Original subtitles

Roben' Benayoun has said that all animation directors are a/chemisfs.

D0 you agree,

and do you feel that you yourself are an alchemist

in relation to objects and to your material?

It's true, because every artist is an artisan,

and every artist is an alchemist.

But an alchemist in the sense that

we mix different things together,

and something totally unforeseen happens.

The alchemist uses non-scientific methods,

whereas a chemist knows what he will get.

He knows he'll effect a reaction

by mixing one element with another.

I'd like to rephrase the question.

What animation are we talking about?

Because Disney, for example, is clearly no alchemist.

He was very sure of himself.

They continue to make films even after he's died.

He had a formula which was quite scientific,

though it was an amateur science.

But as a formula it produced tried and tested results.

It's another story for artists, however, true artists, creators,

with each painting or animation film,

on your own, without a camera even,

just drawing straight onto the celluloid, that's real craftsmanship.

In this case, each film is an excursion, an adventure.

It's even more like that with us.

We make a storyboard,

we know more or less where we're heading.

That's to say, the end result is always unforeseen.

Working day and night without respite, the most interesting phenomenon

is our unsatisfied curiosity as a result.

I think alchemists

were equally fascinated, anxious and curious to see the end product.

Will it go bang or not? Will the golem come to life or not?

That's real creativity.

Obviously, it's very difficult

for certain learned experts on animation to understand,

in classical animation to be precise, which in fact is naturalism

because the sole criterion

of Disney-style animators or directors

is photography and nature.

They're very pleased

to recreate manually photographic movement,

and the volume and proportions of the photographed characters.

To the extent that they first film a character walking,

then re-draw it, done up like a prince or whatever.

Their sole ideal is an ersatz photography...

...which is only slightly different from the real thing.

They use film for things which are impossible to do in live-action cinema.

A little bird becomes huge

and strong enough to carry off a princess up to the sky.

But the form is imitation photography.

In other words, it isn't alchemy.

So Benayoun was right to call us alchemists.

But he forgot to say that real animation, real creation, is alchemy.

How do you qua/ifi/ your own work,

as experimental film, just an', 0r animation film ?

And do you like the expression ”animaz'ion film”?

You know, film in general, the cinema, is animation.

Live-action cinema is animated photographs.

Because, ultimately, a strip of film

is just a row of images.

If you replace photographed images

with drawn ones, it comes to the same thing.

You could say that cinema is the animation of photographs

which are fixed or dead.

A series of them becomes animation.

In the early clays, cinema was even called "animated photography".

What is an animated film ?

It's a term someone created.

But animation films are drawings or objects,

filmed image by image.

It's breathing life

into objects or drawings which are usually inert or dead.

I've never considered whether I make animation film

or a film of animated drawings or anything else...

ljust make a film.

I follow some guidelines.

My principal guide in everything I do in cinema

is what I learned when I was very young:

film is the unfolding of 24 images per second.

This analysis...

...or extract...

of what the eye perceives, creates cinema.

My guide is thinking of how to express myself

in 24 images going past and creating a movement,

or an illusion of movement.

When I learnt that, I immediately came up with many ideas.

But I didn't invent the thing.

Méliés did it all first.

There's no invention involved.

It's just playing with the elements.

And each does so according to their temperament.

How do you respond to people who say Boro wczyk is noz' animation ?

It isn't a reproach, they're right...

One man even said

I couldn't win a prize at some festival

because I'd made my film in a week

and they had films which required five months of work.

That illustrates the mentality of certain organisers.

That's to say, if you just animate single-line drawings

though now they understand one can do that,

it isn't appreciated as much.

But if you have a lot of colour and backgrounds...

The "spirit" doesn't count, nor the ideas and expression,

only the amount of work entailed,

or the number of elements in the film

and the number of artists who've drawn it.

They say you can't make an interesting full-length film

without billions of francs,

because a studio has to be mobilised,

employing ninety animators over three years,

as well as painters, tracers...

They've probably got a union

for the different specialist animating skills!

