Flavia Laviosa 499 FAMILY and ART in FRANCESCA ARCHIBUGI S
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Flavia Laviosa 499 FAMILY AND ART IN FRANCESCA ARCHIBUGI S CINEMA (AN INTERVIEW) he need to sublimate the familiar and ordinary in everyday life is a sentiment that underlies Francesca Archibugi s work. This 42-year- old filmmaker from Rome has received unanimous critical acclaim and awards for her several films: Mignon è partita (Mignon Has Left), 1988; Verso sera (By Nightfall), 1989; Il grande cocomero (The Great Pumpkin), 1993; Con gli occhi chiusi (With Closed Eyes), 1994; L albero delle pere (Shooting the Moon), 1998; Domani (Tomorrow), 2000. Archibugi explores friendship, love affairs and family relationships in the life stories of people of her own generation and the next. Inspired by François Truffaut s films about children, Archibugi has brought to life a polyhedral human universe. She casts her poetic gaze upon a mosaic of the smallest emotions, and examines the most diverse private worlds. She has an honest talent, and, while hovering between comedy and civic commitment, she offers audiences carefully orchestrated films dealing with a spectrum of sociological issues relating to the new Italian familyscape. The cinema of Francesca Archibugi is grafted in the complex galaxy of the Italian family. The evolutionary process of the family gives her the opportunity to explore the fluidity of this term, elaborate its multiple meanings and redefine parental figures and educational roles. Using the family as a societal cell, she represents various trajectories of life and places her young and adult characters in a symbiotic relationship of human apprenticeship. With an empathetic authorial eye, Archibugi s cinematic narrative portrays the relationships, emotions, anguish and frustrations of the post-everything generation. Acting as a psychologist, sociologist, educator and parent, Archibugi can be defined as the director of the growing-up Italian. She documents, analyzes, chronicles and celebrates the qualities that make children and adolescents cultural protagonists of our era. The following interview is an analysis of the director s film production in the context of the socio-cultural changes in post-modern Italy. It was conducted in Archibugi s apartment in Via delle Fornaci in Rome on March Flavia Laviosa 500 16, 2002. In spite of her numerous commitments and busy schedule while exploring new locations for her new film set in Lombardy, Archibugi without any hesitation made herself available for a one hour interview on a Saturday afternoon. She was very approachable, flexible and generous with her time. Warm and calm in her speech, while convincing and profound in her ideas, she was willing to engage in a discussion on her artistic choices and philosophical values. Her voice was modulated by a cheerful, self-ironic sense of humor, while the conversation was rich in content and critical in the analysis of cinema, society and morals. The interview was videotaped, transcribed and translated from Italian into English by this interviewer. The interviewer and Archibugi are indicated respectively with the following initials: L., Laviosa, Flavia; A., Archibugi, Francesca. *** L. Children and adolescents are cultural protagonists in your films in the sense that they, people of few years of age as you define them, are often victims of family situations and they seem to act as moral judges towards the actions of adults, who are usually their parents. Are your young characters in the position of expressing a critical and moral judgment towards their parents? A. Do you have children? L. No. A. The main characteristic of the age of adolescence is to be critical towards parents. It is a natural stage, necessary to acquire one s own identity. When this does not happen, there is often something that does not work like in situations when, for example, there is an excess of emulation or no need to read adults actions critically. This is a psychological and anthropological thesis. This particular situation is usually a spark for me to narrate characters, and characters are better presented in moments of crisis. Charlie Chaplin said that there is nothing more boring in a film than a happy marriage, not because they do not exist or because there are no profound and true relationships between parents, but because when there is no conflict there seems to be nothing to tell. So, even in a situation of happy life, if I want to narrate a moment, I tend to choose one of crisis and conflict. In this way, children seem to be more critical or parents more fragile than they really are, just because I have isolated those characters in a moment of crisis in their lives. Let s say that it is a dramaturgic device. L. Parents, both fathers and mothers, seem to have lost their parental authority. Do you look at them with a moralistic eye, almost punitive? Are there moral overtones in your films? Or is your narrative gaze merely descriptive of realistic situations? Family and Art in Francesca Archibugi s Cinema 501 A. It is difficult to say and it is difficult to do self-exegesis. I do not know exactly what a parent should be like. I am a parent and I do not know, so I find it difficult to say what a mother should do. It is easier for me to present characters who make mistakes and so the accent on them is colored with moralism, but for what I said before, it is precisely in a situation of conflict that there is something to say. It is not true that I am always on the children s side. Very often children do wrong things, but it is the spectator who is more inclined to forgive them, it is not me, and it is normal that it is this way, it is human. A mother or a father who makes a mistake gets all the blame, but it is not my gaze, it is the gaze of the spectator that does it. L. In one of your interviews, you mentioned that feminism has corroded the family, an institution that had been immota or motionless for centuries. So in your films families seem to be in movement . What is your opinion about these transformations and in what direction is the family going? How would you define family today? Do you think that this original word has become obsolete and archaic since the family has taken so many other forms? A. Let s say that not only feminism, but the entire women s revolution in 1900, even before the feminist movement, has affected the family, starting when women came out of their homes and entered the work force. Some believe that this was the greatest anthropological revolution in the century, more important than the October Revolution, to give you an idea. It was a real change in life and in the social structure, I think. Let s say that the family, as an institution without love, as it still was in 1800, when people lived together, raised children and continued to live their lives without communicating, gradually lost reason to exist, thank heavens! What seems to have happened violently in the center of the family is not a social pact anymore, but a pact of love that two people stipulate. Not without surprise, there are so many separations, so many divorces when this love crumbles, ends, changes. I think that the family continues to exist because it is the engine of the world. By family, I mean a young man and a young woman who fall in love, love each other, live together and wish, without even knowing why, to have children. In their love there is a very powerful energy that is the preservation of the species. So, I think that this will never end, but now to this union we ask something new that we did not ask before: happiness, that people are happy together, and if this happiness is not there, it is not right. Therefore it is licit, and it is becoming more and more natural, to break the pact. I think that this is only a positive change. Obviously children suffer a lot because breaking a pact of love between a father and a mother is a psychological earthquake. There are two parts of you that separate; before you were one thing made of two things, then you become a thing made of two separate things, and we need to take this into account. On the other hand, this is the direction and I think it is the right direction. It is also a direction Flavia Laviosa 502 based on the fact that women do not succumb to male authority and that women are free to fall in love, and most of all have the right to happiness. L. It seems that adults are ready to different seasons in their lives, different stages and different forms of happiness. Are children, the new children, the children of this century and the end of the past century ready to accept these changes in the family and their parents choices? There have been generations in transition between children of parents who never separated and children of the first separated couples. Is there an almost natural evolution in the psychology of acceptance of parents separation? A. There have always been separations especially among the upper classes and the aristocrats. Wealth gave the right to freedom and happiness, it was certainly more painful and difficult, but we can read Anna Karenina. People separated, started new relationships, or asked for divorce. This is something that happened in the past, so there has always been the need for a couple that is not happy together to break up. This, however, was not an option for the lower classes.