#28tc2016

Céline Sciamma wrote the script for this film and you are the director. How did you both end up working on this project and how did you collaborate during the writing of the script?

I had worked for five years on the script and the ten or so characters before meeting Céline Sciamma. Then, I met her because of my Suisse producer, Rita Productions. They found the scenario good, but not entirely good. They thought it needed more work. We didn’t really agree. Then they asked me if I wanted to work with Céline Sciamma. And this was at the time when she had just made Tomboy. I had seen Tomboy maybe three or four months before and, thus, when they proposed to work with Céline Sciamma I said “yes, it’s true, the script isn’t that great!”. Working together went really well. First we met for three days to discuss the film. And I believe that we have a natural compatibility that has made our work very easy. I have the impression that she has made this film for me and that she knows me very, very well even though we had never met before. It was a really good collaboration.

The story of the film is based on a book. Can you tell us about the process of adapting the book to this film? What are the differences between the book and your film?

I think we have been very faithful to the characters of the book but not to all of the action and the details of what goes on. Rather, we were faithful to who the characters are and what their journey is. The first thing I did before Céline Sciamma finished the script, however, was choosing the characters. Because in the book there are a lot more characters in the group home. I didn’t want to include all these characters if we don’t really meet them. So I had to find enough characters for it to be realistic and a believable group home but not too many characters in order to have the time to meet them all. This was a big piece of work that we did in the adaptation.

I think that has worked very well!

Thank you.

What I really appreciated about this film was both the sweetness that you’d expect from an animated film for children and the fact that it didn’t shy away from the less pretty aspects of life. How important was this for you? And how did you balance the darkness knowing that children are going to see this film?

Yes, I think that it’s in part what makes this film original. I only realized this a little while ago. It is very rare to see an animated film that tackles reality, because in the end animation allows for the creation of imaginary worlds. It’s quite rare that we tell a realistic story in animation. At the same time what interests me is speaking to children. Not presenting them an ideal world but talking to them about the world as it is and showing them that it isn’t always easy. But I think that they aren’t stupid. They have already figured that out [laughs]. However, we can make the world easier by fully entering it instead of getting angry when we encounter difficulties.

And have you been able to talk to children that have seen the film? Have you been able to find out what their reaction is?

Yes, it’s quite funny. There is a contrast because I have often seen adults cry but not one kid has. Instead, the kids ask questions: will Simon see Courgette again? Will they all go on vacation together? They really are with the characters while adults seem to have entered their own childhood. They leave their childhood at the end of the film but nostalgia is created at that point. That wasn’t planned but it’s what I observe.

So does this mean that the children see more of the lighter aspects in the film than adults do?

Not necessarily. Astonishingly, adults cry but find the film to be very positive. However, there are a lot of children who tell me that they are very sad because some of the kids stay in the group home. They feel the need to know that these kids have a future too. They almost ask me to make the sequel. But well [laughs]… That would take so much time that if I do the sequel they will be adults by the time it’s finished. I don’t know… maybe I feel like telling other stories.

And do you indeed have plans for future projects?

Yes, what interests me is stop motion. That is really what I like to express myself with. Also, me and my collaborators are a family – a bit like in the film – since we make these films together: short films and feature films. I want to continue with stop motion and I want to continue making films for children. Social cinema for children! I do have an idea for a film at the moment, but it is still very fresh.

I thought it was really interesting to use stop motion for this film. How did you think animation helped you to tell your story?

I believe that stop motion creates a sort of poetry, especially in this film. The technique and the road we have to take in order to make this film creates some sort of magic. It’s not necessarily in what the viewer sees. It’s what has happened beneath the surface that isn’t explained but that – I think – brings an additional soul to the film.

Is the graphic style that you used personal to you and your collaborators or was it specifically created for the film?

No, it’s a style that we had already used in short films. However, especially for this first feature film that is realistic, I chose to put the realism in the voices of the children since we recorded these voices in the style of Ken Loach. This means that we chose children that resembled those in the script. Then, we let them discover scene after scene of the script while playing together. This brought a touch of realism and something special to their voices. Then, indeed, I think that the contrast with the very sketched and simplistic graphic style creates a particular kind of poetry. We also created realism through naturalistic light. There you go, it’s a kind of recipe that we have invented and that we will try to evolve in the future.

What you said about the children being able to discover the script while playing is very interesting. In fact, what I noted is that these children were actually talking like children do in real life. I don’t think that this is always the case in animated films. Were the children allowed to change the dialogue or was the script already written this naturally?

It was very scripted but what Céline said is very astonishing. Rather then just trying to figure out how children talk today, she really puts herself in the shoes of a child and she thinks like a child. She writes very simple things without trying to find the right word but rather through the psychology and the reflection of a child. In the end, I think that’s what works. It’s that simplicity and that way of thinking. Afterwards, we did rework the script a little bit at the time of recording but not that much.

Well then it’s really well done!

Maybe a final question relating to the Lux Prize? Have you noticed that the prize helps your film travel around Europe like it intends to do?

Yes, I think the film has already travelled to a lot of festivals and to independent cinemas. I realize that this journey will continue in Europe. The film was widely sold in almost every European country. I think that this is also thanks to this prize and the subtitles that we have been able to show it and sell it. The film will reach the public and I think that that is why I make films… rather than to win prizes. Therefore, I am very happy to be a finalist. That was most important because it allowed for the film to be subtitled in all European languages.

We worked together during jury meetings, by responding to each other’s opinions on the films and listening to every one’s input, but some of the most insightful and important discussions came from those outside of jury meetings. Many of us would gather after the films to chat about our immediate post-screening reactions, or in the evenings over dinner. We anticipated more quarrelling amongst jury members, but instead we mostly had respectful discussions, some of which were heated when it came to a more divisive film.

Considering the topic of film and the Venice Days line-up dominated most of our social interactions, it was clear that everyone on the jury was passionate about cinema and eager to converse with equally enthusiastic cinephiles. In the final, public jury meeting we had to reach a majority consensus on what the winning film would be, which resulted in two rounds of voting. It was clear that while most of us were on the same wavelength, there were ardent supporters of each of the three finalist films – Heartstone, The War Show, and Hounds of Love. The voting process was almost as intense as Hounds of Love, resulting in The War Show emerging victorious, which was celebrated as a worthy winner. Despite some jury members disagreeing over arguments for and against particular films, everyone was considerate of one another’s contributions.