Interview with Athina Tsoulis

Interview with Athina Tsoulis, October 2008

I came to film making through doing an MA class in Film run by Roger Horrocks at Auckland University. Studying films - I was already an avid film viewer - made me aware that there were many absent voices. So, I made a decision to become a filmmaker and I learnt largely by doing and making mistakes.

There weren't many opportunities to study film making in the Auckland of the late 80's. I had the opportunity to live in London during 1987/1988 and attended as many workshops as I could. I took writing courses with the London Screenwriter's Guild, Sankofa and Women in Sync. I also won a small bursary to make a documentary in King's Cross through Women in Sync who provided the backup and training. When I returned to NZ I did what most people did who wanted to become a filmmaker. I applied to The Arts Council (now called Creative NZ) and made my first short film, A Bitter Song, and then a second, The Invisible Hand.

ON TEACHING FILMMAKING?

As it happens, I do teach film making at Unitec, School of Performing and Screen Arts in Auckland, in particular directing for screen. I usually begin students with the basics - screen grammar and the technical aspects because they are often easier to grasp. Text analysis, which lies at the heart of all directorial decisions, is something that I emphasize. Working with actors is the hardest skill for would-be directors to learn. Learning through doing and making mistakes is the best way to learn so we work on a lot of projects. Observing and participating in the edit is also vital as you get the time to sit and look at why things are or are not working and why.

I encourage students to watch films so they can develop a sense of their own voice/tastes, what appeals to them and what type of films they want to make, as well as learning from the work of great film makers. The films I show are the ones where all the elements work in harmony to provide great storytelling (the performances, the visual elements, the sound design). Some of my favourites, which have stood the test of time, are from the 60's and 70's: Midnight Cowboy, The Graduate, Taxi Driver, Badlands, Paris Texas, and Apocalypse Now. More recent films would include The Celebration, Happiness and Somersault.

STORIES FROM OUR OWN EXPERIENCE

My motive for making films is wanting to tell stories that come from my experience, to contribute to the diverse voices that exist in our community which struggle against the American juggernaut. They are usually about marginalized people so in a sense I want to make films that rebel against the ethos of the dominant culture, which is so often reflected in the films that bombard us.

ON THE AUDIENCE

Filmmaking is about story telling, which necessitates an audience unless you like the sound of your own voice. They say that part of the director's job is to be the audience's representative and to be looking at the work from their point of view. Obviously, I have a particular audience in mind - like-minded individuals - as I am not making films for a mass audience and there are particular stories I want to tell.

But I DO want people to see my work - why else go through such an expensive exercise? I am also a viewer so I try to satisfy myself first, and will not compromise on what I have to say. But I have many screenings during the edit stage and I listen to people's feedback because they are seeing it for the first time. What I look for is whether they get what I'm trying to say, is there clarity in my story telling? But not changing the ending because some people don't like it.

Telling universal stories with regional specificity should ensure a local and international audience. I have shown my work in many overseas countries (France, Portugal, India, UK, Australia, US) and the reaction is similar.

ON FILMMAKING GRAMMAR

There is definitely a grammar of film making and like any grammar it has evolved historically so that films made in the early 1920's, 1930's etc are distinctly different to the ones made in the 70's and of the ones made today. We are more visually literate than any of our ancestors were in terms of the moving image. We can break rules more easily even in conventional films - jump cuts for instance have become more acceptable in certain situations. Having said that, some of the old rules still hold good and it is important to know why they exist. So if you break the rules, you are doing so consciously and always because it will aid the story telling and not because you just feel like it.

ON CASTING

I like to do all my own casting which is just as well because I can't afford to pay a casting agent! I will often be on the look out for the main actors in any film I am going to make well in advance. Someone may catch my eye, like Sara Wiseman [star of Jinx Sister] in Mercy Peak, because they have displayed a quality that I need for a potential character. Then I will audition actors whom I have identified or who have been recommended by others. I will audition actors in pairs rather than having a reader. We do a cold read [in which actors perform the script without having read it] or, if a scene has been provided I see what the actors have come with, I give feedback, and then we do another read. If I like what I am seeing and the actors have taken on board my suggestions, then we move into improvisation. I particularly look for a spark or dynamic that brings a particular pairing alive. Do they have screen presence?

I will often have a vision in my mind of the character but I am open to what an actor shows me. Jodie Rimmer was not exactly what I initially had in mind for I'll Make You Happy but I like to be surprised, pleasantly of course!

DECISIONS ON A LOW BUDGET

The creative, artistic decisions arise out of the size of my budget, which is usually low. Therefore, it does pose challenges, as I can't do the things I would like, or sometimes work with certain collaborators I'd like to, who would bring a whole other dimension to the work. However, a low budget does not necessarily mean a compromise in the artistic vision - sometimes it means you are free to be more creative because you do not have to answer to as many masters when you make a low budget film.

