one of the most invaluable interviews i've seen by one of the most influential directors of our time.
if only more interviews were done in this manner, allowing the interviewee to express himself freely and share information unedited, uninterupted.
we've become so accustomed to marketing campaigns in the guise and format of the interview, that we forget that intervies aren't there to flog your latest release, or announce the arrival of your new adorable kenyan orphan. (the same should be said for new-release write-ups. where once we had film critics, we now have popcorn-salesmen).
in other words, appearing on the ellen show and telling everyone about your latest apocalyptic 'we-yall-go'ann'-die' flick, is not an interview.
being asked leading questions on a range of varying topics (vision, method, production challenges etc.) by an informed intellectual with a sense of direction (and humility), however, is.
and so, here follows the full interview of michael haneke, director of (among others) the piano teacher, copied for your enjoyment and enlightenment off the dvd-extras menu.
ON SCREEN ADAPTATION
QUESTION what work did you put into the adaptation compared to the novel? what have you kept?Michael Haneke it’s always a story of what we decide from novel to novel. this is not my first adaptation. it’s my first adaptation for cinema, but I did several for television. in this case, it’s a… how can i put it… if you can do an adaptation you must be glad if you can transmit a third of the content, because in two hours, you cannot convey the richness of a novel that is two or three hundred pages long. You’re compelled to cut many things. The structure of a novel is always different from the structure of a film or play, and you’re then forced to find solutions. for example, in the novel, a third of it, if not half of it, consists of flashbacks, and a flashback in cinema is always an explanation, because if you have a scene and you cut it, when you watch a flashback, it’s the explanation of a scene you’ve seen. and it results in some sort of psychological explanation, which i loathe. so, I was forced to cut all flashbacks which, in the book, talk about the youth of the main character. that’s why, for example, i’ve invented this second mother-daughter couple, which is in the film but doesn’t exist in the book. it’s always these tricks, in a way, which are resorted to, so as to keep the content, but to find another way to tell the story.
Qis [isabel] jelinek’s novel autobiographical?MHthat’s what people say, yes, but I can’t… she said “yes”, and in several interviews she even talked about the sensitive details, and confirmed they came from her personal experiences.
Qdid it cause you a problem? to appropriate something which could be very personal?MHno, but that’s the interesting thing, because as i was saying before, this extreme temperature, it’s extreme because it’s so personal. that’s what interested me, and i think it’s also what interested the actors because it’s very rewarding.
Qhave you met the author? do you know her?MHyes, but it wasn’t my main concern, because whether or not this story is autobiographical had no influence on my work because i have a novel which i have to transmit, and that has nothing to do with the writer's situation.
ON MUSIC IN FILM
Q the important thing for you, in knowing what you're talking about, is the music, i supposeMHyes, it made me very happy. i'm a big admirer of music in general, and that's why there is hardly any music in my films, because i feel... i find it awful to use an art form to mask the errors in a film. here, we had the possibility because music is one of the film's themes. firstly, i was very happy to choose the musical pieces, and secondly to record them. i was able to get involved in the musical universe of one of my films.
Qin what way does the music express the feelings in the film? it doesn't accompany them, but truely express them...MHyes, that's true, but some of the pieces which are in the film, there are some which are also described in the book. for example, the bach double concert, and the schönberg, both come from the novel. the main character says schubert and schumann are her favourite composers, and i have to confess, my favourite composers are bach and schubert, which simplified things for me. and i was very happy, for example, to choose all those lieder from 'winterreise', which contribute naturally. even the text of these lieder establishes a relation with the story, and that was beautiful from a story-telling point of view.
ON CHARACTER INTERPRETATION
Qthe characters of erika and walter each have relationships with music, which are evidently very different. we get the feeling in the film that erika establishes herself not exactly as a judge, but slightly, nonetheless, towards walter?MHit's obvious that she's the master and he's the pupil. she has a very strong "rigorousness", and he's at the beginning of his musical life.
Qwhat i wanted to know was, could her strictness towards music, and her negative views of walter's lack of professionalism, could these somehow be equated to how she views love?MHmaybe... i always find these questions difficult, because they call for a classification of the character's behaviour, and that's hard for me because i don't want to judge my characters. i try to reveal them by using the actors, sure, but all these various interpretations - of which yours is one - are not for me to propose... i think...
Q...[illegible]...MH...i think each viewer will see the film differently, and that's a possible interpretation, but i won't say "yes" or "no", because then we're focusing on that interpretation.
Qa simple question... does erika look for perfection in music or not?MHyes, that's for sure. but perfection is also a way to protect oneself, one can hide behind perfection.
