|
WSWS
: Arts Review
: Film
Festivals
Berlin film festival:
An interview with the director of Zoe, Maren-Kea Freese
By Bernd Reinhardt
1 March 2000
Use
this version to print
Maren-Kea Freese (b. 1960) studied film science, journalism
and German studies at the Free University in Berlin. She has worked
as assistant director with George Tabori and Rosa von Praunheim,
as well as for the local theatre in the town of Aachen. She also
worked for the editorial board of Literature and Art
for the television channel ZDF. In 1990 she began studying at
the Academy of Film and Television in Berlin. Her first short
films date back to 1983. Zoe is her first full-length film.
WSWS: You wrote the script for your film. How did you arrive
at your material?
Maren-Kea Freese: Basically I always start from my own
emotions. It is about, let's call it ... a feeling of inner homelessness.
A feeling that I have partially experienced myself or have witnessed
amongst my friends. I sometimes think that this is an emotion
typical for our times. I went to the social scene where it is
strongest. I researched in the milieu of homeless people. I spoke
to many people and, to begin with, I had the idea that it may
be possible to find a girl or a woman capable of acting the main
part. But then I realised that these people are too badly hurt
to work together with them according to a schedule. And then I
also realised that I would prefer the figure to originate from
the middle class milieu, similar to the one I came from. The film
is not a portrait of homeless people, but a depiction of a zeitgeist.
It sort of fits into the context of vagabond film or films about
idlerswhich have their own tradition. It is a tightrope
walk that includes the danger of slipping. But I think Zoe has
enough strength to pull herself through.
What did you want to express through your movie?
The main thing was to concentrate on portraying a specific
figure, Zoe, but then also to deal with a kind of lack of communication,
an inability to be able to develop relationships, which is something
tragic in itself, but if you think about it, it also has a funny,
easy-going side. It is a kind of mixture. It is a feeling which
predominates in contemporary society and which I have experienced
myself. I also live here in Berlin and thought that this is what
I want to express with the help of my main figure.
Is it a Berlin movie?
No, it is about a person, who leaves a smaller town and comes
to the big city. She's looking for a new identity and doesn't
want to have anything to do with the past. Her real name is Karola
which she changes to Zoe. Her first priority is to be a different
person, but she doesn't know exactly what the outcome will be.
She is also someone searching for something.
An interesting reaction to the film Nachtgestalten [Nightshapes]
last year was that a number of reviews asserted that the film
was about outsiders. It was somehow about these exotic figures
standing outside of society. The director responded that the film
dealt with ordinary people, they were not exotic, they were part
of a growing social tendency.
That's right, socially speaking, there are more and more, but
I also think it is right to speak of outsiders. If you think about
it there are increasingly more outsiders, if you look more closely,
in actual fact everybody has experienced the feeling of being
an outsider. But it is towards these people that I am drawn. When
I see them I think that they express and crystallise social questions,
the thin line to be tread, and such questions as: Will I make
it? Or will I drop out? These questions are becoming more relevant.
However, if you actually are homeless, and I had many distressing
conversations, it is different. There is a kind of barrier, which
has to be overcome in order to get out again.... There is no smooth
transition for the people breakfasting in shelters. That is something
completely different. In this respect they are no longer normal
people. Between normal life and complete destitution
there is a go-between area. Zoe is such a go-between figure.
At the same time people possess a certain strength. Zoe has
it. This is what I wanted to show at the end. This is why I think
of the end of the film as being positive with an open ending....
The beginning of the film is set in a kind of anarchistic
commune. What strikes one is the intellectual emptiness of all
the figures. In contrast to the 60s and 70s when this lifestyle
was connected with discussions on art, culture, alternative ways
of life and a better society. Is there an explanation for this?
It is frightening today how the style of the 70s has become
fashionable againin a superficial sense. Zoe is also dressed
a little in this style. The clenched fist of the Partida Socialista,
an emblem of the '68 movement, is just a fashionable gag for
her. This has something tragic about it, it is just something
which is worn on the sleeve. There is no real sense of direction,
life is just a struggle for survival and boredom. Although there
is a sort of feeling of optimism which doesn't have any real content,
the main thing is to keep your head above the water. The utopian
ideas of 1968 couldn't be realised, and nothing else exists except
capitalist-type religions or political programmes.
There is a sentence spoken by Rosi: Most people I know
have become either esoteric or engrossed in the family. But they
all are unhappy. These are kinds of substitutes for religion.
Zoe is more or less vague in this respect. She says she wants
to do something that has to do with people and music, and it must
be beautiful. She wants to participate in life and feel alive,
but it is not really concretised. I think that this is a feeling
typical for our times. Although there were all sorts of expectations
the fall of the Berlin Wall has brought nothing apart from capitalist
ideas on how to run things.
Who are the most important influences for your in terms
of film?
That's hard. Usually I don't like all films of one director
but only a few. If there is anybody I admire then it is [R.W.]
Fassbinder. His work radiates an energy even if you just read
him. There are a few books with his essays that I read over and
over again. I also like a few films by [Werner] Herzog, such as
Stroszek, which is one of my favourite films. But I do
not like everything by him. He is someone who impresses me and
has his own unique standpoint. There are some new people trying
things out, but somehow they do not inspire me. More so the new
French cinema: (...) but also the English cinema. I think Mike
Leigh is greatinteresting films.
For a whole period in German film, the scene was dominated
by trivial relationship comedies set in the middle classes. Recently
different films such as St. Pauli Nacht [St. Pauli Night,
1999] , Nachtgestalten and Wege in die Nacht [Paths
in the Night, 1999] have appeared. There seems to be a certain
development.
Yes, I think people are becoming tired of watching well-to-do
middle class people with their marriage and relationship problems.
You can see how the fringes of society are expanding. We can find
out more about life and Germany by looking at such fringes. It
is also possible to find out a few things if you look at the middle
classes, but I think the zeitgeist today is expressed in the tube
train where you can encounter homeless people who sell their newspapers.
The problem is no longer hidden. I think that is a positive development.
German cinema is receiving an impetus from this direction, more
so than in past years.
See Also:
Berlin film festival, part 3
The successful depiction of a zeitgeist
Zoe, directed by Maren-Kea Freese
[1 March 2000]
Berlin film festival, part
2
The tension between cinematic vision and life itself
The Million Dollar Hotel, directed by Wim Wenders
[26 February 2000]
The 50th Berlin film festival:
pomp and paucity
[24 February 2000]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |