BISSFF2025 | Correspondence 通信计划044：I Destroy The Tools Of My Captivity 我摧毁我的囚笼

BISFF Correspondence 通信计划

This program involves conducting brief email interviews with the directors of the international films featured in the festival, in lieu of the traditional Q&A session that follows the screenings. Through this program, we hope to provide a platform for filmmakers to discuss their work and share their insights with our audience in China.

为了跨越种种障碍，开辟更多交流空间，我们设置了“BISFF Correspondence 通信计划”，对部分国际单元的参展作者进行系列访谈，这些访谈将在作品放映后发布在联展各个媒体平台。

I Destroy the Tools of My Captivity｜Destrozo las herramientas de mi cautiverio｜我摧毁我的囚笼

Diandra Arriaga 迪安德拉·阿里亚加

2025｜0:15:00｜Mexico｜Spanish｜Asian Premiere

Director: Diandra Arriaga

Interviewer & Translator: Jingyi Huang

Coordinator & Editor: Suliko

导演：迪安德拉·阿里亚加

采访、翻译：黄景怡

统筹、校对：苏丽珂

Q1: The fusion of analog and databending tools features prominently in your films and serves as the building blocks for constructing those electronic ruins. How did you come up with choosing these tools to build your cinematic world? What is the production process like—from sourcing materials in the real world to processing the images?

A1: First of all, and this can give a broader context to all I’m about to say: I’ve never been to Beijing but I’m very thrilled the film can be watched in a city like that, with 22 million habitants, the same as the so called metropolitan area of Mexico, where I live.

In terms of production, it all started like electricity, with an impulse. It was July and the rainy season in Mexico City, and I started filming the thunder from my window, the buildings, the sky... then I moved outside, while riding the subway or walking, collecting moments that had that spark of connection between everything that inhabits a city. I was at a point where I desperately needed to understand why we relate to each other the way we do, what bonds we create. It's amazing how much electricity speaks if you listen to it, so I started looking towards the cables and lights, which proliferate in Mexico City, and I generated those connections, images that would form a non-city, all connected but in ruins.

I use the cameras I have available. In this case, I had two main ones in MiniDV—a lightweight JVC that I carried around the city and that I think produced more glitches and that dirty Mexico City aesthetic, and another one was a Sony VX1000 that I used to film the moon, the buildings, everything done with “practical effects,” tripods, filters... - and a third camera, the Pixelvision2000, which is a camera originally manufactured as a toy. It films on music cassettes and is, you could say, very unstable; for example, it doesn't always run at the same FPS. For this short film, I worked hard to push the limits of these formats, from filming using flashes, lights directed at the lens, different shutter speeds and slow shutter, even shaking the camera a little or inserting and removing the tape to see what would happen (and it did). On the other hand, I digitize several times and reuse the tapes, which gives me the opportunity to have different textures for the same images, so that in the editing I can mix and manipulate them in different ways to see how they behave, and that's where I begin a dialogue with the film. Almost always, the images themselves tell you where they belong. So I decided that the fragmentation, the less fluid language at the beginning, would be constructed with the darkest material I had and that it would be “run through” Avidemux to remove frames, destroying it at the level of how the pixels connect. I wanted the ending (and the concept of “nature” is so disjointed that I use it with caution) I didn't want the change that the being makes in the territory to be between city and nature. I wanted it to be confronted with something opposite but also parallel to where it started, which is why I decided to do it with pixelvision, a way of dislocating those images to a more pictorial limit, so that the change would be in the gaze.

As the journey progresses, as a more fluid language is constructed, both of the creature with its environment and of us who look at these images and interpret them, we begin to assign certain symbols and construct these narrative blocks, often on an unconscious level, which I’m really interested in the films I make.

Q2: Although there are no direct indications of living beings in the film, one can still sense the internal resonance and symbiosis between different species and organisms. In this urbanized world with its unique language system, communication seems built on connections between organisms and the exchange of energy. How would you define the mode of communication between the mutants and the external world?

