Paul Risker chats with French filmmaker Mathieu Kassovitz about his latest film Rebellion...
![]()
It was eight years ago that Mathieu Kassovitz exploded onto the scene with La Haine (1995), celebrated as a modern cinematic masterpiece. So it is no surprise that here at Wages of Film, we were particularly excited at the prospect of sitting down with Mathieu Kassovitz to discuss his new film Rebellion (L'ordre et la morale), which as well as writing-directing credits, he takes on the lead role of GIGN operative Capitaine Philippe Legorjus. Kassovitz offered an illuminating insight, sharing with us the difficulties he faced in bringing the story to the screen, the need for honesty to enable the film to play a part in healing the wounds of the past, the controversy following its release and how a French story is a reflection of stories that are embedded in every countries past, and his dissatisfaction with French film and his preference to work in Hollywood.
Paul Risker: Can you tell us about the inception of Rebellion and why it was so important for you to tell this story?
Mathieu Kassovitz: When I was 18 my father gave me a copy of the book: The League of Human Rights' Report on Ouvéa. It was a different account of the story to the official story we had heard, and then two days later because of the elections, we forgot about everything. All we heard was that 19 guys had killed soldiers and taken hostages, that they were shot and good riddance. That's what we heard. So my father gave me this book and I discovered a different aspect to the story. Not only that, but it was a minute-by-minute account; it was a movie. It was already written. The characters were already there, the conflict, the universal story. It was crazy, and somebody had to make the movie.
Paul Risker: You based Rebellion on this report, but did you also read Philippe Legorjus' book La morale et l'action (Morality and Action)? And if so, how much did his point of view influence the movie?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I read twenty books. I had to take his point of view. I met with him and I knew him. We spent many years together trying to figure out who he was because these guys are professionals, and they don't let their emotions take over because of the decisions they have to make, and the responsibilities they take when they are doing their job. So it took me years to get through his skin and understand what he felt. But it was not really about him. I don't care about what he thinks. I just need to use him as eyes for the audience to feel what he felt, and so we can think about what we would have done if we were in his shoes; that was the whole idea.
But it was not inspired by him, it was just that when you read the minute-by-minute, his character was almost the reason to make the movie, because of what he experienced and that internal conflict that he has to go through, and it's something that I can relate to as a member of the community. We are voting for people and they are lying to us. They tell us to do things that aren't right. We go to our jobs and we do things that we shouldn't do, and it doesn't fit in with our morals. So it's something we can relate to which is why the character is important.
![]()
Paul Risker: Was it a challenge to humanise the role and find emotion within him, when by nature he is such a guarded figure?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I don't care about his emotions. He had emotions, but he couldn’t afford to let them dictate his actions. He was under orders; he was working. So it's not about bringing out his emotions, it's whether I will get my personal emotions through his experience; to use him as a shell and I played it like that. There are no big scenes because they would take over, and I was very cautious when I told the Kanaks that I was going to make a movie of this story and that the hero was going to be the enemy. They were like, “Really? Are you sure?” But I was like, “Yes, because through his eyes we're going to see the cruelty and absurdity of our side.” It also gives him a different perspective of what you are, and the audience is going to discover the Kanaks through his eyes, not for the Kanaks to discover us.
Paul Risker: Was it difficult to portray this character as neither a hero nor villain?
Mathieu Kassovitz: It's the same thing – it's not about judging him, or bringing out his emotions. I don't care if he is right or not. I don't need to judge him or make him look good or bad; that's what he did. You can judge him, but what would you have done if you were in his shoes; that's the question.
Paul Risker: What would you have done?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I would have done the same, but I don't think I can be in his shoes, because these guys are on another level. If I dedicate my life to being in the military and went through what he's been through, I think I would have quit, and yeah, be the enemy and be the traitor – because I don't think there is another way out of it. But what saves him is the fact that he quit; that's what makes it beautiful.
Paul Risker: Why was now the right time to tell the story of Rebellion?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I didn't decide the time. If I could have I would have made the movie in 2002 a year after I started to talk about it; but it got pushed back and it took longer, and so the movie came out as soon as I had a yes. There was no timing, but next year they're going to start the vote for independence, so it's good timing.
Paul Risker: How close is this film to reality?
