Monday, August 1, 2011

UK Film Council's winners and losers revealed

Aaron Johnson plays John Lennon UK Film Council success Nowhere Boy starring Aaron Johnson as John Lennon. Photograph: Publicity image

Royalty is good. Raucous schoolgirls are even better. But steer clear of Derbyshire mining towns or revisiting Brideshead.

An analysis of productions funded by the UK Film Council has revealed huge variations in what the defunct quango has seen as a return on its recent investments.

According to figures recently released to parliament by the culture minister, Ed Vaizey, the council made 33 film production awards between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2011 that have so far received "recoupment income".

Recoupments chiefly commence when films are distributed and when they make money abroad. They are wholly reinvested in new productions.

Predictably, The King's Speech, the hugely popular Hollywood-backed film starring Colin Firth, which won three Oscars, was a success for the council, having so far returned 95% of the ?1m lottery money invested. A further 5% was returned by the council directly to the film's producers for them to invest in future productions.

But it was another film featuring Firth, St Trinian's, a comedy set in an all-girls school (described as "monumentally naff" by the Guardian), that was the council's biggest recent success, returning ?1,440,017 on the ?1,432,000 invested.

Other successes include Man on Wire, a documentary following French wire-walker Philippe Petit's tightrope crossing between the twin towers of New York's World Trade Centre, which returned 101% of the ?385,000 invested.

Nowhere Boy – Sam Taylor-Wood's John Lennon biopic, described by Rolling Stone as a "smart" film – returned 87% of the ?1.2m invested.

If those films were the principal winners, there were also some notable losers, at least in box office terms.

Brideshead Revisited, a sumptuous reinterpretation of Evelyn Waugh's inter-war novel of Catholicism, love and nobility, described by the Daily Telegraph as "good-looking" but "empty", returned only 1% of the ?1.4m it was handed.

Big names, it appears, do not necessarily guarantee a good return. Harry Brown, which featured Michael Caine as a retired Royal Marine who takes revenge when his only friend is beaten to death by a gang, returned only ?22,300 of its ?1,002,225.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, a comedy starring Simon Pegg as a writer for an upmarket US magazine, returned only ?9,977 of the ?1,471,145 lottery money invested.

Nor does critical acclaim correspond to financial success. Summer, a story of friendship and tragedy in a Derbyshire mining town, for which Robert Carlyle won best actor at the 2008 Edinburgh International Film Festival, returned ?11,792 of the ?467,750 production budget stumped up by the council.

"We need to remember that the UK Film Council was the one-stop shop for commercial and cultural support for the British film industry, so it was never expected to return a profit on its investment," said Martin Spence, assistant general secretary of Bectu, the media and entertainment union.

However, some films backed by the council have been neither a commercial nor a critical success.

The 2008 horror film Donkey Punch, which follows British holidaymakers in Spain as they take drugs, have sex and end up killing each other, received ?457,490 from the council. Total Film explained that the film's title referred to the action of hitting "a woman on the back of the neck while shagging her from behind".

The film was panned by critics. "I can't say that this casually sadistic, misanthropic little movie persuades me that it is any contribution to, or reflection of, our national culture," said Daily Mail critic Chris Tookey.

So far, only ?58,931, or 13% of the council's initial investment in Donkey Punch, has been recouped.

The core of the council's activities – spending ?15m a year of lottery money on independent UK-made films – has now been transferred to the British Film Institute. A spokesman for the BFI said 99 productions were funded by the council over the past five years, 28 of which are still waiting to be released. Around ?8m, 19% of the lottery money invested in the past five years, has been recouped so far.

"Not all of the ones that have been released have started to recoup," explained the BFI spokesman. "The rationale for investing in films is not necessarily on the cultural strength of them. A large part of it is for developing new talent.

"Donkey Punch was invested in under the Warp X new talent initiative – it's new talent, a new director, and one of its cast, Jaime Winstone, has gone on to do new things, and to make a name for herself."


View the original article here

Zookeeper – review

Kevin James in a scene from Zookeeper. Kevin James stars in Zookeeper.ZookeeperProduction year: 2011Country: USACert (UK): PGRuntime: 101 minsDirectors: Frank CoraciCast: Adam Sandler, Cher, Donnie Wahlberg, Ken Jeong, Kevin James, Leslie Bibb, Nick Nolte, Rosario Dawson, Sylvester StalloneMore on this film

A romantic comedy long on sentimentality but short on jokes, this is a vehicle for the ungainly, overweight Kevin James, a specialist in roles as supposedly lovable all-American slobs. Here, he plays a caretaker at Boston's Franklin Park Zoo who, having been jilted by his girl, is instructed by his friends, the menagerie's talking animals, in how to woo her back using the mating techniques of the plains and the jungle. I would rather lie on a bed of nails watching Dr Doolittle for a week than see a single reel of Zookeeper again.


View the original article here

Antonio Banderas: Almodóvar and me

Antonio Banderas 'I said to Pedro several times when we were shooting, ‘Hey, we have to do a comedy! It’s good for you, come on.' Photograph: Nick Ballon

Three decades ago, an impoverished young actor named Antonio Banderas was sitting with friends outside Madrid's National theatre when a curious figure happened by. The new arrival sported a backcombed goth bouffant and brandished a bright red briefcase that could only contain documents of national importance. He ordered a drink, cracked some jokes then turned abruptly towards Banderas. "You have a very romantic face," he said. "You should do movies. Bye-bye!" And with that he was off, swinging his briefcase through the crowds on the Calle del Principe.

