Interview with Carina Rosanna Tautu by Corina L. Apostol Still

Interview with Carina Rosanna Tautu by Corina L. Apostol

Still Center/Buricul Pământului, Fiction &Animation/ a film by Carina Rosanna Tautu, Turtle Productions

Synopsis: Life has changed quite a bit in the former Eastern Bloc. We still have our goats but we watch way more television. And Eerie is pregnant with triplets.

CLA: Your 2005 film, Still Center, presents the experience of a young woman faced with a major decision in her life. It is a voice which one rarely hears, a perspective which is largely absent from the so-called Romanian New Wave cinema. Please tell us how you came to formulate this narrative perspective in your film and what challenges you faced during the creative process. CRT: I will answer with a quote from the film Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai (1999), directed by Jim Jarmnusch -“Matters of great concern should be treated lightly” – or in my poetic interpretation: things of great importance should be cared for with humor. I think kind humor is something rare in our own New Wave (whereas there is an abundance of dark humor/ irony). Generally speaking, in the context of international cinema, it is difficult to launch your career with a project which is not essentially dramatic – you risk not being considered a „strong director.” In crafting my thesis film, I was more interested in discovering myself than in proving anything; I wanted to test my limits as a director, explore working closely with actors and finding a way to reach a public which I considered my own.

I wrote the script for Still Center in New York in 2004, in my second-to-last year of study at the Columbia University Film School. My inspiration were some important events which I witnessed/reacted to that year: the landing on Mars of the space modules „Spirit” and „Opportunity,” the rhetoric of the presidential elections in the USA (George W. Bush’s re-election)- events which I tried to integrate into my life experience from Romania and the five years of study in New York, largely financed by art grants. Whoever has been through this process knows that a student life on art grants is almost like a paradox. Pragmatically, it was important for me to create a story which I could shoot on a very limited budget, yet at a decent professional level, on 35 mm film. At that time, high-definition filming strategies were limited. One of my Columbia University professors told me half-jokingly that I would go into the Guinness Book of World Records if I make the film on the budget which I had –truth be told, I had colleagues who had the same amount of funds for their first semester class projects at the university. Record breaking or not, I did manage to complete the film. And I remain indebted to friends in three countries for it: Romania, the US and the Republic of Moldova.

The advantage of being in an Ivy League school in New York is that no one will impose any creative restrictions on your work; the other side of the coin is that there are also no limitations in terms of the film budget – you can make projects for just a few dollars or for 100.000 dollars, if you can afford it. I didn’t have the means to be in the second category, but I think I managed to do a decent job through networking and using resources available around me. Looking back, after having taught now for a good few years at the university level, and well remembering my struggles as a student, I advocate for a middle way in producing one’s final thesis film. How you can differentiate among who is talented and who isn’t makes for an interesting discussion, to be addressed some other time. Creativity and technical abilities are two sides of the same coin in cinema, you can’t have one without the other. It is hard to find a balance between the two, and I know talented people who have given up film because of pressures for 1

decent production conditions. The battle for resources can easily wear one down. This would explain why there are so many films which are technically very good, made with big budgets, but which are not daring at any level.

I didn’t have a lot of illusions about the US when I moved to New York, aside from a dose of clichés which every foreigner gets from books, films and the internet. Personally, I needed to get out of my own cultural milieu – it was a risk which I took, even though it slowed down my career in terms of awards and exposure. The pay off for me was that it opened my mind and heart in many ways, a result that I cherish more than festival prizes. I do not mean that I was transposed in an ideal world. I would not recommend leaving one’s country to anyone without fully understanding what it entails. As you well know, the US is far from being a dreamland. Preparing for my thesis, I was intrigued (or better yet, irritated) by the rhetoric around women’s rights during the presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004. The single fact that it was (and still is) one of the strong suits of a political campaign seemed to me at least anachronistic. The lack of interest in women’s education is revolting. It is not easy for any woman to contemplate an abortion. I think all women want and have the right to be educated about their own body and their personal rights. Any position, may it be spiritual/ religious or otherwise – should take into account that we live in the 21st century and not the 12th.