Mathieu Kassovitz: Very close! We did ten years of work to get all the information from all the sides, and because nobody had told this story and nobody knew these guys, and for it take ten years for them to all say yes and to give us the keys to their culture, if we had betrayed them with this movie they would be in trouble. That's the first time they have a say about who they are and they allow the rest of the world to understand who they are. So for them to give us the key, it's a great responsibility to put this movie out because the movie becomes that memory. There are a couple of documentaries, a couple of books – but this movie can become that centre stone that they build on and talk about it.
![]()
We went to see the Kanaks and told them we're not going to make you look good; we're going to tell the truth. You killed people, you were responsible for most of it – but we want to make people understand who you are so people can reflect and put it into perspective. So you need to be close to reality, and politically also, and we focused on the true story of what happened on the ground. There are things we didn't show, such as the torture, or the strong, graphic horror stories that happened at the time, because I didn't want people to be mad at the French white people, because if you see that it's too much – white people torturing black people on their own island, you know, it's too much. We needed to keep the discussion open, and I made the movie uncontroversial, and to do that you need to be as close to the truth as you can.
Paul Risker: Has it been accepted as being uncontroversial?
Mathieu Kassovitz: No, because you're talking about a movie about events from twenty-five years ago, and people are still there, and although you're telling the truth, for them, it's still controversial because their truth is not the same as yours. Their truth is the official truth that they gave us twenty years ago, and it was a big lie – so when you try to tell the truth for them it's controversial and it will raise more problems that you'll solve – but that's what they do, of course, when you expose people. That's how they defend themselves.
Paul Risker: Did you have any opposition to releasing the movie then?
Mathieu Kassovitz: In New Caledonia they censored the movie. The owner of theatres said they were scared that people would riot and that they'd break the seats and then go and kill people, and so they didn't allow the movie to be released in New Caledonia; it's crazy. But in France, no, we didn't have any help from the Government or the military, and we told them we wanted them to participate in our project just so we can bridge that gap and to get people together and tell the Kanaks – hey that helicopter was sent by the French army, and help the process of reconciliation and to find closure for this story, because it's very difficult for people who live there, and for us as a civilisation; we need to clean our slate, like you guys in England. We all have a great story about colonies and we need to clear our past so we can move forward together; but they didn't want to do that. They said, “Fuck you.”
Paul Risker: Did you get the chance to show this to the Kanaks that you were working with?
Mathieu Kassovitz: Yeah of course! We had a special screening for them. We worked so closely together over the ten years that they knew exactly what they were going to get. What they were proud of – and what I promised them – is that they will be shown as they are, and this movie really shows what they are, with their flaws and that different reality and approach to nature and life that they have, which is very interesting. It's why the machine wants to get rid of them, because it gives people another way of looking at life where you don't have to obey the same rules. You can think for yourself sometimes.
Paul Risker: Do you think the movie helped the Kanaks understand Legorjus' actions?
![]()
Mathieu Kassovitz: It clarified it. The Kanaks have had a love/hate relationship with that guy for the past twenty years. They know he tried to do good but they also know he betrayed them. So the movie just shows where his conflicts were and what he could and couldn't do – and that's how I relate to the movie. It clarified things for everybody, even for the military and the Kanaks understand now that he had no choice. He may have made the wrong one, but there was no good choice. When I read the story I had all these crazy scenes of romantic, emotional stuff about two guys who meet who were like brothers and enemies and it’s like “Run, Forest, run!” [Laughs] When I read that story I was like, go and tell them! Tell them! But then you talk to the guy, and he's like, “Are you crazy? I'm working here, I have to save lives.” He just tried to limit the damage, but he couldn't. It's a crazy story and that's the strength of the machine.
Paul Risker: When you first saw this news report when you were 18 and you read the book, were you already forming a movie in your head?
Mathieu Kassovitz: When I read the book, it was already a movie. I was surprised that nobody had already done it, because what is in the movie is in the book; it's crazy. The characters, the conflict, the psychology, the Shakespearian story, it's “To be or not to be”, that's what it is. It was all there. But that is what true stories are. You cannot make up reality. Reality is so amazing that if you find something like that you just have to stick to it. It was funnier for us to find that exact reality, and I was constrained sometimes. I was thinking, ‘I have guns, I have military, I could do some crazy scenes, but nah, it didn't happen, so shit, they're gonna have to talk.’ Then you have to make it interesting, and it's a challenge because it becomes way more interesting to look for the truth than to romanticise it, or dramatise it.
