E30 • Creating Controversial Characters • ERIK POPPE, dir. of ‘Quisling - The Final Days’ at TIFF following the Norwegian Film Festival

In this conversation, Erik Poppe - the director of “Quisling - The Final Days”, which just premiered at TIFF following the Norwegian Film Festival, discusses his journey from photojournalism to filmmaking, emphasizing the role of art in raising questions and engaging audiences. 

He reflects on his influences, including Francois Truffaut’s 1970 film ‘The Wild Child”, the importance of personal narratives, and the challenges of portraying controversial characters - how creating empathy for these characters can be challenging yet rewarding.

Erik also shares his insights on his filmmaking process, the significance of preparation for film festivals, and how art's primary role is to provoke thought and discussion - through simplicity and truthfulness.

Like, subscribe and follow us on our socials @pastpresentfeature

Chapters

• 0:01 Past Present Feature, Hosted by Marcus Mizelle
• 0:19 Introducing Filmmaker Erik Poppe, dir. of "Quisling: The Final Days" at TIFF
• 3:51 From Photojournalism to Filmmaking
• 6:46 The Journey into Cinematography and Directing
• 9:42 Influences and Inspirations in Film
• 11:42 Francois Truffaut's "The Wild Child"
• 12:31 Exploring Personal Narratives in Film
• 15:52 The Making of Quisling: A Historical Perspective
• 18:42 Radicalization and Ideology in Film
• 21:32 The Art of Storytelling: Documentaries vs. Features
• 24:47 Navigating Controversial Characters in Film
• 27:38 Audience Engagement and Emotional Connection
• 30:30 Preparing for Film Festivals and Distribution
• 33:50 Advice for Aspiring Filmmakers

Transcript

Marcus Mizelle (00:02)

Welcome to the Past Present Feature podcast.

Marcus Mizelle (00:19)
In this conversation, Erik Popa, the director of Queaseling, The Final Days, just premiered at TIFF the Norwegian Film Festival, discusses his journey from photojournalism to filmmaking, emphasizing the role of art in raising questions and engaging audiences. He reflects on his influences, including Francois Truffaut's 1970 film The Wild Child, the importance of personal narratives, and the challenges of portraying controversial characters.

how creating empathy for these characters can be challenging yet rewarding. Eric also shares his insights on his filmmaking the significance of preparation for film festivals, and how art's primary role is to provoke thought and discussion through simplicity and truthfulness.

Marcus Mizelle (01:01)
I'm gonna start with a quote from you actually. My role as an artist is to raise questions and not hand out all the answers. Questions do start processes among people like discussions, thoughts, or fresh perspectives. So film may be able to make a small impact, a change, or even a hill. Erik Popa, pretty good quote. Thanks. Where does that philosophy come from, you think? Basically, that's why I went into becoming an artist, Leaving, generally studying.

film in Sweden for years. As I see it, know, art's function is to go into subjects, whether they're hard to discuss or they are in some way problematic, and go in and the subjects lift the problems and present it and allow the audience to then have a discussion, go into the subject.

When I see movies, sort of hand out the answer, they bore me. It looks like political movies from the seventies. You knew already after five minutes where you were going. So that's how I see it really. Yeah. You don't want to be handed some obvious thing. You want to be engaged. No, I want to engage the audience to be involved in a topic and look for answers themselves really. Gotcha. And you were born in Norway.

You were a photojournalist right out of high school. You took photos in conflict areas, including Rwanda and Afghanistan, working for a Norwegian newspaper, as well as Reuters. You turned to Scandinavia. You enrolled in the Drama Institute in Stockholm. So you were a cinematographer first before you moved into directing. That's right. Cinematography, what was it about that really grabbed you at first? Why did you choose to go into that area? Basically, I was a writer when I went into journalism. I was studying at the university.

believe that was going to be a writer. I got a post in the largest Norwegian newspaper. They told me that I have to start taking pictures. That led me to suddenly falling in love with photography and then having the combination of loving to write, taking pictures. That led me to film after I'd been sent back home to Norway hospitalized for six months. wow. I asked what you were hospitalized for? I was in Colombia.

