quinta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2012

Ciné TVO - Parlons Cinema: avec Eric Rohmer (1977)

Director:
Harry Fischbach

Cast:
André S. Labarthe - Critique, cinéaste
Harry Fischbach - Director, ciné TVO
Eric Rohmer

1
00:00:24,690 --> 00:00:27,179
MOVIE TALK

2
00:00:35,060 --> 00:00:37,429
The few themes addressed
caught my interest at an early age,

3
00:00:37,969 --> 00:00:41,570
as is often the case and I stuck
with them

4
00:00:42,270 --> 00:00:45,929
and tried to adapt them as films.

5
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:52,289
You were forced to produce
that series of films yourself?

6
00:00:53,280 --> 00:00:56,320
''Produce'' is a big word.

7
00:00:56,950 --> 00:01:01,549
I had a borrowed camera in
my hand

8
00:01:02,390 --> 00:01:05,000
and one reel of film in my pocket,

9
00:01:05,560 --> 00:01:09,219
because it was made
one 100-foot reel at a time.

10
00:01:09,930 --> 00:01:15,290
We shot in the street with a
spring-wound camera.

11
00:01:16,239 --> 00:01:18,549
You can't call that a ''production.''

12
00:01:19,069 --> 00:01:22,140
I didn't even know
if it'd ever be shown.

13
00:01:22,780 --> 00:01:27,849
Each shot in "La Collectionneuse" was done
in one take. We had very little film stock.

14
00:01:28,750 --> 00:01:32,969
I wanted to shoot in 16mm, but in color.
I envisioned it as a color film.

15
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:37,769
But Nestor Almendros with whom
I shot my films in 16mm,

16
00:01:38,530 --> 00:01:41,400
beginning with the segment
in "Paris vu par" ...

17
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:44,810
He didn't do "Suzanne's Career"
or "The Bakery Girl of Monceau",

18
00:01:45,400 --> 00:01:51,079
but he'd shot some educational
films for me.

19
00:01:53,170 --> 00:01:57,480
Nestor said, ''Use 35mm. It won't cost
much more, and it's better.''

20
00:01:58,280 --> 00:02:00,890
I hesitated thinking if we shot
in 35mm,

21
00:02:01,450 --> 00:02:05,760
it'd be a vicious circle.
Everything would cost more.

22
00:02:06,549 --> 00:02:12,030
He said, ''No, I can get a 35mm camera
cheaply, and we'll use very little film.''

23
00:02:12,990 --> 00:02:18,669
Film stock was precious back then.
When filming, it's usually: ''Camera,''

24
00:02:20,000 --> 00:02:26,419
then ''Clapper'', then ''Action!'', I did
the opposite. First I said, ''Action!''

25
00:02:27,509 --> 00:02:32,900
Then, if it was going well, I tapped
the cameraman and he started filming.

26
00:02:44,129 --> 00:02:46,530
MOVIE TALK

27
00:03:07,580 --> 00:03:09,099
"La Collectionneuse" was based

28
00:03:09,520 --> 00:03:11,860
on a story
I'd written a long time ago,

29
00:03:12,389 --> 00:03:15,520
before 1950. It was very old.

30
00:03:16,159 --> 00:03:20,379
The only thing
I kept was the structure,

31
00:03:21,159 --> 00:03:24,500
and, in particular, the bit about
the Chinese vase.

32
00:03:25,169 --> 00:03:28,889
I changed the characters completely.

33
00:03:29,599 --> 00:03:33,939
In the film they were based
on the actors portraying them.

34
00:03:34,740 --> 00:03:39,629
I used the actors I had on hand.
They were Barbet Schroeder's friends,

35
00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:45,909
and I found their personalities
really interesting,

36
00:03:46,849 --> 00:03:51,770
both the two men and Haydée,

37
00:03:52,659 --> 00:03:55,409
and I thought I could
fit them into the story.

38
00:03:56,000 --> 00:03:59,870
I had the story, but I had to modify
it to include them.

39
00:04:00,599 --> 00:04:04,110
One character was difficult to modify
the narrator, Patrick Bauchau.

40
00:04:04,810 --> 00:04:07,650
That's why his character

41
00:04:08,240 --> 00:04:10,610
was completely my creation,

42
00:04:11,150 --> 00:04:14,280
and likewise his dialogue.

43
00:04:14,919 --> 00:04:16,500
Are you reading this?

44
00:04:16,920 --> 00:04:20,379
He had little input on dialogue and insisted
on keeping the character's name,

45
00:04:21,060 --> 00:04:23,430
which in the story was Adrien.

46
00:04:24,430 --> 00:04:28,379
Whereas Daniel Pommereulle's
character was much less defined

47
00:04:29,430 --> 00:04:33,240
so the character in the film
could become Daniel Pommereulle.

48
00:04:33,970 --> 00:04:38,600
His dialogue about painting,
about women, are his own words.

49
00:04:39,439 --> 00:04:44,480
I found his statements interesting,
so I said, ''Let's keep them.''

50
00:04:45,379 --> 00:04:47,870
It was true cinéma vérité.

51
00:04:48,420 --> 00:04:52,759
As for Haydée, her character was
more complex

52
00:04:53,550 --> 00:04:56,389
and difficult to fit into the film.

53
00:04:56,990 --> 00:04:59,069
For example, she denies being
a ''collector,''

54
00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:04,920
and what's amusing is that in the film
she denies it too.

55
00:05:05,870 --> 00:05:09,240
We talked a lot...

56
00:05:11,509 --> 00:05:15,170
and her words and expressions became
part of the film.

57
00:05:15,879 --> 00:05:20,889
In the film, I based the way
the characters speak on the actors.

58
00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:25,629
I'd like to return to the "Six Moral Tales".

59
00:05:26,319 --> 00:05:32,740
You've said you had the idea
for the first one, and then the last.

60
00:05:33,829 --> 00:05:37,959
I'd like you to explain how these
six films are connected.

61
00:05:39,029 --> 00:05:43,920
The Moral Tales were written as
variations on a theme.

62
00:05:44,810 --> 00:05:51,110
Actually, I realized that only after
they'd all been written.

63
00:05:52,180 --> 00:05:55,370
I saw they had the same theme.

64
00:05:56,019 --> 00:06:00,680
While pursuing one girl, a boy meets
another girl

65
00:06:01,519 --> 00:06:03,250
and spends the film with her,

66
00:06:03,689 --> 00:06:08,759
and at the end, he returns to the first girl,
realizing she's the one he really wants.

67
00:06:11,100 --> 00:06:12,939
That's the theme of all the Moral Tales.

68
00:06:13,399 --> 00:06:16,709
Of course, the audience isn't interested
in the girl he chooses

69
00:06:17,370 --> 00:06:22,060
but in the girl the film is about and
who gets abandoned at the end.

70
00:06:22,910 --> 00:06:25,519
So right off, the audience will be at
odds with the narrator

71
00:06:26,079 --> 00:06:29,240
and it's this tension that I find
interesting.

72
00:06:30,649 --> 00:06:34,110
I wanted the Moral Tales to be
very varied.

73
00:06:34,790 --> 00:06:39,569
I've noticed in films, and even in books

74
00:06:40,430 --> 00:06:42,269
that when an author makes his
characters talk

75
00:06:42,730 --> 00:06:45,829
the characters speak in the same
style as the author.

76
00:06:46,470 --> 00:06:48,689
It's very difficult to change your style,
maybe even impossible.

77
00:06:49,199 --> 00:06:54,149
Balzac manages to do it,

78
00:06:55,040 --> 00:06:58,000
but his efforts are often rather
conspicuous.

79
00:06:58,610 --> 00:07:02,040
He'll have a gypsy speaking
gibberish, for example.

80
00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:04,500
It's very difficult.

