Costas Gavras’ Masterclass

by Eleni Varmazi /

You mentioned the issue of digital production that leads to alternative ways of distribution. Do you believe that technology on the level of distribution is on the same level as the technology of production? Do you believe that the films that are produced digitally can find a different distribution, for example through the internet, and can bring back profit to the films in this way?

It is not only the internet that can distribute digital films, it is also the distribution through cell phones and other ways. If am not mistaken, 40% of the cinema theaters in USA are also ready to receive digitally produced films. The problem really is on the independent movie theaters that are in danger of vanishing because the change of the technology costs a lot of money that they cannot afford. The big distribution companies will pay for their cineplexes to get the same technology that already exists in their theaters in USA, but that means that we will have the danger of showing even more american films because they will demand world premieres at the same time in millions of viewers in different countries and they will have the abillity and the technology to do so. So the cinema of small countries is in danger. Off course, all this is still a theory, we discuss the issue a lot in France and we are trying to find solutions for the problem. As far as the positive side of the issue is concerned, we can have new small theaters in small towns, that do not demand neither very specialised technicians nor amazing technology, that will be able to receive the films directly in digital form via a phone or in another manner. The process will be much cheaper because as you know it is the film copies that are extremely expensive in the distribution process.

French cinema is very strong. Especially the last five years France is the first in Europe in the number of tickets, french cinema posesses 35% of the french market and 9% of the European market. To what do we owe this facts?

French cinema is a political will. In the era after the II World War, De Gaulle decided that France should have cinema. Since then all the goverments and all the political parties in power helped in order to continue to have french cinema. I insist that it is a political will and I personally do not believe that it is possible for a state to have national cinema without a very strong political will. The french system is like that: There is the Cinema Centre which is the intermediate between the filmmakers and the government and threre are the factors that create the problems, such as for example was between 1950-60 the television. It seemed at that time that tv would kill cinema. The cinema center, the filmakers and the tv people met in order to find a solution and to be able to cosurvive. They found solutions then, the big tv chanels had to give a part of their budget (2-3%) in film production. Another example is that on Saturday night the tv chanels are not allowed to show films, they can have any other show in their progarm but not a film. In this way we help the viewers to go out to the cinema theaters. Those are decisions that help French cinema to be strong. It is not off course as strong as american cinema because of cultural reasons first but also because of the lack of pressure world wide. The French government does not have navy in the Mediterrenean and does not have military bases all over the world. Every time there is a crisis like that, every 5-10 years there is a crisis, these people come together and find solutions. Cinema is an art and art lives with crisis but especially the crisis in cinema are stronger because cinema is an art directly connected with economy.

You shot your last film in Algeria and lately many directors shoot their films in other countries for tax redemption reasons. How do you feel about that?

Mon Colonel was shot in Algeria and in Paris because that is where the story takes place. Off course I had to go to other countries to shoot a film because of budgeting reasons. I shot Amen in Roumania because it was cheaper and that is normal. As long as the vision of the director who is the creator of the film does not change that is ok.

When we move to digital technology what are the consequences for the art work? Do we lose some dimentions from the work?

Laurent Herbie, who is the director of Mon Colonel decide to shoot part of the film in digital technology ( the black and white part) and in film the color part. Off course there are diferrences between the cameras and there is difference in the colors and the depth of field. This is normal, it is something that will bring a difference in aesthetics and every time the aesthetics change something new comes out of it, usually very interesting.

As far as your work is concerned is there a relation between your social problematic and the technical means you use in order to realise your films?

Excuse me for speaking about myself, I prefer questions about cinema, but anyway. When we were making Z we did not have money and we were making it with a small camera, Camerflex. For the sound we had to put the camera in a box in order to have the dialog, but the box (plimp) was not good so we had to cover it with blankets. When I went to the USA to present the film everybody was amazed that we shot it in such a cheap way. The problem is not what kind of cameras we have but what we put in front of them and how we use them. Although we had these dificulties the way that I wanted to make the film did not change at all and I think this is the most important thing.

In your films except form the exterior rhythm there is an interior rhythm which I believe balances between your wrath for the issues you examine and your personal calmness. Am I right?

