|
With his new film Two Brothers, French
filmmaker Jean-Jacques Annaud has produced one of the year’s best
family films.
My review of the film is here. I got up
early to speak with Annaud by telephone this week.
He was in France where it was already mid-afternoon. He spoke
about the challenges of working with tigers, the themes that recur in
his films, and what he hopes his film will communicate to his
audiences.
Jeffrey Overstreet:
It was more than a decade ago that you made The Bear,
and you’ve done a wide variety of
films since then. Going back to work with
your lenses trained on animals, how was it different this time?
Jean-Jacques Annaud:
Working on The Bear, I so much identified with the bear,
and this time, I’m trying to identify with tigers. Bears are animals
with very few expressions, whereas the tigers were very able actors
with a large variety of expressions.
The other difference was that I did not use the
type of cameras that I used for The Bear. For this film, I used
brand new digital cameras that allowed us to film so much more, which
was a great difference, because you never know when “the magical
moment” is going to happen, and thus it is very bad if there is no
more film in the camera or if you don’t know and you’re holding your
breath.
The other thing that was different was that
tigers are much more dangerous than bears. Therefore we spent a lot of
time behind bars. We were in cages while the animals roamed free.
JO:
You worked with a different cinematographer before. For Two
Brothers you called up Jean-Marie Dreujou.
Why?
JJA:
I will have to be candid—my usual photographer freaked out when
I told him that I wanted to shoot with the
new digital cameras. He was not prepared for that kind of adventure
and he wasn’t sure if the cameras were ready. I spoke to Jean-Marie,
and I had seen a number of the films he had done with my friend
Patrice Leconte… I love his work.
JO:
Your films have been quite varied—from the monasteries of
The Name of the Rose to the battlefields of Enemy at the Gate,
and now another family film. Do you see a common thread running
through the stories that you choose to film?
JJA:
I always feel that I am repeating myself. My films revolve
around the same theme—the clash of cultures. For this film, it was the
human culture and the animal culture. And then there is also the theme
of apprenticeship. It’s the theme of “Learning can save your life.”
So here in this film, it is the reunion of many
of my favorite themes. And the period is fascinating to me, precisely
because of the cultures involved.
JO:
Most animals stories deal with survival. Animals face trouble
from predators, from humans, and other things. For animals, we
understand survival is a central concern. When we look around, it is
tempting to see life as a “survival of the fittest” struggle. But
human stories focus on themes of sacrifice, love, selflessness. Where
do such different human virtues—compassion, selflessness,
sacrifice—come from? Do you think we are different than the animals in
some way, and that we should behave differently? Or do you think that
we are just believing an illusion, that we are different than animals?
JJA:
We’re trying hard to be different. Of course, as I worked
with the tigers, in a way I could see everything that we have in
common. It is easy to identify with an animal when you remember that
99.9% of our genes are similar. But that 0.1% is interesting. For
centuries now we’ve been trying our very best to escape that world of
survival, that we can be more generous, to keep our society together,
to have tolerance for other cultures and for people that do not think
the same way as we do. Therefore, no… I see man as made of the same
flesh as animals, but making ever day an effort to deal with that
problem.
These animal impulses that are very troublesome,
like the warrior impulse, those survival instincts that are not
generous… it is precisely the key of being human to make that effort
to be different.
It is a long evolution, but I think the
difference comes from people of particular religions, monotheistic
religions. We are told in very particular terms that we are different.
But I lived with a very authentic tribe in Africa—that was like, 40
years ago—and the people there did not know that we are different. For
them, we are just a part of nature. That is why among their gods they
have trees and animals, because they see themselves as part of nature.
JO:
Your children’s films are more complex, more spiritual
in a way, and in some ways more demanding than much of what is
available for young people. So much of the entertainment produced for
young people is shallow and disposable.
JJA:
I think it is not good to give children silly stories. We
always seem to treat children as younger than they are. And yet we can
see how much they desire to learn more and learn better.
JO:
There is an ongoing debate in American culture right now… I’m sure
elsewhere, but it seems very prevalent in the American press. We are
arguing about how “safe” movies have to be for children. You may be
aware, there is even a new DVD player now that edits violence and
sexuality out of movies to protect young viewers. Do you think it is
such a serious problem that we should be cutting up movies?
JJA:
It’s a very complex debate.
It s my feeling that people are attracted to
movies about violence and sexuality precisely because those are part
of what I was referring to earlier—that “tiger behavior.” Therefore,
those things do appeal to that weaker part, that “animal part” of our
personality. Now I feel it is also important to make sure that
children understand the violent responses that we have, but that they
understand that violence and killing brings suffering. If more people
understand that violence is painful, it would help. It is important
that artists who show sexuality and violence have to keep those things
in a reasonable proportion. The Hollywood approach is not one that I
like a lot because it is exploitative and it does not prepare us for
responsible behavior.
JO:
Do you think it is the responsibility of the parents or the movie
studios or the artists to monitor the elements of moviemaking?
JJA:
Frankly, I think it belongs to the artist. I think we need
to be more careful with what we are doing.
JO:
What is it that you hope viewers will be thinking about after
they see Two Brothers?
JJA:
Tolerance… if a person is able to understand tigers, I guess
that can help people to understand others, other cultures, other
nations.
JO:
It is a very popular theme right now—tolerance. Do you think
tolerance is always the answer? Sometimes, we look at another culture
and we see behavior that seems criminal, and we want to act to prevent
it or do something about it. It seems that might require us to be, in
a certain sense, intolerant, in order to do the right thing.
JJA:
We should never never be intolerant. It is important
to remember that you must identify with the other, with that person
and their purpose and their rage. You have to assuage that rage, to
calm it down. And only when you calm it down can you understand why
[they are different.] As long as people do not want to understand
the other, this leads to a terrible situation where we have no idea
why they are behaving that way. It is a shame that we are not able to
understand better, and thus we will not cure the rage. We end up
instead with more violence and more rage.
|