Qperfection is an illusion...MHnaturally, yes.
Qeven in cinema...MHabsolutely, yes.
ON ISABELLE HUPPERTQby choosing isabelle huppert [as erika], was it already something that helped you find the tone of the film?MHyes. as i said many times during interviews, she was, in my eyes, the indispensable pre-requisite for the film to go ahead since i do not know any actress who could have played this role better than her. as an actress, she's able to reach the character's two extremes with an incredible sensitivity on one hand, along with the possibility to show, in these extremes, the pain and all that,
and on the other hand, a cold intellectuality, which is also very strong.
erika kohut's personality is also in between these two extremes, and isabelle huppert was ideal for the role. obviously, without her, the film would not exist... [fade-out - fade-in] ...she has a huge understanding for small things that speak volumes about important things. i think it's instinctive, but also at the same time deliberate. she also has a special relationship with the camera. she knows exactly what the difference is between moving her head in a particular way or to raise it by a centimetre. she doesn't think about it. it's in her body. she's great. she's a great actress and not just in films. i think it's rare to have this sensitivity, as well as a sensitivity towards the camera...
Q...this machine...MHyes. yes.
ON BENOÎT MAGIMEL
benoît had never played piano. he learned everything. he didn't even know how to read the score and worked like a madman. it's very surprising. even his piano teacher was very surprised.
he said he had never seen anything like it, because both pieces - schubert's scherzo as well as the schönberg - are rythmically extremely difficult, even for a professional. he pretended to play on a real piano, but against a real recording, but we did not even hear the difference, which is extraordinary. bravo!
ON THE ROLE OF THE DIRECTORMHi think that the most important thing for a director... is to give the actors the impression that they're protected. that they can let go and try things without being betrayed by the situation or feeling lost or trapped without any way of getting out. i think that's the main duty of a director, whether in a film or play. if you can achieve that, things will run smoothly, provided you have good actors, of course. one has to create an atmosphere of trust, each towards the other. equally for me, if i feel people don't trust me, i don't know what to say. it's something everybody goes through in their private life too. if you know, or think you know, that the other is against you, you're totally paralysed, you communicate below your full capacity.
[fade out...
...fade in]you have to be very down-to-earth because, for example, the scene in the ice rink, which is very difficult, is a sequence shot starting with hockey players. all the locations were technically challenging because now there wasn't just the two actors but also the senior cameraman, myself, the sound engineer and his assistant. we had to go everywhere, which complicated things. so, we did some very accurate tests during one whole day, scene by scene. even gestures had to be restricted. this hand had to be just there and so on, and for such a long scene it's quite complicated. the technical work, which calls for precision and gives a 'corset' for the actors to naturally let go of themselves. this 'corset' gives a new freedom because without such precise indications, the actor is a bit... he's looking and maybe doesn't find what he needs. so it's as in all art forms; precision is a pretext for achievement. in music, in ballet, for example, one can spot right from the start if a pianist doesn't have technique. he's not a pianist. the same applies to a dancer. but with directors and actors, very often, even if they're not professional...
Qthey pretend?
MHyes, they do. and it works, doesn't it? but if... if professionals, true professionals work together, it's something else. we know what we're doing, we know it calls for accuracy. and that too, shows immediately.
ON WORKING WITH ACTORSMHi never give psychological indications. of course it depends on what you mean by 'psychological'. i don't give indications regarding the history of the character, you know..."when the character was three years old... and his mum didn't love him enough...", those ridiculous indications. those i always refuse to do. i always tell a joke of a great austrian director who made his career in hollywood, fred zinneman. he was asked one day "why do actors feel so comfortable with you?" and he said: "it's very simple, there are two things. firstly, good casting. secondly, avoid making mistakes." and he was right because good casting means a good actor for the right role, because it won't work if a good actor is miss-cast. secondly, avoiding making mistakes means knowing if you're going the wrong way, and being able to help the actor back to the right path. in theory it's simple, but it's not. again, it's a question of professionalism. and love too, because if you don't love the actors, they won't... come alive, i think. they are suffocating.
ON REALISM IN CINEMA
Qyou always say you want to bring the audience back to a realistic outlook on things, concrete things, i might add. almost a documentary on objects, feelings, how the piano is played. do you need to go through a hyper-realistic vision of things in order to achieve this?...
