Notice: Can't open file: 'mos_core_log_items.MYD'. (errno: 145) in /home/httpd/vhosts/filmshi.com/httpdocs/db/includes/database.php on line 184
Notice: Can't open file: 'mos_core_log_items.MYD'. (errno: 145) in /home/httpd/vhosts/filmshi.com/httpdocs/db/includes/database.php on line 184
Nicolas Rossier
Contributed by Sara Schieron
Tuesday, 20 December 2005
Nicolas Rossier spoke to me on the 16th of December from his home in
New York. Speaking to me about his film Aristide and the Endless
Revolution, a film which maps the journey of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and
politics in Haiti since the late 80's, we the importance of neutrality
in filmmaking and the involvement of the western nations in the
struggle and eventual dissolution of Haiti's young democracy.
I wouldn't generally ask such a banal question but as your film is so
reliant upon controversial political content I feel a need to hear you
answer this: What is your film about?
My film is a journey of a man, Aristide, through the last 15-20 years
of Haitian Political history. The film is the story of Aristide's
struggle but it's also, through his struggle, a film about Haiti and
what the country has gone through since he came to the political scene
in the late 80's.
It was an interesting comment within the film that "the history
Aristide is the history of Haiti". It sounds as if you're echoing that
sentiment.
He has been a major political figure: after the Duvalier rules and
after 200 years of political violence, Coup d'etat and time without
democracy. When he came he changed Haiti's political life tremendously
by brining democracy and social change. Whatever he represented in that
change, in history he will be remembered as someone who changed Haiti's
social and political life forever, no matter what you want to say about
him as an individual. His critics might say, "these are the facts" but
only for that he could be recognized as an important figure (not sure I
understand that ?).
Can you talk about your experiences in Haiti? I understand you did shoot some footage in Haiti.
Yes. We shot a lot in Haiti and actually what you see in the film is
about 25% of archival footage from great research we did with different
companies and in Haiti. I shot a lot of what you see but I also had
another cameraman working with me.
I interviewed Josh Seftel a few years back and he made a film called
Lost and Found about orphans in Romania, and when I spoke to him he
said it was far harder to watch the film than it was to make the film -
because when he was shooting he could help the situation, this is in
contrast to the position of the audience who are trapped by outside. I
wonder if you feel the same was true for you filming in Haiti, as you
witnessed some horrifying things.
It's hard; although when you shoot these sequences you kind of
automatically protect yourself... emotionally. It's the only way you can
shoot. When you shoot violence or people who are dying you just shoot
and you don't even realize what is happening. In our case it wasn't
until we went through the 9 months of editing that we realized we had
been in difficult or dangerous situations, only later we said ‘look at
all this suffering' and that's when you start realizing. You tend to be
emotional even in the moment but I think you also have to hold it in in
order to do the work. I guess you have to have this automatic distance
otherwise you can't shoot. In a way it's quite passive. You're just
being a witness and trying to portray the reality you're seeing. You
hope you will be helping with the film eventually and create a debate
but on the spot you're really not helping - you're basically using
people. I mean, if I can say that, I think it's sometimes true. If I
could help somebody on the spot and not shoot I would just help but
when you film you just film. So you are a voyeur no matter what you
say.
The first time we hear your voice in the film is when you ask Noam
Chompsky if a minimum wage increase in Haiti threatened "a significant
enough change to the US?" to which he replied "apparently". Why did you
choose to include your questions when you did?
I've been criticized in the past because I was not in my film enough. I
think that if you're in the film too much asking questions - and I'm
only talking about asking questions, I'm not talking about actually
being in the film, that's something I never wanted to do because the
film isn't about me, it's about the subject - but as far as the
questions are concerned, I think it's important, especially in a long
piece like that, that people can tell that there's a voice, a human
being involved. And that's why we chose to include questions in the
film. I think there are only like 5 times in which you hear me in the
film.
