«La confirmación de estar bien encaminado es comprobar la perturbación del espectador»: Juanma Bajo Ulloa y el pulso implacable contra la corrección política en El Mal

I have always been interested in the concept of fame, recognition, and the need for external approval—something I have known from a very young age, and which actually affects everyone. But most people deny it despite the fact that it has become a sudden pandemic of narcissism. I deal with this concept with other characters and in other films like "Frágil" (2005), or in the documentary "Historia de un grupo de rock" (2008). In "El Mal" the protagonist Elvira Nous says, "wanting to be admired is a desperate way of being appreciated." I don't see myself reflected in my characters, but there is something of me in all of them, or I couldn't write them.

Today's cinema, as the woke propaganda medium it has become, maintains a highly nihilistic approach where the spiritual has no place, precisely because this ideology tries to take the place of religion. "El Mal" (just like "Baby"), proposes a reflection on the discernment between the sacred and the profane and material. On love that dignifies us, even though it makes us vulnerable, and fear that arises from the ego and weighs us down.

The tools are all those offered by cinematic narration, at the service of the creator's gaze and the spectator's. But perhaps music is what connects us most to something subconscious, irrational, and divine.

Actually, I was talking about two projects. The comedy you mention would be titled “Muerte mortal (al borde del límite)”. The other project, of a less roguish nature, could be “El bien”, the autonomous and unrecognized continuation of “El mal”. No comment…

But it turns out there is also an idea for a trailer that largely coincides with your intuitive approach regarding that simple-minded do-goodism that is destroying the West…

I have increasingly taken charge of the camera due to the difficulty of conveying to operators all the instructions that occur to me even in the middle of a take. That allows me to improvise re-framings and coexist more closely with the actors. Certainly, at times it entails a significant extra effort and something can be lost along the way. But that's life.

Architecture is the setting and, therefore, a fundamental part of the narration just like light, dialogue, or makeup. In Vitoria I find everything I need, I just have to imagine and choose the right point of view, sometimes while brushing my teeth.

Musical themes like Jeanette's correspond to the protagonist Martin's personal soundtrack. She does not dramatize her sinister acts; she performs them with an almost childlike illusion, and indeed, there is beauty and innocence in her mind.

I am unaware of which fronts you are referring to; this appreciation has not reached us. But atmosphere is for me a vehicle always at the service of the narration, a narration that relies on the criterion of the committed spectator. And this is sustained not only by the image but also by elements such as silence or the musical environment, rhythm, or light.

There was no trauma because it wasn't the first lawsuit; it was basically another legal dispute resolved in our favor. Already with “Alas de mariposa” (1991), for example, we had won litigation against the Basque Government and the San Sebastián Festival. The success of “Airbag” was not only due to such an unusual or daring creative bet, I was also lucky enough to have a distributor just as disturbed or more so, Paco Hoyos.

But I have not rejected the industry; I simply sought to be independent from the very first film. This demands a high toll and defending oneself against its eventual abuses. You understand early on that it is an arena of sharks who will exploit you if you allow it.

I see a paradox in the question, or is it provocation? I don't go to the media; I attend to whoever asks me, and without discriminating by their relevance, as you will have verified with your medium. And my discourse is the same as always: defense of creative freedom against the ideological manipulation of power. Nor have I "criticized," but rather exposed accredited facts that appear, for example, in the BOE (Official State Gazette).

Regarding the televisions you mention, they do not subsidize anything; they buy broadcasting rights, just as every spectator buys a movie ticket.

Subsidies have indeed been for years, as I have been effectively exposing, a shameful mechanism of political segregation, rather than support for merit.

I defend adult entertainment in total freedom, and I expose the hypocrisy of moralists, who always hide corpses (or prostitution) under the rug. The only thing permitted today is ideological propaganda that helps the interests of the elites who manage governments with the profitable purpose of thus frightening and fragmenting the population. Art matters as much to them as the color of that Persian rug I am not going to buy.

“Rey Gitano” laughed at established authority, at de facto powers such as oligarchy, banking, institutional feminism, or an innocuous monarchy. But to the extent that you do not join the polarization instigated by these powers, you become an uncomfortable dissident for both "sides."

Political satire is unviable in any dictatorship, which only accepts satire that mocks its adversaries and dissidents. Today spontaneity, and truth itself, have died at the hands of political correctness.

Technologies always provoke this debate. To the extent that they are used as a tool, they can help the creator. But when they take the place of their creativity, they turn them into a fraud.

Some filmmakers are very happy about technological advances like digital, but the question is whether better films have been made since its arrival around 2010 than before. Maybe I missed them...