks made this the smartest summer hit.
45. "In Bloom"
Set in Tbilisi, Georgia, this unique coming-of-age tale is a riveting hidden gem that sports mesmerizing performances from its young cast. The filmmakers find evocative, everyday beauty in the hardships of life in a war-torn country.
Review "In Bloom"
44. "Goodbye to Language"
Godard’s use of 3D in this highly experimental work produces a physical reaction on the viewer that proves how alive the auteur’s vision still is. He is as cryptic, curious, innovative, unapologetic, and brilliant as he was over 50 years ago.
43. "Mistaken for Strangers"
Tom Berninger’s personal documentary is not a film about The National, but about a man trying to find his own path while reconnecting with his older brother – who happens to be a rock star. Fun, heartfelt, and honest.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Tom and Matt Berninger
42. "Manakamana"
Simple on the surface but hauntingly poetic, this documentary focuses on a series of people as they travel up to a sacred shrine in Nepal. Their faces speak in silences, laughter, and visible sadness, which form a language far more stirring than ephemeral words.
41. "Whiplash"
J.K. Simmons is a nightmarish instructor in Damien Chazelle’s fascinating debut about a young drummer by obsessive passion. The final sequence is an astonishing showstopper that sports marvelous, flawless editing
40. "The Overnighters"
What starts as the story about a Good Samaritan helping those in need despite criticisms, turns into an examination of a conflicted man. Faith, lies, regret and the judgmental eyes of an entire community will become his agonizing cross to bear.
39. "Rocks in My Pockets"
Latvian artist Signe Baumane uses 2D animation to work through her insecurities, her relationships with her estrange family, and depression. Craft and substance merge to construct an absorbing personal statement that is unexpectedly relatable.
Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Rocks in My Pockets"
38. "The Missing Picture"
To reconstruct his family’s past, and by extension that of his homeland under the Khmer Rouge, director Rithy Panh uses clay figurines and evocative narration in the absence of images from the time. One of the most original documentaries ever made.
Review "The Missing Picture"
37. "Snowpiercer"
Art house sensibilities imbedded into a powerful post-apocalyptic tale from South Korean director Bong Joon-ho gave us a superbly sophisticated actioner. Chris Evans delivers a different, but equally great heroic performance. However, Tilda Swinton takes the prize here.
36. "Life Itself"
Roger Ebert’s love for life and movies was endless. Despite major health issues near the end, his spirits and voice were never weakened. Steve James intimate documentary captures both the man and the critic in a lovely manner.
35. "Gone Girl"
Fincher’s latest focuses on a media circus fueled by a couple’s despicable lies and the public’s voyeuristic desire to find a villain and a victim. While Ben Affleck is good here, the film thrives on Rosamund Pike’s wickedly clever role.
34. "Two Days, One Night"
Only the Dardenne brothers can transform seemingly banal situations into compelling narratives that question the morality of their characters. In their latest masterful effort Marion Cotillard’s talent shines as she balances desperation, pride, and hope.
33. "Foxcatcher"
Driven by a trifecta of great performances, Bennett Miller’s drama shows a disturbed man in search of recognition and validation by any means necessary. Channing Tatum deserves more praise for his nuanced work here.
32. "Omar"
At once timeless and decisively current, Hany Abu-Asad’s Shakespearean crime drama deals with Israeli-Palestinian relations from a humanistic point of view. The political issues that serve as context become more urgent when seen through the characters’ struggles.
Review "Omar"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Hany Abu-Assad
31. "Mr. Turner"
The awe-inspiring cinematography and Timothy Spall’s grumpy, yet endearing portrayal of one of Britain’s most revered painters make of “Mr. Turner” another successful addition to Mike Leigh’s near-perfect track record.
30. "Nymphomaniac"
Blasphemous, explicit, and cerebral as most of Lars von Trier’s works, this two-part recollection of the anecdotes takes us into the tortured mind of a sex addict. There is no sugarcoating or redemption to be found here, only a skillful provocateur who loves to revel in the playful bleakness of it all.
Review "Nymphomaniac Vol. 1"
Review "Nymphomaniac Vol. 2"
29. "Gloria"
A middle-aged woman takes control of her life in this excellent Chilean dramedy. The title character, played by the lovely Paulina Garcia, wants to find love once again and to live without restrains. As she dances the night away we are certain that, despite the hardships, she will.
Review "Gloria"
Sydney Levine's interview with Sebastian Lelio and Paulina Garcia
28. "The Babadook"
A vicious boogieman terrorizes a mother and her son in this Australian horror masterpiece. Like with the best films in the genre, is what you don’t see that’s the most disturbing. Dir. Jennifer Kent uses creepy guttural sounds, shadows, and a malevolent children’s book to psychologically inflict fear.
27. "Ernest & Celestine"
Delightfully crafted to look like a collection of gorgeous moving watercolors, this French animated feature based on Gabrielle Vincent’s books is a visual treat and reminds us of the innocent fables from yesteryear.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Benjamin Renner
26. "Hide Your Smiling Faces"
Two brothers growing up in a small town are confronted with the notion of death and the complexities of the adult world in this remarkably done debut by Daniel Patrick Carbone. An absolute must-see that deserves a wider audience.
Review "Hide Your Smiling Faces"
25. "Stranger by the Lake"
In Alain Guiraudie’s beachside mystery, a murderous romance hides underneath warm weather and desire. This provocative, darkly comedic and splendidly acted slow-burner shows that danger is sometimes the most lethal aphrodisiac.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Alain Guiraudie
24. "Heli"
Amat Escalante’s brave and brutally honest depiction of Mexico’s violent present is unquestionably a difficult cinematic experience. However, the filmmaker is capable of finding resilient hope in the midst of overwhelming despair.
Review "Heli"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Amat Escalante
23. "CitizenFour"
Few embellishments are needed when you have such a shocking and important story told not from an outsider’s perspective, but from its source. Fiction falls short in comparison to the truths and secrets encompassed in Laura Poitras account of the Edward Snowden case.
22. "Force Majeure"
Gender roles are questioned with humorous but poignant observations on marriage and societal expectations in this Swedish hit from Ruben Östlund. Laugh-out-loud moments galore and an unforgettable “man cry” sequence are the result of a catastrophic controlled avalanche.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Ruben Östlund and Johannes Kuhnke
21. "The Guest"
Adam Wingard’s perversely comedic stunner about a devilishly deceiving visitor was by far one of the most outrageously fun films I saw this year. It’s a masterwork of madness. I can’t wait to see what Wingard, writer Simon Barrett, and star Dan Stevens do next.
20. "Obvious Child"
Jenny Slate’s Donna Stern is navigating adulthood through laughter. Her standup performances are unfiltered, moving, and often hilariously distasteful, but always sincere. Slate and director Gillian Robespierre are a match made in comedy heaven.
Review "Obvious Child"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Gillian Robespierre and Jenny Slate
19. "Inherent Vice"
There are numerous wacky characters and subplots in Paul Thomas Anderson’s adaption of Thomas Pynchon novel, but the real magic happens when Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin are together on screen. “Motto panukeiku!” is all I have to say.
18. "Starred Up"
Jack O’Connell’s award-deserving performance packs raw energy, ferocious anger, and tragic vulnerability. Violence and respect are the only useful currencies in this potent prison drama that’s as thrilling as it’s emotionally devastating.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with David Mackenzie
17. "Listen Up Philip"
Brimming with originality and uncompromising humor, Alex Ross Perry’s look at the writing craft is pure brilliance. Jason Schwartzman stars as an obnoxious, self-centered young author. He is as utterly amusing and revels in his character’s hilarious arrogance.
16. "Boyhood"
Thanks to Richard Linklater’s perseverance we were able to experience an incredible and incomparable cinematic journey. Filled with small, but affecting moments of sorrow and joy, a child’s life - and that of those around him - literally unfolds on screen somewhere between reality and fiction.
15. "Selma"
Avoiding all the dreaded biopic clichés, director Ava DuVernay created a powerful historical drama that couldn’t be more opportune. Among a star-studded cast, David Oyelowo delivers a knockout performance as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
14. "Under the Skin"
Life on earth as seen by a seductive alien is simultaneously frightening and revelatory in Jonathan Glazer’s dazzling sci-fi character study. Scarlett Johansson is superb as a creature intrigued by the virtues and shortcomings of human nature.
Review "Under the Skin"
13. "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Everything we love about Wes Anderson and much more is included in this stylized beauty of a film. Ralph Fiennes is an irreverent, classy, womanizer that gets into trouble with an array of quirky villains played by a topnotch cast. From its score to the production design, this is Anderson at his best.
12. "The Boxtrolls"
Laika’s craftsmanship reached a new level of delightful greatness with this darkly comedic period piece. Their brand of stop-motion animation is impeccable. Each character is meticulously created with a wonderful physicality that no other medium can provide.
Review "The Boxtrolls"
11. "Leviathan"
Andrey Zvyagintsev’s masterpiece dissects the complexity of Russian society through a family drama that is as intimate as it is monumental in the themes it explores. Religion, government, and betrayal are all monsters haunting a righteous man at the mercy or their powers.
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Andrey Zvyagintsev
10. "Only Lovers Left Alive"
Between desolated Detroit and a moody Marrakesh, Jim Jarmusch's darkly comedic film delivers an incredibly original tale about familiar bloodsuckers. Permeated in groovy rock and roll music, vintage wardrobe, blissful production design, and an otherworldly atmosphere, “Only Lovers Left Alive” reclaims vampires as graceful, complex, and cultured beings, rather than the vehicle for teenage fantasies
Review "Only Lovers Left Alive"
9. "Nightcrawler"
Brutally unapologetic about the bloodthirsty practices of today’s media, Dan Gilroy’s directorial debut is a fantastic vehicle for Jake Gyllenhaal to deliver a performance unlike anything he’s done before. Outrageously insightful, Gilroy’s writing is a perverse delight that is at once analytical and utterly entertaining.
8. "Birdman"
While definitely hilarious, Inarritu’s latest work offers sharp observations on the nature of art and artists. This is a giant leap into new territory for the acclaimed Mexican filmmaker. His undeniable talent directing actors is what elevates his work from just a brilliant idea to a work that thrives on touching human vulnerability. Added to this, Emanuel Lubeski’s work in the cinematography department is a visual treat.
7. "Wild Tales"
This insanely inventive collection of deranged stories questions violence and revenge from a comedic angle. Besides being a complete riot that packs in uproarious humor, Damian Szifron’s film demonstrates his ability to create a cohesive film out of diverse vignettes united by the dark side of human nature. From start to finish, “Wild Tales” is truly a savagely fun trip.
Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Wild Tales"
6. "The Tale of the Princess Kaguya"
Studio Ghibli’s co-founder Isao Takahata demonstrates once more that his work is as spectacular as anything else the studio has created. His brand of handcrafted animation is of a uniquely exquisite kind that flows on the screen like streams of vibrant beauty. ‘The Tale of the Princess Kaguya” is perhaps his most striking work
5. "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night"
This black and white, Persian-language vampire film is a revelation. Style and story elegantly arranged to be poetic and ethereal throughout. Undoubtedly the most dazzling feature debut of the year. Ana Lily Amirpour has a unique vision forged out of her fascination with genre films, music, and other peculiar interests, all of which blend into a delightful cocktail of beauty, danger, and pure originality.
4. "Winter Sleep"
Nuri Bilge Ceylan defines what being an auteur means every times he is behind the camera. Palme d’Or or not, “Winter Sleep” is the only film over 3 hours that has kept me fully engaged for every second of it. Every line of dialogue is as thought provoking as the next without being pretentious. He finds the fibers of human behavior and stretches them to their limit in every single scene. Absolutely mesmerizing
Review "Winter Sleep"
Sydney Levine's Feature Piece on "Winter Sleep" from Cannes
3. "Mommy"
The tenderly violent love between a mother and a son make for an intoxicating tour de force. Xavier Dolan plays with aspect ratios, music, evocative cinematography and raw, maddening emotions to produce one of the most heartbreaking and intense experiences I’ve ever had watching a film. I was in a complete state of exhilaration until the very last, perfect, frame.
2. "Ida"
There is not a single miscalculation in Pawel Pawlikowski’s immaculate post-Holocaust drama. Each frame is a stunning work of sheer perfection. Flawless cinematography, riveting performances by both leading actresses, and a story that is subtle on the surface but carries intense undertones about spirituality and the consequences of guilt, make of “Ida” a masterwork to be cherished for years to come
Review "Ida"
Sydney Levine's interview with Pawel Pawlikowski
1. "Song of the Sea"
I'm certain some people will think me crazy for choosing this film as my favorite of the year, but witnessing Tomm Moore’s gorgeous and ethereal craftsmanship was an unforgettable experience. What he was able to achieve here, both in technique and emotional poignancy, is absolutely outstanding. "Song of the Sea" is one of the most blissfully beautiful animated films ever made. It is a gem beaming with awe-inspiring, heartwarming magic. It will be a long time before animation reaches this level of mesmerizing artistry again.
Review "Song of the Sea"
Carlos Aguilar's interview with Tomm Moore...
- 1/1/2015
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Handcrafted animated magic. That’s the best way to describe Tomm Moore’s latest film “Song of the Sea,” which premiered at Tiff earlier this year and went on to screen AFI Fest this past November. In this astonishingly beautiful new film Tomm Moore revisits Irish folklore through the eyes of two young siblings, Ben and Saoirse. At the center of the story are the Selkies, mythical creatures that are human above ground and seals under water.
Reimagining these ancient stories for a new audience was a challenge that Moore was more than happy to face. Like with his Academy Award-nominated feature “The Secret of Kells,” this film is also filled with personal touches and with a heartwarming atmosphere that translates into the gorgeous visuals. It’s a rare treat to see a film that has been so delicately crafted in every aspect.
Above all, Tomm Moore is a fan of animation that loves the medium and his fellow creators dearly. Proof of this is his sincere excitement over a “selfie” he was able to take with animation legends John Lasseter and Hayao Miyazaki last month at the Governors Awards. Miyazaki in particular has made a great impact in the way Tomm Moore approaches his work. Inspired by his family and his cultural background, Moore has managed to create two films that are indelibly his own, and which set him apart from the financially driven crowd.
Distributed by Gkids, “Song of the Sea” recently received 7 Annie Awards nominations including Best Feature Film, Best Director, and Best Musical Score. The film also ranks high in several of the major film publications among the 20 animated features in the race for a Best Animated Feature Oscar nomination
I had the pleasure to sit down with Tomm Moore recently in Los Angeles to talk about his latest animated masterpiece, life after the Oscar nomination, and Cartoon Saloon’s next project. This was undoubtedly one of the most delightful chats this writer has had in recent memory.
Read More: "Song of the Sea" Tiff Review
Carlos Aguilar: When you were looking at Irish folklore for this film, how did you decide what stories or elements would work with the film you wanted to make, especially since you wanted to tale a story aimed at children?
Tomm Moore: When we first started looking at doing something with the Selkies, we noticed that in a lot of the stories the kids would often be a big part of them. The mother would disappear back into the sea, and sometimes they’d be a passage at the end of the story where the kids would go down to the sea and see a seal. They’d always wondered if that was their mother as a seal. That’s why I started thinking about the Selkies stories from the kids’ point of view.
We had lots of different folktales we were looking at. I was really passionate about using several different ones, but the script was getting too bloated and it was too much content. We decided to cut down to just the folklore that we could use to strengthen the family story. We had a lot of folklore, there was almost too much to pick from and as there always is with Irish folklore. There are so many versions of every story because every storyteller tells the story differently. We took a license and we said, “What folklore do we have in this draft that really strengthens what’s happening with the family?”
We came to the idea that the witch could be just an exaggerated version of the Granny, and then the shanachie was going to be a version of the kids’ grandfather but it became too complicated, so we decided against it. It was all about simplifying and boiling it down to make kind of a espresso of folklore so that we could have something really strong that would work internationally as well [Laughs].
Aguilar: Where did you find the folk story or stories that served as framework for “Song of the Sea”?
Tomm Moore: Everywhere. A lot of these stories I heard while growing up and others I read in a book called The People of Sea, lent to me by my friend Ross Stewart. He was the Art Director in “The Secret of Kells.” I went on a trip to the coast of Ireland when I had started working on the “The Secret of Kells,” and I’ saw these seals that had been killed by the sea. Then, when I was talking to the woman that we had rented the cottage from, she said that the fishermen had been killing the seals and blaming them for the drop in fish stocks. She said, “That wouldn’t have happened years ago because people had these beliefs that seals could be Selkies and that they contained the souls of people lost at sea.”
When I came back I talked to Ross Stewart and he loaned me the book I mentioned, which was a collection of stories from the 1920s. The author had gone around Ireland and England collecting all the different beliefs about seals. I was reading those and I was also reading some of Lady Gregory’s works. From the time of Lady Gregory and W.B. Yeats there was a big movement to try and capture the stories that had been just passed down in the oral tradition. But honestly, most folklore is only alive if you hear it, if it’s told, because if it’s written down it becomes kind of a gospel. If it’s written people think, “That’s it! That’s the right version! Don’t’ change it.” Folklore is always changing and evolving for new audiences. That’s how you keep it alive.
Aguilar: While “The Secret of Kells” is a gorgeous film in its own right, it seems like “Song of the Sea” had an even more ethereal and fluid look to it, almost like watercolors.
Tomm Moore: A big part of that is Adrien Merigeau, who was the main background artist in “The Secret of Kells.” When I was developing “ Song of the Sea” and working on conceptual stuff, we really tried to blend our styles. His natural style seemed very full of little idiosyncratic design motifs. We started looking at the rocks and carvings that I wanted to include, and we could see similarities between his work and those Pictish carving, so he started to incorporate that into it.
We started working really early, before we even had a script. We were working on evolving this style, and we were hoping it would be a bit more atmospheric than in “The Secret of Kells,” we wanted some of that damped atmosphere that you get in Ireland. Adrien is great with watercolors, and I had been playing a lot with watercolor as well. We felt it was the right approach. “The Secret of Kells” had a stained glass look, and we wanted “Song of the Sea” to feel more like watercolors, more like a mystical fairytale.
Aguilar: What sort of visual reference did you and your team have to create the beautiful patterns and details in the film?
Tomm Moore: It came from a lot of carving and rocks, and the mad sacred geometry in the way they are arranged. It’s amazing stuff. It’s all Celtic and Pre-Celtic from the Picts. The word “picture” comes from the Picts, they were an Irish tribe that used tattoo themselves with the images in all this carvings. When the Romans first found them, they realized they were called the Picts. The word comes from the name the Romans used to refer to the drawings the Picts had all over themselves.
Aguilar: Tell me about your approach in terms of character development. In this films character seem more delicate, perhaps more personal.
Tomm Moore: I based most of the characters on my family. Ben is based on my son. He was 10 when I started working to work on it, now he is 19 now. Time just flies when you are making animation [Laughs]. Cu was based on a dog we had. When Ben was younger we had a dog named Cu. My mother’s name is Bronagh, and she looked a lot like the character in the film. My characters are certainly very personal.
These films are so hard to get made or even get off the ground, then put the finance together, get the story right, that if you pack the film full of people that you love you can live with it longer. There is always a bit of nostalgia. My nephew does Ben’s voice, as you can see it’s a real family story. I knew the characters needed to be softer so I looked at films like “My Neighbor Totoro” and other Japanese animation. The characters in “ The Secret of Kells” are quite geometric, and for this one I wanted to get something a bit softer and fuller.
Aguilar: Was the relationship between Saoirse and Ben also inspired by your personal experience?
Tomm Moore: Yes, the same with Brendan and Ashley in “The Secret of Kells,” both relationships are based on my relationship with my sister. I have three sisters, but there was a certain sibling rivalry between me and my next older sister. For sure that was influential in both films.
Aguilar: I love all the details that you have hidden throughout the film: the animals in the background, the cameo on the bus, or even inanimate objects with a particular shape. Every frame is full of beautiful small touches
Tomm Moore: We spent a long time on that. We wanted to pack everything in there. Adrien’s point of view made the backgrounds look almost like illustrations. We set up each shot like an illustration that would work in a book as well, but ultimately we needed to have continuity. We did a lot of color scripting. All the details are little encouragements for people to watch the movie more than once. [Laughs]
Aguilar: Where you concern about translating Irish folklore into a story that could work for a global audience?
Tomm Moore: I think there is universality to the films. With “Song of the Sea” this was very deliberate because I knew that we had gone the independent route, we didn’t go with a big studio. We made it for 5.5 million Eur, that’s very small compared to other films. “ The Book of Life”, which was the next “low-budget” animated film at The Hollywood Reporter roundtable that I was in, was $50 million.
For me that freedom meant that I could be more personal and more true to our culture. At the same time you want people to be able to enjoy it. There are certain jokes in there that only Irish people will get, but for the most part I wanted to take the approach in which somebody from anywhere in the world could watch it and enjoy it. I like that about “Totoro.” You get a glimpse of Japanese culture but at the same time anybody, anywhere, could watch “Totoro” and enjoy it even if they don’t know anything about Japanese culture.
Aguilar: The film seems to take place in a not-so-distant past where 3D glasses and Walkmans where an awesome novelty.
Tomm Moore: I was thinking it was like 1987, that’s when I was 10 years old. I was nostalgic for that time and I decided to add those little touches. [Laughs]
Aguilar: Music is such an important element in “Song of the Sea.” Tell me about developing the score with the musicians and other talent.
Tomm Moore: With “The Secret of Kells” Bruno Coulais and Kila did a great job but they work for a quite short neat the end of the film. This time, because the music was so important for the whole film, we asked them to get involved really early on. Bruno and Kila started working on the music for the film while we were still writing the story. It was really great, we would have little sessions in Ireland where they’ll get together and work. The first thing we had to work on was the song. We needed to get that right and find a singer. We were lucky to find Lisa Hannigan, who could act and sing. That was the first challenge for this movie, working on the music at the same time as the visuals.
Aguilar: With the advent of 3D animation, is it difficult to find the right people to work on more detailed-oriented 2D films?
Tomm Moore: There is a little team, like in stop-motion. It’s a little team of people that we’ve put together who had worked on “The Secret of Kells,” and some new people. I think it’s about finding people who are really passionate about 2-D animation and want to work at a different level on it. We are lucky in Europe, there seems to be a lot of 2D animation happening. There is still expertise and different studios are still making it.
Aguilar: Where things easier this second time around?
Tomm Moore: “The Secret of Kells ” was tough because it was the first one and we were trying to figure stuff out. This time there were stressful moments but we were a little bit more battle-hardened, like the old team getting back together for one more war [Laughs]
Aguilar: What do you love about 2D animation that 3D can’t provide? What would you say makes the medium particularly special?
Tomm Moore: I think there is a language to drawing that’s special, just like with Ghibli’s latest, “The Tale of the Princess Kaguya.” Even if you try to fake the look of a drawing by doing something like “Paperman”, is not quiet the same as feeling that somebody really drew it. Also, I think that if you watch a movie like “My Neighbor Totoro” and then you watch “Ponyo,” you wouldn’t know that they’ve been made 20 years apart. But if you watch the original “Toy Story” and then “Toy Story 3,” you can really see a big difference, you can see a big change in technology. 2-D has a certain timelessness.
Aguilar: You’ve mentioned Miyazaki’s work has been an inspiration to you, what other animators or artists have influenced your work?
Tomm Moore: Richard Williams, who was for years trying to make “The Thief and the Cobbler.” He was never able to finish it properly and then it got taken off of him. It’s a sad story, but he was always such an inspiration to me. When I was in college I saw a documentary about him and you could see he really had this great passion. He fully believed that animation could be art and it didn’t have to been as just something commercial. He spent over 25 year working on that film, that’s more of an art piece than anything else.
Also Genndy Tartakovsky, who is now doing CG stuff like “Hotel Transylvania,” but also worked on shows like “Samurai Jack ” and other greats tuff on TV. Then of course all the Eastern European animated film, specially the Hungarian folktales. There is also the Russian animator Yuri Norshteyn, he is really amazing. He ‘s made some beautiful short films, but he has also been working on this feature film for like 20 years. It’s going to be beautiful if he ever finishes it. I suppose I get inspiration from all over the place.
Aguilar: For you what’s the main difference between animated and live actions films in terms of the creative process and the effect they have on audiences?
Tomm Moore: Animation and live action are blending. I was recently talking to a friend of mine who is an editor, he used to work in live-action and now he works in animation. He used the analogy that editing in live action is like carving away a piece of marble but the shape is basically already there. With animation is more like clay because you keep building, changing, and adding things.
I think animation is freer and I think that’s why live action filmmakers like Spielberg or Cameron are using animation more in their films. “ Avatar” or “Gravity” are basically animate films because they have so much CG animation in them. But I think hand-drawn animation can be something really special. If the character design is quite simple it has the ability to allow people to easily relate to the characters in a special manner. A cartoon character isn’t a specific person. It isn’t Tom Cruise or George Clooney playing the part, it’s a character that could be you. It’s easier for you to get drawn into it in a special way.
Aguilar: Would you ever work on a 3D animated film?
Tomm Moore: I wouldn’t say no, but I’d have to find a way to adapt to it and I don’t think I’d be interested in doing something like Pixar’s shiny, perfect surfaces in 3D. To be honest with you, they do it so well and they spend so much money on it, that unless you are doing it in Pixar there is no point trying to match it. It’ll just come out looking cheap, so you would have to find a clever way to dot it. I like drawing. I like to spend the day drawing, the process is important for me. Drawing is a just a pleasure and it’s nice to keep it going. I think we stand out a little bit from the crowd by being 2D. There is less and less of it that now we have like a badge or a brand that stands out by being 2D.
Aguilar: “Song of the Sea” has received overwhelmingly positive reviews and a great reception by audiences. I’m sure this must be very rewarding and encouraging.
Tomm Moore: The more god reviews we get the more confidence we get, and the more proud we are when we stand beside the film. The only problem is the pressure, this was like making a difficult second album and now we have to make sure that the third film, and the next are good. But that’s a good problem to have [Laughs]
Aguilar: What are you and Cartoon Saloon working on next?
Tomm Moore: The next project that Cartoon Saloon is doing is going to be directed by Nora Twomey, who was the co-director in “The Secret of Kells,” and it’s based on a book called The Breadwinner by Deborah Ellis. It’s about a little girl in Afghanistan who has to pretend to be a boy so she can provide for her family. Her father is a storyteller. There is going to be two different visual styles in it. The storytelling world will use a decorative style based on Afghan art and then there will be a different style for the real world. It’s definitely challenging. I’m also writing another movie at the moment, it’ll be my third Irish-themed movie.
Aguilar: Seems like you are making a real brand or niche for yourself with Irish animated stories
Tomm Moore: Yes, at least for myself, but I think Nora is going to make something very special and different.
Aguilar: How did the Oscar nomination for “The Secret of Kells” change things? Did it change things at all?
Tomm Moore: It did, maybe not in the way that we had immediately expected. It wasn’t like we suddenly had access to millions and millions or anything like that, because we weren’t willing to become part of the studio system and make a movie that would work in that system. They spend so much money on those films that if you get involved in that system you don’t know if your film will ever get made because it’s such a risk to make them. You could develop something for years and it might never get made. And if they do make it has to be very accessible and it has to be a certain type of product. When they make them well they are beautiful, I was blown away by “How to Train Your Dragon 2.”
But for me, the freedom that you have to give up by trying to get into that system wasn’t worth it. The Oscar nomination might have opened doors to do something like that, but instead we decided to go back to Ireland and stay pretty small. What the nomination did instead was giving us a professional armor. It gave us a certain credibility and people took us more seriously after that. It also opened doors in terms of actors. We could now get voices that we really wanted. It helped with raising the finance, even though we ended up with a very small budget, less even that in “ The Secret of Kells.”
After the economic crash there was less money to put together, but the money that was out there we were able to attract because of the Oscar nomination. Besides, I got to join the Academy, I got to meet Miyazaki the other night, and there are so many benefits that just go on and on [Laughs].
Aguilar: I think “Song of the Sea” is absolutely marvelous, but for those who haven’t had the chance to see, why should they flock to see it?
Tomm Moore: I think it’s offering something different. I think what we tried to do - and I hope we’ve been successful at - is make a movie that is something like “ Totoro,” something like “E.T.” or “Goonies.” We wanted to make something like those movies from the 80s that weren’t a sequel or a prequel. They were just a complete new adventure in themselves. “Song of the Sea” has a kind of melancholy that most animated films seem not having much of anymore. I hope it offers something special.
Reimagining these ancient stories for a new audience was a challenge that Moore was more than happy to face. Like with his Academy Award-nominated feature “The Secret of Kells,” this film is also filled with personal touches and with a heartwarming atmosphere that translates into the gorgeous visuals. It’s a rare treat to see a film that has been so delicately crafted in every aspect.
Above all, Tomm Moore is a fan of animation that loves the medium and his fellow creators dearly. Proof of this is his sincere excitement over a “selfie” he was able to take with animation legends John Lasseter and Hayao Miyazaki last month at the Governors Awards. Miyazaki in particular has made a great impact in the way Tomm Moore approaches his work. Inspired by his family and his cultural background, Moore has managed to create two films that are indelibly his own, and which set him apart from the financially driven crowd.
Distributed by Gkids, “Song of the Sea” recently received 7 Annie Awards nominations including Best Feature Film, Best Director, and Best Musical Score. The film also ranks high in several of the major film publications among the 20 animated features in the race for a Best Animated Feature Oscar nomination
I had the pleasure to sit down with Tomm Moore recently in Los Angeles to talk about his latest animated masterpiece, life after the Oscar nomination, and Cartoon Saloon’s next project. This was undoubtedly one of the most delightful chats this writer has had in recent memory.
Read More: "Song of the Sea" Tiff Review
Carlos Aguilar: When you were looking at Irish folklore for this film, how did you decide what stories or elements would work with the film you wanted to make, especially since you wanted to tale a story aimed at children?
Tomm Moore: When we first started looking at doing something with the Selkies, we noticed that in a lot of the stories the kids would often be a big part of them. The mother would disappear back into the sea, and sometimes they’d be a passage at the end of the story where the kids would go down to the sea and see a seal. They’d always wondered if that was their mother as a seal. That’s why I started thinking about the Selkies stories from the kids’ point of view.
We had lots of different folktales we were looking at. I was really passionate about using several different ones, but the script was getting too bloated and it was too much content. We decided to cut down to just the folklore that we could use to strengthen the family story. We had a lot of folklore, there was almost too much to pick from and as there always is with Irish folklore. There are so many versions of every story because every storyteller tells the story differently. We took a license and we said, “What folklore do we have in this draft that really strengthens what’s happening with the family?”
We came to the idea that the witch could be just an exaggerated version of the Granny, and then the shanachie was going to be a version of the kids’ grandfather but it became too complicated, so we decided against it. It was all about simplifying and boiling it down to make kind of a espresso of folklore so that we could have something really strong that would work internationally as well [Laughs].
Aguilar: Where did you find the folk story or stories that served as framework for “Song of the Sea”?
Tomm Moore: Everywhere. A lot of these stories I heard while growing up and others I read in a book called The People of Sea, lent to me by my friend Ross Stewart. He was the Art Director in “The Secret of Kells.” I went on a trip to the coast of Ireland when I had started working on the “The Secret of Kells,” and I’ saw these seals that had been killed by the sea. Then, when I was talking to the woman that we had rented the cottage from, she said that the fishermen had been killing the seals and blaming them for the drop in fish stocks. She said, “That wouldn’t have happened years ago because people had these beliefs that seals could be Selkies and that they contained the souls of people lost at sea.”
When I came back I talked to Ross Stewart and he loaned me the book I mentioned, which was a collection of stories from the 1920s. The author had gone around Ireland and England collecting all the different beliefs about seals. I was reading those and I was also reading some of Lady Gregory’s works. From the time of Lady Gregory and W.B. Yeats there was a big movement to try and capture the stories that had been just passed down in the oral tradition. But honestly, most folklore is only alive if you hear it, if it’s told, because if it’s written down it becomes kind of a gospel. If it’s written people think, “That’s it! That’s the right version! Don’t’ change it.” Folklore is always changing and evolving for new audiences. That’s how you keep it alive.
Aguilar: While “The Secret of Kells” is a gorgeous film in its own right, it seems like “Song of the Sea” had an even more ethereal and fluid look to it, almost like watercolors.
Tomm Moore: A big part of that is Adrien Merigeau, who was the main background artist in “The Secret of Kells.” When I was developing “ Song of the Sea” and working on conceptual stuff, we really tried to blend our styles. His natural style seemed very full of little idiosyncratic design motifs. We started looking at the rocks and carvings that I wanted to include, and we could see similarities between his work and those Pictish carving, so he started to incorporate that into it.
We started working really early, before we even had a script. We were working on evolving this style, and we were hoping it would be a bit more atmospheric than in “The Secret of Kells,” we wanted some of that damped atmosphere that you get in Ireland. Adrien is great with watercolors, and I had been playing a lot with watercolor as well. We felt it was the right approach. “The Secret of Kells” had a stained glass look, and we wanted “Song of the Sea” to feel more like watercolors, more like a mystical fairytale.
Aguilar: What sort of visual reference did you and your team have to create the beautiful patterns and details in the film?
Tomm Moore: It came from a lot of carving and rocks, and the mad sacred geometry in the way they are arranged. It’s amazing stuff. It’s all Celtic and Pre-Celtic from the Picts. The word “picture” comes from the Picts, they were an Irish tribe that used tattoo themselves with the images in all this carvings. When the Romans first found them, they realized they were called the Picts. The word comes from the name the Romans used to refer to the drawings the Picts had all over themselves.
Aguilar: Tell me about your approach in terms of character development. In this films character seem more delicate, perhaps more personal.
Tomm Moore: I based most of the characters on my family. Ben is based on my son. He was 10 when I started working to work on it, now he is 19 now. Time just flies when you are making animation [Laughs]. Cu was based on a dog we had. When Ben was younger we had a dog named Cu. My mother’s name is Bronagh, and she looked a lot like the character in the film. My characters are certainly very personal.
These films are so hard to get made or even get off the ground, then put the finance together, get the story right, that if you pack the film full of people that you love you can live with it longer. There is always a bit of nostalgia. My nephew does Ben’s voice, as you can see it’s a real family story. I knew the characters needed to be softer so I looked at films like “My Neighbor Totoro” and other Japanese animation. The characters in “ The Secret of Kells” are quite geometric, and for this one I wanted to get something a bit softer and fuller.
Aguilar: Was the relationship between Saoirse and Ben also inspired by your personal experience?
Tomm Moore: Yes, the same with Brendan and Ashley in “The Secret of Kells,” both relationships are based on my relationship with my sister. I have three sisters, but there was a certain sibling rivalry between me and my next older sister. For sure that was influential in both films.
Aguilar: I love all the details that you have hidden throughout the film: the animals in the background, the cameo on the bus, or even inanimate objects with a particular shape. Every frame is full of beautiful small touches
Tomm Moore: We spent a long time on that. We wanted to pack everything in there. Adrien’s point of view made the backgrounds look almost like illustrations. We set up each shot like an illustration that would work in a book as well, but ultimately we needed to have continuity. We did a lot of color scripting. All the details are little encouragements for people to watch the movie more than once. [Laughs]
Aguilar: Where you concern about translating Irish folklore into a story that could work for a global audience?
Tomm Moore: I think there is universality to the films. With “Song of the Sea” this was very deliberate because I knew that we had gone the independent route, we didn’t go with a big studio. We made it for 5.5 million Eur, that’s very small compared to other films. “ The Book of Life”, which was the next “low-budget” animated film at The Hollywood Reporter roundtable that I was in, was $50 million.
For me that freedom meant that I could be more personal and more true to our culture. At the same time you want people to be able to enjoy it. There are certain jokes in there that only Irish people will get, but for the most part I wanted to take the approach in which somebody from anywhere in the world could watch it and enjoy it. I like that about “Totoro.” You get a glimpse of Japanese culture but at the same time anybody, anywhere, could watch “Totoro” and enjoy it even if they don’t know anything about Japanese culture.
Aguilar: The film seems to take place in a not-so-distant past where 3D glasses and Walkmans where an awesome novelty.
Tomm Moore: I was thinking it was like 1987, that’s when I was 10 years old. I was nostalgic for that time and I decided to add those little touches. [Laughs]
Aguilar: Music is such an important element in “Song of the Sea.” Tell me about developing the score with the musicians and other talent.
Tomm Moore: With “The Secret of Kells” Bruno Coulais and Kila did a great job but they work for a quite short neat the end of the film. This time, because the music was so important for the whole film, we asked them to get involved really early on. Bruno and Kila started working on the music for the film while we were still writing the story. It was really great, we would have little sessions in Ireland where they’ll get together and work. The first thing we had to work on was the song. We needed to get that right and find a singer. We were lucky to find Lisa Hannigan, who could act and sing. That was the first challenge for this movie, working on the music at the same time as the visuals.
Aguilar: With the advent of 3D animation, is it difficult to find the right people to work on more detailed-oriented 2D films?
Tomm Moore: There is a little team, like in stop-motion. It’s a little team of people that we’ve put together who had worked on “The Secret of Kells,” and some new people. I think it’s about finding people who are really passionate about 2-D animation and want to work at a different level on it. We are lucky in Europe, there seems to be a lot of 2D animation happening. There is still expertise and different studios are still making it.
Aguilar: Where things easier this second time around?
Tomm Moore: “The Secret of Kells ” was tough because it was the first one and we were trying to figure stuff out. This time there were stressful moments but we were a little bit more battle-hardened, like the old team getting back together for one more war [Laughs]
Aguilar: What do you love about 2D animation that 3D can’t provide? What would you say makes the medium particularly special?
Tomm Moore: I think there is a language to drawing that’s special, just like with Ghibli’s latest, “The Tale of the Princess Kaguya.” Even if you try to fake the look of a drawing by doing something like “Paperman”, is not quiet the same as feeling that somebody really drew it. Also, I think that if you watch a movie like “My Neighbor Totoro” and then you watch “Ponyo,” you wouldn’t know that they’ve been made 20 years apart. But if you watch the original “Toy Story” and then “Toy Story 3,” you can really see a big difference, you can see a big change in technology. 2-D has a certain timelessness.
Aguilar: You’ve mentioned Miyazaki’s work has been an inspiration to you, what other animators or artists have influenced your work?
Tomm Moore: Richard Williams, who was for years trying to make “The Thief and the Cobbler.” He was never able to finish it properly and then it got taken off of him. It’s a sad story, but he was always such an inspiration to me. When I was in college I saw a documentary about him and you could see he really had this great passion. He fully believed that animation could be art and it didn’t have to been as just something commercial. He spent over 25 year working on that film, that’s more of an art piece than anything else.
Also Genndy Tartakovsky, who is now doing CG stuff like “Hotel Transylvania,” but also worked on shows like “Samurai Jack ” and other greats tuff on TV. Then of course all the Eastern European animated film, specially the Hungarian folktales. There is also the Russian animator Yuri Norshteyn, he is really amazing. He ‘s made some beautiful short films, but he has also been working on this feature film for like 20 years. It’s going to be beautiful if he ever finishes it. I suppose I get inspiration from all over the place.
Aguilar: For you what’s the main difference between animated and live actions films in terms of the creative process and the effect they have on audiences?
Tomm Moore: Animation and live action are blending. I was recently talking to a friend of mine who is an editor, he used to work in live-action and now he works in animation. He used the analogy that editing in live action is like carving away a piece of marble but the shape is basically already there. With animation is more like clay because you keep building, changing, and adding things.
I think animation is freer and I think that’s why live action filmmakers like Spielberg or Cameron are using animation more in their films. “ Avatar” or “Gravity” are basically animate films because they have so much CG animation in them. But I think hand-drawn animation can be something really special. If the character design is quite simple it has the ability to allow people to easily relate to the characters in a special manner. A cartoon character isn’t a specific person. It isn’t Tom Cruise or George Clooney playing the part, it’s a character that could be you. It’s easier for you to get drawn into it in a special way.
Aguilar: Would you ever work on a 3D animated film?
Tomm Moore: I wouldn’t say no, but I’d have to find a way to adapt to it and I don’t think I’d be interested in doing something like Pixar’s shiny, perfect surfaces in 3D. To be honest with you, they do it so well and they spend so much money on it, that unless you are doing it in Pixar there is no point trying to match it. It’ll just come out looking cheap, so you would have to find a clever way to dot it. I like drawing. I like to spend the day drawing, the process is important for me. Drawing is a just a pleasure and it’s nice to keep it going. I think we stand out a little bit from the crowd by being 2D. There is less and less of it that now we have like a badge or a brand that stands out by being 2D.
Aguilar: “Song of the Sea” has received overwhelmingly positive reviews and a great reception by audiences. I’m sure this must be very rewarding and encouraging.
Tomm Moore: The more god reviews we get the more confidence we get, and the more proud we are when we stand beside the film. The only problem is the pressure, this was like making a difficult second album and now we have to make sure that the third film, and the next are good. But that’s a good problem to have [Laughs]
Aguilar: What are you and Cartoon Saloon working on next?
Tomm Moore: The next project that Cartoon Saloon is doing is going to be directed by Nora Twomey, who was the co-director in “The Secret of Kells,” and it’s based on a book called The Breadwinner by Deborah Ellis. It’s about a little girl in Afghanistan who has to pretend to be a boy so she can provide for her family. Her father is a storyteller. There is going to be two different visual styles in it. The storytelling world will use a decorative style based on Afghan art and then there will be a different style for the real world. It’s definitely challenging. I’m also writing another movie at the moment, it’ll be my third Irish-themed movie.
Aguilar: Seems like you are making a real brand or niche for yourself with Irish animated stories
Tomm Moore: Yes, at least for myself, but I think Nora is going to make something very special and different.
Aguilar: How did the Oscar nomination for “The Secret of Kells” change things? Did it change things at all?
Tomm Moore: It did, maybe not in the way that we had immediately expected. It wasn’t like we suddenly had access to millions and millions or anything like that, because we weren’t willing to become part of the studio system and make a movie that would work in that system. They spend so much money on those films that if you get involved in that system you don’t know if your film will ever get made because it’s such a risk to make them. You could develop something for years and it might never get made. And if they do make it has to be very accessible and it has to be a certain type of product. When they make them well they are beautiful, I was blown away by “How to Train Your Dragon 2.”
But for me, the freedom that you have to give up by trying to get into that system wasn’t worth it. The Oscar nomination might have opened doors to do something like that, but instead we decided to go back to Ireland and stay pretty small. What the nomination did instead was giving us a professional armor. It gave us a certain credibility and people took us more seriously after that. It also opened doors in terms of actors. We could now get voices that we really wanted. It helped with raising the finance, even though we ended up with a very small budget, less even that in “ The Secret of Kells.”
After the economic crash there was less money to put together, but the money that was out there we were able to attract because of the Oscar nomination. Besides, I got to join the Academy, I got to meet Miyazaki the other night, and there are so many benefits that just go on and on [Laughs].
Aguilar: I think “Song of the Sea” is absolutely marvelous, but for those who haven’t had the chance to see, why should they flock to see it?
Tomm Moore: I think it’s offering something different. I think what we tried to do - and I hope we’ve been successful at - is make a movie that is something like “ Totoro,” something like “E.T.” or “Goonies.” We wanted to make something like those movies from the 80s that weren’t a sequel or a prequel. They were just a complete new adventure in themselves. “Song of the Sea” has a kind of melancholy that most animated films seem not having much of anymore. I hope it offers something special.
- 12/18/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Shot entirely in the limited space of a courtroom and using uniquely subjective visual aesthetic, “Gett, The Trial of Viviane Amsalem” is Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz’ third feature film as a directing team. While most audiences might not be aware, this film is the third installment in a trilogy about Viviane’s struggles as a woman in Israel – the other two films are “ To Take a Wife” and “7 Days.” Unable to decide over her own life, Viviane is at the mercy of her husband’s willingness to grant her a divorce. Her freedom is at the center of a trial in which she has no voice. Sharing directorial duties with her brother Shlomi, Ronit Elkabetz also stars in the film as Viviane, a character they developed based on their mother’s life.
"Gett" is an extremely important film for Israel. While it was made as a work of art – and it has succeeded very well — Katriel Schory of the Israel Film Fund is emphatic about the film’s other purpose which is to make people aware of the extreme inequality of the divorce law in Israel. The process by which women must get divorced favors the man in an untenable way. To see the film is to become incensed by the humiliation a woman must endure as three orthodox rabbis decide her fate. The cruelty of the law shows that Israel must change the law to allow women equal rights…the closed door deliberations of three rabbis must be made public and there must be a way to appeal decisions which favor the man.
“Gett, The Trial of Viviane Amsalem” has received widespread success after screening at Cannes earlier this year and it’s now Israel’s official submission for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award. The film has also just been nominated for a Golden Globe Award as Best Foreign Language Film.
Music Box Films will released the film theatrically on February 13th, 2015.
Carlos Aguilar met with the Elkabetz siblings recently in Los Angeles. Here is what they had to say about their latest outing as creative team.
Aguilar: Tell me about your experience developing this story together. What sparked the creative process for each of you and how did they come together as a singular voice on the screen?
Shlomi: The film is part of a trilogy that follows Vivian and Elisha in different stages of their life. We shot the first one about 10 years ago and the second installment about 5 years ago. The first two were in Cannes and Venice, but this one is the first one to come to the U.S. We started working on this trilogy 10 years ago, and it was conceived as a trilogy from the beginning. We knew we wanted to make three films, but we didn’t have the three scripts, we just had an idea about what we wanted to say and how we are going to say it. Then, many things happened, not only did we change as filmmakers throughout the making of the trilogy, but also, interestingly enough, the way the audience relates the trilogy also changed. The more each film becomes part of Israeli society and part of the international cinematic arena, the more we perceived hoe the characters have also changed.
With each film we were looking for a new perspective. We started from a very personal place. The first film had some autobiographical elements. Vivian, the main character, was inspired by our mother’s life and the story was similar to where we come from. The third film broadened the whole perspective in terms of our focus on Women’s Rights in Israel. We came from a very private place, something that was very national, and it has evolved to become something much more international.
Ronit: Since we were children I always wanted to work with Shlomi, but we were separated when I went to the army. I was 18 and he was about 10-years-old, but I knew that one day we would get to do something together. I didn’t know exactly what it would be but I had a feeling it would happen.
One day I had an idea and I started writing a script. Shlomi had been writing scripts since he was 14-years-old. Many years after I called him and I told him that I had an idea for our first film, at that point I was only acting and he was in New York. I came to New York and in three weeks we wrote our first script. It was very intense and very interesting, and I knew that after this experience we would have a new start in our relationship.
Since I was very young I was very aware and sensitive to the situation that the women around me had to experience. I felt that they were suffering, and I was very aware about my mother’s wish for freedom and for a good life. She wanted a different life. This was something I wanted to understand. I wanted to search for answers. We decided to write a story about woman looking for her freedom from life at home. When we met to write this we started to evoke all these memories and emotions.
Shlomi: The first film was something very personal.
Ronit: It all happened once I was ready to search for my mother’s freedom through a film. We started writing, and suddenly we understood we had a lot of material and that it would not fit in a single film. We decided to take our time and create three films. We knew that it was going to take us about ten years. Viviane, the character, is someone very special for us.
Aguilar: Since you created this story, and this character in particular, as creative partners, were there any disagreements or conflicts because of your individual ideas for the film?
Shlomi: We’ve developed this character for many years. The inspiration to create this story was the same for both of us, so most of the time we agreed on what we wanted for the character. We didn’t have many arguments or disagreements while writing the character.
Ronit: It was very clear most of the time. However, everything was always seen from two points of view. Not only because Shlomi is a man and I’m a woman, but also because we are brother and sister, two different people, two different egos. We saw everything from a lot of different perspectives.
Aguilar: You work as co-directors, but Ronit also stars in the film. How did this actor/director relationship work?
Ronit: Knowing that he is in front of me behind the camera changed everything. For the first film I was running like a crazy woman between the camera and the scene. I was acting but I also wanted to see what was happening behind the camera. Then, for the second film it became easier to do both, and for the third film I wasn’t that interested on seeing myself on screen. I let go a little bit.
I like when Shlomi watches me through the camera. I feel very comfortable and I know that if I look at him he will tell if I did good just with his eyes. Just by looking at each other we know if it was a good take or not. We don’t really talk. We take a lot of time before shooting to prepare the film.
We talk day and night during the months of pre-production. When we arrive on the set we don’t really feel like we need to talk, maybe a few words here and there. When each of us talks separately to a certain actor, we usually tell them the same thing because we really know each other and what we want at this point.
Shlomi: We spend a lot of time synchronizing, not only for this film, but it has been years and years of getting to know each other and how we work.
Ronit: Beyond the love that we feel for each other, there is a lot of professional appreciation.
Shlomi: We appreciate each other’s opinions. When you are making a film with someone else, you really have to come to the point where both people like what you are doing because you have to take mutual responsibility for what you shoot. We take joint responsibility for the choices we make. Every decision is always made by both of us even if there is a little of back and forth. I’d say, “Are you sure?” And she’ll said, “No, are you sure?” Once we start questioning each other it becomes very interesting because there is a dialogue happening between us.
Aguilar: [To Ronit] Viviane must hide her emotions and she has no right to defend herself. Creating this restrained performance must have been very difficult for you.
Ronit: It’s been a long journey I must say. I’m a person that works a lot when I’m preparing for a role whether it’s theater or cinema. I think this character comes from all the questions that I want to ask her, the things I want to know about her. I would like to know where she came from? What her dreams are? And what’s the main difficulty she is facing? I always try to work around a certain wound the character has and I try to find a way in which this character can move forward.
There is always a struggle to win or to achieve something. For me it was always clear that Viviane knows that in this trial she has no voice. She knows that she cannot speak. She knows that she needs to prepare herself for a very long journey. Her husband can refuse to give Viviane her freedom for the next ten years if he wants to, and she knows this. I had to prepare differently for this character because I knew that in court, as Viviane, I have no voice and I must just be there quietly.
It was like a being a long-distance runner trying to stay in that passive position for years until the moment that one couldn’t do it any longer. This is very difficult for Viviane because she is a very expressive woman and her husband reiterates this all the time. He tells everyone that she shouts, that she is difficult, that she always talks back. Being quiet and silent is the opposite of what she would have like to do, but she needs to stay focuses on her goal. Whatever happens she must not lose her strength and continue until the end, until she wins.
I thought meticulously about every aspect of her story, you might not see this on screen but I thought about of every detail in this woman’s life. Creating a character is like creating a film within the film, there is more to the story in me that what makes it onto the screen. There is the story in the film and the personal story of the character that I have to create. I know this kind of women quiet good in Israel, and I could really feel them inside me. They are part of me.
Aguilar: Vivian is legally denied her freedom and she depends on her husband’s decision over her life. Her individuality, her voice, is criminalized. How did you approach the film’s political angle?
Shlomi: In Israel both secular women and religious women are subjected to the same laws. Everyone woman in Israel is subject to this law, it doesn’t matter if you are sort of religious, orthodox, or completely secular. It has nothing to do with religion. This is the law in Israel. Even though the story is about Israel, it also became very international in many ways because women all over the world suffer discrimination in different aspects of their lives. Viviane is suffering from this specific type of discrimination, which prevents her freedom in this way. Everywhere we screen the film, in Europe, Asia and even in the Us, women identify with this woman's wish to be free, with her wish to determine what she wants to do with her life. She wants to wake up in the morning and decide, "I want to go" or " I want to stay."
Ronit: "I want to choose my life!" She questions herself all the time and that's the question the film asks, "Who am I?" "Who is choosing for me?" It's unbelievable to think that nowadays a story like this can be a reality for more than 10,000 women in Israel who are waiting and who are often denied a divorce, denied their freed. The big questions they are asking are, "Why do I need to be in this situation?" "Who decided I needed to ask someone for permission to be free?"
Addressing this issue was something that was really important for us. At the end of the film Viviane demands, "Give me my freedom. Give me my freedom." It's very difficult to understand how in our country, which is considered a democracy, something like this could exist.
Aguilar: Did you face any opposition from the government or religious organization in Israel given the film’s controversial themes?
Ronit: No, the film was like a gift for Israeli citizens. There have been a lot of discussions around the film. Everyone wants to talk about the film. There has been an overwhelmingly positive reaction towards the film, which means that it has touched everyone.
Shlomi: We've received very strong reactions towards the film from diverse streams of Israeli society. The Israeli ministry of justice wrote a post on her Facebook page endorsing the film and encouraging people to see it. Then we had rabbis encouraging the religious public to go see the film. They would say, “Maybe is not the most pleasant film for us to see but we still must see it and rethink how we do things.” The film has encouraged dialogue around the issue.
For a long time everyday there was something related to the film on the news, on the newspapers, on the radio. The film was at the center of every conversation for three or four weeks. Can you imagine something like this in the States? That’s what happened with this film in Israel.
Ronit: We thought that maybe men would not like the film, but it was the opposite. Everyone, men and women, really appreciated the film. It was a very nice surprise to see this reaction.
Shlomi: We though men might feel threatened by the film in some way or that they might not like the way we portray the male character, but on the contrary, most people think the film is an opportunity to create awareness about the issue. Who knows, maybe one day there will be a law preventing this and maybe they’ll call it “The Elkabetz Law” [Laughs].
This law would liberate women all over Israel, that’s our dream. Our first dream was to make the films, our second dream was to show them in Cannes and then all over the world, and now we hope that the film inspires change, maybe through a law.
It’s amazing that a film can create awareness, then this awareness creates a dialogue, and this dialogue could possibly create change. It’s incredible that in Israel no one can attend a divorce case at a court. You can attend a murder case just to be preset, but no one can attend a divorce case. The film is the first time the public gets to see what happens in these courts. We hope people see the film and form their own opinion.
Aguilar: There is a particular visual style in the film. It’s unusual but it works with this claustrophobic feeling that Viviane experiences.
Ronit: We thought about this a lot before because we wanted to find a visual language that would be loyal to the story. There are no master shots in the film from the director’s or outside perspective, everything is from the characters’ points of view and how they see each other. Only the last shot is from our perspective, the directors’ perspective.
Shlomi: In our mind we think that a courtroom is an objective place, but it’s not. As a director you can’t really shoot “the law, “ you can only shoot how the law affects people. We shot behavior and tried to understand what was happening according to how this affected the trial. We thought about what would happen if we shot the whole film from only one point of view by putting the camera in a character’s place for the entire time, maybe this way we could deconstruct the room. If I shoot Ronit talking to you, her attention would be divided between you and the camera, but if I shoot from her point of view, and then from another point of view, slowly we would be deconstructing the whole space. The more points of view you have the more details you can see in the story. This way we were able to create more suspense, more humor, more varied sensations.
Ronit: It was very interesting to shoot this way because we didn’t know if this language would work for us or not. We tried it for a couple days and after editing we though that it was something very special. We liked it and we went with it.
Shlomi: People working with us were afraid. The Dp, people from the film fund, other people from the production, they were all afraid. They asked us, “How will people know where they are if there are no master shots? They need to understand the geography of the room” Our answer was, “We can create a new geography.”
Shooting the entire film in one room was a radical decision. We wondered what effect would shooting in a conventional way have on our radical decision to make it in one room. In order for our radical approach to work we had to match every shot eye to eye with the next one. We had a piece of tape on the lens right where the actors needed to look. For every scene they needed to look directly into the tape on the lens. It was risky to shoot this way, but when we discovered it was working for us we went all the way.
Aguilar: How did this decision change your actors’ performances?
Shlomi: Every actor had to wait for three or four days before it was their time to shot their scenes because we had to shoot all these different points of view for every single since.
Ronit: But even if they were not being shot, we would ask them to be there in full costume and in character so the ones that were actually being shot could feel the emotion and could add based on that intensity. It was very difficult for them and it involved a lot of repetitions.
Shlomi: Since we were doing so many takes of the same scene to get different points of view, the actors heard each scene hundreds of times. We could spend 6 or 7 days on one single scene. All of us heard every scene hundreds of times.
Ronit: We had so much material
Shlomi: To shoot all the points of view in a scene involving 7 people you need at least 50 shots. Since we couldn’t spend so much time in each one we had to choose while shooting. We probably did between 10 and 24 shots per scene.
Ronit: It was very difficult for the actors, but they were so excited by the idea because they had never worked in this manner. They were always excited, and we were always thankful because we knew that what we were asking was difficult. We definitely had a very special experience making this film.
Aguilar: Tell me about your experience in Hollywood with your film representing Israel at the Oscars.
Shlomi: It’s an amazing experience. We always want to get our film out there as much as possible for people to see it. This film is very important for us because the more attention the film gets the more people will talk about the issue.
The reactions are always amazing wherever we go. Sometimes I sit in the theater and I feel like I’m sitting with an Israeli audience because they all react so strongly to the film. They seem to get all the jokes and the nuances of the film.
Aguilar: What happens to Viviane after this film?
Ronit: I’m also interested to find out because it would mean making another film, another dream, but we will see if that happens. Now she has bought her freedom with her freedom, but we still don’t know what kind of freedom she has. There is a big open window for us to dream. If we decide to continue with this story I’m sure it would be a very special experience once again.
Shlomi: It would be interesting to know what happens to this woman now that she is finally free. How does she cope with the fact that she has achieved her dream? It’s definitely a very interesting question.
"Gett" is an extremely important film for Israel. While it was made as a work of art – and it has succeeded very well — Katriel Schory of the Israel Film Fund is emphatic about the film’s other purpose which is to make people aware of the extreme inequality of the divorce law in Israel. The process by which women must get divorced favors the man in an untenable way. To see the film is to become incensed by the humiliation a woman must endure as three orthodox rabbis decide her fate. The cruelty of the law shows that Israel must change the law to allow women equal rights…the closed door deliberations of three rabbis must be made public and there must be a way to appeal decisions which favor the man.
“Gett, The Trial of Viviane Amsalem” has received widespread success after screening at Cannes earlier this year and it’s now Israel’s official submission for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award. The film has also just been nominated for a Golden Globe Award as Best Foreign Language Film.
Music Box Films will released the film theatrically on February 13th, 2015.
Carlos Aguilar met with the Elkabetz siblings recently in Los Angeles. Here is what they had to say about their latest outing as creative team.
Aguilar: Tell me about your experience developing this story together. What sparked the creative process for each of you and how did they come together as a singular voice on the screen?
Shlomi: The film is part of a trilogy that follows Vivian and Elisha in different stages of their life. We shot the first one about 10 years ago and the second installment about 5 years ago. The first two were in Cannes and Venice, but this one is the first one to come to the U.S. We started working on this trilogy 10 years ago, and it was conceived as a trilogy from the beginning. We knew we wanted to make three films, but we didn’t have the three scripts, we just had an idea about what we wanted to say and how we are going to say it. Then, many things happened, not only did we change as filmmakers throughout the making of the trilogy, but also, interestingly enough, the way the audience relates the trilogy also changed. The more each film becomes part of Israeli society and part of the international cinematic arena, the more we perceived hoe the characters have also changed.
With each film we were looking for a new perspective. We started from a very personal place. The first film had some autobiographical elements. Vivian, the main character, was inspired by our mother’s life and the story was similar to where we come from. The third film broadened the whole perspective in terms of our focus on Women’s Rights in Israel. We came from a very private place, something that was very national, and it has evolved to become something much more international.
Ronit: Since we were children I always wanted to work with Shlomi, but we were separated when I went to the army. I was 18 and he was about 10-years-old, but I knew that one day we would get to do something together. I didn’t know exactly what it would be but I had a feeling it would happen.
One day I had an idea and I started writing a script. Shlomi had been writing scripts since he was 14-years-old. Many years after I called him and I told him that I had an idea for our first film, at that point I was only acting and he was in New York. I came to New York and in three weeks we wrote our first script. It was very intense and very interesting, and I knew that after this experience we would have a new start in our relationship.
Since I was very young I was very aware and sensitive to the situation that the women around me had to experience. I felt that they were suffering, and I was very aware about my mother’s wish for freedom and for a good life. She wanted a different life. This was something I wanted to understand. I wanted to search for answers. We decided to write a story about woman looking for her freedom from life at home. When we met to write this we started to evoke all these memories and emotions.
Shlomi: The first film was something very personal.
Ronit: It all happened once I was ready to search for my mother’s freedom through a film. We started writing, and suddenly we understood we had a lot of material and that it would not fit in a single film. We decided to take our time and create three films. We knew that it was going to take us about ten years. Viviane, the character, is someone very special for us.
Aguilar: Since you created this story, and this character in particular, as creative partners, were there any disagreements or conflicts because of your individual ideas for the film?
Shlomi: We’ve developed this character for many years. The inspiration to create this story was the same for both of us, so most of the time we agreed on what we wanted for the character. We didn’t have many arguments or disagreements while writing the character.
Ronit: It was very clear most of the time. However, everything was always seen from two points of view. Not only because Shlomi is a man and I’m a woman, but also because we are brother and sister, two different people, two different egos. We saw everything from a lot of different perspectives.
Aguilar: You work as co-directors, but Ronit also stars in the film. How did this actor/director relationship work?
Ronit: Knowing that he is in front of me behind the camera changed everything. For the first film I was running like a crazy woman between the camera and the scene. I was acting but I also wanted to see what was happening behind the camera. Then, for the second film it became easier to do both, and for the third film I wasn’t that interested on seeing myself on screen. I let go a little bit.
I like when Shlomi watches me through the camera. I feel very comfortable and I know that if I look at him he will tell if I did good just with his eyes. Just by looking at each other we know if it was a good take or not. We don’t really talk. We take a lot of time before shooting to prepare the film.
We talk day and night during the months of pre-production. When we arrive on the set we don’t really feel like we need to talk, maybe a few words here and there. When each of us talks separately to a certain actor, we usually tell them the same thing because we really know each other and what we want at this point.
Shlomi: We spend a lot of time synchronizing, not only for this film, but it has been years and years of getting to know each other and how we work.
Ronit: Beyond the love that we feel for each other, there is a lot of professional appreciation.
Shlomi: We appreciate each other’s opinions. When you are making a film with someone else, you really have to come to the point where both people like what you are doing because you have to take mutual responsibility for what you shoot. We take joint responsibility for the choices we make. Every decision is always made by both of us even if there is a little of back and forth. I’d say, “Are you sure?” And she’ll said, “No, are you sure?” Once we start questioning each other it becomes very interesting because there is a dialogue happening between us.
Aguilar: [To Ronit] Viviane must hide her emotions and she has no right to defend herself. Creating this restrained performance must have been very difficult for you.
Ronit: It’s been a long journey I must say. I’m a person that works a lot when I’m preparing for a role whether it’s theater or cinema. I think this character comes from all the questions that I want to ask her, the things I want to know about her. I would like to know where she came from? What her dreams are? And what’s the main difficulty she is facing? I always try to work around a certain wound the character has and I try to find a way in which this character can move forward.
There is always a struggle to win or to achieve something. For me it was always clear that Viviane knows that in this trial she has no voice. She knows that she cannot speak. She knows that she needs to prepare herself for a very long journey. Her husband can refuse to give Viviane her freedom for the next ten years if he wants to, and she knows this. I had to prepare differently for this character because I knew that in court, as Viviane, I have no voice and I must just be there quietly.
It was like a being a long-distance runner trying to stay in that passive position for years until the moment that one couldn’t do it any longer. This is very difficult for Viviane because she is a very expressive woman and her husband reiterates this all the time. He tells everyone that she shouts, that she is difficult, that she always talks back. Being quiet and silent is the opposite of what she would have like to do, but she needs to stay focuses on her goal. Whatever happens she must not lose her strength and continue until the end, until she wins.
I thought meticulously about every aspect of her story, you might not see this on screen but I thought about of every detail in this woman’s life. Creating a character is like creating a film within the film, there is more to the story in me that what makes it onto the screen. There is the story in the film and the personal story of the character that I have to create. I know this kind of women quiet good in Israel, and I could really feel them inside me. They are part of me.
Aguilar: Vivian is legally denied her freedom and she depends on her husband’s decision over her life. Her individuality, her voice, is criminalized. How did you approach the film’s political angle?
Shlomi: In Israel both secular women and religious women are subjected to the same laws. Everyone woman in Israel is subject to this law, it doesn’t matter if you are sort of religious, orthodox, or completely secular. It has nothing to do with religion. This is the law in Israel. Even though the story is about Israel, it also became very international in many ways because women all over the world suffer discrimination in different aspects of their lives. Viviane is suffering from this specific type of discrimination, which prevents her freedom in this way. Everywhere we screen the film, in Europe, Asia and even in the Us, women identify with this woman's wish to be free, with her wish to determine what she wants to do with her life. She wants to wake up in the morning and decide, "I want to go" or " I want to stay."
Ronit: "I want to choose my life!" She questions herself all the time and that's the question the film asks, "Who am I?" "Who is choosing for me?" It's unbelievable to think that nowadays a story like this can be a reality for more than 10,000 women in Israel who are waiting and who are often denied a divorce, denied their freed. The big questions they are asking are, "Why do I need to be in this situation?" "Who decided I needed to ask someone for permission to be free?"
Addressing this issue was something that was really important for us. At the end of the film Viviane demands, "Give me my freedom. Give me my freedom." It's very difficult to understand how in our country, which is considered a democracy, something like this could exist.
Aguilar: Did you face any opposition from the government or religious organization in Israel given the film’s controversial themes?
Ronit: No, the film was like a gift for Israeli citizens. There have been a lot of discussions around the film. Everyone wants to talk about the film. There has been an overwhelmingly positive reaction towards the film, which means that it has touched everyone.
Shlomi: We've received very strong reactions towards the film from diverse streams of Israeli society. The Israeli ministry of justice wrote a post on her Facebook page endorsing the film and encouraging people to see it. Then we had rabbis encouraging the religious public to go see the film. They would say, “Maybe is not the most pleasant film for us to see but we still must see it and rethink how we do things.” The film has encouraged dialogue around the issue.
For a long time everyday there was something related to the film on the news, on the newspapers, on the radio. The film was at the center of every conversation for three or four weeks. Can you imagine something like this in the States? That’s what happened with this film in Israel.
Ronit: We thought that maybe men would not like the film, but it was the opposite. Everyone, men and women, really appreciated the film. It was a very nice surprise to see this reaction.
Shlomi: We though men might feel threatened by the film in some way or that they might not like the way we portray the male character, but on the contrary, most people think the film is an opportunity to create awareness about the issue. Who knows, maybe one day there will be a law preventing this and maybe they’ll call it “The Elkabetz Law” [Laughs].
This law would liberate women all over Israel, that’s our dream. Our first dream was to make the films, our second dream was to show them in Cannes and then all over the world, and now we hope that the film inspires change, maybe through a law.
It’s amazing that a film can create awareness, then this awareness creates a dialogue, and this dialogue could possibly create change. It’s incredible that in Israel no one can attend a divorce case at a court. You can attend a murder case just to be preset, but no one can attend a divorce case. The film is the first time the public gets to see what happens in these courts. We hope people see the film and form their own opinion.
Aguilar: There is a particular visual style in the film. It’s unusual but it works with this claustrophobic feeling that Viviane experiences.
Ronit: We thought about this a lot before because we wanted to find a visual language that would be loyal to the story. There are no master shots in the film from the director’s or outside perspective, everything is from the characters’ points of view and how they see each other. Only the last shot is from our perspective, the directors’ perspective.
Shlomi: In our mind we think that a courtroom is an objective place, but it’s not. As a director you can’t really shoot “the law, “ you can only shoot how the law affects people. We shot behavior and tried to understand what was happening according to how this affected the trial. We thought about what would happen if we shot the whole film from only one point of view by putting the camera in a character’s place for the entire time, maybe this way we could deconstruct the room. If I shoot Ronit talking to you, her attention would be divided between you and the camera, but if I shoot from her point of view, and then from another point of view, slowly we would be deconstructing the whole space. The more points of view you have the more details you can see in the story. This way we were able to create more suspense, more humor, more varied sensations.
Ronit: It was very interesting to shoot this way because we didn’t know if this language would work for us or not. We tried it for a couple days and after editing we though that it was something very special. We liked it and we went with it.
Shlomi: People working with us were afraid. The Dp, people from the film fund, other people from the production, they were all afraid. They asked us, “How will people know where they are if there are no master shots? They need to understand the geography of the room” Our answer was, “We can create a new geography.”
Shooting the entire film in one room was a radical decision. We wondered what effect would shooting in a conventional way have on our radical decision to make it in one room. In order for our radical approach to work we had to match every shot eye to eye with the next one. We had a piece of tape on the lens right where the actors needed to look. For every scene they needed to look directly into the tape on the lens. It was risky to shoot this way, but when we discovered it was working for us we went all the way.
Aguilar: How did this decision change your actors’ performances?
Shlomi: Every actor had to wait for three or four days before it was their time to shot their scenes because we had to shoot all these different points of view for every single since.
Ronit: But even if they were not being shot, we would ask them to be there in full costume and in character so the ones that were actually being shot could feel the emotion and could add based on that intensity. It was very difficult for them and it involved a lot of repetitions.
Shlomi: Since we were doing so many takes of the same scene to get different points of view, the actors heard each scene hundreds of times. We could spend 6 or 7 days on one single scene. All of us heard every scene hundreds of times.
Ronit: We had so much material
Shlomi: To shoot all the points of view in a scene involving 7 people you need at least 50 shots. Since we couldn’t spend so much time in each one we had to choose while shooting. We probably did between 10 and 24 shots per scene.
Ronit: It was very difficult for the actors, but they were so excited by the idea because they had never worked in this manner. They were always excited, and we were always thankful because we knew that what we were asking was difficult. We definitely had a very special experience making this film.
Aguilar: Tell me about your experience in Hollywood with your film representing Israel at the Oscars.
Shlomi: It’s an amazing experience. We always want to get our film out there as much as possible for people to see it. This film is very important for us because the more attention the film gets the more people will talk about the issue.
The reactions are always amazing wherever we go. Sometimes I sit in the theater and I feel like I’m sitting with an Israeli audience because they all react so strongly to the film. They seem to get all the jokes and the nuances of the film.
Aguilar: What happens to Viviane after this film?
Ronit: I’m also interested to find out because it would mean making another film, another dream, but we will see if that happens. Now she has bought her freedom with her freedom, but we still don’t know what kind of freedom she has. There is a big open window for us to dream. If we decide to continue with this story I’m sure it would be a very special experience once again.
Shlomi: It would be interesting to know what happens to this woman now that she is finally free. How does she cope with the fact that she has achieved her dream? It’s definitely a very interesting question.
- 12/16/2014
- by Sydney Levine and Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Everyone who watches movies, from the most renowned film critic to the occasional moviegoer, knows what the tiny European nation of Malta looks like. Yes, they’ve all seen its great vistas, ancient ruins, and the Mediterranean Sea that surrounds the island. Unfortunately, few of them are aware that the land on which various Hollywood stars become legendary heroes is in fact the small republic and not a more popular vacation destination on mainland Europe. Malta has become a commodity for the film industry passing as an epic battleground or an exotic romantic getaway. There are in fact films being made in Malta, but they are not at all Maltese films.
Serving as a canvas for foreign talent to create enormous works of fiction is usually all the glory this unique country gets. Hollywood’s interest is undoubtedly beneficial as it creates jobs for the locals and provides experience to the Maltese youth interested in working in film. One of these young talents is director Rebecca Cremona. She began working on set when big budget productions came to Malta and required extra help. She was learning how to make films without much precedent in terms of a national industry in which Maltese filmmakers could tell their own stories. With a population of just over 400,000 people, Malta doesn’t’ have the infrastructure or funding required to developed a viable film industry, at least for now.
Cremona studied film production in Los Angeles, but she always knew her debut feature would have to be a Maltese story. Eventually she became aware of an important issue in her home country, illegal immigration. Being a bridge between North Africa and Western Europe, the island has become a prime location for desperate immigrants from Africa and the Middle East looking to escape the terrible conditions at home. With such limited space and resources, the advent of immigration has become a divisive subject for the tight-knit Maltese society. Rebecca Cremona felt the need to address this by making a film about one of the most famous cases surrounding the issue in Malta. In this story a local fisherman had to question his own humanity when confronted with a group of immigrants lost at sea. Saving them and putting himself at risk would alter the course of his life and the way Maltese people look at the complex subject.
Her film “Simshar” is the most ambitious national production ever made in the country and it has become Malta’s first ever official submission to the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language category. Thanks to their determination, Cremona and her team have taken important steps towards creating opportunities for Maltese filmmaker sand reclaiming their cinema. They want to become a filmmaking nation rather than a just film location.
Charming director Rebecca Cremona met with us recently in Los Angeles to talk extensively about her impressive debut, which also helped her sign with Beverly Hills-based talent management company Management 360.
Carlos Aguilar: How did you become aware of this unbelievable story? What was it about it that made you decide this had to be turned into a film?
Rebecca Cremona: I was here in L.A. studying, but I would always check the Maltese newspapers online. In the summer of 2008 there were so many articles about this family and what had happened to them. It was very intense. That Christmas when I went home I was asking people about this event. Even though I had read about what happened it was not the same as if I had been in Malta when it occurred.
One of the persons I was asked told me, “You know I actually know the guy. I can take you to meet him if you want.” At the time I just thought it would be interesting to meet someone that had gone through something like that. I went to meet him and it turned out it was a very rough time for him. Six months after what happened his wife left him and took their child. He went from being a national hero to being questioned by authorities about what really happened. Some people thought he should have been charged with manslaughter.
When I met him he was spending his days in his house with the curtains drawn during the day and drinking Bailey’s - which is not really a manly for a fisherman[Laughs]. He really wanted to talk so I kept coming back to talk to him for about a week literally spending hours and hours talking everyday. We were even making Christmas pastries together. He really needed someone to talk to. It was very interesting. I thought it would make an amazing documentary because there was a lot of coverage on the news.
Then I told him, “It was amazing that you were out there in the sea for 7 days and nobody saw you even though there is a lot of traffic in the Mediterranean Sea.” He said, “What makes you think nobody saw us? “ I asked him, “What do you mean?” and he replied, “People saw us they just didn’t pick us up.” Because of all the news coverage everyone assumed that the only reason why they had not been picked was because they were not seen. That was the wrong the assumption. They were seen but they were ignored.
At first I was in disbelief, but then I started talking to fishermen and to cargo ship captains. The captains would tell me that the insurance companies would brief them on how to avoid immigrants. Then the fishermen would tell me how sometimes when they would see immigrants in the sea, but if they picked them up they had to face the police because the authorities wanted to make sure that they weren’t smuggling them in. Then I spoke to people who have their own sailing boats and who have seen immigrants in the water and hadn’t pick them. I asked them why didn’t they pick them up, and one of them told me that he was alone in the boat and was afraid that if he picked up these 12 strong African men they would take over the boat. There were all these gray areas to what had happened and I felt like there was a story there.
Also in 2008 but in September, there was a Turkish merchant vessel that rescued immigrants in the sea between Malta and the Italian island of Lampedusa. Among these people there was a 19-year-old pregnant girl and neither government allow them to disembark. I thought of all these things and I decided this was the story I wanted to tell, and now we are here after 6 years of my life spent on this project [Laughs].
Aguilar: Given Malta’s geographical location between Africa and Europe, illegal immigration must be a big issue for people there.
Rebecca Cremona: Yes, Malta is an island between the two continents. When I started doing my research the issue had started becoming more prominent, but most people didn’t know about immigrants being left at sea. At first I thought, “By the time I’m done with this film this probably won’t even be an issue anymore.” But now it’s even more of an issue. Just this past summer there were 3000 deaths at sea that the government knows about. Now there are people coming not only from Sub-Saharan Africa, but also from Syria and Egypt.
Last October marked the one-year anniversary of a horrible tragedy in which 70 Syrian immigrant children died because the boat they were in capsized. Because of the war in Syria and the problems in most of Africa there are more and more deaths every year in the Mediterranean. It’s terrible.
Aguilar: Tell me about the Maltese people’s reaction to the film. Has the film opened there yet?
Rebecca Cremona: The film opened in Malta a few months back and it was a big hit because in Malta there are no Maltese films. It’s interesting for people to see an actual Maltese film. I was a bit worried about the reception in Malta because it’s such a difficult issue to address due to the fact that the country is very small and very densely populated. It’s also a country that has experienced a past of colonization. We only became an independent republic in 1964. We are a young republic and we are bit defensive, that’s why the issue is extremely controversial.
What I thought was interesting is that the film puts the Maltese people in the immigrant’s place and people seem to respond to that. I think for Maltese people this is not a movie just about immigration, it’s about a lot of other things especially about the tension between tradition and progress. In Malta you feel this transition very strongly because it’s a very traditional society. When change comes we feel it, we notice it right away.
Aguilar: Since Malta is so close to Italy geographically one could assume that both countries are culturally similar, but your film shows otherwise. It seems like Malta is its own microcosm.
Rebecca Cremona: Malta is simultaneously very isolated and very connected to the rest of the world. It’s a dichotomy. Apart from politically being an independent republic, Maltese is a Semitic language like old Arabic with Italian, French and English influences and it’s written in Roman characters. It’s the only language in the world that has a Semitic base but is written in Roman characters. It’s only spoken in this country of 400, 000 people, which is smaller than California’s Catalina Island. It’s very particular. I always wanted my first feature film to be done in Malta because it’s such a unique blend of things.
Aguilar: Usually Malta is mostly used as a location for big studio productions. It must be a strange feeling to be the prime location for so many films and not have an industry of your own.
Rebecca Cremona: “By the Sea” with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt just wrapped in Malta recently, and before that there was “Clavius” with Joseph Fiennes and Tom Felt. When I was younger I started working in film in Spielberg’s “Munich” because it was filming in Malta. Then there was Alejandro Amenavar’s “Agora. ”
Before I was old enough to work on set there was “Troy,” “Gladiator,” “Cutthroat Island” and all these films. It was so interesting that on “Simshar” a lot of the department heads were Maltese people who had been working in costumes and makeup for years and years with the best people in Hollywood, but they had never been able to head their own department. It was really a national effort.
Aguilar: How did local people react to film while we were shooting? Were they supportive despite the subject the film deals with?
Rebecca Cremona: While shooting we were worried that because this film was about a controversial issue we wouldn’t be welcome in certain areas of the country. On the contrary, people everywhere were very excited. They would say things like, “Oh my God, our village is actually going to be our village for once on a film”. They would offer us coffee or tea. Some of them would ask, “Can I look through the balcony while you shoot? I promise I won’t look at the camera.” It was amazing. They thought, “For once we are doing our thing, our own film.”
Aguilar: Writing a script that needed to include several different perspectives and nuances about the issue must have been a rigorous endeavor.
Rebecca Cremona: It was a very difficult process. When I look back I ask myself, “Why on Earth did you do this to yourself on your first film?” I could have done a film about two people in a room or something else [Laughs]. It was very interesting because there were several things that worried me a lot. One was that I felt there needed to be enough information about Malta in the film. If you set a story in London people already have an understanding of London as a city, but most people don’t have any sort of idea about Malta.
There needed to be sufficient information there for people to find this place recognizable enough to relate to, but it also needed to be unique enough to be true to its particularities. Then there was the whole context regarding immigration. I didn’t want to portray it as something that is right or wrong. Instead, I wanted to give people enough information to understand it but also show the complexities of the issue. At the same time, “Simshar” is not a film about the statistics and numerical details. It was very important to include the context because I felt like audiences would find it incredibly hard to believe people would see immigrants in the water and not pick them up.
Aguilar: It seems like an issue like this is maximized given the scarce space and resources in such a small country.
Rebecca Cremona: Malta is one of the most densely populate countries in the world, and it is tiny. Even a small number of people arriving are noticed. This is a difficult issue with a lot of gray areas. On the one hand you have all these people dying while looking for refuge. They risk their lives to find it and they would rather put their kids on those boats, even knowing that maybe a week before people died on it, rather than stay in their homeland. They are escaping for very valid reasons. On the other hand you have to think about how all this people are going to survive in such a small country. 400, 000 people live in Malta and even they are struggling. These are tough times all over the world. Of course, everything is relative. Tough times in Africa are not the same as tough times in Spain. Regardless people are trying to survive.
Aguilar: In terms of financing and infrastructure, how difficult was it to get the film made since there isn’t much of a precedent in Malta?
Rebecca Cremona: It was simultaneously difficult and easy in the sense that the things that made it so difficult were the same things that encourage people to take a leap of faith. They thought, “This is a first. This is a great opportunity and it’s something special. It’s impossible for it to happen, so let’s do it!” [Laughs]. The things that could have made it impossible to make, made it all the more possible to make.
The film fund in Malta was essentially set up around “Simshar.” We were the first film to get support for production. We were the first in many aspects because there is an infrastructure in Malta for service, but there is no infrastructure for indigenous films. It was a mix of private investments, government support, the film fund, other organizations giving us in-kind support, and everyone’s sweat and blood. Everything had to be done from scratch
Aguilar: Since not many films are made in Malta is there a great number of working actors? Tell me about the casting process for “Simshar” and how you found people to play the diverse roles.
Rebecca Cremona: As a director one of the biggest challenges for me was the fact that the cast was coming from very diverse backgrounds. Some of them had a lot of experience, some had no experience at all, and some of them were playing themselves. For example, the refugees in the film were real refugees. They would often share their experiences with me. They would tell me, “You know miss, when this happened to us we did this and then this.” We would sit down and rework the story to fit those authentic elements in the film.
Then there was Clare Agius who plays Sharin. She is a television personality in Malta and she had worked briefly in theater before. Lotfi Abdelli, who plays Simon, is a star in Tunisia and he had to learned Maltese for the part. He is a very seasoned actor. The man who plays Simon’s father is an actual fisherman. We also had Laura Kpegli who plays Mkeda, the immigrant woman who is translating on the boat, and Sékouba Doucouré who playa Moussa, the Malian guy is on the fishing boat with the family. Both of them are French actors who have been in films that have premiere in the Critics' Week at Cannes. There was a great mix of talent.
Aguilar: The title, “Simshar,” of all the things you could have called this story why did you feel that was particularly fitting?
Rebecca Cremona: I think the people on the boat are literally vessel to express what this issue is about. When I found that Simon had been seen but not rescued I thought about how human value is not the same for everyone. If the people on the boats had known that the ones in the ocean were Maltese they would have rescued them. Since they thought they were African immigrants they didn’t pick them up.
I wanted to put those people who have “value” in the place of those who don’t, maybe this way people will question why we think some people are valuable and others are not. That’s why I decided to call it “Simshar.” This is also very telling of a habit we have in Malta to name boats and houses the amalgamation of the names of the couple that owns them. In this case it was Simon + Sharin = Simshar. It also has to do with the duality of thing and how Malta is a combination of things. It also sounds like a real world but it’s not [Laughs].
Aguilar: Were you concerned at all about some people finding the film heavily political?
Rebecca Cremona: I find it very interesting when political things become personal and when personal things become political. You can have a very small story or incident, which can have a lot of political repercussions. If something happens to me is not about the individual or the specific thing I’m doing at that moment, it’s about the big political forces and how they affect me. Most of the problems we face exist because most people think, “That’s a big political issue, that has nothing to do with me, “ and that’s why it’s so easy for some to dismiss immigration. But these issues do affect us, on many levels.
Aguilar: This is the first ever Maltese Oscar submission. It must be very special for you to be in this position.
Rebecca Cremona: It’s exciting and it’s a big responsibility. I try not to think too much about it otherwise I wouldn’t get things done [Laughs]. What’s so nice about this is that we set a precedent because it was so difficult to make this film. It was really a national effort. It’s great that a film that was made so collaboratively then goes on to represent our little nation for the first time.
Aguilar: Do you hope “Simshar” encourages more indigenous production in Malta?
Rebecca Cremona: I really hope so. In Europe there is a whole funding structure to help European films, but Malta is not eligible because you need to have a precedent in order to qualify. It’s a catch 22. Hopefully “Simshar” becomes a precedent that opens doors for us to join that funding network. Now there is more of a financing infrastructure in Malta, and having “Simshar” be a contender on the international level will be vey encouraging for other people trying to make films in our country...
Serving as a canvas for foreign talent to create enormous works of fiction is usually all the glory this unique country gets. Hollywood’s interest is undoubtedly beneficial as it creates jobs for the locals and provides experience to the Maltese youth interested in working in film. One of these young talents is director Rebecca Cremona. She began working on set when big budget productions came to Malta and required extra help. She was learning how to make films without much precedent in terms of a national industry in which Maltese filmmakers could tell their own stories. With a population of just over 400,000 people, Malta doesn’t’ have the infrastructure or funding required to developed a viable film industry, at least for now.
Cremona studied film production in Los Angeles, but she always knew her debut feature would have to be a Maltese story. Eventually she became aware of an important issue in her home country, illegal immigration. Being a bridge between North Africa and Western Europe, the island has become a prime location for desperate immigrants from Africa and the Middle East looking to escape the terrible conditions at home. With such limited space and resources, the advent of immigration has become a divisive subject for the tight-knit Maltese society. Rebecca Cremona felt the need to address this by making a film about one of the most famous cases surrounding the issue in Malta. In this story a local fisherman had to question his own humanity when confronted with a group of immigrants lost at sea. Saving them and putting himself at risk would alter the course of his life and the way Maltese people look at the complex subject.
Her film “Simshar” is the most ambitious national production ever made in the country and it has become Malta’s first ever official submission to the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language category. Thanks to their determination, Cremona and her team have taken important steps towards creating opportunities for Maltese filmmaker sand reclaiming their cinema. They want to become a filmmaking nation rather than a just film location.
Charming director Rebecca Cremona met with us recently in Los Angeles to talk extensively about her impressive debut, which also helped her sign with Beverly Hills-based talent management company Management 360.
Carlos Aguilar: How did you become aware of this unbelievable story? What was it about it that made you decide this had to be turned into a film?
Rebecca Cremona: I was here in L.A. studying, but I would always check the Maltese newspapers online. In the summer of 2008 there were so many articles about this family and what had happened to them. It was very intense. That Christmas when I went home I was asking people about this event. Even though I had read about what happened it was not the same as if I had been in Malta when it occurred.
One of the persons I was asked told me, “You know I actually know the guy. I can take you to meet him if you want.” At the time I just thought it would be interesting to meet someone that had gone through something like that. I went to meet him and it turned out it was a very rough time for him. Six months after what happened his wife left him and took their child. He went from being a national hero to being questioned by authorities about what really happened. Some people thought he should have been charged with manslaughter.
When I met him he was spending his days in his house with the curtains drawn during the day and drinking Bailey’s - which is not really a manly for a fisherman[Laughs]. He really wanted to talk so I kept coming back to talk to him for about a week literally spending hours and hours talking everyday. We were even making Christmas pastries together. He really needed someone to talk to. It was very interesting. I thought it would make an amazing documentary because there was a lot of coverage on the news.
Then I told him, “It was amazing that you were out there in the sea for 7 days and nobody saw you even though there is a lot of traffic in the Mediterranean Sea.” He said, “What makes you think nobody saw us? “ I asked him, “What do you mean?” and he replied, “People saw us they just didn’t pick us up.” Because of all the news coverage everyone assumed that the only reason why they had not been picked was because they were not seen. That was the wrong the assumption. They were seen but they were ignored.
At first I was in disbelief, but then I started talking to fishermen and to cargo ship captains. The captains would tell me that the insurance companies would brief them on how to avoid immigrants. Then the fishermen would tell me how sometimes when they would see immigrants in the sea, but if they picked them up they had to face the police because the authorities wanted to make sure that they weren’t smuggling them in. Then I spoke to people who have their own sailing boats and who have seen immigrants in the water and hadn’t pick them. I asked them why didn’t they pick them up, and one of them told me that he was alone in the boat and was afraid that if he picked up these 12 strong African men they would take over the boat. There were all these gray areas to what had happened and I felt like there was a story there.
Also in 2008 but in September, there was a Turkish merchant vessel that rescued immigrants in the sea between Malta and the Italian island of Lampedusa. Among these people there was a 19-year-old pregnant girl and neither government allow them to disembark. I thought of all these things and I decided this was the story I wanted to tell, and now we are here after 6 years of my life spent on this project [Laughs].
Aguilar: Given Malta’s geographical location between Africa and Europe, illegal immigration must be a big issue for people there.
Rebecca Cremona: Yes, Malta is an island between the two continents. When I started doing my research the issue had started becoming more prominent, but most people didn’t know about immigrants being left at sea. At first I thought, “By the time I’m done with this film this probably won’t even be an issue anymore.” But now it’s even more of an issue. Just this past summer there were 3000 deaths at sea that the government knows about. Now there are people coming not only from Sub-Saharan Africa, but also from Syria and Egypt.
Last October marked the one-year anniversary of a horrible tragedy in which 70 Syrian immigrant children died because the boat they were in capsized. Because of the war in Syria and the problems in most of Africa there are more and more deaths every year in the Mediterranean. It’s terrible.
Aguilar: Tell me about the Maltese people’s reaction to the film. Has the film opened there yet?
Rebecca Cremona: The film opened in Malta a few months back and it was a big hit because in Malta there are no Maltese films. It’s interesting for people to see an actual Maltese film. I was a bit worried about the reception in Malta because it’s such a difficult issue to address due to the fact that the country is very small and very densely populated. It’s also a country that has experienced a past of colonization. We only became an independent republic in 1964. We are a young republic and we are bit defensive, that’s why the issue is extremely controversial.
What I thought was interesting is that the film puts the Maltese people in the immigrant’s place and people seem to respond to that. I think for Maltese people this is not a movie just about immigration, it’s about a lot of other things especially about the tension between tradition and progress. In Malta you feel this transition very strongly because it’s a very traditional society. When change comes we feel it, we notice it right away.
Aguilar: Since Malta is so close to Italy geographically one could assume that both countries are culturally similar, but your film shows otherwise. It seems like Malta is its own microcosm.
Rebecca Cremona: Malta is simultaneously very isolated and very connected to the rest of the world. It’s a dichotomy. Apart from politically being an independent republic, Maltese is a Semitic language like old Arabic with Italian, French and English influences and it’s written in Roman characters. It’s the only language in the world that has a Semitic base but is written in Roman characters. It’s only spoken in this country of 400, 000 people, which is smaller than California’s Catalina Island. It’s very particular. I always wanted my first feature film to be done in Malta because it’s such a unique blend of things.