The Skin I Live InProduction year: 2011Directors: Pedro AlmodovarCast: Antonio Banderas, Elena Anaya, Marisa ParedesMore on this film

Nonplussed, Banderas turned to his friends. "Oh, that's Pedro Almodovar," they told him. "He made a movie once. But he won't make any more."

Banderas and Almodovar went on to make five films together. These were wild, bawdy and exuberant; joyous yelps from the underground that caught the ears of the world. They installed the director as the most feted Spanish film-maker of his generation, and they also provided a springboard for the actor, who abandoned the old gang, lit out for America and remade himself as a Hollywood star. And this was all thanks to Almodovar, Banderas says, and all down to that chance encounter.

It's high summer, roasting hot, when I meet Banderas at Almodovar's production office on a quiet Madrid side street. Banderas has his herbal tea and his cigarettes. His conversation is a rush of accented English, peppered with italics, face-pulling and extravagant waves of the hand. At the age of 50, there is still something of the wide-eyed, beautiful boy about him, although the brow has crinkled and the hair is now threaded with grey. And that's OK, he insists. Ageing is fine; it brings fresh challenges. He was getting sick of all that "Latin lover shit" anyway.

In Hollywood, Banderas played Latin lovers and Che Guevara, Puss in Boots and the dashing Zorro. But his latest film reunites him with Almodovar for the first time since 1990's Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down and turns out to be the best thing he's done in years. The Skin I Live In is a giddying, psycho-sexual Frankenstein tale, loosely based on a French novel (Tarantula) by Thierry Jonquet and layered with false trails and flashbacks. Banderas plays mad scientist Robert Ledgard, a driven plastic surgeon, shunned by the establishment and plotting revenge against the young buck who assaulted his daughter.

The film's first half plays out as a prolonged, perfectly managed tease. Ledgard is a widower, except that maybe he's not. His daughter was raped, except that maybe she wasn't. The audience is led by the nose, groping blind. Then, out of nowhere, the trap is sprung; the plot spun on its head. In one fell swoop, Almodovar's thriller throws off its clothes, shucks off its skin and dances around in its bones.

Banderas initially struggled to acclimatise to the film. The picture darts across so many registers that he found himself running to catch up. "Sometimes, swear to God, I thought I was playing Shakespeare," he says. "And sometimes this cheap Mexican soap opera."

Ledgard, too, proved a tough nut to crack. Banderas plays him as stealthy, steely and all-but impassive – but this was not his first approach. "Rehearsing the film in Pedro's house, I figured, 'This guy is bigger than life, so I'm going to go big. Square my shoulders. Show off all my acting skills.' " And Pedro said, "No, we're not going that way, my friend. The story's told in the script, you don't need to push it. Hold your horses. Keep it minimalist.' " Banderas shrugs. "Well, he was right and I was wrong. Yet again, he gave me a lesson."

The way Banderas tells it, The Skin I Live In is not a homecoming so much as a happy accident, another carefree step in a career that has already carried him from Malaga to Madrid and Manhattan to Malibu. He was born to a strait-laced Andalucian family (mum a schoolteacher, dad an officer in the Guardia Civil) and became turned on to acting after catching a performance of Hair. He arrived in Madrid at the tail end of the 1970s, a kid from the boondocks, out of his depth. The Franco regime had drawn to a close and the city was in the throes of a cultural renaissance. The sudden relaxation of decades-worth of state censorship lifted the lid on a thriving subculture of new-wave bands, low-budget film-makers and comic-book scribblers. Homosexuals hopped out of the closet. Recreational drug use exploded. This period has since been enshrined as La Movida Madrilena ("the Madrilenian groove scene"). Back then, it was just a bunch of oddballs, starting afresh and celebrating their new-found freedom with a wild abandon.

Banderas stumbled upon them unawares. "When I first came to Madrid, I used to go to this park where people were protesting. They all had big beards and were very serious and political. I had a friend, Joaquin, a singer, and he said, 'Do you want to see something interesting?' So he took me to this bar, La Penta. I said, 'My God, what's this?' I saw people with painted hair and men wearing beads and girls in miniskirts. And there were no beards and no political issues and it was all fun. I knew I didn't belong there, but it was great."

Why didn't he belong there? "Because I was not like that! I had long hair and a moustache. I thought I was cool, but I was completely square. I was into the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. And these guys, they didn't give a shit about those bands, they were going in a totally different direction. Shuffle the cards! Kill everything! Clean slate!"

At the time, Pedro Almodovar had recently quit his 12-year stint as an assistant at the telephone exchange in order to pursue his dream of shooting outrageous, poverty-row pictures on a Super-8 camera. His first feature – 1980's Pepi, Luci, Bom And Other Girls On The Heap – was playing at the Alphaville theatre and the ticket receipts provided the funding for his second. Labyrinth Of Passion cast Banderas in a supporting slot as Sadec, a gay terrorist who kidnaps a princess. "Big scandal," he says gleefully. "People storming out of the cinema. People insulting us. We were in the back seats waving a Spanish flag. Oh, it was un-fucking-real. People smoking grass. People applauding, cheering, booing. I was the only one wearing a jacket and tie." He giggles. "It was my first premiere, so I came dressed up. I was like the formal guy in this crazy group."

How did all of this play back in Malaga? Were his parents aware of what he'd got himself into? He pulls a face. "Oh, they didn't like it all. Big fights with my mum – particularly my mum." He proceeds to mimic their exchanges. "Argh, my friends won't talk to me now! You hang out with punks!" Him: "They're not punks, mum, they're film-makers. They're breaking the rules." Her: "Breaking the rules? Breaking the rules?" Banderas shakes his head. "And then when I did Law Of Desire, oh man, that was pandemonium. I didn't go home for a year."

