5 hours ago
2
You’ve had such an eclectic career. Is there any particular genre that you haven’t tackled already but would like to? LickyKicky
I don’t care about genre. What interests me is first the story. When I have the story, I try to find the best genre with which to communicate it. So the genre arrives second, and very often I mix them. 8 Women was not a musical to begin with. That was based on a play. A bad play. Old-fashioned. But I loved the plot: eight women and one of them is a murderer. It was my idea to make it a musical because it was a way to be democratic. To give each character the chance to express herself with a song, with a dance. With all those actresses together, there might be one scene where, say, Isabelle Huppert is merely an extra in the background. And you say: “Isabelle, don’t move! Now Catherine, say your lines.” Isabelle loved it but Catherine Deneuve didn’t get what I was trying to do. When she saw the film, she understood. But during the shoot, it was too theatrical for her.
8 Women was very successful, and Catherine and I met again afterwards – we are human beings, we are able to talk, sometimes we have problems but we explain ourselves. Maybe our next film, Potiche, was easier for her because she was the main woman rather than one of eight. Also, she knew what kind of movie I wanted to make this time.
I treasure Potiche. Any plans for a sequel? I’d love to see the continuing exploits of the Pujol umbrella factory. JackFenwick
That would be funny because the film happened during the 1970s. The sequel could be in the 1980s. That’s an idea. But I’m not sure it’s possible to shoot again a film with Gérard Depardieu with all the problems he has today. He’s a great actor but now it’s difficult to finance a film with him. I haven’t made a sequel to my films but I know there is an Italian remake of 8 Women on Netflix. But now it’s 7 Women [7 Women and a Murder] because they cut out the Black character. It’s all white Italian women. And it’s not a musical, it’s just a whodunnit. So [raises eyebrow] I will let you see it for yourself.
Isabelle Huppert was recently asked: “Can a film change someone’s life?” She said: “Maybe it can change someone’s day.” Would you like to make films that change lives or is it enough for you to change a single day? Dmitry S
For me it’s about helping. I made a film which was very helpful for many people – By the Grace of God [about real-life cases of child abuse by Catholic priests in France]. It was not my goal; it was not what I set out to do. But it was a huge success in France. I had so many testimonies from people after they saw the film and it was so touching to hear people coming out about what they lived through as children. That’s when I realised the film had helped many people. Some were not able to speak out, but after watching it, they went to the police or told their family what happened to them.
My original idea for this film was to make a documentary, because I loved the real people who told me their stories. I had conversations with the whole families: the children, the wives. But when I said, “I want to make a documentary about your story,” they said: “Please, no.” I realised they were only able to give me all this information because I was a fiction director. And they were waiting for me to make a kind of Spotlight.
After the brilliant In the House and now When Autumn Falls, I would like to ask: are you the reincarnation of Claude Chabrol? Because it looks very much like you are carrying on his themes of good people doing bad things or bad people doing good things. jeroenspeculaas
Chabrol inspired me because he went in many directions and had a way of making movies which is very close to mine. There is a lot of pleasure in his films. He enjoyed telling stories. Like Fassbinder, it was not about making a masterpiece each time. I love Stanley Kubrick, too, but I feel closer to Chabrol and Fassbinder, who made many movies.
I met Chabrol when he was filming The Girl Cut in Two. He was very sweet. He knew my films and complimented me on Under the Sand. I was touched. Actually, I met two directors of the Nouvelle Vague: Chabrol and Eric Rohmer, who was my teacher. I’m closer to them than to Truffaut or Godard. Oh, Godard – I met him too! He came to my film school, La Fémis. And he was very mean in terms of money. Obsessed with money. Not generous like Chabrol or Rohmer, who wanted to communicate their passion. Cinema has to deal with money; it’s part of the job. But I was so surprised hearing Godard speaking only about money. I was waiting for something more intellectual.
You’ve worked with so many iconic French stars. Are there any icons left that you still want to work with? Kal 85
What will happen will happen. I know some directors make first the casting and after they try to find the story, but it’s not my way of working. I need first to have the story, to develop the script, and then I look for actors. But there are some counter-examples, such as Potiche, where I already knew Catherine. Before I started that script, I asked her if it was possible for her to be a “potiche” – a trophy wife. She said: “Why not?” Without her acceptance, I wouldn’t have made the film. But usually I work first on the script. When I wrote Under the Sand, I had in mind a woman of 50 years old who was beautiful and who would agree to be in a swimsuit on the beach. And all the French actresses said no! I proposed the film first to Isabelle Adjani. When I worked with her much later on Peter von Kant, I said: “Do you remember?” And she said: “I never even read the script.”
But I had met Charlotte Rampling at a party and I thought she was beautiful. Everybody said: “Don’t work with her. She’s finished.” When Under the Sand was successful, that felt like a great revenge. And for Charlotte, it was a new start for her career. When I met with her and her agent to offer the role, I said: “I want to see Charlotte Rampling doing the vacuuming.” A very bad idea to say that at the first meeting. Her agent kicked me under the table! So that was a bad start. But she trusted me and we had a beautiful relationship. When she realised she would not be one of the eight women in 8 Women, she said: “That’s not a problem. Because I was the one woman in Under the Sand.”
How do you look at Pedro Almodóvar’s recent career, and do you have any ambitions like him [in The Room Next Door] to make an American adventure? Zaropans
I love Pain and Glory. I thought it was a beautiful movie. Very personal and very honest. I was mixed about The Room Next Door. The fact that it was not in Spanish, I think, made him less comfortable with the dialogue. It can be difficult when you don’t have the ear for the language. That was the case for me when I made Angel, which was in English and was a big flop. In France, cinema is more important than everything, so we work all together for the film. And when I worked in England, I had the feeling everybody worked just for their own little area. By the way, people were surprised when I cast Michael Fassbender because he was not famous at that time. “Why this actor?” they said. But I loved Michael – he was beautiful and clever, and very involved.
As for working in the American system, I think it is difficult, especially for the French. There are some female directors right now who have done very well. But Coralie Fargeat shot The Substance in France, remember, and I think with English money, no? [It was a Working Title production.] When you are used to working in the French system with final cut, the American way can be hard. I came close to working in Hollywood but there was not a lot of imagination in what I was being offered: after Swimming Pool, I was sent many scripts of erotic thrillers. But I don’t want to repeat myself. And I realised that in America, the producer is the master of the film and the director is just a technician. François Truffaut said that Americans respect you when you work in your own country, but when you work in their country, they destroy you.
