Shekhar Kapur on the set of Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Shekhar Kapur likes to play god. From his Oscar-nominated Elizabeth to his comic-book endeavors, the director enjoys immersing himself in new worlds that he creates. Kapur invited Premiere to sit down with him and discuss his latest, a second look at Elizabeth — this time in her Golden Age.
When you're preparing for such a sweeping epic like either of the Elizabeth films, what is your process?
I work very instinctively. I allow my camera to follow … I mean, while I prepare all the time, I'm very scared of knowing — I walk into a film and my biggest fear is not that I won't know what to do; my biggest fear is that I will know what to do. And so I wake up in the morning, and I then try and deconstruct myself. And I think that's the hope: to then find the answer somewhere in the ether, and then I allow myself to be very instinctive after preparation. So to prepare for the epic quality — especially in this film, because this film to me works on many levels, on a political level, on a mythic level — and the sweeping scale that you talk about is not political, it's mythic. It's to get the audiences to understand the mythology of our own lives. So mortality and jealousy and sex and love and all of those are mythic events in our lives; and therefore, when you use an icon like Elizabeth, or when [someone like Princess] Diana falls in love, it's a mythic event, but what happens when you fall in love? It's not mythic to you. So the idea is to set these things against a mythic, epic scale so you understand the mythology of it. So how do I prepare for it? I kind of keep following my instincts. So I actually see a film, so the moment I think of a scene, I start to see it, then I write it down and then I give it to my people and say, "That's how I see it." And then you adapt because the actors are not going to do the same thing. They're not puppets; they're thinking everyday of mythic human beings, it changes many times, and sometimes what they do is so fantastic that you have to change and adapt to that.
Do you draw the scenes?
Yeah, all the time. We do drawings, we do storyboards, and then we change it all.
Could you speak a little bit about the sensuality of the film? Sir Walter Raleigh, especially, punctuates his language in his speeches so that seemingly innocuous words like "hope" suddenly become scandalous.
Did you like that? It's fun, isn't it? When you can take something sort of innocuous and make it sexual. Yeah, it was very deliberately thought of because there was no sex between them. But there was intimacy, and intimacy is not always physical; intimacy can be — two minds getting together can be very intimate. So the whole idea of the sensuality to come to the fact that there was no sexuality, and yet it could be very sensual and intimate is the reason for the way to work like that. Yeah, it was all thought about: to work it like that. To me, that one scene, when she and he are actually at a distance talking to each other, but then I only treat it in close ups as if they're together in bed, so that he's talking to her like he's seducing her, but he's talking about immensities and they could be in a very intimate position when they're talking like that.
And then there's the dance scene. Historically, was the Volta scandalous at the time that it was introduced?
It was, but Elizabeth actually loved the Volta. That is what history tells us. And it was — the whole idea of lifting a woman from her crotch was scandalous, but it was part of the life. Yeah, it was very scandalous, but people did it all the time, but it became an accepted part of the culture. And she uses it to such effect.
Aren't the women actually lifted by part of their dress — the busk? To modern audiences, it will look like he's lifting her by her crotch….
Yeah, but the dress would've ripped apart.
Could you talk about the contrast between the sort of bloodlust and animalistic qualities of the warmongers compared to the elegance of their surroundings and their dress?
That's what makes that time interesting: That's what makes kings and queens. Let me give you an instance of what I was trying to do once and it never made it to the film, the last film: In the party, the coronation party of the last film, I was trying to put the fact that chamber pots were brought in and put under the table so women could just lift their dresses and take a pee, and food was cooked, and dogs would eat right next door. So there is an essential contradiction between the glamour of what you see and the reality that lies behind that glamour. And for me, that's a very essential part of examining those ages. Because we have this tendency of [getting caught up in] "Kings and queens and beautiful palaces," and these things — behind that is like a movie, isn't it? I keep telling my friends who want to come to the movie sets, I say, "All you'll see is dirt." You'll see one beautiful woman standing there, lit beautifully, and you look around yourself, and there're cables and dirt and studios and sweat and everything. And yet that woman will look pristine — it's very much like that.
That seems to draw an obvious parallel between that time and now. You could compare it maybe to Hollywood.
And politics. And that's why I'm saying that unless you can make contemporary references in a film, why make it, right? Unless somewhere it deals with our lives now — whether political or psychological or mythic life now — why make it? But, certainly, what do we see of presidents? Look at Clinton: You saw his pristine office and everything, and then you realize he was getting a blowjob back in his offices. It's like you try and visualize it and your mind will rebel because that's not how you saw it. That's not how you saw the Oval Office. So I'm trying to understand: Where did he sit? Where? If I was making a film, would it be against the American flag? So it's literally like that. So you see in the politics, I'd love to eavesdrop into those conversations that are going on. Like, "We have to go and we have to wipe out terrorism," and then suddenly when the cameras are off say, "Go fuck the bastards." It's like that. It's like, what is the truth and what is the reality and behind the façade of nobility, what lies behind — anywhere in the world, not just here, not just in Hollywood — what is the ruthlessness that lies behind the façade of religion? What is the ruthlessness that lies behind the façade of nobility or politics? That's constantly the question, isn't it? Do we know the truth or is it just an illusion? What is it?
