I’m a writer and often I feel the same awkwardness when people ask me to explain the content or meaning of my work. The vision is clear in my head, but to articulate it into simple words, is more difficult than the actual process of writing. So, I could understand Akerman’s dilemma here, plus she was still a young director then. Regardless, the movie that came out is great, that all that matters in the end.
Seyrig was already an icon of European art cinema when she played Jeanne Dielman.. Akerman was young, nearly totally unknown, and obviously in awe of the coup she'd scored in landing Seyrig.
Where did you get this? Fascinating to see Akerman trying to get through to her actress who seems to want to know more than Akerman can verbalise. Akerman also comes across as shy and not entirely confident, and its like the actress is treating her like a film student who doesn't know what she is doing. Anyway, the result is an enigmatic film which is monumental amongst feminist films. Thanks for posting!
This situation almost NEVER exists in a standard filming; you read the script, get made up, sort the blocks, the marks, the lighting and then in the take you are supposed magically to be the person, to all potential viewers, in perpetuity. It is thus incredibly important to get it right, not least beacuse there are a lot of professionals behind the camera who know exactly what they are doing (mostly!) and expect you to know and do the same. If one actually looks at the finished scene in this extraordinary film, of Jeanne brushing her hair, one sees and interprets every move, every hesitation, everything which contributes to what that person may be thinking and feeling. The fact that this marvellously gifted director, possibly somewhat intimidated by reason of her youth and shyness, seems to be prodded somewhat into divulging something by the actor, is actually able to to do this is very special. Of course, it has a lot to do with the fact that Delphine Seyrig was so demanding, but that is because she was an exceptionally fine actor (one of the best I have seen on film) and was also able to speak plainly and without fear to her director, and the demands of the role - almost unparalled in any film I have seen - required it. In this, I have never come out of any film where a character has been more real, more vital, and more tragic; to me, Jeanne Dielman was a real person of great courage and fortitude, gradually broken down by her circumstances, and I wept for her. However, I like very much the interjection of one of the behind-the scenes crew, who bluntly puts it: "I understand exactly what you want" to Akerman; She's obviously pissed off with what she sees as some irritating diva making a point! In theatre, any actor will tell you that the most exciting part of the work is that point in rehearsal where the script is off the page, movement begins and where each actor, with the director, begins to explore further; behind the lines, changes in inflexion, silence, all the things which build. The only thing which is better is the pure magic (and terror) of the first night, and then the subsequent ones where it all fits into place, and the very very special night when something extra happens. With film, almost without exception, none of this occurs, and futhermore, you are doing it all in a vacuum, there is no audience, you can't get something wrong and correct it the following night, you can't go off-script, off-camera, even a millimetre off-mark. However, you can do something with a hair-brush, set down a coffee spoon, even blink slightly more slowly, and the camera will pick it up and translate it into something meaningful. I read an interview from 1987 between Sheila Whitaker and Delphine Seyrig from a series of Guardian Film Interviews, where Seyrig is quite frank about her fear of the camera; she described it as partly to do with the actual fear, the added tension of being surrounded by a mostly male environment and the fear of knowledge of what the camera picks up. In the same series, there is an interview with Jack Lemmon in which he talks about the nightmare of shooting that was "Some Like It Hot", and describes how instinctively Marilyn Monroe responded to the camera; how she almost seemed to communicate with it, and knew exactly what it demanded of her. Perhaps Seyrig and Monroe were opposite ends of the spectrum, but it is very interesting to read about their approaches; both are competely magical on film, in absolutely everything they did there.
This is absolutely not true. Maybe it is for TV Movies or films that are only made for commercial reasons, but what you're talking about is basicly the job of the director. This situation where actor and director are trying to find a similar understanding of a scene is something I saw an literally every set I've ever been to. Outstanding film and performance in Jeanne Dielman anyway.
Well Delphine was super demanding and I loved how Chantal Ackerman DID NOT give up she tried and refuted her best to give back all the answers to seyrig's questions, even though those seemed rather demagogy
I’m a writer and often I feel the same awkwardness when people ask me to explain the content or meaning of my work. The vision is clear in my head, but to articulate it into simple words, is more difficult than the actual process of writing. So, I could understand Akerman’s dilemma here, plus she was still a young director then. Regardless, the movie that came out is great, that all that matters in the end.
