Film Review

The Duke of Burgundy (Peter Strickland, 2014, UK)

By Emma Burles

Forget Mr Grey, it’s all about The Duke of Burgundy…

e2f30422b84eeb8fb0590d8d6aa2935b

Cynthia (Sidse Babett Knudsen) and Evelyn (Chiara D’Anna) are two women in a consenting BDSM relationship. Cynthia is an older woman, dedicated, as most of the women in their community seem to be, to the study of butterflies, moths, and other insects of the Lepidoptera. The younger Evelyn also has a passion: for being humiliated.

The story is set in an unidentified European village, where no men seem to reside. It’s a delightful gothic utopia where the carpenters have Marilyn blonde bobs and wear black lace; and robed women ride bicycles through idyllic woodland areas and loll about in castles studying rare butterflies or indulging in sexual fantasies. No one ever seems to be in a rush, nor have any material concerns, and so all their time is given over to passion, pleasure and aesthetic beauty.

Knudsen (the critically acclaimed actress of Danish TV series Borgen fame) is brilliant as Cynthia, who feels much more comfortable reading a book in cotton pajamas than engaging in Bondage and Discipline, touchingly perseveres in playing along with Evelyn’s role-playing scenarios, though her quiet exasperation can’t help but shine through, threatening to ruin the fantasy of the pseudo-fragile Evelyn.

The film’s nationwide release is interesting timing considering the concurrent release of the highly publicized adaptation of a certain BDSM novel. However, Strickland offers up a view of a controversial subject that is so much more mature and emotionally genuine that all thought of the mainstream alternative is entirely expelled on viewing. Strickland states that, with The Duke, he wanted to normalise their sexual relationship; to humanise the woman behind the corsets, sexy lingerie and risqué sadist acts; showing her relaxing in her pajamas, whilst she warily complains about the muscle in her back she pulled lugging a huge wooden box to the bedroom so that she could lock her beloved in overnight, or reluctantly slipping on a pair of heels as she struggles to remember her lines. The result is surprisingly touching and very funny.

British Director Peter Strickland (who previously directed Bavarian Sound Studio, an offbeat throwback to Italian horror, and Katalin Varga, a revenge tale set in the Transylvanian mountains), remains here thoroughly un-British in his sensibilities, casting Danish, Italian and Iranian actresses, filming in Hungary and drawing heavily on 70’s Euro-porn as an influence, with its use of rich colour and fantasies that tend to covet rather than objectify the female form.

If 50 Shades emerged from a Twilight fan fiction story, The Duke could be a Hogwarts-for-adults inspired feminist BDSM tale with its grand, castle-like academic institutions, women in robes and a magical atmosphere. Like it’s mainstream ‘equivalent’, it focuses on a sado-masochist relationship, but allows it to float in the fantastical, whilst also managing to convey its characters as human beings rather than cardboard imitations. It will no doubt be highly underappreciated by the masses but will remain a delicately beautiful and finely tuned piece of European arthouse cinema for those who are willing to give it a chance to enthrall.

Standard
Film Review

The Riot Club (2014, Lone Scherfig, UK)

the riot club image

By Emma Burles (originally published in Oh My Daze, October 2014 issue)

Danish director of the critically acclaimed An Education (2009, UK), collaborates with rising playwright Laura Wade, on a film based on Wade’s award winning 2010 play Posh. Although Wade claims the play and screen-play are entirely fictitious, the ‘Riot Club’ closely resembles the notorious Oxford Bullingdon Club, with their formal dinners; expensive penguin suits; misogynistic attitudes; and reputation for wrecking restaurants.

The film begins in the 17th Century at the supposed founding of the Riot Club, named after Lord Ryot (a clerical error results in Riot becoming the name of the club instead, a more fitting name considering the club’s penchant for debauchery). Lord Ryot, just murdered for cuckolding a husband, had a notorious reputation for hedonism, and the new society seeks to emulate his excess. Other rules dictate that the club take on only male members, must all be privately educated at the country’s best schools and should consist of 10 members each year.

We travel forward to 21st Century Oxford during Fresher’s Week, where the modern-day Riot Club are in a predicament. They currently have only 8 members, and it would bring great shame upon them to be “the only year who couldn’t get 10”. Enter the two most likely candidates; Miles Richards (Max Irons), Westminster educated with left wing views and a Northern state school educated girlfriend; and the shy and socially awkward Alistair Ryle (Sam Claflin), a right wing supporter and brother of a past ‘legendary’ president of the Riot Club.

As there apparently don’t appear to be any other prospective members, the pair are both accepted, and initiated into the Club, by way of downing a glass of wine filled with phlegm, cigarette butts and maggots; imbibing a suspicious yellow liquid from a condom before sprinting around campus and answering general knowledge questions; and having their rooms completely trashed, Ryle reinventing himself as a swaggering hedonist in the process.

