影人專訪

專訪《去聽美人魚唱歌》導演帕特麗夏・蘿茲瑪

「只要我完成作品,『它』就會存在。」 專訪《去聽美人魚唱歌》導演帕特麗夏・蘿茲瑪 訪談/周易、慧穎 翻譯、整理/季洋、芝諺、慧穎 《去聽美人魚唱歌》現在被視為酷兒經典,您拍攝《去聽美人魚唱歌》的契機為何?是什麼引發您訴說這「不尋常」的故事? 製作《去聽美人魚唱歌》時,我處於一種天真無知的狀態,應該說「刻意的無知」。我想方設法不去模仿其他電影,我想要它有自己的聲音、自己的風格。我感覺許多電影變成傳遞可預期訊息的有效媒介。我不是太典型、能觸及一般議題的人,我的酷兒和女性導演身份,在我27歲時的電影圈是很少見的。應該是1987年或更久前,整整35年前啊,大家! 總之,我希望這部作品有自己的聲音,我並不期望會吸引廣大的觀眾群。當然我並不排斥觀眾,但我是以作畫的心態在拍電影,想說:「嗯,也許人們會喜歡,也許我做得夠好,會有機會做下一部電影,但我不知道。」 我單純只是被音樂和敘事的組合打動,一種獨立於體制和商業之外的聲音。我並不是讀電影的,我讀的是哲學和宗教氣息濃厚的文學,所以我的背景在電影行業中是很不尋常的。其實當時拍片還稱不上我的職業,就只是想試試看,而我熱愛這一切,如果能透過創作把它們結合在一起不是很棒嗎?我喜歡寫故事,也很愛說故事。我想,若把這些結合起來而且人們喜歡,那很好;但要是人們不喜歡,它還是會存在。只要我完成作品,它就會存在。以前不存在任何像這樣的作品,我還沒看到我想看見的。一切關於女同志、關於酷兒的作品,都帶有一點悲劇或警世意味,但我想把「酷兒性」放進更大的生活脈絡。並不只是(切換成機器人聲):「故事是這樣的,人類生理女愛上了生理女,她對她的感情能否被成全?這對人類女同志能在一起嗎?」不,這些都像在侷限我的經驗,所以我想要說更多事情。我認為性傾向只是一個人的眾多面向之一,而我不只是如此,我是很多很多面向的集合體。所以我想要把酷兒性嵌入更大的脈絡,關於藝術、個人信念、藝術界的權威和主體性。 《去聽美人魚唱歌》同時是多倫多新浪潮、甚至整個加拿大獨立電影發展的重要里程碑,並入選1987年的坎城影展。請分享一下當時的情況。 那時候的多倫多非常令人興奮,有我朋友艾騰.伊格言(Atom Egoyan),還有唐.麥克凱勒(Don McKellar)、布魯斯.麥克唐納(Bruce McDonald)等。當然加拿大也有優良的文學傳統,像瑪格麗特.愛特伍(Margaret Atwood)和艾麗斯.孟若(Alice Munro)、麥可.翁達傑(Michael Ondaatje),還有瑪麗.麥克唐納(Ann-Marie MacDonald),雖然那時她還沒開始寫作,但我相信她是我們之中的佼佼者。而我當時感到新的能量正在崛起,講白一點,還有新的商機。一直以來都是美國在拍劇情片,我們則被歸類為紀錄片出產國,但當時突然新興了對劇情片的重視,而我剛好站在這扇即將敞開的門前,捧著叫做《去聽美人魚唱歌》的點子。我拿到了資金,又恰逢坎城影展,於是我填了報名表,除了我的經紀人亞歷山卓.哈菲(Alexandra Raffé)以外,沒有告訴任何人。我覺得不需要有人知道。填完,等待,接到電話,寄出片子,一切就這樣發生了。 那是一次非凡的經驗,希拉.麥卡錫(Sheila McCarthy)、製片和我三個人有去現場,我們都被震懾住了。我們極度像患上了冒牌者症候群。多數時候我們只是笑著,那時我法文糟透了,現在也沒多好啦,但那時真的很糟。我們只是一直用法文說:「quel fromage?」,那是我們唯一想到能說的。 皮埃爾亨利.德羅(Pierre-Henri Deleau)看了《去聽美人魚唱歌》,打給我們說想放這部片。我們突然有了個艱鉅的任務,要把16毫米膠卷放大成35毫米,才能在坎城放映,而我們得想辦法籌出五萬元。這時有個好心人羅飛.坎普(Jan Rofekamp)提供了資金,然後突然之間,這部電影的版權就被賣到四十個國家。一切都很驚奇,人們送香檳、起立鼓掌,我非常感動。我覺得我是個格格不入的局外人,我的電影就像我試著畫出的草圖,和我哼給自己聽的歌,但突然間我已經站上世界最大的影展舞台,看著人們笑著、哭著。這是我一輩子都會珍惜的時刻——自己的心能被其他人的心接納,在任何人的生命中都會是個驚喜的時刻。 在影片中有三個主要的角色。能否請您分享這三個角色設定背後的意涵?找尋波莉這個角色對當時的您而言是否是一項挑戰? 我創造了三個角色,他們都是其中一個面向的我。策展人代表我批判性的一面,波莉則是天真、缺乏安全感,還有點後知後覺,瑪麗喬瑟夫(由 Ann-Marie MacDonald飾演)則是那種害怕展現自我的藝術家,她只希望創作的藝術家,但對於自己的性向充滿自信。三個角色是互為對立面的狀態,以激盪出更真實的對話,並確保我認真看待每一個人的聲音,如同他們是我的一部分,他們對於自己的存在也十分自在。但那種衝突是:老天,我看過的電影、聽過的音樂和見過的藝術作品都影響我極深,如果我無法創造那樣的作品怎麼辦?我渴求那樣的藝術創造勝過任何事物,如果我的作品達不到那個境界,我還要做嗎?要是我無法做到怎麼辦?我應該放手一搏嗎?我要不要自欺欺人,然後強迫自己去做?還是聽從那些反對的聲音?他們不懂我,畢竟女性在當時是極少數。更何況還有女同志的禁忌,在荷蘭加爾文派的薰陶下長大⋯⋯。我甚至有種想像,自己應該要長得陰沉又瘦,痛苦地抽著菸,彎腰駝背的。我想像了一個跟自己完全不符的藝術家形象。我其實想要成為蘇珊桑塔格(Susan Sontag),但我看起來一點也不像她。 所以我想,那就拍出自己想看到的。相信那些聲音,相信那些在你心中喧嘩相辯的聲音,並且享受在其中! 我其實從沒想過那會被歸類成喜劇,結果這部片的錄影帶和DVD被放在喜劇區(對的,在那個年代),這令我感到驚訝,我原想它應該比較偏溫柔有趣、發人深省,魔幻寫實的基調⋯⋯,但就這樣吧。 希拉.麥卡錫(Sheila McCarthy)是一塊寶,波莉的角色我試鏡了許久,看過很多人。我的記憶是:當她一進來,我心想:「噢我的天,你好完美,你好完美。」,但她的記憶是:「我讓她試鏡五個小時。」當時她已經快受不了了,如果我不當場給她這個角色,她立刻就會走人。當場,我定下她的角色。 我們到現在仍然是朋友。對了,你們去看一部《Women Talking》,由莎拉.波莉(Sarah Polley)執導,很令人驚艷。希拉.麥卡錫在劇中飾演一個非常老的女人,演得非常好。整部片非比尋常,精確地呈現特定時空,以不可思議的自信和存在方式,超然地體現當今最重要的議題。如果可以的話,去看莎拉.波莉的《Women Talking》。 希拉和我自始至終都勇敢地放手享受。她很幽默,我們總是能夠逗樂對方,一點就中,我會說:「好,卡!希拉你可以演好一點嗎?」然後她會大笑。道格拉斯.科赫(Douglas Koch)是攝影,我覺得他很有幽默感,甚至能帶來視覺上的幽默,這不是每個人都有的天賦。像片中波莉抱著大得詭異的箱子去策展人的生日派對,她做什麼都不對。「尷尬」可以玩出很多東西。 這部片觸及藝術很多不同面向,還有「尷尬」,我發覺「尷尬」是人類經驗裡,最為豐富飽滿的面向之一。困窘時,我們甚至會換顏色,掌心開始冒汗,它對我們有極大的影響。有時候會看不下去,但看別人難堪又很療癒,因為我們都緊抓著自己的尊嚴,一旦我們的尊嚴溜出掌心,就好像也失去了自我。所以我當時只是剛好探索到這一塊,或許人們對這部片有共鳴也是這個原因。 時隔約35年,您如何看待這部電影?它對您有何意義? 這是我第一個寶寶,是我的朋友,且依然帶給我歡笑。我十分珍惜我在那部片中享有的自由。因為當時不期不待,所以拍攝時有很大的自由,我非常珍惜。這種狀態對藝術創作是很好的。我喜愛影片中那段自拍獨白,因為那十分親密,你能夠直接與對方的雙眼接觸。 同時,我以它為榮。希望你們覺得這部片值得看,可以的話,分享給你的親朋好友,我向台灣的你們和女性影展傳達最誠摯的祝福。如果有任何人想拍片,聽從你內心的聲音,相信它。做足所有的功課,傾聽自己,做事,然後好好的玩,這就是我給你的建議。   I can make this thing, and it exists!! Interview with Patricia Rozema, director of I've Heard the Mermaids Singing I’ve Heard The Mermaids Singing is now regarded as queer classics. Now looking back, what made you decide to make I’ve Heard The Mermaids Singing? What drove you to tell an “unusual” story back then? I made I Have Heard the Mermaid Singing at the state of innocence and ignorance. Deliberate ignorance, actually. I was very keen not to imitate other movies. I wanted it to have its own voices, its own style. And I felt like a lot of movies were efficient vehicles of expected messages, and I knew that I was not a standard general issue type of human. I am queer and female in the film business which was much rare at that time. I was 27. It was 1987. 35 five years ago, my friends. So I wanted to have its own voice, and I didn’t expect a giant audience for it. I wasn’t opposed to it, but I really approach filmmaking that one might approach making a painting. You think: yeah, maybe people would like it, maybe I can do well enough to make another movie, but I don’t know.   I was just very moved by the combination of narrative, music and a voice that was not compromised by the system or the business. I didn’t study film, I study philosophy and literature in religious context, so I came from a very unusual place for this kind of career choice. It wasn’t even about career, it was more like, “let’s try this.” I love all the parts, and wouldn’t it be amazing if I can make something that holds together. I love writing stories and telling stories. I just thought I would put it all together, and if people like it great, but if people don’t like it, there is still this thing there! I can make this thing, and it exists!! There is nothing like that outside. I wasn’t seeing what I wanted to see. Anything that has lesbian or queer have a bit feeling of tragedy or cautionary tales. But I just want to put queerness in the context of bigger life. It was not like here’s the story (with robot-like voice): human woman feels attraction for human woman. Will she be able to have this attraction fulfilled? Will these human lesbians together? No, that felt like diminishment of my experience, so I wanted to talk about many more things as well, because I think, one’s sexuality, one’s orientation is one of many many things. I am many many things, so I am not only those things, and I felt I want to embed it into a larger life and other questions about art making, confidence, authority in art and subjectivity. It not only set an important milestone in both queer cinema, but also in the development of the Toronto New Wave, and the film was selected for the 1987 Cannes Film Festival. Can you share about the experience back then? The time was kind of exciting in Toronto, Atom Egoyan was a friend, and there was Don McKellar, Bruce McDonald. But in fact we had a great tradition of writers in our country, like Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro. Michael Ondaatje, and Ann-Marie MacDonald. She hadn't started writing yet, but she was one of our greats I believe. So I do feel there was a new energy, and there was new money actually, to be perfectly frank. We are always a kind of documentary country and the Americans did the fiction, and suddenly there was new emphasis on doing new fiction films. And I just happened to be someone standing at the door with my hand holding my idea called, I’ve Heard The Mermaids Singing. So I got some money to do it and submit it to the Cannes Film Festival. I filled out the form without telling anybody but my producer, Alexandra Raffé. I thought no one needed to know. We'll just fill this out and let it be held. We got a call, and had to send it there and off we go! And it was an extraordinary event, here we were stunned. Sheila McCarthy, Alexandra Raffé and I were there. We thought we were impostor syndrome on steroids. We laughed most of the time, my French was absolutely terrible. It's not much better now. And we kept saying, "quel fromage" which means "what cheese," which is all we could think of saying. Basically Pierre-Henri Deleau watched it, and said we're gonna program it. The giant challenge was to get our 16mm blown up to 35mm, because it couldn’t be shown at Cannes unless we blew it up, so that we have to figure out 50 thousand dollars or something. A good man Jan Rofekamp came to the floor and gave us the money. Suddenly the film was sold to 40 countries in Cannes. People were sending champagne and standing ovations. It was so moving for me. I felt like I was this weird, completely alone outsider. Just doing some sketches, and humming along, and that was my movie. Suddenly I was at the stage of one of the biggest film festivals in the world. People are laughing and crying, that is the stunning moment that I would cherish my whole life. To have your heart welcomed into the hearts of others, is a stunning moment in anyone’s life. There were three main characters. Can you share with us what’s the idea of having these three characters? Was finding Polly a challenge back then? I made three character, and they are one side of me, the curator with more critical mind, Polly is more innocent and insecure and a bit oblivious mind, and Mary Joseph character (starring Ann-Marie MacDonald) is more like artist who is afraid to present themselves, and just want to make things, but confident in her