AN
INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD LOWENSTEIN
BY VANESSA LONG
Hal Hartley once said that he considers photography,
movement and sound recording to be the primary elements of film -
ranked in that order. What are the primary elements of film
in your view, and why?
Casting, character, emotion and communication, in that
order. All the rest is just window dressing, good if
you can get it, but not necessary if you can't. The
proliferation of successful films shot on miniDV are a testament
to this. A film's power to move is usually dependent on the
honestly of these elements.
Which of your films
delivers the most perfect correlation between what you were
attempting to create and what appears on the screen? How
did you achieve this?
Dogs In Space, because it came from the heart and
it was a personal journey for me, one that I felt very passionate
about, so I put my all into the making of it.
It was a film about a very infectious time being made in a very
infectious time, and we were all swept away in the making of
it, and I think that shows in the film.
All of your films
contain a myriad of references to the history of film and
literature. What do you consider to be the greatest
influences upon your filmmaking, and how do they effect your
work?
Being brought up without a television, and being fed a
diet of Japanese and European cinema and literature from an early
age in order to make up for it.
Your creative
relationship with Michael Hutchence and INXS was both lengthy and
consistently inventive. What was it that inspired you to
sustain that particular artistic collaboration for over a decade?
Michael had a natural screen presence, which made him a pleasure
to work with not only as a friend, but he was also exciting to
film compared to your standard pop star. He was a wonderful
combination of performer and actor, which was very rare.
Apart from the film we did together (Dogs In Space), he
kept coming back and asking me to do more videos, and I kept
saying yes.
Strong characters and
solid performances are two of the key features of your
films. However, your decision to prominently cast a number
of non-professional actors in Dogs in Space
suggests an interesting attitude towards casting. What drives you
when casting your films?
Usually it's a combination of authenticity and that indefinable
quality called screen presence, combined with an ability to
act.
There is something about filming someone, even when the person
isn't moving, that exposes something more than a still photo
does. It's like you can see what they're thinking, and it's
very rare, but when you find it, filming becomes a pleasure.
Australian film most
often seems to shy away from depicting stories of suburban life,
which reflect the way the majority of Australians actually live,
whereas your films frequently take audiences into the living
rooms of working class Australia. Is this the result of a
conscious decision on your part to steer clear of the more myth
making elements of Australian film?
Basically, I find the small forgotten individual stories
much more interesting that the big mythological ones of the
people or events we read about in the newspapers, be they
criminals, stars, icons or whatever. And it's these stories
and characters that will be forgotten and will disappear if
someone doesn't deem them worthy of chronicling.
The story of Ned Kelly will undoubtably be told a number of times
over and over again, but there's a myriad of wonderful
stories and characters out there that will just disappear if
they're not retold.
Marshall McLuhan
believed that every film has the ability to both reflect and
effect the society that created it. In recent interviews,
you have also spoken of your belief in film's ability to rise
above the level of mere storytelling. What kind of
social realities do you seek to challenge through your films?
I would like to think that cinema is more than just a
new way of telling a story, which is what it seems to've become
these days. Its ability to be artform and communicate,
reflect and effect in a multitude of ways which have only started
to be discovered, make the current dumbing down of the medium to
the general public quite distressing.
Having heard about the
difficulties you faced in securing financing for He
Died With A Felafel in His Hand, I was
wondering what your views are on the current state of the
Australian film industry?
Fairly grim, as far as financing goes. Everyone is looking
for the breakout hit rather than the good or great film, so you
get a situation where as soon as something works at the box
office, everyone races out, makes and finances pale
imitations of the original (which fail of course).
In the meantime, interesting films and scripts are left to
languish because that kind of film doesn't seem to be in fashion
this year. I think you can see this trend in the
aftermaths of such films as Muriel's Wedding, Strictly
Ballroom, The Piano, The Castle, The
Dish, etc.
Australia is a very conservative country, and the powers that
control the private distributors and sales agents and government
funding of films in this country are also very conservative, if
you compare what gets funded here with the equivalent independent
sectors out of Britain and the US.
How would you define the
stylistic difference between Dogs in Space
and He Died With a Felafel In His Hand?
Dogs is an immersive, subjective style, whilst Felafel
is an objective, observational style.
In He
Died With a Felafel In His Hand, Rohmane
Bohringer's portrayal of the powerful yet aloof character of Anya
reminded me very much of the kind of characters that Elina
Lowensohn plays in Hal Hartley's films. Is this a fair
comparison in your view?
I think you'll find both Hartley and Felafel are paying
homage to the same films of the French Nouvelle Vague,
specifially the Godard films A Band Apart and Vivre
Sa Vie.
If you look at Amateur, it is basically lifting scenes
out of A Band Apart; yet the powerful and aloof
character played by Anna Karina in these films is a homage
to the powerful and aloof character played by Louise Brooks in
the German films Pandora's Box and Diary of a Lost
Girl also, and Maria Falconetti in Carl Dreyer's Jeanne
D'Arc.
Considering the high
quality images and relative inexpense associated with digital
video, I'm curious as to how you perceive it. Would you ever
consider shooting on digital video in the future?
Indeed, I would shoot digital as long as the
project and budget suited the format. Some of the most
exciting films of the last few years have been shot on digital.
I understand that you
are currently working on another project in collaboration
with John Birmingham. What can you tell us about this
project, and the stage of production that it's in?
At the moment, there is no project with John Birmingham. We
were talking about doing a TV show with his Sydney book, but the
idea is on the back burner.
I also understand that
you are working on a political film based on the true story of a
computer hacker. What can you tell us about
this new film project, and the stage of production that it's in?
We are writing the umpteenth draft at the moment. It's
a tough one to pull off and not seem like a re-hash of all the
others, but I think we have a chance.
15/10/02
Read my film review of Richard Lowenstein's He
Died With a Felafel In His Hand
This site has been
visited times
+ Return to film page ..+ Return to homepage ..+ Go to guestbook