Aguilar: Usually Malta is mostly used as a location for big studio productions. It must be a strange feeling to be the prime location for so many films and not have an industry of your own.
Rebecca Cremona: “By the Sea” with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt just wrapped in Malta recently, and before that there was “Clavius” with Joseph Fiennes and Tom Felt. When I was younger I started working in film in Spielberg’s “Munich” because it was filming in Malta. Then there was Alejandro Amenavar’s “Agora. ”
Before I was old enough to work on set there was “Troy,” “Gladiator,” “Cutthroat Island” and all these films. It was so interesting that on “Simshar” a lot of the department heads were Maltese people who had been working in costumes and makeup for years and years with the best people in Hollywood, but they had never been able to head their own department. It was really a national effort.
Aguilar: How did local people react to film while we were shooting? Were they supportive despite the subject the film deals with?
Rebecca Cremona: While shooting we were worried that because this film was about a controversial issue we wouldn’t be welcome in certain areas of the country. On the contrary, people everywhere were very excited. They would say things like, “Oh my God, our village is actually going to be our village for once on a film”. They would offer us coffee or tea. Some of them would ask, “Can I look through the balcony while you shoot? I promise I won’t look at the camera.” It was amazing. They thought, “For once we are doing our thing, our own film.”
Aguilar: Writing a script that needed to include several different perspectives and nuances about the issue must have been a rigorous endeavor.
Rebecca Cremona: It was a very difficult process. When I look back I ask myself, “Why on Earth did you do this to yourself on your first film?” I could have done a film about two people in a room or something else [Laughs]. It was very interesting because there were several things that worried me a lot. One was that I felt there needed to be enough information about Malta in the film. If you set a story in London people already have an understanding of London as a city, but most people don’t have any sort of idea about Malta.
There needed to be sufficient information there for people to find this place recognizable enough to relate to, but it also needed to be unique enough to be true to its particularities. Then there was the whole context regarding immigration. I didn’t want to portray it as something that is right or wrong. Instead, I wanted to give people enough information to understand it but also show the complexities of the issue. At the same time, “Simshar” is not a film about the statistics and numerical details. It was very important to include the context because I felt like audiences would find it incredibly hard to believe people would see immigrants in the water and not pick them up.
Aguilar: It seems like an issue like this is maximized given the scarce space and resources in such a small country.
Rebecca Cremona: Malta is one of the most densely populate countries in the world, and it is tiny. Even a small number of people arriving are noticed. This is a difficult issue with a lot of gray areas. On the one hand you have all these people dying while looking for refuge. They risk their lives to find it and they would rather put their kids on those boats, even knowing that maybe a week before people died on it, rather than stay in their homeland. They are escaping for very valid reasons. On the other hand you have to think about how all this people are going to survive in such a small country. 400, 000 people live in Malta and even they are struggling. These are tough times all over the world. Of course, everything is relative. Tough times in Africa are not the same as tough times in Spain. Regardless people are trying to survive.
Aguilar: In terms of financing and infrastructure, how difficult was it to get the film made since there isn’t much of a precedent in Malta?
Rebecca Cremona: It was simultaneously difficult and easy in the sense that the things that made it so difficult were the same things that encourage people to take a leap of faith. They thought, “This is a first. This is a great opportunity and it’s something special. It’s impossible for it to happen, so let’s do it!” [Laughs]. The things that could have made it impossible to make, made it all the more possible to make.
The film fund in Malta was essentially set up around “Simshar.” We were the first film to get support for production. We were the first in many aspects because there is an infrastructure in Malta for service, but there is no infrastructure for indigenous films. It was a mix of private investments, government support, the film fund, other organizations giving us in-kind support, and everyone’s sweat and blood. Everything had to be done from scratch
Aguilar: Since not many films are made in Malta is there a great number of working actors? Tell me about the casting process for “Simshar” and how you found people to play the diverse roles.
Rebecca Cremona: As a director one of the biggest challenges for me was the fact that the cast was coming from very diverse backgrounds. Some of them had a lot of experience, some had no experience at all, and some of them were playing themselves. For example, the refugees in the film were real refugees. They would often share their experiences with me. They would tell me, “You know miss, when this happened to us we did this and then this.” We would sit down and rework the story to fit those authentic elements in the film.
Then there was Clare Agius who plays Sharin. She is a television personality in Malta and she had worked briefly in theater before. Lotfi Abdelli, who plays Simon, is a star in Tunisia and he had to learned Maltese for the part. He is a very seasoned actor. The man who plays Simon’s father is an actual fisherman. We also had Laura Kpegli who plays Mkeda, the immigrant woman who is translating on the boat, and Sékouba Doucouré who playa Moussa, the Malian guy is on the fishing boat with the family. Both of them are French actors who have been in films that have premiere in the Critics' Week at Cannes. There was a great mix of talent.
Aguilar: The title, “Simshar,” of all the things you could have called this story why did you feel that was particularly fitting?
Rebecca Cremona: I think the people on the boat are literally vessel to express what this issue is about. When I found that Simon had been seen but not rescued I thought about how human value is not the same for everyone. If the people on the boats had known that the ones in the ocean were Maltese they would have rescued them. Since they thought they were African immigrants they didn’t pick them up.
I wanted to put those people who have “value” in the place of those who don’t, maybe this way people will question why we think some people are valuable and others are not. That’s why I decided to call it “Simshar.” This is also very telling of a habit we have in Malta to name boats and houses the amalgamation of the names of the couple that owns them. In this case it was Simon + Sharin = Simshar. It also has to do with the duality of thing and how Malta is a combination of things. It also sounds like a real world but it’s not [Laughs].
Aguilar: Were you concerned at all about some people finding the film heavily political?
Rebecca Cremona: I find it very interesting when political things become personal and when personal things become political. You can have a very small story or incident, which can have a lot of political repercussions. If something happens to me is not about the individual or the specific thing I’m doing at that moment, it’s about the big political forces and how they affect me. Most of the problems we face exist because most people think, “That’s a big political issue, that has nothing to do with me, “ and that’s why it’s so easy for some to dismiss immigration. But these issues do affect us, on many levels.
Aguilar: This is the first ever Maltese Oscar submission. It must be very special for you to be in this position.
Rebecca Cremona: It’s exciting and it’s a big responsibility. I try not to think too much about it otherwise I wouldn’t get things done [Laughs]. What’s so nice about this is that we set a precedent because it was so difficult to make this film. It was really a national effort. It’s great that a film that was made so collaboratively then goes on to represent our little nation for the first time.
Aguilar: Do you hope “Simshar” encourages more indigenous production in Malta?
Rebecca Cremona: I really hope so. In Europe there is a whole funding structure to help European films, but Malta is not eligible because you need to have a precedent in order to qualify. It’s a catch 22. Hopefully “Simshar” becomes a precedent that opens doors for us to join that funding network. Now there is more of a financing infrastructure in Malta, and having “Simshar” be a contender on the international level will be vey encouraging for other people trying to make films in our country...
- 12/16/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Fear is an irrational survival mechanism that pushes us to seek safety when facing danger. But what happens when this innate response clashes with societal expectations? A man must defend his family regardless of the consequences or harm this may cause him, at least that's what we are taught. When an unexpected event shows his wife a side of him she couldn’t otherwise see, Thomas, a Swedish businessman on vacation with his family, has to confront his exposed weakness. Swedish auteur Ruben Östlund’s latest work, “Force Majeure,” is an intelligent dramedy about gender, instincts, and complex human relationships.
Insightful and genuinely hilarious, the film forces us to question our values and behavior in the face of adversity. Would you run and deal with shame? Or would you bravely confront danger as is expected? Society’s fear of our lack of heroism translates in us hiding our predetermination for being selfish creatures. “Force Majeure” has been critically acclaimed since it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and it was released theatrically by Magnolia Pictures in October. Director Ruben Östlund and star Johannes Kuhnke sat down with us recently in Los Angeles.
“Force Majeure” is Sweden’s official submission for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards and it has also been nominated for a Golden Globe Award in the Best Foreign Language category.
Carlos Aguilar: What was your approach to create this complex characters and getting to the core of their relationship? This singular event changes the way the characters see each other.
Ruben Östlund: The film’s topic has to do with my own relationship experience. “Do you really trust the person next to you?” My girlfriend and I argued when she asked, “I wonder how you would react in a situation like that?” Even if you know that we are only talking about this in a hypothetical way, you still get a bit hurt as a man. As a want you want women to at least think you are the kind of man that would have stayed.
That’s why the topic is interesting, because you can’t look at it from a very rational way. It’s about survival instinct. It has nothing to do with this person in your everyday life or in other situations. This is only something that happened in a glimpse of a second. Even though we are thinking of it as an event that says something more profound about this person. We are so afraid of being selfish, but everybody is like that when we want to do something that is just for ourselves.
We are ashamed of being selfish when it comes to relationships and family as well. Particularly when you are fighting to have a relationship based on equality and to share the burden of everyday life. As a man I think you also feel a bit accused of not taking responsibility the way that you should have done it. There is something about that feeling that makes the situation so intense once the avalanche happens.
Aguilar: Gender and survival are the center of your story. Tell me about writing the script and including all these complex nuances about human behavior when facing danger.
Ruben Östlund: It was quiet easy for me to write this film because the core of the film, the avalanche scene, is so strong and raises so many questions. It was obvious for me that this story highlights the expectations we have when it comes to gender, the role of men and woman in a relationship. I also used several sociological studies as inspiration for the film. One of them was about airplane hijackings, which said that the frequency of divorce is extremely high for couples that experience an event like this. In crisis situations you see another side of your partner that you didn’t know. It might make you decide you don’t want to live with that persona anymore.
We have so many prejudices and expectations about how we should react in such situations. A lot of these myths come from how we think the Titanic catastrophe took place. The idea of women and children leaving the ship first or the idea of the captain staying with his ship until it sinks to the bottom of the ocean. But when you look at the statistics, the ones that often survive are men of a certain age and the ones that usually die are women and kids. Men are more likely to act in a selfish way when facing a crisis. After a tragedy we are often eager to praise the heroes, but most survivors have done something they feel guilty about in order to survive.
Aguilar: “Force Majeure” is definitely a master class in tone and the perfect combination between comedy and poignant observations.
Ruben Östlund: The tone I was aiming for was a blend between strong humorous moments and very strong dramatic moments with some awkward silences and awkward situations as well. For example, during the avalanche scene there is a line that I'm very proud of. Just before the avalanche is triggered the young boy asks, "Excuse me, is there any Parmesan cheese?" Then "Bang" the avalanche is triggered. I'm always trying to find that kind of humor. [Laughs]
I try to highlight the pressure that is building up between the couple and within the family with longer static shots in the scenes when they are in the hotel. That's also perhaps what reminds people of Kubrick, like "The Shinning" or other films involving hotels as more than just a location. The fact that I didn’t use music to highlight any emotions and that I worked with these uncomfortable silences, adds to the tone.
Aguilar: Tell me about creating the impressive avalanche sequence.
Ruben Östlund: The avalanche was actually British Columbia while we were building the restaurant set in a studio in Gothenburg, Sweden where I work and live. The scene is a combination of green screen, a real avalanche, snow smoke we added on the set, and Gci. We had very high hopes with that scene. Our goal was to create the most spectacular avalanche seen in film history [Laughs]. You and the audience can decide if we have succeeded.
Aguilar: What I find the most interesting about the avalanche sequence is that he is accused of being a terrible family man because he focuses on getting his phone and his gloves rather than protecting his family. Does his reaction question his priorities?
Johannes Kuhnke : He is very committed to work and the phone is his connection to that. He is there to have some time off because he works so much for his family. It’s also about his income. He has to pay for all this expensive ski gear. Therefore, his job is very important to him.
Ruben Östlund: I think Eva is projecting things that she believes are wrong in their relationship onto Thomas actions during the avalanche. She is projecting them on the fact that he got his gloves and his phone. If you look at it closely, he is filming this avalanche. The phone is already in his hand. He ends up with it, and that’s what Eva is using to accuse him.
Aguilar: The scene in which Thomas finally breaks down is particularly powerful, how difficult was it for both of you to create that as a director and an actor?
Ruben Östlund: We had been talking about that scene since day 1. During the casting I said, “In one of the scenes you are going down”
Johannes Kuhnke : It had to be the worse “man cry” ever. We were trying to make this an over-the-top scene. It shouldn’t be funny, it should be a breakdown, but different from what we are used to. In film and TV when a man cries it tends to be very poetic, we wanted to get away from that. He is on the floor and he becomes a little baby.
Ruben Östlund: Everybody remembers the moment when you see your father cry for the first time. I think we all share the perspective of the kids when they watch that scene. Thinking of them is like, “Oh my God, they are being exposed to this emotional outburst,” that’s powerful.
Aguilar: Where you concern about avoiding the clichés and stereotypes associated with gender roles?
Ruben Östlund: It was quiet easy because they are so obvious. Man as a hero is the most reproduced image in cinema, and women are almost always present as sex symbols. That’s what the film is about. It’s about the stereotypes and the expectations. It’s about the expected roles that we are trying to play when we are in a relationship. I actually think we are playing the roles of a man and a woman because we think we have to.
Aguilar: The location itself is very peculiar. The characters are isolated from their regular lives but they are not alone in this ski resort. Added to this there are explosions at all hours of the day creating avalanches, it’s all very haunting.
Ruben Östlund: The devices that create the explosions and blow up the snow are called Gazex tubes. They are not often used in North America, but in Europe they used them a lot. Every time it snows at night, when you wake up in the morning you hear “Boom! Boom!” It feels like it’s a war zone.
Also, there is something about being in a mountain environment that makes us feel exposed. You have to adapt to nature, you are constantly feeling there is danger in this environment. You might get lonely when you are on this vast a mountain and you feel small. That’s what we were aiming for when were trying to find the right angles while shooting the scenes, to show how small we are in comparison to the environment.
Aguilar: There is a scene near the end that can be a bit ambiguous, but I interpret it as a way for Thomas an Eva to reassure their kids they are going to stay together. Other people have interpreted it differently. What was your intention?
Ruben Östlund: What I really like about that scene is the moment right after Thomas says, “We made, we made it!” In a conventional movie we would have cut after he says that, but instead we stay in the scene for a few more seconds. They have to get up, they wipe of the snow, and then she goes to get her skies.
This highlights this idea that they finally got each other and they live happily ever after, but no! Their everyday lives are going to continue after he says, “We made it!” They are going to go down the mountain, pack their luggage, and they are going to take the bus. That scene makes it so painful because it would have been a happy ending, “Can’t they just stop here?”
Aguilar: Are romantic comedies or the Hollywood ideal of love to blame for our disappointment with relationships?
Ruben Östlund: Most of it comes from your upbringing. It’s interesting because people that have seen a lot of romantic comedies actually get divorced more often that other people. They have high expectations of what life should be. When I look back at my first relationship, I didn’t have a clue of what was happening because I didn’t have experience. I didn’t have any references from cinema that I could actually use. It’s easy to get confused when you are trying to live your life with those expectations.
Aguilar: In the context of your film, or perhaps in general in the real world, what does being a “man” mean in this day and age?
Johannes Kuhnke : I think the chances of a man running in a situation like this are high, but I think Thomas was brave enough to show his weakness. That says a lot about being a man.
Ruben Östlund: I agree with Johannes. That’s what the ending is about. He suddenly can be truthful to other people about the person that he knows he is. That’s what shame is. You can’t show who you are to other people until you accept it yourself. There are so many things we don’t want to show others even though we know we are doing them. When his son asks him, “Do you smoke?” and he finally replies, “Yes, I do” It’s a small step in the right direction to becoming a “man.”
Johannes Kuhnke : I also think that we are teaching our children to be good people by being role models. If not, then they grow up and have kids and their reaction will be “Why didn’t anybody tell me that marriage was really, really, horrible?” [Laughs]. Most times we pretend to be happy in front of the kids so they have no clue how to deal with it. They need to know how things work.
Aguilar: The English title “Force Majeure” speaks of an act beyond human understanding or control. How do you think this concept relates to your film?
Ruben Östlund: I think it’s a good title because the avalanche becomes a metaphor, and the ski resort becomes a metaphor as well. It’s about the struggle between the force of nature and the civilized man. Nature is trying to reclaim the uncivilized side on men. Force Majeure means “Major Force” in French. It’s a power that we can’t control. Insurance companies use it as a legal term to describe an event out of your control. If you look at a marriage, it’s also a legal agreement. This agreement can also end because of an event out of our control.
Insightful and genuinely hilarious, the film forces us to question our values and behavior in the face of adversity. Would you run and deal with shame? Or would you bravely confront danger as is expected? Society’s fear of our lack of heroism translates in us hiding our predetermination for being selfish creatures. “Force Majeure” has been critically acclaimed since it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and it was released theatrically by Magnolia Pictures in October. Director Ruben Östlund and star Johannes Kuhnke sat down with us recently in Los Angeles.
“Force Majeure” is Sweden’s official submission for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards and it has also been nominated for a Golden Globe Award in the Best Foreign Language category.
Carlos Aguilar: What was your approach to create this complex characters and getting to the core of their relationship? This singular event changes the way the characters see each other.
Ruben Östlund: The film’s topic has to do with my own relationship experience. “Do you really trust the person next to you?” My girlfriend and I argued when she asked, “I wonder how you would react in a situation like that?” Even if you know that we are only talking about this in a hypothetical way, you still get a bit hurt as a man. As a want you want women to at least think you are the kind of man that would have stayed.
That’s why the topic is interesting, because you can’t look at it from a very rational way. It’s about survival instinct. It has nothing to do with this person in your everyday life or in other situations. This is only something that happened in a glimpse of a second. Even though we are thinking of it as an event that says something more profound about this person. We are so afraid of being selfish, but everybody is like that when we want to do something that is just for ourselves.
We are ashamed of being selfish when it comes to relationships and family as well. Particularly when you are fighting to have a relationship based on equality and to share the burden of everyday life. As a man I think you also feel a bit accused of not taking responsibility the way that you should have done it. There is something about that feeling that makes the situation so intense once the avalanche happens.
Aguilar: Gender and survival are the center of your story. Tell me about writing the script and including all these complex nuances about human behavior when facing danger.
Ruben Östlund: It was quiet easy for me to write this film because the core of the film, the avalanche scene, is so strong and raises so many questions. It was obvious for me that this story highlights the expectations we have when it comes to gender, the role of men and woman in a relationship. I also used several sociological studies as inspiration for the film. One of them was about airplane hijackings, which said that the frequency of divorce is extremely high for couples that experience an event like this. In crisis situations you see another side of your partner that you didn’t know. It might make you decide you don’t want to live with that persona anymore.
We have so many prejudices and expectations about how we should react in such situations. A lot of these myths come from how we think the Titanic catastrophe took place. The idea of women and children leaving the ship first or the idea of the captain staying with his ship until it sinks to the bottom of the ocean. But when you look at the statistics, the ones that often survive are men of a certain age and the ones that usually die are women and kids. Men are more likely to act in a selfish way when facing a crisis. After a tragedy we are often eager to praise the heroes, but most survivors have done something they feel guilty about in order to survive.
Aguilar: “Force Majeure” is definitely a master class in tone and the perfect combination between comedy and poignant observations.
Ruben Östlund: The tone I was aiming for was a blend between strong humorous moments and very strong dramatic moments with some awkward silences and awkward situations as well. For example, during the avalanche scene there is a line that I'm very proud of. Just before the avalanche is triggered the young boy asks, "Excuse me, is there any Parmesan cheese?" Then "Bang" the avalanche is triggered. I'm always trying to find that kind of humor. [Laughs]
I try to highlight the pressure that is building up between the couple and within the family with longer static shots in the scenes when they are in the hotel. That's also perhaps what reminds people of Kubrick, like "The Shinning" or other films involving hotels as more than just a location. The fact that I didn’t use music to highlight any emotions and that I worked with these uncomfortable silences, adds to the tone.
Aguilar: Tell me about creating the impressive avalanche sequence.
Ruben Östlund: The avalanche was actually British Columbia while we were building the restaurant set in a studio in Gothenburg, Sweden where I work and live. The scene is a combination of green screen, a real avalanche, snow smoke we added on the set, and Gci. We had very high hopes with that scene. Our goal was to create the most spectacular avalanche seen in film history [Laughs]. You and the audience can decide if we have succeeded.
Aguilar: What I find the most interesting about the avalanche sequence is that he is accused of being a terrible family man because he focuses on getting his phone and his gloves rather than protecting his family. Does his reaction question his priorities?
Johannes Kuhnke : He is very committed to work and the phone is his connection to that. He is there to have some time off because he works so much for his family. It’s also about his income. He has to pay for all this expensive ski gear. Therefore, his job is very important to him.
Ruben Östlund: I think Eva is projecting things that she believes are wrong in their relationship onto Thomas actions during the avalanche. She is projecting them on the fact that he got his gloves and his phone. If you look at it closely, he is filming this avalanche. The phone is already in his hand. He ends up with it, and that’s what Eva is using to accuse him.
Aguilar: The scene in which Thomas finally breaks down is particularly powerful, how difficult was it for both of you to create that as a director and an actor?
Ruben Östlund: We had been talking about that scene since day 1. During the casting I said, “In one of the scenes you are going down”
Johannes Kuhnke : It had to be the worse “man cry” ever. We were trying to make this an over-the-top scene. It shouldn’t be funny, it should be a breakdown, but different from what we are used to. In film and TV when a man cries it tends to be very poetic, we wanted to get away from that. He is on the floor and he becomes a little baby.
Ruben Östlund: Everybody remembers the moment when you see your father cry for the first time. I think we all share the perspective of the kids when they watch that scene. Thinking of them is like, “Oh my God, they are being exposed to this emotional outburst,” that’s powerful.
Aguilar: Where you concern about avoiding the clichés and stereotypes associated with gender roles?
Ruben Östlund: It was quiet easy because they are so obvious. Man as a hero is the most reproduced image in cinema, and women are almost always present as sex symbols. That’s what the film is about. It’s about the stereotypes and the expectations. It’s about the expected roles that we are trying to play when we are in a relationship. I actually think we are playing the roles of a man and a woman because we think we have to.
Aguilar: The location itself is very peculiar. The characters are isolated from their regular lives but they are not alone in this ski resort. Added to this there are explosions at all hours of the day creating avalanches, it’s all very haunting.
Ruben Östlund: The devices that create the explosions and blow up the snow are called Gazex tubes. They are not often used in North America, but in Europe they used them a lot. Every time it snows at night, when you wake up in the morning you hear “Boom! Boom!” It feels like it’s a war zone.
Also, there is something about being in a mountain environment that makes us feel exposed. You have to adapt to nature, you are constantly feeling there is danger in this environment. You might get lonely when you are on this vast a mountain and you feel small. That’s what we were aiming for when were trying to find the right angles while shooting the scenes, to show how small we are in comparison to the environment.
Aguilar: There is a scene near the end that can be a bit ambiguous, but I interpret it as a way for Thomas an Eva to reassure their kids they are going to stay together. Other people have interpreted it differently. What was your intention?
Ruben Östlund: What I really like about that scene is the moment right after Thomas says, “We made, we made it!” In a conventional movie we would have cut after he says that, but instead we stay in the scene for a few more seconds. They have to get up, they wipe of the snow, and then she goes to get her skies.
This highlights this idea that they finally got each other and they live happily ever after, but no! Their everyday lives are going to continue after he says, “We made it!” They are going to go down the mountain, pack their luggage, and they are going to take the bus. That scene makes it so painful because it would have been a happy ending, “Can’t they just stop here?”
Aguilar: Are romantic comedies or the Hollywood ideal of love to blame for our disappointment with relationships?
Ruben Östlund: Most of it comes from your upbringing. It’s interesting because people that have seen a lot of romantic comedies actually get divorced more often that other people. They have high expectations of what life should be. When I look back at my first relationship, I didn’t have a clue of what was happening because I didn’t have experience. I didn’t have any references from cinema that I could actually use. It’s easy to get confused when you are trying to live your life with those expectations.
Aguilar: In the context of your film, or perhaps in general in the real world, what does being a “man” mean in this day and age?
Johannes Kuhnke : I think the chances of a man running in a situation like this are high, but I think Thomas was brave enough to show his weakness. That says a lot about being a man.
Ruben Östlund: I agree with Johannes. That’s what the ending is about. He suddenly can be truthful to other people about the person that he knows he is. That’s what shame is. You can’t show who you are to other people until you accept it yourself. There are so many things we don’t want to show others even though we know we are doing them. When his son asks him, “Do you smoke?” and he finally replies, “Yes, I do” It’s a small step in the right direction to becoming a “man.”
Johannes Kuhnke : I also think that we are teaching our children to be good people by being role models. If not, then they grow up and have kids and their reaction will be “Why didn’t anybody tell me that marriage was really, really, horrible?” [Laughs]. Most times we pretend to be happy in front of the kids so they have no clue how to deal with it. They need to know how things work.
Aguilar: The English title “Force Majeure” speaks of an act beyond human understanding or control. How do you think this concept relates to your film?
Ruben Östlund: I think it’s a good title because the avalanche becomes a metaphor, and the ski resort becomes a metaphor as well. It’s about the struggle between the force of nature and the civilized man. Nature is trying to reclaim the uncivilized side on men. Force Majeure means “Major Force” in French. It’s a power that we can’t control. Insurance companies use it as a legal term to describe an event out of your control. If you look at a marriage, it’s also a legal agreement. This agreement can also end because of an event out of our control.
- 12/15/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Months after Tom Berninger's documentary “Mistaken for Strangers” opened the Tribeca Film Festival, I became aware of The National’s plan to premier the film in L.A. with a concert event at The Shrine. At this point, and despite having read several glowing reviews of the film, I must admit that my interest was sparked mostly by the fact that The National is one of my favorite bands. Their incredibly nuance sound and their quietly vibrant lyrics have an intoxicating quality loved by hordes of fans around the world. Yet, when I finally had the chance to see the film, I instantly realized that I was witnessing something real, perhaps too honest to be on screen. There was of course great behind the scenes footage of The National and striking images of lead singer Matt Berninger losing himself to the tunes. But above all that there was Tom Berninger’s profound quest to find purpose in his own life and reconnect with his rock-star brother.
For years they had in fact, unintentionally, mistaken each other for strangers because their lives had taken different roads. Tom wanted to make movies and Matt’s band had earned a great following and critical praise. But through the making of this documentary, which changed courses during editing, they both rediscovered each other beyond the glossy stage lights and the endless tour bus trips. Tom joined Matt on the High Violet tour for several months to work as a crewmember and to make a fun film about The National and his perception of them. Still, as things usually go, this plan did not turn out as clear-cut as either of them had expected. What was meant to be a humorous depiction of a heavily poetic indie rock band turned out to be a story about two brothers and how one of them struggles to overcome self-doubt in order to make an utterly enjoyable, but deeply touching film.
This week I met with Tom and Matt Berninger in Los Angeles to chat about this personal and uproarious movie that will forever be a testimony to their fraternal reconnection. There were some margaritas involved, there was maddening rain in L.A, and there were fan-boy questions on my part that were difficult to avoid. Yet, what was most present during this interview was truth. Their brotherly love and all the intricacies it involves was always there, in the flesh, real. One can only be thankful to have talked to a pair of very different, but unquestionably talented people. Here is what they had to say.
Carlos Aguilar: Tell me about this insane and touching journey you both went through while spending time on tour and making the film. What were you expecting to be the outcome in terms of the film and what it would represent for each one of you? The film certainly is much introspective than just simply a film about a band.
Tom: It’s been so long ago now. I was working in few movies as a Pa, but mostly I was working at a TV station in Cincinnati as a tech person. I always wanted to make movies. I went to film school. Matt knew that this is what I wanted to do. We would talk movies all the time when we saw each other over the holidays. I hardly ever got to see him, but when I did we would talk about movies. I was stuck in a rot and feeling like I could live in Cincinnati, Ohio for the rest of my life or I could do something fun and kind of experience what he experiences, such as traveling around the world with a band.
I also knew that the band was getting bigger and I wanted to see that. I wanted to taste a little bit of his fame [Laughs]. He brought up this idea that I should come on tour and bring a camera, film some fun goofy stuff, and see what could come out of it. I hoped it would be something that I could use to further my career as videographer or to get a job maybe in NYC with some multimedia firm thanks to the fact that I had this little thing I made with The National. I didn’t know what it was going to be, but that was the idea, to get on my feet using their name or their kind of cloud as this cool indie rock band to get my foot in the door into some sort of job opportunity in NYC. At least that was my angle.
Matt: Mostly it was to give him a job and to get him out of Cincinnati for a while, but also because I missed him. A third of it was a charity thing, another third was that I missed him, and the last third was me thinking “Hey, maybe he could make something cool.” What I had thought he would make was not what he made in the end, but it wasn’t a fake job. I actually did believe he could make something cool and that together we could have fun trying to make, and we did. You don’t actually see much of us goofing around and having fun in the final product because it wasn’t that interesting to the real story.
What became the film was Tom struggling with his other job of being a roadie and struggling with the making of this project. Focusing on Tom’s struggle made for a much better film and not what we had originally set out to do. Originally we though of making a goofy film, almost like a Monkey’s movie or “A Hard Day’s Night,” a tour film that’s all wacky and silly, but all that stuff is just stupid.
My wife Carin Besser, who edited the film alongside Tom, thought that stuff was kind of boring. She was looking at all the footage of when Tom started to go off the rails and said, “You don’t have a movie with that stuff.” But when she saw him drunk on the bus and the other humiliating things Tom went through, she was like, “That’s what I’m interested in!” I think we were already half way into that direction anyway and I thought, “Yes, let’s just throw everything out and let’s just focus the movie on what happened to you, not the band”
Tom: The National, the band members are super cool. I’ve known these guys long before they were in a band. I’ve known them throughout their careers and through many years of struggling. I knew whatever I would be filming wouldn’t be a real documentary about the band, because I don’t really listen to them. I’m a fan of them and I’m a fan of their success and I know they make music that’s very special to some people, but the music was never really important to me simply because it’s not my taste in music or my scene.
I didn’t really have any idea of what to make. I certainly didn’t want to dive into something like, “Matt, what’s your creative process?” I wouldn’t even know where to go from there, but what I was interested in was getting to know these guys behind the scenes and seeing them start get famous. I was very interesting in things like, “What’s it like to have all these people staring at you? And all these girls!” To me that’s awesome, and that’s what I think most people want to know, “What does it feel to be super famous to your group of fans?”
That was the most interesting part to me and that’s what I wanted to figure out. I wanted to try to make them feel embarrassed and get some real funny stuff. I kind of got that, there are some elements of that in the movie, but it became something else. Also I felt like I had to somewhat document myself like on the tour bus when I was getting drunk by myself.
Matt: [To Tom] You thought that would be funny
Tom: Yes, I thought that would be funny and I thought, “I’m the only one on this tour bus and I’m going to get wasted because that’s what people do on tour buses. The band is in their nice hotel sleeping and I’m the only one taking advantage of this tour bus”
Matt: [To Tom] And it was funny but not quiet in the way you thought it would be
Tom: No, it wasn’t funny at all
Matt: It was kind of depressing. That’s some of the most uncomfortable stuff to watch, which are the things that he thought would be kind of funny or cool.
Tom: When I filmed them I thought, “Let’s see how it plays” [Laughs]. “We’ll see if this is as fun as I think it is.”
Matt: [To Tom] There was a point where you were filming stuff and you were like “Oh, this is so awkward and terrible.” You would tell the other guys in the band to do something because you were trying to get “cool” stuff, but then you thought, “This is all going to be garbage.” Then early in the editing process you realized “Actually this stuff is funny! The stuff about me trying to make this other movie is actually what’s funny.” You recognized the comedy quickly. It didn’t take anybody else to show you what worked. Like when you made Bryce pick up the sunglasses, that’s funny.
Tom: There were a bunch of moments, that one included, where I thought” What kind of footage do I have of this band, The National. I don’t know if it’s any good or not but it’s weird and I kind of like it.” Early on I had shot my brother casually looking at the camera and though “He looks good there, he looks cool.” I looked at the footage and it was great. I thought” Wow, if I could get a moment like with every single guy in the band that’d be great. I don’t know where I’d used it but it’d be great”
Matt: [To Tom] Which one is the one of me?
Tom: It’s a shot I used in the “Terrible Love” music video. In that video there is a shot of Matt, which is very casual and it’s like four seconds long, but he looks like a rock star. I wanted to get everyone of them in a cool rock star pose. I wanted something like a moving portrait or a video portrait.
Aguilar: Tom, at what point did you look at all this footage and decided what you were going to do with it to make a meaningful film out of this experience?
Tom: We saw the footage where I shot these guys in “cool” poses and we realized they were awful and awkward [Laughs]. That’s when I started to think that I had failed to get what I wanted, I failed at making a cool movie. Instead I felt like I kind of took advantage of them, but I was also getting them in a real moment. They are trying to be rock stars but then you see how awkward they are. There is something underneath. They are these normal guys who happen to have an awesome job. That’s when we started trying to figure out how to piece together all this footage of me trying to make an awesome movie and failing at that, but at the same time capturing this journey to try to find myself and finish my project.
Aguilar: Making such a personal film, were there moments where it became to intimate to show? How difficult was it to look at this footage, which sometimes shows both of you in an unflattering way?
Matt: There were many times during the process when he was shooting stuff on tour and asking questions to which I would say, “Don’t use any of this.” At some point Bryan literally says, “Don’t use any of this interview,” and Tom laughs. It didn’t make into the film because it was too personal. There were also a lot of times that I just didn’t want him filming, but when the story started to come together and I saw some of he unflattering stuff, I was fine with it because I knew he was already putting so much unflattering stuff about himself in the film.
By the time they were actually creating something that was coming together, they had changed the focus and turned it inward towards Tom’s relationship with me. At that point all of these unflattering elements became relevant and interesting in the context of this new movie. I was Ok with it. The other guys in the band, well, I didn’t tell them what was happening for a long time. I kept them in the dark about it. They were pretty much in the dark until they saw part of a rough cut at a screening that went badly. It’s the screening you see in the film where the screen goes blank. That was the first time anybody in the band had seen anything.
All they saw was about 10 minutes of awkward, weird, uncomfortable stuff and then the screen went blank, but they were laughing at that. They got it. They thought that stuff was cool. It was actually kind of a lucky thing that when Tom tried to screen it the band didn’t get to see very much because what they saw was the funny stuff. At that point they backed away and let Tom go ahead and finish it. If they had seen the whole thing I bet they would have jumped in and gotten more involved. Tom would have lost some control.
The finishing of it was like a cat-and-mouse game between what the movie really was and what the band thought it was. Even with me, Corine and Tom were not totally letting me understand that it was going to be about until they started getting close to something good.
Tom: It took a long time to make it what it is. In the first 6 months of working on it, when Matt didn’t know anything and it was only me trying to figure out what I had shot, that was when I noticed the awkwardness of some of the things that I did with the guys. Then I saw myself crying and getting drunk on the bus and I thought,“ I don’t know how this goes into a movie. “ I was still thinking it was going to be about the band.
For a long time that was the driving force, it had to be about the band with an undercurrent about the brother making this documentary and screwing up. Mainly it was all about he band, but slowly we showed it to a few friends and, with me being the room, Matt would ask them, “ How much of Tom do you want to see? Are you annoyed at Tom? Are you guys tired of seeing Tom or do you like seeing Tom?” And they would all say “We like seeing Tom.”
I thought, “Alright, they like seeing me. “ We thought that stuff with me was funny and somewhat dramatic and sad, and I didn’t know how to react to that. I also thought it was sad, but it was also my life. Still, I’m all about making a good movie and if people like that and people think that makes it a better movie then I’m all for it. I thought, “Ok, let’s take more of The National out and put more of the shit that I was going through in the movie.” It just became a better movie that way.
Aguilar: What have you learned about each other after looking at one another through this filter, the film? Tom as the one behind the camera and Matt as sort of the original subject for the documentary.
Matt: It’s been funny. Through the process of him being of tour making the film I learned a certain type of thing: I learned that I missed my brother and I learned that I liked having him around. Putting it in perspective, I also realized that when he was around while we where on tour I was much happier, even if you don’t see much of that in the film [Laughs]. I don’t like to tour. I like doing shows, but I don’t like being away from home. I don’t like to travel that much, and I get really lost. I get pretty weird in the head after 5 or 6 weeks traveling around on a bus, doing shows, and the anxiety of it all. Having Tom around kept me grounded and more connected to the things that are important. Having him around put this whole rock and roll thing in perspective, which is good for me.
Tom: [To Matt] Also, when the shows are not going on the two pairs of brothers in the band pair up and go out to do some shopping, or whatever brotherly things they do. But you don’t really have anybody to go with. It was fun for me because I had never been to Europe and I was able to go out with him, eat dinner, and see all these places I had never been to. It was also a great chance for him to get out of the hotel room occasionally.
Matt: The band is a crucible of creative tensions, and it was nice to be able to go out to dinner with Tom, just Tom and I, and let out all my frustrations with the tour or the shows, or even share my enthusiasm and happiness. It’s hard to do it sometimes with the band because we are in this thing together and it’s loaded with all kinds of other tensions. Therefore, having Tom around was a huge tension release, a relief valve that released a lot of the pressure.
Tom: I was so unaware of the band’s small talk, subtle innuendos, and the subtle ways a band rips each other apart.
Matt: [To Tom] They went totally over your head. You didn’t even know.
Tom : I didn’t know that things weren’t going well certain days. I’m kind of everybody’s friend because everyone knows that I have no idea what’s going on.
Matt: If there were some sort of tension going on in the bad for whatever reason Tom wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on. So he and I would go out to dinner and I’d be bitching about the show and he would say, “I though the show was awesome!” It would put it in perspective for me. “Why am I complaining?” [To Tom] You did that for everyone else, having you around just relieved all kinds of tension within the band, mostly because you were making everybody laugh.
Tom: I’m at 0 for 80 as far as The National shows I’ve seen and how always I get their reaction to the show wrong. Sometimes I’d say, “That was a good show,” and they’ll say, “No, that was a terrible show.” Then another time I’d say, “That was really bad show,” and they’ll be like “We all thought that was a great show.” My read of every show was different from the band’s reaction. I couldn’t understand it. When I felt the energy apparently nobody else did.
Matt: He always got it wrong. Or maybe you always got it right [Laughs]. Another thing that happened in the process of this whole thing is that I saw Tom’s talents that I didn’t actually know of. There are a lot of things that I would not do the way Tom does. He is a very different person from me. I saw how different he is from me….
Tom: Like how I drink my Margarita? [Laughs]
Matt: I saw how different he is from me, and how brilliant he is in some things. I think through the process of him being on tour and him living with us, I think Tom and I are starting to understand what we are good at and what the other person is good at. We are starting to respect each other in a different way. Our old dynamic of older successful brother and younger less successful brother, that cliché, has changed.
I was always trying to help him and give him guidance, and all that. At a certain point I was giving him guidance that was meant for me not for him. I started recognizing that he is on a different road than I am. I started to understand his road and I think he understood where I’m coming from. What has happened is that a lot of the animosity between us has dissolved. He still drives me crazy and I drive him crazy, but underneath all that he knows that what I do is good even if it’s not his type of thing. I know that the things that he does are good, we just do different types of things
Aguilar: Was making the film a cathartic experience? Do you guys now see each other more like different creative people, besides being brothers, thanks to this shared experience?
Tom : Making this film has helped me discover things that I’m good at. As far as how the movie works, how it plays, how funny it is, I have my own take on that. Making it I did find some fun, comfort, and success. It was fun to see people liked the movie. That’s what I always wanted to do. With me being in my own movie so much, I didn’t know that it was going to be such a fun thing for people to watch me.
Matt: We know the movie is funny, and we knew what was funny about it when we were editing it, but there is a lot of therapy in there too. The movie is a lot about us working out problems. The editing of the movie was an extension of us trying to, not only look for what’s interesting about each other, but also finding what’s interesting about our relationship. Ultimately we wanted people to not be bored, and we wanted to tell a story that was meaningful and we kept coming back to our relationship and the complicated thorns that are in a real relationship between brothers or between anybody. This just happens to be about two brothers that are far apart in age.
Even if we had to show unflattering sides of each other that was what we were most interested in. My wife was definitely interested in the weird details of any relationship. Two human beings trying to understand each other, who love each other, but who also hate each other. How does that play out? All the most important things that happen in a human being’s life are usually the things that have to do with communicating with another human being. Everything revolves around that.
A person’s success - in terms of critical success or financial success - is pretty insignificant to a person’s happiness, but their relationships with themselves and people that are close to them that’s all that matters. The movie became about Tom’s search to understand his relationship with himself and with me. The process of making the film made me think about Tom differently than just being my little brother. He is another man in the world who has struggles. He is going to have to solve his struggles in a different way than I did mine.
Tom: My struggle is that this is not spicy tequila, it’s regular tequila [Laughs]
Aguilar: What was your parents' reaction to the film? It's clearly a film that revolves around your family more than the band.
Tom: Our parents love it. My mom loved being in a movie.
Matt: When they both saw the whole thing for the first time we were at our house in Cincinnati, my dad had to get up and leave the room. I think both of them when into the next room and cried for about 20 minutes. My dad didn’t want to openly cry in front of us. He couldn’t talk on the way out.
Tom: We didn’t realize that we had such a family oriented movie on our hand until it was almost finished and our sister Rachel was a little bit bummed out because she was not in it.
Matt: She lives in Seattle and we had footage of her, and when the movie ended being so much about our family and my sister was not in it, she was bummed. There is a really funny piece of bonus material out there, which is an interview with her.
Tom: Our sister loves the movie, but she was little upset. She was like “I had some things to say too.” [Laughs]
Aguilar: The title "Mistaken for Strangers" is of course from one The National’s songs, but how did you guys come to an agreement to name the film after this particular phrase? It's definitely very fitting.
Matt: We didn’t know what to call this thing and it had many, many names.
Tom: The firs title was a lyric from one of The National’s song, “Summer lovin’ torture party,” which I wasn’t so sure about.
Matt: I still like that title
Tom: I thought it was a mouthful. Our second idea was going to play the themes of me being a heavy metal fan trying to make a movie about an indie rock band, and it was going to be taken from the Acdc album “For Those About to Rock.” Our title was going to be “For Those About to Weep,” because The National is such a sadsack kind of band [Laughs]. I really liked that title.
Matt: Then, when the film was about to open the Tribeca Film Festival, the head of Tribeca said, “I love your movie, but the title ‘For Those About to Weep,’ I don’t know what that meas.” She didn’t know about the Acdc album. For Tom and I it made sense, that’s a household phrase “For Those About to Rock.” She didn’t understand our title, and she didn’t really know much about The National. It wasn’t funny to her because she wasn’t aware that we are known as a sad, depressing band.
That’s when we thought, “We don’t want only The National fans to like this movie.” So we were stuck, and this is the night before Tribeca’s press release was going to go out. They were asking, “What are you guys calling your movie? Because we are telling the world that we are opening our festival with it.” We were walking in circles thinking of what to call it. I said, “Let’s just call it ‘Lemonworld,’ that’s another thing that means nothing but is kind of mysterious”
Tom: It was going to be called “Lemonworld,” that night I was fine with that. The next morning - and this is the only time I went over anybody’s head - I called the band’s manager who was in talks with Tribeca. I said, “Wait, I don’t want my life to be called ‘Lemonworld,’ my life is not a lemmondworld!”
Matt: I had sent out an email to a bunch of trusted friends asking for suggestions since many of them had seen pieces of the film. Then my wife’s old work colleague in New York, his name is Willing Davidson who works as an editor at The New Yorker, wrote back saying, “I’ve always wonder why you guys aren’t calling this film ‘Mistaken for Strangers,’ it just seems like a perfect title for your movie.”
Tom: I thought, “That’s it ‘Mistaken for Strangers,’ done.”
Matt: That was a leap of faith. We didn’t know if it would work, but I think it’s a good title. Willing Davidson than you!
Tom: You know how we were talking about The National being known as a sadsack, depressing band. I wanted to say that, though I’m not a big fan of their music, but the one thing I know is that they are not a sadsack, depressing band. They just write songs that may be deeper than those from a lot of other bands. The one think I knew going on tour was that Matt wanted a fun movie that played with their image, taking the piss out them, making fun of the fact that people think they are sad and depressing, and showing that they are not.
I didn’t want super serious The National film showing Matt writing lyrics in a serious pose because I know that’s not how he writes lyrics, he does it in the back getting drunk. [Laughs]. The last thing I wanted was a black and white, deep and serious indie rock movie. No, I thought, “Let’s make a fun movie.” Yes they write god songs and they play music that’s very meaningful to a lot of people, but they are also good guys. They are just normal dudes that are not always trying to be the super serious artist.
Aguilar: [To Tom] I know you are not a big fan of their music, but do you a have a favorite song by The National?
Tom: I think “Friend of Mine” was always kind of my favorite song from them. There are other good ones out there but I’ve always liked “Friend of mine.”
Aguilar: [To Matt] What’s your favorite film by Tom?
