François Ozon is in the running for the Golden Lion for the fourth time in his career at the 82nd Venice Film Festival, with his 24th feature film: The Stranger [+leggi anche:
trailer
intervista: François Ozon
scheda film].

Cineuropa: Where did the desire to adapt Albert Camus' famous novel come from?
François Ozon: I had another project, a film with three different 30-minute stories, including one about a young man today who was questioning his own life, who was quite detached from the world and who attempted suicide. I couldn't get funding for this film, so I abandoned it, but many of my friends really liked this story among the three and advised me to develop it into a feature film. So I reread The Stranger for inspiration, to give me ideas. It was also out of curiosity, because I had read it when I was a teenager, so I only had a vague memory of it. The book was still as incredible as ever, and I felt like I could find everything I wanted to say in it, in a much stronger and more intelligent way than I had planned to do. I inquired to find out if the rights were available, and to my complete surprise, they were. So I met with Catherine, Albert Camus' daughter. I told her about my desire and my vision for the book today. She trusted me, and I took the plunge. I was very apprehensive, of course, because when you say you're going to adapt The Stranger, everyone has a clear idea of how it should be done, who Meursault is, which actor should be cast, and so on. Everyone has already staged their own version: it's a book that has left a visual impression on the minds of all its readers. So I felt that I was going to be judged harshly.

Why did this theme of being detached from the world, without meaning in one's life, appeal to you?
It's about not understanding the world, being a spectator of your own life. I like characters who are a bit mysterious, who are introspective. I made Young and Beautiful [+leggi anche:
recensione
trailer
intervista: François Ozon
scheda film] about a young girl who also seemed detached from things, who was cut off from her emotions. Here, it was a bit like a male counterpart. I like opaque characters that we try to understand throughout the film. In fact, when I started adapting The Stranger, I didn't understand Meursault, and I made this film to try to understand who he is and why he acts the way he does. Because there are many reprehensible, condemnable things in what he does that are difficult to rationalise or psychologise. That's why the adaptation seemed like a real challenge and very exciting to me.

What were your main areas of focus when adapting a book based on inner feelings? Did you do any historical research?
Yes. Rereading the book with today's perspective, what struck me in particular was the invisibility of the character of the Arab, the fact that he has no name, that he is simply referred to as an Arab. I had a feeling that this was problematic today, given the current situation, what we know about colonisation and the Algerian War that took place. I quickly had a hunch that, unconsciously (because he strongly denied it), Camus was foreshadowing war through this story. In any case, he clearly shows two communities living side by side and a tension between them, with no objective reason other than a relationship of domination and colonisation. So, very quickly, what seemed important to me was to contextualise, to understand when this book was written, in 1939, and what the situation was in French Algeria. I met with many specialists, Camus of course, but also historians who specialise in the relationship between France and Algeria. For today's audience, it was necessary to contextualise this period in order to better understand the book. It was essential.

What adjustments did you make to the original story?
I think I have been very faithful to the book, but I have added things that help to better understand Camus' thinking, things that seemed too embryonic in the book, particularly the female characters. Through the character of Djemila, by giving her a voice and a conscience, I have highlighted the invisibility of Arabs. As for Marie, in the book she is a very minor character who embodies sensuality, happiness and love, but who is not really aware of what is going on. It was important to give her a real insight into events. Because we are surrounded by very negative characters, hyper-toxic men: one beats his dog, another beats his wives, and Meursault kills an Arab. So we needed female characters that we could relate to. And Marie is radiant: she ultimately embodies everything Camus loves.

My first idea for the adaptation was to make a silent film with intertitles when dialogue was really needed. It worked quite well for the first part, but not at all for the second part, which features a lot of conflicting speeches, the trial, the confrontation with the priest. So I abandoned that idea. Nevertheless, in the first part, I tried as much as possible to be economical with words, because that also fits with Meursault's character, who doesn't speak just for the sake of speaking. As he himself says at the trial: “I don't say anything because I have nothing to say.” I also wanted to immerse the viewer in that era, to be able to see it, observe it, and at the same time observe how this character reacts in this setting and how things happen around him, because he is not very much an actor in his own life; he is very much a spectator in the first part.

How did you approach the philosophical, metaphysical dimension of the work?
That's what scared me the most. It was very difficult to adapt. The first part is very behaviourist, with lots of events, facts that can be described because they are described in the book. But then we find ourselves in a stream of consciousness, in a thought that gradually takes shape with a whole reflection on the absurd, the meaning of life, our relationship with the world and with death. It wasn't supposed to be a philosophy lesson, but rather something embodied and alive, and I think that thanks to the actors, it works.

What about the choice of black and white, as in Frantz [+leggi anche:
recensione
trailer
Q&A: François Ozon
scheda film] ?
It was a bit of the same logic, both economic and aesthetic. Economic because I couldn't afford to do a Hollywood-style reconstruction of 1930s Algiers, and black and white simplifies a lot of things in terms of sets, etc. I also felt that this story would be much more sensual in black and white, even though my script described a lot of colours, as Camus does in the book: Marie's red dress, the blue sea, the sun, of course. Black and white was also a choice to move towards a form of abstraction and also a form of exoticism for us, as we are no longer used to seeing it. It also brings a degree of realism, as our memory of that era, filtered through documents, is in black and white.

Have you finally solved the mystery of Meursault?
This character, even though he is abominable in some ways, fascinated me. He is someone who always tells the truth, who never lies, who is always true to himself and who discovers that behind the absurdity of life, there is a possibility for rebellion. This is the essence of Camus' thinking, something that touched me and that I can relate to. I don't know if I have unravelled his mystery, but in any case, I have tried to understand him. For me, the book was quite opaque, enigmatic and beyond rational understanding. And that's what interested me, that there was food for thought and that everyone could project what they wanted onto it, identify with or reject it, agree or disagree with Camus' philosophy, but it remains complex. I found it interesting in the current era where there are no longer any nuances, where everything is very divided.