However, I have been thinking about these issues since, and looking out for whatever bits of info I could glean. She says in an interview somewhere on the web that she was with 3 people – presumably cinematographer, assistant, and sound recordist – and that they were in a “bus” (which in theory could describe different-sized vehicles, thereby having different effects, in terms of being more or less intimidating, and probably necessitated the addition of a driver).

In re-seeing the film recently, I was struck anew by the spontaneity of these shots. There are moments of magic that would simply be impossible to choreograph. The probable technique is to shoot a lot of footage and keep those shots – or, more likely parts of shots – that really work for her purposes.

The combination of emotions registered in the expressions of the people cued up – surprise, curiosity, hostility – would be very hard to direct, especially amongst such large groups of people, and very expensive to produce. Given a 4-person crew, including Akerman, it seems safe to say these shots were completely spontaneous.

Also – try taking a film camera on the street, and shooting people unawares. In the shots you get back, you’ll feel a rhythm, a naturalness completely different from the effect when you film people who are consciously acting, and therefore presenting themselves to the camera, even by the most talented actors, with a certain amount of calculation. The people in the cues seem fairly cowed by American standards, but I have the impression this was part and parcel of that culture at that time. They still seem to have that “natural rhythm” in their movements…

If she had been present I had a couple of question re d’Est. Perhaps you could answer them for me.
1. In the line scenes how much spontaneity, if any, was involved?
2. In same scenes, what did the moving camera and crew look like to those in line?

Thanks,

Margaret Fabrizio