Seyrig was already an icon of European art cinema when she played Jeanne Dielman.. Akerman was young, nearly totally unknown, and obviously in awe of the coup she'd scored in landing Seyrig.
It's always wonderful to see how the greatest works of the youngest art were made! Thank you very very much for this gem!
delphine has no chill.
Where did you get this? Fascinating to see Akerman trying to get through to her actress who seems to want to know more than Akerman can verbalise. Akerman also comes across as shy and not entirely confident, and its like the actress is treating her like a film student who doesn't know what she is doing. Anyway, the result is an enigmatic film which is monumental amongst feminist films. Thanks for posting!
I love chantal ackerman . Rip
Fascinating stuff, and a bit of priceless footage one should add. Thanks for the upload!!
This situation almost NEVER exists in a standard filming; you read the script, get made up, sort the blocks, the marks, the lighting and then in the take you are supposed magically to be the person, to all potential viewers, in perpetuity.
It is thus incredibly important to get it right, not least beacuse there are a lot of professionals behind the camera who know exactly what they are doing (mostly!) and expect you to know and do the same. If one actually looks at the finished scene in this extraordinary film, of Jeanne brushing her hair, one sees and interprets every move, every hesitation, everything which contributes to what that person may be thinking and feeling.
The fact that this marvellously gifted director, possibly somewhat intimidated by reason of her youth and shyness, seems to be prodded somewhat into divulging something by the actor, is actually able to to do this is very special. Of course, it has a lot to do with the fact that Delphine Seyrig was so demanding, but that is because she was an exceptionally fine actor (one of the best I have seen on film) and was also able to speak plainly and without fear to her director, and the demands of the role - almost unparalled in any film I have seen - required it. In this, I have never come out of any film where a character has been more real, more vital, and more tragic; to me, Jeanne Dielman was a real person of great courage and fortitude, gradually broken down by her circumstances, and I wept for her.
However, I like very much the interjection of one of the behind-the scenes crew, who bluntly puts it: "I understand exactly what you want" to Akerman; She's obviously pissed off with what she sees as some irritating diva making a point!
In theatre, any actor will tell you that the most exciting part of the work is that point in rehearsal where the script is off the page, movement begins and where each actor, with the director, begins to explore further; behind the lines, changes in inflexion, silence, all the things which build. The only thing which is better is the pure magic (and terror) of the first night, and then the subsequent ones where it all fits into place, and the very very special night when something extra happens.
With film, almost without exception, none of this occurs, and futhermore, you are doing it all in a vacuum, there is no audience, you can't get something wrong and correct it the following night, you can't go off-script, off-camera, even a millimetre off-mark. However, you can do something with a hair-brush, set down a coffee spoon, even blink slightly more slowly, and the camera will pick it up and translate it into something meaningful.
I read an interview from 1987 between Sheila Whitaker and Delphine Seyrig from a series of Guardian Film Interviews, where Seyrig is quite frank about her fear of the camera; she described it as partly to do with the actual fear, the added tension of being surrounded by a mostly male environment and the fear of knowledge of what the camera picks up. In the same series, there is an interview with Jack Lemmon in which he talks about the nightmare of shooting that was "Some Like It Hot", and describes how instinctively Marilyn Monroe responded to the camera; how she almost seemed to communicate with it, and knew exactly what it demanded of her. Perhaps Seyrig and Monroe were opposite ends of the spectrum, but it is very interesting to read about their approaches; both are competely magical on film, in absolutely everything they did there.
+Joyce Little Very insightful, thanks.
This is absolutely not true. Maybe it is for TV Movies or films that are only made for commercial reasons, but what you're talking about is basicly the job of the director. This situation where actor and director are trying to find a similar understanding of a scene is something I saw an literally every set I've ever been to.
Outstanding film and performance in Jeanne Dielman anyway.
Well Delphine was super demanding and I loved how Chantal Ackerman DID NOT give up she tried and refuted her best to give back all the answers to seyrig's questions, even though those seemed rather demagogy
Fascinating director has idea actor wants specific details. You absolutely need boTh,is what I get here.
These four minutes have more dialogue than the entire Jeanne Dielman movie