Much of the rest of the film centres around one of their formal dinners, where as is to be expected they ingest copious amounts of booze, food and drugs; mock and insult everyone they feel to be beneath them: the working class, the Scottish, anyone without a private school education, prostitutes, and women; and eventually trash the place. They defend their traditions and opinions throughout the dinner, claiming that the lower classes are lazy and resentful, with the almost amoral Ryle in particular firing everyone up with his defense of right-wing politics. The pace is at times slow and stilted – with a lot of unnecessary lingering on exchanges between the pub-owner and his staff. But when it gets going it’s a great piece of filmmaking – the disgusting excess and outrageous misogynistic and classist attitudes brilliantly depicted, and the members’ sheer arrogance and sense of entitlement displayed nauseatingly. Throughout the dinner they try and fail to ‘buy’ the services of those they feel to be beneath them, further fuelling their resentment and leading to a barbaric climax of a scene, with even the members left stunned by their actions.

One thing distinctly lacking in the film was meaty political debate. Aside from a couple of very brief exchanges at the beginning of the film, and a heated one-sided riling up of the members during the dinner (which seemed rather to serve as a plot device as it incensed the characters to the point that they committed certain atrocities later in the film), there were no substantial political discussions and parties were implied rather than explicitly named. Considering that the film is a clear satire of the club that once famously included three of the most prominent conservative politicians serving in our country at the present time, and is supposedly a depiction of potential future political leaders’ informative university years, this lack of discussion and the choice not to directly name political parties is questionable. Instead the filmmakers seem to focus on making the film more entertaining, drawing attention to the handsome selection of leading men, the raucous excesses of the club’s members, and the quaint depictions of Oxford university life.

Whatever the reason for this choice, the film is highly watchable, providing a charged and entertaining insight into the lives of some of the most privileged and well-educated in our country, featuring a fine range of the finest young British thesps (who possess a collective filmography of some of the most popular recent teen-films). Although not as brave politically as it could have been and perhaps over-glamourizing the revelry of these men, it’s timing is very pertinent, with the next general elections, at which ex-Bullingdon member and leader of the conservative party, David Cameron will have to retain his position, coming up in less than a year.

3/5 stars

Standard
Mini-Feature

Top Five: Scottish Films (for 20Four Frames UEL Film Magazine)

Today’s the day Scotland decide their fate, whilst the rest of the world awaits with bated breath. To get you into the Scottish spirit here is my pick of five infamous films set in Scotland:

1) Sweet Sixteen (Dir. Ken Loach, 2002)

Sweet_sixteen_film

Directed by critically acclaimed filmmaker Ken Loach, this award-winning crime drama in which the characters speak mainly in Scottish language (with English subtitles), provides an honest and gritty insight into modern working class life. The film, set in Glasgow, follows Liam (Martin Compston), a 15-year old boy, as he struggles to raise funds by any means necessary, so that he can provide himself and his mother (serving a prison sentence during the film) with a better life upon her release. Shocking, emotionally gripping and at times difficult to watch, this social realist masterpiece should definitely be on your list of essential British films.

2) Gregory’s Girl (Dir. Bill Forsyth, 1981)

GG

This coming of age romantic comedy about unrequited love and secondary school life was Bill Forsyth’s first international hit. The girl in the title is Dorothy (Dee Hepburn), a football enthusiast who has just managed to earn a place on the school football team with the support of one of the players, Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair). Gregory quickly falls in love and works up the courage to ask her on a date, which leads to an amusing turn of events. Filled with quirky, loveable characters, and touching moments that perfectly capture what it is to be a confused teenager in love for the first time, Gregory’s Girl is one cult classic Britain would be sorry to relinquish!

3) Braveheart (Dir. Mel Gibson, 1995)

MV5BNjA4ODYxMDU3Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzkzMTk3OA@@._V1_SX640_SY720_

Ok, I admit, this is a bit obvious, given some of the nationalist sentiments going round at the present time (and also it’s technically not actually a Scottish film, rather a film set in Scotland), but I couldn’t do a blog post about Scottish films on the day that the Scottish are voting for or against independence, without mentioning this epic classic that depicts the First War of Scottish Independence now could I? Mel Gibson, as well as producing and directing, stars as William Wallace, one of Scotland’s most inspiring historical heroes, who leads a rebellion against England, enraged by the barbarism the Scots have been suffering at the hands of King Edward ‘Longshanks’ (Patrick Mcgoohan) and his nobleman, including the public execution of his wife Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack). The film won best picture at the Oscars that year, pulled in at the box office, and boosted Scottish tourism and interest in Scottish history, but was panned by many critics and also described as one of the most historically inaccurate films by historians!

4) Local Hero (Dir. Bill Forsyth, 1983)

local hero

This is another Forsyth film, but then he is one of Scotland’s greatest exports. Local Hero depicts the story of Mac (Peter Riegert), a representative for the fictional American Knox Oil and Gas, who has been sent to pave the way for the refinery’s purchase of a small Scottish village called Ferness, Mac is gradually won over by the small village, its charming characters and gentle pace of life, and finds his loyalities torn. Many of the villagers however welcome the idea of selling, except beach owner Ben (Fulton Mackay), who Mac endeavours to win over. Skillfully directed by Forsyth (earning him a BAFTA best director award), and also starring the brilliant Peter Capaldi, this film is a gently humorous and whimsical little slice of life in a remote Scottish village.

