Nicola Rose talks about creating an unusual romance hybrid film in GOODBYE, PETRUSHKA
In the Russian ballet Petrushka, a Punch-like figure pines for a ballerina who rejects him, and gets killed in a duel. The combination of longing and presumed-crazy ambition imbues Nicola Rose’s Goodbye Petrushka, in which impulsive, puppet-making film student Claire (Lizzie Kehoe) impulsively quits school to go to France, where she longs to study more serious puppetry…and the handsome, recently retired figure skater Thibaut (Thomas Vieljeux) she ran into in New York before they both left.
As Claire attempts to navigate a new life as an au pair, she tries to coax Thibaut into making a skating puppet ballet with her. But her culture shock and his girlfriend just might stand in the way.
Rose brings together animation, puppetry, and unconventional romantic twists in this unusual hybrid, which just made its world premiere at LA’s Dances With Films. Naturally, we had some burning questions.
Films Gone Wild: How did you first discover the original Petrushka?
Nicola Rose: My parents are classical musicians and I was exposed to Stravinsky early in life — first by the “Rite of Spring” dinosaurs in Fantasia. For several years in my twenties I was a professional puppeteer and that was what led me to Petrushka, a ballet about a puppet clown.
FGW: From there, what about it inspired you to craft this story?
NR: Petrushka is unlucky in love and yearning for someone he can’t have. He’s stuck in a love triangle and I think we’ve all been there. I watched a video of Rudolf Nureyev dancing the role of Petrushka and the performance and music have stuck with me ever since.
FGW: The film school student critiques felt painfully on-point. Was there some real-life experience inspiring that whole classroom scene?
NR: Film classes in college were a comical agony. At the time I only noticed the agony part. The comedy part became apparent later. A lot later.
FGW: Where did the idea come from to make the male lead a forcibly retired French figure skater? Did the actor bring any of that to the table, or was the character fully formed by the time he was cast?
NR: He is loosely based on someone I know who was in a similar situation. The character is facing the helplessness of being in a no-man’s-land between the only thing he’s ever done, and a blank future. His situation is extraordinary, but I think the generalities are something many can relate to. There are chapters of our life we have to end even when we dearly want them to continue. And sometimes we have no clue what comes next. It’s daunting.
FGW: How did you decide to insert animated sequences, as opposed to, say, puppet sequences?
NR: Animation always seemed like the perfect way to communicate the characters’ inner flights of fantasy. My friend and colleague Tommy Cha, our lead animator, did a fantastic job of bringing those sequences to life. They are such a big part of the film’s soul.
FGW: Were the puppets stock puppets, or created especially for the film? (If the latter, can you talk a bit about the design process, and making them give judgmental looks at that key moment?)
NR: I actually made them myself using doll bodies from Etsy made by artists in Russia and Ukraine, then adding all the features. I designed them to match the character designs Tommy had already made for the animations. I love their little judgmental angry faces. Those are removable masks. Our wonderful art director, Erich Ficke, made the demon puppet who graces our poster along with the six main actors. I’m in awe of his skill.
FGW: Several recent films, like Alex Garland’s Men, have cast a single actor in multiple roles to make a narrative point. Did you always plan for so many rude customer-facing characters to be played by the same actor?
NR: No, but I’m so glad we did. That was a COVID move to keep personnel to a minimum but it ended up making things so much funnier. The film would not be what it is without Joëlle Haddad-Champeyroux, the formidable actress who plays the six bureaucrats. Or possibly she’s actually six people. I never did ask.
FGW: In your experience, do French parents genuinely hate smart au pairs to this degree?
NR: No, I don’t think I could ever make that claim! It’s a quirk of these particular characters in the film. But I do think it’s fair to say that in situations like Claire’s, where you are working for families of status and especially in certain cultures, there’s a hierarchy you are expected to know your place in. And Claire doesn’t. She’s coming in from a different country and totally inexperienced.
FGW: What I love is that by the end, we aren’t necessarily rooting for the leads to end up together. That feels like a bold choice for a movie that follows a rom-com structure in many other ways. How important was that balance and ambiguity, and how delicate was it to get right?
NR: Very. We experimented with different endings and in the end there was only one satisfying one. It was a very hard note to hit, and I’m proud of it.
FGW: Popcorn or candy?
NR: I don’t care to speak publicly on hot-button political issues. (But the answer is both, duh.)