In Law Of Desire he played Antonio, a one-night-stand turned psychotic, murderous stalker. I've read that the film featured the first gay kiss in Spanish cinema. "Could be," he says. "Could be. And probably the third in Europe." Banderas explodes with laughter, then reaches for a cigarette.

Almodovar has described Banderas as the perfect vessel for his transgressive early pictures: "The puerile guy with overwhelming sexual charisma." But this largely monogamous partnership between mentor and muse abruptly fell apart with the breakthrough success of Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down. Banderas was offered the lead in The Mambo Kings, a Hollywood production based on the prize-winning Oscar Hijuelos novel. Poised to shoot yet another picture with Almodovar, he duly bailed out at the 11th hour. The director, he concedes, was unimpressed.

The whole thing was happenstance, he insists. He had no special desire to move to America, it was just the way the pieces fell. In any case, he spoke no English. He remembers sitting down with agents, producers, casting directors; nodding and smiling without understanding a word. He wound up faking his way through The Mambo Kings, learning the lines phonetically, "like singing a song". Banderas rolls his eyes skyward. "I was in a panic, it was a disaster. I finished the movie and came back to Spain and thought, 'Oh well, that's that.' But then Jonathan Demme called me to screen test for this movie with Tom Hanks." So he returned to play Hanks's lover in Philadelphia, then stayed for The House Of The Spirits. He shot Desperado for Robert Rodriguez and Interview With The Vampire alongside Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. Somehow or other, he fell ass-backwards into a Hollywood career.

On the set of a middling romantic-comedy, he met Melanie Griffith. She was minor Hollywood royalty, the daughter of Tippi Hedren; a recovering wild child who came trailing a history of drug and alcohol problems. Griffith had a son (with actor Steven Bauer) and a daughter (with Miami Vice star Don Johnson). All at once, Banderas had a family on his hands.

Does he now think he would have returned to Spain if he hadn't met Griffith? "That's very possible," he shrugs. "But I met her. She had kids and I didn't. And the kids were from American parents and they had to see their fathers, la-la-la, every 15 days. So if we brought them to Madrid, we'd have to be putting them on a plane every two weeks. It's not fair." Banderas divorced his first wife (Spanish actor Ana Leza) to marry Griffith in 1996. Their daughter, Stella, turns 15 next month.

Judged at face value, Banderas and Griffith make for an unlikely union: the earthy Spaniard with the avant-garde pedigree and the hyper-real, surgically enhanced daughter of Beverly Hills privilege. Banderas's character in The Skin I Live In is a maestro of the slice and dice; an expert in conjuring his patients into somebody new. Did this give him any qualms about Griffith's own experience under the surgeon's knife? "No, no, it's never bothered me," he says. "Because she'd already done it when I met her. That's who I knew. That's the face I accepted. But I don't have any moral issue with it, particularly. People can do what they want. If you want the face of a donkey, do it. I wouldn't do it myself. That's not because I'm so pure, just that I don't like that rictus smile. It would horrify me to look in the mirror and not see the person I know."

Surely he has his moments, if only because his career has played out as such a series of spontaneous reinventions. Banderas was an earnest theatre actor at 20, the poster boy of the Movida Madrilena at 30 and an English-speaking Hollywood film star as he eased towards middle age. These days, he admits, he tends to think in English, dream in English. He suspects that English has even made him move differently; that language speaks you as opposed to the other way around. "In Los Angeles we have two maids who are Mexican, so I speak Spanish with them. My secretary speaks Spanish. With my daughter, I alternate – it depends on the situation. And with Melanie, always in English." He frowns. "I read something the other day that said people who speak different languages have less chance of getting Alzheimer's. You're exercising different parts of your brain. You're having to pay more attention. Maybe I should start learning French."

Basically, he says, he is good at adapting. Maybe this is the great skill of all actors: to take the temperature, learn the lines and fit in with the scenery. Coming to America was no great stretch. "Somewhere like Hungary or the Czech Republic is physically closer, but culturally it's a million miles away," he says. "Why? Because of the movies. The first time I came to New York was not really the first time. Yellow cabs? I'd seen yellow cabs in every film since Hitchcock. Skyscrapers. Women coming out of the supermarket with paper bags in their arms. I knew all that. Los Angeles was the same. To be in Malibu and Hollywood, all those places I'd seen in the movies – it was fun."

He's not sure where his career will take him next. Chances are he'll make some more pictures in Spain, whether as director, producer or actor. Maybe one day in the future he and Griffith will base themselves in Manhattan, to be closer to Europe, "live between two worlds". Who knows? "I'm always open to fucking up," he says.

On heading home to work with Almodovar, Banderas confesses that he was nervous. There was so much water under the bridge. Of course the two men had kept in touch down the years, but people change and life moves on, and who could say whether they'd still click in the way they used to? In the event, he says, he needn't have worried. "All the way through filming, Pedro kept turning to me and saying, 'You know what? You didn't change a bit!' It's like those 22 years didn't happen." Banderas grins. "It was almost like he was annoyed with me."

And what of Almodovar? The ungainly telephone assistant with the bright red briefcase has covered some ground himself. Following Banderas's defection, the director spent a brief period in the doldrums before rebounding with mature, luscious later-period work like All About My Mother, Volver and the Oscar-winning Talk To Her. Today, his reputation is arguably more burnished than ever.

Banderas mulls it over. "In terms of the films, Pedro got more formal, more minimalist. He got rid of all the baroque issues he had before. As a person, he's pretty much the same." He shakes his head. "Maybe he's more profound, more serious, more interested in transcendental things. I said to him several times when we were shooting, 'Hey, Pedro, we have to do a comedy! It's good for you, come on. Let's laugh like we did in the old days. Let's dance and be silly, before we both get too old.'" This time, I think, the mentor can learn from the muse.


