the same framework, coming across someone unique reinvigorates you. Wojciech knew how to use both his imagination and the medium’s possibilities. His heightened sense of invention and form reminded me of the work of Stefan and Franciszka Themerson, not in terms of aesthetics but in his need to do away with clichés. Wojciech experimented with form very consciously: thanks to the originality of his sets, his symbolism, theatrical takes exposing pathos, stylized representations that evoked socialist realism and the unconventional sound, the whole departed quite far from formalist pomp. What I admire today is his aesthetic refinement and
incredible precision. Also the fact that you can discern the truth in his films, even though it diverges from what you might expect. At the time when I worked with Wojciech, I did not share all of the unbridled admira- tion for his work. In a way, my visual aspirations were the opposite of his. I kept my eyes and ears open, sensing that his films were exceptional, but I also knew that I still needed to mature to appreciate them. Wojciech pushed me beyond the more academic approach to film editing and encouraged me to be more independent.
EB: What was the editing process usually like? DW: We were both quite young, so the process was
more about our spontaneous reactions and actual con- tact with the material on the editing table, rather than any “learned” analysis. There was no room for intellec- tual fireworks. The stress was rather on technical polish, which for me—a novice to the trade—was definite proof that each editing move, no matter how trivial, affects the film’s overall aesthetic and meaning.
Wojciech’s approach to directing in no way made you think of a novice filmmaker who second-guesses himself. He always knew what he wanted, so editing was not such a decisive tool. He pre-planned everything in his head before the film made it to the editing room. He already had a clear idea, subject, and a defined language. My job was to care- fully select the shots, find the best cuts, and to incorporate the text and the musical accents. It was as if the film dic- tated how it needed to be edited. This has never happened to me with any other filmmaker. Wojciech also worked in very particular times, when directors sought to encode their meanings to bypass the censors, particularly those mean- ings that could be deemed “dangerous.” Metaphors were the ideal camouflage, and so his films are highly conceptual.
EB: How did Wiszniewski’s peers respond to his films?
DW: His aesthetic radicalism shocked others. His experiments aroused guarded curiosity, at best, and were often seen as betraying what documentaries should be like. We must remember that, in those days, staging was seen as compromising the documentary form. Most directors, with a few exceptions, tried to avoid it, or to camouflage their use of staging. But in Wojciech’s work, everything was staged. Wojciech’s films did not fit into the documen-
tary canon. But they were not fiction films either. With time, they began to be labeled as “creative” or “artistic” documentaries. Very few recognized their originality and unconventional storytelling. For many, they were deformed depictions of reality. I would often hear it said that Wojciech lacked tal- ent. But he knew that you could not create anything new without taking a risk.
37
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52