THE NAKED FILMMAKER

Anna Biller as Barbi.

Most independent filmmakers tackle relatively simple projects their first time at the helm of a feature. Think of the classic breakout films that made a number of today’s great directors. Think Kevin Smith’s “Clerks,” Spike Lee’s “She’s Gotta Have It,” Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs” and Robert Rodriguez’s “El Mariachi.” All four were shot in 16mm. The stories are all straightforward, what you see, is what you get. The casts are all relatively small and the locations are kept to a minimum. The same can be said for most directors.

But Anna Biller isn’t quite like most filmmakers. With four short films under her belt, the UCLA graduate decided to dive head first into a huge sexploitation-musical that was a 1972 period piece, featuring a cast of over 150 actors and using 34 different locations. Not only did Biller write, direct, produce and star in the 35mm project, she also designed the costumes and sets, and scored and edited the finished product.

The end result is “VIVA,” the 120-minute adventure of Barbi, a bored housewife that takes a lot of baths and changes in and out of 34 different outfits en route to exploring nudist colonies, orgies, modeling, prostitution and bisexuality in a groovy-looking tribute to vintage sexploitation cinema. Currently making the rounds of film festivals, Biller brings her romp to the 2007 CineVegas Film Festival for a screening June 8. “VIVA” is one of 18 films in competition at the festival, which runs from June 6-16. PollyStaffle.com had the chance to talk with Biller via phone for close to two hours and the talented filmmaker opened up about the project. Biller talked nudity, how the film has been misunderstood, sexploitation, exploittation, Russ Meyer, Quentin Tarantino and more.

Anna Biller and her take on sexploitation cinema in “VIVA.”

CCF: Let’s jump right into talking about “VIVA.” My first question to you is, who in their right mind tackles such a project for their first feature film?

AB: For me, vision is something extremely important. I didn’t really have the budget to hire an art department to handle that, so I just decided to try and make it look as good as possible. I didn’t have the human resources or money, so I just went ahead and did it. (LOL) I have a fear of something not coming out well visually. I’ve been doing short films for many years and I think I’ve built up the craft of it pretty slowly. So I knew that I could do it.

CCF: Right.

AB: But it was still pretty hard because it was a feature. The more scenes you have, obviously, the more work it is. I still didn’t realize it was going to take as long as it did.

CCF: Yeah, that was something I wanted to ask you, how long did the project take?

AB: It took about four years, which I thought wasn’t actually too bad considering how enormous the project got. When it started out, I conceived it as being a lot simpler. I thought we would use a lot of stages that were already there. I used to just build all the sets and make everything completely artificial. With this I thought I would go to locations, but I really wanted to create this very strong period atmosphere, so I didn’t end up using anything just the way it was. I ended up dressing the locations up and it was almost like building sets. And we did build some sets. So the project started out fairly small and it just sort of mushroomed. The first couple of scenes we shot, we did some test weekends, and they weren’t really looking like I wanted them to look. So I ended up doing the same sort of lavish art direction that I’ve always done. That was the only way I think I could have been happy with the movie.

CCF: If you don’t mind me asking, what kind of budget did you have with this?

AB: I was real fortunate because I did have a private investor who funded the whole thing. He was very patient. The budget kept like doubling on itself. (LOL) So I really did what I could to save money. We ended up making it for about 10 percent of what anyone else could have made it for because I did everything myself. We just spent money on things you can visibly see on the screen - film stock, props, costumes, paint, locations. Everything that was there is what we paid money for, not anything for our own personal comfort.

CCF: Yeah, I get you.

AB: There really wasn’t enough personnel. When we did the orgy scene, it was a giant, giant crowd scene and all I had was one assistant director. That’s it. No continuity person or anything like that. We did have a few people helping with the art department for that scene, but usually it’s just me running around doing everything on the set and that’s how we saved money.

CCF: Was that the biggest scene with the most people?

AB: Yeah, the orgy scene was our biggest scene. There were just so many people there in this giant space. That was also by far our most expensive location. We rented a castle in Hollywood hills. This guy was very nice and rented it to us for a fraction of the cost of what anybody else would have rented to us for. It was a castle for less than the price of a house. It ended up being this giant undertaking. I heavily dressed it up; I brought in all the 60’s stuff. You do end up spending for that stuff. There’s no way around it. We decided that if we make it look really good, maybe we can make the money back.