View the original article here

Jude Law interview: 'I was an optimist. A champion of the human spirit'

Jude Law can't speak about phone hacking. I'm told this by his publicist before the interview. And when I bring it up during our chat – it's the day after the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks have given testimonies to the Commons committee – Law smiles and makes a zipping action with his finger across his lips. "I just can't because I'm in legal proceedings and it's in various stages with various people, and part of that is classified, and they've promised to keep it quiet if I keep it quiet, so I've got to be really careful. But believe me, there's an awful lot I want to say, though. An awful lot."

But then he can't not speak about it either, because he's right at the very heart of it all. The peak phone-hacking years coincided with the peak Jude Law tabloid-mania years and he has not one case pending against News International but three. It's a very big deal, not just to him – his relationship with the tabloid press, and particularly News International, has both defined and circumscribed his life for much of the past decade – but a big deal, too, in terms of what will happen to Rupert Murdoch's media empire. His cases are the very crux of the story.

We're in an empty meeting room at the Jerwood Space in south London, where Law is in the thick of rehearsals for his new play, an Eugene O'Neill revival, Anna Christie. It starts at the Donmar Warehouse this week, and his head is full of it: it's a gritty love story set in 1920 between a prostitute and a ship's stoker. "I've got really sucked into the world of the play," he says. "So it's very much get up, go to rehearse, go home, learn lines, go to bed." And watch the news. He's right in the middle of one drama – he plays the ship's stoker, Mat Burke – but, of course, he can't help but be compelled by the other thrilling spectacle playing itself out on the television news. "I mean, of course I'm watching it," he says. "Who isn't?"

It's just so dramatic, I say, isn't it?

"It's a movie. It's a scene from a movie."

And you've already got your role sorted, I say, meaning that, of course, if it ever was a film, he could simply play himself. But he doesn't catch my drift.

"James, you mean?" And then realises his mistake. "Oh! You mean myself? Oh dear. I can't believe I said that." But, of course, he'd be brilliant as James Murdoch. I'm not sure why I didn't think of it before. He's specialised in characters who have an edge, a slightly slippery elusiveness, and there are obvious overtones of what is still, perhaps, his most famous role – the role that saw him burst into public consciousness in Anthony Minghella's The Talented Mr Ripley in 1999: the heir to a shipping fortune, Dickie Greenleaf. There really is more than a touch of Dickie Greenleaf to James Murdoch, isn't there, I say.

"Oh dear," he says. "I've got to be really careful what I say here."

He's obviously itching to speak about it. Phone hacking, privacy, press intrusion – these are matters that he has thought long and hard about, but because he can't go into detail, he ends up delivering slightly gnomic one-liners. "The thing is," he says, "it involves us all." What do you mean? "It involves us all. All of us. That's the closest I can come to talking about it. We're all involved. We're all complicit. On some level, if you think about what has happened and what will come out in the end. I think it's easy to think that things are mending if we think, 'Oh things are over now.' Or: 'It's their fault.' But we're all complicit."

Do you think it's just the beginning, I say. "I hope it's just the beginning." And he makes the zipping action across his lips again. "I don't want to quote myself so I'm going to quote someone else. There was an interesting Thought for the Day on Radio 4 yesterday. I came in halfway through so I don't know who it was, but he was talking about Murdoch being sorry. No, not being sorry, he was saying that he was asking for atonement. He was asking for forgiveness. And the guy said, he hasn't been judged yet. He hasn't any right to ask for that yet because we still have to judge him. And judgment is what this whole thing is about. They judge people. Those papers have judged people. I have been judged. They have yet to all be judged, and I hope they are ready for it."

He's referring, of course, to the time when, for a while, he was one half of the most glamorous couple on earth, the Jude Law-Sienna Miller coupling, a gift to tabloid editors and celebrity magazines everywhere. He was the Oscar-nominated, chisel-jawed actor (he was shortlisted for his part in The Talented Mr Ripley and Minghella's next film, Cold Mountain), and Miller, whose face launched a million boho skirts, was his golden-haired consort. They seemed to embody beauty and talent and a certain slightly louche London-LA lifestyle at the heart of the Primrose Hill-Hollywood Hills nexus, right up until the News of the World printed a story which detailed how Law had had an affair with his children's nanny and all tabloid hell broke loose. Miller left. Law made a public apology. Soap opera ensued. And then just as that was dying down, in 2009, another story in the News of the World detailed he'd had a fling with an American model, Samantha Burke, who was subsequently carrying his child.

They're obviously not incidents that Law is particularly proud of, but they're also not incidents which have got anything to do with his day job – acting – and what the phone-hacking case seems to have done, I say, is to throw open the whole concept of privacy. Of precisely who is entitled to a private life and what that means. "Well, again I use this word judgment. It's someone thinking that they have the right to have a moral judgment when a) there is no recourse. I'm not going to be able to morally judge them back and say, 'Well, let me look at your life.' And b) is that healthy? For everyone reading that… what about the person reading that who's done a similar thing. You know it's part of life. Don't make moral judgments, just give me some information. Give me some facts. Get off my page."

Jude Law Jude Law shot at the Jerwood Space in London. Photograph: Suki Dhanda for the Observer

The new play, Anna Christie, is part of the final season of the Donmar's artistic director, Michael Grandage, who in 2009 directed Law in Hamlet, a role that saw him feted by the critics and nominated for an Olivier award. He started out in the theatre and was a successful stage actor long before he was an international film star: he was nominated for his first Olivier (best newcomer) for his first West End play, Les Parents Terribles.

