Monday, April 23, 2007

2007 SFIFF50—Bamako Press Notes


I deeply believe that life and hope go beyond the notion of justice.

Recently, while waiting for a word-of-mouth screening of Vacancy to begin, I browsed through a handful of press notes for the upcoming SFIFF50. A young lady next to me took interest and asked, "What are those?"

"They're press notes," I answered.

"You're a movie critic?" she followed.

"I write about movies," I corrected, edging away from the assumption. I offered her some of the press notes to peruse while waiting for the film to begin. "These are fascinating," she said, "they have so much information about the movie!"

"Sometimes," I qualified.

Later, on my way home, filling the vacancy left after Vacancy (nature abhors a vacuum and all that), I felt fortunate that press notes are (again) sometimes a perk to compensate for no compensation writing about film. I say sometimes because often they're just a complete waste of trees, replicating the closing credits that roll across the screen while you're shuffling out of the theater. But other times they include critical overviews or provide insightful historical context. The press notes for Stuart Cooper's Overlord come to mind; they were a fascinating read.

As were the press notes for Abderrahmane Sissako's Bamako; one of the gems of SFIFF50's line-up this year. I watched Bamako again recently and enjoyed it even more than my first viewing. Included with the press notes were a note from Sissako and an interview conducted with French film critic and educator Franck Garbarz. I felt Garbarz's interview, especially, deserved to be read by a larger public than the press and contacted local publicist Larsen Associates to seek permission to replicate the interview here on The Evening Class and on Twitch. Larsen Associates put me in touch with Ron Ramsland at New Yorker Films, Bamako's distributor. Ron tracked down the author of the interview and granted permission to use Garbarz's piece, for which I am deeply grateful. Thank you, Ron.

But then I felt a tinge of conscience because somewhere in the back of my mind was this little voice saying, "You're not supposed to replicate stuff from press notes. That's a journalistic no-no." So I've asked around and, sure enough, some film writers say no, that's not acceptable. The publicist and the distributor were surprised by that reaction because they provide the material precisely to be used. So not being tethered to any kind of academic training when it comes to my film writing, trusting gut instincts, and eschewing peer approval, I offer for your perusal what I found of worth in the Bamako press notes. [After completing this entry, I discovered Garbarz's interview with Sissako can also be found on the film's official website.]



Director's Note

Today's core missions of the Washington-based IMF and World Bank, which were created in the wake of World War II, are to regulate the international monetary system and lend money to developing countries. As many countries had difficulty repaying their debts, rich countries imposed, in the early 80's, structural adjustment policies that set the rules of the game for millions of people. International financial institution officials were granted the power to impose on the most debt-ridden countries' governments a policy supposed to balance their budgets. Most Sub-Saharan African countries are under structural adjustment programmes these days.

These programmes based on neo-liberal principles serve rich countries' vested interests—essentially those of the United States and of Europe. The reforms imposed on Southern countries have always been the same while, paradoxically enough, they are far from being implemented in Northern countries: suppression of State subsidies (in agriculture, textiles, etc.), the dismantlement of public services and job cuts in the public sector (school teachers, doctors, etc). In debt-ridden countries, the privatization of State-owned firms, which managed natural resources, water, electricity, transport and telecommunications has always been carried out in the interest of rich countries' multinationals. The contracts—signed against a backdrop of corruption and political pressure—have always benefited these multinationals.

At the same time, the populations under structural adjustment have grown poorer and poorer, their life expectancy has declined, their child mortality has risen and their literacy rate has dropped. Most official reports indicate that the Very Indebted Poor Countries are poorer today than they were twenty years ago. However, if we take into account the total capital flow and wealth transfer, African countries have more than repaid their debts to rich countries. Many of them have had to relinquish everything they owned and can no longer secure their future development. A long overdue debt relief seems now to be deceiving.

Interview With Abderrahmane Sissako

Franck Garbarz: How did this project come into being?

Abderrahmane Sissako: First, this film is linked to my desire to film in my father's house, who has passed away. This house is located in Bamako, in the poorer neighborhood of Hamdallaye. It's a plain house, made of earth. For years, a tap and a well have been standing side by side in the courtyard. Here, water is expensive, and to save money, my father had a well dug. This courtyard is where I grew up, with my many brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, close and distant relatives. Never had we been less than twenty-five sleeping, eating, learning, living almost in turn. Today, most of us have left the house to live elsewhere—and yet the house is still always full. New cousins, close and distant relatives live there, go to school or quit to work on some odd job or other. For me, this house is associated with the memory of passionate discussions with my father about Africa.

The other reason that urged me to make this film has to do with my views on Africa—Africa, not as the continent that I call my own, but as a place of injustice which directly affects me. When one lives on a continent where filmmaking is difficult and uncommon, one feels entitled to speak in the name of others: faced with the seriousness of the situation in Africa, I felt a kind of urgency to bring up the hypocrisy of the North towards the Southern countries.

Garbarz: Without a doubt, your film adopts the least traditional narrative. How did you develop this method?

Sissako: At first, I wanted to limit the setting of the film to a trial without ever leaving it. Afterwards, I understood that I could perhaps go further if I gave up the idea of a single space, one theatrical setting, and that I could introduce characters outside the trial.

Garbarz: What is striking, is precisely the life that goes on outside the courtroom: women are [dyeing] fabric, a mother nurses her little daughter, a couple breaks up, another gets married…

Sissako: I developed the secondary plots because I wanted the lives of the people living in the courtyard to echo or interfere with the speeches delivered at the bar. The trial debates illustrate a kind of intelligence which monopolizes all of our attention and it was absolutely necessary that the sophisticated statements be put into perspective by comparing them with the lives that go on in the courtyard. The people who gravitate around the courtroom believe in the trial but don't expect anything from the verdict. When talking about the West, in order to encourage me, one of the witnesses said: "At least they'll know what we know."

Garbarz: In Waiting For Happiness you showed the impotence of Africa's public authorities and western countries' anti-immigration policies. Here, you reach a new stage with a film in the form of a parable.


Sissako: I deeply believe that life and hope go beyond the notion of justice. Speaking in a straightforward way is extremely difficult these days and conveying message through a parable seemed the right thing to do. I wanted the debate that is carried out by the main characters in the trial, to be regularly broken up by other realities, which sometimes take the form of parables. It was impossible for me to imagine this trial anywhere but with a real living place.

Garbarz: Is it possible to say that the trial has a cathartic quality to it?

Sissako: The real question is this: no court of law exists to call into question the power of the strongest. It wasn't so much a question of laying the blame on who is guilty than denouncing the fact that the predicament of hundreds of millions of people is the result of policies that have been decided outside their universe. You find this idea in a statement given by Aminata Traoré, one of the witnesses, who refuses to accept that poverty is the main feature of Africa: no, she says, Africa is rather a victim of its wealth! So, in this way, I wanted to offer another image of my continent, one different from war and famine. This is where an artist's creativity comes in, not to change the world, but to make the impossible realistic, like these proceedings against international financial institutions.

Garbarz: How did you think up the "dialogues" of the main characters in the trial?

Sissako: It's worth knowing that I called upon judges and professional lawyers and also real witnesses. I worked a long time with them. I decided what the framework of the proceedings was going to be like and then I let them put it to life. When we were filming, I gave them a lot of freedom when testifying, accusing or defending. Some of them had been chosen among the victims of the famous "structural adjustments" of the World Bank and the IMF: these are the people that we call the "outcasts," the laid off workers, like those former public servants who found themselves out of work because public services had been privatized and sold to Western multinationals. These "witnesses" had the feeling that a real trial was taking place and so when they came to testify in court they voiced their resentment. Here again, I didn't make anything up.

Garbarz: You remind us that women play a central role in Africa and prevent the continent from erupting into violence.

Sissako: Yes, they are the ones who prevent us from being too pessimistic about the future of the continent. When one sees their will to fight, their strength, it's only normal to give them an essential part in the film, in the trial as well as in the life that goes on around the courtyard.


Garbare: How is the spaghetti western scene related to the film?

Sissako: For me, it was a case of showing that cowboys aren't all white and that the West isn't solely to blame for Africa's woes. We too have a share of blame. This is why the cowboy who shoots the "extraneous" schoolteacher is African.