...to attain realism today, one has to be more realist than realist... because cinema has erased the notion of realism...MH...but where is this hyper-realism coming from? on which aesthetic level can it be seen? is it the shape of the camera? the way we shoot? is it the actor's performance? if you take a look at various directors, you'll find a different answer every time. some directors can be seen through their actors' performances. the taviani brothers for example, or the films of [jean-marie] straub. that's one way to do it. it's not mine, but i love his films. there are as many different ways as there are directors. for my part it's the scripts general structure as well as the visual form where i try to create this type of hyper-realism. in the actor's performance, however, i always try to be very precise with the realism, to also create this form of normality for the audience, so they have easy access to actually understanding the characters.
Qcould we say, for example, that isabelle huppert and benoît magimel stylised their acting?MHno. no.
Qtheir acting isn't natural... naturalistic as you were saying a moment ago?MHtheir performance are naturalistic, yes. the way it appears in the film is not naturalistic, but that's a different matter. the actors, their situation and how they're presented in image and sound, that's something different. it created a hyper-realism, if you like.
Qthe actors act a lot with their eyes, for example.MHyes. looks are exchanged a lot. yes, but even the naturalistic aspect of the film isn't truly natural. if you talk of naturalism in theatre as with hoffman and such authors, as soon as you're on stage, it's no longer natural. it's already in inverted commas. it is now art immitating nature. it is now art... and it's one of art's fundamental conditions. but in film, the boundaries between documentation and creation are naturally more fluid than on stage.
Qisabelle huppert, for example. her appearance, the colours she wears, her changing hairstyles, all these are important.MHwell, yes. because they tell something about the character, obviously. it's a daily task in all films. you create character not only through performance, but also with the outside, starting with the clothes, the make-up, hairstyle... her bedroom, all that. when you're working, that's the pleasure of creation.
Qbut in this film, the minute modifications in the acting, the actor's attitude... are very important to you. they express important nuances.MHyes, of course. but we do that together. it's teamwork, if you like. it's between the director, actor and wardrobe person. it's an instance where everybody give what they can to create this whole, the task of the director being to coordinate all these inventions.
ON THE CHALLENGES OF DIRECTINGMHi always say that the process of actually making a film... when you make a film as the director or author, there are two brilliant stages. one is usually about stress, so 'brilliant' refers to the preparation, the creation while writing, as well as the editing of the film, the mixing and all that. the actual filming is only about stress. the only truly pleasurable thing is to work with the actors because at this point, there is the opportunity to enrich a film in an unforseen and better way. or there's also the danger of losing your vision, of not being able to execute it, but that, at least, is productive stress. for all the rest of the film, stress is less productive because, for me at least, getting up in the morning, i'm already nervous, and when i arrive on set and something is missing because... i don't know... the traffic was bad or whatever, that's a constant stress. every director says more or less the same thing, that they hate the shooting.
ON CANNES FILM FESTIVAL/PUBLIC RECEPTIONQwhat about the reception in cannes? were you surprised? happy?MHyes, i was happy because i think the film has some comical moments, and i was very curious to see people's reactions, because we're always... in a certain... 'now it's haneke...' 'always doing shocking films' and... 'it's serious stuff' etc etc. and i was curious, and happy, to see how many would react to the comical parts. they laughed at all the right moments. there are also 'false laughs' in films that are a bit shocking. we also had some 'wrong laughs' but that came out right. i was very pleased. overall, people reacted as i thought they would. i would also say... for example, i remember very well my first film in cannes, 'le septième continent', my first feature, and i was telling my producer the exact moments at which people would walk out of the cinema. there were three - the death of the child, the death of the small fishes, and when the family destroys all their money. and the producer disagreed:it's obvious with the two deaths, but never when the money is destroyed. and it was precisely that part which caused a scandal. the audience reacted exactly as i thought they would, and of course, i was happy to be right. things worked how i planned them.
Qeven if people leave?MHyes, if it's... people didn't leave the cinema, it was only a few, which was a clear sign that people were really touched by it. i don't want everyone to leave the cinema, that would be stupid.
ON THE EFFECT AND PURPOSE OF CINEMA AS A FORM OF ARTQit's something that you've often said, that you want to question the spectator, to raise questions.MHyes. yes, because when i go to the cinema i also want to be a bit puzzled [destabilised]. if i leave the room different to when i walked in, it was worth my while. if i'm in the same mood, i lost two hours. and that's what i try to give my audience. it's what i expect when i go to the cinema. the films that i remember are those that challenged me, those that might have shocked me, or hurt me. it means i've learned something
Qsuch as?MHone film that really touched me was pasolini's 'salo'. it's a film that really moved me, i was sick for three weeks. it was unbearable. but it really affected my view on cinema as a whole, and i think that it's hard to try and achieve that. but it's worth it.
,+1.+jello+biafra+(singer-dead+kennedys),+2.+john+langford.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
