Father Geek here in Central Texas posting another report from our man in Paris... This time its a couple of very interesting interviews involving two great new films and three great filmmakers...
Hi,Grozilla® here...
This year Fall is a very good season for films in France. Besides seeing very good films released, many directors are coming here promoting them. Here's two examples with Zak Penn chatting on his tricky Incident at Loch Ness, and Zhang Yimou on his beautiful House of Flying Daggers. I guess you'd better see The Herzog-Penn "documentary" before reading this interview so let's start with Yimou (and his astonishing answer about the Miramax release of Hero)... enjoy...
Now let's hear from Zak Penn on Incident at Loch Ness :
Hope you enjoyed those chats...
Till next time,
Grozilla®
Until Hero you were known as a filmaker using aestethic to serve a strong social purpose. What was your interest in Wu Xia Pian ?
There are two main difference between Wu Xia Pian and my previous films : the fight scenes and the stories dealing with medieval past. But they allowed me to use some modernity hidden in its codes so I can still talk about some contemporary subjects without fearing the chinese censorship : so many Wu Xia Pian are released there by year than it’s easier to camouflage some subtexts. That said, House of flying daggers doesn’t have some special meaning on nowadays China. I did concentrate on its entertainment abilities.
More than your previous work Hero and House of flying Daggers are formal work…
I’ve been very criticized in China about this side of the films. Wu Xia Pian is so popular there than audiences are used to its rules, to some comfort . However, that was what interested me : infiltrate some very codified genre with some very personal graphic point of view. I didn’t want to do two classical Wu Xia Pian but doing them in my own style. even if it means to take the risk that it is badly perceived. In China I’ve been told that I haven’t been able to understand the true spirit of Wu Xia Pian. I answered that if the first rule in Wu Xia Pian was to use imagination to invent stories, I might not be so far from this spirit by bringing to it my own imagination (laughs)
Hero and House of flying daggers are co-produced by western money. How to keep a chinese identity and at the same time satisfying western audiences ?
I never intended to do movies that satisfies both. Besides, with both films I received severe criticals. In China, I’m accused of doing films for western audience, in West I’m accused of doing films with some propaganda subtext… What does matter to me overall is art. I want to make movies who got huge aesthetic strength. If audience come out of Hero or House of flying daggers delighted and amazed by what they just saw, my goal is reached. I can’t and won’t take into acccount any trendy sensibility launched by media. I’m first drowned to a story to tell and the visual beauty I can bring to it. Anyway, although the critics, Hero and House of flying daggers, have been so far succesful in the countries where they were released. In some ways, it makes my point.
To some extent, the Wu Xia Pian characters and situations are close to opera’s in a archetypal way. You did direct operas. Would you see a link to those two genres ?
They’re strongly connected. Maybe because in the chinese tradition of both, they required a powerful formal sense. That’s why in the old purely chinese Wu Xia Pian, fight scenes rarely stands within an urban framework, using instead nature. In fact I’ve been influenced on some reverse way : as a kid, I’ve seen so many Wu Xia Pian that it nourished my work on opera. Hero and House of flying daggers were also a kind of homage, by giving back to Wu Xia Pian what I learned along in directing my previous films. Especially on fight scenes, that I wanted to visually magnify.
A few days before shooting, Anita Mui passed away. How did it affect the film ?
I had written a part especially for her. In a way it stayed in the film : there’s a female character that you won’t see the face because it was here part. The main change was with the end : the duel was originally between two men and two women, now it’s just à duel à trois…
The american release of Hero by Miramax has created a strong polemic. What’s your feeling towards it ?
I’ve grown up in a world requiring endless changes. So I’m used to it. Then, that Miramax modified my film for any marketing reason didn’t bothered me. I don’t know how works the americain market. I trusted them and let them do things I was psychologically ready for because of my education.
In reverse, Hollywood is invading mainland China. What changes does it imply for chinese cinema ?
This arrival has deeply changed the local audience’s taste. That’s a big and real threat. But, on the other side, it brings financial and technical facilities to my country. So there’s an alternative to this threat : learning to use their means to make our own films…
What was your point ? making a mockumentary or a reflexion about distance between fiction and reality ?
There was always the intention to do something that explored the difference between fiction and reality. From the very beginning that was something, both werner and I were interested in doing.
How did it begin ? Who thought of Herzog ?
I had the idea first, thanking it up in one day then ran it by Werner. I don’t think I would have done it without him. Or in a different way. I talked with other artists about it but I guess the movie is more about Werner that about Loch ness.
I would have say it’s mainly about Hollywood by dealing at core with what they called there creatives differences. In some ways, Incident at Loch ness is a satirization of Hollywood…
Yes. There’s definitely elements of that here…
More than parodying the myth of Herzog, you’re mocking this system by mocking yourself.
Werner is himself a legendary figure. He makes movies about legendary characters but he is similar to those. From that point, it is a movie about him. But it’s also about Hollwyood. But it’s more a way of using Hollywood to say something about Werner. There was no intention at the beginning of « this would be a great way to making fun of Hollywood ». It was more « this is a great way to shed some light on what is fascinating about Werner ».
I think as somebody who sees from outside, maybe you consider Hollywood as more proeminently but for us it was just a nice cliché.
It may have to do with us being in Hollywood, but we’re no so concerned by this place.
But the fact that you’re playing yourself, is a way to give strength to that cliché…
True. You conceived what you know. I work in Hollywood as a screenwriter, I am myself so I play myself in the movie. Inherently I bring what I have to the table. You can’t avoid you own nature. Werner denies his character is based on him, he’d say it’s just a story which is not about him. But to certain extent it is. In every story you tell you’re in there somewhere.