Also, a large portion of the African elite is a party to the West: they've never had the courage to act in favor of changing things because each person is only looking out selfishly for their own interests. So, I saw this western sequence as a metaphor of the World Bank's or the IMF's mission—since these missions are carried out jointly by the Europeans and the Africans.

Garbarz: How did you go about the filmmaking?

Sissako: For me, we had to film the trial as one would a documentary: a scene couldn't be interrupted, a witness wouldn't have been asked to repeat a sentence and we let the court president and the lawyers listen to the testimonies and intervene as they saw fit.

We used four video cameras and a sound recordist, deliberately letting them be visible on the screen. Because I wanted everyone to get used to this technical device, just as one would in any trial. On the other hand, for the scenes outside the trial, we chose a fictional scenario, with shooting script, reverse-angle shots, master shots . . . and we shot on 16mm. This is how it turned out that together, in the same film, we had professional actors and actual lawyers, judges and witnesses, people from the neighborhood, and members of my family.

Garbarz: You also introduce a character who carries a camera.

Sissako: The character of Falaï, the cameraman, makes videos both for weddings and for the crime squad. But he says he prefers filming the dead, "they're more real." I wanted to show his personal point of view, without sound. These images represent for me the glance of those who don't have the means to speak out.

Cross-published at Twitch.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

RAYMOND CARVER—So Much Water So Close To Home


So much water so close to home, why did he have to go miles away to fish?

A while back, David Lowery came up with a term that I love and seem to keep using over and over—"substantiating connective tissue"—to describe what ties together literature and cinema (or—for that matter—any other artistic medium and cinema). For our immediate purposes, however, perhaps the term stuck with me because increasingly over the last year I've become interested in the writer's role in this complex business of making films. Not only, let's say, a novelist or a short story writer whose work has been picked up for adaptation; but the screenwriter's challenge in pursuing such an adaptation. Let alone writers like myself who approach film from either a critic's perspective or a commentarian's fascination. The written word and the cinematic image seem as intimately linked as a sibling relationship, whether one of rivalry or loyalty.

There are several essays I've been methodically shaping. The work of James Leo Herlihy in film. The work of Julio Cortazar. Soon, I hope, I can present those burnished musings on The Evening Class. For now, I was reminded of my "substantiating connective tissue" projects by correspondence I received from Russell Perreault, Vice President and Director of Publicity for Vintage Books and Anchor Books, a division of the Knopf Group/Random House, Inc. In what I consider one of the most creative and imaginative publicity campaigns in recent memory, Perreault forwarded a copy of "So Much Water So Close To Home", the short story by Raymond Carver that serves as the basis of the Sony Pictures Classics adaptation Jindabyne, opening later this month. It felt refreshing to start at the beginning, to read this deeply evocative story and to imagine how it caught the attention of filmmakers and how they will amplify Carver's tale into a full length feature. Further, it was a unique reading because—knowing beforehand Laura Linney would be in the film—I kept seeing her face and hearing her voice while reading the story. It made for a rich, imaginative read and I'm looking all the more forward to watching Jindabyne at a press screening next week. I commend Perreault for reminding of the source material.

Along with Carver's story, Perreault advised of other Vintage and Anchor books that are being adapted into movies in the coming year and I thought it would be of interest to replicate those here, with the encouraging subtext that this is coming from only one publishing house.


Away From Her (Lionsgate). Based on the Alice Munro short story, "The Bear Came Over the Mountain." Directed by Sarahi Polley; starring Julie Christie, Michael Murphy, Gordon Pinsent, and Olympia Dukakis.

Evening (Focus Features). Based on the novel by Susan Minot. Lajos Koltai (Fateless) directed; screenplay by Minot and Michael Cunningham. Vanessa Redgrave, Claire Danes, Toni Collette, Patrick Wilson, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Mamie Gummer, Natasha Richardson, and Hugh Dancy star.

The Hottest State (ThinkFilm). Based on the book by Ethan Hawke and directed by him. Starring Mark Webber, Jesse Harris, Laura Linney, Ethan Hawke and Michelle Williams.


No Country For Old Men (Paramount Vantage). Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy. Scott Rudin produced with Ethan and Joel Coen, who wrote the script and directed. Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Woody Harrelson, Stephen Root and Josh Brolin star.

The Feast of Love (MGM/Lakeshore Entertainment). Based on the novel by Charles Baxter. Directed by Robert Benton. Starring Morgan Freeman, Greg Kinnear, Radha Mitchell, Jane Alexander, Alexa Davalos, Toby Hemingway, and Selma Blair.

Into the Wild (Paramount Vantage). Based on the book by Jon Krakauer. Sean Penn directed. Produced by Art Linson and Bill Pohlad (Brokeback Mountain). Oscar winners William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden; and Emile Hirsch (The Lords of Dogtown), and Catherine Keener star.

Lust, Caution (Focus Features). Based on the story by Eileen Chang. Directed by Ang Lee, produced by William Kong, screenplay by Hui-Ling Wang; starring Joan Chen, Anupam Kher, Lee-Hom Wang, Wei Tang, and Chih-ying Chu.

Silk (New Line/Picturehouse). Based on the novel by Alessandro Baricco. François Girard (Thirty-two short films about Glenn Gould, Red Violin) directed, and the cast includes Michael Pitt, Koji Yakusho, Alfred Molina and Keira Knightley.

Reservation Road (RH Films/Focus Features). Based on the novel by John Burnham Schwartz, who likewise wrote the screenplay. Terry George (Hotel Rwanda) directed; starring Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Connolly and Mira Sorvino.


Love In the Time Of Cholera (New Line/Stone Village Pictures). Based on the novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Oscar-winner Ronald Harwood (The Pianist) wrote the screenplay. Mike Newell directed. Javier Bardem, Benjamin Bratt, Giovanna Mezzogiorno, John Leguizamo, Hector Elizondo and Fernanda Montenegro star.

Atonement (Focus Features). Based on the book by Ian McEwan. Produced by Robert Fox (The Hours); script by Christopher Hampton. Starring Keira Knightley, James McAvoy, Brenda Blethyn, Vanessa Redgrave and Romola Garai.

Fugitive Pieces (Serendipity Point Films). Based on the novel by Anne Michaels. Stars Rosamund Pike, Stephen Dillane, Rachelle Lafevre. Directed and screenplay by Jeremy Podeswa.

Cross-published on Twitch.

DEAD CHANNELS SLEAZY SUNDAYS—Riding Dennis Harvey's SF360 Coat Tails


Dennis Harvey's masterful SF360 summation of this past month's Sleazy Sundays series and the pervading grindhouse mania that's crept into programming in nearly every major urban center in the States warrants a shout-out. It's a fun read, not the least for listing some of his most memorable moments at the Strand Theatre here in San Francisco. When Roxy Music sang, "Do the Strand!", they didn't know it was being interpreted so idiosyncratically down on Market Street. My favorite moments at the Strand (that I'm willing to admit): a John Waters retrospective where I first saw Female Trouble; a David Cronenberg retrospective where I first saw Rabid and Brood; escaping the rain one day to watch a movie I knew nothing about, something called The Terminator. Then there was the time I was terrified by a paper bag on one of the seats next to me. It had been left behind by some previous patron and—as I watched the movie—the bag moved all by itself. I was too terrified to do anything but look at it, increasingly distracted from the movie I had paid good money—well, cheap money—to watch. Anyone else have some good Strand stories?

Dennis also profiles the final triple bill in this month's series: Maniac, Preacherman, and Black Gestapo. All in all, Sleazy Sundays has been a fun series and Dead Channels deserves something—maybe their comeuppance?—for indulging us our flashback to the sticky '60s and '70s.

But don't think the mania's over yet!! Joel Shephard, film curator over at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, has booked "Broken Speakers and Broken People: A Real Grindhouse Double-Feature" on Thursday, May 10, at 7:30 & 9PM.

Joel writes: "In (a little belated) celebration of Grindhouse, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's tribute to the sleaze-pits of yore, here is a double-feature of fucked-up, freaked-out and forgotten 70s exploitation films. Rather than a studied re-creation, though, this is the real thing. In true exploitation scam tradition, I've decided not to announce the titles in advance, you'll need to trust me and just show up. I promise, though, that you will not be disappointed . . . suckers!"

