English text
a norm, I saw in the character of the
heroine a form of solitude, courage
and freedom. I felt neither fearful nor
guilty. We were a good team
Verhoeven and I, and I’ve always
loved his films. The first one I saw was
Turkish Delight, which came out in a
semi-porn cinema! I was still at
school. It had had a very good review
in Charlie Hebdo which made me
want to see it. Rewatching the film
today, you think you’re dreaming.
There’s nothing very shocking in this
story of a very contemporary Traviata
who dies of a sort of love illness... As
for Elle, the critics were ultimately very
much in the minority.But it’s clear that the portrayal of
female characters has been called
into question, just like we’re ques-
tioning the power that certain
directors wield over actresses.
I get that that can exist, but person-
ally I’ve always felt protected by the
directors I’ve worked with, Haneke or
Verhoeven for example, to cite two
who have filmed me in situations
where I could have felt rather ex-
posed, and therefore vulnerable. But
I never had the slightest doubt. I knew
they were on my side.Nonetheless it seems that nudity
and the filming of the female body
are approached rather differently
nowadays.
Those are very good questions.
Sometimes I say to myself, “Those
poor actresses, look what they’re be-
ing made to do!” But, once again,
I never felt personally concerned by
it. Of course we can wonder if there’s
some change of undercurrent in the
world of movies, but it’s still very dif-
ficult to know how an actress might
be led to do such or such a thing.
There’s the question of what we like
to watch and what we find right.
They’re difficult ideas to separate.You’ve been doing project after
project both in both film and the-
atre for the past few years – it
really seems like you never stop.
Well why ever would I stop? [Laughs.]
I’m lucky enough to be doing what
I like, it would be silly not to go for it.The desire is still as strong?
Always. But there’s a misunderstand-
ing with respect to me. People often
say I work a lot, it’s become a rather
wearying chorus. But a lot is not nec-
essarily too much. It’s just a lot. For
me, in any case, it’s not too much...
It’s never enough!the present, without melancholy.
There’s sadness, obviously. But
there’s also the satisfaction of having
done things, which is always better
than regrets. I shot seven wonderful
films with him, just as I did two very
fine films with Werner Schroeter, who
I really liked very much too. I wouldn’t
say it makes their deaths more bear-
able, but something carries on living
afterwards in that way.Do you ever watch your old films?
Sometimes, but never deliberately.You don’t have a Green Room in
your house in which you can look
back at the past?
No, not at all. I saw that Violette
Nozière was shown recently on tele-
vision, but I didn’t watch it. I’ve seen
Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate a
few times, and it always moves me.
Too few people saw it when it came
out, and so it’s always a bit of an
event when it’s screened. It’s like an
unloved child who in the end is much
loved. There are never enough words
to say how much one loves.In Frankie, your character has an
absolutely delicious line: “I’m very
photogenic.”
It was in the script. I said it very inno-
cently, my back to the camera, while
swimming in a distance shot...But coming from an actress, that
line means something.
I was very surprised, because a lot of
people have spoken to me about it.
Film actors are generally photogenic.
But we should probably be talking
about cinegenic. You can be very
photogenic but less cinegenic.How would you define the idea of
being cinegenic?
The first time I heard the word was
from Benoît Jacquot. It’s difficult to
define. A face that becomes animated
in a particular way when filmed. A
face or a body – the body can be ci-
negenic too. A particular way of being
present, too, really there. You could
say that cinema is both a presence
and being present.Your role in Paul Verhoeven’s Elle
launched a whole debate around
the question of rape. What’s your
feeling about the role of film with
respect to contemporary issues?
I’m perhaps naïve and unaware, but
I didn’t feel I was transgressing when
we made Elle. Rather than the idea of
a potential scandal or the twisting ofSo what is one responsible for as
an actor?
One isn’t responsible for a film. That’s
not our job. But one is responsible for
what one does... or for what was not
conscious of doing.
For your unconscious?
And how! No one is more responsible
than oneself. That’s at least one thing
you can be sure of.
After acting in dozens of films by
renowned directors – Michael
Cimino, Claude Chabrol, Jean-
Luc Godard, Hong Sang-soo,
Werner Schroeter, Mia Hansen-
Løve, André Téchiné, Patricia
Mazuy, etc. – do you feel initiated
into the language of filmmakers?
Yes, of course. But it’s on a level of
intuition, not knowhow. It’s not a the-
ory that I learned film after film – ex-
perience teaches nothing.
An actor doesn’t choose the take
that will be used.
Not usually. Chabrol had a theory
about that: he said that whichever
take you choose the film will be the
same. I can see what he meant, but
still, you’d have to check! I remember
on Une affaire de femmes [Story of
Women], in the good old days when
we went to see the rushes...
Let me interrupt you a second
there: you say “the good old days”
because they’re over?
We were more involved. Today you’re
not shown the rushes. Sometimes
you look at scenes on the combo [a
small video screen mounted on the
camera] after the take, when working
with directors who let you, or who
happily ask you, or who require you
to, like Michael Haneke. Against all
expectations, and contrary to the im-
age of all-controlling creator people
have of him, Michael loves us to be
near him to correct the details.What were you going to say about
Une affaire de femmes?
Well, among the rushes I watched
that evening, there was a take which
I preferred to the one Claude had
chosen. That wasn’t a problem for
him – he used the one I preferred, as
though it were of no consequence.
Given that he didn’t direct me at all
and never told me what to do, there
were certain scenes when I thought,
“Whether I do it sad or happy, it won’t
change anything.” The small varia-
tions had little importance because a
more global vision was at work.Chabrol has been dead for at least
a decade now. One gets the
impression that you live purely in288