Andrzej Zulawski: "Never seen it, not even in Belgrade." The August 28, 2003 at the Wyndham Hotel, Mia Desroches, big and beautiful "Bond girl" for maintaining English, introduced me to Andrzej Zulawski, who heads the jury of the event Serge Losique . We talk about his films, MFF, funding status, smoking cigarettes in packages Polish packed light blue which I forgot the name since ...
In his choice of jurors, the FFM has always tended to recruit either: a) authors still little known, but amounts: often after a first round in competition with a first or second feature film, the reputation of these, increasing the lead soon after mounting in Cannes a few intermediate steps (WFF is one of the first). Majid Majidi's name comes to mind, as an example. - The second category is rather that the authors on the descent, less productive, but whose names still resonate something powerful for anyone who had the good fortune to attend repertory theaters like Outremont.
Andrzej Zulawski
I assume ( The important thing is to love, Possession, The Devil, Women Public ...) was the second category. That said, trying to be as pejorative as possible. Since the 1990s, its production rate had decreased considerably: only three films, only one, The Blue Note (1991) had experienced in operating rooms in Montreal. Zulawski himself during this interview, admitted not be seized of this vital need to turn, now preferring to confide in his writing. The document - his last film, Fidelity dating again in 2000.
It was not to say that he was no longer interested, and vigorously, to cinema others, nor to political cinema. His remarks here, though they are from 2003, are enough to upset even to the point where the funding policies of Quebec cinema announce a pro-business shift that shows more and more primary colors.
It seemed therefore quite apropos to highlight this part of my repertoire of transcripts on the eve of the beginning of the nth edition of the festival Losique, general indifference it deserves.
Zulawski: [ beginning of the recording gap. Zulawski expresses his discontent with how he was received by MWF on arrival, right out of the plane. ] ... treatment failed administration. I arrived late yesterday morning, with only money in his pocket Polish, and they not give me a penny and I had nothing to eat, and during that time they were six to fetch "jury Depardieu. I was pretty angry, because I've never seen it, not even in Belgrade. When we arrive at a festival and we have no money, at least they give you to eat! It is not that great? Both say that the entry is rather jarring.
It does not really surprise me. The festival has problems with the press.
Yes, I saw it in the papers I read on the plane, it was pretty fierce.
You covered a lot of festivals lately.
Probably a score, as such [jury]. But sometimes it's very interesting. Especially to meet young filmmakers. Because it is an opportunity to see films that will not happen very often on screen, but that show what happens in the minds of people who want to make movies. All this in a context where the future is a little off, but where there is a future anyway. For me it's more interesting than festivals frequented by the "great" usual. Finally, I understand their usefulness: they are like big baobabs that can sometimes grow into small trees below. But sometimes they make them from the shadows, they suffocate.
you coming to Montreal in the idea of attending one of those "big" festivals?
I'm from Poland. And the Poles, a festival like Montreal has its usefulness, because the films of these countries often fail to big festivals. Either they are not commercial enough or dramatic. One of the arguments of Gilles Jacob, Cannes is the fear of seeing people leave the room. Yet when we see them frequently, we want to say "they come out!". Alas, the problem of the size of the festivals of Montreal, because there was more: Vancouver, Chicago ... is to submit to the mistake of thinking that there must be hundreds of good films that are worldwide. Wrong. The cinema has changed dramatically formulas, and it begins to split into three movements: first heavy artillery, dearest, where ingenuity is primarily technological, with good actors, but he must not look great transport the soul and heart. Then there is this middle class of films still ambitious, and made with money - the cinema was invented to make money, forget it is to plant the finger in the eye: cinemas many countries have died because of it. Then there is this kind of movie smaller in size, more ambitious, is often under difficult conditions, where there are interesting things but it is much rarer.
I was six weeks ago at a conference of European countries, because there are ten new countries entering Europe, and there was this conference about the business of film, audiovisual culture, and there this thing was absurd, as I noted in my speech, I asked "is it that Hollywood is making conferences to declare who should pay the director for him to do movies? "There is only one kind of automation, the United States where there is even no ministry of culture - movies are made with a lot of money, and even in these films, there are good things. Miracle. And we are met in the conference and the price would probably have produced three films great, because it is expensive for such meetings, with 250 delegates and as many settings, and the big question still is how to compel national states to finance the film. Now what does that mean, national states? It's my tax and yours. So the taxpayer must pay for Zulawski or machine can make his film. This is madness! Zulawski must know to make a film that aspires to results without huge - because it's not my goal I do not make big cinema show - manages to make money. Knowing how to find the ass between two chairs between the artistic experience and the failure to ruin a person is a matter of courtesy.
So to answer your question "why Montreal," simply because Montreal has long been a place where you could see what would not go to the movies, or miracle. But finally, 9 / 10 of these films would not go outside the rooms of their countries. And I think - it also it no longer works because distributors and exhibitors do not want it - there is something to do this by requiring countries to have a national television, not only private, obliged by law to present films produced domestically, so they at least be seen. Much has been pushed on it, but it is impassable.