I wonder if he's nostalgic for that period of his life: when he had success without this all-encompassing fame. "I don't really look back, if I'm honest. I've always been someone who's really tried to live in the here and now. My memory isn't very good so maybe that's why, but it just seems like I've been living this life, my current chapter, for a really long time and I don't really remember what it was like before. It's just been sort of ingrained in me. What I deal with day to day."

He has a whole slew of new films coming out later in the year, but he was also determined to go back to the theatre.

"I was still very excited by my experience of playing Hamlet and was keen to keep the relationship with the theatre up. I'd really dropped the baton and had a gap of about seven years and I didn't want that to happen again."

So he's back and while Hamlet was a great triumph, it was overshadowed in some ways by the Samantha Burke episode ("Jude knows he's been a Bard boy" was one of the headlines), and this time around, it's inevitable that phone hacking will also cast a certain light. But then the play, he says, and his character in particular, is about youth and experience, and loss of innocence, and the gaining of knowledge, themes which are close to his heart too, and which have preoccupied him for much of the last few years.

His 30s (he's 38 now) have been, at best, a mixed time. "I think everyone goes through chapters in their life and there was a time when I wasn't feeling terribly positive about what I was contributing to film, or wasn't feeling as if I was going in the direction I wanted and I re-evaluated what I was doing. I've never been a fan of just doing. I like to do things for a reason."

As a young man, he was a self-described idealist. "I was an optimist, a great champion of the human spirit. And I lost that for a time. I feel like I've regained a bit of that in the last few years but there was a period of my life in which I had a very low opinion of people in general."

What, I say? Everybody? The entire human race?

"Well, yeah. I just felt a little bit down on what people seemed to be interested in. And down on what the general consensus of what the interesting things were. It was just so far away from what I found interesting and what I was interested in and what I found fascinating about people. It just felt like this slurry pit."

And at the heart of the slurry pit was the tabloid press. It's hard to overstate how profoundly his experience of the press seems to have affected his life. And how profoundly, potentially, his life could now influence the press. Because the three cases he is bringing against News International are some of the most crucial, and possibly damaging, of them all. The first accuses the News of the World of tapping his and his assistant's phone in New York in 2003: the first case to be brought that is alleged to have happened on US soil and which opens the way for News International to be prosecuted in the US, potentially jeopardising Murdoch's entire American news operation. Another is against the Sun for allegedly hacking into his phone in 2005 and 2006 – when Rebekah Brooks was editor – and which suggests the problem went much wider than just the News of the World. And the third is against the News of the World which has been selected to be a test case in a civil litigation action brought by 30 public figures. His case was selected to determine how far up the chain of command the decision went: Law's QC alleges it was a "very senior News of the World executive" who authorised Law's phone to be hacked.

But it goes even deeper than that. When looking through old cuttings, I find an interview that Jude Law did with the Observer in 2003 before any of this came to light, in which he talked about two instances in which he called the police to the house he was then sharing with his wife, Sadie Frost, and their children, and which subsequently ended up in the newspapers. And another instance in which his decree nisi was sent directly from the high court to a British tabloid "before it was sent to me". It was, he claimed, "the high court and then the police selling stories, so how are you going to live in the country and feel safe?"

I read back his quotes to him and he nods. "That's right, yeah. That's where I've been. That's where a lot of people in this country have been living for years."

You really felt like the establishment wasn't working? That it was corrupt?

"Yes. Truly. That's certainly how I felt. I was aware back then that certain avenues, even the most official ones, would ultimately lead to media exposure so you were left with a situation where you don't know quite where to go. I've been in scenarios, several times, often involved in being chased, often involved being stalked, having my privacy infringed upon, and not been able to go to the police because having done it in the past I knew that those stories would then end up being leaked.

"Having said that, I've also been treated really well by the police where they've been really respectful and really helpful, so it's clearly individuals."

But it's a fundamental pillar of democracy, I say, to have a police force that you can trust…

"Apparently, yes. It's funny, isn't it? It does come down to fundamentals. I still believe in the democracy of our parliament. Even though none of it has clearly been working. But I still believe in it, I have to. I also, for the first time for a long time, wouldn't want to live anywhere else, even though it seems like the pillars of our institutions are crumbling. I went through a long period of feeling really uncomfortable in this country, in this town in particular, just feeling really harassed and chased, and really hating it.

"And I couldn't move because my children are growing up here, and their mum lives here, and we've got a really good setup where we have a very healthy 50-50 custody arrangement and we live close by, so moving abroad was just impossible. But I came back in 2009 from New York – I'd been living there for three months with the kids – and I completely fell in love with London again."

What he's done, he says, is to "work out a way around the system". There's been a process of renegotiation, of finding a way of being in the city with his children – Rafferty, 14, Iris, 10, and Rudy, eight (he's also supporting Sophia, 22 months, his daughter born to Samantha Burke in the US). "I've created a haven that works for me and my family that hasn't necessarily involved the law. That's just my way of doing things. Having said that, it's not like I've been a prisoner in my home. I don't want some sort of sob story. I still enjoy a very normal life with my kids. We use trains and buses and that's often the best way. If you build up some sort of psychological bubble around you, I think you're asking for trouble."

In some ways, it sounds as if Law has got his midlife crisis out of the way early. But then he's done everything early. Growing up in Blackheath, south-east London, with his teacher parents and an older sister, he joined his first theatre at 12 – the National Youth Music Theatre – left school at 17 to film his first television series, Families, and had his first child by the age of 23.

