Extraordinary Ordinary People/Alan Govenar

For over thirty-five years, filmmaker, author, and radio show host Alan Govenar has been documenting the National Heritage Fellowship, an extraordinary program that honors the artists who keep folk traditions alive in the US. From Native American musicians to African basket makers, from circus performers to Korean dancers, these men and women honor their cultures through practice, performance, teaching, and community work. Extraordinary Ordinary People is a journey through their lives, their art, and their enormous contributions to the vitality of this great land. Availability: Opens September 15, New York City, Cinema Village. A First Run Features release. Thanks to Kelly Hargraves, First Run Features, for arranging this interview.

Peking Opera master Qi Shu Fang, as seen in Extraordinary Ordinary People, a First Run Features Release. Photograph by Alan Govenar, courtesy of Documentary Arts.

Peking Opera master Qi Shu Fang, as seen in Extraordinary Ordinary People, a First Run Features Release. Photograph by Alan Govenar, courtesy of Documentary Arts.

DT: Talk about the National Heritage Fellowship. What’s it for? Who started it?

AG: When Bess Lomax Hawes became the director of the Folk and Traditional Arts program at the National Endowment for the Arts, she saw the need to recognize folk and traditional artists nationally. She wanted to recognize folk and traditional artists, but not simply give lifetime achievement awards. Of course the awards do celebrate careers and many years of work that different individuals have undertaken and the way in which they passed on these traditions from one generation to the next, but Bess thought it was necessary to recognize traditions as well as individuals. She didn’t want to just give one award to a fiddler. She wanted to show the diversity of fiddling as it existed in the US. So there would be many folk fiddlers and many blues musicians, many conjunto musicians, different people who made traditional crafts forms like basket making and bobbin lace making. It was difficult for her to get the endowment to start this program, and when it started in 1982, there was lots of discussion within the field of folk and traditional arts: Was this a good thing, or would it have negative effects on these traditions? Would valorizing people help or hurt? I think as it’s played out over the last thirty-five years it’s been quite an extraordinary program.

DT: Why would it hurt?

AG: Singling out an individual who’s part of a group that’s been unrecognized sometimes creates tensions within the group. Initially the award was $5,000. Over the years it went to $10,000, and now its $25,000.

 

DT: Let’s talk about the values inherent in the award, beginning with the concept of America as a melting pot.

AG: What I realized in doing this was that for me, the metaphor for America was kind of a crazy quilt of the cultures of the world. Within that quilt there were these traditions that were structured but also improvised. Some were radical, some were conservative. It was this uncanny juxtaposition of everything I thought I knew but found I didn’t understand.

 

Circus performer Dolly Jacobs, as seen in Extraordinary Ordinary People, a First Run Features Release. Photograph by Alan Govenar, courtesy of Documentary Arts.

Circus performer Dolly Jacobs, as seen in Extraordinary Ordinary People, a First Run Features Release. Photograph by Alan Govenar, courtesy of Documentary Arts.

DT: How about the value of tradition?

AG: Traditions define who we are. At the core of culture is tradition. Traditions help us clarify our sense of right and wrong, and imbue the world with meaning. In this way traditions shape the people who carry them on and the communities in which we live, work, and play. These National Heritage Fellows are exemplars, they’re ordinary people doing extraordinary things. They’re leaders, they’re teachers, they’re community workers, they’re people who are committed to not only preserving cultural traditions but also perpetuating them and embarking on new innovations to make them more vital and relevant to the world in which they live.

People have a mistaken image of folk art and folklore as being static and dead, when it’s very much alive. That’s not to say that some traditions haven’t passed on or vanished because they’re no longer relevant, but every tradition in this movie is still very vital. And it’s because people are not only carrying on what they learned, they’re adding something new. They’re always becoming new. They’re adding new verses to songs, they’re creating new stitches, they’re designing new quilt patterns, they’re innovating, creating. They’re artists.

 

DT: Some of the artists adhered to strictly traditional forms, like the Korean dancer, while others like the African basket maker introduced modern elements into the tradition, while still others began their own traditions, like Sidiki Conde and the gentleman who claimed to have started Zydeco. Introducing innovations into a tradition always begs the question of what are the tradition’s forms and what dangers does that present to the traditional forms?

AG: I think the parameters of what’s acceptable is determined by the individual and relationship to his or her family or community. The level of interaction determines that. From my point of view, people see a need and they’re creators, they’re artists in the bigger sense. A person who was a big influence on my thinking was Marcia Tucker, who founded the New Museum in New York. Some of the early shows that Marcia did in the ’80s exhibited people who might be called folk artists side by side with people who would be called contemporary artists. Marcia saw these distinctions between folk and fine art as being artificial. It’s a hierarchy, a social hierarchy, because the education process is different. Fine artists go to art schools, and folk artists learn from their grandparents. But in the end they’re both creators. They’re both driven by the artistic impulse. That’s the bigger point here.

In the movie, Bill Monroe says, “I wanted to invent my own music,” and that’s bluegrass. To think that this individual did that! He took mountain music, hillbilly music that he’d heard on records and live performance, and made it into something completely new. Earl Scruggs introduced the idea of playing the banjo in a different kind of way. Like Sheila Adams says, “This is where bluegrass banjo was born.”

I think each and every performer brings something new. Even the Korean dancer, who’s in New York City, is not only influential to the perpetuation of Korean dance but she’s also featured in programs at the Joyce Theater. She’s a contemporary dancer, and within that world she is bringing something new. Her gestural identification with the tradition brings it to a new level.

 

DT: What is the function of art in preserving identity?

 Native American Tolowa Loren Bommelyn, as seen in Extraordinary Ordinary People, a First Run Features Release. Photograph by Alan Govenar, courtesy of Documentary Arts.


Native American Tolowa Loren Bommelyn, as seen in Extraordinary Ordinary People, a First Run Features Release. Photograph by Alan Govenar, courtesy of Documentary Arts.

AG: I think that the soul of our identity is our language and our use of language, and that’s where these traditions become the most fragile, because without the language—particularly of immigrant cultures—the traditions will wither. The languages are part of the cultural wetlands. D.L. Menard [Cajun] makes the comment in the movie, “We were a poor people and they didn’t want us to speak French in the schools because we didn’t speak correct French.” Ironically, linguists are tremendously fascinated by people like D.L. Menard or Canray Fontenot [Creole]. My wife and I brought Canray to Paris. Our friend Michel Fabre, who was a professor at the Sorbonne, had devoted himself to writing about African Americans in France. He was a biographer for Richard Wright, among others, and translated works of the Harlem renaissance into French. He wanted Canray to come to his graduate seminar because he wanted people to hear the French that he spoke. Michel would listen to Canray and say, “I don’t know how he does this, but he’s speaking medieval French. He’s singing songs from the medieval era.” So it’s language at the core of identity, I think, and tradition is a way in which language gives life to tradition.

We live in a world where immigrant cultures are constantly being pressed to assimilate. What’s amazing to me about the people in the movie, and part of what kept me documenting them for so many years, is that they understand this. They understand this delicate balance between carrying on traditions and assimilating. It’s like when Charles Carrillo says, “We’re not famous. We just do this because it matters.” That’s what it’s all about. It’s striking that very delicate balance between the pressures of assimilation with cultural preservation and at the same time trying to maintain a good life. To do well. To have a good family, to be prosperous and to flourish. To make a living. Not everyone can do that. There are people in the movie who struggle to make a living, and we can’t overly romanticize this process, because individuals like Sidiki Conde are struggling. There’s Alex Moore, who died in poverty.

 

DT: The film included an amazing array of people, ideas, and formats, yet you achieved a remarkable unity of feeling. Did you have a clear idea that you wanted to communicate? What was your organizing principle?

AG: The organizing principle revealed itself to me. I’ve been documenting the Heritage Fellows for so many years, and I had been on the committees that selected them. On our website, mastersoftraditionalarts.org, which was developed before the film but goes with it, there are over five hundred little movies, and you’ll see little bits and pieces of things that we edited. So over the years I’ve worked with a number of different editors. On this film, editor Jason Johnson-Spinos and I worked really closely together. We wrote the script together. He jokes with me that he was born the year I started Documentary Arts, but he’s very sensitive to what I’m thinking, and he’s very sensitive to how to piece all of this together. I wanted to have a narrative and at the same time to bring into it as many different people as I could without it just seeming like mishmash, so there were certain threads that I developed.

Sheila Kay Adams, singer, flat-foot dancer, storyteller, and narrator of Extraordinary Ordinary People, a First Run Features Release. Photograph by Alan Govenar, courtesy of Documentary Arts.

Sheila Kay Adams, singer, flat-foot dancer, storyteller, and narrator of Extraordinary Ordinary People, a First Run Features Release. Photograph by Alan Govenar, courtesy of Documentary Arts.

When I met Sheila Kay Adams, she became a principal for me, because she’s a storyteller in addition to being a wonderful banjo player and flat-foot dancer and ballad singer. She’s also a writer, who’s written a couple of novels that have been successful. She had a voice that for me was totally unexpected—to hear an Appalachian woman telling you this story! For me there are not enough women in media, and there are not enough women narrators and voices on the radio, even public radio. I wanted there to be someone who would catch you a little bit by surprise but who would tell it like a story. I wrote the script, but Sheila joked with me that she had to Sheila-fy it. And that was great. I wanted that. So the threads became the stories, and I wanted to have more in-depth stories balanced with more sweeping overview. I wanted the viewing of the movie to be both an emotional kind of visceral experience but at the same time an intellectual journey. A lot of my work is focused on the tension and balance between art and ideas.

 

DT: You spoke earlier about documenting these people for so many years. What is your history with this project?

AG: My work on this began in the ’70s, with my BA, which had an emphasis on folklore studies. I had grown up in the inner city of Boston in a world that was Jewish and Black. There was tension between cultures, and I was very much interested in cultural understanding as a vehicle to make a better world. I didn’t know quite how or didn’t really understand this process, and that got me interested in folklore.

I did a paper for a class on a hunchback dwarf tattoo artist in a wheelchair, who later became the subject of my first book, Stoney Knows How, and my first film, Stoney Knows How, which was shot by Les Blank and premiered in New York in 1981 at Film Forum. During that period there was the idea that there needed to be public folklore, meaning that folklorists needed to work in communities but it had to be validated within the government. A man by the name of Archie Green worked and pushed and lobbied, and in 1976 there was a passage of the Folk Life Preservation Act, which created the American Folklore Center at the Library of Congress.

In the ’30s, Alan Lomax and his father, John Lomax, had done work with the Library of Congress, but there was not a formal program within that entity. That led to the creation of this Folk and Traditional Arts program at the NEA. In the ’70s I started organizing little folk festivals and documenting people. In Columbus, there was this old woodcarver, Elijah Pierce, who had a barbershop and did these amazing wood carvings. I was part of a group of people who nominated him for one of the first National Heritage Fellowships, which he received in 1982.

As the years went on, I moved to Texas to get a doctorate at the University of Texas Dallas in 1980, and that’s where Bess Lomax Hawes and the Lomax family lived. There hadn’t been much activity related to folklore studies since the ’30s, and the Lomax family had kind of moved away, but Bess was very interested in seeing more work being done. As I started doing research in Texas, I realized the immensity of what was there that wasn’t being documented, so in the ’80s I organized folk festivals and did radio shows on Texas traditional music for the regional NPR. That grew into a bigger interest in radio, and in the late ’80s I did a 52-part radio series called Masters of Traditional Music, which was funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It enabled me to travel around the country documenting National Heritage Fellows. That was the beginning of my journey and it continued over the years. I’ve  probably interviewed 350 or more National Heritage Fellows.

 

DT: How do people get nominated for the fellowship?

AG: Anyone in the US can nominate anyone for a Heritage Fellowship, professional or not. The panel meets every year, and they’re very diligent at what they do. They’re constantly looking at balance; they want a balance between men and women, they want a balance in terms of cultural diversity. With that as a kind of guiding principle, they’re open to anyone who is extraordinary at what they do and is a master of a traditional artform.

[To learn more about the National Heritage Fellowship program or to make a nomination, click here.]

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

Wrestling Jerusalem/Aaron Davidman (writer/actor)

Wrestling Jerusalem is an anomaly on many levels. It’s a film made from a play. It’s a one-man show that incorporates seventeen different characters. The seventeen characters represent disparate, often colliding, views of Israel and Palestine: Jewish, Muslim, Israeli, Palestinian, American, male, female. It’s a piece that accepts fragmentation and disunity even as it coheres into a single powerful idea. In fact, actor/writer Aaron Davidman infuses his remarkable solo performance with so much intelligence and skill that Wrestling Jerusalem is for everyone. •Availability: The film; September 12-18 New York City, Symphony Space. The play; Philadelphia Theatre Company, Oct. 18-Nov. 5. Click here for the website. Click here for the Facebook page. Thanks to Diane Blackman, BR Public Relations, for arranging this interview.