own sexuality. I put them all in opposition to each other, as a strategy for creating authentic dialogue, and making sure that I take each voice seriously, like they are part of me, and at comfort as they were. But the conflict was I have seen movies, heard music, seen arts that are of huge impact for me. What if I can’t make it? I wanted it more than anything, What if I can't? Should I do it anyway? Should I just like trick and finagle, and like force myself into something so that I can still do it? Should I take the naysayers seriously? They don't get me as the fact of being a woman, which was much more rare at that time. And lesbian taboo, and coming from a Dutch Calvinist background. And I also have this idea of should I look kind of dark, super thin, kind of anguish, smoking and hunched over. I just have this image that I didn’t fit. I didn’t fit my own image. I wanted to be Susan Sontag actually, but I didn’t look like that. Anyway. So I thought, just make things that you want to see, trust the voices, trust that somehow debating within yourself is a worthy one. And have fun! I hadn't thought it would be a comedy actually, and the VHS or DVD (yeah back in those days) ended up in the comedy section, that kind of surprised me. I thought it was going to be sort of a gently amusing, thoughtful, magic-realist base, but anyway. Sheila McCarthy was gold. I auditioned for this character Polly for a long time, a lot of people. When she came, my memory was like, “oh my god, you are perfect.” Her memory was like I had an audition for five hours or something horrible (laugh). She was about to get fed up and walk out if I didn’t give it to her right away. And I did give it to her. We have remained friends. Actually see a movie called Women Talking by astounding filmmaker Sarah Polley. Sheila McCarthy played a very old woman, and she does so beautifully. The whole film is so extraordinary. And I don't think that they're unrealistic that this film will be getting some attention, come Oscar time. It's so specific to a place and time, and leaps with incredible confidence and presence to transcendent embodiment of the most important discussion right now. See Women Talking by Sarah Polley if you can. Sheila  and I just dared to have fun all the way through. She had this fantastic sense of humor, we made each other laugh all the time. Like almost immediately, I can say things like, “Ok, cut, Sheila can you just act better?” And she would laugh. Doug Koch shot it. He had a great sense of humor and visual humor. And that's not given to everyone. When she goes to the curator's birthday party, she’s carrying this large box, and does everything wrong. Embarrassment is a lovely thing to play. The film touches upon many different aspects of art. And Embarrassment, one of the most fruitful realms of human experience. When we are embarrassed, we are actually changed in color. Like liquid coming out of a palm. It was a profound force for us. Very difficult sometimes to watch, and healing to see in others, because we all live in such a desperate grasp on our own dignity. When we felt it slipping away, we felt like ourselves were slipping away. I just stumbled on that as a state of being to explore. I think that might be one of the things people are responding to with this movie. After around 35 years, how do you look at this movie now? It’s my first born. It’s my friend, it still makes me laugh. I cherish the freedom that I had in it. When I didn’t expect or hope for anything, it’s a lovely state of being to make art in. I love the camera monologue, because it’s intimate, you are looking at eyes. And I am proud of it. I hope you find it worthy with your time, and share it with your friend if you can. I send you good will to Taiwan, and send the festival good will. If there is anyone out there on the brink of making movies, hear your own voice, trust it. Get as much homework, do the homework, and listen to yourself, and work, and play. That's my advice to you.

專訪《不自然的六幕喜劇》、《親愛的奶奶,晚安》導演簡・奧森伯格

「難道要拍一部片說『接受死亡吧⋯⋯』,才不要咧!」 專訪《不自然的六幕喜劇》、《親愛的奶奶,晚安》導演簡・奧森伯格 採訪/陳慧穎、周易 翻譯、整理/陳慧穎、李季洋、潘芝諺 您在早期拍攝了一系列短片,《不自然的六幕喜劇》為其中之一,請分享您決定拍攝這部電影的契機。 這部片是很久之前拍的,1975年。我從小就接收各種可怕的觀念,我從沒聽說過女同志、酷兒之類的事情;就算聽說了,內容也一定是非常糟糕的。我記得小時候坐在客廳地板上看電視播出《雙姝怨》(The Children's Hour)。電影中,莎莉.麥克琳(Shirley MacLaine)和奧黛莉.赫本(Audrey Hepburn)是共同經營一間女子學校的商業夥伴。一名女孩散布謠言說莎莉.麥克琳所飾演的角色是個女同志。這當然只是謠言,但對莎莉.麥克琳來說卻是真的,只是她從未對任何人坦承。片中有一幕,她終於對奧黛莉.赫本坦白,她說「我覺得很難受又骯髒」,接著就上吊了。這就是我對於受過教育的女同志人生的第一印象:即使事業有成,你還是會上吊自殺。 許多年後,我進入電影學院就讀,也經歷了女性主義運動。每個人都想顛覆一切,導正所有錯得離譜的事物,而我想嘲諷一下社會對女同志的刻板印象。有些人會說:「請接受我們,我們和你們並沒有不同。」這很棒,但我更想做出能娛樂女同志、也能被其他群體欣賞的作品。這部片諷刺了社會對於女同志的刻板印象,像是女同志會性騷擾兒童、當壁花,或都是因為被男人拒絕才變成女同志⋯⋯等刻板印象,這部片就是這樣來的。     現在回顧,您會怎麼看待這部片和這些刻板印象?考量現今的社會情況,若有可能,您會改變或加入什麼內容? 當初看到這個問題,覺得這問題滿值得深省的,因為現在有許多事情都不同了,LGBTQ+群體被視為和其他人一樣有各種性格特質,可能是好人也可能是壞人。但仇視的玩笑還是存在,在我的國家,社會憎惡「覺醒」份子(woke),「人們該正向看待LGBTQ+群體」的觀念,反而被右翼當成煽動仇恨的工具。 若要講我會加入什麼刻板印象,我第一個會想到的就是非常「覺醒」、到處檢舉別人或指正錯誤,像是正義使者的酷兒形象。我意識到這非常可怕,因為在我的國家,右翼人士就是透過深化這樣的刻板印象,來推動一個很可怕的時代。   您的首部長片《親愛的奶奶,晚安》,由詹姆斯.夏慕斯(James Schamus)共同監製,歷時12年完成。是否能分享該片的製作緣起? 對,詹姆斯.夏慕斯是這部片的共同監製,如你所知他和李安長期合作,包括經典電影《囍宴》。 但我這部片集結了所有會讓人不想看的關鍵字,像是「紀錄片」、「祖母」、「紙片人偶」等,主題又是「死亡」、「癌症」,聽起來真不像一部好看的電影。我也不知道我當時在幹嘛,也許因此讓這部片有一種原創性——我並不是在嘗試拍攝某種特定類型的電影。 一切都是從我發現奶奶得了癌症開始,我想要和她錄音,日後自己留存。在家庭中,她的存在一直被視為理所當然。她處在女性沒什麼機會發展事業的時代,我母親一直抗拒變得像外婆一樣,我則抗拒成為我母親。所以當我專注在外婆身上,我發現她很有想法和幽默感。她談論死亡的方式十分迷人。事情就這樣接續下去,我和一群朋友帶著攝影器材,我們在她過世前記錄下部份影像,她過世後我又再和我家人拍一些素材。我沒資金,也不知道要怎麼運用那些素材,直到我外婆過世後幾年,我才開始寫劇本。 劇本中,我讓五歲的自己化成人型紙板來經歷這些事。概念是:一個人過世後,時間隨之崩解,過去與她相知、相處的每一刻都是一樣的,都化為當下,那都是當下的。愛著外婆的那個五歲的我,仍舊是那個實際感受經歷這一切的那個我,所以直覺地做出了紙板人物,讓她來帶領我們穿梭在紀錄影像間,探問死亡帶來的無解提問。 信不信由你,有人就是相信這也能做成電影。獲得一些資金後,我開始拍攝。國外電視台和藝術機構幫了很大的忙。你應該不會想聽這整整十二年的製作過程吧?太長了啦! 我沒有放棄,所以才有這部電影。也要感謝詹姆斯.夏慕斯、林恩.霍爾斯(Lynn Holst)和桑德拉.舒爾伯格(Sandra Schulberg),感謝製片公司「American Playhouse」,這部片因為他們才得以完成,並於日舞影展首映。 我非常幸運,桑德拉・舒爾伯格當初有幫這部片找錢,後來創辦了「IndieCollect」,著手修復早年使用16mm或 35mm膠卷拍攝的電影。她讓我的電影和許多其他人的作品得以復活、重新被世人看見。     請問使用紙片人偶的想法是怎麼產生的? 我是受了史貝柏格(Hans-Jürgen Syberberg)的《希特勒:一部德國電影》(Hitler: A Film from Germany,美國版片名:Our Hitler)啟發。該片反思德國如何產生希特勒,並包含多種元素——劇情、紀錄、人偶、劇場等等。我想我是看了這部富有哲思的電影受了啟發。《親愛的奶奶,晚安》也是一部探究龐大命題的家庭電影,探究愛與死亡。任何關乎死亡的事物都與愛有關。 一切得從一場電影院場景開始講起。在片中,有一段是她帶我去看我的第一部電影,覺得到處都是外婆,全都用紙片呈現,那乾脆我也變成紙片人偶。現在回想起來,當時會直覺這麼做也可能是因為知道紙片人偶不會死。我把小時候的自己做成紙片——是我內心中的那個孩童時期的自己在失去外婆,也失去了妹妹,這在電影中也有提到。我妹的年紀就一直停留在七歲。 另外,考量這部片的製作時間很長,能想到要用紙板人偶很幸運啦!如果請了一個演員,她早就跑去做別的工作了,但我的紙板人偶不會有其他工作。     是否能分享一下拍攝過程,有些場景滿激烈的⋯⋯ 首先我要說,我們所拍攝的影像素材沒有很多,並沒有龐大的攝影團隊24小時跟拍家人的情況,我們拍的都至少有一部分出現在電影裡。我們有記錄下我外婆臨終前住院的那段時光,難以直視,但我還是做了那樣的決定。待在那裡很艱難,看著你所愛的人病情惡化是件十分痛苦的事情。她待在那裡是沒有選擇權的,她還活著,還有意識,但這是她當時正在經歷的。所以問題是我要單獨留她在醫院,還是想辦法找尋一種方式陪伴她。這部電影幾乎成了我的支柱,支持著我和外婆的相處,帶著攝影機就有理由待在她身邊。這也讓她有機會說再見,她會說:「把攝影機和電影帶來,把這一切都帶去她死後的世界」,她顯然也喜歡影像使她永存的概念。而她一定想不到有天我會和台灣觀眾談起她。她曾說:「你真的會放這部片給大家看嗎?」 但我們真的這麼做了。外婆!我們做到了! 她是個平凡人,不是什麼織了一條百哩長棉被的人(笑)。她有個家庭,愛著她的家。而這就是我想做的,向每個人的所愛之人,每個人的祖母致敬。 片中可以看見家人之間有緊密的連結,當然也提出一些滿激烈的問題,請問您的家人怎麼看待這一部分? 我的家人非常活潑,我們會討論也會爭執。我有個弟弟成為了哲學教授,他會激烈地提出各種哲學問題。這部片當初上映時,他有一點在生我的氣,因為他在片中說話時,我的紙片人偶把手舉起來朝自己的太陽穴開槍。當然我是在拿手足關係開玩笑。我愛我弟,我也很開心人們喜歡他為這部片添增的色彩,提出種種大哉問。總之,他的確生了一陣子的氣,但現在他為這部片感到驕傲,甚至還分享這部片給自己的兒子看。 不幸地,我母親三年前去世了,不過她有看到這部片被修復完成的樣子。當初上映時她就非常喜歡,後來數位修復版在皇后區世界電影節(Queens World Film Festival)首映,她也在場。理查德.布羅迪(Richard Brody)在《紐約客》刊登了一篇精彩的影評,讓這部片得以被選入「標準收藏」,並再次於世界各地放映。在那之後,她就過世了。我並不喜歡這樣!這部片就是與死亡的抗爭!並不是說「讓我們接受死亡吧……」,我的意思是,我們必須接受死亡!不然還能怎麼樣?難道要拍一部片說「接受死亡吧⋯⋯」?才不要咧,我的電影更像是:「不!我不喜歡死亡!」。儘管這都是徒勞。 不過在她過世後,我在她的公寓中找到一整櫃滿滿的影評,我要哭了。每一張傳單、所有關於我作品的文章評論,她都收藏著。   我想提一下您的首部短片《Home Movie》,和首部長片一樣都是在處理家庭題材。 確實我的第一部短片《Home Movie》和首部長片《親愛的奶奶,晚安》在風格上是類似的,或許可以稱為個人的散文電影。在片中,我是個小孩,我弟才剛出生,還是個嬰兒。而我會模仿媽媽抱著弟弟的樣子。我有個玩偶,會餵它。我看著玩偶,把它丟向房間的另一角,並開始跳舞。還有,我成為了啦啦隊員。我也談到出櫃、加入啦啦隊,當然只是為了要和其他啦啦隊員在一起。我剛向母親出櫃時她不太能接受,但她還是試圖表現支持。我拍《Home Movie》的時候,不認識任何影評人。但我們有做傳單,需要一些推薦語。因此,我請母親幫我寫一篇影評。她就寫:「《Home Movie》是一部非常細膩、拍得很好的電影。我覺得我的女兒是個有才華的導演,我希望她會在『其他題材』上有更多發揮。」   很不可思議,這一切就是這樣開始的!《Home Movie》現今被視為最早的女性主義女同志電影之一,1997年你所編劇的影集《Relativity》則在美國電視黃金時段播出首個女女之吻。當還沒有太多人在做這樣的事情的時候,你是怎麼跨出這一步的? 其實在我之前有很多真正的開路先鋒,他們真的在做不曾有人做過的事。我能做些事情,是因為我有社群。1970年代有龐大的女性社群,以前我看著《雙姝怨》中的莎莉.麥克琳上吊自殺,但後來的我,身處在一個龐大社群中,和眾人一起咆哮:「我們是女同志!我們是酷兒!我們是黛客!」大聲喊出所有被污名的詞彙,再加上女性主義運動,這就是我能做那些事背後的脈絡。 就算是《親愛的奶奶,晚安》,我在紐約身邊有一群獨立電影導演,他們不模仿主流,不模仿好萊塢的成功模式,或許是因為對我們來說它太遙遠。我們互相支持,拍不一樣的電影。要做些不同的事當然需要勇氣,但身邊有個支持你的社群真的有很大的助益,就算只是幾個人也好。 “Did I have to make a movie saying: let’s all accept death? No!!” Interview with Jan Oxenberg, director of Thank You and Good Night and A Comedy in Six Unnatural Acts   In the early days of your career, you made a series of short films including A Comedy in Six Unnatural Acts. Can you tell us about in what context you decided to make this film ?  This film was made a long time ago, 1975. I have grown up with terrible images. If there was anything called lesbian or queer, you never heard about it, but when you did hear about it, it’s in very bad context. I remember when I was little, sitting on the floor, watching The Children's Hour on TV. Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn are business partners who owned a girl’s school in the film. One of the girls started to rumor that Shirley MacLaine’s character is a lesbian. It's not true, but for Shirley MacLaine, it’s true inside. She has never admitted to anyone. In one scene, she finally confessed to Audrey Hepburn by saying “I feel so sick and dirty.” And then in the next scene, she hanged herself. So this is my introduction to what life would be like as an educated lesbian. Even if you are very successful at your career, you’ll get to hang yourself. Years later, when I got to the film school and experienced the time of feminist revolution, everybody wanted to turn everything upside down, making thing right that have been so wrong. I wanted to really ridicule the stereotype of lesbianess. You know there were people saying, “please accept us, we are just like you,” which was good, but I wanted to make an entertainment for lesbians, and could be seen and enjoyed by anybody else. And the film would satirize the stereotypes of being a child molester, a wall flower, or becoming a lesbian because men rejected her, so on and so forth. That’s where it came from.     Now looking back, how do you perceive this film and these stereotypes now? Concerning the social environment nowadays, if you have a chance to remake the film, what will you change or add? I saw this question, and thought it’s really provocative. Because at this time, we have been so many changes. LGBTQ+ people are somewhat seen as people who have a range of characteristic like anybody else, can be good person or bad person. But obviously the hate joke exists. In my country, hate or resentment of people who are considered “woke”. The idea of “you should be positive about LGBTQ+ person” is now used by the right wing to stoke resentment. The first thing came into my mind about what stereotype that I add now was a super “woke” queer person who “cancels” people or who has things to say about anybody who does wrong. And I realize that’s kind of scary. Because that’s what the right wing in my country is doing, to promote a very scary time. Speaking of Thank You and Good Night, it took 12 years in the making, and really stood out as an remarkable example of independent cinema, co-produced by James Schamus. Can you share with us how this project came together and what made you decide to make this film? Yes, James Schamus, the co-producer of my film, as you know, has worked with Ang Lee. They have worked together on a classic film The Wedding Banquet. But Thank You and Good Night is a film that has every buzz word that makes you not want to see a movie, like documentary, grandmother, starring a cardboard cutout, and yeah! It’s about death. And cancer. Let’s not forget cancer. So it doesn’t really seem a good idea to make a movie about that. But I didn’t know what I was doing, maybe that’s what makes things original. Because I wasn’t trying to make a certain kind of movie. It started when I found out my grandmother had cancer and I thought I would like to do a tape recording with her, so I can have that for myself. In my family, we have taken her for granted very much. She belongs to a generation of women who did not have a lot of opportunity to have a career. My mother was always rebelling against being like her, and I was always busy with rebelling against being like my mother. When I put a lot of attention on my grandmother, I discovered that she had ideas and this great sense of humor. And she was willing to talk about contemplating dying in a way that was very captivating. And one thing led to another. With a bunch of friends, film equipment, we shot a little bit of time before she died, and a little bit after she died with my family. I had no funding and I had no idea what to do with the footage. So I ended up writing the script over a few years after my grandmother died. A script in which I made a cardboard cutout figure of myself as a five-year-old girl experiencing these events. With the idea that, when someone dies, time kind of collapses. Every time that you know that person, it’s all the same. It’s all present. My five-year-old self, loving my grandma, was the one who was there feeling all the feelings, so intuitively I just made this cardboard cutout character, who will guide us through these footages, asking the big unanswerable questions that death brings up. Believe or not, there were some people who were sure that this was going to work as a movie. So I started filming some scenes when I got to receive some financing. Foreign television and some art organizations are really helpful. You don’t really want to hear what happened during the course of 12 years, do you? So long (laugh). I didn’t give up, that’s how it got made. Thanks to people like James Schamus, Lynn Holst, as well as Sandra Schulberg. The film was finally able to finish with American Playhouse and premiere at Sundance. I also have to say that I am incredibly lucky that Sandra Schulberg who was part of getting the film financed at the first place started the IndieCollect, started restoring films made on 16mm, 35mm in the early days. She was responsible for my films and many others, in order to get them revived and re-appreciated.   How did the idea of cardboard cutout come along? I was influenced by this 7-hour film called Our Hitler by Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, a meditation on how Germany got Hitler. It has all kinds of elements: drama, puppets, documentary footage, theater, etc. Seeing that movie, which was philosophical in a way, and Thank You and Good Night is a family movie that asks about a big subject, death and love. Because anything about death is really about love. I guess I was influenced by seeing that film. It all started out as one scene in the movie theater. She took me to see my first movie and felt like she was all around me. So to have all these cardboard cutouts, and I would be a cardboard cutout too. But looking back on it, the impulse partly has to do with the fact that a cardboard cutout doesn’t die. I portrayed myself as a child in this cutout character. Well, that’s the child inside me that is losing my grandma, and that has lost my sister, which also comes up in the movie. My sister never got older than 7 years old. It's also lucky for me to come up with this idea of having a cutout character, given how long it takes to finish this film. if I had an actor, who would be up for doing another job! My cutout character did not have another job (laugh).   Can you also share about the filming process? Some of the scenes are really intense… First of all, very little footage was shot, so it wasn’t a situation where a large film crew followed the family for 24 hours. Every scene that we shot, there was a piece of that scene in the movie. We did film my grandmother when she was in the hospital in the last days. It’s tough to watch. I made the decision. It’s tough to be there. It’s hard to watch someone you love deteriorating. At that time, I felt like she didn't have any choice about being there. She was alive, and that’s what she was experiencing. The choice is either leave her alone, not be with her, or to find a way to be with her. The film was almost like a crutch for me, to be able to spend that time with my grandmother. Having a camera, having a “reason” to be there. And it gave her a chance to say goodbye. She said, “are you ever gonna take this movie out and show them, Jan?” She clearly loved the idea of being immortalized in some way, and I am sure she cannot possibly have imagined that one day I’d be able to talk about her to someone in Taiwan! She’d say, “how you gonna take this movie out and show them Jan?” (laugh). Ok, we are, grandma, we did! And she is an ordinary person. She is not someone who made a quilt that is 100 miles long (laugh). She had a family and loved her family. So that’s what I wanted to do. To make a tribute to everybody’s loved ones, everybody’s grandma. One thing I am curious about is that we truly see the strong bonding among family members, but we also see some of the really difficult questions asked in the film. So how did the family member take on that? My family is very lively. We talked and argued. I have a brother who turned out to be a philosophy professor at the university who asked philosophical questions in a very intense way. He was a little bit mad at me when the film came out, because I did the cardboard cutout character shooting herself while he was talking. I was sort of made fun of sibling relationship. I love my brother, and I am really glad that people who have appreciated what my brother added to the film, in terms of being willing to ask big questions. Anyway, he did feel mad at me for a little while, but now he is proud of it, and proud to show it to his son. Sadly my mom died three years ago, but she got to see the revival of the film. She was a big fan when it came out originally. She was there when the restored version premiered at the Queens World Film Festival. Richard Brody of the New Yorker gave this amazing review, which helped it get in The Criterion Collection, and get shown all over the world again. Since then, she passed away, which I don’t like either!! The film was a kind of protest against death!! It’s not like, “let’s all accept death…” I mean we have to accept death!! What choice do we have!! And I have to make a movie saying “accepted”?!! No, my movie is more like, “no!!! I don’t like death!” But then it’s kind of futile. But, after she died, I found in her condo, she had a full cabinet full of every review, now I am starting to cry. Every flier, everything written about my movies. She saved it all.   