ANIMATOR REMAKES HIMSELF

Cannes-bound Canadian short film stars a replica of filmmaker’s body: ‘Pores, fingerprints: it’s all there’

As it happens, Montreal’s Patrick Bouchard has the only Canadian movie, either long or short, screening in the main programs of the 2018 Cannes Film Festival, May 8-19. But he could honestly claim to be the Cannes participant who has put the most of himself into his work, thanks to his new short The Subject, made for the National Film Board of Canada. Premiering in the Directors’ Fortnight sidebar of auteur offerings, the 10-minute film is Bouchard’s visceral exploration, via stop-motion animation, of a clay-like moulded double of his own body. (A trailer is online at nfb.ca/thesubject). The official synopsis says the film “pays homage to the animator’s vocation — namely, breathing life into the inanimate.” Bouchard, 44, says via email

The Subject’s naked body, which is stretched out on a workshop bench in the film, “very faithfully reproduces the real thing, and to an amazing degree. Pores, fingerprints: it’s all there.” The work also contains surreal mechanical elements that suggest a commentary on our increasingly tech-driven world. Bouchard previously explored the intersection between the human condition and big ideas in such previous shorts as Bydlo,

Subservience and The Brainwashers, with an esthetic informed by his love of Eastern European puppet animation.

The Subject is by far his most personal work — he wrote, animated, directed and also composed music for it. He really put his heart and soul into it:

How does it feel to have the only Canadian film in the main Cannes offerings this year?

Proud and happy, of course! Making the film was a long process filled with doubt — pretty much a gamble from day one. So being selected was a surprise. Being the only Canadian is an odd turn of events. I think it’s a loss in terms of Canadian production, but on a personal level, I can also see that being a country’s only entry helps attract media attention, which is good for the film. I’ll try to be a good ambassador!

How long did it take you to make The Subject?

The project took years. I had the idea in 2014 but production really only began in 2015. It took us weeks to develop the right casting techniques, since replicating a real body is anything but easy. After four months, we finally had our definitive moulds. Then the shoot took until October 2017 and the film was finally done by early 2018. So from initial idea to finished product it was a four-year investment.

What is the film’s body made of, and how close is it to your own body’s dimensions?

The body is made from Plasteline, which is like modelling clay except that it reacts to heat much like wax. When melted to a more liquid state, it can be poured into a mould and capture a very fine level of detail. In that sense, the Plasteline body very faithfully reproduces the real thing, and to an amazing degree. Pores, fingerprints: it’s all there.”

I understand you used your own blood and saliva in making the film.

Yes. I used my own blood and my own saliva for one scene. The scene in question is when the strange cinematic apparatus emerges from the body. I wanted to have this apparatus project organic images like cells, corpuscles and so on. The idea of photographing my own blood and saliva through a microscope appealed to me. So we were able to integrate images of the real blood of the real person into the representation of that person’s body.

I hope I’m not being too reductive, but I read the film as a comment on how technology dehumanizes humanity. It made me think of Pink Floyd’s song “Welcome to the Machine.” Am I on the right track?

You’re not wrong. In fact, I don’t think there are any “wrong” interpretations. Beyond the body, whenever you address the question of being, of the invisible, the impenetrable — well, there’s this unavoidable mystery that leaves room for multiple interpretations. It’s the very essence of the film. So it’s perfectly viable to bring up dehumanization. I’d add that in some ways, it’s just as valid to talk about humanization. In fact, I really like that particular Pink Floyd track! Great idea!

Maybe it is unintended, but there also seems to be some humour in the film. The part where you pull an anvil out of the mannequin’s chest reminds me of a Road Runner vs. Wile E. Coyote cartoon.

Your question is interesting because when we shot that scene, it was intended to be fun and playful. But then we ended up treating it differently in postproduction, certainly in terms of the music. I did eventually make the connection with the Acme Co. anvil but only toward the end of the shoot. So it wasn’t deliberate. When I did, I found it very funny. Afterward, during the sound design, we thought of adding a whistling sound as a nod to the cartoon classic, but my anvil didn’t fall from high enough! On another level, though, the anvil represents the burdens we all bear. And so symbolically, it’s a gesture of liberation, one we are all entitled to make.

A movie as visceral as this could cause some people in the audience to faint or leave the room. Are you prepared for this?

Nothing like that has happened to date. But I do understand that some viewers might find the film distressing. I don’t think I can really prepare for that … This interview has been edited and condensed.