I think most of my works talk about exactly that:
About how history and the past is inseparable from our actions
in the present time,
which is at the same time why we really need to look at it.
We need to be able to look at it, to transform it.
So, my relationship with the past is a relationship of desire
for transformation and, at the same time, of knowing, of valuing
the importance, of looking at the past, to be able to build another future.
And also it's like an obsession
to ask again and again how it's possible
to change the past, not the past
in the way that I never can change the past because the past is there,
but how I can change the present moment to reinvent
the possibility of the future.
But it's always through the past.
I work a lot from documentary,
documentary in all aspects of the documentary
how documentary film is recorded
as material that what I bring from
the people who are working with me or what I perceive.
Looking outside, looking at the world
this documentary material is always transformed into fictional material.
Because what interests me in capturing this material,
in bringing this material into the work.
In fact, it’s able to build another story that will overlap this fictional material.
A story that, in fact, will walk in a very tenuous line between the fictional creation and the material
that started from reality.
Also a material that interests me but has less part in my research
is the relationship with theater and cinema.
And it is in this relationship with theater, cinema
that it’s not only because of what cinema can do in terms of film projection
but mainly in the way that the point of view that the camera provokes within the scene is that the cinematographic device itself
can transform the spectator's point of view.
The theater is a place that you can look for
whatever you want and when I put the camera
is not only because I show the image but also because I can I can create the imagination.
This is a new layer for the spectator that is how I'm thinking.
That is the focus of the scene.
I really think about this idea of the performance
that is, the performance is also
how life is to change the fiction
and the fiction still changes the life for the people
that are part of the creation.
The challenge to create political theater
is that it's really important to be very connected with the present
and if the present, what's happened
in the world but also what is present
in the life of each person that it's part of the work.
That's why it's a bit tired for some moment for me but
in each work that is continued to present
we are really inside of this, it's not something that we only show.
This relationship between fiction and reality.
It really presents the possibility
of other forms of dramaturgy creation.
Within my work there are moments that I really started from a reality
to create a fiction and other times that I started from a fiction
projecting reality into this fiction.
We bring
macro social political issues into
the scene, into
the research, into the creation
of a work. It is completely inseparable from what
the bodies and the memory of these actors and these artists bring to the scene.
And we really have these
these really
strong relationship with the people because it's not that you bring these people
and put in the room for to rehearse.
So it's really what you are going to do then.
You are you are with them.
We we are for, I don't know, three, four weeks,
with each country that we travel to to do this work
it has transformed their lives, but also transforms our lives.
For me as an artist, and more as a person
it has changed my life also.
And it's really important to say that
when I talk about the documentary
it’s not only to talk about the documentary because I want you to pick up the material.
It's really how these possibilities are going into the life
in direction of the people. It’s transforming their lives.
It's also how this project
transformed the life, the life transformed the project
and it's never finished.
I actually write the whole structure, the whole basis of the work before starting.
So, if at first the leap is in the dialogue, soon afterwards
the leap is in the text, in the structure, because this structure
is what will make possible the opening of the spaces between them.
Between these lines of structure, so that we can create something that we do not
know what it is.
I spend very little time sitting at a table.
We are almost always in the rehearsal room,
creating this material, raising this material from the scene.
I think that when I'm thinking about me as an artist
and I think that I'm a writer
but the space that I write
is not a paper but it's the invisible space in the theatre.
I'm not only a director, I'm an artist
that writes with a lot of hands in this space.
The first thing for me, it's
is to the actors
or the artists that are part of it, we need to have this space
the way that it’s something that is really to open the space for me to listen then.
And not only to say that I want that
they speak, but it's really to say
it's your space, so use it and I'm here for to
to receive also and to educate me
also because as a white person it's really important to do this.
I find that it's about to open this space
and for to open the space we have to
leave the space like this.
So, I think that the place of a director is fundamentally a place of creating
relationships of respect between people, and not of stress between people.
So, for me, when I think about my work I can never think about one part.
I always think that it, in fact, is again the idea of the writer.
He is a writer of a whole.
So that's why, in fact, both to keep revisiting the same work and transforming it
and to develop works that build on each other. For me it is what even gives
the sense of deepening about whatever I am researching that makes sense.
To close this question, often the same work for me can
also be cited from other points of view, such as, for example,
speaking now of the aspect of cinema, the film that is the lack that moves us.
First it was a play.
Then we transformed it into a film that worked with the research device of the play.
But thinking from the perspective of cinema.
Afterwards this film became an installation,
in which we show, in 13 continuous hours, the three screens
with the three cameras that produced it.
The work itself also unfolded
into many different looks at
this work, just to say that
sometimes it is not only a question of how I am going to develop
a trilogy, a diptych, but also how I am going to dive into
a material and continue to unfold and rethink this material.
For me my work is so mixed
with my life, it’s not so inseparable that it is almost
as if reality and fiction also overlapped all the time.
How would I like that faith?
Without thinking that this perception, that this
desire that I have, that my
theatre can somehow be transformative, that this was
not a utopia that if it really, somehow, can be real.