It was Disney who started all that with his celluloid.

He needed tracers, cartoonists, painters...

The same thing happens with cartoons.

You have no division of labour prob/ems as you do everything on your own.

On my own, except that sometimes,

on a full-length feature, I do need some other people.

But there are some technical things you can trust anybody to do.

But in truth,

that's already something which is contrary to creativity.

It's manufacturing...

- It's a construction that's... - Industrial.

Industrial, deprived of soul.

I think all the irregularities and imperfections

are the seismographic traces... of sensitivity and nerves,

that's what creates art.

You know, even a Vermeer painting...

...it's an interesting painting seen as a whole from afar,

like the ones he sold to the bourgeoisie who'd commissioned them...

But when you look closely at it

and see, as in Rembrandt or others,

the suffering, the execution, the matter,

the brush strokes and all that, it's extraordinary.

And animation, to return to the subject,

it's slick, manufactured, mechanically-made.

Because the girl who does the tracing,

who draws the outline of a duck, for instance,

if she once made a mistake, did something irregular,

it would be interesting.

But she's obliged not to. It's really awful.

I believe in vivacity, in life!

Stick out your tongue. Stick i2' out!

Your tongue!

G000'. You're healthy.

What do you want to do in life ?

/'// be a pi/oz'.

A pi/oz' who drops bombs, that's good.

N0, a pi/oz' who sprays fields with chemicals.

One who sprays fields ? A lethal pi/oz'.

A killer, yes, but...

/'// kill insects.

N0, you have to kill people.

Stop! Allow me t0 explain!

All the nightinga/es will die afier eating the poisoned insects,

so there will be no more nightinga/es.

And people are great romantics. They can 't live without nightinga/es.

All 0f humanity will per/sh.

L2' will be the end 0f human/zy The end!

N0, that's impossible, that's no good to us.

We '// lose our jobs.

People need to be todured slow/y, progressive/y.

And without nightinga/es.

You could be, for example, a surgeon

who leaves his scalpel inside a patient.

Where did he go ? Masfro ?

/ '// cuz' ofi' his tail! What a hypocrite!

Mastro/ The sly...

With your drawings, one has the impression

that you make your hand tremble on purpose.

No, not on purpose.

One doesn't do that on purpose. It'd be a lack of sincerity.

One must be sincere.

One doesn't think about it, one just draws.

Even a painter doesn't observe himself.

He doesn't stand in front of a mirror to see what he's doing.

He can put himself in the shoes of a consumer afterwards,

he can even analyse his painting, see how it's put together,

but not while he's in the middle of doing it.

It's the same with films.

Obviously it's impossible to do animation without some kind of programme.

One has to make a storyboard,

but privately for oneself, not to show to some funding committee,

but in order to have some kind of guide for oneself.

Everyone has their own ideas that will be analysed later.

But obviously, at all times, the margin of improvisation

decides the final shape of things.

If one talks of surrealism

in regards to my films,

then it isn't that they're done by "automatic writing",

but fragments of certain extracts of them

are utterly automatic.

But the whole thing is controlled and well planned.

Because it must be fixed onto celluloid unfortunately,

and that requires certain technical rules.

We're limited by technique.

By framing, etc...

Some archers have only one arrow,

others have several.

I have a number in my... How do you say?

- Quiver. - Right.

Right, arrow and quiver...

I have several arrows in my quiver.

From time to time,

I feel like changing arrows...

If, for some reason, I'm forbidden to throw an arrow

or it's taken away from me,

I'll find another way to throw my arrow.

Maybe I'll simply use my hand.

You can't stop an artist.

I've done, at times...

If I return from time to time to animation films,

it's because of the total freedom they give me.

I tell you quite sincerely:

one does everything to obtain total freedom when making live-action films,

but it's impossible.

You need great strength to avoid being crushed

by all the extra-artistic things,

from the financing

to organising the set building.

One can't do without a big team of people.

But animation, like painting, is my safety valve,

where I can really be alone and do something totally on my own.