81
00:07:04,949 --> 00:07:09,370
I think the best solution is to
''cut and paste''

82
00:07:10,189 --> 00:07:11,920
using the words of other people.

83
00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:15,019
That's why, in the Moral Tales,

84
00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:19,439
I often used my actors' own words.

85
00:07:20,170 --> 00:07:22,600
I did this for "La Collectionneuse"
as well as "Claire's Knee"

86
00:07:23,139 --> 00:07:25,800
with Aurora, a foreigner who speaks
French her own way,

87
00:07:26,370 --> 00:07:30,529
and a bit with Vitez's character in
"My Night at Maud's".

88
00:07:31,649 --> 00:07:36,889
He was the only one who collaborated
on his own dialogue.

89
00:07:40,660 --> 00:07:44,000
This allowed me to obtain a
language which was quite obscure.

90
00:07:44,660 --> 00:07:47,350
In fact I don't always understand it.

91
00:07:47,930 --> 00:07:51,910
There are words and references
that I don't know.

92
00:07:52,670 --> 00:07:57,360
But the actors were very picky
about the words they used.

93
00:07:58,209 --> 00:08:02,550
They wouldn't allow substitutions.
They'd absolutely refuse.

94
00:08:03,339 --> 00:08:06,910
This led to many arguments
about what words to use.

95
00:08:08,050 --> 00:08:11,649
This makes it seem affected, which can
be annoying in "La Collectionneuse",

96
00:08:12,350 --> 00:08:15,540
but it's very realistic, because
they really were like that.

97
00:08:16,189 --> 00:08:19,180
After "La Collectionneuse" came
"My Night at Maud's",

98
00:08:19,790 --> 00:08:21,629
which was a success.

99
00:08:22,100 --> 00:08:25,560
"La Collectionneuse" was a success too
on its own level.

100
00:08:26,230 --> 00:08:28,920
It played at only one movie theater,

101
00:08:29,500 --> 00:08:32,490
but it played there for months,

102
00:08:33,110 --> 00:08:35,129
and I think it sold
over 70,OOO tickets

103
00:08:35,610 --> 00:08:38,769
which is remarkable for a film
in only one theater.

104
00:08:39,409 --> 00:08:43,769
Audiences loved it. It's the only film
I made that followed the era's fashion.

105
00:08:44,590 --> 00:08:48,399
Audiences loved the new fashions
the long hair, the blue jeans.

106
00:08:49,120 --> 00:08:52,370
Then there was Haydée Politoff,

107
00:08:53,029 --> 00:08:55,899
whom audiences adored.

108
00:08:56,500 --> 00:08:59,370
Marcel Carné signed her for his
new film right after that.

109
00:08:59,970 --> 00:09:03,919
- She had a certain boldness.
- Yes, audiences loved that.

110
00:09:10,539 --> 00:09:14,200
Rivette did the camera work on a
film I made at Andre Bazin's house

111
00:09:14,919 --> 00:09:17,529
based on an Edgar Allan Poe story
called "Bérénice".

112
00:09:18,090 --> 00:09:22,009
He taught me to edit. I was too clumsy
to edit my films in 16mm,

113
00:09:22,759 --> 00:09:24,370
so he was my editor.

114
00:09:24,789 --> 00:09:27,570
"Bérénice" was your third short film?

115
00:09:28,159 --> 00:09:32,610
You made "Journal d'un Scélérat"
in which Gégauff played a role,

116
00:09:33,429 --> 00:09:35,889
and "Charlotte and Her Steak".

117
00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:39,600
You're right that was later.

118
00:09:40,240 --> 00:09:45,070
It was a film shot in 35mm
before Bérénice.

119
00:09:45,950 --> 00:09:47,500
It was released -

120
00:09:47,919 --> 00:09:49,970
It wasn't released until I found
financing.

121
00:09:50,450 --> 00:09:54,350
Godard had become famous by then,
so I thought the film might be shown.

122
00:09:59,029 --> 00:10:01,309
Because Godard appears in
that film.

123
00:10:04,529 --> 00:10:10,070
At the time, you made a lot of
short films, one after another.

124
00:10:11,039 --> 00:10:15,929
Actually, they were spread out
quite sparsely

125
00:10:16,809 --> 00:10:20,590
throughout the '50s.

126
00:10:21,320 --> 00:10:26,240
"Journal d'un Scélérat", in 16mm
was never finished.

127
00:10:27,120 --> 00:10:32,159
It was shot in 1949-50 almost as
a joke.

128
00:10:34,730 --> 00:10:38,980
Bérénice wasn't made until 1954,
I think.

129
00:10:39,769 --> 00:10:42,759
Another amateur film "La Sonate à Kreutzer"

130
00:10:43,370 --> 00:10:45,120
was made in 1956.

131
00:10:46,009 --> 00:10:50,200
Then, gradually, I got the idea to
write about cinema.

132
00:10:54,919 --> 00:11:00,929
I wrote an extremely long article
about color cinema.

133
00:11:01,960 --> 00:11:04,179
I thought color was the future
of cinema.

134
00:11:04,690 --> 00:11:07,299
People were frightened that
color meant the end of cinema

135
00:11:07,860 --> 00:11:10,990
just like they'd thought talking
pictures did earlier.

136
00:11:11,629 --> 00:11:14,529
I didn't have a clue about the
technical aspects of color film,

137
00:11:15,139 --> 00:11:18,649
but I wrote an article about
color aesthetics.

138
00:11:19,639 --> 00:11:23,620
I've lost it, but I've changed my mind
on the subject anyway.

139
00:11:24,379 --> 00:11:27,070
Was it ever published?

140
00:11:28,049 --> 00:11:31,830
I submitted the article to
Jean-Georges Auriol,

141
00:11:32,549 --> 00:11:35,620
chief editor at the Revue du cinéma.

142
00:11:37,019 --> 00:11:41,470
He read it and said, ''interesting,
but we just ran an article on color,''

143
00:11:42,299 --> 00:11:44,879
which was true.

144
00:11:48,100 --> 00:11:51,470
''But feel free to submit something
else.

145
00:11:52,139 --> 00:11:55,009
We're looking for articles on film
theory in general.''

146
00:11:55,610 --> 00:11:59,889
That's when I got the idea for an
article

147
00:12:00,679 --> 00:12:02,960
called "Cinema, the Art of Space".

148
00:12:03,850 --> 00:12:08,269
I believe all my theories on cinema
began with that article.

149
00:12:09,190 --> 00:12:12,259
Being both a film theorist

150
00:12:12,789 --> 00:12:16,190
and a filmmaker

151
00:12:16,860 --> 00:12:23,570
how did you view mainstream films
of the '50s?

152
00:12:24,710 --> 00:12:29,870
I viewed them with an attitude of
contempt

153
00:12:30,779 --> 00:12:33,940
natural to the outcast who knows
he'll never be accepted.

154
00:12:34,580 --> 00:12:38,769
That was my situation, and the situation
of all my friends at Cahiers du Cinéma.

155
00:12:39,549 --> 00:12:42,679
We knew that to storm the citadel
of the film industry,

156
00:12:43,320 --> 00:12:46,690
we'd have to produce our own
films

157
00:12:47,360 --> 00:12:53,039
because we'd never make them
by climbing the industry ladder.

158
00:12:54,029 --> 00:12:56,750
Our friends who'd tried, that
had run into walls

159
00:12:57,340 --> 00:13:00,090
because the film world is extremely
closed.

160
00:13:00,669 --> 00:13:03,250
Is that when you gave up teaching?

161
00:13:03,809 --> 00:13:06,179
I gave up teaching gradually.

162
00:13:06,710 --> 00:13:08,580
In a way, I never really gave it up,

163
00:13:09,049 --> 00:13:12,330
because I still have one foot
in the university...

