Auf dem Film­fes­ti­val in Rot­ter­dam hat­te Ioa­na Flo­res­cu die Gele­gen­heit, sich mit dem Fil­me­ma­cher Ben Rus­sell über des­sen Gree­tings to the Ances­tors zu unter­hal­ten. Im Gespräch geht es vor allem um die Arbeits­wei­se des ame­ri­ka­ni­schen Künst­lers zwi­schen der Sub­stanz pro­fun­der Träu­me, der Kon­trol­le über den Stoff, das Suchen und Fin­den von Kol­la­bo­ra­teu­ren, die Arbeit mit der Kame­ra und trans­pa­ren­te Untertitel.

Ben Russell Greetings
Ben Rus­sell

Ioa­na Flo­res­cu: I want to talk to you main­ly about your film Gree­tings to the Ances­tors (which com­pe­ted in the Tiger Awards short film sec­tion and won). It is the third part of your tri­lo­gy cal­led The Gar­den of Earth­ly Delights. Could you talk a bit about the idea behind this trilogy?

Ben Rus­sell: The title is taken direct­ly from the Hie­ro­ny­mus Bosch pain­ting, which is a three panel pain­ting made a very long time ago. It depicts Eden, hea­ven and hell and the style ren­de­ring is very Chris­ti­an. It’s not very clear which is hea­ven and which is hell and whe­re this things exist. So it see­med like a real­ly good frame­work, like ano­ther level to think about the­se three films tog­e­ther, as all are attempts to pro­du­ce some kind of earth­ly para­di­se or uto­pia in the con­tem­po­ra­ry moment. It func­tions as a loo­se struc­tu­re. The­re is also a Stan Brak­ha­ge film cal­led The Gar­den of Earth­ly Delights. That is also the­re a bit but it is not quite as strong an influence. The first film of the tri­lo­gy is Let us per­se­ve­re in what we have resol­ved befo­re we for­get which is shot in Vanua­tu and deals with car­go cult mytho­lo­gy but also has a bit of Samu­el Beckett within it. And the second film is Atlan­tis, which is a kind of ima­gi­ning of what Tho­mas More’s Uto­pia would be like if it were hap­pe­ning in the pre­sent. In fact, Atlan­tis deals with what the limits of uto­pia might be. The third sec­tion, Gree­tings to the Ances­tors is a bit more direct­ly spi­ri­tu­al and posits ano­ther kind of ener­gy within the space of the film. That ener­gy is may­be Chris­ti­an, may­be non-Chris­ti­an but defi­ni­te­ly looks towards the invi­si­ble world, towards embodiment.

For Gree­tings to the Ances­tors you had as a start­ing point sto­ries about a sub­s­tance that cau­ses real­ly pro­found dreams. How clear a con­cept did you have when start­ing to shoot? What is the pro­por­ti­on bet­ween working with what you found in that place and fol­lo­wing your ori­gi­nal plans?

Well, I think that it is pret­ty dif­fi­cult to go to a place whe­re you’­ve never been with a very firm idea of what is going to tran­spi­re. So the struc­tures that I set up before­hand are just gui­de­lines for me to figu­re out whe­re they might lead me. In the case of Gree­tings to the Ances­tors, I initi­al­ly had three things that I was after. Only one of them mate­ria­li­zed but they all led me to other things. I had heard about this tra­di­tio­nal hea­ler who also ran a mor­tua­ry. He would wear a suit in the front to greet peo­p­le and then in the back he would wear tra­di­tio­nal clo­thes. So was he going to be on both sides, in the tra­di­tio­nal and the con­tem­po­ra­ry space. But he did­n’t want to be film­ed. That was one thread. Ano­ther one was the Sile­ne Capen­sis, which is the root that pro­du­ces the­se dreams, that was the thing that that I was sear­ching out. I got in touch with an eth­no­bo­ta­nist in Johan­nes­burg. He put me in touch with this hea­ler which I never ended up mee­ting but I somehow met this other hea­ler and the other peo­p­le. So that was still the­re but I kind of hoped that I would find some Sile­ne Capen­sis and have some real­ly pro­found dreams for the time that I was tra­vel­ling as well. Well, it’s not that easy. So yeah, the short ans­wer is that the­re are things …they’­re just like ope­nings. The rese­arch also takes place in this space and it has a lot to do with see­ing who is available and interested.

