贺瑶--影视工厂

“……电影是一种视觉艺术，所以为什么永远在谈章子怡，谈里奥纳多怎么样啊，也不是说他们不怎么样，只不过除了电影、演员、导演和钱之外，还有一个很重要的一面，就是我们这一个部门(摄影)，我们这个部门有很多人，为什么不肯定这些人呢？我的重点会扩大你对电影的享受，因为你会多一面，其实那一面是最重要的一面。而且我希望这些可以影响你，可以美化你的世界一点点，如果你注意到的话，你会活得开心一点点。因为你坐在这里你会注意到那光，因为你看过我的一部电影，或是你会注意到颜色，因为你看过我一部电影。你不会幻想你是章子怡，而会幻想你是对红色有感情的人，所以很多很简单的东西会变成很大的享受。”      ——-杜可风

提起杜可风似乎总离不开王家卫，好像他声明从此而确立，其实早在之前他已经为行内所肯定。而在他尚未行内立身之前已经被侯孝贤所视中。他与王之间是互相成全。《东邪西毒》是他们自《阿飞正传》之后的第二部合作品。这部电影几乎横扫了之后所参加的所有影展里的最佳摄影奖。

据说本部电影里的拍摄中，杜可风几乎天天都是大醉，在迷迷糊糊中完成。

附录1：

杜可风访谈：我的摄影

……所以我的优点和缺点、他的优点和缺点我们互相都清楚。我觉得这样很好，我可以稍微大胆一点去做一些事情，因为我知道，对方会了解，或会谅解，甚至于会弥补，我觉得重点其实是弥补，在一个创作的过程中，我觉得需要这样。

我的运气比较好，跟我合作的大部分导演都能与我相互取长补短。不熟悉的导演对我会有一点担心，他们也知道我有一点“神经病”，有时候我会有点热情过头，或是有很多很多的想法冒出来，只有跟我合作最好的导演才能了解我并利用这个优点，然后弥补那些缺点。

像王家卫啊，还有一些其他的导演跟我合作比较好，是因为他们也了解我这个特点，或者说是毛病，太投入有时候也是一种毛病。不过我觉得作为一个摄影师，就像演员一样，最大的乐趣就是因为你可以演很多不同的角色，有一些不同的想法，会接受别人的想法来作为你自己的出发点。所以我觉得摄影比导演更辛苦，因为空间特别大，可以有很多不同的想法。

我觉得摄影师参与剪接是最折磨自己的，因为你会哭：好心疼啊，这个不要剪了……

要知道那种宽容和投入，拖了五年也很难维持啊，所以必须找到一种办法，去维持体力、精神和你自己参与的身份。我找到的方法就是对空间的运用，对演员来说应该是不停地探讨所谓的角色，而那个角色是会变的。我觉得我也是托王家卫的福，因为我现在对空间的所谓敏感度和空间可能性的认识比以前高很多，这是惟一存在的东西，其他的都是意外，或是一直在变的东西。

比方说《花样年华》，就可以概括成两个空间的关系。男女主角的关系也是通过这么两个空间联系起来。其他的一切都会变，连角色都会变，最可靠的反而是空间。比方说，拍《春光乍泄》的时候，我们到了阿根廷，找到一个房间，电影中60％以上的部分都在同一个房间里拍，空间的存在是电影里的一个中心。我发现我跟别人拍电影的时候就会马上说我要去看景，去了解工作环境，我想这种习惯是被王家卫培养出来的，这是他电影里惟一真实的东西，其他的都是一种意外。

确实有一点偏绿色，(不是导演喜欢)，是张叔平。别人问我《英雄》的颜色有没有错？它也有它文化的来源，有哲学在里面，不过基本上到最后还是人的品位，我觉得很多东西还是靠品位，所以你的品位怎么样这个电影就是怎么样，有些人大谈所谓的颜色理论，说实话我觉得都是狗屁。《2046》整体的调子是比较淡一点点，没有《花样年华》那样浓，不过它也有跟《花样年华》相同的地方，大概是演出的范围比较相近。

