ZEPE : Welcome Rita. We will have a free conversation about your films.

Georges Sifianos, if you want to ask the first questions.




GEORGES SIFIANOS : So for the first film, Vigil, I noted that the graphism is quite interesting with these machines and the face of the character, and somehow a little less in the hands. The lighting also is, in the creation of space, impressive. It is very well done. The editing shows knowledge behind.

About the subject : the gear, the mechanization, and the geometry of the robotic walk of the characters come under codes that we identify very easily, very soon. That means that we are in a “genre” film. Since Metropolis of Fritz Lang, we have seen a lot of this kind of subject, especially in computer Graphics films. So the question is, ‘how can somebody make something original in this kind of genre context ?’


Georges Sifianos


RITA CRUCHINHO : I think the film starts with that kind of context. It it’s a kind of travel through a kind of self expression. You start like a robot, like you are part of something and you look for yourself knowledge…


Rita Cruchinho

GS : Rita, it was just a rhetorical question. If we want to surprise the spectator, we need to outsmart the codes of the genre film.


WILLIAM HENNE : … To deconstruct a cliché.


GS : The spectator have the feeling that he can guess the rest of the film, but the film goes elsewhere to surprise the spectator. This is for me one way to create interest. On the other hand, if the film is for a public people who like this kind of genre films for personal reasons, this audience will appreciate the nuance, the details, the fine variations, the variety of interpretation and so on. But this audience is like followers of a religion.




Z : What do you mean by that ? 


GS : If I go to watch a kind of cinema not to discover but because I like this genre already, it is a kind of religious attitude of believers.

I talked about two kind of public : the followers and an audience who want to discover new things and so on. That’s mainly my comment for this first film. I don’t know if I was severe or not.


RC : No…


GS : And for the next one, Morning Shadows, it was the difficult for me to understand the English. I noted that there is a voice was very warm, very sympathetic and pleasant with a well-honed intonation. The discretion in the choice of images is appreciable. I can say the same for the parsimony, the economical way in the use of colours : you usually use a few colours, but sometimes it’s an explosion of colours. I appreciated it. There is a slowness in the visual events which permits to put the voice at the first level and somebody who understands well English can comfortably appreciate it.

I noted that there are two narrative:  one is the poem and the second is the image events. On the other hand, for me, the voice and the music seem to stay in some regular and similar tonality, without underlying something more than something else. Sometimes it is done finally, but the most time it’s something quite linear.

I underline some nice scenes : for example, the thaumatrope sequence with the man. I appreciated the light just before they coloured the scene. On the other hand, the use of a software who gives in the whole film a texture of oil painting creates a kind of technologic mannerism. I think that it would be better to be avoided. For me, it was not pleasant.

And on the other hand, the linear level of voice and music easily authorizes a spectator like me to escape in my own thoughts, so I can escape easily from the film. 

That’s globally my notes about the film. Sorry if I was critical, but I tried to be honest.


Morning Shadows


RC : I just want to say something about the texture. It was made on purpose not as a mannerism but because the film is very introspective and I needed of give some kind of texture like digital impression, you know, a very very near to make us really feel inside the texture of the skin.

It wasn’t automatic it was made frame by frame.


Morning Shadows


Z : William do you want to say something ?


WH : About Vigil, I had the same feeling as Georges. At the beginning I already thought about Metropolis of course and that the fact that this kind of situation became a cliche :  a single man which is in a system where everybody is uniform, but I think that at the end the film is going somewhere else with a more ambiguous end.

And for Morning Shadows, there’s an emphasis in the voice and in the text and it puts me at a distant from the film. So I don’t really get into it, into the text into but I was mainly impressed by the images which resemble oil paintings with this reduced color palette as Georges said.


William Henne


RC : Well, that kind of linear way the voice speaks was on purpose to make almost a mantra. Because the original idea is comes from a poem that the writer of the monologue did many many years ago and it was like 20 years. And it was the first five minutes impressions of the day when you wake up. Morning Shadows means the shadow of the bear in the first moments. At that time when you’re awake but not still completely awake. So you look at in the mirror and you start shaving. And you think about what will be your day and at the same time you think about the dreams you had. So that was the starting point. I can understand that you didn’t agree the style of the voice, but the main idea was to make a kind of Mantra, a kind of thinking. You’re in between stages : not completely awake, not dreaming. That’s why the music is so cadenced and very marked. And the voice accompanies that kind of procedure. So you couldn’t enter the film, you start thinking of other things perhaps.