164
00:13:15,559 --> 00:13:20,860
but I taught actively until 1956.

165
00:13:22,460 --> 00:13:26,879
It was harder for young filmmakers
back then than it is today.

166
00:13:27,700 --> 00:13:31,889
Even so, you can draw a parallel
between then and now

167
00:13:32,669 --> 00:13:34,629
because cinema is now in a crisis

168
00:13:35,110 --> 00:13:39,210
similar to that in the 1950s
perhaps worse.

169
00:13:39,980 --> 00:13:44,460
But it's different. The avant-garde
has become the mainstream.

170
00:13:45,289 --> 00:13:48,039
Before, there was commercial
cinema

171
00:13:48,620 --> 00:13:51,429
and ''outsider'' cinema which no
theaters would show.

172
00:13:52,029 --> 00:13:54,169
It was scorned.

173
00:13:54,659 --> 00:14:01,049
Now just about anyone can make
a film, but they can't get it shown.

174
00:14:02,139 --> 00:14:04,659
It might get a three-day run
somewhere, but that's all.

175
00:14:05,210 --> 00:14:09,250
It was a type of cinema hated
even by amateur filmmakers.

176
00:14:10,009 --> 00:14:13,879
They admired professional-looking films
in 35mm with special effects, etc.

177
00:14:14,620 --> 00:14:19,340
But now you can make, films
in 8mm or 16mm

178
00:14:20,190 --> 00:14:22,360
and there's always some sort
of audience.

179
00:14:22,860 --> 00:14:26,700
Back then
the only audience for it

180
00:14:27,429 --> 00:14:30,590
was at the Ciné-club du Quartier Latin
and that was it.

181
00:14:31,230 --> 00:14:35,070
Everything changed in the
late '50s

182
00:14:35,799 --> 00:14:39,870
when new technology made
filmmaking cheaper,

183
00:14:40,639 --> 00:14:42,809
leading to the birth of the
New Wave.

184
00:14:43,639 --> 00:14:50,169
When Chabrol managed
to get funding for his first films,

185
00:14:51,289 --> 00:14:55,419
and Truffaut's first film was a success
plus the press coverage of all this,

186
00:14:56,190 --> 00:15:00,440
since you'd had more experience

187
00:15:01,230 --> 00:15:07,149
and had made
a few short films already,

188
00:15:08,169 --> 00:15:12,070
did you have trouble
getting your first feature made?

189
00:15:12,809 --> 00:15:18,169
I hadn't made so many films.
I'd made a few in 16mm.

190
00:15:19,110 --> 00:15:22,070
In 35mm

191

00:15:22,679 --> 00:15:27,629
I made one with Godard, "Presentation"
(Charlotte and Her Steak)

192
00:15:28,519 --> 00:15:32,029
then another that Chabrol produced,

193
00:15:32,730 --> 00:15:35,570
but that was linked to
"Le Signe du Lion".

194
00:15:36,159 --> 00:15:42,019
Chabrol made it possible for me
to make "Le Signe du Lion".

195
00:15:43,570 --> 00:15:45,590
He produced it.

196
00:15:46,210 --> 00:15:53,009
Didn't Gégauff lend his name
to try to attract backers?

197
00:15:54,149 --> 00:15:56,340
No, Gégauff's name wasn't important.

198
00:15:56,850 --> 00:16:01,129
He helped me with the dialogue.
It's fairly complex.

199
00:16:02,360 --> 00:16:07,720
Someone who knew Godard well saw
this film and said, ''That's Godard's story.''

200
00:16:08,659 --> 00:16:11,059
It could have been the story
of any one of us,

201
00:16:11,600 --> 00:16:14,409
since we'd all found ourselves
in Paris or elsewhere

202
00:16:15,000 --> 00:16:17,929
in situations as miserable as
the one in "Le Signe du Lion".

203
00:16:18,539 --> 00:16:24,139
Gégauff influenced not only me
but Chabrol - you see it in his films -

204
00:16:25,110 --> 00:16:29,029
and Godard as well. You can see it
in films like "Le Petit Soldat".

205
00:16:31,720 --> 00:16:36,289
Chabrol even suggested that
Gégauff play the character.

206
00:16:37,120 --> 00:16:38,929
I didn't agree.

207
00:16:39,389 --> 00:16:45,919
I wanted Jess Hahn an American
actor, for the role.

208
00:16:47,970 --> 00:16:52,220
Paul Gégauff got a dialogue credit,

209
00:16:53,009 --> 00:16:55,879
but, as he probably mentioned,

210
00:16:56,480 --> 00:17:01,549
his collaboration was only partial.
He wrote part of the dialogue.

211
00:17:02,450 --> 00:17:05,029
He didn't write very much of it.

212
00:17:05,589 --> 00:17:08,109
We worked one day.
I'd show him the dialogue,

213
00:17:08,660 --> 00:17:11,559
and he'd say:
''I don't like that. Try this.''

214
00:17:12,160 --> 00:17:14,680
He himself doesn't claim
to have written the dialogue.

215
00:17:15,230 --> 00:17:20,799
He said, ''Claude used my name
with distributors to grease the wheels,''

216
00:17:21,769 --> 00:17:24,609
but he said he didn't contribute
much to the dialogue.

217
00:17:25,210 --> 00:17:28,670
But I'd like to give him credit,

218
00:17:29,339 --> 00:17:34,559
because his personality had a
strong influence

219
00:17:35,480 --> 00:17:38,410
on many of the films
of certain of his friends:

220
00:17:39,019 --> 00:17:41,009
Godard, myself and Chabrol.

221
00:17:41,490 --> 00:17:44,480
What was so special
about Gégauff?

222
00:17:45,089 --> 00:17:47,309
He had a very strong personality.

223
00:17:47,829 --> 00:17:51,900
- As a person, or in his books?
- Both. Himself and his ideas.

224
00:17:52,670 --> 00:17:56,829
With Godard it was more
Gégauff's sayings.

225
00:17:57,599 --> 00:18:01,230
For example, one of his sayings
was in "Le Petit Soldat".

226
00:18:01,940 --> 00:18:05,690
''I don't like sunny places.
I prefer Brittany.'' That's Gégauff.

227
00:18:08,279 --> 00:18:10,299
His way of being provocative?

228
00:18:10,779 --> 00:18:13,119
Yes, provocative and paradoxical.

229
00:18:14,519 --> 00:18:19,650
It was different with Chabrol's films.
He actually became the character.

230
00:18:20,559 --> 00:18:23,990
For example, Brialy's character
in "The Cousins".

231
00:18:24,670 --> 00:18:27,890
When" Le Signe du Lion" was
released

232
00:18:28,539 --> 00:18:33,319
did it profit from the success
of the New Wave

233
00:18:34,170 --> 00:18:39,059
and the fact audiences were interested
in young filmmakers making their debuts.

234
00:18:39,950 --> 00:18:45,339
You were older than your colleagues,
but you were still new.

235
00:18:46,289 --> 00:18:49,420
How was the film received
when it was released?

236
00:18:50,059 --> 00:18:52,690
Badly. It wasn't released at
the height of the New Wave

237
00:18:53,259 --> 00:18:59,849
but at the ''ebb tide'' in 1962.

238
00:19:00,970 --> 00:19:05,309
Quite naively - they weren't
trying to be nasty

239
00:19:06,109 --> 00:19:09,180
Chabrol's new producers thought

240
00:19:09,809 --> 00:19:13,059
the film would be less boring
if they shortened it.

241
00:19:13,710 --> 00:19:17,309
Since the music in
"Le Signe du Lion" was modern

242
00:19:18,019 --> 00:19:21,329
and atonal...

243
00:19:23,490 --> 00:19:29,059
and might hurt many people's ears,

244
00:19:30,700 --> 00:19:34,069
it was replaced with very
conventional music.