"People often say that to me [that he did things early]. Especially about being a father, but it was just the way I did it. It never felt like an issue at the time… But I really feel that the years between 40 and 50 are going to be the 10 most productive years of my life. It's just a great age to be an actor. It's a bit of a minefield being 20 because you've got all these aspirations and ideals. Well, I had. I had all these aspirations and artistic ideas that I wanted to fulfil. And then you get cynical. And for me, my 30s have been about re-evaluating what I'm doing. And my 40s and 50s, I think, will be a really interesting time. I want to get back into production, which I've done a bit of, and I've always been interested in directing and my kids are all at an age where I don't have to be tied to London necessarily."

He wasn't even sure, for a time, if he wanted to carry on being an actor. "But I'm a father and I have to provide and that's my job." He was named after Jude the Obscure ("my mum just liked the book") and what he wanted more than anything was to be recognised by the world "but I don't know if I do any more. I did and I think any performer who claims not to have, at some point in their career, is probably telling a fib. But there's part of you, or at least part of me, where you think, 'Oh God. What will people make of this?' But it doesn't have a bearing on why you're doing it. It certainly didn't when I was doing Hamlet.

"It was the doing it which was the achievement. It was a very inner experience."

As a younger man, Law struggled against being defined by his looks. At 38, even heavily muffled by the beard he's been growing for Anna Christie, he's still an undeniably handsome man. But there's a wider range of roles available to him now: he had the looks of a romantic lead, but always hankered after the character roles. "I just think that I felt a bit disappointed that that's what people wanted me to be, whereas I felt that I had lots of things to offer so I wanted to choose roles that went against it."

Growing older has possibly come as something of a relief. His new films due out later this year include Anna Karenina, with a new script by Tom Stoppard, in which he plays not dashing Vronsky, but cuckolded Karenin opposite Keira Knightley. He is also reunited with two of the cast of The Talented Mr Ripley – Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow – in a hotly anticipated Steven Soderbergh thriller about a killer virus, Contagion.

And his role in Anna Christie has made him think about ageing too. "I guess part of it is simply wising up. Growing up. There's an interesting scene in the play where my character criticises his father, Chris, because he blames the sea for making his life a misery, whereas Mat loves the sea, the sea is everything. You rove the earth, he says, and you don't give a damn for landlubbers, and yet what you're actually hearing is the innocence of youth. And what's happened to Chris is that life has happened to him. He's lost his wife, he's lost his brothers, he's lost his father… life has an effect on us all. It's why we don't look younger as we get older."

In Law's case, getting older, has been accompanied by a rather enforced getting of wisdom. It's been a long, hard, public process, although I'd read one interview in which he'd described the washing of his dirty laundry in public as "liberating" in some ways. "Well, what else are you going to do? I mean, it's either going to force you into a hole and you're going to be a hermit and you're going to be in some sort of state of shame. Or you are going to go, oh well, all right, then. So what? Well, sorry. Am I saying sorry? I don't know. It also makes you look at things on a broader level. Don't tell me there isn't anyone who has done things they regret, or done things they shouldn't have. Or done things that are silly. Or said silly things. That's life, right? That's what's wonderful about life. We all do this stuff we shouldn't do. And then we say, I won't do that again. I mean, so be it."

The other effect of it has been that he's wary not just of the press, and interviews, but of talking about anything; his life, his work. "I just want to be seen doing my work and I'm just a bit tired of being talked about for what I'm wearing, or what I'm not wearing, or what my hairline is doing, or who I've been seen with. Any of that. Jesus. I don't want any of this. I don't even want to talk about my acting, because I think the acting should just talk for itself." He even doesn't really want to talk about the causes he supports.

I've met Law before, on two occasions, when he's come out to support the work of the Belarus Free Theatre and its artistic director, our mutual friend, the dynamic Natalia Kaliada. On both occasions, he was notably unstarry, simply turning up when asked and doing his best to be supportive in a commendably low-key way. He just doesn't seem to play the A-list celeb, but then he "hates the word celebrity… which means that I am in some sort of messy, mushy bracket with people who have won reality shows and chefs and socialites, and it's just not something I see myself as. I don't invite people into my home and I've never courted the press unless I'm talking to them about some work I'm doing. And I don't do that very much. I used to talk to the press about things like this and I even find that pretty hard now, because there's just been so much cynicism. Why are you banging your drum about this? Or why are you going on about that?"

His other big cause is Peace One Day, an organisation which is attempting to make 21 September recognised as a day of peace throughout the world. In many ways it's an outlandishly ambitious idea, dreamed up by an Englishman called Jeremy Gilley. Law agreed to make a video appeal for Gilley back in 2007 and ended up travelling out to Afghanistan with him to try and make the ceasefire actually happen. What's interesting to me about this is that for all Law's world-weariness, his talk of the "slurry pit" and the self-described "cynicism" that has marked his 30s, this is not the action of a cynic. Two weeks ago, at the TEDGlobal conference in Edinburgh, I heard Gilley talk about how he came to set up Peace One Day – a preposterous tale of how he'd had this idea "because basically I was really worried about humanity" and had tried to organise the whole thing from a bedroom in his mum's house. And how for a decade he struggled to get anyone to pay any attention to it at all, until, that is, he got Law involved.

Gilley is an idealist. A dreamer through and through. And to be sucked into his world, I say, it seems quite obvious to me, that you'd have to be something of a dreamer too. And in some ways, it seems as if the trip marked Law's return to himself. "It's interesting. Because I've never really put those pieces together like that," he says. "But yes." And he's rightly proud of the trip: in 2007, Peace One Day managed to broker a one-day ceasefire between the Taliban and UN forces and to arrange for 1.4 million children to be inoculated against polio on that day. A similar result was achieved in 2009 too.