Paul Risker: The great mystery as you say is human nature. Why do people act the way they do? That seems to be what comes out of the film. You can shed light on events, but human nature remains a mystery.
Mathieu Kassovitz: That's what you should get when you come out of the theatre. Again, what would I have done? Why are people like that? I saw it this morning in the news, and I'm going to see it again tonight on the news – it's everywhere. So it's just a reminder about human nature when we are working as a community, and when we are original, personal human beings with our own personal thoughts and how little actions can change the system of a group. You have to take a position in your life and make decisions. If you're a journalist and you're working for Rupert Murdoch and you're stealing information from telephones, from victims of the war and things like that, at some point you need to look at yourself in the mirror and think, are you part of the machine? Or out? We all have to question that – you as a journalist, me as a director – can I betray my artistic values for money? Am I giving the right message, or should I not care?
Paul Risker: After this and La Haine, it seems that you're willing to be critical of France through the stories of individuals...
Mathieu Kassovitz: It's not France! You know, the same stories happen everywhere. I'm French so I tell French stories because that's what I can relate to and they're closer to me, but you see these stories everywhere. There is not one country where you don't have that. That's why La Haine was so powerful and successful everywhere in the world and why it still is today, I have people every day coming to me and saying, “This movie changed my life”, every fucking day. It's crazy. It's because it happened everywhere. I thought it was a French problem, but no, police brutality is everywhere. Now we're talking about Government brutality, and that is everywhere. So we can all relate to it, and I'm not criticising France, I'm just showing up an aspect of France that you can see everywhere.
![]()
Paul Risker: Does Rebellion signal a shift in your filmmaking style back to La Haine – with more social conscience, rather than the more Hollywood, mainstream films you've done?
Mathieu Kassovitz: The difference is that movies like that are very difficult to come by; you don't find a story like that. They fall on your lap and actually the story finds you. So you don't cross paths with stories like that all the time and you don't get that kind of inspiration all of the time – so when you don't have it, go to Hollywood!
Paul Risker: Would you go back to Hollywood?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I moved to Hollywood a year ago. For me, this movie is the end of what I had to do in France and the freedom I had as a filmmaker and artist and activist. France is the perfect ground to express yourself, and I expressed myself with a lot of movies. I did four personal movies and I made them very personal, and I've done that, and it's a full circle. This one is very close to La Haine, it's the same kind of structure and I can't push more than this. I need to do something else and I need to have fun also, and I'm a gun for hire in Hollywood. But I have trouble finding films because they look at me and think, ‘We'd love you to do Hunger Games 3, but why would we hire you?’ It's a fun game of cat and mouse and eventually I'll get something. I want to work with other people, because in France I am very comfortable and I can do whatever I want as an artist, so I would love to be part of an ensemble with different talents because you cannot make good movies by yourself. Hollywood is full of talented people, and if you find the right project you can have your artistic point of view in a commercial movie, that's what Steven Spielberg does. If you can do that it's better than just being able to do whatever you want; you have to be constrained by factors that make you better.
Paul Risker: Just finally, you work with a company who deals in new talent in France, and I was wondering if you could tell us about any French talents that we should keep an eye out for?
Mathieu Kassovitz: Me, me, me, myself and I [Laughs] I don't know, there is nobody. I'm not working with new talents any more, I shut down my company. French cinema is not where it should be. We invented the technology, we perfected it and we reinvented it – but right now we're stalling. There are interesting movies and interesting artists and directors, but not enough. We don't set the bar high enough and Hollywood is making far better movies than we do, and it shouldn't be like that. We should make the interesting movies and they should make the shitty commercial ones – but we're doing the shitty commercial ones and they're doing the interesting ones. So why should I waste my time when Darren Aronofsky is working in America? All these amazing new directors are there; they aren't in France.
Paul Risker: It's quite sad.
Mathieu Kassovitz: That's how the system is rigged and we are becoming an international reserve of people who have to obey the same rules and buy the same things. In France that's what we have become. We were the feisty little village that nobody liked and right now there is nothing to hate about us, and I'm very sad about it. You guys might even like us in a few years; it's terrible.