 

DT: You portray seventeen characters in the film. One of them is a 25-year-old American Jew who is so overwhelmed on his first visit to Israel that he kisses the tarmac when he steps off the plane. Is that character you?

In the desert. Photo by Cheryl McDonald.

In the desert. Photo by Cheryl McDonald.

AD: The Aaron character is based of course on me and my experiences there. The narrative he  tells in the film could be called a memoir, I suppose, about the first time I came to Israel and fell in love with it. I had an awakening of Jewish identity, which was seminal for me as a person, as an artist, as an American Jew.  For anyone who’s been to Israel, there’s that first time you go. Maybe for some people it’s the only time they go, but it’s quite memorable.

DT: How does that experience influence your personal perspective on the material you’re presenting?

AD: It’s why I made the film. The whole film is my response, because that’s what it takes to try to articulate all the layers of complexity that I feel and the different dimensions that I hold and the different layers of understanding that I have about what Israel is, who I am in relationship to it, and our culture. It’s the whole thing.

 

DT: Who did you make the film for, and is it reaching your intended audience?

AD: I wrote the play initially to try to push the conversation in the American Jewish community. We made the film to reach the widest audience possible nationally and internationally. Dylan Kussman, who directed the film and whose idea it was to turn the play into a film, felt the play was powerful and important and wanted as many people in the world to see it as they could. Between my initial impulse of who would hear this material and the actual release of the film, all kinds of people have seen it. We’ve reached our target audience, that target has grown, and there are concentric circles of communities around the piece that have embraced it or been moved by it or have experienced it.

DT: Who beyond the Jewish American audience?

AD: Other faith-based communities—Christian and Muslim. Communities that identify more in terms of politics or activism. There’s a student cohort, there are interfaith cohorts. We just screened the film for the Muslim-Jewish Solidarity Committee in New York City.

And I’ve been working with Google, who saw the play a while ago and are using the film, followed by a Q&A with me, for executive trainings on complexity; they gather Google executives from all over the world, twenty or thirty of them at a time, and do a three-day training about leadership as it relates to complexity, complexity as it relates to leadership. Then they screen the film, which they see as an embodiment of multiple perspectives in a way that really helps model what they’re trying to teach and coach these executives towards in terms of their leadership.

I also presented the play at a conference for the integral theory community, and they really tapped into the piece. Both this and Google are interesting to me because they’re latching onto the more universal themes of the piece that have to do with multiple perspectives and complexity and the interconnectedness of all these different threads. I’m no integral theory expert, so it would be hard for me to explain it in a sentence, but what I have found really interesting is that I set out to write a piece that would go deep into the Israel-Palestine story, and what’s emerged is a piece that through its specifics has really reached a universal message that people are embracing and are interested in. That’s taught me a lot, because I didn’t set out to do that.

 

DT: Can you talk about the research you did before writing the play. Whom did you talk to? Where did you go? Did you speak with anyone whose perspectives were  so anathema to you that you simply couldn’t include them?

AD: The piece is really one journey that condenses my ten years of traveling to Israel and Palestine and meeting different people and interviewing different people. There’s a lot of writerly license in the journey, of course. The characters in the film are based on people that I met, or they’re composites of people I met. A few are invented based on people I met or knew or read about. I met a range of different people, but I never met any self-described “terrorists.” I never met violent extremists who were trying to convince me that killing everybody would be a really good idea. I never had any of those conversations.

DT: On either side?

AD: That’s right. The truth is that people have asked me, Where are these voices? The answer is that I specifically didn’t  put them in because they would have dominated the piece. If I had eighteen characters and one of them was a terrorist and I humanized the terrorist, all we would be talking about would be the terrorist—we wouldn’t be talking about anything else. Militants get so much play in the airwaves already that I don’t need to feed that line anymore.

My whole goal is to try to get the conversation back to the majority, not the minority, the majority of human beings who grapple and wrestle and who are interested in each other’s dignity, to a certain extent. That’s what I was more interested in. Did I meet people who really pushed my buttons, who really challenged me? Yeah, and I put it in this film, in the argument that I get in with a character I call Daniel, who’s an American medical student who’s an apologist for Hamas. That’s where the Aaron characters draws his line. He gets tripped up and is not a supercompassionate listening person anymore. He gets his buttons pushed, which I think is very human. It was important to put that in the piece.

 

DT: What was the most emotionally difficult segment for you?

AD: Imagine the show. It’s ninety minutes of me on stage. What’s the most emotionally challenging? It’s emotionally challenging just to stay on the horse. To keep the focus and stay on it and be alive and present in every moment. Ideologically, my job as an actor is to be honest and in each of those characters for each of those moments, so if I’m doing my job right, I’m not judging them. One character is not more something than the other. I’m just present in them, and I’ve got to make them truthful and honest and believe them myself. What I was surprised to find was less about what was emotionally challenging for me than how I could see parts of myself in these characters in ways that I never really would have wanted to admit. That I could go there. I think that really says something about who we are as human beings and what our capacities are when we’re under threat or when we’re in extreme situations. That is fascinating and very humbling, and pushes me further to not judge others. In my better moments.

 

In the US. Photo by Tom Kubik.

In the US. Photo by Tom Kubik.

DT: Do you think that your identity as an American Jew gave you the freedom to make this film that an Israeli or a Palestinian wouldn’t have had?

AD: Great question. Of course it’s really hard to know, but I will say that being an outsider does give me some layer of objectivity that an Israeli or a Palestinian just wouldn’t have. It also gives me less in-depth knowledge. I’m more naive, for sure. But maybe that naivete and that distance have allowed me to see the forest for the trees, whereas it’s possible that some Israeli and Palestinians just can’t because they’re in it. I’m not sure that “freedom” would be the word I would use, but I feel like I’ve had a level of objectivity that’s possibly more than a counterpart there might have, though it’s hard to generalize.

 

DT: Much of the material surrounding the film talks about “understanding the other.” Given the current political climate both here in the US and in Israel, do you think that understanding the other is a sufficient tool for social change?

AD: I’m not sure about sufficient, but I would say that it’s essential. It’s sufficient, but that’s not the end. It’s a part of the process. The “other” has now shown up as all kinds of different things. Understanding the neo-Nazi perspective is a different kind of conversation from understanding a disenfranchised or politically oppressed body of people under occupation, for example. There’s dimensionality and layers now to what we mean by the “other,” and there’s an important and interesting conversation about what that means. In this day and age, people say, “If I could just understand the neo-Nazis, then maybe we would have peace.”  Well, no. Of course not. When people are filled with hate and vitriol, there are other tactics that need to be employed. But would it hurt to try to really understand where they’re coming from? No.

I heard a really interesting radio interview with an African-American man.  He’s begun a whole process to convert KKK members to get them to leave the KKK. He goes to neo-Nazi KKK rallies, and they say, “What are you doing here?” He says, “I really understand. I know where you’re coming from, and here’s where it is.” He’s done his research, he knows what their deal is, and they’re completely taken aback. He says, “So they respect me. They don’t like me—I’m black, they don’t really want me—but they respect me and so they have to deal with me.” He’s going right into the lion’s den and encountering these guys and he’s turned people by engaging with them and letting them see his humanity and then challenging them intellectually on what their bullshit is all about. I don’t know much about this guy, but I heard one interview and it blew my mind.

I think that’s a little bit about the question you’re speaking to. There is this question of to what degree are we willing to try to know the other. Knowing the other doesn’t necessarily mean “wherever they’re coming from is all good.” No. Of course not. We’ve got to push back where it’s warranted and actually invest in really knowing where they’re coming from. Just being filled with contempt and thinking they’re a one-dimensional figure that’s easy to write off doesn’t get us anywhere.

DT: You’ve been asked many times how the play has changed you, but my question is somewhat different. After performing the play so many times and leading so many Q&As, how have your goals for the film changed?

In the theater. Photo credit: Barak Shrama.

In the theater. Photo credit: Barak Shrama.

AD: There are goals that are more tactical and real-world, like distribution and things like that, which bear weight on more conceptual goals or goals of intention. We intended to make a movie that would really stir this conversation and get into all kinds of different communities. The fact is that we made a movie that’s a solo performance with one person that’s obviously not a commercial movie. Nobody’s going to make money on this movie, so distribution is a grassroots project.

While we wanted to show the film far and wide all over the world, the pragmatic reality is that it takes a lot of effort and fund-raising and organizing and lobbying to get people to understand what we’re doing and what we’ve actually got. Once people have seen the movie in person in a room on a big screen with a group of people, they’re in, and they’re absorbing the material. If they haven’t seen it yet, I’m not famous, they don’t know me. It’s sort of a head scratcher for them. Why would we show a movie with one guy? What is this thing? From a distributional point of view, the gap between the person who’s seen it and had this amazing experience—or so they tell us—and the person who hasn’t had contact with it yet but who might screen it in their community is wider than we want it to be. And so it’s just a slow process of getting more people to see the movie and bring it into their communities. It’s a real grassroots project, where people who’ve seen it spread the word about it. And it’s growing. We just have to be patient.

Our website is full of press and anecdotes and things and ways to get in touch with us. When people think of film distribution, they think of big movie theaters. We’re screening at some theaters, but we’re also trying to do community screenings: people can arrange for screenings in their communities or on their campuses. Those are picking up steam, and it’s very meaningful.

DT: So people can contact you through the website?

AD: Yes.

DT: How is international distribution?

AD: We have a deal with a Swiss distributor. We’re having the film translated into French, German, and Italian…there will be subtitles of course…and also having it translated into Hebrew and Arabic. We’ll see if we can get some screenings in the Middle East. We’re looking at a screening in Paris sometime in the winter. So step by step. It’s a process.

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

School Life/Neasa Ni Chianain and David Rane

A miracle occurs every day in northwest Ireland. For forty-nine years, the staff at the Headfort boarding school, chief among them John and Amanda Leyden, nurture the young students entrusted to their care to be the best they can possibly be: the most discerning learners, the kindest friends, the most caring citizens. Documentarians Neasa Ni Chianain and David Rane capture a year in the beautiful life of the Headfort boarding school. Availability: Opens September 8, IFC Center, New York City, with national rollout to follow. A Magnolia Pictures release. Thanks to Susan Norget, Susan Norget Film Promotion, for arranging this interview.

 

DT: How did you discover this amazing place and these amazing people?

Amanda Leyden and Kevin, center, in a scene from SCHOOL LIFE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

Amanda Leyden and students in a scene from SCHOOL LIFE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

NNC: It started with a hunt for a school for our children. We were living in the northwest of Ireland in a very rural community. We realized we needed something more diverse education-wise for our kids, so we started looking for schools. There’s not a huge choice in Ireland, but we realized we were going to have to move, and we found Headfort’s website. It was the parents’ comments that attracted us first, talking about the happiness of the child being at the core of the education, and we thought that was a really good starting point. We went there, we met them, we really loved the school, we decided to send our children there as day pupils, so we moved out as a family.

Then we realized this was a really special place. David and I have a history of boarding schools. I went to boarding school, David went to boarding school, I had a great experience and David had a traumatic experience, so we were really curious to see what a twenty-first-century boarding school looked like. Luckily the headmaster knew some of our previous work, so he was open to the idea, and that was it.

We discovered the Leydens, the teachers who are the main subjects of the film, a year into working on the film; we spent a year researching and getting to know all the people in the school, the other teachers, the staff, and the parents, and then we spoke to a lot of alumni. We asked them what their experience at Headfort was, and it was John and Amanda’s names that kept coming up. But at this point, John and Amanda Leyden didn’t like the idea of a film being made about the school. I didn’t understand why, and they were very hesitant, so it took about a year to get them on board.

DT: How did you finally do that?

NNC: I think over time they realized we were really serious about making a film, and they got to know us, and they got to know our kids slowly, and I think they kind of liked us. One day at the end of the summer term they invited us to their house for tea. And that was it. About a week later they came back to us and said, “OK, you’re going to do this? We’re in.”

 

DT: Who founded the school, and what was the philosophy when it was founded?

At a concert by the school band, a scene from SCHOOL LIFE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

At a concert by the school band, a scene from SCHOOL LIFE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

DC: It was founded by Lord and Lady Headfort. It was the ancestral home of Lord Headfort. They were Anglo-Irish, which means they would have come over and been part of the settlers who colonized Ireland. They decided there was a need for a school for children of other Anglo-Irish people, because it was a predominantly Catholic school system. So they set it up. Lady Headfort did that while they were still living there. They moved into one wing of the big house and set up a school in the other wing. Over time Lord and Lady Headfort ran out of money. That often happens with large ancestral homes. They allowed the school to continue. Finally the school raised the money to actually buy the Harry Potter building, and forty acres of woodlands. The rest Lord Headfort sold to developers, golf courses, the usual sort of thing. The school changed then, it became nondenominational, it didn’t cater just for the Protestant community.

