Kentridge and Dumas in Conversation

I have just come from seeing ‘Kentridge & Dumas in Conversation’, a film by South African director and editor Catherine Meyburg. The film is showing at the Encounters Documentary Film Festival in Cape Town. I will only mention in passing my initial apprehension when I saw that the filmmaker had used the ampersand in the title of the film, instead of spelling out the word and. I doubt there was any pressure to hurry and finish the title, and even though the ampersand by itself is neat and elegant, I always find it ugly and repressed amidst other words and a sign of carelessness in the user.

I will also mention in passing that I was one of three black people – staff discounted – at the film. And if I hadn’t gone, there would only have been two at the screening …

I went to see the film because I would like to make a film about an artist friend of mine. Kentridge and Dumas (that’s William Kentridge and Marlene Dumas) spend most of the film talking about their processes and how certain elements and themes came about. It certainly is illuminating to hear Dumas talk about Chinese and Japanese pornographic paintings; and it is insightful to hear Kentridge explain why he rides around naked in his studio on his son’s little bicycle.

They talk about perspective and interpretation, and give concrete examples of how different people interpret their works differently because of each person’s context. I was pleased to hear each artist talk about choosing the easier way to do things, e.g. when Kentridge thinks about drawing and animating a horse in his film ‘Felix in Exile’ he realises how much work this will be and decides to replace the horse with a fish. Sometimes, I believe, taking the easy way out works better in the long run.

Overall the film was interesting and the interview location was well chosen, but the film lacked vitality, which I think could have been enhanced through more locations and more detail. I could be inclined towards more locations because I am working on a series where a variety of locations in made-for-tv documentaries helps make the people and the story more dynamic. Kentridge and Dumas are certainly interesting and most people would have gone to see the film because they are interested in the characters and their works. The bulk of the film, however, happens in a well-lit white room with neat green grass outside the windows. The location is white and sparse, the artists wear white and black and everything feels minimal and vast – as if the location were a canvas, waiting for the artists to place their marks (characters) on it.

This interview location feels like a reflection of Kentridge’s personality, however. When we see Kentridge in his studio, it is neat and organised, while Dumas’ studio is cluttered, she works on the floor, and you catch a glimpse of a mattress where she probably sleeps amidst her work. There are hints of Dumas having an unruly energy and this comes across rather definitely through her hair, the busy studio and the way she talks, but I find this aspect of her personality, which contrasts Kentridge’s, is not afforded equal visual importance.

Most of the time we are inside, although there are some exterior shots around Kentridge’s house and some shots in a town somewhere in Europe – although I don’t think it is mentioned where this is. The film is bracketed by a social event, where in the beginning we see Dumas arriving at Kentridge’s home and presenting him with a bottle of wine while food is being prepared in the kitchen; and at the end of the film, they are seated around a long dinner table with about ten other people, eating the food and drinking the wine suggested at the start of the film.

So, although their works and processes are dynamic, the dynamism does not come across visually. The film lacks energy for me and I wish it were more alive. I do not think this is the fault of the characters, nor a flaw of their works. I think it is more a shortcoming of the direction and the visuals used to convey the subject.

There are enough examples of the artists’ works, but we don’t get to see much detail. It could be that the artists did not want to show too much detail of their works – I don’t know – but that is something that I miss. I would think that one way to honour two of South Africa’s greatest exports and their works would be to get under the skins of the canvasses in a sense. This detail would have helped to energise the film.

I was surprised that the filmmaker had allowed unwanted bits of audio to creep into the film. For example, in one scene Dumas starts talking about something, but at the beginning you can still hear her finishing off another thought of the previous sentence. I know how hard it is to make a film and how rigorous you have to be about every little thing; I don’t usually get this right, and I always hope that not too many people notice. I had expected (setting myself up for disappointment, no doubt) that a film about creative and technical heavyweights would exact more creative and technical rigour than I fear I could deliver.

I also found the music screamingly loud – this could have been a problem with the cinema’s audio levels, however.

Most of the shortcomings in the film feel as if they were results of constraints imposed by funding, format, or broadcast requirements. So, it feels as if the film could have been longer, that we could have had more of a sense of Dumas’ personality if the filmmaker had had a bigger budget to spend more time in Holland; that there could have been more locations if there had been more money and more time to film; that there could have been more detail shot of the works had there been more money for better lenses.

But it is a film worth seeing and I am glad that this film has been made and that I had the chance to see it! Thank you Catherine Meyburg.