Your first short film Home Movie and Thank You and Good Night are both dealing with family topics. Can you comment on that? It's true that my first short film Home Movie and first feature work Thank You and Good Night are similar stylistically, what you might call it personal essay films. Home Movie has me as a child, when my brother was born. He was an infant in Home Movie. And I am imitating my mother holding him. I had a doll, feeding the little doll. And then I looked at the doll and threw it across the room, and started dancing. And there was me being the cheerleader. I talked about coming out, about how I became a cheerleader so I can be with other cheerleaders. My mother wasn’t so accepting when I first came out to her, but she is trying to be a good sport. When I made Home Movie, I didn’t know about any critics. We made a flier for the film, and we need some quotes of review. So I asked my mother to give me a review. So she did, saying “Home Movie is sensitive and well-made. I think my daughter Jan is a talented filmmaker. I hope she will go on to other subjects.”   That’s how you start the journey! It’s incredible all along the way, Home Movie is now regarded as one of the first feminist lesbian films. You also present the first kiss between two lesbian characters on American primetime television in Relativity (1997). How did you take the first step when there were not so many people doing that at that time. There are people who have been real pioneers doing what no one else was doing. I was able to do what I did, because I had a community. Back in the 1970s, there was a tremendous women’s community. Here I was watching Shirley MacLaine hang herself in The Children's Hour. But later I was among the community who shouted, “we are lesbian, we are queer, we are dykes!” Raising every word that has been an insult. Along with the feminist movement, that’s really the context of why I was able to do this. Even in terms of Thank You and Good Night, I was with a group of independent filmmakers in New York City who weren’t imitating the mainstream or Hollywood success possibly because it seems so far-off. And we all supported each other to do something different. Yes it did take courage to do all these things, but it really helps if you have a community around you, even if it’s just a couple of people.  

專訪《卡塔葉時光》導演潔西卡・貝希爾

專注當下,是為了好好看見 專訪《卡塔葉時光》導演潔西卡・貝希爾   採訪/陳慧穎、周易 翻譯、整理/潘芝諺、陳慧穎   《卡塔葉時光》是您的第一部紀錄長片,是什麼樣的契機促使您在家鄉衣索比亞拍攝關於卡塔葉的電影? 我在片中所描述的小鎮長大,16歲時因政治紛亂離開家鄉。過程其實是滿粗暴的,我們被迫在幾天內遷離家園,自然而然長大後會想回過頭來梳理和釐清每件事。好不容易能回去家鄉,我想和許久未見的家人、祖母及朋友們重聚。但我一回到那裡,卻對所有變化感到訝異,有些改變剛開始並不明顯,卻在視覺上帶來不少衝擊。比方說,當我從市中心開往小鎮,目光所及全是卡塔葉,雖然卡塔葉伴隨我成長,但那景象還是令我震驚,許多景致也大大改變了。我腦中有許多疑問,這部片就是如此開始的。 我逐漸發覺卡塔葉成為單一經濟作物,同時伴隨著高失業率的問題,許多年輕人紛紛離開家鄉。當然氣候變遷也是其中因素之一,舉例來說,許多農夫不再像過去仰賴咖啡栽培,咖啡曾經是當地最大宗的重要作物之一,現在多半轉而種植較好照顧、一年可四穫的卡塔葉。 我其實感受到一種深層的渴望,想與家鄉、土地、人們重新連結。時間就像是一個巨型吸塵器,把時間抽走,我想要試圖彌補這一塊。   台灣也有種植屬於經濟作物的檳榔,看到您的作品圍繞著卡塔葉十分有趣。能否請您大致說明卡塔葉在人們日常生活中所扮演的角色? 的確,這跟人類與神聖植物淵遠流長的關係有關。伊斯蘭蘇菲教派藉由咀嚼卡塔葉來幫助冥想,好進行長時間的禱告,這是這個植物長久以來的功用,但這樣的功用有明顯的地域限制,僅限於實行伊斯蘭教的區域。直到後來才逐漸成為我們文化、甚至可說是大眾文化的一部分。不論男女及年齡,連小孩都會咀嚼,對許多年輕人來說這是一種打發時間的方式,因為時間承載了許多挫敗感。 咀嚼卡塔葉會經歷不同的階段。最初階段稱為「harara」,會感受到一種想要嚼食的強烈渴望,所以近午時分大家都會聚集在市場買卡塔葉。到了約下午一點鐘,大家會回到室內、家中或是和人們聚在一起,一同嚼食。在一種亢奮狀態下,咀嚼卡塔葉成為一種深具社交性質的事情,大家會聚在一起談論政治、宗教、愛情……,什麼都談。但到了下午四點,你會發現街道進入一片死寂,因為亢奮結束後會進入內省狀態,稱作「merkana」,如同進入做清醒夢的狀態一樣,讓你得以暫時從時間的主中解脫。   在您的電影中,不同的片段如同夢境一般排列和呈現,也如同一段旅程。細膩美麗的鏡頭中流露出輕盈感,但又逐漸感受到片中角色內心世界的沉重。能否請您簡述您是如何在視覺及形式上思考這部作品的構成? 我建構這部影片的方式,主要受到蘇菲主義的思考模式影響,特別是觀看的方式。關於為了真正「看見」而關注當下。我們總是在為未來做規劃、做打算,或總是在回憶過去,但真正困難的是活在當下,所以蘇菲主義的冥想強調為了「看見」而淨空自我,放下自我才能感知當下的一切。於我而言,拍攝就是捕捉那種當下的方式。這部片的架構也與卡塔葉對我們產生的影響相呼應,那種將人們從時間中釋放出來的狀態,讓人們能專注在當刻,從「總是在任何時空中但偏偏不在當下」的傾向中釋放出來。我花了許多心力在經營那種感受經驗。 這關乎找尋人們在屬於他們的空間及環境中的樣貌,看見他們之間的關係,舉例來說:光與影的關係、恐懼和恐懼反面之間的交涉⋯⋯。恐懼使人麻木,那該如何面對自己的恐懼?這和生命之間的關係又是什麼?這些都是我思考許久的核心命題。 同時,我也希望這部片是開放的。舉例來說,男孩從迷霧中走出的開場,以及男孩試圖搭便車的結尾,他究竟是要留下、還是離開,我們無從得知。那些畫面都真實反映出你所能感知到的一種不確定性。衣索比亞現在正在經歷一場內戰,但即便在我拍攝這部片的那段期間,那種不確定性都是很明確的,你不知道之後實際會發生什麼事,但有一種暗潮洶湧的感覺。我並不想要給予這部電影一個完美的結局,拍攝這部作品,也代表對生命中所發生的一切保持開放的心態。   您花費了十年拍攝這部片,身為這部作品的導演、編劇、製作人及攝影,想請問您在過程中經歷最大的挑戰是什麼?最有所獲的,又是什麼? 這部片教導我許多,關於生命、耐心和自立。我當時決定勇往直前,但要能夠擁有隨心所欲的自由,同時意味你得全心全意投入,特別是資金方面,那十分地艱難。並且,你得面對不斷的來來回回、充滿各種懷疑和恐懼的躊躇時刻,但最終重要的仍舊是:什麼才是你最在乎的,遵循你的直覺。如果當時我沒有放手一搏,那絕對會是很大的遺憾。 我想特別一提,這部片能夠用奧羅莫語拍攝對我來說十分重要。奧羅莫語是我祖母的母語,但是我和父母在家並不會使用這個語言,這也和奧羅莫人經歷的迫害有關,從很早之前到1974(塞拉西皇帝皇帝統治時期),再到1991(德爾格軍事政權領袖被推翻),這個語言都是持續被禁的。從歷史觀點看,奧羅莫人是衣索比亞最大的原住民族,但他們遭受壓迫及被邊緣化。因此,將奧羅莫語放置在這部片十分核心的位置,對我而言深具意義。除了奧羅莫語之外,哈勒爾語也被包含在內,這兩種語言都是我從小熟悉的。在時間的催化下,片中所有的細節都有了更深遠的意義,這十年拍下來無疑是經歷脫胎換骨的轉變。 我之所以能拍攝完成這部片,都是回歸到與人們的日常相處。親近感是由信任而生,大多數人認識我的父親,自然而然地也認識我。因此回到我的出身地,也是尋找我的根源、我父母的根源。我年復一年回去,並非一次性的返家之旅。我家鄉的人是支持、啟發我拍攝這部片的原動力,是大家共同的努力造就了那種緊密感,使我真實地感到自在。拍攝過程充滿樂趣,特別是在工廠拍攝的時候,我們玩得很開心。   Truly in the Present in order to See Interview with Jessica Beshir, director of Faya Dayi Faya Dayi is your first feature documentary, what drove you to make a film on khat in your home country Ethiopia? I grew up in the same town in the film, and had to leave at 16 years old due to the political turmoil. It’s a violent uprooting in a way, we had to leave in a couple of days, so naturally I want to make sense out of everything. When I was able to go back, I wanted to reconnect with my family, grandmother and friends who I haven’t seen for such a long time. Once I was there, I was shocked by all the changes. Some of the changes are not apparent at the beginning, but are visually manifested. When I drove to the town from the main city, all I saw was khat. I grew up with khat around me, but it’s visually shocking. The landscape has drastically changed. I had so many questions in mind, and that’s how I started. I slowly learned that khat has become a single crop economy and there was a huge problem of unemployment. A lot of youth were leaving across the borders. Climate change was also a factor. The famers were no longer relied on the cultivation of coffee for example, which used to be the most important crop in the area. A lot of the farmers turned to the cultivation of khat, which can be harvested four times a year, with a lot less maintenance. I also feel the urge to reconnect with the nation, the land and the people. The sense of time has felt like a huge vacuum and somehow I wanted to recover that. Taiwan also has betel nuts, which has become an economic crop, so it’s interesting to see how your film revolves around khat. Can you give us a little bit of background on how Khat manifests in people’s everyday life? Yes it really has something to do with human relationship with the sacred plants around the world. Sufi muslins chewed khat to help them meditate and pray for longer periods. That’s how this plant was used for a long time, but the practice tended to be limited to predominantly Muslim areas. Up until later, it started to become part of the culture, even a mainstream thing. Women, men, elderly and even children are chewing. For a lot of the youth, it’s a way to “kill time.” Because time is what holds an incredible amount of frustration. What happens when you chew is that it has different stages. The first stage is “harara,” the time for having the craving, so around noon everyone is at the market trying to get their khat. Around 1pm, everyone gets inside their houses or gathers with people chewing. Entering the euphoric states, it’s really a social gathering thing. People talk about politics, religion, love and everything. But around 4 pm, it’s like dead silence. As euphoric states pass, people tend to turn to introspection, that is “merkana.” It’s like entering a lucid dream. It’s also a time to liberate yourself from the tyranny of time.   