aus fanzine 1
Fighting against normality
Interview with Agnès Varda
by Dietmar Schwärzler and Sylvia Szely
Paris, October 11, 2004
Which of my films do you show in december in the filmmuseum in Vienna?
L'opéra mouffe; Réponse des femmes; 7 p., cuis., s. de b... (á saisir); Du côté de la côte.
Du côté de la côte... "C'est un film de command" — it was a commissioned film. I was asked to do it by the producer, who was asked by the French National Tourist Office. They gave us money to make a film about the Côte d'Azur. I think I did my best, considering that I was supposed to show some of the Riviera. I tried to find a side-way of being not too much protourism. But I don't think, it clearly represents what I do. It only represents — I would say — my ability to escape the commission without totally betraying it. Why Du côté de la côte? I understand your programme is quite ambitious in terms of what can be done with short films.
It is also about showing films that are beyond the canon.
A filmmuseum is not the canon. It's a place where everything can be screened.
But especially cinemathèques, filmmuseums and also festivals help to construct the canon. They decide through their selection what is an important film.
I should remind you of Henri Langlois, the founder of the Cinernathèque Française. He said that there are no good films or bad films. You have to show everything to the viewer, people have to make up their own minds. He was showing a lot of — I would call them — B and C category films. But it is interesting to have them as a testimony of a certain time ... certain fashion ... and certain way of taking position. And also about social behaviour and language.
There is also another aspect we are interested in: to look at biographies and filmographies of a specific director and select films, which are exciting on diffèrent levels and which are not that well known. Or with which normally his or her name is not connected.
But Du côté de la côte was very well known. We are talking about 1958. You were not born. But at that time it was famous, from the first festival screening in Tours on ... It went around the world in the fifties and is still shown here and there.
We think it is very interesting to look at it again today, because there are some elements with a subversive energy in it.
In my way I was fighting the typical tourist travelogue. I had in mind the name of a famous hotel "Eden-Roc"; I thought the Riviera was "Eden-Toc" — "toc" in the sense of fake, cheap taste, false jewelry ... I pointed at the desire for paradise, for Eden, but on a low level. I remember a journalist writing "Where Agnès Varda puts her camera ´les Syndicats d'lniative´ (the Tourism offices) don't grow anymore".
Stressing that Du côté de la côte was a "film de commande" brings us to a very important topic with many short films. Short film — as a genre — is sometimes not really taken seriously or other times people make short films only at the beginning of their careers. Or they make short pieces on a commercial level, for example advertising.
Many young filmmakers use short film as a calling card. You know, like after doing two films of ten minutes with little money, let's see a producer, show him how good I am, and that I am ready to make a feature. It's the case for many young directors, and they are right:
I believe short film is a format in itself, which is wonderful, because it allows you to tell something which doesn't need more than five or twenty minutes ... It' s a question of the subject and every subject asks for a specific format and length. I did a short fiction film last year, LE LION VOLATILE (it's related to the place Denfert Rochereau), and at that time the story did not need more than twelve minutes. You know, the short film fans like me, because I have never stopped making shorts. I have proved that short film is not only a calling card in the beginning of a career as a Film maker. It is a genre in itself.
One approach of our project is to look at the start of someone's film career, which sometimes gives a new perspective on "the œuvre”or poses new questions. Our focus is European Auteur-Cinema and American Independent Cinema. We are not looking for obvious master-pieces. We also want to show, that people like — Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffant for instance — started with a film like UNE HISTOIRIE D'EAU. Films, which seem to try out something or try to achieve a special attitude. We are interested in "side works"; the works which weren't that suceessful on a conventional level, but which might also be important. When we sent you the email about our project, you mentioned that you are quite interested to think about a category of "non-canonized" works. You have done shortfilms, documentaries, fiction ... You worked with different media. Starting with photography, 35mm film, digital video, doing art installations ... Do you have the feeling that some of your work is less well known? Which work would that be and what would he the reason for that?
The reasons are obvious, you know. The better known films are those, which made more money or had a wider circulation. It's not only money — but also circulation and distribution. Few theatre programmers ask for a short or an unknown film unless it has been taken note of and praised at festivals ... Like CLEO DE 5 A 7. I made it in 1961 and it was selected at the Cannes Film Festival in 1962, at that time I was unknown in the cinema context apart from one experimental film I did seven years before. It didn't win any prizes, but it attracted some attention and then was invited to about 50 festivals after Cannes. It was bought right away by the Cinémathèque Française for their archive and seems to be remembered. Sometimes I'm surprised — and it makes me feel very good — when somebody in Japan or Mexico or the Netherlands speaks about CLEO with emotion. I made the film 40 years ago and people still like it, when it is shown. This isn't a canonized film. It's very vivid and people speak about it as if it has been made recently.
