You've said the film is not a treatise, and you don't like to talk in abstractions, but the great tragic comedy of the movie is that the rich and the poor are equally clueless and helpless...
Well, you know, we just talked about a Rothko that sold for $71 million dollars. Talk about abstract expressionism. The money becomes an abstraction at that point and the question that the Juliette Binoche character asks, "What is money? I don't know what money is anymore." I think a lot of people are saying that. When you hear of these absurd sums for these strange objects. What does it mean? Money has become disconnected from any kind of reality. It's almost become philosophy. Money has always been technology, but now it's becoming philosophy as well, it's quite strange.
Do you hope this film you made provokes a pragmatic conversation that can be had from some of the ideas and themes presented in it?
Oh, I think so. We're having one right now. That's what you want a movie to be, you want it to be juicy. You want it to be provocative in the sense of provoking questions, concepts and ideas. So at that point, yes, I think analysis and being schematic is interesting. It's after the fact. I just have to say that's not the way we create the movie, but after the fact, yes, art does that. It should stimulate conversation, just the same way a Rothko or a Pollock painting will provoke those kinds of conversations, even though they don't spring like that intuitively from the artist. The fact that the movie turns out to be bizarrely timing is coincidental, but useful in a pragmatic way.
Here at Cannes, your son Brandon presented "Antiviral," a very accomplished directorial debut, which journalists regularly put in the context of your early mutant creations. In this sense, is it a blessing or a curse having you as a father?
I'm such a nice and good father, it must be a blessing [laughs]. But believe me, we are very close, Brandon and I, we have a wonderful relationship and always have. So that's unquestionable, we know that. Obviously, for a while, it kept him away from film. People were so sure that he would want to become a director, he denied that to himself. He was always interested in art, he was always a good writer and quite a good painter as well. That stalled him I suppose. The fact that I was a well-known director did stall him, but then once he realized that he should do what he wants and not worry about other people because what they actually think is irrelevant, then he had the background that other people don't have that opened up -- something that a lot of kids in Hollywood have, but not too many kids in Toronto have -- which is to say, a childhood of being on a film set, seeing how films work in a practical way, and in fact, working on a film. He worked on "eXistenZ" in the special effects department. So suddenly having that at his finger tips and he wasn't a novice in the way that someone fresh out of film school might be.
What have you enjoyed seeing at Cannes this year?
Unfortunately, I didn't get to see much, but it's wonderful for me to see a film by Bernardo Bertolluci, which I actually thought was a terrific film that should have been in competition, but it wasn't. Maybe it was his choice, I don't know. I really loved it and it's been ten years since he's made a film, he's in a wheel chair, he's had physical problems and so on. It's wonderful to see that he's still the great filmmaker that he always was. And also it's wonderful to see a film by Alain Renais because I was watching his films in 1959 and that he's still going at the age of 90 is very encouraging to say the least, that he's still doing it and still being very extreme and controversial in his filmmaking, that's wonderful too. But I don't get as much chance at a festival to see films, ironically, because I'm promoting my own and that's really been the case here.