Q and A: Nina Hoss, at Home at the Berlinale

Photo
Nina Hoss at the 63rd Berlin International Film Festival.Credit Sven Hoppe/European Pressphoto Agency

BERLIN — The German actress Nina Hoss has been a fixture at the Berlinale in recent years. She won the best actress prize in 2007 for Christian Petzold’s “Yella,” served on the jury in 2011 and starred in one of the most acclaimed titles in last year’s competition, “Barbara,” also directed by Mr. Petzold (with whom she has made five movies in the past dozen years).

This year Ms. Hoss returned to the festival with “Gold,” her first film with Thomas Arslan, the German director often grouped with Mr. Petzold as a founding member of the Berlin School movement. A laconic and methodical neo-western, “Gold” chronicles the arduous expedition of several German fortune seekers into the Klondike hinterlands. Ms. Hoss plays Emily Meyer, a poised and somewhat enigmatic divorcée who may be the most driven member of the group, determined to forge ahead at all costs. It’s a typically restrained yet suggestive performance from an actress who has made an art of holding back.

Ms. Hoss, who will next be seen opposite Philip Seymour Hoffman in Anton Corbijn’s adaptation of John le Carré’s novel “A Most Wanted Man,” spoke about “Gold” and her collaborations with Mr. Arslan and Mr. Petzold in an interview at the Hotel Mandala during the festival.

Here are edited excerpts from the conversation:

Q.

When you take on a period role, as you’ve done with “Gold” and “Barbara,” do you approach it differently?

A.

As a character you always deal with the environment you live in — that helps you understand why they react the way they do. With Emily, for instance, she wears a corset at the beginning, so there’s a restriction right away, but eventually she lets go. These aren’t problems a modern woman would deal with. But they were only allowed to wear skirts in those days, and they even had to take care of the length of the skirt — the Canadian police would actually fine them if they weren’t long enough. Knowing that, even if we don’t talk about it in the movie, helps you to create the character.

Q.

What else did the research involve?

A.

There’s a Canadian writer, Pierre Berton, who wrote books about the Klondike Gold Rush with loads of photographs. But the thing that helped me the most was making a research trip to Dawson City [the destination in “Gold”] three weeks before shooting. I wanted to see where they wanted to go. When you get to this place in the middle of nowhere — really, you drive for six hours and maybe you see 15 cars, no houses, and it’s still wild — you have this feeling of wanting to stay for some weird reason. I understood what they were longing for.

The people who live there are adventurous, they’re open, and they have to work with each other because otherwise they’re never make it through the winter. I could feel it, this simplicity but also the possibility of a new society, which was particularly interesting for a character like Emily. There are not so many books on women during that time but in Dawson City I found some books on local history. There were women who went there looking for adventure and for freedom and to create themselves again. There was no one to tell you that you couldn’t, so women succeeded there and that was a very interesting perspective on those days.

Q.

What about physical preparations?

A.

We had riding lessons here outside of Berlin, and there were lots of preparations with all the props. There was a specialist who taught us how they made fire. We had to practice packing and unpacking the horses, how to saddle them properly. It was practical training more than intellectual discussions.

Q.

Was it a difficult shoot?

A.

It was quite exhausting. Because it’s a low-budget project there are not too many people around to help with the horses, for example. You can imagine, these seven actors in a dense forest, holding their horses for hours, until the camera is ready. They get crazy — the horses, I mean.

Q.

To what extent did you think of “Gold” as a western?

A.

More a road movie. I think it’s not as lawless as a western. It has parts of the genre in it, like revenge and a shootout. But what I found quite interesting is being German in this country, it’s as if they bring the law with them, and there are all these restrictions that they put on themselves. When you see this German group in the forests of Canada, it immediately tells you how far they’ve traveled. What I found interesting was thinking about what makes people follow their dreams, how hope keeps you going and how it can destroy you.

Q.

Did you see similarities between Emily and Barbara? They’re living in very different circumstances but both are extremely focused women, self-sufficient out of necessity.

A.

In that sense, maybe, and also in that they have principles. Emily has strong principles and is very pragmatic, and same with Barbara. They are women with principles and also they don’t want to let go. For me there’s something very positive underneath with both of them. They believe in life and they want to live, with all its ups and downs. They want to die and say, I lived. No one took it away from me.

But Emily doesn’t have to hold back as much. She does in the beginning because it was dangerous for women to be on their own, so she can’t just be too openhearted.

Q.

Since your characters often reveal little about themselves, do you create back stories for them?

A.

To be so restricted in some of these roles, especially in Christian’s films, can be a tough job. That’s why I need to do other types of films and theater — you become an actor to express yourself, and it’s tough to restrain yourself all the time. I love it, of course, because it’s a specific kind of task and I love the characters Christian writes for me. But I need to know everything about her. From the script I can guess that’s probably why she reacts a certain way, maybe because of the past, so I construct something.

With these characters you don’t just react and say what you think. It’s more like, oh, I would like to say this now but I can’t, so I’m saying this instead. There are so many things going on that I need to exactly know what she wanted to say. That has to be precise, otherwise I go crazy. But I don’t force it. I don’t feel like I need to tell the audience what I’m thinking right now. I love that it can be very precise for me, but when you watch it your mind creates your own story for her.