：我很好奇你跟张叔平的关系，比如说他是先负责好美术的那一块，这个调子是由你来决定还是……

杜可风：没有没有，我们都不讲话。我们自己也很奇怪，为什么我和王家卫、张叔平这三个在完全不同环境长大的人，品位却那么接近。这种交流很微妙，我们不需要谈什么，基本是各做各的事情，我们的个性是非常不一样的，不过我们的品位是很接近的。

一个好导演可能会用两三种不同的方法去要求，有一种是“很好啊，你们再来”，一种是骂你一顿，还有一种是软硬兼施：有时候骂你，有时候安慰你。不过其实最重要的，是他有方向，他会把你往那个方向推，说你到了，或是还不够，这才是一个好的导演。

真的，我是摄影我也必须考虑整体，才是好的摄影，不只是美丽的光或是什么，到底它的震撼力，是不是撑得起你的信任呢？这个很重要，这两方面演员也是，撑得起撑不起我跟你的关系，因为我撑得起的话，我们对观众有一种责任，然后你会信任我们，这个很简单，其实是一种信任。

只有空间跟风格是可以确定的，其他的你都不知道，所以你还不如简简单单说全部是广角镜头，OK，这样子定了。所以游戏规则弄得简单点比较(好)，比如说那一部《Elephant》(《大象》)，去年得了最佳导演、最佳影片，那个导演我合作过，那个摄影师也是我的好朋友，它是不停地一直在重复，是一部非常风格化的影片，不过他是艺术家，所以敢这么做。第二，它的内容和风格是协调的。所以我觉得重要的是过程，你的风格不要为风格而风格，必须跟主题(统一)，不过我觉得也必须大胆一点点，你不能犹豫了，不能因为传统电影有这个有那个就(犹豫)，所以我觉得必须要稍微风格化一点。(你希望风格化吗？)我希望我们知道不同风格的含义，它的内涵在哪里，然后选一种来做下一部电影。

比如说拍《英雄》，我不能打分，因为国外有人说我是天才，可我不是，我只不过是把摄影机摆在那边，气候景色本就是那样的了，没错，我们摆在那里，我们为什么那个时候那个角度在那种光的情况下选这个景，这个是我们的工作，所以你什么都没有可能效果更好，我觉得过程就是这样的，跟雕塑一样，拿掉多余的，其实人的关系也是这样，你拿掉那些包袱，你的压力，文化的压力，人的感情，用得很简单，但大部分的人做不到。

我大概在很小的时候，就知道我可能一辈子孤独，其实很多演员也是这样，你会有一种培养自己独立的方法，或是保护自己的手段，不过你很需要人，需要伸出一只手来，所以有几种方法，一个是爱，一个是创作，我弟弟是一个很好的厨师，我觉得给人家做菜也是这个意思，我觉得也是一种分享。不过做菜也是一个孤独的过程，要很投入自己，需要一种孤独的心态。

更多请看http://www.etpop.com/data/20040921/3175317645.html

附录2：

《杜可风：逍遥自在》 （文章作者：刘子冀。 ）

王家卫向来以没有剧本著称，每每在拍摄现场当即构思桥段和细节，这反而成全了杜可风，因为杜可风的生活和工作态度就是前卫、先锋，追逐女人、酒精和男人，两个人均是创意无穷而潇洒不羁，于是配合非常默契。对于任何一个镜头，都要精益求精，反复重来是家常便饭，他们两人再加上美术指导张叔平，都很有缘分，最有缘的是镜头拍摄多条收获之后，某个人想到有些不妥当，一定要求再来一遍，经常搞得那些明星演员和其他工作人员痛苦不堪，

王家卫的思维加上杜可风的眼睛，这才是王家卫的电影。

从王家卫的角度看，他对技术那些东西不是太感兴趣，摄影机不过是将眼看的东西转到菲林上的工具。所以他总是对杜可风说，“我要某一个效果”。那些看似凌乱的镜头，大有深意，首先要保证内容和形式的结合，比如在《阿飞正传》中对景深的运用，人物对话时彼此在镜头中所在的位置，都让观众有一种参与感。当王家卫在片场拍摄某场戏时，一定要从取镜开始，因为他知道那场戏的发展空间。知道了以后，再安排演员的位置。他跟杜可风解释要的是什么，由于是老搭档了，通常毋须多费唇舌。王家卫给杜可风角度，杜可风取镜，而十次有九次，王家卫都会很满意。《阿飞正传》的最后一个镜头，是赌徒梁朝伟( 听歌)的出现、打扮及外出，在闭塞的环境里，对于多种物品的展示都井井有条，而镜头左右摇晃着追逐着梁朝伟，终以广角镜结束，将梁朝伟神秘特色展现得一览无余。杜可风总是能够对王家卫摸熟摸透，王家卫说“近镜”，杜可风就知道要多近。这些都需要天赋和经验，摄影机的位置该有某种逻辑可依，尽管除你之外没有人晓得。一如作诗。诗人用字谴词都别有用意。