My ideal is to be alone with my problems.

I don't like advisers or collaborators.

When one thinks of your films in terms 0f their quality, eroticism and philosophy,

one thinks of Bruno Schulz and Wit/racy as your mentors,

the people who potential/y influenced you.

Is it ridiculous to say your spirit was touched by them ?

I don't know when...

I first wished...

to paint or make films.

I didn't know Witkacy

and I'd never read anything by Bruno Schulz.

Perhaps there are certain similarities.

But you can say that art in general,

whatever its nationality,

always speaks of the same things,

using symbols or examples

that are the same everywhere.

We always talk about life, death, love. The subjects that matter to us.

I'm sure if one wants, one could find similarities

between what I do and many other writers or artists.

Because there's no break, there's always continuity, tradition.

One is influenced...

Surely in painting one is influenced

by something totally different.

Maybe by music, sounds,

that's tradition...

One is also influenced by events, history, political happenings...

By nature, I mean...

The sky... flora and fauna

of where one was born.

It's not necessarily other creative works or artistic tradition

which make a creator.

It's a coincidence, very often due to chance.

I don't want to put myself in the place of a historian or a psychologist,

but many people see that as a common characteristic

amongst a certain group of Polish artists.

Perhaps it's true.

But the truth is,

my humour isn't really the laughing kind, it's nothing to do with jokes.

Rather it's a way of seeing things.

It's an artistic exaggeration,

and also a short-hand for being comprehensible.

It's a means...

of showing things in a way that's full of images.

Yes, it's artistic exaggeration.

But it's really not aboutjokes, I'm not a humourist.

Yes, there's some satire...

But you know, I can also...

I've also done a film for children.

It's very cheerful, all about little cats.

But everything's a pretext to speak aboutjust one thing

which really concerns me:

the relationship with the world around us.

They are examples and symbols

which are really pretexts

for creating an absolute formal artistic atmosphere.

And guiding, determining and forming...

the way the spectator sees it,

they're just pretexts.

But in fact they're the form

which controls not what we do but how we do it.

Everything we talk about are just pretexts.

You're finishing a shon' film, we 're sitting a2' your editing fab/e.

Can you show us some extracts ?

I'll show you something I've just finished editing.

It's a film called Scherzo Infernal.

I won't let the cat out of the bag,

but you'll see for yourself when the film's finished.

Actually, it is finished except for the sound mix.

It's film that has cartoon elements in it.

We could talk about cartoons.

They're becoming more and more successful.

There are increasingly many, many bad films at the moment.

Things are degenerating.

That's the big danger.

They've set up a museum of animated films,

but what we need to do is protect real animation,

and distinguish between what's real and what's false.

I propose to show that we can make animation differently

from what's been done up to now...

And perhaps return to the source.

This film's a family film,

since it's a tale about two families.

One family which lives in heaven...

- In paradise. - Paradise... Seventh heaven.

And the Devil's family,

who live under the earth.

They have quite an adequate exit system.

Their tunnels lead above ground,

as they live underground...

I'll show you the beginning of the film, you might want to see the rest.

I'll start here.

The music is by Bernard Parmegiani and the narration by Yves Robert.

The producer is Anatole Dauman from Argos Films.

Once upon a time, there was an angel in the Seventh Heaven.

Among thousands 0f others.

A female angel.

Its Creator and Master named i2' Puréa.

My little Puréa...

Once upon a time, deep in the bowels 0f the Earth,

there was a family 0f de vils, a ve/y large family.

The father, Ordure, the head 0f the family,

his wife Kanalia, a diabolical matron, and...

...z'heir 12 sons, each 0f them with a so//d profession.

Anton - the assassin,

Bee/zebub - the band/z',

Carrol' - the burglar,

Devil - the rapist,

Eroficus - the pomographer,

Fo/us - the fh/efi

Garonor - the bureaucrat,

Horror - the bomb,

lstra - the swind/er,

Ja ve/ - the sloth,

Kastro - the kidnapper,

Lasfro - the necrophi/iac,

and Mastro.