5) Trainspotting (Dir. Danny Boyle, 1996)

trainspotting

Inspired by the dark side of Scotland, Danny Boyle’s seminal film about heroin and working class life, based on the 1993 Irvine Welsh novel of the same name, is one of Britain’s most famous masterpieces. On it’s release it shocked and awed the world with its fast-paced, violent, tragic and hilarious tale of a group of friends living in Glasgow who are addicted to heroin. Cementing Ewan McGregor, Kelly McDonald and Robert Carlyle as global stars, and with a sequel now rumoured to be in the works (based on Welsh’s Porno), this film is an essential addition to any list of pivotal Scottish and British films, and an absolute must-see.

Emma Burles (Originally published on 20fourframes.co.uk September 2014)

Standard
Upcoming Events

Not Shut Up Academy Launch @ NSH Arts Gallery – Thursday 26th June 2014

Image

 

Very excited to be filming this event tonight for Not Shut Up Magazine Academy.

Not Shut Up is a not-for-profit organisation that publishes a quarterly magazine featuring artwork and creative writing from individuals in prisons, secure hospitals or other places of secure custody.

The newly launched Academy supports those who are now on the outside and looking to develop their practice as professional artists and writers.

Tonight’s lineup includes a performance by playwright, screenwriter and artist Dean Stalham; readings by poet Cliff Hughes and author Chris Wilson; and a talk by Jean-Marc Mahy, ahead of the upcoming UK tour of his play A Man Standing, inspired by his three years in solitary confinement.

It’s a real privilege to be involved with such a great organisation, promoting healing, expanding minds and working with some fantastic people.

 

More info on the organisation and news on what I’m getting up to with them coming soon!

Find out more about Not Shut Up and the Academy here: http://www.notshutup.org

 

Standard
Film Review

Film Review: Soshite chichi ni naru (Like Father, Like Son, Hirokazu Koreeda, 2013, Japan)

Image

The tradition in Japanese cinema of capturing family life, á la Ozu, has been carried on beautifully in Hirokazu Koreeda’s recent works, such as Aruitemo aruitemo (Still Walking, 2008) and Kiseki (I Wish, 2011). Soshite chichi ni naru is no exception as we are treated to a compelling and flawless portrait of contemporary family life in Japan. The film tells the story of the lives of two starkly different families whose worlds are flipped upside down upon learning that their 6 year old sons were switched at birth.

At many points during the film, the beautifully composed choreography tells the story, such as the opening shot of the Nonomiya’s, which exposes the familial dynamics: Ryota Nonomiya, an architect who works long hours, providing his wife and son with a comfortable home and lifestyle, but little love and affection, sits in a dominating pose with hands clenched in fists on his knees; Midori Nonomiya, quietly exasperated by Ryota’s unyielding attempts at instilling in their son a sense of determination sits quietly and passively with her feet and hands gently folded and a serene expression on her face; and, sitting between them anxiously trying to emulate his father’s confidence, is their son Keita.

Ryota has feelings of frustration towards his family and their inability to live up to his high standards of hard work. He fails to separate his identity at work from his identity at home, and therefore finds it hard to connect in a genuine way with his loved ones. By contrast, in the opening scenes we see the unconditional love that Midori and Keita feel for each other, and for Ryota, in the subtle ways they communicate with each other and welcome Ryota home from work.

The quiet and rigid orderliness of their lives is soon disrupted when they are informed of the switch (which they later find out was an intentional act of resentment, on behalf of a young nurse feeling unloved by her stepchildren and jealous of the Nonomiya’s seemingly perfect family). They suddenly have another family, including their biological son, thrust into their lives.

The Saiki’s are everything the Nonomiya’s aren’t – working class and clumsy in social skills, but happy, loving and kind; they bathe and sleep together as a family, and provide their children with no shortage of affection.

Ryota immediately moves to take charge of the situation, hiring an old school friend as a lawyer and pondering his choices; taking advice from his boss and father (a cold and unloving man, depicted succinctly by the late Isao Natsuyagi in his last performance); and assuming the Saiki’s are incapable and not to be trusted with making decisions. He even deeply insults them at one point, after an ill-advised half joke from his boss that he raises both boys prompts him to offer them a large sum of money for Ryusei. Despite this near collapse of their communications, the families resume an uneasy relationship, as they attempt to navigate themselves through this difficult situation, whilst protecting the two boys as much as possible.

In the following weeks, we see Ryota’s struggle to make sense of his lack of connection with his non-biological son Keita, and to regain control of the situation by getting close to Ryusei. Even his work suffers, though not through his inability to focus, but rather his bosses disapproval of Ryota’s decision to unfeelingly switch back the boys.

Midori’s struggle is also highlighted in the film, from the moment she notices Ryota teaching Ryusei how to use chopsticks and realizes his intentions, to her quiet desperation on seeing her previously calm and peaceful home disrupted by her husband’s selfish choices. At one point she makes a heartbreaking suggestion to Keita that they run away, and continues to conduct secret telephone conversations with Keita after a trial switch, hiding this and her blossoming friendship with Yukari Saiki from her disapproving husband.