Coming from Romania, a country which had a negative mortality record because of illegal abortions before the fall of the Iron Curtain, I did not expect that this would still be an issue in a country with a strong feminist tradition. It is strange that both Romania and the West seem to have forgotten all about the shocking images of orphans living in inhuman, cage-like conditions, in orphanages across the country right after 1989. It is an important point which can easily neutralize many of the aforementioned discussions. No one seems to remember – both in the U.S and Romania the Oscar-nominated documentary film Children Underground (2002), directed by Edet Belzberg.1 The main character from Still Center, Eerie was born out of my amazement in the face of an absurd political discourse, which was extremely popular at the time. This is what the prologue underlines: “formulating a problem is more essential that its solution.”

On the other hand, I wanted to make a Romanian film because my own strength as a storyteller comes from my experience at home, from the stories and realities in which I grew up. But I am convinced that I could not have produced Still Center without having lived quite a few years in a different culture. I would not have had the strength to undertake such a apparently banal subject (getting pregnant), in a slightly absurd, tragic-comedic way (pregnant with triplets in a changing world) if I had lived in Bucharest. I like a light touch, I don’t like to cringe. I have noticed that the American public understands the film very well, although it is quintessential Romanian. Technically, it is a mix between what I learned both in Romania and in the US in regards to script-writing and directing. In other words, I was more interested in the drama of a banal emotional situation which nonetheless creates debates at the social and political level, in the context of a global technological revolution. The contrast between the two areas, the emotional and the technical one, seems very clear to me.

CLA: Briefly, how would you characterize film production in the last decade in Romania, or the so-called

1 Edet Belzberg’s documentary follows the lives of five homeless Romanian children who live in a Bucharest subway - among 20,000 unwanted children who were born as a result of a social policy forged by Nicolae Ceauşescu that outlawed contraception and abortion in an effort to increase the nation’s work-force. The film depicts the difficult lives that these children lead, and the often unsuccessful efforts of social organizations to return them to their homes, enroll them in school, or place them in orphanages.

New Wave? CRT: I think it is not that different from any other wave in cinema. It is a phenomenon that appeared in a particular social/ technological context – the re-organization of Romanian society in the 1990s – which spurred an effervescence in the national film school, UNATC, in Bucharest, in which many people who did not have access before 1989 were integrated. It was a general atmosphere of enthusiasm doubled by an infusion of European funds - essential in the creation of this Wave. I think the New Wave films share similarities stylistically; although most of them rely on describing a world profoundly affected by our existence before 1989 – there is no common political or social agenda. The Death of Mr. Lăzărescu(2005), directed by Cristi Puiu is probably the most universally accessible. An over-permeating sense of tragedy is also common.

CLA: How do you position yourself in this movement, which has quickly become so popular and celebrated both at home and internationally? CRT: Still Center precedes by one year the “official launch” of the Romanian New Wave on the US film market – although the Romanian directors had already won prizes at Cannes. In the US the Wave hit a couple of years later. My film was also the first Romanian short-film acquired by the IFC(Independent Film Channel) before the aforementioned feature films.

I should not be the one giving the final verdict whether my film can be integrated or not in the New Wave. Recently one of my former professors, Richard Peña, the Director of the Film Society at the Lincoln Center and the NYFF (New York Film Festival) noted I was ahead of the curve. But more than being or not a part of this movement, I am very happy that people like you are interested in my work – and I would like to ask you in turn: what did you find interesting in my film?

CLA:As an art historian who has been investigating the art production in Eastern Europe and Russian in the past two decades, I was struck by a certain sensibility in your film – this made me realize the masculinization of visual space in Romanian films which have been in the headlines recently. Without diminishing the importance of these films, which have put the Romanian film school squarely at the center of debate internationally, I think they nonetheless somewhat conform to expectations formulated in the West about our recent history. This becomes a more obvious tendency if you also take into account exhibitions dedicated to Eastern Europe which have been staged in the West in the past 15 years – which are dominated by key-concepts such as the post-community identity, the post-socialist conditions, memory, trauma etc. It seems to me that we have become rather stuck in this rhetoric and instead of discussing what the urgencies of the present are and how we may change our culture to respond to them through collective solutions – our gaze is fixed backwards, towards a past contemplated with fascination and nostalgia. At the same time it is obvious that these stories are told from the perspective of men, while most treat women’s experience as something in the margins, an after-thought that helps their story.2 In short, I appreciated your film, both personally and professionally, as it is firmly grounded in the “here and now” and puts at the center of discourse the choices and dilemmas of a young women, with which I partly identify, and which addresses many of us directly…

