Short film

Cinematography / Direction

The Story:

I had just met Schwartz and was showing him the stuff I had made, in the foyer of Nordisk Film’s cinema Palladium (now Metropol). He genuinely liked my films and shortly afterwards – in that magical garden behind the cinema – we very quickly came up with the idea for Mit Out Sound. Needing a baddie for the role of the head of the cinema, I contacted Roy Hadfield who came over in the spring of 2001. There’s a lot of things to be said about this film, about how it was made, what it does, means and so on. Major part of my thesis from University of Copenhagen will answer some questions albeit in a very dry manner. Most of all I think it’s been interesting to go back and look at the pre-production notes, from which I have picked two quotes:
 
"Mit Out Sound bears witness to the brave but in vain struggle of a wonderful yet dying celluloid culture, as it is effortlessly replaced by a new state of the art, though largely untested, format".
  
"Filmen vil trods sin kritik af 35 mill. formatets klodsethed indgyde en følelse af dyb nostalgi & sorg over dette storslåede formats endeligt…" (Translation: "The film will, despite its inherent criticism of the clumsy 35 mm format induce a feeling of deep nostalgia and sadness by the loss and death of this grand format")
 
The film ended up being something of a mystery, I believe. I am always excited about getting feedback from people who have been involved, and the opening of Mr. Hadfield's initial response was wonderful:

"In MOS, Redlich is participating as both film maker and film critic, which underlies the confusion and uncertainty throughout the work"

He goes on to write very eloquently about the film, but this opening statement I particularly like. For isn’t that the most crucial? – that any contemporary filmmaker will (and must) have some idea of what has been made before "(T)HIS MASTERPIECE" and will have to, at least to some degree, take this into consideration in making his film. If not for anything else then at least in order not to copy something already produced? But perhaps more importantly to get some clue of the very best that’s been made with relevance to the work in question. Filmmaking, though, should never become academic in the sense that a filmmaker has to consult every single (important) film that in some way relates to his and quote it. Rather, I believe, he ought to watch every relevant key work, internalize, perhaps even ‘academicize’ it all, then forget it (as is true of all education, I believe) and do it in his own way.

  As a cameraman /DOP /director /writer /producer /editor all in one and the same film I have the opportunity to get it (or what I think is) right in my own way, with only myself to blame for fucking up. And I truly believe that – although this often is a very depressing affair – one should always compare one’s works with only the very best ever made. When you’re a kid it’s ok to piss around, try things out and accept that you’re far from the best, but when grown up, you’re running out of time and, unless you’re a fool, you need to be brutally honest in the assessment of your own worth.