Actually I also heard that Madonna wanted to buy the re-make rights.
Yes she did ... I really like her. She wanted to produce a re-make and act in it, but she did not like the adaptation, written by an American woman. Her mother died of cancer, I suppose that was the reason why she wanted to make the film. But finally she withdrew.
I made other films, which are well known like LE BONHEUR, in the sixties. More recently, in 2000, LES GLANEURS ET LA GLANEUSE — a documentary. And then I would jump to SANS TOIT NI LOI — with Sandrine Bonnaire in 1985. It won a lot of prizes and it was also successful in terms of money and was shown in about fifty countries. Very well received ... It was like waking up the knowledge and consciousness about very young homeless people. Then little by little it became a general subject in society and after my film people started to discuss it, to write and to make more films about it. So I was opening something up, which was there, but hidden — the film got it out. When a film touches something, which makes sense to a lot of people, it also makes it successful. The same goes for LES GLANEURS and the topic of left-over waste or garbage. These questions are related to our everyday life, to current problems. I am not resolving any of these questions, but at least I am raising them, as an artist — and not as an sociologist or psychologist or economist. By making a film about this subject, in a fictional and a very free way, it makes a good connection to the...
Zeitgeist. — Do you know this German word? It's the spirit of the time. Several of your films catch the Zeitgeist.
You see Zeitgeist is also the name of the American company, that distributes LES GLANEURS in the USA. The enormous waste produced by an over-consuming society became obvions for people when LES GLANEURS caune out ... Maybe I also made CLEO just at the right time: when the fear of dying of cancer became a collective syndrome. Is that the Zeilgeist-thing, I seem to have? You know, the fears change over the years. When I was shooting KUNG FU MASTER for instance, the AIDS threat popped up in all the papers ...
This can also be said about your films in a more political sense. Like you did SALUT LES CUBAINS during a time, which is known as the Cuba-crisis: you decided to do an homage to Cuba. Or RÉPONSE DES FEMMES is a piece, which is also totally related to the time when it was made.
RÉPONSE DES FEMMES is a Ciné-tract. A tract is a short film or paper in which a certain social or political topic is examined. It was 1975 and the UNESCO decided to have the "Year of the Women" like the "Year of the Children" or the "Year of Africa" before. The second channel of French television — Antenne 2 — asked sociologists, historians and also seven women directors — Coline Serreau, Nina Gompaneez, myself and others — about what it is like to be a woman. They wanted to cover various aspects and one of the subjects was the naked woman.
So the topic was given to you by those responsible for this television programme?
Yes and I chose the body, rather than more abstract subjects such as the role of women in society. I asked how much time we get to feature that question and the director of the television programme said: seven minutes. So I made a scene and said, how dare you, such a subject! And he asked: how long do you wish? I said: 8 minutes — since it was far too short for a serious treatment anyway. I wanted to approach three issues: the first one is, a woman is a woman, born in a woman's body and the second subject is, whether women want to be mothers or not. Are we defined as a real woman by having children? One of these typical and crazy things. Nobody discusses if Beethoven or Nietzsche are lesser men, because they didn't have children. If some women don't want to have children, it's not only their right to make this decision, but they are also very wise to do so. This decision should be made by every single woman on her own — and not by the pope, the judge, the husband, the father, the lover or the brother. The third subject was the body of women and how it is accepted by society on a double standard: On the one side — as I say in the film: be discreet, hidden by a veil, take a tschador — show nothing of yourself; and on the other side, in our system: show your ass, show your tits, show something. Remember the advertisement for the office-furniture I used in the film. It's impossibly rude. The slogan says: "A desk which has nice curves." And then we see a naked woman sitting on this special office chair. And also something very interesting happened: I wanted to have a pregnant woman dancing naked. She was expecting twins, was very happy and danced. After RÉPONSE DES FEMMES was on television I got letters from viewers asking if I was not ashamed to show something like that, being broadcasted at a time when children watch TV. I was really mad at them and replied if they were not ashamed to not understand that actually that's the thing children should see: a happy pregnant woman, who is dancing. So I made REPONSE DES FEMMES for television, but at the same time I made it against it. Against the normality; the normality of most TV programmes.
