The pencil and the camera es, maybe, one of the most provocative film books that have recently fallen into our hands. Its provocative will is not only found in some of the statements it contains, but in that intention on the part of its author to stimulate, to “provoke” in the reader a reflection about an art, the cinema, and its material praxis. Written as little pills, The pencil and the camera, (published by La huerta Grande Editorial) There are many things. It is a book about the experience of being a director. It is also a manual for initiates or established professionals who, in the practical lessons of its author, You will find material for debate on many of the conflicts that you will deal with or deal with in the usual exercise of telling stories with moving images.. But, above all, It is a manifesto about what this practice means to the person who wrote these pages.. A practice that does not distinguish the expression of its art, of the other, that of life, that of political reality, social, technology in which the contemporary world moves.
Jaime Rosales is the author of one of the most relevant filmographies of the last two decades in our country.. Titles like The hours of the day, loneliness, Headshot, or his latest production, Petra (on the occasion of whose premiere we interviewed him here) They gave a clue of what we could find: the vision of a director who conceives his work with the ambition to transcend, as he recognizes at the end of this talk. The pencil and the camera revolves around two well-defined cores separated by interspersed chapters. One of these nuclei refers to the practice of directing and constructing films.: the direction of actors, the use of lenses, the importance of locations, etc. The other serves as an excuse for Rosales to reflect on the world we have lived in and at the center of which he places an individual who, for different reasons, is alienated. Both nuclei could appear, a priori, disconnected. Nothing further. As we say, Cinema and life are for Rosales the basis of the same experience. GERARDO LÉON
What prompted you to make this book and why at this point in your career??
Bueno, let's say that, In fact, It was commissioned by the editor.. This was quite a while ago, a year and a half or almost two years ago. and I told him, bueno. In principle, I have never felt like a writer.. On the other hand, There was a time when I worked on a film with Miquel Barceló and he constantly got into trouble. When I proposed to make a movie, he said yes, when they propose to do a play, says yes. I mean, He says yes to almost everything. And the truth is that I thought this publisher was a good publisher.. The only thing I told him is “hey, I need to take a lot of time because I don't know what I'm going to write about., It will have to be about something related to cinema”. And then I had this idea of writing notes over the course of a year.. Besides, coincided with the development process, filming and post-production Petra. During all this time I was writing notes, general reflections, and when I already had an amount that seemed to me to be enough, I put it in a book that I recapitulated and gave it the form it has The pencil and the camera.
It has been said (and it seems that way) that in Spain there are not many directors who openly reflect on cinema. You have put it in writing, others not always, but in reality there are very few who theorize about their own work. I would put Víctor Erice or José Luís Guerín among them. What do you think is due to?
Bueno, first of all, Reflecting on the job entails some risks. Too much self-awareness can have a cost in terms of inspiration because, in the background, artistic creation has something mysterious and, if it is excessively rationalized, can lose its strength. So, there may be a first resistance. On the other hand, reflect on what you do, bueno, many times one thinks, Who will it be useful to??, because each creative process is quite personal and difficult to extrapolate.. So you say, Why am I going to bother writing about something that works for me?, but it is not easily extrapolated? That's where another second resistance opened, maybe. But I already tell you that, in my case, It was an assignment. If they hadn't commissioned me, I probably wouldn't have done it..
When I read these types of books I always wonder how I can bring them closer to a general audience.. Do you think it is a book only for filmmakers or “aspiring filmmakers?”, or the common viewer can find in it matter of interest?
Well, precisely, For me this was a pretty big concern.. The order came from a publishing house that is not specialized. In fact, It is his only film book. I told myself, bueno, It seems to me that I can only write about something I know and the little I know is related to cinema. But, at the same time, I wanted to give you a broader perspective., that it is not just a manual for filmmakers, but, Just as I am very interested and read books written by architects, by musicians, by writers, because in the creative processes of musicians or a writer you find parallels with respect to film creation itself, It seemed important to me that it be extrapolated beyond cinema. Then, I wanted to write it in a way that would contain useful knowledge for filmmakers, but also for movie buffs. In fact, People who are not filmmakers have read it, but she is a cinephile, and he has praised me for keys that have to do with deciphering movies. And then there are also a couple of chapters that I opened towards more contemporary themes that have to do with the problem of technology., and that affects cinema, but also to other areas, and there it finds accommodation for other sensitivities. And the same with the chapter on art and the craftsman., that falls within the scope of artistic creation, but it is more general. So, For me it is a book that has to be able to be read beyond the filmmakers and, even, the movie buffs.