In your film, different segments are connected and arranged like a dream sequence. It’s also like a journey. It’s so beautifully shot that it makes you feel a sense of lightness, but again you also feel a sense of heaviness that ties to the characters’ inner world. Can you elaborate on the way you form your visual and experiment in forms? The way I construct my film is really under the influence of Sufi way of thinking, especially the way of seeing. About how to be in the present moment in order to see. We are often either planning the future or thinking about the past. Truly in the present is a difficult thing to do. So the Sufi meditation stresses on emptying themselves in order to see. Empty your ego in order to see what’s in the present. For me, filming is to capture that sense of present. The construction of film also echoes back to the effect of khat on us. The effect of releasing yourself from time, and of releasing from the tendency of being everywhere but not here at the present moment. I have put a lot of energy into the making of that experience. It's about finding people in their own spaces and environment, to see their relationship, for example the negotiation of the lights and shadows, the negotiation between fear and what’s the opposite of fear. Fear is a paralyzing force, so how do you confront your fear? And what’s its relationship to life? These are the essential things I have been thinking a lot about. I also want the film to be quite open. For example, the opening of a boy coming out of the fog or a boy trying to get a ride in the final scenes. You don’t know whether he is staying or going. That truly speaks to the uncertainty being felt. Ethiopia has this civil war going on right now, but even back to the time when I was filming, you can sense this uncertainty, you don’t know what’s gonna happen, just feeling there are a lot of things moving underneath. I don’t want to tie a nice ribbon to end the film. To shoot this film is to be open to what life is going to bring.   It takes ten years of making. You are the director, writer, producer and cinematographer of this film, what's the biggest challenge along the way? And what’s the biggest rewards? This film taught me so much about life, about patience, about self-reliance. I just decided to go for it. The freedom of doing what I want to do also comes with a huge commitment. Especially financially speaking, it’s very difficult. And it’s a constant back and forth, with lots of doubts and fears, but at the end of the day, it’s all about what you really care about. Follow your intuition. It would be a huge regret if I didn’t go for it. It’s also very important for me to make this film in Oromo language. Oromo language is my grandmother’s language. But my parents and I don’t speak that at home. It also has to do with the Oromo struggle, as the language has been largely banned till 1974 (Under the dictatorship of Haile Selassie), and then all the way to 1991(when the military Derg regime was overthrown by rebel forces). Historically the Oromo people are the largest indigenous ethnic group in Ethiopia, but they have been marginalized and suffered a lot. So having this language at the center of this film is very important for me. In addition to Oromo language, Harari language is also included. These are the languages that I grew up listening to. With time, all these details in film acquire more profound meaning. It’s definitely transformational during this ten year span of making this film.   What allows me to make this film is truly to spend time with people. Intimacy grew out of trust. A lot of them knew my father, naturally knew about me. So a lot of time it’s like being where I was coming from, it has something to do with my parents’ roots. I come back year after year, so it’s never like a one-time deal. The community really supports and inspires me to make this film. It’s communal efforts that achieve this sense of closeness. Feeling truly comfortable. Actually I had great fun filming, especially in the factory. It was such a fun time.  

專訪《沙灘情事》導演埃琳娜・奈法薇妮

「我希望能在電影中看見:我們是有未來的」 專訪《沙灘情事》導演埃琳娜・奈法薇妮 採訪/陳慧穎、周易 翻譯、整理/李季洋、陳慧穎   我真的超開心我的作品能再次來到台灣。2017年我的首部長片作品《我是世上的一抹曙光》入選女性影展,我受邀來台,那真的是我最棒的影展經驗之一。有非常棒的觀眾群,真的是我最開心的影展時光。今年我很想跟你們一起在現場,那會是最棒的參與和交流方式,但能用遠距的方式見到你們已經讓我很開心了。   請跟我們分享這部電影的製作源起? 這部片的核心理念來自我的編劇山卓.奈法薇妮(Sandro Naveriani),也就是我哥哥。他劇本來回寫了好幾年,後來我提議合寫劇本。本來希望共同執導這部片,但後來劇本走向更貼近我的想法,比較像是我的電影,於是他就後退一步,讓我來執導。 某種程度上,這故事非常貼近我身處的現實,關於喬治亞,也關於瑞士。很幸運地,我的日常不完全像電影中的世界,我不需要直接面對那麼劇烈的暴力,但我身邊的確有些人的處境非常艱難。去年在提比里斯,就有一名跨性別女性被殺害。 當然,不同地方對少數族群的暴力、仇恨和歧視程度有所差異性,但我能清楚看見這些在各地如何化為不同的形式。這是與我切身相關的議題,面對這些這些束縛、困擾,我找不到其他更好的方式訴說。拍這部片,便是希望能講述那些尚未被好好談論的事情。透過銀幕上年輕酷兒族群的能見度與詮釋,我非常希望這部電影能發揮一種賦權的作用。我希望能在電影中看見我們是有未來的,如同本片結尾所說的:我們是能追求夢想的。 說到銀幕能見度,我也想分享一件事,飾演安儂的演員吉雅.阿古瑪瓦(Gia Agumava)是一位業餘演員,他在盧卡諾國際影展獲頒最佳男演員獎。這是他首次演出電影。他來參加試鏡時,我們談了很多,我感覺他也有話想說。參與這部片、演出這個角色,就是一種打破沉默的方式,開口談談那些我們不常談論的事情。   與您先前的作品相比,這部片的元素多元,也有更為明確的架構,卻又保留著細膩簡約的調性,請跟我們分享您與編劇山卓.奈法薇妮合作的過程。 這是我第一次與人共同編劇。老實說,我覺得家人關係扮演很微妙的角色,我們是家人,我們對事情有不同的期待,這很有趣,但我們也必須把身份區分開來,才能好好合作。 我們不住在一起,所以他會把劇本寄給我,我再修改。我傾向於把對白減到最低。假設他寄了十頁的對白給我,我可能會壓縮到兩頁。這就像翻譯一樣,將文字翻譯成電影語言,「如何用更簡要的方式述說」也是一種挑戰。他主要負責故事的架構,我則負責添加血肉。 與人共同編劇的經驗非常棒,因為寫劇本有時是一種折磨,我不太喜歡。但合作能讓這過程變得有活力、有創造性,所以下一部片,我也要找其他人一起合寫。   這部電影是在喬治亞選角、拍攝。本片主題在當地仍屬敏感,在演員甄選的過程中有遇到困難嗎? 甄選演員的過程很有趣。有些演員的確因主題敏感拒絕參演,有些人則不希望和自己不太支持的議題產生關係。安儂,65歲男性角色,這樣的設定尤其難找。年輕女孩們容易多了,她們大多很願意參與,因為許多人有著和角色類似的經驗,遇到很多不同形式的暴力——不見得是指身為酷兒這件事,而是很多時候你會覺得事情沒有必要走到這個地步。 我以前總是和素人演員合作,但這次有許多專業演員參與。當你把素人與專業演員拉在一起表演時,你得想辦法達到一種平衡,或至少在整體能量和調性上達到和諧。 在村莊裡拍攝時,我們也召集了一些村民。我很清楚地解釋這部片的內容,不想造成任何困惑或誤解,因為他們的參與非常重要。一開始有些人的態度是:「我們可能會去啦,畢竟只是要演出本來的自己。」但實際參與拍攝過程後,他們的認知完全改變了。他們了解到酷兒、同性戀沒什麼可怕的。能使人們變得更為親近,甚至克服他們的恐懼是一件很棒的事情。 我也想說,我非常幸運,沒有遭遇到什麼困難,因為我們事先都談過了。這不僅僅是關於酷兒,而是關於愛的不同面貌。   電影中的村莊非常獨特,您是如何決定在當地拍攝的? 打從一開始,我們就決定要在海邊拍,因為海浪的漲落、海的聲音與我們的故事緊密相連。我們找到這座渡假村莊。它曾經是個規模更大、更有生氣的地方,但如今村莊已蕭條,沒什麼事情發生。艷麗的顏色褪去了,被陽光曬得發白。若不仔細看,你會覺得這個地方的色彩趨向單一。這樣的感覺與我的想法吻合,一個有歷史的地方,但你並不知道它的故事確切為何。我也喜歡它沒有明確的區域特徵,你甚至無法肯定這個地方在喬治亞。這樣的特性給了我們很大的自由,我們能說任何想說的故事。   這部電影的音景非常出色,請闡述一下您是怎麼思考聲音、音樂的使用。 音樂對我來說非常重要。我安排音樂的方式就是將音樂獻給每一個角色,呈現出各自的內心世界。配樂是專屬他們個人的聲音,不僅僅是為了場景的需求,音樂更幫助我建立角色本身的節奏,包括他們的動作、動機、內心深處的情感變化。   透過聲音的處理,如廣播、電視新聞播報,本片多少帶出酷兒社群在現實生活中的處境,請您簡單分享近年來喬治亞境內酷兒社群所面臨的處境。情況是否有所改變? 過去15年變了很多。15年前,酷兒社群完全沒有任何能見度可言,彷彿他們根本不存在。這些年來,人們漸漸走出來,這不見得是指個人的出櫃,而是有越來越多性別友善空間出現,如酒吧、咖啡廳。但這些空間都沒有受到政府保護與支持,而且都是單打獨鬥的形式,沒有實質的串聯。 我們的政府本身是極右派,而且受到教會影響,越趨保守。他們沒有任何保護少數群體的作為,不論是種族、性別、或任何其他方面,他們沒有想要讓實際存在的群體融入這個社會。他們認為少數群體不屬於這個國家。所以會有一種矛盾的感覺,這些年來酷兒社群的能見度提升了,但這並不足以改變國家的法律或政府的態度。 《沙灘情事》在提比里斯同志週首日放映。很不可思議,他們選了這部片作為開幕片,有很多分享,現場非常活絡。但在放映室外,有上百位警員保護我們不受右翼保守派、激進基督徒攻擊,他們對少數群體非常暴力。因此,雖然有活動、有空間、有行動,酷兒社群確實存在,但實際上他們仍然受到主流社會公開且暴力的對待。   是否有任何形式的審查制度存在? 現在這個時刻,我不認為我們能以合資的方式在喬治亞拍這部片,但當初這是可行的,這部片便是如此。去年新上任的文化部長扼殺了一切她認為是「異己」的內容,這就是當代的審查制度。我非常確定我們無法像以前一樣獲得部分政府補助。以喬治亞的現況來說,這簡直是一場災難。   在你的電影裡,面對現況的荒謬和殘暴,總是為角色捎來一些溫柔,也能從中感覺到憤怒,這使得作品的政治批判本質更加明顯。這部電影的結尾也帶有些許倡議性質,請和我們分享您的想法。 對我來說,拍攝電影可以是一種倡議方式。而你說的沒錯,這部片累積了過去我所看見、所經歷的一切。以酷兒社群所面臨的處境而言,老實說,我總認為事情並沒有往我心中渴望的方向發展。我希望我們能有力量,能看見希望,並知道我們有一席之地——不只是個人,而是我們有可以共享的社會。至於電影的結尾,我們有收到一些回饋。有人覺得結尾太美好,有人希望結束在燒毀房子那一幕。但我真的無法讓電影結束在那裡,保有希望對我來說很重要。我無法與捨命抗爭的社運人士並肩作戰,但我希望我能透過電影,嘗試捍衛與追求我認為重要的事情。 我和劇組拍這部片,是想要傳達一件事:愛有權以任何形式存在,我們不需要傷害彼此。愛終將勝利。我們都是不一樣的個體,所以我們需要學習共存,牽著彼此一同前進。這並不會有壞處,並不會帶來矛盾,反而會為我們的生命帶來更多機會和可能。   “I always want to see in the film that we have a future” Interview with Elene Naveriani, director of Wet Sand I am super happy that my work is screening again in Taiwan. In 2017, my first feature film I Am Truly a Drop of Sun on Earth was selected in WMWFF. I was invited to Taiwan and it was one of the best memories from the festivals. I’ve been there and it’s been one of the best times I had. Really great audience and I am super happy that my film Wet Sand is screening in WMWFF this year. I’d love to be there with you. It would be the best way to participate and share from both sides, but I am already very happy to see you remotely.   Can you talk about the starting point of making this film? The idea basically comes from my scriptwriter, Sandro Naveriani, who is also my brother. He had been developing the script for many years, and later I proposed to work together on the script. The initial idea was to co-direct the film, but somehow the screenplay later veered to my direction. It became more like my film, so he is happy to step back, and let me direct the film. In a way, the story says something very close to my reality, not only about Georgia, but also about Switzerland. Fortunately, it’s not entirely about my everyday life. I don’t have to face this massive violence, but there are people around me who encounter many difficult situations. There was a transgender woman murdured in Tbilisi last year for example. On the other hand, of course there are different levels of violence, hatred and descrimination against the minorities, but I can clearly see how they manifest in different forms in different societies. I think this topic is always very close to me, and I can’t even find another better way to express things that constrain me or bother me. Making this film, I want to talk about something that is not spoken enough, and I really hope that this film turns out to be an act of empowerment. It’s about the representation of queer communities and young queer people. I always want to see in the film that we have a future, so I hope that the ending of the film can provide the message that it’s possible to follow our dreams. Speaking of the lack of representation. I also wanted to say that Gia Agumava, who played Amnon in the film, is a non-professional actor. He was awarded for Best Actor at the Locarno International Film Festival. It’s his first time acting in the film. He came to our casting, and we talked. I really felt that he also had something to say. Participating in this film, acting in this role, is the gesture to break the silence around us. A move to talk about something that we don’t often talk about.   