Joel, baby, this has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with drooling unbridled curiosity!! I can hope for "roughies", can't I? See you at Sleazy Sundays and Broken Speakers/Broken People!

Cross-published on Twitch.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

MICHAEL HAWLEY'S SFIFF50 GAMEPLAN


It's been two weeks since the SFIFF50 press conference, and it's taken me about that long to piece together a workable festival schedule. Believe me, it hasn't been easy. Between trying to schedule around two jobs and a "life," deciding which films to see ahead of time at press screenings and on screener DVDs, weighing the merits of scheduled personal appearances by directors and actors, making informed guesses about which films will receive theatrical distribution, and trying to schedule a few films to see with friends, a person could lose their mind. The end result is that I've purchased advance tickets to 19 programs. That number will probably be augmented by festival's end, depending upon the vagaries of disposition, stamina, buzz and availability of press tickets. But for now, here's what I've selected.

The festival kicks off for me on Saturday, April 28 with one of the films I'm anticipating most, Pedro Costa's Colossal Youth, to be followed by Hirokazu Kore-eda's Hana. In the evening it was a tough choice between Nanni Moretti's The Caiman (which I tried to see in Palm Springs but the distributor sent a French-subtitled print) and the Sundance World Cinema Audience Award winner Once. I chose the latter because director John Carney is expected to be in attendance. I'll wrap up the day with a screening of the documentary Cecil B. De Mille—American Epic.

Much of Sunday, April 29 will be spent in the company of theater and opera director Peter Sellars. I'll start the day at the Castro Theater with the Indonesian musical, Opera Jawa, which Sellars commissioned as artistic director of last year's New Crowned Hope Festival. Sellars is expected to introduce the film, and then appear later that afternoon at the Sundance Cinemas Kabuki to deliver this year's State of Cinema address. This will be the first time I'll be hearing the address live, as opposed to simply reading a transcription of it later. The reason is simply that there wasn't a film playing in that time slot which appealed to me. That evening I'm very excited to be seeing Otar Iosseliani's Gardens in Autumn; firstly because I'm a fan of Iosseliani, and secondly because I've had my appetite whetted by Julie Bertuccelli's delightful documentary Otar Iosseliani, The Whistling Blackbird, which is also showing in the festival. This film, which I saw on screener, is an affectionate profile of the French-Georgian director, and follows him through the pre-production and filming of Gardens in Autumn. The order in which I'm seeing these two films is a bit like watching the "making of" featurette before watching the film itself, but that's how it worked out for me.

Daratt, another film from the New Crowned Hope series, will begin the day for me on Monday, April 30. This film from Chad won a special jury prize at Venice last year, and director Mahamat-Saleh Haroun will be here for the screening and—who knows?—perhaps Sellars will stick around to help introduce this film as well. The next film was a tough choice; Jessica Yu's latest documentary Protagonist, or the Djibouti-set, French-Belgian co-production Sounds of Sand. I'm usually leery of "African" films directed by Europeans, and the little I've read about this film is not reassuring. Variety's Deborah Young describes it as "well-intentioned but somewhat soulless," and one IMdb user comment declares it "a romanticized film made by a middle aged western woman aimed at . . . middle aged western women." I'm crossing my fingers and seeing it anyway, knowing this will probably not be the last opportunity I'll ever have to see Yu's film. More difficult decisions for that evening . . . do I see the Iranian film A Few Days Later…, followed by The Caiman, or do I spend the evening basking in the presence of one of my favorite American actresses, Parker Posey? One look at the droll trailer for Fay Grim answered that question. Posey will attend back-to-back screenings of this new Hal Hartley project, as well as Zoe Cassavetes' Broken English (both directors are also expected to attend). Incidentally, Fay Grim will be released in theaters May 18 and on DVD May 22, but Hal Hartley and Parker Posey will not be at your theater or in your living room, so see it at the festival.

SFIFF50 Week Two commences with a matinee of Im Sang-Soo's The Old Garden on Thursday, May 3, followed by a 48-hour film-going reprieve until my Saturday, May 5
screening of the Algerian film Rome Rather Than You. That evening I'll be seeing Michael Glowogger's Slumming at the SFMOMA. I think it's marvelous that the festival has added the museum's Phyllis Wattis Theater to its list of venues, especially since it's only a 15-minute walk from my home.

Sunday, May 6 may or may not find me at the 10 a.m. free Film Society member's screening, depending on how much energy I have that morning, and more importantly, whether I can sleuth out the film's secret title in advance. Otherwise, I have nothing definite planned until that evening's showing of The Violin, whose director Francisco Vargas, is expected to attend. The night will be capped off by the Norwegian film Reprise. The following day, Monday, May 7 I'll be seeing two of the films I'm anticipating most, namely Asger Leth's documentary Ghosts of Cité Soleil and Guy Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain. The latter is the only "event" I'll be attending at this year's festival, and my expectations are sky high based upon the reports I've read from the Toronto and New York Film Festivals. A matinee screening of Jean-Pascal Hattu's 7 Years on Wednesday, May 9 will bring to a close my personal SFIFF50.

Even though I'll be seeing close to 20 films during the festival, and will have previewed another dozen or so before opening night, there are still a few I'm dying to see which simply can't be worked into my schedule (and have not been available as press screenings or screeners). At the top of that list is the Egyptian documentary These Girls, followed by The Road to San Diego, The Caiman, Lady Chatterly and Dans Paris. Minor complaints in the grand scheme of things, to be sure, considering the thrilling two weeks of film-going I have to look forward to.

Monday, April 16, 2007

FRACTURE


The cat-and-mouse scenario is skillfully reinterpreted in Fracture by the effective pairing of Anthony Hopkins as Ted Crawford—a structural engineer accused of the attempted murder of his wife—and Ryan Gosling as Willy Beachum—an assistant prosecuting attorney who mistakenly assumes he has a open-and-shut case only to discover his ambitions jeopardized in a keen battle of wits.

Anthony Hopkins has honed his performances of calculated criminals to the point where he could probably do these roles in his sleep, right down to the elegant hand gestures that connote his brilliant precision. Eschewing fava beans and chianti this go-round in favor of revenge served cold and ruthlessly beautiful, Hopkins retains charisma in his sinister cerebrics even if—as Justin Chang intimated in his Variety review—there's a sense of being served exquisite leftovers. Hopkins has become the Giorgio Armani of amoral criminality; impeccable, crisp, poised, smart.


Ryan Gosling, on the other hand, with his rumpled dress shirts and loosened ties is nearly luminous with comic innuendo. His hotshot sexiness and seemingly insouciant and disheveled intelligence begin to burn quite darkly by film's end and I was pleased to see him follow up his celebrated performance in Half Nelson with a performance at least half as good, though again his moral dilemmas noticeably harken back to his previous performance. This actor can do more with a glint of humor in his eyes—and its removal—than most young actors working today, save perhaps Robert Downey, Jr.

Gregory Hoblit, who perfected his chops directing episodes of TV's NYPD Blue and L.A. Law, deftly paces a suspenseful script by Daniel Pyne and Glenn Gers. This taut crime drama with its courtroom sparring is fundamentally entertaining even if familiar, no matter how hard you might look for hairline fractures, as many probably will.

Cross-published at Twitch.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

THE SELF-IMPOSED TYRANNY OF BLOGGING


This is exactly how I feel lately about blogging.

YEAR OF THE DOG—The Letterman Digital Arts Center Q&A With Director Mike White


Attending a word-of-mouth screening of Mike White's directorial debut The Year of the Dog allowed me my first opportunity to experience the elegant Lettermen Digital Arts Center in San Francisco's Presidio. Admittedly, though the film engendered a few chuckles, it disappointed for being too slight. Laura Dern's performance is commendable and Peter Sarsgaard is always easy on the eyes, especially in cutoff shorts. Notwithstanding, I admire Mike White's unique comic sensibility so I was appreciative of getting to hear him interact with his audience after the screening. SFFS programmer Sean Uyehara moderated. Unfortunately, unheard questions were not repeated for the benefit of the rest of the audience so it was a real catch-as-catch-can affair, further complicated by White's tendency to insert the word "like" after every third or fourth word (which I've omitted to bear transcription).

Working with the dogs was actually pretty fun, White admitted, but the thing about trained professional dogs is that—basically, even though he just wanted them to be crazy—that's the one thing professional dogs can't do. They're too well-trained. Even in the scenes where the dogs were just supposed to be running around, it all had to be choreographed so that one dog would go over to chew on a pillow, and the other would pee in the corner. It was ridiculous for White, who just wanted to let them be; but, oddly enough, trained dogs don't know how to just be dogs. Nevertheless, the dogs were awesome and White would rather work with dogs again than babies.

As to what his intentions were with the film, White admitted that sometimes he likes comedies that are cute, and definitely some folks have described Year of the Dog as cute; but he also likes movies that are toned with minor keys. When he was writing Year of the Dog, he wasn't sitting around guffawing at how funny it was. He had, in fact, just recently emerged from a sad, personal experience; but, everything he writes is at least a little bit funny. He doesn't think he would ever write something that was exclusively about people pulling their hair out and shouting, "God damn it!" Admittedly, comedies often make you laugh but afterwards you have nothing to chew on and White prefers comedies that don't feel so predigested. He likes to write comedies that make you query, "Is this funny? Is this sad? Where is this going?"

The project originated when White was doing a half hour comedy series for Fox TV with The Year of the Dog's lead actress Molly Shannon who plays the protagonist Peggy. The TV show lasted for all of three weeks. "It didn't retain the American Idol crowd," White grimaced. It was like inviting someone to a party but the party sucks and yet goes on and on while—as the host—you're sitting there thinking, "This party sucks." In the process, however, White recognized Shannon was a gifted actress and one of the coolest, big-hearted persons he had ever met. He didn't want their interaction to end with a weak suck TV show. He wanted to promote her creative range and so he wrote Year of the Dog for her. Part of the fun of writing it was knowing he was only going to do it with Molly. Though Molly is not really like the character in the film, she has a sweetness about her. White wanted to make a movie about someone who—in real life—you might glance over, who doesn't make a big impression, who you take for granted as a "listener", but who in his movie would be front and center. For whatever reason in most of the scripts he writes, White likes to have the way in not be the everyman who's got a wife and kids who wakes up and suddenly can't lie. He looks for a character who doesn't necessarily get to be the star of the movie.


As for the vegan theme of the film, White admits to being "an erstwhile vegan." He finds it odd that he can admit that and suddenly his film is perceived as being "fuckin' propaganda." In a way the story is quite personal because it's similar to things White has gone through himself and the message of the movie, hopefully, is what Peggy's trying to say at the end: this is my passion, this is what I'm about, this is what drives me, and there should be room for me to be able to express that and be that. It doesn't necessarily mean everyone in the audience or anyone else has to be like that. Shortly before the film came out, he was getting reviews from papers like the Orange County Register stating, "This is flippin' propaganda!" What's funny, though, White points out, is that if Molly's character had ended up with a guy, pregnant, that's not propaganda, right? That's just the end of a movie, right? That's not a heterosexist template being shoved down anyone's throat, right? White finds it funny when folks react, "Don't say I can't eat beef! Don't you fuck with my beef."

I asked White to speak about his choice, camera-wise, to film full-frontal wide horizontal compositions. White responded that, while he was writing Year of the Dog, he was very much into Errol Morris's Gates of Heaven (1980). He loves early Errol Morris portraiture. The way White used his camera allowed the viewer to slip into Peggy's subjectivity. When people are talking to her, they're basically talking to the audience head-on. Especially in the beginning of the film, with the monologues, he liked the idea of emulating Morris's portraiture style and letting them be somewhat flat, but at the same time interesting enough not to be static. Obviously, Year of the Dog is a low-budget movie with a lot of dogs and scheduling realities so it was something of a practical/creative decision to shoot this way. He felt he was choosing his battles with regard to the look of the movie, freeing him to focus on the actors and their characterizations. He liked the tension between a flat composition and characterizations of depth. There are so many documentary-style features these days but he didn't want to fake cinema verité with a handheld camera and shaky movement or anything like that. He preferred the Errol Morris approach.

One fellow said the camera style felt confrontational and that White's film reminded him of the work of Todd Solondz with its focus on the strife of the working classes. White responded it was more existential than that. He wanted to fill Peggy's world with people who had different obsessions, though their obsessions were more mainstream in a sense, requiring Peggy to keep her obsessions private for fear of being judged silly. Everyone knows the woman who's obsessed with a new man. Or the parents who have just had a kid and are obsessed with the kid. Whether they were rich or poor, middle class or lower class, those concerns and obsessions exist across the board.


When White wrote Year of the Dog, he was doing the TV show with Molly, which was a hellish experience. They were never happy with what he was doing and he was getting behind on scripts. White opined that there's nothing more stressful—"unless you're starving or something, that's more stressful"—but, there was nothing more stressful in his life than trying to write these scripts for a TV series that was not going over well. Around that time he inherited a stray back yard cat when he moved into a new house. The cat slowly came to know White and became his pet. He grew to love it. He got behind on scripts and it was Christmas and he was going to write all these scripts to catch up when the cat showed up sick. He picked it up and it died in his arms. The experience amplified because of the pressure he was under and he became unraveled and inconsolable. They ended up having to shut the show down because he wrote a half hour comedy script that was the most depressing thing in the world. He got even further behind on scripts and was as close to crazy as he had ever been. When the dust settled and it was over, he looked back and thought, "If that cat hadn't died, none of that would have happened." He found it interesting that the death of a pet could cause a person to re-examine their relationship with themselves.

Dave Hudson at The Greencine Daily has rounded up the film's tenuous reviews from its premiere at this year's Sundance and Michael Fox explores Mike White's alter-egoes in his interview for SF360.

Cross-published on Twitch.

04/16/07 UPDATE: Alison Willmore at IFC Blog has cobbled a great critical overview of the film's more recent reviews.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

LA DOUBLURE / THE VALETThe Evening Class Interview With Francis Veber


Internationally acclaimed filmmaker Francis Veber has helmed more than 10 films, including 1998's hit The Dinner Game. Le Jouet, his directorial debut, became the Richard Pryor vehicle The Toy. His most popular film La Cage Aux Folles has been a hit Broadway musical and became the Robin Williams-Nathan Lane hit The Birdcage (not to mention spawning two sequels at home). Williams also remade Les Comperes as Father's Day with Billy Crystal. Numerous other Veber films have also become fodder for big American stars, including The Man With One Red Shoe (Tom Hanks), Quick Change (Bill Murray), and Pure Luck (Danny Glover and Joe Pesci). He even directed an American remake of his own Les Fugitifs (Three Fugitives), with Nick Nolte and Martin Short. In 1980, Veber was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Screenplay category for La Cage Aux Folles. La Doublure (The Valet) is his latest effort.

After being thoroughly charmed and entertained by his Q&A presentation at the Dolby Lab Screening Room, I looked forward to conversing with Veber. We met over coffee at the Ritz Carlton and—after offering him a transcript of David Thomson's commentary on Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot—we settled into talking about comedy and film.

* * *

Francis Veber: You know, I read [Billy Wilder's] memoirs and I read too [Cameron Crowe's biography]. The life of this man is amazing to read. He was so funny.

Michael Guillén: Billy Wilder is one of my favorites. I haven't read Cameron Crowe's biography but you inspire me to do so.

Veber: Wilder tells a story that is so funny about his nephew who was working in New York in a funeral parlor. The nephew, who was something like 18-19 years old, was in total admiration of the boss of the funeral parlor; he was a perfectly elegant gentleman. There was a man who died at the Plaza or the Pierre in New York and this gentleman said to [Wilder's nephew], "Come with me. I'll show you how we work." He had his cane and his hat, perfectly dressed. They arrived in the suite of the dead guy and the corpse was in the bed but there was a detail that was shocking; he had a huge erection! Billy Wilder's nephew [witnessed that] and [his boss]—to show how elegant he was—pinged the erection with the tip of his cane. The man lost his erection but woke up because they were in the wrong suite! Can you imagine this guy waking up to these two guys in his room?! [Laughs.]

Guillén: Sounds like there's potential for a movie there, albeit a blue one. Well, I'm at a slight disadvantage because I'm relatively new to film writing and I've only seen three of your films; but the up side of that and what made me so delighted last night when I realized this, was my sense of discovery and how much I look forward to exploring the rest of your films.

Veber: Thank you. That's very kind of you.

Guillén: Because of last night's presentation and the thoroughness of the press notes and various reviews I've researched online, I felt that I pretty much have The Valet covered and so what I was interested in today was to talk to you more generally about your body of work, if that's okay with you?

Veber: Okay.

Guillén: As a writer myself, I'm fascinated with your being a writer-director, not unlike Billy Wilder. I find that approach to filmmaking unique. You even stated last night that you think of yourself as a writer who directs, not necessarily a director. As a writer-director, you have the luxury, the privilege, of indulging your own literary conceits, namely the recurrent use of your character François Pignon. I've seen Pignon twice now, first in The Closet and now in The Valet, with Daniel Auteuil portraying him in the former but then conceding duties to Gad Elmaleh for the latter. The switch was enjoyable. Could you talk a little bit about the various actors who have portrayed François Pignon? Is he a solid character with specific traits in your mind or does he change from film to film?

Veber: For the various actors, it started with Jacques Brel, the singer, in this film [L'Emmerdeur, 1973] that Billy Wilder remade, unfortunately. Then for a long time it was Pierre Richard, a famous French comedian, coupled with Gérard Depardieu. They did three films together that I wrote and directed which were La Chèvre [1981], Les Compères [1983], and Les Fugitifs [1986]. Pierre Richard was completely the character of François Pignon at that time, despite the fact that in the first one he was called François Perrin. He was not yet Pignon but he was exactly my character because he was a shy man, he was a man in the crowd, an antihero at the beginning of the story, and a bit ridiculous, y'know? At the end he was a hero, see? After that, I had Jacques Villeret in The Dinner Game [1998], who was an amazing Pignon. Unfortunately he died because he was drinking so much. You [can't] imagine. I knew him well. The Dinner Game was first a stage play that I had written and it stayed in Paris three years; it was a very big hit. [While] it was three years on stage there were maybe 10 times that we couldn't open the show because [Villeret] was so drunk. I'm sad to say that because he is dead and he was my friend; but, his agent told me that [one time] when they were coming back to Paris from Acapulco where they were at the Acapulco Film Festival—I think 11 hours of flight—[Villeret drank] seven bottles of white wine. His agent has no [staked] interest in telling me that. I don't know how [someone] could drink seven bottles of water—I would be spending my time going to the restroom—but seven bottles of white wine. [Villeret] died when he was 53 years old. He was a magnificent actor and he was a great Pignon. Then I had Auteuil and now Gad Elmaleh.

Guillén: From what I understand, Gad Elmaleh's portrayal is the calmest and least farcical and not as much of a buffoon as previous François Pignons. Is that correct?

Veber: That's true because he was a stand-up comedian. He was used to chaining jokes to jokes. Here, he has to be counterpunching, which is not easy. Once Auteuil said in an interview that playing Pignon was exhausting. I understand why. People steal the show [from] Pignon all the time. It's obvious in The Valet when his friend [Richard] comes to visit him in his apartment just to check if the girl is living over there.

Guillén: Yes, Dany Boon does a marvelous stuttering sequence in that scene.

Veber: Yes, but it's exhausting to be Pignon in that case because you have in front of you a boxer who walks [all over you], punching, punching, punching, and you have to wait for him to be a bit off guard to punch back.

Guillén: Well, what interests me about your recurring character François Pignon is that I've been doing research into how directors employ the actor fetiche but Pignon is more a character fetiche.

Veber: That's true.

Guillén: As a writer I'm impressed with the chance you've had to express this character over a succession of films. Where did François Pignon come from? Does he represent you?


Veber: Yes. Unfortunately, yes. I would have preferred to be the other guy, y'know? The strong man. The kind of guy who enters a bar and everybody is silent suddenly. I would have preferred that but when I enter a bar, I slip on a banana peel or something like that. Being ridiculous is something that's genetic, I guess. When I was a soldier during the Algerian War, I had to make up my bed like all the other soldiers; but, I was so clumsy that my friends were saying, "Okay, let me do that." They were making up the bed and I didn't want to force them but I didn't know how to do it. Pignon is someone I understand very well.

Guillén: I think a lot of people do! That's his appeal. Again, in terms of the writing, you've written the stage plays that are then often adapted into film scripts so I'm curious about how the comic timing varies in the writing. When you do a comedy on stage and you deliver a funny line, you often account for the audience laughing; but, you can't do that in a film. Do you notice a lot of difference between stage and film with regard to comic timing?

Veber: Yes. I have a friend who was an actor first and then he directed a movie after that and he tried to keep pauses between lines to allow people to laugh. It's a huge mistake because—if you have an audience of three spectators and you are expecting them to fill up the emptiness of those pauses—it's stupid. A play can be one hour and 40 minutes and the day after two hours and 10 minutes because it's interactive with the audience. But a film has to be calibrated. Billy Wilder was a genius when he was working with Diamond. [The] scene where Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot comes back with the maracas….

Guillén: His ecstasy.

Veber: Yes. Every time he says something—[Veber simulates the sound of the maracas]—it was to allow the audience to laugh. It means that [Wilder and Diamond] thought of the problem too.

Guillén: I loved that you brought up Wilder last night because—having attended David Thomson's course on Some Like It Hot and listening to his anecdotes on Wilder—it was clear to me that Wilder was fierce about adhering to script. He was adamant about having the scenes written by the time you got to the set and following the script as written. In that way, he achieved a comic economy, which I likewise observe in your work.

Veber: Thank you. I asked an old producer in Los Angeles why are the comedies different than the great age of comedies—Wilder, Capra, Sturges—and he gave me an answer which is interesting. He said, "In the old times, the writers were coming from Broadway and they knew how to structure a situation. Now they're coming from t.v. and they know how to write punchlines." It's a very different thing. Structure in a film is the most important thing. It's a fascinating job, screenwriting, and a very difficult one, especially for comedy. You never know if you're funny or not. It's only when you see the film with an audience that is not understanding your movie. Because when you make a serious movie, it's easy. People cry or they don't cry but they don't hate you if they don't cry enough. Comedy is probably the most difficult genre. For this reason even in America—I don't want to criticize my colleagues—but when I see comedies like Anger Management or Bringing Down the House—I haven't seen Blades of Glory yet—but I prefer Some Like It Hot. I think it's very difficult to write a comedy, period. I had been a screenwriter for 18 films before I started directing and I did some serious films—at least three or four—it was a vacation. You don't have to make people laugh.


Guillén: James Van Maanen—dispatching to The Greencine Daily from the Rendez-Vous with French Cinema series—reported that when Richard Pena of the Film Society of Lincoln Center introduced The Valet, he was reminded of how the late New York Times drama critic Walter Kerr once said certain kinds of French comedy were like funny timepieces. That is to say, the movement of the timepiece is so perfectly put together that, once wound, it sets you to laughing. Van Maanen himself carried that Pena/Kerr metaphor further by saying this watch—instead of having the usual metal plate covering its movement—has a transparent cover that allows you to observe quite clearly how the timepiece works. I was likewise aware of this last night watching The Valet. The writing was crisp and clean and somehow thrillingly apparent. Can you talk about your writing process?

Veber: The process is, unfortunately, to rewrite all the time. If I had [any] advice to give to young screenwriters, it would be to make a reading of what they do. When you read the first draft, for instance, it's a pain for everybody; for the people who are listening, and for yourself. You see when people are bored. You feel it inside your body, y'know? I have a dull voice. When I'm reading, it's flat. When you read, "Clara, I love you." John: "I love you too, Clara." Clara: "Let's go on the river." Then you see their eyes going like that [Veber drifts his gaze to the ceiling] or they're going back to their taxes or their wives and you feel it and you start reading faster, which means that the scene is bad. It's one of the tricks to shrink the thing, for it not to have fat on it, for it to be lean, see? But I use that a lot. For instance, I'm finishing a first draft now. I know that I will call my usual victims and ask them to listen to it. Otherwise, I'll be lost.

