Let’s hear it from the filmmaker

Debates with filmmakers after screenings are a traditional practice in many film festivals, and the IDFA is no exception. After a feature, mid-length or short film, its ’creator’ is usually invited for an informal ’Q&A’ - question and answer chat with the public.

Yet the content of the discussions at the IDFA this year have somehow surprised me. After the kind and simple María’s Way, people wanted to know about the clothes the character wore and about her future after the film. Following Abu Jamil Street, on the illegal tunnels constructed between Egypt and Palestine, people asked about the length of the tunnels, the number available and the eventual collisions between the different structures. At the end of the poignant Katka, people focused on the character’s life in moments that were not captured on screen.

Why is it that we are so fascinated with the backstage, insisting that a film shows us a real situation, encouraging us to try and learn more about it? Maybe for the fun, or just to mock the tradition, here is a shortlist of some consequences of the current style of Q&As we have after screenings:

1) The debates suggest that the filmmaker is the perfect person to talk about the film.

Well, that’s far from obvious. Either due to his/her proximity with the work, or because people don’t always know why they make certain aesthetic choices, the director could not be the ideal person to represent the film during Q&As. Do we normally ask painters to explain their jobs, or choreographers to explain the meaning of a choreography? Why would the filmmaker know the meaning of what he’s done better than the public, for example? If there is something he/she can talk about, it’s the technical and factual work implied in a film.

2) The importance given to a filmmaker’s interpretation is even more intense in the case of documentaries.

Because of their connection to reality, the public of a documentary is more inclined to think that these images reflect the truth, and therefore ask the filmmaker for some more of that truth. The interest in illegal tunnels in the Middle East mentioned above is a good example of this: if the director has “uncovered the truth”, it should be just as legitimate that he/she keep on talking about it. The filmmaker becomes an expert not on cinema, but on the real world.

3) The role attributed to filmmakers in debates reinforces the idea of authorship.

Since the filmmaker is supposed to be the spokesman of a film, all questions, from screenplay to editing, can be addressed to him/her. The centralization of the responsibility of a film in one single person contributes to idealizing this very European idea of the “author”, the creator of it all, responsible for the birth of the film and endowed with a particular and rather mysterious talent – since we never really know where inspiration comes from, and why some people have more than others.

4) Debates may encourage the notion that the ideal interpretation of a film comes from backstage knowledge.

Many people accept the idea that interpreting depends on the cultural knowledge of the interpreter. Therefore, the analysis of a film would be better and more complete if the person knew about the filmmaker’s previous work, his/her tastes and recurrences in his/her filmography, the circumstances of production and more. The film itself is no longer enough for its own understanding, and so the director could “clarify” the rough paths of comprehension – which is a rather mystic vision of analysis, by the way.

5) Filmmakers might play as they wish with the importance given to their ideas.

Quentin Tarantino is famous for answering the same questions in different ways depending on if he’s in Europe or the United States. In the same way, filmmakers can play with the important status attributed to them and either insist on the mysteries of artistic creation (“I don’t really know where my inspiration comes from”, “I just feel like I have to express this way” etc.), or make it simple every time people insist on making things complex (“I wasn’t searching for any specific effect, I just thought the image would be nice if I put the camera there”). Also, many people might feel that the director’s judgment about his/her film might ruin the audience’s, since his/her argument sounds rather definite: “the one and only valid interpretation possible”. Anyway, debates with directors are a game, a tease, and the manipulation of discourse is an important rule in it.

So should Q&As be ended? Not at all. However, it’s time the structure of these conversations be thought over: filmmakers could debate particular themes, the public could discuss the comments from other members of the audience, or directors could participate in round tables with each other… In any case, it’s possible for ideas to circulate in a different manner. Let’s try to make a better use of the curious presence of a filmmaker with the film.

By Bruno Carmelo