 |
| A scene from the film "Suffragette," directed by Sarah Gavron. Image courtesy Focus Features. |
“Suffragette,” the new film starring Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter and Meryl Streep, tells the story of a working-class English woman who finds herself deeply involved in the suffrage movement in the early 1900s. The battle, as depicted in the film, is marked by acts of criminal disobedience by women and brutality against female protesters by police.
The film's director, Sarah Gavron, sat down for an interview in Boston to talk about the film and issues around it. The discussion – transcribed here and edited for clarity and length – covers topics ranging from depicting violent acts against women on film to being asked about being a feminist and learning more about the suffrage movement through “Mary Poppins.” You can listen to the entire interview here.
Q: I think the best part of the film is the relationship between Carey (Mulligan) and her son (played by Adam Michael Dodd). How did you develop that bond?
Sarah Gavron: It's really different with children. I was working with very experienced actors, and he was a child who never acted before. We didn't rehearse the scene at all. He was a really emotional little boy, even in the read through when we got to that scene he burst into tears every time he talked about it.
It was a case of making them bond as a family, Carey in particular, went with him to museums and went on trips with him and got to know him, so he felt very relaxed with her. And I was trying to keep him away from the lines in a way because once children start to learn lines they say them in a very rote way and you can't get that fresh quality out of them. He's a charming little boy, and he's very raw and open, which is beautiful as an actor.
Q: I'm also a sucker for the fake stair gag outside the window. Was that something that was improvised or was it planned out?
Gavron: We talked a bit about what she could do outside the window because Abi (screenwriter Abi Morgan) had written a scene with Maud (Mulligan's character) playing outside the window. We decided it was the burgeoning of cinema, it was a little before Charlie Chaplin, although it was just on the cusp of him so we thought we would do a little homage.
Q: This is a very violent film, especially toward women. Was it tough for you to film that or did you want to be honest about the situation?
Gavron: We did want to be honest. We felt it was a really important aspect of it because it's not widely known – one the lengths the women went, but also the violence they faced from the police and the state. And it seemed to echo a lot of what's happening in the world today, and we felt we wanted to show the consequences of their actions; we didn't want to shy away from any of the brutality.
In terms of filming it, it was about getting willing stunt people to help coordinate it, and you've got a lot of stunt people very used to doing action films so everything starts to look a little bit cartoony. The sound people had to go “no, no, no, we have to keep this real, we can't use any of the triggers of an action film.” It's the default setting.
Q: Is it discomfiting that the police committed the violence against women on behalf of the state, with the state having a hatred of half the population?
Gavron: It seemed shocking, and it's also shocking against women and the fact they weren't even defending themselves. They then later learned jiu jitsu in order to defend themselves.
Q: How much did you learn about the suffrage movement when researching this and how much was it taught in the United Kingdom?
Gavron: It wasn't addressed at all. I promise you it was not mentioned in my entire education. I learned about it through “Mary Poppins.” That was pretty much it, “Sister Suffragette.” I won't start singing, but I could.
Q: You literally learned more about the suffrage movement from “Mary Poppins” than you did in school?
Gavron: Yeah, yeah, yeah, and it was only later when I started talking to people about it and reading about it. There was a TV series in the U.K. called “Shoulder to Shoulder” in the late '70s. It was a little before my time – I was born in the '70s, but I was a bit young. I did watch it later and it really made a big impression on lots of people, and not just me. It was mainly about the Pankhursts, but it did have some of the violence.
Q: In another interview, you mentioned Kathryn Bigelow as one of your inspirations, which is interesting considering how much of a masculine director she is. What did you pick up from her?
Gavron: I think she's a really accomplished director. As you say, the subject matter doesn't reflect the fact that she's a female filmmaker necessarily, but the fact she was doing it and she was a really accomplished director, that alone was enough to inspire me. It wasn't so much the subject matter, but it was her talent as a director and the fact she was a woman out there doing it. As we know, it's like 1-10 percent of films each year are made by women, and there is this woman making very successful, very accomplished film, and that's inspiring.
Q: One thing I find interesting about the film is it doesn't have a simple, quick resolution. The last act of the film plays it more as the start of something else. Was that your intent?
Gavron: The thing is history doesn't wrap itself up neatly, and this movement certainly didn't. We felt like, let's be honest to that. For me the ending is they are not going to give up, the fight goes on. It's a climactic moment with that death, which is a sign of how desperate they are and it was the turning point in terms of the public's response; it got a lot of media and public attention, which was one of their goals to be honest. It was a tragedy, and there's no taking away from that, but there was a little sea change with that. But, nevertheless, that itself wasn't the end, the fight goes on. In the phrase, “the fight goes on,” you want that sense that Maud is now a different person; she's committed, and she'll never look back. She's kind of, in her personal journey, there's a sense of resolution in that she knows who she is, she knows she'll continue on that trajectory.
