Berlinale: A Conversation with Frédéric Hambalek on “What Marielle Knows”
Following its celebrated world premiere at the 75th Berlin International Film Festival, where it competed for the Golden Bear, “What Marielle Knows” (Was Marielle weiß) has emerged as one of the most talked-about films of this year’s competition. Writer-director Frédéric Hambalek’s sophomore feature tells the story of Julia and Tobias, whose lives are upended when their 12-year-old daughter Marielle develops telepathic abilities, forcing them to confront the uncomfortable reality of complete transparency within their family.
The film, which stars Julia Jentsch and Felix Kramer as the parents struggling with their daughter’s invasive awareness, and newcomer Laeni Geiseler as Marielle, masterfully blends elements of domestic drama with touches of the supernatural to explore contemporary anxieties about privacy, family dynamics, and the facades we maintain in our closest relationships. Shot on location in Bavaria during early 2024, the film showcases Hambalek’s keen eye for the subtle tensions that exist within modern middle-class families.
We sat down with Hambalek following the film’s February 17th premiere at the Berlinale Palast to discuss his approach to this unique story, the challenges of bringing it to screen, and the unexpected ways audiences have responded to its delicate balance of comedy and drama.
Q: What was the initial spark for this film?
A: It came from a very simple observation when somebody showed me a baby monitor with a built-in camera. It made me think about what privacy means in a family and how it would be the other way around. I just followed that idea, thinking about how humans would react, how they would behave, how it would change their behaviour, how it would change a family.
Q: The film has been particularly well-received in Germany, with some calling it a distinctly German story. Do you see it that way?
A: I don’t think it’s specifically German at all, actually. I think it translates well to any Western society where we face issues of how open we want to be with our lives. In Norway, for instance, everyone’s tax records are public – something that would be unthinkable in Germany. It’s interesting to see how different cultures approach privacy. We’re generally moving toward more openness in society, but is that always good? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not.
Q: You chose to focus on a middle-class family. Was that a conscious decision?
A: I needed a family that would have their basic needs taken care of – a typical family like I know from Germany, where they take very good care of their kids. When they don’t need to think about existential things like paying rent, they have a lot of time to obsess about their relationships, about how their daughter still loves them, or what their spouse thinks. I wanted to explore those psychological dynamics rather than economic struggles.
Q: One of the most striking aspects of the film is its tone – many audiences have responded to it as a comedy, which you’ve said surprised you.
A: I was extremely surprised at the premiere when people were laughing out loud. I knew the idea had some funny aspects, but I also think it had really awkward, dark, cringy, and traumatic elements. What’s interesting is that different audiences seem to connect with different layers. Some see it as a relationship drama, others as a comedy about surveillance. I think having all these possibilities made it a good idea to explore.
Q: The character of Marielle serves as a catalyst but remains somewhat mysterious throughout. Was this intentional?
A: Yes, it was a very conscious decision to have her be the trigger, the focal point of the story, but to stay in the perspective of the parents. I found it interesting to have her be more of a black box because, as parents, you struggle to read your children. You can’t really know what they think, and it’s always a problem of communication. I wanted the audience and the parents to have to try to figure her out together.
Q: Could you talk about your visual approach, particularly in the office scenes and the use of architecture?
A: We looked for modern, open spaces with glass walls – places that naturally reflect our transparent society. But I didn’t want to push too hard on this metaphor. Instead of going for obvious surveillance-style shots through glass, we came really close with the camera and used long lenses, gradually moving to 70 or 100-millimeter lenses by the end. The idea was to create an intimate but somewhat intimidating space, giving the feeling that somebody is looking at you all the time.
Q: The film features distinctive slow-motion sequences with Marielle. How did these develop?
A: This element emerged both very early in writing and very late in editing. Structurally, the screenplay was precisely divided into phases, different mindspaces the characters move through. I didn’t want to visualize the supernatural element too directly, but I needed something to stand for it, something that would contradict the style of the rest of the film. These moments became natural breaking points, marking transitions between different phases of the story.
Q: There’s an interesting power dynamic between the parents – Julia is portrayed as the stronger character, while Tobias is more vulnerable. Was this a deliberate subversion?
A: I generally perceive women as stronger than men, but beyond that personal perspective, I wanted to explore something that felt true rather than typical. With Tobias’s character, I found it interesting to give Felix Kramer, who usually plays very physical, strong characters, someone who exists in a more intellectual world and shows vulnerability. It creates an interesting tension, especially as he has to maintain certain facades while dealing with his daughter’s ability to see through them.
Q: How did you work with the actors to achieve the film’s particular tone?
Q: Could you talk about your process working with actors? How do you approach rehearsals and character development?
A: I never think about character beats or arcs. I tell the actors, “Don’t think about portraying something specific – just be in this moment.” Because every human being is different in different situations – you’re one way with me right now, and completely different when you’re with a friend. I like to let them do their thing first. I didn’t really talk with them too much about it beforehand and never do rehearsals. I just said, “Let’s see what you had in mind for the scene.”
It’s always great when they come up with something I hadn’t thought about. After they’ve played the scene their way, I might say, “Okay, now let’s try the opposite” or guide them in different directions. While the dialogue is exactly what’s on the page, how they say it is crucial. This approach leads to performances that aren’t so tightly controlled – it’s much more open and feels more real, more complex. Because we didn’t shoot in sequence, I would tell them not to worry about maintaining an arc – just be completely present in whatever moment we’re filming.
Working with Julia [Jentsch], for instance, we had interesting discussions about her character’s motivations. She brought her own interpretation to certain scenes – like when her character has the affair, she suggested playing it with more playfulness and fun rather than just guilt, which added another layer to the performance.
Q: You mentioned that your breakthrough into filmmaking came from watching Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” as a teenager. How has that influenced your approach?
A: I saw it when I was 13 or 14, and I actually turned it off after an hour because I was so bored. But I couldn’t stop thinking about it. It showed me that film could be something entirely different from what I knew through Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Kubrick’s films taught me that art film can be very free. While developing this project, I looked at other films like “Force Majeure,” not to emulate them but to understand how others had approached similar territory and then find my own way to do something different.
Q: The film took five years from script to screen. What were the major challenges?
A: Financing was definitely the biggest challenge. My first film I had saved up money for and made quickly with friends, but this one needed a professional structure, which was new for me. We had to deal with overtime regulations, location logistics, and managing people in a way I hadn’t before. The pandemic didn’t help, but interestingly, it might have influenced the film’s lighter tone – I was probably craving something less serious during that time.
Q: Despite not intending it as satire, the film seems to comment on modern society’s relationship with privacy and surveillance. How do you view this aspect?
A: I make a huge effort in writing to just be a human being and feel things, not to intellectualize them too much. When I sense a connection to something greater, I don’t try to think it through completely – I don’t want to make it too obvious. The film has sparked interesting discussions about privacy and openness in society, but I tried to approach these themes through the very personal story of this family rather than making any grand statements.
Editor in Chief of Ikon London Magazine, journalist, film producer and founder of The DAFTA Film Awards (The DAFTAs).