Compared to your earlier work, it has more elements to it with clearer structure, but it does not lose its sense of subtleness and minimalistic tone. Can you talk more about your collaboration process with Sandro Naveriani? It’s my first time co-writing the film with someone else. Sincerely, I also think this family factor also plays a lot. You are family members, and you have different expectations, so it’s very interesting. But we have to divide these two things, and set up the boundary as collaborators. As we are not in the same place, he would send me the script, and I would rewrite and change the perspective. I also tend to reduce the words, so if he sent me ten pages of dialogues, I would for example have reduced them into two pages. It’s like a translation. How the words can be translated into cinematic languages. It’s also a challenge for me to make it a more condensed language. Structurally he is putting the story together, and I would work more on its “color” or “flesh”. It’s super nice to write with someone else, because screenwriting process is sometimes a torture for me, I didn’t really like this process. Being with someone makes it so much more vibrant and creative. So for the next film, I am also co-writing the script with someone else.   The film was shot in Georgia, casting Georgian actors. When it comes to such a“sensitive” subject matter, does the casting process encounter any difficulty? The casting process is quite interesting. There were actors who refused to participate, because of the subject matter, or they don’t want to engage in something they are not really supporting. It’s particularly hard to find Amnon, a 65 year-old man. For the young girls, it’s much easier, because they have experienced something similar. They are very willing to participate in general. They also have confronted different kind of violence, not necessarily about the queerness, but something that doesn’t have to be like this. I used to work with non-professional all the time, but this time a lot of them are professionals. When you mix non-professional and professional in this film, you need to push or pull this button, making it even or in harmony with the overall energy or mood. As we made this film in the village, we also cast some villagers. I was explaining very clearly what the film is about. I don’t want any confusion or misunderstanding, and their participation is very important. In the beginning, some of them were saying, “maybe we’re gonna be there. After all, we are playing our real roles in life.” But being part of the process, they have totally changed their perception. In the end, they know queer people, queerness or homosexuality is not something to be scared about. It’s great to bring people closer and make them overcome their fear. I am also very lucky to say that I didn’t encounter many problems, because we all talked beforehand. It’s not just about the queerness, but the fact that love has different shapes and forms.   The village has its own unique visual characteristics. How do you find the village?  Since the beginning we knew we were going to make this film on the seaside. The idea of constant movements, waves and sound are closely related with our story. We end up finding this “holiday” village. It used to be something bigger in the early days, but nowadays nothing really happens there. The shining color is vanishing and gets sun-bleached. It’s very precise for me. Something has a history, but you don’t know exactly what kind of history it has. If you don’t pay attention, you’ll even find the color monochrome. I also like the way it does not have a specific locality. You don’t necessarily feel the place is in Georgia. Therefore, the location gives us a lot of freedom. You can tell any story you want.   The soundscape of the film is really incredible, sometimes the perspective is shifting. Can you particularly elaborate on the use of music? The way I select the music is how I dedicate the songs to each character’s world. It’s the personal sound for each of them. Not just for the scene per se, the music also helps me construct the tempo of the character, how they move, and what’s their internal drive, the core of their feelings throughout the film.   Through TV or radio broadcsting, this film did bring out the general social atmosphere for the queer communities. Can you briefly talk about the challenges that queer communities in Georgia are still facing? For the last fifteen years, it has changed a lot. Fifteen years ago, there was no visibility at all, as if queer people had never existed. Over the years, there were more “coming out”, not necessarily in terms of an individual level, but more gender friendly spaces, bars and cafes started to exist. But they are not defended and protected by the government. They exist independently as if fighting in a very separate movement. For the government side, it’s super far-right, and it becomes more conservative, because of the church. They don’t do anything for the minorities, be it ethnical, sexual or anything. They don’t care about integrating everything that is there. They think the minorities are not part of the country. So there is a sense of contradiction. Visibility has changed over the years, but it doesn’t bring change to the law or government’s attitude. Wet Sand was screened on the first day of the Pride Week, it’s amazing that they selected the film as the Opening Film. There are many sharing, and you felt there was something vivrant going on. But outside the screening room, there were hundreds of police men, protecting us from the right wing Christians, religious communities, who are very violent against the existence of the minorities. Therefore, although there are events, spaces to gather and action happening. Queer communities did exist, but in reality they are still being openly and violently treated by the majority of the society. Is there any form of censorship? Nowadays, I don’t think it’s possible to have this co-production in Georgia. But it’s still possible when we financed this film. The newly-appointed Minister of Culture has killed anything that she thinks is “different”, executing the contemporary censorship. Therefore, I am very sure that we won’t be able to get the funding as we used to be. It’s a disaster concerning what’s happening now in Georgia. In your films, there is always a sense of tenderness existing among the absurdities or brutalities of the given condition. I can also feel the anger, which makes it more political in an apparent sense, and the ending leads to an act of activism. Can you comment on that? Filmmaking for me can be sort of activism. And you are absolutely right. For this film, it’s the accumulation of what I have seen and experienced. For queer communities, I always thought that things were never going in the direction of what I wished for personally. What I wish is to feel empowered and know there is hope. To know that we have a place, and this place is not only for you but also for us to share. For the ending scene, we had quite interesting feedback. Some find it too sweet, and some wish it ends with the burning of the house. But I really can’t finish the film with the burning. To know there is hope is important. To know we can make it. I can’t stand with the activists who endangered their lives to fight, but I am trying to do this tiny bit to open up something that I feel is important.   One thing that I wish to convey, which is about how I made this film, not only me, but the entire crew, is that: it’s love, it’s a right to exist in any form. We don’t have to harm each other. It’s here, and love is gonna win somehow. We are all different, so what we need to do is to hold each other’s hand and walk together. And this does not lead to negativity or contradiction, instead it can bring out so many possibilities and opportunities in our life.  