If we hadn't done it I think people would have said that it would have
been nice to have a living involvement by the director but I think that
if there's too much then it would be too much about the person making
the film. I think we wanted to do it in a shy way.
What brought you to the situation in Haiti?
The only idea I had about Haiti was back in '87 after Duvalier's son
left. I remember this powerful photo from the magazine Photo and the
image really stayed with me until I came to New York. In New York I met
Haitians in the arts and also I met Taxi Drivers and Haitians in
Brooklyn. I was really impressed because they were all so involved in
politics: listening to radio, as you know there are plenty of Haitian
radio shows in NY, particularly in Brooklyn. And that's when I became
interested in making a film about a radio show with the topic of Haiti
in the background. Then in 2003, in December, I had a friend who went
to Haiti to make a film about a Voodoo priest and when he came back he
said, "there's tension in the air" and politically things are going to
change. And that's when I decided to do something on the political
situation and pitch it to some TV stations. Then, funny enough, I got a
chance to meet Aristide after he arrived in Pretoria, South Africa and
that's when I decided to make a film about Haiti through the journey of
Aristide. I came as an outsider and I really learned a lot and became
almost like an Insider. I still am involved. I read about 1-2 hours a
day about Haiti. I think I came in as an outsider but I also came in
with very neutral eyes on the subject.
Something that is central to the film is the effect of the American
involvement in Haiti's political past. Noel Murray from the AV Club
wrote, "Aristide And The Endless Revolution is still structured like an
open-and-shut case, made with circumstantial evidence." This isn't how
I would characterize your film or the situation it depicts but I wanted
to ask you about it because the relationship between the American
involvements and Haiti's political tumult it is apparently not explicit
to some?
The AV Club - do you mean review in The Onion? You picked the only bad one.
I thought it was interesting because everyone else is lauding the neutrality of the film...
I read that review. I think that as an independent filmmaker my role is
not to give only answers. It's very hard in the case of Haiti to make a
film in 83 minutes and close a case. I don't think even lawyers can do
that in 2 years. I think the idea for me was to tell the true facts and
give a few answers but basically it's true, that my film asks
questions. I think people want to see films that do more than just
offer an answer or a key, I think, they want to see films that raise
important questions. So, in that sense, I think I was able, in the view
of some, to raise very important questions about foreign policy, about
justice, about human rights about history as well as the responsibility
of western nations towards the past and what we've done and how we
should seek reconciliation. These types of things are very important to
us and they're the type of issues I was trying to invoke in the film.
"A close and shut case"... I don't know, but I think it's not my role. If
CBS has 2 years and a huge budget and wanted to send the 60 minutes
team even they probably couldn't find the answers to the questions I
raised. Maybe in 2 years they could close a case but that could only
happen in 5 years. Right now, a lot of documents are being classified
so we will know more only in a few years. Even in other stories we
don't have the documentation to answer everything with all the facts,
rulings etc... I don't know if I answered your question.
I wanted to know about how you would characterize the relationship
between the "Western Powers", as you put it, and Haiti; their
responsibilities, the actions they may have taken or not taken that may
have lead to the escalating conflict.
Haiti is only half of an island and for some reason Haiti is
really an interesting case to understand how neo-colonialism has worked
in the last 60 years. And I think it's an interesting case for anybody
who wants to understand how economic policies have been conducted by
international agencies and how they've failed in many cases. It's also
interesting in the case of Haiti because they've had so much
intervention since the liberation in 1804. And you have this mangling,
specifically with France and The United States, an interventionism that
has cost Haiti its economic development and stability. I heard a lot
through my film, especially from the opposition to Aristide, that
‘Haitians need to be responsible first' and need to be the ones first
responsible if something doesn't work. But I think you have to
have a more systemic approach and see how the international system has
influenced Haiti and how these dynamics work and how difficult it is,
specifically for a small nation, not to be influenced one way or
another by these political powers like France and the US and Canada and
I think these interactions play a large role in the affairs of Haiti.
