Light and Chemistry.
A Conversation with Gaëlle Rouard
by Vincenzo Mancuso
A Conversation with Gaëlle Rouard
by Vincenzo Mancuso
Gaëlle, your practice spans many years-you began working with film in the 1990s and were deeply involved with the MTK collective in Grenoble. What first drew you to film stock, and what keeps you working with it today?
When I started making films, I was already immersed in analog media, since I initially wanted to be a photographer, and at that time digital didn't exist.
When I met the founders of MTK-Christophe Auger and Xavier Querel of Metamkine -I realized that making films could be as simple as picking up a camera and hand-developing your own reels. Their approach to film was closer to visual arts research than to conventional filmmaking.
Every element of the cinematographic apparatus-shooting, developing, printing, editing, sound, projection-was treated as a potential stage of creation, open to endless questioning, free from normative constraints.
It would take a lifetime to explore all of this, which is why I am still working with the same tools.
Can you tell us about your personal approach to film? How do you work with the medium, and what are you particularly seeking within it?
Practically speaking, the film is hand-processed on reels, which allows (in black-and-white as well as in color)
all kinds of experiments by varying the time and temperature of each chemical bath.
The image is always the result of a combination of three factors: the quality of the light, the nature of the film stock (its material characteristics), and the method of development.
By playing with these three factors, the possibilities of achieving different results are virtually infinite-or at least vast enough. I'm always looking for the right balance between these three elements to create an image that reflects what I want to express.
Why did you choose to work mainly in 16mm?
Super 8 is too limited, and 35mm is too expensive-16mm is the perfect middle format.
But also, my inspiration comes essentially from the technical practice itself, so shooting digitally simply makes no sense for me.
When I started making films, I was already immersed in analog media, since I initially wanted to be a photographer, and at that time digital didn't exist.
When I met the founders of MTK-Christophe Auger and Xavier Querel of Metamkine -I realized that making films could be as simple as picking up a camera and hand-developing your own reels. Their approach to film was closer to visual arts research than to conventional filmmaking.
Every element of the cinematographic apparatus-shooting, developing, printing, editing, sound, projection-was treated as a potential stage of creation, open to endless questioning, free from normative constraints.
It would take a lifetime to explore all of this, which is why I am still working with the same tools.
Can you tell us about your personal approach to film? How do you work with the medium, and what are you particularly seeking within it?
Practically speaking, the film is hand-processed on reels, which allows (in black-and-white as well as in color)
all kinds of experiments by varying the time and temperature of each chemical bath.
The image is always the result of a combination of three factors: the quality of the light, the nature of the film stock (its material characteristics), and the method of development.
By playing with these three factors, the possibilities of achieving different results are virtually infinite-or at least vast enough. I'm always looking for the right balance between these three elements to create an image that reflects what I want to express.
Why did you choose to work mainly in 16mm?
Super 8 is too limited, and 35mm is too expensive-16mm is the perfect middle format.
But also, my inspiration comes essentially from the technical practice itself, so shooting digitally simply makes no sense for me.
What techniques have you developed over the years, and in what direction is your current research evolving?
I have widely explored everything related to the darkroom!
Subjecting images to physical modifications on the film strip through unorthodox chemical treatments and other "forbidden" abuses-pushing the emulsion to its furthest limits.
Kneading, scratching, reworking ... defects can be transformed into expressive values, but above all, they cease to be defects and become intentional accidents. More specifically, I have practiced many types of solarization.
Which aspects of performance interest you most?
And how do you connect them to the use of film stock and the projector?
The tool generates the gesture: the projector is treated as an instrument.
The material produced in the lab-the film itself-is then put back into play in a performance that integrates all the parameters of projection: frame rate, image size, aspect ratio, light intensity, superimpositions ...
It is also about working with the spatial arrangement of the projected image.
Projection is conceived, ultimately, as a free interpretation of the score that is the filmstrip.
How does a project or an idea begin for you?
Is there a triggering element that sets your creative process in motion?
Who can really say how projects emerge beneath the surface?
For me, it's quite indistinct, but it often starts from a simple desire. For example, for Unter, I wanted to work with the sonar sound of a submarine.
For M ... H, an adaptation of Macbeth, I wanted to work with text-for the first time-and I fell in love with Welles' Macbeth.
So if I had to generalize, I'd say the trigger is probably the curiosity to see what it will become.
Whether in the lab, in editing, or in sound, there's always a big element of curiosity at the start.
Each film has its own initial spark, but it's more a technical or material inspiration than a "script"-an equilibrium between instinct and knowledge.
I have widely explored everything related to the darkroom!
Subjecting images to physical modifications on the film strip through unorthodox chemical treatments and other "forbidden" abuses-pushing the emulsion to its furthest limits.
Kneading, scratching, reworking ... defects can be transformed into expressive values, but above all, they cease to be defects and become intentional accidents. More specifically, I have practiced many types of solarization.
Which aspects of performance interest you most?
And how do you connect them to the use of film stock and the projector?
The tool generates the gesture: the projector is treated as an instrument.
The material produced in the lab-the film itself-is then put back into play in a performance that integrates all the parameters of projection: frame rate, image size, aspect ratio, light intensity, superimpositions ...