And actually I was getting a virus. Probably was something I got there or it was in South Africa. But it led me to look into what sort of became my next step really, because too fast, too soon, I became the youngest in the international scene of conflicts, really. Taking pictures, handing me nominations for the world photo award. And everyone thought...

this was going to be where I was going to stay. But I didn't really, I was brave enough that I was good enough. And that led me to want to move on into film. And what seemed hard was to get into some of the major film schools. They allowed three to four students every second year. They were over a thousand people applying. you said three to four?

every second year. Crazy. Yeah, in the Dramatic Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. that's a door. School. I wanted to join, but I had already seven, eight years in conflict areas. was getting close to 28 years old and accidentally by reason they let me in, but I got a recommendation, tried to apply for cinematography and not direct. That might be

easy for them. that was really the reason. And was your priority? Yes, get in. But then the classes in directing and cinematography, edit and producing, they were all almost similar. When I was studying in my third year, they moved me over to directing. I did do the cinematography on a couple of feature movies as well as I was preparing my first directorial debut. Got you. So you had a short game and a long game, it seems like.

That's good. I was a grip for seven years, but the plan was to be five years so I could get into the industry as well. And then once I did, that was my film school, was being on big American film sets and just watching directors while I make $22 an hour moving lights around and shaping lights, which also is very similar as far as like the aesthetic and like how. Yeah. It wasn't cinematography, but it was an extension of cinematography and learning the practical, you know, what the hell are they doing over there with those flags? Like figuring out how that works.

I mean, in America, it's grips shape light. I know in the UK they don't. I the electricians do that, right? The grips are only doing camera support. But in Norway or in Scandinavia, do you have grips? How does that work? The same way as you guys do. So UK is the only one that's different as far as grips are only doing camera support. Yeah. I can tell you that my best friend while studying in Sweden was Daniel Bergman, one of the son of Ingmar Bergman. wow. He was actually a grip.

He was extremely well liked, respected, and he was really clever. And he just focused on being a great grip. He didn't want to be hit by everyone talking about that he was the son of Pinky Pergman. So it led him actually to direct movies. Amazing. It's about as working class as you can get on a film set, I feel like. All crew are working class, but there's grips. We got to move things around. We got to be safe. We got to be quick.

We got to know how to be efficient. But anyways, I guess we share the concept of just trying to get in and by anything's necessary, especially when you know that the door is small and you can't do the same thing everybody else is doing and expect unique results. No, in a way, but still I love the movie industry because there is always a way you need some luck. You need to be at the right place at the right moment, but still there are options. I just think that's...

Right. Really. Yeah. You just got to make moves. You got to get off the couch or get away from just talking about it and being about it. Can we just go back real quick? Photojournalism, though, because I am curious and interested about that. How did you get into photojournalism right out of high school? How did that happen? I was working for the major in newspaper while I was studying in the university. I had a column every second day where I was just doing interviews. There was this old man and me.

I was interviewing really among the older people and this old journalist senior, he was interviewing young people. So I was doing that while I was studying sociology in the university and then working more and more. They pushed me to really say that you can't have a photographer with you anymore. You need to take a picture of your objects. So I did. But then I was asked for an assignment to go abroad.

I did it once and that turned out quite successful based on the articles I got back home and the pictures. then I also have always been interested in foreign affairs, in the coverage of world affairs and then especially conflicts. I applied for a couple of more assignments. They gave me one and then suddenly it just started. It led me to the Falkland war.

It led me to Iran, Iraq, during the conflict, the apartheid, South Africa, and Cambodia, Vietnam, conflict there, and different areas. I was basically in Iran. I became a part of a group, of course, this NVG, the newspaper, they were the agent for Reuters in Norway. And Reuters could actually ask for help from every agent in the world and put them into...

which was young people and around really. So you said sociology though. So you've always been interested in human behavior before anything, which I mean, conscious about it enough to like also focus on sociology. And then you were required almost, it sounded like, to pick up the camera and snap your own photos because of whatever limitations. And then you took that and found what life gave you, right? And you ran with it. And it was an extension of what you were already doing in like foreign affairs and you dissecting human behavior and abroad specifically.

