#i know i shouldn't tag poalof but it took me so hours to translate this thing so please read it haha

[ladyonfire28]

An interview of Adèle in Cannes in 2017 for 120 battements par minute. 

A couple of people have asked me to translate it so I did it. Besides, what Adèle says about the violence that oppressed people experience and how it’s necessary to protest and be violent sometimes to be heard feels very relevant today...

0:01

Interviewer : “Hello Adèle Haenel - Hello - Happy to see you again for this very beautiful film 120 BPM. I was born in 1980 so I was little during the Act Up period but I watched it on TV and my mom would complain and say « another violent thing ». There was that bad reputation that didn’t correspond to the real purpose and activism of Act Up, which is something that I realized when I watched the film. And I wanted to know if you also had a bad image of it because of the media.”

Adèle : “Well first of all I think it’s very upsetting that we would call « violent » people that are oppressed. Because we can’t see the violence of the powerful people but it’s always there, through the barriers they’re putting. So it bothers me when we blame people who can only express themselves and be heard this way. So when we tell them « there’s other ways to say this ». Well no actually. Because there are things, if we just talk about it and we tell each other « see you in a month »  well in the meantime people are dying, and have their lives destroyed.”

“So the violence of Act Up is a symbolic violence. And yes we can discuss it and it’s discussed in general meetings, we see it in the film. But it’s a symbolic violence against real violence that is done to people that are dying without knowing from what. So it's completely legitimate. And same gores for other issues.”

*noise in the back ground*

“I’m just waiting for this to be over” 

“yes I hear”

“It’s not an ideal place”

“Not it’s not. But anyway, I think it’s also because of the way it’s received. It’s just like when we talk about strikes, we always say « ugh they’re on strike again » , but from what I see and think, 90% of the time strikes are justified. If people are striking, there’s a reason, their life conditions are getting worse. Going on strike is a commitment, it’s not just people saying « well let’s in bed, I don’t care I don’t wanna work, I’m lazy. » That’s what media try to send as a message, that people who are politically committed are either violent or lazy because they’re rail workers who don’t wanna go to work”

“But we’re talking about a social fight, it’s very important for things to be spelled out. Because this is also a weapon: to divide all the people who could unite because we have a common interest; 90% of people have a common interest. Of course there are differences inside the group but there’s a shared interest for more equality. And there’s an interest that is not shared at all but that exists and it’s to divide to dissipate all the energy : « they have more of that, you have less of that, he’s a lazy person » etc. Those adjectives are very annoying.” 

« So anyway, I think Act Up’s operating modes at the time were completely justified and thought through. It’s not a violence that is useless. And even if it was the case, it wouldn’t matter. »

3:20

“Do you think that bad image comes from an homophobia that was quite present in France at the time, and even today. When we see what happened with gay marriage here, it’s quite hard to understand those reactions when we come from Belgium.”

“I don’t know. Yeah probably. And it’s one of the things that Act Up use to say : « we’re not sorry for being there, we’re not asking you to allow us to be there, we are there already. » So voilà, and yes homophobia… I always saw this as a form of cowardice. For me, one of the reasons that could explain homophobia is the fact that homophobes get together to say « we are not like that ». It’s a pretty coward move because it’s hard to define yourself or to take charge of your life and to hide in values that aren’t even ours. Maybe some are really convinced but I think for most people it’s cowardice.”

4:30

“I learned a lot thanks to the film and I did a lot of research after because I was so interested by it. And the goal of Act Up wasn’t just to say « we have HIV, we’re here, use condoms », but it was also very concrete actions with laboratories, it’s justice.”

“Yeah and we see this in the film. Act Up’s actions were very important. There was this prudery that was very present at the time that lead to people saying « woohoo be careful we’re going to have HIV if we make love », it’s ridiculous when we thing about it. How public authorities resisted prevention campaigns just because of prudery. They ignored everything and it was a disaster. So Act Up’s actions were salutary, necessary. Maybe shocking. I’m not necessarily for shocking people, it’s not the only way to change things but at some point it’s important to get out of that masquerade, because people’s lives are at stake. Voilà.”