It is also about working with the spatial arrangement of the projected image.
Projection is conceived, ultimately, as a free interpretation of the score that is the filmstrip.
How does a project or an idea begin for you?
Is there a triggering element that sets your creative process in motion?
Who can really say how projects emerge beneath the surface?
For me, it's quite indistinct, but it often starts from a simple desire. For example, for Unter, I wanted to work with the sonar sound of a submarine.
For M ... H, an adaptation of Macbeth, I wanted to work with text-for the first time-and I fell in love with Welles' Macbeth.
So if I had to generalize, I'd say the trigger is probably the curiosity to see what it will become.
Whether in the lab, in editing, or in sound, there's always a big element of curiosity at the start.
Each film has its own initial spark, but it's more a technical or material inspiration than a "script"-an equilibrium between instinct and knowledge.
Can you tell us how the film Darkness, Darkness Burning Bright was born and developed?
For Darkness, it clearly started from a purely technical desire.
I wanted to really dig into an approach I had initiated quite early in my work: superimposition.
The film took me four years.
The first year was just trials, without asking too many questions. Almost everything ended up in the trash, but then I started creating images consciously; little by little, the material itself imposed the film.
Since I work at home, I don't follow a "classic" method-shooting first and then post-production.
I kept filming and producing images right up until the editing was finished.
The sound only came in the last year, but by then I had already built a sound library because I knew the type of sounds I wanted.
Which film stocks do you prefer to work with, and why?
All Kodak emulsions-they're the best in my opinion. Unfortunately the range has become very limited; when I started, the catalog was much broader.
Fuji had an excellent reputation, but I never used it at the time, and I can't compare now because everything has disappeared.
I regret that deeply.
What processes do you use most often?
Are there economical methods you would recommend to those who want to explore this type of practice?
I don't have a favorite combination-it always depends on the results I want.
For instance, when I work in black and white, I have four different developers to choose from, depending on the contrast I'm aiming for.
There's no truly economical method when working with film-stock is expensive.
But you can use photographic developers, fixers, etc., which also work for motion picture film and require less initial investment.
Print stock is also cheaper than negative stock, and you can shoot with it (though it requires a lot of light, as it's not very sensitive).
The only problem is it's hard to find, since it's usually sold only in bulk.
For anyone interested in analog film practice, I always recommend this essential resource:
www.filmlabs.org
For Darkness, it clearly started from a purely technical desire.
I wanted to really dig into an approach I had initiated quite early in my work: superimposition.
The film took me four years.
The first year was just trials, without asking too many questions. Almost everything ended up in the trash, but then I started creating images consciously; little by little, the material itself imposed the film.
Since I work at home, I don't follow a "classic" method-shooting first and then post-production.
I kept filming and producing images right up until the editing was finished.
The sound only came in the last year, but by then I had already built a sound library because I knew the type of sounds I wanted.
Which film stocks do you prefer to work with, and why?
All Kodak emulsions-they're the best in my opinion. Unfortunately the range has become very limited; when I started, the catalog was much broader.
Fuji had an excellent reputation, but I never used it at the time, and I can't compare now because everything has disappeared.
I regret that deeply.
What processes do you use most often?
Are there economical methods you would recommend to those who want to explore this type of practice?
I don't have a favorite combination-it always depends on the results I want.
For instance, when I work in black and white, I have four different developers to choose from, depending on the contrast I'm aiming for.
There's no truly economical method when working with film-stock is expensive.
But you can use photographic developers, fixers, etc., which also work for motion picture film and require less initial investment.
Print stock is also cheaper than negative stock, and you can shoot with it (though it requires a lot of light, as it's not very sensitive).
The only problem is it's hard to find, since it's usually sold only in bulk.
For anyone interested in analog film practice, I always recommend this essential resource:
www.filmlabs.org
|
Gaëlle Rouard is an artist working with experimental film and performance. Active since the early 1990s, she has developed a distinctive practice of handmade filmmaking, with a particular focus on film processing and development.
She was a longstanding member of Le 102, rue d’Alembert in Grenoble, a center dedicated to experimental cinema and music, and directed the independent film laboratory Atelier MTK for twelve years, until 2006. Rouard regularly conducts workshops in art schools and other contexts, transmitting her expertise in chemical film processing. Her performances, presented internationally, investigate the possibilities of live multi-projection, both in collaboration with other artists and as solo work. |
Vincenzo Mancuso studied photography and screenwriting, and attended the Zelig School for Documentary Film in Bolzano, Italy. His work focuses on audiovisual documentation, with a particular interest in social and historical narratives. Over the years, he has developed and produced numerous documentaries and established a historical archive that encompasses contemporary footage alongside 16mm and Super 8 materials dating from the 1930s to the 1980s.
He is the founder and curator of ANALOGICA. |
August 2025 / Vincenzo Mancuso/Analogica
Darkness, Darkness, Burning Bright Darkness, Darkness, Burning Bright
by Gaelle Rouard // 70 min / 2022 / 16mm /// screening 16 NOV h 20.00 WAAG
by Gaelle Rouard // 70 min / 2022 / 16mm /// screening 16 NOV h 20.00 WAAG