History:
In edge of English Channel, on the Coast of Opal, near a hamlet, its dunes and its marshes, remains a strange guy who struggles along, poaches, asks and fact of fires. A vagrant come of nowhere who, in the same breath, goes hunting the trouble of a village haunted by the demon and puts the world except Satan.Date (s) of Exit (s):
October 19th, 2011 | 
not dated
| Accomplished by: | Bruno Dumont |
| With: | David Dewaele, Alexandra Lematre, Aurora Broutin... |
| Distributor: | Pyramid Distribution |
| Type: | Drama, Fantastic, |
| Country: | France, Belgium |
| Length: | 1 h 50 |
| Programmed in: | 49 cinema in France |
Trailer for hors satan:
Free Streaming to Watch Hors Satan Online:
======>>>>> <<<<<======
pictures of Hors Satan:
Downloads:
Maintenance with Bruno Dumont:
Is there a source in Except Satan?
3gp, MP4:
Maintenance with Bruno Dumont:
In the foreground of The Life Of Jesus, they saw that a small shack in sheeting, a hermit lived in which... I felt like making a film around such character. I began writing a history which took place, in Bailleul, therefore in Flanderses there. Having circulated a lot for Flanderses and Hadewijch, desire came changed decor and make a film anchored in an unique place. A character of hermit allowed this stability, in another territory which I know well, where I saw a part of the year since my childhood.
Where is it?
On the Coast of Opal, in the Step of Calais, near Boulogne on Sea. I wrote scenario from these landscapes, from this light, and from my desire to locate me in this place. I am rather sensitive to landscapes, my films always leave a place, for its return. The landscapes which are seen in the film happen in a domain of dunes and of protected wood, in principle it are forbidden to go there – what didn't make filming easier... But he pleased me because he is composed of a very big variety of types of vegetation, of fields, practically every dune has its clean colour... In the same place I had a considerable visual diversity. I wrote having walked for a long time in the zone. I chose sites, then I wrote scenario. I need this power of nature to give intensity to stages where often he is going to go without very simple things.
This intensity comes from landscapes, but also of the way to film...
Yes, the production aims at returning visible the force which emanates from characters and from situations who there themselves are often ordinary, or could be taken for such by being filmed in another way... These reports of force constitute the probable art of the very production.
One of the essential dimensions of this production as enhancement passes by a very particular use of the sound, in a film where dialogues are reduced at the very least and where music is away.
Everything is in its live broadcasting and "monoskiing", they are exactly the corresponding sounds in catch, I they neither changed nor rerecorded. There is noise which I don't want, but I take them with the rest, stoically – the rails of tracking, or the perfecting of objective are even heard sometimes-. I don't work sound any more with a fitter, and there is no post - synchro. Sound material is very rich, domesticated in no way. Suddenly, when there is silence, it is really smelt and extremely.
You make little catches, you content yourself with what took place in front of the camera?
In no way, I search something rather definite, and the stage as often is done again as it is needed. But it concerns what takes place with actors, not much technology.
Who are these actors? You knew them at the time of writing?
I knew David Dewaele, I have already made two films with him, he had subordinate roles in Flanderses and Hadewijch. I felt like giving him a first role. I know how he acts in front of the camera, I wrote by thinking of him. On the other hand, I didn't know Alexandra Lematre, whom I met incidentally in a coffee of Bailleul. Trials were made, she was very well. I liked his virtuousness, the way it finds it difficult to share the feelings.
She answered for what you waited for the character?
No, that doesn't work just like that. I don't construct my characters in a final way, I am ready to receive what is going to arrive, and of course that or the one who is going to play, and the transformations which his presence, his way are going to procreate. It is then a job on myself.
But at the same time on filming you are very directive.
Yes, I insist to get something particular, that corresponds to the film for its group. But my requirement always registers inside what the actor gives me and that comes from him. To take a comparison, it is colour, but it is me who choose the intensity of this colour. We speak before the beginning of filming, we come to an agreement on what we are going to make together. Then, the actors discover every morning what they are exactly going to play, but it always registers in the frame which we defined, inside the main lines which they know. I don't take them suddenly.
In this film, you toughened your way to film, although your previous films Except Satan is almost only composed of very broad plans, which show landscapes, and of close-ups.
Yes, my way to film changed, it is more composed. Until then, I had tendency to consider that intrigue and its characters dominated, and that the team of realisation had to follow. I don't make any more this. They lost there in terms of the quality of plans a lot. The played good has to be filmed well. This time the definition of what is going to be seen was much firmer before every catch; for example, there was a big leading number on the soil to delimit the movements of the actors. This changes the way they play, and they «are filmed well», in sense where angles, points of view are the richest. This way to turn contributes to give power to plans where there happens something that in itself can be very banal.
You had decided on a particular visual vocabulary for this film?
