David Chou is a French Cambodian filmmaker whose recent documentary film “Golden Slumbers” was screened at the New York Asian Film Festival. “Golden Slumbers” explores the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge’s impact on cinematic culture. The Khmer Rouge, also known as the Communist Party of Kampuchea, held power in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979; two million people were killed during this time from social engineering, widespread famine, and disease. Out of the 400 films produced from 1960 to 1975, only 30 survive.
Q: What was it like to interview those involved in cinema before the Khmer Rouge.
A: I have to say that in the Asian culture, the hierarchy between the old and the young is very strong, so there is a lot of respect between the two generations… . I had to find a good way push them to open their hearts and feelings in order to get what I wanted.
There were also touchy moments, because I was speaking about the Khmer Rouge. We needed to figure out not only how to ask these questions, but also where we should go with them. We also needed to find a good distance for the interviews.
Q: Some of the people you interviewed are happy to recount their involvement in the film industry and others were not. How did you navigate such disparate reactions?
A: Yvon Hem said, “I don’t want to speak about the past, because it will be useless and painful for nothing, and I can’t change anything.” But, I spent time with him and asked many questions. At the end, he realized that it was important for him to tell the story. He’s a filmmaker, so he was always influencing the film.
But the other film director, Ly You Sreang, was another story. Speaking about the films made him so happy. But when I told him that we’re going to make a film, he said, “Oh no, I don’t really want to do it. I’m not sure. Is it very interesting?” The problem was that he had lost all his films. He was ashamed of not having his films as an evidence of his past life as a filmmaker, that’s why he didn’t want to be in the film. We developed a close relationship that allowed me to push. When he accepted, it was the first time for him to deliver his speech; it was really a confession that was overwhelmed with emotions.
Q: What surprised you about your interviewees?
A: The ten-minute testimony of Ly You Sreang, in which he told the story of how he escaped the Khmer Rouge. He arrived in France, lost his wife, and had become a taxi driver. I knew that there were maybe some problems after he escaped, but I didn’t exactly understand. I knew it was a touchy moment, so I asked all the crew to go out except for three people: the cameraman, sound engineer, and me. I asked the cameraman and the sound engineer to go back a bit, so it was really just the two of us.
Then, what followed was actually incredible. It was a ten-minute synopsis, with some interruption as you see in the film. I kept asking if should we stop, but he just went on by himself until the end of the speech. These moments are what make documentary filming so priceless, the surprise is shooting what you don’t expect. After, you have to deal with it and be open minded enough to adapt your structure and your film in order to change what you planned in perspective of what you get during the shoot.
Q: What freedoms of speech and expression were violated during the Khmer Rouge?
A:People had to hide their pasts on so many levels because the Khmer Rouge said that they would kill every soldier, intellectual, doctor, actor and artist. If you were one of these kinds of people or rich, you had to hide your personality. There was this culture of total fear: you trusted no one, you were afraid that your neighbor was going to tell something about you.
I feel in the present Cambodia, old generations and young are reluctant to speak and to give their point of view. At the beginning, I didn’t understand why. Now, I think it is due to the heritage fostered during that time. People who lived through the regime were so traumatized that they still have the traces of that culture of total fear. The older generation gives this to their children consciously and unconsciously, because they always say don’t speak about politics.
Q: Was there anything shocking to you about the Khmer Rouge’s freedom of expression violations?
A: The Khmer Rouge was more on the periphery of the film. But, there was one striking story that my aunt, who was in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge, told me. The popular music from the sixties was banned, so it was forbidden to sing the songs. My aunt told me that as soon as they were walking in the rice fields and the Khmer Rouge soldiers were a little bit far, they would always sing the songs. Any moment that the soldiers could not hear, they would sing the songs that they loved so much. One day, when a Khmer Rouge soldier arrived, he found a paper in which someone had written the lyrics of a pop song. The Khmer soldier said, “Who wrote that? I want someone to tell me, because you’re going to be arrested.” No one said that they wrote it but everybody was trying to catch the lyrics that the guy was speaking in attempts to memorize them. As soon as the Khmer soldier left, they were singing the songs.
Q: There was this great sense of hope at the end of your film regarding the future of Cambodia. How do you think the past restrictions of cinema will affect the future of Cambodian cinema?
A: I am very hopeful for the future of Cambodia but there are big issues and challenges. For example, the culture of being afraid of politics and of criticizing something will be an issue that the artists will have to deal with.
There are so many voices that are waiting to express themselves and so many stories to tell about Cambodia.
Since I first went to Cambodia three years ago in 2009, and I have seen things are evolving. I meet many more young people telling me that they want to make films. That’s the best news.
Anisha Ramnani was the summer 2012 intern for the OPC.