Light up the Void  

’I'd like to start by talking about your pre- Love period . I get the impression that up until then, your films were a bit provocative...

"There was primarily a desire to provoke in Irreversible, this was not the case for Enter the Void." GN

Perhaps a desire to unsettle the viewer…

"Not in Enter the Void, which was more of a sensory experience, partly reminiscent of states of consciousness linked to substances I've taken in relatively small amounts. I've never been very high, but I hung out with people who were, and I wanted to try making a film that would immerse the viewer in a similar state. But there was no desire to provoke in that film. Nor in this one, for that matter!" GN

Actually, in Love, in my opinion, there aren't any at all. Except perhaps for the first scene, which…

"Not even! The first scene wasn't in the original script. It was written that they try all the sexual positions… and I filmed almost all the sex scenes at the beginning of the shoot during a week with a very small crew, and then, towards the end of filming, I thought we could try something again. (...) This new sequence had the exact tempo of an Erik Satie piece . Initially, I had put it in the middle of the film, but it was too long compared to the overall pace of the film. I didn't know what to do, because I didn't want to cut it. Then I had the idea of ​​putting it at the beginning, thinking that when the guy wakes up in the morning, he's dreaming about this! And it really does have its full impact at the beginning. I generally think it's good to start a film with a bang. (...) Since I knew people were going to talk a lot about the sex scenes, I figured I might as well put one in right away before moving on to something else. Otherwise, people would have wondered when they were going to arrive. So in my eyes, it's not provocation. It was just to start the film with a bang and to show that we're in something that cinema doesn't usually do like that! (...) A good opening shot puts the viewer in a good mood for the rest of the film." GN

Before seeing the film, with Gaspar Noé , explicit sex scenes, and 3D, you think it's going to be intense… and the opening shot (which is actually very beautiful) gives me the impression that you're giving the viewer exactly what they want. However, afterwards, the film shifts towards something gentler, despite the violence of the dialogue. It mainly moves towards a kind of almost transparent sex… in the sense that it appears so obvious that it's no longer particularly noticeable! Was it important to be careful that the sex scenes weren't provocative at all?

"In the case of Karl ( Glusman ) or Aomi ( Muyock ), these were people who weren't at all used to appearing naked. Karl isn't a sex maniac at all. He's a really nice guy, super professional, super kind, and open-minded. Aomi had been a model and had done some nude photos, but she had mainly done runway shows before modeling. Even for me, it was very strange to film people in those situations, even when they were faking it. The ideal is to recreate the feeling you get when you're making love and you're in love. Sex for sex's sake can, of course, be very satisfying. It's represented by a film genre that has shifted since the 70s. It's become an internet-related genre, with short three-minute videos, but it doesn't represent the act of love at all. It represents tattooed athletes. It's almost as if Western civilization has ghettoized the sexual act, dictating that its representation must be done by isolated individuals, in isolated settings, and accessible only through sordid means. Today, there are no more erotic magazines, no more erotic films like Emmanuelle . When I was 12 or 13, I was obsessed with the photos of erotic film actresses I saw in magazines. The girls were very natural, with pubic hair and unaltered breasts… but that doesn't exist anymore. Today, what does a 12- or 13-year-old have to get aroused? The only sexy things are the photos in American Apparel . Eroticism has somewhat disappeared from civilization in the last twenty years, even though there are no laws against it. I find some of the reactions, primarily against the film, rather strange. People think I'm making a scandalous film, when it's perfectly normal. The film about sensual love should be a genre unto itself… more so than science fiction, horror, or heist films. There are rarely any heists… whereas people who are happy making love properly and who experience dopamine rushes before and serotonin or endorphin rushes after sex—that's a reality for everyone. Addiction to that state is part of everyone's life. (...) There have always been negative reactions to my films, but I've had some in newspapers where I wasn't expecting them. Maybe men don't like seeing another man's penis next to them or in front of them." GN

C’est ce qui est étonnant, car pour moi, la force du film, c’est qu’on interprète même pas ça de cette manière. Le sexe fait partie intégrante du récit et contrairement à ce qu’on pourrait imaginer, il s’agit surtout d’un film d’amour… et pas d’un film érotique!

"(laugh)

The subject is in the title! Life is too broad. Man or Woman too. But Love encompasses everything: addictions, moments of suffering… The title is a huge misnomer, yet it still has a certain nuance and color. Incidentally, the film with the same title is Amour . And it's a perfect title for Haneke 's film as well. The act committed at the end of the film is an act of love." GN

I'm returning to the representation of the sexual act by discussing the choice of 3D. When did you first want to work in 3D? Is it related to the sexual act?

"The fact that the film wanted to show something intimate was another reason to use 3D. Shortly after Avatar,  Maraval from Wild Bunch said that Gaspar Noé 's next film would be an erotic 3D film. He wanted to attract press attention, but I didn't believe in 3D at the time. However, around that time, I bought a Panasonic 3D video camera and practiced filming with it and watching the footage on a 3D screen. Moving images are always a bit nauseating and quite unpleasant. But my mother was very ill at the time. For six months, I visited her constantly and witnessed her entire dying process. In that situation, you feel compelled to capture images. I wanted to film or photograph her more than anyone else. When I saw the images in 3D, she seemed more real on screen. The fact that the images weren't flat added something to the flat reproduction of reality. This feeling of being like a little puppet inside a small theater made me want to apply it to a film about the intimacy of a couple. I thought it would make it more touching. And indeed, in my opinion, it does. This is even more true when there are no subtitles. With 3D films, the subtitles float in space, creating a distance. This feeling of spying on animals in a small box is somewhat broken by subtitles. Yesterday, the film was shown to the public in English without subtitles… and I was relieved. I enjoy watching the film more here or in the United States than in France, with subtitles." GN

Do you film differently in 3D? I'm thinking in particular of a scene I find magnificent, outdoors… I think it's at Père-Lachaise Cemetery. They're walking. It's filmed head-on, with the path behind them. I think the effect of that path behind them in 3D is magnificent.

"This is the longest shot in the film."

Did 3D have an impact on how you filmed this shot?

"No… There's a magical effect. We all love seeing new images. If you go to an exhibition and the images are fluorescent, you'll be fascinated because you're not used to seeing an exhibition with fluorescent colors. If you hear a piece of music in mono and suddenly listen to it in quadraphonic sound, it's the same. I think there's a playful desire on the part of the viewer to discover new games they don't know. It's true that 3D, in its current state, with DCPs and Dolby glasses, works much better than it did in the days of Vincent Price 's films . We could imagine making a film with very long medium shots. There's something both touching and monumental about it… provided it's projected well!" GN

Interview conducted by Jean-Marie Lanlo in Montreal on October 9, 2015