What was the more fun ? Making the movie or building the buzz around around, like the real stories printed in paper about Herzog shooting a documentary on Nessie or the « incident » ?
That’s a very difficult question. Making the movie was difficult… All the stuff around, this tempest in a tea pot has been fun to stir up. I like this kind of thing, surrounding nonsense is more fun is some ways than making the movie…
Incident… Has been screened in festivals as a « real » documentary. Ain’t that part of the process ?
That’s right (laughs). First of all, one of the point it makes is : look , obviously things in this movie are fake. There’s no question than when you see the movie, it would be clear to you that they are fake. They’re admittedly fake in the movie that says : sometthing is made up. In fact it talks about how it was made up. But the people in the movie are who they say they are. You can check that. Many of the things happening in the movie di happened in the real life. They were actually filmed, they were documentary. So it raises the question, which I’m pretty interested in : what’s the difference bewteen a documentary where you take footage of actual events and edit it so than no longer represent the actual events but your point of view and staging these events to represents what you wanna tell, what’s the difference between facts and fiction…
That’s why I’m happy to have this film in a documentary competition because it shapes things up a little bit.
So the key of the film is when Herzog speaks about « extatic truth » ?
True. The difference with documentary directors is they clearly are trying to set up something very rigourous. Just as some journalists are trying to report really sincerely the news but I think increasingly in our society it’s becoming harder and harder to distinguish those people. So maybe I’m adding to the problem or just trying to call attention to, I’m not sure (laughs). But I want people to be sitting in front of the movie and questioning themselves : « wait a second, before, I thought this was real and now I’m starting to wonder. And now I’m starting to wonder maybe it is real ». I think that if it does not let you passively sit there, then I’ve reached my goal. If people come out and say ok it’s definitelt true or definitely fake, then I would be disappointed.
But you’re giving many hints that it’s fake stuff we’re seeing… What was the line not to cross so the audience can believe in what they’re seeing ?
This line was over the place, because each person is different. There’s some people who don’t believe that Gabriel Beristain is a real DP. Who think that I made up this guy. Others who thinks we never flew away on the Loch Ness, who don’t believe we ever shoot scenes there. I swear to to you we were there… I Think it’s wondeful those people can doubt about that, that they can imagine more stuff than we ever had thought about making this movie. I don’t known where the line gets drawned. I think by the end of the movie people have a pretty clear idea of what’s fake and what’s real. I won’t tell you upfront, it will ruin it…
But with things like the music on the ending credits, you sort of confess this was all fake…
You said it…
We have audiences that thought this music was too offensive because two people died in the story…
Does the movie toys with the line between giving itself way and not ? Absolutely. It’s not intended to be Blair Witch project. We want you to believe what you see, period. It’s just a question about you being ready for that or not. We admit upfront a part of it is fabricated but also we’re trying to confuse you on what’s true and what isn’t. We’re just not telling you what because that’s part of the experience.
So that’s all about the ability of movies and directors to manipulate people…
That’s exactly what’s this about. Obviously the movie is funny. I didn’t want it to be boring. You’re over the head with my point. One thing I feel very strongly about it is,Werner would be the first to say this movie shouldn’t be an essay. Fundamentally I tried to say a good and funny story. There’s no questions that was going out of my head every step of the way, this movie is about manipulate you. Don’t forget most of the movie was improvised, so we had a plan but couldn’t always tell where it could go. Just like we couldn’t tell we get this type of press reaction when we announced the shooting. Those were real articles about Herzog making documentary on Nessie.
The press is part of the movie. Werner calls it the shadow screenplay of the movie. Just think the BBC asked if they coud do a documentary as a making of our movie…
By playing a producer so full of shit, was it a way to speak about of your own experience in Hollywood ?
It is. There are definitely moments in the movie that are referenced to some of my past in the studios. Other where my behaviour in the film is similar to some I experienced, although exaggerated. The movie is also taking a piss out of me a little bit, just like Werner does on himself. We just did because we know how to laught at ourselves. I can really explain why, but the movie has to be in a comic tone. Besides, there’s incredibly deeply humourous about Werner that needs to be seen. ‘Till now you’ve only seen the serious side of him.
Could this work have an effect on your screenwriting jobs ?
Incident at Loch Ness is very different from what I wrote for Hollywood. Although remember the first script I wrote was Last action hero who was a movie making fun of movies. As were some of the first couples of movies I wrote were trying not to be the same old genre’s stuff. They had troubles from script to screen, but that was in the background… Incident… will definitely have an effect on my work. I’ve written three scripts since I’ve finished it… On a movie like Elektra which is a very carefully plain stylized action movie, if it were up to me, the dialog were still more improvised, like let the actors sound more real coz’ why not ? Every line doesn’t have to be scripted the way it is… But for now, that’s an impossibility in how Hollywood works : too much money running in it, not enought time, they don’t want me to be all the time on the set… It just doesn’t work that way. But I don’t see why you can’t combine realistic feelings, improvisational styled dialog with movies that tell grander stories. Look at Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull : one scene seems to be improvised, the next is a master class in style and photography. This kind of work is underutilized by studios mostly. But it’s very difficult for a screenwriter who’s not also director on a movie to explain to a studio : here’s what I want you to do, take this scene with those dialog ad lib, and I want to rehearse in improve. They just would say : ok let’s get another writer…