It was a boys-only school the first ten, fifteen years, then a couple of daughters of staff were allowed in. That happened a lot in single-sex schools, the children of staff, if they were girls, were allowed to attend the school, and eventually it opened up. It became more and more progressive to the point where the current headmaster would call himself a Marxist. He taught for fifteen years at the Dalton School in Manhattan, and he would have a very progressive attitude toward education. I think that shows in our film. He believes in encouraging children to discuss and debate issues rather than feeding them facts and telling them this is the truth, this is the fact, this is what you have to learn.

 

DT: How did the Leydens fit into the history of the school?

NNC: When we were filming, they were there forty-six years. They both came as young teachers. It was their first jobs. They came independently, they met at the school, and a couple of years later they married. They’ve always lived on the grounds of the school. They raised a family there, and thankfully they’re still teaching there. They’re now into their forty-ninth year teaching.

 

DT: Can you talk a little bit about shooting? You got some remarkably intimate moments, but I’m also curious about how you knew which stories to follow.

NNC: In terms of the children we didn’t know which stories to follow. Basically we shot over three years. We ended up using the footage from the first year to raise funding for the film, because it was 2012 when Ireland was coming out of the crash, and nobody wanted to fund a film about a private school. So we had to shoot footage before people were finally convinced that this was something unique.

In the film you see the footage from the second year. We asked the headmaster from the very beginning if we could have a room in the school where we could hang about when we weren’t filming, because we knew that we had to become part of the furniture and part of the daily routine of the children’s lives so there was no big fuss when the film crew arrived to shoot.

DC: It’s important to note that the film crew was just the two of us. Neasa was doing camera and I was doing sound, and we were also the parents of two children in the school, so we were accepted very easily by the children. That was a critical thing, because children at that age, they played up a little bit for the first week and jumped in front of the camera and pulled faces and all the things that ten-, eleven-, twelve-year-olds do, and then they completely forgot about us. We were invisible to them and they just got on with their lives. We got that intimacy because they trusted us and they allowed us into their space.

The painfully shy Eliza with John Leyden and bandmate in a scene from SCHOOL LIFE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

The painfully shy Eliza with John Leyden and bandmate in a scene from SCHOOL LIFE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

NNC: We had an idea of what children we were interested in, but we made a rule that we wouldn’t let the child know that we were focusing on him or her because we didn’t want them to carry that throughout the whole year. We filmed with everybody in all the classes, and we filmed things we knew we weren’t going to use that wouldn’t give us stories. It was in the editing that we could really figure out when we had a complete story arc.

We were always interested in Eliza. Eliza was just cinematically captivating from the very beginning, but had she not come out of herself at the end I don’t think we would have used that footage—we wouldn’t have suspended her in this kind of painfully shy state.

For our three main characters we got consent from all the parents, and we made sure they were OK with the storylines we were pulling out of the footage. We said to the parents of Kev, “He’s going to be featured in the film, are you OK with that?” And Kev said, “It’s not possible, Mom, they never filmed me.”

DC: As documentarians we didn’t have an idea of what the observational film would follow. We were following the surrogate family—the idea that all of these staff and teachers and matrons, the women who look out for the care of the children, the nurse, even down to the grounds staff and the kitchen staff, all had the role of surrogate parents. The original title of the film was In Loco Parentis, which means ‘in place of parents.’ We were trying to understand how surrogate family could possibly step in and be there instead of the parents. As documentarians we knew what to follow. The children fit in there, and then slowly we discovered the stories of the children.

 

DT: Let’s talk about the editing phase. You film has been compared to Frederick Wiseman’s work. Was that intentional? He assembles sequences and then he assembles the film from the assembled sequences. Is that how you worked? In the footage that you thought you were just going to throw away, did you discover anything that you ended up keeping?

NNC: We were very influenced by direct cinema  like D. A. Pennebaker, Wiseman, and Kim Longinotto, a female filmmaker in the UK. They were our three heroes. Yes, our approach is similar to Wiseman’s in the sense that because we shot for over three years we had over 450 hours of footage. We decided in the end that we would only use footage from the second year for coherence sake, because children change, and that we were going to hang the film on “a year in the life of” idea. Then we whittled that down to twenty-five hours of our favorite scenes. We always knew that John and Amanda Leyden would be main characters, and then the children who wove in and out of their lives became our primary focus. So it was a process, it took a year, and it was a process of whittling it down.

 

DT: Did you film your own kids?

CNN: Not much. We didn’t focus on them. As it happened, our daughter was in John’s class, so she features a little bit more just because she’s there.

 

DT: Your point was to ask the question, Can boarding schools function as surrogate family? What’s the answer, given your experience at Headfort?

CNN: I think very much so. From what we witnessed of John and Amanda, there’s a well-worn path to their house. On any weekend you’ll find a fifteen-year-old or a twenty-year-old staying with them or coming to visit with them or have lunch with them. John is in constant contact with the kids that have been in the school. They all keep in touch. Amanda still talks about them as “our kids.” “Oh, he’s one of ours,” she’ll say.

DC: They act like parents. They say, “Our kids are coming back. What should we feed them?” The surrogate family is very, very strong at Headfort.

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

 

 

Company Town/Natalie Kottke-Masocco

A sick resident of Crossett, Arkansas. Photo by Nikolaus Czarnecki.

A victim of Georgia-Pacific’s pollution in Crossett, Arkansas. Photo by Nikolaus Czarnecki.

The Koch Brothers are poisoning the tiny town of Crossett, Arkansas. On the outskirts of this largely African-American hamlet, Penn Road lies just across the runoff ditch from the Georgia-Pacific paper and chemical plant. Eleven of the fifteen families who live on Penn Road have lost someone to cancer. Tests conducted on Crossett’s air, land, and water reveal harmful chemicals such as benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and formaldehyde, linked to the plant. For the past four years, the residents of Crossett have been fighting back against Koch Industries, Georgia-Pacific’s owner. Despite testimony from regional scientists and experts on federal environmental law, Crossett’s efforts to force the EPA and state agencies to enforce state regulations regarding emissions and dumping of toxic waste have been largely unsuccessful. Filmmakers Natalie Kottke-Masocco and Erica Sardarian have recorded the town’s battle in Company Town, a documentary that is also a tool for social justice. To take action on a petition submitted by the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic in support of the citizens of Crossett, click here. •Availability: Opens September 8, New York City, Cinema Village. Thanks to Kelly Hargraves, First Run Features, for arranging this interview.

DT: Can you give us an overall picture of what’s happening in Crossett, Arkansas.

NKM: Crossett, Arkansas, is a tiny rural Southern town that’s ruled by this company called Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific is a paper mill and chemical plant owned by the Koch Brothers. This company has extreme power, and it’s the true lifeblood of the town. The mission of our story is, What do you do when the only employer in town is also poisoning you? The people in this town work for the mill, their grandfathers worked for the mill, it’s generational. It’s part of the fabric of their everyday life. It’s their bread and butter. It’s their paycheck. People either work there or have a child there, and they’ve given their entire lives to the company.

Only there’s egregious pollution in this small town by Georgia-Pacific. There’s door-to-door cancer. On one street alone, eleven out of fifteen homes experienced a death from cancer. Their water is polluted, their air is polluted—they’re wracked by the pollution at Georgia-Pacific. We set out to tell the story of what that situation looks like, as well as the blatant disregard by the local government and the Environmental Protection Agency, the lack of oversight, and the total dismissiveness of the EPA. It’s a story that’s very complex.

 

DT: The Reverend David Bouie, the local pastor, is organizing the town to fight back. Had they already started to organize when you entered the picture?

Organizing in Crossett. Photo by Nicolaus Czarnecki.

Organizing in Crossett. Photo by Nicolaus Czarnecki.

NKM: When I first came in, the town was not organized. It all started in 2011, when I was working on a documentary called Koch Brothers Exposed directed by Robert Greenwald. I was looking at the Koch Brothers’ environmental catastrophes across the country, and I produced a small segment on Crossett and literally just stumbled upon this town. I called Pastor Bouie, who is our main subject in the film, and he said, “I won’t speak with you unless you come here in person.” Two days later I flew there and we knocked on doors together and I met with him, I met his neighbors, I met the community, and it blossomed from there.

I spent six years covering the story, four years investigating the cancer cases and documenting the investigation into the EPA, as well as the people taking action in this town. When I saw something of the pollution they face and spoke with neighbors and spent so much time with Pastor Bouie, I knew there was a bigger story there that really deserved to be told.

Solid toxic waste. Photo by Nicolaus Czarnecki.

Solid toxic waste. Photo by Nicolaus Czarnecki.

We were documenting the investigation of Georgia-Pacific and the EPA as it was unfolding over four or five years, so we were embedded with the EPA and embedded with the citizens, and we got a whistleblower to come forward, Dickie Guice, who’s incredibly brave and spoke out in the New Yorker last fall about the egregious pollution dumping behind people’s homes. It’s really quite unbelievable, to the point where government officials are on the land of a worker who has invoices showing that Georgia-Pacific dumped waste on his private land even though it’s not designated landfill by the EPA.  The federal EPA officials are on his land holding the contamination in their hands and saying, “I don’t know what to do with this.” This blatant disregard for citizens’ lives is egregious, and it highlights what we’re seeing today in the Trump administration, with Scott Pruitt heading the EPA.

 

DT: The EPA under Pruitt is taking a direction none of us want, but I was shocked by the EPA’s behavior in your film, which took place before Trump came in.

NKM: Exactly. It’s now clearly  obvious to the public that Scott Pruitt is literally tied to the Koch Brothers. The New York Times revealed only days after he was appointed that he had direct ties to the Koch Brothers to benefit his pocket and the Koch Brothers’ plants. As a former attorney general, Scott Pruitt sued the EPA fourteen times. He is a blatant anti-environmentalist, and this is the man who is now protecting public health, which is totally outrageous.

Our film highlights what was happening on a local level across the nation before Pruitt. You have these local administrators who are supposed to protect the people—in this case, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality—and you see that the citizens have to do everything in their power to bang on their door and they’re still not listening. The fact that the EPA is looking the other way is not new. As you see in the film, they’re laughing and smirking. At the meeting where the citizens are giving testimony after testimony, the EPA and the Department of Health and the Department of Water just blatantly one after the next disregard the findings of independent scientists, which include benzene in the water along with sixty other chemicals, and an outrageous amount of hydrogen sulfide in the air. Georgia-Pacific has had numerous violations this year alone of hydrogen sulfide, which causes severe headaches, nausea, stomach pain.

You see these meetings where the local and federal officials are disregarding blatant evidence presented by the community and by independent scientists, but you also see an example of the resistance movement happening today: people on a grassroots level like we’re seeing in town halls across the country right now are fighting back because the government isn’t protecting them. This has been a longtime problem, before Scott Pruitt, but it’s exacerbated now with Pruitt and the Trump administration.

 

DT: While documenting the investigation of the EPA and the local government agencies, did you find that they were in the Koch Brothers’ pockets, the same way the Times discovered the emails between the Koch Brothers and Pruitt?

NKM: Yes. It’s in the film, and this is incredibly important to note. In the film, the deputy of EPA Region 6, Sam Coleman, says to Pastor Bouie in a private phone conversation that is revealed in the film, “Mr. Bouie, you were correct. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA are in bed with Georgia-Pacific and the Koch Brothers.” He said that. They’re doing everything they can to get away from this, and they’re on the run. We have them in violation. Sam Coleman from the EPA admits that Georgia-Pacific is in violation, and he admits that they’re in bed with the local state agencies and looking the other way. It’s so blatant.

 

DT: What recourse do the citizens of Crossett have now?

Pollution flowing out of the Koch Brothers' Georgia-Pacific plant in Crossett, Arkansas. Photo by Nicolaus Czarnecki.

Pollution flowing out of the Koch Brothers’ Georgia-Pacific plant in Crossett, Arkansas. Photo by Nicolaus Czarnecki.

NKM: This is total environmental injustice along with total economic injustice, and it’s happening all across the country. Crossett represents small towns like Hinkley, California, Love Canal, and Flint, Michigan. These communities are being bullied by big business, and they’re taking the power in their hands and speaking out. You see the citizens of Crossett organizing in the film; Pastor Bouie has created the Crossett Concerned Citizens for Environmental Justice. The town is galvanized, they are organized, and we are using this film as a tool for social action.

This isn’t just a film: it’s an official action campaign. Tulane Environmental Law Clinic has filed a civil rights petition against the EPA for discrimination based on the fact that Crossett is predominantly an African-American community that is disproportionately polluted by Georgia-Pacific. There is a complaint at the civil rights desk at the federal EPA in Washington, D.C., right now, and they have accepted the investigation. What a citizen can do at this moment is actually call the desk to put pressure on the EPA.

DT: Whom should people call, and what’s the number?

NKM: You can take action by calling Tanya Lawrence. She’s acting director of the EPA office of civil rights. The number is 202-564-2916.

DT: Is this ongoing, or is there a time limit on when Ms. Lawrence will accept phone calls?

NKM: It’s ongoing. I’m checking in on it weekly, but at the moment it’s ongoing. It will be voice mail as well, so I hope people don’t get deterred by that. They’re getting all of the calls and they’re getting all of the voice mails, and the more people who leave messages and the more calls they get, the more powerful the pressure will be on them to go to Crossett and investigate it. We were in the middle of the investigation as we shot the film, and we’re rolling out the film right now with the theatrical release. We’ll update the website if there are going to be any changes to the actual action, but right now the most powerful tool and the most powerful way a person can step up for Crossett is by making these phone calls and putting pressure on the EPA.

 

DT: How are you using the film as a tool for promoting social change? Where are you screening it? How do people access it? Do you have a presence on social media?

NKM: We’re having our theatrical premiere in New York, September 8, for one week at Cinema Village Theater in Greenwich Village. We also have incredibly exciting news that the New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, is speaking opening night at 8:00 p.m. It will be incredible to have him there, and we are really honored.

DT: Do you have a Facebook page?

NKM: You can reach us on Facebook at Company Town Film. The people in Crossett are incredibly brave for stepping forward, and we want the people who watch this film to feel inspired to act and to help clean up Crossett, as this represents communities across the country that are polluted by big business.

DT: Is the film going to be available online? How can people who don’t live in New York see it?

NKM: We’re doing a theatrical release first in New York, then in L.A., then in D.C., and it will eventually be available online. That will be announced. People can go to our website companytownfilm.com  and subscribe. We send out a monthly or bimonthly newsletter, and we’ll have updates on where the film is showing across the country and when it will be available online. We encourage people to visit the website because our action is also up there, so people can sign up for the newsletter, how to watch the film, and also how to take action to clean up Crossett.

 

D: Is there anything you want to add?

NKM: This story is incredibly powerful, and these people are incredibly brave. We really want the film to be a tool to put pressure on the EPA for stricter regulations in Crossett. I urge people to take action and get involved and engage with us on social media so we can make a big impact to clean up the town.

 

DT: Has anyone started a national movement to connect the Love Canal, Flint, Michigan, and Crossett, Arkansas dots? Is anyone aggregating them in a lawsuit or some kind of national movement?

NKM: We highlight in the film that we look at Crossett as part of a movement and an example of towns across the country polluted by big business. As far as an aggregated movement online…that’s a great idea! In the film and on our website and in all of our materials we’re very mindful of including those other examples as cases of what’s happening across the country and connecting them back to Crossett because they’re eerily similar. Flint, Michigan, exploded back in 2015, and it was just like in Crossett—the EPA on the ground and local state officials turning the other way.

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Ivory / Career retrospective

Director James Ivory.

Director James Ivory.

For over fifty years, James Ivory, Ismail Merchant, and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala made films together under the Merchant Ivory brand, including such classics as Room with a View, Howards End, The Remains of the Day, and Shakespeare Wallah.  In celebration of the Cohen Media Group’s rerelease of Heat and Dust, Director Talk interviews James Ivory on his life in cinema and longtime collaboration. Availability: Heat and Dust and Autobiography of a Princess (US premiere) open September 1, Quad Cinema, New York City, and Laemmle Royal, L.A. To learn more about Merchant Ivory, click here. Thanks to Gary Springer, Springer Associates PR, for arranging this interview.

 

DT: You and Ismail and Ruth made films together for fifty years. Can you talk about your collaborative process? How strictly were the roles defined as producer, director, writer?

JI:  They were strictly defined: Ruth wrote, I directed, and Ismail did everything a producer needs to do—raise the money, make sure the film is released properly and publicized and all that. Our roles were quite defined, though I sometimes collaborated with Ruth on the screenplay. She certainly never ventured into the areas of producing or directing.

DT: Did you edit together?

Heat and Dust.

Greta Scaachi in Heat and Dust.

JI: In a way. What we used to do was sort of unheard of. After we had a fairly organized rough cut and we’d screened it for ourselves and for her, she would come into the editing room and help us pull it together better. She considered that as part of her writing job. She wasn’t actually editing, but she saw things that she had seen in her imagination that hadn’t gone well during the shoot. Actors we’d had high hopes for weren’t as good as we thought they would be, or the reverse was true also: Some actors we weren’t going to feature were absolutely wonderful and we thought we had to make room for them, they were so good. Or I made mistakes. Generally we would pull it all together, and she would be in the editing room for about a week doing that.

The editors, far from being dismayed by this, were really pleased that she was there. This was a way of working that’s absolutely unheard of in Hollywood. Probably in Europe, which is more auteur-driven, writers probably did make other appearances, but that’s the way we worked, and that’s what we liked to do. And sometimes—this was something Ismail would get into very much—when Ruth would come in and we’d work on the rough cut with her, it would encourage him that maybe we needed something else here and there; perhaps we should have a scene of such-and-such. In fact, we did this with practically every film. We would have a secret shoot…we never, ever told the financiers about this. And we never told them that’s how we always worked—Ismail put money aside and we’d get the actors and go off and do some more. There would be some places in the film that needed things, and we’d just do it.

And that’s how we worked. It was very collaborative, the three of us, but we did have quite distinct roles.

DT: How much did you discuss a project together before you started shooting?

JI: Quite a lot. Again, it depended on whether or not I was collaborating with Ruth on the screenplay. We talked about it a lot. We would talk wherever we happened to be—at a meal, in a taxicab, wherever, just as the thoughts came to us. It was never any sort of formal sit-down-discussion sort of thing. This just gradually came about. Of course Ismail weighed in a lot, because as a producer he had certain concerns about what we were thinking. There was a lot of talk. But then that’s true of any collaborative work of art. I mean, there’s lots and lots of talk about it.

 

DT: You’ve said that a director is wide and shallow, while an actor is narrow and deep. You’ve also talked about how you “watch the actor.” Can you talk about how both of those things apply to how you work with an actor?

JI: When I say that an actor is narrow but deep, I mean an actor is primarily concerned with bringing out his or her role. Creating a role through some process of their own, based on their own experiences, and things they’ve observed in life and their own thoughts, they manage to put together a character, and I think it goes very, very deep into their consciousness and subconscious. They are creating a person out of their own experience that really only exists in fiction, and it’s not like what a director does. The director has to have an interest in a million different things, but he can’t go deep into any of them, because he has so many different things to contend with—the photography, the weather, whether or not a set is OK or not OK, or maybe an actor who was going to play a role doesn’t play it and someone else comes, all the rest. A director is spread thin. This has to be; you couldn’t be as engaged in all of those things as an actor is engaged in creating his or her role, and that’s why I say a director is sort of shallow. I mean, a director can have certain strengths in various areas. Some directors are marvelously strong when it comes to producing the image and the photographic side of things, or they can be marvelously strong in editing, or whatever. We all have our strengths and we all have our weaknesses, and I’m speaking now as a director. It’s like that, really. Directors have a lot to think about, but an actor really only has his or her role to think about.

DT: So would you describe yourself as basically hands off when you work with an actor?

JI: At first, yes. I believe in allowing an actor to show me what it is he or she has created. They have to do that before anything else. They have to show me what it is they want to do. If they seem to be going astray in any area, I would get in there and steer them in the direction I wanted them to go. But on the whole, they’re artists, after all, and you have to respect what they’ve created. You want to see it and know what it is before you comment for better or for worse. That’s the way I work, and that’s the way I think you should work.

And it doesn’t just apply to acting. It applies to other areas in film. It applies to music, it applies certainly to set design and costumes and so on. They have to show you what it is they made and you have to respect that. They are artists also. Wait to see what that is, and hopefully you’ll like it; usually I did like it. But sometimes of course I didn’t, and in some cases I’d rather cautiously say, “I think maybe a little bit more of this and less of that” sort of thing.

DT: Would that take place while you were shooting, or did you rehearse in advance?

JI: It could certainly take place during shooting. Not so much where sets and costumes are concerned, those things are already there—even in photography, really, but certainly in the interpretation, in the acting. If you don’t like something, you have to speak up, but you have to wait to see how they wanted to do it. I believe you owe the actor that. It happens all the time, from the beginning to the end of shooting, you’re always in that situation. You’re never not facing that.

As far as rehearsals are concerned, we principally rehearsed every scene on the day we were going to shoot it. We didn’t go in for big rehearsals because very often we couldn’t get all the actors together. That’s the problem with movies—the actors are off doing another film or maybe they’re in a play, or whatever. They’re not all there at the same time, and you can’t really have a decent rehearsal unless everybody is there. The only film we really had the luck to have everybody present was Mr. and Mrs. Bridge, starring Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. We had absolutely everybody there, including the two kids, so we could have two weeks of proper rehearsals like most people like to have, most directors are very happy to have, and the actors certainly want to have.

 

DT: Speaking of performances, you get particularly extraordinary performances from male actors, like Christopher Reeve in Bostonians and Julian Sands in Room with a View.

THE BOSTONIANS, Madeleine Potter, Christopher Reeve, 1984, ©Almi Pictures

THE BOSTONIANS, Madeleine Potter, Christopher Reeve, 1984, ©Almi Pictures

JI: They are very different actors. Christopher Reeve was a highly trained actor and also worked on the stage, and he believed in doing a lot of homework. Julian Sands had only just begun to act. It was pretty much off the cuff with him, but he was just right for the part and memorable. It depends on the actor. Some of them are very, very experienced and know how to do all kinds of research. Christopher Reeve got together with some ex-politician from Mississippi in order to get that accent. He worked on it for weeks and weeks.

DT: He was wonderful.

JI: He was, and very much underrated, I thought. People were so used to seeing him as Superman that they couldn’t accept him in a sort of Rhett Butler role, which is what he was playing, basically. They couldn’t accept that. The same thing happened with Paul Newman as Mr. Bridge. Everybody loved their version of Paul Newman—all of his movies were so popular—and the idea that he was this stern, rather unrelenting and somewhat puritanical father figure was hard for people to take.

 

DT: One thing that I love that you do—it’s so subtle but it’s so great—you have the camera focused on the main action, but you have other people moving on and off the screen, in front of the action, behind the action, on the side of the action. It’s almost as if you want the audience to never forget that there’s life going on outside the frame. I didn’t know if that was intentional or not.

JI: It’s hard to achieve that, let me tell you. If you look at my earlier films, you don’t always get that idea, but it really comes about if you have very, very experienced and very good first assistant directors. The assistant directors have to concentrate on all of the side action that’s happening, and some of them are very, very good and subtle and some are not at all. But I can’t think about that very much or worry about it. If I see something—say on the first take I see people doing something off on the side that I don’t like, or I think they could be better used in some other part of the shot—I say something. Sometimes I go right out on the floor and move people around myself. That has happened, but on the whole if you have very, very good assistant directors who are good at that kind of thing, it’s a relief. For me, anyway.

 

DT: You’ve said that your early influences were Satyajit Ray and Jean Renoir. What did you like about their films, and how did they influence your own directing?

JI: That’s a very big question. I liked Ray’s films so much because I discovered Ray at the time I discovered India, and he was the foremost, really the only, Indian director at that time that a Westerner could really enjoy and get something from. I loved his films, and then I came to know him, and I see his influence still, even after he’s been gone twenty years now. I see his influence in my work in little, little ways that most people probably wouldn’t see.

I was lucky that with our very first film, I had his entire crew. We made The Householder, our first feature, in India. Ray wasn’t making a film at that time, and I wanted to borrow his cameraman, Subrata Mitra, who was a great, great cameraman. We didn’t have a cameraman, and Ray said, “Yes, of course, take him.” Subrata wanted to do it, but then Ray said, “Nobody else is working for me right now,” so I got them all—his assistant director, soundman, cameraman, cameraman’s assistant. They all came to work for me, and it’s not surprising that there’s a look to the film, and one or two of the other Indian films, that reminds one somewhat of Ray. Not so much the content—the content was very different—just the way the scenes are put together and photographed and so on.

As for Renoir, well, Renoir is a very great European director whom I’ve always admired, as Ray did.

 

DT: Me too!  You fell in love with India, but you also fell in love with Venice, where you made your first film. Room with a View is one of the most romantic films I’ve ever seen. Do you think that your feeling for Italy affected that film in particular, and do you think that happens generally—that your feeling for the location somehow affects the way the film turns out?

JI: I think so, sure, otherwise why are you there? Why are you in that particular location? You like being there, and you want to have it as a backdrop to your story. Where Italy was concerned, Venice was the first Italian city I ever went to and spent any time in, and I was just bowled over by it. From there I went to Rome, and I had equally strong feelings about Rome. But strangely, for some reason, and this went on for several years, I never visited Florence. I don’t know why, maybe it just seemed like such a huge correctional thing to see and do that I just felt I would wait and put it off to some other day. So when I came to do the film in Florence, yes, I already had very, very strong feelings about Italy, but when I came to do Room with a View, Florence was all new to me, and I was seeing it with a fresh eye. I think that was useful, that I was discovering Florence myself when we made that film. I didn’t know it, and I had to learn the city in the same way that I learned Venice and Rome, and I think it certainly shows in the film itself.

