Succession

In ecology, there is a process called ecological succession, which refers to the natural evolution and development of an ecosystem through a succession of stages. This is a succession caused by a natural process, through relationships between organisms; however, when it is caused by an external factor (fire, pollution, etc.), it becomes an allogenic succession. This is the case presented in Succession.

If I have chosen this as the subject of my short film, it is because ecology and the consequences of human behaviour on the environment are of great importance, creating disturbances and changing the way ecosystems function. It is this relationship between humans and nature that interests me. I wish to question the viewer about the impact of their decisions and behaviour toward nature, but also to try to encourage a more global reflection, not by saying whether something is good or bad, but rather by opening up possibilities and creating a space for thought and discussion.

In the film, I present two perspectives that oppose each other through their temporality. One shows a person whom we cannot identify, who is in a stage that could be called a climax, to continue the ecological analogy, a stage that is supposed to be the most stable. At the same time, there are destroyed plants, as if following a major disturbance. The person moves inexorably toward death, while the state of the plants improves and approaches a climax that may be linked to the death of the person.

It is very important to me not to show a clearly defined place, in order to allow viewers to form their own opinion about where all of this takes place, and to let them reflect on the links between this closed world and our own world, which is just as closed, only on a larger scale. This is an experiment in what the audience can see and think, and it is also very important to leave a large space for reflection, because contemporary film production too often tends to take the viewer by the hand and tell them everything, show them everything. But isn’t art more interesting when it allows for personal interpretation? For example, in Blade Runner (1982), is Rick Deckard a replicant or not? It is not clear, which makes certain elements of the film mysterious and allows for reflection and for different interpretations depending on the viewer’s and allows for reflection and for many different interpretations depending on the viewers and their personal experiences.