André, a small-time ex-convict, seems to owe money to everyone in Paris, including a crime boss who promises to kill him if he doesn’t repay him by midnight. After failing to find protection from the American embassy and the French police, a despairing André scrambles onto a bridge over the Seine, intending to leap to his death. He is surprised to see a tall, beautiful girl clinging to a rail on the same bridge, apparently preparing to end her life as well. She jumps, and he jumps too, suddenly resolving to save her life. After scrambling ashore, she tells him her name is Angel-A. Together, they take a cruise on the Seine, repay André’s creditors, visit a Parisian nightspot, and more, as Angel-A helps André. He learns that for this purpose she has fallen out of the sky and into his life. André finds himself falling in love with this mysterious beauty.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/5.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/6.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/7.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/9.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/10.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/11.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/Images\/photos\/angela\/16.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Luc Besson From A To Z:<\/p>\n
A is for Actors
\nI didn’t miss the actual process of directing all that much. It’s a full-on mission and a responsibility that demands so much time, energy and perspiration that you don’t necessarily want to go back to it right away. To me, directing is a bit like a sailor in a single-handed round-the-world race: you have unforgettable memories but you don’t actually want to set off again as soon as you reach dry land. On the other hand, when I arrived on set, it was a huge pleasure to be with actors once more. The rehearsal period of six weeks with Jamel and Rie was particularly exciting. Seeing the text take shape through them, witnessing the enjoyment bubbling up, the first smiles, is pretty amazing. It reminds me of the development of a baby, who begins to take in the world around, and then interact with it. The pleasure is very similar. You are seeing something being born.<\/p>\n
B is for Besson
\nI began writing this film ten years ago. I had developed the bare bones of the story but I was incapable of putting the words into my characters’ mouths, probably because I was too young. I wanted to tackle this subject but I didn’t have the necessary vocabulary. So I put my fifteen pages to one side and came across them again much later almost by accident. When I read them through, I found it very contemporary and decided to get back to work to see if I could write it this time. The script was ready two weeks later! I suppose you might say that I spent ten years and two weeks writing the film…<\/p>\n
C is for Cascades (of action and words)
\nThere aren’t any stunts in the film, or only one that’s so tiny that after all the stunt-action movies I’ve produced, it doesn’t actually feel like it’s a stunt! On the other hand, there’s a real cascade of dialogue. It’s a very talkative movie, with the two leads chattering away like a couple of hens.<\/p>\n
D is for Design
\nFor the first time ever, because I often work with same two production designers, who have got to know me too well, I “recounted” the film’s settings to the production designer without giving him a script to read, so he had no idea what the film was about. I was convinced that he would come up with ideas that he wouldn’t have had if he knew the story of the film, and that’s exactly what happened. If he’d read the script, neither of us could have dreamed up the sets he eventually created, and which help the film to move forward at times. I adopted the same technique with the rest of the crew, for whom the shoot was like a soap opera – since we were shooting in chronological order, they discovered what the film was about as they were making it. They only got to know how it all ends on the last day of the shoot!<\/p>\n
E is for Elegy
\n(After much thought) I don’t get the sense that the film is in homage to anything, at least not deliberately. As far as Paris is concerned, it’s a declaration of love more than an elegy. I find that recently French movies have missed out on the beauty of Paris when for me it truly is the most beautiful city in the world.<\/p>\n
F is for Faithful
\nI am undeniably faithful to my crew but when you’re working, fidelity shouldn’t be confused with blindness. I’m often friends with my technicians but I never choose them out of friendship. I keep working with the same ones because they are smart enough to evolve between each film I make. Considering the creative responsibility they have on each project, it’s important for me that they don’t just stand still. I need them to want to keep improving. I don’t set out to “use” them but to share their knowledge.<\/p>\n
G is for Gilbert Melki
\nGilbert is an actor I had kept an eye on for some time and the role fits him like a glove. He was the first person I thought of to play Franck and I was very pleased when he said yes. I didn’t give him the script to read either because his character sees André, played by Jamel Debbouze, evolve and I thought it would be interesting to see Gilbert wondering about the origins in the changes he saw in André in each scene they had together. I think that not reading the script helped him to understand his character: he was hungry for it. The end justifies the means!<\/p>\n