Rebellion is out now in cinemas courtesy of Lionsgate.
Many thanks to Mathieu Kassovitz for taking the time for this interview.
Paul Risker is co-editor in chief of Wages of Film, freelance writer and contributor to Flickering Myth and Scream The Horror Magazine.
It was eight years ago that Mathieu Kassovitz exploded onto the scene with La Haine (1995), celebrated as a modern cinematic masterpiece. So it is no surprise that here at Wages of Film, we were particularly excited at the prospect of sitting down with Mathieu Kassovitz to discuss his new film Rebellion (L'ordre et la morale), which as well as writing-directing credits, he takes on the lead role of GIGN operative Capitaine Philippe Legorjus. Kassovitz offered an illuminating insight, sharing with us the difficulties he faced in bringing the story to the screen, the need for honesty to enable the film to play a part in healing the wounds of the past, the controversy following its release and how a French story is a reflection of stories that are embedded in every countries past, and his dissatisfaction with French film and his preference to work in Hollywood. Paul Risker: Can you tell us about the inception of Rebellion and why it was so important for you to tell this story?
Mathieu Kassovitz: When I was 18 my father gave me a copy of the book: The League of Human Rights' Report on Ouvéa. It was a different account of the story to the official story we had heard, and then two days later because of the elections, we forgot about everything. All we heard was that 19 guys had killed soldiers and taken hostages, that they were shot and good riddance. That's what we heard. So my father gave me this book and I discovered a different aspect to the story. Not only that, but it was a minute-by-minute account; it was a movie. It was already written. The characters were already there, the conflict, the universal story. It was crazy, and somebody had to make the movie.
Paul Risker: You based Rebellion on this report, but did you also read Philippe Legorjus' book La morale et l'action (Morality and Action)? And if so, how much did his point of view influence the movie?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I read twenty books. I had to take his point of view. I met with him and I knew him. We spent many years together trying to figure out who he was because these guys are professionals, and they don't let their emotions take over because of the decisions they have to make, and the responsibilities they take when they are doing their job. So it took me years to get through his skin and understand what he felt. But it was not really about him. I don't care about what he thinks. I just need to use him as eyes for the audience to feel what he felt, and so we can think about what we would have done if we were in his shoes; that was the whole idea.
But it was not inspired by him, it was just that when you read the minute-by-minute, his character was almost the reason to make the movie, because of what he experienced and that internal conflict that he has to go through, and it's something that I can relate to as a member of the community. We are voting for people and they are lying to us. They tell us to do things that aren't right. We go to our jobs and we do things that we shouldn't do, and it doesn't fit in with our morals. So it's something we can relate to which is why the character is important.
Paul Risker: Was it a challenge to humanise the role and find emotion within him, when by nature he is such a guarded figure?Mathieu Kassovitz: I don't care about his emotions. He had emotions, but he couldn’t afford to let them dictate his actions. He was under orders; he was working. So it's not about bringing out his emotions, it's whether I will get my personal emotions through his experience; to use him as a shell and I played it like that. There are no big scenes because they would take over, and I was very cautious when I told the Kanaks that I was going to make a movie of this story and that the hero was going to be the enemy. They were like, “Really? Are you sure?” But I was like, “Yes, because through his eyes we're going to see the cruelty and absurdity of our side.” It also gives him a different perspective of what you are, and the audience is going to discover the Kanaks through his eyes, not for the Kanaks to discover us.
Paul Risker: Was it difficult to portray this character as neither a hero nor villain?
Mathieu Kassovitz: It's the same thing – it's not about judging him, or bringing out his emotions. I don't care if he is right or not. I don't need to judge him or make him look good or bad; that's what he did. You can judge him, but what would you have done if you were in his shoes; that's the question.
Paul Risker: What would you have done?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I would have done the same, but I don't think I can be in his shoes, because these guys are on another level. If I dedicate my life to being in the military and went through what he's been through, I think I would have quit, and yeah, be the enemy and be the traitor – because I don't think there is another way out of it. But what saves him is the fact that he quit; that's what makes it beautiful.
Paul Risker: Why was now the right time to tell the story of Rebellion?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I didn't decide the time. If I could have I would have made the movie in 2002 a year after I started to talk about it; but it got pushed back and it took longer, and so the movie came out as soon as I had a yes. There was no timing, but next year they're going to start the vote for independence, so it's good timing.
Paul Risker: How close is this film to reality?
Mathieu Kassovitz: Very close! We did ten years of work to get all the information from all the sides, and because nobody had told this story and nobody knew these guys, and for it take ten years for them to all say yes and to give us the keys to their culture, if we had betrayed them with this movie they would be in trouble. That's the first time they have a say about who they are and they allow the rest of the world to understand who they are. So for them to give us the key, it's a great responsibility to put this movie out because the movie becomes that memory. There are a couple of documentaries, a couple of books – but this movie can become that centre stone that they build on and talk about it.
Paul Risker: Has it been accepted as being uncontroversial?
Mathieu Kassovitz: No, because you're talking about a movie about events from twenty-five years ago, and people are still there, and although you're telling the truth, for them, it's still controversial because their truth is not the same as yours. Their truth is the official truth that they gave us twenty years ago, and it was a big lie – so when you try to tell the truth for them it's controversial and it will raise more problems that you'll solve – but that's what they do, of course, when you expose people. That's how they defend themselves.
Paul Risker: Did you have any opposition to releasing the movie then?
Mathieu Kassovitz: In New Caledonia they censored the movie. The owner of theatres said they were scared that people would riot and that they'd break the seats and then go and kill people, and so they didn't allow the movie to be released in New Caledonia; it's crazy. But in France, no, we didn't have any help from the Government or the military, and we told them we wanted them to participate in our project just so we can bridge that gap and to get people together and tell the Kanaks – hey that helicopter was sent by the French army, and help the process of reconciliation and to find closure for this story, because it's very difficult for people who live there, and for us as a civilisation; we need to clean our slate, like you guys in England. We all have a great story about colonies and we need to clear our past so we can move forward together; but they didn't want to do that. They said, “Fuck you.”
Paul Risker: Did you get the chance to show this to the Kanaks that you were working with?
Mathieu Kassovitz: Yeah of course! We had a special screening for them. We worked so closely together over the ten years that they knew exactly what they were going to get. What they were proud of – and what I promised them – is that they will be shown as they are, and this movie really shows what they are, with their flaws and that different reality and approach to nature and life that they have, which is very interesting. It's why the machine wants to get rid of them, because it gives people another way of looking at life where you don't have to obey the same rules. You can think for yourself sometimes.
Paul Risker: Do you think the movie helped the Kanaks understand Legorjus' actions?
Mathieu Kassovitz: It clarified it. The Kanaks have had a love/hate relationship with that guy for the past twenty years. They know he tried to do good but they also know he betrayed them. So the movie just shows where his conflicts were and what he could and couldn't do – and that's how I relate to the movie. It clarified things for everybody, even for the military and the Kanaks understand now that he had no choice. He may have made the wrong one, but there was no good choice. When I read the story I had all these crazy scenes of romantic, emotional stuff about two guys who meet who were like brothers and enemies and it’s like “Run, Forest, run!” [Laughs] When I read that story I was like, go and tell them! Tell them! But then you talk to the guy, and he's like, “Are you crazy? I'm working here, I have to save lives.” He just tried to limit the damage, but he couldn't. It's a crazy story and that's the strength of the machine.Paul Risker: When you first saw this news report when you were 18 and you read the book, were you already forming a movie in your head?
Mathieu Kassovitz: When I read the book, it was already a movie. I was surprised that nobody had already done it, because what is in the movie is in the book; it's crazy. The characters, the conflict, the psychology, the Shakespearian story, it's “To be or not to be”, that's what it is. It was all there. But that is what true stories are. You cannot make up reality. Reality is so amazing that if you find something like that you just have to stick to it. It was funnier for us to find that exact reality, and I was constrained sometimes. I was thinking, ‘I have guns, I have military, I could do some crazy scenes, but nah, it didn't happen, so shit, they're gonna have to talk.’ Then you have to make it interesting, and it's a challenge because it becomes way more interesting to look for the truth than to romanticise it, or dramatise it.
Paul Risker: The great mystery as you say is human nature. Why do people act the way they do? That seems to be what comes out of the film. You can shed light on events, but human nature remains a mystery.
