Radu Jude Discusses How Andy Warhol Film Began as a ‘Joke,’ Says Filmmakers Need to Be ‘Serious About TikTok’

As a film enthusiast who has traveled through the rich tapestry of global cinema, I find myself deeply inspired by Radu Jude’s fearless exploration and innovative approach to filmmaking. His words echo the sentiments of many contemporary directors grappling with the ever-evolving landscape of digital storytelling.


Romanian director Radu Jude thinks it’s time for filmmakers to start taking TikTok seriously. During an in-conversation event at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam, Jude pulled out his smartphone and showed a series of TikToks to the audience, saying, “To me, TikTok is like the beginning of cinema. It’s like Lumiére. Filmmakers are in trouble because this is ahead of us. If you are serious about filmmaking, you have to be serious about [TikTok].”

This conclusion came after IDFA’s artistic director Orwa Nyrabia, who moderated the conversation, highlighted the connecting threads within Jude’s oeuvre. To this, Jude said some artists are “very conscious” about their bodies of work and there are those who “make films without thinking about what connects them, and I feel I belong to this [group].”

As a movie enthusiast penning my thoughts, I confess that an overwhelming sense of ambition has seized me. This hunger for creation compels me to dabble in every aspect of filmmaking, even as I embark on a project in the picturesque landscapes of France. The fear is palpable, yet there’s a certain charm in the uncertainty – not dwelling on whether the movie will grace the screens of Berlin or Cannes, but rather embracing this insatiable desire to experiment. I yearn to delve into documentary filmmaking. Last year, I dared to incorporate AI-generated images in my Dracula production, selecting those that were less than ideal. To me, cinema encompasses every facet of the artistic spectrum.

After watching a dual screening of his last two movies, “Sleep #2” and “Eight Postcards From Utopia,” Jude engaged in a discussion. The first movie is a creative blend of live feeds from Andy Warhol‘s grave on the Earthcam network, while the second, jointly directed with philosopher Christian Ferencz-Flatz, features numerous Romanian commercials produced during the country’s shift from socialism to capitalism.

In Jude’s culture, producing movies was viewed as extremely challenging, costly, and governed by a multitude of rules – both written and unspoken. The issue of distribution remains problematic; either you secure commercial distribution or you must showcase your work at festivals. This environment fosters an atmosphere of tension and constraint. Seven years ago, Jude stumbled upon Warhol’s films and became captivated by his filmmaking techniques. Warhol’s films are intricate, his body of work is abundant yet largely unexplored. Due to limited access, I had to watch his movies illegally.

The director added that Warhol is the only artist who answered the question of how to make films by saying “You take a camera, push a button and you have a film.” “The man is right, filmmaking could be that. It started with that and it became more complicated and full of pressure of all kinds. But if you take a step back you find out that Warhol is right.”

Jude views “Sleep #2” as an additional note or explanation to Andy Warhol’s iconic 1964 film “Sleep,” which features repeated footage of Warhol’s partner, John Giorno, sleeping. This concept originated from a humorous comment Jude made upon discovering the webcam. As he explains, “Warhol created ‘Sleep,’ and now here is his perpetual slumber. I feel a bit self-conscious that many of my films began as jokes – not always great ones – but a joke often sparks an idea.

He considers [‘Sleep #2’] among his finest works. It’s an impressionistic piece that pushes the boundaries of cinema, offering insights into the essence of visual storytelling and the concept of surveillance, as it was created,” he explained, further noting that these aspects seem insignificant compared to the global issues we face today. Additionally, ‘Sleep #2’ marked a significant milestone for him as it was his first American film despite never physically setting foot in America.

Regarding “Eight Postcards From Utopia,” Jude mentioned that he chose Ferencz-Flatz for the project because he wasn’t certain about structuring the film, and since Ferencz-Flatz had written on advertising. They both knew they were going to create a film about contemporary history, but it had a historical aspect to it. It’s amusing and poignant to realize how unaware everyone was back then.

After the Romanian revolution, the director found this time not just chaotic politically and socially, but also a time of exposure to various cultures. It was during this era that he developed a deep-rooted passion for cinema and history. This period sparked an enduring curiosity in him about the origins of our society.

As a movie reviewer, I recall a personal tale from my past, where my father, an employee of a once-state-owned company turned private, returned home with a share certificate in hand. The company, unfortunately, crumbled to nothingness, rendering those shares worthless. It seemed as if the entire nation had been deceived in the same fashion. This film serves as a poignant exploration of the hopes and dreams that were once held by its people.

Looking back, I must acknowledge that not all post-90s events in Romania were detrimental. The country’s EU membership stands out as a significant milestone, one that continues to hold value in today’s context, despite the rising tide of “sovereignty” sentiments across Europe and the globe. This wave seems to have been influenced by the Trump administration and its philosophy of putting “America first,” aiming to make America great again.

The Romanian director expressed his opinion that films should tackle issues that are problematic or imperfect, and he considers a camera as a tool for capturing such unpolished realities.

Jude often gets questioned about why he seems critical of Romania or fails to highlight its positive aspects. His response is consistent: the only viable approach in filmmaking for him is to expose the mistakes and shortcomings. In his view, the purpose of making historical films lies solely in their relevance to the current time.

Read More

2024-11-16 13:17