Wa/er/an Borowczyk, are you still interested in sex?

How much longer are you going to find i2' an inspiration ?

Excuse me, sir,

I'm not the only one, everybody's interested in sex!

Always have been.

Seriously, I contend that I am not

a maker of erotic films as I'm thought to be.

I think Disney is more erotic.

I mean, if someone mentions the word "erotic"

or says I make erotic films, sexual films,

it's always with ironic innuendo

or a feeling of denigration.

Me, I'm just a filmmaker,

I make films.

And sexual matters...

the let us say the erotic universe,

or the erotic content,

is no bigger in my films

than in many others, good ones,

which deal with landscape or... religion.

Bu! shooting close-ups 0f genitalia is n02' like filming Rheims Cathedral!

But why don't you bring up

the size of a cigarette smoked by an actor?

Characters smoke, speak, eat, drink...

no one makes a fuss!

But when it comes to sex, it's not voyeurism.

If you see an erotic scene in a good film,

one where there's naked people,

or even the sexual act,

it's not there without reason.

The reason isn'tjust to show the scene,

because there are...

...specialist film theatres for that, cabarets, brothels...

I've seen many 0f your films and / think you're a big perven'.

Listen, who isn't perverted?

Our fantasies are identical

to the consumer's.

All I do is express everyone's dreams.

I think it's wrong to judge that

because someone speaks about drugs

or makes films about the subject,

then it follows that he's an addict.

It isn't true.

Talking about alcoholism

doesn't make you an alcoholic.

Everyone leaps up to accuse and with such satisfaction!

I always feel different,

as though I'd committed some misdemeanour,

and I was under suspicion of having committed a crime.

But you never speak about the spectator who goes to see the films.

There's many more of them.

A director or writer is on his own,

but there's thousands, millions of readers and spectators!

It's the same with prostitution.

The poor prostitutes are destroyed, detested,

they're objects of disgust.

But nothing's ever said about the clients.

They're the real culprits.

You're in Rue Saint-Denis.

You stop a2' the comer.

And make sure there are no cops around.

Now, take ofi' your coazi/

Show your body ofif Come on, that's i2'.

The leg...

The other.

Rest your foot 0n the /edge.

Breast fon/vard.

Breathe deep/y.

Someone is coming down the street

F 0//ow him. . . but only with your eyes.

Remember, soliciting is illegal.

/'// be the client You watch me close/y.

Smile, will you!

Tell me... do you come easily?

Never.

- The truth? - Yes.

Are you a client?

No, no... I'm just saying that...

You've just confirmed what I said before,

that you immediately, and much too swiftly,

identify a speaker

with what he is speaking about.

I don't drink... You know, I'm always frustrated,

because if you make love six times a day,

then you want to do it a seventh or a tenth time,

and you're frustrated, it's always like that.

So it's a question of proportion...

- More seriously... - The propodion 0f what?

Of What!

You're immediately out to make a spectacle,

a licentious spectacle!

Seriously, where there's laughter, there's no eroticism.

True eroticism can't stand laughter, jokes.

It's a very serious matter.

I think a Disney film is more pornographic.

You say "eroticism",

but you think "pornography".

I'm immediately susceptible.

Forgive me,

but I've always got to underline

that I have nothing to do with specialisation.

I'm not a specialist of anything.

Specialists are to be found at the Sorbonne perhaps,

or in medical faculties, or in many other places...

But me, I'm just a filmmaker.

Ifl am a specialist, then I am maybe a specialist of the cinema.

Wa/er/an Borowczyk, you were, and are, a notable graphic a/fisz'.

In what way has your format/on as an a/fisz'

influenced your fi/mmaking ?

From time to time, it used to be much more often,

I would make animation films.

But in general ifl make films,

it's not because cinema resembles painting,

but precisely because I see the differences between them.

In the same way, for example, a good theatre actor

will always be a good film actor.

The distinction made by some people doesn't really exist.