But then he's wary again. "I have to be careful. I don't want to be too highfalutin. It's also been that working with people in my field has reignited the possibilities of what you can do in acting. I've just had this fantastic experience in Cannes, judging these incredible films from around the world. They were just great pieces of art and it really made me believe in the medium all over again."

If Afghanistan seems to have been one turning point in his life, the phone-hacking cases will almost certainly be another. "I think people in the public eye are often seen as cosseted and spoiled. This idea of what have you got to complain about? But when you come down to it, it's basic civil rights and basic demands of privacy. The argument that 'We write about you so we make you money' is just not true. And what blew this all open was the public outcry about the appalling abuse of people in heightened places of anguish. And yet in a way, people's privacy being invaded, whoever they are, is always the same issue. And if you turn it around and say, 'Well, would you like that done to you?', you really wouldn't. Because the bottom line is that it's your life being invaded, being used to make stories, not to report stories, but to make stories."

So, does it constitute a revolution, I ask him, as some people have suggested? "We'll have to wait and see, won't we? You never know when you're in the middle of something. You can only tell later." And the same probably applies to him too. It's yet to be seen what the net effect of this will be on his life. But he could be right – his 40s may well be his best years yet.

Anna Christie is at the Donmar Warehouse, London WC2 from 4 August to 8 October. Box office: 0844 871 7624; www.donmarwarehouse.com


View the original article here

Poetry – review

poetry-chang-dong-lee Yun Jeong-hie in the Korean drama Poetry: 'a remarkable central performance'.

The body of a teenage girl floats down a river in Korea. Mija, a neatly dressed, 65-year-old, working-class widow, is diagnosed with early Alzheimer's. Every afternoon, she attends to an old man suffering from a stroke who seeks sexual relief from her and she waits hand and foot on her lazy, ungrateful grandson while her daughter is working in Seoul.

PoetryProduction year: 2010Countries: Rest of the world, South Korea Cert (UK): 12ARuntime: 139 minsDirectors: Lee Chang-Dong, Lee ChangdongCast: An Haesong, David Lee, Kim Hee-Jeong, Kim Hira, Kim Yongbaek, Yun JungheeMore on this film

Meanwhile, she joins a poetry class at a social centre and wonders about personal creativity. What unites the various strands of an apparently simple woman's life and a society she struggles to understand? The answers are gradually provided by a thoughtful, cleverly developed script.

As her mind becomes clouded by dementia, Mija is drawn into a conspiracy by a group of parents at a school to cover up a suicide brought about by rape and humiliation involving her grandson. Steadily, she acts with a new moral and social awareness, organises what remains of her life and discovers the inspiration to write poetry. A fascinating, satisfying film with a remarkable central performance.


View the original article here

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Story of love and tomatoes leads Bollywood's global charge

Scene from Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara Actors Hrithik Roshan and Katrina Kaif in the Tomatina scene from Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara.

It took more than 16 tonnes of tomatoes to turn the coming-of-age film, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, into the latest international cinema hit from Bollywood. The feelgood road movie's subsequent huge success, both inside and outside India, is being taken as evidence that the country's cinema is ready for global lift-off.

Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara (Won't Get Life Back Again) follows three young friends on a raucous trip through Spain. The film has grossed more than $3.8m internationally, the best figures for an Indian release this year. It has also led the charge in a record-breaking domestic summer at the box-office.

The tomatoes were used by the film's director, Zoya Akhtar, to recreate the chaos of the La Tomatina festival in the small Valencian town of Bunol. Such attention to detail was another sign of a growing confidence that Bollywood could eventually mount a serious challenge to Hollywood for world cinema takings.

London-based Kishore Lulla, executive chairman of the film company Eros International, believes that thanks to India's economic boom, its film business will grow exponentially during the coming decade. "Once that happens, marriage between Hollywood and Bollywood will take place," he said in a recent interview. "Bollywood will be of a size that will matter to the world."

Eros, which purchased and marketed Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, has seen its share price rise by more than 10% in the past month alone. Established by Lulla's father in Mumbai in 1977, the company's initial focus was on distributing Bollywood films abroad. Things began to change after Lulla moved to London and took over control a decade later. Today Eros has an annual turnover of 75 films as a producer, co-producer or buyer, and made a net profit last year of $55m on revenues of $164m.

"Eros began in a very small way, but today we're India's biggest vertically integrated company," said Kamal Jain, the chief financial officer in Mumbai. "We have the largest film library with 1,100 films; we dub films into 27 languages and distribute them in 50 countries; and we have a presence in every segment of the business, from production to satellite TV to new media."

India produces around 1,100 films a year in several languages, with Bollywood a major centre for Hindi film production. Management consultancy KPMG sees tremendous potential for growth for the media and entertainment industry during the next five years, from the current $17bn annually to an estimated $29bn by 2015. Bollywood moguls such as Lulla appear confident that $100bn is possible in 10 years.

Their optimism is based on demography. More than 350 million Indians are now ranked as middle class, most of them young with much more money to spend than their parents had. There is also a diaspora of 50 million South Asians with estimated assets of $1 trillion and a passion for cinema.

Bollywood is changing as India surges ahead. "The film business became more professional during the last decade once the government made bank finance available," said Jehil Thakkar from KPMG . "Professionalism still remains a challenge, but companies such as Eros have brought in a new dynamism."

The old drawbacks in Indian creative industries have also begun to recede. Producers are no longer dependent upon shady financiers, many of them from the criminal underworld. Professionally managed film companies have brought in American-style studio practices.