Matt: Definitely “Mistaken for Strangers,” his other films are less good. [To Tom] I’m not saying they are bad…
Tom: [To Matt] I’m not saying they are good either, but I think they are interesting [Laughs]. The one I’m very proud is “Insane Animal Trapper.” I know they are very weird.
Matt: He’s also got a movie about Johnny Appleseed. In “Mistaken for Strangers” there is clip from Tom’s movie “Wages of Sin,” in that scene there is a guy who is tied to a rock and is hanging there dead. That guy is the star of Tom’s Johnny Appleseed film.
Tom: I think that all the movies I’ve made have always been weird ideas, granted I haven’t made many and most are shorts. Still, I’m proud of the fact that I’ve never made a movie just to hop of a trend. I’ve never made a rip-off of “The Matrix” and I haven’t tried to make another “Usual Suspects,” like a lot of film students do. I want to make a Johnny Appleseed movie!
Aguilar: [To Tom] Would you ever direct one The National's music videos?
Tom: Before I did this movie I directed the “Terrible Love” music video, the alternate version, and it’s all made up of tour footage.
Aguilar: How about a music video with more a narrative story?
Matt: There have been talks about Tom making a feature film based on a whole album by The National, sort of like Pink Floyd’s “The Wall,” but that’s not going to happen because the band and I would have to have most of the creative control.
Tom: And I don’t want to have my brother breathing down my neck. [Laughs]
Aguilar: [To Tom] After this very particular filmmaking experience, what are you working on next? Another documentary?
Tom: I’m taking it slow. I’ve got a few things going with some friends that might involve some Internet content. I’m taking acting lessons while being a dishwasher. I’m trying to do my best to work in this industry. I’m definitely going more on the acting route, but I still would like to direct my own stuff. I’m not a documentarian, and I feel like that’s how people see me right now - if they see me as anything that's probably what they see me as. People might think, “What other band is Tom going to follow now?” But I think that boat has sailed. I’m trying to figure out what's next.
Aguilar: [To Matt] I know you just finished touring with The National last week, are you taking a break now or working on a followup to Trouble Will Find Me?
Matt: I think we are all recalibrating. We hadn’t been actively on tour, but the last show of the tour just happened last week in London. I think everybody is trying to fix the rest of their lives, but everybody is really happy. We are getting along better than we ever have. I think this is because it’s gone well for us and because almost everybody has a family now. Family puts everything into perspective so that we realize how great we have it and how lucky we are to be where we are. Any petty resentments, anxieties, problems or tensions within the band pale in comparison to the big picture. This is the first time in along time we’ve been in that spot. We are going to start working on a new record, we sort of already are.
Aguilar: Certainly, with both with film and music, after you make something successful people have high expectations for the followup .
Mat: It’s a great problem to have. We’ve done stuff that people really think is good and now we have to do more! [Laughs]. People anticipating and having high expectations is a great problem to have, and we do have that problem. The National is not going to make another record like the ones we’ve made before, so it might take longer. [To Tom] You don’t want to make another documentary, but you also want to do something different.
Tom: It will definitely be something different, and not necessarily what people expect.
"Mistaken for Strangers" will have a one-week run at the Laemmle's Music Hall starting today December 5th. Tom and Matt Berninger will be there for a Q&A following the film tonight Friday Dec. 5 and tomorrow Saturday Dec 6 after the after the 7:10 and 9:30 shows.
For years they had in fact, unintentionally, mistaken each other for strangers because their lives had taken different roads. Tom wanted to make movies and Matt’s band had earned a great following and critical praise. But through the making of this documentary, which changed courses during editing, they both rediscovered each other beyond the glossy stage lights and the endless tour bus trips. Tom joined Matt on the High Violet tour for several months to work as a crewmember and to make a fun film about The National and his perception of them. Still, as things usually go, this plan did not turn out as clear-cut as either of them had expected. What was meant to be a humorous depiction of a heavily poetic indie rock band turned out to be a story about two brothers and how one of them struggles to overcome self-doubt in order to make an utterly enjoyable, but deeply touching film.
This week I met with Tom and Matt Berninger in Los Angeles to chat about this personal and uproarious movie that will forever be a testimony to their fraternal reconnection. There were some margaritas involved, there was maddening rain in L.A, and there were fan-boy questions on my part that were difficult to avoid. Yet, what was most present during this interview was truth. Their brotherly love and all the intricacies it involves was always there, in the flesh, real. One can only be thankful to have talked to a pair of very different, but unquestionably talented people. Here is what they had to say.
Carlos Aguilar: Tell me about this insane and touching journey you both went through while spending time on tour and making the film. What were you expecting to be the outcome in terms of the film and what it would represent for each one of you? The film certainly is much introspective than just simply a film about a band.
Tom: It’s been so long ago now. I was working in few movies as a Pa, but mostly I was working at a TV station in Cincinnati as a tech person. I always wanted to make movies. I went to film school. Matt knew that this is what I wanted to do. We would talk movies all the time when we saw each other over the holidays. I hardly ever got to see him, but when I did we would talk about movies. I was stuck in a rot and feeling like I could live in Cincinnati, Ohio for the rest of my life or I could do something fun and kind of experience what he experiences, such as traveling around the world with a band.
I also knew that the band was getting bigger and I wanted to see that. I wanted to taste a little bit of his fame [Laughs]. He brought up this idea that I should come on tour and bring a camera, film some fun goofy stuff, and see what could come out of it. I hoped it would be something that I could use to further my career as videographer or to get a job maybe in NYC with some multimedia firm thanks to the fact that I had this little thing I made with The National. I didn’t know what it was going to be, but that was the idea, to get on my feet using their name or their kind of cloud as this cool indie rock band to get my foot in the door into some sort of job opportunity in NYC. At least that was my angle.
Matt: Mostly it was to give him a job and to get him out of Cincinnati for a while, but also because I missed him. A third of it was a charity thing, another third was that I missed him, and the last third was me thinking “Hey, maybe he could make something cool.” What I had thought he would make was not what he made in the end, but it wasn’t a fake job. I actually did believe he could make something cool and that together we could have fun trying to make, and we did. You don’t actually see much of us goofing around and having fun in the final product because it wasn’t that interesting to the real story.
What became the film was Tom struggling with his other job of being a roadie and struggling with the making of this project. Focusing on Tom’s struggle made for a much better film and not what we had originally set out to do. Originally we though of making a goofy film, almost like a Monkey’s movie or “A Hard Day’s Night,” a tour film that’s all wacky and silly, but all that stuff is just stupid.
My wife Carin Besser, who edited the film alongside Tom, thought that stuff was kind of boring. She was looking at all the footage of when Tom started to go off the rails and said, “You don’t have a movie with that stuff.” But when she saw him drunk on the bus and the other humiliating things Tom went through, she was like, “That’s what I’m interested in!” I think we were already half way into that direction anyway and I thought, “Yes, let’s just throw everything out and let’s just focus the movie on what happened to you, not the band”
Tom: The National, the band members are super cool. I’ve known these guys long before they were in a band. I’ve known them throughout their careers and through many years of struggling. I knew whatever I would be filming wouldn’t be a real documentary about the band, because I don’t really listen to them. I’m a fan of them and I’m a fan of their success and I know they make music that’s very special to some people, but the music was never really important to me simply because it’s not my taste in music or my scene.
I didn’t really have any idea of what to make. I certainly didn’t want to dive into something like, “Matt, what’s your creative process?” I wouldn’t even know where to go from there, but what I was interested in was getting to know these guys behind the scenes and seeing them start get famous. I was very interesting in things like, “What’s it like to have all these people staring at you? And all these girls!” To me that’s awesome, and that’s what I think most people want to know, “What does it feel to be super famous to your group of fans?”
That was the most interesting part to me and that’s what I wanted to figure out. I wanted to try to make them feel embarrassed and get some real funny stuff. I kind of got that, there are some elements of that in the movie, but it became something else. Also I felt like I had to somewhat document myself like on the tour bus when I was getting drunk by myself.
Matt: [To Tom] You thought that would be funny
Tom: Yes, I thought that would be funny and I thought, “I’m the only one on this tour bus and I’m going to get wasted because that’s what people do on tour buses. The band is in their nice hotel sleeping and I’m the only one taking advantage of this tour bus”
Matt: [To Tom] And it was funny but not quiet in the way you thought it would be
Tom: No, it wasn’t funny at all
Matt: It was kind of depressing. That’s some of the most uncomfortable stuff to watch, which are the things that he thought would be kind of funny or cool.
Tom: When I filmed them I thought, “Let’s see how it plays” [Laughs]. “We’ll see if this is as fun as I think it is.”
Matt: [To Tom] There was a point where you were filming stuff and you were like “Oh, this is so awkward and terrible.” You would tell the other guys in the band to do something because you were trying to get “cool” stuff, but then you thought, “This is all going to be garbage.” Then early in the editing process you realized “Actually this stuff is funny! The stuff about me trying to make this other movie is actually what’s funny.” You recognized the comedy quickly. It didn’t take anybody else to show you what worked. Like when you made Bryce pick up the sunglasses, that’s funny.
Tom: There were a bunch of moments, that one included, where I thought” What kind of footage do I have of this band, The National. I don’t know if it’s any good or not but it’s weird and I kind of like it.” Early on I had shot my brother casually looking at the camera and though “He looks good there, he looks cool.” I looked at the footage and it was great. I thought” Wow, if I could get a moment like with every single guy in the band that’d be great. I don’t know where I’d used it but it’d be great”
Matt: [To Tom] Which one is the one of me?
Tom: It’s a shot I used in the “Terrible Love” music video. In that video there is a shot of Matt, which is very casual and it’s like four seconds long, but he looks like a rock star. I wanted to get everyone of them in a cool rock star pose. I wanted something like a moving portrait or a video portrait.
Aguilar: Tom, at what point did you look at all this footage and decided what you were going to do with it to make a meaningful film out of this experience?
Tom: We saw the footage where I shot these guys in “cool” poses and we realized they were awful and awkward [Laughs]. That’s when I started to think that I had failed to get what I wanted, I failed at making a cool movie. Instead I felt like I kind of took advantage of them, but I was also getting them in a real moment. They are trying to be rock stars but then you see how awkward they are. There is something underneath. They are these normal guys who happen to have an awesome job. That’s when we started trying to figure out how to piece together all this footage of me trying to make an awesome movie and failing at that, but at the same time capturing this journey to try to find myself and finish my project.
Aguilar: Making such a personal film, were there moments where it became to intimate to show? How difficult was it to look at this footage, which sometimes shows both of you in an unflattering way?
Matt: There were many times during the process when he was shooting stuff on tour and asking questions to which I would say, “Don’t use any of this.” At some point Bryan literally says, “Don’t use any of this interview,” and Tom laughs. It didn’t make into the film because it was too personal. There were also a lot of times that I just didn’t want him filming, but when the story started to come together and I saw some of he unflattering stuff, I was fine with it because I knew he was already putting so much unflattering stuff about himself in the film.
By the time they were actually creating something that was coming together, they had changed the focus and turned it inward towards Tom’s relationship with me. At that point all of these unflattering elements became relevant and interesting in the context of this new movie. I was Ok with it. The other guys in the band, well, I didn’t tell them what was happening for a long time. I kept them in the dark about it. They were pretty much in the dark until they saw part of a rough cut at a screening that went badly. It’s the screening you see in the film where the screen goes blank. That was the first time anybody in the band had seen anything.
All they saw was about 10 minutes of awkward, weird, uncomfortable stuff and then the screen went blank, but they were laughing at that. They got it. They thought that stuff was cool. It was actually kind of a lucky thing that when Tom tried to screen it the band didn’t get to see very much because what they saw was the funny stuff. At that point they backed away and let Tom go ahead and finish it. If they had seen the whole thing I bet they would have jumped in and gotten more involved. Tom would have lost some control.
The finishing of it was like a cat-and-mouse game between what the movie really was and what the band thought it was. Even with me, Corine and Tom were not totally letting me understand that it was going to be about until they started getting close to something good.
Tom: It took a long time to make it what it is. In the first 6 months of working on it, when Matt didn’t know anything and it was only me trying to figure out what I had shot, that was when I noticed the awkwardness of some of the things that I did with the guys. Then I saw myself crying and getting drunk on the bus and I thought,“ I don’t know how this goes into a movie. “ I was still thinking it was going to be about the band.
For a long time that was the driving force, it had to be about the band with an undercurrent about the brother making this documentary and screwing up. Mainly it was all about he band, but slowly we showed it to a few friends and, with me being the room, Matt would ask them, “ How much of Tom do you want to see? Are you annoyed at Tom? Are you guys tired of seeing Tom or do you like seeing Tom?” And they would all say “We like seeing Tom.”
I thought, “Alright, they like seeing me. “ We thought that stuff with me was funny and somewhat dramatic and sad, and I didn’t know how to react to that. I also thought it was sad, but it was also my life. Still, I’m all about making a good movie and if people like that and people think that makes it a better movie then I’m all for it. I thought, “Ok, let’s take more of The National out and put more of the shit that I was going through in the movie.” It just became a better movie that way.
Aguilar: What have you learned about each other after looking at one another through this filter, the film? Tom as the one behind the camera and Matt as sort of the original subject for the documentary.
Matt: It’s been funny. Through the process of him being of tour making the film I learned a certain type of thing: I learned that I missed my brother and I learned that I liked having him around. Putting it in perspective, I also realized that when he was around while we where on tour I was much happier, even if you don’t see much of that in the film [Laughs]. I don’t like to tour. I like doing shows, but I don’t like being away from home. I don’t like to travel that much, and I get really lost. I get pretty weird in the head after 5 or 6 weeks traveling around on a bus, doing shows, and the anxiety of it all. Having Tom around kept me grounded and more connected to the things that are important. Having him around put this whole rock and roll thing in perspective, which is good for me.
Tom: [To Matt] Also, when the shows are not going on the two pairs of brothers in the band pair up and go out to do some shopping, or whatever brotherly things they do. But you don’t really have anybody to go with. It was fun for me because I had never been to Europe and I was able to go out with him, eat dinner, and see all these places I had never been to. It was also a great chance for him to get out of the hotel room occasionally.
Matt: The band is a crucible of creative tensions, and it was nice to be able to go out to dinner with Tom, just Tom and I, and let out all my frustrations with the tour or the shows, or even share my enthusiasm and happiness. It’s hard to do it sometimes with the band because we are in this thing together and it’s loaded with all kinds of other tensions. Therefore, having Tom around was a huge tension release, a relief valve that released a lot of the pressure.
Tom: I was so unaware of the band’s small talk, subtle innuendos, and the subtle ways a band rips each other apart.
Matt: [To Tom] They went totally over your head. You didn’t even know.
Tom : I didn’t know that things weren’t going well certain days. I’m kind of everybody’s friend because everyone knows that I have no idea what’s going on.
Matt: If there were some sort of tension going on in the bad for whatever reason Tom wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on. So he and I would go out to dinner and I’d be bitching about the show and he would say, “I though the show was awesome!” It would put it in perspective for me. “Why am I complaining?” [To Tom] You did that for everyone else, having you around just relieved all kinds of tension within the band, mostly because you were making everybody laugh.
Tom: I’m at 0 for 80 as far as The National shows I’ve seen and how always I get their reaction to the show wrong. Sometimes I’d say, “That was a good show,” and they’ll say, “No, that was a terrible show.” Then another time I’d say, “That was really bad show,” and they’ll be like “We all thought that was a great show.” My read of every show was different from the band’s reaction. I couldn’t understand it. When I felt the energy apparently nobody else did.
Matt: He always got it wrong. Or maybe you always got it right [Laughs]. Another thing that happened in the process of this whole thing is that I saw Tom’s talents that I didn’t actually know of. There are a lot of things that I would not do the way Tom does. He is a very different person from me. I saw how different he is from me….
Tom: Like how I drink my Margarita? [Laughs]
Matt: I saw how different he is from me, and how brilliant he is in some things. I think through the process of him being on tour and him living with us, I think Tom and I are starting to understand what we are good at and what the other person is good at. We are starting to respect each other in a different way. Our old dynamic of older successful brother and younger less successful brother, that cliché, has changed.
I was always trying to help him and give him guidance, and all that. At a certain point I was giving him guidance that was meant for me not for him. I started recognizing that he is on a different road than I am. I started to understand his road and I think he understood where I’m coming from. What has happened is that a lot of the animosity between us has dissolved. He still drives me crazy and I drive him crazy, but underneath all that he knows that what I do is good even if it’s not his type of thing. I know that the things that he does are good, we just do different types of things
Aguilar: Was making the film a cathartic experience? Do you guys now see each other more like different creative people, besides being brothers, thanks to this shared experience?
Tom : Making this film has helped me discover things that I’m good at. As far as how the movie works, how it plays, how funny it is, I have my own take on that. Making it I did find some fun, comfort, and success. It was fun to see people liked the movie. That’s what I always wanted to do. With me being in my own movie so much, I didn’t know that it was going to be such a fun thing for people to watch me.
Matt: We know the movie is funny, and we knew what was funny about it when we were editing it, but there is a lot of therapy in there too. The movie is a lot about us working out problems. The editing of the movie was an extension of us trying to, not only look for what’s interesting about each other, but also finding what’s interesting about our relationship. Ultimately we wanted people to not be bored, and we wanted to tell a story that was meaningful and we kept coming back to our relationship and the complicated thorns that are in a real relationship between brothers or between anybody. This just happens to be about two brothers that are far apart in age.
Even if we had to show unflattering sides of each other that was what we were most interested in. My wife was definitely interested in the weird details of any relationship. Two human beings trying to understand each other, who love each other, but who also hate each other. How does that play out? All the most important things that happen in a human being’s life are usually the things that have to do with communicating with another human being. Everything revolves around that.
A person’s success - in terms of critical success or financial success - is pretty insignificant to a person’s happiness, but their relationships with themselves and people that are close to them that’s all that matters. The movie became about Tom’s search to understand his relationship with himself and with me. The process of making the film made me think about Tom differently than just being my little brother. He is another man in the world who has struggles. He is going to have to solve his struggles in a different way than I did mine.
Tom: My struggle is that this is not spicy tequila, it’s regular tequila [Laughs]
Aguilar: What was your parents' reaction to the film? It's clearly a film that revolves around your family more than the band.
Tom: Our parents love it. My mom loved being in a movie.
Matt: When they both saw the whole thing for the first time we were at our house in Cincinnati, my dad had to get up and leave the room. I think both of them when into the next room and cried for about 20 minutes. My dad didn’t want to openly cry in front of us. He couldn’t talk on the way out.
Tom: We didn’t realize that we had such a family oriented movie on our hand until it was almost finished and our sister Rachel was a little bit bummed out because she was not in it.
Matt: She lives in Seattle and we had footage of her, and when the movie ended being so much about our family and my sister was not in it, she was bummed. There is a really funny piece of bonus material out there, which is an interview with her.
Tom: Our sister loves the movie, but she was little upset. She was like “I had some things to say too.” [Laughs]
Aguilar: The title "Mistaken for Strangers" is of course from one The National’s songs, but how did you guys come to an agreement to name the film after this particular phrase? It's definitely very fitting.
Matt: We didn’t know what to call this thing and it had many, many names.
Tom: The firs title was a lyric from one of The National’s song, “Summer lovin’ torture party,” which I wasn’t so sure about.
Matt: I still like that title
Tom: I thought it was a mouthful. Our second idea was going to play the themes of me being a heavy metal fan trying to make a movie about an indie rock band, and it was going to be taken from the Acdc album “For Those About to Rock.” Our title was going to be “For Those About to Weep,” because The National is such a sadsack kind of band [Laughs]. I really liked that title.
Matt: Then, when the film was about to open the Tribeca Film Festival, the head of Tribeca said, “I love your movie, but the title ‘For Those About to Weep,’ I don’t know what that meas.” She didn’t know about the Acdc album. For Tom and I it made sense, that’s a household phrase “For Those About to Rock.” She didn’t understand our title, and she didn’t really know much about The National. It wasn’t funny to her because she wasn’t aware that we are known as a sad, depressing band.
That’s when we thought, “We don’t want only The National fans to like this movie.” So we were stuck, and this is the night before Tribeca’s press release was going to go out. They were asking, “What are you guys calling your movie? Because we are telling the world that we are opening our festival with it.” We were walking in circles thinking of what to call it. I said, “Let’s just call it ‘Lemonworld,’ that’s another thing that means nothing but is kind of mysterious”
Tom: It was going to be called “Lemonworld,” that night I was fine with that. The next morning - and this is the only time I went over anybody’s head - I called the band’s manager who was in talks with Tribeca. I said, “Wait, I don’t want my life to be called ‘Lemonworld,’ my life is not a lemmondworld!”
Matt: I had sent out an email to a bunch of trusted friends asking for suggestions since many of them had seen pieces of the film. Then my wife’s old work colleague in New York, his name is Willing Davidson who works as an editor at The New Yorker, wrote back saying, “I’ve always wonder why you guys aren’t calling this film ‘Mistaken for Strangers,’ it just seems like a perfect title for your movie.”
Tom: I thought, “That’s it ‘Mistaken for Strangers,’ done.”
Matt: That was a leap of faith. We didn’t know if it would work, but I think it’s a good title. Willing Davidson than you!
Tom: You know how we were talking about The National being known as a sadsack, depressing band. I wanted to say that, though I’m not a big fan of their music, but the one thing I know is that they are not a sadsack, depressing band. They just write songs that may be deeper than those from a lot of other bands. The one think I knew going on tour was that Matt wanted a fun movie that played with their image, taking the piss out them, making fun of the fact that people think they are sad and depressing, and showing that they are not.
I didn’t want super serious The National film showing Matt writing lyrics in a serious pose because I know that’s not how he writes lyrics, he does it in the back getting drunk. [Laughs]. The last thing I wanted was a black and white, deep and serious indie rock movie. No, I thought, “Let’s make a fun movie.” Yes they write god songs and they play music that’s very meaningful to a lot of people, but they are also good guys. They are just normal dudes that are not always trying to be the super serious artist.
Aguilar: [To Tom] I know you are not a big fan of their music, but do you a have a favorite song by The National?
Tom: I think “Friend of Mine” was always kind of my favorite song from them. There are other good ones out there but I’ve always liked “Friend of mine.”
Aguilar: [To Matt] What’s your favorite film by Tom?
Matt: Definitely “Mistaken for Strangers,” his other films are less good. [To Tom] I’m not saying they are bad…
Tom: [To Matt] I’m not saying they are good either, but I think they are interesting [Laughs]. The one I’m very proud is “Insane Animal Trapper.” I know they are very weird.
Matt: He’s also got a movie about Johnny Appleseed. In “Mistaken for Strangers” there is clip from Tom’s movie “Wages of Sin,” in that scene there is a guy who is tied to a rock and is hanging there dead. That guy is the star of Tom’s Johnny Appleseed film.
Tom: I think that all the movies I’ve made have always been weird ideas, granted I haven’t made many and most are shorts. Still, I’m proud of the fact that I’ve never made a movie just to hop of a trend. I’ve never made a rip-off of “The Matrix” and I haven’t tried to make another “Usual Suspects,” like a lot of film students do. I want to make a Johnny Appleseed movie!
Aguilar: [To Tom] Would you ever direct one The National's music videos?
Tom: Before I did this movie I directed the “Terrible Love” music video, the alternate version, and it’s all made up of tour footage.
Aguilar: How about a music video with more a narrative story?
Matt: There have been talks about Tom making a feature film based on a whole album by The National, sort of like Pink Floyd’s “The Wall,” but that’s not going to happen because the band and I would have to have most of the creative control.
Tom: And I don’t want to have my brother breathing down my neck. [Laughs]
Aguilar: [To Tom] After this very particular filmmaking experience, what are you working on next? Another documentary?
Tom: I’m taking it slow. I’ve got a few things going with some friends that might involve some Internet content. I’m taking acting lessons while being a dishwasher. I’m trying to do my best to work in this industry. I’m definitely going more on the acting route, but I still would like to direct my own stuff. I’m not a documentarian, and I feel like that’s how people see me right now - if they see me as anything that's probably what they see me as. People might think, “What other band is Tom going to follow now?” But I think that boat has sailed. I’m trying to figure out what's next.
Aguilar: [To Matt] I know you just finished touring with The National last week, are you taking a break now or working on a followup to Trouble Will Find Me?
Matt: I think we are all recalibrating. We hadn’t been actively on tour, but the last show of the tour just happened last week in London. I think everybody is trying to fix the rest of their lives, but everybody is really happy. We are getting along better than we ever have. I think this is because it’s gone well for us and because almost everybody has a family now. Family puts everything into perspective so that we realize how great we have it and how lucky we are to be where we are. Any petty resentments, anxieties, problems or tensions within the band pale in comparison to the big picture. This is the first time in along time we’ve been in that spot. We are going to start working on a new record, we sort of already are.
Aguilar: Certainly, with both with film and music, after you make something successful people have high expectations for the followup .
Mat: It’s a great problem to have. We’ve done stuff that people really think is good and now we have to do more! [Laughs]. People anticipating and having high expectations is a great problem to have, and we do have that problem. The National is not going to make another record like the ones we’ve made before, so it might take longer. [To Tom] You don’t want to make another documentary, but you also want to do something different.
Tom: It will definitely be something different, and not necessarily what people expect.
"Mistaken for Strangers" will have a one-week run at the Laemmle's Music Hall starting today December 5th. Tom and Matt Berninger will be there for a Q&A following the film tonight Friday Dec. 5 and tomorrow Saturday Dec 6 after the after the 7:10 and 9:30 shows.
- 12/5/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Leaving behind a prominent position as government official, Sadyk Sher-Niyaz decided to pursue his lifelong dream of becoming a filmmaker. Exchanging stability for the turbulent world of entertainment was certainly a bold move from this strong-willed artist with a specific vision of what his country’s cinema could be. This country is Kyrgyzstan, a Central Asian republic that found independence after collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite being under Russian control for most of its recent history, Kyrgyz people managed to preserve their culture and traditions intact. Kurmankan Datka was among the historical figures that played a role in their survival, thus she is revered as the mother of all Kyrgyz people.
Making a film of such magnitude without any precedent in the local film industry was an enormous challenge on its own. Furthermore, making a film about such a beloved figure was a risky choice. It needed to be great both artistic quality and historical accuracy. Knowing this, Sadyk Sher-Niyaz started this journey that has now taken him across the world to Hollywood and to represent his homeland in the race for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.
Support for the film has poured both from audiences as well as important industry figures. A few weeks a go at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, the film screened to a full house of expectant attendees. The film was introduced by Sharon Stone, who spoke about the role of strong women both on and off screen. Her genuine support for the film definitely reflects the quality of this epic production.
Dir. Sadyk Sher-Niyaz sat with us recently in Los Angeles to discuss his unique path to becoming a director and the game-changing milestone that “Kurmanjan Datka: Queen of the Mountains” represents both for him and Kyrgyzstan.
*“Kurmanjan Datka: Queen of the Mountains” is Kyrgyzstan's official submission for Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Category, and it qualifies for all other major races.
Read: Review *“Kurmanjan Datka: Queen of the Mountains”
Carlos Aguilar: This is your first feature film, but before becoming a filmmaker you had other responsibilities in the Kyrgyz government. At what point did you decide that you wanted to make films? What was the turning point?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: That’s a really good question. No one had asked me that in that way. I was a politician in Kyrgyzstan until 2004. Before that I was entirely involved in politics. In 2004 I was elected as a deputy ombudsman to work in human rights protection, which is a very importance position to hold. However, ever since I was a child it was my dream to become a director, but I had never had the possibility to do so until I was 38-years-old. I worked as deputy ombudsman for about a year, but I couldn’t stop thinking about directing, which was what I really wanted to do. At some point I told myself “If I don’t start making films right now I will never have a chance to do it.” At 38 I felt I had to start my career as a director. This was a very radical choice. I had found success as a politician, but I always knew that wasn’t what I wanted to do. I knew that if I didn’t take this chance I would regret it for the rest of my life.
When I decided to leave my position in the government, the parliament didn’t want tot let me go. It took them six months to finally allow me to go. I left my job and went to Moscow to take directing and cinematography courses. However, when I left I hadn’t gotten accepted into the university. It would have been smarter for me to make sure I had place in the classes before quitting my job [Laughs]. In the end I was accepted to one of the best Russian universities and then I decided to also take courses to learn about producing besides directing and cinematography. I was 38 when I started this journey.
Aguilar: Why did you decide to take on such a huge production for your debut feature? This certainly seems like a risky choice for a first time director to make.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: A lot of directors in my country would have been honored to make this film, but the problem was that the budget was very limited even if was the largest budget anyone in Kyrgyzstan has ever had. This story is of course very important for our nation, but not all the directors were willing to take on this responsibility. It’s a great responsibility and it would have changed anyone’s life negatively if it were not a success. I saw it as a great opportunity and I was also very honored. I decided to take this chance regardless of the risk.
To be honest, few people believed this would be a successful project. The main reason was our limited budget. Added to this, we don’t have a lot of professional actors in our country because since our independence from the Soviet Union our acting school has weakened in quality. Nevertheless, “ Kurmanjan Datka: Queen of the Mountains” has been the #1 film at the local box-office for 11 consecutive weeks beating American blockbusters like “Interstellar” and “Gone Girl.” It was very complicated to make it happen, but fortunately it has been successful. We’ve had screenings for Kyrgyz communities in different countries such as Russia, Turkey, or Canada and the theaters are always packed with people. Our people have fallen in love with the film and it has in a way united our nation.
Aguilar: Were you afraid of the outcome and how it would impact your career?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Fear is a normal condition. If someone doesn’t have any fears then he is just a fool because fear pushes you to do something new. You should always have a normal amount of fear. You just need to find the strength to continue and overcome it.
Aguilar: Tell me about the process of finding the right actress to play this iconic character in Kyrgyzstan’s history.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Finding the actress to play young Kurmanjan was the most important part because the story concentrates mostly on that period in the character’s life. I wasn’t as worried about the older actresses because they have experience working in our country. The casting process for older Kurmanjan wasn’t as complex because I knew whom I wanted. On the other hand, I was very worried about finding the young actress. There were about 200 professional actresses and about 300 non-professional actresses who showed up for the casting call. They ranged from 20 to 35-yeard-old. Every single young actress in our country, 100% of them, auditioned to play this part.
Aguilar: Having so many choices with a wide range in terms of age and experience lever, how did you know who was the ideal candidate to play the coveted part?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Strategically it was very difficult because all four actresses playing Kurmanjan needed to look similar. There needed to be something that all four of them shared in terms of appearance. Then, the young actress needed to work well with all the other major characters. In a sense it was like playing Chinese chess and trying to match the right actress with the right cast. Some actresses were good in some regards but not great in others, Elina Abai Kyzy was the ideal actress. Even height was taken into consideration because we wanted someone who would be imposing. She was perfect in all departments.
Aguilar: Representing your country at the Academy Awards must be an incredible experience for you, particularly with a film like “Kurmanjan Datka”
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: From the beginning one of my intents was to try to get the film to compete for the Oscar. We finished shooting the film at the end of August 2013 and by the time we were done with the film it was too late to submit it to festivals. We also didn’t know if most festivals would like a film like this - a Hollywood-style epic story. I didn’t submit the film to many festivals, but I always wanted to represent Kyrgyzstan at the Oscars. I hope American audiences appreciate and like the film. I’m very honored and proud to represent my country.
Aguilar: Given the importance that this period in history for country, how important was for you to strive for historical accuracy?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: People in Kyrgyzstan know this chapter in our history very well. It would have been almost impossible for people to accept it if it wasn’t based on real and objective facts. Therefore, all the elements in the film are based on factual information from archives. We had a lot of help from historians. Since we were dealing with the subject of our relationship with Tsarist Russia we needed every detail to be based on the truth. It would have been dangerous and not right to show this part of history in a non-objective manner. Everything was thoroughly checked.
Aguilar: It seems like your film comes at a time in which Russia’s relationship with other ex-Soviet states, such as Ukraine, is not very diplomatic.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: A lot of people see a parallel between these historical events and Russia’s current relationships with countries like Ukraine. I finished my film at the end of 2013 and most of the recent developments in the region hadn’t happened yet. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that something like this is happening in our time. History is always repeating itself.
Aguilar: Given the historical scope of your film, are there any filmmakers that have influenced you or that you admire?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: I really like David Lean’s great historical films, and I also like Mel Gibson’s films as a director. Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky is one of my favorites even though most of his films were experimental. He was great at making great historical films his own way such as “Ivan's Childhood”
Aguilar: Do you hope that the work you are doing to bring exposure to your film and Kyrgyz culture will bring more opportunities for other filmmakers in your country?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: I’m the first Kyrgyz filmmaker to be involved in the campaigning process here in Los Angeles. I try to show my film as much as possible and represent my country here. I’m paving the way in a sense. In the future hopefully it will be easier for other Kyrgyz directors to get their films seen.
We also have a film festival in Kyrgyzstan and I’m one of the organizers. The festival is called “Kyrgyzstan- the Country of Short Films. ” We hand our own awards there as well. Between 50 and 60 films of different lengths are made in Kyrgyzstan every year, which shows the government is very interested in the development of the local film industry. They are also interested in bringing more films from around the world to be shown in Kyrgyzstan.
Aguilar: It was a very pleasant surprised to see that in your film the heroic character is a strong female leader. Most films of this nature always focus on a traditional male hero.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: We need to talk about strong women and to show them on the screen. My grandmother raised me, and later in life I spent more time with my mother than with my father. The role of women, not only in Kyrgyzstan but also in the whole world, is very important and we need to acknowledge that.
Aguilar: How much were the local people involved in the production of your film?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Around 10,000 local people were involved in the making of the film. Half of them were volunteers who just wanted to help with the film. There are several battle sequences in the film and there were about 700 people involved in them. Some of the volunteers could only help us for one day. The next day we had a different group of people as extras in those scenes, and that’s how a more and more people got involved [Laughs].
Aguilar: I know that Alexander Rodnyansky, who produced “Leviathan” was your mentor. Is interesting that both of you have a film in this race.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Yes, Alexander Rodnyansky produced Russia’s Oscar entry “Leviathan” and he was in fact my mentor. He was a great teacher. Everything I’m doing now I do it according to his teachings
Aguilar: After the incredible success of this film, what are your plans for the future? Are you working in a new project?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: We are working on a sequel. I’m planning to make a trilogy about this period in our history. After Kurmanjan Datka’s death there was a period of time in which Kyrgyz people rebelled against Tsarist Russia because they refused to participate in World War I. Tsarist Russia punished them for this and thousands of innocent people were killed. About 30% of Kyrgyz people escaped to China during this time and their descendants live in China to this day. It was an enormous tragedy for our nation.
Aguilar: Lastly, tell me about your experience in Los Angeles. I know that your company now has permanent offices here. Seems like the film has been an absolute game changer for you and the Kyrgyz film industry.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: It’s been a great experience. A month ago we were completely foreign tot the process and how things work here in L.A. Thanks to several great people that have helped us along the way we’ve learned a lot. This film has united out country just like Kurmanjan did back then. Without her our nation would have been lost without a trace. She saved out country from disappearing in history.
Making a film of such magnitude without any precedent in the local film industry was an enormous challenge on its own. Furthermore, making a film about such a beloved figure was a risky choice. It needed to be great both artistic quality and historical accuracy. Knowing this, Sadyk Sher-Niyaz started this journey that has now taken him across the world to Hollywood and to represent his homeland in the race for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.
Support for the film has poured both from audiences as well as important industry figures. A few weeks a go at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, the film screened to a full house of expectant attendees. The film was introduced by Sharon Stone, who spoke about the role of strong women both on and off screen. Her genuine support for the film definitely reflects the quality of this epic production.
Dir. Sadyk Sher-Niyaz sat with us recently in Los Angeles to discuss his unique path to becoming a director and the game-changing milestone that “Kurmanjan Datka: Queen of the Mountains” represents both for him and Kyrgyzstan.
*“Kurmanjan Datka: Queen of the Mountains” is Kyrgyzstan's official submission for Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Category, and it qualifies for all other major races.
Read: Review *“Kurmanjan Datka: Queen of the Mountains”
Carlos Aguilar: This is your first feature film, but before becoming a filmmaker you had other responsibilities in the Kyrgyz government. At what point did you decide that you wanted to make films? What was the turning point?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: That’s a really good question. No one had asked me that in that way. I was a politician in Kyrgyzstan until 2004. Before that I was entirely involved in politics. In 2004 I was elected as a deputy ombudsman to work in human rights protection, which is a very importance position to hold. However, ever since I was a child it was my dream to become a director, but I had never had the possibility to do so until I was 38-years-old. I worked as deputy ombudsman for about a year, but I couldn’t stop thinking about directing, which was what I really wanted to do. At some point I told myself “If I don’t start making films right now I will never have a chance to do it.” At 38 I felt I had to start my career as a director. This was a very radical choice. I had found success as a politician, but I always knew that wasn’t what I wanted to do. I knew that if I didn’t take this chance I would regret it for the rest of my life.
When I decided to leave my position in the government, the parliament didn’t want tot let me go. It took them six months to finally allow me to go. I left my job and went to Moscow to take directing and cinematography courses. However, when I left I hadn’t gotten accepted into the university. It would have been smarter for me to make sure I had place in the classes before quitting my job [Laughs]. In the end I was accepted to one of the best Russian universities and then I decided to also take courses to learn about producing besides directing and cinematography. I was 38 when I started this journey.
Aguilar: Why did you decide to take on such a huge production for your debut feature? This certainly seems like a risky choice for a first time director to make.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: A lot of directors in my country would have been honored to make this film, but the problem was that the budget was very limited even if was the largest budget anyone in Kyrgyzstan has ever had. This story is of course very important for our nation, but not all the directors were willing to take on this responsibility. It’s a great responsibility and it would have changed anyone’s life negatively if it were not a success. I saw it as a great opportunity and I was also very honored. I decided to take this chance regardless of the risk.
To be honest, few people believed this would be a successful project. The main reason was our limited budget. Added to this, we don’t have a lot of professional actors in our country because since our independence from the Soviet Union our acting school has weakened in quality. Nevertheless, “ Kurmanjan Datka: Queen of the Mountains” has been the #1 film at the local box-office for 11 consecutive weeks beating American blockbusters like “Interstellar” and “Gone Girl.” It was very complicated to make it happen, but fortunately it has been successful. We’ve had screenings for Kyrgyz communities in different countries such as Russia, Turkey, or Canada and the theaters are always packed with people. Our people have fallen in love with the film and it has in a way united our nation.
Aguilar: Were you afraid of the outcome and how it would impact your career?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Fear is a normal condition. If someone doesn’t have any fears then he is just a fool because fear pushes you to do something new. You should always have a normal amount of fear. You just need to find the strength to continue and overcome it.
Aguilar: Tell me about the process of finding the right actress to play this iconic character in Kyrgyzstan’s history.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Finding the actress to play young Kurmanjan was the most important part because the story concentrates mostly on that period in the character’s life. I wasn’t as worried about the older actresses because they have experience working in our country. The casting process for older Kurmanjan wasn’t as complex because I knew whom I wanted. On the other hand, I was very worried about finding the young actress. There were about 200 professional actresses and about 300 non-professional actresses who showed up for the casting call. They ranged from 20 to 35-yeard-old. Every single young actress in our country, 100% of them, auditioned to play this part.
Aguilar: Having so many choices with a wide range in terms of age and experience lever, how did you know who was the ideal candidate to play the coveted part?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Strategically it was very difficult because all four actresses playing Kurmanjan needed to look similar. There needed to be something that all four of them shared in terms of appearance. Then, the young actress needed to work well with all the other major characters. In a sense it was like playing Chinese chess and trying to match the right actress with the right cast. Some actresses were good in some regards but not great in others, Elina Abai Kyzy was the ideal actress. Even height was taken into consideration because we wanted someone who would be imposing. She was perfect in all departments.
Aguilar: Representing your country at the Academy Awards must be an incredible experience for you, particularly with a film like “Kurmanjan Datka”
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: From the beginning one of my intents was to try to get the film to compete for the Oscar. We finished shooting the film at the end of August 2013 and by the time we were done with the film it was too late to submit it to festivals. We also didn’t know if most festivals would like a film like this - a Hollywood-style epic story. I didn’t submit the film to many festivals, but I always wanted to represent Kyrgyzstan at the Oscars. I hope American audiences appreciate and like the film. I’m very honored and proud to represent my country.
Aguilar: Given the importance that this period in history for country, how important was for you to strive for historical accuracy?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: People in Kyrgyzstan know this chapter in our history very well. It would have been almost impossible for people to accept it if it wasn’t based on real and objective facts. Therefore, all the elements in the film are based on factual information from archives. We had a lot of help from historians. Since we were dealing with the subject of our relationship with Tsarist Russia we needed every detail to be based on the truth. It would have been dangerous and not right to show this part of history in a non-objective manner. Everything was thoroughly checked.
Aguilar: It seems like your film comes at a time in which Russia’s relationship with other ex-Soviet states, such as Ukraine, is not very diplomatic.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: A lot of people see a parallel between these historical events and Russia’s current relationships with countries like Ukraine. I finished my film at the end of 2013 and most of the recent developments in the region hadn’t happened yet. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that something like this is happening in our time. History is always repeating itself.
Aguilar: Given the historical scope of your film, are there any filmmakers that have influenced you or that you admire?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: I really like David Lean’s great historical films, and I also like Mel Gibson’s films as a director. Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky is one of my favorites even though most of his films were experimental. He was great at making great historical films his own way such as “Ivan's Childhood”
Aguilar: Do you hope that the work you are doing to bring exposure to your film and Kyrgyz culture will bring more opportunities for other filmmakers in your country?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: I’m the first Kyrgyz filmmaker to be involved in the campaigning process here in Los Angeles. I try to show my film as much as possible and represent my country here. I’m paving the way in a sense. In the future hopefully it will be easier for other Kyrgyz directors to get their films seen.
We also have a film festival in Kyrgyzstan and I’m one of the organizers. The festival is called “Kyrgyzstan- the Country of Short Films. ” We hand our own awards there as well. Between 50 and 60 films of different lengths are made in Kyrgyzstan every year, which shows the government is very interested in the development of the local film industry. They are also interested in bringing more films from around the world to be shown in Kyrgyzstan.
Aguilar: It was a very pleasant surprised to see that in your film the heroic character is a strong female leader. Most films of this nature always focus on a traditional male hero.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: We need to talk about strong women and to show them on the screen. My grandmother raised me, and later in life I spent more time with my mother than with my father. The role of women, not only in Kyrgyzstan but also in the whole world, is very important and we need to acknowledge that.
Aguilar: How much were the local people involved in the production of your film?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Around 10,000 local people were involved in the making of the film. Half of them were volunteers who just wanted to help with the film. There are several battle sequences in the film and there were about 700 people involved in them. Some of the volunteers could only help us for one day. The next day we had a different group of people as extras in those scenes, and that’s how a more and more people got involved [Laughs].
Aguilar: I know that Alexander Rodnyansky, who produced “Leviathan” was your mentor. Is interesting that both of you have a film in this race.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: Yes, Alexander Rodnyansky produced Russia’s Oscar entry “Leviathan” and he was in fact my mentor. He was a great teacher. Everything I’m doing now I do it according to his teachings
Aguilar: After the incredible success of this film, what are your plans for the future? Are you working in a new project?
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: We are working on a sequel. I’m planning to make a trilogy about this period in our history. After Kurmanjan Datka’s death there was a period of time in which Kyrgyz people rebelled against Tsarist Russia because they refused to participate in World War I. Tsarist Russia punished them for this and thousands of innocent people were killed. About 30% of Kyrgyz people escaped to China during this time and their descendants live in China to this day. It was an enormous tragedy for our nation.
Aguilar: Lastly, tell me about your experience in Los Angeles. I know that your company now has permanent offices here. Seems like the film has been an absolute game changer for you and the Kyrgyz film industry.
Sadyk Sher-Niyaz: It’s been a great experience. A month ago we were completely foreign tot the process and how things work here in L.A. Thanks to several great people that have helped us along the way we’ve learned a lot. This film has united out country just like Kurmanjan did back then. Without her our nation would have been lost without a trace. She saved out country from disappearing in history.
- 12/2/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Transformed into an obscure landscape with endless possibilities, Helsinki comes alive in Pirjo Honkasalo’s latest work “Concrete Night.” Through her lens, the acclaimed Finnish filmmaker navigates the city and its characters while following Simo (Johannes Brotherus), a young boy who loses his way as he tries to find himself by connecting with his brother Ilkka (Jari Virman). Shot in spectacular black and white, the film combines its stunning visuals with the human darkness that Simo encounters along the way. Poetic, tragic, and above all beautifully executed, “Concrete Night” marks Honkasalo’s return to narrative filmmaking after working in the documentary realm for many years.
The film is based on the novel by Pirkko Saisio, who is also Honkasalo’s lifelong partner, and it presents a coming-of-age story that highlights the city it takes place in and the ambiguity of its character’s choices. Despite the stark themes her film exposes, Honkasalo humorous demeanor speaks of her incessant passion to reinvent her work without taking herself too seriously. Watching her film it’s easy to see she has an observant eye for human nuance that can only come from years of experience working in non-fiction and with actors both in film and theater.
“Concrete Night” is Finland’s official submission for the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. The colorful and warm Pirjo Honkasalo talked to us recently in L.A. about her extensive career and her return to fiction.
Carlos Aguilar: You worked in documentaries for several years before making “Concrete Night.” What did you decide to concentrate on non-fiction for a big part of your career?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I had worked in fiction a lot before I started making documentaries, but when I was around 32 or 33-years-old I suddenly got so fed up with the world of fiction, which is so money-centered. It’s said that if two documentary filmmakers meet they talk about the world, if two fiction filmmakers meet they talk about the million that they don’t have to make their film [Laughs]. That’s probably why I got tired of it. I went to film school when I was 17, and of course when you are very young you think that there is nothing else in the world except film. At some point I started getting hungry to see something else. For five years I didn’t make any films, I was traveling around the world, writing for newspapers, working in theater, working in opera, I thought I would never return to film [Laughs]. Of course, it didn’t go that way.
Aguilar: The novel on which the film is based was written by your partner Pirkko Saisio several years ago. Was it the novel that pushed you to return to fiction? Why did you decide to make this film now?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I first read the novel when it came out 30 years ago. This is the first film I’ve done based on a novel, and I think that too often we, film directors, think that a big epic novel and feature film are the same. It’s a lie. A feature film is much closer to a short story actually. If you take a big epic novel and you shoot it, when you get to the editing room you notice that it has 2 million climaxes, which fill the whole 90 or 100 minutes. Then you realize you can’t cut them out because if somebody is dying and you cut that out it seems like they just disappear from the film [Laughs].
If you have all these climaxes then you have no time for the rest of the film. This way the film would lack depth because you have all the things that happen but you have no motive for them on a more profound level. This novel immediately felt like it was the perfect size for a feature fiction film. The story is simple enough that it gives you the possibility to portray all these layers with image and sound. I was also very touched by the main character and how he was portrayed in the book.
I didn’t do the film at the time when I first read the novel, and then ten years ago I decided it was time to make it. I held auditions and I chose the actors, but suddenly I was invited by German and Japanese people to make a feature documentary in India and Tokyo. I fell into the temptation [Laughs]. After that I continued making documentaries for some time. At some point I felt like I had come to a certain borderline in documentary. I had always felt like I was able to bring something new until then. Documentaries started to come too close to fiction, which showed me that it was time to go back. I had chosen the actors back then, and when I finally decided to make it I called Jari Virman, the actor who was going to play the older brother, and I said “Come visit me, I want to see what you look like now “ [Laughs]. He was, of course, ten years older, but I took him anyway. With the actor I had originally chosen to play the 14-year-old that wasn’t going to work because he was now 24.
Aguilar: When adapting a novel into a screenplay it seems like one of the biggest issues is to know what to include or what to leave out? What was this process like with Pirkko?
Pirjo Honkasalo: Pirkko wrote the first version of the script by taking out a few things and rewriting some dialogue because amazingly enough in 30 years the language has changed quiet a lot. We don’t use certain words anymore, so she rewrote the dialogue. I work with her on the actual script but I didn’t shorten much. We didn’t really need to shorten it because it was the size of a feature film to begin with.
Aguilar: One of the most remarkable qualities of the film is the cinematography. Tell me about your approach in terms of the visual aesthetics and why did you decide to shoot the film in black and white?
Pirjo Honkasalo: Yes, the cinematography was of course incredibly important to me because I graduated as a cinematographer. In all my documentaries I did all the camera work, but in fiction I didn’t want to do it myself. I think the machinery is so heavy and demanding that you would leave the actors alone for a long time. If you fill your time as a director talking about lights and technique with the crew then it’s frightening for the actors to be left alone. Somebody has to keep them safe from the mess that is the machinery. [Laughs]. Still, I did test shoots to show the Dp what kind of lighting I wanted. We did very profound test shoots, so much that when we started shooting the film we new exactly the visual look we were going for. We only had 21 shooting days.
Somehow the film naturally felt to me like it had to be black and white. Not only because black and white is wonderful, which is really not black and white but 260 shades of gray [Laughs], but I also felt like it is not important for the story to be placed in a particular year like 1980 or 2012. It was better for the time period not to be so clear. Almost everything was shot in Helsinki and the city looks very different in black and white. It’s really a different city, and that was also great because it took away any over realism that comes from all the colorful commercial signs. This way the film centers on the people. Most of the crew was quiet young and they had never done black and white. They totally fell in love with it, so much that when some of the dailies had color in them all the young filmmakers would go, “Yuck” or “Eww” [Laughs].
Aguilar: However, the dream sequences in the film look different from the “present.” There is a bit of color in those scenes.
Pirjo Honkasalo: I decided to do that so that so I didn’t have to tell the financiers that it was entirely in black and white [Laughs]. “There is a little color there is not black and white.” Of course, the colors in the dream sequences are highly manipulated. These scenes are not meant to be fully in color.
Aguilar: This is Simo’s coming-of-age story, what did you find so fascinating about this teenage character in particular?
Pirjo Honkasalo: The central element in the film is the relationship between the two brothers. When I think of this story I think about this 14-year-old boy who is still totally open to things, yet he could never lean or rely on his parents or anyone in his family. He is from the suburbs, and this night with his brother in downtown is his first night in downtown. It’s a completely new world and he has no tools. He is seeing things as they are as none of us see them anymore because we have built filters to protect ourselves. We would go insane if we saw how things really are, it’s unbearable.
Aguilar: Simo’s older brother Ilkka is the only role model the boy has. Yet, Ilkka seems to be a bit hopeless and warns Simo about he dangers of nurturing hope. Is he really hopeless?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I actually think that at the end of the film he represents hope in the sense that he cracks. At the end he allows himself to feel again. He has been protecting himself for so long in such a negative way that he can’t express positive feelings at all anymore. It’s hard to know if he is serious when he talks to his younger brother. It’s so flattering for him to know that he can manipulate someone else. He is really driven by this power to manipulate another soul because it’s wonderful [Laughs], and he has no idea that it’s so serious for Simo. I think we all do a lot of that.
Aguilar: What’s the difference between working with actors and dealing with real subjects in documentary filmmaking?
Pirjo Honkasalo: We exaggerate the difference between documentary and fiction. I think that on some level a fiction film is also a documentary on the actors. You can’t wash away your life’s history, which is written on your face, unless you get a facelift [Laughs]. That’s the only way you could lose all of your history. That’s why it’s so important to know which actors to choose, because you are choosing their history to be in the film. You have to build the role accepting that they are bringing this history.
When you read a book you have a certain image of the character, but when you have a concrete person he or she never looks like what you imagined. You can interpret the character in the book through this real person, but you have to accept that the actor brings his history. I think that I have seen hundreds and hundreds of hours of ordinary people through my loop in the camera that I’m super allergic to anything that’s fake. I’ve seen how real people are. If an actor offers me something that is fake I don’t buy it. Why should I demand actors less than what I demand from real people when they are in front of the camera? When I make a documentary I shoot very little but I hang around with my camera for a long time. I look at the people for a long time though the loop and then when I see something interested then I shoot. I think that I have become very sensitive to these things.
Aguilar: How do people, both actors and non-actors, change when they are in front of the camera? Is there a way to really find objectivity when there is a camera rolling?
Pirjo Honkasalo: Every documentary is subjective. It’s a total lie to say there are objective documentaries. When you frame the first shot you have made a choice. Of course, having a camera around affects those in front of it. This is going to sound crazy, especially in America where there is a total inflation of the word “love,” but in a sense you have to love the people in front of the camera. There has to be trust between the one who is behind the camera and the people on the other side, so that they can relax. They have to feel they are safe, and that way they don’t have to pretend just because they are scared.
It’s the same with actors. I don’t think the concept of “directing actors” exits in the sense that if you get what you order from an actor you’ll always get bad acting. Every actor is scared just like a regular person. You have to place them in a situation that creates the content of the scene. You have to take away their fear, and then if you succeed in doing this you get something you didn’t order, which is the only thing that is interesting. I like to get something that is impossible to verbally order. Sometimes it’s something the person is not even conscious of, and it’s something you could never ask of them specifically. It’s just there.
Aguilar: Given your vast experience with actors and the way people behave in front of the camera, what was it about Johannes Brotherus, who plays Simo, that caught your eye?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I auditioned dozens of 14-years-olds. When I auditioned actors I never make them act. I choose a long symphony, then I tell them to sit down and I play the symphony for them. Then I sit and I look at them. I always pick a piece of music that has up and downs, very dramatic parts, very quiet parts and really sensitive parts so that it can produce different emotions. All the other boys reacted in an expected way, “What the hell is this?” They didn’t know how long it’ll last or what to expect from me. Some of them started to laugh, some walked out, Johannes was the only one who chose to solve this by going inward. He went inside himself. He experienced the music by going inward and it was so beautiful to watch.
Aguilar: Besides your personal connection to Pirkko, what was it about this novel that inspired you to transform it into a film? Was it the subject matter?
Pirjo Honkasalo: It was because of the way it portrays this interesting age in the life of a human being. At this age your ego is so fragile, it hardly exists. I remember how I felt in my own teenager years. I felt. I went to England when I was 13-years=old and then I went again when I was 14. When I went for the second time I felt like the first summer I was there it was a waste because I didn’t exist yet. At 14 I thought, “Who was that girl who was in England last year? Because now I feel that I am me” At 13 I was someone that didn’t have a personality yet. It’s a fascinating period in a human life. It’s so exciting because you are in between childhood and adulthood and I think the novel describes it perfectly.
The novel says that when Simo is looking in the mirror he feels that he doesn’t have a face. He understands that one doesn’t get a face as a birth right. You have to deserve it. You have to build it. The film questions, “How do you get a face in one night? “ or “How do you find yourself in the mirror?” Without consciously thinking about it I have made several films about characters of that age. It took me 20 years to ask myself, “Why do I always make films about teenagers?”[Laughs].
Aguilar: You film is representing Finland at the Academy Awards, is this something that excited you or puts any pressure on you?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I think it’s wonderful and it’s a very interesting position to be in, but I also take it with humor. One shouldn’t take it too seriously. [Laughs]. I think that as a filmmaker your work ends when the film premiers. The filmmaker’s job lasts from the first thought to the premier of the film. If you look to find satisfaction in what follows after the premier you’ll never be satisfied because human beings are so greedy.
“Concrete Night” won 6 Jussi Awards, which are the Finnish Oscars, but for some people that might not be enough and they might want to have the real Oscar. Once they get that they will want to go after another prize. It’s the wrong way to find what belongs to you regarding the film. What’s yours is the trip from the beginning to the premier. If you are not satisfied with that then you better start doing something else. You give your film away to the audience once it’s done. I never look at my films after the premier. The film needs to start its own history.
The film is based on the novel by Pirkko Saisio, who is also Honkasalo’s lifelong partner, and it presents a coming-of-age story that highlights the city it takes place in and the ambiguity of its character’s choices. Despite the stark themes her film exposes, Honkasalo humorous demeanor speaks of her incessant passion to reinvent her work without taking herself too seriously. Watching her film it’s easy to see she has an observant eye for human nuance that can only come from years of experience working in non-fiction and with actors both in film and theater.
“Concrete Night” is Finland’s official submission for the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. The colorful and warm Pirjo Honkasalo talked to us recently in L.A. about her extensive career and her return to fiction.
Carlos Aguilar: You worked in documentaries for several years before making “Concrete Night.” What did you decide to concentrate on non-fiction for a big part of your career?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I had worked in fiction a lot before I started making documentaries, but when I was around 32 or 33-years-old I suddenly got so fed up with the world of fiction, which is so money-centered. It’s said that if two documentary filmmakers meet they talk about the world, if two fiction filmmakers meet they talk about the million that they don’t have to make their film [Laughs]. That’s probably why I got tired of it. I went to film school when I was 17, and of course when you are very young you think that there is nothing else in the world except film. At some point I started getting hungry to see something else. For five years I didn’t make any films, I was traveling around the world, writing for newspapers, working in theater, working in opera, I thought I would never return to film [Laughs]. Of course, it didn’t go that way.
Aguilar: The novel on which the film is based was written by your partner Pirkko Saisio several years ago. Was it the novel that pushed you to return to fiction? Why did you decide to make this film now?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I first read the novel when it came out 30 years ago. This is the first film I’ve done based on a novel, and I think that too often we, film directors, think that a big epic novel and feature film are the same. It’s a lie. A feature film is much closer to a short story actually. If you take a big epic novel and you shoot it, when you get to the editing room you notice that it has 2 million climaxes, which fill the whole 90 or 100 minutes. Then you realize you can’t cut them out because if somebody is dying and you cut that out it seems like they just disappear from the film [Laughs].
If you have all these climaxes then you have no time for the rest of the film. This way the film would lack depth because you have all the things that happen but you have no motive for them on a more profound level. This novel immediately felt like it was the perfect size for a feature fiction film. The story is simple enough that it gives you the possibility to portray all these layers with image and sound. I was also very touched by the main character and how he was portrayed in the book.
I didn’t do the film at the time when I first read the novel, and then ten years ago I decided it was time to make it. I held auditions and I chose the actors, but suddenly I was invited by German and Japanese people to make a feature documentary in India and Tokyo. I fell into the temptation [Laughs]. After that I continued making documentaries for some time. At some point I felt like I had come to a certain borderline in documentary. I had always felt like I was able to bring something new until then. Documentaries started to come too close to fiction, which showed me that it was time to go back. I had chosen the actors back then, and when I finally decided to make it I called Jari Virman, the actor who was going to play the older brother, and I said “Come visit me, I want to see what you look like now “ [Laughs]. He was, of course, ten years older, but I took him anyway. With the actor I had originally chosen to play the 14-year-old that wasn’t going to work because he was now 24.
Aguilar: When adapting a novel into a screenplay it seems like one of the biggest issues is to know what to include or what to leave out? What was this process like with Pirkko?
Pirjo Honkasalo: Pirkko wrote the first version of the script by taking out a few things and rewriting some dialogue because amazingly enough in 30 years the language has changed quiet a lot. We don’t use certain words anymore, so she rewrote the dialogue. I work with her on the actual script but I didn’t shorten much. We didn’t really need to shorten it because it was the size of a feature film to begin with.
Aguilar: One of the most remarkable qualities of the film is the cinematography. Tell me about your approach in terms of the visual aesthetics and why did you decide to shoot the film in black and white?
Pirjo Honkasalo: Yes, the cinematography was of course incredibly important to me because I graduated as a cinematographer. In all my documentaries I did all the camera work, but in fiction I didn’t want to do it myself. I think the machinery is so heavy and demanding that you would leave the actors alone for a long time. If you fill your time as a director talking about lights and technique with the crew then it’s frightening for the actors to be left alone. Somebody has to keep them safe from the mess that is the machinery. [Laughs]. Still, I did test shoots to show the Dp what kind of lighting I wanted. We did very profound test shoots, so much that when we started shooting the film we new exactly the visual look we were going for. We only had 21 shooting days.
Somehow the film naturally felt to me like it had to be black and white. Not only because black and white is wonderful, which is really not black and white but 260 shades of gray [Laughs], but I also felt like it is not important for the story to be placed in a particular year like 1980 or 2012. It was better for the time period not to be so clear. Almost everything was shot in Helsinki and the city looks very different in black and white. It’s really a different city, and that was also great because it took away any over realism that comes from all the colorful commercial signs. This way the film centers on the people. Most of the crew was quiet young and they had never done black and white. They totally fell in love with it, so much that when some of the dailies had color in them all the young filmmakers would go, “Yuck” or “Eww” [Laughs].
Aguilar: However, the dream sequences in the film look different from the “present.” There is a bit of color in those scenes.
Pirjo Honkasalo: I decided to do that so that so I didn’t have to tell the financiers that it was entirely in black and white [Laughs]. “There is a little color there is not black and white.” Of course, the colors in the dream sequences are highly manipulated. These scenes are not meant to be fully in color.
Aguilar: This is Simo’s coming-of-age story, what did you find so fascinating about this teenage character in particular?
Pirjo Honkasalo: The central element in the film is the relationship between the two brothers. When I think of this story I think about this 14-year-old boy who is still totally open to things, yet he could never lean or rely on his parents or anyone in his family. He is from the suburbs, and this night with his brother in downtown is his first night in downtown. It’s a completely new world and he has no tools. He is seeing things as they are as none of us see them anymore because we have built filters to protect ourselves. We would go insane if we saw how things really are, it’s unbearable.
Aguilar: Simo’s older brother Ilkka is the only role model the boy has. Yet, Ilkka seems to be a bit hopeless and warns Simo about he dangers of nurturing hope. Is he really hopeless?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I actually think that at the end of the film he represents hope in the sense that he cracks. At the end he allows himself to feel again. He has been protecting himself for so long in such a negative way that he can’t express positive feelings at all anymore. It’s hard to know if he is serious when he talks to his younger brother. It’s so flattering for him to know that he can manipulate someone else. He is really driven by this power to manipulate another soul because it’s wonderful [Laughs], and he has no idea that it’s so serious for Simo. I think we all do a lot of that.
Aguilar: What’s the difference between working with actors and dealing with real subjects in documentary filmmaking?
Pirjo Honkasalo: We exaggerate the difference between documentary and fiction. I think that on some level a fiction film is also a documentary on the actors. You can’t wash away your life’s history, which is written on your face, unless you get a facelift [Laughs]. That’s the only way you could lose all of your history. That’s why it’s so important to know which actors to choose, because you are choosing their history to be in the film. You have to build the role accepting that they are bringing this history.
When you read a book you have a certain image of the character, but when you have a concrete person he or she never looks like what you imagined. You can interpret the character in the book through this real person, but you have to accept that the actor brings his history. I think that I have seen hundreds and hundreds of hours of ordinary people through my loop in the camera that I’m super allergic to anything that’s fake. I’ve seen how real people are. If an actor offers me something that is fake I don’t buy it. Why should I demand actors less than what I demand from real people when they are in front of the camera? When I make a documentary I shoot very little but I hang around with my camera for a long time. I look at the people for a long time though the loop and then when I see something interested then I shoot. I think that I have become very sensitive to these things.
Aguilar: How do people, both actors and non-actors, change when they are in front of the camera? Is there a way to really find objectivity when there is a camera rolling?
Pirjo Honkasalo: Every documentary is subjective. It’s a total lie to say there are objective documentaries. When you frame the first shot you have made a choice. Of course, having a camera around affects those in front of it. This is going to sound crazy, especially in America where there is a total inflation of the word “love,” but in a sense you have to love the people in front of the camera. There has to be trust between the one who is behind the camera and the people on the other side, so that they can relax. They have to feel they are safe, and that way they don’t have to pretend just because they are scared.
It’s the same with actors. I don’t think the concept of “directing actors” exits in the sense that if you get what you order from an actor you’ll always get bad acting. Every actor is scared just like a regular person. You have to place them in a situation that creates the content of the scene. You have to take away their fear, and then if you succeed in doing this you get something you didn’t order, which is the only thing that is interesting. I like to get something that is impossible to verbally order. Sometimes it’s something the person is not even conscious of, and it’s something you could never ask of them specifically. It’s just there.
Aguilar: Given your vast experience with actors and the way people behave in front of the camera, what was it about Johannes Brotherus, who plays Simo, that caught your eye?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I auditioned dozens of 14-years-olds. When I auditioned actors I never make them act. I choose a long symphony, then I tell them to sit down and I play the symphony for them. Then I sit and I look at them. I always pick a piece of music that has up and downs, very dramatic parts, very quiet parts and really sensitive parts so that it can produce different emotions. All the other boys reacted in an expected way, “What the hell is this?” They didn’t know how long it’ll last or what to expect from me. Some of them started to laugh, some walked out, Johannes was the only one who chose to solve this by going inward. He went inside himself. He experienced the music by going inward and it was so beautiful to watch.
Aguilar: Besides your personal connection to Pirkko, what was it about this novel that inspired you to transform it into a film? Was it the subject matter?
Pirjo Honkasalo: It was because of the way it portrays this interesting age in the life of a human being. At this age your ego is so fragile, it hardly exists. I remember how I felt in my own teenager years. I felt. I went to England when I was 13-years=old and then I went again when I was 14. When I went for the second time I felt like the first summer I was there it was a waste because I didn’t exist yet. At 14 I thought, “Who was that girl who was in England last year? Because now I feel that I am me” At 13 I was someone that didn’t have a personality yet. It’s a fascinating period in a human life. It’s so exciting because you are in between childhood and adulthood and I think the novel describes it perfectly.
The novel says that when Simo is looking in the mirror he feels that he doesn’t have a face. He understands that one doesn’t get a face as a birth right. You have to deserve it. You have to build it. The film questions, “How do you get a face in one night? “ or “How do you find yourself in the mirror?” Without consciously thinking about it I have made several films about characters of that age. It took me 20 years to ask myself, “Why do I always make films about teenagers?”[Laughs].
Aguilar: You film is representing Finland at the Academy Awards, is this something that excited you or puts any pressure on you?
Pirjo Honkasalo: I think it’s wonderful and it’s a very interesting position to be in, but I also take it with humor. One shouldn’t take it too seriously. [Laughs]. I think that as a filmmaker your work ends when the film premiers. The filmmaker’s job lasts from the first thought to the premier of the film. If you look to find satisfaction in what follows after the premier you’ll never be satisfied because human beings are so greedy.
“Concrete Night” won 6 Jussi Awards, which are the Finnish Oscars, but for some people that might not be enough and they might want to have the real Oscar. Once they get that they will want to go after another prize. It’s the wrong way to find what belongs to you regarding the film. What’s yours is the trip from the beginning to the premier. If you are not satisfied with that then you better start doing something else. You give your film away to the audience once it’s done. I never look at my films after the premier. The film needs to start its own history.
- 11/28/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
In spite of the great number of festivals and film-related events that concentrate their efforts on the endlessly creative city of Los Angeles, it seems like there is always a need for more platforms and spaces for filmmakers to showcase their work and develop their careers. Being home to all of the major studios, numerous distribution companies, and non-profit organizations, the city is still the top destination for anyone trying to make a career in this volatile industry.
Taking into account this constant supply of new work and the lack of an equally constant place to show it, Larry Laboe decided to create the film festival/film organization, NewFilmmakers Los Angeles, modeled after one by the same name in New York. Although the concept was essentially identical – a monthly film festival to showcase independent cinema- Laboe knew that an industry component was required to make of this new venture a success. Within a few years, NewFilmmakers Los Angeles has grown to become a unique vehicle for artists to launch their careers, connect with crucial support, and exchange ideas with each other and with audiences.
As Executive Director of NewFilmmakers Los Angeles Mr. Laboe continues to develop innovative partnerships and strategic relationships that benefit the filmmaking community. With the help of a small but dedicated team, which includes Artistic Director and Co-Founder Susie Kim, NewFilmmakers Los Angeles is a refreshing and multifaceted tool for filmmakers, industry professionals, and film lovers alike.
Mr. Laboe talked to us recently about these and other unique opportunities offered by NewFilmmakers Los Angeles.
Carlos Aguilar: Could you explain the essentials about what NewFilmmakers is, what you guys do, and how you got involved with this project?
Larry Laboe: NewFilmmakers as an organization has been around since 1998 in New York City. The NewFilmmakers New York program is part of the Anthology Film Archives, which is a center for promoting independent filmmakers and helping to preserve work by independent and experimental filmmakers. It’s been going on there for well over 16 years now. When I moved out to Los Angeles I had been a patron of NewFilmmakers New York for a long time. I really loved the sense of community it gave independent filmmakers in NYC. I really loved the programming and how eclectic and different it was. It was very unique compared to anything I had ever experienced before.
At the time I was somebody who would go to almost every film festival in the U.S. I was also a filmmaker, and somebody that simply loved to watch movies. I had experienced Tribeca Film Festival, SXSW, Sundance, AFI Fest, Laiff, and I just felt this uniqueness about NewFilmmakers and it’s format. It exhibited its films throughout the year instead of being an annual festival that screens films for a certain number of consecutive days.
What I found through my exploration with NewFilmmakers New York was that this festival was able to showcase more films throughout the year by doing it as a monthly festival. It was also able to highlight each filmmaker and their film more than at a traditional festival because you come to an event that is about 10 to 15 film instead of a weeklong event that’s about 200 films. That’s what I loved about the program.
When I moved to L.A. I immediately joined Film Independent, but even with them in town and many others that support film, I felt like there was a place for an organization like NewFilmmakers in Los Angeles. There wasn’t any consistent, truly independent film programming throughout the year. I found that Film Independent had their screening series but it was more about Fox Searchlight or Paramount Vantage movies. These are not what I would consider “new filmmakers” because a lot of the filmmakers they highlight have studio support or had done a lot of work in the past that sets them at a different level than a true new filmmaker.
The work we highlight is not amateur work, or student films, or first time filmmakers, it’s just truly independent film that is at the same level of what you would see at Sundance or SXSW. They are just filmmakers that still need a chance to get their voice out to an audience and to share their stories.
Many of the films that we screen go on to play at major festivals. They go on to win Academy Awards, student Academy Awards, and dozens of other prizes in other well-respected events. The content really can stand on its own. We really try to choose based on unique storytelling, but also filmmaking that shows we can really help the filmmaker take the next step in their career. We want to highlight films that we can show to the industry and potentially work with that filmmaker on developing their content or getting distribution for their film.
Aguilar: What’s would you say are the main differences between the programming and initiatives in New York and Los Angeles?
Larry Laboe: NewFilmmakers New York started out being a monthly festival and it eventually turned into a weekly festival. Now they screen on a weekly basis. There is a lot of value that comes from the weekly programming. Here in L.A. we screen anywhere from 150 to 200 films a year, and they probably screen over 300 films a year.
In New York, the mentality with the programming is a bit different. They are more about highlighting experimental film, and we are more about highlighting unique storytelling that really offers a chance for that filmmaker to succeed and move on to bigger and better things. We are more about empowering people with industry tools, helping them develop relationships, and connecting with other creative people.
We would never try to do a weekly event just because it would be counterproductive to our monthly festival and to staying true to only showcasing a smaller number of filmmakers once each month. That’s the main difference. We also have a lot more corporate sponsorships. We have a lot of industry partnerships with companies like Sony Pictures Entertainment, SAG-aftra, Film L.A, Warner Brothers, and Disney. We are just more about the development of someone’s career and they are more about giving audiences a forum where they can both show they work and come and see work by independent filmmakers throughout the year,
Aguilar: With numerous film organizations based in Los Angeles, what makes NewFilmmakers stand out from the crowd? What unique opportunities do you offer filmmakers?
Larry Laboe: We are the only organization besides Hollywood Shorts that does a monthly festival. What sets us apart is that we screen shorts, features, and documentaries. We have a very premium 500-seat venue in Downtown L.A. We are really about showcasing a really small number of films each month. It’s a dedicated forum for those 10 or 15 filmmakers in each particular month. An annual festival can’t highlight 10 to 15 films in an 800-word press release because they have 150 to 200 filmmakers they are showcasing, but we can.
We definitely have an opportunity as a festival to focus more on each film, to pitch press more because we have more time. We have a chance to break apart each story and select different aspects of the story that might be appealing to press. Another important element we offer is a sizeable audience. With a lot of annual festivals you are sharing the audience with 4 or 5 screenings, and with out festival we never have overlapping screenings. There are always 3 screenings at each festival showcase. They are scheduled back to back to back, so our theater is generally always full.
Most of the filmmakers we have at our festival who have been at other festivals have an amazing response to what we do. They often say things like, “This is the best screening I’ve had,” “This was the biggest audience I’ve ever had,” “The promotion that you guys did for my film was amazing.“ We go out of our way in terms of our press release to make sure it gets as many pickups as possible. Our theater is also listed on Google as a local theater under the name “NewFilmmakers Los Angeles” alongside every AMC and other major chains. All of the films that we are showcasing at our monthly festival are listed on Fandango, MovieTickets.com, Google Movies, etc.
We are trying to change the stigma of an independent film being so much different form a studio film. We want to put our movies alongside movies that wide audiences are coming across and discovering online. We make sure that all our films get listed on those sites with synopses, trailers, director’s information, writer’s information, producer’s information and the cast.
Lastly, our online promotions for each film are very targeted. Our email list is over 67,000 subscribers. We have a huge following of moviegoers in L.A. that really want to come out and see films. It ranges from consumer moviegoers, to industry figures, distributors, production companies, producers, management companies, agencies, composers, cinematographers, editors, and many other people that are passionate about independent film.
Aguilar: What are some the partnerships and initiatives NewFilmmakers Los Angeles has set up to help filmmakers not only be part of this festival but develop their careers? Are any of these programs targeted to underrepresented segments of the population?
Larry Laboe: This year we are focusing on three different categories. We are focusing on documentary programming, we are focusing on programming films by Latino filmmakers, and we are focusing on programming work by female filmmakers. We are a very collaborative organization. We love all these other film festivals that take place annually. They are amazing for the filmmakers’ careers as well. We partner every year with AFI Fest, and with Film Independent for the Laiff among many others.
Regarding the three areas that we are focusing on this year I specifically would like to talk about our Latino focus. We’ve partnered with Nuvo TV, and they have a specific program called Nu Point of View: The Emergent Latino Filmmakers, which is an amazing opportunity. We’ve partnered with them for this initiative, which gives the filmmakers the opportunity to have their film screened on Nuvo TV, which is in over 35 million U.S. households. If selected Nuvo TV pays them a licensing fee to show the film.
As part of this partnership with NewFilmmakers, Nuvo is taking a first look at all the Latino finished films that we screen as part of our festival. To take it a step further we also organize two events a year with Nuvo TV to showcase Latino filmmakers and to spread the word about the films we are screening. They support all of our films with listings on the Nuvo TV website. I think this is a great example of the kind of collaborations we do to expand opportunities for our filmmakers.
We also just established a partnership with a new company called FilmBundle, which is a company that distributes packages of short films online. They generally include 5 to 10 films per package, and it allows the audience to pay what they want for the film bundle. You can pay as little as 10 cents or as much as $1000, whatever you want to contribute. Out of this donation FilmBundle takes a cut, the filmmakers get a cut, and a non-profit film organization gets a cut, but the audiences chooses how much they want each one of them to get. When you pay you can choose how much FilmBundle gets, how much the filmmaker gets, and how much the non-profit involved in creating that bundle gets. We partner up with really unique companies like this.
Another distribution opportunity we have for a out filmmakers is our partnership with ShortsHD, which has a U.S. channel for short films on DirecTV, At&T Uverse, Century Link, Frontier, and Google Fiber. ShortsHD also has a European channel for shorts. All of the films that we screen get a first look by Shorts HD. We are constantly working on opportunities like that for our filmmakers. We have a ton of prizes both cash and in production equipment, services, and additional filmmaking tools that help filmmakers throughout the year. A lot of the resources we get are in kind services from entertainment related companies or in kind donations to provide food and drinks at the events. We do it all with a very small staff and with little resources. Filmmakers that have come to the festival know this and are very appreciative of our efforts.
Aguilar: Where do the films come from? Does the programming focus on films made in L.A or are there films that come from abroad?
Larry Laboe: Our first mandate is to program a minimum of 20% of all the films we screen from international submissions. Our second mandate is to program another 20% of U.S. films from places outside of California. The other 60% we designate for L.A. local films. Being a Los Angeles organization we definitely wan to be supportive of local filmmakers but being an organization that is all about sharing films worldwide we also like to include films that represent international voices. We have a programming team made up of 8 people and a programming director, Susie Kim. All of the films that come into the festival are watched by a minimum of three people.
Aguilar: How much are tickets for NewFilmmakers Los Angeles screenings? What are the fees for filmmakers interested I submitting their films for consideration?
Larry Laboe: Another thing we do to make it as accessible as possible to everybody is to keep our tickets at $5. We try to keep the ticket prices lower than any festival that isn’t free. Our film submission prices are also low. There is a $25 submission fee for anyone who made their film in L.A, $30 student submission fee, $35 short fee, and $40 feature fee. Those prices don’t change throughout the year. For us is all about trying to include everybody and to create opportunities for filmmakers.
NewFilmmakers Los Angeles Upcoming Screening will take place on December 13th for tickets and more information visit Here...
Taking into account this constant supply of new work and the lack of an equally constant place to show it, Larry Laboe decided to create the film festival/film organization, NewFilmmakers Los Angeles, modeled after one by the same name in New York. Although the concept was essentially identical – a monthly film festival to showcase independent cinema- Laboe knew that an industry component was required to make of this new venture a success. Within a few years, NewFilmmakers Los Angeles has grown to become a unique vehicle for artists to launch their careers, connect with crucial support, and exchange ideas with each other and with audiences.
As Executive Director of NewFilmmakers Los Angeles Mr. Laboe continues to develop innovative partnerships and strategic relationships that benefit the filmmaking community. With the help of a small but dedicated team, which includes Artistic Director and Co-Founder Susie Kim, NewFilmmakers Los Angeles is a refreshing and multifaceted tool for filmmakers, industry professionals, and film lovers alike.
Mr. Laboe talked to us recently about these and other unique opportunities offered by NewFilmmakers Los Angeles.
Carlos Aguilar: Could you explain the essentials about what NewFilmmakers is, what you guys do, and how you got involved with this project?
Larry Laboe: NewFilmmakers as an organization has been around since 1998 in New York City. The NewFilmmakers New York program is part of the Anthology Film Archives, which is a center for promoting independent filmmakers and helping to preserve work by independent and experimental filmmakers. It’s been going on there for well over 16 years now. When I moved out to Los Angeles I had been a patron of NewFilmmakers New York for a long time. I really loved the sense of community it gave independent filmmakers in NYC. I really loved the programming and how eclectic and different it was. It was very unique compared to anything I had ever experienced before.
At the time I was somebody who would go to almost every film festival in the U.S. I was also a filmmaker, and somebody that simply loved to watch movies. I had experienced Tribeca Film Festival, SXSW, Sundance, AFI Fest, Laiff, and I just felt this uniqueness about NewFilmmakers and it’s format. It exhibited its films throughout the year instead of being an annual festival that screens films for a certain number of consecutive days.
What I found through my exploration with NewFilmmakers New York was that this festival was able to showcase more films throughout the year by doing it as a monthly festival. It was also able to highlight each filmmaker and their film more than at a traditional festival because you come to an event that is about 10 to 15 film instead of a weeklong event that’s about 200 films. That’s what I loved about the program.
When I moved to L.A. I immediately joined Film Independent, but even with them in town and many others that support film, I felt like there was a place for an organization like NewFilmmakers in Los Angeles. There wasn’t any consistent, truly independent film programming throughout the year. I found that Film Independent had their screening series but it was more about Fox Searchlight or Paramount Vantage movies. These are not what I would consider “new filmmakers” because a lot of the filmmakers they highlight have studio support or had done a lot of work in the past that sets them at a different level than a true new filmmaker.
The work we highlight is not amateur work, or student films, or first time filmmakers, it’s just truly independent film that is at the same level of what you would see at Sundance or SXSW. They are just filmmakers that still need a chance to get their voice out to an audience and to share their stories.
Many of the films that we screen go on to play at major festivals. They go on to win Academy Awards, student Academy Awards, and dozens of other prizes in other well-respected events. The content really can stand on its own. We really try to choose based on unique storytelling, but also filmmaking that shows we can really help the filmmaker take the next step in their career. We want to highlight films that we can show to the industry and potentially work with that filmmaker on developing their content or getting distribution for their film.
Aguilar: What’s would you say are the main differences between the programming and initiatives in New York and Los Angeles?
Larry Laboe: NewFilmmakers New York started out being a monthly festival and it eventually turned into a weekly festival. Now they screen on a weekly basis. There is a lot of value that comes from the weekly programming. Here in L.A. we screen anywhere from 150 to 200 films a year, and they probably screen over 300 films a year.
In New York, the mentality with the programming is a bit different. They are more about highlighting experimental film, and we are more about highlighting unique storytelling that really offers a chance for that filmmaker to succeed and move on to bigger and better things. We are more about empowering people with industry tools, helping them develop relationships, and connecting with other creative people.
We would never try to do a weekly event just because it would be counterproductive to our monthly festival and to staying true to only showcasing a smaller number of filmmakers once each month. That’s the main difference. We also have a lot more corporate sponsorships. We have a lot of industry partnerships with companies like Sony Pictures Entertainment, SAG-aftra, Film L.A, Warner Brothers, and Disney. We are just more about the development of someone’s career and they are more about giving audiences a forum where they can both show they work and come and see work by independent filmmakers throughout the year,
Aguilar: With numerous film organizations based in Los Angeles, what makes NewFilmmakers stand out from the crowd? What unique opportunities do you offer filmmakers?
Larry Laboe: We are the only organization besides Hollywood Shorts that does a monthly festival. What sets us apart is that we screen shorts, features, and documentaries. We have a very premium 500-seat venue in Downtown L.A. We are really about showcasing a really small number of films each month. It’s a dedicated forum for those 10 or 15 filmmakers in each particular month. An annual festival can’t highlight 10 to 15 films in an 800-word press release because they have 150 to 200 filmmakers they are showcasing, but we can.
We definitely have an opportunity as a festival to focus more on each film, to pitch press more because we have more time. We have a chance to break apart each story and select different aspects of the story that might be appealing to press. Another important element we offer is a sizeable audience. With a lot of annual festivals you are sharing the audience with 4 or 5 screenings, and with out festival we never have overlapping screenings. There are always 3 screenings at each festival showcase. They are scheduled back to back to back, so our theater is generally always full.
Most of the filmmakers we have at our festival who have been at other festivals have an amazing response to what we do. They often say things like, “This is the best screening I’ve had,” “This was the biggest audience I’ve ever had,” “The promotion that you guys did for my film was amazing.“ We go out of our way in terms of our press release to make sure it gets as many pickups as possible. Our theater is also listed on Google as a local theater under the name “NewFilmmakers Los Angeles” alongside every AMC and other major chains. All of the films that we are showcasing at our monthly festival are listed on Fandango, MovieTickets.com, Google Movies, etc.
We are trying to change the stigma of an independent film being so much different form a studio film. We want to put our movies alongside movies that wide audiences are coming across and discovering online. We make sure that all our films get listed on those sites with synopses, trailers, director’s information, writer’s information, producer’s information and the cast.
Lastly, our online promotions for each film are very targeted. Our email list is over 67,000 subscribers. We have a huge following of moviegoers in L.A. that really want to come out and see films. It ranges from consumer moviegoers, to industry figures, distributors, production companies, producers, management companies, agencies, composers, cinematographers, editors, and many other people that are passionate about independent film.
Aguilar: What are some the partnerships and initiatives NewFilmmakers Los Angeles has set up to help filmmakers not only be part of this festival but develop their careers? Are any of these programs targeted to underrepresented segments of the population?
Larry Laboe: This year we are focusing on three different categories. We are focusing on documentary programming, we are focusing on programming films by Latino filmmakers, and we are focusing on programming work by female filmmakers. We are a very collaborative organization. We love all these other film festivals that take place annually. They are amazing for the filmmakers’ careers as well. We partner every year with AFI Fest, and with Film Independent for the Laiff among many others.
Regarding the three areas that we are focusing on this year I specifically would like to talk about our Latino focus. We’ve partnered with Nuvo TV, and they have a specific program called Nu Point of View: The Emergent Latino Filmmakers, which is an amazing opportunity. We’ve partnered with them for this initiative, which gives the filmmakers the opportunity to have their film screened on Nuvo TV, which is in over 35 million U.S. households. If selected Nuvo TV pays them a licensing fee to show the film.
As part of this partnership with NewFilmmakers, Nuvo is taking a first look at all the Latino finished films that we screen as part of our festival. To take it a step further we also organize two events a year with Nuvo TV to showcase Latino filmmakers and to spread the word about the films we are screening. They support all of our films with listings on the Nuvo TV website. I think this is a great example of the kind of collaborations we do to expand opportunities for our filmmakers.
We also just established a partnership with a new company called FilmBundle, which is a company that distributes packages of short films online. They generally include 5 to 10 films per package, and it allows the audience to pay what they want for the film bundle. You can pay as little as 10 cents or as much as $1000, whatever you want to contribute. Out of this donation FilmBundle takes a cut, the filmmakers get a cut, and a non-profit film organization gets a cut, but the audiences chooses how much they want each one of them to get. When you pay you can choose how much FilmBundle gets, how much the filmmaker gets, and how much the non-profit involved in creating that bundle gets. We partner up with really unique companies like this.
Another distribution opportunity we have for a out filmmakers is our partnership with ShortsHD, which has a U.S. channel for short films on DirecTV, At&T Uverse, Century Link, Frontier, and Google Fiber. ShortsHD also has a European channel for shorts. All of the films that we screen get a first look by Shorts HD. We are constantly working on opportunities like that for our filmmakers. We have a ton of prizes both cash and in production equipment, services, and additional filmmaking tools that help filmmakers throughout the year. A lot of the resources we get are in kind services from entertainment related companies or in kind donations to provide food and drinks at the events. We do it all with a very small staff and with little resources. Filmmakers that have come to the festival know this and are very appreciative of our efforts.
Aguilar: Where do the films come from? Does the programming focus on films made in L.A or are there films that come from abroad?
Larry Laboe: Our first mandate is to program a minimum of 20% of all the films we screen from international submissions. Our second mandate is to program another 20% of U.S. films from places outside of California. The other 60% we designate for L.A. local films. Being a Los Angeles organization we definitely wan to be supportive of local filmmakers but being an organization that is all about sharing films worldwide we also like to include films that represent international voices. We have a programming team made up of 8 people and a programming director, Susie Kim. All of the films that come into the festival are watched by a minimum of three people.
Aguilar: How much are tickets for NewFilmmakers Los Angeles screenings? What are the fees for filmmakers interested I submitting their films for consideration?
Larry Laboe: Another thing we do to make it as accessible as possible to everybody is to keep our tickets at $5. We try to keep the ticket prices lower than any festival that isn’t free. Our film submission prices are also low. There is a $25 submission fee for anyone who made their film in L.A, $30 student submission fee, $35 short fee, and $40 feature fee. Those prices don’t change throughout the year. For us is all about trying to include everybody and to create opportunities for filmmakers.
NewFilmmakers Los Angeles Upcoming Screening will take place on December 13th for tickets and more information visit Here...
- 11/25/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
With two stylistically distinct animated shorts under his belt- both of them having screened in the Cannes Film Festival’s Shorts Corner - Argentine filmmaker Nicolás Villarrealhas demonstrated that his repertoire is varied, his ideas unique, and that he can successfully create compelling stories that shine for their brevity and poignancy.
His latest short "Nieta" is a dazzling homage to the love between a young girl and her grandfather. Black & white, minimalist characters appear on the screen at first to then give way to dancing vibrant colors only possible in the untainted imagination of a child. In Villareal's film music is one of the most prominent embellishments. The interaction between image and sound in a short film with no dialogue becomes much more significant. Sweet and warm melodies accompany the touching story from start to finish guiding the viewer through the films imaginative landscape.
Above all Nicolas Villareal is a fan of animation and the great animators that inspired him to make his own drawings and bless them with the spark of movement. Despite it's festival pedigree, " Nieta" was shockingly not shortlisted for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short, but the film is still eligible and in the running for other accolades.
Villareal is working on his first animated feature, which is still in the very early stages and looking for support. He talked to us from San Francisco about "Nieta," his comedic first short "Pasteurized," his artistic heroes and his future plans.
Carlos Aguilar: Each of your animated shorts, “Pasteurized” and “Nieta” showcases very distinct styles of both animation and storytelling. What are some of your favorite animated films or animators that have influence your vision?
Nicolas Villareal: I love Disney classics. “Robin Hood” is one of my favorite films, but I also love more recent films like “The Lion King,” “Tarzan” and “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.” My favorite animation style is the one used in Disney’s “ Robin Hood,” “The Sword in the Stone” and Sylvain Chomet’s “The Triplets of Bellville.” In these films the drawings are made in pencil, but the color is added on top and underneath, so we still see the lines. I love those films because you can still see the drawing. These days those in charge of 2D animation make a sort of sterile line to remove everything done by the animator. I understand it’s done so it looks better, and so it looks more alive, but I personal liked the old fashioned way better because you could still see the handmade work on the screen
Chuck Jones was also one of my favorites directors. He worked on all of Warner’s classic Looney Tunes cartoons like Bugs Bunny or Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. I remember watching “Tom and Jerry” when I was kid, and there were certain episode in which the opening credits were a bit different. Then I realized that those were the episodes that Chuck Jones directed. When I was a kid, of course, I had no idea who he was, but I liked those episodes better. They had a much more slick design.
There is also another short I love called “The Man Who Plated Trees” by Frederic Back. It’s similar to the animation used in the Colors in the Wind sequence in “Pocahontas”
Aguilar: Tell me a bit about “Nieta.” On the surface the plot is incredibly simple, but there are emotional layers there that are surprisingly heartwarming and told without the need of dialogue or overly complex situations.
Nicolas Villareal: This was a story I had in my mind for a long time, but before it was much more complex. It’s a story that’s inspired by a photograph of my mother when she was a young girl and my grandfather. Also, a photograph of my grandmother inspired the last image in the film, but I added the mustache because I wanted it to look like a smile.
I started drawing sketches and I started thinking about those colors one sees when you close your eyes tightly and then you open them again. I used to do that a lot when I was a kid, and thinking of that brought these fluorescent colors to mind. Since the little girl in the short is blind, I thought that perhaps the colors in her world were more beautiful that the ones we see.
