Your movie, “Loris is fine”, shows in a lot of ways the complete sides of gay love, starting from the sweetest one getting into the wildest one. What can you say about that?
I find it as a brilliant observation, I had never thought of it. I’m reluctant to look into films that deal with homosexuality where the loving way is deprived from the sexual dimension. Sounds good, but in the “film genre”, I require for the science-fiction tag. We experience love in the most unimaginable forms and those who tell stories must return them. This is my starting point: to show an incomprehensible, unacceptable reality, turning it familiar, illustrating it in its banality and no despairingly.
What is behind this new project? how did it all start? can it be in a way autobiographical?
I got closer the bugchasing issue thanks to a television research that showed the existence of a website that puts in contact seronegative people who want to be infected with the HIV virus. In addition to the purely underground reasons, bugchasing can be a practice closely related to affective dependence in a relationship: the virus becomes an ally in search of a symbiotic relationship and the infection is experienced as an irreplaceable fact that cementates the couple. Going further the singularity of the topic, the following question embraces something more universal: are we lovesick or we got sick because of love? I have never begged a stranger to infect me with a venereal disease but I spent more than a year in doing research, writing, producing and editing my movie. By reading it like that, this part of the Loris’s life I’m telling is part of me: I think this is enough to add value to the film, in a kind of way, autobiographical.
Let’s talk about your process, what are the differences you can find among your current project and your past ones? are there differences among the “current you” and “the past one”?
More than differences, I am extremely interested in the analogies, to the common denominators of the stories I tell. It is a kind of self-psychoanalysis that does not only have cathartic function, but it helps me to better understand and circumscribe what I want to tell. Let me give you an example: I always thought that my characters were suffering from the wound of not being loved and the always imminent oblivion of loneliness. Only after watching “Loris sta bene” projected in the cinema I realized that the protagonist’s position was far from passive: I was not telling a one-sided love, but a boy who did not contemplate the idea of being rejected, who reacts and faces a “no”.
The word “gender” can nowadays stands for basically anything – it makes noise…marketing talking – do you think that the gay references in your movie will help or unhelp the rising of it?
My first thesis idea was the study of LBTBQI Cinema. I gave up after the first research: it is paradoxical to try to enclose and lock up a definition and characteristics for a topic that has as a main reason fluidity and has fought over the years for the destruction of labels. The macrocosms scare me. Rhetoric and superficiality are always around the corner. That is why I always have contact with small cores: I think the singularity of relationships and situations is the key to being able to embrace something bigger.
Last but not least, is Simone fine?
“Loris sta bene” , I tried to question it in all the possible declinations of “being fine”. I did not find an answer. Just the awaiting.