Morning Shadows


GS : I did a photo of my hand with an application named Glaze, and you can choose a lot of variation of painting effect.


Z : William, do you want to tell something ?


WH : I have the feeling that making and construction of Vigil is more classic. I think that you have done a classic storyboard for it, I guess. And for Morning Shadows, it is a film about feelings, and maybe you used a less classic writing. Did you make a classic storyboard for Morning Shadows also ?




RC : Yes, I always began the same way. We have a script with a linear narrative – beginning, middle, ending. And I do a first story board or more before I start animation. The first one is the kind of illustration of the script. And I cut all the drawings and I start to decompose the linearity because in both films you have several layers. If you write a script with that kind of complexity, it’s chaotic. So we always have a very classical script and after that I start to deconstruct it. And in Morning Shadows, it’s the thoughts that lead the story, like you said. We don’t have a linear thinking. So it’s a film with the back and forward moves in the narrative, because when you think, you’re thinking of something, and then you go back, and then we go there again. So at some moments we have common points between the image and the text to grab persons and not have two different layers that never touch. And in other sequences, I wanted to no longer stick to the text because it’s the way we think. I’m talking, I’m thinking in words in English, and I’m thinking other things that I’m not saying because I cannot say everything. So i that is the process in this film.

In the other one, Vigil, I used the storyboard as a tool to create a very strict rhythm, a kind of fragmentation that can suddenly go other way.

The starting point is always the same, with different results.




GS : Theme and variations.


RC : Yes.


Z : I think it’s difficult to talk about both films, those because they are very different. But there are things that you told here : when you begin to make a film, normally if you are very interested on making this film and for years you have ideas and none of them is for the film, I think many times we don’t really realize that it’s a certain kind of genre of film. I mean for example if I see the film from Rita of course I can think about Fritz Lang or I can think about the illustrations of Cardon, it’s a French illustrator from the 50s 60s or even about some kind of not really graphics by approach but the universal of Roland Topor or things like that. But I really don’t care because I remember when I was younger, I did like a lot like Enki Bilal. The first stories that he did on this magazine, Pilote, because they were obscure and strange. And when I wanted to make myself something, I was not thinking of Enki Bilal but automatically I entered on this kind of things. So I think I cannot recognize just this film by the outside like saying it’s like that and of course you should build something on this kind of genre that is different of the films that has been done before, because when you are in the story, and you are very inside in what you propose to do, you don’t like to teach and to say to the people that I’m going in this way but then I another way to surprise you. Because you are so much inside the story that you want to tell, you don’t really realize that most of the people are seeing that like some kind of reference. So I suppose you can enter immediately in the film even if there are this kind of references. And when I see it now, because I saw it about maybe four years ago, and I did appreciate it, it’s just questions that I can see also from the outside. For example I don’t know how Rita exactly did divide the time of the film but you have almost the middle of the story till the character has this accident where he falls and he enters in another ambience. So I think that this part is quite long and of course with this kind of graphism and story, it should have not so much details. We would like to see something that happens sooner. The thing for me that is a little bit missing, always from the outside, is other detail and question that enters from the beginning of the film and goes to the end that surprise us a little bit more. I mean, everything is very calculated like a clock, and we can see it exactly like it is with the characters, the mechanisms, the writings and so on, or the story of the character after. But I would like to see some kind of force, detail, problematic that advance on the film and then cross it. And that pushes the film in a more different way, but I’m not worried if it’s a film of genre that should have some kind of originality or something that changes because I think the author is so much inside, that it’s difficult to approach the film from a very exterior way. I think many films that are not equilibrated, I mean that don’t have all the subjects that must exist like plots, tension could and should be seen because they escaped to the norms. I was recently in the Festival of Annecy and everybody wants to see almost the same film, because they say ‘this one is good, this one is not good’ and they have a model that is so so so concentrated that I would say that the films they are talking about don’t exist. I mean, I like when films are not very built for the public in general. I cannot analyse films like a jury for example when they are already done. I prefer to talk about the process and in that sense and about this film for example I know that there was a storyboard of course and the animatic but for example there are some details that I really appreciate, and I would like to know how Rita have worked on the process. For example about the noise of the engraving lines that are on many objects, mapped on many 3D objects, she chose exactly the rhythm of these lines. Because it changes a lot during the film. But it’s very curious because there are plans that have a lot more of density just because the texture vibrates in a very different way. And I’m talking about the first human, not even talking about the second one. So I don’t know if she did some kind of map apart from the storyboard, about the rhythm of the texture or the lines or this aspect with engraving for all the film to keep the tension during it or if it was totally occasional, like she likes one plan, and she doesn’t another one, a little bit slower or if she had this idea of the vibration of the black and white during all the film because it is not easy to control. Because there are a lot of problems with stroboscopy, with rendering and so on. So I would like she talks not in a technical way but more about this kind of rhythm that sustains all the film through the graphism.