Quality performances are delivered throughout the film, and Midori and Keita’s tender relationship is a joy to watch. Keita Ninomiya, the actor who plays Keita, delivers brilliantly in general, from the first scene where he nervously attends an interview for a private elementary school; to the quietly heart-shattering moment when his father Ryota tells him that yes, his new mummy and daddy love him more than he does; to the final scene where he initially rebuffs Ryota’s attempts at redemption and is reluctant to forgive all the hurt he has experienced.

The difference between blood ties and non-biological relationships threads throughout. All those around Ryota are able to transcend the lack of blood relationship; from his brother who unquestioningly accepts their father’s second wife as their mother; the Saiki’s who show great and unwavering love for both the little boys; and his wife, who loves Keita regardless of his true relationship to them and fails to instantly welcome Ryusei in to their lives, just because he is their biological son. Finally a moment of realization for Ryota arrives when he goes to return the goodwill money given to his family by the nurse who switched their sons. The nurse’s stepson, who we hear during a court case had previously refused to accept her as his mother and so prompted the resentment that caused her to switch the babies, steps outside and stands in between them as Ryota remonstrates her, announcing, “this is my concern, she is my mother”.

This moment, combined with Ryota’s discovery of Keita’s love for him by way of the pictures Keita had taken of him sleeping, trigger Ryota to confront his past actions: he calls his own stepmother and has an awkward but sweet conversation with her to apologize for refusing to accept her all those years ago, before making his way to the Saiki’s to reunite with Keita.

The film won several awards on its release last year, including the Jury Prize at Cannes, and it is no wonder, for it truly is a pleasure to watch, progressing along in the slow, steady pace of Koreeda’s previous films, gently unveiling the delicate ties of it’s characters. By the  end of the film, one is left feeling that the switch was in fact a blessing in disguise for the Nonomiya’s, for it led to Ryota slowing down and seeing the true value of family; and Midori, unable to have any more children and leading a somewhat lonely existense, gaining another son and accepting the animated Saiki family into her life.

© Emma Burles

Standard
Advice, Mini-Feature

Hollywood Screenwriter Jule Selbo’s visit to the University of East London

Image

March 2014

By Emma Burles

Jule Selbo has extensive experience as an award winning playwright and screenwriter, having worked for Disney, Paramount, Columbia Pictures and Universal, and with people such as George Lucas, and Mike Newell. She visited UEL last week to talk about her career and give us an insight into writing for film and television.

Starting out as a playwright and actor working in regional theatres, Selbo first got into screenwriting after getting her first agent in New York. An agent she says is crucial as a writer, “You kind of need someone to do the representation for you because writers, for the most part, are not the people that put ourselves out there and go ‘Look at me! Look at me!’” The agent, who had asked to represent her after seeing a play she had written for Off-Off Broadway, suggested she might have a talent for film and television and asked her to write a speculative script. This script ended up being optioned and got her lots of work, including a writing deal at Paramount Pictures, various jobs on TV shows, and several films. It was during this period that she moved to LA, having been gaining experience working there, in order to put herself in a better position to find work. “My writer friends were saying to me, ‘95% of people writing for film and TV are living in LA, and you’re putting yourself in that 5% who try to get work while living in New York, so you need to come to LA’.” She settled in LA and, despite getting lots of work in film, decided to focus on TV for a while after becoming disillusioned with the film script, “you put your heart and your soul into what you are writing and you see every scene in your head and you work so hard to make every connection, and then you see someone else just tearing bits of it out – it is so hard”.

Not long into this period she was approached by George Lucas, who wanted her to write for the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Initially, she was hesitant to take up this offer, having just started a family and being reluctant to leave them for long periods of time to work out at his ranch in San Francisco, however Lucas made it clear the set-up was conducive to family visits. She went on to work for him on this project for 3 years and describes a typical day’s work: “We [herself and the rest of the team of writers] would gather in George’s office every morning at 9am and discuss each episode thematically, some were dramas, some comedies, some romance, etc. but the main thing was to think about what young Indiana would learn in each episode. After lunch we’d go back and break down each episode, scene by scene. In America, TV episodes had 4 acts, and George’s method was 6 scenes an act to move the story forward, so we’d break it down that way. Then we’d divide up the episodes: each of us got the chance to pick the episode we wanted to write the most and we’d get assigned a second one too. At night we’d be given a stack of research to read over dinner, and the next day we’d do it all over again.” The best thing during this experience, says Selbo, was how indulged as writers they were, in terms of the end result, “He would hire the directors [who included Mike Newell, Carl Schultz and Billie August] and tell them ‘don’t change a thing, just shoot it.’ You get so spoilt you know? You’ve written this thing and then you see it get brought to life exactly how you imagined it.”