And then it's like your photography skills developed and then circled back around to you directing films and telling stories about people and your sociology. The thing you started out with was like, it's like a circle closed a little bit. The motivation for you to tell stories about humans was there from the beginning before the photography and cinematography. Was that being in journalism?

There was sent out requests from newspapers from Canada, from United States, from Britain all over. When I was with friends in North Thailand on the Cambodian border, was basically planned to be there just for some weeks. I ended up being there for 11 months. They were coming in request to Reuters, go out there in the field, interview people, do the stories for the particular newspapers. And I did. But what I felt was after a while was that

I didn't have control of the story. I felt less open-free to tell the story, what was going on. And it was edited and it was harder sometimes to recognize my story. once you handed it off and you gave it to the editors and then they just went and just did whatever. That was the business, but that felt really uncomfortable after a while. Yeah, it wasn't a reflection of what you were after. That makes sense.

Okay, so thank you for sharing your backstory. Were you watching movies at this time? you engaging in films? then if so, were some of the past movies that really hit you, that really stuck with you? Really, during those years in the 1980s, it was hard to be a regular cinema visitor because I was a place where there were no cinemas really. And you worked all day, all night. But coming back home to Norway to rest or to have...

I did, of course. I was always in love with going to the cinema, probably like all of us. I was, of course, watching the same movies as everyone else. I saw one movie when I was quite young by Fras Flats before called, I think, The Wolf Boy or something. was about a young boy. It was a beautiful black and white film about a doctor who had to take care of a young child. Is it The Wild Child? Yeah, The Wild Child.

1970, Francois Truffaut. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I remember that film, I don't know why, I just never got it out of my head. And I also saw another film called Kiss, I think it was by Ken Loach. Ken Loach, okay. Which also was hitting me quite hard. So that was stories told, not like huge studio productions. Sure. Which I of course love. Yeah. These are more intimate, independently.

Yeah, sometimes more intricate stories. It hits me harder, really. It seems like the onus is on the character journey in the emotional arc versus maybe some sort of trying to please a certain kind of market. Okay, let me read this synopsis for Kes, K-E-S, 1969 drama coming of age story, a British drama focusing on Billy Casper played by David Bradley, a tormented working class boy who is subjected to abuse both at school and at home. The son of a single mother.

Billy's existence is mostly bleak until he takes up an interest in falconry and begins training a kestrel that he finds on a nearby farm. While Billy forms a close bond with the falcon, his hardscrabble life and harsh environment prove to be a challenge to the boy and his bird. And real quick, I'm gonna read the Wild Child synopsis. In a French forest in 1798, a child is found who cannot walk, speak, read, or write. A doctor becomes interested in the child and patiently attempts to civilize him. They both sound like coming-of-age stories about children.

formative years and they find some sort of escape from some sort of struggle. That's what both of them would have. That's right. Why do you think you responded to that in that way? Besides all the universal coming of age elements? My sister and I was raised by my father. Our mother, she just left a day, one day. And that was in this sort of period of my life. So of course, there was something there. I felt that we're pretty friendly told. They were not a dramatic story.

But they were really stories about small issues in life rather than huge big dramas. In a way, I didn't fancy the way our family situation was with my friends. So I was probably just peeking into some worlds, trying to figure out what that was about, really. I can relate in a different kind of way, too. What do you call it? Like a connectivity issue when you're younger?

but a lot of us can find films accidentally or whatever. We find films and then we can feel connected in that way. And then all of a sudden, cut to adulthood and we're making movies. How cool, what a cool thing. I've never seen The Wild Child actually. I've heard of it, but I've not seen that. I'm gonna check that out. It is beautiful really, it is. I know David Lynch was dancing that film as well. Okay, David Lynch. Let me ask you this before we move into talking about your latest film here. Any film or films that most inspired you to make?

the kind of films that you make. And then the second part of the question would be, what kind of films do you make? The last question that's hard, what do I But I've always been thrilled by emotionally powerful stories. I really didn't end up loving science fiction stories. For me, movies have that ability through emotions to tell stories. So powerful. For me, truthful, honest, and also realistic.

really hits me hard. I did my first three, four movies. Five movies, they were contemporary stories. were other stories from my life as a journalist. it be more rigid, more nauseous. It's an autobiographical story. Which one was that? About my wife, which and me and while I've been in Congo and Somalia and Afghanistan, I've made myself into a woman. The subject was when the day arrives when your kids

I become so grown up that they start to get panic about where I am while being in Afghanistan and there are suicide bombers on the radio back home in Norway. They got panic and then you have to look for how do you deal with that? And you have a call to be out there. Even now I do small documentaries for the BBC or something in between while I'm waiting for the financial on my next movie. Okay. Can we talk about that later?