And I think you can't see Haiti or Haiti's affairs without looking at
the interactions of the international community and how it effects the
local elite, the political games it plays and how money or aid
influences things on the ground. So yes, Haitians are responsible but
for me only for 40%. 60% of the issue is the international community.
If the international policies are not working well and are not well
implemented with long term goals, then no matter what Haitians do over
there it's not going to work. And I think specifically in the case of
Haiti, when you look at the history, specifically the interactions
between France and Haiti you can see how important that was. You can
see that Haiti had to pay for more than 100 years, reparations to
France because they wanted to be free and independent and that
amount (90 million gold francs) constituted every year
about 80% of their national budget. And people ask now why there are no
trees on the hills. So you have to understand these dynamics in order
to understand the condition and understand how this type of behavior
has impaired Haiti in its economic development so these things have to
be put in context. And that's what I tried to do with the film. Before
and during the Coup, there were many films made by Haitians
or foreign filmmakers showing how Aristide was the only one responsible
for the deterioration in Haiti. There was no context given to the
crisis, his lack of aid
and also the lack of cooperation from the opposition. All that was not
said in these films so it was all about how the man hadn't delivered
and how it was important for him to just go. And I think that's how the
liberal inteligencia here and in France failed Haiti because they
didn't understand that there were many principles being ignored and
that something very bad was happening to Haiti in 2004. They didn't
point to that, they just said, "He's gone, let's move on" but there is
no moving on. Moving on from such an event will never allow the seed of
democracy to be planted. They didn't understand that and now a lot of
them regret what happened. He just had a year to finish his term and he
even accepted in February 2004 to have a prime minister from the
opposition. But they wanted him out.
Your film has been applauded as a neutral documentary. "Neutral" is a
word I'm not fond of and a concept I don't generally agree with,
however, what I do see other critics identifying with is this respect
for the views of the opponent. As many followers of Aristide are heard
in the film as opponents to him, and I wanted to ask you about what
responsibility you might have felt to involve voices from both sides of
the argument.
I did want to reach out; I actually reached out a lot. Sometimes it
wasn't always successful but that's normal because when we started the
film the situation was very tense...still is.
With Haiti, no matter what you do you have so much partisanship from
both sides. And you'll always find people on either side that
will say that there was "too much balance" -which I actually heard, or
that it was "not balanced enough". From non-partisans or well aware
people who know about Haiti but are not really partisans, they found
the film very balanced. In the case of Haiti, it's a little bit
like the Middle East: no matter what you say you'll always find people
on both of the extremes and that's happening today as well in the
so called "main stream media". So it's a very delicate exercise and at
the end of the day you [the filmmaker] are going to have to go with
your feeling. Especially when it's an independent film. Sensitive
people are going to have an impression of where you tend to stand. In
my case I wanted to reach out but on the other hand you see my
sensitivity: I'm not really for the Coup, I don't think it's a way of
conducting international affairs. These things will be clear at the end
of the film, and you'll be able to see where I stand but I don't think
that's the most important thing.
I think, at the end, the sensitive viewer will be able to see "this is
where the filmmaker stands" but then it becomes the audience's turn.
They can decide to read more about it and decide what they feel is
right and that will make people decide to get more involved in Haiti or
travel to Haiti and take action and so on. And they're going to have
their own conclusion on where the truth lies. So this is what I think.
It's very hard. Even the most balanced or objective report on the BBC,
in the end, I can still find the journalists' stance and I think that's
where we should not make ideas about that. You always have a little bit
of yourself in a film.
-were you inspired by the BBC?
No actually I'm not. I don't watch the BBC anymore, I used to. I think
the reason I've heard this question before is because we use a neutral
voice [actor]. That was a choice we made. We thought about using a
Haitian voice and finally because the subject was so timely and so
important we didn't want someone who had a voice that seemed to side
with any of the issues. We wanted someone who sounded more neutral and
could bring some credibility to the facts we brought into the film.