RC : It was a very controlled process and it was very difficult. Some people of the team went completely crazy with it because it took for instance two months to make a second. Because  I wanted the light to be in a certain way. And the characters were animated in 2D traditional with pegbar and everything. And the sets were made in 3D. So I didn’t want to create a feeling of two separate universes. So it was very difficult to create a union between the two techniques and it took many many hours. Because I wanted the light  to illuminate a specific way, not only the set but also the character. So we had to wait to see how the light worked in the sets, and then we had to create the light in the characters, to make this kind of assemblage. It was one of the things that took most of the time in the film. Because I wanted the things in a certain way. And also it took like a year to make the sound with Maria. Because we constructed a kind of music sheet, not in the traditional way but with the narrative moments. So she could know where were the peak and certain moments. So we constructed a kind of structure with the lines, and it looked like we were architects. Iit looked like almost a city, a Skyline because it was this kind of lines with moments and colors. So everything was very intense and things were very connected. It was not a random process. Everything was very thought. It was constructed that way, and it wasn’t an organic.

I think it’s the main difference between the two processes :  one was very constructed, very rhythmed and for the other one, at a certain point, when editing, I started to edit with the music, so the film became more organic when I put the music. And the music talked with the image and the image with the music. 




Z : For example, for the plans you have drawn up in the storyboard of Vigil, I don’t know if you had the entire storyboard, and you changed a lot of plans during the first approach to the film before animating really. Or if you decide movements inside the plans that were not there and or if, in your opinion, you keep at least 90 percent of what you planned in the beginning.




RC : Maybe 50 percent because I make a storyboard. And then I when I estimated that now this is the rhythm, this is the film. I started the animation and when I started to edit, many planswent to the garbage. And there is the need of putting new ones. And in the first film, it happened, for instance. Many plans were already painted and ready. And I put it in the editing and I felt that between the animation and the painting the rhythm of things changes a lot because of the perception of the eye. Because when you see a pencil drawing, it’s not the same when you have a volume and texture and light. So it happened very in Vigil. I throw many plans painted and animated. I put new ones. Sometimes I said to myself ‘oh this is beautiful’ but it has nothing to do here. So I just had to take it off and it helps the rhythm. Both things happened. And the storyboard is just a kind of beginning, like the script, it’s a starting point. Things changes a lot during the process.




Z : What I do like on the plans that are on the films, it’s normally when you see a movie, even an animated movie with many things happening with plans or without plans just changing, I have this feeling I am watching what is on the screen. Just because the kind of montage that you used between horizontal plans, vertical but many times also oblique movements that rotate, I can feel for example some kind of strange simultaneity between the plans. For example, when a plan is happening, it’s cutted and you have another plan, I have the feeling that the plans were already there before and after. Like, for example, I will compare to a film that is totally different, a modernist film from 1932, La joie de vivre de Anthony Gross et Hector Hoppin. When you see the girls doing these strange movements, running and going in the water, when the plans finish, you have some kind of echo of the movements in your head, and they still contribute for the next plan. It’s not the question of connection between the plans, it’s like there is a global composition and part of the composition is invisible. For example, you have something that turns, the plan changes, they are entering the water and the third plan somewhere continues in the memory that you have in your head about the sensation of a direction. And in your film, the first one, Vigil, I have this feeling that everything is a little bit organized like a clock, that has a lot of pieces. So when you show parts of one of them, you still feel you the others are moving. So when the plans appear, it makes part of a bigger architecture that you can feel even without the thing that is happening in front of your eyes. And this part I think it’s very interesting because it gives you this feeling of repetition, rhythm, outside the plan itself.