ON COMMUNICATION WITH ACTORS

Honest, open communication is essential. Being clear on the characterizations and doing the text analysis together [with the actors] so that any inconsistencies are ironed out in terms of relationships, motivations and subtext before you get on set. Building trust is also important. An actor will give you everything if they feel secure that you know what you are doing and that you respect them as collaborators. Being emotionally literate is also very important, otherwise how do you recognise the 'truth' in what the actor gives you?

ON SET

I always allow the actors to move in the location [on set] freely and then begin to make decisions regarding the staging, and only then do I decide where to place the camera. Of course, I have done extensive work on the text by myself and with the actors before the shoot takes place. I, therefore, come to set prepared with a shot list so that I know the coverage I need for a particular scene, both in terms of action and subtext.

I don't believe in quantity of shots - it just creates a mess in the edit. I prefer to shoot less and concentrate more on performance so that I have more confidence that I can cut the shots I have together in terms of subtext and the important beats in a scene. If you waste time doing many different shots to cover yourself you may still find it hard to cut it together because the nuances in the performances are not there.

I usually do between 3-6 takes, as many as it takes to be satisfied I have the best performance I can get. Most actors I have worked with give you their best performance in the first couple of takes. We are not working with the likes of Warren Beatty who is just warming up after the 17th take.

ON WORKING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY

In pre-production, it is more a discussion of style and visual references with the DP so that they understand the vision you have for the piece. When I rehearse/stage the scene on set the DP will usually observe and once I am ready to set the camera, a conversation ensues. Once the DP has heard my intentions he may offer suggestions or not as the case may be. I will decide on the shots and the DP executes the shots bringing his/her skill and creativity into the lighting, lens sizes, framing and composition.

ON THE EDIT

The first stage of an edit is to cut the story together according to the script. But then, you usually throw away the script and work with what you've got to shape the story. What you try and keep are the writer's intentions rather than every scene and line of dialogue. This is because you are taking the written word and transforming it into pictures and we all know that images can be more powerful and/or economical than words. One image may do the work of many words on the page.

Filmmaking is essentially an organic process. You can try and control it as much as you can and you may have a large enough budget to be able to do so, but by its very nature, there will always be a final rewrite in the edit. What you don't want to do is to have to re-write the script because you've made huge mistakes on set and haven't got the coverage, or quality of coverage in terms of performance or technical, to do the script justice. I've learnt more from the edit process about writing and directing than any other single process.

ON SURPRISES

The final product is always a surprise. And a large part of why I am bitten by the filmmaking bug is precisely seeing something that I could not have envisaged at the outset, take life as I journey from the script to a finished film, working alongside my collaborators each of whom brings something to the work. The excitement comes from seeing the layers build and take shape, how each decision comes to impact the end product. If I could see it exactly before I made the film, the fun would be gone as it would just be a predictable exercise. As long as the finished film retains the script's intentions and my vision for realising it, I am happy.

ADVICE TO YOUNG FILMMAKERS

Beginning directors need to recognise that learning to be a director is a path that you negotiate over a period of time and that you do not become a director overnight by making one short film. Take your time and create new challenges for yourself with each project, try and work with the best collaborators you can, hone your observational and listening skills, and learn to trust your intuition.

WHAT FILMMAKERS DO YOU ADMIRE?

I admire women directors because there are so few of them, and it is harder for them to get their films up (Alison Maclean, Merata Mita, Suzanne Bier). I admire Michael Winterbottom because he is so prolific, Scorsese for managing to make a good number of masterpieces over the years, Ang Lee because he doesn't stick to one genre and executes everything he does with great skill, Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu for his epic films about real people, Emir Kusturica for the joy and music in his films, and Ken Loach for making films about the powerless.

However, it is not so much what filmmakers I admire but more individual films. When a filmmaker gets it right - for me, as viewing is very much a personal experience - when I am genuinely touched as opposed to being manipulated, surprised or delighted by the freshness of the story, I get very excited. Small films with a big impact like The Celebration, Lantana, The Squid and the Whale or many of Almodovar's films, La Ville est Tranquille by Robert Guédiguian just to name a few. I've been watching films since I was about five years old, so it is hard to single anyone or any film as being the most admirable. In general, I would say that I like the early works of directors. For example, the early work of Bertolucci is far more interesting than that in his latter years; ditto Marlene Gorris, Coppola, Scorsese, and Wenders etc.

ON TELLING "NZ STORIES" AND "THE CINEMA OF UNEASE" [Ed's note: the term 'cinema of unease' refers to the idea of New Zealand films as characterised with a sense of disquiet, or of having a dark and brooding nature.]

I'm always baffled by this point of view as I keep being told my stories feel European rather than Kiwi - well I happen to be a Greek woman living in NZ and have been for the past 26 years. When do my stories become New Zealand stories?

I am not clear on what [the term 'The Cinema of Unease'] means but I get a sense that it refers to films that come out of emotional repression or an emotional landscape I am not familiar with. I do not do these 'dark' types of films. The more diversity we have in terms of who gets to make films in NZ, means we may lose the 'cinema of unease' tag.