All language subtitles for Telecinema_track3_[eng]

That was My Night at Maud's,
one of Eric Rohmer's Moral Tales,

which we'll discuss with Jean Douchet,

well known to cinephiles,

contributor to Cahiers du cinéma,
film director, and critic.

Also joining us is Jean-Louis Trintignant,
whom you've just seen in the film,

and Pierre Cottrell,

who produced the film
with Barbet Schroeder and a few others.

So he's the young producer
of My Night at Maud's

Before continuing, I must praise
the incredible acting in the film.

Jean-Louis, it's been hailed
as one of your best performances.

I'd like to ask
Pierre Cottrell about the cast.

Was Rohmer set on getting
the actors he had in mind?

Yes, he'd cast them
several years earlier.

We had to wait three years

for Jean-Louis to be free
around Christmas,

because it had to be shot
during the Christmas season.

We often hear of power struggles
between directors and actors,

and it would seem that Rohmer —
to use a word no actor likes —

“manipulates” his actors.

In any case, he obtains
incredibly nuanced performances.

Do you feel you had
a lot of creative input on the film,

or did you just obey Rohmer?

I trusted his direction.

It's strange. I've been in a lot of films
that use improvisation.

I enjoy it
and feel comfortable with it.

In Rohmer's screenplay,
everything was carefully scripted.

Every comma was significant.

In the middle of a very elegant phrase

in an 18th-century style,

he'd written “E-r... E-r... E-r”

to show that the actor should hesitate

and say, “Er... er... er.”

That's what it meant
in this very scripted dialogue.

When I saw that, I panicked.

I told Rohmer, “There's no way
an actor can say that.”

He said, “Try it. Say it out loud.”

I did, and to my surprise,
it worked perfectly.

There was no other way to say it.

The dialogue was tightly scripted

but wonderfully easy to deliver.

We'll talk more
about Rohmer's dialogue later.

He writes incredible dialogue,

but don't actors find it difficult
to recite something so well written

because it's not everyday language?

No, because it's language that —

If you're in character,
it's absolutely natural,

because it's conversational.

It's elegant and well-written
but at the same time conversational.

His dialogue is a pleasure to recite.

As you've noticed, Eric Rohmer
is conspicuous by his absence.

We called and tried
to persuade him to come,

but as you may know,
he refuses to appear in public.

I wonder if Jean Douchet, who's
known him a long time, could explain.

There's no need to explain.

I don't see that he needs to explain
for refusing to appear in public.

But in Rohmer's films,
and especially in the Six Moral Tales,

he constantly plays with the idea

not of living a double life

but of moral codes of conduct.

And that applies
to Rohmer in his own life.

It's a kind of game,
a character, a role

in which he reveals himself
while pretending to hide.

It's in all his films,

especially Trintignant's character
in My Night a! Maudie.

It's a complex character:

He considers himself a Catholic
and seeks to follow a moral code.

Rohmer uses “moral tales”
in an 18-century sense.

A moral code shows the way to live,

and the main character in each tale

tries to follow a specific moral code.

In My Night at Maud'; it's Catholicism.

In La Collectionneuse, it's dandyism.

Each character tries to follow his path,
and each meets a female character

who embraces life
with all its surprises and chances.

The film frequently mentions
Pascal's concept of chance.

We realize that the character
doesn't always follow his moral code

and feels guilty about it.

But in the end, his moral code wins out

at the end of a very twisted
and indirect path.

That's the theme of this film,
and of all Rohmer's films.

They play with this idea.

That's the real meaning
of his Moral Tales.

We'll discuss that later,
but you didn't answer my question.

I trust Rohmer will forgive me,
since it has appeared in the press,

so I'll explain
why Rohmer won't show his face.

He doesn't want his family
to know he's a filmmaker.

Perhaps they consider it
an inferior art form.

That's the real reason.
I've revealed his secret.

Rohmer won't appear
on television as a filmmaker,

but he doesn't hide when he appears
in schools as a professor.

He used to teach and still holds
the title of professor.

We'll discuss the film's content,

but first I'd like to ask Pierre
a few questions

that may be of interest to everyone.

You needn't reveal your secrets,

but how does a young producer
without contacts —

though this is a subject
for another talk —

go up against the big studios
to produce a film like Rohmefis?

Rohmer's La collect/ooneuse
had enjoyed modest success...

and he next wanted to make a film
that wasn't commercial at all.