拍摄王家卫的《阿飞正传》收获到相当不同的经验，在拍摄之前，他们首先从文学看起，先是阅读六十年代一般很有名的美国小说：斯坦贝克的《伊甸园东》。彼此也都交换过阅读经验，虽然都不是那么明显跟要做的事情有关，但在后来呈现出来，最终在王家卫和杜可风的潜意识里，会影响到他们的工作。

但王家卫要的只是那种感觉，并没有依赖这些观念，在王家卫和杜可风、张叔平铁三角看来每部电影有它自己的生命力。《阿飞正传》到了开拍那天，还没有人知道它到底是什么样子，而最后它就是在支离破碎的光影中呈现出来。

杜可风拍电影有一个很重要的原则，观众走进影院–一个黑黑的屋子–从第一个画面开始，几个镜头内看到的一切，无论颜色或气氛，都是真的，就是要建立一种写实。每部电影有它自己先天的、杜可风弄出来的一种写实感–要百分之百尊重事先所设定。比如《阿飞正传》里所设计的绿色、蓝色系统，对我们最大的挑战就是如何在外景中维持这个气氛。 而《东邪西毒()》则要保持粗糙的颗粒感，同时又要表现出油画的凝重。再到《重庆森林》和《堕落天使()》，则是新时代都市的流利和疏离感。

杜可风以前比较重视构图，到后期作品，光是唯一的表现方式。没有光的话，底片就不感光，也就没有画面了。杜可风在法国跟片时，学得最多的就是灯光，看得最多的也是灯光的可能。法国电影必然有特殊的风格，而且每个摄影师都在追求这个。 必须要指出的是，法国电影之所以和华语电影在影像感觉上有重大不同，前提在于空气质量。

酗酒的杜可风与王家卫一样，喜欢各种音乐。摄影大师常常说艺术的最高层面就是音乐。“因为不需要懂，它给你一个情趣、组合与感受，它是一种抽象的东西。它很可能是一种很单纯的东西。亚洲的年轻人爱死了我们的电影，是存在的感觉，挑动了他们的情绪和感受。他们不是在做学术分析，他们享受那音乐，他们享受那种感觉，电影所流露的感情。”

杜可风总是喜欢错误和意外，因此总是在现场搞来搞去。王家卫对他的宽容、纵容都是创作的一部分，事实上这是绝大多数剧组所无法承受的创作之痛。　　但并不意味着两人经常见面，反而因为太熟悉的原因，除了工作一般不见面。见面的时候，王家卫都会放很多音乐给杜可风听，两人也聊最近看什么书，但是从来不会看电影。杜可风觉得这是非常健康的关系，王家卫也知道杜可风大概会缺少什么东西。杜可风能够体会王家卫的用意，是来弥补这些所谓的缺点。杜可风说必须要跟别人合作，为了提醒我自己：“你不要偷懒，你不要自以为是。每次有新的来往都会给我一点新鲜感。 ”否则的话，两个人会固步自封，逍遥自在的前提是开放吸收，找到新的可能。 刘子冀/文

更多请看：http://ent.sina.com.cn/r/i/2008-01-13/18131873699.shtml

附录3：杜可风访谈：《水妖》

“我生命的四分之三的时间都是以外国人的身份度过的，电影摄影是一门用不同视点观看事物的学问。正如塔可夫斯基所说：电影摄影是用光作画。一幅画和一张照片之间的差异是可以引发共鸣的。（一张照片）可以超越事物的表面。为什么流行歌曲深入人心？那是因为它说出了一些你心知肚明却又难以言说的东西。优秀的电影摄影一定能使事物得以显现，并将它变的更加富有诗意，更加能与人产生共鸣。真正的电影制作是将熟悉化为陌生，用光、角度或其他方式使事物转变。 ”