H is for Her
\nSince Rie was a total unknown, I didn’t see the point in releasing her name, which meant nothing to anybody. But people are made in such a way that they are more interested by what you don’t tell them than by what they know. When I saw some of the rumors on internet, without it being a strategic decision, I got a real kick out of keeping up the suspense…<\/p>\n
I is for Images
\nTen years ago when I first imagined the film, the images were in black and white. They were mostly images of Parisian bridges and more particularly of certain places in Paris from where you can see a series of bridges spanning the Seine one after the other.<\/p>\n
J is for Jamel
\nThe first time I saw Jamel was on the French cable channel Canal + giving a hilarious review of Titanic. He reminded me of Zebedee, an endearing character that you sense is full of life, wit, charm and, at the same time, scarred by life, which makes the actor even more interesting. We bumped into each other a few times after that and got on well without ever being very close. Then, I realized that he was ready to take the plunge, to take on a leading role and take the character to the edge. As a director, it’s an exciting challenge. You feel a bit like an explorer.<\/p>\n
K is for Kubrick
\nI take no pleasure in going over old ground, probably because of my admiration for Stanley Kubrick and Milos Forman, who were constantly moving onto new things. Like them, I try to force myself not to make a “Luc Besson” movie, not to direct another Nikita (1990) or another Leon, despite being asked to do so all the time. Moreover, the thing that I particularly admired about Kubrick was the osmosis between his visual style and the story he was telling. His visual language was a perfect fit for the mathematics of his subject every time. Likewise, Orson Welles came up with ideas, shots and games with shadows that were just right for the subject every time. That encouraged me always to make sure that the way I shoot is in tune with the story I am telling.<\/p>\n
L is for Light
\nThe light was essential, since we shot the film in July and August – when Paris kind of empties out – according to quite an unusual schedule, shooting from 5 – 10 in the morning and then in the evening. We shot tests of every aspect of the movie in black and white, with a special treatment of the film – to the extent that it looks absolutely terrible in color. No way would anybody ever want to color this film!<\/p>\n
M is for Montage
\nAfter so many rehearsals, it was a real pleasure in editing to have the choice between two, three, four or even five good takes. That meant I didn’t have to edit shot\/counter-shot to get each character speaking at just the right time. There are a lot of scenes in the film where Jamel and Rie are both in the frame, real “actors’ moments”. That’s only possible if you rehearse a lot before the shoot and if the actors are totally focused on the set, which was the case here. With experience, you also realize when you’re editing that there is less film left on the floor: you pre-edit the film almost as you shoot it. Generally, I knew on set what I would keep and what I would lose, the cutaway I didn’t have and so on. On my early films, when I got to the editing room, I’d always be grumbling that I didn’t have certain shots and I’d go back to shoot them. Not only is that a thing of the past, but also the whole editing process is much quicker.<\/p>\n
N is for Black ‘N’ White
\nThe critics will probably say that I have consciously made my first and last film in black & white, but that’s absolutely not so. There are four characters in the film: Angela, André, Paris and the black & white. They are like the different aspects of a poem and if you take one of them away, you take some of the poetry out of the film.<\/p>\n
O is for Original (Score)
\nI discovered Anja Garbarek through a small photo in the newspaper. I knew Jan Garbarek, the saxophonist who played with Keith Jarret in the 70s and 80s and I was curious to listen to his daughter’s music after I sensed that she had grown up surrounded by Stanley Clarke and Miles Davis. I went out and bought her first two albums. They were magnificent. They revealed a genuine jazz heritage and a voice that resembles Björk’s with even more softness and poetry. That was at precisely the same time that I had pulled out of nowhere those few pages of a script. So I wrote the film while listening to those two albums. From the very beginning, the music was linked to the story and they continued to inform each other. At the time, the composer I usually work with, Eric Serra, was already working on Arthur and the Minimoys. It would have been difficult for him to compose for two films at the same time, so I was unfaithful to him for a film. Having said that, Jean Réno and Eric Serra make films without me, so I don’t see why I shouldn’t make a film without them at least once in my life. So, Anja Garbarek composed the original music for Angel-A, which also features a few themes from her earlier albums, which we rearranged.<\/p>\n
P is for Paris
\nI have always adored Paris but working on a film for the city’s Olympic Games candidacy forced me to take a new look at the city and that was a great inspiration. It was like meeting up with a former mistress! Working on my early movies, I spent a lot of time under her skirts, in the gut of Paris (The Last Combat – 1983, Subway). Now that I had grown up and I was her size, we could waltz together…<\/p>\n
