Serbis Courtesy of Fortissimo Films

Where did you find that cinema?
You'd be surprised. It was right in my hometown, and the name of the theater is Family. Everything felt like the right time, and I had a bit of luck meeting the right people.

After Foster Child and Slingshot, which deal with adoption and government corruption respectively, what made you want to cover this topic?
[The film is] based on the research and the interviews, and although it is fiction, it is loosely based on real life about this family living inside the cinema so I thought this was really very interesting. I didn't want to just concentrate on the sex [trade] inside the cinema. I think that family aspect that was incorporated with the prostitution that was going on inside the cinema is something new: prostitution happening right in the middle of their house, because the cinema is actually their house.

The visual aspect of the film is stunning. You come from an advertising background. To what degree do you think that has influences your aesthetic?
You have to consider that these are two different worlds. In advertising, I am trying to sell. In film, I am trying to tell a story as truthfully as I can. They have their own value. The aesthetic is so different. In advertising, when you want to sell, you beautify, you glamorize. You are a salesman. In film, I am not doing that because I am not after the truth. To be honest and to be truthful in your film, you have to tell the story the way you see it.

I think it is really unusual for a filmmaker like yourself coming from that background to follow that form of aesthetics and genre. If you think of a director like Tarsem Singh, he comes from a very strong advertising background with fantastic visuals, but his work is very surreal and sumptuous. Your visuals are far grittier.
It has something to do with the medium. For me, film is a completely different medium from advertising in terms of an aesthetic.

Serbis Courtesy of Fortissimo Films

All the cast members are professional actors. Filming the more explicit sex scenes, do you shoot in chronological order so the actors get to know one another and are a little more comfortable with each other? Is it a completely closed set?
Normally, I would do that. They know my style: I'll start from the first sequence up to the last sequence, chronologically. Also, [we are] editing while I am shooting. I just give all the stuff to my editor, and by the time the film[ing] process ends, I would just go to the editing room and check. It is easy for the editor because it is chronological. But with this film it didn't really happen that way... It was a few sequences away because of economics. We had to have the cinema closed [for shooting]. About sex scenes, it is not really a big deal. The actors know how I work, and when they work for me it has to be truthful. So when I say, "You have a love scene and you will do this," they know what to do. If they see in the script that you have to give a blowjob to this guy, that is what will happen.

You focus on these different people's lives from different aspects, and you look at their personal and their economic and their sexual lives. Within that framework and given the themes of the film, is there a political message?
Of course, this is always part of it. The institution of marriage, incest, and education: all this is political in a way, because all these things are happening in front of our eyes and nobody is mindful of it.

In another interview, you once said that you regard your style as neo-realism. What did you mean by that exactly? Do you align yourself with other neo-realistic directors?
Yeah, Paul Greengrass, and François Truffaut's The 400 Blows. To be honest with you, I watched The 400 Blows after The Masseur and I thought, "Oh my God. I really love this film." It is my favorite. It is like a found style, I would say. I didn't work to be that. It is just me; that is how I work. The style comes second. It's the material and the concept first. That is how I work in my films. My style evolves and is adapting to the concept. So, I become an ultra-realist.

You came to directing quite late in life. You were in your forties before you decided to become a movie director. What was it that made you decide: "This is it! I am going to become a movie director"?
I wanted to be a director, but I gave up [on] the idea. When you are in college, you are very idealistic. You say, "By the time I am twenty, I should have directed my first film" and blah blah blah. But I went into advertising and none of this happened, and I finally gave up the idea of being a director. I was very happy with my work in advertising when a friend came along who said, "Would you like to do this film?" and I said, "Who would be the director?" and then I thought he was kidding. It is really meeting the right people at the right time. I thought I was fulfilled, but I didn't know the difference until I became a filmmaker. I couldn't imagine myself not wanting to be a filmmaker, so I think I'll be a filmmaker for a long time.