After going back to film, and continuing to be a writer for hire for both film and TV for several years, she eventually decided to go back to writing plays, which she still does, as well as heading up the Screenwriting Program at California State University. She has also just written a book called Film Genre for the Screenwriter. “Using genre to shape a story can be just as effective as structuring it around three acts, if you know the components of various genres you can structure the story around that. For example if you want to write a sci-fi movie, you know it has to be based on scientific fact, science has to turn the story the whole way through, which gives you more of a through line to follow.”

After advising us aspiring writers to just keep writing, submitting work and persevering through rejection without taking it personally, she urges us to join a writers group, in order to network and build a community. “When I first moved to LA, I joined a writers group – every week we would read each other’s stuff and within 2 years, some of us would get offered jobs and recommend another person in the group if they couldn’t accept it. You have to build a network and have your community to make it work. There are lots of people who don’t have wealth on their side, who can make it with their talent, but you have to go out there and make your own opportunities.”

Jule Selbo’s book Film Genre for the Screenwriter, will be published this summer by Routledge.

This article was originally published in March 2014 for UEL students at http://workinginthecultureindustries.wordpress.com

Standard
Advice, Mini-Feature

Film Producer Jon Thompson’s visit to the University of East London

Image

March 2014

By Emma Burles

What is a producer? How can you become one? And how does the British film industry work today? Jon Thompson, film producer, visited UEL to answer these questions and more, based on his experiences in the industry. Thompson has been working in the film business for nearly 30 years, starting out as a cinematographer, before moving into production and executive roles. He has worked for major Hollywood studios Disney and Warner Bros; and worked on numerous films including Batman Begins, Kill Bill and Lara Croft. He now works mainly in independent film and documentaries.

Contrary to popular belief, the producer’s role is not merely that of financier, Thompson claims, the producer must be completely involved creatively. They must be able to visualize the film they want to make and then go about making it happen, by bringing people together. “Everyone is looking to the producer for direction, even the director. You need to know everything from how many toilets there are on set, where the leading actors are, dealing with distributors and putting the whole package together. You can have the best cinematographer, editor and director that money can buy, but unless you have a decent producer who can bring everything together, the film won’t work.”

The key to a successful film is a good story and a producer must have a good understanding of the art of storytelling in order to guide the process. “You’d be amazed at how many people forget how to structure a story, and that’s why so many films fail – people become obsessed with the business side, and completely neglect the development, which is THE most important stage.” According to Thompson a finished film must provide the three E’s: “Entertainment, education and enlightenment, and ALWAYS in that order. If you start to educate before you entertain, the viewer might get bored and switch off. The enlightenment part should come towards the end, as something deeper that the viewer takes away.”

Thompson worked with renowned director Lindsay Anderson early on in his career, and says he learnt this very important lesson from him: “Everybody tells stories, some people are naturally good at it, and some have to learn this art, but it all boils down to how much you know of human nature – if you have a low understanding of human nature, it will show in your films and your characters.” Thompson himself, despite his great success in film-making, has experienced failing films firsthand. Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life (Jan De Bont, 2003) and Cold Mountain (Anthony Minghella, 2003), both tipped to be huge successes, with gargantuan budgets and a host of talented people working together on set, both failed to pull in at the box office.

So in an industry where it’s easy to fail, what can aspiring producers about to leave education do to start their career? “The thing you need to realize is that you can’t just walk out and become a producer – you need at least 5 years of making films to understand the process, earn respect and make informed decisions.” Thompson started out as a cinematographer, which he did for a number of years, before regularly working in production. But where does this leave those who wish to go into independent film? “Today there are two British film industries, which most people don’t really appreciate. The first is the film service sector [with the big studio films, and foreign studios making use of the UK tax break], which last year made £2.5 billion for the UK economy. The other is the UK production industry, which is what most of us are trying to get into, but which last year only made £200 million. The best way to be able to have a chance of playing around with that £200 million is to play by the system in the service sector, until you have enough credibility to go about it more independently.”

Another crucial question usually asked by young filmmakers is ‘How do we get our own stuff made?’ For this Thompson has some more useful advice: “Once you’ve developed an idea you will move onto the second stage which is finding a partner to work with who is passionate about your idea, and preferably someone with more experience who can provide you with some kind of mentoring.” On approaching a funding organization in Britain such as the BFI, you will already be expected to have a producer, which is obviously a challenge if you don’t have someone to open the door for you. This is where constant networking pays off, “You have to keep going to networking events until eventually you meet someone. You can go to 20 events in a row with no success, but during the 21st one you might meet someone with a similar vision who can move you along.”

Thompson ends his talk with some final words of wisdom: “The important thing to remember is that nobody really knows anything, it’s a constantly evolving process where you are learning things along the way and have to play the game. But if you can do this, and learn to network and make connections, you can go on to create your own game, and that is how you will survive in this industry.”

Thompson is currently working on two documentaries: Cuban Soul (Atkins, 2014) which follows writer David Soul (Starsky & Hutch) as he journeys around Cuba exploring the island state, its cars and Ernest Hemmingway’s time there; and Spirit2Power (Gulrukh Khan, 2014), a martial arts film documenting the journey into the spirit of martial arts.

