If ever you find yourself contemplating a career in entertainment journalism, allow me to impart this snippet of crucial advice: Do. Not . interview the director of an as-yet-unreleased film on the very day your article about the previous night’s premiere screening appears in the paper.
Particularly when said article has been grossly misrepresented due to forces beyond the control of your writer’s pen. Or, in this case, keyboard.
Failure to heed this seemingly simple note of guidance is guaran- teed to result in a scenario that reads something along the lines of el director bulleting you with not-so-subtle snide responses to your every question, while you resist the overpowering urge to:
a) Do a Native American magical dance around the room in the hopes that the floor will open up and swallow you whole.
b) Go down on bended knee (strictly in the non-matrimonial sense of the term) and beg his understanding.
As it is, I opted for the Penguin Kowalski approach: smile and wave, boys. All the while hoping – in the spirit of professionalism, if nothing else – that my fiery Latina temper wouldn’t get the better of me and I wouldn’t find myself telling Justin Chadwick, director of Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom: “Up yours with a ziggy wawa brush!” as his passive aggressive stance wore on.
“Kathy (Ahmed Kathrada) called me this morning when he saw the story and he couldn’t believe it,” he tells me in his distinct Manchester tones, in reference to the offending article which was basically made to read as a less-than-flattering view of the movie.
“Did you see his reaction? Did you see that he and Winnie (Madikezela-Mandela) were in tears? Did you speak to either of them or George Bizos after the screening?”
“Yes, but…” I try to respond.
“I mean, you’re entitled to your opinion and you can’t please everyone, but these people lived through it. And they’ve all reacted so positively to the film, so it’s astounding,” continues the incredulous diatribe.
Well yes. Kathy and his crowd have hailed the biopic as the “most accurate” depiction of Madiba to date. And Winnie was indeed quoted as saying “I have no words to describe the translation of that painful past” during her speech. But neither the accuracy, nor the (one could argue, expected) emotional reaction of those it depicts are in question.
Whether the film can be deemed a good production, and whether it will be well received is now the meat of the matter and one clearly left for more impartial minds (i.e. those not involved in the making of it).
In an attempt to pose questions beyond the boring tried-and-tested options I know every other journo will put forward, I ask Justin whether he had any concerns about potential criticisms regarding the irony that he is a white person (and a British one at that) telling the story of South Africa’s most iconic black politico’s struggle against racial segregation.
“Well that’s racist in itself, “ he fires back. And if that weren’t sufficient indication that he’s completely missed my point, he goes on to add: “You are the only person – a white female – to ask me that.”
Just quite why my gender is of any relevance is beyond me. Or the realms of reason, for that matter.
Still, I soldier on…
“You have openly said that Idris (Elba) was not ‘an obvious choice’ for the role of Mandela, particularly when it was widely assumed within Hollywood circles that the role would inevitably go to Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman. What made you set your sights on Idris?”
To this, I am offered the usual song-and-dance about how criticisms had been levelled because of the fact that two international actors (Naomie Harris as Winnie being the other) were cast to play the lead characters, but that movie-making dictates actors of a more inter- national calibre be used in order to secure financial backing and international distribution for the film, as well as ensure it has a broader, global appeal.
Yes, I fully understand this reality, even if others don’t. Hence my mention of Denzel and Morgan. But again, this wasn’t the question.
And so the interview went on, with the same rehashed responses being put forward, despite said responses having little to do with what was actually being asked.
Realising at this point that dear Mr Chadwick was simply going through the motions (whether because of his obvious hostility due to the aforementioned story, or simply due to good ol’ fashioned stress and lack of sleep), I was left with little choice but to once again adopt the Kowalski approach.
The great pity of this hapless encounter is that the damage done by the misrepresentative article not only prevented me from really getting to know the man behind the director’s title; it prevented him from knowing that, for it what it was, I actually appreciated the film!
Still, he did offer a smile when we met once again during the interview session with Idris, so perhaps all was not lost. As he then explained: “I was very nervous (about the premiere). This is the most important audience. To have those men and women in the room was the most surreal experi- ence. To see their stories up on the screen… and to have them there reacting to that was overwhelming. I hadn’t quite expected that level of emotion.”
To be fair, if I had invested so much time and effort in putting together what seems to have become a very personal project for Justin, I too wouldn’t have exactly been all sunshine and happiness when confronted with a journo I believed had ripped the heart out of it.
Be that as it may, as he himself said, you can’t please everyone. There are bound to be fully fledged naysayers (as is the nature of the film-making industry) who won’t pull any punches. So perhaps learning to take it on the chin would stand him in better stead when faced with those who aren’t quite so flattering about his cinematic endeavours. After all, as the ol’ saying goes: if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.