Yes, that sort of was an issue. What sort of ended for five movies, which was based on subjects around me. I have your bio here. There's one movie you may call Spa. Bunch of Five is the translation, 1998. It was made a movie in 1949, which is a classic in Scandinavia. It's a story based on a famous journalist at that time who became a filmmaker, actually like me, a really nice man.

He was studying the social situation in downtown Oslo, where the poor people live, where hunger-educated people live, where there kids. And what about these kids? So he made a study, put together a story from 1949, which became like a shock. I was having that film in mind and being an former Jell-O now doing feature movies. I wanted to see how far I could go.

and picking up social subjects which really was concerning me. So put together to assist a hard and an office downtown Oslo. And I started to get in contact with these young kids today. And I was doing a study in the situations where there were gangs, hard criminal gangs with kids from 11, 12 years and up to.

15, 16, 17 years old. No one really knew so much about this because it wasn't so well known. It was tucked away in its own world. But together with the social service and together with the police and with the kids, I saw it from three different angles and I studied it for a bit more than a year and then I put together the script. really wanted it to be a hard movie. A bit inspired by Mathew Kasowitz.

Lehane? Love that movie. I talk about that movie too much. It's in my top five. And the fact was that really he released that movie just some months before I was starting to shoot my movie. In a way, saw similarities really. I promised you I was resisting it, but about a minute ago when you were telling me about this, I wanted to ask Lehane. Yeah. movie just gets around and stays around. It's so crazy. It's really, really a masterpiece. Yeah.

So that sort of led me into it. And when I did the research on that film, I also stumbled on other issues as well, which I put together in my feature movie number two, which is a story called Hawaii Oslo. And then also my feature number three called Trouble Waters. This is your Oslo trilogy, apparently. That's right. Okay. Did you plan a trilogy or does it just come out? No. My first movie really become quite successful. I was...

allowed to start working right away with my next movie. That was my first international breakthrough, Hawaii Oslo. It was sold to more than 70 countries. then film number three, it was not based on my talent. It was just based on pure luck. That it really was the right subjects, the right movies. Maybe also like you were just coming from such an emotional place, not just for you, but for the world you were in.

I'm assuming this again, look into Metropolitan Oslo gangs. That sounds like something that's worthy of dissecting and presenting to an audience. Yeah. It was really creating a lot of noise in media and it lasted for six, seven, eight months. was just going on the TV station or whatever. Is it really true? Is it like that? And the police went out and said that, believe it or not, he has fictionalized five characters, but they are really based on what we are concerned about. Nice.

It became something like, if I was a journalist, I would try to present it, but it would be like a documentary. It would of course be hard. I wouldn't allow myself to make it that emotional that by doing it, like making a feature movie, I could actually bring the audience into the world of these five young kids and create emotional relationship. And I don't know another way than if it was a documentary. I must of course admit that

The years as a journalist did for a while color quite much or affect the stories I was looking into because I really had a strong need to go in and do relevant stories, which has relevance to the world at the moment when I do that, as well as of course I could do them spectacular. I could do them as a feature movie, great music, powerful, entertaining, but still choose subject.

topics that I really felt strongly for to get out there. I'm curious, moving it over into a fiction space, like what stopped you from doing documentaries only? Because it sounds like you're so close to being a documentary filmmaker only. I do small documentaries in between, and then I just go out there with a camera myself, maybe a sound. Same for me. Sometimes just me, and I go to these countries now. I'm going back to East Congo.

all the time or to the eastern parts of Afghanistan, the border of Pakistan. But to be honest, there is a world between the documentary and a feature. Doing a feature allows me really to be able to set up the story quite differently. And everyone knows it is a feature movie. That's a contract between the audience and me, of course. I find it fascinating to move quite close into the sense, the feeling of what can I do to bring the audience

into the room and almost feel that sense of being there, being in the situation I'm describing. Whether it be a documentary or narrative fiction? No, I would say that the narrative has several opportunities which I would never allow me to do with a documentary. Got you. It's interesting, there's an unspoken contract, you're allowed more space to do certain things.