 

Maurice.

Maurice.

DT: Are you participating in the Cohen Media Group’s restorations of Heat and Dust, Autobiography of a Princess, Howards End, Maurice, and Shakespeare Wallah?

JI: Oh yes. I have been, and I expect to go on doing that. My actual technical participation isn’t so great. The most I can do is sort of sit there with the cameraman and regrade the picture for color and darkness or lightness and so on and contrast. We do that together. That’s about as much as I can do, because I can’t get involved in the sound. On the whole I’m limited to being there with the cinematographer, and we make sure that the color is right and the contrast is right, it’s not too light or dark; that sort of thing. Beyond that, I get very much involved in the packaging of the films, and when they’re released, I do a lot of press. I get involved to the extent that they allow me to be involved in the advertising campaigns. They usually don’t want directors to get involved in that because perhaps we’ll suggest some uncommercial things.

DT: Do you choose which films are going to be restored?

JI: In some cases, yes. I suggested that if they were going to do Heat and Dust, they needed to restore Autobiography at the same time because both films are very related in subject matter. They’re also going to go in a DVD package, probably on two discs. But I think that everybody agreed that they would start out with Howards End. Next they moved to Maurice, and then they wanted to go back to one of our earliest films, considered a classic, which is Shakespeare Wallah. I go along with what they want to do, but I do make suggestions sometimes about the order of things. So far so good.

 

DT: And what’s going on with Richard II?

JI: I don’t know. I mean, I lack a very good producer, I lack a powerful producer. My regular producer, Ismail Merchant. I don’t have that. Had I had such a person, I think the film would have been made years ago. The pity is we didn’t make it while Ismail was still alive, which we might have done. I don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s out there, and people are still sort of supposedly thinking about it, but I wonder, really, what will happen.

 

DT: I really hope it’s made. Are you continuing to donate your films to the George Eastman House?

JI: They have pretty much everything. They don’t have the studio films. They have prints and that kind of thing, but the studios almost always keep their negatives to themselves on the whole. I donated the films that Merchant Ivory actually owned, which was more than thirty, but as I say, the studios hold onto the films that they made, like Remains of the Day. They keep their things in their vaults, where I’m sure they’re properly cared for; the right temperature and all that. But we do have prints of all of our films, and we had a lot of secondary material that accumulated over the years, whether those are studio films or not, and whenever there was anything interesting, I put it at George Eastman.

 

DT: How involved did you get in casting your films?

JI: Very. I’m the one that says yes or no. It’s interesting, though, because sometimes Ismail would jump in there and surprise me and cast somebody himself if he was getting fed up with my not being sure about this person or that person. He did that several times, but who was to complain, because he came up with people like James Mason or Maggie Smith or Helena Bonham Carter. Who’s to complain?

DT: Wasn’t Emma Thompson in that category also?

JI: I found Emma.

DT: How did you find them? From other movies? Onstage?

JI: Not in Emma’s case. Emma was suggested to me by Simon Callow. He suggested that I find out more about her. When they were casting Howards End I might have seen one film that she’d made, it might even have been something for television. She came to me and she obviously wanted to do it. She’d read the script, but she didn’t have the script with her when she came to read for me, so she read straight out of the novel, and that was it. Some of the other actresses who had come that day were quite big names, but she got the part on the spot.

 

DT: Speaking of that, you said that when you’re doing an adaptation, your actors sometimes carry the novel around with them on the set.

JI: We discouraged that. We actually pulled the novel out of their hands. The last thing you want is to be in the middle of a scene and the actor says, “You’ve left some dialogue out. I just love this dialogue and I want to say it.” That’s the last thing you want on the set. I don’t mind if they read other novels on the set. That’s fine. I feel very lucky, because that’s how I discovered Remains of the Day. An actor was reading Remains of the Day while we were making Mr. and Mrs. Bridge. One day he came up to me and said, “I’m reading this book that I think is sort of boring, but I think you may like it.” He gave it to me to read, and I couldn’t put it down. It wasn’t the next film but the film after.

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

Brigsby Bear/Dave McCary (director) and Kyle Mooney (actor)

Saturday Night Live‘s Kyle Mooney plays James, the ultimate outsider. Even though James is well into his twenties, he lives his life through Brigsby Bear, a children’s TV show his parents have created especially for him.  When circumstances force Brigsby Bear to stop airing, James is lost—until he realizes a way to revive Brigsby Bear on his own terms. The story may sound far-fetched, but the film’s sweet vulnerability and authentic insights into friendship, loss, and family are very real and close at hand. Brigsby Bear is, simply, one of the most wonderful films ever. Availability: Opens NYC and LA, 7/28, with national rollout to follow. Check local theater listings near you.Thanks to Gary Springer, Springer Associates PR, for arranging this interview.

 

DT: Comedy often veers into excess, where it gets stupid or nasty or unpleasant. Why is that, and how did you guys manage to avoid it?

KM: I don’t know that I could exactly say why, but there is a weird, bullyish nature to so much stuff out there. We’ve been making Internet videos for years, especially man-on-the-street videos. There are many man-on-the-street videos making fun of the person who’s being interviewed, but that never did anything for us. We like doing character-based stuff, showing how characters earnestly interact with the world around them. I would say that the funny part is more just them and how they perceive the world than how they’re treated or how they treat other people.

DM: We’ve always responded to the comedy in vulnerability over the comedy in crass sex-heavy or bodily functions, even though like anyone else we can still enjoy that stuff to a degree. But we’ve always been inspired by real people we’ve grown up with. The best description of the particular character trait we’re really influenced by is insecurity that we all either have or have had. Kyle and I discover it on YouTube in kids who are putting out their own little home shows. That insecurity shines through—these people are projecting a version of themselves, but you can kind of see through the armor, and you can sense that they’re not as confident as they come off or they’re not as badass as they appear. It’s all in mannerisms and subtleties, and I think Kyle’s talented at capturing those. It’s a really hard skill to teach, I imagine, but I think it comes very innately to Kyle, in the way that he’s absorbed influences over the years comedically, less from big-time comedians or performers and more from actual day-to-day human beings.

 

DT: Another thing you managed to achieve in this film is sweetness. Some people have called it earnestness, but for me the film is suffused with sweetness, which I think is really hard to achieve in comedy. Gene Wilder could be really sweet without being saccharine or silly. Adam Sandler tries, but I think he becomes embarrassed when he gets too sweet, so he swears or goes into some other absolutely irrelevant character thing.

Brigsby Bear_15_Kyle in bed_650 resize

Kyle Mooney in bed with his Brigsby Bear bedsheets. @ Brigsby Bear Movie, LLC., Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

DM: We always knew that the James character was very vulnerable, very passionate about his show. He has all these childlike tendencies—he’s just a very pure kid, and I think with purity comes a lack of cynicism. We just had Kyle playing this character in this situation as realistically as possible—what we imagined in our heads as the most realistic thing this kid could do and the people around him could do. It operated more out of love than out of looking for jokes or cynicism.

KM: I certainly like that people are walking away saying that and feeling that and thinking that. I definitely like the idea of a likable character and somebody you can relate to or feel for. I don’t know going into it how much I consciously thought that I wanted people to walk away from this movie saying this character is this way…I don’t know that I thought too much about it.

I want to be sweet to people around me and I hope they want to be sweet back. Sometimes the world around us makes us act in ways that unfortunately make it so that’s not always possible, but ideally we can all love one another and be cool with each other.

 

DT:  When you see a dramatic film, its success doesn’t depend solely on the lead. If the lead is bad, the film can be saved by other things—cinematography, editing, etc. Of course the lead can contribute to a film’s success, but in a comedy, if the main comic sucks, nothing’s going to save that film. Do you think audiences expect more from a comic than from a dramatic actor?

KM: Certainly, if they’re going into the movie hoping for laughs and that person doesn’t deliver any of them. For this particular movie, we were just truly trying to do the story justice. Obviously I’m in every single scene, so a lot of the film is kind of carried by my performance, but again it was something I personally didn’t think too much about. I was just—and Dave pushed this a lot—playing it as real as possible. There’s inherent comedy within the script, so we said, “We don’t need to push it, we don’t need to play it too broadly, let’s just try to do the story as much justice as possible.”

DM: We were filming scene by scene, and we rarely ever asked ourselves the question, Is this the funniest version of this scene? Instead it was always, Is this the most authentic version, or the most genuine way that a scene like this would play out if this was a real story? We were trying to do the script justice as if it were a real-life account. Even knowing obviously that the conceit is pretty out there, it was just exciting to us to tackle it as if it were real life.

KM: But I know what you’re saying, Judy. Certainly when you go see a movie led by a comedian, it’s that comedian’s movie, and if they don’t bring it, either you just don’t like the movie or you think, ‘That person just doesn’t have what it takes.’ I believe it’s best to think on a movie-to-movie basis, because sometimes people bring it and sometimes they don’t. But I think all comedians are wonderful.

DT: Does the audience’s increased expectation for a comedic actor change the normal working relationship between an actor and a director?

DM: I don’t know if I’ve worked enough to answer your question, because this is our first movie. At Saturday Night Live, we make everything the funniest it can be, and everyone’s on the same page. With this particular movie, which is my only experience—Kyle’s been in a lot of movies as a supporting actor—I went with what my instinct was telling me about this particular script and about our relationship, which is a lifelong relationship. We already know how to work with each other, so it’s hard for me to pinpoint how this would compare to a different feature experience with a different lead actor.

 

Brigsby Bear_11_playing in mountains_600 resize

Having fun in Utah. @ Brigsby Bear Movie, LLC., Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

DT: So you have the script, you have the director, you have the cast. What was the process of massaging that and getting it all to work together?

KM: I wrote the script with our friend Kevin Costello; Dave and I grew up together, and we went to middle school with Kevin. Everybody—the producers, the cast, Dave, myself—were all just on the same page. I think everybody liked the concept of the movie and appreciated that it was somewhat unique and maybe not totally formulaic or what they might normally be offered in terms of movies to act in. So the process was pretty smooth. Everybody was enthusiastic about telling this story in the best way possible, and I think they also appreciated the fact that there was a history between Dave and myself and our friend Kevin.

We shot in Utah. We’ve likened shooting the film to summer camp or something like that, because we just all hung out and had a good time. We were all in a place somewhat foreign to us, so when we were done shooting we would hang in the lobby of the hotel, have a beer, something like that, get some food—it was genuinely and generally just friendly. I think everybody truly wanted to do the best version of this movie.

 

DT: That really comes across on screen. Kyle, you wrote a great piece for the New York Times about your best friend Jason upstaging you at a talent show in the fourth grade. You wrote, “I’ve met a handful of Jason types. Performers who can take control of the audience, hold them in the palm of their hand, and make them scream. And I still get jealous. But I can also appreciate what they do—the work they put into it, the subtlety with which they move or speak, the charm, the confidence. And it inspires me. Jason made me want to perform better and work harder.” I get the idea of performing better and working harder in the context of playing an instrument or writing a novel, but what does it mean in terms of comedy?

KM: Coming up when we were in our twenties, and we were doing sketch shows or going to friends’ standup shows, we noticed that certain people got on the stage and the rapport with the audience was already there. They exuded a confidence in a way that was like they couldn’t do any wrong. They could almost say whatever they wanted to say and people would be on board. What I’m talking about in the New York Times piece is just my admiration for that and the idea of just not caring when you’re up there, when the nervousness of “how is this going to go” disappears and you’re kind of along for the ride. I think that is something a person can improve on.

DT: How do you improve on that?

KM: Getting on stage more and more and developing your unique sensibility. I can only speak for myself, but it took time for us to figure out what I’m good at, what my thing is. For me it’s playing these characters and losing myself in trying to figure out ways a character might speak or interact with the world around him or herself. It’s building and working at that.

 

DT: When you were starting out and basically didn’t know who you were as a comic, would you just try lots of different things?

KM: Certainly I did standup when we first started doing live comedy, and I was fine at it. I don’t think I was great…I just never really had the patience. Really good standups are there every single night doing multiple shows, going to open mics. That wasn’t me, and I also never felt totally comfortable as myself onstage, so I went further and further into taking on other personas and playing characters. Over time you hone that. If you watch our Internet videos, we did multiple videos, and over time you can see the character develop—nuances will develop, and we’ll get more specific, and sometimes even the comedy of the character will change, but it’s all just a process of perfecting….or trying to.

DT: Did you use other people as models? If so, who?

KM: Yes and no. As children we were into Saturday Night Live, we were into so many different comedians. A person like Fred Armisen, for instance—I’ve always admired how he can lose himself into so many different characters. We came up through the Internet; that was a relatively new thing. Before us there was The Lonely Island, who produced this movie. They set this template: you could make a bunch of Internet videos and then potentially start doing it for TV. But careerwise, there are so many different persons I admire I don’t know if there’s one specific one.

DT: Name three.