The book talks about cinema, of the relationship with technique, The actors, the importance of locations, it's a manual, in part. But, as you pointed out now, In the middle you also talk to us about life, of the prevailing political system, of the contradictory nature of man, of the need to accept death and other issues. How do you interweave both fields?, the technique, the cinema, and that reflection on life?
deep down, For me life has a lot of learning. In the end, What this life is about is learning to live, although when you start learning it's probably too late. But the artistic praxis, in its double aspect, both creative and interpretive, It is a path towards that learning so that, when we create, We artists are learning about our craft, about our art and about life and, besides, we express our findings (findings that, besides, They are mysterious). When we interpret a work of art, as a reader, as an audience or as a spectator, also that way of interpreting, deciphering a work of art is a learning for life. It seems to me that it is very natural to interweave one with the other because when I am creating and taking notes, as I have been doing during that time when I was preparing the book, Sometimes very specific reflections came to me about techniques for taking an actor to a place or issues such as the use of certain focal points to create an image., as much more general reflections on life. That duality of thought came to me at the same time and seemed very natural to me..
Would you say that the contemporary viewer has disconnected from that relationship between cinema and life, in that a little deeper way of reflecting on art and cinema in general?
Bueno, What happens is that what has evolved a lot is television. What television is fundamentally is entertainment, does not create works. So, The spectator, partly I think confused, also, by one's own criticism, for the very moment in which everyone is a creator of something, but we don't really know what, It is believed that the “quality” of a television series turns it into a work. A work is something else. It has been lost or is being lost - it is being lost a little and that must be corrected- what is interpretation, the enjoyment of a work, which is not the same as an entertainment product. That is happening. I see it, above all, among the young, between my daughters, who are starting out in the world of culture and it is a culture that is much more about entertainment than about pauses., the observation, the criticism, the analysis.
In the book you talk about four director contracts: with himself, with the public, with the people who have participated in the film and with those who put up the money to produce it. I see Jaime Rosales committed to the idea of cinema as an industry, yes ok, on the other hand, You advocate for a cinema that constantly breaks with the established, that innovates, almost like an ethical obligation. I believe that the industry, in general, is conservative. How do both extremes coexist??
Bueno, It is a very problematic coexistence.. That double aspect, that peculiarity that cinema has, what is art and industry, It is work and product, and it is a personal and collective work, it is very problematic. But, precisely, resolving this problem film by film is the crux of the matter. The great films are the ones that have solved this problem well.. When a film is excessively industrial, I think it is not very interesting., and when it is excessively artistic, probably not either. The trick is to ensure that these two poles are present in a certain combination.. More industry or more art, the same, but that they are, that they take advantage of that double polarity. That double polarity is what gives it its strength., what has made cinema a success, especially in the 20th century, extraordinary, because they were formatively strong experiences, politically, psychologically and, at the same time, they reached a lot of people. This is possible thanks to that feature it has.. And well, more than giving you an answer to how that is resolved, In reality, each film is a proposed solution to that dilemma..
The book refers to a term, with him you almost finished, What is “resistance”?. You come to distinguish between resisters and collaborators. It is resistance against power, against digitalization (of cinema and the rest of our lives), against the dominant thought. It seems like a necessary invitation to me., but I wanted to ask you, Where is the dominant power or thought in a time when even the appearance of resistance can be collaboration??
Bueno, The power in these moments is in what would be, from an ideological point of view, an orthodoxy. In an ideological orthodoxy that is found in the dominant press. That is to say, that the big newspapers, the big televisions, the radios, all the mass media of relevance are within the power, they are living together. Power at the moment is in a kind of entente between politics, banking and mass media. It is a world in which the individual finds it very difficult to get out of that ideological orthodoxy because it is a form of covert domination.. What happens is that it is a very domination, very strong because we are all in it, in that ideological orthodoxy. In fact, curiously, There are currently polarities that are called populisms, but those populisms, in the background, they break ideological orthodoxy, both left and right.
