Courtesy of Drafthouse Films |
AN INTERVIEW WITH
ALEX VAN WARMERDAM,
DIRECTOR OF BORGMAN
by Joshua Handler
Recently, I had the good fortune to conduct an email interview with Alex van Warmerdam, acclaimed director of the upcoming film BORGMAN. BORGMAN will be released later this year by Drafthouse Films and was the Dutch submission to the Academy Awards this past year. Here is my review of the film. The following is the interview:
What was the
inspiration for BORGMAN – how did the story come about? It’s one of the most unique films (I mean
that in the best possible way) I’ve come across in ages.
I was longing
for something nasty, but also enigmatic. And I wanted, like Borgman says in the
film, to play. There's a man in a hole in the woods, there's a priest
with a gun (an old dream), and then I start writing. Writing brings the ideas.
BORGMAN is by no
means a traditional film, yet it seems to have connected with critics and audiences
alike. What do you think it is about it
that connects?
I think the
combination of humor, suspense and unpredictability.
As many have
pointed out, the film seems to have no traditional logic, which was one aspect
that I found to be particularly fascinating.
What was the scripting process like and how did you decide upon this?
From the
beginning I didn’t want to explain too much. Explaning brings you to forced [shots],
and worse, to stupid dialogue. Although,
in the first rough cut there was still a lot of…explanation. We cut a lot of it
because we found out that [cutting the explanation] makes the film stronger.
Violence is
lurking beneath the surface (Marina’s gruesome dream sequence illustrates this
most explicitly) but there is no graphic violence depicted in the “real world”
of the film. The violence depicted
doesn’t show any blood or gore making it all the more unnerving. Was this a conscious decision?
In every film I
make, there’s a man standing by with some blood. In case there’s some violence, the first shot
of the wounded person is always with blood. Take two [has] just a little bit
and in take three the blood is gone. I
don’t know. Blood. Of course if someone
is stabbed several times, you have to show some blood. But since Sam Peckinpah
showed blood in slow motion fountains, blood is a little bit boring to me. I
like clean violence: strangling,
poisoning.
The subject
matter of BORGMAN is, at its base, very dark, but almost gleefully so. Was it your original intention to make BORGMAN
as darkly humorous as it is or did the humor come out later?
All my films
have a [humorous] element. I’m not really working on it, it sneaks into [the
film].
But…during the
writing of BORGMAN, I really tried to avoid humor. Also, in this case, we cut out a lot of funny
things in the [editing]. Still there is humor in BORGMAN, but withheld, dry humor. That’s allowed.
What was the
casting process of BORGMAN like?
It was – as
always – quite a job. But also a joy. My wife does the casting. She knows me
very well. She almost forced me to take Hadewych Minis for the part of Marina.
I thought she was ok, but I kept looking for another actress. In the end I took
Hadewych and from the first shooting day it was easy working [with her]. She
really surprised me. She is the perfect Marina.
The characters
are so rich in BORGMAN, particularly that of Camiel Borgman, yet we know very
little about his backstory. How did you
and Jan Bijvoet navigate that?
[It was also easy working with Jan]. I’m not a psychological director and he was not asking for psychological
direction. We both are very practical. I asked him never to smile or laugh.
The idea was that Jan should smile once, just before when he kisses
Marina on her bed after giving her the poisened wine. But in the [editing] I
didn’t like it, so we also took his smile away, digitally.
You cast
yourself as Ludwig and have acted in many of your other films. How do you separate your duties as director
and actor? Do they ever interfere with
one another?
It never was a
problem. But I’m getting less and less interested in playing a big role myself.
Nowadays I only
want to do a small part because my acting ambition became small as well.
How has your
work as a theater director affected your work as a film director, if at
all?
There must be a
mutual influence for sure, but how and what and why and in what way, I don’t
know. And to be honest, it doesn’t interest me that much.
How did the
BORGMAN that you originally conceived change from the writing of the screenplay
through post-production?
As already shown in earlier answers, the script was more explicit then the film [eventually was].
I sometimes met people who…complain
or [are] even angry
because they think the film is too
abstract or too vague. That
puzzles me. The
film opens with a Bible quote: “They Descended upon
earth to Strengthened
Their ranks.” This
is, in fact, a perfect [summation] of the film. But the audience forget[s]
about that, fortunate[ly].
I see the film as a poem,
a song, it is crystal clear, there are no false leads, I give the [necessary] information. It is important to know that Borgman and his cronies are players, they are indeed stoic, but they
enjoy their work… They are friendly, ruthless, but not sadistic.
The dogs added young ones to the pack, I think, survival ? The murders were not part of their "play". This is the story that came to my mind when watching the film. A different kind of supernatural transformation, and yet not.Perhaps a mutation or alien invasion, as per pod people. An absolutely delightful, mindbendingly dark and satisfying experience.Psychedelic!!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely Hated this movie. It was as bad as "The Lobster." Just bleak, senseless violence. Hateful characters. No redeeming qualities. I enjoy offbeat movies (like "In Bruges") and am not against violence if it is part of a plausible story. But Borgman was simply not compelling. Had to quit watching due to the senseless, idiotic action.
ReplyDelete