Guillén: You mention that in your press notes that you rely on family and friends to listen to your first drafts. That struck me because, again, Wilder had commented often that he had to work with someone like Diamond or Brackett because he needed the response.

Veber: But you don't find a lot of Diamonds or Bracketts. This is the problem. I tried when I was younger to work with friends or co-screenwriters. Very few are good and I'm not talking about quality—it's difficult to judge a writer—but being in sync with somebody. If he is faster than you are, you have the feeling that he is imposing his ideas upon you, so you have a block. If you are faster, then you have the feeling that you are doing all the work. It's not an easy thing to co-write something with someone. If you're lucky enough to find your twin writer—and it happens, you have people who are teaming together and you have the feeling that it's the same man that's writing the screenplay—but that's a huge piece of luck.

Guillén: Especially with comedy because of the need to gauge feedback, whether something is funny or not. I'm reminded of a t.v. series we used to have in the States called The Dick Van Dyke Show that, as a child, I remember it was the first time that I considered the collaborative process, that you achieved the funny skit by two or three people riffing ideas off of each other, and that the collaboration could be a lot of fun. You mentioned last night that writing comedy is harder than drama and yet you keep choosing to do comedy, why is that?

Veber: Because it is totally genetic. It's you, it's in your nature. I said once that, when I was born, the doctor said to my mother, "It's not a boy or a girl; it's a comic." [Laughs.] I was trapped in that all my life long. It's a way to protect yourself too. Because you know you have kids who are strong and big and you have kids who are small. I was very small until I was 13-14 years old. It was just after the war so you had a lot of kids who—because of the war—were too old for the classrooms they were in. Boys were 15, 16, and I was a midget. So I had to make them laugh not to be beaten. It was a protection all the time.

Guillén: I do understand that. Along with the economy of comic timing, you also exhibit an admirable restraint in what you choose to make comic. The scene I'm thinking of in particular is the one where François and Elena share a narrow bed. That could have been played for bawdy laughs but, instead, you elected for restraint which dignified your characters.

Veber: Thank you. But it was necessary. Otherwise, the film would be salacious. It was really the frontier and you couldn't pass over it. I was very conscious of that when I was filming the [scene]. The girl was really gorgeous. I remember once when she was entering the apartment, she [was wearing] that kind of mini-skirt and all the crew was waiting for her to get into the apartment. I said to myself, "Well, if I were living with a girl like that in an apartment that size, it's not easy." That's why I wanted him to be in love with another girl. When they are in bed together, there was something I loved to direct. He recognizes her [after dreaming he was with Émilie] and says, "Aw, it's you." He's with the most beautiful girl in the world, y'know?

Guillén: Another literary conceit you have in the film that amused me was when near the end of The Valet, François Pignon brings his father a corkscrew for his corkscrew collection as a birthday gift. Pignon's father then excitedly tells him that he has been invited to a dinner to talk about his corkscrew collection. It's my understanding that this is in reference to Le dîner de con (The Dinner Game), in which the François Pignon of that film is invited to a dinner on the pretext of talking about his matches constructions.

Veber: That's it, yes. It's a reference. I don't do that very often. Few people noticed it.

Guillén: Do you have some odd little collection that you keep hoping someone will invite you to dinner to talk about?

Veber: I hope not! But I'm never sure. Because if you ask me to talk about screenwriting, I can be very boring for hours. It's funny because I had a friend who was performing The Dinner Game and—at the same time—he was a racecar driver. He was invited to a dinner game, a dinner for idiots, and they made him talk about his race car driving and it was only afterwards that he discovered he had been invited as a jerk. And he was performing the play!

Guillén: So he didn't learn anything from being in the play. Returning again to the idea of economy, because that has just impressed me so much in your work, do you have an editor?

Veber: I have an editor but he's just there to do what is in the screenplay.

Guillén: I was going to say, does he have anything to do?

Veber: Not much.

Guillén: Nice work if you can get it, huh?

Veber: It is! He's a very nice old man. He must now be 82 or something like that.

Guillén: Let's talk about your peripheral characters who help flesh out your story lines. I got the sense that they're not—well, not unnecessary—but more adornment than necessary. They're like bright little jewels. François' mother and father. The doctor who's allergic to his patients. The cell phone salesman who likes to read palms. How do those characters come to you and how do you place them in your scripts?

Veber: I think it's the problem with my films. Probably the problem with my reviewers too. Sometimes I have been criticized in France because, first, the French don't like success and I've been here for a long time now so young reviewers….

Guillén: Take aim?

Veber: Yes! But I know what the problem is. I don't want to be boring by all means. Meaning that the people I have in the films have to be characters and not usual average people who say, "Hello. Have a seat. What do you want to drink? Sparkling or non-sparkling?" That kind of thing. I'm not interested. I'm more interested in the guy who is palm reading and selling cell phones. A perfect idiot, y'know? And I like him a lot because he reassures me. When I was writing his part, I loved him; he's so stupid.

Guillén: Speaking of cell phones, they come up a lot in The Valet. You had him selling the cell phones and a cell phone became a crucial plot element in the young model's awakening of awareness. Did you intend that motif?

Veber: You never know when you are doing things what was your first intention. I discovered that through the eyes of other people who tell you that. When you're writing, you're just fighting against the difficulty of writing. You start a screenplay and you cross your fingers that you will be able to put the word "end" one day. Because it's such a pain.

Guillén: I was impressed with your choice of music, beginning with the rockabilly in your animated opening credits and on through. Could you speak about the music in The Valet?


Veber: Except for the Chuck Berry piece at the beginning—which is so full of life—I liked this music very much with those cars passing by like that and, for me, it's convenient. Besides that, I had Alexandre Desplat, a musician who was nominated for the Golden Globes and the Oscars for The Queen. Usually I have Vladimir Cosma who is a very good Romanian musician. Cosma says something funny about being a Romanian. He says, "Being a Romanian is not a nationality; it's a job." By the way, I have something funny to tell you, nothing [about The Valet]. Someone recently told me the difference between a Frenchman and an Italian. He told me, "A Frenchman is an Italian in a bad mood." [Laughs.]

Guillén: Well, thank you so much. As I said, I'm really looking forward to discovering the rest of your films.

Veber: And I was happy to have you in the first row yesterday because you are someone who knows how to laugh and how to ask questions. It was good meeting you.

04/20/07 UPDATE: Michelle Devereaux—who I just met this evening at the Castro's White Dog screening—offers up her conversation with Veber for Greencine's main site.

LA DOUBLURE / THE VALET—Dolby Lab Q&A With Director Francis Veber


Promoting his most recent venture La Doublure (The Valet), scheduled to open in the Bay Area later this month, Francis Veber appeared after the press screening of the film at the Dolby Lab Screening Room for an impromptu Q&A with an audience culled from Larsen Associates' "party list", among whom I felt deeply honored to be included. These were not the usual characters I run into at press screenings. I recognized SFFS programming consultant Roger Garcia, but also present were Karen Larsen's daughter Inga, author Herbert Gold, Frish Brandt (co-owner of the Frankel Gallery), Dan Geller and Dayna Goldfine (filmmakers of Ballets Russes), longtime filmmakers William Farley and Lael Robertson, photographers Tom Erikson (whose photos of the Q&A are up on SF360) and Ted Pushinsky (father of Jake Pushinsky, editor to A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints), Dennis McNally (longtime Grateful Dead publicist and author), Tom Mazzolini (founder and head honcho of the SF Blues Festival), Larry Gonick (cartoonist and author of Cartoon History of the Universe), Johanna Goldshmidt (Special Collections, SF Main Library), Zahid Sardar (Architecture/Art Editor for the SF Chronicle Magazine), Monica Pasquale (the main singer and composer for Blame Sally) and Ron Merk (who has a bid in to buy the Castro Theater and who has established the new SFIFF Chris Holter Award for Humor in Film in memory of his late partner). To name just a few.

Veber seemed momentarily ill at ease finding himself alone on stage before his eclectic audience. He joked that first he would do a little dance and then a strip tease. Someone whistled encouragingly. "Normally I have a moderator with me," he explained, "and he is asking the first questions so that people warm-up. But here, I'm here like a clown."