I was also very fond of the idea of showing the grandfather’s love for her. He was teaching her how to use the walking cane, but they end up using it together. It’s something small but very personal that only they understand. I love to hear how people interpret the short. Every person gets something different from it. It’s has very strong visual but they are equally abstract. The short lends itself for interpretation. It’s different to my previous animated short “Pasteurized,” which is more straightforward. The story in “Nieta” is subtle.
Aguilar: Coming from a much more complex and elaborate film like “Pasteurized” in term of backgrounds and set pieces within the story, how was the process of decompressing and develop something smaller in scale, but perhaps more emotional poignant, like “Nieta”?
Nicolas Villareal: I worked on “Pasteurized” for 27 months and I devoted my time to creating a layered backgrounds and characters. Some of the backgrounds took over two weeks two create. While I was working on that film, I started drawing different versions of this little girl in “Nieta” and I decided that I wanted to do something totally different visually. I wanted to know if relying on the story I could manage to use this graphic visual style. I wanted to test how graphically minimalist I could do it make and still tell the story.
I had this idea of starting in black and white and then switching to color as the story goes on. The color had to be like paint drops coming to life. I started making basic conceptual art using Photoshop, and then I showed them to our visual effects artist and he started doing some tests. We worked on it for some time testing different versions. When he managed to do something that was perfect in terms of the look of this colorful and vibrant paint drops, we decides to change it a bit more to make it more abstract.
Aguilar: How long did it take you to complete “Nieta”? I understand it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year.
Nicolas Villareal: “Nietat” took about a year to complete. I started working on the first storyboard on animatics in December 2012. At this point I had a rough idea of the character design. We started production in February of 2013, and finished it in March of 2014, not that long ago. As soon as it was finished we sent it to Cannes. It premiered there in the Shorts Corner. With my other short “Pasteurized,” Cannes was one of the last film festivals where it screened and my producer would tell me it was a shame that Cannes wasn’t the first one. When we were done with “Nieta” we decided to send it and wait for their decision. Luckily we got in.
Aguilar: One of the most important components in “Nieta” is the music. How was your relationship with the composer when deciding what would be best for this film? It’s a very short film I’m sure finding the right tone was pivotal.
Nicolas Villareal: The music was created by Michael Brennan, who is a good friend of mine. He is incredibly talented and very easygoing. It’s a pleasure working with him. He worked as the conductor’s assistant for “The Lion King” on Broadway, and has also worked on other Broadway shows. He is now working making music for features and short films, and he is the main conductor for the show Le Reve (The Dream) in Las Vegas. He also made the music for “Pasteurized,” which is completely different. I’m always impressed by his range.
I showed him “Nieta” and I told him, “In “Pasteurized” the music accompanied the images, in this one I want the opposite, I want the music to be the star. The images will accompany your music. Give it all the sensibility you have.” I showed him the music of Astor Piazzolla, which is some of my favorite music. He was an Argentine tango composer who died in the early 90s. His tangos were much more modern. I showed his music to Michael and he asked me what instrument I would like. I told him I wanted it to be only piano. He then asked, “Would you like me to add some bells, violins, and bandoneon, which could sound really good.”
I told him to add whatever he thought would work. One of the things I enjoyed the most about working with a team is that many times someone can have a better idea than your original one. I said “I want piano only” and he said, “I imagine it with a little something more.” I gave in and I told him to do it. I like these spontaneous ideas.
There were two versions of the soundtrack. I loved the first one. In that version, the music at the end was very soft, almost melancholic. Then Michael told me, “Don’t you think we should end on a happier note?” He tried it. I told him to add just 10% more of happiness [Laughs]. He did and now in the short you can tell that near the end the music becomes more joyful. Thanks to that I think the short became a joyful but emotional piece.
Aguilar: Given that you’ve shown to be able to create great films with different styles, what’s your favorite animation style?
Nicolas Villareal: I love traditional animation, but I appreciate all other styles. I believe that the story defines the best style to use. This story seems to me like it needed to be much more simpler because what was important was what the characters felt. I wanted it to be very basic so that the emotion could shine. Another style I like a lot is stop-motion. I’m working on a feature film that will use stop-motion combined with traditional animation. I have the script ready and we are working on getting it off the ground. I might even make a dream sequence with the style I used in “Nieta.”
Aguilar: Why do you think certain stories should be told using animation today?
Nicolas Villareal: I think now with VFX the lines between animation and live action have blurred. One can do many more things using a blend of live action and VFX these days. Years ago animation allowed you to create images that wouldn’t work as well in live action. I particularly love animation because I can develop the characters in a way that works different from live action in terms of its visual aesthetic. I’m not sure that “Nieta” would work as a live action short.
Aguilar: Latin American animation has grown rapidly as a viable medium in the region, but I still feel like it’s in its early life in comparison to the rest of the world. Have you seen any Latin American animated films you like recently?
Nicolas Villareal: The medium has grown a lot in Latin America. Campanella’s “Underdog” (Metegol) was the first Latin American CG animated film that was developed with the same quality as international productions. I enjoyed it a lot. On the other hand, “Anina,” the Uruguayan film reminded be of “The Triplets of Belleville,” it has a much more European style. Although it seems like a relatively new art form in the region, there are Argentine animated shorts from the 1940s such as “Usa en Apuros” (Usa in Trouble) or “Patoruzito.” These show impressive technical abilities. They have the same production value and quality as Disney shorts from that time.
Aguilar: What can you tell me about your next project? You mentioned is a feature with a very unique visual style.
Nicolas Villareal: My next project is a feature film titled “The Aces,” and it’s based on a children’s book I wrote and illustrated. It’s a story I’ve been thinking about for a long time. When I draw the first sketches for it I was in middle school. We have the script but we are reworking it. We are developing the characters, and as I mentioned before, it will be a combination of stop-motion and 2D animation. We are working on a trailer to show producers and studios. The trailer shows a little bit of the story, but focuses on highlighting the animation style. We will be working on this project for the next few years.
His latest short "Nieta" is a dazzling homage to the love between a young girl and her grandfather. Black & white, minimalist characters appear on the screen at first to then give way to dancing vibrant colors only possible in the untainted imagination of a child. In Villareal's film music is one of the most prominent embellishments. The interaction between image and sound in a short film with no dialogue becomes much more significant. Sweet and warm melodies accompany the touching story from start to finish guiding the viewer through the films imaginative landscape.
Above all Nicolas Villareal is a fan of animation and the great animators that inspired him to make his own drawings and bless them with the spark of movement. Despite it's festival pedigree, " Nieta" was shockingly not shortlisted for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short, but the film is still eligible and in the running for other accolades.
Villareal is working on his first animated feature, which is still in the very early stages and looking for support. He talked to us from San Francisco about "Nieta," his comedic first short "Pasteurized," his artistic heroes and his future plans.
Carlos Aguilar: Each of your animated shorts, “Pasteurized” and “Nieta” showcases very distinct styles of both animation and storytelling. What are some of your favorite animated films or animators that have influence your vision?
Nicolas Villareal: I love Disney classics. “Robin Hood” is one of my favorite films, but I also love more recent films like “The Lion King,” “Tarzan” and “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.” My favorite animation style is the one used in Disney’s “ Robin Hood,” “The Sword in the Stone” and Sylvain Chomet’s “The Triplets of Bellville.” In these films the drawings are made in pencil, but the color is added on top and underneath, so we still see the lines. I love those films because you can still see the drawing. These days those in charge of 2D animation make a sort of sterile line to remove everything done by the animator. I understand it’s done so it looks better, and so it looks more alive, but I personal liked the old fashioned way better because you could still see the handmade work on the screen
Chuck Jones was also one of my favorites directors. He worked on all of Warner’s classic Looney Tunes cartoons like Bugs Bunny or Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. I remember watching “Tom and Jerry” when I was kid, and there were certain episode in which the opening credits were a bit different. Then I realized that those were the episodes that Chuck Jones directed. When I was a kid, of course, I had no idea who he was, but I liked those episodes better. They had a much more slick design.
There is also another short I love called “The Man Who Plated Trees” by Frederic Back. It’s similar to the animation used in the Colors in the Wind sequence in “Pocahontas”
Aguilar: Tell me a bit about “Nieta.” On the surface the plot is incredibly simple, but there are emotional layers there that are surprisingly heartwarming and told without the need of dialogue or overly complex situations.
Nicolas Villareal: This was a story I had in my mind for a long time, but before it was much more complex. It’s a story that’s inspired by a photograph of my mother when she was a young girl and my grandfather. Also, a photograph of my grandmother inspired the last image in the film, but I added the mustache because I wanted it to look like a smile.
I started drawing sketches and I started thinking about those colors one sees when you close your eyes tightly and then you open them again. I used to do that a lot when I was a kid, and thinking of that brought these fluorescent colors to mind. Since the little girl in the short is blind, I thought that perhaps the colors in her world were more beautiful that the ones we see.
I was also very fond of the idea of showing the grandfather’s love for her. He was teaching her how to use the walking cane, but they end up using it together. It’s something small but very personal that only they understand. I love to hear how people interpret the short. Every person gets something different from it. It’s has very strong visual but they are equally abstract. The short lends itself for interpretation. It’s different to my previous animated short “Pasteurized,” which is more straightforward. The story in “Nieta” is subtle.
Aguilar: Coming from a much more complex and elaborate film like “Pasteurized” in term of backgrounds and set pieces within the story, how was the process of decompressing and develop something smaller in scale, but perhaps more emotional poignant, like “Nieta”?
Nicolas Villareal: I worked on “Pasteurized” for 27 months and I devoted my time to creating a layered backgrounds and characters. Some of the backgrounds took over two weeks two create. While I was working on that film, I started drawing different versions of this little girl in “Nieta” and I decided that I wanted to do something totally different visually. I wanted to know if relying on the story I could manage to use this graphic visual style. I wanted to test how graphically minimalist I could do it make and still tell the story.
I had this idea of starting in black and white and then switching to color as the story goes on. The color had to be like paint drops coming to life. I started making basic conceptual art using Photoshop, and then I showed them to our visual effects artist and he started doing some tests. We worked on it for some time testing different versions. When he managed to do something that was perfect in terms of the look of this colorful and vibrant paint drops, we decides to change it a bit more to make it more abstract.
Aguilar: How long did it take you to complete “Nieta”? I understand it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year.
Nicolas Villareal: “Nietat” took about a year to complete. I started working on the first storyboard on animatics in December 2012. At this point I had a rough idea of the character design. We started production in February of 2013, and finished it in March of 2014, not that long ago. As soon as it was finished we sent it to Cannes. It premiered there in the Shorts Corner. With my other short “Pasteurized,” Cannes was one of the last film festivals where it screened and my producer would tell me it was a shame that Cannes wasn’t the first one. When we were done with “Nieta” we decided to send it and wait for their decision. Luckily we got in.
Aguilar: One of the most important components in “Nieta” is the music. How was your relationship with the composer when deciding what would be best for this film? It’s a very short film I’m sure finding the right tone was pivotal.
Nicolas Villareal: The music was created by Michael Brennan, who is a good friend of mine. He is incredibly talented and very easygoing. It’s a pleasure working with him. He worked as the conductor’s assistant for “The Lion King” on Broadway, and has also worked on other Broadway shows. He is now working making music for features and short films, and he is the main conductor for the show Le Reve (The Dream) in Las Vegas. He also made the music for “Pasteurized,” which is completely different. I’m always impressed by his range.
I showed him “Nieta” and I told him, “In “Pasteurized” the music accompanied the images, in this one I want the opposite, I want the music to be the star. The images will accompany your music. Give it all the sensibility you have.” I showed him the music of Astor Piazzolla, which is some of my favorite music. He was an Argentine tango composer who died in the early 90s. His tangos were much more modern. I showed his music to Michael and he asked me what instrument I would like. I told him I wanted it to be only piano. He then asked, “Would you like me to add some bells, violins, and bandoneon, which could sound really good.”
I told him to add whatever he thought would work. One of the things I enjoyed the most about working with a team is that many times someone can have a better idea than your original one. I said “I want piano only” and he said, “I imagine it with a little something more.” I gave in and I told him to do it. I like these spontaneous ideas.
There were two versions of the soundtrack. I loved the first one. In that version, the music at the end was very soft, almost melancholic. Then Michael told me, “Don’t you think we should end on a happier note?” He tried it. I told him to add just 10% more of happiness [Laughs]. He did and now in the short you can tell that near the end the music becomes more joyful. Thanks to that I think the short became a joyful but emotional piece.
Aguilar: Given that you’ve shown to be able to create great films with different styles, what’s your favorite animation style?
Nicolas Villareal: I love traditional animation, but I appreciate all other styles. I believe that the story defines the best style to use. This story seems to me like it needed to be much more simpler because what was important was what the characters felt. I wanted it to be very basic so that the emotion could shine. Another style I like a lot is stop-motion. I’m working on a feature film that will use stop-motion combined with traditional animation. I have the script ready and we are working on getting it off the ground. I might even make a dream sequence with the style I used in “Nieta.”
Aguilar: Why do you think certain stories should be told using animation today?
Nicolas Villareal: I think now with VFX the lines between animation and live action have blurred. One can do many more things using a blend of live action and VFX these days. Years ago animation allowed you to create images that wouldn’t work as well in live action. I particularly love animation because I can develop the characters in a way that works different from live action in terms of its visual aesthetic. I’m not sure that “Nieta” would work as a live action short.
Aguilar: Latin American animation has grown rapidly as a viable medium in the region, but I still feel like it’s in its early life in comparison to the rest of the world. Have you seen any Latin American animated films you like recently?
Nicolas Villareal: The medium has grown a lot in Latin America. Campanella’s “Underdog” (Metegol) was the first Latin American CG animated film that was developed with the same quality as international productions. I enjoyed it a lot. On the other hand, “Anina,” the Uruguayan film reminded be of “The Triplets of Belleville,” it has a much more European style. Although it seems like a relatively new art form in the region, there are Argentine animated shorts from the 1940s such as “Usa en Apuros” (Usa in Trouble) or “Patoruzito.” These show impressive technical abilities. They have the same production value and quality as Disney shorts from that time.
Aguilar: What can you tell me about your next project? You mentioned is a feature with a very unique visual style.
Nicolas Villareal: My next project is a feature film titled “The Aces,” and it’s based on a children’s book I wrote and illustrated. It’s a story I’ve been thinking about for a long time. When I draw the first sketches for it I was in middle school. We have the script but we are reworking it. We are developing the characters, and as I mentioned before, it will be a combination of stop-motion and 2D animation. We are working on a trailer to show producers and studios. The trailer shows a little bit of the story, but focuses on highlighting the animation style. We will be working on this project for the next few years.
- 11/18/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Announcing the end of the Cold War in Europe and representing the long-awaited reunification of Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall became a moment in history engraved on the world’s memory as a symbol of regained freedom and the end of oppression. But while the physical division no longer exists, the fears and unaddressed violations of privacy continue to be a delicate subject 25 years after. Both sides had their own assumptions about the other. For those living on the Stasi-controlled state, the West was perceived a mythical land of prosperity and life out of the shadows. Evidently, for those in the capitalist side, the East was a gloomy house of horrors in which everything you did or said could be used against. But as with most situations, things weren't as clear cut as popular belief made out to be.
As someone who lived on both sides of the wall, German filmmaker Christian Schwochow can testify of these stereotypical assumptions. To him, Germany is still a country quietly divided by an invisible wall built on the notion that most people don't have any interest in revisiting this time period. At the same time, he is concerned about the unquestioning compliance and passiveness most citizens show. He believes we talk about the infiltration of secret organizations in people's lives as if this was a thing of the past, when it's more aggressively present today than ever before.
In his latest film "West," Nelly (Jördis Triebel), a strong-willed mother, and her son Alexej (Tristan Göbel) leave the East and arrive in the West to become refugees. Their new home offers more challenges than benefits. Nelly is constantly interrogated by an American intelligence agent John Bird (Jacky Ido) about her partner's whereabouts. In their eyes she is a criminal by default, and her every move is analyzed for any trace of subservient defiance. Meanwhile young Alexej is humiliated and mistreated based on the place he was born, even if that is simply on the other side of the infamous concrete border. Suddenly the land that promised endless wonders doesn't seen so different from the image of what the East is supposed to be like.
Schwochow talked to us from Ireland where he is working on his next film.
Carlos Aguilar : As a German filmmaker why was it important for you to make a film about this dark period in your country’s history? Was it because you felt compelled by the source material? Was it the political implications of it?
Christian Schwochow: With her novel Lagerfeuer (Campfire), upon which the film is based, Julian Franck became one of the first young writers to have a different perspective on this time period. When I read it, what she described felt, on one hand, very strange because I didn’t know about these places, these refugee centers. On the other hand, it felt very familiar because I grew up with parents who always discussed the state of the country we lived in. They were always reflecting on “Should we stay? Or should we leave?” My dad was 18-years-old when he went to prison because he tried to escape from East to West.
When I read the book for the fist time I was in first year of film school, so it was totally out of reach to get rights for a novel like that. It took me almost 10 years to come back to this story. There are so many things that people, East Germans included, experience when they have hopes for a new life somewhere else. They take a big risk to leave their country and start in a new place. Most of them succeed in starting a new life, but many have a very hard time in the process.
I feel this is a subject that becomes more and more important nowadays because we have millions of refugees all over the world who come to Western Europe or the U.S. and in many cases they are just not welcome. This combined with the special atmosphere of the Cold War years in West Berlin struck me in a way. There are so many things in this story that relate to my personal family history that once I read this novel it just never left my heart.
Aguilar: Tell me about the social mechanics in Germany today regarding the legacy of the East and the West. It's only been 25 years, relatively a short time, since Germanay became a unified country once again. Is there still a sense of separation, of families divided by this border even if it's no longer there physically?
Christian Schwochow: I think there were quiet many families who were divided. However, there are also people who lived in either side of Germany, but who never had or have any relationship with the other side whether it was former East or former West Germany. There are people who are still not very curious about how people lived on the other side of the wall. Therefore, there are still so many stereotypes and misguided ideas about both sides.
It’s still very common for someone from the West to believe that a former Eastern person or a former Eastern family must have been unhappy living in East Germany. There is also the common assumption that a family or a person who left the East and moved to the West must have found happiness right away, which was far more difficult in most cases.
Aguilar: In your film, East and West don't seem to be so different. When Nelly and Alexej arrive in West Germany they immediately become suspects by the mere fact that they came from the East. They were running from the Stasi and came to find a similarly invasive system in the West. They find another group in control that wants to know everything and hide it away.
Christian Schwochow: It’s a historical fact that the Stasi did horrible things and that they monitored a lot of people in East Germany, but I find it very interesting to think about the importance of the Western secret services back then and still working today. Since what happened with Edward Snowden we know that there is still so much going on. Secret Services are everywhere. They are part of out daily life. We just don’t really care. We are not concerned at all.
I’m not sure how it is in America, but for what I can say about Germany, most people give their information willingly to anyone who asks for it such as companies like Google. We just don’t question it anymore. When it we learned that our chancellor’s phone was being monitored there was very little debate or outcry. I can’t understand that. It’s a bit of a coincidence that my film was released in Germany just a bit after Edward Snowden share all these details with the public. Still, people don’t really discuss it for some reason.
Aguilar: In order to support the information on the novel with more historical accuracy, what kind of research did you do? Were you able to find reliable information on such a secretive time period for both sides of Germany, and most of Europe for that matter?
Christian Schwochow: There was quiet a lot of research from my part. I’m lucky to have parents who were very involved in political issues during the Cold War. I wrote this script together with my mother. In their work as journalists they always dealt with these issues related to the country’s separation. We had many friends we could talk to about this, including Julian Franck, the author of the novel.
She spent many months in a refugee center in Berlin when she was a child. I also spoke with people who worked in these camps. I spoke with an American Secret Service agent. I talked to a former headmaster of the refugee center. This was the historical and political research I did, but I also tried to get a sense of how it felt to live in a place like this.
For weeks I kept going back to this big refugee center in Berlin for people from Syria, Iraq, and other countries. I also spent time in a center for homeless people to get a sense of the physical and psychological experience these people had to go through. There are refugee and homeless centers all over the world, and it hasn’t really changed much.
Aguilar: Writing a script about a mother and a son with your mother must have been a rather interesting experience. How is your relationship with her as a creative partner? Did you infuse this work in particular with the personal experiences you share with her?
Christian Schwochow: We’ve written the scripts for my three features together, “West” included. We are already a team and it has always worked out pretty well because we share a similar sense of humor. We have a similar curiosity about the world. We have our own great way of discussing things and even fighting. There are no egos between us. Things that usually can get difficult while collaborating with another artist are not difficult between us. We left East Germany right after the fall of the wall.
My parents had submitted an application to East German government so we could leave to the West, the application was accepted on the morning of November 9 th, the historic date. We left East Germany and we move to the West. Many of the things that Nelly and her son Alexej experience in the film come from what we experienced, mostly details. My mother was always a person who wouldn’t just say what people wanted her to say. She would always question things, and she would always stand for her own opinions and ideas.
The situation Alexej experiences at the day care when he talks about his red neckerchief and what people thought it mean, it was exactly what I experienced at school. People didn’t really know how to deal with us coming from the East. Our personal experiences were of crucial help when writing this script.
Aguilar: As you mention, it seems that as time goes by young people have less and less interest in looking back at the past. In those terms, was it challenging to work with Tristan, who plays Alexej, and explain to him the historical context in which the story takes place?
Christian Schwochow: As you can imagine for a 10- year-old boy - which is how old Tristan was when we shot the film - the whole historical background is very theoretical. Working with him on certain scenes I tried to find things that he can relate to from his personal life. He lives with his mother and four siblings. Therefore, he understand that sometimes a mother can’t concentrate only on one child and she has difficulties spending time with each one as much as they need it. I tried to find ideas that he, as a 10-year-old living today, could connect with.
We taught him Russian for the part. He did pretty well. I had great adult actors like Alexander Scheer, who plays Hans, took good care of Tristan. The same goes for Jördis Triebel. She has two small children of her own, and it was very easy for her to create the mother and son relationship with him. We tried to act very professionally with the young actor. We didn’t want to treat him too much like a child.
What also helped was that we had numerous extras in this film. We had many people, adults and children, from Eastern European countries that had gone through similar experiences. Many of them share with us what they had gone through, sometimes just a few weeks before we met them to make the film together. I tried to help him create his own truth with his character by showing him as much as possible about the historical details and searching for those things that he could relate to today.
Aguilar: The character that I found the most intriguing was Hans. He becomes a target for people at this center to express their resentment and anger towards the repression they experienced in the East. Why was it important for you to include an ambiguous character like in the story?
Christian Schwochow: He is very important for me because it’s a fact that there are many people that left their lives behind and tried to start a new life in the West but didn’t succeed for many reasons. They probably were too scared, too overwhelmed, they were shocked by what they found or by how they were treated, or they just developed certain fears. Hans is one of them. I needed a character like him in the film because these people never really spoke about their experience. Still now, people assume that those who lived in the East where unhappy and once they escaped everything turned into something wonderful and free. They believe in that cliché of the “Golden West.”
The ones who didn’t succeed couldn’t tell success stories. Even today they don’t talk about it because it’s just too difficult for them to speak about plans that failed. You will hardly ever find this kind of people in the media doing interviews or mentioned in books. Hans is a voice for these people. It was also important that the man who everyone suspects of being a villain is in the end the person who carries hope for Nelly and Alexej. She decides to trust this man even though she probably will never find out what’s the truth about him.
Something very unique about Germany these days is that once you are suspected or accused of having worked for the Stassi, it doesn’t matter if you were 18-years-old, or a child, or an adult back then. Even if you deny it you won’t get rid of this suspicion. It doesn’t matter what you do, this stigma will stick with you. In some cases it’s true because there are many people who collaborated with them, but there are many other cases in which someone suspected them without proof. These people will never get rid of this.
Aguilar: Nelly is a determined woman with a strong personality. Besides what's on the novel, did any qualities from your mother or other people in your life influence you while writing this character?
Christian Schwochow: I grew up with very strong women who would have their own strong opinions and who would speak their minds. My mother is like this. My grandmother was like this. They were women who tool the risk not to fit in because they were strong characters. In East Germany it was very normal for a woman to go out and work even if she had children. A few weeks after giving birth women would return to their normal working life. We never had housewives in East Germany. Nelly is a very familiar person for me because I think I know quiet many “Nellies. ”
Looking at it from an outsider’s perspective one could say, “She is stubborn,” “She could have cooperated with them,” “She could just say what they want to hear from her,” but she is not like that. She is a woman with characteristics we usually attribute to a male protagonist. She defies this.
There is also the fact that she has a secret. I feel like we can believe everything she says in this film. I believe everything she says, but I know that for the audience she might be a character that you can’t really see through in the beginning. I hope that eventually people can feel her emotions, her trauma, and her fears. I just thought it was more interesting for her not to be nice or understandable right from the start.
Aguilar: 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall where do things stand?
Christian Schwochow: In Germany we have started to make many films about our own history. However, we tend to make the stories as simple as possible in order to find very simple truths. I made this film to provide another perspective and to show people something they have probably never heard about.
On the other hand, the secret services still play such a prominent role on our daily life and we seem not to care anymore. This has nothing to do with East and West. It’s so easy to look back and say, “There were two different countries, one was the free country and in the other people weren’t free,” but it was so much more complicated. Looking back at this time I’ve realized why it’s still so difficult for German people to communicate with each other.
At the same time I wanted to make a film about what it means to be a refugee today. I believe this will become an increasingly bigger issue for the Western World. We are still desperately trying to find answers for this problem.
For a list of screenings and events where the film will play visit Here...
As someone who lived on both sides of the wall, German filmmaker Christian Schwochow can testify of these stereotypical assumptions. To him, Germany is still a country quietly divided by an invisible wall built on the notion that most people don't have any interest in revisiting this time period. At the same time, he is concerned about the unquestioning compliance and passiveness most citizens show. He believes we talk about the infiltration of secret organizations in people's lives as if this was a thing of the past, when it's more aggressively present today than ever before.
In his latest film "West," Nelly (Jördis Triebel), a strong-willed mother, and her son Alexej (Tristan Göbel) leave the East and arrive in the West to become refugees. Their new home offers more challenges than benefits. Nelly is constantly interrogated by an American intelligence agent John Bird (Jacky Ido) about her partner's whereabouts. In their eyes she is a criminal by default, and her every move is analyzed for any trace of subservient defiance. Meanwhile young Alexej is humiliated and mistreated based on the place he was born, even if that is simply on the other side of the infamous concrete border. Suddenly the land that promised endless wonders doesn't seen so different from the image of what the East is supposed to be like.
Schwochow talked to us from Ireland where he is working on his next film.
Carlos Aguilar : As a German filmmaker why was it important for you to make a film about this dark period in your country’s history? Was it because you felt compelled by the source material? Was it the political implications of it?
Christian Schwochow: With her novel Lagerfeuer (Campfire), upon which the film is based, Julian Franck became one of the first young writers to have a different perspective on this time period. When I read it, what she described felt, on one hand, very strange because I didn’t know about these places, these refugee centers. On the other hand, it felt very familiar because I grew up with parents who always discussed the state of the country we lived in. They were always reflecting on “Should we stay? Or should we leave?” My dad was 18-years-old when he went to prison because he tried to escape from East to West.
When I read the book for the fist time I was in first year of film school, so it was totally out of reach to get rights for a novel like that. It took me almost 10 years to come back to this story. There are so many things that people, East Germans included, experience when they have hopes for a new life somewhere else. They take a big risk to leave their country and start in a new place. Most of them succeed in starting a new life, but many have a very hard time in the process.
I feel this is a subject that becomes more and more important nowadays because we have millions of refugees all over the world who come to Western Europe or the U.S. and in many cases they are just not welcome. This combined with the special atmosphere of the Cold War years in West Berlin struck me in a way. There are so many things in this story that relate to my personal family history that once I read this novel it just never left my heart.
Aguilar: Tell me about the social mechanics in Germany today regarding the legacy of the East and the West. It's only been 25 years, relatively a short time, since Germanay became a unified country once again. Is there still a sense of separation, of families divided by this border even if it's no longer there physically?
Christian Schwochow: I think there were quiet many families who were divided. However, there are also people who lived in either side of Germany, but who never had or have any relationship with the other side whether it was former East or former West Germany. There are people who are still not very curious about how people lived on the other side of the wall. Therefore, there are still so many stereotypes and misguided ideas about both sides.
It’s still very common for someone from the West to believe that a former Eastern person or a former Eastern family must have been unhappy living in East Germany. There is also the common assumption that a family or a person who left the East and moved to the West must have found happiness right away, which was far more difficult in most cases.
Aguilar: In your film, East and West don't seem to be so different. When Nelly and Alexej arrive in West Germany they immediately become suspects by the mere fact that they came from the East. They were running from the Stasi and came to find a similarly invasive system in the West. They find another group in control that wants to know everything and hide it away.
Christian Schwochow: It’s a historical fact that the Stasi did horrible things and that they monitored a lot of people in East Germany, but I find it very interesting to think about the importance of the Western secret services back then and still working today. Since what happened with Edward Snowden we know that there is still so much going on. Secret Services are everywhere. They are part of out daily life. We just don’t really care. We are not concerned at all.
I’m not sure how it is in America, but for what I can say about Germany, most people give their information willingly to anyone who asks for it such as companies like Google. We just don’t question it anymore. When it we learned that our chancellor’s phone was being monitored there was very little debate or outcry. I can’t understand that. It’s a bit of a coincidence that my film was released in Germany just a bit after Edward Snowden share all these details with the public. Still, people don’t really discuss it for some reason.
Aguilar: In order to support the information on the novel with more historical accuracy, what kind of research did you do? Were you able to find reliable information on such a secretive time period for both sides of Germany, and most of Europe for that matter?
Christian Schwochow: There was quiet a lot of research from my part. I’m lucky to have parents who were very involved in political issues during the Cold War. I wrote this script together with my mother. In their work as journalists they always dealt with these issues related to the country’s separation. We had many friends we could talk to about this, including Julian Franck, the author of the novel.
She spent many months in a refugee center in Berlin when she was a child. I also spoke with people who worked in these camps. I spoke with an American Secret Service agent. I talked to a former headmaster of the refugee center. This was the historical and political research I did, but I also tried to get a sense of how it felt to live in a place like this.
For weeks I kept going back to this big refugee center in Berlin for people from Syria, Iraq, and other countries. I also spent time in a center for homeless people to get a sense of the physical and psychological experience these people had to go through. There are refugee and homeless centers all over the world, and it hasn’t really changed much.
Aguilar: Writing a script about a mother and a son with your mother must have been a rather interesting experience. How is your relationship with her as a creative partner? Did you infuse this work in particular with the personal experiences you share with her?
Christian Schwochow: We’ve written the scripts for my three features together, “West” included. We are already a team and it has always worked out pretty well because we share a similar sense of humor. We have a similar curiosity about the world. We have our own great way of discussing things and even fighting. There are no egos between us. Things that usually can get difficult while collaborating with another artist are not difficult between us. We left East Germany right after the fall of the wall.
My parents had submitted an application to East German government so we could leave to the West, the application was accepted on the morning of November 9 th, the historic date. We left East Germany and we move to the West. Many of the things that Nelly and her son Alexej experience in the film come from what we experienced, mostly details. My mother was always a person who wouldn’t just say what people wanted her to say. She would always question things, and she would always stand for her own opinions and ideas.
The situation Alexej experiences at the day care when he talks about his red neckerchief and what people thought it mean, it was exactly what I experienced at school. People didn’t really know how to deal with us coming from the East. Our personal experiences were of crucial help when writing this script.
Aguilar: As you mention, it seems that as time goes by young people have less and less interest in looking back at the past. In those terms, was it challenging to work with Tristan, who plays Alexej, and explain to him the historical context in which the story takes place?
Christian Schwochow: As you can imagine for a 10- year-old boy - which is how old Tristan was when we shot the film - the whole historical background is very theoretical. Working with him on certain scenes I tried to find things that he can relate to from his personal life. He lives with his mother and four siblings. Therefore, he understand that sometimes a mother can’t concentrate only on one child and she has difficulties spending time with each one as much as they need it. I tried to find ideas that he, as a 10-year-old living today, could connect with.
We taught him Russian for the part. He did pretty well. I had great adult actors like Alexander Scheer, who plays Hans, took good care of Tristan. The same goes for Jördis Triebel. She has two small children of her own, and it was very easy for her to create the mother and son relationship with him. We tried to act very professionally with the young actor. We didn’t want to treat him too much like a child.
What also helped was that we had numerous extras in this film. We had many people, adults and children, from Eastern European countries that had gone through similar experiences. Many of them share with us what they had gone through, sometimes just a few weeks before we met them to make the film together. I tried to help him create his own truth with his character by showing him as much as possible about the historical details and searching for those things that he could relate to today.
Aguilar: The character that I found the most intriguing was Hans. He becomes a target for people at this center to express their resentment and anger towards the repression they experienced in the East. Why was it important for you to include an ambiguous character like in the story?
Christian Schwochow: He is very important for me because it’s a fact that there are many people that left their lives behind and tried to start a new life in the West but didn’t succeed for many reasons. They probably were too scared, too overwhelmed, they were shocked by what they found or by how they were treated, or they just developed certain fears. Hans is one of them. I needed a character like him in the film because these people never really spoke about their experience. Still now, people assume that those who lived in the East where unhappy and once they escaped everything turned into something wonderful and free. They believe in that cliché of the “Golden West.”
The ones who didn’t succeed couldn’t tell success stories. Even today they don’t talk about it because it’s just too difficult for them to speak about plans that failed. You will hardly ever find this kind of people in the media doing interviews or mentioned in books. Hans is a voice for these people. It was also important that the man who everyone suspects of being a villain is in the end the person who carries hope for Nelly and Alexej. She decides to trust this man even though she probably will never find out what’s the truth about him.
Something very unique about Germany these days is that once you are suspected or accused of having worked for the Stassi, it doesn’t matter if you were 18-years-old, or a child, or an adult back then. Even if you deny it you won’t get rid of this suspicion. It doesn’t matter what you do, this stigma will stick with you. In some cases it’s true because there are many people who collaborated with them, but there are many other cases in which someone suspected them without proof. These people will never get rid of this.
Aguilar: Nelly is a determined woman with a strong personality. Besides what's on the novel, did any qualities from your mother or other people in your life influence you while writing this character?
Christian Schwochow: I grew up with very strong women who would have their own strong opinions and who would speak their minds. My mother is like this. My grandmother was like this. They were women who tool the risk not to fit in because they were strong characters. In East Germany it was very normal for a woman to go out and work even if she had children. A few weeks after giving birth women would return to their normal working life. We never had housewives in East Germany. Nelly is a very familiar person for me because I think I know quiet many “Nellies. ”
Looking at it from an outsider’s perspective one could say, “She is stubborn,” “She could have cooperated with them,” “She could just say what they want to hear from her,” but she is not like that. She is a woman with characteristics we usually attribute to a male protagonist. She defies this.
There is also the fact that she has a secret. I feel like we can believe everything she says in this film. I believe everything she says, but I know that for the audience she might be a character that you can’t really see through in the beginning. I hope that eventually people can feel her emotions, her trauma, and her fears. I just thought it was more interesting for her not to be nice or understandable right from the start.
Aguilar: 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall where do things stand?
Christian Schwochow: In Germany we have started to make many films about our own history. However, we tend to make the stories as simple as possible in order to find very simple truths. I made this film to provide another perspective and to show people something they have probably never heard about.
On the other hand, the secret services still play such a prominent role on our daily life and we seem not to care anymore. This has nothing to do with East and West. It’s so easy to look back and say, “There were two different countries, one was the free country and in the other people weren’t free,” but it was so much more complicated. Looking back at this time I’ve realized why it’s still so difficult for German people to communicate with each other.
At the same time I wanted to make a film about what it means to be a refugee today. I believe this will become an increasingly bigger issue for the Western World. We are still desperately trying to find answers for this problem.
For a list of screenings and events where the film will play visit Here...
- 11/18/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
With upmost compassion and disregarding the language barriers that may exist between people from opposite sides of the world, Hong Khaou made a film that deals with a tragic death through the experience of those left behind grieving. In “Lilting,” Richard (Ben Whishaw) is a gay man who is trying to connect with his deceased partner’s mother, Junn (Cheng Pei-pei). She is an elderly Cambodian woman who has never fully adapted to life in the U.K. Kai (Andrew Leung), her son, was her only link to the unknown outside world. Now living in a nursing home, Junn has disconnected from everything around her, but Richard wants to help her find hope in the arms of a man. Their relationship is complex not only because they don’t share a common language and a translator is needed, but also because Junn doesn’t know that Kai and Richard were not friends, but lovers. Told with a luscious visual aesthetic, Khaou’s debut feature constructs a picture of a man between the past and the present from the memories of the two people he loved the most. Elegantly directed, heartbreaking, and deeply nuanced, “Lilting” is an emotionally poignant love letter that doesn’t care for words in any language. It’s a poem build of wordless love verses written in heartfelt images.
“Lilting” is now playing in NYC and L.A. and its being distributed by Strand Releasing.
Carlos Aguilar: In "Lilting" emotion seems to be more important than language. Was this idea of a common way to connect without words something that intrigued you?
Hong Khaou: I wanted to think about the emotions as a theme more than focusing on plot. Emotion is a language. Therefore, one of the things I was exploring was communication. Communication brings back understanding and acceptance and bridges cultural differences. Equally, it highlights differences so strongly that it can even cause conflict. Thinking about communication and language, emotion is very much a language that’s transcendental. It’s a universal thing. You don’t have to learn that language. Emotion is a language we can all pick up in a very intuitive way.
Aguilar: How difficult was it to find the right balance between these two characters' grief and their relationship with each other?
Hong Khaou : They are both very different people. Ben is carrying the guilt that was left behind by Kai. Each person has a particular way to grief. He decides to go and visit the mother of his deceased partner. Then, things start to unravel and he gets caught up deeper and deeper in this relationship with her. They are both different. You have a mother who is grieving the loss of her son and he is grieving his lover, but what connects them is their love for the same man. Ultimately that is what heals the differences between them.
Aguilar: What was the spark or event that inspired you to write such an intimate film?
Hong Khaou : It came from within me. I’m bilingual and I come from an immigrant family that came to Britain 30 years ago. Still, my mom hasn’t fully assimilated into the culture. I wanted to re-imagine how someone would react if heir lifeline to the outside world was taken away. I wanted to see how that unfolds in the story.
Aguilar: You made a film that revolves around a character that is hardly seen in the film. The story unravels because of him but he is not the central character on screen.
Hong Khaou : That was something that I was very conscious of because we don’t see much of him. On top of that, there are only three scenes with him and Ben. I was very concern if that was enough to show the nuances or the different layers of their relationship, so that when you don’t see him you almost feel like you miss him. I was thinking abut how to keep Kai there when he is not actually there because I wanted grief to gently permeate the film. That was the story and it presented the challenge of trying to keep him there while he is absent. I used the camera’s language to move between the present and the past in a way that would blur the boundary between them.
Aguilar: Tell me about the actors yo chose for this personal story, Ben Whishaw, who of course is a big star in England, and Cheng Pei-pei who has worked in China extensively.
Hong Khaou : Ben was incredible. He is so truthful when you watch him, and we had Cheng Pei-Pei who is so expressive with her face. Ben conveys every word with such urgency and truth. There is a scene in the film that sums up that for me. When the mother says, “I can smell Kai,” and Ben says “Me too” and he turns away from the camera. It was so beautiful. It says a lot about Ben being so selfless in a situation like that. I didn’t expect him to turn away from the camera. That made the scene far more painful and poignant. He is always seeking the truth about what’s happening. Even when he wasn’t on the shot he was very generous trying to help the other actors find that truth in the scene.
Aguilar: Despite being a character driven intimate story, the visual aesthetic of the film is very specific. It has an almost ethereal or dreamy quality. Was it crucial for you to give the film a particular visual style?
Hong Khaou : We always wanted to make it cinematic and we knew that the budget was a limitation. The film was always going to be performance-driven, and I wanted to create a language to help reinforce those emotions. I wanted to give the camera a specific language. We wanted to make it look beautiful but everything we decided was in tone to the story. Urszula, the cinematographer, and I, decided that whenever we are in the present we would pan clockwise and in the past we pan counterclockwise. We watched a lot of films for references such as a short by Sean Durking who did “Martha, Macy, May Marlene,” the film is really dreamy and we wanted to have that. There is also John Sayles “Lone Star.” For the flashbacks I didn’t just want to do a flashback that uses black-and-white or sepia, and his film kept popping in my head. He does similar things. The camera pans and in a single pan he’s moved between the past and present. I guess I wanted to use that to make it a bit more refreshing.
Aguilar: Junn gets a second chance by meeting a new man, did you ever considered giving Ben's characters a second chance with another person?
Hong Khaou : I did think of all these possibilities. This was certainly considered, but I think I quickly discovered that I didn’t want it to be this conventional story with a conventional resolution in which everybody finds some peace and hope. I wanted to end it in a hopeful tone, but at the same time I didn’t want everybody’s lives to be resolved. That way everything would be too neat and tied with a bow.
Aguilar: Where you concern that the subject of homosexuality could be perceived as culturally specific given the characters in the film?
Hong Khaou: I don’t think it was culturally specific, though, of course, in Asian culture it is hard to come out. I think that to this day it’s still hard to come out in certain parts of the world including certain parts of America or England. It's hard even in Western developed countries. But what I wanted to say is that the difficulty of coming out is not a cultural thing, it’s more about the fear of disappointing your parents. This shame that one carries is what was important for me to explore.
Aguilar: After making your feature debut, where do you go from here as a filmmaker?
Hong Khaou: [Laughs] I don’t know. Hopefully I can continue making films. This was such a big learning experience. It was a bit stressful. It was baptism by fire.
“Lilting” is now playing in NYC and L.A. and its being distributed by Strand Releasing.
Carlos Aguilar: In "Lilting" emotion seems to be more important than language. Was this idea of a common way to connect without words something that intrigued you?
Hong Khaou: I wanted to think about the emotions as a theme more than focusing on plot. Emotion is a language. Therefore, one of the things I was exploring was communication. Communication brings back understanding and acceptance and bridges cultural differences. Equally, it highlights differences so strongly that it can even cause conflict. Thinking about communication and language, emotion is very much a language that’s transcendental. It’s a universal thing. You don’t have to learn that language. Emotion is a language we can all pick up in a very intuitive way.
Aguilar: How difficult was it to find the right balance between these two characters' grief and their relationship with each other?
Hong Khaou : They are both very different people. Ben is carrying the guilt that was left behind by Kai. Each person has a particular way to grief. He decides to go and visit the mother of his deceased partner. Then, things start to unravel and he gets caught up deeper and deeper in this relationship with her. They are both different. You have a mother who is grieving the loss of her son and he is grieving his lover, but what connects them is their love for the same man. Ultimately that is what heals the differences between them.
Aguilar: What was the spark or event that inspired you to write such an intimate film?
Hong Khaou : It came from within me. I’m bilingual and I come from an immigrant family that came to Britain 30 years ago. Still, my mom hasn’t fully assimilated into the culture. I wanted to re-imagine how someone would react if heir lifeline to the outside world was taken away. I wanted to see how that unfolds in the story.
Aguilar: You made a film that revolves around a character that is hardly seen in the film. The story unravels because of him but he is not the central character on screen.
Hong Khaou : That was something that I was very conscious of because we don’t see much of him. On top of that, there are only three scenes with him and Ben. I was very concern if that was enough to show the nuances or the different layers of their relationship, so that when you don’t see him you almost feel like you miss him. I was thinking abut how to keep Kai there when he is not actually there because I wanted grief to gently permeate the film. That was the story and it presented the challenge of trying to keep him there while he is absent. I used the camera’s language to move between the present and the past in a way that would blur the boundary between them.
Aguilar: Tell me about the actors yo chose for this personal story, Ben Whishaw, who of course is a big star in England, and Cheng Pei-pei who has worked in China extensively.
Hong Khaou : Ben was incredible. He is so truthful when you watch him, and we had Cheng Pei-Pei who is so expressive with her face. Ben conveys every word with such urgency and truth. There is a scene in the film that sums up that for me. When the mother says, “I can smell Kai,” and Ben says “Me too” and he turns away from the camera. It was so beautiful. It says a lot about Ben being so selfless in a situation like that. I didn’t expect him to turn away from the camera. That made the scene far more painful and poignant. He is always seeking the truth about what’s happening. Even when he wasn’t on the shot he was very generous trying to help the other actors find that truth in the scene.
Aguilar: Despite being a character driven intimate story, the visual aesthetic of the film is very specific. It has an almost ethereal or dreamy quality. Was it crucial for you to give the film a particular visual style?
