(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
What he did
Director: Jonas Poher Rasmussen
In this new documentary What he did by award-winning director Jonas Poher Rasmussen, Jens Michael Schau tells his story for the first time. And exactly what he did is clear quite early: Jens Michael Schau killed his lover, the well-known writer Christian Kampmann; a horrible and unforgivable act, something Schau is the first to admit. Now he has sentenced the sentence and is back in the community – something he fears he is not ready to handle.
What he did is a unique film in part because it presents a number of challenges in documentary filming: How to deal with a participant who is not very talkative but who has a lot of interesting to contribute? How to visualize events from which there are no images? Filmmaker Jonas Poher Rasmussen has found a way to deal with both: He has used all of his contact with Schau as part of the film itself, and used footage from the staging of Schau's biographical novel by Mungo Park Theater to seal some sound and visual hole.
The story behind the tragedy is not unique. Theater director Martin Lyngbo even calls it a "classic case" of a so-called passion killing. Schau was a trained psychologist. In the mid-1980s, he was in the starting line of a career as a writer. He was also nine years younger than the critically acclaimed Kaufmann, suffering from anxiety and having trouble coping with their sometimes open conditions. In addition, he was concerned about the AIDS epidemic that ravaged the gay environment at the time. His parents then rejected him for being gay. He was afraid of loneliness and unable to deal with his anxiety. This is made as a backdrop for the jalousie killing.
Interesting dynamics. Several years later we meet a fragile, old man, bald and with white mustache, who has great difficulty accepting what he has done. He is afraid of being rejected by society, avoids the streets as far as possible because he is anxious to meet old friends, afraid to offend anyone with his presence. Instead, he locks himself back inside, now in his own home. He is a writer, and has written down his story; he thinks it's unpleasant to talk about it. He answers one-syllable questions while looking at the filmmaker with big, inquiring eyes.
More than the story itself, it is the relationship between theater and documentary, the contact between Rasmussen and Schau and the relationship between these two narrative ways that makes the film worth watching.
The film begins by showing the relationship between Schau and Rasmussen. Schau's first response is, "Do we have to talk about it?", And then answer the question. This sets the tone. We get to attend countless negotiations on what to do and whether it is appropriate for the film. Schau decides that old pictures are not appropriate. Little seems to have been prepared between them in advance. Rasmussen learns whether a readout Schau should hold as he is called by the publisher – while the camera goes. The collaboration seems to have taken shape as much in front of the camera as outside its reach.
Interpretations. The film's other narrative line is the one that is shown in the form of theater tests and performances. The actors make hypotheses about what really happened between the two men. Participants' discussions about the play both during the rehearsals and on stage are also included, and the play thus functions as a separate level of reflection. The actors discuss how to interpret the story: "He killed another human being." "Then we do it this way." This suggests that even if it is a "classic passion murder", it is not interesting to show the actions solely. The actions must be framed, discussed and interpreted, and the piece must be considered. To conclude, the seemingly impossible discussion between Schau and Rasmussen ("must we talk about this?") Takes place again among a group of actors – as part of the play. This is how the two narrative ways are tied together, and the film returns to its starting point.
Meta Story. The film also contains some archival material such as news reports and animated statistical sequences about the gay environment of the 1980s. This seems pretty clumsy in a story that is otherwise very intimate and personal, and in that context seems detached and a little distant. As a Brechtian alienation tool, it is in itself on the same line as the discussion the actors lead, but unfortunately it is not very convincing and seems out of place.
Disregard this is What he did an exciting story about a passionate murder, and at the same time a story of how stories can be told.
The film was shown during this year's international film festival in Bergen and can be viewed for free HERE.