Publicist Chris Wiggum rallied and asked, "How was it working with Daniel Auteuil? Have you worked with him before?"

"Yeah, sure, with The Closet," Veber responded. "He's a fantastic actor."

"Who was the most surprising of the cast to work with? What surprised you?" Chris followed.


"What surprised me," Veber admitted, "was to find a girl who was 6'2" in France! Our actresses are talented but short. They're midgets, y'know? I was trying to find a girl who could be a super model. I received in my office all the super models of Paris. It was a tough life. You had the Russian girls arriving, but my accent is a delight compared to them. Suddenly this girl [Alice Taglioni] arrived. She wasn't a professional actress, she was a pianist at first and then, well, I discovered that she was not only beautiful.

"Another story about this film: the restaurant that you see is not a real restaurant. It's a set. They built this terrace—which is so beautiful—in front of the Eiffel Tower, and it looks so real that all day long we had Japanese tourists making reservations for dinner! So we were selling the tables to finance the movie.


"It was a pleasure to shoot this movie with Daniel Auteuil; he's a professional actor and a very nice man too. But Gad Elmaleh—the guy who was playing Pignon—he's an [actor] coming from stand-up comedy. It's a very different job. Because when you are in front of an audience, you perform with the audience, and when you are on a set, it's more difficult. So it took him a few days to get used to the camera; but, he managed to do that well. What else can I tell you? You're my first audience in San Francisco. I'm coming from Los Angeles directly from the plane. The plane was delayed so I couldn't make it here [for the screening]. I'm happy to be here [now], but it was just like that!"

Asked how many days were spent on the shoot, Veber responded The Valet took 10-12 weeks. "Comedy is tough to shoot," he explained. "It's a question of pace. It's not easy." As for how many takes is required to achieve a scene, Veber said, "A lot. Because being a writer-director is different than being just a director in that—when you are writing—you have a kind of music in your mind with the lines. When you arrive on the set, you're trying to get from your actors the music like when you were writing. That means you are shooting a lot of takes. I remember I did something like 37 takes with Daniel Auteuil, who is a fantastic actor. I have discovered, being a director, how difficult it is to be an actor. Before, I was jealous of [them], thinking they don't work hard. They make more money than me. But then I discovered after those 37 takes, I took his hand to bring him to the video to show him how good was the last take, and his hand was ice cold and wet. It's spent-up energy. That's why I started to respect the actors when I started to direct."


Asked how he achieved such natural performances from both Taglioni and Elmaleh—neither of who have had much acting experience—Veber confirmed they were good and had natural styles of performing. He had been especially concerned about Taglioni because she was the lead part, and the first scene of her's they shot was when she's in the car with Daniel Auteuil and she tells him, "If you give me $20,000,000, I will give it back to you if you divorce." It was a tough scene for the two of them and Veber felt reassured when he watched how they performed together. The bottom line is he didn't have any bad actors on this film. Michel Aumont—who played the old doctor—is an amazing actor coming from the Comédie-Français. The same with Richard Berry who played the attorney. "All those actors are perfect technicians. They know their job."


One woman was surprised that Kristin Scott Thomas spoke such beautiful French. "She speaks fluent French," Veber concurred. "She married a French doctor, a gynecologist. Maybe it's why she speaks French so well? If you want to speak French, marry a doctor. But it was good to work with her because she's perfectly fluent and she's a great actress."

Asked if there were any scenes he left out because the film was getting too long, Veber asserted, "But my films are so short! No, there were no scenes that I left out." Had he left anything out, it would no longer have been a feature but a short. Admitting his distaste for long films, he criticized most films for being too long. "And comedy doesn't forgive," he reminded. With some of the American films he's watched, Veber has sometimes felt he needed a doggie bag to take a piece of the film home.


Asked about the inspiration for the story of The Valet, Veber recounted that he wanted to punish the character of the rich man Levasseur because he was contemptuous of people and felt he could buy anybody. Threatened by the paparazzi because his financial affairs were precariously tethered to his powerful wife, Veber envisioned a "little man" François Pignon that Levasseur would believe he could buy to help him straighten out his indiscretions; but, little as he may be, François Pignon's integrity is large and he cannot be bought by Levasseur, who invariably receives his comeuppance when the paparazzi photograph him with a drag queen. Incidentally, Veber relays it was tough to find the drag queen. At first he tried in the night clubs but the drag queens didn't look like the one he chose for The Valet, who he suspects was originally a Brazilian soccer player. "She" works the parks in Paris, France, and was discovered by his casting agent who went prowling through the bushes looking for someone exactly like "this creature", who ended up being very nice and worked perfect in the bit. Someone asked why Veber didn't go through the agencies? "Drag queens don't have agencies," he laughed, "they have pimps." What surprised him about the drag queen was that "she" was well-organized, collected welfare, had the foresight to have Veber sign papers, and even provided critiques during the rushes. "She was a nice person by the way," Veber quipped, "and we still live together." His audience roared. Veber continued, "We adopted a Vietnamese child…."

Asked how long it took him during the writing process to figure out what the relationship was going to be between François Pignon and the supermodel Elena, Veber admitted it was difficult because there were two "traps" in the film. "The first trap is—if you put a little hairy guy like that in front of this beautiful super model—normally he will spend his life trying to look at her when she's taking a shower, y'know? Or that kind of thing. So I had to imagine that he was in love with another girl who was in the same league as him, Virginie Ledoyen. When you are really in love, the other girls … you don't see them. Especially if they are six feet tall. They're so far away from your world, y'know? This was the first trap. The second trap was why would she accept to go into his apartment? It's really funny because I saw the difference between France and America. When I was telling the story in America to my assistant, the first question he asked was, 'Why is she doing that?' I had an American answer, 'Because they are giving her five million dollars.' Then my assistant said, 'Ah. Okay.' The dollar is important here, y'know? Then I went back to Paris and my French friends said to me, 'Why is she doing that?' I said, 'Because they are giving her five million dollars.' And they said, 'Ah, she's a whore. She's a slut.' I had to figure out another solution, which was her saying, 'I will give you the money back if you divorce.' [Levasseur] had been lying to her for years. It was interesting to try to structure all that."


The photographer sitting next to me expressed his admiration for the many layers of relationship in the film and especially of the super model character Elena and her awakening. He sympathized with the difficulty of a life centered on selling one's beauty and the intriguing turn of being with a man who was not interested in her for that and having the opportunity to relate to him by helping him. He wondered if that aspect of her characterization was there from the beginning of Veber's writing the script? "Yes," Veber confirmed. "I wanted a real human being. Usually people think that if someone is that beautiful, she is not really human. And that's not true." Handsome people are frequently discriminated against, Veber added. People think they are stupid or vapid because they have good looks. Sometimes that's true but not always.

One fellow asked about the meaning of the word schtroumpf which popped up in the film and Veber explained that these are smurfs, which originated as a Franco-Belgian comic strip. The things you learn at Q&As!


Veber was quite pleased with the performance of Dany Boon in The Valet. He played François Pignon's roommate Richard and Veber has already cast him as Pignon in his next film. François Pignon, Veber explained, is a recurring character who he has had several times in his films. Someone asked why the name "Pignon"? Did it have to do with its meaning as "a cog"? No, Veber countered. He first used the name in his film L'Emmerdeur (A Pain in the Ass, 1973) with Jacques Brel and Lino Ventura; Brel being the first official François Pignon. Then Veber simply became fond of the name. Interestingly, there are 11 real François Pignons in France who have formed an association protesting Veber's usage. They have attempted to sue him to cease and desist. He related one especially schizophrenic moment when he received correspondence from a François Pignon who complained that when Veber filmed L'Emmerdeur (A Pain in the Ass), his friends called him a pain in the ass. When Veber filmed Le Placard (The Closet, 2001), they said he was gay. When he filmed Le Dîner de cons (The Dinner Game aka Dinner For Idiots, 1998), they called him an idiot. The real François Pignon begged him to stop. Since the man's phone number was on his letterhead, Veber phoned him. "And for a writer it's so strange to call your hero, y'know?" Veber grinned. "I said, 'Hello. May I speak with François Pignon?' It was surrealistic for me! He said to me, 'It's me.' And I said, 'I am Francis Veber.' And he said, 'Bastard!' "

Intent, the fellow in the audience said he thought Pignon referred to "cog" because he perceived the character of François Pignon as a sort of everyman. Veber countered that actually "pignon" has three definitions. Not only is it a cog, as the man suggested, but an architectural roof detail, as well as a pine nut. "But you didn't choose the name Pignon with any of these meanings in mind?" the fellow persisted. "No, no, no," Veber reiterated, admitting he didn't know where the name came from. But it has since become a label in France, which had never been his intention.