更多请看（文章源自：http://www.quacor.com/show.php?contentid=49614）

附录4： 春光乍泄摄影手记：
《春光乍泄》之摄影手记I（文/杜可风）

1ST DAV SHOOT
第一日开镜并非真正开拍——只是确认一下我们来到这儿。
我们在油淋淋的小巷LA BOCA和HOTEL RIVERA门口及屋顶“执”了些“空镜”。伟仔问哥哥（张国荣）就在酒店这儿开始相爱。
我不大清楚我在干啥——只是到处听听，试试滤镜菲林速度……不找灵感，只是意念。然后侥幸地巴士绕道穿过废桥见到灯明火亮景象。一片孤寂、远离、形神尽失……
我终于找到影片的视觉主题，去揣摩这片空间“性格”的方向。

The metaphysical meaning of the Tropic of Capricorn Ⅱ
“怎样给南回归线打灯？”就像问怎样“放映黑暗？失落的颜色是怎样？”……
“怎去为记忆构图？”……这类无法回答的问题是每个摄影师每日都会自问自答。
我们想找一行亮光移过南回归线那想像中的线。但在这渐暗的日光下作这个效果要好几里长的灯闸，而我们手上只有两支一干火的灯枪及手掌般大的化妆镜。
我们不想要电脑绘图。我们要卢马的《绿光》更明显的东西。
但阳光没有“天然”动机作一行阴影或线……周围也没有标志日出。我们只有极日平野，日落在草林和两株树后。
“让镜头食正光吧！”家卫自顾自说……“无得拣。”
于是有树又有反光！在广阔路上，日光自树间透出来，正对镜头同了花班一行光，我借助化妆镜，转片速和光圈，伟仔和哥哥两眼凝望，罗曼蒂克……

Style Ⅱ
我们今次玩了“高潮”颜色与灯光……大量微粒要增强。我把菲林堆得太高不见了黑色……是曝光？场地？还是没预算给灯光去维持我们想要的色调。

Wallpaper
拍墙纸花纹……不是无聊，只为让角色性格有象征指引。花纹的是哥哥：缤纷茂盛。黑的……重复、封闭、无情……则是伟仔的角色。

我们的内景故意“没有时间”，灯光不依“逻辑”照明。日或夜都不重要。伟仔与哥哥的世界时空不明。
家卫说只有剪片时才知道拍过的片段意义何在。当时并不肯定清楚某些细节颜色动作意味什么。它们预知影片去向而会带着我们走。它们是来自未来的映像而当时我们才刚刚抵达。

附录6：

Master cinematographer Chris Doyle on Asian pride and the problem with America.

BY MATTHEW ROSS

Miriam Yeung in Fruit Chan’s “Dumplings,” which was shot by Chris Doyle.

Born in the mundane existence of postwar Sydney, Australia, in 1952, Christopher Doyle spent much of his life at large. He was a sailor in Norway, a Thai-based Chinese quack medicine “doctor,” a “cowboy-nic” on an Israeli kibbutz, a well digger in the Indian desert and almost everything in between. He was “reincarnated” in the late 1970s when he met his poetry/language teacher at the University of Hong Kong, who gave him the evocative name of Du Ke Feng (“like the wind”). He was never the same since. — Chris Doyle’s press bio

Save for Gregg Toland and perhaps Vittorio Storaro, no cinematographer in history has achieved the kind of iconic status as the kind currently enjoyed by Chris Doyle. An Australian by birth, Doyle has lived in Asia for nearly 30 years, and his work has largely defined the look of new Asian cinema. Best known for his collaborations with Wong Kar-wai on such films as Chungking Express, Happy Together and In the Mood for Love (which won him the Technical Grand Prize at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival), Doyle is equally comfortable with a handheld camera as he is with meticulously composed, static imagery. Yet despite the variation in technique, Doyle still manages to leave an indelible authorial stamp on every one of his films, even though it’s nearly impossible to say why Zhang Yimou’s archly formal Hero and Wong’s hyperactiveFallen Angels both feel like a Chris Doyle–shot movie except for the fact that his mastery is apparent in every shot. He’s also directed one feature, 1999’s Away With Words.

