28 October 2007
Garin Nugroho on Tokyo International Film Festival and diversity
Posted by admin under: Festival; News; Sutradara .
It is perhaps not too great an exaggeration to say that Garin Nugroho has almost single handedly put contemporary Indonesian cinema on the map. Since the release of his hugely promising first feature film “Love in a Slice of Bread” in 1991, Nugroho has consistently demonstrated a keen interest in telling stories that deal with challenging social and political subject matter. Most importantly, he has managed the enviable task of pairing that interest with an incredibly original and compelling artistic voice. Nugroho credits the Tokyo International Film Festival as playing a pivotal role in launching his career. He has won twice at TIFF. His second feature “Letter to an Angel” won the Gold Prize in the Young Cinema Competition and he received the Special Jury award at the 11th TIFF in 1998 for “Leaf on a Pillow.” His early success at TIFF helped to raise Nugroho’s international profile, and with his winnings he was able to establish his own film studio in Indonesia.
This year Nugroho returns to TIFF as one of three co-directors of “Serambi,” a film included in the Winds of Asia category that offers an intimate portrait of villagers in Indonesia’s Aceh province and how they are coping in the wake of the devastating 2004 Tsunami. He is also a member of the International Competition Jury.
Question: How did TIFF first come into your life?
Answer: Mr. Tadao Sato came to Indonesia and he chose my first feature film for the Tokyo International Film Festival, “Love in a Slice of Bread” (1991). Then the second time I came was with “Letter to an Angel” (1993), which won an award at TIFF for Young Cinema, and with that came \20 million, for the director! [laughs] That film also won an award at the Berlin Film Festival and Best Picture at Taormina in Italy. This was all the starting point of my career, showing at film festivals. From the perspective of my own experience, I feel TIFF has two important aspects in particular. First, supporting young filmmakers and second handing out big money. For me, the money I won in the Young Cinema competition at TIFF changed my career because with that money I realized I could do something new in the future. I suddenly had the means to develop my own small studio, for example.
Q: A lot of things have changed in Asia. What place does Japan have in the region today? What new role can it play, both specifically in terms of cinema and more generally in terms of culture?
A: There is a paradox for Japan now I think. For a long time Japan was looking at its relationships with Asian neighbors from the perspective of how Europe and America interact and compete. But in the case of Japan and Asia, the interaction and competition is not simply a matter of politics and economics, it is a question of culture. Even just 10 years ago Japan was a bridge from Asia to globalism, especially in light of the leading role of the economy. But now there is China, there is Korea, and from the perspective of the Muslim world and its connection to globalism there is Malaysia, which has an economy that is developing very well. This all means that we have entered a new era of Asia, because questions of economy, globalism, and culture have become totally different than they were before.
Q: In this “new era of Asia,” what particular role do you think TIFF would be best served to adopt?
A: I think there is a very important role for the Tokyo International Film Festival to play because there remains this question that I am always asking, which is why are so many films that are made in Asia not recognized and distributed by Asian film companies in the region? Today it is the case that Iranian cinema, Chinese cinema, Korean cinema are all recognized by European and American distribution companies, and their films can be routinely seen at festivals. It seems today that Asian festivals and distributors then come second. This is a big question mark. If Japan could work to use its resources and take a leading role in distributing from Asia to Asia I think it could be a very important development. In terms of sending Asian films to Europe and America there are already a lot of companies doing that well.
Q: What do you think of your own position as a creator today?
A: I try to understand that my films are not popular films. Take “Serambi” for example. At home critics said it was the worst film in Indonesia. Even “Letter to an Angel,” which won top prizes in Tokyo, Berlin and Taormina, when they saw it they wrote about it like this: “Nugroho should go back to school to study film!” I know that I am not mainstream, and that means I won’t be able to get big money. In the end I tend to get most of my support from foreign countries, and my budget, a medium-sized budget, is around US$150,000, or US$200,000. For a big feature though, I know I can never get a big budget because of my limited audience.
Q: A lot of critics over the years have labeled you a “political filmmaker.” What do you think about that label? Does it accurately describe the focus of your work?
A: Let me say this. I believe a society is healthy when it has the opportunity to choose. On one level this means that we cannot only pay attention to economic capital. We must also pay attention to social capital, to cultural capital. On another level I can say I have always believed that culturally there are three interconnected points we should appreciate. There is popular culture, classical culture, and there is alternative culture. Classical culture represents the historical aspect, and it is enormously important to pay attention to it. If we just look at pop culture and consumerism it will be very boring, so classical culture represents times and places from which people can learn and be reborn. Alternative culture is developed out of both popular and classical culture. So there is this huge dialogue between influences, and if a nation does not appreciate all of these aspects it will be misled. It will not be healthy. If you kill one aspect, you are killing yourself.
I make films about what I find interesting. And why are they about social and political themes? It is because the majority of Indonesia films are just pop culture products. That is good for consumerism, good for the economy, for relaxation. I enjoy it myself. But I think sometimes you need the tragedy. Because if you feel blood, then you can think from a different perspective. To put it another way, I think we need self-consciously social and political films because for a society its cinema is a bit like the guest in your house. If your guest has only one perspective, how can your family learn anything?
Q: So cinema should take on the role of teaching people about what they don’t already know? Opening their eyes a bit?
A: Just look for example at Indonesia. In Indonesia 99% of the films take place in Jakarta, they are in the Indonesian language, and focus almost exclusively on teenager issues. Now just imagine, we have 200 million more people, living on over 30,000 islands, 400 tribes speaking more than 500 languages! When Indonesians from all over the country see only movies from Jakarta, the capital city, and only about a small group of people, I think the result is that the multiculturalism of the country is killed. In reality Indonesia is a miniature multicultural world. There are so many religions, so many tribes, so many languages. Because of this I sometimes become angry. I think, what if I am from Papua? I see films and they never make a film about Papua. I never see my face up on the screen! And because of that I don’t feel like I am part of the house of Indonesia, the house of the world too.
It is why I look at social and political issues in my films. Look at “Serambi” for example. The film is about Aceh in the wake of the tsunami. Usually with Aceh it is the same old story of the fight against colonialism and religion. There are only two aspects to its representation: war and religion! Nothing else! There is nothing really about life. So I made a film about life. For the same reason I made a film about Papua, because it is a place that nobody normally would look at.
http://www.tiff-jp.net/enjoy/official_report/subtitleontiff_en.php?itemid=240
Comments are closed.