30/01/2025 - The German director tells us more about low-budget production conditions and about his motivations to make this sequel to 2003’s Quiet as a Mouse

(© Johannes Stoll)

German director Jan-Henrik Stahlberg is known for his caustic humour paired with an uncompromising approach to filmmaking, as he has made a series of features based around “uncomfortable” protagonists and topics. Twenty years after Marcus Mittermeier’s political satire Quiet as a Mouse, which Stahlberg wrote and starred in, he presents Muxmäuschenstill X [+see also:
interview: Jan-Henrik Stahlberg
film profile], a sequel for his (anti-)hero Mux, whose mission is to reform politics in order to create a more equal society. We spoke to the director on the occasion of the world premiere of his movie at the Max Ophüls Prize.

Cineuropa: Is there any particular reason why you wanted to make this film now?
Jan-Henrik Stahlberg: I've always been a political person, and since the financial crash of 2008, I've been increasingly concerned about the growing inequality in our Western societies. And then, one day, the “Manifesto of Muxism” landed on my doorstep. It was a yellow booklet by an anonymous author... It was immediately clear that someone was addressing me, “Mux”. I read the booklet straight away and found that the strongest thing about this manifesto was that it not only contains a brilliant indictment of neoliberalism, but above all, it makes very simple, concrete suggestions as to how we can make sure that all of us who work every day have more time and money to think about the kind of society we want to live in. And that was the starting point for Mux and his revolution in the film.

Your previous film Fikkefuchs [+see also:
trailer
film profile] was crowdfunded. Was that also the case for Muxmäuschensstill X?
The production conditions were tough, as is always the case for low-budget films. It's like having a blanket that measures 1.3 x 1.3 metres – either your feet or your upper body poke out. This film was made for two reasons: firstly, because many people could strongly identify with the content and were willing to work for a “Muxist” basic salary; secondly, because with Martin Lehwald, I had a producer at my side who believed in this film. 

Are the scenes in which Mux criticises the lack of decency and cultural understanding in our society based on your own observations? Wasn't it difficult to concentrate on just a few examples?
Who is not aware of that? The quick glance at your mobile phone as soon as your companion has to go to the toilet during a romantic visit to a restaurant? Shopping, travelling on the underground or working without a mobile phone? Unthinkable. For Mux, this fixation is a novelty. And that's why Mux is such an exciting hero for these times. He’s like a black-and-white character in a colour film – slightly out of time. And yet you can understand him when he throws mobile phones out of the window.

You state at the beginning that the film is a satire, but how much of the political thesis is really satire?
The disclaimer, “This is a satire”, at the beginning of the film is an insult to the audience's intelligence. That's why we kept it deliberately ironic. This disclaimer only exists because our producer was advised to do so by the legal team – which is very thought-provoking. I think the film gives the viewer the rare and great gift of trusting them – nowadays, there is fear everywhere. There are warnings everywhere: the coffee’s too hot, the kerb’s too close, the food’s too high in calories… It reminds me of the USA, where it's been like that for a long time. People are taken for fools – in 2025, there is a trigger warning for Richard III by Shakespeare at the Deutsches Theater. It's madness. After all, don't these well-intentioned pieces of advice always make us realise how immature we are? As if we are surrounded by danger and should be grateful that someone is looking after us.

As for us, we believe that the viewer understands this film correctly, that we are adults and that we can stand it. How much of this movie is satire is up to the viewer to decide. Or, as we like to say: Mux is made up, but the time he lives in is not.

Can you tell us about the ensemble cast you filmed with? Were non-professionals also involved? Was there any room for improvisation?
I'm happy about these questions, and what makes me particularly happy is that you can no longer tell the difference: who is an amateur, and who is an actor? After the film, viewers came up to me and were sure about it: “Mr Stahlberg, in that scene at the Trevi Fountain, the angry Italian woman who comes up to you was just a coincidence, a passer-by, wasn't she?” And I think that's the greatest possible praise for this great Italian actress who mingled with the people. The casting was very extensive and took months, but this kind of “zero acting”, as I like to call it, leads to an incredible authenticity, which influences everyone in front of the camera. This makes the film enormously funny, as you're constantly asking yourself: “Am I allowed to laugh or not?” And then you hear a giggle on the other side of the cinema, and you know that someone else had the same problem.