Q is for Quality, #1
\nFor a film of this kind, the quality you most need is discipline and veracity. You can’t lie to yourself. You owe it to yourself to be honest about what you say and the way you say it.<\/p>\n
R is for Rie Rasmussen
\nWe could also say that “R is for Rare”; In Rie, I found a rare pearl. I have never met a woman like her, in love with everything, curious about everything, and so gifted – she paints, draws, takes photos and directs. Wherever she goes, she spreads happiness and smiles. Her enthusiasm was a real boost for me and made me want to shoot a film again.<\/p>\n
S is for Success
\nIt’s amazing how the success of a film undermines its status as a “personal” piece of work. After more than ten million people went to see The Big Blue, it was no longer considered a personal film but a mainstream picture. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a more personal movie – I wrote it when I was sixteen, when very few people knew about the sport of diving without oxygen or the relationship humans could develop with dolphins, not to mention that it’s the story of a guy who doesn’t feel right on land and would have preferred to be born in the water!<\/p>\n
T is for Thierry Arbogast
\nA usual suspect! One of the things I like about Thierry is the work he does with other directors! He has worked a lot in the States, and with Russian, British or Chinese filmmakers. As a result, it’s always a huge pleasure for both of us to hook up again, because we have new discoveries to share each time. Also, we know each other so well that no time is wasted. We understand each other instinctively, without really having to talk a lot. It’s a great partnership, especially as there are no ego problems between us – on a shoot I have to fiddle with everything, even the position of a light. I work on the principle that I can have something to say about everything because it’s my film. Thierry accepts that easily, unlike certain DPs, especially in commercials. Thierry likes sharing.<\/p>\n
U is for Ubiquity
\nFor any given task, if I feel that somebody is better at it than me, I don’t think twice, I give them the job to do. On the other hand, if I have the sense that I can do better, I do it. It’s pretty healthy, in fact, and has nothing to do with any control-freakery. It’s all about being efficient. Sometimes, I’ve already started something by the time I realize that somebody is more “capable” than me, so I leave them to get on with it. As long as we reach our goal – for the film to be as good as it possibly can be – who cares who’s wearing which hat! Especially as you usually take one hat off to put another one on: the writer writes, the director prepares and then rehearses with the actors, the producer makes his contribution. On this film, the producer didn’t have much to do – the director hardly ever listened to him!<\/p>\n
V is for Viewing
\nYou reach a point where you disconnect from the sheer pleasure of watching because you’re preoccupied with technical issues like transitions and sound. You forget that you have a Ferrari that’s going out to race because you have your nose in the engine and you’re so busy doing the fine-tuning that you forget to think about happiness and emotion. Once the hood is down, you’re able to let go and watch it drive with pleasure.<\/p>\n
W is for Weekend
\nI don’t know what the word means!<\/p>\n
X is for X-rated
\nStrictly speaking, there are no love scenes in the film. There are many subjects that I enjoy dealing with, but sex or screen nudity has never interested me. To my mind, it’s something intimate, which should be experienced directly, not watched, and that’s as true for the director as for the audience. On the other hand, everything that comes before “bed” is wonderful: a declaration of love can be played out in infinite variations. You can’t get bored of Romeo meeting Juliet, but to be honest, their love scene is of absolutely no interest. Unless, you film it like Beineix in Betty Blue, when the girl says “it was the first time we saw each other in the daylight” after the love scene that opens the films. It has meaning, it adds something to the story.<\/p>\n
Y is for “You have anything else to say?”
\nNo, everything else is in the film.<\/p>\n
Z is for Zen?
\nI was very scared after my first film that nobody would let me make another one. I was very scared after my second film that nobody would let me make a third. After twenty-five years in the business, I say to myself now that if I never make another movie, it’s not the end of the world! I must be more “zen” and less and less anxious about success or money. Having lived through eight film releases, I know now that only the quality of the film is left. Am I happy with the result? Do I think I did my best? What is left of the film five years later? That’s what counts. The rest is all forgotten – the little hassles around the release. Ten years down the line, not much remains of that.<\/p>\n
JAMEL DEBBOUZE’S FIRST TIMES<\/p>\n
Having made his name in TV, stand-up comic star Jamel Debbouze, made his screen début in 1998
\nwith Zonzon and Le ciel, les oiseaux et… ta mere! He catapulted to international success with his
\ncomedic role of Lucien in Amélie (2001) and, again with, Asterix and Obelix Meet Cleopatra with Alain
\nChabat (2002). Jamel’s career took a more serious turn with the release of Rachid Bouchareb’s
\nIndigènes (2005) which was devoted to the “forgotten heroes” of World War Two, and finally received
\ntop billing for the first time with Angel-A.
