05/02/2024 - We got the low-down on this experimental film helmed by the directorial duo, in which Sigmund Freud meets Moses

(© V Cornel)

In the 1930s, Sigmund Freud (played by Jenni Luhta) is writing Moses and Monotheism – it will be his final work. Today, two Finnish artists are reading his words, discovering a complicated man who, by the end of his life, was simply searching for grace. We spoke to Jenni Luhta and Lauri Luhta, the directors of the IFFR Tiger Competition entry Moses [+see also:
film review
interview: Jenni Luhta, Lauri Luhta
film profile].

Cineuropa: We have certain ideas of what makes a film “dynamic”. Were you afraid that it was just going to be you, Jenni, sitting and talking for such a long time?
Jenni Luhta: Moses was obviously based on that book, so interesting and so strange at the same time. We thought it should speak for itself. It also felt like it was the best way to show the kind of person Freud was. But yes, we were terrified at first. We both come from visual and performance art, not cinema. It’s obvious that this is not for people who are not used to listening to lectures or reading books: it requires an audience able to take in a lot of text. But it’s always going somewhere, I feel, because Freud is experiencing so many ups and downs.

Lauri Juhta: We tried to make sure that these scenes of him talking wouldn’t feel too long, but once you accept this film, I hope it can be immersive. There is so much going on in Freud’s mind and imagination, so you can take it or leave it! He was trying to convince his imaginary posthumous audience, but also himself. We read this text very closely and discovered all sorts of weird hesitation and self-doubt. We were interested in that inner drama.

He is clearly wrestling with himself. You wonder if he is still talking about this man or maybe about himself?
JL: We tried to be objective and really look for him. Freud is probably not the most empathetic person in the world, but you do develop empathy for him later on. He says all sorts of things. People like parts of this text, and then he puts you off. So how do you follow him? Are you embarrassed by what he says, or do you go: “Yeah, Freud!” In a sense, it’s all about the audience. How do you deal with this guy? We also wanted to respect the fact that this was a real person. When I was acting, I was thinking about that, too.

LL: We didn’t want to glorify him, but we didn’t want to put him down either.

When you play someone so iconic, someone who was parodied all the time, it’s easy to forget he was also human.
LL: We think that Freud himself embraced this “superstardom”. He really thought about his image, and if you look at some of his photos, you notice that. But when you see private footage, there is a different, awkward side to the man. We decided to focus on that instead.

JL: That was our way in. People usually portray him as this perpetually frowning, grumpy guy. But his voice was actually rather high-pitched. He would feel self-conscious. That was the Freud we were trying to find because it felt like an interesting addition to what we already know about him. Having a woman play him was also a nod to his possible bisexual tendencies. Over the years, he had all these male colleagues he was almost romantically obsessed with.

Why do you think he was so taken by Moses, of all people? Because he was another icon?
LL: We wanted to show Moses as another character and not be cheesy about it: we had to avoid all those Biblical images. In the film, it’s as if he came from another dimension – from the Bronze Age, when things were much simpler. He is silent, and he symbolises this ancient way of looking at the world.

JL: He was portrayed quite differently by the early Christians. We went: “He actually looks like Lauri!” Freud was in Vienna, trapped inside this one idea of Christian religion: an atheist who couldn’t escape his origins. He believes Moses is not a myth – he is real person. He doesn’t question it, and there is something touching about it.

LL: Freud’s Moses was Michelangelo’s Moses. That was the picture in his head. He wants to find the origins of Judaism and monotheism. In his last work, he is going back to his roots.

This obsession is almost funny – it’s a furious rant about someone who probably never existed. But he also comments on the “odd times we live in”. When selecting these quotes, were you looking for something timelier?
JL: Sometimes, it’s just a coincidence. He talks about politics, and yes, sometimes you wonder if it’s all about today. But we tried to avoid overly current references. We wanted it to feel a bit retro.

LL: We wanted to give him a chance for some mystical grace. He keeps posing the same question over and over again, and never quite gets the answers. He’s clearly unable to break free. Then, at the end of the book, he suddenly gets so humble. There is something so affecting about it.