Interview with Thomas Imbach Why this film? Why the need to take a second look at the
material from the shoot of Happiness is a Warm Gun ? The intention to make a second film is not new. During shooting,
we were already planning to film the whole process of working with the actors.
At the time I didnt yet know whether the result would be one film or two.
During editing it became clear that there would have to be two separate, distinct
films. But at that point it would have been too much to work on both films simultaneously
I wanted above all to focus my energies on completing Happiness is a
Warm Gun. Six months later, I had achieved enough distance from the material
to begin working on happy too. What is the relationship between Happiness and happy too
? happy too is like the other side of the coin. The first film
invents Petras death for her, and there we see the actors as characters
in the story, as fiction. In the second film, we see the actors at work. They
transform themselves into the characters to such a degree that they as actors
fall into the same patterns and authentically live out the same story as Petra
Kelly and Gert Bastian. For me it wasnt enough to just talk about this
process of interaction between the actors and the characters they played; I
wanted to show it. Do you consider happy too a making of film? The most important difference between this film and a conventional
making-of is that happy too observes the story from the same point
of view as the first film, i.e. with the same camera. In a making-of,
the camera usually occupies an outsiders position, and plays a documenting
role. But here that was not the case. In the first film I concentrated on the
fictional aspect and the chain of associations triggered by the shot at the
moment of Petras death, and I left out quite a lot of the authentic process.
The second film concentrates on the moments just before or just after a fiction
scene. It is more open, less aesthetically constructed, because it tells the
story of Petra&Gert and/or the story of Linda&Herbert
for the second time, this time by much more minimal means. In other words, exclusively
through the working tools the actors emotions and the relationship
between both sides of the camera. As far as that goes, the film does contain
a making-of aspect, but with an important difference in point of
view: we are watching ourselves at work. That was the deal with the actors,
from the beginning. Its not as if we discovered the footage after the
fact and said We could do something with this. In fact, we deliberately
recorded the material all along. While we were working, all of us were constantly
aware that the camera was always on. In your work, you have always called into question the traditional distinction between fiction and documentary. Im thinking especially of one of your Theses from 1995, where you said: The fiction film is dead, the documentary film is dead, long live film. Nevertheless, do you consider Happiness is a Warm Gun a fiction, and happy too a documentary? In this case I prefer to use another distinction: its
like making an oil painting and a watercolor of the same scene. The watercolor
represents the same motifs, but as a different kind of gesture; it doesnt
carry the same weight. With an oil painting the emphasis is on the colors, the
mise en scène; it shines, its bombastic, its rich, its
captivating... The watercolor is much lighter and more modest by comparison.
They are simply two different variations on the same story. One tends more strongly
in the direction of fiction and the other more in the direction of documenting
a working process. Its important to stick with a topic as long as it remains
interesting, and not simply discard it for commercial reasons, just because
its already been done. Do you think the second film also functions as a commentary
on the first? I think so. Viewers will understand the first film differently
after theyve seen the second one, thats for sure. But that wasnt
our reason for making the second film. For me,Happiness is a Warm Gun was a
step forward in the development of the filmic means Id already used in
Well Done and Ghetto that is, the next step was to work with actors.
In my films with non-professional actors, it had become clear to me that I did
my job as director best when I intervened as little as possible from behind
the camera, and simply waited for gifts. But I felt the need to
intensify the dialogue between myself and those on the other side of the camera,
and that could only be done with actors. So I first had to develop a method
for working with actors. And it came as a surprise to me how much they let themselves
be infected by the story. This aspect was already visible in the
first film, but here it comes across in an unvarnished and direct way. I think
its very instructive to witness how such a process can occur. How much
is acting, how much is real? Where is the dividing line between the two? Its
a real tightrope walk, and it was very interesting and stimulating for us to
observe this process so precisely. What about your own role as director? In the second film,
as in the first, you are rarely on screen. I reveal myself indirectly: on the one hand through the work
with the actors, such as their reactions to me, or my off-screen interventions.
On the other hand I am also present through the construction of the story and
through the intertitles. Jürg Hassler reveals himself through his camerawork
the camera is also a character in the story, a character that reacts
to what is happening. There are only a few moments in the film where I appear
on screen, but my presence can be clearly felt: you can sense that theres
someone there who is shaping the whole process and whos there as a sparring
partner for the actors and the cameraman. What criteria did you use in selecting the material to be
included inhappy too? The scenes chosen were always the ones in which something was
revealed about the actors relationship with the characters they were playing,
the scenes which showed to what extent the Petra&Gert universe was developing
within Linda and Herbert. What was important were the moments in which this
interaction comes across most clearly. These scenes are fundamentally about
the actors work and not about stylistic choices or details of mise-en-scène. In Happiness is a Warm Gun the ending was pre-determined:
the film had to conclude with the fatal gunshot. Where did happy too have to
end? happy too has two endings. One ending is that the relationship
between Herbert and Linda has come to a point where he wants to put a bullet
through her head that both of them have developed to the point that the
game has become real. Thats the end of the story of their relationship.
The second ending involves a step backward, a reflection on the the acting process:
thats when Linda criticizes her own acting by saying that she was unable
to convey Petras tenderness. The one conclusion is on the level of the
content, the story and the other is about the acting, about our work
method. Unlike Happiness is a Warm Gun, happy too is not a film about Petra
Kelly. Its a film about acting: being an actor, working with actors. Interview: Marcy Goldberg
|