\nFirst meeting with Luc Besson?
\nIn Normandy. He’d washed up on a beach and I brought him back to life. To thank me, he offered me
\nthe lead in his next movie. We’ve been inseparable ever since.
\nFirst time the film was mentioned?
\nThat was in Cannes. He said, “You’re wonderful, darling” and I replied, “You’re wonderful too, darling”.
\nHe added, “Let’s make a movie and enjoy making it as much as watching it!” We bumped into each
\nother quite often after that – we have a lot of mutual friends – and one fine day, he gave me the script of
\nAngel-A and said, “I can’t claim to know you very well but I think I’ve written something you’ll like. Get
\nback to me.”
\nFirst reaction?
\nI found his approach extremely generous. I got a real sense that he had written the film for me and,
\nstrangely, he’d got a pretty good handle on me. I know what he was thinking of when he was writing and
\nI know where he wanted to take me, while keeping in mind everything I wasn’t sure about, everything I
\nreally wanted to try and everything I refused to do.
\nFirst day of shooting?
\nI did two things I don’t usually do. First, I arrived on time, at 5 a.m. on the dot, not just because I wanted
\nto impress him but also because I didn’t have much choice. It was vital to know your lines inside-out to
\navoid wasting any time and to fit in with Luc’s precision. But above all, I placed my trust in him, which is
\nvery rare. I’m an animal. People have so often taken me for a ride, or made promises they never keep,
\nthat I’m often on the defensive. But Luc seemed so sure of what he was doing, I gave him my trust.
\nIncluding for the first stunt?
\nObviously. He wanted me to jump off a bridge! You have to have trust… and life insurance! Having said
\nthat, Luc was always there to reassure me. He has something that’s very special: he worries about the
\nactors’ state of mind.
\nFirst surprise?
\nThe weird thing is that, at times, Luc shot the film like it was a no-budget short – seven or eight of us in a
\nvan driving round Paris, him with the camera on his shoulder, until we found a spot he liked. Then we’d
\npile out and shoot the scene. I really believe that, with this film, he rediscovered the buzz of when he
\nstarted out. He actually told me that it sometimes reminded him of The Last Combat.
\nFirst encounter with Rie Rasmussen?
\nAll I can tell you is that it was in room 110 of a hotel. But I won’t divulge any details!
\nFirst encounter with Gilbert Melki?
\nRoom 110 as well, but not at the same time.
\nFirst time “Jamel the stand-up” made an appearance?
\nNot before the last-day party. Up until them, I was determined to keep focused. I didn’t want to let this
\npass me by. In this business, there are a lot of con-artists and Luc isn’t one of them. He took me
\nseriously, so I was determined to take his film seriously.
\nFirst images of the film?
\nThe last day. Luc had edited together some outtakes, without any grading or sound-mixing, that really
\nmade you want to see the whole movie. I am really proud to have done this film. It enabled me to work
\non things I didn’t know about myself and that Luc brought out. He drew me towards a music I had never
\nheard from myself.
\nFirst Luc Besson movie you saw?
\nNikita, and it was a real Nikita in the face! It was a mix of everything I loved about American movies and
\neverything I adored in French films: a strong story, meaning and real direction, with intelligent action
\nsequences where every bullet is there for a reason. If there’s one thing that Luc does that really
\nimpresses me, it’s that he can relate to the people he’s trying to reach. It’s a real virtue: you sense that
\nhe is sincere and when you see his films, you’re sincerely touched.<\/p>\n
WHO ARE YOU, RIE RASMUSSEN?<\/p>\n
Unknown to mainstream audiences, Rie Rasmussen is anything but a movie debutant: her first short
\nfilm as writer-director, Thinning The Herd (2004), was selected for the Cannes Festival 2004. After a
\nsmall part in Brian de Palma’s Femme Fatale (2002), Angel-A is her first lead role.
\nWhere are you from?