In this context, the technological and digital revolution that we are experiencing appears, a weighty topic also in your book. Here you make it clear that you consider digital media responsible for a man who appears, in your eyes, alienated. It's clear that you don't like the digital world very much...
(laughter) Yeah, it's clear.
(laughter) …You maintain that it enslaves us, Others say it liberates us by opening our capacity for choice.. Is this ability to choose a mirage?? Y, above all, What can cinema contribute to this matter??
Of course, In the end we must not forget that every digital product is information. Everything that reaches us through digital media is information, but that information is not transformed into knowledge or wisdom. The problem is that right now we are inundated with information., but hugely contradictory information, difficult to interpret. I mean that, even, you find in a digital medium or in a digital impact someone who says that the truth is A, and another that says it is minus A, and another one that is B and minus B, and in that enormously disturbing noise, the individual sees himself as if pushed by a current, you can't choose your destiny. It is a very current, very strong that attacks you from many places. Digital seems enormously cold to me.. The digital image is very perfect, It's very robotic, It's very binary and, in the end, That very binary thing that we are experiencing today has to do with that technology, while previous technology did not have it. It doesn't produce any emotion for me., leaves me very cold. It happens to me with electronic music, it happens to me with the digital image, with electronic information, leaves me cold.
When you propose this, It is almost certain that they will reproach you for being behind., that you have been left behind. It's a constant speech. What would you answer to that??
It just seems to me that staying behind is very good.. If staying behind is going back to Aristotle, to Kant, to Chaplin's works, Tchaikovsky's music, the works of Leonardo or Don Quixote by Cervantes, I have actually been left behind and I hope to continue staying behind.
In the book you claim to consider the possibility of failure as a path for the artist. It is too high a risk at a time when (and I relate this to the idea of industry) only sells success. How to risk failure if when you fail you are displaced?
That's a big problem, Yeah. One of my teachers at the Cuban Film School [from San Antonio de Baños] taught me that great lesson: in the event of wanting to create something important, powerful, you have to face the situation of absolute failure, that there is no work. And well, that is the big dilemma. deep down, every work fails, even those that apparently have not failed or those that have had different types of success. All types of success, immediately or later, they end up being failures. and man, Well, you have to forgive yourself for failing.. It's like in Kipling's famous poem, treat the two impostors the same way, success and failure. I believe that the path to success and failure are the same.. You walk the same path, es inevitable.
To counteract this general anesthesia, you appeal to what you call an emancipated man, who is an individual who resists that drug of alienation, but what, at the same time, is able to understand its limitations. While I was reading this, it seemed to me that, as well as advice for that emancipation, Indirectly you are telling us about the very fact of being human., that is to say, to accept that condition of our humanity. I think this is useful advice., so much for life, how to face creative work. Do you feel emancipated to the extent that this is possible?
A ver, I also say a little bit that emancipation is not an acquired stage in which from that moment on you can take a nap. It is not a permanent conquest. It has to do, even, with constant self-questioning. The emancipation that I speak of is not a goal, but it is a process. And it never ends because at each stage we fall into a new slavery., or in a new self-slavery. So, you have to be very alert. I constantly claim self-criticism. The only way is self-criticism, inventing, not repeating yourself, and then not following what everyone else is doing. You have to think differently and, in the case of creation, you have to look for different techniques. It happens to me sometimes that I face a problem, that can be practical life, but, yes it is a major problem, I try to give you a creative solution. I want this goal, and this goal does not seem easy to achieve. Bueno, Well, I have to do something creatively., invent something to reach that goal. And that objective must be changing. That's a little, for me, the key to life.
It surprised me because in the book there is a constant appeal to laughter and humor as a necessary quality of that artist that you value.. You go so far as to say that "the spectator's laughter, “certifies the humanity of the author.”. At another point you affirm that “laughter is nothing other than the viewer's recognition of a very hidden truth.”. I wanted to ask you if it is, for all this that you mention, that laughter is so dangerous. And I say this without any specific ideological position., neither to one side nor to the other, because everyone seems to want to control laughter equally.
