Please donate to help save PopMatters. We are moving to WordPress in January out of necessity and need your help.

A Dreamer on a Different Scale: Michaël Dudok de Wit on Creating 'The Red Turtle'

All photos from

de Wit emphasizes respect for the audience in his animated works, and feels he's succeeded "...when the spectator is carried clearly and explicitly in a story, and then it's suddenly open to interpretation."

The Red Turtle (La tortue rouge)

Director: Michaël Dudok de Wit
Cast: Emmanuel Garijo, Tom Hudson, Baptiste Goy
Studio: Studio Canal
Year: 2016
UK Release date: 2017-05-26
"The maturity of the filmmaker evolves... I had to push my limits relentlessly against my exhaustion, but also my capacities, my talents, my understanding, my intelligence and my wisdom -- the whole lot."
“I see myself more as a filmmaker than an animator” remarks director Michaël Dudok de Wit, whose silent meditative The Red Turtle chronicles the milestone moments in the life of a man marooned on a tropical island. It marks the feature debut of de Wit following the animated shorts: Tom Sweep (1992), The Monk and the Fish (1994), Father and Daughter (2000) and The Aroma of Tea (2006).

Produced by Studio Ghibli, the film stands as an example of the collaboration of a film and it's audience. One can look at the storytellers as using their instincts to guide them on the absence of dialogue, and how the pictorial and music create meaning. But in their hands this is only a temporary template, because the film’s potential to access our emotions and memories removes that template during the spectatorial experience, and the subjectivity of the storytellers is replaced by the subjectivity of the audience. It is a film that is therefore open to emotional interpretation, a composition that can be openly interpreted on an emotional level. But as de Wit observes: “If you play with that open interpretation of certain elements, you have to do it respectfully.”

In conversation with PopMatters ahead of a screening at Birmingham’s Flatpack Film Festival, de Wit reflected on how filmmaking and animation became his chosen means of creative expression. He also discussed the idea of the connection and lack of connection between dreams and waking life, cinema’s relationship to dreams and music, and the attempt to use language with a visual subtlety.

Why a career in filmmaking? Was there an inspirational or defining moment?

Yes! As a child I drew a lot and I remember very clearly the decision to go to art college came suddenly one day at the end of my school years. I heard a friend say: “I'm going to art college when I finish school." I thought: Of course that's what I want.

I was heavily into comics, the French and Western European comics mostly, and within months I realised that I wanted to do something narrative. I looked at comics and animation, and I went to my first festival in Annecy, France. There I watched the animators from all over the world walking around, mostly Canada and Europe, as well as England.

I liked their films and they did not have inflated egos. Some of them were incredible artists, just ordinary people working like crazy on their films. They were very approachable, timid even, travelling a lot and were open minded. I thought: I've found my place.

How have your experiences as a filmmaker influenced the way you watch films as a spectator? Specifically, how have the experiences of making your short films and The Red Turtle changed the way you view the craft of animation?

Gosh, I see myself more as a filmmaker than an animator, although obviously I'm a pure animator, and I'll use that tool for the rest of my career. But I love the film language and it so happens that animation has a few deviations from the general language of film, which I only discovered as a young adult at art college.

I began discovering Kurosawa, Antonioni and all the big names, and I suddenly realised what editing is. I learned how people play with the presence of characters, but also the absence of characters, the continuity and the breaking of continuity -- all of that. I thought that's a really rich language.

As a spectator I feel very emotionally involved in films. You basically manipulate your audience. I say this respectfully, because the audience asks to be manipulated. They say: “I really want to enter into your story. Carry me into your story.” So it's a deal you make with your audience and the film language has a lot of subconscious tricks and messages, and tools, especially for an animator who has years and years to work out every detail. You play with the intuitive, subconscious level of the spectator, and that I find interesting.

C.G Jung contextualised dreams as a means for us to solve the problems we cannot solve in our waking state. If we consider the way in which a film can access our memories and influence the emotions we project onto a film, is this suggestive of a connection between cinema and dreams?