5:38

“I love the structure of the film. At first I was a bit lost I wondered if it was going to be just people talking for two hours, I wasn't sure how it was going to progress, but then I thought it was smart to take off and go to the most intimate, the most personal side of the story. And I wanted to know if on set if it was different for you to be in that group movement and then to get closer.”

« Well I wasn’t the focus, it was really on Nahuel and Arnaud who are the main actors. I lived it as a collective shooting. We’re always around 25 people when I have a scene so voilà. And it’s one of the strengths of the film. Its strength is that on the one hand, when we hear about the film we’re like « so I’ll be able to have my own opinion about Act Up, to know if I agree with their operating mode, their strategies, their politics » which is also interesting. But at some point the film, without using fake emotions, becomes a groundswell, it sweeps us and it becomes warm. And we go from the strategical policy to the policy that was experienced and to the political movement. And the political movement is a redefinition of the self, and the connection of the self to the group, and to accept that you're not all of yourself but that you're a little bit of other people. And there’s something that runs through us, and it’s more lively than being self centered : « this is mine, it’s my body, my house, it’s my thought, it’s me etc. » We’re trying to destroy that, and we can feel that in political movements and it's galvanizing for the youth still today. We can see this with the protests we had in Paris that we can call violent. We can feel the influence of that experience, it’s not just me and you, we’re together and we’re doing something that is not well perceived by people but it’s lively.

7:50

“Yes it’s a very lively movie. That’s what I felt first, even if there’s a lot of sadness in the end. There’s that desire to live, to go to the beach barefoot and to dance because we’re in Cannes *laugh*”

“Let’s go dance ! *laugh*  No but I agree. People would say that it’s a weeping film etc. but to me it’s really not the case. Because the film doesn’t say « look, it’s heartbreaking, we’re dying » . It’s true it’s heartbreaking and we’re dying, and we can’t stop ourselves from crying but we’re crying because we’re alive, we don’t cry because we say « oh what a surprise, someone dies » , we cry because life is full of possibilities and death is an end to that. So its talks about life and death. It’s not death like.. I don’t know if you see what I mean. It makes us want to live and to get out of those false pretenses, of those wasted times, of those fake causes and fakes ideas. With things that don’t belong to us, that enslave us, causes we serve but that are enslaving us because we didn’t really think this through. It's the order in us that's settled, and want to blow everything up, to live for real. And I think that’s a huge fucking work. To take responsibility for our life.”

9:19

“There’s a lot of dignity in this film, there’s no violin like in Philadelphia with Tom Hanks”

“No there’s not and I like the fact that there’s that unmasking thing in those collective scenes. We see a character being too hysterical but we really see them becoming hysterical, and we also see them calming down, we see everything. That’s what is so great, through unmasking each other all the time, we get to a real sincerity that couldn’t have been possible with a single voice. This is where the film is really generous, it’s not unequivocal, it doesn’t say « we think this » it says « this is how different voices have been woven around the same idea, around the same necessity. Yes, they were excessive but they were more or less aware of it, unable to get rid of it » etc. So we don’t ask the audience to just stick to one idea. And I love that.”

10:24

“I found the group scenes very impressive, I imagine that there was a lot of rehearsals because it’s impossible to have those immediate responses from everyone.”

“There were a lot of cameras. It’s the first time that I shot a film with three cameras. You’re talking about the scenes in the amphitheater right ? The majority of the films are amphitheater scenes, movement scenes and club scenes. I think, what was important was to meet each other and decide who would talk, because it's very written actually. And then what’s important was the architecture of the group, and that nobody would step on somebody else saying « wait I’m gonna try to shine more ». Because I think people would have noticed that. In the film everyone respected the place they had without any pretense. The relationships we had were real, and we got along well.”

11:27

“What do you want the audience to keep in mind after watching the film ?”

“That we really need to live, this is what I would say, voilà. And it’s not important to  keep objects the way we saw them, it's important when they settle and decompose. They become us, it’s not just an object anymore but becomes a small humus somewhere in our head. Voilà.”

“Well it’s great Adèle, thank you so much, you’re perfect”