Yes, as for each of my films. This job of composition is not only necessary but he must be observable by the spectator, he participates of plan. For Except Satan, besides alternation very broad plans / close-ups plans, I wanted to use a lot of divings and low-angle shots. For divings, there were four height of camera, 2 metres, 4 metres, 6 metres, 8 metres, and it is everything. Emotion must come from positions of the camera at least as much as from what takes place or without what tells itself. The composition of frames, for example the place of the horizon, gives temperament to subject. This approach – that of style – has already been that of novels of Zola, or pictures impressionnistes: idea that subject must be simple, ordinary, and that it isn't there that this takes place. It is in the deployment of painting, or of writing (or of the production) that the thing takes place.
There is only the production which constructs this enhancement, there are also excessive, disproportional acts.
It is necessary. If ordinary gestures are naturally shown, there happens nothing. The disproportion, in actions and game of the actors is needed, but provided that this rocking has a sense, provided that it makes something else receive than what is superficially seen. Representation is needed!
The film uses a strange stylistic device, which consists again and again in showing a character looking at something, then to show what is in front of him, but what is in front of him am not what provoked this look...
Absolutely. It is an ellipse, an ellipse in action, but in psychology. I consider that the today's spectator is in even to supplement by himself. If the film shows everything, explains everything, describes all itineraries, the film loses in energy, it would get heavy terrifically. I believe a lot in the retrospective capacities of the spectator, in the possibility of showing something that they don't understand over instant but that then takes sense, and this gives movement and intensity in the report to the whole film. The films which take you by the hand permanently, who explain and give proof very step by step bore me or depress me. It is necessary to play with what occurs in the head of the spectator, while trusting in him to draw pleasure of such displacements.
Except Satan is confronted with one of the challenges with that the cinema is always dealing: film a miracle. Challenge in which you find a very particular answer.
I know that it is necessary to turn by respecting the rules of representation in which I am, in his live broadcasting, in positions and defined axles of cameras, without resorting in music... No way to parachute suddenly an "effect " come from other places, of another aesthetic world. I have searched for a long time how to stay in this frame there. And how film such situation of a way which doesn't implicate a relation in religion. I am not believer, my film contains the requirement of no other faith than in the cinema. Since for me the cinema it is what allows to make room for the extraordinary in the common place, and to let receive what there is divine at the human beings, to feel it. It is what brings closer to the cinema of the mystic: the mystic says «look at the earth, you will see the sky». Oh well the cinema with its apparatus is possible make this. And he needs no more religion there therefore.
At instant the man, having slaughtered a roebuck, said: «I pulled without seeing». This sentence resounds as a kind of currency of the production.
It is a sentence of hunter. If there is a stationary in-flight lark, it is because there is an animal underneath. There is an invisible promise. And then it is necessary to act. At the beginning of the film, the said guy: «there is only one thing to be made», and afterwards: «they made what it was necessary to make». Concrete situations, answers, no feelings.
The film was announced one time under title empire. Why did he change title?
In fact he was called Except Satan since the beginning, but at instant there was a doubt, and then this title complicated things during filming. As long as the film isn't there to answer title, it is complicated to justify it, it is getting tired. Therefore during the stage of manufacture it was called The empire, which is in scenario the name of the place where takes place history. Then I took back the original title, which is the one who answers plan.
This title encourages to refer in Bernanos.
With good reason. To Bernanos I learnt that by looking well at the common place they saw appearing supernatural. According to me there is a big nearness of Zola in Bernanos.
But just, this film is less based on the waiting of an appearance thanks to the length, which was characteristics of your previous achievements. On the whole plans are shorter, assemblage differs, with a lesser appeal on plan sequence.
Yes, there was a ripening, which makes that I need no more length. I discover how I can attain what I search by other means, notably framing and game of the actors about which I have already spoken, just as much as assemblage. On average, the plans of this film are distinctly less long than in precedents. It is also the first film that I go up entirely-myself I had taken up first 20 minutes of Hadewijch, this time I wanted to take care of the totality of assemblage with the assistance of a fitter. I wrote a, turned a lot, and then in cut a lot assemblage. I need this material to find the good cut there. A bit as a sculptor needs a block of marble in which to sharpen.
If you are told yourself that it is a film on the good and the trouble...
It is the material of departure, but in either way it is the case of all films, no? Except that they are less in a simplistic opposition than in the building of a report in the world, a report where it exists, the good and the trouble, and where it is a question of finding its place, «of being what there is to be». It "to make" isn't moral, he is vital. It is a question of being confronted to this world, and to possibility of acting, not of going to preach what is well or what is wrong. The film doesn't give lecture, it takes note with gestures. He is beyond the good and wrong, in one's own way. And afterwards, this takes place in the internal for of each: the film is intended to provoke the reactions of each for itself, during and especially after the film, from felt experiments while it is looked. I absolutely don't make a «cinema of ideas», I make a cinema of feelings, by counting that to feel these feelings, from landscapes, physical presences, sounds will produce effects on the spectator. Including possibly that he has ideas, him. But it doesn't belong to me to have it on his place or to say to him what to think. It is as an art of dialogue. When an actor is too much had talks, enunciates a reasoning, I run away by running. I prefer being raw. It is so why I don't feel like épiloguer on the "message" of the film, what matters it is the experience of the spectator felt during projection.
Maintenance accomplished by Jean-Michel Frodon