Q: You've mentioned before Maud is a composite character. How necessary was it to create that composite character, almost an audience surrogate?
Gavron: One, there were lots of working women involved in the movement. It seemed like they were lesser known and they're in the shadows even more than other women are. It felt like their stories are compelling. We could have chosen one single working woman, but there is a kind of freedom with a little bit of creation. Because we based it on everything that happened to her happened to somebody but we could liberate ourselves and set it in the exact time period we want to. And if you do a biopic you're beholden to their life story in a different way.
We considered, but we didn't want, to do a biopic about Emmeline Pankhurst (played by Meryl Streep in the film). I think someone should make a film about her. But that would have been through exceptional people, and we thought turning the story about ordinary working women who had so much – in a way more – to lose. Because this movement brought together working women, and they did so much, we thought that would be the way the everywoman can connect with it today in a more visceral way.
Q: Was it satisfying to have Carey burn the factory owner's hand with the iron? It's not explicitly stated, but he's clearly a rapist.
Gavron: He is, yeah. Yeah, I think she'd reached a breaking point. It was a spontaneous act which she couldn't control. It's interesting because the audience response in the U.K. is a hushed shock, but here there was even applause in some screenings.
Q: I'm not going to ask if you're a feminist – you've said yes in other interviews – but is it kind of frustrating to be asked that question so frequently? Because, in a weird way, you have to prove your bona fides, and the question is never asked to men.
Gavron: Bridget Christie, who is this comedienne in the U.K., said the question should be are you not a feminist? In a way, doesn't everybody believe in equality these days? I'll tell you why I'm not frustrated by it, and I'm not frustrated because … five years ago people would be asked “are you a feminist” and they'd really squirm and they'd avoid it and it was really awkward. Now, in the U.K. at least, there's a complete change. I did a screening the other day and this male MP (member of parliament) stood up at the end of the film – and he's called Sadiq Khan and he's standing to be the next mayor of London – and he said, “I'm going to ask a question, I'm a feminist by the way.” And I thought I never would have heard that.
I think it's great, and I think the reason we're being asked is because we're at that critical tipping point. And once we've got it out of the way, next year let's hope nobody will need to ask it. It'll be established, but we're at that changing point where everyone's just double checking. I think, in a way, as a female filmmaker, we're still at a point where I need to talk about what it's like to be a woman filmmaker. And hopefully I won't need to talk about that forever, but at this point I need to talk about it because we haven't yet got parity or anywhere near it. And when we do, then we can move on. But until we do, people need to keep addressing, keep reminding, keep talking about why, and all those issues.
Q: I think part of the issue is feminism isn't cut and dry anymore. There's first wave feminism versus third way feminism, and people have an older view of it.
Gavron: In a way, I wish there was a new word for this generation. I think it would be really good for young people if there was a word that wasn't mired with the old associations. That would help people.
Q: Another issue is the pay disparity between male and female filmmakers. How frustrating is it to not have enough voices and not get treated the same?
Gavron: I don't know why; well, I sort of have some theories why the film industries have lagged behind other industries, even the armed forces and banking. It's madness. It is between 1 and 10 percent, sometimes 12, and usually closer to 1 percent of films made by women, which means you sometimes you have 99 percent of films made by men. It kind of seems mad, doesn't it? It's not that men can't make good films about women, because of course they can, but there are less women on the screen than men and film is such an important mirror of our culture.
Geena Davis has been doing all this research, which I think is amazing. Like, people watch crowd scenes, and there are 17, one seven, percent men, and you don't even notice it. I met this woman at Google who helped develop the program to count the people in the crowd, and it counted 17 percent. In some situations that's appropriate, but on a general street it's usually half and half, isn't it?
Q: What do you think it takes for a male director to direct well-rounded female characters?
Gavron: The statistics seem to show male directors are drawn to male protagonists, and I'm certainly more drawn to female protagonists, so I get the reverse would be true. It's just about getting enough of us behind the camera to shake things up a bit.
Q: What historical figures would you, specifically, like to direct films about? You've mentioned Marie Curie before.
Gavron: She's an amazing woman. There are a many, many women through history, but not that it has to be a woman in history; I think I'd like to have a contemporary story right now.
Q: What would be your dream project then? Imagine if you had $150 million, studio backing and any star you want.
Gavron: Oh my God. No one has ever offered me that before. It's a bit like Maud, “What would you do with the vote?” “I hadn't really thought of that.” I don't know, I'll have to get back to you on that.