Hong Khaou : We always wanted to make it cinematic and we knew that the budget was a limitation. The film was always going to be performance-driven, and I wanted to create a language to help reinforce those emotions. I wanted to give the camera a specific language. We wanted to make it look beautiful but everything we decided was in tone to the story. Urszula, the cinematographer, and I, decided that whenever we are in the present we would pan clockwise and in the past we pan counterclockwise. We watched a lot of films for references such as a short by Sean Durking who did “Martha, Macy, May Marlene,” the film is really dreamy and we wanted to have that. There is also John Sayles “Lone Star.” For the flashbacks I didn’t just want to do a flashback that uses black-and-white or sepia, and his film kept popping in my head. He does similar things. The camera pans and in a single pan he’s moved between the past and present. I guess I wanted to use that to make it a bit more refreshing.
Aguilar: Junn gets a second chance by meeting a new man, did you ever considered giving Ben's characters a second chance with another person?
Hong Khaou : I did think of all these possibilities. This was certainly considered, but I think I quickly discovered that I didn’t want it to be this conventional story with a conventional resolution in which everybody finds some peace and hope. I wanted to end it in a hopeful tone, but at the same time I didn’t want everybody’s lives to be resolved. That way everything would be too neat and tied with a bow.
Aguilar: Where you concern that the subject of homosexuality could be perceived as culturally specific given the characters in the film?
Hong Khaou: I don’t think it was culturally specific, though, of course, in Asian culture it is hard to come out. I think that to this day it’s still hard to come out in certain parts of the world including certain parts of America or England. It's hard even in Western developed countries. But what I wanted to say is that the difficulty of coming out is not a cultural thing, it’s more about the fear of disappointing your parents. This shame that one carries is what was important for me to explore.
Aguilar: After making your feature debut, where do you go from here as a filmmaker?
Hong Khaou: [Laughs] I don’t know. Hopefully I can continue making films. This was such a big learning experience. It was a bit stressful. It was baptism by fire.
- 10/1/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Structured like a collection of vivid memories rather than being controlled by a strict narrative arch, Tim Sutton’s “Memphis” is an experiential work that attempts to create a visual representation of a state of mind. Willis Earl Beal plays an outstandingly gifted musician who is not certain of the path he should follow. His talent is his cross to bear in a world that wants to exploit it. Vanishing into complete anonymity would suit him better than the ephemeral benefits of fame. With each ethereal and fragmented sequence, Sutton constructs sets of ideas and questions without ever offering definite answers or needing to.
Here is what the filmmaker shared with us about his creative process, spirituality, and Blues.
Carlos Aguilar: There are so many different ideas discussed simultaneously in “Memphis,” but they all revolved around this singular character. What was the original idea that sparked the writing process?
Tim Sutton: The very first idea that I had was influenced by the story of a singer named O.V. Wright. He is supposed to be the greatest singer to ever come out of Memphis. Al Green used to sneak into the studio to listen to him and try to get his trick. Aretha Franklin, Elvis, and others, they all try to listen to him at the studio. Elvis producer, Willie Mitchell said he was the best voice to come out of the city, but he is unknown. He was a very psychologically damaged character, when he died he was buried in an unmarked grave. That’s not a rare story within the idea of the Blues in American folklore. Having god-given talent but also having bad luck or having hellhound on you trail, that’s the real deal.
I wanted to make a movie that was not a “Blues movie” necessarily about Blues music or Soul music, but about the idea of a “Blues’ story. It is about a person who has wild gifts, almost magic powers. He has the voice of God, but for some reason, which he doesn’t explain, he doesn’t want to do what other people want him to do. He actually wants to just vanish. He wants to save his soul. I got the idea thinking about guys like O.V. Wright and movies like “Last Days” by Gus Van Sant - which I really like a lot - or the Maysles Brothers’ “Gimme Shelter,” because of their light touches of verite.
I wrote the story about this character who s of both world. One is a world of his own, a utopian vision, which is also sort of dystopian. The other is the real world in which people are trying to get him to sing. They are trying to get him to connect. I wrote a 40-page story, and that’s what got funded from the Venice Viennale and then we met Willis. He worked the character so clearly and so incredibly that a lot of the trappings that I had written were already embedded in him. Then we built the story piece by piece together.
Carlos Aguilar: Where you always conscious that you wanted the film to feel fragmented and have a surrealist atmosphere to it? Or did you ever considered how it would work as a more traditional narrative?
Tim Sutton: It was always supposed to be fragmented. It was always supposed to be something that feels like this is a world you are inhabiting more than a story. Some people are expecting more of a traditional narrative, like an indie version of “Ray,” but what I went out to make was a fragmented vision of a fragmented language. I always wanted it to feel like a psychedelic ghost story. I was more interested in making it something abstract over a more open-and-close narrative.
Carlos Aguilar: Spirituality and the Christian church seem to be very prominent in the film. God and religion are often present tin Willis’ work. Why was it important for you to include these references?
Tim Sutton: Making a movie about an African American singer in Memphis, even a very fictional one, to me it was always going to start and end with the church. I think that’s true to a town like Memphis and it’s true to the historic culture of the music. In the original story Willis does go back to church, but the more we worked on the story and the more Willis exerted his persona, it became quite obvious that Willis is a nature worshiper more than he is a Christian. As a filmmaker and as a person I’m the exact same way. I’m a Jew, but I’m a very secular Jew. I always knew that my spiritual sense was more in nature and with a more pastoral look at the world. That’s how I wanted the film to feel. I think Christians can watch this movie and really believe that the church is meaningful, but I wanted people to understand he has created his own spirituality and his own church, which is just as meaningful and works for him.
Carlos Aguilar: There seems to be a struggle within Willis about whether his talent is a curse or a blessing. Why is he so conflicted?
Tim Sutton: I think there is frustration for having something that he didn’t ask for. It is a natural talent. It doesn’t mean he would prefer not having the talent and not being that creative person, but what he doesn’t like is that his creativity needs to be recognizable to a certain vision. Whether is his producer saying, “You got to use this for an album” or his woman just wanting him be more committed to her and sing in the church, or his other friend saying “You got to sing for God.” What Willis really wants to do is to make it clear that music is just a part of him, is not something that he wants to push in a commercial direction. To him this is something that he feels more deeply, like whistling a tune down the street or singing to his friend in the car. That’s music to him. It’s something that’s more natural. I wanted to show that struggle, to me is not about a creative block. When talking about the film, a lot of writers talk about creative block. I think there is pieces of that in there for sure, but more importantly it’s about someone being creative in a way that is less recognizable to the mainstream.
Carlos Aguilar: Most of the scenes have an almost documentary quality to them. How much of what we see on screen was scripted and how much was it improvisation?
Tim Sutton: We would have a scenario, for example, one of my scenes says, “Willis is in the bedroom with the boy and they are playing cards”” I wanted that scene to feel verite because of the energy that Willis and the boy got off of each other. My cameraman had a little more free range in terms of creating this realistic feel.
I told Willis to ask him if he believes in God. The rest of it is really up to these people being in the room together and getting there. Sometimes it might come off as fake, but I’m never set on anything. If Willis asks something else or he does something different, I’m totally willing to go in that direction. I’m open to anything as long as it’s natural and it feels like it connects two people or like it connects a person with a place. I don’t shoot hours of footage and then find it in the edit. I just set up things with people who I think are comfortable enough to let scenes go and follow them where they go. Sometimes non-actors are better when they think the heart of the scene is over, and then they start giving you something meaningful. That’s how I work with a lot of non-actors, Willis included. He would never come right in and just bang it out, he really lived the character and then we would capture it.
Carlos Aguilar: Throughout the film you shift your attention towards the peripheral characters, those people who might not be at the center of the story but still play an important role. Why is this something that interests you?
Tim Sutton: The first version of the film we did for Venice had even more of these digressions with other people. I think it took a way from the experience that we were trying to create with Willis, but I do like moments in films where you go off with another character because this is their life too. It doesn’t have to connect plot-wise, it connects simply because we are with them now. I like this organic feeling. I like to go with someone else to experience what they’d be experiencing at the same time. In most movies you are no necessarily going to get that. Willis is like the Mississippi River, and then all these other characters are like streams of that river. They all have bodies of their own.
Carlos Aguilar: Given the nature of the project, what was the best and the most challenging thing about working with Willis?
Tim Sutton: The best thing about working with Willis is that he said he would go all the way and go down the line, and he did. There were scenes that we cut out because they weren’t his best, but what you see in the movie is a person completely living an independent and unique experience within the frame. It is absolutely Willis. At the same time it’s completely constructed. It’s all artifice and that was the idea of the movie. What Willis brings to it is this unbelievable sense of, not performance, but existence. The challenging part was mostly logistically. A film is sort of a living organism with lots of parts, and he is one of those parts. At times it was difficult to get the process going, sometimes it could be logistically frustrating.
Carlos Aguilar: The film is very open-ended. Was the end result or a definite conclusion important to you?
Tim Sutton: I think it is more about the idea of what success can mean. Some people at Q&As ask “Did he make the album?” and to me the album doesn’t matter. What matters is that he finds peace. In many ways every character finds some sort of peace at the end or everybody is moving forward. What I love about this movie is that I feel like Willis could still be in the woods or walking around town. Then another character could be living in Mississippi with his Cadillac. I feel like it’s one of those things that has a life of its own or could.
Carlos Aguilar: Ultimately, what would you say is at the center of this story? What’s its core?
Tim Sutton: I think it’s about a person searching to save his soul. I think it’s about life. It isn’t about one thing or the other. It’s about all these things wrapped together.
"Memphis" is currently playing in NYC and L.A.
Here is what the filmmaker shared with us about his creative process, spirituality, and Blues.
Carlos Aguilar: There are so many different ideas discussed simultaneously in “Memphis,” but they all revolved around this singular character. What was the original idea that sparked the writing process?
Tim Sutton: The very first idea that I had was influenced by the story of a singer named O.V. Wright. He is supposed to be the greatest singer to ever come out of Memphis. Al Green used to sneak into the studio to listen to him and try to get his trick. Aretha Franklin, Elvis, and others, they all try to listen to him at the studio. Elvis producer, Willie Mitchell said he was the best voice to come out of the city, but he is unknown. He was a very psychologically damaged character, when he died he was buried in an unmarked grave. That’s not a rare story within the idea of the Blues in American folklore. Having god-given talent but also having bad luck or having hellhound on you trail, that’s the real deal.
I wanted to make a movie that was not a “Blues movie” necessarily about Blues music or Soul music, but about the idea of a “Blues’ story. It is about a person who has wild gifts, almost magic powers. He has the voice of God, but for some reason, which he doesn’t explain, he doesn’t want to do what other people want him to do. He actually wants to just vanish. He wants to save his soul. I got the idea thinking about guys like O.V. Wright and movies like “Last Days” by Gus Van Sant - which I really like a lot - or the Maysles Brothers’ “Gimme Shelter,” because of their light touches of verite.
I wrote the story about this character who s of both world. One is a world of his own, a utopian vision, which is also sort of dystopian. The other is the real world in which people are trying to get him to sing. They are trying to get him to connect. I wrote a 40-page story, and that’s what got funded from the Venice Viennale and then we met Willis. He worked the character so clearly and so incredibly that a lot of the trappings that I had written were already embedded in him. Then we built the story piece by piece together.
Carlos Aguilar: Where you always conscious that you wanted the film to feel fragmented and have a surrealist atmosphere to it? Or did you ever considered how it would work as a more traditional narrative?
Tim Sutton: It was always supposed to be fragmented. It was always supposed to be something that feels like this is a world you are inhabiting more than a story. Some people are expecting more of a traditional narrative, like an indie version of “Ray,” but what I went out to make was a fragmented vision of a fragmented language. I always wanted it to feel like a psychedelic ghost story. I was more interested in making it something abstract over a more open-and-close narrative.
Carlos Aguilar: Spirituality and the Christian church seem to be very prominent in the film. God and religion are often present tin Willis’ work. Why was it important for you to include these references?
Tim Sutton: Making a movie about an African American singer in Memphis, even a very fictional one, to me it was always going to start and end with the church. I think that’s true to a town like Memphis and it’s true to the historic culture of the music. In the original story Willis does go back to church, but the more we worked on the story and the more Willis exerted his persona, it became quite obvious that Willis is a nature worshiper more than he is a Christian. As a filmmaker and as a person I’m the exact same way. I’m a Jew, but I’m a very secular Jew. I always knew that my spiritual sense was more in nature and with a more pastoral look at the world. That’s how I wanted the film to feel. I think Christians can watch this movie and really believe that the church is meaningful, but I wanted people to understand he has created his own spirituality and his own church, which is just as meaningful and works for him.
Carlos Aguilar: There seems to be a struggle within Willis about whether his talent is a curse or a blessing. Why is he so conflicted?
Tim Sutton: I think there is frustration for having something that he didn’t ask for. It is a natural talent. It doesn’t mean he would prefer not having the talent and not being that creative person, but what he doesn’t like is that his creativity needs to be recognizable to a certain vision. Whether is his producer saying, “You got to use this for an album” or his woman just wanting him be more committed to her and sing in the church, or his other friend saying “You got to sing for God.” What Willis really wants to do is to make it clear that music is just a part of him, is not something that he wants to push in a commercial direction. To him this is something that he feels more deeply, like whistling a tune down the street or singing to his friend in the car. That’s music to him. It’s something that’s more natural. I wanted to show that struggle, to me is not about a creative block. When talking about the film, a lot of writers talk about creative block. I think there is pieces of that in there for sure, but more importantly it’s about someone being creative in a way that is less recognizable to the mainstream.
Carlos Aguilar: Most of the scenes have an almost documentary quality to them. How much of what we see on screen was scripted and how much was it improvisation?
Tim Sutton: We would have a scenario, for example, one of my scenes says, “Willis is in the bedroom with the boy and they are playing cards”” I wanted that scene to feel verite because of the energy that Willis and the boy got off of each other. My cameraman had a little more free range in terms of creating this realistic feel.
I told Willis to ask him if he believes in God. The rest of it is really up to these people being in the room together and getting there. Sometimes it might come off as fake, but I’m never set on anything. If Willis asks something else or he does something different, I’m totally willing to go in that direction. I’m open to anything as long as it’s natural and it feels like it connects two people or like it connects a person with a place. I don’t shoot hours of footage and then find it in the edit. I just set up things with people who I think are comfortable enough to let scenes go and follow them where they go. Sometimes non-actors are better when they think the heart of the scene is over, and then they start giving you something meaningful. That’s how I work with a lot of non-actors, Willis included. He would never come right in and just bang it out, he really lived the character and then we would capture it.
Carlos Aguilar: Throughout the film you shift your attention towards the peripheral characters, those people who might not be at the center of the story but still play an important role. Why is this something that interests you?
Tim Sutton: The first version of the film we did for Venice had even more of these digressions with other people. I think it took a way from the experience that we were trying to create with Willis, but I do like moments in films where you go off with another character because this is their life too. It doesn’t have to connect plot-wise, it connects simply because we are with them now. I like this organic feeling. I like to go with someone else to experience what they’d be experiencing at the same time. In most movies you are no necessarily going to get that. Willis is like the Mississippi River, and then all these other characters are like streams of that river. They all have bodies of their own.
Carlos Aguilar: Given the nature of the project, what was the best and the most challenging thing about working with Willis?
Tim Sutton: The best thing about working with Willis is that he said he would go all the way and go down the line, and he did. There were scenes that we cut out because they weren’t his best, but what you see in the movie is a person completely living an independent and unique experience within the frame. It is absolutely Willis. At the same time it’s completely constructed. It’s all artifice and that was the idea of the movie. What Willis brings to it is this unbelievable sense of, not performance, but existence. The challenging part was mostly logistically. A film is sort of a living organism with lots of parts, and he is one of those parts. At times it was difficult to get the process going, sometimes it could be logistically frustrating.
Carlos Aguilar: The film is very open-ended. Was the end result or a definite conclusion important to you?
Tim Sutton: I think it is more about the idea of what success can mean. Some people at Q&As ask “Did he make the album?” and to me the album doesn’t matter. What matters is that he finds peace. In many ways every character finds some sort of peace at the end or everybody is moving forward. What I love about this movie is that I feel like Willis could still be in the woods or walking around town. Then another character could be living in Mississippi with his Cadillac. I feel like it’s one of those things that has a life of its own or could.
Carlos Aguilar: Ultimately, what would you say is at the center of this story? What’s its core?
Tim Sutton: I think it’s about a person searching to save his soul. I think it’s about life. It isn’t about one thing or the other. It’s about all these things wrapped together.
"Memphis" is currently playing in NYC and L.A.
- 9/14/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Unfazed by the fact that his dream is almost impossible to reach, Antonio (Javier Cámara), a small town English professor, embarks on a quest through the Spanish countryside to meet his hero: John Lennon. His companions, whom he finds along the way, are Juanjo (Francesc Colomer), a teenager running away from his authoritative father, and Belen (Natalia de Molina), a pregnant young woman fleeing from judgment. Acclaimed Spanish filmmaker David Trueba captures the unbelievable true story with an easygoing air, but not without cautiously embedding it with political undertones and significant references to life in the 60s. Taking its title from a line in the popular song “Strawberry Fields” by the Beatles, Trueba’s “Living is Easy with Eyes Close,” is a touching depiction of a curious hidden chapter in history.
"Living is Easy with Eyes Closed" has been shortlisted as one of three possible to represent Spain at the Oscars.
Carlos Aguilar: This is such a warm and unique story. How did you become interested in making it into a film?
David Trueba : It was rather funny. I developed it after listening to the story of this professor that traveled a long distance to Almeria to meet John Lennon. I realize it was a story I wanted to tell. This was a character that embodies what I think is an ideal person: someone who is anonymous, perhaps someone not really that important, humble. However, those are the ones that change the history of a country.
Carlos Aguilar: Had his story been told before? Was there a book or any other material preceding your film?
David Trueba : No, it was a very unknown story in Spain. Nobody had heard about this professor. He is now very happy to have become a celebrity. He is a very charming man.
Carlos Aguilar: How was your experience meeting the real Antonio?
David Trueba : It was very interesting because I wrote the screenplay before meeting him in person. I wrote it just based on the original concept. Later when I went to see him and explained to him that I wanted to make this film, he was just so excited about the idea. He is just very happy.
Carlos Aguilar: Was it important for you to include undertones about the political situation in Spain at the time?
David Trueba : It was very important that those undertones were there, but it was also important for them not to be too specific to the country’s situation. I didn’t want to say that the story could only take place under a dictatorship. I think that even if there is no dictatorship, we still live in a world ruled by authority, fear, control, and repression. The film is about the juxtaposition of our personal freedom and the environment in which we live.
Carlos Aguilar: I think your film delivers a very hopeful story, which upholds John Lennon and his music as a symbol.
David Trueba : During that era Lennon represented freedom, a shining light, or a breath of fresh air. I think in every time period we have the necessity to admire or look up to revolutionary people. These are people that open our eyes. They show us the world, the future, the great ideals. They remind us why we are on this earth. Lennon served that function, and I think we need more people like that. We need to tell stories that open people’s hearts
Carlos Aguilar: Why would you say Lennon’s songs transcended and became iconic?
David Trueba : I think art that doesn’t aim to be transcendental might end up being just that. The Beatles are a great example. Their songs were written to be enjoyed, to make people dance, to talk about their personal stories, and they became universal because they were not pretentious. I think it works the same way with films, sometimes when you give yourself too much importance you actually become less important. I like to tell stories with a certain lightheartedness, but they still have a deeper message underneath.
Carlos Aguilar: Javier Camara is one of the most prolific Spanish actors working today. Did you always have him in mind to play the part?
David Trueba : When I was done with the screenplay I started looking for the right actor and the first one that came to mind was Javier. I offered it to him and he loved it. I needed someone with a particular humanity and the ability to convey the character’s values in a natural manner. There are very few actors capable of doing it that well. It was a fortune for me to have Javier on board.
Carlos Aguilar: The two young characters in the film represent this angst and the ideals Lennon spoke about. Where did they come from?
David Trueba : Young people have always been lost in any era or generation. They always feel oppressed or enslaved regardless of the time period they are born in. Young people always want to fly away and explore. It is important to come across the right people in that stage so that your frustrations can be destroyed and you don’t become a resentful person. One of them was inspired by a family story. I’m the youngest one of 8 siblings. One of my older brothers had left home because my father was adamant about him keeping his hair short and he wanted to let it grow. It was the end of the 60s. The character of Juanjo was based directly on him and on that symbolic fight that young people have to face within their family. They want to be free, to be themselves, and to look the way they want to look. The world changes, and each generation changes, but those conflicts remain the same. There is also the concept of sexual freedom, which is one of the most important topics of the Xx century. Belen is a woman living in the midst of it. Spain was a very Catholic country and it was under a military dictatorship, to be pregnant without a husband was a stigma she would have to carry for life. This journey and the professor teach her that in life one has to make his/her own decisions.
Carlos Aguilar: Cinema has become very cynical and it’s rare to see a film that is intelligent but simultaneously heartwarming. Is this something you think about when writing your screenplays?
David Trueba : What’s very important to me in almost everything I do, is to fight against cynicism whether it’s in my novels or films. Nowadays, to be good, to be the smartest one, or to be invited to festivals, you have to create an exercise in cynicism and distance. You have to present the characters as puppets you laugh at. That’s a bit sinister. Violence and crime are overvalued. These days the most revolutionary thing you can do is unmask cynicism and to try to make a film about freedom. You find freedom in letting yourself feel. Telling stories how you see them not how others tell you they should be. Curiously, having so much freedom we prefer to be imprisoned. We could be making film about anything, but we prefer to be caged in a prison of cynicism.
Carlos Aguilar: There is a noticeable local or Spanish quality to the film. How do you include elements particular to your homeland and still make it compelling for audiences abroad?
David Trueba : I always try to make films that are close to my essence. I think people can feel that authenticity when they watch my films. I’ve never had any intention of telling stories that weren’t close to the reality of Spanish society. This is what I know, what I’ve lived though, and what I can best tell stories about. I’m sure that everywhere in the world people recognize that closeness to the stories and they can connect with them. There is no need to forcefully try to make “universal” as defined by Hollywood. I don’t like that idea of a planet where there are no differences. I think differences are wonderful and they help us discover how similar we are in spite of those differences.
Carlos Aguilar: The reception towards the film has been very positive at home, both with audiences and professionals. It won 6 Goya Awards including Best Film and Best director. Why do you think it has struck a chord with people?
David Trueba : The film has an underlining theme that connects with contemporary Spanish society, particularly regarding the financial crisis. A lot of people have found a breath of fresh air in the film. It tells people that Spain has lived through very dark periods before and has overcome them thanks to being generous, sincere, and to having ideals. The film calls for unity and for humble people to shake off the mediocrity of their government.
Carlos Aguilar: How involved was the Lennon estate in the project? Was it is difficult it get their support?
David Trueba : I had to send them the script and some finished scenes so that they could support the film. Otherwise it would have been extremely difficult to get the rights for “Strawberry Fields” and “Help, “ which are the two songs we use in the film. They reacted very positively towards the film once they understood what I wanted to say.
Carlos Aguilar: Lennon is an iconic figure, a bigger than life character known around the world. Yet, he was humble enough to meet with the small town teacher. That really says a lot about him as a person.
David Trueba : One of the things the professor mentioned on several occasions is that John Lennon was very young when he met him. He turned 26 while being in Almeria and he was very surprised to learn that his songs were being used in an English since he had been a very bad student. The professor says Lennon was very polite, charming, and open. From that point on he always send him his albums. I think this is a lesson for a lot of famous people today – who for the most part are just 1% as famous as he was- about how to be an international superstar and still be a good person.
"Living is Easy with Eyes Closed" has been shortlisted as one of three possible to represent Spain at the Oscars.
Carlos Aguilar: This is such a warm and unique story. How did you become interested in making it into a film?
David Trueba : It was rather funny. I developed it after listening to the story of this professor that traveled a long distance to Almeria to meet John Lennon. I realize it was a story I wanted to tell. This was a character that embodies what I think is an ideal person: someone who is anonymous, perhaps someone not really that important, humble. However, those are the ones that change the history of a country.
Carlos Aguilar: Had his story been told before? Was there a book or any other material preceding your film?
David Trueba : No, it was a very unknown story in Spain. Nobody had heard about this professor. He is now very happy to have become a celebrity. He is a very charming man.
Carlos Aguilar: How was your experience meeting the real Antonio?
David Trueba : It was very interesting because I wrote the screenplay before meeting him in person. I wrote it just based on the original concept. Later when I went to see him and explained to him that I wanted to make this film, he was just so excited about the idea. He is just very happy.
Carlos Aguilar: Was it important for you to include undertones about the political situation in Spain at the time?
David Trueba : It was very important that those undertones were there, but it was also important for them not to be too specific to the country’s situation. I didn’t want to say that the story could only take place under a dictatorship. I think that even if there is no dictatorship, we still live in a world ruled by authority, fear, control, and repression. The film is about the juxtaposition of our personal freedom and the environment in which we live.
Carlos Aguilar: I think your film delivers a very hopeful story, which upholds John Lennon and his music as a symbol.
David Trueba : During that era Lennon represented freedom, a shining light, or a breath of fresh air. I think in every time period we have the necessity to admire or look up to revolutionary people. These are people that open our eyes. They show us the world, the future, the great ideals. They remind us why we are on this earth. Lennon served that function, and I think we need more people like that. We need to tell stories that open people’s hearts
Carlos Aguilar: Why would you say Lennon’s songs transcended and became iconic?
David Trueba : I think art that doesn’t aim to be transcendental might end up being just that. The Beatles are a great example. Their songs were written to be enjoyed, to make people dance, to talk about their personal stories, and they became universal because they were not pretentious. I think it works the same way with films, sometimes when you give yourself too much importance you actually become less important. I like to tell stories with a certain lightheartedness, but they still have a deeper message underneath.
Carlos Aguilar: Javier Camara is one of the most prolific Spanish actors working today. Did you always have him in mind to play the part?
David Trueba : When I was done with the screenplay I started looking for the right actor and the first one that came to mind was Javier. I offered it to him and he loved it. I needed someone with a particular humanity and the ability to convey the character’s values in a natural manner. There are very few actors capable of doing it that well. It was a fortune for me to have Javier on board.
Carlos Aguilar: The two young characters in the film represent this angst and the ideals Lennon spoke about. Where did they come from?
David Trueba : Young people have always been lost in any era or generation. They always feel oppressed or enslaved regardless of the time period they are born in. Young people always want to fly away and explore. It is important to come across the right people in that stage so that your frustrations can be destroyed and you don’t become a resentful person. One of them was inspired by a family story. I’m the youngest one of 8 siblings. One of my older brothers had left home because my father was adamant about him keeping his hair short and he wanted to let it grow. It was the end of the 60s. The character of Juanjo was based directly on him and on that symbolic fight that young people have to face within their family. They want to be free, to be themselves, and to look the way they want to look. The world changes, and each generation changes, but those conflicts remain the same. There is also the concept of sexual freedom, which is one of the most important topics of the Xx century. Belen is a woman living in the midst of it. Spain was a very Catholic country and it was under a military dictatorship, to be pregnant without a husband was a stigma she would have to carry for life. This journey and the professor teach her that in life one has to make his/her own decisions.
Carlos Aguilar: Cinema has become very cynical and it’s rare to see a film that is intelligent but simultaneously heartwarming. Is this something you think about when writing your screenplays?
David Trueba : What’s very important to me in almost everything I do, is to fight against cynicism whether it’s in my novels or films. Nowadays, to be good, to be the smartest one, or to be invited to festivals, you have to create an exercise in cynicism and distance. You have to present the characters as puppets you laugh at. That’s a bit sinister. Violence and crime are overvalued. These days the most revolutionary thing you can do is unmask cynicism and to try to make a film about freedom. You find freedom in letting yourself feel. Telling stories how you see them not how others tell you they should be. Curiously, having so much freedom we prefer to be imprisoned. We could be making film about anything, but we prefer to be caged in a prison of cynicism.
Carlos Aguilar: There is a noticeable local or Spanish quality to the film. How do you include elements particular to your homeland and still make it compelling for audiences abroad?
David Trueba : I always try to make films that are close to my essence. I think people can feel that authenticity when they watch my films. I’ve never had any intention of telling stories that weren’t close to the reality of Spanish society. This is what I know, what I’ve lived though, and what I can best tell stories about. I’m sure that everywhere in the world people recognize that closeness to the stories and they can connect with them. There is no need to forcefully try to make “universal” as defined by Hollywood. I don’t like that idea of a planet where there are no differences. I think differences are wonderful and they help us discover how similar we are in spite of those differences.
Carlos Aguilar: The reception towards the film has been very positive at home, both with audiences and professionals. It won 6 Goya Awards including Best Film and Best director. Why do you think it has struck a chord with people?
David Trueba : The film has an underlining theme that connects with contemporary Spanish society, particularly regarding the financial crisis. A lot of people have found a breath of fresh air in the film. It tells people that Spain has lived through very dark periods before and has overcome them thanks to being generous, sincere, and to having ideals. The film calls for unity and for humble people to shake off the mediocrity of their government.
Carlos Aguilar: How involved was the Lennon estate in the project? Was it is difficult it get their support?
David Trueba : I had to send them the script and some finished scenes so that they could support the film. Otherwise it would have been extremely difficult to get the rights for “Strawberry Fields” and “Help, “ which are the two songs we use in the film. They reacted very positively towards the film once they understood what I wanted to say.
Carlos Aguilar: Lennon is an iconic figure, a bigger than life character known around the world. Yet, he was humble enough to meet with the small town teacher. That really says a lot about him as a person.
David Trueba : One of the things the professor mentioned on several occasions is that John Lennon was very young when he met him. He turned 26 while being in Almeria and he was very surprised to learn that his songs were being used in an English since he had been a very bad student. The professor says Lennon was very polite, charming, and open. From that point on he always send him his albums. I think this is a lesson for a lot of famous people today – who for the most part are just 1% as famous as he was- about how to be an international superstar and still be a good person.
- 9/9/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Apparent normalcy shattered by a sudden death becomes the starting point for one to decipher the malign force that controls the lives of the members of a Greek family. Concealing crucial information about the family mechanics, director Alexandros Avranas uses a calculated pace to explore manipulation, authority, and compliance. In his film, evil doesn’t have a single face, but instead becomes a shared responsibility. Cautiously revealing its secrets with utmost precision, “Miss Violence” is a brilliantly perverse work that is sure to shock and leave a lasting, unsettling, impression. The film has received numerous awards in its homeland, as well as in Stockholm, Venice, Montreal, and most recently at the Los Angeles Greek Film festival.
Avranas talked to us from Greece and shared the stories behind the making of this marvelously intriguing film.
Carlos Aguilar: This is such an impressively unsettling and successfully cryptic story, what’s its genesis?
Alexandros Avranas: It’s based on a real story that happened in Germany in 2011. I heard it from a friend in Berlin, and then I did some research and I found out even more things. Then I wrote the script and, of course, some elements are not taken directly from that story, but the concept is based on true events.
Aguilar: You chose to start the film with a very shocking opening sequence, and then we spend the rest of the film looking for the reasons behind that event. Why did you decide to start the film in that way?
Alexandros Avranas: Firs of all, what happens in that opening sequence is the first thing I heard about the story. I was very shocked and touched. I decided to open the film in this manner so that audiences can something to encourage them to explore this family and this situation. It was very risky to start with something so shocking and powerful because it would have made it very easy for the film to turn out flat the rest of the time. When you start with the crescendo it is not easy to keep that going the whole time. But I think the reasons behind it were right, and that’s why it worked here.
Aguilar: There is a lot of concealment in your film. We don’t know the names of these people or who plays what role within the family. Did you want the audience to know as little as possible for a large portion of the film?
Alexandros Avranas: There is a big difference between European and American cinema. Sometime we start from a point in which you don’t know anything and you don’t understand anything. If they don’t know anything, you can create a specific way for the viewer to think about the film. From there they can start understanding or try to find out what’s going on. At the beginning you don’t fully understand the family mechanics and their relationships to each other. It’s so complicated but at the same time is really easy. This encourages the viewer to develop a particular way of thinking about this film.
Aguilar: One of the strongest characters here is the father played by Themis Panou. He spearheads the film and really plays a big role on how the other characters interact with each other. How difficult was it to write and then cast this character?
Alexandros Avranas: When I was casting this role I knew I wanted someone that was elusive. Before winning the Hellenic Academy Award for this role, Themis was not a very well known actor. He would often act in supporting roles. I tried to use this feeling or quality of never being the protagonist to enhance the character. Since he had never been the protagonist, it would be interesting for him to be the protagonist, or the lead, in this family. It was almost like a game. For me, this wasn’t the most difficult role to write or cast because the whole thing is based that part of his personal story. The character himself has a lot of things to work with. He is hiding behind his actions. Other roles in the film were more difficult to develop.
Aguilar: Family remains normal in the face of the horrific things that happen around them. Where does this strange and unfitting normalcy come from?
Alexandros Avranas: Family is the first society we are part of. The way we exist or act within our family is the same way we relate to the larger outside society. Family shapes your point of view on things. Therefore, these people believe that all these things that happen in their family are normal and they thing that they happen out of love. They believe they are showing love to each other because they don’t really know what love is.
Aguilar: The father is the one in charge and who should be blame for all the terrible crimes committed. However, no one ever really challenges his authority. Are they all to blame for what goes on in the family?
Alexandros Avranas: He started it, but the mother is also someone else that could be blamed for it. She knows what’s happening and she has never spoken out about it. Eventually, she decides to do something against it, but it’s too late. In the real story she never when against him or spoke out about it. She went to prison for 15 years because she never said, “Yes he did it.” On the other hand, even if she had said that, she would have still gone to prison because she knew. In the film there is the same motive and situation. The mother knows but never speaks out. I also think the film questions when does the victim stops being the victim and starts being a perpetrator? This is something the viewer must answer for himself. What are the boundaries or limits between a victim and a perpetrator? Eleni (Eleni Roussinou)is a victim of course, but she also becomes the perpetrator for the younger sister. It is very complicated.
Aguilar: What was your approach to working with the young actors? How much did they know about the matter at hand?
Alexandros Avranas: For this film we rehearse a lot. With the main actors we rehearsed for almost a year, and for the young children I took a long time to cast them, probably around six months. When I found them, I spoke to them as if they were young adults and not children. I told them the truth, everything about the script. Their parents were also very supportive. It was not so difficult to get what I wanted because when I cast somebody it means I believe they have something in them that related to the character and I’m trying to get it out. They don’t really have to act, they have to be themselves and I place them in the correct situations for the film.
Aguilar: What inspired you to make the film when you heard the original story? Was it the secret and how shocking it was? Or was it the story behind the story?
Alexandros Avranas: Making the film meant taking a very big risk because the subject is very sensitive, and I didn’t want to make the film to simply shock people. If you compare the film with the real story, the film is very soft. It is nothing compared to what really happened. It was very difficult for me and for the actors because it is not a happy story at all. For me the most interesting part was to explore what happened in this small society, as well as the symbolism behind is as a reflection of our current society. Since we don’t live in a time when the enemy was very clear in the form of wars or dictatorships, this is my way to criticize our society, not only Greek society, but all of Europe. The crisis is not only Greek, is European. The moral crisis is everywhere. It was very important for me to get across the political meaning behind the film: a leader in a society and why people don’t do anything against him. Why do people in this society still trust him to be a leader?
Aguilar: Would you say your film fits within what’s been deemed “the Greek weird wave”, alongside films like “Dogtooth” or Attenberg”?
Alexandros Avranas: As a Greek director I’m very happy that Greek cinema is very strong right now, but I don’t believe there is a wave. No one really talks about it like the French Nouvelle Vague or Dogma. Those were groups of people that shared similar philosophical or aesthetic beliefs. We don’t even know each other. Lanthimos and Tsangari are friends, but I don’t know them. I’ve said hello to Lanthimos before but I’ve never met Tsangari. This is why we can’t call it a “wave,” because we don’t have anything in common. Maybe the one thing we do have in common is that we are young people that want to make films and speak out about what’s going on. That’s the only commonality I can see.
Aguilar: Perhaps one of the most powerful images in your film is when see the family standing around the dead body, why would you say that’s the most symbolic image in your film?
Alexandros Avranas: That image - which is on the film’s poster - is very symbolic because, just like the film, the poster doesn’t lie but it doesn’t tell you the whole truth. When you see the poster you get the feeling of the film because you cans see that something happened but you don’t know what exactly happened. There was a murdered, but you don’t know who has been murdered. You see the truth, but you must find out many other things. I think this is how society and politics work as well. We sort of know where they start but we don’t know exactly how they work. I think in a sense the film reflects how political systems function in our time. We don’t know everything.
Aguilar: Why “Miss Violence”?
Alexandros Avranas: It was very difficult to find the right title. The film is not only about abuse, or family, or about politics. Every title I had in mind made the film sound very closed, and I think the film is very open in many levels. The title is sort of a play on words. “Miss Violence” could be taken from the sentence “I miss violence,” someone is missing violence. But it also has to do with the fact that in the story the protagonist is the father, a male, but the film is really about the women. “Miss Violence” could refer to a female. It is not about women who perpetrate the violence, but those who are the victims of violence.
Aguilar: How has the film been received outside of Greece? Is it too difficult for people to take in?
Alexandros Avranas: I was in Toronto, New York, and many other European countries and I witnessed how controversial the film is. Half of the viewers loved the film, and the other half doesn’t want to believe these things happen. They prefer to close their eyes to things like these. Society works like this in regards to many other matters. This is why some things are taboo. We know about them but we prefer not to talk about them. But for the most part I’ve always felt it has been very well received. It is a heavy film, and it was very heavy for us to make, but it’s an honest film. It tells the truth.
Avranas talked to us from Greece and shared the stories behind the making of this marvelously intriguing film.
Carlos Aguilar: This is such an impressively unsettling and successfully cryptic story, what’s its genesis?
Alexandros Avranas: It’s based on a real story that happened in Germany in 2011. I heard it from a friend in Berlin, and then I did some research and I found out even more things. Then I wrote the script and, of course, some elements are not taken directly from that story, but the concept is based on true events.
Aguilar: You chose to start the film with a very shocking opening sequence, and then we spend the rest of the film looking for the reasons behind that event. Why did you decide to start the film in that way?
Alexandros Avranas: Firs of all, what happens in that opening sequence is the first thing I heard about the story. I was very shocked and touched. I decided to open the film in this manner so that audiences can something to encourage them to explore this family and this situation. It was very risky to start with something so shocking and powerful because it would have made it very easy for the film to turn out flat the rest of the time. When you start with the crescendo it is not easy to keep that going the whole time. But I think the reasons behind it were right, and that’s why it worked here.
Aguilar: There is a lot of concealment in your film. We don’t know the names of these people or who plays what role within the family. Did you want the audience to know as little as possible for a large portion of the film?
Alexandros Avranas: There is a big difference between European and American cinema. Sometime we start from a point in which you don’t know anything and you don’t understand anything. If they don’t know anything, you can create a specific way for the viewer to think about the film. From there they can start understanding or try to find out what’s going on. At the beginning you don’t fully understand the family mechanics and their relationships to each other. It’s so complicated but at the same time is really easy. This encourages the viewer to develop a particular way of thinking about this film.
Aguilar: One of the strongest characters here is the father played by Themis Panou. He spearheads the film and really plays a big role on how the other characters interact with each other. How difficult was it to write and then cast this character?
Alexandros Avranas: When I was casting this role I knew I wanted someone that was elusive. Before winning the Hellenic Academy Award for this role, Themis was not a very well known actor. He would often act in supporting roles. I tried to use this feeling or quality of never being the protagonist to enhance the character. Since he had never been the protagonist, it would be interesting for him to be the protagonist, or the lead, in this family. It was almost like a game. For me, this wasn’t the most difficult role to write or cast because the whole thing is based that part of his personal story. The character himself has a lot of things to work with. He is hiding behind his actions. Other roles in the film were more difficult to develop.
Aguilar: Family remains normal in the face of the horrific things that happen around them. Where does this strange and unfitting normalcy come from?
Alexandros Avranas: Family is the first society we are part of. The way we exist or act within our family is the same way we relate to the larger outside society. Family shapes your point of view on things. Therefore, these people believe that all these things that happen in their family are normal and they thing that they happen out of love. They believe they are showing love to each other because they don’t really know what love is.
Aguilar: The father is the one in charge and who should be blame for all the terrible crimes committed. However, no one ever really challenges his authority. Are they all to blame for what goes on in the family?
Alexandros Avranas: He started it, but the mother is also someone else that could be blamed for it. She knows what’s happening and she has never spoken out about it. Eventually, she decides to do something against it, but it’s too late. In the real story she never when against him or spoke out about it. She went to prison for 15 years because she never said, “Yes he did it.” On the other hand, even if she had said that, she would have still gone to prison because she knew. In the film there is the same motive and situation. The mother knows but never speaks out. I also think the film questions when does the victim stops being the victim and starts being a perpetrator? This is something the viewer must answer for himself. What are the boundaries or limits between a victim and a perpetrator? Eleni (Eleni Roussinou)is a victim of course, but she also becomes the perpetrator for the younger sister. It is very complicated.
Aguilar: What was your approach to working with the young actors? How much did they know about the matter at hand?
Alexandros Avranas: For this film we rehearse a lot. With the main actors we rehearsed for almost a year, and for the young children I took a long time to cast them, probably around six months. When I found them, I spoke to them as if they were young adults and not children. I told them the truth, everything about the script. Their parents were also very supportive. It was not so difficult to get what I wanted because when I cast somebody it means I believe they have something in them that related to the character and I’m trying to get it out. They don’t really have to act, they have to be themselves and I place them in the correct situations for the film.
Aguilar: What inspired you to make the film when you heard the original story? Was it the secret and how shocking it was? Or was it the story behind the story?
Alexandros Avranas: Making the film meant taking a very big risk because the subject is very sensitive, and I didn’t want to make the film to simply shock people. If you compare the film with the real story, the film is very soft. It is nothing compared to what really happened. It was very difficult for me and for the actors because it is not a happy story at all. For me the most interesting part was to explore what happened in this small society, as well as the symbolism behind is as a reflection of our current society. Since we don’t live in a time when the enemy was very clear in the form of wars or dictatorships, this is my way to criticize our society, not only Greek society, but all of Europe. The crisis is not only Greek, is European. The moral crisis is everywhere. It was very important for me to get across the political meaning behind the film: a leader in a society and why people don’t do anything against him. Why do people in this society still trust him to be a leader?
Aguilar: Would you say your film fits within what’s been deemed “the Greek weird wave”, alongside films like “Dogtooth” or Attenberg”?
Alexandros Avranas: As a Greek director I’m very happy that Greek cinema is very strong right now, but I don’t believe there is a wave. No one really talks about it like the French Nouvelle Vague or Dogma. Those were groups of people that shared similar philosophical or aesthetic beliefs. We don’t even know each other. Lanthimos and Tsangari are friends, but I don’t know them. I’ve said hello to Lanthimos before but I’ve never met Tsangari. This is why we can’t call it a “wave,” because we don’t have anything in common. Maybe the one thing we do have in common is that we are young people that want to make films and speak out about what’s going on. That’s the only commonality I can see.
Aguilar: Perhaps one of the most powerful images in your film is when see the family standing around the dead body, why would you say that’s the most symbolic image in your film?
Alexandros Avranas: That image - which is on the film’s poster - is very symbolic because, just like the film, the poster doesn’t lie but it doesn’t tell you the whole truth. When you see the poster you get the feeling of the film because you cans see that something happened but you don’t know what exactly happened. There was a murdered, but you don’t know who has been murdered. You see the truth, but you must find out many other things. I think this is how society and politics work as well. We sort of know where they start but we don’t know exactly how they work. I think in a sense the film reflects how political systems function in our time. We don’t know everything.
Aguilar: Why “Miss Violence”?
Alexandros Avranas: It was very difficult to find the right title. The film is not only about abuse, or family, or about politics. Every title I had in mind made the film sound very closed, and I think the film is very open in many levels. The title is sort of a play on words. “Miss Violence” could be taken from the sentence “I miss violence,” someone is missing violence. But it also has to do with the fact that in the story the protagonist is the father, a male, but the film is really about the women. “Miss Violence” could refer to a female. It is not about women who perpetrate the violence, but those who are the victims of violence.
Aguilar: How has the film been received outside of Greece? Is it too difficult for people to take in?
Alexandros Avranas: I was in Toronto, New York, and many other European countries and I witnessed how controversial the film is. Half of the viewers loved the film, and the other half doesn’t want to believe these things happen. They prefer to close their eyes to things like these. Society works like this in regards to many other matters. This is why some things are taboo. We know about them but we prefer not to talk about them. But for the most part I’ve always felt it has been very well received. It is a heavy film, and it was very heavy for us to make, but it’s an honest film. It tells the truth.
- 9/8/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Samuel Goldwyn Films sent this update which offers a good shot of hope for the changing distribution landscape as it pertains to foreign language films in the United States whose theatrical market share has dwindled to 1%.
Lucia Puenzo’s Argentine film "The German Doctor" has had an incredibly strong iTunes success. It was released on iTunes following its April theatrical release. As of the last update this August 2014, it was number 18 on the overall iTunes movie chart – the only foreign language film in the top 50. It was ahead of top indies like “Snowpiercer” (So. Korea) and “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (U.S.), as well as major Hollywood films like “Frozen”. It’s also (obviously!) the number one foreign language film.