This article was originally published in March 2014 for UEL students at http://workinginthecultureindustries.wordpress.com

Standard
Interview, Uncategorized

Q&A with Bafta-nominated actor Phil Davis at the University Square Stratford

Image

East end actor Phil Davis notoriously gives few interviews, however, during his visit to the campus at University Square Stratford he treated UEL Film and Theatre students to a private Q&A. Friendly, open and humble, there wasn’t a trace of his trades-mark guardedness, as he let us in on his experiences as an actor, writer and director, for both the stage and screen.

March 2014

Edited by Emma Burles

 

UEL. What is your way in to the character when you first get the script?

PD. It varies, sometimes you have the script and you instantly know what the character is like, sometimes it’s more difficult and you just have to be patient, you have to wait until you get there. I know people who do a great deal of preparation and their script is covered with stuff – they’re going to move on this line and they’re going to say that line in this way and so on. But of course they get there on the day and everything’s different to how they planned, you know, it’s raining and they thought it was going to be sunny, the director wants them to sit down and they were going to pace about…so I don’t work out in advance how I’m going to play it, instead I work out in advance who he is. What he’s had for breakfast, what his relationship with his wife is like, do his kids piss him off? You bring all of those things into it, and then you just let it happen for the first time. And that’s the essence, that’s the key to film acting, it happens organically. Once you’ve committed yourself to a way of doing it, you try to stick to it but you don’t make all these decisions in your head intellectually, because when you stand the character up something else happens, and you have to go with that, it’s an instinctive thing. The golden rule for me is to always feel like the character is someone very separate to myself. I always feel like I’m painting a portrait – a portrait that I’m embodying. And it’s liberating, it makes it easier to get away with things.

UEL. When you arrive on a film set and it wasn’t rehearsed beforehand, what’s your basis for the character, do you get three or four character traits and then play it with those or is it just out of the moment?

PD. It’s out of the moment…I mean, it depends what you’re going to do in the scene. If it’s a scene where you’re hiding or something, then you just hide, you just do it naturally and instinctively. I mean I don’t sort of tick off “Oh, he moves like this, or he’s got a twitch”, it’s not like that. Sometimes I don’t know what he’s going to do at all, until I get there, and then I just do what seems natural and right. Also you’re restricted, you’ve got a set and a camera and 500 people dangled at your every word, and you’re being told not to go too far to the left and so on. So there is all of that going on, and you just have to try to stay relaxed and think to yourself, “if this goes wrong, I can do it again.”

UEL. Have you ever got there with a clear idea of what your character is going to be like and your vision is not the same as the directors?

PD. Yes and it’s difficult. Over the years I’ve developed certain strategies and ways around this, but it’s difficult. As an actor you have a responsibility to do the thing in a way that makes the film, or the play, or the story work. I mean there is nothing worse then an actor coming in and doing a wonderful performance that belongs in a different play. But it is a difficult thing when the director has this vision that is completely outside of what it was you wanted to do. But it doesn’t happen often. When someone hires me, they’ve usually hired me to do it my way so they just let me play it, but there are sometimes directors who are over prescriptive. They’re usually the ones who want you to audition first, they want to discuss how you’re going do it and they’re usually not very experienced.

UEL. What kind of actors do you like working with, whether it be in film, television or theatre? What are you looking for from your fellow actors in a scene?

PD. What you get is what you get. I mean when I’m acting with someone, I never ever, ever suggest that they play it differently, even if it’s completely not what I was expecting. Film acting is as much about reacting as it is about acting, you can come in with all these decisions about how you’re going to do it but if someone suddenly starts shouting at you then you’ve got to react to that! The main difficulty is when you are faced with an actor who won’t commit to a way of playing it, who keeps changing their mind, because then the people playing opposite don’t know how to play against them. The type of actors I liked working with when I was directing were the ones who would take responsibility for themselves. They would grab their role and commit to it and then as a director you just have to find a way of capturing the very best of them. The director is not there to tell actors how to do things, they’re there to draw the strings and to make sure everybody is making the same film.

UEL. What other kinds of things do you look for in a director?

PD. I remember working with Howard Davies who directed Philistines [2007]. He was wonderful because he was so attentive. If you did anything even remotely different he would immediately notice it and either encourage or discourage it. And then some years ago I acted in a short film in Seattle and it was an absolute joke. They did the first rehearsal and when it came to filming, someone said “Action!” and they all looked straight down at their scripts! No one was watching us, no one was actually looking at the event they were filming and looking for things that could be done differently. Something else I learnt as a director was, once you have all the actors in a room and they are asking for you to instruct them, it’s good to just ask them to do what comes naturally, and then work out how to shoot it. Let the actors have their head to start with, which gives you something to work with, your raw material that you can then start to mold. That’s my best advice to a director, don’t be too prescriptive, especially at the beginning.

UEL. Have any of the characters you’ve played had an influence on you or your life?