Yeah. Gotcha. To do documentaries, you have to care for it so much, right? Because there's so much commitment and sacrifice and certainly not a financial pursuit. So what is it about documentaries that you love the most? Of course, the great thing about documentaries is that there is always an opportunity of just pushing the limits until you are taking control over the subject or story. Because you are imprinting yourself, you are manipulating to it. I think it's interesting to explore where are the limits between a documentary

and a documentary which I'm taking control over. I still believe in day, there is so much fake documentaries, there is so much fake going on that I find it quite hard. I find it problematic. The sensational stuff that one might see on, I don't want to call it on any platforms, but yeah. People are so clever setting it up and honestly they are directing it too strongly. They are affecting.

story that are affecting their objects and that type of documentaries I would do. Sometimes I find really interesting pieces which is exploring, having fun, finding some sort of a theme or a mix between different genres. Yeah, bringing over like cinematic genres or cinematic techniques to real life, to documentaries. It's so awesome. It's so amazing. It is really.

For me, it's hard enough to find time enough to put into what I'm basically still studying, which is the art of really making a great narrative feature. Forever. Yeah. Did you go to film school? I'm always in film school. really true. Thank you so much for sharing all that. We should talk about your new movie then. So I Googled queaseling just to see what would pop up. And of course your movie pops up and V...

Vidkun Quisling pops up who was a former minister of defense of Norway, politician and Nazi collaborator who nominally headed the government of Norway during the country's occupation by Nazi Germany during World War II. But the very first thing that pops up is a definition of Quisling, a traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country. So it leads me to ask, is that definition of that word based on Vidkun Quisling? Did he create that? He didn't create it. Winston Churchill created it.

Because just a week after that, Whistling took the power through a coup, actually made to a radio because he just went to the big radio station said, now I'm the head of Norway. Just a week after, Winston Churchill had a speech in the British parliament. Europe was about to get in war. He introduced that word based on the Bitcoin Whistling.

Why did you need to make this film? What was it for you? I had been looking into the subject of quizzling all the way back to 2003, but didn't really find the key into the story or how to tell the story and why, how I could make it relevant enough. then some years back, a family sent a diary to me. That was a diary by the priest who was sent into his...

prison to be his soulmate. This was Vidkun's personal diary. It was not Vidkun's diary. It was the priest who had made small notes. The priest, okay, yes. After every visit he had had inside the because he was sent into the prison to be represented in the church. And through their discussion, their dialogue, it was really not so much about religion, but it was really about guilt. Okay.

responsibility, but lies and truth. It was a meeting between the humanist and the passive. It was really powerful. So that was what really led me to doing this. So can I ask you, so would you say the priest and the viking character, are they both the main characters in this film? Well, they are the main characters, right? I did a film called The King's Choice, which was a huge production, as the one actually, but it was about the attack on Norway. It was about the Norwegian king.

who had to flew and it was the chaos. This was your last film or the film before the last one? No, I've done two films since that. This is my third since. That was the fact and I did a film called The 22nd of July which is about the attack of these young kids on this youth camp by this young Nazi sympathizer. And then this one which I felt was about the conclusion. It starts when everything falls apart.

By end of the war, he has been in For Otto Fitter, he has been running your way. And it's his fight to save his life. It's his fight to save his reputation. It starts with that he believes everything is done is right. This is a huge misunderstanding. He slowly realized that this isn't really going his way. And then there's this discussion between these two. The film is not...

capture in the cell, it's much more things going on. But what I thought was probably the hardest thing with this story and this film was how to make these meetings between these two inside a prison interesting enough. it's long and hard discussions. What actually turned out that was some of the most playful joys.

things to do in this film. And based on the first reactions from the audience, the whole test audience, it really also is working well. Can I ask you question real quick? Do you find that some of the things going into production, the things that you're most concerned about end up being the things that work the most? Yeah. And then conversely, the things that you think are going to be easy breezy possibly end up giving you some challenges? I've experienced that before. Isn't it always like that? Really? Is it always like that? Yeah. What is up with that?