245
00:19:34,740 --> 00:19:38,170
Similar things happened on
"L'Atalante".

246
00:19:38,839 --> 00:19:41,089
He did that without my knowledge,

247
00:19:41,609 --> 00:19:47,210
but luckily the profession harbored
certain honest souls who alerted me.

248
00:19:48,180 --> 00:19:51,369
The editors told me what he'd
done.

249
00:19:52,019 --> 00:19:55,740
I tried to do what I could.

250
00:19:56,789 --> 00:19:59,400
I turned to Langlois, and he helped.

251
00:20:01,660 --> 00:20:06,410
Finally, the producer and I
came to an agreement:

252
00:20:07,269 --> 00:20:11,690
Only my original version
would be shown in theaters.

253
00:20:12,509 --> 00:20:15,579
Anyway, no theater in Paris
would've shown the edited version.

254
00:20:16,210 --> 00:20:19,049
But finally, the original version
was shown

255
00:20:19,650 --> 00:20:21,759
at La Pagode in Paris.

256
00:20:22,250 --> 00:20:27,700
And the version they'd cut, the
''amputated'' version, would be shown -

257
00:20:28,660 --> 00:20:30,799
I really don't know where.

258
00:20:31,289 --> 00:20:33,630
Unfortunately, I think it was
shown in England,

259
00:20:34,160 --> 00:20:37,029
even though they'd promised
not to show it abroad.

260
00:20:37,630 --> 00:20:43,720
This first release must have made
it hard for you

261
00:20:45,009 --> 00:20:49,549
to make another film.

262
00:20:50,380 --> 00:20:56,619
Terribly hard, because I had
to start over from scratch

263
00:20:57,680 --> 00:21:01,630
and make films in 16mm.

264
00:21:04,319 --> 00:21:08,569
Outside the commercial film circuit

265
00:21:09,599 --> 00:21:11,500
of ''theatrical releases,''

266
00:21:11,970 --> 00:21:17,130
did you produce
your films in 16mm for -

267
00:21:18,039 --> 00:21:22,930
After "Le Signe du Lion", I was finished.
No producer would back me.

268
00:21:23,809 --> 00:21:29,380
Godard pulled some strings to get me
a producer: de Beauregard.

269
00:21:30,349 --> 00:21:34,009
I tried to do a film with him but he
was in dire financial straits

270
00:21:34,720 --> 00:21:37,819
due to troubles "Le Petit Soldat"
was having with the censors,

271
00:21:38,460 --> 00:21:40,480
so nothing ever came of it.

272
00:21:40,960 --> 00:21:42,799
I'll tell you about the project.

273
00:21:43,259 --> 00:21:46,359
It was an adaptation of Dostoyevsky.

274
00:21:47,869 --> 00:21:54,019
Translations vary, but I used the title
"Une Femme Douce".

275
00:21:56,509 --> 00:21:58,970
After that I pitched it to someone else...

276
00:22:01,079 --> 00:22:05,940
but in the end the film was never
made.

277
00:22:06,819 --> 00:22:12,740
In your film career, you made the
Moral Tales,

278
00:22:13,759 --> 00:22:20,470
but you didn't adapt another
author's work until "The Marquise of O".

279
00:22:21,799 --> 00:22:29,359
So with these six films you became
defined as an auteur,

280
00:22:30,609 --> 00:22:33,009
because you wrote and conceived
your own films.

281
00:22:33,549 --> 00:22:38,880
What led you to make the
"Six Moral Tales"?

282
00:22:39,819 --> 00:22:42,339
Production constraints.

283
00:22:42,890 --> 00:22:46,369
I realized that once again
I could only make amateur films...

284
00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:50,119
because I couldn't find a producer.

285
00:22:51,630 --> 00:22:57,460
That's when I got the idea
of using certain subjects,

286
00:22:58,470 --> 00:23:02,809
subjects I'd tried to make into
short stories

287
00:23:03,609 --> 00:23:05,779
when I was very young.

288
00:23:08,579 --> 00:23:13,380
I realized that these stories had
a common theme.

289
00:23:14,250 --> 00:23:17,500
Actually, there were only four stories.

290
00:23:18,160 --> 00:23:21,880
I had to add two more because
I wanted six.

291
00:23:22,599 --> 00:23:25,230
Any special reason for that number?

292
00:23:25,799 --> 00:23:30,579
I'm a little superstitious about numbers.

293
00:23:31,440 --> 00:23:36,420
The number six crops up in authors
from Virgil to Stevenson,

294
00:23:37,309 --> 00:23:39,329
favorite writers of mine.

295
00:23:43,619 --> 00:23:48,950
So I completely rewrote the stories
and added two more.

296
00:23:49,890 --> 00:23:52,289
I'd thought out the first one
but hadn't written it yet.

297
00:23:52,829 --> 00:23:56,369
I had the "Bakery Girl of Monceau"
in my mind as a short story.

298
00:23:57,059 --> 00:24:00,779
And the last one was conceived
as an end to the series.

299
00:24:01,500 --> 00:24:03,809
That was "Love in the Afternoon".

300
00:24:04,339 --> 00:24:08,380
That's when I decided to make films
in 16mm.

301
00:24:09,140 --> 00:24:11,069
Why bother with bulky cameras

302
00:24:11,549 --> 00:24:17,380
when you could make films in 16mm
under much better conditions?

303
00:24:18,390 --> 00:24:20,470
- With synchronized sound?
- Yes.

304
00:24:20,950 --> 00:24:23,089
At the time, we'd just discovered
Canadian cinema.

305
00:24:23,589 --> 00:24:26,339
We'd seen many Canadian films
in 16mm

306
00:24:27,059 --> 00:24:30,099
that were perfect from a
technical viewpoint.

307
00:24:30,730 --> 00:24:33,160
And Michel Brault made a film
in France

308
00:24:33,700 --> 00:24:36,799
shot by Rouch with the famous
Coutant camera.

309
00:24:37,440 --> 00:24:39,779
The first time I saw that camera
was when Rouch used it.

310
00:24:40,309 --> 00:24:42,940
I thought,
''Why not make films in 16mm?''

311
00:24:43,509 --> 00:24:51,220
There were so many advantages to 16mm
that it became the norm for TV

312
00:24:52,490 --> 00:24:55,829
but for theatrical releases it was
easier to do a blow-up print.

313
00:24:56,490 --> 00:25:00,589
It's difficult to project 16mm directly,
even in small theaters.

314
00:25:01,359 --> 00:25:04,730
There's a problem with the sound,
optical sound.

315
00:25:05,400 --> 00:25:10,289
We've never managed to get
good-quality optical sound.

316
00:25:11,170 --> 00:25:14,160
- You could use a double system print.
- The theater has to be equipped.

317
00:25:14,769 --> 00:25:17,839
If a 16mm film is projected using
perfectly adjusted equipment,

318
00:25:18,480 --> 00:25:20,910
the quality is as good as 35mm,

319
00:25:21,450 --> 00:25:24,490
but that equipment is difficult
to get.

320
00:25:25,119 --> 00:25:31,539
In short, it's a technical problem
that's never been resolved.

321
00:25:32,630 --> 00:25:38,400
Even though I was wrong about 16mm
being the future of cinema,

322
00:25:39,400 --> 00:25:44,230
I was still right in terms
of shooting and distribution,

323
00:25:45,109 --> 00:25:51,730
because increasingly, films are shot
in 16mm and then blown up to 35mm.

324
00:25:54,109 --> 00:25:59,880
When Barbet Schroeder made
"Paris vu par"...

325
00:26:00,890 --> 00:26:03,849
it was a way of applying my ideas
about 16mm.

326
00:26:04,460 --> 00:26:08,559
We discovered it was impossible, and the
lab said, ''Why don't you do a blow-up?''