When you say "voice" are you speaking of the voice over?
Yes. The Narrator. If you're asking more about the style, the film is a
journey and in a journey you have a rhythm and pace and there is an
editing style that is kind of fast and it has to have drama. What you
see is a result of these decisions.
When we started this film it was almost during the Coup and it was hard
to pitch the film and even get Haitians involved. No one knew where I
stood. Even in Haiti I had to navigate and be as neutral as I could.
Which I was, I think I was ready to listen. Though I did have an idea
of what went wrong. You have to play smart and be careful with such a
polarized issue and difficult subject. To navigate through the web or
rumors and un-credible sources is not an easy thing for an outsider but
we managed to do it and we're happy with the results.
You interviewed so many central figures in this international
situation. I wanted to ask you if you about obstacles in production and
in finance. Did you encounter any obstacles in finding interviews or in
seeking funds? I know you had support from both American and Swiss
institutions.
We had a co-production with Swiss TV in Geneva and we had some grants
and private funds from the company. The difficulty was as always: if
you're honest with your subject and you start neutral and write letters
and keep insisting you'll find people who will participate. But, as
always in this business, you have to be relentless and keep selling
your ideas and keep insisting to see certain people. There were some
people didn't get access to and asked 3,4,5 times but a lot of people
have no time and you just have to keep insisting and keep selling your
idea and help them understand that it's important and timely and a good
idea for Americans, for Haitians and they will eventually show up and
agree to be interviewed. But it's a lot of work and insistence but in
the end it will work if you believe in the story.
And you know, a lot of stories I work on seem controversial when I
start to make them, and then a few years later they become quite
mainstream. I've had stories that people have told me "no, don't work
on that", or "why do you want to work on Muslims after 9-11, people
don't care about that, do something on the victims" which was
understandable, but 2 years later I had ABC and other networks asking
fort the film. So what begins as controversial ends as mainstream and
that's...just the way it is. It's unfortunate but that's where I
think independent producers and filmmakers have a role to play. They're
often playing the roles of the pioneers and they're the ones that go
and look around and deal with riskier subjects. Hopefully they're
rewarded in the end. That's why I think filmmakers exist and
that's why they can make great political subjects.
Did any non-profit organizations help you with the work of this film? I
ask because when I saw the film there were representatives from
haitiaction.org which is in the Bay Area for those who are interested
in looking that up, and IJDH.org spreading information and
literature at the screening. Their presence gave me the impression that
the network of involvement is a tangible one.
I got support from organizations like the Institute for Justice and
Democracy in Haiti. I got involved with one person, Brian Concannon and
he was very helpful for the film. Haiti Action is actually very active
in the bay area and they've been spreading the word about the film.
They came to the United Nations film festival and they've been very
helpful. There's a network of activists who have been very active and
involved with the screenings...and also in Canada. There's a tremendous
network of activists from Vancouver to Montreal. They're very active
and they're very unhappy about the role of their government with Haiti.
It's an island that has a lot of support. A lot of people have followed
the first steps of democracy in Haiti and feel very concerned - more
than any other island, it's a very interesting phenomenon. It's a small
network but it's happening in different cities. There are more people
concerned and think that the film has an added value to help tell the
whole story. I've been in touch with them and hopefully people are more
aware today and can become more involved and help get involved in human
rights organizations, get Amnesty and Human Rights Watch more involved
then they are. There have also been things happening because of these
organizations. People have been freed, people who had not received
judgment since the Coup have been put in jail or released but there is
still a lot of work to do. And I think these organizations are working
very hard for it and that's very positive.
If you're interested in supporting the cause you can visit ijdh.org or
haitiaction.org for ways to get involved. You can find a trailer for
the film as well as upcoming festival and screening information at
www.firstrunfeatures.com. More details on the film can be found on
www.aristidethefilm.com.