A2: It started out being about a rat or some crawling animal wandering through the center of a huge city, then I realized that what caught my curiosity was the idea of how non-human beings inhabiting a space like this, that idea quickly shifted to an interest in speculating further, a search that was not defined by species but also moved toward what we perceive as non-existent, an amalgam, an overlap, as the future seems to be looming. A “mutant,” as you say, who saw the ruins of a city for the first time and it became part of them, who felt all this in a saturated way, who experiences the world in a way unique to their existence, that is, sensitive to its environment, affected in different ways by what is happening and, through that sensation, connected to its surroundings, whether it be the electricity in the power lines or thunder. I wanted this being to be open to looking at the elements presented to it in as many ways as possible. I think we can approach words, images, and sounds in much more imaginative ways, in ways that invite us to imagine other forms. I believe that this invariably generates new languages, or at least the possibility of inventing new languages, that is, new cycles of communication.

Q3: In terms of sound design have you considered assigning different symbolic meanings to the digitally synthesized noise, electronic signals, and hums (e.g., TC 3:14), or do you have other interpretations for those?

A3: I tried to assign some meanings, but in that search, as with the video, many accidents happened, coincidences that I kept. I also wanted to reach the limits of those sounds, because I feel that the experience of this short film is defined by where we focus our attention. There are small electronic details, I would call them winks, that when you look at a cloud, a cable, or a glitch, take on a different meaning. I wanted to create sound environments that also allowed for those possibilities of assignment. On the other hand, there was a rational part in terms of how the editing was done, as I decided that particular spaces would sound a certain way because of the elements they contain, and in some way I found a progression towards them. That is, the sounds at the beginning, in the lab, are fragmented, low, long... while towards the end I looked for melodic textures, a rhythm that followed the fluidity of the transition as the being acquires and modifies the tools with which it faces its surroundings. It was a very fun process. I do a little amateur music, and in this case, I gave myself the opportunity to play, to invent what I think a cloud would sound like in all its tones.

Q4: The mutant notes: "This must be, the nightmare of a beast." The exploration of dreams is another major theme in the video. How would you interpret the mutant's motivation for interrogating others' dreams, and what's the process like, e.g., what role does hypnotization play in accessing dreams?

A4: That particular phrase is a kind of response to Alejandra Pizarnik's poem Mucho más allá:

[…]

"Is it that I am? Isn't that right?

Isn't it true that I exist

and I am not the nightmare of a beast?"*

*My translation

It stayed in my head for a long time. The whole poem made me think about everything we do to prove to ourselves what we think we are, the role we give ourselves, and everything we are willing to sustain as humans to maintain it. The creature goes beyond that human limitation, it has the opportunity to look (at themself and others) however it wants, so it accepts being that nightmare of the beast, not just the beast, but the worst thing a beast could dream of, and it moves forward, toward the imminent destruction that comes with feeling.

Now that I talk about this, I understand that the creature speaks the language of dreams, that is, also the language of objects, plants, the elements... Only in this way it is possible to be hypnotized so that the buildings aren’t full of people but just flesh. The being has not assigned them a category, and that allows them to relate freely from that fantasy. The being's voice is also constantly changing. I think a lot about all the conversations we miss out on because we don't modify our communication. I once read, “the universe spoke to me today in flowers, and I, who was looking for words, almost missed the conversation.” I wanted the creature not to miss any conversations and also to invite us to speak their language so that we can participate in those exchanges.

Q5: Could you share more about the ending, where the mutant chooses to fragment itself and scatter into the universe after exploring the self? How would you interpret it?

A5: In a sense, the being changes form, that is, it destroys its current form, but it was important to me that it expanded into the universe, again avoiding the binary of either death or life, but rather something more that I believe exists after you live your life as this creature does, risking going out, feeling, connecting... even if this experience ultimately destroys you, the other option is to stay in the laboratory, in captivity. That is the main reason why the creature chooses to go out and live its life, even if it means connecting to the ruins and into the unknown, where it discovers that there is also beauty and encounter.

Q1：使用融合模拟技术和数据弯曲工具似乎是您作品中的重要特质，也是搭建电子废墟世界的基石。可以谈一谈您为什么选择这样的工具来构建您的世界观呢？从现实世界取材到图像处理的过程是什么样的？

A1：首先，我想为接下来所说的一切提供一些背景信息: 我从未去过北京，但我非常激动这部电影能在这样一座拥有2200万居民的城市放映——这与我所居住的墨西哥市区人口规模相同。

制作这部影片的过程就像过电一般，源于一股冲动。那是七月, 墨西哥城的雨季，我开始透过窗户拍摄雷电、建筑物、天空等等。之后我转向室外取景，在乘坐地铁或步行时收集那些在城市中栖息的事物，捕捉它们之间产生的火花联结。当时我迫切地想要理解我们为什么以现有的方式跟彼此产生联结，形成了怎样的纽带。我惊讶地发现，只要用心聆听, 电流是会说话的。于是我开始关注在墨西哥城随处可见的电缆和灯光。我利用这些连接构建一个非城市的，一切互联，却又处于废墟之中的图像。

我使用现有的相机拍摄。主力相机是两台迷你DV， 一台是轻便的JVC, 我带着它在城市里走动，它渲染了更多故障色彩和肮脏的墨西哥城美学。另一台是索尼VX1000, 我用它拍摄月亮、建筑物。一切都使用"现场特效"、三脚架、滤镜等完成。第三台相机是 Pixelvision2000，它最初的定位是玩具相机。它在音乐磁带上成像，并且非常不稳定——比如说，它的帧率并不总是保持一致。在拍摄这部短片时，我努力突破这些格式的局限。一方面，我使用闪光灯拍摄、将光线直射镜头、调整不同的快门速度、使用慢快门，甚至轻微晃动相机、插入和取出磁带——看看会发生什么（确实产生了一些意想不到的效果）。另一方面，我多次数字化并重复使用磁带，让同一图像获得不同的纹理。这样在剪辑时，我可以用不同方式混合和操纵它们，观察它们的表现——这就是我开始与电影对话的起点。图像本身几乎总会告诉你它们属于哪里。所以我决定用最暗的素材构建开头那种碎片化、不连贯的语言，这个过程借助Avidemux软件进行抽帧， 从而把图像破坏到像素层面。对于结尾（"自然"这个概念本身就是断裂的，所以我谨慎使用），我不希望生物在空间中的转变是发生在城市与自然之间。我希望它面对的是与起点相对却又平行的事物，这就是为什么我决定用 Pixelvision 来实现——一种将图像重置到更具绘画性的边界的方式，让改变发生在凝视本身。

随着影片的推进，一种更流畅的语言系统逐渐形成。无论是生物与其环境之间的沟通的语言，还是我们观看并解读这些图像时使用的语言，符号与意义生成并构建起叙事模块。这些发生在无意识层面的变化是我在电影创作中深感兴趣的部分。

I Destroy the Tools of My Captivity, Diandra Arriaga, 2025

Q2：影像中没有任何生命体的直接呈现，却让人感受到生命血脉之间的共振与共生。 在这个语言系统迥异的都市化世界，交流似乎建立在生物体之间的联结与能量互换的基础之上。您会如何定义变异体与废墟世界的交流及互动模式？

A2：我最初的想法是一只老鼠或爬行动物在巨大的城市中心游荡。后来我意识到，真正引起我好奇的是非生物如何栖息在这样的空间中。于是我很快转向了一种不受物种定义的探索——探索我们所认为的不存在之物、一种混合体、一种重叠, 因为未来似乎正在逼近。用你给予它的昵称来说，这个"变异体" 第一次看到城市的废墟，这些废墟成为了它的一部分。它以一种饱和的方式感受着这一切，以其独特的存在方式体验世界。它对环境敏感，以不同方式受到正在发生的事情的影响，并通过自我感觉与周围环境产生联结——比如通过电线中的电流声或雷声。我希望这个生物能够以尽可能开放的方式看待呈现给它的元素，就像我们可以用更富想象力的方式来处理文字、图像和声音，并继续想象其他呈现形式。我相信这必然会产生新的语言，或者至少是发明新语言的可能性——一种新的交流循环。