It's true, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Bueno, is that laughter disarms. For example, in politics it is almost prohibited. That is to say, let politicians make jokes, let them laugh, That they work from humor is like a taboo because, in the background, how they are installed in lies, if they resort to humor... Humor is a way of bringing out the truth and, in the dynamics of concealment and lies, is not supported. The liberating power of laughter is associated with unmasking the truth, hence its importance and, like the sex problem, is very controlled. How it is very liberating, It is something that must be controlled and standardized.
You maintain in the book that in modern cinema language is the end, “You go to the cinema to see a language”. I would like you to give us a brief reflection on the implication of this statement..
Yeah, What modern cinema places at the center is the film form: what can you do with an actor, what can you do with a camera, with music, with the sound… While, classic cinema is based on transparency: you watch a movie effortlessly, as if the shape were completely transparent, you only see the story and the attractiveness and charisma of the actors and the characters. They are different aesthetic schools, almost opposite. It is called modern because it appeared later compared to the classic, although, anyway, We are talking about a very short time frame because cinema is a hundred years old., some more. But, basically, those are the differences. So, If you like to enjoy classic movies, what you will expect are very well intertwined stories., characters with conflicts very well anchored in motivations, some surprises in the plot, the charisma, the plastic beauty associated with the image, with lighting, with the landscapes, with the faces. That's the type of classic movie viewer.. The modern cinema guy is going to look for, above all, originality in form: This is shown to me by someone in a way I haven't seen before.. And well, you can be a spectator of both. There are spectators who enjoy modern and there are spectators who enjoy classic. And then there are spectators, like for example me, There are classic films that I really like and I am a great classic film viewer., but I am also very interested in modern cinema. Those two distinctions that I put in the book are historical distinctions, but also ethics and aesthetics.
I would link this distinction between classic and modern cinema with another distinction that you point out in the book and that refers to the difference between artist and craftsman.. Somehow, That difference seems to have polarized to extremes that, in some media, they seem irreconcilable or are used to militate against auteur cinema, against the artist, undervalued, believe, in this society. How do you perceive this polarization??
Yeah, Yeah. Bueno, Let's say that the creative problem between art and industry is also a problem of domination. I mean, It is no longer just that the filmmaker has to resolve these two poles from an aesthetic-artistic point of view to integrate them into the work., but is also subject to strong pressures of domination due to opposing ideological approaches.. There are people who think that cinema should be craftsmanship and there are people who think that it should be pure art.. So, There is pressure from groups that try to annul duality and appropriate a single polarity.. And well, That is also part of the framework that the practice itself has., the cinematographic praxis itself and the industry itself. What happens is that I believe that this is constitutive, is at the very center of the cinematographic fact. It's always been like this. There has always been an appropriation by power and, then, a liberating force, and that tension between standardization and freedom is also good and manifests itself within the artist himself when he is contemplating the work.. At the moment when I'm thinking about something, I suffer from that double inertia of domination: a part of the industry that wants you to do a very work, very standardized and very industrial, and a part that also values and, therefore, He is demanding something very personal and very free from you.. They are collective. Sometimes it is what certain press is looking for or the festivals that value and expect you to make a very personal and very special work.. Y, on the other hand, all the springs of the industry that push to make it something more standardized. But I tell you again that I think that's good..
You say at one point that “cinematic language does not exist.”, films exist” and that film theory cannot be separated from practice: “making films and thinking films are the same thing”. To what extent can films be understood without understanding the difficulties, without intimate understanding of the mechanisms of creation?
Bueno, I am referring more to two things. That is to say, cinematographic praxis has two aspects. One the creative one and the other, the interpretive. That is to say, me as an individual, without being an artist, I interpret works of art. I mean, I listen to a symphony and that symphony does things to me. I work on that symphony and it helps me understand beyond merely musical pleasure.. The same when I read a book, the same when I am in front of a painting. I mean, more than anything, to the importance of learning, because both things are learned, the two praxis are learned. You learn to interpret, to read the works of others. And it's very important and it's enormously creative.. But it seems to me that we are in a time in which the interpretative part is not valued enough.. I remember that, when I was at school, The teachers I admired most were not so much those who revealed techniques to me – yes, that have been useful to me and are very good-, but rather the interpretative capacity of certain teachers in front of works produced in me a lot of admiration.. they told you, look at this work, and they began to interpret it and their interpretation was impressive. They saw what the rest of us didn't see.. That part is learned, It is very creative and it is important. In fact, the very works that one creates have to be interpreted by others, and that interpretation goes far beyond the author's own intentions. I was referring more to praxis from those two areas.: creation and interpretation.