CRT: I think the psychoanalyst Fritz Pearls once said “everything is projection.” The West still needs positive reinforcement post-tearing down the Iron Curtain – which was a good thing in itself, although maybe not so well engineered in the long term – judging by the current social events and upheavals in

2 An exception to this rule is Cristian Mungiu’s 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days (2008), a landmark production for its exploration of women’s dire experiences in Romania during the dictatorship.

the region. And we, at home, craved international recognition among cultured and civilized nations, not to be considered “The Third World” anymore (I include myself in this category, after all, which artist doesn’t seek confirmation?!). There is no offer without a demand and vice-versa. I have more questions for the festival organizers and film/art critics in the Vest, rather than for the Romanian New Wave. In the end, there is a catharsis in telling stories form a turbulent past, personally as well as a people. But as you correctly pointed out, you cannot stay trapped in the past. With the role of a curator or artistic director comes a great responsibility, I think the world in general, not only Romania is caught up in a nostalgia for the past and therefore in clichés. In New York they are talking for some good years now about the crisis in film criticism – there are no more critics, everyone knows that it is all about P.R. It is a vicious circle between whomever has access to funds to make films, the lack of independent critics and the cultivation of a public for a certain type of films – in my opinion the audience is created or destroyed through the interaction of the aforementioned elements.

Realism interests me, but when I want to communicate something “real” I prefer to make a documentary – here I am paraphrasing Lindsay Anderson. I read in some Cherokee stories that when someone asks you a question, one should reply by telling them a story. In my fiction work I attempt to do so, tell a tale that poses a question, presenting to the viewer a story space in which everyone can look for his/her own answer. Our minds work and grow by association, and not linearly.

This doesn’t mean one should not work in different styles, because I think it is important to challenge yourself, but I think that a thesis film should be an self-exploration first and foremost. Although I don’t necessarily mean to differentiate between genders, I think that being a woman places me in a special category. I believe very much in the balance between masculine and feminine, from a feminist perspective. I would very much like to see a good film – realistic or not - about a male character who has the courage to explore his own limits without seeing himself as the sole tragic figure who “sees the world” as it is. One of the best American films that I’ve seen recently is Blue Valentine,(2010) directed by Derek Cianfrance – in it there is a courageous exploration of a masculine perspective within a balanced masculine-feminine story. Furthermore, I would like to see a film about a man who can understand the world better if he has a woman at his side as his equal, both sharing the same tragic conscience.

In terms of context, of course, I also have a lot to say about the period before 1989. My personal experience before and after 1989 includes paradoxes which I can only address – at least for now - in tragic-comic mode. Still Center references the past as well. Yet, seeing life’s fun and naïve sides does not mean a naïve perspective on life; I think that the “abyss”, reality, is included. Sadness is present, but I chose not to transmit a feeling of total despair through my films. The situation at a global level is desperate - not what is going on the screen, but what is going on around us on the street.

There is a tendency to present fierce scenes in films devoid of context. This is happening in the US, in the “mumblecore” movement for example, in which the stories are so deeply personal that one does not even realize when or in which part of the US they are unfolding. It has an obsession with individuality usually out of a larger social context; in my opinion, context is key in determining a personal trajectory but it is challenging to convey it. Without context, the tragic thus becomes distorted – a sort of hyper- tragic.

The role of an artist is to provoke our minds, to inspire us to find solutions to problems. The reality check is important, but what’s the use for it if paralyzing? Art can make us realize the importance of compassion for others, it can help us connect through our humanity. Hope in its true sense and healthy dose is an essential, integral part of healthy human psyche. To inspire others in finding solutions, you

not only have to know yourself, but how the world works around you, the social and political context. The so-called Western World has an interesting tendency of preferring to watch tragic stories about the East, Africa or the Middle East. It is their version of “if things are bad in my backyard, then I’m happy they are bad in my neighbors’ too.”

For some years now I have been going to films and watching the reactions of the audience around me – especially in the wealthy areas of Connecticut or New York, people go to the cinema to watch films about poor people from the “Third World,” and afterward they go to nice restaurants and drink fine wine to sleep well. In poor areas, cinemas show blockbusters about alien civilizations, superheroes and rich people – I suspect that this kind of films make these people sleep well in return. As they say, if you don’t have your own dreams, you end up living somebody else’s dream.

