Christopher Doyle: An Interview (2005)
Christopher Doyle: An Interview
(2005)
'Filmmaker: The Magazine of Independent
Film'
conducted a short but potent interview with
Christopher Doyle, the nomadic Australian born cinematographer, par excellence.
Of course, he claims that reincarnation transformed him into an Asian, in
spirit, if not in color. This statement itself lends credence to the character
that he is: always becoming something other than what he was.
To that end, Doyle has established himself as the preeminent directory of photography, and his iconic reputation accompanies that of Toland, the master artisan of the depth of field in 'Citizen Kane' (1941). His cinematic vision, in symbiosis with Wong Kar Wai, has pioneered the radical nature of new Asian cinema, and pushed all the boundaries of the medium to the point of its monstrous inception.
In this absolutely poignant discussion, Doyle lets it all out. He is as uninhibited behind the camera, as he is in person, let alone, in the bar. It is often mentioned that before he shoots a scene, he and the director, attempt to find a rhythm: California Dreaming in 'Chungking Express' (1994), for instance. There is always a motif, whether it is scotch, or cigarettes, or the music itself. Something that seduces him into the shot.
The intent of this interview, however, is to discuss his role in 'Dumplings' (2004), the 'organic' Fruit Chan short. He claims that this film is an attempt to 'celebrate our Asian-ness', in that it is an 'engagement' with the 'so-called pan-Asian cinema'. Prompted to comment on his self proclaimed Asian status, Doyle remarks: "Yeah, I just have the wrong skin. The more I rub myself against the yellow, the yellower I get. I've often said I'm Asian with a skin disease, because I started making films in Asia, and obviously what I've done has certain repercussions and certain resonance, and I should be very proud of that. And it just happens that I'm one of the few non-Asian, non-yellow people in this world. But I think most of the people I work with think I'm as yellow as they are. And that's an honor in my mind."
He continues, and adds, in reference to the current status of Asian cinema, that its time to move on, from the heralded 1930's and attempt to engage with today's consumer society. Wong Kar Wai often remarks that the two most important changes in Asia, are not the cell phone or the television, but the invention of the rice cooker and the cup of noodles, because it has completely and irrevocably transformed gender roles. Chan's short, the subject of this interview, is an attempt to address the 'fetish for beauty' - the limits to which people with go, to look younger. In this particular case, it is the consumption of human fetus's, reported to help prevent wrinkles, that riddles the landscape.
The difference between the East and the West, in Doyle's estimations, is the 'level of energy' and the 'confluence of intent and economics'. He states, "What is strange in the West is - well, not strange I guess - is that people are lost. Let's be honest. People are lost, whether you blame 9/11 or whether you blame the lack of education in schools. Whatever you blame it on, it doesn't matter. Whereas in Asia, people are finding their voice. It's been a long journey, you know. Everyone in China is on a roll, there's no question."
In a still more adamant and political tone, he conjectures, "You know, I was in Kazakhstan two weeks ago, and that was nothing. This is hostile territory, this is bullshit. I don’t know if it should be said so bluntly, but [laughs] every people gets the government they deserve. Sorry, that’s a reality. The present climate in most of the western world is of course anti-artist, because the function of an artist is to open people’s eyes, and that’s not the function of a Texas oil-based meritocracy. Hello! And every single person in the real world looks at this, and that’s why we make our films the way we do. Because you don’t have the freedom, you don’t have the integrity, you have to remake everything we’ve done anyway. I go to see Martin Scorsese, and I say, Don’t you think I should tell you about the lenses? And he says, What do you mean? And I said, Well, you’re remaking my film, which is Infernal Affairs. Infernal Affairs was probably written in one week, we shot it in a month and you’re going to remake it! Ha ha, good luck! What the fuck is this about? I mean, come on. In other words, if you read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, then you’d actually have a very clear idea [laughs] about what’s really happening in the U.S. right now. So what do we do? You tell me."