I can't resist asking you about a phrase from the book in which you affirm that in Spain the taste of the public, of the industry and critics is very classic and that it is difficult for Spanish cinema to achieve international relevance. What is the reason for this resistance??
Bueno, I don't explain it in the book, but it seems to me that that resistance, like almost everything, It has to do with historical events. Let's say that the modernity movement does not enter Spain when it enters other developed countries because, in those moments, There is a brake through the post-war era, and with all the modernity that comes after the Great War, we stay isolated. This means that the public does not enter into all those aesthetic currents and they are not valued.. And well, that's why it's like this. What happens is that international relevance can only be addressed from modernity. What is coming is modernity, basically, to attack the hegemonies. In these moments, a hegemonic country is the US, although it seems that there is some competition with China. But Spain is not in, in that competition, will never be in the hegemonic movement. So, The only way to do it is through that modernity because it is an attack on hegemonic structures.. And what is happening with Spanish cinema?? Well, it is very classic and draws a lot from the transparency of classic North American cinema.. It even seems that, in countries that do not have strong cinematography, such as some Latin American countries such as Mexico, like Argentina, like Iran, like greece, like Portugal, the filmmakers who have had international relevance have done so from modern parameters, but not classics.
So that idea that sometimes spreads that they don't pay attention to us outside, it's just a complaint, thing that, besides, you also criticize in the book about our country, the constant recourse to complaint.
Yeah, I don't like complaints at all.. I don't think they don't pay attention to us. First, it is difficult to have international relevance. That is to say, in the end, It is a very competitive and very saturated environment., but when an important work is done in whatever way, yes they pay attention to us. I believe that Spain is, above all, a country of painters, There have been great painters throughout all ages. Perhaps it is where the most talent has emerged or been found.. In other areas, there is some musical work, is there a filmmaker, is there any literary work, of course. Instead, The same thing happens to Germany with painters as it happens to us with musicians.. The Aranjuez concert It is a universal work, but it is a. Well, Dürer is also a universal painter, oh well. Instead, they have eighty philosophers, eighty musicians. I think that, in these moments, Spain is improving things, and in the cinema, specifically, There are many more modern filmmakers with a relatively constant production, not without difficulties, because there are always difficulties, but constant. This type of cinema has also become more public.. This year we are seeing raw deals that are close to modern movements, filmmakers who have already made four or five films that have gone out of line and have more or less support from the public, of criticism, of the institutions, I think we have improved on that.. There will always be room for improvement, but I see no reason to complain.
At a given moment, You talk about the work of a film director and you say that it produces a lot of anguish and psychological suffering.. Regarding this approach to a modern or contemporary cinema, Don't you think that in this country there has been an image of the film director that is too glamorous and that has harmed him when it comes to distancing him from the general public?? I wanted to ask you if you don't think it would be better to explain what the artist exposes himself to in order to better understand his work and appreciate it..
Note that I believe that the appreciation of the work should be completely unrelated to the life and miracles of the artist.. That is to say that, if the artist has suffered a lot and the work is good, great. And if the work is bad, the suffering of the artist does not matter. And the opposite, If it has been very easy for the artist and something wonderful comes out, phenomenal, and if something very bad happens, Well, I feel very sorry for the artist.. I mean, In the end the only thing that matters is the work. It's like when I talk about the importance of creation and interpretation. When I perform a work, I don't care about the artist's biography or creative problems, marital or ideological relationships through which. The work, when it is already created, it completely leaves the artist and no longer belongs to him. What happens is that, as a spectator, yes I follow certain artists, but for the same reasons you go to the same restaurants, why, more or less, you believe they will give you the pleasure and knowledge you expect. But me, when I follow the works of, to say someone, the Dardenne or Haneke brothers, It is not because of the biography of the Dardenne brothers or Haneke, which I absolutely do not know and which does not interest me in the least. What happens is that, from job to job, I see reasons, ideas, findings, topics that interest me, that's why I follow them.