It depends. It's not about my focus on the fact that's hard. So preparing well, it works well. But it's bad that I also prepare for the easy stuff. Sometimes it turns out like the small detail. It reminds me of this Bruce Lee quote. So never anticipate the outcome of the engagement. Expectations will not do you favors a lot of times. But anyway, I think the story here is about trying to make it truthful. because it is a powerful story and it is.

a relevant story because then I come to why now. The fact is living in a world today, waking up every morning, listening to those crazy guys, open men out there. Extremes. What? Extremists. First, are they believing? What are they thinking? And I'm really pissed more than pissed on them. I'm actually on myself because I really can't understand what's going on inside their mind. And the world right now has changed.

huge during the last 10, 15 years. And we are in the moment right now where things are really being messed up by some few people. then going back to whistling was one of them. And now having this sort of exotic, exclusive ability to get into his head, his mindset through the dialogue between the priest and him, we actually have a rare opportunity to

it closer on what really drives people. I think that is part of it really. He was not looking for sort of rich money, whatever. It was driven by ideology. And at least in Europe, we have a word, new word that we are using quite commonly now. It's called radicalism. It's about how people are getting radicalized. And it's some sort of like a new word, but the fact is,

The story about him is how he became radicalized being in Russia after the revolution. First believing in revolution as many people did. That was actually about raising the level of the poorest people, opening up instead of there was one rich Tsar family. So people thought that was maybe a good idea, but then suddenly

Lenin died stalling to go over and he was there as a Norwegian representative in Russia. He was really good in Russian. And then he saw that what he believed was a good idea was really horror. And he was working there for eight years, trying to get support and aid to the poor and the hunger. There was a huge hunger crisis in Ukraine and he was helping more than two.

200,000 people out of that hunger. But then he also was radicalized because he felt that this Bolshevism, nothing else was more dangerous. So he went back to Norway. Fascinating contrast where he was helping so many people, but also becoming radicalized without knowing it at the same time. He was really getting this clear theory that Bolshevism was a world thing, not even Russia. They really wanted to take over the world.

Redemption to revolutionists, he went back to Norway and he started to tell people, listen, what's going on there is crazy and we need to watch out. And then no one really listened to him through the early 1930s. And then suddenly he heard a speech by a man called Adolf Hitler. And then he realized that man says, well, I'm trying to tell these people. And that's the beginning of that story. the Wehrmauer period, the period between the World War I and II, correct? That's when he was radicalized.

I have been going into, my film, just to limit the time span of what I'm telling. As I've been doing in several of my movies, instead of doing all these flashbacks. Contain it to a specific space and time? It's going in and stay there. And so it starts when he's getting arrested and it ends when he's getting executed. Okay. And what is the value of that sort of containment in a way? Being working so contained is that the audience

are getting much more taken into. The actual drama scene by scene, moment by moment. For every time you cut back with a flashback or whatever, we know by research and science that you lose more potential for the audience. The drive gets disconnected, right? You can tell the story better that way, but you lose the potential of the sympathy. And that's why I've been looking into this. I did a PhD. I did a huge medical research.

on how to tell our stories today, how to do it much more than quite close to a subjective point of view instead of cutting in between different angles, different stories. Yeah, I got on this kind of kick about five years ago where I was doing a lot of writing and I was trying my hand at a lot of multi-protagonist stories and nonlinear stories and really challenged myself. I quickly learned that it is a difficult business. When it comes

to keeping emotional engagement and just engagement in general. When you're jumping off of a protagonist, a single drive that's simple and leads you through a story, let's just bring up the hero's journey for two seconds where it's, that's a simple, effective, solid paradigm to use. Not saying you should always use it, but it'll work for you. That's like the base model. But then once you start doing like ensembles and it's hard to give a shit when you're actually reading or watching it.

And I think it's because you get disconnected from one single emotional arc or one single emotional idea or whatever. I think I've gotten the base model figured out, but as far as that advanced kind of method, when you do see a really good nonlinear, multi-protagonist story, like what does make it go? What does keep it together? And what is the answer to that? Like a shared goal, a shared desire, shared emotional arc between?