Do you think the national film a bit threatened have the choice not to be revived through money from the state?
is a very bad choice! A wrong choice. The state money is your money. Do you find normal that takes it to allow another to do his film? Me neither. By cons state has the duty to assume a cultural distribution of this thing . So when a film is, it has a duty to ensure that it is seen, help them have good quality facilities, ensuring that television takes its responsibility, which is huge compared to this.
other hand, filmmakers are responsible in each country because people want their players to hear their language, see things that are familiar, while the existence a national cinema often comes down to either comedies or at little things that tell stories of loss, whose career is compromised from the beginning. Therefore in each country a national cinema, but it is not done in vain. We are at a crossroads today - it's a movie where you have to take because, being more responsible and less screaming on the condition that should help us. I've never been a great state.
No?
In fact the only time I have received is to when communism was the only producer status, and that as a filmmaker you were an employee of the state. We had a monthly pension, etc., was a required course. But my first film in France, I never received a penny from that side.
But as you have experienced both systems, which, say, was the least worst? In which of these systems have you worked most comfortably?
It was never comfortable. Three films that I made Poland, four today, two were censored
And interrupted production, Globes money
There. In fact this was easier in communism is that the enemy was clear. We knew who the bad guy: a criminal system that has impoverished, murdered many people. But we could not attack it head on, unless you are an army. I have not been smart enough because my films have been censored ... Yet under capitalism, the enemy is much less clear, more difficult to point fingers. It has its attendant woes, but also its attendant joys. It becomes more blurred. And if political censorship in the communist system was very strong, the financial confidence in the capitalist system is equally important.
What explains that you return the movie when we have not heard much from you in the last ten years?
First, I am more writer than director. There are whole ranges of my life where I really feel the need to write these books. I not that hard, the absolute will to make films, which often happens in periods where the cinema less interested in general - when I can really write what I want. I made my last movie three years ago, and in these three years I wrote three books, but I still have an energy that pushes me to make films. I finished a script that I brought here to make corrections within the hotel.
I saw with Possession the creature was never completed, he had to cut scenes to assemble The important thing is to love that filming Globes Silver was interrupted. Faced with these difficulties, do you acknowledge the unfair criticism when your films to be chaotic?
Criticism, 80%, is either silly or downright null. Those who do not have a particular psychology occuppent. When we are upset they are called flies to shit, because instead of doing their own shit they revolve around that of another. And since I was a film critic when I was young I did well to stop, because it is a trap that makes you more sure of your opinions, more and more dogmatic, although I think that basically it is a very noble profession, when the critic understands that its sole function is social, it serves as a bridge between people who want to understand the film but are confused and lack the necessary culture, and the object viewed. I had never written a negative review. I prefer when a movie does not please me, talk to another who became more involved. It was the positive side is stronger than the negative.
Returning to your problems: how does it feel to see your movies? Is there a movie or two where you think your vision has been translated faithfully enough to the screen?
is the same question. On the one hand, some of the criticism, often middle-class me down in flames by saying that I did too. On the other hand there is the adjective that came into use, "zulawskien", which means there is something else. When I walk in the world I see that there are parties that are renewed. People more and more young people discover this film, and they are hardworking, Guevara zulawskienne cause. And I say this with much pleasure - that of seeing young people understand much better my film that the public at the time, it gives them things. Done for them! That will be a cinema idiosyncratic, but that's how I hear the movie.
Speaking of the public, are you involved in the reissue of your movies?
No, one of my faults, in the standards of a career is not to keep a copy of my films. In Trieste in Italy, they did a retrospective of all my films, and it took them a year to collect copies worldwide and is the first time I was given from a copy of all my movies on VHS. It was a first. But I am not a collector of my own works.
Where did you report to the fantastic, the pagan side that is in your films? This intensity that brings up acting out very primitive? Readings?
It does not come from reading. There are two artistic traditions in Poland which suit us best: there's the romance of the early eighteenth century, which is probably the most interesting of the world, more than English and French. Then there is the surreal, which among us, with people like [Witold] Gombrowicz and [Bruno] Schultz, who is so strong that all our best cinema has produced, like the best movies of my friend Polanski is tinted surrealism. Chinatown is a surrealist film, with Nicholson and his bandage on his nose. Or Two Men and a Wardrobe , Cul de Sac, repulsion. When he tried to make films not surreal, it is not very good movies, and I told him elsewhere. For Skolimowski is the same. His best films are tinged with surrealism. It's in the blood. And immediately, the history of Poland is surreal. One can not escape its roots. I like this culture. And when I do a movie, there's something weird, something that used to ... ... The movie is not good when it is not therapeutic. But do not put it forward, it has to be hidden in the film. He's got you worried, it alarm you that your deepest instincts and best back so that on leaving the film you have something to talk about. Which is increasingly rare.
Surrealism Polish does not however be confused with surrealism surrealism French or Czech. There may be an identity in Polish surrealism - I am thinking of Skolimowski Scream - which will tap into a pagan imagery, in the supernatural, tribalism, magical thinking.