Doyle’s personality and professional style are also the stuff of legend. Rumor has it that he prefers to drink while working, and he has never been known to toe the company line in public. Filmmaker caught up with him in New York, where he was making one of his rare forays into American production (other work includes Gus Van Sant’s Psycho and Barry Levinson’s Liberty Heights) with M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water. The purpose of the interview was to discuss his work onThree…Extremes, the Asian omnibus horror film — Doyle shot Fruit Chan’s segment, “Dumplings,” about a woman who eats dumplings made out of human flesh — but the conversation delightfully veered off the road.

Chris Doyle.

FILMMAKER: Tell me a bit about “Dumplings,” how you got involved. Were there any new things you were experimenting with visually?

DOYLE: Have you seen the film?

FILMMAKER: Yeah, I have. I really liked it.

DOYLE: I think that hopefully one does engage oneself in something you haven’t done before. Fruit’s films are much more organic. They are much more realistic than most of what I’ve done, so I think that’s part of the challenge: put two madmen together and see what happens. Secondly, in my mind, it is a continuation of a project that we started a year or two before, which is an engagement with this so-called pan-Asian cinema. My generation of artists or filmmakers or just people in general, we have to celebrate our Asian-ness.

FILMMAKER: I read some articles where you described yourself as an Asian filmmaker who happens to be pink.

DOYLE: Yeah, I just happen to have the wrong skin. The more I rub myself against the yellow, the yellower I get. [laughs] I’ve often said I’m an Asian with a skin disease, because I started making films in Asia, and obviously what I’ve done has certain repercussions and certain resonance, and I should be very proud of that. And it just happens that I’m one of the few non-Asian, non-yellow people in this world. But I think most of the people I work with think I’m as yellow as they are. [laughs] And that’s an honor in my mind.

FILMMAKER: Going into this project, did you feel that maybe Asian film was in trouble at all or that it needed a boost?

DOYLE: I thought I was the boost. [laughs] The way I live and talk, if I’m not the boost, who is, you know? I don’t know, I don’t think we need a boost, but I do think we need to celebrate. I think one of the greatest films about Shanghai is Code 46, but it’s Tim Robbins in a hotel room. So I kind of get pissed off with that, and I say, Well, why don’t we celebrate? Instead of celebrating our 1930s-ness, instead of keeping on making another Gong Li movie with lots of red lanterns, let’s move on. And it’s strange that so few people have really engaged today’s consumer society at all. Maybe because it is too new. I think that’s what “Dumplings” is trying to do; it’s trying to address one aspect of this thing, which is the fetish for beauty.

FILMMAKER: You are currently working on a U.S. film. Is there a fundamental difference in the process of filmmaking between the U.S. and Asia?

DOYLE: No. I think the real difference is the level of energy. In Asia now it’s like the Australian new wave, the cinema novo in Brazil, the French new wave. Why? Because there was this confluence of intent and economics, and all those elements sort of matched up at that time. What is strange in the west is — well, not strange I guess — is that people are lost. Let’s be honest. [laughs] People are lost, whether you blame 9/11 or whether you blame the lack of education in schools. Whatever you blame it on, it doesn’t matter. Whereas in Asia, people are finding their voice. It’s been a long journey, you know. Everyone in China is on a roll, [laughs] there’s no question.

FILMMAKER: Do you feel like you’re in hostile territory right now?

DOYLE: You know, I was in Kazakhstan two weeks ago, and that was nothing. This is hostile territory, this is bullshit. I don’t know if it should be said so bluntly, but [laughs] every people gets the government they deserve. Sorry, that’s a reality. The present climate in most of the western world is of course anti-artist, because the function of an artist is to open people’s eyes, and that’s not the function of a Texas oil-based meritocracy. Hello! And every single person in the real world looks at this, and that’s why we make our films the way we do. Because you don’t have the freedom, you don’t have the integrity, you have to remake everything we’ve done anyway. I go to see Martin Scorsese, and I say, Don’t you think I should tell you about the lenses? And he says, What do you mean? And I said, Well, you’re remaking my film, which is Infernal Affairs. Infernal Affairs was probably written in one week, we shot it in a month and you’re going to remake it! Ha ha, good luck! What the fuck is this about? I mean, come on. In other words, if you read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, then you’d actually have a very clear idea [laughs] about what’s really happening in the U.S. right now. So what do we do? You tell me.

