Select Page

Together with Gloria Mundy, the proposed family story is "as fragile as the house of cards", Robert Gediguan confronts the viewer with a deadly feat that drives the individual to the gradual elimination of all morals. Invited to speak in our columns, the director answers our questions.

It is the cruel story of a world that has come to rest in nihilism, "leaving no other connection between man and man than the cold interest and burdensome demands of cash," as Marx put it in his Manifesto. Together with his screenwriter Serge Valletti, he wrote that Robert Gediguain's new film unites his favorite actors, Ariana Askaridi (played by Sylvie), who is in a relationship with Jean-Pierre Darussin (Richard). Gerard Meylan (Daniel), released from prison, where he has been imprisoned for many years, comes to meet them. His ex-wife, Silvi, warns that he is a grandfather. Their daughter, Matilda, has just given birth to little Gloria. The symbolic name that boasts the glory of the world, this ancient glory, which is the prerogative of this right, is the sacred opening of the latest film by Marseille. Perceiving the extreme horizon of humanity, reversing throughout the film, heroizing the virtue of egoism, which disrupts social connection and the ability to be one with the world or with others.

Earlier you mentioned that "you have enough directors to show what's wrong with poor people." What made you change your mind?

Robert Gediguian. The first time I mentioned it was in 1992 when money was going to happen. I developed it later, several times, when I spoke to the eyes of filmmakers who systematically display poverty among the poor who suffer from all diseases – drugs, alcohol, adultery, the lower classes. After a while the cup is full. I said it in a provocative but also anti-state way, in my desire to show greatness and nobility, even in the midst of misery. I wanted to enchant the world again, but for all that, a few years later, I shot The City is Silent, which is a constructive tragedy because it fascinates us. For Gloria Mundy, the shape of this film is also conditioned by what we have around us. We live in a time of great regression, social, but also political, economic, civilization and deep cultural, individual worship. I believe that the "icy waters of selfish calculation" put forward by Marx in 1848 are more true than ever.

But there is still something deep in the film that I show to people who have been faithful to the dominant conversation. And this is clearly unbearable, even if in my view it is inevitably transitional, it cannot last. We often talk about the battle of ideas. For a moment capitalism has won, and the battle of ideas is lost. But I'm not one of those who think that history is coming to an end. This battle can be won again if it succeeds, and the films are part of this battle, as do all other artistic and intellectual productions.

Will art be "the spark that the dust cream is looking for", as André Breton said.

R.G. It would be ideal. If I had not thought about this force of action, I think I would have stopped. I follow my aesthetic, as Brest said, from the demands of my struggle, not around me.

I love beautiful paintings, photos, birds in the sky, but my films all tell about the lives of the characters who have long lived the Big H who transformed or transcended it. And today we are living in an age when people are going through a story that spoils them in a very subtle way. Modern societies have succeeded in making people adhere to their values, which are, moreover, subsystems.

The aforementioned are now faithful to the conversations of the operators. I wanted to show it by disagreeing with the characters because I consider them Daniel, played by Gerard Meylan, with compassion. These people are not conscious. The word penetrated, their thoughts penetrated them, and they said things about business, property, immigration, without conscience or violence. Here we are bad. It is this acceptance of the dominant discourse that explains to me at best the abstinence, the extreme right vote at worst.

Could this acceptance be the beginning of a class struggle against the war against everyone?

RG: When Darusin saw the film for the first time after its editing, he said to me: “This is the last film before the war. I said yes. The threat is real. Justified but unorganized anger can go in any direction. We see it in the world. This anger can be very different. When it comes to the left, according to one terminology that I continue to insist on, I'm happy; as it allows you to imagine another model yet to be determined. But if this anger is directed at the need to be stronger, it scares me.

The look of the youth on the screen looks very dark …

RG: One has to be a Marxist to the end and think that individuals are the product of their time, or that human nature is the synthesis of all social relationships. You have to have the courage to say it, it's not a good judgment, my film has a lot of compassion and love for even the most critical characters. So we must have the courage to say how people are the victims of the world in which we live and who are at the height of alienation.

I know for sure that there is a great deal of opposition among young people today, but the film should not make a difference. The film must be superfluous, shocking people, or making them laugh or make them cry. or making them rebellious. If I had preferred to show the young activist of the rue d & # 39; Aubagne Support Committee, it would have been a misunderstanding of the film form which is a movie. So it is a question of the chosen form of the film: Obviously, I don't hate youth …

In your film, you seem to invent what you reject from this unhappy world.

RG – From the cinematic point of view it was quite complicated, but it really had to integrate these modern evils (rejection of others, envy, prostitution, addictions, pornography, etc.). the presence of soldiers on the streets, Ed.) in a story. The story goes on in 2019 and, of course, what I show in the film I see every day.

So I absolutely wanted to sign these pictures, so I was still going to date the film, even if there was no question of deepening. These are the signs of the world in which man lives, they had to be shown in certain doses.

How does Marcel feed your imagination in this film?

RG- To shoot in 2019 one has to shoot the last of his neighborhoods, which is unfortunately called "Euroméditerranée". In fact, I don't make a film in Marseille, I make films in Marseille. This city is a huge theater, from which I know every mumble and cunning. I know that there is an accessory at the bottom of the attic that I can use. For example here, I absolutely wanted to locate Toutcash in Plombieres. My shooting locations are characters that serve as the film's dramaturgy.

Do you believe in the return of the staff?

RG: I believe in that, the collective that needs to be built, organized, we must change politics and not be afraid. This film allows us to warn you about what the individual fights are all about. There is no problem, there are only collective issues, it should be on all shades of hammer. We continue to pay for the 50th anniversary of the collapse of the Communist hypothesis in the face of capitalism, which, freeing itself from all threats, has free hands. We need to move quickly in this restructuring by weighing the balance of power.

Are you convinced of Marseille's left-wing success at City Hall?

RG: I hope I do. I'm starting to get really angry at people who are causing impunity. I am tired of these Byzantine disputes. Without the Left Union nothing has been done in France. I prefer to be the last wheel of a wheelchair to go ahead of the first wheel of a failed trainer.

What will be the theme of your next movie?

RG- It's a movie about Mali's independence, in this time of excitement where young people wanted to build socialism … but also dance every night and rock and roll.

Interview by Benjamin Grinda

Source link