But back to your original question why some films are better known than others: it really depends on distribution and on the film itself. And at the same time: When we speak about some of my films being known, we speak about film lovers, cinephiles. Forget about the massive audience who saw the George Lucas trilogy, THE LORD OF THE RINGS or SHREK We are discussing a very small part of the audience. One of my shorts is more loved than known if I can say so. It's called ONCLE YANCO. I met this man in Sausalito, found out he was a cousin of my father and I had to make a film about him right away. There is something immediate and the man is wonderful. I think that film is more innovative than DU COTÉ DE LA COTE. And fresher and in relation to what young people feel ... The man is very excentric, but very real and authentic. Do you know that film?
I saw it last year at the Berlinale in a special programme on New Hollywood.
Then I also made LES DITES CARIATIDES, a film about the cariatides and atlantes of Paris, which was also a commissioned film. Then there is BLACK PANTHERS, ULYSSE ... and PLAISIR D’AMOUR EN IRAN, which is not that good.
You often choose images of naked bodies in your films. For example in L'OPERA-MOUFFE you start with a naked woman, although from the back; in DOCUMENTEUR next to the female body you also show a naked male bodv; this topic is also very softly present in DU COTÉ DE LA COTE. But it's never an image where the body is sold, it seems that these images always have a reflective moment in it.
This naked man in DOCUMENTEUR is lying on the terrace, taking a nap. I think it's very beautiful, I made a zoom and you can see his genitals and his hand lying on his belly. It looks like two birds. There is an equivalent scene of the woman going into a bedroom, undressing and lying down on the bed, the bed of her boss, who is actually a woman too. She is watching herself in the mirror. That's a way of telling about her loneliness. The film also poses the question of privacy. In most films when it comes to undressing a person — most of the time a woman — it is supposed to happen for someone else — for a man — and in order to get together in bed, to make love. It is very important for me to have the undressing or nudity as loneliness and not as representation of or response to desire.
Is it the same with the naked old woman in 7 P CUIS., S. DEB ... (A SAISIR)? To us she looks like a sculpture and is actually very beautiful.
That's another taboo. You don't show bodies of old people, because it's sometimes painful to watch. It was a beautiful one in that film. I am not specially excited about showing an old woman but I remember when I saw this bathroom with these feathers, I thought it would be lovely having an old woman taking a shower with feathers. So we started looking for a woman which was quite difficult who would accept being filmed naked. I extrapolated from one image to another. I had a series of shots with her, the feathers .... When she is sitting in her chair, with her big belly, you have to think about the big belly of a pregnant woman. So I put a beautiful baby and so on ... When I saw her, sitting naked in this iron chair, I thought she looks like waiting for her death the whole day long; and the next time we come into this room, the chair is empty. So it has slowly moved towards death. One image cries for the next one.
What kind of relation do you have to feminism today?
I am a feminist and I think there are still manv things to be changed regarding the situation of women. I have never been in any political party and I am not a feminist for discussions or group action. I am just a feminist filmmaker. I believe the pope should be put into jail as a criminal. Not allowing the condom, not allowing contraception. So many people die of AIDS, millions of women. Too many people are listening to that stupid old man, who should better go home, forget about everything and kill himself. You know, he is a criminal to me and so I am rebelling against him. Also mother Theresa — they made a saint of her! She was helping the people to die. But you know of what they were dying: Of AIDS. She should have distributed condoms and pray after distributing them, if she wanted ... Or the fact that millions of women are still circumcised. A scandal! Although it's forbidden in France nowadays, it is still being done. On that level I am very conscious about what is going on against women in the world. I go on the street every time we have to go.
What do you think about so called women films or women film festivals today?
Twenty years ago women started to organize women film festivals, because these were the places you could see films made by women. But nowadays it doesn't seem to be the right concept anymore. The real fight at the moment is not to present films made by women, but for cinema itself. The fight is to have films, that nobody is able to see otherwise, including the non canonized directors and the unknown ones. This is a very important struggle. The question is not men or women. The question is fighting for an innovative cinema, for what I call "cinécriture”: a real cinematic language, which tries to use images and sounds differently.