Doyle answers his own question and proclaims, "The problem is that 99 percent of the world is looking at this country this way. And it’s very strange that Americans don’t seem to realize it. Therefore we make our films and make our films, and you remake our films the way you want to remake them." This conversation is in reference to 'Shall We Dance'. "We’re not talking Kieslowski or Tarkovsky. We’re talking mainstream Japanese film, and you can’t even get that right. Come on. Hello. In other words, you lost the fucking plot." In a sort of patriotic defense, the interviewer asks whether or not Hollywood is too big a target, and suggests that Doyle comment on American Independent film. "Come on. Come on, you can’t be so naïve that you don’t know that the only thing they do in the U.S. is look at the box office. It’s not a film industry anymore, it’s an accounting department. [laughs] There’s only two departments in American cinema — the insurance department and the accounting department. There are no filmmakers anymore."
This declaration causes a rile and stirs the questioner into asking, "There are no more filmmakers in America?" Doyle, in his casual and sarcastic tone: " Uh-uh. If Martin Scorsese can make a piece of shit called The Aviator and then go on to remake a Hong Kong film, don’t you think he’s lost the plot? Think it through. “I need my Oscar, I need my fucking Oscar!” Are you crazy? There’s not a single person in the Oscar voting department who’s under 65 years old. They don’t even know how to get online. They have no idea what the real world is about. They have no visual experience anymore. They have preoccupations. So why the fuck would a great filmmaker need to suck the dick of the Academy with a piece of shit called The Aviator? And now he has to remake our film? I mean this is bullshit. This is total bullshit. I love Marty, I think he’s a great person. And the other one is Tarantino. Oh yeah, let’s appropriate everything. Are you lost? Yes, you are lost."
Then, the discussion turns into an academic one. The hope that is offered in French cinema, or the recent Iranian cinema, let alone the Far East, is attempted to be taught to film students in America. Doyle quips that when he is asked to conduct a workshop, to instruct the students, he merely tells them to learn it themselves, to 'Just do it', and it all unfolds from there. And then, the professors interject, and claim that what Doyle really means is: and then the textbook comes out. "So what can we do? Well, there’s a lot we can do that is not expensive. You could send a DVD to your friends, it could be online, and you could be in all these film festivals. And just with a digital camera. In other words, you could even make a film with your bloody phone now, you know what I mean? [laughs] Isn’t that fantastic in a certain way? It’s so strange that young people are actually hedging their bets instead of just going out there and starting to do stuff. The only way that any of us became so-called filmmakers is by not hedging the bets, and trying, and then seeing if something works. Don’t worry. Yeah, people can steal your ideas, but they’re not going to steal your heart. [laughs] What are you going to do? Are you going to wait? I mean, look what happened to Kubrick. The more he waited — I mean, Eyes Wide Shut is a piece of shit, come on. It’s flustered; it’s someone frustrated by his own ideas. It’s like cheese; it molded, you know? [laughs] Maybe 20 years ago it would have been more interesting, but it has no relevance anymore. And you can’t do that. Because what we do is a product of where we are. I mean, all the films I’ve made are a response to the films I’ve made before, and hopefully a response to whatever sociopolitical environment I’m living in."
What is the main difference between a film shot quickly, and a film that takes a long time to shoot. Doyle postures that is is a question of energy. "Where is the energy?" He states that 'energy is in the eclectic mixture of people with a certain intention sharing it'. In the later, in the films that take years to complete, the film itself becomes more 'methodical', 'austere' and in the end, too 'ethereal'. It loses its energy. Instead, the 'ideal' film should have that 'integrity, which is, Yes, here we go. It's not more or less than what it is. I think our purpose as filmmakers or as storytellers or whatever you’re going to call us is to say that at this particular point with this relationship, with this social structure, in this political climate, this is the best film I could do. I think that’s all we can do. Then we’re not exploitative, we’re not the Spielbergs or the whatever. Then it becomes extremely personal, for better or worse. So don’t get confused by digital or non-digital or money or not — just do the best fucking film you can with your abilities at that time. I mean, why else do we make films when we could have gone into real estate?'
Of course, as the interview comes to an end, questions start to pop up, about the future of film, and his personal future. What projects are to come, and, looking back, what are his favorite projects that he completed. "Which of the films that you've made are you the most proud of, or which are your favorites?" asks the interviewer. Doyle responds, 'The next one. Always...Has to be. Otherwise why would you continue?' Truth be told, he proclaims, it is always a question of love: loving the people you work with. It is not a question of confrontation, as in the pretentious '9 Songs' (2004).
Interview.