CCF: Yeah, visually it really grabs you. What it reminds me of is something like “A Clockwork Orange” where it completely says “70’s,” but more than that. It’s not even like a real 70’s world. It’s like this imaginary, magical 70’s world.

AB: Yeah, that’s what I was trying to do. I wanted to make it almost like a fairy tale in the 70’s. It’s like a special fantasy 70’s world. I think things were really incredible looking at that time, the way it was portrayed in magazines and movies. Some of the films were so colorful and stylized. I took most of my visual inspiration from the actual source materials. Later in the 70’s things were much more drab. It seems like there were two different styles. I was taking my inspiration from the really wild stuff. There’s a bit of 60’s in there as well like the Technicolor movies.

Anna Biller and Chad England.

CCF: In many ways this is kind of a misunderstood film. You’ve essentially reworked sexploitation films of the 60’s and 70’s and this is an ode to that, but instead of playing up to audiences expectations, you’ve used that as a vehicle for a story with a bit of substance, right?

AB: Yeah, some people really misunderstand that. But a lot of people understand it right off. It’s pretty mixed. It’s a polarizing movie. Some people don’t see a point to it. Others actually get everything I’m saying. They understand it’s about this woman’s journey through the sexual revolution, the ironies and pitfalls of that and the discussion of how the sexual revolution was a place in history that was actually not great for women. It really depends on how you look at it. Some people see it as it’s a big joke. I think if you look at it that way, it’s not going to make that much sense to you. Other people can’t believe I would be so earnest. It is an earnest movie and it might even be a little corny. To today’s typical audiences they might actually not be able to believe that someone would do that and make an actual movie with a moral. It discusses these social issues seriously and then on the other hand is this colorful ridiculous romp with all this sex and nudity in it. I’m trying to have a lot of fun with the movie and make it pleasurable, but also discussing what the atmosphere was like for women at that time. I think like Quentin Tarantino and people now that are doing exploitation are really trying to enjoy the elements that were exploitative and really reveling in the violence and misogyny and bringing that back as a kind of pleasure. But what I’m taking are like the elements of innocence, and innocence of the female, her desires and how those are met or not met and what it was like to buy all the literature of the time that said the sexual revolution was going to give them some kind of freedom, which it really doesn’t in the end. I think in the beginning of sexploitation in the 60’s, there was this feeling of innocence and at the time I think people had these high hopes of what it was going to lead to. But it instead went into a b-line to hardcore porn into the degradation of women and extreme violence with porn. So this is like a fantasy world I’m creating where in a very tiny window of time these films were actually about the women. It was about the woman’s pleasure and I’m going back to that and also talking about how it wasn’t always a safe place. I think a lot of men don’t have that sort of access to that psychology. Some do, but some don’t.

CCF: You’re kind of taking exploitation and in a sense exploiting the elements of those films in order to tell the story you want to tell.

AB: It’s a bit like that. I was also inspired by the movies themselves and the time itself. But I’m also really interested in how the sexual revolution changed how everybody behaved and the repercussions of it on culture. I think right after the sexual revolution everyone got disgusted with sex for at least a decade or two. The culture got really puritanical.

CCF: Yeah and in some ways we haven’t recovered. (LOL) In many ways when you look at your film and say, “This is a throwback,” it’s like, “Okay. Wait a second.” It’s almost as though we haven’t reached that point yet in cinema, like you are going into this new territory because we never fully recovered as far movies and media. It seems like it did make it such a bad thing.

AB: That part of culture got degraded because of the loss of innocence and the possibilities closing down so quickly because of going into hardcore. Once hardcore started no one was interested in soft core any more. They couldn’t sell it because of the market. So sex movies became regulated to a very small portion of the population and everyone else thought it was dirty. And that’s where we are now.

CCF: With your movie I imagine you have faced some people that are not really understanding and thinking, “Oh, this is a porno.”

AB: Not really. When they see my movie they see that it’s not really that sexual.

CCF: I’m talking about people prejudging it before having actually having seen it. But I guess your movie hasn’t really been out there enough for people to judge in that way before hand.