Though the number of cinema screens is still very low for a country of India's size, multiplexes in glittering new malls charge high ticket prices and are increasingly attracting a well-heeled audience. And diversification has taken away the earlier life-and-death dependence on box-office hits. "Even before a film gets released it brings in 60% of its income," said Jain. "Slicing and dicing is the name of the game. We pre-sell the music, the satellite TV rights, the radio rights, new media such as mobile telephone ringtones – which is seeing enormous growth – inflight entertainment rights, and so on. To top it all, our huge library accounts for 20% of our revenue, providing considerable financial stability."

But even if Bollywood films are better made and better marketed today, they still sing an old tune. As Lulla said, "all Indian films are love stories – we Indians are very emotional people. Like Hollywood in the 30s, it's escapism cinema."

Zoya Akhtar believes that the huge impact of satellite TV is changing audience tastes in India, but the content of Bollywood films limits their appeal internationally. "In India, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara made more money than Harry Potter, which is crazy," she said. "But for a non-South Asian audience, I would make the film differently, I would change the idiom."


View the original article here

Best and worst of Britain's subsidised film-makers revealed

Man on Wire In the balance ... the majority of subsidised films in the UK (James Marsh's Man on Wire excepted) haven't repaid their debts. Photograph: Sportsphoto Ltd/Allstar

Who is Britain's most commercially successful film-maker of the past five years – at least among those backed by lottery money from the UK Film Council? Take a bow, James Marsh. His Oscar-winning documentary Man on Wire repaid 100% of its UKFC investment, and his chimpanzee documentary Project Nim is set to follow suit.

According to figures published quietly in Hansard last week by culture minister Ed Vaizey, only two other films since 2006 – St Trinian's and The King's Speech – have so far returned their lottery cash in full. Streetdance 3D is also expected to do so.

And who must own up to being the least successful of Britain's lottery-subsidised film-makers? According to the figures, that unwanted honour goes to Stephen Frears. Two of his recent films have received some ?1.7m in funding from the UK Film Council – ?1m for Cheri and ?780,000 for Tamara Drewe – but have yet to pay back a single penny.

The information has come to light after Conservative MP Penny Mordaunt asked Vaizey to provide details on returns from all films backed by the UKFC, and he duly obliged in a written answer. Vaizey identified 33 films which recouped some or all of the lottery funding they were awarded between April 2006 and March this year, when the UKFC closed and its duties passed to the British Film Institute.

But this answer failed to mention all those movies that have paid back nothing. A trawl through the data on the UKFC website reveals a further 25 films in the same time period – between 2006 and 2009 – which received at least ?300,000 but have paid back precisely zero. (For the sake of fairness, our research excluded films from 2010 that haven't had time to earn anything, as well as experimental projects awarded less than ?300,000).

By 31 March 2011, the date of its shutdown, the UKFC had, from its investment of ?41.1m into these 58 films, earned a grand total of ?8.1m. That 20% rate of return may seem modest, but many films – particularly those from 2009 – still have a lot of earning ahead of them.

There are some obvious quirks on the list. The King's Speech has officially recouped 95% because the UKFC gave the producers a 5% share – and is likely to single-handedly double the average recoupment figures when its profits start to flow back to the BFI over the next few years.

Marsh's Project Nim is currently showing a zero return, but that will change dramatically when its recent American sale to HBO is banked. Even Tamara Drewe is expected to save some of Frears's blushes by paying 20-30%, although the expensive Cheri, with its ?23m budget, is almost certainly a lost cause.

There are some unexpected success stories, however. Sam Taylor-Wood's Nowhere Boy has paid back a surprisingly robust 87% of its ?1.2m award, despite only grossing ?5m worldwide. Jane Campion's Bright Star managed an 81% payback from just ?8m in receipts. Nigel Cole's Made in Dagenham has already returned 80% from a ?9m box office take. All earned their money from strong foreign sales.

By contrast, Oliver Parker's Dorian Gray grossed ?15m worldwide, but has reportedly repaid nothing, a victim of its sizable budget and an underlying deal structure which left the UKFC at the back of the queue for repayment.

Other losers include expensive flops Brideshead Revisited and How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, which have both returned a mere 1% of the ?1.4m they each received. The Michael Caine vigilante film Harry Brown was a notable UK box office hit in 2009, but has repaid only 2% of the ?1m it was given from lottery funds.

Films not mentioned by Vaizey, and therefore drawing a complete blank, include Stephen Poliakoff's 1939, which received ?970,000, Armando Iannucci's In the Loop (?515,000), Michael Winterbottom's Genova (?500,000), Anand Tucker's When Did You Last See Your Father? (?570,000), Gillian Armstrong's Death Defying Acts (?800,000), and Gabor Csupo's The Secret of Moonacre (?1.23m).

By international standards, any project that pays back more than half its public subsidy is doing well. Outside the UK, it's increasingly rare for any subsidised film to recoup 100%. But the UKFC always took a more aggressive approach to getting its money back than other national film agencies. In fact, its insistence on doing so was arguably one reason for its downfall. Producers complained that the UKFC used its recoupment to pay its own overheads at the expense of film-makers.

That's why the UKFC changed its terms in its final year to share its position with producers and reinvest its recoupment into production. But by then it was too late. Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt decided the UKFC was paying its staff too much, and required elimination.

But there was a reason why the UKFC execs were paid so well. Getting money back from tricksy distributors isn't a job for amateurs. Without the sleuthing skills of the UKFC's debt collectors, perhaps only half of that ?8m would have been found.

There are already whispers that the BFI isn't quite so hot on the trail. But it needs to be. The acid test will be how much of the King's Speech income it can claw back from the Weinstein Company. It's unlikely to be a mission for the fainthearted.

• Read the full figures regarding recoupment of UK Film Council awards between April 1 2006 and March 31 2011


View the original article here