FILMMAKER: Are you asking me?

DOYLE: Yeah, I’m asking you. Are you American?

FILMMAKER: Yeah, I was born and raised in New York.

Bai Ling and Miriam Yeung in “Dumplings.”

DOYLE: The problem is that 99 percent of the world is looking at this country this way. And it’s very strange that Americans don’t seem to realize it. Therefore we make our films and make our films, and you remake our films the way you want to remake them. [laughs] Have you ever seen Shall We Dance?

FILMMAKER: The first one?

DOYLE: The Richard Gere version.

FILMMAKER: No, I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen the original.

DOYLE: Well, the new one is the biggest piece of shit. You don’t even know what the fucking thing is about. And with Shall We Dance, we’re not talking art. We’re not talking Kieslowski or Tarkovsky. We’re talking mainstream Japanese film, and you can’t even get that right. Come on. Hello. In other words, you lost the fucking plot.

FILMMAKER: Don’t you think these bloated Hollywood films are an easy target? Do you watch any American independent film?

DOYLE: Does anybody? Hello! Come on. Come on, you can’t be so naïve that you don’t know that the only thing they do in the U.S. is look at the box office. It’s not a film industry anymore, it’s an accounting department. [laughs] There’s only two departments in American cinema — the insurance department and the accounting department. There are no filmmakers anymore.

FILMMAKER: You don’t think so?

DOYLE: No, absolutely not.

FILMMAKER: There are no more filmmakers in America?

DOYLE: Uh-uh. If Martin Scorsese can make a piece of shit called The Aviator and then go on to remake a Hong Kong film, don’t you think he’s lost the plot? Think it through. “I need my Oscar, I need my fucking Oscar!” Are you crazy? There’s not a single person in the Oscar voting department who’s under 65 years old. They don’t even know how to get online. They have no idea what the real world is about. They have no visual experience anymore. They have preoccupations. So why the fuck would a great filmmaker need to suck the dick of the Academy with a piece of shit called The Aviator? And now he has to remake our film? I mean this is bullshit. This is total bullshit. I love Marty, I think he’s a great person. And the other one is Tarantino. Oh yeah, let’s appropriate everything. Are you lost? Yes, you are lost.

FILMMAKER: For a lot of young filmmakers, or aspiring filmmakers, in this country, myself included, the films that you make and that a lot of other Asian films make, as well as a lot of other films from France and Iran and other countries, give us all hope that it is still possible to make good films.

DOYLE: Yeah, but then I go to New York Film School, and even the teachers are trying to tell the kids what I’m saying.

FILMMAKER: How do you mean?

DOYLE: I mean, I go to NYU, and all the teachers are there, and then they’re interpreting what I say. I say, “Just do it.” And the teachers say, “What he really means is if you really work hard within the system, then you’ll get somewhere.” [laughs] So what can we do? Well, there’s a lot we can do that is not expensive. You could send a DVD to your friends, it could be online, and you could be in all these film festivals. And just with a digital camera. In other words, you could even make a film with your bloody phone now, you know what I mean? [laughs] Isn’t that fantastic in a certain way? It’s so strange that young people are actually hedging their bets instead of just going out there and starting to do stuff. The only way that any of us became so-called filmmakers is by not hedging the bets, and trying, and then seeing if something works. Don’t worry. Yeah, people can steal your ideas, but they’re not going to steal your heart. [laughs] What are you going to do? Are you going to wait? I mean, look what happened to Kubrick. The more he waited — I mean, Eyes Wide Shut is a piece of shit, come on. It’s flustered; it’s someone frustrated by his own ideas. It’s like cheese; it molded, you know? [laughs] Maybe 20 years ago it would have been more interesting, but it has no relevance anymore. And you can’t do that. Because what we do is a product of where we are. I mean, all the films I’ve made are a response to the films I’ve made before, and hopefully a response to whatever sociopolitical environment I’m living in.

FILMMAKER: How would you compare the experience maybe of working on a film that you shot quickly, like Chungking Express, as opposed to a film that took a long time, like 2046?