專訪《閣樓上的秘密》導演馬格努斯・格騰

探尋檔案影像與藏匿其中的愛戀故事 專訪《閣樓上的秘密》導演馬格努斯・格騰 採訪/陳慧穎、周易 翻譯、整理/王湘緹、袁廷豪、陳慧穎 是否能談談拍攝本片的原因與契機? 在《閣樓上的秘密》片頭,觀眾會看到一段於1945年四月拍攝的檔案影像。這個片段紀錄下許多從集中營救出來的倖存者。他們最終抵達瑞典馬爾默(Malmö),也就是我的家鄉。影像記錄下重獲自由的歷史時刻。 我在2007年第一次看到這段畫面,便對這些女人的身世感到好奇,幻想哪天我能指認出她們的真實身分。後來,在《閣樓上的秘密》之前,我接連拍了兩部片,都是跟這段檔案影像有關。 其中第二部就叫做《每一張臉都有一個名字》,這部片指認出所有站在港口的女性名字,並於2015年首映。當時我想說我已經做了兩部跟二戰有關的電影了,差不多可以收尾了。2016年,《每一張臉都有一個名字》來到巴黎,應該算最後一次在大銀幕放映。11月,在我抵達巴黎前,我收到一封信,寄件人是一對來自巴黎郊外的務農夫婦。他們告訴我,他們有個我可能會有興趣的故事。於是,我在一家咖啡廳和他們見面。我們喝了點紅酒邊聊天,然後他們秀了幾張照片給我看。 他們將這美麗的愛情故事交付予我,我知道我得再拍一部片。   對席樂薇來說,揭開家庭秘密的過程是什麼樣的經歷? 這對席樂薇來說並不容易。我第一次跟她見面時,她並不想參與其中,所以我必須再回去一趟。那次她才跟我說,家裡有一些她無法閱讀的日記,閣樓上還有未開封、未整理的儲藏物。第二次我見到她的時候,她說「好,我得踏上這趟旅程」。她得去面對家族秘密:她的外婆究竟是什麼樣的人?外婆在戰爭期間到底經歷了什麼?席樂薇一開始其實不太自在,但當這部片在柏林影展世界首映時,她在台上展開雙臂,以一種很放開的姿態接受觀眾的掌聲。包括她所經歷的這一切,她的參與化為這段愛情故事的一部分。她對自己的參與感到驕傲。 而整個過程也只有她可以做出決定。我身為導演,就只能試圖在事情發生時,在她旁邊,在現場。是席樂薇自己決定要踏上這趟探尋家族歷史的旅程。當然,這過程中,她也有不想談、或覺得不自在的時候。例如,當我們與美國女性主義作家瓊.申卡爾(Joan Schenkar)見面時,有些時刻是非常殘酷的,對席樂薇來說是場硬仗。當對方說出「是否從沒想過這兩人或許相愛?」,這句話猶如打了她一巴掌。但申卡爾也同時說出了本片最核心的一句話:「在這個社會裡,沒說出口的事,就不算數。」這是這趟旅程的必經之路,而席樂薇最後也願意接納,願意說出口了。   瓊.申卡爾談及娜塔莉.巴尼的事情,這是個非常令人驚豔的片段。 這也是一段被忽略、被壓抑的歷史,我也非常開心能找到在歷史上少數僅存的娜塔莉.巴尼的動態影像。雖然那些影像是在1960年代拍攝的,但絕對是她沒錯。我和席樂薇約在巴黎見面,我獨自走在街上,想去看看當時娜塔莉.巴尼的住所。結果進不去,在賈克博路上也沒有任何名人故居的標示牌。經過的人甚至不知道這地方有長達六十多年的時間是法國、甚至是國際間最重要的文學沙龍。也因為娜塔莉.巴尼所支持的那些女性藝術家,這地方深具意義性。是一段應該要被訴說的歷史。   這趟旅程始於一段檔案影像,也是您的電影中經常處理的媒介。想請導演闡述一下您是如何看待檔案影像的運用? 在電影裡我使用了三種檔案影像。第一種是新聞影像。我認為大家在使用檔案素材時,不要覺得只能認命接受自己能取得的素材,不要只會想「我只要找到好好利用它的方式即可」。反之,你可以以更深入的方式面對素材,挑戰它,提出艱難的問題。 奈莉和訥亭在戰後拍的八豪米底片,對我來說是個禮物。這些大部分都是訥亭拍的,而你也可以感受到拍攝者與被攝者之間的特殊情感,那是愛。這些影像讓我們得以一窺她們的委內瑞拉日常。人們時常問我,為什麼她們最後去了委內瑞拉?我認為大家可以回想一下當時那個年代,即便在比利時同性戀伴侶不是違法的,要在那過生活也不是那麼簡單的。而委內瑞拉正開始繁榮了起來,所以她們最後選擇在那生活,並在那裡建立起她們的生活圈。 第三種素材則是我稱之為「詩意的檔案影像」,也就是奈莉在集中營撰寫的日記內容。對於導演來說,真正的挑戰是:當你有一個關於集中營的故事,你該配上什麼樣的畫面?我們花了好幾個月研究嘗試。後來我們找到紀錄片大師亨利.斯托克(Henri Storck)所拍攝的紀錄片。為了拍攝,他必須與比利時的納粹政府達成某種協議。因此片子存在著某種黑暗、詭譎神秘的氛圍,我們就加以運用,來配合日記的內容。 即便黃訥亭是如此不可思議的存在,她在華人世界中尚未被廣泛認識,且仍有許多尚待挖掘的面向。 在幾場放映會上,我有遇到一些年輕的中國觀眾,他們覺得很震撼。他們跟我說這部片即便是對於現今的中國觀眾來說都是深有所感,特別是講到你們的大鄰居——中國,他們生活在無法自由表達意見的地方。我們也遇到一些中國導演,他們也在做一些跟訥亭有關的紀錄短片。 她是中國駐馬德里外交大使的女兒,之後搬回中國一陣子。同時,她也是個非常摩登獨立的女人,她開車、從事運動、學五種語言、擔任律師,曾是北洋政府末代總理潘復的祕書。她在中國什麼都有。但她最後決定前往巴黎,其實為的就是過上一個忠於自我的人生。 我第一次在影像中看到黃訥亭的臉時,她臉上的神情在人群中非常突出。她當時雖獲自由,但看起來並不開心。甚至有點反抗、挑釁的意味,似乎在質問拍攝她的相機:「你在這做什麼?你根本不了解我。」我們當時只知道一些她早期的生活,但我們對於她戰後的人生一無所知。我們過了好久才開始有點頭緒,也是多虧於席樂薇願意與我們展開這趟旅程。 雖然我們從奈莉的日記中看到很多關於她的事情,但黃訥亭確實是本片巨大的謎團。我也希望有人能夠繼續研究黃訥亭的生平。她真的是個非常酷的女人,她的勇敢令人不可置信。唯一令人感到遺憾的事情是,目前在中國串流平台上流通的紀錄短片,她作為女同志的面向隻字未提。紀錄片中談論了所有,唯獨這件事沒被提到。   這趟旅程來到拉丁美洲,我們也看到這段故事如何傳到下一個世代。對你來說,這趟旅程中最令人難忘的事情是什麼? 老實說我從沒想過在委內瑞拉會出現在這樣的電影中。拍這部片,其中一件非常難能可貴的事情便是見到她們在委內瑞拉的老朋友,例如何塞.羅維拉。他時常與奈莉、訥亭見面。他現在因為當地的政治環境,無法繼續生活於委內瑞拉。他是一位很美好的人,但他也同時說了一些讓我們感到困惑的話。在訪談後,我跟他女兒聊天,她說:「我父親在這一生當中,一直無法表達自我,成為他真正的樣子。」因此即便他有了家庭,某種程度上他也是藏匿著自己。但她也跟我說,「父親願意讓我談這些故事。」 這些事情都是非常重要的,因為這部片跟現今社會息息相關。它不只是討論第二次世界大戰的故事。當然,因為在片中他女兒跟我們說了他的故事,我們也很期待他能出席柏林影展的世界首映。不幸的是,他去年十月確診過世,沒機會看到這部講述他部分人生的電影,這令人非常傷心。 事實上,這部片應該要跟現今有關。雖然他很難定義為一部所謂的「倡議電影」或「政治電影」,但它本質上即是一部政治電影。當你發現,為了這部片爭取經費時,或是完成後在各地映演時,你都會遇到許多困難。例如,當我們將這個想法告訴波蘭國家電視台的時候,它的代表告訴我們:「雖然這是部很美的電影,但我們沒辦法在波蘭公映」。當你旅行至50、80個國家時,你會發現這些人權並非被廣泛尊重。因此,我希望這部片能夠鼓舞人心,能夠與觀眾的人生產生連結。關乎觀眾自己與愛之間的關係、對愛與生活的詮釋。 在電影中有提到,奈莉和訥亭曾經有想過要出版她們的日記,這個願望有可能在今日實現嗎? 我們也常常被問到這個問題。在柏林影展時,席樂薇有自己回答過這個問題。她說她已經著手撰寫和蒐集素材,其中素材包含日記、信件、照片等等。她試圖瀏覽、閱讀所有的檔案與資料,她也說她會寫一本書。我也深深期待這個成果,因為我們在電影中所談論的故事,只是她們倆精彩人生的冰山一角而已。 Challenging Archives and Unveiling the Hidden Love Story Interview with Magnus Gertten, director of Nelly & Nadine   What leads you to make this film?  In the beginning of Nelly & Nadine, you see a newsreel shot in April 1945, with survivors coming from the concentration camp. They arrived in my home town of Malmö, filmed in the moment of freedom.  When I saw this newsreel in 2007 for the first time, I became so fascinated by the faces of these women. I dreamt about someday I could find out who they are. I ended up making two films before Nelly & Nadine concerning these faces in the newsreel.  The second one is called Every Face Has a Name, premiered in 2015, where I put names to all these women who were standing there in the harbor. I thought I have done two films about the Second World War, and never more. But then I came to a big screening in Paris, probably the last screening for that film. In November 2016, just before I arrived there, I got an email from a farmer couple who lives outside of Paris. And they said we had a story that might be of interest to you, so I met the couple at the café. We drank some wine, and slowly they showed me some photos. In a way, they put this beautiful love story on my lap. And I realized maybe I really need to do one more film. What’s Sylvie’s take on this journey of unveiling family secrets? It’s not easy for Sylvie. When I first met her, she didn’t want to be part of the film, so I had to go back again, and that was the moment when she told me there were diaries that she wasn’t able to read. And they had an unopened archive in the attic. When I met her the second time, she said, “ok, I had to do this journey.” She is the one to confront this family secret: who was her grandmother exactly? What happened to her during the war? Sylvie was quite uncomfortable in the beginning, but when we had a premiere at the Berlinale. She went on to the stage, opened her arms and was so liberated, because of everything she went through. She felt so proud of being part of this beautiful love story.  And it’s really Sylvie that takes the decision here. What I can do as a filmmaker is try to be there when things are happening. It’s Sylvie that decided to embark on this journey into her family history. Of course, there were moments when she did not want to talk about things or felt uncomfortable in some situations. For example, we had a meeting with American feminist writer Joan Schenkar. It’s a brutal scene in a way, and it was tough for Sylvie. It’s really a moment of being slapped in the face: didn’t you realize these two women were in love? But Joan Schenkar probably articulates one of the most important things in the film: “nothing is real, socially, until it’s expressed.” That’s one of the journeys of the film. Sylvie finally expresses it and embraces the story. It's amazing to hear Joan Schenkar talking about Natalie Clifford Barney.  It’s also a neglected and oppressed history. So I am very happy that we found one of the very few existing live footage of Natalie Clifford Barney. It was shot in the sixties, but it’s definitely her. When I was in Paris to meet Sylvie, I was walking alone and I was trying to get into the house where Natalie Barney once lived. It’s closed and has no plaque on Rue Jacob that tells people that for more than sixty years it’s the one of the most important literary salons in France, and of international significance, for female artists that were so supported by Natalie Clifford Barney. It’s a history that needed to be told. Your journey begins with the archival footage, and it’s also the medium that you have been working a lot. Can you elaborate on your use of archival footage?  I have three different kinds of archival footage in my film. First is the newsreel. But you don’t have to accept that, “ok this is the archive I have and I have to use it in the best way.” Instead, you can go deeper into your archive, challenge it and ask the most impossible question. Another gift comes from the 8mm films of Nelly and Nadine shot after the war. Most of that material is filmed by Nadine. You can tell there was some sort of relationship between the woman who held the camera and the woman in front of the camera. It’s love. It shows their everyday life they were able to build in Venezuela. People have been asking me why they had to go to Venezuela. I think we really need to remember the time. In Belgium, it was not illgal to live a lesbian life, but it was not easy. Venezuela was a booming state at that time. They ended up there and they also found their communities there.  I also have this “poetic archive material,” the diary written inside the concentration camp. The challenge for the filmmaker is: what do you see when you hear a story from a concentration camp. We spent months working on this. We later found a documentary shot in Belgium during the war by iconic documentary filmmaker Henri Storck. In order to make this film, he had to make an agreement with Nazi government at Belgium at that time. So there was something dark, strange and mystical about the images, which we use to pair with the diaries.   Nadine Huang is an incredible figure on many levels, but her stories remained largely untold even in the Chinese-speaking world. Can you comment on that? At some screenings, I encountered some young Chinese audiences that were quite affected by the film, saying that it is also a film relevant to Chinese audiences today, especially concerning your big neighbor where people are not able to express themselves freely. We were also in contact with some Chinese filmmakers. They were working on some documentaries about Nadine. She is the daughter of the ambassador of Madrid, and then moving back to China. But she is also a modern woman, who could drive a car, do sports, learn five languages, become a lawyer and work for the Prime Minister. She could have it all in China, but decided to leave for Paris, in order to live a life true to herself.  The first time when I saw Nadine’s face in the footage, her face really stood out. She was liberated but she did not look happy. A sense of defiance even, seemingly asking the camera, “why are you here? You don’t know me.” We did know a little bit about her earlier life, but we did not have a clue about her life after the war. It really took a long time before we can have an idea. It’s also because Sylvie willing to embark on this journey with us.  Nadine is of course the big mystery of this film, because we heard a lot from Nelly’s diaries. So I certainly hope that someone would investigate more about Nadine. She is really a super cool woman, unbelievably brave. But one of the sad things about the mini documentaries that you can now find on Chinese streaming platform is that they don’t talk about her lesbian aspect. They talked about everything else except this. This journey ends up leading to Latin America, meeting all these people, witnessing stories passing onto the next generations, what’s the most unforgettable thing for you? I have never imagined Venezuela would end up in part of the film like this. One of the amazing things of making this film is meeting their old friend from Venezuela, José Rafael Lovera, who spent a lot of time with Nelly and Nadine. He was not able to live in Venezuela now because of the political situation. He is such a beautiful person, but he also said something we wondered a lot about. After that interview, I talked to his daughter. She said, “my father was never able to express himself. To express who he really feels he is.” So he too lived in a shadow in a way even though he had a family. But again, she told me, “my father is fine with me telling those stories.” These are all very important. Because it's also a film about today. It’s not just a story about the end of the Second World War. And of course his daughter told us his story, and we were so looking forward to having him attending the premiere at the Berlinale. But unfortunately he died of Covid-19 in October last year. So he was never able to see part of his life story being told. That’s really sad. In fact, it has to be a film about today. It’s not made like an activist or political film, but it is a political film. When you try to finance the film, and travel with the film, you encounter many difficulties. For example, when we presented this idea to Polish National Television, and the representative said, “it’s a beautiful story but we can’t broadcast it in Poland.” When you travel around fifty or eighty countries around the world, you realize that these are not the rights widely respected. I hope it can be an inspirational film that can relate to your own life, your own relationship to love and how you want life and love to be. Your film has mentioned that Nelly and Nadine have once wanted to publish their journal, will their dream be realized nowadays? We often receive this question. During the Berlinale, Sylvie herself answered this question. She said that she is writing and collecting all the materials, including journals, letters, photos, etc. She is trying to read everything. She said she would write the book, and I really hope that she could do that. What we talked about in the film is just a small part of this amazing life story.     