327
00:26:09,329 --> 00:26:11,940
We were afraid a 35mm blow-up
wouldn't come out well.

328
00:26:12,500 --> 00:26:16,950
On the contrary, a 16mm film looks better
when it's blown up to 35mm.

329
00:26:18,740 --> 00:26:21,200
Then why aren't you still
shooting in 16mm?

330
00:26:21,740 --> 00:26:26,460
Because if you can afford it,
it's still better to shoot directly in 35mm.

331
00:26:28,349 --> 00:26:32,980
One of the paradoxes of cinema...

332
00:26:34,720 --> 00:26:38,440
is that it has form without content.

333
00:26:39,160 --> 00:26:43,500
Cinema's lack of ideas is its
deepest flaw.

334
00:26:44,299 --> 00:26:49,099
I myself, as a filmmaker, lack ideas,
and that's probably why I made films.

335
00:26:49,970 --> 00:26:52,140
I'm not an author. I have no ideas.

336
00:26:52,640 --> 00:26:55,859
And when I speak with my friends,
they often say,

337
00:26:56,509 --> 00:26:58,440
I don't have any ideas either.

338
00:26:58,910 --> 00:27:03,950
Very often it's the people with the fewest
ideas who end up having the most.

339
00:27:04,849 --> 00:27:07,690
A story either comes about by
chance,

340
00:27:08,289 --> 00:27:16,230
or it's the fruit of a thought process
that takes a long time to develop.

341
00:27:18,329 --> 00:27:19,619
Not bad.

342
00:27:20,029 --> 00:27:21,460
Wait, I'll help you.

343
00:27:38,990 --> 00:27:41,099
Stop it. You'll make me fall.

344
00:27:46,630 --> 00:27:52,200
Very few films have truly original
scripts.

345
00:27:53,170 --> 00:27:55,950
Today's scripts aren't very original,
though perhaps more than before,

346
00:27:56,539 --> 00:28:04,220
but on the other hand, they lack
the compelling power of earlier cinema.

347
00:28:05,480 --> 00:28:07,730
Scripts used to be adapted
from existing stories

348
00:28:08,250 --> 00:28:11,819
that were thrilling, interesting,
enthralling for audiences.

349
00:28:12,519 --> 00:28:14,769
Now scripts are pages
from private journals,

350
00:28:15,289 --> 00:28:17,690
so the audiences
isn't as interested

351
00:28:18,220 --> 00:28:23,730
even if it's a very refined,
intellectual one.

352
00:28:24,700 --> 00:28:31,059
What's the cause of this?
Is it harder to write screenplays?

353
00:28:32,140 --> 00:28:34,980
Are there fewer novels around?

354
00:28:35,579 --> 00:28:39,529
There's the evolution of literature
of the novel.

355
00:28:40,279 --> 00:28:45,609
The novel has been attacked.
It's lost its credibility.

356
00:28:46,549 --> 00:28:49,980
The essential quality of cinema
isn't found in the script.

357
00:28:50,660 --> 00:28:54,670
I think cinema can clothe the
fictional form

358
00:28:55,430 --> 00:28:58,470
especially the fictional form,
and also the theatrical form.

359
00:28:59,099 --> 00:29:01,940
But theater also has content.
It's not just a form.

360
00:29:02,539 --> 00:29:05,880
You write a play and you can read it.
It's meant to be read.

361
00:29:06,539 --> 00:29:08,319
It's nothing like a novel.

362
00:29:08,779 --> 00:29:11,180
But a script doesn't exist
apart from a film.

363
00:29:11,710 --> 00:29:13,990
Story and script are different.

364
00:29:14,509 --> 00:29:20,690
A story can be told as a play
or a novel,

365
00:29:21,759 --> 00:29:25,920
and there are authors who
write both.

366
00:29:26,690 --> 00:29:29,150
For example, Marguerite Duras

367
00:29:29,700 --> 00:29:32,740
can adapt her novels
and her plays to the screen.

368
00:29:33,369 --> 00:29:41,990
But a script is the screen adaptation
of a story. It's a bit different.

369
00:29:47,450 --> 00:29:49,289
Today...

370
00:29:50,420 --> 00:29:55,900
since cinematographic form is
increasingly valued as a subject in itself,

371
00:29:56,859 --> 00:30:00,579
stories, of course, aren't as
strong as they used to be.

372
00:30:02,230 --> 00:30:05,660
Perhaps the Moral Tales were

373
00:30:06,329 --> 00:30:09,670
my contribution to this research
on subject matter.

374
00:30:10,640 --> 00:30:15,240
Before making the Moral Tales,
your principal activity was teaching.

375
00:30:16,079 --> 00:30:19,740
During the Moral Tales -
- I edited Cahiers du Cinéma.

376
00:30:20,450 --> 00:30:22,259
I basically lived at the office.

377
00:30:22,720 --> 00:30:25,240
Filmmaking was something
you did on the side?

378
00:30:25,789 --> 00:30:27,900
I remember one day,
at the Cahiers

379
00:30:28,390 --> 00:30:34,400
you lowered a cable to the courtyard
to record restaurant noises.

380
00:30:35,500 --> 00:30:39,339
"The Bakery Girl of Monceau"
allowed you to make the others?

381
00:30:40,000 --> 00:30:42,930
Yes, it snowballed from there, because
that's how I met Barbet Schroeder.

382
00:30:43,539 --> 00:30:47,289
He plays the male lead
in the movie

383
00:30:48,009 --> 00:30:50,940
and he wanted to be a producer.

384
00:30:52,549 --> 00:30:53,720
After that film

385
00:30:54,079 --> 00:30:58,619
he scraped together funding for
"Paris vu par"...

386
00:30:59,450 --> 00:31:01,349
With Rouch and Godard.

387
00:31:01,819 --> 00:31:07,910
Those filmmakers were chosen
at my suggestion.

388
00:31:08,960 --> 00:31:14,349
They were filmmakers I found
interesting and worthy of support.

389
00:31:15,299 --> 00:31:18,700
We also approached some others,
who turned us down.

390
00:31:19,369 --> 00:31:21,240
Jacques Rozier, for example.

391
00:31:21,710 --> 00:31:23,670
There was Chabrol, Douchet -

392
00:31:24,140 --> 00:31:29,029
There was Chabrol, Douchet
Jean Rouch, Godard, Jean-Daniel Pollet.

393
00:31:29,920 --> 00:31:32,529
I really liked his film -

394
00:31:37,420 --> 00:31:40,049
"Pour vu qu'on ait l'Ivresse"...

395
00:31:41,660 --> 00:31:44,440
And myself. That makes six.

396
00:31:46,269 --> 00:31:48,670
So "Paris vu par"...

397
00:31:49,200 --> 00:31:53,650
The title is "Paris vu par" Godard,
Chabrol, etc.

398
00:31:55,480 --> 00:31:58,380
Schroeder stayed on with you

399
00:31:58,980 --> 00:32:02,849
to co-produce "Suzanne's Career"
and "My Night at Maud's".

400
00:32:03,579 --> 00:32:05,309
It all happened at the same time.

401
00:32:05,750 --> 00:32:11,140
Making "Paris vu par"... took a long time.
I think a year in all.

402
00:32:12,089 --> 00:32:14,279
The segments were made one
after the other.

403
00:32:14,789 --> 00:32:17,069
We thought that if we couldn't
make the film

404
00:32:17,599 --> 00:32:20,940
at least we could sell them or get
production credit as short films.

405
00:32:21,599 --> 00:32:24,000
It was all very complicated.

406
00:32:24,539 --> 00:32:26,559
That's when I made my second film,
"Suzanne's Career".