I understand what you are saying, but you talk about anguish and psychological suffering, and it seems to me that you are referring to general knowledge, from the public, of the creative process. That is to say, not the artist as someone who is in a kind of ether enjoying life wonderfully, but in knowing what those mechanisms of creation are. Not so much the biographical particularity, like the fact of whether the creative process should be explained a little better in order to understand it and thus help appreciate it., I'm not saying in particular, but in general.
What happens is that this entry is more like a warning for sailors. It's not as much as saying, Hey, value your work more because it has a lot of suffering associated with it.. does not forgive, The truly terrible effort is that of the soldier who is in the mud on a peace or war mission in a foreign country.. Or the miner whose lungs are going to explode. No, It's more like the notice to the creator, to the creators to tell them, Hey, be careful because you are more likely to stay with the part, which is very good, when you are at festivals, on the red carpet and surrounded by actresses and very beautiful women and they invite you to very good restaurants, but really that's icing on the cake, or the tip of an iceberg in which there is a lot of difficulty, a lot of pressure and a lot of suffering. In that sense, It's more of a notice to the creator.. tell him, If you want to get in here, a lot of discipline is required., a lot of stamina is required, It requires putting up with a lot of others and your own insecurities.. It's not so much towards the public, to tell you, hey no, value our work because it is very difficult. It's more like, Careful, Don't be fooled by the light at the premieres because there is a lot of mili behind it here..
You talk about the emergence of this new era of television as an opportunity. You say that television has taken over audiovisual prose and cinema has no other path other than poetry., and you bless that opportunity. What is this poetic form specified in??
Bueno, because each film has to find its own poetics. In the end, in each film that formal search is expressed differently.. From my point of view, a movie, when it's artistic, It's a prototype, with that peculiarity that the prototype has, that is similar to the others and that is different from the others. The thing is that television seems to me to be clearly a pure entertainment product.. I don't watch television series because I don't like to entertain myself that way.. There are other forms of entertainment that I like more. They are more social forms of entertainment. I like to spend time with my family, with my friends, talking in a restaurant, taking an excursion, I don't like to isolate myself on a television screen, There are physical activities that I like more. Then, Yes, I am very interested in works of art., I like reading, I like to watch movies, I like to listen to concerts, opera, I like going to exhibitions, all aesthetic experiences. But pure entertainment... I have never liked video games, I have never liked television. For me, television is much closer to video games than to cinema.. And then it seems to me that, How is there so much exposure to so many images through television?, the platforms and such, There is a very interesting opportunity for cinema to separate itself very clearly from that.. There are times when I talk to filmmakers and they talk to me about making a film and putting it on YouTube or Vimeo., which also has that good thing, democratic, that it reaches many people. I think it's the opposite. The first requirement that a filmmaker has to consider is that someone is willing to pay €9 and travel and dedicate two hours of their time to go to a theater and watch one of your films.. It seems to me that posting a movie on YouTube and having five or five million people see it is nothing like that.. It seems to me that the attention required for a film is linked to the price of a ticket.
To finish, I wanted to ask you if you consider the book you have written contains some closed opinions or suspicions that perhaps what you state here may be pending revision in the future.
It's curious because, when I wrote it, I did it in a specific period of time and all the entries, all reflections are within that time. I always have a notebook where I write down my reflections., what happens is that, during that time, I had two notebooks, the notebook of reflections for the book and the notebook of reflections that were not going to be for the book. and for me, In those reflections I demanded extra conviction.. Vale, what I think now, Can I stop thinking about it later??, because it has happened to me many times. But, however, if I'm writing a book, That book has to look for something more than immediacy and, therefore, my thoughts have to have deeper convictions. In fact, I ended up deleting some entries that had a more contingent connotation.. The book has been edited by me, for friends who have helped me and, of course, by the editor who made corrections. In that sense, it's not that I'm not going to say anything back., but it is written with a desire to raise things, let's call her, with a transcendent vocation. It has been a very curious year because I have done two works that have been very important to me., that have been The pencil and the cameray Petra. It is a small book in its size, It is a little book in its diffusion, but for me it is a book that has that desire for transcendence. It is a book that is important to me because I don't want to write more books.. It's something that had to have a long way to go.. In fact, I wrote it a year ago and now you are asking me questions and reading things from the book and I say, uy, Let's see if I don't give up too much. One year is little, but at least it's still valid.