專訪《幽魂之境》導演羅晨文

採訪 : 游欣慈、何睿平 文字整理 : 游欣慈   Q:您是在什麼機緣下開始關心緬甸童兵議題?又為何想將之發展成短片? 大約是2017年的時候看到一個獨立記者朋友的報導,內容是他在泰國採訪一名當時已30多歲的緬甸籍前童兵,他在13歲時被綁架,賣給緬甸政府軍隊,當了十幾年兵,中途也嘗試逃跑過幾次卻都被捉回去,直到最終順利逃離緬甸到泰國以後,便躲在曼谷當非法移工。 我看到這篇報導後非常震驚,因為一般說到童兵,想到的都是非洲或中東的面孔,當時並不知道原來在亞洲也有童兵,緬甸甚至一度有世界上為數最多的童兵。我當下就想親自去採訪那位前童兵,而到了曼谷聽完他的故事後更決定要拍出來。二三十年來在緬甸,估計有超過十幾萬的小孩被綁架入伍,但近年來這個議題已經幾乎不再有人關注了。   Q : 緬甸童兵問題大約發生在何時? 現在還會有此狀況嗎? 最早在90年代聯合國還在關心這個議題,直到2013年,緬甸仍有童兵的記錄,因為緬甸境內一直有很多不同種族間的內戰,但緬甸政府對這部分資訊完全不公開。我後來有機會接觸到曾經在聯合國工作的人,他們也不確定現在境內還有多少童兵,但很肯定的是政府一定有所隱瞞。 Q : 在做田調時是怎麼接觸到之前當過童兵的人呢? 主要是透過獨立記者朋友,已經深耕緬甸、泰國、鄰近東南亞地區的記者朋友找到的,後來也聯絡到曾在聯合國專門輔導緬甸童兵的義工,他說這到目前仍是很敏感的議題。   Q:那些已逃出的前童兵,他們在泰國仍有可能會被抓回去嗎?  我跟那些前童兵們見面時,他們都頗有顧忌,甚至在採訪當天換了好幾次見面地點。他們仍然無法回到緬甸,也不能與身在緬甸的家人聯絡。我在籌備這部片時,有位前童兵接受了泰國電台的採訪,僅短暫描述他在童兵時期的軍旅經驗,過了幾天後就被緬甸政府逮捕坐牢了,所以這仍是非常禁忌的話題。   Q:如果那些童兵沒有成功逃出來,他們要當兵當到幾歲呢? 我不確定他們正式的退伍年齡是幾歲,但緬甸境內的戰役從沒有停止過。我採訪的其中一位前童兵,他是盡可能地找機會逃走,卻逃了三次才成功,被抓回去當然會受重罰,但緬甸政府幾乎不會因此處決他們,因為當時缺少軍人。   Q : 裡面的主角都是緬甸人嗎? 他們拍這種敏感議題會不會對他們造成什麼影響? 兩位主角之一的小女孩和幾位有台詞的演員都是緬甸人,只有另一位擔任主角的小男孩是印尼裔。所有主演和他們的家人目前都定居美國,所以在這方面較無顧忌。   Q : 您為什麼會想在逃亡的那場戲安排妹妹因為唱歌而被抓到呢?  安排妹妹在那時唱歌和跟哥哥身為啞巴的設定有關係,選角的時候因為我們苦尋不著會説緬甸文的小男孩,只好把這個角色改為啞巴。我想透過妹妹的聲音來隱喻哥哥當下的心境,最後哥哥快死時,妹妹也唱了歌給他聽,讓她替無法說話的哥哥發聲。 Q : 從前期到拍攝過程中有遇到什麼困難? 因為童兵在緬甸仍然是高度敏感的議題,我們無法進入緬甸拍攝,打從一開始就決定要在美國製作。然而,最初找到的叢林場景被野火給燒掉後,我們好不容易找了一個替補的景,卻在拍攝中途被當地政府查封了,解封遙遙無期,因此片中監牢裡的一部分最後還是在台灣重新搭景拍攝的。幸運的是群戲幾乎都在美國拍好了,後來只有把兩位小演員帶來台灣。 此外,選角的過程也頗漫長。即使在美國也很難找到緬甸父母願意讓孩子演電影,我接觸了很多在地的緬甸在美協會,他們一開始聽到我們要拍電影都表示很樂意幫忙,但發現是童兵題材後就再也沒有回音。後來幸運地認識了一位在報社工作的編輯,他幫我們在全美最大的緬甸文報紙上登選角廣告,我們才找到女主角Kathy。   Q: 導演如何指導素人演員進入劇情、甚至進入情緒很重的戲? 過程中遇到什麼困難? 指導素人小孩確實充滿挑戰,況且這個故事主角的經歷是身為大人的我都無法想像的。我們做了約一個半月的彩排,才正式進入拍攝。 首先是培養這兩個小孩的感情,剛好他們都有兄弟姐妹,我覺得這或多或少有幫助他們進入這個情境。相對來說,我花更多時間在小女孩身上,因為她的戲份稍微吃重一點,我會陪他們一起看一些情緒相近的電影,讓他們感受故事帶給自己的情緒。幸運的是兩個小孩處得很好,彼此也培養出一定的默契。   Q : 您覺得哪一場戲是最困難、拍最久的? 這部片除了飾演軍官的演員有一些經驗外,其他人都是素人,對我而言都蠻難拍的(笑),像是軍官逼迫哥哥殺妹妹那場戲因為有四十多位臨演,場面調度比較複雜,我們也多花了一些時間設計走位和彩排。   Q: 《幽魂之境》在北影獲得最佳短片獎,攝影、造型、聲音等也都有入圍,您如何跟不同的專業工作者討論、合作? 過程中有沒有發生什麼印象深刻的事情?  我是事前準備功課做比較足的人,深怕遺失了細節。服裝部分我在緬甸田調時有特別著重,也上網搜尋很多資料,因為我們買不到緬甸當地的軍裝,所以裡面的軍裝都是我們買布料後染色製作而成的。染色後也在攝影機前做顏色測試,看哪個顏色在畫面裡最接近真實的緬甸軍裝。 聲音方面,每個地方都有自己特殊的環境音,但我們不是在緬甸拍攝,收不了現場的聲音。幸運的是,我的聲音設計曾做過一些鄰近東南亞國家的片,雖然不是在緬甸,但環境音是有些類似的,他便借用了那些聲音素材來完成這部片的環境音。另一點較困難的地方是ADR,片子裡所有軍人的聲音,都是後期時請小女孩一家人及他們的緬甸朋友來幫我們錄的。 攝影則是我的研究所同學,他是個很會使用自然光的攝影師,這也是我當初選擇跟他合作的原因。「光」在這部片裡象徵的不是希望,因為在緬甸炎熱乾燥的環境下,兩個小孩被關在監牢的時候,透進來的炙烈日光只會讓他們更難受,更容易脫水等等。因此這部片裡的光更像是一個怪物,無時無刻在吞噬他們,我們在視覺上是以這個出發點來設計的。   Q:假如有更多經費的話,導演有想再多拍什麼畫面或有哪些地方想要重拍的嗎?  緬甸童兵最特殊的地方是,他們不像非洲的童兵是屬於叛軍的。緬甸軍政府可能是世界上唯一使用童兵的正規軍。緬甸軍隊裡曾經有個不成文的規定:如果一名軍人想要退伍,他可以綁架五個小孩給軍隊來換取一張退伍令。因為打仗太辛苦了,大家都不想當兵,政府軍隊缺乏人力而不讓他們輕易退伍,便形成這種潛規定。這件事相當駭人聽聞,我也希望有一天能夠用電影更深入探索這些故事。   Q:您在其他報導中提及當初拍到一半曾想過要放棄,是因為緬甸前童軍的受訪者讓您有動力繼續下去。他們是如何帶給您前進的動力呢? 我曾問過一位受訪的前童兵說:「如果你們的故事被拍成電影,最希望讓世界看到這段經歷的哪些部分?」他說在剛被抓去當兵的時候,所有童兵都是沒受多少正式訓練,幾乎什麼都不懂就被推上戰場,在叢林裡作戰很多朋友都得了瘧疾,很快的一個個都死掉了。 最讓我最心痛的是, 從他們回憶時的語調跟眼神,我看見即便這些經歷已過了十幾二十年,他們仍然沒有走出傷痛,那個創傷可能是一輩子如影隨形的跟著他們。之後當我拍到很想放棄的時候,就會想著如果電影真的拍出來,也許就能讓多一些人也看見這些孩子經歷過的苦痛。再想到他們對於生存的勇氣,我只不過是一個拍電影的人,有什麼理由不堅持下去呢?    Q:若觀眾看完本片,想幫助童兵或是支持這個議題,有沒有什麼管道可以協助他們呢? 這些緬甸前童兵都散落在泰國各地當非法移工,也沒辦法通過特定組織連絡到他們,管道很有限。拍這部片最希望的是讓大家對這群人和他們的遭遇有點認識,知道地球上有一個角落發生過這樣的苦難。 圖/導演接受女影視訊專訪     

 1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›