CLA: With what film directors do you see yourself in dialogue in this film? CRT: Aesthetically, Still Center integrates naïve art and animation with live action, while the rhythm of the dialogue is inspired from the style of Bertrand Blier and Hal Hartley. I was very happy that the film critic Alex Leo Şerban (who sadly passed away recently) acknowledged the above-mentioned influences. I am also grateful as because of him my film was shown to a full house at the Anonimul International Film Festival in 2007.

CLA: What were the audience and critics’ reactions to this film? CRT: The response which I got from the young Romanian audiences in Sf. Gheorghe was probably the best award I have ever received. The film was well received by different audiences from Cleveland, Ohio, which is considered “the heartland” in America to the young but sophisticated people who travelled to Sf. Gheorghe. It is very special to feel the pulse of the audience who laughs at the jokes you wanted them to laugh at or holds their breath at the scenes you wanted to pay attention to.

In the end, I make films because I want to communicate with audiences, I want to be in constant dialogue with them. This does not mean I want to please them, or merely provoke them; I would rather like to enter in a call-and-and-response dynamic, as in the eastern music tradition. What is the role of a director if not to throw ideas at the audience, and receive feedback, from which both parties can learn something? I cannot grow as a director without the reaction of an audience who is willing to enter into this dialogue. Of course fame and material success are important in my job, but without this interaction, without provocation from both sides, it is easy to get stuck in your own celebrity status.

CLA: How do you see the condition of women in the contemporary film industry, as directors, producers – but also from the perspective of the representation of women in film in general? CRT: Internationally, women directors’ voices continue to be discouraged. It is only in the past two years that I have noticed a push for more diversity in script writing – and recently at the Sundance Film Festival, things are moving in the direction of integrating more women in the field. I recently noticed that the Romanian delegation to the Berlin Film Festival includes two women directors – it is somewhat unexpected and I am happy for it and curious to see their films.

I think a lot of people don’t realize that only 10-15 years ago women were not exactly welcomed in the Romanian film school. A decade may seem like a long time, but mentalities change slowly – considering that it took two decades for us to have a New Wave. From my personal experience, I can share with you that when I was thinking of applying to the UNATC, I was told up-front to not even try to get into the Cinematography department, where they didn’t admit women on principle. I had a colleague at UNATC in Bucharest who was refused when she petitioned to be transferred to this department during her

studies; being ambitious and talented, she continued to pursue her dream and she was eventually accepted at the prestigious FEMIS in Paris, in the Cinematography section - she now works professionally abroad. Fortunately, the situation has changed drastically in the past couple of years – I know that now they admit more women in the Photography Director department, but it important to keep things into perspective.

Everyone who understands how the film industry works (including artistic films, in my opinion) knows very well that a director or camera operator does not come to maturity through one film. There is a growth process involved, which requires practice and substantial resources to perfect one’s voice, tone, ideas and style. It is very easy to find excuses why there are no women in cinema – it is a tough job, the psychological pressure is enormous, women are not meant for this etc. These are more or less valid reasons. When I was a student at Columbia University there was a joke going around: “We will have a women president in the US, before we have a women win the Oscar for directing.” The numbers are telling in 2005, only 6% of 250 box-office films were directed by women.

Since 2010, the joke no longer applies – since Katherine Bigelow has changed the rules of the game. But she is still an isolated case. I would like to imagine that, besides numbers, the attitude towards what a film with a female perspective is, will also change. This attitude has nothing in common with TV series such as Sex And The City for example, which I consider degrading rather than liberating. I think what we generally lack in cinema is a serious exploration of the feminine spirit per se, and to be set free from the pressure of being more manly than men - The Hurt Locker (2010) is at least problematic from this perspective.

A feminine perspective is just as strong – both emotionally and intellectually – as a male perspective. I consider them two complimentary points of view, not opposites. It is important that we have women directors who have the courage to tell their own stories, without succumbing to the pressure of demonstrating that they also have “force.” I think this pressure undermines precisely the notion of an authentic female voice. But for this to change, several factors should be set into motions, not unlike the ones that set in motion a “new wave”. We need a real network of support for women in film, may they be producers, directors, script writers etc. This implies a relaxation of one’s ego and the realization that together we can achieve more and better than in competition with each other – something which I sadly see hindering women’s accomplishments. We also need and audience who is open and encourages these female voices. And lastly, for creating such an audience we need critics and festival program directors who would dedicate themselves to this cause.