I just participated in a group exhibition, Utopia Station, which was first at the Biennale in Venice, then in Munich. My piece is called Patatutopia. They made it very political, which was fine. The position of an artist is not to be selfish. Certainly not. As artists we also have to be like birds in away. Somehow we have to be able to go from one tree to another. I made a statement in Munich that the world is terrible, cruel and unfair, people killing each other or dying in natural catastrophies. So where is utopia: Utopia is the belief that by filming an old rotten potato you can express the beauty of the world. And looking at the potato is like looking at a face, at how different each person is and giving everyone the right to be themselves, to look beautiful in my camera. It is a statement, a statement of loving people.
Just by your attitude or your way of coming close to people with your camera and leaving them in their truth.
Among other things. Also not going with the mainstream, not being only sentimental or totally unfair to poor people, or exaggerating that they are only wonderful, which is not the case either. Making documentaries is a school of modesty. Because you serve a subject, you serve people. Your camera and you yourself have to be at the service of the people: expressing who they are, what they would like to tell ... Obviously it's a good school; feature filmmakers should do a documentary every two years as a cure. As a cure of looking at things and then they could go back to fantasy, fiction ... or whatever kind of films they are making. It works for me ...
In a lot of your films its possible to see your inspiration from art. Like surrealism, modern conceptual art, the “old masters"...
Yesterday I was in Munich, in the Pinakothek der Moderne. I saw a painting by Francis Bacon again, a crucifixion. It is so powerful. I am not only inspired by art, I really feel alive through art. Mostly paintings. It gives me so much pleasure and a desire to avoid mediocrity, normality.
How was 7 P CUPS., S. DE 8... (A SAISIR) developed? Obviously there was an art project happening in the house where the film is situated?
It was an exhibition which was called Le vivant el l'artificiel. I was hugely impressed by this exhibition, they gave artists the opportunity to work with the empty rooms. Originally the building was an hospice for old women. And I came into that bathroom, stuffed with white feathers or another bathroom which was totally blue. I went into the kitchen, on the floor there was a peacock. I found the house really exciting. So I called them to ask for the permission to film there. In the beginning I had no idea what to do. On the train it came to my mind that I wanted to tell something about the house, which at the same time is the "home" or "Heimat". The house is expressed by the family, the house is the family. There are old and young people; and the young people want to go away and the old people don't. I decided to use the house as a set for a family that we see at a certain point and then we see them ten years later. I used all the prototypes, like the father being the boss, but also he is a doctor — so he is a kind of triple boss, because the doctors are also the bosses of the patients. And there is a very young woman, who is rebelling, who wants to escape from the weight of the family-law, which is mostly the father's law. Fathers and doctors are often monsters of power. I also felt that house was really claustrophobic. It was expanding my imagination and it was fun doing the film. I used what I could grab from the set, from the people passing by. I allowed myself to shoot what I felt, there was no script. Just images of families, and images of scenes.
So you felt totally free?
Free and inspired. Thanks to the artists who made these sets and thanks to what they had invented there on several levels. I allowed myself to film or to tell just by association. Like in surrealism. I also recently made a film inspired by an exhibition, the one of Ydessa Hendeles and her collection, although it is a bit different. The film is not a copy or a reportage of what is to be seen. It is an exercise in the ability of understanding. It is about the contradictory feelings one has when visiting her exhibition and looking at 3000 photos, each of them showing a Teddybear ...
Then let's jump to L'OPERA MOUFFE.
L'OPERA-MOUFFE is easy. Just expressing feelings again. I was pregnant and was asking myself if it was affecting my sensibility and my way of looking at things. At people. Does it change my perception? I felt a contradiction, a confusion between a big belly stuffed with food and a big belly, full with a baby. It's the same shape in a way. And then I filmed — looking at people as they have been babies. You see the baby in each of us. I was shooting images of old people with my camera in a very poor street, the Rue Mouffetard. L'OPERA-MOUFTE is about what I felt like being pregnant. I was tired of this attitude: "no fear, no pain ... this is modern time". Pregnancy is a very wild primal experience and I wanted to keep the experience of being afraid and curious. I just tried to listen to what my belly or my entire body and my feelings were telling me, even though I was a very happy pregnant woman — not afraid, but impressed — and a very happy film director. I remember questioning if we allow ourselves to feel wild things. In terms of sexualitv, in terms of giving birth, even in the relationship with the children. That's the job of an artist. That's all in L'OPERA-MOUFFE. I finished it in April and in May I gave birth to Rosalie. Like DAGUERREOTYPES that I filmed near my house because I had a brand new baby boy, Mathieu, and didn't want to be far from him. I believe that my private life is not a subject of films but an inspiration to work in connection with the real me.