In "You am I," Kristijonas Vildziunas' new film, a lonely architect journeys deep into the woods where he builds his own tree house, complete with a toilet and working lights. Meanwhile, a group of young hipsters converges on a country home not far away, for a long bit of partying. There's not much else to say about the film's plot, but Vildziunas' great gift as a filmmaker is in his ability to conjure up a semi-surreal landscape with only the mildest of tools. Vildziunas is 36, and before becoming a filmmaker, he dabbled as a painter, an architect and a musician. He answered our questions by e-mail.
Most of the stills in your film look like they could be framed as paintings. Did you begin as a painter before moving to filmmaking?
I wanted to be a painter since I was 14. It was my first conscious dream. I was impressed by the life and paintings of Van Gogh. But I did not bring the frustration of my unsuccessful painting career into film directing. These are different art forms. Cinema is cinema. The idea that cinema is an art form made up of a combination of literature, theater, painting, photography, music, or whatever else, only disturbs its development. The ability of cinema to absorb elements of other art forms and play with them creates the illusion that cinema is not a pure art form. You think images in our film look like paintings. Maybe that's just your own opinion. Maybe you only really like painting. I don't think I could bring my experience as a painter into my films. The rules of composition themselves are too different. Cinema, for me, is incomparable to any other art form. For me, it's an instrument to explore the phenomena of perception.
The colors are brighter than real life. How did you achieve that effect?
There are two basic ways to do visual effects. I prefer the traditional approach through lighting, photography and design. I find digital photography a bit "plastic." Of course, the film stock is important too. We used Kodak Vision 2, where pure colors look brighter, so we had to avoid using them in the film. But it's good for rendering such difficult colors as green or brown. We used a lot of artificial light to light the forest, to make it look like a jungle. My answer is too technical. I could add that the result of the final film is always magical for me. It's like alchemy: I'm always searching for some mysterious catalyst that will transform the components I perfectly know into great unknown - the film.
Other than the fact that people in the film speak Lithuanian, could it have taken place anywhere? The theme seems universal enough.
The story is a tale in some way; it is based on some universal archetypes. I would say when spectators are less informed about Lithuania, they understand the film better. And when they do not look upon the world through the glasses of social cliches, they could better feel the film. Contemporary cinema is too much based on social reflection. Today, it's a bit outdated to tell the stories of unemployed people in a romantic way, as in '50s Italian cinema - today you have to find some contrary topical subject, and to reflect (or camouflage) a fear of developed societies to lose their privileges, to show the sufferings of developing countries. That's why it is sometimes difficult for West European spectators to look at the protagonist of our film as a person who creates his own reality, and does not depend on his social environment. On the other hand, the film was surprisingly well-received in Lithuania. I think our society is insufficiently shaped. It's still in search of its own identity. That's reflected in the film in some way.
You weave a "back-to-nature" theme throughout the piece. There seems to be a juxtaposition between those who wish to move back to nature in groups and one man who wishes to go back as an individual? Did I get things wrong?
Primarily, it is not a film about going "back-to-nature." I think it is not possible. We live in the computer age. Of course, it is theoretically possible to live and surf the Internet in a cabin. But I doubt if it would bring one more close to nature. We'd better try first to bring nature to us. We should start functioning the way nature does, as individuals and societies. We should learn from nature. That would work, I think. Our film is not about escaping from civilization. It is about the power of imagination, about rejecting social boundaries and starting a new, pure life. And, in fact, there is not much difference, where you can do that: in the city, or in nature. It's just that nature helps us better understand creation. Nature may be the only teacher left for humanity.
What is the meaning of the title "You Am I?"
Directly: That's the first and last lesson of nature. Everything comes in chains and is connected like a web. Only a rational mind separates things. Nature stays undivided. When our main character comes close to a higher level of understanding of this fact (there are an endless number of levels), he experiences some kind of "renewal," the short moment when the mind shuts down and individuality enfolds everything, or vice versa. By the way, "I am You, and You are Me" - is a kind of greeting among the Mayan Indians. I've reversed the first part of it like a reflection: "You am I."
How long did the movie take? Where did you get financing for it?
It took four years to go from developing the idea to the premiere of the film. The main support for the production was national: Lithuanian Ministry of Culture and Support Foundation for Culture and Sports. It was developed with the support of the EU program Media Plus. We had a German partner: the renowned company Pandora Film. For me it was a great challenge to work with Karl Baumgartner as co-producer. He has produced so many remarkable films and has supported great directors. But primarily, I can't imagine this film without contribution of producer Uljana Kim. Her exceptional intelligence forced raw ideas to crystallize and she supported me in creating things which I normally assumed were completely crazy and naive.
b>How did you cast the film? Were these all professional actors or were they "street people?"
Usually, I prefer to work with actors, compared to the other parts of my job as a film director. I developed some simple methods of rehearsals, which I call "virtual puppets, or forms." But in this film I didn't have much use for this method, which could significantly change an actor's sensibility. All casting was as close to the characters as possible. We had people making their debuts and people from the street working with professionals. But there were only minor differences in the performance.
