2 weeks ago
I ask him if his films emerge, however obliquely, out of self-exploration? Are they essentially about his own inner struggles? 'God, no!' he shouts, startling both myself and the two hotel guests sitting opposite us. 'Don't even mention that in a newspaper. You cannot. I mean, come on! I'm not that selfish. I have never been interested in me. What I'm interested in is not I, it's we. Always. It's we: our history, our culture, whatever makes us who we are and informs how we act.'I wonder. That sounds so right and virtuous that it cries out for questioning. Obviously, whenever we see a film or any work of art, we can sense the personality of its makers behind it. And every personality is formed in the crucible of its surroundings - genes, family, community, society, world. This means that even the most personal and private work of art will be a reflection of the time and place it is born in. Obversely, the most strenuous attempts at objective portrayal of the world are merely attempts of obscuring the artist's attitudes and thus end up the poorer for it, mere surface where emotional involvement would have added layers of meaning to it.