In my films I am interested in the victims of situations that could be all of us and the resistance that we can put up as human beings in the situatuions that surpress us, not only political but also sentimental. My point of view is usually the one of the viewer because I still am a viewer of cinema. My motives are always the human feelings that we experience love, hate, sorrow because I believe that they are the only things that represent something in life.

We see that small countries, Iran for example, in the last years manage to produce good films that find distribution and acceptance abroad. Greece on the contrary who has small budgets but is in a much better political situation, does not manage to make films that find acceptence neither in the interior of the country nor abroad. Why do you think this happens beyond the economical reasons?

It is true we do not see many greek films in France, I think it is because of marketing and distribution reasons, It is difficult for me to answer that question because I am not qualified. But I know for example that Korean cinema has a lot of success in France and Korea is a bigger country than Greece but not that big.

But in Korea the cinema was very much sustained by the goverment and there was a political will for a national cinema.

When you make ten films per year you can have one very good film and two good ones. When you make 50 films you can have five very good films. The Koreans decided one day to have national cinema. So they said that for 120 days per year every theater will show only Korean films. So within 5-10 years the film production grew and now they make amazing films because they produced a lot and it was possible for the talents to express themselves.

Do you believe that in greek films there is a problem of screenplay?

Yes this is a problem we also have in France. I believe there area lot of good ideas in both greek and french films that are not developped fully so the result is not good. In France we had the auteur theory but actually if you look at the history of cinema very few are the ones who did their films all alone like Bergman and Goddard. Most of the filmmakers collaborate with a screenwriter. But in France the auteur theory has expanded so much that finally it harms filmmaking.

Two years ago Abbas Kiarostami was here and he said that in the beginning he was very enthousiastic with didgital technology and he also shot some films in it. Later he concluded that the same way there are licenses for gun owners there should be licences for people who carry digital cameras meaning that the cheapness and the carelessness with which we can shoot digitally is dangerous. What do you think?

I think that films come from inside of the filmmaker from his feelings and his/her mind whether he knows or not technique. We have a lot of examples of people we have no technique but have made great films.

I would like to ask in which way you colaborate with the composer who scores your films.

The music in a film for me is a very important part of the sound. It is a character, it has a dramatic role in the film. I like from the composer to give me different trial pieces of music which I put on the scenes and I try to see if they fit or not. I do not like the other way practiced in filmmaking: when they finish the editing they bring the composer and they tell him to write the music. I think it is unacceptable. My biggest problem was with Z. I wanted to use Mikis Theodorakis’ music but he was in prison. We managed to reach him in prison, told him about the film and he gave a small piece of paper in which he was allowing me to chose anything I wanted from his music. We took the music with an arranger, we found people playing bouzoukia in Belgium and we brought them in Paris and we remade the music of Mikis in order to be as long as the scenes.

Would you like to tell us about the economic problem in filmmaking?

I think this is the biggest problem of all in the european cinema. The national budgets for filmmaking are not big enough although there is an efford to augment them. The good think that happens in europe the last years is the coproductions between two and three countries that put money for a film. There is also a big problem with the distribution of films. We are trying to find a distribution system with the Eurocinemas in order to push the films of other european countries to other european countries. We still have not reached a final solution but I think in a while we will be able to find this system.

Why did you chose the area of fiction film to make your social-political comments and not the documentary film which in our days has a different dynamic?

Documentary is a very difficult genre, much more difficult than fiction films. We have very few good documentarists in france but hundrends of fiction directors. I have from time to time ideas for documentaries but I do not know if I will be able to succeed.

You have an economic luxury, you can find easily money for your films are you not interested in making a film about a subject of the greek reality?

You are wrong it is not easy for me to get money for my films. Because of the context of my films it is not easy to find money. It depends from the theme, if you make a film that is a thriller or a comedy it will be easier to find the money for the production than for a film like Amen or Mon Colonel. These are the problems you will have all the time if you want to be film directors, you will never escape from them.

How important do you think it is for a young director to have a political way of thinking in his/her films?

Roland Barthes said that there is no film that is a-political. There is politics in every film. In life we can not escape from politics and by politics I do not mean what you are voting for. Politics for me is the way of living, the way we behave towards the others and the way we resist the others. And generally our behaviour within society.

(Masterclass organised by Thessaloniki Film Festival)