La vita accanto (Literal translation: A Life alongside) – the latest feature film by Marco Tullio Giordana – was presented out of competition at the 77th Locarno Film Festival. The director received the Special Career Leopard, and the Chiaroscuro Collective wanted to celebrate this prestigious recognition by interviewing one of his closest collaborators, the cinematographer Roberto Forza, who has a long-standing artistic partnership with Giordana. The interview with Roberto Forza is curated by Andrea Benjamin Manenti.
How did you get involved in the film? And what were Marco Tullio Giordana’s directions?
Marco Tullio Giordana, with whom I have made several films, talked to me about the possibility of working on La vita accanto. He explained that it was based on a screenplay by Marco Bellocchio that had never been made. It was Bellocchio himself who suggested it to him. Marco Tullio read it and decided to take on the project, working on the screenplay with Bellocchio and Gloria Malatesta. Given our long-standing relationship, not many words are needed between us. Usually, just a few references or a few remarks open our minds and set us on the right path. There is something funny to tell about this film, and Marco Tullio was the first to share it in an interview: after reading the screenplay, I asked him, “What kind of film is this? What genre is it?” and he jokingly replied, “de paura!” [a scary one]. We all know that in Rome, “de paura” is a humorous way to refer to a horror film. Of course, La vita accanto is not a horror film, but that remark was enlightening because it described a situation filled with anxiety, mystery, and agitation… It was the first note to work on.
What were your impressions during the location scouting? What did you develop together?
The film was shot almost entirely in Vicenza. Most of the scenes take place in a single environment, an interior, so it could have been shot in Rome. However, Marco Tullio requested and obtained permission from the production company, Kavac Film, to shoot in Vicenza because the story was set there, and the flavors, atmospheres, minor roles, and the faces of the extras needed to speak of that place. It was a significant concession. I did not know Vicenza, and I discovered a wonderful, beautiful city. The film portrays the upper bourgeoisie, a social class that cinema talked about a lot in the 1970s, less so in the 1980s and 1990s, and which disappeared in the 2000s, years when cinematic narratives flattened everything into a sort of social mush: policewomen with 300 square meter
houses, friends dining in 100 square meter rooms… It has become impossible to distinguish the social status of the characters, and I think this is a great loss. But television imposes certain rules, and commercial cinema imposes others: everything must be done so that the environments are large enough to accommodate many actors and two cameras. It seems that now it is impossible to shoot without two cameras, but in my opinion, this sacrifices the viewpoint, the real viewpoint, which is singular and is that of the director’s eye. But let’s not open such broad topics! I grew up in Turin, a city where a decaying upper bourgeoisie resides. As a young man, I had friends who were part of this aristocracy or the upper bourgeoisie. What impressed me about these lives were the voids: there were voids, little light, a lot of cold marble, with depressed mothers who took psychotropic drugs.
Michelangelo Antonioni portrayed the upper bourgeoisie like few others… the houses in his films are inhabited and at the same time empty. I am also reminded of a wonderful episode by Visconti, Il lavoro, part of Boccaccio ’70, which for me is one of the most beautiful works by Visconti, telling the unhappiness present in these patrician homes. I grew up in 80 square meters, with my dad, my mom, and my brother, and we were satisfied, so I perceived a big difference that always struck me, which I never forgot. Later I also lived in Milan and Rome, and already there, especially in Milan, there was a more enlightened, happier aristocracy, with beautiful houses, furnished with great taste, with passion. In Rome, all the homes of the upper society are historical residences, wonderful, baroque… Vicenza is similar to Turin, a small city in the North. As soon as I saw the palace that Marco Tullio had chosen, a gigantic building with three, four floors – we shot on two – I immediately saw those voids, those depressed mothers, those psychotropic drugs. From a photographic point of view, I felt very comfortable: I was familiar with the atmospheres to work on. The palace had many windows covered with curtains. I immediately decided to use them as primary and sometimes sole light sources because the gigantic houses I remembered,
with their voids, were made of shadows, and these light sources provided beautiful backgrounds. It took little, and I already had the film in mind.