KM: An Albert Brooks, a Steve Martin, Bill Murray, Andy Kaufman.

DM: Rick Moranis, Richard Dreyfuss.

KM: Mike Myers, Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman.

DT: Chevy Chase?

KM: Chevy Chase.

DT:  Will Ferrell?

KM:  Absolutely. I loved Will Ferrell. I don’t know if it’s Lorne Michaels or somebody else who said that your favorite SNL cast coincides with when you’re in middle school. That Will Ferrell cast was probably from seventh, eighth grade to our senior year of high school. It was fun to watch the trajectory of him being such a star on that show and then you started seeing him in movies. He was in Old School…I remember being a senior in high school when that came out, and you got to watch this career being birthed. It’s cool.

 

DT: Dave, I’m a big fan of Epic Rap Battles of History.  Can you talk about how you moved the concept along?

DM: I was somewhat of a vessel for these two dudes, Pete and Lloyd’s comedic vision. They made these very fun songs and put in so many hours and so much love into the matchups. It really became larger than life in the YouTube world. I just happened to be working at the company that was producing them, and they linked me up with those guys. Pete and Lloyd hadn’t really made videos before, and I had. It was my day job to help young aspiring artists on YouTube try to make their ideas happen. I was just this director/editor for hire there. Pete sent me a song, and I said, “We can put you guys in front of a green screen and I’ll make a logo and it can be pretty simple.” Fast forward to three years later and they’ve made fifty of them and they have a crazy subscriber base and they made a lot of money for that company. But for me, week to week, they would approach me and say, “Here’s the new song” or “Here’s the matchup and here’s what we were thinking,” and I’d say, “Let’s do it.” It was a job. They’re wonderful people, it was fun to do those, but I don’t want to take credit; creatively they were the ones coming up with all the jokes, and the whole idea was their baby. I would try to be helpful and share visual ideas, but it was pretty straightforward. They made really fun and accessible stuff, and I could help.

 

Brigsby Bear_3_girl with bear_600 resize

A scene from Brigsby Bear, the TV show. @ Brigsby Bear Movie, LLC., Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

DT: I could be totally off base with this, or I could be spot on, but when I was thinking about Brigsby Bear, it suddenly hit me that it felt a lot like Mary Poppins.

DM: In what way?

DT: There’s the whole family-that-doesn’t-get-the-kid thing. Also the Mary Poppins figure is a little like Kyle’s character in the sense that there’s this magical thing going on but there’s also this darkness behind the story. She’s a witch.

KM: I can’t say that we were thinking about Mary Poppins specifically, though I am a Disneyphile. Are you referring to the film or the book?

DT: The film.

KM: In the course of the past year or two there have been many late nights when I’d be in somewhat of a stupor and throw on my Pinocchio VHS or something like that, and I’m sure I visited Disneyland ten times over the course of producing this movie, so I certainly saw a woman dressed up as Mary Poppins walking around the park over the course of this movie. The general sense of magic and imagination is something that I think one could certainly argue is there and something that was being thought about

DM: It’s very fun for us that journalists and friends and family have told us about so many different things from their past that came to mind; we’ve heard hundreds of different titles of television shows or movies that they thought inspired us, some of which were totally on point and some of which we hadn’t thought of but are completely valid and cool.

KM: It’s kind of like everybody has their own Brigsby Bear, their own TV show or movie or whatever it is they grew up with. What’s fun for me now is that I get a chance to watch and dissect the ones I’m not aware of. Weirdly you’ll throw some of these on, and you’ll say, “Whoa, that is pretty similar to what we made, like in an eerie way.”

 

DT: Talk about Good Neighbor and how it influenced what you do now.

KM: I went to college with Beck Bennett, who’s on SNL, and our friend Nick Rutherford, and we did improv and sketch comedy together. By the end of it we had built a rapport, and I think audiences liked what we did. Dave was always around contributing ideas and helping put our ideas onto video. When I finished college, we said, “Let’s pursue this,” so we went all into the world of making videos for the Internet. We tried to do live shows as well, and that’s kind of where we cut our teeth.

DM: It felt like a gym for filmmaking, because no one’s really holding you accountable for technical issues or if the lighting is bad or the sound’s not great. We learned as we went, and any time we hit a roadblock in terms of the technical side, I would just read on the Internet how to fix it or learn what type of crew member I would need to get a specific type of look.

KM: The process of making Brigsby Bear wasn’t far off from what we were doing then. Even in this movie we stole shots, and at times it was just as rugged an experience as when we were in our twenties just trying to make a video for the Internet, though this time we had some more money and more people involved.

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

 

 

Chasing Coral/Jeff Orlowski

Breaking with Director Talk tradition, we are presenting a write-up of Chasing Coral rather than an interview with the film’s director. Jeff Orlowski’s schedule was too packed to arrange a chat, but we felt that the film is too important to pass by.  •Availability: Streaming now on Netflix, and available in select theaters. Thanks to Kate Patterson, Brigade Marketing, and Kim Parker Gordon, Netflix, for arranging a screening.

To most of us, the oceans are alien worlds, populated by strange creatures who live  in unknowable depths. Yet oceans are the source of all life on earth. They control our weather and air. They provide us with pleasure, food, raw materials to make cancer-fighting drugs. They inspire love.

For all that, we’re killing the oceans and the remarkable creatures who live there. It’s a simple but tragic process: The carbon dioxide we pour into the air traps heat; 93 percent of that heat is absorbed by the oceans. (Without them, the average land temperature would be 122 degrees.) In the process, the temperature of the oceans has risen to such an extent that they’re becoming inhospitable to marine life.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the coral reefs, living superstructures that create their own habitats, much like cities aboveground. The reefs support vast quantities of fish, which many human communities depend on for survival. But in the last thirty years alone, 50 percent of the world’s coral has died, affecting a quarter of the life in the oceans.  In twenty-five years, the oceans may be too warm for coral reefs to survive at all.  According to a March 15, 2017 article in the New York Times, “Hundreds of millions of people get their protein primarily from reef fish, and the loss of that food supply could become a humanitarian crisis.”

Richard Vevers, founder and CEO of The Ocean Agency, knew he wanted to address the calamity unfolding below, but he didn’t quite know how. Before entering the field of ocean conversation, Vevers had spent ten years as a top London ad exec, and he’d brought this advertising mentality to The Ocean Agency. The advertising problem with oceans, he discovered, was that they’re largely out of sight—and therefore out of mind. So he formulated an ambitious goal: revealing the oceans to the world.

But how best to alert a largely uncaring world to a problem they couldn’t see?  As it turns out, corals respond to rising temperatures by bleaching, or turning stark white. For an ad exec seeking to communicate the dire state of ocean affairs, that was an unfortunate response, because the white looked beautiful, not stressed. Vevers realized he needed to communicate the problem in a different way. One night, after watching Chasing Ice, the Emmy-winning documentary about the effects of climate change on the world’s glaciers, Vevers realized that the answer to his ocean problem was change: in order to move people to action, he had to show them what they were losing.

And so Chasing Coral was born. Vevers brought Jeff Orlowski, director of Chasing Ice, onboard, along with an amazing crew, who would use remote-controlled underwater time-lapse photography to document the ongoing death of coral reefs. They designed and created a revolutionary photography system, in which underwater cameras manufactured with 3D printers would be placed inside transparent bubbles and situated on the ocean floor, where they would communicate wirelessly with an operator sitting in a boat. There was only one problem: the system didn’t work. Under pressure to catch the corals before they died completely, they switched to the old-fashioned method: documenting the change by hand, making twenty-five dives per day along the Great Barrier Reef.

In the process, they discovered that stressed corals did more than turn a beautiful white: In their second stress response, the corals glowed, producing the equivalent of a chemical sunscreen to ward off the heat. It was as if they were screaming, in their final phase of death, Look at me. Please notice.

Shooting manually, the crew developed emotional ties to the reefs. Besides the utter beauty of the corals themselves and the astonishing creatures who live there, the crew’s love for the coral humanizes the reefs, giving Chasing Coral a stirring resonance.

Corals, when alive, are breathtakingly beautiful. They’re enchanting, and mysterious, and life-giving. We see all of that in Chasing Coral. But they are not only objects of beauty to be admired from a distance; they’re also valued neighbors in this ecological web we share with other lifeforms. That’s in Chasing Coral, too. And that’s the part we really need to see.

Go to chasingcoral.com to learn about how you can get involved.

 

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

 

 

 

The Fencer/Klaus Haro

In the 1950s, the citizens of Haapsalu never knew when to expect the knock on the door signaling that one of their family members was about to be taken away by the Soviets. Nevertheless, it is Haapsalu that fencing master Endel Nelis, on the run from the authorities in Leningrad, chooses as safe harbor. There, under an assumed name, he establishes a fencing school for the children, many of whom have been orphaned by the Soviet occupiers. Just when he begins to think he can have a normal life in this tiny Estonian town, the children beg him to take them to the national fencing competition in Leningrad, unknowingly forcing Endel to choose between his own fate and the trust they’ve found in his care. Based on the true story of Endel Nelis, whose fencing club still exists to this day. Availability: Opens July 21, NYC, August 11, L.A., with national rollout to follow. Thanks to Sasha Berman, Shotwell Media, for arranging this interview.

 

DT:  In a very quiet, personal way, you captured the fear of people living in Soviet-occupied countries. What details did you focus on?

KH: We thought a lot about that. There had recently been novels concerning the occupation in this part of the world, really graphic in their description of everything that could go on—everything perverse and really harsh. We were telling the story of a man who’s a loner and finds a community, and this is what we wanted to focus on, so we decided we’re not going to show all the graphic things we could show.

This was a story about a teacher and his pupils. This man is a loner, and he’s a loner for a reason. He doesn’t enjoy it particularly—he’s a loner because he needs to protect himself. We wanted to give the film his perspective, his point of view and ways of thinking. When I read the script, one of the first visions to show the world through his eyes was to follow him behind his neck, like there’s someone behind him at all times.

We wanted the feeling of oppression to be really subtle so the people who know what it’s about will recognize this feeling.  [Our film] would not be something that turns people away, something they wouldn’t see because it’s so disgusting. The main thing of the film was not to tell what oppression does to you physically but what it does to you mentally. When it comes to the point where there’s no one to trust, no one to rely on, but you need…  It’s just each one looking after themselves and asking the question, Is there a way out of this crap, this loneliness?

 

DT: You mentioned “people who know what it’s about.”  I was struck by how much you could see this in the actors’ faces, especially the children. You could see the understanding in their eyes; they knew each other’s fear. When the children saw Endel being taken away, they didn’t say, as an American kid would, “What’s happening?” These children understood exactly what was happening.

KH: What we see, even today, is that people know what it’s about. The folks in Estonia have a tendency not to talk too much about these things, but once you start getting to know them, you find that every family is connected to an event when a family member was taken away. The knock at your door late at night was always bad news, and you see it in their eyes.

It’s a beautiful country, and the people are so beautiful. In northern Europe it’s still light around 9:00 in the evening. It’s beautiful, it’s green, it’s like paradise, but I remember driving around one beautiful summer evening scouting for locations and seeing that flags all over the country were at half mast. I asked the young man who was driving me around, “How come?” He said, “This is in memory of the first night when thousands of Estonians were taken from their homes one beautiful summer evening.” Tens of thousands of people were taken from their homes to some far-away place in Siberia; again and again people were taken from their homes. In the middle of all this beauty you have this sorrow, this memory of these events, and you can see it in people’s faces, their expressions turning from relaxed to a tense awareness of what’s going on.

 

DT: As you mentioned before, you also captured Endel’s longing for a normal life. You didn’t see it at the beginning of the film—it just grew so subtly and so gently as he began to see the possibility of a normal life in Haapsalu. I loved the way you handled that. Can you talk abut carving that path for his emotional development?

KH: For this film I was the pupil and these Estonian actors were the teachers. I really relied on them. I was a newcomer. A foreign director in Estonia. They told me, “Look, we know what this is about,” and I trusted them. They were really taking this from their own experience and their own memory. I was humble in this circumstance.

When we were looking for financing, quite a lot of financiers were concerned that the film wasn’t threatening enough, wasn’t dangerous enough. They were reading the script, they were reading words on paper, saying, “Maybe this should be more graphic. Maybe you need to begin with something really violent to sell this thing.” The writer and I were the minority on this.

We were looking at a place where every grown-up person has some kind of recollection or understanding of what this is about; even if you haven’t lived this situation, you still have some experience of fear of some sort, whether it’s firsthand or secondhand. When you just read the words, it may be hard to imagine, but when you see it on film, it’s so clear from the acting what’s going on, even without words. When I make a movie, I really, really try to look for ways to tell the story without words, and to come across with whatever the film is about without overexplaining it. I’m always afraid of that. Whenever an actor says, “Can we leave this line out?” I’m so happy. Whenever we don’t have to explain what’s going on and we just see it, that’s when cinema is at its best—Charlie Chaplin, or the great silent directors in America. The best directing is just telling it in visuals, so that wherever people see the film—in the States or Europe or China or Africa—they will say,  “I know what this is about.” That’s what’s great about cinema.