I do not like talking about movies with my friends because The Cry of the sorcerer is a fabrication. He went to make a film in England, thinking he was going to impress. It's not a movie all at completely sincere or honest. I do not know if you saw a film shot in Berlin, around a pool [ Deep End ] ... It's his best. A film made of small things, small details ... Something striking, it comes out with a fever.
Surrealism lag the national traits. Czechs live like the Belgians, we must see Closely Watched Trains, which is purely surreal and totally true. The essence of surrealism, What is it? It's not making faces, but to put things side by côteautre incongruous. A cigarette next to a chocolate cake. It is not meant to be eaten [sic ] together. Surrealism is what is to you relative to debaser all believed to be in the world ... Everyone does it his way. But the basic principle, even long stained cultures of all these countries, remains the same.
Given the passionate tone, very externalized movies, I wonder how you régissez movies on a platter? How did you get Isabelle Adjani interpretation impressive in that it gives Possession?
There are two aspects to it. The first, I do not tell because it falls within what I call my goodwill. Let's just say there are things I can do because I got interested in a long time and have looked over. All the playing, the actorat, from two things: the childlike - as a child playing better than anyone - and religion. The priest in a church is the actor. An Inuit shaman who takes the sins of his village, descends into hell to go back to the great relief of everyone is an actor. Voodoo was a way to unload huge problems of poverty through night ceremonies, which are never violent elsewhere. All this touches on the faculties of the human soul, the brain, which we are completely unknown. Do you know that today we can not yet explain hypnosis and trance? It can be observed, leading to therapeutic purposes, but we do not know what it is. The human brain is still an apparatus as obscure as the universe itself. And there, there's plenty to do. So if you ask me "how do I," there is first, must be remembered, that I choose the actors. These are not people who pretend, but, when you have to give a role, a stage, do so without hesitation, without reflex calculation. This is only possible when working with them well enough to understand that it is not dangerous for them in any way, nor to their psyche - to the contrary because they come out four times better - or for their careers, who worries a lot. And when they see the footage and perceive the whole team is there to support them, make sure everything is well, they do. And it's always like this.
It just made me a little sign ... like what ... (Mia beckons me to abbreviate)
Yeah, but take a minute, that's interesting.
I see you are very rational over this.
All-in-fact.
You're not a mystic like Jodorowsky, which was converted a kind of therapist ...
No, no. I first ... It does not sound like it, but it's still an atmosphere of peace and friendship on the sets. If there are explosions, it is because someone somewhere is not doing its job. So then I can be pretty ... not bad, but firm - for the good of others elsewhere. Because when a team sees when she arrives on set you're already there, you know exactly what to do, light and camera positions, you've done your job. After three days, they see that you know what you want, they do not make a poseur or a doer, mad, hysterical ... a crazy ... And that can make the strangest films, plus "other" that others.
We can not assume that public Woman augur of what goes on your plate!
Never! We're here to do a job! Miss Kaprisky was there to play a role! We were not there to create a happening where what goes on behind the camera is more interesting than what happens in front! What happens behind is a quiet, it's professional, what!
Say a closing question that I do not usually ask, but I think about considering your interest in what the young writers: have you any advice to give them?
Be yourself - which is pretty vague, but I'll clarify in the context of the film: be able to lie to everyone except yourself. To get what you want to persuade people ... because they do not think ... you know that environment ... that people who work in the film are Nobel Prize of human thought. That is, usual ...
MIA: I'm sorry, Jean-Philippe, but there is someone waiting ...
Zulawski : You're nice, but you know what? I did not know, and as I had an appointment with him, let me be polite gentleman.
MIA: Yes ... So we will continue, but -
JP: Two minutes.
Zulawski : So I said, well, like you're not going to work specifically with lights, it will lie. One of the first experiments I made with the Western cinema, is when I explained what the MacGuffin is that the movies by Hitchcock. You know what that is?
The object that is important for everyone except the audience.
No no!
(puzzled) The ground ...
is the thing that makes the producer wakes up and says "ah ah". I have done Possession because I explained, and as I did not know what to say, a very large U.S. financial giving us three quarters of the money that was "a film a woman who sleeps with an octopus. He signed right away!
(Laughter.) Great! A MacGuffin for producers.
... Because if I told the story of the descent into madness, and the fact that basically does not exist, I would have never made the movie. It sometimes ... We must accept that cinema was invented by people very often illiterate, for other people even poorer, and a movie ticket to the U.S. in the twenties cost Dimes the price of a pack of cigarettes or a pass with a whore, you have the choice. If you forget the root of this whole thing, if you sneer and say "what they are cons," we are screwed. And that is why I so admired Fellini my whole life: he spent his life doing movies most baroque and more foolish, but in which there was always the key driver of good vulgarity, real show, with these women with big breasts and all! Although this was was a man supremely intelligent.
Thank you, Mr. Zulawski.