Were there any particular challenges? Did you test the actors?
There comes a moment when there is a ready set, actresses you have never seen dressed, made up, or styled. We did some costume tests in a theater, on a small sound stage in Rome. I knew some of the actresses: Sara Ciocco and Sonia Bergamasco; I didn’t know Valentina Bellè, who was an extraordinary surprise. Paolo Pierobon, fantastic. They are extraordinary actors who are there to give their all for the film, for the story, without hang-ups; they are great professionals. The rather significant problem to solve was the birthmark. As you know, the story is about a girl born with a birthmark on her face. This mark had to be believable, realistic, so together with
an excellent make-up artist with whom I’ve done many films and have a good friendship, I did some tests on the color of this mark. The make-up artist’s task was to replicate it every day in the same way because, there was continuity to respect, and we had to achieve chromatic credibility. We spent a lot of time on this mark, me, Marco Tullio, and Enrico Iacoponi. We looked at thousands of photos, we did endless tests… At the end of the film, everything was said, but there was no comment on the mark. Criticisms, and praises were made about every aspect, but not about the mark. So, it means Enrico did a great job! We did well.
Having done the location scouting and decided how to create the mark, we needed to establish the right image for the film. My DIT, Elio Gentile, and I tested our actresses, and with our colorist, Alessandro Pelliccia, we created some LUTs, color ideas. I was one of the first to use LUTs because they allow me to have a precise image on set, which the director finds again in editing. When we go to color grading, the film is already colored. I don’t want to sound presumptuous, but I like to do photography on set, as it used to be done. You just need to have clear ideas, make choices at the beginning, and then work as it was once done. This gives me great peace of mind.
So, the color correction was not challenging?
The color grading was still challenging, as always. The film has many night scenes, moonlight scenes shot during the day for various reasons or shot at night. I chose a moonlight that I thought fit the atmospheres requested by Marco Tullio better, in these large spaces, these large rooms, these long corridors to be traversed, seeing but also not
seeing. At this point, the choice of camera and lenses came into play. I don’t always use the same camera, nor do I always use the same lenses, even though lately, I have grown very fond of a particular series. My choice of ARRI because, in my opinion, ARRI color is gratifying; you feel enveloped by ARRI color. When I see films made with ARRI, I like the color; it gives me satisfaction and joy. We had two ALEXA Mini cameras. I am not a fan of large format; I am not a fan of anamorphic lenses; I think they are all technical devices that tend to make up for a lack of creativity: a lack of creativity in writing and shooting. It seems impossible to me that everything now has to be done with anamorphic, everything with a large format, frighteningly raising budgets. I wonder who, in the audience, can distinguish between an image made with a large format and that of a normal sensor. Who can recognize an anamorphic image from a spherical one? We make films for the public, not for our colleagues. In cinema, we see either a beautiful photograph or an ugly one. We have to make it beautiful with what we have.
When the rental companies call me about this or that new gear, I go because it’s good to stay updated, but what I miss are the stories, not the lenses. For La vita accanto, I made a very deliberate choice: two ALEXA Mini. I shot I shot in open gate format, in 2.35, and I chose Zeiss Ultra Prime lenses, which I am very fond of because, in my opinion, they have a vintage feel without being overly obsessive. These are the last lenses Zeiss made during the film era, so they are the last lenses with that look, and they are the only ones among the older lenses that adapt well to digital. The Zeiss Ultra Primes were built and optimized for film, and they give me a result that I find exceptional, with a slightly old-fashioned texture that isn’t fake, and they provide very beautiful, soft, and natural bokeh. At the same time, they come in a wide range of focal lengths, allowing me to work freely with two cameras when needed or with a single camera in tight spaces. Having all these focal lengths in this series gives me great freedom and creativity.
Thank you, Roberto.
