Reflections

The discussion began the question that was on my and probably everyone else's mind in the audience after the screening: How did Sofie Benoot come up with the fascinating idea, to make a kidney stone and a voice protagonist of this film? The idea for Apple Cider Vinegar, Sofie Benoot told us, arose from her interest in ecological themes, themes about planet on how to find different ways to depict ecological challenges in filmmaking. On her website we can find her open access PhD “Solid ground” which accompanies her film Apple Cider Vinegar. In this work, she deals with the question on how filmmakers can address these times of ecological crises and in what extend this is actually an imaginative task. She refers to the work of Sean Cubitt, who claims that real change can only come through remaking aesthetic principles. In relation to Apple Cider Vinegar, she takes the sphere of stone to incorporate the non-human in her storytelling and thus make us think about an ideal continuity of human and non-human relationship.  

Right away Michaela Schäuble added another question: “And how did you bring all these stories together?” Sofie Benoot explained that her desire in filmmaking is to connect things that seem far apart. The challenge she faced was to connect a kidney stone with planet earth, something very small with something very big. She likes the German word “dichten” to explain her approach: bringing two things closer together by weaving threads, both visible and invisible, throughout the film. A process that she likes but that takes up a lot of time, especially during editing.

Choosing sites for the film was quite intuitive, Sofie Benoot goes on. She picked places that are dear to her heart. You could probably film everywhere about stones, but she wanted to bring up aspects of stones that we often don’t take into account. She had already made movies in California and for Apple Cider Vinegar it was geologically interesting as earthquake territory. The quarry in Palestine she chose for its political significance, to show that stone is not outside our system but is deeply embedded in politics and economics.

Claus Beisbart joined the discussion with his insights on the philosophy and science behind the film. For Beisbart, the film doesn’t picture a kind of science that intervenes and experiments with the subject, but observational science that is slowly looking for traces and pieces them together.  It is a look back in history, an observation of what has happened and where the kidney stone comes from. It is an investigation by following traces and origins. Reflecting on the science in the film, I was struck by how she applied ethnographic filmmaking to a geological subject, another connection she made.

Sofie Benoot picked up the word “traces” and went on about the style of her film. In the beginning, she wanted to frame the film as a detective story, following the traces of the kidney stone. Eventually she chose a different direction, aiming for an activating film, one that encourages viewers to puzzle out connections themselves. The narrative voice already connects some puzzle parts but there is still plenty of space for the viewer to think of links themselves. The essayist genre of the film follows up this desire to collect and connect and gives the viewer a chance to investigate their gaze on nature in a different format.

Time flew as the three discussants talked. In the remaining minutes, the audience was invited to share their thoughts and pose questions. Somebody asked about the narration, recounting how she perceived the narrator’s voice: “The voice seems personal and at the same time it feels like you are listening to a fairytale; it is kind of magic how it takes you away to all those different places.” I found myself nodding - a very suiting description to the atmosphere the narration created in the film. Sofie Benoot explains that this touch of magic in Siân Phillips’ voice was one reason she chose her as narrator. As well Siân Phillips’ voice, as an experienced nature documentary narrator suits the film’s investigation on our gaze on nature. The prominent narration in nature documentaries, she goes on, is often a “Voice of God”, an authorative voice hoovering above the film so you believe everything it says is the truth. Instead of this Sophie Benoot wanted to permeate the power of the narrator and show its construction. It’s a play between space and time sometimes the narrator speaks with the people on screen, or in one scene, when the narrator puts down a teacup, monkeys on the webcam jump up as if they heard it. The text was written by Sofie Benoot and joyfully read by Siân Phillip, making the film playful and humorous and blurring fiction and non-fiction.

As the discussion drew to a close, Michaela Schäuble reflected on the talk, noting that the film encourages viewers to pursue different truths, to embrace complexity, and to challenge themselves creatively, without being restricted by conventional, linear storytelling. These thoughts were an inspirative take away on the way out of the movie theatre.  
Never has a kidney stone been so exciting to me (though noting that I never had one). I wasn’t entirely sure if I fully understood the movie, Sophie Benoot’s spun-together story rather raised questions than it gave answers.  As I stepped onto the pavement in front of the Rex, I thought of the invisibility of something so fundamental like stones. What other non-human matters permeate my life that I do not take into account?