407
00:32:27,609 --> 00:32:31,680
Those two films
"The Bakery Girl of Monceau"

408
00:32:32,450 --> 00:32:34,089
and "Suzanne's Career"

409
00:32:34,509 --> 00:32:37,789
were sold to French television

410
00:32:39,549 --> 00:32:42,539
thanks to Jean-José Marchand,
who saw them, liked them

411
00:32:43,160 --> 00:32:45,849
and bought them.

412
00:32:48,059 --> 00:32:50,019
They were shown on TV?

413
00:32:50,559 --> 00:32:53,250
"Suzanne's Career" was aired once

414
00:32:53,829 --> 00:32:56,380
and I think "The Bakery Girl of Monceau"
was aired several times.

415
00:32:57,269 --> 00:32:59,200
I think it was aired twice.

416
00:32:59,670 --> 00:33:01,660
"Suzanne's Career" was aired
in '63.

417
00:33:02,140 --> 00:33:06,420
I think "The Bakery Girl" looked better on TV
than "Suzanne's Career".

418
00:33:07,410 --> 00:33:09,549
I saw them both on TV.

419
00:33:12,150 --> 00:33:14,869
That brought in a tiny amount
of money

420
00:33:15,460 --> 00:33:19,769
that allowed us to buy film stock
for "La Collectionneuse".

421
00:33:21,029 --> 00:33:25,720
There's a characteristic of the
"Moral Tales" that I like.

422
00:33:26,569 --> 00:33:31,640
Actually two things. One is the
question of location.

423
00:33:34,640 --> 00:33:39,029
In the "Moral Tales" and your segment
of "Paris vu par"...

424
00:33:39,849 --> 00:33:42,339
we always know where we are.

425
00:33:42,880 --> 00:33:47,329
It's not easy to change shots and have
audiences know where they are

426
00:33:48,150 --> 00:33:50,730
in terms of the previous shot
and the following one.

427
00:33:51,690 --> 00:33:57,839
The second thing is what could be
called the ''traditional'' aspect,

428
00:33:58,900 --> 00:34:01,390
the dialogue in your films.

429
00:34:02,769 --> 00:34:07,049
This became increasingly important
with each Moral Tale.

430
00:34:08,269 --> 00:34:12,719
In the first one there's a story
and a setting,

431
00:34:13,550 --> 00:34:17,800
and bit by bit, discussions grow
out of this.

432
00:34:19,449 --> 00:34:21,730
Your films sometimes have a
literary form.

433
00:34:22,260 --> 00:34:26,360
Certainly. My films are filmed
conversations.

434

00:34:27,130 --> 00:34:30,230
I admit it wasn't very unique in
the '60s,

435
00:34:30,860 --> 00:34:35,400
and my friends' films also contain
conversations.

436
00:34:36,239 --> 00:34:39,429
Maybe presented differently,
but Godard's films contain conversations.

437
00:34:40,070 --> 00:34:42,030
Breathless has conversations.

438
00:34:42,510 --> 00:34:46,550
Yes, certainly, but they're always -

439
00:34:47,309 --> 00:34:50,090
Yours are on
a different philosophical level.

440
00:34:50,679 --> 00:34:53,699
Yes, but there's a common spirit.

441
00:34:54,320 --> 00:34:58,360
When people used to define
the Cinéma de Qualité in the '50s,

442
00:34:59,130 --> 00:35:04,349
they said cinema was, after all,
drama

443
00:35:05,260 --> 00:35:11,349
so lines shouldn't be too long to
keep things moving.

444
00:35:12,409 --> 00:35:16,449
Is there a linguistic style
specific to literature or cinema?

445
00:35:17,210 --> 00:35:19,579
Or theater?

446
00:35:20,110 --> 00:35:23,070
Perhaps theater is better at
conveying ideas.

447
00:35:23,880 --> 00:35:28,239
But now this is also done in cinema
in Rohmer's films.

448
00:35:29,059 --> 00:35:31,110
You don't see this very often,
which is why -

449
00:35:31,590 --> 00:35:36,010
- But theater is made to be spoken.
- That's exactly my question.

450
00:35:36,829 --> 00:35:38,440
Plato's Dialogues aren't made
to be spoken.

451
00:35:38,869 --> 00:35:42,300
It didn't give me the idea,
but what encouraged me,

452
00:35:42,969 --> 00:35:47,480
what gave me the daring to use
very long conversations in a film,

453
00:35:48,309 --> 00:35:53,230
was being at Cahiers du Cinéma
and interviewing directors.

454
00:35:54,110 --> 00:35:56,570
That was my job.

455
00:35:57,119 --> 00:35:59,260
I dealt with a lot of people,

456
00:35:59,750 --> 00:36:06,400
but I also transcribed the recordings
and edited the interviews.

457
00:36:07,530 --> 00:36:11,369
That taught me how people speak.

458
00:36:12,099 --> 00:36:17,429
I realized they don't speak the way
characters do in novels.

459
00:36:18,369 --> 00:36:22,650
Sometimes they speak
in a very literary style,

460
00:36:23,440 --> 00:36:25,340
in very long sentences.

461
00:36:25,809 --> 00:36:30,090
And I tried - and succeeded since
it came naturally at that point -

462
00:36:30,880 --> 00:36:36,239
to have my characters in "My Night
at Maud's" use the same expressions

463
00:36:37,190 --> 00:36:42,519
used by people in interviews
I'd transcribed for Cahiers du Cinéma.

464
00:36:43,460 --> 00:36:46,679
But audiences aren't used to this.

465
00:36:47,329 --> 00:36:50,320
They're getting used to it.

466
00:36:50,940 --> 00:36:54,070
TV shows like this one are common now
and they're just recorded conversations.

467
00:36:54,710 --> 00:36:56,730
Tape recorders are part of our
lives now.

468
00:36:57,210 --> 00:37:03,159
I think perhaps the great discovery
that made the New Wave possible

469
00:37:04,179 --> 00:37:10,769
wasn't the 16mm or hand-held camera
but the tape recorder.

470
00:37:12,360 --> 00:37:14,260
If I didn't read, I'd think

471
00:37:14,730 --> 00:37:18,829
and thinking is the hardest,
most demanding thing of all.

472
00:37:21,670 --> 00:37:23,599
I think people think too much.

473
00:37:24,400 --> 00:37:26,679
The main thing is to be absorbed,

474
00:37:27,210 --> 00:37:30,610
and a book forces me to think
its way.

475
00:37:31,280 --> 00:37:34,150
What I don't want is to think my
own way.

476
00:37:34,750 --> 00:37:35,920
I want to be led.

477
00:37:36,280 --> 00:37:39,000
Like an Arab. In a street, he feels
the street

478
00:37:39,590 --> 00:37:41,170
while we think about the goal.

479
00:37:41,590 --> 00:37:45,070
It was an Arab who said, ''One is
the first figure of an endless number.''

480
00:37:47,789 --> 00:37:49,659
An idea is a flash.

481
00:37:50,260 --> 00:37:52,750
We have just three or four
original ideas in our lifetime.

482
00:37:53,769 --> 00:37:56,199
People who are always
thinking don't exist.

483
00:37:56,739 --> 00:37:58,909
Look at Dali's ''melted watches'',
for example.

484
00:38:00,969 --> 00:38:03,219
It's true.
I'm looking for nothing.

485
00:38:04,480 --> 00:38:06,849
If I come across Rousseau,
I read Rousseau.

486
00:38:07,380 --> 00:38:09,750
I could just as well read
Don Quixote.

487
00:38:10,679 --> 00:38:12,579
If a pretty girl fell in my arms,
I'd take her...

488
00:38:13,050 --> 00:38:15,889
It developed the audience's ear.

489
00:38:16,489 --> 00:38:18,980
They were used to hearing theater.
Now it's very different.

490
00:38:19,530 --> 00:38:22,489
One the best things about
Cahiers du Cinéma was the interviews.

