0free Generation Reporters: Considering that your film is screening in the youth section of the Berlinale, Generation 14Plus, was this film specifically directed at a young audience or more towards everyone?
Maximilien Van Aertryck: As we see it, it is more to bridge the generations. In this regard, there are three generations. For one, it is the digital natives, those who were born after the digital revolution and are already accustomed to this endless stream of images. Then there’s us who know the before and after. And then there are the ones that are older. At Sundance we had a man come up to us who was 80 and said he had never watched so many TikTok videos as in our film. We told him: “Talk about that with your grand children because I am sure they will have.”
As we see it the young audience is certainly the one that will make the most impact in the future. They also already have 10.000 hours of experience with the camera so they know its power in one way while still needing some adult experience to help them navigate this endless stream of images. There certainly still is a lot to be done.
Axel Danielson: This idea of knowing the history of things and having a critical point of view on things doesn’t have to be boring. It can also be really entertaining. We wanted to do both at the same time. To spark the idea to look behind what meets the eye. In our point of view it is a set of tools that we know because of our profession. But we want to talk about these tools as tools of the citizens for everyone to use. In order to have a better discussion about what is fake news and what is not. This is our way to contribute.
fGR: When you are targeting different audiences, is there something you have to take into account when specifically looking at a young audience?
Axel: In my experience you can never go away from what you think is good by yourself. At the same time trying to please a certain target group is really hard. What we did do is that we spent a lot of time on how the rhythm of the film should be: Should this be half a second longer, should this be half a second shorter? And how to connect the pieces so that you keep up the energy. It is a feature-length film, so it really is essential to keep the energy going. These very small changes on when to enter and exit a frame are decisive. Colleagues like Ruben Östlund were super helpful in providing feedback. Additionally, we did a lot of test screenings during the editing phase where we actually showed parts of the film to an audience. We wanted to listen and see how they react. If someone started looking at their watch, that was a problem. If someone took out their phone, also big problem. From this we can draw conclusions which part works and what we need to change.
fGR: How exactly does this work? Do you show only small parts of the film? Who is the audience?
Max: Towards the end of the process it was the whole film, so the version of the film we had at that point. However, earlier in the process when there was no film yet but just many different clips we would present them constantly to our colleagues, to our friends and family. They helped us discuss what the clips were a good example of. In the film there is the video where this man ends up at the BBC studio because of a mistake and solves this situation by imitating what someone in his position would do. Through the discussions with various colleagues we then drew the conclusion that humans are a species that imitates [wich they then use as an important position in the film].
fGR: Yesterday in the Q&A after the screening you said that over the period of five years you were collecting the “golden nuggets” of YouTube videos and TikToks you found. Those make up the film now. So, was the process an organic one that arose out of these images or did you also have a list of societal problems you wanted to tackle with your film?
Axel: The process is a combination of both of these ways. Once we had our golden nuggets that we wanted to have in the film we had certain gaps to fill. So, the film certainly needs a narrative structure. For example, moving into this imitating part, then moving into what happens when we turn the camera to ourselves. We use the voiceover to contextualise this turn, to bring the audience into our minds, into our points of view. It really is a process that grows and goes back and forth. You try something, you keep it for a while and then throw it out again and replace it by something else. It is not a linear process.
fGR: Why did you pick this topic in the first hand?
Max: We think it is fun to be very critical of something. Because we are film makers we are naturally critical of our own profession and how our own tool is being used. This in combination with that we are very interested in sociology and how to explain human behaviour, has made this topic of the camera’s impact on society both really fun while also triggering the urge to discuss and reflect upon that.
fGR: Did you then also take into account perspectives of sociologists? Or did you rather focus on your own points of view?
Axel: When you do a feature film you will work with that so long that it has to be made in a way that you yourself gain energy from it. We ourselves do not get excited by filming experts explaining the world. We like to bring up material that contextualises it enough for the audience to discover things themselves. We feel that this is what photographic image is so great for. It can reveal things, it can make you reflect. For us it is really important to keep this lust going throughout the process otherwise it will become something that is just work. It is insane how often you watch the film, how many hours you spend on this little baby, so it has to provide you with this energy.