AB: I think it does happen though. At some of these festivals, I’ll get to some of my screenings and it seems like there are some guys that are expecting something more along the lines of what they are used to.

CCF: Right.

AB: Movies that are a little more degrading to women and that have bimbos and things that they are used to. I think that’s one reason why some people get sort of mad. They think they are going to see this movie that is exploitative to women and what they are really seeing is this Technicolor feminist musical. It makes them mad because they would never go see a movie like that.

CCF: (LOL)

AB: (LOL) It’s like they were tricked into seeing a woman’s movie and it makes them mad. But a lot of men find it incredibly erotic. Some find it sexy, exciting and adventurous. It just depends on the man. If you are pummeled by the disgusting exploitation that they have out now, which I think is a mainstream thing, then you might be desensitized by things that are more subtle, amusing or psychological. But there are some who seemed to be like, “This is a sexploitation film, so why is it so serious?” or “Why is it so long?” But it’s not a ponderous movie or anything. It’s a silly, pleasurable movie. It moves quickly and is very visual. Some men seem to be missing the actual “exploitation.” There isn’t anything behind it that’s dirty minded or degrading. So it isn’t really “exploitation.” Isn’t exploitation about exploiting people mostly and humiliating them, right?

CCF: It just kind of depends. I don’t really see it that way. I view exploitation as just exploiting some type of element. It’s mostly about getting people to watch the movie. It’s not necessarily even what takes place in the movie itself.

AB: Like the marketing and ballyhoo?

CCF: Yeah.

AB: Trying to get people to get into the theater.

CCF: Yeah, it’s kind of like this mindset, which is exactly what your movie does. In many ways it’s kind of like a trick. It’s like a carnival, all flashy on the outside and then you get inside…

AB: And it’s not delivering.

CCF: Yeah. And with yours it’s like dirty on the outside and then you get in and it’s flashy.

AB: And not dirty.

CCF: Yeah. (LOL)

AB: (LOL) I did try. There is a lot of nudity and some sex. I did really try to deliver that sort of dirty element. It’s just the psychology behind it isn’t really dirty. (LOL)

CCF: Right.

AB: I see what you are saying about exploitation, but in a way what exploitation was in the 60’s isn’t what it is now. People who seek out exploitation movies are looking for something, whether it’s the low budget aesthetic, the stilted acting, the film stock, but a lot of times what I think they are looking for is the rawness and not politically correct dimension. I think they really enjoy the naughty element like the voyeuristic camerawork of a woman undressing; it’s this sort of peephole element, which doesn’t happen much anymore as far as a sexual point of view. I think a movie like “Grindhouse” comes back and it’s really more fetishistic about the violence. Most people nowadays are more interested in the violent elements.

CCF: That’s where I was disappointed with that movie. It was supposed to be ‘grind house’ and it wasn’t sexual and there’s no nudity.

AB: I think in order for them to get away with an R-rating with the extreme violence that they had, they stayed away from that. The rating system is so much harder on sex and nudity than violence. For some reason I think violence is like a transference with the sex impulse into the violence impulse. It’s become so mainstream in a way to have women killed and dismembered and things like that. (LOL)

CCF: Right, you’re talking about “Hostel 2,” “Captivity” and stuff like that coming out.

AB: Yeah. You know, I didn’t even have a single swear word in my movie or a scene of violence. There is a rape scene and what’s interesting is I have had people be upset with it. There’s this rape scene and nothing ever happens to the rapist, but that’s really how it usually is when somebody is raped. In the movies when somebody is raped, they send in the boyfriend and he kicks their ass. But in real life when people are raped they don’t tell anyone. Especially in this case, since she was a married woman and wasn’t where she was supposed to be. The idea that it was upsetting a lot of people that this didn’t turn into a revenge drama or courtroom drama because of the rape, I found really shocking. It means people are interested in the fantasy that Hollywood creates about how things happen and not how things really happen. There are many, many men out there that take advantage of a situation when they are alone with a woman like that and don’t think anything of it. And nobody would think anything of it, especially in those days. The fact there is no accountability for that disturbs people. But that’s realism, isn’t it? How could she tell anyone?

Barbi (Anna Biller) gets her style on from Sherman (Barry Morse).