The­re are many dreams recoun­ted in your film. Which was you cri­te­ria for the order in which you arran­ged them? How did you choo­se how they would con­nect to each other and how they should be presented?

I actual­ly did­n’t know what any­bo­dy was say­ing until I got back and had it all trans­la­ted. I was not at all inte­res­ted in the trans­la­ti­on and the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of dreams. I just wan­ted the peo­p­le who had a pro­found expe­ri­ence to speak about that expe­ri­ence in the first per­son as much in the pre­sent ten­se as it could be. So that is what I asked each of this peo­p­le to do. The woman who speaks at the begin­ning did­n’t do that. She misun­ders­tood, I think, or it was mis­trans­la­ted. So she actual­ly talks more about her ori­gin as a sin­gle man. It is like a sin­gle radi­cal sur­pri­se. It was sort of a gift to get that becau­se it actual­ly sets the frame for this other things that hap­pen. I think the remar­kab­le thing about being open to pos­si­bi­li­ties is that you can be real­ly plea­sant­ly sur­pri­sed. Things hap­pen, you know. They work out and they work out like…really profoundly.

Can you get back to some­thing you tal­ked about in your mas­ter­class, to the came­ra? Why did you choo­se to use hand-held came­ra? And how does this choice influence the per­spec­ti­ve of the film?

In some way it’s real­ly prac­ti­cal just to go with the came­ra and not bring a tri­pod and to be able to have your own recor­ding with you and to do ever­y­thing yours­elf. If I had wan­ted or nee­ded to have a tri­pod or a dol­ly I would sim­ply have ren­ted one. But it was with the hand-held came­ra that I envi­sio­ned being in this place and moving through the­re. So I would be the pri­ma­ry pre­sence and the rela­ti­onships that hap­pens bet­ween mys­elf and this peo­p­le would be initia­ted and acti­va­ted through me, through the came­ra, through this par­ti­cu­lar kind of agree­ments. For me the most striking image of the film is the first image of this woman, the first sto­rytel­ler. I’m 6 foot 2, so I’m pret­ty tall, and with the came­ra I need to stand up straight, so I’m even tal­ler and she pro­ba­b­ly came up to my chest. Which meant that when I was film­ing her, I was loo­king down on her. That crea­tes a par­ti­cu­lar kind of power per­spec­ti­ve. I think it is uncom­for­ta­ble when it first hap­pens in the film. When you first see it and you are not sure what the rela­ti­onship is. I kept it in the film becau­se when the woman turns and beg­ins to speak or each time she actual­ly turns and looks at the came­ra, whe­re that power is loca­ted shifts. I think it is real­ly important to have tho­se moments take place whe­re a theo­ry is see­ded. But for me it’s much more important to have my sub­jects do the things that they want to do and not the things that I want them to do, or rather to not have them do things. I don’t feel like cine­ma (or my cine­ma) is so important that it’s worth offen­ding peo­p­le or being an ass­ho­le. But it total­ly deter­mi­nes the way that I inter­act with people.

Greetings to the Ancestors3

You said you have the fee­ling that your came­ra crea­tes dis­com­fort. What is just as uncom­for­ta­ble in your film is the use of sound, sound being also the main con­nec­tion bet­ween this world and the world of dreams.

For me sound is at least fif­ty per­cent of the film. Often it is more important than the image becau­se the image has so much aut­ho­ri­ty when it pres­ents its­elf, when you see it, that you do not real­ly ques­ti­on what it is. But through sound the image can get under­mi­ned. So crea­ting other sorts of sonic spaces that challan­ge the way that you are able to watch an image is always very important for me. In case of the dreams depic­ted, in par­ti­cu­lar, sound moves ever­y­thing away from this fairy tale space and more into a vis­ce­ral space, a space that is some­whe­re bet­ween the screen and the audience.