It was Truffaut's idea to bring together
some producers and directors

who respected and trusted Rohmer.

They allowed him to make this film
free of commercial pressures.

It was fairly difficult
to bring together eight coproducers.

They all invested
equal amounts in the film.

Actually, it was the actors
who decided the film would get made.

The ending on the beach was shot

three months
before the rest of the film...

before any contracts
had even been signed.

Rohmer himself edited the scene
and showed it to the actors.

- So they'd continue on the film.
- Right.

I think Jean-Louis
was surprised by the crew

on Belle Tle who shot the scene.

Yes, it was fairly improvised.
The crew was three people.

Since that's not enough to cover
all the posts when filming,

we used whoever was there,
like my great-nephew.

It was shot near the srhnall house
I had on Belle lle.

My great-nephew was there on vacation,
so he became the sound engineer.

But it didn't look amateurish.

All the rest was filmed professionally,

with a real sound engineer,

but shooting began
in a totally amateurish way.

That's a nice story.

So you were busy
on other projects at the time.

They had to wait a long time for you.

So those few days on Belle lle
convinced you to do the film?

No, I was already convinced.

If I hesitated, it wasn't because
I was booked solid for three years,

but because of certain moral scruples.

I didn't feel very close
to the character.

I felt I lacked certain things,

but Rohmer's unyielding stubbornness
finally convinced me.

Did the character seem too gloomy?

The script was wonderful, but I —

Catholicism isn't
a particular concern of mine,

and that made me say no.

It would be dishonest. I had no right.

But Rohmer convinced me
it would lend greater ambiguity to the film

if I took the role,

precisely because I wasn't Catholic.

Is Rohmer deeply concerned
with religion?

Is it present in all his films?

It's certainly present in this one.

But no, it's not in others.

What are his major concerns,
especially in the Moral Tales?

We talked about —

What's the basic theme
of Rohmer's Moral Tales?

In the Moral Tales...

a man loves a woman,

but before going to her,

he'll meet and be tempted by another woman,
only to end up with the first.

That's the general framework
of the six films.

It seems very immoral
for a “moral tale.”

Frustration intervenes —

“Moral” here doesn't mean “morality.”

It's a code of conduct
that varies for each individual.

Rohmer's characters choose
their own moral code.

Each has a personal moral code
that they follow.

It's an 18th-century sense of the word.

But Rohmer's concerns are many.

First: a strong drive for authenticity.

Pierre alluded to this earlier:

He waited for Christmas to shoot.

The setting was Clermont-Ferrand
in the context of the Michelin factory.

It's mentioned clearly in the film.

It involved engineers, etc.
and it had to be true to life.

When mass is shown, it's a real mass.

It's a mass being said for believers,
not for the camera.

The streets of Clermont
are shown exactly as they are.

All perfectly described in the script.

You've worked with him enough
to know we don't shoot in a street

unless it adjoins the street
shot in the previous scene.

Rohmer's always like that.

He strives for authenticity
in terms of settings and characters,

as well as the story he's telling.

I'd like to add to that.

For Rohmer, music should never
be used unless there's a reason.

Films always have music

that a composer has written
separately to underscore the film.

In Rohmer's films, no sound exists

unless it's produced
by something in the film.

For example, if music's heard,
it's playing on an onscreen radio.

No music is brought in from outside.

Yes, everything has to reflect reality.

It's almost an obsession.

Another thing Rohmer is concerned with

is depicting today's society

from his point of view,
which is an extremely rigorous one,

even haughty, to be honest.

But Six Moral Tales creates
a sort of panorama

of different aspects
of contemporary French society.

He's often accused
of portraying only the bourgeois,

but his defense is that
that's the only life he knows.

Nevertheless, the way he portrays life
in Clermont is extremely realistic.

It's a view of provincial life
rarely seen in French films,

where it's usually much more
of a caricature than a true portrait.

Here it's really
a provincial environment

among fairly intellectual people.

And one thing about the provinces —
where Rohmer lived —

is that intellectual discourse is deeper
because people have more time.

A long discussion about Pascal
over dinner is realistic.

Not for everyone, of course,
but for a specific social class,

whereas it wouldn't be
realistic in Paris.

Was that a difficult scene for you?

- Yes, very.
- You were in a cafe with —

It was filmed in long takes.

He shot an entire magazine
without cutting.

A magazine holds 1,000 feet of film,
or 12 minutes of shooting time.

For a static shot, that's very —