The photographer next to me then paid Veber a compliment by saying he was a nut, in the sense that he had the funniest stand-up delivery he'd experienced in a while and that he would gladly pay to hear Veber do a stand-up act. Veber thanked him but said, no, he had never been a professional stand-up comic. But most creative people are nuts, he offered, which brought Gérard Depardieu to mind. Depardieu is probably totally insane, Veber laughed. He remembered a scene in Tais-toi! (Shut up!, 2003) that they were shooting in an insane asylum with real, insane people who were actually dangerous. They were in the area reserved for the criminally insane. "It was like Silence of the Lambs all around." Notwithstanding, Depardieu conversed with all the inmates. He was talking amiably to men who had killed their mothers. There was a part of the asylum that was for "nuts who were not that dangerous" and there was a big, tall inmate who, perhaps, could have been dangerous had he not been so disabled. When he passed by the set, he began screaming, "UHHHHHH!" So Veber called "cut" and they waited for him to pass and go away but then when Depardieu was emerging from his trailer, he bumped into this guy who immediately screamed, "UHHHHHH!" Depardieu didn't miss a beat and shouted back, "UHHHHHH!" The inmate was taken by surprise and responded, "Uhhhhh?" Depardieu shouted back, "UHHHHH!" and the inmate turned to one of the crew and said, "This man is nuts!"

After the laughter subsided, Veber stated, "By the way, you know that I say that actors are lazy. Actors are pigs because I'm promoting the film all by myself. But we have a piece of luck tonight." Veber then introduced Irina Ninova, the Russian actress whose impeccable French scored her the role of Émilie's assistant Marie. Now an American resident, Veber was pleased that Irina had attended the screening. "So all the actors are not pigs."

Veber was asked if it was difficult for him to get financing for his films in France? Pardoning his lack of modesty, Veber said it has not been a problem for him because he has had a lot of hits in France, nine hits in fact as a writer-director. Once he has a series of flops, then perhaps it will become difficult. He acknowledges that it might be difficult for young French filmmakers to achieve financing; but, he is old now and it is not a problem.

Veber was asked if the character of the doctor who was allergic to his patients came from anyone he knew in real life? "Happily not!" Veber exclaimed. "A doctor who comes and takes your bed and you have to pay for that? No, no, no."


Seven of Veber's films have been given the Hollywood remake treatment. La Doublure, in fact, has already been greenlit for a remake. Veber was asked how he felt about La Doublure actually screening for American audiences? First, Veber responded, most of the remakes of his films have been pieces of shit and, it's true, only three of his films in their original French were shown in the United States before the remakes came out: The Closet, The Dinner Game and this one but the others like The Toy (1982) and The Man With One Red Shoe (1985) were introduced to American audiences via the remakes.

"Even Billy Wilder remade one of my movies," Veber replied. "I think it killed him. It was his last movie." Veber also described Buddy, Buddy (1981)—with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau reprising the roles of Brel and Ventura in L'Emmerdeur—as terrible. "It was strange," Veber added, "because I met Billy Wilder. He was a legend. Can you imagine? I was a young director at the time and to meet that man. He was writing the screenplay with Diamond, the guy of Sunset Boulevard and Some Like It Hot. [Wilder] sent me the first draft and it wasn't good. It was very difficult for a Frenchman who was 30 years old to say to this legend, 'Y'know, maybe you should work more.' I told him, 'Billy, maybe on page 26 there is something that could be wrong….' He said, 'NOOOO!' [Veber intonates with a strong German accent.] Because we had a fight of accents, his German accent and my French accent. I understood I couldn't convince him. But I had lunch with him. It was very funny because he [took] me [to] lunch in a croissanterie. We're eating croissants with coffee, the two of us, and he started to tell me stories about [himself] and it was fascinating." Veber recounted one of those stories. Wilder had been invited to give a speech to a gathering of members of the Writers Guild and Directors Guild and prefaced his comments by saying, "Aging is terrible. I have a friend who is 94 years old and he went to his doctor and he told him, 'I have problems peeing.' The doctor said, 'You've peed enough.' "

Wilder told Veber that—when they did the musical version of Sunset Boulevard—the producers were anxious for Wilder to see it so they invited him to the theater to watch a performance. Afterwards they were eager to hear Wilder's feedback. Wilder told them, "It's good but it can't make a good movie."

As a characteristic American flourish to their lunch at the croissanterie, Veber said a little old lady who had been sitting at the next table got up and came over and thanked them for having such an interesting conversation that she'd able to listen in on for the last half hour. "It was very cute, y'know? Never in France."


Veber was then asked why he lived in Los Angeles. "Because I love Los Angeles," Veber answered. "I'm the only one I think." He reminded us of something Orson Welles once said about Los Angeles: "I arrived in Los Angeles. I sat down in an armchair. I woke up 60 years later." Veber extols the sedative quality of Los Angeles, which he claims is perfect for a writer. Contrary to what some might presume, he doesn't feel stressed at all in Los Angeles. Does he miss Paris? Not really, because he's always returning to Paris to shoot his movies so he lives half the time there and the other half in L.A. Paris, on the other hand, is a stressful city. First, people are always on strike so you have to take a car and—like in New York—there are always traffic jams. There's a lot of traffic of very small streets in Paris.

When one young woman commented that it didn't look like there was much traffic in the film, Veber reminded her that it was because they were not real streets or real traffic. It was extremely difficult to find a restaurant that would allow them, first, to rent the restaurant for filming and, secondly, when you have a big restaurant like that in Paris usually it's on a big avenue and it's impossible to shut traffic down in order to shoot a film. That's why they built the set of the terrace in front of the restaurant so that they could get around these practical complications. One fellow, familiar with Paris, who watched the film and marveled at how characters were finding parking, remembered it was a comedy.

At this point Veber complimented his audience and admitted he had been initially nervous about appearing without a moderator. He remembered an incident when he was touring with The Dinner Game where he had been invited to a screening where the moderator introduced him and advised there would be a Q&A after the film. Like The Valet, The Dinner Game is a short film, which the moderator did not take into account. Perhaps he had run off to catch a quick hamburger or whatever, but, when the lights came back up, he was nowhere to be found, Veber was alone and had to initiate the Q&A by himself. So confessing to his audience that he was used to have a moderator to start off the questioning, he asked himself, "Francis Veber, where did the idea come from for The Dinner Game?"


Elsewhere, Veber was being paid tribute at an international cinema exposition for European distributors and theater managers but there were only Americans there because, truthfully, American movies had invaded the rest of the world. There were only two French professionals there, himself and another man who ran a chain of French theaters. Along with Veber's tribute, James Cameron was also being paid tribute, which Veber took as a great compliment to be honored alongside a great director like Cameron. Just before Cameron took stage, they showed an impressive montage of film clips from his various movies—Alien, Titanic, The Terminator—and then Cameron came on stage and talked about he was going to make a revolutionary film. Then they showed a montage of Veber's French comedies but, for some reason, there was no sound. The tribute's organizer arrived on stage frantic and desperate and asked Veber if he wouldn't come on stage and speak a bit until they worked out the technical problems? Veber took stage in front of all those Americans with a big microphone in front of him and said, [Veber mimed speaking without any sound]. His Q&A audience applauded with laughter, perhaps as much as his tribute audience. A brilliant save.

"Well, I had a very pleasant evening," Veber concluded, "I didn't expect that when I came off of the plane. I didn't know I had a Q&A tonight. But you are a wonderful audience. Give me all your phone numbers! Thank you for coming."

Cross-published on Twitch.