6: Identification?

So it is very much a game with identification.

My ultimate trick is identification. My 'theory', which is by the way centuries old, is that in our daily lives we identify with ourselves, with our 'I'. The cinema is eminently suitable to show that process. Because that is exactly where we do it unconsciously and without difficulty and even eagerly: as soon as it is possible, we identify with a character on the screen, with a Bart Klever.

If you can see through this process in yourself, you may well be open for the idea that you do the same thing outside the cinema. In this theory, it is proposed that you do not need to identify with yourself. You are not an 'I', but the possibility, the white sheet or the cinema screen on which that 'I' can appear. We look like that painting-in-a-painting by Magritte that brings Bart to his writer's-block solution. You see a painting in front of a window, but on the painting, you see exactly what you would see if the painting was not there. So it is really transparent. Magritte gave the painting the title: La condition humaine. Quantum mechanics describes us as a bunch of particles dancing about in one specific place. That may all sound strange and bizarre, but this persistent illusion that we are an 'I', a meatball of thoughts and feelings, is very powerful. Maybe it is possible for you to recognise that illusion, but you keep falling for it all the time. Just look at the turning head. We keep creating that character we call 'I' and then believe profoundly in it.

So, to put it in other words, Bart is caught up in his own illusion and has to change his point of view, to put it in your own words?

First he thinks he can find the answer in spirituality. Just like me, and many others. But if you really take an interest in that, in that Buddhist theory, then you read such things as: there is no method.

He notes: 'forget everything'. And Bart thinks: if only I could remember that: 'forget everything'. It is very tempting, but of course also ridiculous. But that's how it goes! That's what happened to me too, in the ten years I spent preparing this film. I also folded the corners of pages in all those books. I also underlined sentences and thought: if only I can remember that sentence, then I will be happy. But those sentences actually continuously described where I went wrong. And in that respect, on each subsequent day, a different sentence would appear to be even more relevant. And even more, they were sentences like: 'There is nothing to understand.' Because who understands something? Yes, 'I', I thought of course. Well no, not really.

But what is your standpoint then? I know your original idea was to make the film about a wise man. But you abandoned that, didn't you? Bart is the opposite of the wise man. He becomes increasingly uncertain about what he can find or what he should do. Autobiographical?

Yes, certainly. Silly question. Can you ever make anything else worthwhile?

In the film, the wise man remains static, while Bart develops.

Yes. First I thought the wise man was the interesting character, but that is not the case at all. He's not a man who says: that's how things are. He tends to say: that's NOT how things are. Look how this and this and this are illusory. Or: to find out what you are, find out what you are not.

And it is more interesting to see someone fight with that than to propose a theory.

Yes, and of course, in the end I indirectly also propagate that theory.

What is Bart's development? If Bart were to fall in love, we would all know what he goes through. But someone who wants to let go of his own character, that is not something we are used to. Something happens inside Bart. And it can't be explained. Inside him, he undertakes a journey, a journey seen from a different point of view, from straight above him. You see him walking, on a bicycle, in a car. And at a certain point he reaches a white sheet, a silver screen.

Then something changes inside him. He throws all his baggage out of the car and eventually finds himself on that empty stretch of sand.

What do you mean with that sand?

That probably means something different for everyone. But for me... (long pause). Firstly, it's the same stretch of sand mentioned earlier (and that we saw previously) in the documentary about our consciousness. The stretch of sand where buildings (thoughts) are built and torn down again, while the stretch of sand is always left empty. But Bart's stretch of sand is not empty yet. The car is still there. And you can regard that car symbolically as the means to get somewhere, the way, the method. 'There's no method'. He sends it away. He ties the steering wheel and accelerator and jumps out of the car. The car then drives off on its own. From this moment on, we see everything through Bart's eyes, from his point of view.

Changing the standpoint.

How does he remove himself? He says to his girlfriend Marga: 'you have to know too, it's so wonderful.' That is of course what I also want to say to the viewers. That is what Bart manages, one way or another, but it can't be explained. Because how can you let go of yourself, your own character? If you want to let go of yourself, you are a new 'I' that wants to let go of his I.

So you can never find your way out of that?

Look, the danger is of course that it looks as if I'm saying: you may not get any further by reading those books, but you may well by seeing this film. That is of course *beep* too...

So as for the way to let go of our 'I'… You don't provide any solution to that?

No, I have no idea. Ask yourself: who wants this solution?

But, as far as you are concerned, what people often seek among mentors, gurus, saints, etc. is not the solution?

In fact they usually say: you don't need us. They only say what you SHOULDN'T do, but not what you SHOULD do. That is why my film is a film in denial on virtually every level; it is never what you think it is. Bart deletes the script of 'the sea that thinks'; it will never be filmed.

Part 7: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261277/board/nest/191270626