RC : I like to play with the off-screen, where there are things that you don’t see. But you think there that they are still there. And I used the sound to do that also. So you have that changing plans, but you still are hearing the sound of the previous plan. So that gives you that feeling of something happening outside the image. You’re only seeing what is in the frame, but you have a world outside that still running. I like to play with the things that you see and the things that you don’t see in the film. 




Z : I would like to speak about the texture of the second film, Morning Shadows, and the kinetic rhythm, also because I remember what Sifianos said about the fact that now we can deal with a plugin or an app and exploit it. And in your film, it we can have the feeling that it’s an automatic process. I think that the question is really about automatism or intervention on the image, even if you use a plugin I think when you are animating this kind of texture that is on the Rita film. Of course, there is a part that is really modifications frame by frame. Even if they are very apparent to the filter, I think you have a most good control of it or answer of the material you are using. So I really appreciate that during all the film. I will compare also to another film that has nothing to do with that : if you see some films of Stan Brackhage, even if they are very quick, I have sometimes the same feeling that I’m seeing the screening of the film not in the plan of the screening because the images in Stan Brackhage’s are so fast that you have the feeling that you are thinking through the screen and not on the screen. There is some kind of optical effects where you try to get forms or images that are not there, and I think of course ihe paints it directly. It’s the effect of the screening itself. But in Morning Shadows, even if she chose this kind of texture because it’s more imaginary or like a dream. As she was explaining, the character is not totally awake and is at the same time thinking about things, what I do like on this material, even if it’s digital it’s that it’s never in focus. So you are trying to focus during all the film on something that is not very clear, and I think this is one of the things that stand you during the film it’s to have many many levels of different graphisms where the focus is not the same. But it’s not an optical focus. It’s a focus provoked by the choice of the texture that is there. Iin drawing there is no focus, there is just image. So I think this is a very interesting work during all the film, and it is totally in opposite with the first film with even if there is a light that destroy some kind of textures sometimes, you have something very present. That’s one point that I really like.

About the voice and about all these evolutions of the voice, it’s very rare to see a film that is constructed on something that is slowly going up, but that does not have real plot likes more dramatic scenes in a certain point. It stands like that very very slowly during all the films and I think it’s very difficult to sustain the Spectator with this kind of approach. Normally you have the plans, you have the sequences and even on the sound, you have things that cut and pass to other things. And I think it’s not just the totality. It’s the capacity of keeping it during all the time, always like that. I did not see so much films that work on this sense. For example there is one film from Richard Williams about the photograph that reveals Polaroids and during all the film you can feel that a crime may happen, but until the end of the film, it does not arrive. It’s a long feature film. There is a tension all the time and nothing happens. But you can really follow it like that, and it’s very rare in most of all in American film. Here it is a very different one, but it’s rare that in any machinery you have this kind of feeling of progression. 

You were talking also about the question of what is being said in the film. It’s really different from the image. I mean it’s not even a complement, it’s something that happens in parallel, and I think it’s quite rare also to get this kind of effect. So I don’t know how the construction was done and Vincent asked about that : did Rita begin by these images that are poetic, rhetorical, symbols or for example the action, the guy that is moving with his shaving cream, or some other kind of repetition that happens. And she said, ‘I will just make a film totally based on this kind of Mantra with certain actions that repeats and go on. Or did she begin just by the fact that she had the texts, and for her the text was what originated the images that are associated. Did you do these two things totally separated, creating just some repetitive actions, or did you think about the text during all the film and the correspondence with the image?