This level of digital success for a foreign language film is truly exceptional, and is something worthy of editorial mention. It’s part of larger paradigm shift that we are seeing more and more. As the theatrical business grows ever more challenging for foreign language films, platforms like iTunes are bringing these films to underserved theatrical audiences nationwide, and are increasing the financial viability of foreign film distribution.
According to Box Office Mojo, it has grossed Us $3,018,392 in the 13 countries it has been released in so far. It has been sold by Pyramide in more than 30 territories. The U.S. release by the Samuel Goldwyn was April 25, 2014 and it grossed Us $418,392 in 8 weeks in 39 theaters.
It premiered in Un Certain Regard section of the Cannes Film Festival in May 2013. In April 2014 it won Camilo Vives Platinum Award for Best Iberoamerican Coproduction at the Panama International Film Festival. It won the Audience Award at St. Petersburg Film Festival and at the 2nd Unasur Cine International Film Festival it won awards for Best Feature, Best Director, Best Actress and Best New Actress. It went on to play at San Sebastian Film Festival’s Horizontes Latinos section and was Argentina’s submission for the foreign language Oscar.
It continued to play the festival circuit worldwide and its Isa and coproducer, Pyramide International, continued to sell to U.S.-Samuel Goldwyn, Albania, ExYugoslavia: Bosnia, Croatia, Herzegovina, , Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia - Obala Art Center, Argentina – Distribution Company, Australia/ N.Z. - Madman Ent., Bolivia and Chile - Los filmes De La Arcadia, Brazil - Imovision, Colombia - Cine Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama - Palmera International, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico - Wiesner Distribution,, Greece-Videorama, Hungary - Vertigo, Ireland - Peccadillo, Israel - Nachshon, Peru - Pucp, Poland - Hagi, So. Korea - Company L, Switzerland - Xenix, Taiwan - Swallow Wings Films, Turkey - Medyavizion, U.K. –Peccadillo.
It was reviewed in SydneysBuzz by Carlos Aguilar.
Lucia Puenzo’s Argentine film "The German Doctor" has had an incredibly strong iTunes success. It was released on iTunes following its April theatrical release. As of the last update this August 2014, it was number 18 on the overall iTunes movie chart – the only foreign language film in the top 50. It was ahead of top indies like “Snowpiercer” (So. Korea) and “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (U.S.), as well as major Hollywood films like “Frozen”. It’s also (obviously!) the number one foreign language film.
This level of digital success for a foreign language film is truly exceptional, and is something worthy of editorial mention. It’s part of larger paradigm shift that we are seeing more and more. As the theatrical business grows ever more challenging for foreign language films, platforms like iTunes are bringing these films to underserved theatrical audiences nationwide, and are increasing the financial viability of foreign film distribution.
According to Box Office Mojo, it has grossed Us $3,018,392 in the 13 countries it has been released in so far. It has been sold by Pyramide in more than 30 territories. The U.S. release by the Samuel Goldwyn was April 25, 2014 and it grossed Us $418,392 in 8 weeks in 39 theaters.
It premiered in Un Certain Regard section of the Cannes Film Festival in May 2013. In April 2014 it won Camilo Vives Platinum Award for Best Iberoamerican Coproduction at the Panama International Film Festival. It won the Audience Award at St. Petersburg Film Festival and at the 2nd Unasur Cine International Film Festival it won awards for Best Feature, Best Director, Best Actress and Best New Actress. It went on to play at San Sebastian Film Festival’s Horizontes Latinos section and was Argentina’s submission for the foreign language Oscar.
It continued to play the festival circuit worldwide and its Isa and coproducer, Pyramide International, continued to sell to U.S.-Samuel Goldwyn, Albania, ExYugoslavia: Bosnia, Croatia, Herzegovina, , Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia - Obala Art Center, Argentina – Distribution Company, Australia/ N.Z. - Madman Ent., Bolivia and Chile - Los filmes De La Arcadia, Brazil - Imovision, Colombia - Cine Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama - Palmera International, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico - Wiesner Distribution,, Greece-Videorama, Hungary - Vertigo, Ireland - Peccadillo, Israel - Nachshon, Peru - Pucp, Poland - Hagi, So. Korea - Company L, Switzerland - Xenix, Taiwan - Swallow Wings Films, Turkey - Medyavizion, U.K. –Peccadillo.
It was reviewed in SydneysBuzz by Carlos Aguilar.
- 9/2/2014
- by Sydney Levine
- Sydney's Buzz
Survival and the hardships of war are explored from a very specific and thought-provoking perspective in János Szász’ “The Notebook.” A pair of twins in Hungary during World War II is left to fend for themselves when their parents must move away escaping prosecution. Their hateful grandmother, who is supposed to care for them, forces them to work tirelessly and shows no compassion despite their young age. Progressively, they desensitize themselves by enduring pain, starvation and getting rid of any memories from their past life, including their mother. Szász’ savagely beautiful film delivers bleakness enhance with a touch of fantasy, but always aware of the dark world in which his characters inhabit. Heartbreakingly poetic and visually elegant, “The Notebook,” based on Agota Kristof’s novel Le grand cahier, is one of the most daring European films of the year. The film was Hungary’s Official Oscar Submission last year and it made it to the final 9-film-shortli out of 76 titles submitted.
Szász kindly talked to us from Hungary about the performances in his film, the origin story of the project, and the hint of hope underneath the darkness
Read More: Review "The Notebook" (Le grand cahier)
Carlos Aguilar: Tell me about the origin of the project, where you interested in the novel beforehand?
János Szász: “The Notebook” is a very old story. 15 years ago, the first time I read the book I fell in love with it and I immediately wanted to take the rights, everyone laughed at me for that. Getting the rights was very difficult because they were taken for 15 years, and many directors wanted to make it into a movie. I had made the short “The Witman Boys,” which is also a story about two very young souls, in a way I wanted to make another film in this genre. I was in the queue to get the rights.
Finally, approximately four or five years ago I had the fortune of meeting the author Agota Kristof. Every character in the novel comes from memories of her life. In 1956, during the anti-communist revolution, she got pregnant. She and her family had to leave Hungary. She didn’t want to leave because she loved this country. It was a very dark time in her life, because she didn’t want to be a deserter, as she would say. She died two years before we began to shoot the film. She was a wonderful person. We became very close. She was someone who could not lie. She didn’t want to lie about her life. She didn’t want to lie about how hard it was for her and her brothers. She told me it was very painful to write this book.
Aguilar: Both twins, László Gyémánt and András Gyémánt, deliver marvelous performances. They are unflinching and naturalistic throughout. Was it a difficult task for you to elicit this from the young boys?
János Szász: To tell you the truth, it was really easy [Laughs]. We found these two kids in a very small village in the south of Hungary living in poverty. They had been living a life that was not very pleasant. They lived with their grandmother and they had no money. They, despite being children, had to work everyday. When I visited them I started telling them about the war and how hard life is, etc. They were just laughing at my face. They told me, “Janos, we know exactly how hard life is.” They had their own similar experiences, so what you feel when you see them in the film comes from their past. They were able to base the story on those experiences. For the scenes where they beat each other, we talked to Andras, and it was clear that this sort of thing has happened in their lives.
There were difficulties at times. Imagine two boys from the countryside who suddenly find themselves shooting a film. They have their own van, everybody loves them, but it’s only for 50 days of shooting. Suddenly it stops, and it was hard for them. We couldn’t take them back to where we found them like if they were props. I’m very happy that we still have a very good relationship and to know that they are in a college in Budapest. They have a chance to try to have a better life now. On set, what was difficult was that, even though their presence is strong, they were two amateurs. All the other actors are professionals, and it was hard for them to achieve this kind of simplicity. As a director, my job was to help those actors be simple, not to do much.
Aguilar: The film has a specific visuals aesthetic. It is realist, but also ventures into a sort of dark fairytale. How did you achieve this particular atmosphere?
János Szász: Christian Berger was our cinematographer. He is great. He has worked in films like “The White Ribbon.” First off, this is an adaptation, and I, Janos, as the one adapting, have to think about a lot of things. In the book there are no names for the boys and the voice is always in plural, “we decided” or “we did…” I told Christian that it was very important to find this “We.” Therefore, we chose to shoot the film in cinemascope and to always have these two guys together in every frame.
They are always together, but at the end we notice this erosion in their relationship. I did think of it as a dark fairytale, but it was very hard to make a war movie without showing war. There is abuse and violence, but I think my intention to make a cold fairytale came across. I didn’t want to get too close to things, I wanted visual distance, that’s why I was knocking on Christian’s door. I wanted to find someone who doesn’t want to get too close, someone who doesn’t want to provoke your emotions. He is a master at keeping that distance, while still taking the audience close to the story.
Aguilar: The notebook in the story seems to represent an alternative reality for these two boys. What are your though on the role it plays?
János Szász: The notebook is the only place where they are honest. It is like a priest, like a confessional for these two kids. It is a place for fantasy, that’s why I decided not to use only the words but to bring the notebook to life. It is also a very secretive tunnel into the truth. If you are Catholic, every Sunday you’d go to church and talk to the priest, but in the story the priest is not a person. This fairytale territory represents freedom.
Aguilar: In order to survive the twins desensitize themselves, they try to forget their loved ones to become stronger. Where you ever concerned of how bleak or how dark you could make the film? I think there is a compelling sense of unyielding courage to your approach.
János Szász: I think the novel is much more darker. For me it is not that dark because it is the story about two boys who are taken to live with their unknown grandmother. The mother tells them they must continue learning, but that above all they must survive. These are two good boys, and they listen to their mother. They will continue learning, but the subject has changed, the subject now is the war. They are learning how to survive it. They are gaining skills, but even if they come out physically alive, do they survive the war mentally? They need to be strong, they need to be able not to eat for days, and they need to forget about emotions. To have emotions during the war would be like committing suicide for them. They have a new moral code, which during the war is not so black and white. You can’t really judge their actions towards other people. Even with their grandmother, there is hatred there, but under the skin of that hatred one can see a special type of love. The bleakness is not so black and white.
Aguilar: Despite all the events and situations these two boys must go through, do you think there is a place for hope in their journey?
János Szász: Personally I think there is a lot of hope in the story. They still preserve a certain kind of innocence. They have gone through terrible things, but they had no choice but to do those things. Eventually, they must part and separate, but this represents hope. This is their only hope. One of them goes west, just like the author Agota Kristof, and the other stays in Hungary. This is their hope for a new life. You must know that this based on the first book of a tetralogy. In the second part they return and they reconnect.
"The Notebook" opens today in NYC at the Quad Cinema and in L.A. at the Laemmle Royal in Santa Monica...
Szász kindly talked to us from Hungary about the performances in his film, the origin story of the project, and the hint of hope underneath the darkness
Read More: Review "The Notebook" (Le grand cahier)
Carlos Aguilar: Tell me about the origin of the project, where you interested in the novel beforehand?
János Szász: “The Notebook” is a very old story. 15 years ago, the first time I read the book I fell in love with it and I immediately wanted to take the rights, everyone laughed at me for that. Getting the rights was very difficult because they were taken for 15 years, and many directors wanted to make it into a movie. I had made the short “The Witman Boys,” which is also a story about two very young souls, in a way I wanted to make another film in this genre. I was in the queue to get the rights.
Finally, approximately four or five years ago I had the fortune of meeting the author Agota Kristof. Every character in the novel comes from memories of her life. In 1956, during the anti-communist revolution, she got pregnant. She and her family had to leave Hungary. She didn’t want to leave because she loved this country. It was a very dark time in her life, because she didn’t want to be a deserter, as she would say. She died two years before we began to shoot the film. She was a wonderful person. We became very close. She was someone who could not lie. She didn’t want to lie about her life. She didn’t want to lie about how hard it was for her and her brothers. She told me it was very painful to write this book.
Aguilar: Both twins, László Gyémánt and András Gyémánt, deliver marvelous performances. They are unflinching and naturalistic throughout. Was it a difficult task for you to elicit this from the young boys?
János Szász: To tell you the truth, it was really easy [Laughs]. We found these two kids in a very small village in the south of Hungary living in poverty. They had been living a life that was not very pleasant. They lived with their grandmother and they had no money. They, despite being children, had to work everyday. When I visited them I started telling them about the war and how hard life is, etc. They were just laughing at my face. They told me, “Janos, we know exactly how hard life is.” They had their own similar experiences, so what you feel when you see them in the film comes from their past. They were able to base the story on those experiences. For the scenes where they beat each other, we talked to Andras, and it was clear that this sort of thing has happened in their lives.
There were difficulties at times. Imagine two boys from the countryside who suddenly find themselves shooting a film. They have their own van, everybody loves them, but it’s only for 50 days of shooting. Suddenly it stops, and it was hard for them. We couldn’t take them back to where we found them like if they were props. I’m very happy that we still have a very good relationship and to know that they are in a college in Budapest. They have a chance to try to have a better life now. On set, what was difficult was that, even though their presence is strong, they were two amateurs. All the other actors are professionals, and it was hard for them to achieve this kind of simplicity. As a director, my job was to help those actors be simple, not to do much.
Aguilar: The film has a specific visuals aesthetic. It is realist, but also ventures into a sort of dark fairytale. How did you achieve this particular atmosphere?
János Szász: Christian Berger was our cinematographer. He is great. He has worked in films like “The White Ribbon.” First off, this is an adaptation, and I, Janos, as the one adapting, have to think about a lot of things. In the book there are no names for the boys and the voice is always in plural, “we decided” or “we did…” I told Christian that it was very important to find this “We.” Therefore, we chose to shoot the film in cinemascope and to always have these two guys together in every frame.
They are always together, but at the end we notice this erosion in their relationship. I did think of it as a dark fairytale, but it was very hard to make a war movie without showing war. There is abuse and violence, but I think my intention to make a cold fairytale came across. I didn’t want to get too close to things, I wanted visual distance, that’s why I was knocking on Christian’s door. I wanted to find someone who doesn’t want to get too close, someone who doesn’t want to provoke your emotions. He is a master at keeping that distance, while still taking the audience close to the story.
Aguilar: The notebook in the story seems to represent an alternative reality for these two boys. What are your though on the role it plays?
János Szász: The notebook is the only place where they are honest. It is like a priest, like a confessional for these two kids. It is a place for fantasy, that’s why I decided not to use only the words but to bring the notebook to life. It is also a very secretive tunnel into the truth. If you are Catholic, every Sunday you’d go to church and talk to the priest, but in the story the priest is not a person. This fairytale territory represents freedom.
Aguilar: In order to survive the twins desensitize themselves, they try to forget their loved ones to become stronger. Where you ever concerned of how bleak or how dark you could make the film? I think there is a compelling sense of unyielding courage to your approach.
János Szász: I think the novel is much more darker. For me it is not that dark because it is the story about two boys who are taken to live with their unknown grandmother. The mother tells them they must continue learning, but that above all they must survive. These are two good boys, and they listen to their mother. They will continue learning, but the subject has changed, the subject now is the war. They are learning how to survive it. They are gaining skills, but even if they come out physically alive, do they survive the war mentally? They need to be strong, they need to be able not to eat for days, and they need to forget about emotions. To have emotions during the war would be like committing suicide for them. They have a new moral code, which during the war is not so black and white. You can’t really judge their actions towards other people. Even with their grandmother, there is hatred there, but under the skin of that hatred one can see a special type of love. The bleakness is not so black and white.
Aguilar: Despite all the events and situations these two boys must go through, do you think there is a place for hope in their journey?
János Szász: Personally I think there is a lot of hope in the story. They still preserve a certain kind of innocence. They have gone through terrible things, but they had no choice but to do those things. Eventually, they must part and separate, but this represents hope. This is their only hope. One of them goes west, just like the author Agota Kristof, and the other stays in Hungary. This is their hope for a new life. You must know that this based on the first book of a tetralogy. In the second part they return and they reconnect.
"The Notebook" opens today in NYC at the Quad Cinema and in L.A. at the Laemmle Royal in Santa Monica...
- 8/29/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Revitalizing the prison film genre by means of raw authenticity and powerful performances, David Mackenzie's ‘”Starred Up” is a bold exploration into the violent mind in the absence of freedom. A young inmate, Eric Love, played stunningly by Jack O'Connell, is adapting to the gritty environment around him. He knows that in this microcosm of hatred, ruthlessness, and frustration, he can only count on himself. However, in the same prison, his father. Neville Love (Ben Mendelsohn), is also serving his sentence. What ensues is a striking story of survival, connections, redemption, and even hope. Directed with incredible attention to the emotional journey of its characters, the film is an intense experience that finds a certain brutal humanity in every scene.
Director David Mackenzie talked to us about the emotionally charged elements of the film, depicting honest violence, and letting the magic of the moment influence his film.
Carlos Aguilar: How did you initially become involved with the project? What drew you to this story?
David Mackenzie : It came to me as a spec script from Jonathan Asser who is a talented first-time writer. He’d written it from personal experience. He has been a therapist for the British prison system. The script felt very strong, detailed, authentic, it had a very interesting kind of language and strong characters. It was not hard for me to like it. It needed some work to get us into the shape that we got today, but it was a very strong first hit as it was. I think Jonathan is a talent and it was great to get it.
Aguilar: Given the complexity of the characters portrayed in "Starred Up," how difficult was it to translate the powerful language on the page and put it into the actors' hands to shape their performance?
David Mackenzie : It’s a hard one to answer because you just do it. They interpret the good things that I hope Jonathan and I brought to the table, that was part of it. The actors also bring things to the table trying not to fall into too many clichés within the context of a genre film essentially about a prison. There are also the potential non-complex or clichéd things that you can do with that, but we tried our hardest to avoid them and to make them human. I think Jonathan's story is filled with human opportunities. Keeping the humanity and the reality of the situation, and the authenticity of the world as close to it as we could was helpful for everyone. I think everyone knew that was the approach we were using, and they filled they characters with as much detail as possible.
Aguilar: With such emotionally charged material as this, what's your approach to realize your vision from page to screen?
David Mackenzie : I look at the script as a set of ingredients. It tells you who is in the scene, it tells you roughly what the actions are, then you go into the environment and you make it come alive. That’s the idea of it. It is really not possible to talk about the specifics of it. You are just in the middle sort of dancing with the material, as a director that’s what I encourage everyone to do. We were trying to keep it very alive, very real, and very close to the material. However, we were also improvising and engaging with whatever was going to come out and give life to the material. It’s about letting the material do one thing, and then letting the magic of the moment do another thing and stirring them together.
Aguilar: What sort of research or preparation did you and your do in order to enhance the realism of the piece?
David Mackenzie : There was a lot of background research, plus being there in a real former prison with some former prison officers and former prisoners to advice us. We needed to be a little bit below the radar in terms of drawing attention to ourselves. We didn’t want to be controversial before the film was made. The real research was the combination of the actual location that we used, the people that we used to advice us, and, obviously, Jonathan’s knowledge.
Aguilar: The violence in the film has this raw and visceral quality to it, did you have any reservations or concerns in terms of its depiction?
David Mackenzie : One of the things that was scariest for me was how to make these set pieces, where the performances were very real, also look realistic. We were trying to make them feel very energized and the way we were shooting the film was a sort of like doing an aestheticized semi-documentary film. Our Dp Michael McDonough and I would never set up a frame. We always had the frame be dictated by the action, even though we both have very cinematic sensibilities. It was like pushing against that. Even within that, you obviously have some things that are much less spontaneous because the action sequences need to be choreographed for safety reasons. The challenge of how to make these non-spontaneous sequences match the others that are much more spontaneous was really hard. We had a great stunt team, they understood the game. It was very important for us to have violence that wasn’t glamorizing it in any way. It wasn’t “cool.” Violence should feel sort of painful, but we were doing that within the context of making it feel like it belongs with the rest of the film. It was a real challenge, but I think we did alright.
Aguilar: One of the strongest thematic elements in the film is this father and son relationship between Eris and Neville, did you want this to be at the center of the story? How did you go about getting these emotions across?
David Mackenzie : For me the heart and soul of the film is the relationship between the son and the father, and the fact that both of them are incredibly emotionally locked down, in particularly Neville. He solidifies his approach to everything so much that he can't move. He doesn’t have a clue of how to be a father and he really doesn’t have an interest in being a father. But somehow rather underneath all of that hardness there is an instinct that he doesn’t understand. It creeps up on him and he has to deal with it. For Eric it's different, he’s been longing to find his father who he hasn’t seen for a long time. He wants to reach out to him, but Neville doesn’t have an interest. My approach was to make sure that each character was doing what they should be doing even if it’s contradicting the other character and to push that across. I wanted the tension between them to be as tangible as possible. I’m really pleased with the way it worked out. Our approach was about letting it happen. The fact that we shot the film sequentially also helped a lot.
Aguilar: It seems like the outside world often dehumanizes those who we cannot see - people in prison for example. Was it your intention to try and bring some humanity back into the way we perceive them?
David Mackenzie : The first thing I wanted to do when I read the script was to take this hard subject and allow the humanity to come out, while also showing the hope, the humor, the need to reach out. Jack’s character Eric has no connection with anyone at the beginning of the film. But by the end of the film he’s developed a connection with his father and other inmates, which is the real source of hope in the film. That’s what I found attractive from the very beginning while reading the script, the opportunity to take a film that existed in a very hard world, a hostile and dangerous environment where there is a lot of tension, and find ways to creep in bits of humanity, bits of heart, and soul.
Aguilar: Can you tell me about your experience working with Jack O'Connell? His performance is absolutely riveting.
David Mackenzie : Working with him was fantastic. He and I discussed early on that we would try to make sure there was a very brave, totally focused, and not held back approach. Jack ran with it, and that was very exciting. Occasionally I had to kind of remind him that he was a boy as well as a man. I wanted to make sure that the softness and the vulnerability of the character was sometimes there because Jack was on fire. I knew from the beginning when I met him that we’d get something amazing, but I think that, because of the process of going on the journey, it became more amazing as we went further along.
Aguilar: Below the violence and the brutal world depicted, what's at the core of the film?
David Mackenzie : I think the film intends to create a really realistic picture of jail and a kid in this jail. It tries to shine a light on the potential humanity as well as the potential struggles that are going on there. I feel like we’ve done that, but there are no easy answers and there are no easy solutions to these things. The people there, no matter what they’ve done, are still human beings. They have their own stories of redemption and hope and everything that all humans have. I hope it is a humanistic experience.
"Starred Up" opens in NYC today at the IFC Center and the Film Society of Lincoln Center. It will open in L.A. on September 5th.
Director David Mackenzie talked to us about the emotionally charged elements of the film, depicting honest violence, and letting the magic of the moment influence his film.
Carlos Aguilar: How did you initially become involved with the project? What drew you to this story?
David Mackenzie : It came to me as a spec script from Jonathan Asser who is a talented first-time writer. He’d written it from personal experience. He has been a therapist for the British prison system. The script felt very strong, detailed, authentic, it had a very interesting kind of language and strong characters. It was not hard for me to like it. It needed some work to get us into the shape that we got today, but it was a very strong first hit as it was. I think Jonathan is a talent and it was great to get it.
Aguilar: Given the complexity of the characters portrayed in "Starred Up," how difficult was it to translate the powerful language on the page and put it into the actors' hands to shape their performance?
David Mackenzie : It’s a hard one to answer because you just do it. They interpret the good things that I hope Jonathan and I brought to the table, that was part of it. The actors also bring things to the table trying not to fall into too many clichés within the context of a genre film essentially about a prison. There are also the potential non-complex or clichéd things that you can do with that, but we tried our hardest to avoid them and to make them human. I think Jonathan's story is filled with human opportunities. Keeping the humanity and the reality of the situation, and the authenticity of the world as close to it as we could was helpful for everyone. I think everyone knew that was the approach we were using, and they filled they characters with as much detail as possible.
Aguilar: With such emotionally charged material as this, what's your approach to realize your vision from page to screen?
David Mackenzie : I look at the script as a set of ingredients. It tells you who is in the scene, it tells you roughly what the actions are, then you go into the environment and you make it come alive. That’s the idea of it. It is really not possible to talk about the specifics of it. You are just in the middle sort of dancing with the material, as a director that’s what I encourage everyone to do. We were trying to keep it very alive, very real, and very close to the material. However, we were also improvising and engaging with whatever was going to come out and give life to the material. It’s about letting the material do one thing, and then letting the magic of the moment do another thing and stirring them together.
Aguilar: What sort of research or preparation did you and your do in order to enhance the realism of the piece?
David Mackenzie : There was a lot of background research, plus being there in a real former prison with some former prison officers and former prisoners to advice us. We needed to be a little bit below the radar in terms of drawing attention to ourselves. We didn’t want to be controversial before the film was made. The real research was the combination of the actual location that we used, the people that we used to advice us, and, obviously, Jonathan’s knowledge.
Aguilar: The violence in the film has this raw and visceral quality to it, did you have any reservations or concerns in terms of its depiction?
David Mackenzie : One of the things that was scariest for me was how to make these set pieces, where the performances were very real, also look realistic. We were trying to make them feel very energized and the way we were shooting the film was a sort of like doing an aestheticized semi-documentary film. Our Dp Michael McDonough and I would never set up a frame. We always had the frame be dictated by the action, even though we both have very cinematic sensibilities. It was like pushing against that. Even within that, you obviously have some things that are much less spontaneous because the action sequences need to be choreographed for safety reasons. The challenge of how to make these non-spontaneous sequences match the others that are much more spontaneous was really hard. We had a great stunt team, they understood the game. It was very important for us to have violence that wasn’t glamorizing it in any way. It wasn’t “cool.” Violence should feel sort of painful, but we were doing that within the context of making it feel like it belongs with the rest of the film. It was a real challenge, but I think we did alright.
Aguilar: One of the strongest thematic elements in the film is this father and son relationship between Eris and Neville, did you want this to be at the center of the story? How did you go about getting these emotions across?
David Mackenzie : For me the heart and soul of the film is the relationship between the son and the father, and the fact that both of them are incredibly emotionally locked down, in particularly Neville. He solidifies his approach to everything so much that he can't move. He doesn’t have a clue of how to be a father and he really doesn’t have an interest in being a father. But somehow rather underneath all of that hardness there is an instinct that he doesn’t understand. It creeps up on him and he has to deal with it. For Eric it's different, he’s been longing to find his father who he hasn’t seen for a long time. He wants to reach out to him, but Neville doesn’t have an interest. My approach was to make sure that each character was doing what they should be doing even if it’s contradicting the other character and to push that across. I wanted the tension between them to be as tangible as possible. I’m really pleased with the way it worked out. Our approach was about letting it happen. The fact that we shot the film sequentially also helped a lot.
Aguilar: It seems like the outside world often dehumanizes those who we cannot see - people in prison for example. Was it your intention to try and bring some humanity back into the way we perceive them?
David Mackenzie : The first thing I wanted to do when I read the script was to take this hard subject and allow the humanity to come out, while also showing the hope, the humor, the need to reach out. Jack’s character Eric has no connection with anyone at the beginning of the film. But by the end of the film he’s developed a connection with his father and other inmates, which is the real source of hope in the film. That’s what I found attractive from the very beginning while reading the script, the opportunity to take a film that existed in a very hard world, a hostile and dangerous environment where there is a lot of tension, and find ways to creep in bits of humanity, bits of heart, and soul.
Aguilar: Can you tell me about your experience working with Jack O'Connell? His performance is absolutely riveting.
David Mackenzie : Working with him was fantastic. He and I discussed early on that we would try to make sure there was a very brave, totally focused, and not held back approach. Jack ran with it, and that was very exciting. Occasionally I had to kind of remind him that he was a boy as well as a man. I wanted to make sure that the softness and the vulnerability of the character was sometimes there because Jack was on fire. I knew from the beginning when I met him that we’d get something amazing, but I think that, because of the process of going on the journey, it became more amazing as we went further along.
Aguilar: Below the violence and the brutal world depicted, what's at the core of the film?
David Mackenzie : I think the film intends to create a really realistic picture of jail and a kid in this jail. It tries to shine a light on the potential humanity as well as the potential struggles that are going on there. I feel like we’ve done that, but there are no easy answers and there are no easy solutions to these things. The people there, no matter what they’ve done, are still human beings. They have their own stories of redemption and hope and everything that all humans have. I hope it is a humanistic experience.
"Starred Up" opens in NYC today at the IFC Center and the Film Society of Lincoln Center. It will open in L.A. on September 5th.
- 8/29/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
Shot with a deliberate fondness for classic films that revolve around families and their intricacies, “After” is an ensemble piece spearheaded by Academy Award-nominee Kathleen Quinlan as Nora, the matriarch of a New York clan, the Valentino family. Through their complex interactions we learn of a secret that has kept them functional for some time in the aftermath of September 11. Driven by conservative views Mitch Valentino (John Doman), the father, dedicates his life to Nora, while his children are left adrift to deal with the family business, alcoholism, and their personal relationships. Directed by Pieter Gaspersz, and written by Sabrina Gennarino, who also stars in the film as daughter Maxine, the film helped as catharsis for both filmmakers dealing with the loss of love ones during the tragic events. Intense conflicts, sacrifice, and the journey to be healed all form part of this powerful drama.
Here is what the talented team had to say about their latest project
Carlos Aguilar: “After” deals with a lot of intense emotions and conflicts. How did each one of you become involved with a project like this?
Sabrina: This is a story that was inspired by own personal experience. I was home for 9/11, we lived downtown and I lost friends. It was a very hard time, and I was really messed up for a long time, so I decided to start writing a diary because I needed to heal myself. That’s how it started. I needed to get to rock bottom, because from there the only place to go is up. But I was in very bad shape. It is sort of my take on how my family would have reacted if I didn’t make it that day, which was a great possibility. It started like that, but of course we made it a little bigger for the purposes of the film, but we actually had no intention of making it. It took me many years to write and get my head around it. As a friend read it she said, “ I think you should really consider getting this out there. There are many people that need to be healed.” It is ultimately a film about loss, but it is set around 9/11 because that was my experience. I couldn’t write about a murder or a car accident. It’s about loss and about a family’s journey back to health and healing.
Pieter: I was, of course, married to Sabrina but I was not involved in the entertainment world at all. We went through September 11, but that day we were separated and reunited 13 hours after the first plane had crashed. Long story short, I’ve worked down in the rubble and I’ve seen many things, so I have a personal experience with the overall event. The initial decision was to take this script, in which Sabrina poured her heart in the medium she could, and make something. But after talking to many filmmakers about what the scope of this story should be, I ended up seeing clearly the way in which it needed to be communicated to the world. It was the first time for both of us, and we just got to the end of the cliff and jumped. That’s who we are as people; we figure it out as we go down. We just jumped and drove and drove until this film got all the way to where it is today.
Kathleen: The project somehow miraculously ended up in my email from my agent. It becomes very difficult to find meaningful work, so this really spoke to me. There was something for me to do with Nora. I had no idea who Pieter or Sabrina were. I’m not exactly sure how I got the part [Laughs]. How did I get it Sabrina?
Sabrina: When someone suggested you we all go goosebumps. I didn’t think in a million years we would be able to get you. I thought, “There is no way we are going to be able to get this woman.” But gratefully we heard you responded to the material and we all started jumping up and down in the freezing cold of Rochester. Carlos, Most people don’t know this but she got the script about three days prior to shooting. We had a very short pre-production week, we shot for only twenty days, and we used 35mm film. Kathleen got in three days prior, and her breakdown scene was the very first day. That’s the power of this woman. That is the level at which she functions.
Kathleen: I was so lucky. They are all such topnotch actors. If any of them are a weak link then it just doesn’t play.
Carlos: This is an ensemble piece in which all the actors are on point. What was the process of developing and making it a reality.
Pieter : When Sabrina wrote the script, we had opportunities to do other films. But it felt like we needed to get passed this and get the weight off our shoulders. It was also about how we wanted to enter into the business. We’ve been trying to do this a very long time, and we just wanted to be calculative about it. But the bottom line is Sabrina wrote a script that was much bigger than either her or I had recognized. We realized that the film was much bigger than us and we knew that in the collaboration we needed to allow it to grow. From a visual standpoint I knew I was going to go against the grain of independent film by trying to take a period piece and make it more of a classic style drama, instead of a fast-cut, quick-shot, sharp film. We got up to Rochester after talking to our key team members for months and months, and after planning this thing out. The two weeks that we had was like letting the bulls out of the cage, I did as much research as I could but we didn’t have the time for a long audition process. What really worked for me was getting to know the actors as humans first, that way I knew who they were and how they worked prior to coming. That way we could allow them the freedom to collaborate, expand on these characters, find them as we were going along, and stay grounded to the truth we were trying to tell. We all worked tirelessly for hours upon hours in the freezing cold winter of Rochester, New York. It was amazing.
Sabrina: It took so long because I’d never written a script before and we never thought we would make it. That was part of the long development that took place.
Kathleen: I was really impressed. They chose people that worked well, not big names. They were looking for really fine actors. Obviously John Doman and Pablo Schreiber are rather big names, but I think they responded to Sabrina’s writing
Carlos: With the time constraints that you mention, was it difficult to get to know the cast and develop the certain chemistry needed for the scenes?
Kathleen: We were all in this house for several days so we had time to get to know each other.
Pieter: When Kathleen landed we went out to dinner and we talked. Obviously every film is different, but this one being so dark and intense we wanted to keep the set very light. We had a tight unit and everybody was heard, from the PAs to my line producer to the cast. This allowed for those bonding moments. There were times when everyone was free juts talking, but when it got to the intense moments we were all ready for what needed to be done.
Carlos: The dinner sequences seem to be such an important part of this family's relationship.
Sabrina: Pieter was brilliant with it; they are so hard to shoot.
Pieter: [Jokingly] Not a table scene!
Kathleen: [Laughing] Anything but a table scene!
Sabrina: We got kids; we got animals, and a table scene?
Pieter: How am I going to cover all these people? [Laughs]
Sabrina: That’s one of the things we get a lot from viewers, “This happened at my dinner table." It was really all based on my family. They are wonderful people, but we had to make it a bit bigger for theatrical purposes. My family is that supportive and we would do anything for each other. For the table scenes, those were just natural, real conversations. Pieter thought I was crazy when I acted them out. As an actor I get to ask “Does the dialogue feel real to me” that’s one of the benefits of being an actor and a writer. They were hard to do, but those dinner scenes were based on real conversations. I love when people come up and say “Oh my God, this happened last Christmas.” Pieter and the crew just nailed it.
Carlos: Given the scope of the film and the personal subject matter, did you feel an added sense of responsibility or pressure while making it?
Kathleen: I felt a tremendous responsibility due to the background of the story and representing that kind of grief or universal pain. But I’m sure Pieter and Sabrina felt a lot more responsibility.
Sabrina: That’s an understatement. We had this Oscar and Golden nominee in our film, if I had stopped to think about it I probably would have curled up in a corner. The pressure was amazing, but we had an amazing cast who were just so open and lovely. They were very real. For a film a like this, that was very important. We couldn’t have actors who were on the cover of every single magazine every day, because we needed our audiences to be able to get lost in these characters. There was incredible pressure.
Pieter: As far as fear, I don't think we had time for it. But I did see Kathleen as a person who is amazing and what she does on this planet and the contribution she brings, and also how passionate John, Pablo, and Adam Scarimbolo were. All of us were so in the mood right away. It was a phenomenal thing. During post, since we didn't have the time or budget to edit while we were shooting, I knew I needed to step it up.That's why I brought in 3-time Oscar-nominee William Steinkamp whose brush in filmmaking I knew would be perfect for this. It is a dream when you work with this level of talent, you trust each other and it is just such an open collaboration. Pressure, sure, of producing it and the fact you have to make money back, we have investors that we care about, but the experience over all has been amazing.
Carlos: Watching the film I was impressed to see a film set in 2002 as a period piece. It has only been 12 years, but that period of time has its own qualities looking at it from a distance. Since the film takes place in the aftermath of 9/11, how do you think this will be perceived now more than a decade apart?
Kathleen: Obviously cinematographer Jonathan Hall and Pieter had a great vision, but it is interesting the timing of this coming out. When they first showed it to me a few years ago we probably weren't ready for it. Somehow the timing seems Ok now. It doesn't seem disrespectful, it seems like people can take a little bit, we have a little distance.
Sabrina: We've been having screenings of the film, and in the most recent one we were there for 45 minutes after answering questions, and then we went out to the lobby and more people were waiting to talk to us about it and their experience. Most of them loved that we didn't make it the "9/11 film," it was about getting to know these characters. It couldn't be about the event, they have losses in other ways. People are relating on so many different levels. The response from audience members has been truly wonderful. I'm just so grateful, it is a gift that they've given us. They are giving us such a gift when they come to speak to us about it and tell us how they feel and how powerful it was. The healing they are giving us with their response is overwhelming.
Pieter: Consciously it's not a film that follows one character. It is a film in which I want you to feel uncomfortable. I want audiences to become aware as Nora becomes aware. We are not hiding that Sam, her daughter, is death, it's on the poster, because it is about Nora's journey. For the audience that connects with it, they really connect. It was a small voice that we were looking to shout out from and the response has been outstanding.
"After" Opens Friday August 15th in Los Angeles and It's Already Playing in New York and Available on VOD...
Here is what the talented team had to say about their latest project
Carlos Aguilar: “After” deals with a lot of intense emotions and conflicts. How did each one of you become involved with a project like this?
Sabrina: This is a story that was inspired by own personal experience. I was home for 9/11, we lived downtown and I lost friends. It was a very hard time, and I was really messed up for a long time, so I decided to start writing a diary because I needed to heal myself. That’s how it started. I needed to get to rock bottom, because from there the only place to go is up. But I was in very bad shape. It is sort of my take on how my family would have reacted if I didn’t make it that day, which was a great possibility. It started like that, but of course we made it a little bigger for the purposes of the film, but we actually had no intention of making it. It took me many years to write and get my head around it. As a friend read it she said, “ I think you should really consider getting this out there. There are many people that need to be healed.” It is ultimately a film about loss, but it is set around 9/11 because that was my experience. I couldn’t write about a murder or a car accident. It’s about loss and about a family’s journey back to health and healing.
Pieter: I was, of course, married to Sabrina but I was not involved in the entertainment world at all. We went through September 11, but that day we were separated and reunited 13 hours after the first plane had crashed. Long story short, I’ve worked down in the rubble and I’ve seen many things, so I have a personal experience with the overall event. The initial decision was to take this script, in which Sabrina poured her heart in the medium she could, and make something. But after talking to many filmmakers about what the scope of this story should be, I ended up seeing clearly the way in which it needed to be communicated to the world. It was the first time for both of us, and we just got to the end of the cliff and jumped. That’s who we are as people; we figure it out as we go down. We just jumped and drove and drove until this film got all the way to where it is today.
Kathleen: The project somehow miraculously ended up in my email from my agent. It becomes very difficult to find meaningful work, so this really spoke to me. There was something for me to do with Nora. I had no idea who Pieter or Sabrina were. I’m not exactly sure how I got the part [Laughs]. How did I get it Sabrina?
Sabrina: When someone suggested you we all go goosebumps. I didn’t think in a million years we would be able to get you. I thought, “There is no way we are going to be able to get this woman.” But gratefully we heard you responded to the material and we all started jumping up and down in the freezing cold of Rochester. Carlos, Most people don’t know this but she got the script about three days prior to shooting. We had a very short pre-production week, we shot for only twenty days, and we used 35mm film. Kathleen got in three days prior, and her breakdown scene was the very first day. That’s the power of this woman. That is the level at which she functions.
Kathleen: I was so lucky. They are all such topnotch actors. If any of them are a weak link then it just doesn’t play.
Carlos: This is an ensemble piece in which all the actors are on point. What was the process of developing and making it a reality.
Pieter : When Sabrina wrote the script, we had opportunities to do other films. But it felt like we needed to get passed this and get the weight off our shoulders. It was also about how we wanted to enter into the business. We’ve been trying to do this a very long time, and we just wanted to be calculative about it. But the bottom line is Sabrina wrote a script that was much bigger than either her or I had recognized. We realized that the film was much bigger than us and we knew that in the collaboration we needed to allow it to grow. From a visual standpoint I knew I was going to go against the grain of independent film by trying to take a period piece and make it more of a classic style drama, instead of a fast-cut, quick-shot, sharp film. We got up to Rochester after talking to our key team members for months and months, and after planning this thing out. The two weeks that we had was like letting the bulls out of the cage, I did as much research as I could but we didn’t have the time for a long audition process. What really worked for me was getting to know the actors as humans first, that way I knew who they were and how they worked prior to coming. That way we could allow them the freedom to collaborate, expand on these characters, find them as we were going along, and stay grounded to the truth we were trying to tell. We all worked tirelessly for hours upon hours in the freezing cold winter of Rochester, New York. It was amazing.
Sabrina: It took so long because I’d never written a script before and we never thought we would make it. That was part of the long development that took place.
Kathleen: I was really impressed. They chose people that worked well, not big names. They were looking for really fine actors. Obviously John Doman and Pablo Schreiber are rather big names, but I think they responded to Sabrina’s writing
Carlos: With the time constraints that you mention, was it difficult to get to know the cast and develop the certain chemistry needed for the scenes?
Kathleen: We were all in this house for several days so we had time to get to know each other.
Pieter: When Kathleen landed we went out to dinner and we talked. Obviously every film is different, but this one being so dark and intense we wanted to keep the set very light. We had a tight unit and everybody was heard, from the PAs to my line producer to the cast. This allowed for those bonding moments. There were times when everyone was free juts talking, but when it got to the intense moments we were all ready for what needed to be done.
Carlos: The dinner sequences seem to be such an important part of this family's relationship.
Sabrina: Pieter was brilliant with it; they are so hard to shoot.
Pieter: [Jokingly] Not a table scene!
Kathleen: [Laughing] Anything but a table scene!
Sabrina: We got kids; we got animals, and a table scene?
Pieter: How am I going to cover all these people? [Laughs]
Sabrina: That’s one of the things we get a lot from viewers, “This happened at my dinner table." It was really all based on my family. They are wonderful people, but we had to make it a bit bigger for theatrical purposes. My family is that supportive and we would do anything for each other. For the table scenes, those were just natural, real conversations. Pieter thought I was crazy when I acted them out. As an actor I get to ask “Does the dialogue feel real to me” that’s one of the benefits of being an actor and a writer. They were hard to do, but those dinner scenes were based on real conversations. I love when people come up and say “Oh my God, this happened last Christmas.” Pieter and the crew just nailed it.
Carlos: Given the scope of the film and the personal subject matter, did you feel an added sense of responsibility or pressure while making it?
Kathleen: I felt a tremendous responsibility due to the background of the story and representing that kind of grief or universal pain. But I’m sure Pieter and Sabrina felt a lot more responsibility.
Sabrina: That’s an understatement. We had this Oscar and Golden nominee in our film, if I had stopped to think about it I probably would have curled up in a corner. The pressure was amazing, but we had an amazing cast who were just so open and lovely. They were very real. For a film a like this, that was very important. We couldn’t have actors who were on the cover of every single magazine every day, because we needed our audiences to be able to get lost in these characters. There was incredible pressure.
Pieter: As far as fear, I don't think we had time for it. But I did see Kathleen as a person who is amazing and what she does on this planet and the contribution she brings, and also how passionate John, Pablo, and Adam Scarimbolo were. All of us were so in the mood right away. It was a phenomenal thing. During post, since we didn't have the time or budget to edit while we were shooting, I knew I needed to step it up.That's why I brought in 3-time Oscar-nominee William Steinkamp whose brush in filmmaking I knew would be perfect for this. It is a dream when you work with this level of talent, you trust each other and it is just such an open collaboration. Pressure, sure, of producing it and the fact you have to make money back, we have investors that we care about, but the experience over all has been amazing.
Carlos: Watching the film I was impressed to see a film set in 2002 as a period piece. It has only been 12 years, but that period of time has its own qualities looking at it from a distance. Since the film takes place in the aftermath of 9/11, how do you think this will be perceived now more than a decade apart?
Kathleen: Obviously cinematographer Jonathan Hall and Pieter had a great vision, but it is interesting the timing of this coming out. When they first showed it to me a few years ago we probably weren't ready for it. Somehow the timing seems Ok now. It doesn't seem disrespectful, it seems like people can take a little bit, we have a little distance.
Sabrina: We've been having screenings of the film, and in the most recent one we were there for 45 minutes after answering questions, and then we went out to the lobby and more people were waiting to talk to us about it and their experience. Most of them loved that we didn't make it the "9/11 film," it was about getting to know these characters. It couldn't be about the event, they have losses in other ways. People are relating on so many different levels. The response from audience members has been truly wonderful. I'm just so grateful, it is a gift that they've given us. They are giving us such a gift when they come to speak to us about it and tell us how they feel and how powerful it was. The healing they are giving us with their response is overwhelming.
Pieter: Consciously it's not a film that follows one character. It is a film in which I want you to feel uncomfortable. I want audiences to become aware as Nora becomes aware. We are not hiding that Sam, her daughter, is death, it's on the poster, because it is about Nora's journey. For the audience that connects with it, they really connect. It was a small voice that we were looking to shout out from and the response has been outstanding.
"After" Opens Friday August 15th in Los Angeles and It's Already Playing in New York and Available on VOD...
- 8/15/2014
- by Carlos Aguilar
- Sydney's Buzz
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.