Interview Yorgos Lanthimos (‘Alps’)

Amsterdam, Eye Film Institute, Tuesday 11 April 2012

The Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos has his provocative art film ‘Dogtooth’ followed by the intense ‘Alps’. Sex and violence again and gripping actions by individual characters again. In the renewed Eye a conversation with the filmmaker about his vision on cinema: ‘I decide not to make a shocking film beforehand’.

Under a single window sits the Greek director in a beacon of sunlight; it is one of the few places where the heat in our country has to think of the south, although Lanthimos prefers international ideas. No boundaries, frameworks or easy ways out; anyone who has seen his movies will recognize it. Hard, stylized and with fragmentary peaks in brutal violence and sex, the filmmaker shows a world that is difficult to identify with. After ‘Dogtooth’ won the Un Certain Regard program at Cannes, and the next Oscar nomination, everyone was suddenly interested in the Greek’s new work, and whether he would remain faithful to the structure created in ‘Dogtooth’. ‘Alps’ gives that answer in the first seconds, and then again gives a terrifying and oppressive picture of a sectarian group of people, speaking in absurd sentences. A logical successor, although ‘Alps’ started out very differently as an idea, Lanthimos explains: ‘In the beginning I had a discussion with Efthymis Filippou, with whom I write scripts together. He thought about death and the ways people deal with it. In their efforts to cope with the loss, they could write letters with people asking them to behave like the deceased. A good idea, but it didn’t really feel cinematic to us.’

The idea

Lanthimos speaks calmly, a lot and allows each question to sink in before he gives a decisive answer. From the first idea of ​​’Alps’ to its final premise it wasn’t a very big step, he explains: ‘I then came up with the idea of ​​a sister who herself approached people to take over the role of the deceased. We then started writing the film, but after discussions we thought it would be more interesting to make it into a group. Filippou and I are very interested in group behavior, so we were able to let the main character develop and make it clear in response to the other group members, who each think differently.’ The film is as sinister as the plot seems, but the tension manifests itself under the skin and not, as is much more common these days, in grand shock effects. These are terms that the Greek clearly does not consider, including the provocative nature of his films: ‘It is not a decision to provoke something from the public. I’ve heard from people’s reactions that they find the films provocative, but it’s not my approach as a filmmaker. Moreover, every person is different. What is shocking to one person will hardly mean anything to another. Every decision that I or my crew makes will apply to what we want to say with the film, and what the story is about. Sometimes we are aware that documents can appear offensive. Then we see if it fits in the movie, and then we decide whether or not to keep it in. But everything happens in a process. I decide not to make a shocking film beforehand.’

acting vision

The way in which the Greek then discusses his process explains the way in which his actors and actresses play so separately. Their attitude, use of language and intonation can hardly be compared with other films. This was a conscious choice for Lanthimos: ‘I have a certain philosophy about acting and about what I like in a film. Often I see an actor or actress trying too hard. You see them thinking they should play sad or angry now. Looking at that, I don’t believe it. So I cast professional actors and amateurs side by side until I get a good mix, then let them see the script just once. Then when they’re on set, I simply ask them to play whatever feels right. And maybe they’re making a mistake, or forgetting a bit of dialogue; then we do the scene again. By not letting everyone act too consciously in this way, but being more present in the recording as a character and body, I make sure that they are slightly adjusted every take. In this way they achieve the performance I want from them in a very organic, yet structured way.’

Abroad

It’s a different view, but given the awards for ‘Dogtooth’ and the many positive reviews of ‘Alps’, it certainly didn’t do the filmmaker any harm. It is also a philosophy with which he can break not only film boundaries, but also national boundaries: ‘My next project, rewritten with Efthymis Filippou, will probably be filmed in England. It will be an English language film. It’s not easy to film in Greece, but besides that, I don’t think cinema is a medium that is limited to national borders. I always wanted to film everywhere. And Greece, various media have written about that a big wave of new good filmmakers is coming from. I don’t think that’s true. There are some good movies, but they are too different to really speak of a new movement. I also prefer to watch the old Greek directors. Alexis Damianos or Nikos Papatakis. Those are the real heroes for me.’