To that end, Doyle has established himself as the preeminent directory of photography, and his iconic reputation accompanies that of Toland, the master artisan of the depth of field in 'Citizen Kane' (1941). His cinematic vision, in symbiosis with Wong Kar Wai, has pioneered the radical nature of new Asian cinema, and pushed all the boundaries of the medium to the point of its monstrous inception.
In this absolutely poignant discussion, Doyle lets it all out. He is as uninhibited behind the camera, as he is in person, let alone, in the bar. It is often mentioned that before he shoots a scene, he and the director, attempt to find a rhythm: California Dreaming in 'Chungking Express' (1994), for instance. There is always a motif, whether it is scotch, or cigarettes, or the music itself. Something that seduces him into the shot.
The intent of this interview, however, is to discuss his role in 'Dumplings' (2004), the 'organic' Fruit Chan short. He claims that this film is an attempt to 'celebrate our Asian-ness', in that it is an 'engagement' with the 'so-called pan-Asian cinema'. Prompted to comment on his self proclaimed Asian status, Doyle remarks: "Yeah, I just have the wrong skin. The more I rub myself against the yellow, the yellower I get. I've often said I'm Asian with a skin disease, because I started making films in Asia, and obviously what I've done has certain repercussions and certain resonance, and I should be very proud of that. And it just happens that I'm one of the few non-Asian, non-yellow people in this world. But I think most of the people I work with think I'm as yellow as they are. And that's an honor in my mind."
He continues, and adds, in reference to the current status of Asian cinema, that its time to move on, from the heralded 1930's and attempt to engage with today's consumer society. Wong Kar Wai often remarks that the two most important changes in Asia, are not the cell phone or the television, but the invention of the rice cooker and the cup of noodles, because it has completely and irrevocably transformed gender roles. Chan's short, the subject of this interview, is an attempt to address the 'fetish for beauty' - the limits to which people with go, to look younger. In this particular case, it is the consumption of human fetus's, reported to help prevent wrinkles, that riddles the landscape.
The difference between the East and the West, in Doyle's estimations, is the 'level of energy' and the 'confluence of intent and economics'. He states, "What is strange in the West is - well, not strange I guess - is that people are lost. Let's be honest. People are lost, whether you blame 9/11 or whether you blame the lack of education in schools. Whatever you blame it on, it doesn't matter. Whereas in Asia, people are finding their voice. It's been a long journey, you know. Everyone in China is on a roll, there's no question."
In a still more adamant and political tone, he conjectures, "You know, I was in Kazakhstan two weeks ago, and that was nothing. This is hostile territory, this is bullshit. I don’t know if it should be said so bluntly, but [laughs] every people gets the government they deserve. Sorry, that’s a reality. The present climate in most of the western world is of course anti-artist, because the function of an artist is to open people’s eyes, and that’s not the function of a Texas oil-based meritocracy. Hello! And every single person in the real world looks at this, and that’s why we make our films the way we do. Because you don’t have the freedom, you don’t have the integrity, you have to remake everything we’ve done anyway. I go to see Martin Scorsese, and I say, Don’t you think I should tell you about the lenses? And he says, What do you mean? And I said, Well, you’re remaking my film, which is Infernal Affairs. Infernal Affairs was probably written in one week, we shot it in a month and you’re going to remake it! Ha ha, good luck! What the fuck is this about? I mean, come on. In other words, if you read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, then you’d actually have a very clear idea [laughs] about what’s really happening in the U.S. right now. So what do we do? You tell me."
Doyle answers his own question and proclaims, "The problem is that 99 percent of the world is looking at this country this way. And it’s very strange that Americans don’t seem to realize it. Therefore we make our films and make our films, and you remake our films the way you want to remake them." This conversation is in reference to 'Shall We Dance'. "We’re not talking Kieslowski or Tarkovsky. We’re talking mainstream Japanese film, and you can’t even get that right. Come on. Hello. In other words, you lost the fucking plot." In a sort of patriotic defense, the interviewer asks whether or not Hollywood is too big a target, and suggests that Doyle comment on American Independent film. "Come on. Come on, you can’t be so naïve that you don’t know that the only thing they do in the U.S. is look at the box office. It’s not a film industry anymore, it’s an accounting department. [laughs] There’s only two departments in American cinema — the insurance department and the accounting department. There are no filmmakers anymore."
