A Critical Cinema 2: Interviews with Independent Filmmakers

I'm even going to try and talk about cutting rhythms at a certain point in the film. I may try and cut a sequence one way, and then cut it another waynot just for the didactic hell of that, but to try and flow a bit with Strindberg's own decentralization as a person. Do we need a center inside ourselves or don't we? Strindberg was so all over the place that one could theorize that he never really had an internal center to his psyche, which was both a strength and, unfortunately, a weakness for him. He suffered all his life, and he could never really flow with his relationship with Siri von Essen. At the same time, he was always trying to break out of conventional structures, particularly in his plays. He made highly condensed, highly charged pieces, where a lot is done just

Page 415

with looks or one short sentence. He does in a few sentences what people had spent pages doing before. So he's breaking out of convention, but he's trapped by it, because he's quite a bourgeois man in many ways. He's very trapped by money, although he never had much.

This film will be far less syrupy than the Munch film. I don't identify with Strindberg the way I did with Munch, and there's no point in doing the same film again anyway. I've done a lot of developing since I made the Munch film; that was in 1973. And I really want to work with all this media stuff now. I want to create abysses into which people can fall and tumble where they want; if I can ever do that in a film, then I'll stop making filmsI'll have arrived. I do think there's a self-terminating point. I'm not in love with film anymore, and that's one of the most liberating things that's happened to me. I don't need it as a means of expression. In fact, if I could be a professional researcher for the rest of my life, I'd probably do that. I love doing research. Film is not my "high" anymore.

MacDonald:

I would hate to see you out of film. Your films are some of the few that are based on serious research. The Munch film is as powerful as it is, partly because you clearly know as much about Munch as anybody alive. The film is not a fantasy about Munch, it's an attempt to deal with material that took a tremendous effort to compile.

Watkins:

But, you understand the trap there, which is the trap we've been talking about. The more I become an "expert," the more I am creating for people their image of Edvard Munch. A well-known historian of Strindberg (he's a very nice guy who's been very helpful) said to me, "Well, I must say"and he meant this as a compliment"I must say, your

Edvard Munch

is what Edvard Munch is to me now.'' I was really happy that he said that, but I thought to myself afterwards, "Ugh! God!"

MacDonald:

I think you're being too hard on him and yourself.

Watkins:

Oh, I'm not being hard on him. I'm really glad he said it. But, still, because I am worried about the

whole

role of the media, I cannot lift myself out as some kind of elitist who's somehow found the eternal secret of being the perfect researcher and the perfect complex filmmaker, who's removed from this. I'm not. I'm right in the middle of it.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Part 2

MacDonald:

Many people would say it's madness for you to think you can complete this new project [what was to become

The Journey

]. I know of no film that has been substantially funded by the donations of individuals in various countries.

Page 416

Watkins:

Well, nobody has actually said, yet, that such a thing is madness. And I don't see it as madness at allquite the contrary. It is

because

we've gotten used to the media being so damned centralized that we think of such a project as unusual. You can find many aspects of the social process where the public should be involved but aren't. But here's a clear example where receivers are almost completely uninvolved in the creation of what they are receiving. It's fantastically off-balance. What I'm doing should be quite normal, as far as the process is concerned.

I'm quite sure the film will get done. It may be that for one reason or another I won't be able to shoot the film in all the countries I hope to, but I don't think that will be for financial reasons. It may be because this country or that makes it too bureaucratic for me to function.

MacDonald:

How exactly are you raising money?

Watkins:

I'm building up a several-tier process. In some countries we've applied for public funds. In France, for example, we're applying for a national grant, though the support for the film there is coming from the Midi-Pyrenees: Regional Film: Production Center in the south of France. I've applied for funds to cover the cost of the equipment and filming. But a local regional board has said that even if I don't get the grant, they will lend me the equipment for nothing. Wherever I can, I'm trying to cover my bets, so that if we get less than full funding, I'll have emergency plans to fall back on.

MacDonald: