Interview: Michel Gondry, Tirele Innovator

Michel Gondrys latest act of reinvention? Animating a doc with one of the countrys leading intellectuals.

Michel Gondry has continually pushed his craft as a filmmaker forward, never content to rest on his laurels - even though his laurels made him internationally renowned as one of the great visual stylists of the modern era. While Gondrys whiz-bang stylistics brought real vitality to films such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep, hes recast himself in different forms as of late, directing low-key narratives (The We And The I), making a doc about his aunt (The Thorn in The Heart), and, most recently, making an animated documentary film out of an extended interview with Noam Chomsky, the brilliant linguist and political theorist.

A dazzling meeting of two extremely stimulating minds, Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy? presents a formidable creative collision. Consisting almost entirely of a conversation between Gondry and Chomsky, the doc becomes cinematic through the animated visuals, which Gondry uses as correlatives to the ideas in Chomskys thought. Chomsky being as complex a thinker as he is, the corresponding visuals are nothing less than trippy, and Gondrys interpretation of Chomskys theories places the film at an unusual nexus between intellectual and dreamlike.

At a moment when independent film budgets are low enough that filmmakers need to constantly be considering ways of reinventing themselves, Michel Gondry points a compelling way forward. I recently sat down with Gondry to discuss the new work.

Tribeca: At what point in the process did you decide that you wanted this film to be an animated film?

Michel Gondry: That was the starting point. It was the only way I thought I could make a contribution to his discourse, through abstract animation. I didnt think I would have another way to express my feelings on his thinking. Thats why I shot him on the Bolex, I couldnt shoot him all the way through, just glimpses. I didnt want to do a typical documentary - its been done on him already.

Animation has something honest about it, because people know that what they are watching is already an interpretation.

Tribeca: Is there something too contrived about just shooting the conversation? You mention early in the film that live action presents the illusion of reality, whereas animation has no pretense.

Michel Gondry: I didnt really delve into the political aspects of Chomskys work, but there is a way to expose reality as manipulative. In some movies you manipulate the audience into feeling how you want them to feel. I think animation has something honest about it, because people know that what they are watching is already an interpretation.

People forget theyre watching a point of view when they watch a live action film.

Tribeca: So are you saying that animation is no less manipulative than live action, but its more apparent in its manipulative nature?

Michel Gondry: Yeah. And therefore, it is less manipulative. Because you see it. Its like if you do a drawing of a scene, people know thats your point of view. People forget theyre watching a point of view when they watch a live action film. If you would just translate a full interview without cutting, then you would think its what the person is saying. But you have to dramatize a bit, you have to reorganize things in some way. But live action, when you watch it, you arent thinking about how its been reorganized.

Tribeca: Right. It also makes me think of how, when youre watching a live action narrative film, you are aware that youre watching fiction. But when youre watching a live action documentary, youre not aware that its constructed. So I wonder if you think live action docs are even more false than fiction films.

Michel Gondry: They can be. When you say youre doing a documentary, its like when you say a movie is based on a true story. It feels as if youre just asking people to go in with no skepticism. So theyre very vulnerable, they absorb what they see as being the truth. So theyre not going to doubt it, its not like theyre following a dream or something crafted, they believe its the truth. So if you manipulate the truth then, youre being dishonest with the audience. Im not saying Im always the most honest person, but sometimes Ive felt I was a bit fooled by documentaries, because you realize, oh okay, they hid this thing in the doc, something known, because its more dramatic to hide that fact. So I feel betrayed when I find that out.

Tribeca: Perhaps theres something, when you make an animated film like this, where you force the audience to come to their own conclusions about the film as opposed to simply following it.

Michel Gondry: Yeah. I felt that I couldnt really explain or illustrate everything he was explaining to me, so thats one of the reasons why abstract animation was more accurate, because it gave room for different interpretations.

Some of (Chomskys) writings are pretty hardcore.

Tribeca: What was the process like, of coming up with the corresponding visuals to the interview?

Michel Gondry: Well, I started with my first inspiration. The tree was first. When he spoke to me, I imagined that image. That led to this moment where I tried to express my point of view, that illustration comes earlier in life than reality, and then he and I had this misunderstanding in the conversation. So those were aspects of the documentary that showed themselves at the early stages - explaining his theories with abstract drawings, leading to a funny illustration of what was going wrong in the interview, our misunderstandings. I used those tropes in different parts. Also, when we talked about his memories, it was fun to illustrate him as a little boy. So it was fun to alternate between those different kinds of animation, abstract and more narrative. Basically, the film is presented in the o

LINK:	http://tribecafilm.com/features/michel-gondry-noam-chomsky-interview...
	See more stories from tribecafilm

Most recent headlines