Yes, a film is your dream. I deeply believe that all the characters in a dream are part of you, although you may feel that you are coming from an individual point of view. When you make a film you are the same. I identify with the main character in the film just as much as with the other characters, and I further identify with the landscapes and clouds, the breeze of the wind and so on.

I am a dreamer on a different scale, and to answer your question from a different angle, everybody agrees that you have waking life and dream life. It's very clear that you dream in your sleep and you wake up from your sleep. There's no question about that. You have daydreams. And yet in my experience, the fine difference between waking life and dream life is they are so close that sometimes there's no separation. But we don't like to acknowledge that because initially it is very upsetting.

People will take drugs and play with that of course, but that is an artificial way of exploring it. I can give a small example. If you and I are walking somewhere in the city, your impression of our surroundings will be different to mine -- it's your reality and my reality, not the reality. It's subjective. I don't believe in objectivity. I believe in subjectivity and objectivity in that they are useful in daily language -- something is more subjective or more objective.

Ultimately, every single thing that I see in life is subjective. Everything is a story and so is our identity. It's not "there", it's in our head and we recreate it every day. A simple thing like you and me sitting here, you have a story. You are not an anonymous human being. You are a journalist and I've a story from your point of view, and a bank note has a massive story. A bank note is a sheet of paper worth paper, nothing more. But the story around it we agree makes the bank note hugely valuable.

This idea of there being no separation between dream and waking state is represented by the seamless dream and reality states in Red Turtle. But it's not an act of trickery on your part. Rather, it brings a quality to the film that I appreciate, yet struggle to contextualise through words.

I know what you are saying and I still ask myself questions about that. In creative professions, certainly mine, but also others, we are very aware that we are incredibly clear on intuitive understanding. As soon as you try to explain it in words, it crumbles. It works and it works, but all the magic is gone.

To me the motivation of making a film is exploring beauty -- I just want the film to be beautiful. Secondly, to make a nice entertaining story where the audience sits and says: “Let me enter into the story.” Thirdly, there is what I call the poetic, timeless or subtle quality, and that's the main motivation that carries me, making my film special enough to work on the same project year after year. I just call it a timeless quality. The absence of dialogue can contribute to it, but it's not the thing, it's only a small contribution. As soon as you know as a spectator that they're not going to explain things verbally then you relax, and you say: “Okay, that's how it is.” You don't wait for it.

There was some dialogue early on, literally an explanation because the man in The Red Turtle wants to understand where the woman comes from. I worked on that with a co-writer who asked me to be more rational and to explain more about the story, just like Disney or most American animated features would. It was too much information and it became a bit like in a fairy tale -- once there was a witch and she cast a spell, and so and so because of so and so. Okay, I see the logic, but it still doesn't explain, and yet somehow it satisfies your logical mind.

I still find it to be too much information. I prefer it when the spectator is carried clearly and explicitly in a story, and then it's suddenly open to interpretation. The spectator can go this way or way that way, and can come back and continue, and that interests me. It's an elusive subject, but to give you an example, two members of the audience came to me after seeing my short film, Father and Daughter. One said: “I really like the way the film deals with death” and the other spectator said: “What do you mean death? It's not talking about death at all.” Both are right because one sees death differently from the other, and therefore it resonates differently. It's the same with The Red Turtle, it depends on each individual person’s sensitivities.

Interviewing Julia Ducournau about her feature debut RAW for FrightFest, she explained: “I don't like movies that explain themselves throughout and especially through dialogue […] I try to create scenes that are going to be visually self-sufficient and to be honest, the best thing for me would be to not need dialogue. The way I write dialogue is that it has nothing to do with the movie, but through which the characters reveal themselves. I call this organic dialogue, because it's a part of their personalities expressing themselves…” The Red Turtle returned me to her words as the film’s image is self-sufficient, from which emerges an emotional and aesthetic beauty.

I totally agree, and it's not for nothing that I'm a visual and not a verbal artist. But it's risky, because you can't just say: “Okay this film has mystery, it's your problem, I don't want to worry about it.” You don't make a film like that. You have to respect the viewer and they must not feel that you've made a huge mistake, and you are fooling them in a disrespectful way. So to make absolutely sure that the conscious mysteries of the film on the surface work sufficiently, I listened to the producers.