\nI was born in Denmark but I spent my teenage years in southern California. I have also lived in a lot of
\nother countries (France, England…) so I feel kind of international. I chose to build my culture by taking
\nthe best from all these different societies.
\nWhat do you do when you’re not acting?
\nActually, my goal is to become a writer-director. A lot of people choose a movie to see depending on
\nwho’s in it, but for me it’s always for the director. What I love about directing is the chance to tell a story.
\nI can’t understand directors who don’t write… not to mention actors who win a prize for speaking
\ndialogue that they didn’t even write!
\nWhat kind of “movie buff” are you?
\nI’ve been watching movies ever since I was big enough to switch on the TV at home! I remember the
\nfirst film that really stayed with me when I was a kid: Fellini’s La Dolce Vita (1960). In Denmark, I grew
\nup on Dogma movies – by unknown directors long before it became such a hugely publicized concept.
\nWhen I discovered American movies, I fell in love with film noir: The Big Sleep (1946), The Maltese
\nFalcon (1941), Key Largo (1948)…. They are some of my favorite films. There’s also Sam Peckinpah’s
\nThe Wild Bunch (1969) and the incredible way he uses slow-motion. And my father passed on to me his
\nlove of Sergio Leone, Woody Allen and Clint Eastwood.
\nHow did you meet Luc Besson?
\nThrough the short features department of his company, Europa Corp. I had written a feature-length
\nscript, which I sent them. They got in touch, recommending that I write a short first, which I made with
\ntheir help and which was selected for the Cannes Festival.
\nDid you know Luc Besson’s films well?
\nFrame by frame, shot by shot! He’s one of my favourite directors, up there with Orson Welles, John
\nHuston, Howard Hawkes, Sam Peckinpah, Bob Fosse and Brian de Palma. The Big Blue was one of the
\nfirst films I bought on video. I first saw it in Denmark and my whole family was crazy about it. I also fell in
\nlove with Nikita, especially the lighting.
\nHow did Luc Besson talk to you about the film and the role of Angela?
\nAs soon as he completed the script, he mentioned it to me, that’s all I can say. And also that I cried
\nwhen I read it… even though I’m a gutsy girl – I don’t cry easily.
\nDo you feel close to the character?
\nYou couldn’t say that she’s like me but I feel close to what Luc wanted to achieve: create an ideal
\nwoman, a character who only ever wants to do good.
\nDid you see Paris in a new light on this film?
\nI already knew Paris very well, including at four in the morning! I’ve been coming here regularly for the
\nlast ten years. On the other hand, I really did get the sense of helping to write a page of film history after
\nA Bout de Souffle and Bande A Part. I think Paris should always be filmed in black and white.
\nAs a director yourself, what did you pick up from Luc Besson?
\nThe big lesson I learned was that you have to know everybody’s job better than anyone else to be able
\nto delegate with finesse. Luc knows how everything works on a shoot. It’s great to watch.
\nDo you have other projects with him?
\nThat’s not important. If I were to die today, I’d die happy. I’m so proud of doing this film that everything
\nthat is to come will be like a cherry on the cake! Angel-A is like no other movie. You’re in for a big
\nsurprise…<\/p>\n
GILBERT MELKI ON NEW GROUND<\/p>\n
After his breakout role in Thomas Gilou’s La Vérité si je mens (Would I Lie To You? – 1997) Gilbert
\nMelki demonstrated the full range of his talent as a sensitive cop in Lucas Belvaux’s trilogy Un Couple
\nEpatant (2002), Cavale (2002) and Après La Vie (2002), a ladykiller in Venus Beauty Institute (1999)
\nbefore returning more recently to a comic register in Coquillages et Crustacés (2005) and Palais Royal
\n(2005). Angel-A is his first film with Luc Besson.
\nCan you tell us a little about the film and your character?
\nActually, I can’t because I didn’t read the script and I only know what happens in the scenes I was in. I
\ncan’t tell you how the film ends, for example. When Luc offered me the role of Franck, a kind of Mister
\nBig, surrounded by bodyguards, he gave me a list of “my” scenes – the three I share with Jamel, in
\nwhich we see how his character, André, has developed.
\nWasn’t it unsettling to act without reading the whole script?
\nAs it turned out, no. Much less than I thought it would be. It’s basically a question of trust. When Luc first
\ntalked to me about the film, he said, “Trust me. Say yes and I’ll let you read it.” I wanted to read
\nsomething before I gave him an answer and I also asked for some time to think it over. I talked it over
\nwith my friends and family, who were all very enthusiastic, of course, and I said yes!