Morning Shadows


RC : I started with text. It was the starting point, and then we had to construct a traditional script with the 3 axes. At a certain moment I started to deconstruct and at a certain point I stopped looking at the text because I started to feel that I was illustrating something. And I wanted to move away. So I disconnected the text from the editing and I started to work in the rhythm in spite of the text. I had this kind of images that the text suggested to me, but it wasn’t connected anymore. And I separated things. And because it’s a very slow movie, it’s not rhythmed, I felt I was feeling a bit lost with the rhythm. Because I wasn’t sure if it was working or not. So I needed to put the music, and then I started to work only with the music. So I cut some plans, I made other longer. That was the process with the image and the music without the voice and without the text. And then I started to put the text where I felt it fit with the image. So I fragmented the text and put the sentences where I want it in the plans that I wanted. And it was a bit difficult for the guy that did the voice. He’s a very experienced person, he’s a singer, he’s not English. So sometimes maybe it is not exactly understandable what he was saying because he’s German. I love his voice. So it was the voice that I was hearing since the beginning of the film because he has a project with the musician (Teho), and I was obsessed when I was making the search for financing at The Portuguese Film Institute. I choose a music album and I hear it all the time. And everyone around me gets a bit crazy because I’m always listening the same album over and over. So during the preparation of this project, I got obsessed with his voice and with the music of this guy. When I had to really record the voice, I had this little crisis because I couldn’t imagine another voice for this. It was really important for me because it was not the voice that was in my head and that echoes in my head when I read the text. I could work with the musician and the singer that I want, so it was really amazing. That’s why I said it was a more organic process because I had a text, and then I put it apart, and I started to work in the construction of the film with the poem in mind. And then I needed to hear it with the music and with the images. And after that, the voice entered where I want it to be. And after that we worked with some sounds that were important for the construction of the film. Then it was more organic than the first one.


Morning Shadows


Z : First, it was the music ? Then the voice ? Then at the same time the images ? Did you have the music before, or just some kind of cadence ?


RC : The music is an Orchestral piece that he did in Pompidou. It was Live recorded for a play of Man Ray, Le retour de la raison. It was a play that he did with the orchestra for a Man Ray film and it has this kind of rhythm that I needed  to mark some kind of rhythm in the that kind of linearity of images because the rhythm for me is really important. In both films. So everything happens more or less organically. In Morning Shadows things flow more than in Vigil


Morning Shadows


Z : I have the feeling that in the first film, Vigil, the decoupage is based on rotations in the composition of the images. But in Morning Shadows of course things are all the time in front of you, at a certain distance as if you are seeing a stage and not totally a screen. For me, it’s still kinetics but looks like a stage. What is strange when the end appear with these blue sins [??] and […???] is that I have the feeling of a succession of the elements that are animated, are in the outside of cylinder,an  invisible cylinder that turns like that on the image all the time. So it’s like a mechanism that is a box and the cylinder that turns just and images even if there is no parallax, I can feel that they do all the time by substitution of sins [??].


RC : A kind of circularity.


Z : But it’s just a sensation, it’s not real, it’s the the echo you get from this succession that is the movement I was talking a little bit before, about the sensation after seeing a film in animation, that is from an author and not totally industrial. There are some kinds of movement that stays in your head apart from the scenario or the colours, or the lines, that is like an ensemble of something that is difficult to explain. It’s something that moves even without the film. 

I wonder how you did work with Pedro. If he could comment the results of the animations during these years or if he collaborated in some kind of changement of the text according to the images.


RC : Yes, he changed the text because this was a kind of diary. During a year, he wrote his impressions. The first five minutes of the day impressions. I choose the ones that I thought it was more beautiful and but he changed a lot of the things in the text for the film. So it was constructed from a text of him, but it was adapted and changed for the film. And there were some changing after because of the English version. Because Blixa doesn’t speak Portuguese, so we had to translate the text to English, and we changed some words because of the sounds. The music of the words in Portuguese is not the same as in English. So it had many changes, yes, during the process.


Morning Shadows


GS : I thought about two references : 

  • About the voice, it reminds me a graved film of Paul Bush, Ancient Mariner. It has a very nice English voice similar to Morning Shadows. 

  • On the other hand the box in the first film, Vigil, remind me the film Balance of brother Lauwenstein and this is a good comparison because in this film it is a kind of minimalist film with not a lot of things. But there is always a question, always a kind of waiting to something. 

And it comes to my global vision that we can use two kind of methods.  Because we talk about narration. I distinguished two ways to drive the narrative : 

  • asking questions;

  • or doing declarations giving answers.

And I think that if I am put in front of these two situations, I will be more caught when somebody asks me questions than when somebody speaks and we have to hear.

So if we are interesting about catching the interest of the spectator, I think that we have to find a way to construct the asking of the questions, creating waiting in the spectator. Otherwise, when I declare as I do now, you are a little bit bored, aren’t you?

I don’t think that it is something who can be absolute. But I just noticed it that when you ask questions to somebody, he will be obliged to react, to be awake. Otherwise, if you talk and give answers, you give opinions, he will take his time, and perhaps he will dream to other things.