491
00:38:23,099 --> 00:38:25,730
Each new issue
was eagerly awaited,

492
00:38:26,300 --> 00:38:32,039
because we felt like we were
in contact with Renoir, Ophüls -

493
00:38:33,340 --> 00:38:37,090
That wasn't done anywhere else.

494
00:38:37,809 --> 00:38:40,800
Now it's the norm
but it took a long time to catch on.

495
00:38:41,409 --> 00:38:46,630
Many journalists scorned tape recorders,
and some still do. They still take notes.

496
00:38:47,989 --> 00:38:53,969
Was making the film a gamble?
Did you wonder if it'd be a success?

497
00:38:54,989 --> 00:38:58,059
You always expect success, but I
didn't expect that big a success.

498
00:38:58,699 --> 00:39:03,969
I thought we might have trouble,
but that we'd break even.

499
00:39:04,900 --> 00:39:08,969
Even though your films contain
these conversations

500
00:39:09,739 --> 00:39:12,110
you haven't made it
into a trademark style.

501
00:39:12,650 --> 00:39:16,809
- Your latest film, "The Marquise of O"
- It has conversations too.

502
00:39:17,579 --> 00:39:22,590
No other director would have dared
to film a conversation

503
00:39:23,489 --> 00:39:28,909
as tiresome and static as the one
at the count's marriage.

504
00:39:29,860 --> 00:39:32,320
Others would have trimmed it
but I didn't

505
00:39:32,869 --> 00:39:36,380
because what I liked about Kleist's work
were his conversations.

506
00:39:37,070 --> 00:39:39,849
I admit I have trouble with language,
but it isn't insurmountable.

507
00:39:40,440 --> 00:39:43,659
If it were, I'd just do what I did for
"La Collectionneuse".

508
00:39:44,309 --> 00:39:48,440
I'd write dialogue based
on the way the actors spoke.

509
00:39:49,219 --> 00:39:52,940
I wouldn't put words in my characters'
mouths. It'd be artificial.

510
00:39:53,650 --> 00:39:56,750
I'd return to my old way
of working.

511
00:39:57,389 --> 00:40:02,989
Language specific to a certain
community changes quickly.

512
00:40:03,960 --> 00:40:07,829
It evolves, and expressions
go out of style.

513
00:40:08,570 --> 00:40:11,789
Especially among students,
or groups that evolve quickly.

514
00:40:12,440 --> 00:40:15,219
Working-class language doesn't change
as much, but it has changed.

515
00:40:15,809 --> 00:40:22,670
Will cinema suffer through language's
aging process like it does -

516
00:40:23,820 --> 00:40:25,519
Changing hairstyles.

517
00:40:25,949 --> 00:40:29,380
"La Collectionneuse" portrayed people
in synch with the times,

518
00:40:30,059 --> 00:40:34,400
but times have changed,
and language has changed accordingly,

519
00:40:35,190 --> 00:40:38,380
so now the film is
behind the times.

520
00:40:39,030 --> 00:40:42,400
But isn't it better to make films
in synch with the times,

521
00:40:43,070 --> 00:40:44,940
in tune with a certain period,

522
00:40:45,400 --> 00:40:48,300
rather than trying to make timeless
films that in the end -

523
00:40:48,909 --> 00:40:51,159
When you watch the "Rules of the
Game" today, you know it was in '39.

524
00:40:51,679 --> 00:40:53,960
This is a problem that concerns
me.

525
00:40:54,480 --> 00:40:58,840
In the past, I was drawn
by the way people spoke.

526
00:40:59,650 --> 00:41:01,429
I'm deeply interested in language.

527
00:41:01,889 --> 00:41:07,809
Currently, I find a kind of sloppiness
has crept into the French language...

528
00:41:10,730 --> 00:41:13,690
and I don't like it very much.

529
00:41:14,300 --> 00:41:16,610
I like colloquial language,
but today,

530
00:41:17,139 --> 00:41:19,750
especially as it's used,
in intellectual circles

531
00:41:21,840 --> 00:41:24,679
I find little of interest in it.

532
00:41:25,280 --> 00:41:28,380
For example,
no one uses inversion anymore,

533
00:41:29,010 --> 00:41:32,579
placing the verb before the subject
to signify a question.

534
00:41:33,289 --> 00:41:35,570
I don't like that.

535
00:41:37,619 --> 00:41:41,429
A Eustache film I liked had a
working-class setting,

536
00:41:42,159 --> 00:41:45,820
but the characters used inversion
maybe because they were southerners.

537
00:41:46,530 --> 00:41:49,219
Eustache's language is very literary.
I liked that.

538
00:41:49,800 --> 00:41:53,309
That said, I also believe characters
in film should speak naturally.

539
00:41:54,010 --> 00:41:57,670
I'm getting around this currently
by shooting films set in the past.

540
00:41:58,380 --> 00:42:02,130
When I return to contemporary films,
I don't know what my position will be.

541
00:42:02,849 --> 00:42:06,010
Perhaps by then language
will have evolved further.

542
00:42:06,650 --> 00:42:11,750
Today's spoken language
is so extremely impoverished...

543
00:42:13,559 --> 00:42:15,869
that it doesn't inspire me.

544
00:42:16,400 --> 00:42:18,329
You find the same dialogue
in every film now.

545
00:42:18,800 --> 00:42:22,639
I'm not saying it's artificial.
It's very close to how people really talk.

546
00:42:23,469 --> 00:42:25,369
Dialogue was much more artificial
in the '50s.

547
00:42:25,840 --> 00:42:30,179
But modern speech is extremely poor,
and dialogue isn't very interesting.

548
00:42:31,179 --> 00:42:36,369
You said you're making films
set in the past.

549
00:42:37,280 --> 00:42:39,420
What films are you referring to?

550
00:42:39,920 --> 00:42:41,670
"The Marquise of O" and the
following film.

551
00:42:43,159 --> 00:42:45,440
My next film is set in medieval times

552
00:42:45,960 --> 00:42:49,530
and the one after that may be set
in the past as well.

553
00:42:50,230 --> 00:42:51,900
What is your current project?

554
00:42:52,329 --> 00:42:55,429
"Perceval", based on Chrétien de
Troyes' version.

555
00:42:56,070 --> 00:42:59,349
It's my own translation in verse.

556
00:43:00,469 --> 00:43:02,840
It will be in verse in modern French

557
00:43:03,380 --> 00:43:05,630
but very close to the original.

558
00:43:06,150 --> 00:43:08,989
- Will you shoot it this year?
- I'll shoot it in a studio

559
00:43:09,579 --> 00:43:14,150
but unfortunately it's a big-budget film,
double the budget of my previous films,

560
00:43:14,989 --> 00:43:20,210
so I have to deal with commercial
concerns for the first time.

561
00:43:21,130 --> 00:43:25,550

Until now, I've been able to make my
films because they cost half as much

562
00:43:26,369 --> 00:43:31,760
as any film with comparable
production values.

563
00:43:32,710 --> 00:43:36,170
Is there a reason
for your return to the past?

564
00:43:36,840 --> 00:43:39,769
Are there lessons to be learned?

565
00:43:40,380 --> 00:43:43,860
I always dreamed of making films set
in the past, but I never had the budget.

566
00:43:44,550 --> 00:43:47,769
Now I do so I'm taking
advantage of it.

567
00:43:48,420 --> 00:43:53,900
Another reason is that
frankly right now...

568
00:43:57,460 --> 00:44:01,000
I have no ideas or stories
to tell about modern times

569
00:44:01,699 --> 00:44:04,309
and when I see others' films
I'm not satisfied.

570
00:44:04,869 --> 00:44:07,969
It always seems to be the
same story.