PD. Some have. I did a film called High Hopes [1988, Mike Leigh, UK] and played a character called Cyril, who was a disillusioned left-winger at the time when Thatcher was in power. I liked him and empathized with the things he was struggling with, such as bringing children into such a world and so on. Another was Stanley Drake in Vera Drake [2004, Mike Leigh, UK]. I liked Stanley, he always reminded me a bit of my father. He was a good, loyal and unambitious man. These were characters that were invented over a period of months; we weren’t just handed a script on the day and told to get on with it. We knew their stories from childhood. With Stanley I went through the war with him, I had this whole lifetime’s experience of this man, I knew he was orphaned when he was 12 and was one year too old to go into an orphanage so had to go out on his own. This was all properly researched, what would have happened to a kid like that in those days, working around Islington on the markets and living in lodging houses. So I had a great deal of respect for the man and I was sorry to let him go. I remember shaving the moustache off and it was like saying goodbye to an old friend!

UEL. Going back to auditions, so you probably don’t have to audition anymore…

PD. No, I still have to audition, not often but sometimes directors want to meet you to see if you’re an amiable bloke and to see if you can get along with them. And if the part is a mold-breaker, if I’m doing an accent I haven’t done before, or if I’m slightly too young or too old for a part, they just want to see if you’re convincing. And sometimes if you’re working with an actor who’s a bigger star than you, they might want to check you out and see if you can do it! But I don’t have an audition technique, I just sort of breeze in, and try to relax and be myself.

UEL. Do you find it helpful to write down lists of questions down about your character?

PD. No, I very rarely write anything down. When I worked with Mike Leigh, we would do lots of research into our character, what’s the name of their second cousin, where did you go to school, etc. and he would never let you write any of it down; he would write it down, but we couldn’t. And it’s really interesting because you’ve got a list of school friends in your head, and you’re doing improvisational scenes playing a character who’s 50 and you think, “What was that bloke’s name again?”, you can’t remember it and that’s how it should be! So as an actor it’s best not to write things down, or cover your script in notes.

UEL. I guess that keeps it brewing too?

PD. Yeah, it keeps it brewing, and the process will change, and the things you think are going to be important when you start working on a character sometimes drop away and become trivial.

UEL. Would you ever go back and say, “no that didn’t happen” as far as an event in a characters background goes?

PD. Working with Mike Leigh, with improvisations, you’d make mistakes and you’d always have a little post-mortem, and you might say, “actually no, he wouldn’t have said that, that was a mistake”, and you rub it out of history, then you go back to the other character and say, “you know when he said that? Well, he didn’t” [laughter] With a character’s back-story, nothing’s set in stone.

UEL. Would you change something quite late in the game?

PD. Well its not unprecedented. I’ve known other actors to do it, to say “I want to play this differently” and I just tell them to do what they want and then respond to what I’m getting. I remember doing a scene in a film I was directing and I had an idea that this girl was very emotional and it should all burst out and she should sob, and we got there on the day and she couldn’t sob. I tried to encourage her and she couldn’t get it out. And that was actually right because when we put the camera on her, it looked like she was trying desperately not to cry, which went better with the story, when in fact she was trying desperately to cry! Sometimes, what you think you’re going to get is not what you get, but what you do get is better.

UEL. You’ve talked a lot about how you’ve made lots of strong choices and commitments about what you’re going to do with the character. Do you also make a lot of strong choices at the beginning about what you think about the other characters in the scene?

PD. Yeah, you know, this is interesting, because it’s a different thing working in the theatre where you’ve rehearsed it, you’ve seen what somebody’s doing and you’ve seen it grow over a period of weeks, until finally you reach a kind of accommodation with each other about how the thing is going to be played. Quite often on the screen though, you haven’t rehearsed it and if you’ve got a long scene, like my scene in Sherlock, it can be a thrilling process. Benedict [Cumberbatch] and I hadn’t rehearsed anything, and we we were sitting across this desk from each other, and we had no idea how each other was going to play it, or what the pace was going to be like. It was like two musicians jamming. There was this big element of extemporization, you rehearse it once so everyone can see it and then they put a camera on it and you’re off. It was slightly different every time and that was the joy of it, that it didn’t have to be exactly the same. I mean there were some technical things, you have to put the cup down in the same place or stand up in the same way but within that, there were bits when we were slightly more amused with each other than we had been before and bits when he was slightly more appalled by me then he had been before, and every time something different happens you respond to it and that’s tremendously exciting. The business of filmmaking is that you do it as if for the first time and sometimes you surprise yourself at what is coming out of you and it’s fantastic. When that happens it’s proper acting, you feel like a proper artist. It doesn’t happen all the time, sometimes you’ve got your gumboots on and you’re wading through the mud; but when it does it is wonderful, you go home and you feel like you’ve done a good day’s work.

UEL. Would you say you are freer at this stage in your career?

