A call with Michel Gondry clears up our misconceptions of Be Kind Rewind–a movie I think is deceptively amazing but Kevin’s on the fence about–and both of us decide he’s a fascinating director. This Sunday, Diablo Cody will be crowned greatest screenwriter of 2008 at the Academy Awards (I predict) for Juno and I also predict it will crush her (and I’m not just saying that because I’m bitter there’s only a minute worth of interview to play here).

*Transcript of Michel Gondry interview after the jump

 

 FilmCouch 58 [32:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (951)

(Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store and an episode will download each Friday)

FilmCouch 58 b

Transcript: Michel Gondry (Be Kind Rewind) interview recorded for FilmCouch #58

[Phone rings]
Paul Moore: Hello, this is Paul.
Michel Gondry: Hey, it’s Michel.

Paul: Hello, Michel Gondry. Thank you for taking our call here.

Michel: No problem.

Paul: I’m sitting here with Kevin Buist. He and I both watched Be Kind Rewind together and we argued quite a bit after the movie was over. I was wondering if we could ask you a question and if you could help us out with our argument?

Michel: You put some money on the table to know who’s right? Put 10 bucks. I want to have a winner who’s going to celebrate.

Paul: All right, $10 is on the table right now.

Michel: OK.

Paul: So, we were watching Be Kind Rewind and it is pretty obvious that this movie… I actually described it as an anthem that’s telling people to stop letting Hollywood be the source of their creative experiences, and to start making their own experiences with whatever it is they have at hand to create with. And what we were arguing about was your choice to use Hollywood conventions in this movie which is undercutting Hollywood. And I won’t tell you who’s on which side; I’ll just let you speak to that.

Michel: Well, I can tell you why I did that. For one thing, I am not sure I have enough skills to control my style to say it’s a ‘Hollywood’ style or ‘independent’ style. What I know is your first statement is right. But, I have a strong s tatement against Hollywood and I like popular movies. I truly believe that people should create their own entertainment and have a great time. I want to convey that to people.

There is a sense of broadness in my message that I think is better served by a sort of broad humor as well. I like broad cinema; I’m not against broad comedies, because they are movies that are popular, but they are not for the people; they are to exploit them. So, I want to do popular movies for the people. Even if some people compare this movie to Frank Capra, which I should assume is very flattering. I disagree because Frank Capra’s movies are not for the people, they are for the corporation. They are very conservative; they are very capitalist. So, I wanted to do a movie on this concept, to defend people making their own films, but I’d like this movie to be seen by as many people as possible.

Paul: Yeah, I think, I phrased it to Kevin like this that it seems like ‘a ball of ice cream with a pill embedded in the center of it.’

Michel: Yeah, but you could see that as well as a contradiction. But, imagine if I had picked only a very specialist movie to be sweded, I think, it would have made no sense. Maybe, it’s not exactly your point; your point is, for instance, when Jack Black gets electrocuted, it’s very much like it was taken from “Ghostbusters” itself.
But, I’m not criticizing “Ghostbusters;” I like “Ghostbusters.” I don’t think there are many movies like that now. It seems, there is a general tendency of being cynical, even from Hollywood.

Paul: Just so you know, I came down on the side of saying that you were taking everything that you love about cinema, and just mixing it all up in a blender. Not necessarily trying to be pure, outside of Hollywood, but allowing Hollywood to influence even something that is telling people to go outside Hollywood.

Michel: So, you won the $10?

Kevin Buist: Yeah, I’ll have to buy him a couple of beers.

Michel: All right, what was your take on that, [Kevin]?

Kevin: I liked the film’s message so much. But then, I was wondering… Yeah, I guess, I was wondering why make it with a Hollywood studio? Why use big actors from Hollywood? Because, it seemed to be contradictory to that idea, but…

Michel: You’re right, there is a contradiction. If I had done an elitist movie for specialists, it would have been a contradiction as well. I was hoping to reach out to the maximum audience to give my message to people, because of course, people who are for independent, small movies, they will agree with me.

But, I want people to agree with me who actually spend all their money into buying Nike shoes and buying DVDs at Virgin Megastore, or going to see a movie in a multiplex; I want those people to think a little bit about that; so, I need to reach out to them.

Kevin: Yeah.

Michel: But, I don’t… I’m not even sure that I was aware of that; I’m trying to justify myself. I think, most of all I feel closer to those people. Sometimes, I go to the independent film festivals and when I hear everybody saying, “Yeah, I made some film in Hollywood and it sucked, so now, I’m back to independent filmmaking, and I’m independent.” But, they all say the same thing and they have all sorts of stereotypes they carry, and I didn’t feel belonging to this school.

All the independent filmmakers are people who are welleducated, and they don’t talk exactly about the problems of people on the street. If you look at independent English filmmakers like, Mike Leigh and Ken Loach, they are, in my opinion, much more interesting because they have this popular quality, but they’re defending people from the streets.

Kevin: Yeah. At the beginning of this interview, we were looking back at some of your previous work, including some of the music videos which I’m a huge fan of and also your previous feature length films. And we were noticing that there’s this theme of a fantastic imagined reality, whether that be a dream reality or like the reality that’s created in the sweded films in Be Kind Rewind, that seems to clash with harsh emotional or economic realities. What’s your interest in always pushing projects toward that direction?

Michel: Well, I think that I’m interested in creating something that is completely absurd and trying to make it exist in a realist world. And I think, I proceed the same way when I do my videos. I throw out a bunch of ideas when I have a video to direct. There is one idea that sticks out as being completely stupid, and I think, OK, I’ll try to do this one to prove I can make it happen, because, if I can make it exist in this world by some reason, then it’s all the more challenging.

So, I think, the little bits of concepts in my movies have this sort of mentality, where I come up with something completely stupid or abstract, and then, I can imagine what would be the repercussions in a realistic world. And I think, that’s where things become interesting; because you have people and characters who ought to make sense in this world, that they are dealing with something that’s extraordinary, and I like this contrast.

Paul: I’m curious, if everyone goes to see Be Kind Rewind and then, goes home and starts making their own movies and uploading them to YouTube, it seems like there could be a war [laughs].

Michel: It would be a good war, I would be glad, even if it leads me to not make movies anymore.

Paul: Yeah?

Michel: Yeah. Well I’ll give you an example. I’m doing advertising because I need money sometimes, because I really choose the movie I do regardless of the money I could earn from them. I’ve never made a decision based on money. In contradiction, I am doing advertising, and it’s really contradictory with my philosophy. I think, advertising is bad. It could be good a advertising if it was information on a product, but it’s not that. It’s basically brainwashing, and I think, it’s degraded TV to a horrible state.

If tomorrow I had something to do to stop advertising altogether, I think, I would do it, even though it means that I could not make this easy money that I make sometimes. So, I would prefer losing some of my privilege to feel the world is better.

Paul: Thank you for letting us talk to you. I do admire Be Kind Rewind. I like that you’ve made it, I think, for an American audience that will be surprised about what you have to say.

Michel: I am sorry for your friend and his loss of $10.

Paul: Yeah, he’ll survive.