'Rudger, I am so happy to have you here. Let's start right away, what is the most important message of "Against the wall"?', the young moderator from the podcast channel ‘Daily Diary’ wants to know of her guest.
Film producer and director Rudger Wellington turns first to the camera lens, as if also addressing the viewer, and then back to the presenter: ‘Thank you for the invitation, Abby dear, but what do you think the message is?
‘Well, ... I think ... it's like a great identity piece, a collectively memorable enactment of two nations traumatised by insurmountable conflict, seeking orientation, including heroes and anti-heroes alike. A story, as if written from two diaries, which is why we've invited you, Rudger', the blue haired moderator gives her interpretation.
‘Almost. It's more that I'm trying to show the audience that the two nations, through their collective consciousness, nevertheless experience the boundaries of their own identity as fluid.’
‘Oh, yes, yes! That's how I see it too. This difficulty of not knowing when I enter one field of identity and leave the other is what makes this film so unique! How did the actors manage to put themselves in this conflict-ridden state?’
‘Good question. We asked them about their own authentic experiences during casting. We wanted to know ‘what authenticity do you bring to the film that corresponds to our idea of the role of identity rupture?' And then we simply let them tell their story.’
Rudger grins at the babe.
‘Simply brilliant!’ she enthuses immediately. ‘So it's like the actors also have experienced the brutal reality of an identity crisis and like took on their roles credibly in the film?’
‘Exactly. Just imagine how moved we were by it. We knew immediately that what we were going to tell could be like both fiction and reality. The film serves a purpose. It doesn't just exist for itself, as a purely aesthetic object; it exists in the context of the collective environment. Since it stems like from reality, it must also return to it. But since reality is illusionary, it remains a mystery, what is true and what is fictitious, you know.’
He leans back.
‘Does that mean that as a producer and director you like basically can't say whether the viewer can perceive one thing as subjective and another as objective? So, it's like up to the viewer to find the truth, like?’
‘Bingo! Yes, ... no, I just don't know, you know, because based on the stand-alone theory, I can't decide that for all viewers. Who am I to tell the audience, what to think?’
He winks into the camera.
‘Wow, just ... Wow! That's like such a freedom! I wished, all films could do that!’
"Ahem ...!", Kruzmaka cleares his throat from the third chair, onto which the studio management invited him to take a seat in his role as a well-known film critic.
The chick and Rudger turn towards him.
'May I ask a question?' he says politely.
Abby: ''Sure, sure, what's your question?'
Kruzmaka turns to Rudger.
'Your intention was to make a film that is not your intention?'
'Well, ... strange question ... not really, no. ... Ugh ...'
'Then what is your intention for the film? How do you want the viewer to perceive it?'
'As I said, I don't want to influence the viewers view on what the main message shall be. That's the beauty of interpretation, is it not? Look, ...'
And he sets off to explain that beauty, but is interrupted by Kruzmaka again.
"Well, then I take the authority and tell that this movie has no meaning at all."
'... Ugh... You can't say that. That's a bit rude to say.'
'But I just did. I say it again, it's void of any message. I think, I am going to host a film critique show and will tell the entire internet audience that here we have a movie, which tells nothing at all' and that I don't recommend watching it', Kruzmaka smiles.
'Wait a sec!', Abby interferes, 'You can't do that. Of course, the movie has a meaning. I just described it myself.'
'Did you? I wasn't aware, you did. But anyway, it's just you. That doesn't count much', Kruzmaka responds smirkingly.
'Since everyone else can take authority over the film's message, right? Have you not said so a couple of seconds ago?'
'No, no, no! I mean, how I like to see the movie and how every one else likes to see the movie, that altogether will go into the great collective meaning of it!'
'What meaning? It has none, I say.'
Rudger:
'Are you nuts? I do have an intention! It's just not that I can dominate my audience with what I think is the most important message of the movie!'
'HaHa! You're funny!', Kruzmaka laughs out loud. 'Alrighty, but I do it then for you! I am going to say that this film is a piece of crap and unworthy to watch, since what you say is, that what every one else says is of equal importance. And I find it very important to say that it's meaningless. What can you do about it?'
'You are stupid! Every film creates like an infinite number of new contexts in an absolutely indeterminable way’. That is why I myself cannot be the one who determines it. That does not mean, and I repeat, that does not mean, I have no intention!'
'You can't determine? You cannot say in one sentence what your movie is about? Come on, give it a try!'
'What the fuck is wrong with you? The movie is about ... about ... suffering! About the hell a person goes through when facing an identity crises, about all the different perceptions about different people who want to oppress that person's unique perception!'
'Nah, won't do it. Make it quick and dirty. Take just one sentence out of your script. You have a script, do you?'
'You are bullying him!', the moderator wants to get her voice back and be of assistance to Rudger. But he shoves his arm right in front of her face to shut her up.
'Here! Here is your damn sentence, right from the lips of Gillian, our main character:
I WANT TO LIVE, I WANT TO DANCE, I WANT TO FUCK!’
Kruzmaka bows and applauds with words:
'There you have it. Well done, my dear film maker, well done! You've just achieved a Guy Ritchie, may I say. Strong, short and to the point. Make that your main message.'
Picture source:
Foto von Matt Botsford auf Unsplash