Why did you choose to divide the film into three (some said four), such different parts? Why did you choose a particular medium (interview, spoken word, moving images, dance / performance… or colour versus black & white images) for a particular narrative? How do story and history relate to each other? What about the timing & rhythm? (Some parts are significantly longer / slower than others.) How can the body be a medium that creates signs / meaning? What do you want to achieve with this film? To break the collective silence, to achieve justice, to prevent history from repeating itself…? What can be the role of counter-narratives (in art, in society)? How do you perceive the shift in contemporary art towards more narrative and politically engaged art? How do you find the footage that you use in the film? Is it part of a bigger archive? Are the images the starting point, or do you first construct a (written / oral) narrative? To what extent are the different parts (interview, performance, sound poetry) directed or improvised? What is the role of the b&w “turntable” image? Why did you choose not to show the Bosnian war, or the picture of Arkan’s Tigers? What does the okapi represent for you? (As she returns in other work, such as UBUNDU.) How / why did you choose the different historical topics? What is your own, biographical relation to the topics touched upon in the film? How do you relate to other filmmakers who have touched upon similar issues of memory vs history (such as Alain Resnais, Chris Marker or Ghislain Cloquet)? Why did you include space footage? How does this relate to the topic of colonialism? Do you want to suggest an imaginative exercise? (i.e. thinking how we can move forward, leaving the colonial legacy behind.) Or it is just the opposite: is the spatial conquest yet another instance of colonial thinking / acting? The element of “wonder” seems to be red thread through the film. Can wonder and uncertainty be ways of breaking the collective silence? Would you show this film in the same conditions in a cinema and in a museum context? You link history and memory, the spoken with the unspoken. To what extent is there room for fictional elements? (Others mentioned similar terms like parafiction (or make-believe), the simulacrum or science fiction.) Should we consider this film as “post-documentary”? Do you have a specific audience in mind when you make a film? What would be the “ideal” audience? And would be the ideal response? (Some students mentioned having a lot of strong emotions after the film, not always knowing well what to do with them. Some even asked how you personally deal with this “heavy” material. Some felt that watching the film demanded a lot of effort, which was hard for them.) Do you have a (romantic) fascination with “human failing”? Does the open-endedness (or the absence of moralization) suggest a certain empathy, even for those who were “on the wrong side of history”? Would you say that the power structures (such as denial / censorship) are equally monstrous as the events themselves? How, according to you, should we deal with places such as the Museum in Tervuren? Is it enough to contextualise the stories and objects that are represented there? What can wé do?