Game of Thrones, it's not a movie, it's a TV show, but clearly it's in the title, They all want that power and that throne. That's what keeps it together, right? I must say that this film is the most risky I've done, a film called Uter, 22nd July, which is a story about young kids trying to escape from this terrorist, based on real facts, on what the kids told me. A few ones were survived. We put a reconstruction, made it again. But this film is as well...

really not risky. It's difficult in the sense that I'm allowing this Vader representative of so much evilness get a voice because I am really setting up the story in such a way. I want you to learn how he's thinking. That means I also need you to almost get caught by his way of thinking. To be empathetic to that character. point in the film where I realized shit, I was almost starting to feel for this guy.

So yeah, what are the difficulties in the chapter heading B for that? In any other movie, this guy would be an antagonist, right? He's one of your protagonists in a way. Or is it even not that simple to put a label on the guy? How do you get an audience to care for and follow a character that's doing such kind of despicable, disrespectful behavior? Yeah, that's what I've been studying. Yeah, it's interesting. I'm trying to explore with this film. At least the first reactions have that it really feels surprisingly...

different than what the audience thought they were going to see. And that it was powerful in a way that was somewhere, almost like shocking because they were really starting to be taken into this world. Yeah. What are some methods or a method that really helps you to navigate that? Cause it sounds tricky. For me, it was one thing it was about how to write the story together with Anansi. We three were writing it and then getting in people to read it actually. And then

looking for the really hard ones. People who I know was going to explode and make articles and whatever if they hated the film. So I some of them to read the script. They came in with some comments. Some of them was of value, some not. Then when I was sitting in the edit, which we were for almost 10 months, I did have regular screenings for last three months. had a screening every Wednesday evening.

got in people and know what was able to say, what the hell are you doing? But I was handing out the same 22 questions every week. And I could measure how the film were moving and developing and how I was able to avoid really a catastrophe. So your anchor point, where there's 22 questions, that stable constant 22 questions. What were some of those questions? Just one or two, if you don't mind, what comes to mind?

First thing is really, what's the story about? Why do you believe I'm making? And then the characters, what did you have in mind? What were you thinking about when comes to those ones? And then, there's some regular questions about the performance. Did you feel like it moved too slow, too fast, pace of the film? Maybe one of those was the question, guessing. Yeah. Because test screens are so important, whether it be friends and family or even just like some strangers.

I think you can learn so much about your movie. But also you got to be careful about just taking all of it too. It's quite a different ballgame if I'm the one conducting the test screening because I'm doing it for me and I can really learn from it. If the studio is making a test screening, it's for other reasons and I've seen some of those ones and they have never...

hurt me, they have been positive. But still I see that those are really not of big value for me as a filmmaker. So you premiered the Norwegian International Film Festival. that right? Yeah, we opened up last week. And how did that go? How was it? Huge success, I must say. We have got some awesome reviews. Amazing. And so that's important for the film, of course. We have diced in Norway.

from one to six. We received the top score, six in a circle for major newspapers and we got five in almost the rest. There was one newspaper who said, I don't believe the right thing is to give Quizzling a voice at all. I think we should just be quiet. I never comment reviews, but that review is going straight to the center of why I'm doing this film. Because I'm convinced that

She's wrong. If we want to take down the right wing extremism or whatever extremism, we need to learn what they're thinking, why they're thinking, who they are, to be able through dialogue or whatever to take it down. I agree. So you've got the Toronto International Film Festival coming up. Are you looking forward to that? How do you prepare for something like that besides just get on a plane and go? What's in your mind in preparation? For me, it's different. If it's can,

or Berlin or Venice, they're different festivals for Toronto. This time I wasn't able to get the film done for Cannes. Normally I've been ending up in the main competition in Berlin, which is really great, but that's in February. But this time we were just able to get it done for Toronto. What's great about that is that when I did the King's Prize, we were shortlisted for an Academy Award.