DOYLE: I think your real question is, Where is the energy? I think the energy is in the eclectic mixture of people with a certain intention sharing it. And like in 2046, what happens is that it becomes too ethereal, and I think the audience feels that. I really believe that if we are energized, if we are encountering something, if we are sharing something, then the audience will share the same thing. Now with 2046, it was a five-year shoot, and then you’ve got all the ups and downs with whatever it is, whether it’s accounting problems or it’s stylistic problems or whatever — doesn’t matter. What happens is that it becomes a much more methodical kind of film. It has a certain austerity. Whereas a film like Chungking Express, we needed to get it done at that time and we did. And I think in another way, the “Dumplings” or the Thai films that I’ve done, I think they all have that integrity, which is, Yes, here we go. It’s not more or less than what it is. I think our purpose as filmmakers or as storytellers or whatever you’re going to call us is to say that at this particular point with this relationship, with this social structure, in this political climate, this is the best film I could do. I think that’s all we can do. Then we’re not exploitative, we’re not the Spielbergs or the whatever. Then it becomes extremely personal, for better or worse. So don’t get confused by digital or non-digital or money or not — just do the best fucking film you can with your abilities at that time. I mean, why else do we make films when we could have gone into real estate? [laughs]

FILMMAKER: Which of the films that you’ve made are you the most proud of, or which are your favorites?

DOYLE: The next one. Always.

FILMMAKER: Always the next one?

DOYLE: Has to be. Otherwise why would you continue? [laughs] You mean I’m going to retire? I don’t think so. [laughs] If I retired, I should open a girls’ boarding school, I think. [laughs] And then I’d be really in deep shit. Yeah, of course it has to be the next film. It has to be, it has to be.

FILMMAKER: How do you pick which films you work on?

DOYLE: People, always people.

FILMMAKER: The directors?

DOYLE: No. Partly of course. That’s the one that usually calls you up and is in your face. Yeah, it has to be about the people; otherwise why would you spend, for example, five years on 2046? Why would you spend five years of your life with someone you didn’t love? There’s no way it’s about career, and certainly it’s not about money. It has to be about people. If every day you’re going to have an argument, you go home and what are you going to do — beat your wife or your husband? [laughs] I mean, why? I don’t understand that there’s this aspect of western filmmaking which is about confrontation and all this kind of stuff. And I won’t mention any names apart from Oliver Stone. [laughs] So if I give you shit, you’re going to give me more. Lars von Trier. Why? I don’t think so. If I give you trust, you should give me more. So it is a cultural thing. And I don’t think it’s fruitful. I think that if I give you shit for three months or six months or whatever, it’s going to be a better film? You mean to say that 9 Songs is a good film? I don’t think so. I mean, she’s a very beautiful and fuckable woman, but what’s your point? In other words, you put someone in a situation of compromise in order to elicit so-called acting? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s the only way to get there. I really don’t. And I think that you can engage in a much more intimate and personal way.

FILMMAKER: Are you going to direct another movie?

DOYLE: I am. Next year I’m doing two.

FILMMAKER: Can you give me a little idea about what they’re about?

DOYLE: One is about a Japanese country-music cover band on the road escaping from who they think is a mafia boss, while in fact they’re walking into country-music hell. And then the other one is about new Chinese women. I’m researching this one. [laughs] How come nobody really celebrates where China is now? As you probably have guessed, I know a few young Chinese women, so I figured using them was a kind of a metaphor for the energy of the society at this moment. And again, they’re both road movies basically, and this one just goes from east to west in China. It’s about money, it’s about ambition, it’s about why China is where it is now. And it’s mainly based on a young Chinese woman who exemplifies all of that basically. I’ll direct those. Because my feeling is, I keep on saying all this shit, encouraging young people, so if I don’t do it myself, then it’s a lie.

FILMMAKER: I heard that you are not going to be shooting Wong Kar-wai’s next film. If you don’t mind me asking, what was the reason behind that?

DOYLE: Who said I’m not going to be shooting it?

FILMMAKER: I thought that Darius Khondji was attached.

DOYLE: Do you believe everything you read?

FILMMAKER: No. Is that wrong information?

DOYLE: I don’t know. [laughs] Ask Darius. I think that certain relationships need their time to mature, that’s all. Don’t worry. There’s more coming.

FILMMAKER: That’s good to hear. You guys are such an amazing team.

No Comments