PD. I think so yes, I’m more daring now, I’m happier to hold my nose and jump than I was when I was younger. I’m not scared anymore; I don’t care about making a fool of myself. I don’t care about getting it wrong and I think I’m as good as I’ve ever been. Sometimes when you’re young you can be a little more daring with your choices as you’re doing things for the first time. But there are only so many characters you can play, and one of the things about getting older is that the range of characters I get offered now is wider than it was when I was younger. I was very much in a sort of groove playing these characters that were very similar, whereas now I’ve got a wider range and that’s very pleasing. I love it when I get sent a script and I read it and I think “blimey, whatever made them think of me for this” and that’s really thrilling because you feel like you’re breaking the mold and perhaps doing something that you haven’t ever done before.

UEL. And is there any particular actor or actress that you admire?

PD. I wanted to be an actor from when I was 8 or 9 years old living on a council estate in Essex. My dad worked in a soap factory and we were just an ordinary family, but I got it into my head somehow that I was going to be an actor. Of course there were actors who I’d seen and thought were great but it wasn’t about that, it was about what happened to me when I did it. I remember in primary school being asked to read this story out loud. It was a story set in a market place with lots of characters, I read it and 10 minutes went past in a flash, I think he only wanted me to read a couple of pages [laughter], but I was like a steam train, he couldn’t stop me! It was like I was transported. I knew something had happened to me and the teacher said to my mum at a parent-teacher meeting “he’s a born actor” and that sort of stuck in my head. Another thing that spurred me on was the idea that you could do this for a living. My old man, bless his heart, went off on his bike every morning to work in a factory, and it was a good job, and he looked after his family but it wasn’t what I wanted to do with my life. The idea that you could do this thing that you really liked more than anything else and get paid for it sort of set me off. So I never had heroes as such, and I think in a way it can be counterproductive, you need to be able to work alongside anyone you get asked to and you have to feel like you belong there. You need to be able to play the same scene just as well with Robert De Niro as with some bloke off the street.

UEL. I imagine in those days, coming from a working class environment, that becoming an actor was probably something quite alien. Were you supported much at school and amongst your peers and family?

PD. It was difficult, I mean I was like that kid who wanted to become a footballer, you know, people waited for me to grow out of it. My parents were very supportive, my mum especially so. But it was completely outside of their experience, they could do nothing to help, except just let me go and not tell me it wasn’t possible. I think my dad was always worried that I was going to end up massively disappointed and it took him a long time to realize that I was going to be alright. I didn’t have a great deal of support at school, I remember the careers master coming, and I said I wanted be an actor and he just rolled his eyes. I was a difficult kid because of it, I wanted to run away from my family home and get out of this place and I felt a lot of guilt about that. All my mate’s dads worked in Ford’s factories and they were expected to follow their footsteps – and there is nothing wrong with that – but it’s not what I wanted to do. So it seemed like a bit of a ridiculous dream for a long time but it also meant that when I did get even a sniff of an opportunity I was going to grab that bastard with both hands and not let go. When someone gave me a chance I was there on time and I worked hard.

UEL. Your wife is also a successful actress [Eve Matheson (Darling Buds of May)]. How does it work at home, do you discuss work and give each other advice?

PD. We hardly ever talk work, we never work together, and it only comes up in terms of organizing schedules. She’s 53 now, and it’s very, very difficult for a woman of that age to keep their career going, which is such a terrible injustice because there are so many brilliant actresses of that age – it’s much tougher for women than for men. But yeah, we have a healthy relationship and put all of that to one side.

UEL. Did you ever do any other jobs in your early career?

PD. For about a year I had a period with very little acting work, and I did a few different things – a messenger boy in the city; a sports journalist for the East London Post. But I’ve been very fortunate in that I’ve nearly always managed to get work. People ask me when my big break was but I’ve never really had one, I’ve just managed to keep going. Longevity is the most important thing.

UEL. Do you watch your stuff, and are you very critical of yourself when you do?

PD. No, I don’t watch things over and over – that way madness lies. Once I’ve done it, I’ll watch it maybe once, but then I let it go. Once it’s been shot it’s shot. I listen to other people, if someone wants to criticize something I’ve done, I’m perfectly willing to listen. But I don’t pick over the bones of it.

UEL. Do you have any advice for avoiding sitting and waiting by the phone?

PD. Yes, generate your own work. Find a space somewhere, find some likeminded souls, get a play from somewhere, find one you love, adapt a novel, just do something. I wrote a play in 1989, and I put it on at the Old Red Lion, because I got fed up with waiting. I had a couple of theatres saying “oh you know, its quite good” and all that but I didn’t want to wait around for 18 months so I did it myself. I found a cast, I found a set designer, we painted the theatre because we couldn’t afford a set and I had to raise some money from friends. I’d actually just done a television series so I knew some people who were flush [laughter]. Obviously it’s got to be good and you’ve got to approach it as you would do the Royal Shakespeare Company. But that play of mine did really well and that then became a film, my first film as a director, Skullduggery [1989, UK]. So that’s how it works when you start out, by actually generating your own material. Because nobody is going to give you an even break. For every assistant director assisting someone, there are 200 people who didn’t get the gig. But this process is how different styles of theatre get generated – from people who have something new to add. And that is the most important piece of advice I can give you – don’t sit around waiting to be invited in to this exclusive world, make your own world, make your own theatre.

Standard