Regarding sociology: someone at Sundance asked us which philosophers we study when it comes to photographic image, like Roland Barthes, Bourdieu, etc. Of course we know about these people but it is not in our skillset to approach it from this academic way. We want to use image in another way.
Max: Also, there is a lot of image in the film of people that formulate something very well. We have chosen those moments on purpose. For example, the Irish president in the 60’s very well formulated that technology itself is neutral and can have really good consequences as well as terrible consequences as it is up to us to reflect on how we want to use it. In a way these are some of the voices that are expressing a point of view.
fGR: The way I experienced the film was that you are not openly saying “This is wrong” but that you hand over and maybe also expect the audience to take over responsibility to actually reflect on this. How are you experiencing this in the Q&A’s: Is this approach working or do people need more context?
Axel: So far we have been to four screenings at Sundance and now two screenings at the Berlinale. When we hear the reactions during the screening, like the silence when people are sharply inhaling or when there’s laughter, we sense that people are engaged in it. When people are engaged they are also reflectively thinking. You cannot be engaged without reflecting, these two things are connected. I would say that this Netflix approach of having someone who explains the world and this explanation then being illustrated is one way on how you can use the possibility of cinema but we also wanted to open up to a much more diverse expression of how we receive the world. So in that way you could say that it is not for everybody but is Netflix for everybody? Or is that making you not reflect? In the end it is a choice of how you convey your story.
fGR: So where do you then see your general role as film makers in this? Also regarding media literacy that you are advocating for.
Max: We are very much engaged in something that is called “Media and Information Literacy” which in a number of countries by now is a national program where governments and institutions realise and advocate, just like us, that we have to put more resources into media literacy. Otherwise this will become a problem for the survival of democracy in the future. We really want to be a part of this movement. So as mentioned, one path in the life of this film will be in the cultural field. We want to go to festivals, television, cinema and also be able to go to schools, or rather actually have the school kids come together to the cinema to watch this film and afterwards discuss about it together and then take it back into their individual lives to discuss about it further there. We really want to have the cinema room to be the room where you see things together.
Axel: Professionals working with media literacy questions very often deal with finished formats. They will do something about propaganda or about fiction films, etc. However, these films and formats are already completed. What we can bring to the table is our practice with the camera and with actually making films. We will talk about perspectives, about the framing as well as what is outside of the framing. We will talk about rhythm or the intention of following the money. There is this toolset that can be applied to all image. That is why we also wanted to show the Camera Obscura. It is part natural phenomena and part cultural. In between there are some concepts that have always been there.
fGR: In a way, a lot of what you show in the film is known. However, even though we have this knowledge, not much changes in society. What in your view is needed to actually start changing something?
Max: For example for younger people it really is to take the subject matter into school. Back when I went to school image was only a subpart of the arts class, which only was one hour per week. We really need to have a total change of perspective there, of where to implement education about media. I personally believe that the camera as a tool should be integrated into every subject. It is not something that is only connected to the artistic field. The more we learn to use the camera in many different ways, the better we are prepared and knowledgeable about its uses.
fGR: Yesterday in the Q&A you also talked about having many open questions about this topic. What would be a snapshot of these open questions?
Axel: The last thing that I say in the film is: The camera will capture whatever is in front of it, so what should we do with this possibility? We have this fantastic tool but we need to put in the ethics and aesthetics and connect those two. Right now it is mostly the aesthetics that is being focused on. Ethics are only discussed by saying “let’s ban it”. I feel that the way of how it is talked about this right now is very unproductive. In a way the open question is that we strongly believe that this is a tool that should be more taken over by the idea of the citizen, the idea of society. That it should be part of creating of what we need to know in a society for making it possible for democracy to prevail.
fGR: Are you ever worried about the changes to come, also when looking at the increasing power of AI in image creation?
Max: I am not worried. However, resources have to be funnelled accordingly. And we need a lot. Right now the responsibility to make sense of the images we consume lies very much on the individual. However, individuals have very different levels of understanding that are tied to their socioeconomic background. That means, it is very unfair. We have to learn to master this in very different ways.
Keine Kommentare