Kim Longinotto: "Women are striking out more on their own without guilt" Interview by Lus Mendona | March

2013 | At the portuguese movie website pala de Walsh: www.apaladewalsh.com

When I look at your filmography as a whole it strikes me, immediately, one question: if, on the one hand, there is a political and formal constancy for example, observing women fighting (and in a movie fighting is the right word, for a better situation), on the other hand, it seems that - cultural, geographic, linguistic - diversity is a clear goal for you to achieve as a filmmaker. Did you plan beforehand your career this way or do you adapt your "action" film by film? Each film feels like a new beginning. Im looking for a good story, something I can feel passionate about. Im attracted to stories about change, about challenge to tradition and old ways of thinking. It seems to me that in the world today, women are at the forefront of change because they have most need of it. Men are more likely to feel that culture favours them, although it often forces them into damaging and restrictive roles. In the first half of you filmography you worked with another female directors, like Jano Williams (Japan), Ziba Mir-Hosseini (Iran), Florence Ayisi (Cameroon). Since "Hold Me Tight, Let Me Go" (2007), we saw you directing "alone". Why did you choose to make these "partnerships" in the past and today you don't do them anymore? It seemed fair to give a co-director credit to the people I worked with who spoke the language of the country we were working in. I really enjoyed my working relationships with Ziba and Jano and they contributed a lot to the films we worked on together. Films are always a team effort; I really admire Ollie Huddlestons work as editor, for example, he is so inventive and playful with the material. Also the sound recordists I work with are often amazing. In Hold Me Tight, The Day I Will Never Forget and Rough Aunties we didn't work with a translator, so I couldn't credit anyone else. It can be useful to have someone to put down as co-director as they can go to festivals with the film. But with my last film, Salma, the subject of the film is representing the film at festivals - she's really enjoying doing it so it's working very well! For some critics, you have and observational style of directing, reminiscent of the great Frederick Wiseman. However, if for the American director the constancy is achieved in the genderless "life of the institutions", your constancy is women "resisting" or "persevering" all over the world, below different kinds of roofs. How do you cope with theses comparisons? What are you seeking when you choose the individual over the institution, the woman over the man?

Im always drawn to rebels, to pioneers. I admire them. They stand up against tradition with great courage. Its often very painful for them to be an outsider in their own communities; sometimes they feel lonely and scared. My first encounter with your cinema was with Shinjuku Boys and the unexpectedly moving and intense Gaea Girls. In these two pictures (and also Dream Girls, of course) you show us women in a "man's outfit", fighting for their identity. I believe there is a strong humanistic stance in your cinema that is related to this idea: even when they want to do man's things or to become a man (the extraordinary wrestling coach of Gaea Girls is almost a Shinjuku boy, as her masculinity surpasses the harsh masculinity of the common man) women are struggling against all barriers for their identity. There is, nonetheless, a valorization of the inner strength of women. Do you feel comfortable when someone say that your cinema is more feministic than feminine? I think the 21st century will continue to re-define and broaden what is considered masculine and feminine. Traditionally male means : adventurous, practical, powerful and selfish. Female is seen as being nurturing, sensitive, intuitive, and sacrificial. I think were much more flexible and imaginative about this now. Many men are realizing that theres more fun to be had in their lives if they can admit to feelings that were perhaps taboo to their parents generation and women are striking out more on their own without guilt. Comparing your Iranian diptych Divorce Iranian Style and Runaway with a movie like Gaea Girls, a thing strikes my mind: before structures of power, your camera focus on the reaction - the gestures, the physicality - of the individual. In Divorce Iranian Style, you give us several shots of women's faces in distress. In Iranian culture the face of a woman condenses - at least socially - the whole expression of her body. For the sake of the "political argument" or a objective style, should a documentary filmmaker fight that kind of "natural" plasticity? I was very happy in Iran. Life is endlessly fascinating there as its so contradictory. We were forced to live in a women-centred world but this engendered a great solidarity between us. Women would walk into the courtroom and beam at Ziba and I. They were so pleased that there were 3 women there, witnessing their struggles, and supporting them. Another possible comparison can be done between Divorce Iranian Style and Sisters in Law, two movies that reflect a certain social and cultural reality in the theatre of the court. In what way is your camera attracted to the courtroom as a perfect microcosm of society and what's your role there: lawyer, judge, witness...? Yes, youre right. I was so surprised when I saw how similar those two films are. The structure, everything. For example, the opening scenes in both films give a glimpse into the past, they give us an idea of what these women are challenging. In Divorce the first woman we see is from the older generation, she has put up with a life of hell with her husband for 30 years; the younger women we see next arent willing to contemplate a life like that. In the first scene in Sisters we learn how a woman was married against her will, in fact she wasnt even at her own wedding and

was exchanged for the price of a pig! At one point in Divorce, a 6 year old girl, Parniz, plays at being a judge and shows that she has much more understanding of womens lives than the real judge were watching in the film. But Sisters has much more hope because of the wonderful judges, Vera and Beatrice who are daring to challenge superstition and culture and have the law behind them. We were witnesses but we were also drawn into the action. For example Ziba doesn't tell the judge that Maryam destroyed the Order. We would tell the women how brave they were and that we were on their side. Ziba told them how she too had been divorced, once at 16 and then again at 18 years old. We weren't objective at all which was important for the women who were used to everyone criticising them and were facing a law rooted in 500 AD. I think our link with the women comes across strongly in the film. They confide in us, whisper to us when the judge isn't listening. I can't imagine how hard it might be do capture very private and harsh moments, as you do several times, for example, in the funeral sequence in Rough Aunties, without feeling or making the audience feel that the camera is being invasive. How do you set boundaries for yourself between what's truthful and what's exploratory? Do all these moral "thin lines" concern you as a filmmaker? I make these films with the people Im filming. If I ever felt I was being invasive, I would stop. The Rough Aunties called us down to film at the river when Shubaba died. The people there wanted us to be a witness to what those companies were doing. We were there as part of the team. Your two most recent movies, Pink Saris and Salma, were shot in India. I was wondering: do you first choose your subject (like Sampat Pal or Salma) or your destination? Are you preparing to do more films in India, as you did, for instance, in Japan? Definitely the subject. I was inspired by Salmas story. I just HAD to tell it. It is the story of millions of girls all over the world, right now. Salma has given them a voice, at last. Im so very proud of her.