 

DT: For me, one of the main messages of the film is that there is no division between a person’s personal life and the life of the nation—that individuals are not isolated from the actions their governments make.

KH: It’s always easy to see afterwards what we’re doing in the present. When something is going on, you just have a notion that something is not right, and afterward you think about it. When you do historical films that are focused on the past, you need to also draw from the present. Of course the people were different, the situations were different, but what are our fears? What are our fears today, and how can we draw on them?

As we were shooting this film, something very spooky happened. One night, we were shooting the scene where the grandfather is being taken away. That particular night, that dark night, was one of the first scenes with the young boy who plays his grandson, a very sensitive scene. There was a tension on the set, and I was personally very tense to see how this young boy was going to perform. You never know with children—they might perform, and they might not. I was trying to give him secure surroundings, I was trying to create a very focused atmosphere on the set, and suddenly I noticed the Estonian part of the crew were all on their iPhones. I was really irritated, saying, “Come on guys, this isn’t Facebook time, we’re shooting something really crucial here.”  They turned to me and said, “We’re not on Facebook, we’re reading the news that Russia has just entered Ukraine.” It was exactly the same: These events in Russia and the Ukraine were starting to unfold exactly as they had the night we were shooting in this scene. It was really frightening to see how this Estonian crew two generations, three generations later, were on their toes. We Finns didn’t always see it; we would look at the events in Russia and say, “Well, if this happens it will be like this, but on the other hand maybe it will go like that.” We looked at it as something to discuss, but for the Estonians it was really close. Whatever I’d say today, I’d probably be wrong, but whenever you live where suspicion and prejudice grow, we’re easily back in this sort of situation where you look around and can’t trust anyone and realize you can’t live in society.

 

DT: You chose not to reveal that the story was based on a real-life person, Endel Nelis, until the end of the film. Why?

KH: That was the intention of the writer, which I thought was an intelligent one because we have taken some liberties with the story. The film is based on this fencing club, but at the same time it’s a dramatization and it’s also a David and Goliath story about little Estonia and the big Soviet Union, so there are three levels to it. If you say at the beginning that this is a true story, then people will read everything and expect it to be just like it happened. A lot of things about the club happened exactly as we show in the film, and we know that Endel Nelis, the main character of the film, had some trouble with the authorities, but we don’t know exactly what happened. It probably happened over the course of a decade, while in the film we had to speed it up.

Also we thought that this way you could watch the film without second-guessing, without people sitting in the cinema and googling Wikipedia. We wanted them first to enjoy the drama, and then the idea that the Soviet Union, this big giant, was at war with little Estonia. This little fencing club that Endel started from such humble beginnings is still there today. That’s such a beautiful picture. I think that putting the reveal about Endel comes across much stronger at the end of the film.

 

DT: How did you choose and train the actors?

KH: That was a hard one because Estonia is such a small country. They see so few movies. They don’t have agents. They don’t have managers. To scope out an actor you want to see, you have to go to the theater. And that is what I did—I went to Estonia to see plays. In Estonia, sometimes the plays are four hours long. I didn’t understand much of what they were saying, but I remember being really impressed with some of the actors. That really struck me—for three or four hours I didn’t understand what they were saying, but they left an impression. I figured they would on the silver screen as well.

When it came to the children, we had a casting director. For a year she was looking for these children, going to schools, going to dancing clubs. The main children in the film, the big part of the fencing club, knew fencing from before, but the main children, who eventually go to the competition in Leningrad, really didn’t fence from before. They had to go into intensive training for the film, and that was true for the main character as well. Mart Avandi, the actor who played Endel Nelis, didn’t know fencing from before. He trained in fencing just for those scenes, so basically he didn’t train as a sport, he trained fencing as a dance. He needed to know the choreography for those scenes so he could be a believable teacher. Of course we had fencing coaches along with us on the shoot, and especially at the ending scenes—at the Leningrad fencing competition we had a lot of coaches and mentors with us on the set.

Mart Avandi, the main actor, is that kind of actor. When this film was over, he was in a play in the theater and learned to play the accordion. He’s that kind of guy. Whatever he does he does 110 percent. He’ll do whatever it takes to do his part. I could recommend him to any American or European director because he’s a fantastic coworker.

Then of course the grown-up actors were my teachers, my mentors when it came to sharing experiences. When it came to the little children, I didn’t have a common language with them, and that was the challenge there. We tried to have someone to be there to translate for us, but that didn’t really work. You need a firsthand sort of relationship…you need eye contact in order to direct a child, so we just went with really basic things, like “Look here, do this, take that, go.” It was really basic code language—“Go.” “Talk.” “Look.”—this sort of really primitive English. I think that was better than having a translator giving really detailed instruction. It’s not too intellectual working with children, it’s more physical, emotional, sort of direct, getting the feeling of what I want and repeating that many times to get that particular emotion.

 

DT: Did you consult with anybody from Endel’s fencing club?

KH: Not really. Endel’s daughter still trains people at the little fencing club in Haapsalu, Estonia, and we had some of her pupils, and Endel’s son is a coach in Helsinki, Finland. Both Endel’s daughter and son are fencing coaches and their children are fencers, so a little fencing dynasty came out of that family. I did not consult with them, but the writer of the script heard about the story of the fencing club from Endel’s daughter. I chose not to talk with them before shooting the film in order to keep the focus on the drama of the story.

I’ve done historical films before. There are always a number of details that you want to get into the film, but they will weaken the film. They will not strengthen the film. They weaken it because you’ll end up with a docudrama rather than a drama. In order to keep the drama, you must focus, get to where we originally felt the script needed to go. I chose not to talk with them so I wouldn’t be emotionally involved with what went on in real life and  wouldn’t be able to tell the story in the best way.

Afterwards I sat down to talk with them, and it was really rewarding. It was great to hear their perspective about the film. Of course they were really happy the film was made. They didn’t agree with everything in the film, but they’re happy it was made.

One really nice thing…you can imagine it’s 2016, the film is an official selection for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars, the cold war has ended and the Soviets have left Estonia. It’s taken a lot of work and a lot of effort for the Estonians to build up their country. They’ve built it up in a wonderful way, but they still have really limited resources to work with. For instance, this fencing club didn’t have a fancy place to train, but due to this film, they were able to gather resources to build a brand-new fencing area for those children in Haapsalu. Of course we didn’t do the film for this, but they were able to raise awareness of their little fencing club. I haven’t visited yet, but I’m told Endel’s daughter is really beaming, she’s saying, “This is what I wanted to have twenty years ago, thirty years ago, and now finally I can give the children a state-of-the-art place to train.” It’s so beautiful when you can give something back. We owe them a lot for being able to tell this story, and we were able to give something back. I think that’s great.

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

Lady Macbeth/William Oldroyd

Sold to a bitter old man, Katherine suffocates in a loveless marriage. She is forbidden to leave her house and spends her days frustrated and bored, attended by the diffident Anna. When Katherine’s husband is called away on business, she defies his orders and escapes to the wild world outside, bringing its savagery—and a new lover—into her home. Based on Nikolai Leskov’s 1865 novella Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (later made into an opera by Shostakovich, which was denounced by Stalin), William Oldroyd’s Lady Macbeth is ghastly and beautiful, horrific and ecstatic. •Availability: Opens NYC, Angelika and Lincoln Plaza Cinema, and L.A. July 14, with national rollout to follow. Thanks to Keaton Kail and Marija Silk, Susan Norget Film Promotion, for arranging this interview.

 

DT: There are some horrific scenes in the film, but some scenes are very, very beautiful. How did you approach blending those two elements?

WO: We were dealing with a lifeless, airless, and austere environment. Running through it were very raw and visceral emotions, so this is the contrast  we wanted to play with. We brought it out with the design, looking at these simple rooms and trying to enhance that by emphasizing the austerity and the sense in which it might be like a vacuum for Katherine. Jacqueline Abrahams, our production designer, brought in a whole series of images to reference that. She designed The Lobster, which also has a simple and beautiful aesthetic.

She called the series of images she brought in “viscera”: they were basically biting, scratching, cuts, bruises, drowned things, dead animals, wounds. I thought, ‘Wow.’ There was something so interesting about seeing the formality and the simplicity and the sparsity [of the images] contrasted with these scratches and bites and scars. So that became the basis for our work, that became a sort of palette; it came out of that. And they were things that existed in nature as well. It felt very symbolic of the story as a whole. When Katherine runs in after Sebastian has been beaten, she immediately licks his wounds, like an animal. I loved that because it feels very different from expected behavior of Victorian Englanders.

DT: Although that combination of viscera and austerity is almost how I think of that era. We don’t have that viscera today.

WO: It was there…we know it was there because we read the books now, but at the time it was not spoken about. The sacred and profane of Victorian England: how many churches were built in Victorian England? More churches were built in Victoria’s reign than all of the churches that had been built up to that point put together, then you think how many whorehouses and opium dens there were in Victorian England underneath that. There was a huge number of prostitutes.

 

DT: Both you and your screenwriter had major careers in theater before entering the world of film. What surprised you? What didn’t you anticipate?

WO: The first surprise was that in preparation for the film, all the financiers kept asking me how I was going to get into the point of view of the character. How do you get into POV? I thought that was such a strange idea, because in theater you don’t need to worry about getting into POV. When I put on a play, there are the words, the actors know the words, they perform it, and the audience can choose where to look. But when somebody said to me, “How are you going to get into Katherine’s mind? How are we going to see this story from Katherine’s point of view?”  I thought, ‘God, I have no idea.’ And suddenly I realized that as a director of film, I had to choose where people looked, against the idea that an audience essentially self-edits in the theater.

So when they said, “How are you going to get us into Katherine’s point of view?” I said, “Well that’s a good question.” I had to teach myself. Realizing as a director you’re responsible for choosing where the audience looks, as opposed to theater, where they look for themselves, was a big, big thing to learn. Control: I suppose what you realize is that people will believe whatever you tell them to believe. Actually the medium of film is quite manipulative.

One other thing I suppose I learned  is that you really try to capture thought in cinema…the spoken word is not as important. It’s not a priority, in the same way that in theater it’s the engine; the spoken word is the thing that drives the scene. Also in theater scenes complete, then you move on to another scene, whereas in cinema you don’t need to complete a scene. You just need to basically make sure that a thought will carry across into the next moment, next beat, next scene. These are all things I learned through the process of making and also editing the film.

 

DT: How did you learn what you needed to know?

WO: Very naively I thought POV meant you’re seeing it literally from her point of view, through her eyes,  which means that the camera becomes the eyes of the person. Well no, of course it doesn’t. It was that basic. I had so much to learn making this film.

DT: Did you watch films with that in mind?

WO: Yes, but this is the danger: it ruins your cinemagoing experience forever, because as you’re watching a film you’re constantly pulling it apart and analyzing and dissecting. As I would watch a film, I began to think, ‘Why do I love this film, and how is it so clear that it’s her point of view? Oh, I see, they’ve done that. OK. So when she sits there, we hear her breathing really heavily. It brings us closer to the character.’ Something like that.

DT: Which films did you watch?

WO: We watched Night Moves, [DP] Ari Wegner and I. We liked that film for the way it builds tension. Last Days has a sort of simplicity. We really wanted simplicity. I really liked The Piano Teacher and White Ribbon. For me one of the greatest period dramas of all times is La Reine Margot. I think it’s just fantastic. Talk about viscera, there you’ve got it all. Again, that was about understanding how Patrice Chereau brought us so close to Isabelle Adjani.

 

DT: You had to work with a very low budget while doing a period piece. How did that work?

WO: We were interested to know why the common perception is that you need a big budget to do a period piece, because ultimately our film is four or five or six people in one location, and they wear one or two costumes each.

DT: But what a dress that blue dress was.

WO: If you’re going to have one dress, you’ve got to make it the very best. We knew it was going to be a tight shoot—twenty-four days—and we knew we couldn’t move away from the location. We had one or two days offsite, but it didn’t seem to impede the story.

DT: It may have helped it?

WO: I think it really focused our creativity, it really focused us to make decisions. If something didn’t serve the story, then it wasn’t relevant. It wasn’t necessary. We used the low budget to our advantage in the sense that if we just couldn’t afford something, we’d ask, “Do we really need it? Probably not.”

But there were other things, like the horse being shot. That was something I really didn’t want to compromise on, so I told the producers, “I know it’s not very affordable, but I want to see this horse being killed in one shot.  I don’t want to have to cut to the gun, cut back to the dead horse, because we’ll know it’s a cheat. It will have far more impact.” But trying to find a horse that will fall over on command is expensive, so again, we probably could have afforded more background action in one of the scenes and not have the horse, but then did we need it? So it was always a balance.

DT: You couldn’t shoot the horse with a dart gun?

WO: That was probably more dangerous because then it would be somebody’s real horse. I know there are films where they do tranquilize the animals—The Lobster, for example, where they tranquilized the donkey, then pulled it over with a rope.

DT: How did you find a horse that fell over on command?

WO: We just Googled it and found a company called AB Film Horses. The horse we got is actually the biggest celebrity in our film, because it was also shot on the beaches of Dunkirk for Atonement. We have a famous horse in our film!

 

DT: You deviated from filmmaking tradition in several important ways. One, you had a female DP. Two, you had the editor on set. And three, you had the writer on set.

WO: Ari was the best person I met, so it was a no-brainer to work with her as cinematographer. It was a great advantage to have Nick [Emerson], our editor, on set, because we shot in sequence. By the end of the third week, he had very roughly assembled the first three-quarters of the film. We watched it, which could have been a disaster that sent us into our last week depressed. But ultimately we watched it and thought, ‘OK, it’s not nearly perfect, but there is at least something here that’s working. What’s missing?’ And we just wrote down a list of all the things that were missing, which we then put into a list of pickups for the last week. It also meant that because Nick was there every lunchtime we could watch rushes, every evening we could watch rushes, and I could even go to him and say, “Could you come on set for a minute?” which apparently is really forbidden, having the editor coming on set. I would say, “I’m thinking of shooting this in one shot, what do you think?” And he would be very fair in his appraisal and say, “Maybe you just need to get me the reverse.” It was very useful to have that, and we were constantly checking in. As for Alice [Birch, the screenwriter], she wasn’t there the whole time, but she did come and do some rewrites for us on set. She didn’t know she was coming to do rewrites; she thought she was coming for a set visit, but we sat her down and gave her a pen.

DT: What did you have to rewrite?

SPOILER ALERT

WO: The end. There was a scene where Sebastian’s confession is forced from him rather than coming naturally from his guilt, and we felt like it was probably much better if he felt compelled to confess, so that needed a bit of tweaking at the end.

END OF SPOILER ALERT

 

DT: I don’t know if it’s the same from a British perspective, but at least from an American perspective, you introduced a racial tension that is not in the original story. I don’t believe it’s in Shostakovich’s opera, either.  Was that intentional?

WO: We weren’t casting those actors in order to create racial tension. If there was tension, it’s tension that exists in the story between these characters. In terms of the way we cast the film, we met everybody of all backgrounds and cast the best actors for the role. I did read one review which suggested that Katherine acts the way she does because Anna is black, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. That is not our intention, and I don’t even think it’s what comes across in the film either.

DT: From an American point of view you can certainly read it that way, because racial tension is much more important than class tension in America. You Brits would read it as class tension. We Americans would read it as racial tension. What’s your next project?

WO: I’m working with Walter Mosley, on The Man in My Basement. It’s an adaptation of a book he wrote about fifteen years ago. He’s done the screenplay and we’re shooting in Sag Harbor at some point this year.

 

DT: So you’re hooked on film. How come?

WO: I had such a good experience making this. I think film is the total medium for an artist in terms of preparation, building, establishing, creating, and then the final control you have in the end.

It’s terrifying…you have so much more control than in any other medium. Maybe not painting, but painting is lonely because you’re not collaborating. I really like the collaboration element of filmmaking…and the control. In a way painting is easier. You do it, it’s on your own, and you just stick it on the wall. You don’t have to wait for people’s response. They will either buy it or they won’t, whereas the part of film that is frustrating is that you have to make something that people think they have already bought or will buy. And that, I think, is difficult for art.

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017

13 Minutes/Oliver Hirschbiegel

In November 1939, a small-town carpenter from the south of Germany nearly changed the course of world history. Revolted by what Hitler and his thugs were planning for Germany, Georg Elser, acting alone, embarked on a plan to assassinate the entire top Nazi leadership by blowing up the beer hall where they would be holding their annual meeting. He built a near-perfect bomb, installed it without being detected, and escaped almost to the Swiss border, where he discovered that his plan had failed only because Hitler and his gang had unexpectedly left 13 minutes before the bomb was set to go off. Oliver Hirschbiegel directs this riveting biopic about the life and death of this unsung hero. Availability: Opens June 30, New York City, Lincoln Plaza Cinema and Quad Cinema; L.A., Royal Theater, with national rollout to follow. Click here for theater listings near you. Thanks to Gary Springer, Springer Associates PR, for arranging this interview.

 

DT: As a young man growing up in West Germany, what did you know of Elser’s story, and how did it differ from what you ultimately came to know and feel about him?

OH: I happened to do quite a bit of my own research about the history of my people, especially in regard to the Third Reich, so I stumbled over George Elser when I was about thirteen or fourteen. At that time he was regarded as a weirdo, somebody who had a weird vision: he was considered a bit of a psychopath. Then I saw the bomb, and the bomb was fascinating. It was a nearly perfectly planned-out construction of a really effective instrument, so I wasn’t really able to put 1 and 1 together and end up with a weirdo.

Then I forgot about this guy. Only when I was doing research for Downfall did I stumble over his name again and thought, Wow, that’s an interesting story—one should really look into that. As a matter of fact, while I was editing Downfall I was approached by the writers of 13 Minutes, who asked if I would be interested in doing a film about Elser. At the time, it was tough to deal with the Third Reich; I didn’t want to go back there. But it took another couple of years until they had the final draft, and because I know them and respect them, I finally agreed to just read it.  I still didn’t feel like I wanted to go there, but then I was surprised, because I liked their approach, I liked the idea of really going back into my own history, into the early days of this horrific system, and that’s how I got into Elser.

 

DT: According to Fred Breinersdorfer, one of the cowriters, 13 Minutes is a subversion of the heimat film. First, can you talk about the tradition of the heimat film, and then how your film subverts it.

OH: The heimat film was generated during the Third Reich and continued throughout the ’50s into the ’60s. It romanticizes German traditions, the beauty of living in the countryside, living in the mountains, which does have a lot of beauty, a lot of poetry. It’s the root of much of what our culture is based on—the music, the thinkers, the philosophers—but of course it was a very cliched image. I was always fascinated with it as a genre.

One of the values of being from the countryside was Gemutlichkeit (friendliness, good cheer). One of the crimes of the Nazi system was using that as an ideal; now the typical German country life will forever be tainted with the brown color of the Nazi ideology. So even more so, I set out to portray life in those days in the countryside, in the provinces. I tried to do it in a loving way and not in a cliched way, because what you see in the beginning [of the film] is actually what the Nazis destroyed.

DT: Did heimat films start out being propaganda films or nostalgia films?

OH: Both actually—they used it for propaganda reasons and of course they used it in nostalgic, romantic comedies, things set in the mountains or the countryside of Bavaria.

 

DT: I was fascinated to learn that Elser’s living relatives were ashamed of being related to him.

OH: Part of the family refused to be in touch with us. Right after Georg’s failed assassination, the people of [Georg’s hometown] Konigsbronn—the family to start with—had to suffer greatly. The men all got drafted into the army and were forced into the worst war theaters, ending up in Russia fighting at Stalingrad. Georg was regarded as a traitor. It’s a German thing, you know, the concept of obedience. As it is in Japanese society, obedience is—or was—one of the cornerstones of German society. As an officer, as a soldier, you had to obey orders, and there was no way to turn against your superiors. So even people like Stauffenberg and his guys [who attempted to assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944] were regarded as traitors. Same with Elser.

 

DT: Elser was from the working class, while Stauffenberg was an aristocrat. Did class difference make a difference in the way they were ultimately regarded?

OH: Yes. Yes. Most definitely. To start with, Stauffenberg and his men and women attempted to take out Hitler at a time when it was obvious that somebody had to do something. Everybody knew about the camps at the time, everybody knew the war would not be won, there was just going to be more and more destruction, and Hitler had to be stopped. Even then, it took twenty-five years or so until they were properly recognized as resistance fighters and found their place in German history. Stauffenberg and his crew, and the Scholls [Sophie Scholl and her brother Hans, members of the White Rose resistance group] all came from an elite background. They of course had a much better lobby than a little carpenter without a proper education coming from the provinces in the south of Germany. It took a long, long, long time until Elser was at least recognized with a tiny little museum, but it was actually our film that gave him full recognition and sort of put him where he really belongs in German history.

 

DT: What are the biggest challenges in directing a biopic?

OH: Giving the audience something new, staying authentic to the character that is portrayed, finding the right dose of what are the facts that you’re giving, what is the information that you’re giving, what are the gaps that you’re leaving for the audience to fill in. Then, of course, it’s a question of how much do we know about this person, how much as a director do you have to invent or reinvent in order to portray this character even if you can’t tell for sure if it had been like that. If there’s nobody to ask, you have to start guessing, you have to do police work and try to put all the information that you have together and then come up with your interpretation. Those aspects of course are in any biopic, because there’s hardly any character, any biography that’s totally covered, but the key target must be to stay true to the character. Don’t bend it. You cannot bend a character in the portrayal just for the sake of making it work in matters of suspense or drama.

 

DT: How much leeway did you give your cast in interpreting the characters and guiding the film in the directions they wanted it to take?

OH: I told them, especially in the beginning, that I wanted to portray German country life in an authentic way, not romanticizing it. When it came to the characters, I gave them as much information as I had, with a few guidelines. With Christian Friedel, who plays Elser, I told him basic cornerstones of Elser’s character: Imagine this man—he believes in freedom, he doesn’t understand what’s going on, he’s sort of like a hippie in the ’60s. He wants everybody to be free, he wants to travel, he’s curious, he wants to understand the world, he wants to meet other people, he doesn’t understand the concept of borders. He’s a musician as well. And as it is with musicians, he was attractive to the ladies—ladies like a man who can play guitar and sing songs. And Georg was a man who liked to dress better than the others, he was a man of style within the limits of his money, he was a charmer, a bit of a bad boy…so you hand out these little clues, and at the same time I told Christian just to think “pop star”—Georg was a little bit of a pop star. You give these tiny little things to the actors, and they create wonders. How they do it, I don’t know, but I think it worked out.

 

DT: The performances were fantastic. Let’s talk about authenticity for a bit: How did you seek to achieve it?

OH: Formally, in depicting the country life—the early days of Georg’s biography—I used a lot of handheld camera and rich colors. I used Super 8 footage to re-create the dreams and the visions. I wanted to get across this aspect of joy that was destroyed by the whole Nazi system, which believed in suppression, control, violence. If you look at the film, all the scenes that are set up within the gestapo, when the system is controlling everything, are static. They’re all shot from the tripod, hardly ever any movement, hardly ever any pans. There’s a certain aspect of claustrophobia there as well, I believe.

 

DT: You’ve said that you followed Ozu and Kurosawa in directing the interrogation scenes. What did you mean by that?

OH: Ozu especially. If you look at Tokyo Story and other films, Ozu sets up the camera and you just watch, and the people moving about or not moving about define the suspense of a scene or a moment. I used that element to create something else here. Back in the day, traveling shots were by far not as common as they are now: people are used to zoom-ins, travel-ins, side shots and high-angle shots that are moving. So if you use Ozu’s kind of storytelling today, it radiates a new quality. People don’t really notice what they’re watching—only in the subconscious they realize there’s something different in the way it’s told.

 

D: With the rise of right-wing movements across Europe and the United States, the film is especially relevant today. When you were shooting, did you direct with an eye to modern social developments, or was that completely irrelevant to you at that point?

OH: That’s dangerous. That line is for the audience to draw. I don’t set out to put my finger on that. Especially if you’re doing an historical film, you have to try to stick to what happened then and depict that, leaving it to the audience to possibly put 1 and 1 together. Plus at the time I was shooting 13 Minutes, that right-wing populist movement basically did not exist in Germany; it’s something that’s developed in the past two and a half years and really became strong last year, so that was not really on the agenda.

It’s kind of shocking to see what’s happening in Turkey right now, to see what’s happening in your country [the USA] as well. To hear what Trump and his people are saying is pretty alarming, but if there is a working democratic system in the world, it’s your country.  People forget that. For me, the United States is the exemplary democratic society—the way it’s set up in the Constitution, the way the president acts, the way the Congress acts, the way the judicial system acts, freedom of speech, freedom of press. There is no way that something like what happened in Germany would ever happen in the US, I’m absolutely certain of that. As a matter of fact, your country being a true democracy is unfortunately the reason that somebody like Trump was able to get elected. So I’m afraid you will have to ride that car for a while, but my hope is that people are smart enough to realize that is not the way to go. I think it’s a wake-up call. I hope it is. It’s much worse in Turkey. What’s going on there right now is a disaster. They’re really aiming for fascism, it’s just a tiny little step until they kill the whole concept of a parliament. But that will never happen in the United States. No way.

DT: How did 13 Minutes do in Germany?

OH: Good. Of course as a filmmaker you want it to be a big hit, but these films never become big hits. Downfall was an exception. But 13 Minutes caused so many articles and so much talk that everybody knows who Elser is now. That’s the greatest effect you can create with a film.

 

Copyright © Director Talk 2017