Oscar for best foreign language. And at the time where it was only eight movies, others shortlist. And that was of course, also subject about the war, but it gave us a lesson that go for a new trial on the Academy Award. Toronto is a pretty nice place to start. I can't tell who, but we'll probably have the US distributor. We didn't need to get this on board and then here for a campaign. Of course, the Norwegian Film Institute are picking

what seems to be the film, but now we realize that we can apply for other categories as well. Amazing. Do you find that TIFF is a really good marketplace aside from the film festival, you would think, as far as film sells? Yeah. That's one of the more valuable things about TIFF, it seems. Yeah, it's pretty good. mean, at the same time now, this week it's Venice, but Venice is just like chaos.

I imagine. I just wrapped up like eight Venice interviews and it's, my God, when am I going to put these out? Even just like thinking about it. It's, my God. Berlin is much better organized. The markets is really good and it's in February. So it's nice time. Everyone is there. Of course, everyone wants to be in Cannes as well. Just to pack that it is in May, it's warm, a lot of drinking, whatever.

think it's less focused. Berlin is more like coffee, get inside, watch a movie. Yeah, and it's much more effective, much more focused. And that marketplace, it reminded me of AFM, but AFM doesn't have a festival attached to it. And also just the cinema history of Berlin itself. Last question for you. Is there any filmmaking advice you would give your younger filmmaking self? There's one advice which I'm sharing with my students, and that's really start working on a story.

which for you is personal. It's something you don't need to do huge, massive research. It's something you actually know a lot about and start thinking about environments, possible to do it. It's not about making spaceships or whatever. It's about taking it down. If you can tell a story with simple stuff, you can convince everyone that you're a great storyteller. And that's the beginning. But I think the best thing is

to go in and do it as powerful as possible. And that's not by making it as dramatic as possible, but actually as honest and truthful as possible. You can even do it with these ones to distribute films there. It's so much easier than it was. And that's something I love, but try to make it simple, but make it truthful. And then it will become strong. Get in contact with some actors, spend...

two, three, four times as much time with them as you would usually do. And don't be afraid for actors. It's probably the most common thing is that what directors when they start know less about is working with actors. They're terrified sometimes. And when I say, for realistic career, you spend two, three weeks maybe in preparation with actor, forget about that. Spend at least 12 weeks with actor.

When I did the film, I was named goodnight with for instance, Juliette Binoche, is a really big star. I've been working with everyone out there. And I told her that I really needed her for 12 weeks to prepare. She thought I was totally crazy. And she said, what are we going to spend these weeks with? I'm terrified because usually I find process really complicated and hard because people don't know how to use these weeks.

And I said, this is what we're going to do. You're going to prepare, you're going to learn how to be, you're going to be a war photographer. Okay. You need to learn, you need to prepare for that. The camera is part of your body and you need to prepare for taking stunning great pictures. You need to be in a conflict area. So we need to go out there. I have prepared photographers, war photographers, which you're going to meet and you're going to stay there. We went to Syria.

We went off constant, take time. And then of course we need to discuss the character, the story. And the great thing was that she had been working with her for working with Spielberg. She worked with everyone. She had never, ever spent more than four weeks in preparation. Now she loved the idea after we had done it. makes sense. How does that work as far as her budgeting? Obviously you have to account for this 12 weeks, right? She's getting paid. So you have to build that into the budget. You need to set it up.

in a way that the result of preparing so well is that you can shoot faster. So instead of shooting in 12 weeks, I can shoot the film in 10 weeks. Got it. The price for filming for two weeks is so much. Yeah. As well as you have to ask for the actors to invest themselves into it. And now since I always work that way and the actors have learned that

For my movies, actors have received the awards based on acting. They all know that it's worth also investing some time with themselves into this. That's probably what people really are most terrified about is working with actors and all the way to deal with that, all the way to learn how to love working with actors. They are an extension of your film, right? They're the face of it. It's going to determine.

You take away. Right. And when you are out there on the set, I hate to have to explain for a long time about why or whatever. If we know each other full of trust, I can just give them a single word as direction and they respond and we have fun and we can do huge sequences, which was planned to do for two days and we can have done it by lunch the first day.

Please like and subscribe to this podcast and follow us on social media at past present feature. And let us know in the comments section what movies you're watching. Thank you so much for listening to the past present feature podcast and we'll see you next time. Peace.