Screenings, interviews, debriefings... It took a little patience to succeed in catching the president of the jury of the 52nd edition of the Deauville American Film Festival as his schedule is so tight. “It’s the three-eights,” he laughs. We are on the eve of deliberations. He still has one film left to watch. His mission is coming to an end, and this time, at the last minute, we have him.
This actor, who will celebrate his 60th birthday just after the festival, has become one of the figures of French cinema in recent years. Since his first appearance on screen in 1987 as an extra in Josiane Balasko's Les Keufs, he has appeared in more than a hundred films and series, navigating smoothly between large productions and auteur cinema.
In 2006, he shared with the entire cast of Indigènes the prize for best actor at the Cannes Film Festival. He moved behind the camera by directing Mauvaise Faith, with Cécile de France, and has since directed five other feature films, including Les Miens, presented in 2022 at the Venice Film Festival. In the meantime, he continued his career as an actor and won the César for best actor in 2020 with his role in Roubaix, une lumiere by Arnaud Desplechin. He is starring in Billie Melody by Christine Paillard, a film released in theaters on Wednesday, halfway through its Deauville week.
In a room with slightly outdated decor in a large hotel on the seafront, he takes a seat on the velvet cushions of a faded red sofa, and answers our questions as if it were his first interview of the week – even though it is the last of the last, we have just promised him – and shares with us the behind the scenes of this new experience for him, which he says he enjoyed with enthusiasm.
Franceinfo Culture: How did you feel when you were told that you would be president of the jury of the Deauville American Film Festival?
Roschdy Zem: Wait, I'm trying to remember. I no longer know what I felt precisely because it was still something that was prepared in advance over six or eight months. But there is always a form of little flattery all the same. We are always flattered because this position of president, even if it is completely honorary, and I don't take myself too seriously, it allows us to see, in reality, where we are in the profession. So I think I said to myself, "President, oh yeah, so here I am." And since I always have a hard time understanding how people see me in this profession...
Is it like a cursor to measure where you are in your career?
Yes, sort of. And besides, I immediately went to Wikipedia to see who my predecessors were, and there, I saw the names and I said to myself “ah yes, all the same!”
The festival is coming to an end, you have seen almost all the films in the competition, can you tell us what the color of this selection is?
Yes, we only have one left to see tomorrow morning and then, in the afternoon, we deliberate. First, I want to say that the selection is excellent. These are films which each time deal with quite strong subjects, and even if there are differences of appreciation among the jury, no film has left us indifferent. What struck me is that there are films where there is a lot of talk about death and the end of life. Illness, Alzheimer's, accidents, but also old age. We sense directors and projects that are really worked by this question.
Not very cheerful then?
No, not happy at all. But that's no surprise. With a selection of films chosen from American independent production, I wasn't really expecting to see comedies.
What image of America do these films convey?
It is the image of the one who resists, of the one who fights for her daily life, of the one who tries to get by. There is a lot of talk in these films about this America. There is this film about bodybuilding for example. I find that the character is very similar to what America is today. Of these people who we don't see, who are invisible, and who are ready to push the cursors very far to stand out from the crowd.
Are the films in the selection political films?
The politics are there, but they are underlying. That is to say, we see the consequences of politics, rather than stories with committed characters. In most of these films, we are with those who suffer the effects of politics.
Have you noticed anything interesting formally in this independent cinema?
What I noticed is that there are a lot of dreamlike scenes. These are films for the most part very anchored in reality, even with a form of violence. But there are also very often dreamlike scenes like that, somewhat dreamlike scenes that take us elsewhere. And I found it interesting to understand what pushes these directors to take us into a story that is quite harsh, quite violent, but still to bring this poetry which is a little abstract. So there is still a desire, through the scenario, to keep a part of poetry and lightness despite everything. We feel that despite the desire to be quite telluric, there is still an artistic dimension. And I found that really interesting.
Is there something really specific about this independent American cinema?
Less than before, I would say. Before, I found that there was a real specificity. Today, I would say that there are analogies in the way of approaching subjects. Who inspired the other, I don't know, but when I think back to the age when I discovered New Hollywood, there was a violence that we didn't find in French cinema. And above all, there was a way of dealing with the dark pages of the history of their country that we did not find in French cinema. On the other hand, I believe that in France, through certain films, we have never had a problem talking about the daily life of certain French people or certain people who live in France, to artistically denounce certain everyday, social things. And that's what I also saw this week in American cinema. So, from this point of view, I believe that the procedures have become the same.
And on the production side?
Obviously, we have a system in France which is much more virtuous. There, among these independent American directors, there is a courage and a fight that is not the same, because these are films which are financed with private funds. They have to manage to make their films without help.
And what is the jury like? You are going to deliberate tomorrow, what does that look like?
I am very happy with the jury. It's quite eclectic, with people coming from different backgrounds. We've already done a first debriefing, and I have a feeling we're not going to get along. I adore. My anxiety was that a film would reach consensus and that we would all agree. I find that there is nothing more moving than seeing a member of the jury defend a film that everyone hates. So I think there's going to be some pretty intense exchanges and I'm looking forward to it.
For you, what qualities are required to deserve an award? Have you thought about the meaning you want to give to the prizes you are going to award?
I really tried to approach the films with, if possible, the greatest possible neutrality. I didn't once look at, for example, the press kit before discovering it. I wanted to see these films as naked as possible, so that I would be completely open to the proposition. I also tried to force myself to look at him without judging him. When I see a film, I'm like you, I chose it. But here, it's different, we didn't choose them and so I tried to open my mind as much as possible and to have a form of indulgence that wasn't entirely natural, but I imposed that on myself.
We will find ourselves faced with the difficult exercise of extracting one from the selection, I find that there is something absurd in comparing films. The subjects are often completely different. One film has qualities, another has different ones. What makes one film better than another? Obviously, there are films that touch you in one place more than others, and that doesn't mean that the others didn't interest you. So I think you just have to listen to your body and your heart, and the emotion that it produces, quite simply.
As an actor, are you particularly sensitive to the work of interpretation?
I like it when I actually forget that it's an interpretation, and that's happened quite a few times this week. For me, that's the success of an interpretation. It's when you forget that it's an actor playing a character, and you only see the character. So it's not always continuous, it's often moments, but that's enough. That's what I call those magical moments that mean that at one moment, you're on the screen and you believe in everything you see and hear. In the debriefing, this is one of the arguments that I put forward, on one of the films that I really like thanks to the interpretation of several actors in the cast.
What is the day of a jury president in Deauville?
It's a movie at 10 a.m., then another at 2 p.m. In between, we have an hour for lunch. Yes, it's a bit like three-eights. And then, when I don't have interviews to do (but I've done a lot, they've optimized the president), I go across the street to play tennis, and then I go to the gym. And then in the evening, I go to dinner with the members of the jury.