"So and so's great on stage but lousy in films."

For if he's no good on the screen,

he'll be no good on the boards and vice versa.

So I think that if a painter is no good as a painter,

he can't be any good as a filmmaker,

because he'll be a painter in films.

In my opinion, the greatest mistake of critics,

and in the minds of many people,

is when they say,

"What a beautiful film, such lovely images."

Lovely images don't make a good film.

If his film is just that, the filmmaker has lost contact

with the differences of the genres.

Because cinema isn'tjust image.

Ifl make a film, it isn't to make beautiful images,

cinema is editing and the unfolding of action within time.

It's about the story, not the theme, that can be found anywhere,

but content, which is totally different

from the content of a book or a painting.

It's an art all on its own and utterly autonomous.

So, in answer to your question about my influences,

I'm not influenced by painting.

Because a painter is a sum total

of the different ingredients making up his general culture.

If one makes films,

it isn't in order to continue painting.

On the contrary, it's precisely in order to change the means of expression

and to do what is impossible to do in painting.

So the images are lovely, but what does "lovely" signify?

A critic once said about one of my films

that it was ugly and horrible.

It was G010, ls/and of Love, my first full-length feature with actors.

He said it was hideous and awful,

that I filmed ruins,

that my actors were ill-dressed and badly shaven.

So you see... notions of beauty!

If one takes a camera and films,

one must also frame.

You have to choose between these limits of the image or those other ones,

and decide quickly!

It isn't my experience as a painter,

but perhaps an innate disposition

which obliges me at all times to frame well, to compose well,

and to be sensitive to contrasts, as one must,

since contrasts create everything:

lines, blacks and whites, colours...

That's a universal.

For these are fundamental laws, be it for a writer, painter or filmmaker.

And that's the sole link with painting.

But I don't do films in order to create lovely images.

Perhaps in the early days of photography the camera stood in for painting,

yet retained painting's academic style of composition.

But cinema is primarily movement, time...

...and the joining of all the elements,

because it isn't true that the script

or the dialogue or the photography is the most important thing.

No, everything is important. One element can't do without any other.

Can you a2' least talk about the influences 0f P0//sh an',

the an' 0f where you came from, 0n your work?

I know Polish art less well perhaps

than Western European art, French art, for example,

if we're talking about modern painting or history.

Obviously, what used to interest me, and still does,

whenever in the East, which I visit less than before,

or in any other country,

is primitive art, spontaneous but not exactly folk art.

Not the souvenir folk art churned out on conveyor belts in modern workshops.

But authentic primitive art.

But I'm not imbued with Polish art.

I wouldn't be able to say...

There are some artists whom I greatly admire,

like Michalowski for example, but he is 19th century.

There are some modems...

...Makowski, perhaps.

But it's a false and tendentious question, which I'm often asked,

because it's known that I'm Polish.

But, in my opinion...

...there are no schools in painting.

Today, especially,

the way we communicate and share images and information,

we've been doing that for centuries actually...

The invention of the railway has greatly helped.

The easy and accessible world-wide communications we have now

have erased national art.

As far as I know, for the Poles,

painting is...

There isn't a national school any longer,

it's just a question, as always, of individuality and temperament.

An unsigned Polish artist

could exhibit next to a French or Japanese artist,

and no one would know the difference.

It's too late anyway to ask such questions.

/t doesn 't seem that there 's a tradition 0f surrealist painting in Poland,

but your work is similar to surrealism.

Where does that influence come from, that you seem to possess ?

There is no influence.

Maybe my father or grandfather were influenced, I don't know.

I was born with "something" inside.

In my films,

paintings and drawings...

...there's just my own temperament.

I'm just a painter or filmmaker and there's no more to it than that.

I like very much the landscape and atmosphere

of my native land,

but I also like all that I see in France, for example.

It's true, I select.

I can condemn much to be found in Polish art,

as I can condemn much of what's to be found in French art.

But at the same time I make a choice.

As far as I'm concerned,

the level of accomplishment is really down to the individual.