CCF: Your movie’s not rated, right? If it was, would it be able to get an R?

AB: I really don’t know. It’s kind of a borderline thing because if you have male full frontal nudity you usually can’t get away with it. But it’s non sexual. It’s at a nudist colony. I know in 1965 you could have a full frontal nudist colony movie and that would be fine. But I think things have changed.

CCF: Yeah, there are a few movies where they have male nudity, but it seems like even when they get R’s, they’re very limited releases and more of art house films that nobody sees at the theater. “The Piano” is an example and Nicole Kidman’s recent film “Fur” is another one.

AB: Yeah, that’s true. Well, this is art house anyway. I think. (LOL)

CCF: As far as the genre inspiration, most of your point of reference was Radley Metzger?

AB: Yeah. He’s kind of amazing. He’s known for being in some ways the most gifted of the sexploitation directors. He had an incredible visual style, great soundtracks, beautiful actors and his scripts were very witty. He also took stuff from literature like he took the story of Camile and made “Camile 2000,” he took Carmen and made “Carmen, Baby,” and took Pygmalion and made the hardcore film “The Opening of Misty Beethoven.” So you have these great stories from literature, which are really strong and mythical and iconic, and he then layers all the sexiness on top of that. He’s movies are fantastic. I think he could have been this great legitimate director, but he just found that he got his movies made more quickly if he went into sex, soft core and eventually hardcore. He’s a very unusual director. He was really considered an art director. Because I am so interested in beautiful visuals, his movies really appeal to me. His female characters are very beautiful and goddess like.

CCF: From just watching the trailer what came to mind to me was Joe Sarno, Doris Wishman and specifically on the dialogue end, David Friedman’s “A Smell of Honey” and “Scum of the Earth,” but I read that none of that was really an influence, right?

AB: You know it’s true; I didn’t really see any of that stuff while I was preparing for this movie. I’ve seen some Joe Sarno since and he would have been a big influence. He’s pretty close. A lot of that stuff has similar qualities.

CCF: There was a line in the trailer; I forget what it was exactly that completely reminded me of the David Friedman movies. It was something about a whore I think.

AB: “You’re not only a whore, you’re a filthy lesbian”?

CCF: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

AB: I actually took the idea, not the line, but the idea from the Radley Metzger movie “Alley Cats.” What it was is there was a scene that this guy finds out his girlfriend is having a lesbian affair and he really slaps her around pretty good. I thought, “Well, that’s interesting.” Because he’s kind of whoring around and he can do whatever he wants. I just thought it was so interesting that at that time it was considered to be so filthy – to be a lesbian. We live in a different time now. I just thought it was interesting that the man who is totally a swinger is able to call a woman having a lesbian affair filthy. (LOL)

CCF: Yeah, I guess that same kind of spirit ran through a lot of those movies.

AB: Yeah, it does. I got so excited after I saw a few of them that I didn’t want to see too many and start copying them. I thought if I saw too many movies, then mine would just be a copy of a whole bunch of them.

CCF: Right.

AB: I just saw a few to get some ideas and I decided to go away from them, so I wouldn’t have too much. I wanted to create more and invent more in my own head and use that as a starting point. I also wanted to make stuff up from my own experiences as a woman with men and mimic other movies that I’ve seen from that period. I was afraid of getting too much of the sexploitation stuff in my head and becoming a complete copy. It can happen. And I did copy. (LOL) But I didn’t see too many movies that the whole thing is a copy. (LOL)

CCF: (LOL)

AB: There are things I took from “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” and “Gone with the Wind.” I tried to take my influences from all over movies. That’s what I always do. It’s based in that period, but I’m sort of a whore and I go into all movies. I just go into the history of movies. It’s like a big confused mess of all the movies I’ve seen. I also go into my life and mix the whole thing up. It really kind of gets like a crazy person made it. (LOL)

CCF: (LOL)

AB: I think that’s what we are as a culture. As Americans, we just have so many influences coming in from all over the place. We’re just made up of all these influences, especially in the media. I kind of like to capture that on film and not just make it one thing. But more about that experience of being inundated by all these sounds, images, ideas and trying to make sense of it.

(Continued - Click to read Part II)