571
00:44:08,610 --> 00:44:11,360
I think we're in a terrible slump

572
00:44:11,940 --> 00:44:16,070
in terms of subject matter
for films about everyday life.

573
00:44:16,849 --> 00:44:20,800
The genre's come a long ways,
but now it's hit a dead end.

574
00:44:21,690 --> 00:44:25,500
Do you think American cinema
deals more with modern-day life?

575
00:44:26,159 --> 00:44:28,969
Yes, classic American cinema.

576
00:44:29,559 --> 00:44:33,400
They can even make films
about current events

577
00:44:34,130 --> 00:44:37,000
without making them ridiculous.
The French can't.

578
00:44:37,599 --> 00:44:41,409
Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon"
was based on a true story.

579
00:44:42,139 --> 00:44:45,619
I didn't see it
but I understand what you're saying.

580
00:44:46,309 --> 00:44:49,880
I'm not sure it works as well today.

581
00:44:51,849 --> 00:44:58,030
What has happened in recent
French history -

582
00:44:59,090 --> 00:45:04,159
I think cinema is linked to civilization
and American civilization

583
00:45:05,059 --> 00:45:09,039
rightly or wrongly,
is a model for every country.

584
00:45:09,800 --> 00:45:14,900
Due to this, anything that happens
in America is seen as a lesson

585
00:45:15,809 --> 00:45:19,289
and people copy it.

586
00:45:19,980 --> 00:45:22,909
A bank robbery,
or gangsters -

587
00:45:23,519 --> 00:45:25,769
If it happens in America,
it's an example.

588
00:45:26,289 --> 00:45:29,010
If it happens elsewhere, it's not.

589
00:45:29,590 --> 00:45:33,340
There's something else, a kind
of tradition

590
00:45:34,059 --> 00:45:38,070
a pragmatic side to Americans,
their action films, etc.

591
00:45:38,829 --> 00:45:42,460
The French are better at
psychological dramas.

592
00:45:43,170 --> 00:45:45,539
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality.

593
00:45:46,070 --> 00:45:49,639
I don't want to make a film
about a news item.

594
00:45:50,340 --> 00:45:53,210
I can read about it in the paper.
I might cover it for TV,

595
00:45:53,809 --> 00:45:57,679
but why make a fictional film
about a current event? It's absurd.

596
00:45:58,420 --> 00:46:01,409
I don't mind when Americans do it

597
00:46:02,019 --> 00:46:05,360
but it's a phenomenon I have
trouble understanding.

598
00:46:06,019 --> 00:46:10,000
Don't turn the present into fiction.
The present is reality.

599
00:46:10,760 --> 00:46:16,530
Reality is covered in depth in the news.
I don't see what fiction can add.

600
00:46:17,539 --> 00:46:20,440
In Arthur Penn's film released two
years ago,

601
00:46:21,039 --> 00:46:24,289
one of the characters says,
''I'm going to see a Rohmer film,''

602
00:46:24,940 --> 00:46:27,460
and the other character a detective,
answers

603
00:46:28,010 --> 00:46:30,789
''Watching a Rohmer film
is like watching paint dry.''

604
00:46:31,380 --> 00:46:34,570
I always wondered how you
reacted to that.

605
00:46:35,219 --> 00:46:37,679
I didn't see it, but I heard about it.
I didn't quite understand.

606
00:46:38,219 --> 00:46:41,239
He means my films are boring
and slow, right?

607
00:46:41,860 --> 00:46:46,460
One of the characters said it
an intellectual detective.

608
00:46:48,230 --> 00:46:50,420
I wondered how you reacted,

609
00:46:50,940 --> 00:46:54,920
because it's really a comment
on your cinematic style,

610
00:46:55,670 --> 00:46:57,280
but you didn't see it, so -

611
00:46:57,710 --> 00:47:00,639
No, but I accept his judgment.

612
00:47:01,250 --> 00:47:06,610
It's true that my films are made
up of conversations,

613
00:47:07,550 --> 00:47:12,500
and if the conversation doesn't
interest us, we feel excluded.

614
00:47:13,389 --> 00:47:15,409
It's a common criticism.

615
00:47:15,889 --> 00:47:17,789
The conversation in
"My Night at Maud's"

616
00:47:18,260 --> 00:47:20,980
might interest 3,000 people.

617
00:47:22,170 --> 00:47:26,150
No, that's too few.
Let's say 30,000.

618
00:47:26,909 --> 00:47:29,099
In the end 300,000 found it of
interest

619
00:47:29,610 --> 00:47:33,769
which surprised everyone, myself
included.

620
00:47:34,610 --> 00:47:36,920
The film was successful overseas

621
00:47:37,449 --> 00:47:39,289
Yes, this conversation in French

622
00:47:39,750 --> 00:47:43,760
on typically French subjects like
Pascal,

623
00:47:44,519 --> 00:47:49,559
interested Anglo-Saxons,
Scandinavians and others even more.

624
00:47:50,460 --> 00:47:52,599
Like in the other arts

625
00:47:53,099 --> 00:47:56,349
there are mainstream audiences

626
00:47:57,000 --> 00:47:58,840
and connoisseurs.

627
00:47:59,300 --> 00:48:02,369
Obviously, connoisseurs
should appreciate good work.

628
00:48:03,010 --> 00:48:06,260
Mainstream audiences might not
judge by the same criteria,

629
00:48:06,909 --> 00:48:10,309
but I think they instinctively
recognize good work.

630
00:48:10,980 --> 00:48:14,849
Some say only connoisseurs are capable
of recognizing quality in cinema,

631
00:48:15,590 --> 00:48:18,610
but I think general audiences
sense it too.

632
00:48:22,090 --> 00:48:24,869
This was the case

633
00:48:25,460 --> 00:48:28,269
during the Golden Age of
Hollywood.

634
00:48:28,869 --> 00:48:32,380
Audiences loved those films
and the rare connoisseurs

635
00:48:33,070 --> 00:48:36,030
in foreign countries like
France, etc.

636
00:48:36,639 --> 00:48:39,070
appreciated the films
for different reasons.

637
00:48:39,610 --> 00:48:42,889
When you write a script, do you have
a specific audience in mind?

638
00:48:43,550 --> 00:48:47,030
I believe you must always think
of your audience.

639
00:48:47,719 --> 00:48:51,179
Perhaps I've enjoyed some films
that despise their audience,

640
00:48:51,860 --> 00:48:55,760
but as for myself, I think of
the audience.

641
00:48:56,500 --> 00:48:59,019
I think of the audience

642
00:48:59,559 --> 00:49:04,719
and I've realized that my
audience is quite large.

643
00:49:05,639 --> 00:49:10,119
A great number of people
like my films,

644
00:49:10,940 --> 00:49:13,960
and what's more they like them
for the right reasons.

645
00:49:15,949 --> 00:49:20,019
My films aren't esoteric, written
for a select group of connoisseurs.

646
00:49:20,789 --> 00:49:26,590
Of course, they have little subtleties
that only connoisseurs will enjoy,

647
00:49:27,590 --> 00:49:28,989
but I don't write films
for them.

648
00:49:29,389 --> 00:49:31,730
Are you upset
'cause he didn't try anything?

649
00:49:32,730 --> 00:49:35,829
Would you believe me
if I said I slept with him?

650
00:49:37,139 --> 00:49:38,840
I'd believe anything,
coming from you.

651
00:49:39,269 --> 00:49:41,929
I know if you say yes,
it probably means no

652
00:49:42,510 --> 00:49:44,730
but could just as well mean yes.

653
00:49:56,860 --> 00:49:59,289
You're an immoral little slut.

654
00:49:59,989 --> 00:50:03,179
Well, I certainly wouldn't espouse
your moral code.

655
00:50:06,130 --> 00:50:09,059
MOVIE TALK

Nenhum comentário:

Arquivo do blog