Interview d’Abdellatif Kechiche-607
Above all, for a long time, I had wanted to make films. When I started to consider this idea a little more seriously, I came up with a number of projects and this is the one that attracted the most attention. I don’t know if it’s because people expect immigrant filmmakers like myself to take a position on the subject or if because the moment when I presented it coincided with the filmmakers’ movement against the Debré legislation. In any case, the screenplay seemed to come along at the right time and my desire to make this film rather than another was strengthened by the concrete possibility of being able to make it but also in reaction to everything that was being said or done about "illegal" immigrants, the "undocumented" and the "excluded" in general. I felt that there was an overwhelming tendency to limit their identity to their condition and, through mass representation or extreme situations, to dehumanize them. Illegal immigrants are presented as a plague when they are human beings who are aiming for a better life, which is a healthy thing. I told myself that if we could succeed in growing fond of a face, simply by watching it laugh, cry, make friends, love, etc. then we could perhaps have a different view of things.
Did you investigate the way in which homeless people live ?
I visited hostels and groups working with the homeless. You simply have to look around too since our cities are full of people living in such situations. It’s easy enough to find someone who’ll agree to sit down and tell you their story. I also wanted people from the Emmaus hostel, where we shot the film, to take part and to contribute their experiences but I’m sorry that this wasn’t possible without a form of discrimination… What struck me about the hostels is that these places, that were originally supposed to handle people in temporarily precarious situations, have now become genuine institutions that people use on a regular basis. Everything happens as if everyone had accepted the situation: they throw parties… organize games… I find it touching to see people who no longer have families or homes take part in such futile pastimes as the competitions and games organized for them. I also spent a fair amount of time at the Coeur du Dragon, the squat take over by the DAL group on the Rue du Dragon. In fact, the In refusing to make your characters political figures, you thereby avoid any sordid realism…
Original screenplay was linked much more closely to those events and I considered shooting there which proved to be impossible. In the end, I mainly kept everything that escaped the context. I didn’t want to make a film with a message or a report that merely observes the facts to link them to ideas.
Moreover, your story rejects any form of demonstration…
I didn’t want to fall into the trap of a "film with a message" that often harms the ideas that it is supposed to defend. A political interpretation is of course possible but that doesn’t sum up the film. I really wanted to create several different levels of interpretation and so leave the film open-ended with a form close to that old Arab tales that above all symbolize a certain pleasure in the act of telling tales.
This was a decision made from the outset. I didn’t want people to feel sorry for Jallel, Lucie and Frank. I wanted to create a certain sympathy and understanding by favouring a more ordinary representation, to shatter the smokescreen of politics and to make people feel close to them. Jallel is a man; he goes towards his fellow men, which is a perfectly natural thing to do. He forms bonds with others, which is an inalienable right. You can’t stop people from moving around freely and meeting each other. Moreover, the problems linked to the illegality of his presence in France are never stressed. I wanted people to forget them almost.
In viewing the film, one feels that the technical aspects take a back seat to the actors’ performances…
It’s true that I use the camera as a means of recording the moments of life that we are able to grasp. That’s what fascinates me and motivates me in the cinema: life unfolding within a frame, everything that is possible and that can happen in front of a camera. In fact, one of my major frustrations was that I wasn’t able to have a second camera to cover certain shots…
How do you go about directing an actor’s performance ?
I focus a great deal of attention on the actors; I need to feel that we’re working together. Actually, I’d rather talk about an actor’s "contribution" rather than "directing" him or her. I need to establish an affective bond. I don’t attempt to direct them or impose things on them. I talk to them about their characters, I try to talk to them about themselves, I’m there to help them bring out what they have inside. The fact of being an actor myself probably helps since everything occurs fairly naturally. Often, the best things are obtained without premeditation, in a flash, in a sort of trance-like state. The work, this exchange that we can have in creating something together, fascinates me.
Do you shoot many takes ?
It’s all relative: twenty takes is a lot and, at the same time, very little. You could shoot thousands of takes and find something new each time.
You weren’t afraid to use well-known actors who already have a particular image for audiences ?
At first, I was a little worried about that. But I know that once an actor gets caught up in the work and the character, their image and previous roles are soon forgotten. It’s a matter of motivation and, on the whole, this happened with all of them and I’m very pleased. But I didn’t consider this issue each time: I didn’t know Bruno Lochet, for instance. I had never seen Les Deschiens. When I saw his photo, and then when I met him, he matched the character of Frank perfectly. It was obvious. I had no preconceptions about him since I didn’t even know that he had been in a film before! Once we started rehearsing, he turned out to be a great actor, and an unbelievably generous guy! It was almost too much to hope for. In a similar manner, I had spotted Aure Atika in a small part in a film that no one had seen, not in the comedies that have formed her image. I was sure that, in working together, we’d attain something.
Tell is a little about Jallel’s experiences. Does he really hope to stay and fit in? He seems to live wholly in the present…
He doesn’t consider the issue in those terms. This impression of living in the present is linked to his condition. He knows very well, like many illegal immigrants, that he is here for an unspecified period that he cannot control. He cannot really form projects. At first, his sole hope is to make a little money and help his family, however long that may take. Then, little by little, he forms ties and grows fond of France. It’s a subconscious process. He doesn’t think, "I know, I’ll fit in…" It occurs naturally. In Jallel’s case, he barely has time to become aware of it before the experience comes to a sudden end and prevents him from living out his new love affair.
The two female characters, Nassera and Lucie, have to deal with the fact of giving birth and being mothers. Was this a deliberate decision on your behalf ?
No, it wasn’t a conscious decision and I was unable to explain it. Moreover, Lucie and Nassera are not what they seem to be. Nassera appears to have a strong personality while Lucie seems to be totally lost. In fact, the very opposite may well be true. Lucie has fewer problems than Nassera. She has a genuine sexual longing that she expresses freely. But, deep down, she is in harmony with herself, or with her needs in any case. Jallel, who comes from the South, places a great deal of importance on the notions for family and maternity. Lucie’s marginality unsettles him and forces him to face his own intolerance since it takes him some time to accept it. For me, Lucie is meaningful character who helps Jallel as much as he helps her.
The final shots are a more direct attack on the fate reserved for illegal immigrants.
Yes, but deep down, even if the film’s tone is light-hearted, it contains the seed of this denunciation. It’s true that I wanted to show the cruelty of the system. Isn’t there a risk in voting laws that forbid a human being from moving around freely and encountering others? I believe that these are archaic notions that we need to rid ourselves of. The means of communication and exchange between peoples have already blown borders apart in a way. Attempting to maintain them on a geographical level seems to be an illusion to me. And aiming to do so in a repressive manner leads to unacceptable abuse. Hundreds of people, including many adolescents, die each year at the borders of Europe to general indifference. I find that heart breaking. And the fact that a country like France, that claims to uphold Republican values, does nothing to alter this is simply disgusting.