Do the fil­ters you use at times in the film, red pla­s­tic actual­ly, also ser­ve this pur­po­se? Are they also meant to crea­te or accen­tua­te that space inbetween?

Yes. They are real­ly clear inter­rup­ti­ons. There’s a hand that’s moving in but in spi­te of our know­ledge of what’s hap­pen­ed, that we know that the­re is a fil­ter being put in front of the lens, the space chan­ges with this red view in front of us. So it is a way of having a direct effect on the space, of allo­wing that space to osci­la­te bet­ween pre­sent, exte­ri­or, inte­ri­or, to crea­te more move­ment in an image that other­wi­se would be real­ly fixed.

The sub­tit­les you use look in a cer­tain way. They are almost trans­pa­rent at some times. It made me think that they are also a motif of this inbet­ween­ness. They look like that in the other films of the tri­lo­gy as well and have an unu­su­al func­tion. Why did you deci­de to make them look like that?

With the­se three films it was kind of a stra­tegy, it was a for­mal thing meant to link them tog­e­ther. But in the first two parts of the tri­lo­gy, the text is some­ti­mes alte­red. In Atlan­tis the­re is a sequence whe­re some men are sin­ging and the text is not what they are say­ing but it appears to be it when they are say­ing it. It’s a mis­trans­la­ti­on. It’s cre­di­ted, at the end it says „sub­tit­les from Tho­mas More’s Uto­pia”. So I think the­re are two inten­ti­ons regar­ding the sub­tit­les. First­ly a for­mal one. Second­ly, sub­tit­les are usual­ly pre­sen­ted as evi­dence, so as an audi­ence we never have any reason to ques­ti­on this. It’s the­re, it tells us what is being said, so we never think that the­re is some kind of mani­pu­la­ti­on hap­pe­ning. But when the text rece­des, it beco­mes part of the image. Then, in the same way that we ques­ti­on what the image is doing, we also ask ques­ti­ons or think about what the text is doing. I feel like I’ve avo­ided using dia­lo­gue and text for a long time in my work, in part becau­se that’s always whe­re know­ledge is loca­ted and so it super­se­des ever­y­thing else, it has a aut­ho­ri­ty over image, it has aut­ho­ri­ty over sound, it over­de­cla­res what is hap­pe­ning. So for me using sub­tit­les in this man­ner is a way to resist all that and to allow text to be image, to have you fol­low it hop­eful­ly the same way. So that you are awa­re that you are loo­king at it, you are awa­re that it is infor­ma­ti­on, that it is this thing that is not try­ing to dis­ap­pear, it’s the­re, it’s part of the film.

Greetings to the Ancestors

Gree­tings to the Ances­tors was a com­mis­sio­ned work. How much free­dom do you have when doing com­mis­sio­ned work?

I had a lot of free­dom. I actual­ly star­ted doing the film befo­re I got the com­mis­si­on. The­re aren’t many oppor­tu­ni­ties in the US for art making. The­re is not much fun­ding available, the­re are not that many peo­p­le sup­port­ing it. So it’s sort of a reli­ef for Ame­ri­cans to find oppor­tu­ni­ties out­side of the US to make this sort of work. This was an open call for sub­mis­si­ons at the Ber­wick Film and Media Arts Fes­ti­val. They asked for pro­po­sals that were rela­ted to a par­ti­cu­lar the­me, they had a dead­line and they had a cer­tain amount of money that they would pro­vi­de. They didn’t have any requi­re­ments bey­ond that, which is good. I made a music video once, though. That’s the fur­thest I’ve gone in terms of making films for peo­p­le. It’s bet­ter for me to make things the way I think they should be made.

Are you working on a film with Ben Rivers again?

Yes, we pro­ba­b­ly won’t start shoo­ting until the end of this year or the begin­ning of next year but it is some­thing that we have been tal­king about for a while. It takes one of the cha­rac­ters from A spell to ward off the dark­ness and fol­lows him on this sort of secu­lar, spi­ri­tu­al pil­grim­mage. It’s gre­at to work with Ben, he’s like total­ly hila­rious, gre­at sto­rytel­ler, big weirdo.