Q3：您是否在创作中考虑为影片背景中的数码合成噪音、电子信号音等等声音设计赋予不同的语义，或者，对背景音的使用您是否有其他解读？

A3：我试图赋予声音一些意义。但在探索过程中，跟处理图像的过程类似，许多意外和巧合还是发生了。我将它们保留了下来，因为我想探索这些声音的边界。我觉得这部短片的体验取决于观众将注意力集中在哪里。片中有一些细微的电子细节——我称它们为"眨眼"——当你看着云、电缆或故障画面时，它们便有了不同的含义。我想创造这样的声音环境，让这些意义的赋予成为可能。

在剪辑时，出于理性的考量，我决定让个别空间因包含的特定元素而发出与其呼应的声音。我在其中找到了一种渐进发展：开头实验室里的声音是碎片化的、低沉的、绵长的······而到结尾, 旋律的纹理和一种呼应质变中间态的节奏感产生了，因为那个生命体正在获取并改造面对周遭环境的工具。

这个过程非常有趣。我平时做一些业余音乐创作，这次我给了自己一个机会进行趣味实验，去想象一朵云在各种音调中会发出什么样的声音。

I Destroy the Tools of My Captivity, Diandra Arriaga, 2025

Q4：变异体在近结尾处提到， “这一定是一个野兽的噩梦” 。 梦境的窥探是影像中另外一大主题。您会如何解读该变异体潜入梦境的动机和过程？ 催眠术在访问梦境时起到了怎样的作用？

A4：这句话回应了亚历杭德拉·皮萨尼克(Alejandra Pizarnik)的诗《Mucho más allá》:

[…]

"我存在吗?不是吗?

我存在

难道不是真的吗?我不是野兽的噩梦吗?"

•以上根据导演个人英译版本译为中文

这句话在我脑海里停留了很久。整首诗让我思考：我们做了多少事来向自己证明我们认为的自我，我们赋予自己的角色，以及作为人类我们承受了多少来维持这个角色。这个生物超越了人类的思维局限，它可以用任何方式看待自己和外界，所以它接受成为野兽的噩梦——不仅仅是野兽，而是野兽能梦到的最糟糕的东西。然后它继续前进，走向感受带来的必然毁灭。

聊到这个话题，我现在明白了这个生物说的是梦的语言，一种物体、植物、元素的语言。只有这样它才可能被催眠；它看到建筑物里不是人而只是肉体。这个变异体没有给物种分门别类，这让它们能够从幻想中自由地建立联系。这个变异体的声音也在不断变化。我常常想，因为我们不改变沟通交流方式，我们错过了多少对话。我曾读过：“今天宇宙用花朵对我说话，而我在寻找文字，差点错过了这场对话。"我希望这个生物不会错过任何对话，也邀请我们说它的语言，这样我们就能参与那些错失的交流。

Q5：您如何理解变异体在探究自我后选择粉碎自身，散入宇宙的结局？

A5：某种意义上说，这个变异体改变了形态——也就是摧毁了当前的形态。但对我来说，更重要的是它延展到了宇宙中。它避免了生与死的二元对立，展现了我所相信的另一种终点：在你像它一样生活之后，还存在着更多东西——冒险走出去，感受，建立连接······即使这种体验最终会摧毁你，但另一个选择是留在实验室里被囚禁。这是它选择走出去生活的原因，即使这意味着废墟和未知，它在那里发现了美和新的际遇。

▌more information:https://www.bisff.co/selection/i-destroy-the-tools-of-my-captivity