Berlinale Shorts 2010:
With open eyes

The Berlinale Shorts are so diverse that they are difficult to categorize and are always a source of hidden surprises. This is one of the things that makes them so appealing. How do you manage to group so many different cinematic forms together in programme slots?

Primarily I curate according to my feeling and combine the films in the programme based on association. The challenge is the high degree of complexity in the films. With all their formal and thematic abundance, these films require time and space. Sometimes seeing two films alone provides enough conversation material following the screening. We’re trying to counteract the danger of being overwhelmed by the abundance in that we are, for the first time this year, organizing special film discussions in the Arsenal – alongside a balanced programme. The era of the narrative joke of the aughts is over. The exception proves the rule: 12 Jahre (12 Years) has a wonderful script and has more than just a joke up its sleeve.

Can you identify anything specific that distinguished this year’s selection process and the submitted films from those of previous years?

At first glance, one definitely notices a successive increase in the number of submissions over the past few years. Nonetheless, only a manageable number of films play a role in the final decision-making process. That doesn’t mean that the others were bad. Many films simply don’t fit the format we want in our programme. One could also say that there is a trend towards longer films. Apart from that, one can also see that things made economically viable thanks to video, such as trying out many different perspectives or angles, are found in current film productions. This becomes especially apparent in the Retrospective PLAY … SHORT! | 1&2, in which the films are often just half the length of those made today, yet employ very different cinematic language: the length given to storytelling was constrained by the material. Parachute from 1985/86 is a textbook example of the economy of shots that is indispensable for the story and at the same time comprises the core and unique character of this short film. When compared to the films of today, this difference becomes all the more noticeable.

To me, many films seem to display an unease or insecurity about the idea of expressing a purely rational view of the world. Sometimes you see this very clearly, as in Math Test, often in much subtler ways, as in In the Air, Out in that Deep Blue Sea or Yellow Moon. Could the motto of this year’s Berlinale Shorts programme, or even a motto for the section in general, lie in this demonstration of alternative points of view?

Surely, one can identify an opening up of the gaze, away from a rational perception of the world as a thread that runs through the programme. This applies both to the formal as well as the thematic approaches of the films. Colivia (The Cage) from Rumania is surely one of the most traditional films in terms of its realization, nonetheless a gem – all the more so for this reason: with subtle cinematic means the film shows us the development of communication channels within a family. Starting from here, one follows a path towards an opening up towards alternative cinematic possibilities and variations. This happens in most the films on most levels. Formally and thematically, but also from a wider perspective which looks towards the future with hope. Unplay, for example, reveals its own approach in a very changed moral position towards feminism, and breaks away from and rethinks its own categories

Resolute Forms

Despite all the many different themes and aesthetic processes, the formal stringency, with which most of these films have been made, is very noticeable. Is the fact that stylistic consistency is easier to achieve one of the great advantages of short film?

Perhaps one should think about this discussion less in diametric terms. The question, really, is to what extent this contradiction is constructed – also in awareness of one’s own artistic position, out of which certain forms or cooperations appear necessary and others unnecessary. For example the Israeli director Avi Mograbi is, with his essayistic documentaries, one of those who also consistently think differently about the long form. Herein lies the potential to categorically think outside the box, to see formats freed from their traditional forms. As a whole I would like the programme to address the limits of cinema, and concentrate on films that explore this periphery, in order to give them space within the Berlinale. Compared to Forum Expanded, which is about very different transgressions, the Berlinale Shorts films remain in the cinema and want the cinema.

Surely, there are also conventions that determine a film. Doesn’t the associative dynamic and opening of perspective work in Out in that Deep Blue Sea precisely thanks to its short format that has no need to lead the viewer by the hand through the story? Doesn’t Incident by a Bank show, through its concentration beyond classical narration, a stringency that would be difficult to maintain in a feature-length film?

Exactly. Here I also think of Photos of God by Paul Wright, a film that develops almost explosively due to its visual intensity. How much narration a film needs in order to go beyond a certain length is an interesting question in general. And the quality of a short film such as Out in that Deep Blue Sea or Yellow Moon also lies in the fact that these films know exactly when they should end.

The Japanese entry Aramaki by Isamu Hirabayashi has a clear connection to performance art and, rather than relying upon explanation, challenges but also activates the viewer. Yet the audience is denied straightforward access. Was this done on purpose, or does it endanger challenging the viewer too much?

I don’t believe that one can challenge the viewer that much. There is a strong desire amongst the audience to see something new. It’s not about liking all of the films – it is about the quality of engagement. Our audience brings this quality with them and that makes both the screenings and discussions so exciting. And that’s also what the filmmakers bring back home with them – and what leaves an unbelievable impression on them and gives them strength to make more films.

Aramaki is surely quite demanding, but will kick off the carnival of the Berlinale Shorts films with an appropriate introduction. The film clearly employs performative forms, and translates these cinematically within a short film. It manages, with few means – also financial - to develop its story through images and the direct performance. This film is performance art, a reduction and a film, whose stylistic material is justified from start to finish and always precisely positioned. One has to engage oneself with this concentration – that’s the challenge for the viewer and I always manage to immerse myself. In order to then delve into a film like Giardini di Luce (Garden of Light) by Davide & Lucia Pepe. They made an ethnographical film about a festival for a saint in southern Italy. In terms of form, they decided to experiment and that makes this film so special: we see Barqoue images in the sky, which we would never have seen without the artistic position of the two siblings.

Formally, Geliebt (Be Loved) orients itself towards documentary. Was it included in the programme because it addresses the taboo subject of love between people and animals. Or were there other reasons?