If you had to do these films again, can you give us a critical point of view ? What could you change to improve or to modify in these two films, taking in mind the discussion or out of that discussion ?


RC : It’s a bit difficult to answer that question because I have a kind of very emotional relation with my films. It’s a kind of baby, so we always know the defects of them, but it’s difficult to talk about it. I see a lot of defects in both. If I have 10 more years to do it, I would change some things, obviously. I feel that perhaps it’s too long. There are two or three things that I could take off it. 

For Morning Shadows, it’s difficult because I don’t have the distance yet.

I finished it in a month or two, so it’s difficult. I don’t have the distance yet to be able to answer that question. Perhaps in five years I will make a list of defaults. I have two or three plans that I could take it off, but I like the idea. I don’t think I give answers to people. I think that I make questions, perhaps questions with a lot of words.


Morning Shadows


GS : I ask that because as I do the same process. I am working on a film. Yesterday I took out some works and a few days earlier I decided to take off a part of hard animation that took me several days. I think that this is something that everybody of us could choose to do. I will repeat the metaphor I always say to the students about film creation. It’s like the little rabbits. When I was children, we had a rabbit, a mother rabbit with two or three small rabbits. One day we touched them and the next one she threw them out and they died. Because of our smell, she couldn’t recognize them. But I say because there is a time to talk about ideas and there is a time when you should not to talk. Because it is perhaps too fragile, if somebody criticized, this idea can be destroyed. That’s a lesson for me.


Z : I think also that you must not ask to people around you because sometimes they feel obliged to say something. And in fact they don’t think exactly what they say, but you will be affected by one thing that came from them. It’s just by friendship, they should invent something. Maybe if you want to have a real opinion, you must ask to people you don’t know at all.


WH : I’m perhaps going to repeat a little what has been said, but that’s a way of summarizing what has been said. 

In Vigil, this high contrast, slight sometimes, overexposed or in the dark, makes the images more graphic, more synthetic, more geometric and therefore more expressive, more dramatic and more striking for the viewer. And this synthetic, stripped down aspect of the images serves to emphasize their composition. Zepe was talking about the composition in this film.

And in Morning Shadows the images are more vaporous, more organic like the narrator’s state of mind.

And these two different approaches are totally in sync with what the films are about. So it’s interesting to have shown these two very different films because it emphasizes the different approaches.




RC : I try to work the images with feel. I think the images should also relate with the film that we are doing. Perhaps that’s more difficult because I start from zero in every project. I don’t have a kind of method that I’m going to follow just because I want to have a line (style) to be recognized for. So it’s more difficult, but I think for me, at least, it’s more interesting because I like to experiment different things. Perhaps it’s too experimental for others to see but I like that kind of approach. It’s more interesting for me as a director or an artist or whatever.


Z : Your films have about 12-13 minutes…


RC : Both 12 minutes.


Z : I’m doing now a film of 14 minutes, and it’s very difficult for the festivals to accept films that have more than 12-13 minutes because the programmers say ‘I cannot have two or three smaller films. So they think that animation is a little bit like poetry, that it can be shorter and better, so this is very difficult to make things that many times have a certain body because you have this kind of format seven minutes, or then you must jump directly to 70 minutes. And it’s happening more and more. If you have not a very good film with five minutes, it’s okay. But after 9-10, it’s a problem because they really want something that is more close to a TV special or for a feature film. They want you to enter on the rules of a film, or it must be very well done like an old Russian film with lots of details. Or otherwise they don’t want it on the festival.

Will you do a feature film one day ?


RC : I don’t know. I think I would die in the process. 


Z : But is it just the time that it takes to be done, or is it a format that frightens you ?


RC : No. It’s because I spend so much energy in the films that I would spend 30 years doing one. Because I like to control the details and I think that to make a feature films nowadays you have a lot of concessions to the producers. You have to think of audiences. I think it’s another world because the short films allows you to experiment, to test your limits and to go further, without being in that kind of issues of productions, budgets, or merchandising and all that things that are part of the production of a feature film, you know. I’m not ready for that still, perhaps one day, I don’t know. 


Morning Shadows


Z : Rita thank you.


GS : Nice to meet you. 


RC : Thank you same wise. Merci ! 


W : Good bye ! Merci.