\nWhat sealed it for you?
\nThe desire to work with Luc Besson on a film which, even if it has a substantial budget, is not a
\nblockbuster like The Fifth Element. I have a particular soft spot for Subway and I was curious to see
\nhow a film directed by Luc takes shape. I also wanted to act with Jamel, whom I had known for a long
\ntime and with whom I get on very well.
\nYou seem to enjoy trying out different genres and expanding your range?
\nThat’s what’s so fascinating about this business, even though I think Luc was particularly drawn to the
\nrole I played in Would I Lie To You? Franck is a similar kind of rogue.<\/p>\n
THIERRY ARBOGAST IN BLACK AND WHITE<\/p>\n
A renowned Director of Photography, Thierry Arbogast has won three César awards – for Bon Voyage
\n(2003) and Le Hussard sur le toit (The Horseman on the Roof – 1995), both by Jean-Paul Rappeneau,
\nand Luc Besson’s The Fifth Element. Fifteen years after Nikita, Angel-A marks their fifth collaboration.
\nWhat is special about the way you work with Luc Besson – an instinctive understanding?
\nSomething like that. Luc thinks through every aspect of the film but he’s very sparing with the
\ninformation he gives you. I think that with a minimum of explanation, he gets straight to the heart of the
\nmatter. Before the shoot, we talked together one-to-one for forty-five minutes to discuss what kind of
\nlook he wanted. Of course, we discussed black and white and he said that Woody Allen’s Manhattan
\nwas a good marker. That’s lucky because Gordon Willis, who lit that movie, is one of my favorite DPs
\nalong with Vittorio Storaro (Apocalypse Now). Luc also showed me some photos to help me in the right
\ndirection. We also discussed the way he wanted to shoot – fast, small crew, catching Paris in the early
\nmorning. Luc assured me that the film would be shot in a very simple way, and it was – for a result that
\nis very sophisticated!
\nWhat special pleasure is there in working in black and white?
\nPartly because it’s so little used in films today, black and white has an extraordinary poetic power. It
\nsimplifies the image and enables the actors to enjoy the pure beauty of acting. There are no distractions
\nand lighting is a primary concern, which is wonderful for a DP. When I was younger, I learned a lot
\nabout my profession by shooting black and white portraits of my classmates. You learn a lot by working
\nin black and white photography. There is an instant relationship with contrast and light.
\nWhat are the consequences of shooting in black and white on the sets and costumes?
\nIf you’re working in studio, the best thing is to have sets and costumes that are also in black and white.
\nIt helps you concentrate on the how the image will eventually look, especially as some color’s reaction
\nto the light can result in unpleasant surprises. On the other hand, as far as the negative is concerned, I
\nchose color filmstock because black and white film hasn’t evolved much since the 1940s. That enabled
\nus to have a little grain and to capture lots of detail in both strong and low lighting. And as I wanted a
\nsilky black and white look, I played on contrast in the lighting rather than the filmstock.
\nThere was a lot of mystery surrounding this picture. How much did you know when you were
\nshooting?
\nLuc thought that the production designer and some of his other collaborators, myself included, didn’t
\nneed to read the script, so that we wouldn’t develop an overly precise idea of the look of the film. When
\nyou read, you tend to picture the film in your mind’s eye but Luc wanted us to have absolutely no
\naesthetic preconceptions when we started shooting. He did show me the locations and sets so that I
\nhad the necessary technical indications but I really appreciated the overall thrust of his approach. I’m
\nnot a big fan of reading scripts. I find it a fairly thankless task.
\nHow did you light the monuments of Paris?
\nI didn’t have to light them. The light of the cosmos took care of that – the sky, sun, clouds… We just had
\nto make sure we were up early to capture the best light in Paris.
\nWhat’s your best recollection of the shoot?
\nMeeting up at four o’clock every Sunday morning to film Paris in the first flicker of dawn. I’ll never forget
\nthose moments – Paris without any traffic, bathed in an unreal atmosphere. What’s more, it’s exactly the
\natmosphere that you get in the film.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
From director Luc Besson: My first great thrill in making this film was to rediscover Paris. Le Dernier Combat (The Last Battle – 1983) had allowed me to glimpse its flesh and bones. Subway (1985) took me down into its … Continue reading