Mathieu Kassovitz: That's what you should get when you come out of the theatre. Again, what would I have done? Why are people like that? I saw it this morning in the news, and I'm going to see it again tonight on the news – it's everywhere. So it's just a reminder about human nature when we are working as a community, and when we are original, personal human beings with our own personal thoughts and how little actions can change the system of a group. You have to take a position in your life and make decisions. If you're a journalist and you're working for Rupert Murdoch and you're stealing information from telephones, from victims of the war and things like that, at some point you need to look at yourself in the mirror and think, are you part of the machine? Or out? We all have to question that – you as a journalist, me as a director – can I betray my artistic values for money? Am I giving the right message, or should I not care?
Paul Risker: After this and La Haine, it seems that you're willing to be critical of France through the stories of individuals...
Mathieu Kassovitz: It's not France! You know, the same stories happen everywhere. I'm French so I tell French stories because that's what I can relate to and they're closer to me, but you see these stories everywhere. There is not one country where you don't have that. That's why La Haine was so powerful and successful everywhere in the world and why it still is today, I have people every day coming to me and saying, “This movie changed my life”, every fucking day. It's crazy. It's because it happened everywhere. I thought it was a French problem, but no, police brutality is everywhere. Now we're talking about Government brutality, and that is everywhere. So we can all relate to it, and I'm not criticising France, I'm just showing up an aspect of France that you can see everywhere.
Paul Risker: Does Rebellion signal a shift in your filmmaking style back to La Haine – with more social conscience, rather than the more Hollywood, mainstream films you've done?Mathieu Kassovitz: The difference is that movies like that are very difficult to come by; you don't find a story like that. They fall on your lap and actually the story finds you. So you don't cross paths with stories like that all the time and you don't get that kind of inspiration all of the time – so when you don't have it, go to Hollywood!
Paul Risker: Would you go back to Hollywood?
Mathieu Kassovitz: I moved to Hollywood a year ago. For me, this movie is the end of what I had to do in France and the freedom I had as a filmmaker and artist and activist. France is the perfect ground to express yourself, and I expressed myself with a lot of movies. I did four personal movies and I made them very personal, and I've done that, and it's a full circle. This one is very close to La Haine, it's the same kind of structure and I can't push more than this. I need to do something else and I need to have fun also, and I'm a gun for hire in Hollywood. But I have trouble finding films because they look at me and think, ‘We'd love you to do Hunger Games 3, but why would we hire you?’ It's a fun game of cat and mouse and eventually I'll get something. I want to work with other people, because in France I am very comfortable and I can do whatever I want as an artist, so I would love to be part of an ensemble with different talents because you cannot make good movies by yourself. Hollywood is full of talented people, and if you find the right project you can have your artistic point of view in a commercial movie, that's what Steven Spielberg does. If you can do that it's better than just being able to do whatever you want; you have to be constrained by factors that make you better.
Paul Risker: Just finally, you work with a company who deals in new talent in France, and I was wondering if you could tell us about any French talents that we should keep an eye out for?
Mathieu Kassovitz: Me, me, me, myself and I [Laughs] I don't know, there is nobody. I'm not working with new talents any more, I shut down my company. French cinema is not where it should be. We invented the technology, we perfected it and we reinvented it – but right now we're stalling. There are interesting movies and interesting artists and directors, but not enough. We don't set the bar high enough and Hollywood is making far better movies than we do, and it shouldn't be like that. We should make the interesting movies and they should make the shitty commercial ones – but we're doing the shitty commercial ones and they're doing the interesting ones. So why should I waste my time when Darren Aronofsky is working in America? All these amazing new directors are there; they aren't in France.
Paul Risker: It's quite sad.
Mathieu Kassovitz: That's how the system is rigged and we are becoming an international reserve of people who have to obey the same rules and buy the same things. In France that's what we have become. We were the feisty little village that nobody liked and right now there is nothing to hate about us, and I'm very sad about it. You guys might even like us in a few years; it's terrible.
Rebellion is out now in cinemas courtesy of Lionsgate.
Many thanks to Mathieu Kassovitz for taking the time for this interview.
Paul Risker is co-editor in chief of Wages of Film, freelance writer and contributor to Flickering Myth and Scream The Horror Magazine.