If you are drawing those parallels, you could say that everyone is guilty in this scenario, and it's the same sort of ruthlessness now as at that time.
Yeah, it's the same ruthlessness. It's the same conflicts. That's the amazing thing: It's exactly the same conflicts. Maybe a different religion, but the conflict's the same. I mean, the Spanish Inquisition was like the Taliban, wasn't it? You say, "You can't do this, and you can't do this, and you can't do this." Is that what Catholicism said? No, it's just an interpretation of Catholicism. Just as the Taliban, the things they put down and the laws they put down on women, it's the interpretation of Koran, it's not the Koran. So it's exactly the same here: dogmatism and faiths and beliefs and the conflicts of religious wars that kill thousands and thousands of people, whether it's been Christianity, Islam, or Shiite and Sunni, or Hindus and Muslims. And ultimately led by politics, ultimately led by the quest for power. And then what happens is that the people in power begin to believe that they're anointed by God. And that's a fundamental fallacy.
Are you quoting President Bush?
No, I'm not. [laughs] You know, Tony Blair felt that. You're not anointed by God — this is your man-made thing. They start to feel they're anointed by God to do this.
Wasn't that actually said about President Bush: that he believed that God anointed him?
Yeah, yeah. You read between the lines, and you know he does, he thinks that. I mean, toward the end of his Prime Ministership, Tony Blair was completely — he said so: "In my God, in my belief, in my faith, I believe I've done the right thing."
It's convenient.
I don't think it's convenient — I think they start to believe it. I don't think it's just a political statement. By the time they say it, they believe it. That's frightening. If they knew they were lying, it wouldn't be so frightening. It's because they don't think. When Bin Laden and leaders of Al-Qaeda say that they are following the tenets of Islam, they believe it — they don't think they're lying. And that's what's frightening.
After you finish working on a production that's as elaborate as this one, do you miss constructing that fantasy? Just on a day-to-day basis, on that level?
How did you know that?
Wouldn't a person miss building a fantasy? It's like playing God.
Absolutely. I'm just dying to get back in sets to create again. And to create is to play with the universe, isn't it? To create is to take all of the elements of the universe and to put them together in your own interpretation. And in a way that's playing God. All creation is like that, isn't it? God's creation, Picasso's creation, the film director's creation, a poet's creation — is the realignment of the creative elements of the universe in the artist's vision. It's like a drug — you want to do it again and again.
And, so that brings us to the obvious question: What are you working on now?
I think there's a third Elizabeth, but I don't think that's my next film. I'm thinking of working on a film that — it's a film based in 2025 in a city like New York which has been divided between those that have water and those that don't. It's a time when water has become the key decisive — it's not about class anymore; it's all people who can fight with arms to keep the water, and how they use water to exploit, as a weapon of exploitation. And there's not enough water to go around. And the water wars have begun in a city like New York. And it's an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet — there's a strong love story going in between, but it's in the context of the conflict of water.
It's funny because that sounds almost like a comic-book plot…
I have a comic book company. And it is a comic book, but it has such a resonance to our time.
Could you talk a little bit about what you are working on in regard to the comic book company?
It's called Virgin Comics. It was started by me and some friends of ours, like me, Deepak Chopra, a company called Gotham Entertainment, and some friends. And we got together, and I started to write comic books — I wrote the first two comic books for the company. And the basic thing was: Could we bring new, iconic characters from Eastern mythologies and draw them out and reform them into Western and international icons? So that became very successful, and Richard Branson joined us, and so we called it Virgin Comics. Now I just oversee it. And we have over 200 artists in India, and 25 writers. And we have many directors working with us because they like the style of our comic books; they give us ideas, we make the comic books, they make films on it. It's a very, very, very exciting business. I go back to Bangalore, where all our artists are in India, and I just sit there for like two days watching these young people create these amazing, amazing works. It's fascinating.
What have you had the most success with in terms of characters for that company?
Well, the first one I wrote was Devi. Again a woman. It was a woman. This'll interest you. I started out with the premise that: What is man's impression of woman that sometimes he wants the nurturer, and then sometimes he looks for some excitement — almost the whore. Between the nurturer and the whore, the sexual object and the nurturer, the mothering nature and the sexual nature lies his fantasy. And so it becomes the story of an iconic two women: one the nurturer and one this mythic goddess fighter who's flirtatious and sexy and everything. And as you read the comic book, you realize that both of them are in love with this man, and this man can't make up his mind — you realize that they are the same person. Rather like in this film, Bess and Elizabeth are the same person. So I guess I'm obsessed with shadow selves of each other — this idea of shadow selves. [Devi] is actually very well read. What else? We've done a retelling of an Indian epic called the Ramayan, which is very, very popular. I wrote something called The Snake Woman, and The Snake Woman is interesting because it takes a traditional Eastern belief that if you kill a king cobra, the mate — if she sees you — will follow you for many, many incarnations until she destroys you. So it's a story about, ultimately, the reptilian brain and our more loving brain and the conflict between the two, where a young girl doesn't realize that she's the reincarnation of that snake and the battle that's going on between her for being a reincarnation of a reptile and a human being in love. So there are mythic conflicts as you can see.
I think I should stop at the comic shop.
Take a look.
没有评论:
发表评论