This declaration causes a rile and stirs the questioner into asking, "There are no more filmmakers in America?" Doyle, in his casual and sarcastic tone: " Uh-uh. If Martin Scorsese can make a piece of shit called The Aviator and then go on to remake a Hong Kong film, don’t you think he’s lost the plot? Think it through. “I need my Oscar, I need my fucking Oscar!” Are you crazy? There’s not a single person in the Oscar voting department who’s under 65 years old. They don’t even know how to get online. They have no idea what the real world is about. They have no visual experience anymore. They have preoccupations. So why the fuck would a great filmmaker need to suck the dick of the Academy with a piece of shit called The Aviator? And now he has to remake our film? I mean this is bullshit. This is total bullshit. I love Marty, I think he’s a great person. And the other one is Tarantino. Oh yeah, let’s appropriate everything. Are you lost? Yes, you are lost."
Then, the discussion turns into an academic one. The hope that is offered in French cinema, or the recent Iranian cinema, let alone the Far East, is attempted to be taught to film students in America. Doyle quips that when he is asked to conduct a workshop, to instruct the students, he merely tells them to learn it themselves, to 'Just do it', and it all unfolds from there. And then, the professors interject, and claim that what Doyle really means is: and then the textbook comes out. "So what can we do? Well, there’s a lot we can do that is not expensive. You could send a DVD to your friends, it could be online, and you could be in all these film festivals. And just with a digital camera. In other words, you could even make a film with your bloody phone now, you know what I mean? [laughs] Isn’t that fantastic in a certain way? It’s so strange that young people are actually hedging their bets instead of just going out there and starting to do stuff. The only way that any of us became so-called filmmakers is by not hedging the bets, and trying, and then seeing if something works. Don’t worry. Yeah, people can steal your ideas, but they’re not going to steal your heart. [laughs] What are you going to do? Are you going to wait? I mean, look what happened to Kubrick. The more he waited — I mean, Eyes Wide Shut is a piece of shit, come on. It’s flustered; it’s someone frustrated by his own ideas. It’s like cheese; it molded, you know? [laughs] Maybe 20 years ago it would have been more interesting, but it has no relevance anymore. And you can’t do that. Because what we do is a product of where we are. I mean, all the films I’ve made are a response to the films I’ve made before, and hopefully a response to whatever sociopolitical environment I’m living in."
What is the main difference between a film shot quickly, and a film that takes a long time to shoot. Doyle postures that is is a question of energy. "Where is the energy?" He states that 'energy is in the eclectic mixture of people with a certain intention sharing it'. In the later, in the films that take years to complete, the film itself becomes more 'methodical', 'austere' and in the end, too 'ethereal'. It loses its energy. Instead, the 'ideal' film should have that 'integrity, which is, Yes, here we go. It's not more or less than what it is. I think our purpose as filmmakers or as storytellers or whatever you’re going to call us is to say that at this particular point with this relationship, with this social structure, in this political climate, this is the best film I could do. I think that’s all we can do. Then we’re not exploitative, we’re not the Spielbergs or the whatever. Then it becomes extremely personal, for better or worse. So don’t get confused by digital or non-digital or money or not — just do the best fucking film you can with your abilities at that time. I mean, why else do we make films when we could have gone into real estate?'
Of course, as the interview comes to an end, questions start to pop up, about the future of film, and his personal future. What projects are to come, and, looking back, what are his favorite projects that he completed. "Which of the films that you've made are you the most proud of, or which are your favorites?" asks the interviewer. Doyle responds, 'The next one. Always...Has to be. Otherwise why would you continue?' Truth be told, he proclaims, it is always a question of love: loving the people you work with. It is not a question of confrontation, as in the pretentious '9 Songs' (2004).
Interview.
Posted: Tue - November 29, 2005 at 04:48 AM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Mac Inspired
Google
Forthcoming
1) Cinema: Ozu's "Tokyo Series"; "Wong Kar Wai" (Stephen Teo), and "Wong Kar Wai" (Peter Brunette); "Planet Hong Kong" (David Bordwell). 2) Philosophy: "Rogues" (Derrida); Foucault and the transformation from the care of the self, into the care of the earth.
Comments powered by
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 28, 2006 11:23 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 28, 2006 11:23 AM