There were several Japanese producers I talked with a lot, and there were also the French one's and then later when the crew came in, the animators and the musicians, I also listened to them. I watched their reactions and indeed, some of them said: “You know what, I don't understand what this film is about.” In that case I would say: “Wait a bit longer when the film's finished and everything is coherent, and the music is in place.” But I looked at people's reactions to make sure it would not just be a mysterious film. That's not good enough. The mystery should be recognised as A naturally beautiful mysterY.

Could we describe the film as a violinist and the audience as the violin? I ask because the way the film evokes an emotional response, it requires the audience to connect with the images emotionally to understand the story. Therein the response of the audience is the music, but the film is the musician.

You mention the violin and I often see an analogy with music because we resonate with music individually, but we can't explain why. We can say we like a particular instrument or a chord formation, we can be moved to tears or ecstasy with a particular piece of music, but you could talk for five hours about why it is and still not get there.

A film is not music, a film is narrative, and so there's a rational element to it, a structure that tells a story. There's some music too, but a film is much more explicit. So I draw parallels with music, but I need to verify it all the time with collaborators to see if it works narratively.

I recall reading a quote that I've never been able to relocate. It's the idea that if you try to explain why you love a piece of music, you undermine the essence of that connection. I understand your point about the need for the narrative to be understood, but there is a level of silent contemplation where understanding is not discovered through words, but from inside of us.

Yes, and to simplify it I've noticed there are two kinds of spectators, and many of them are probably between the two extremes. Spectators come up to me saying: “I've seen the film and afterwards I discussed it with my friends. We talked about it for hours, discussing all the questions we had.” I'm delighted when they say that, but then there's the other end of the spectrum where the spectator will say: “I had a question at the beginning and then I just let myself be carried by the film, suspending any questioning, and it really worked for me on that level.” I'm delighted by that, but I assume many spectators are somewhere in between.

The interaction of the characters sees their lives overlap, through which the film seems to have an interest in capturing a snapshot of the emotional range of life, as well as the human experience not being a tidy construct.

I will put it differently, and this is very philosophical, but you bring it out in me [laughs]. For every day use we added emotions of anger, bitterness, joy and sadness, the whole list. I go along and it's perfect -- there's no problem with that. Then on another level you can see all of the emotions and you can drop the naming and the categorising of them. You don't give a name to it, it's what happens in the moment. That really works for me and I work on both levels.

The second part where you don't identify emotions by name, but just accept whatever it is, this is the more real, profound and satisfying for me. But for everyday language it has to talk about anger and joy and so on. But in this film I somehow tried to bring that non-specific naming of emotions over visually in a subtle way.

Filmmaker Christoph Behl remarked to me in an interview for FrightFest: “You are evolving, and after the film you are not the same person as you were before.” Do you perceive there to be a transformative aspect to the creative process?

The maturity of the filmmaker evolves and I feel more mature now than before. This is partly because I had to push my limits relentlessly against my exhaustion, but also my capacities, my talents, my understanding, my intelligence and my wisdom -- the whole lot. So maturity is effected and ideally so, and definitely in my case, which I'm very grateful for. Your core being, your essence is timeless. It doesn't change whatever happens, and so I see both at the same time.

Michaël Dudok de Wit

The Red Turtle is released theatrically in the UK on Friday, 26 May 2017 by Studio Canal.

Please don't ad block PopMatters.

We are wholly independent, with no corporate backers.

Simply whitelisting PopMatters is a show of support.

Thank you.

Please Donate to Help Save PopMatters

PopMatters have been informed by our current technology provider that we have to move off their service. We are moving to WordPress and a new host, but we really need your help to fund the move and further development.





© 1999-2020 PopMatters Media, Inc. All rights reserved. PopMatters is wholly independent, women-owned and operated.

Collapse Expand Features

Collapse Expand Reviews

PM Picks
Collapse Expand Pm Picks

© 1999-2020 All rights reserved.
PopMatters is wholly independent, women-owned and operated.