The British director explains why he is drawn to the 19th century in his work
By F.S.
WITH “Mr Turner”, Mike Leigh may have created the ultimate biopic for people who don’t usually like such films. The story of the last years of J.M.W. Turner, arguably the greatest ever landscape painter, it is certainly more understated than most biographical films, which can sometimes feel unrealistically conclusive. By contrast, “Mr Turner” (reviewed here) is a cautious exploration of a life rather than a definitive verdict on one.
It is packed with the tell-tale signs of Mr Leigh’s trademark social realism: a primary interest in the interior lives of ordinary people and the emotional authenticity born of the director’s improvisational filming style. Yet the film also marks a departure for this British director (pictured above, bearded). It is more epic than any of his previous films. It has a wider scope than “Secrets and Lies” and “Vera Drake”. It is ostensibly more ambitious than “Happy-Go-Lucky” or “Life is Sweet”, covering a bigger time period and a named historical figure rather, than a low-key creation.
The Economist spoke to Mr Leigh about the pull of the 19th century and how digital filming helped create Turner-esque filmscapes.
You've been thinking about making this film for a long time. Why?
I have been thinking about this for a couple of decades, even though I usually hate biopics. The tension between this body of epic work and the passionately driven but flawed guy made Turner feel like good territory for a Mike Leigh film. There were funding issues to begin with. We wanted more money than we usually get. I make these films where we have no script and where we won't discuss casting and nobody knows what's going to happen so it’s not an easy sell. It's still remarkable to me that we manage to get these sorts of things done.
Does it feel like a pinnacle of sorts?
No. What would that say about my other films if I thought this was the top? But I hope I've pushed the boundaries a little further.
Did you and Timothy Spall [who played Turner] find the character together?
Yes, that’s the way I work. We started out with just what we had read about in books. So, the amazing language of grunting that Timothy comes up with and through which he’s so very expressive, started out because there are several descriptions of Turner that suggest that. But then it just came organically as we experimented. In fact, there are certain things we can say objectively are wrong about our version of Turner. He was a very small man. Smallness is not something you could accuse Tim of.
So much period detail must have taken more research than you are used to.
I’ve been in lower-level research—reading and so on—since the late 1990s. But we engaged an art expert who works at Tate Britain to be on our team as a consultant. The film takes you from the late Georgian period into the Victorian period and there's quite a difference in the spirit of the two. I hope we make the transition clear. For instance, early on characters are riding around in carriages pulled by horses, but they are in trains by the end. Which, of course, is crucial to Turner's art, as his obsession shifts from boats to trains.
Your only other biopic, “Topsy Turvy”, about Gilbert and Sullivan, was also set in the 19th century. Is it a period you’re especially interested in?
Yes. I was born in 1943 and I grew up in Manchester, which is a great Victorian city. My grandparents were born around 1880 and my age-group was taught by people who were children in Victorian schools. So when I made both these films I felt very much that the 19th century hung on the recent air. The 19th century was ingrained in us in some way. I also learned that one man on top of a mountain in North Wales is a damn sight cheaper than 80 people all in period costume in a theatre in Richmond. “Topsy Turvy” was made in 1997 for £10m. This was made over the last couple of years for £8.3m.
This is the first feature you and your regular director of photography, Dick Pope, have done together in digital, isn’t it? Some of the landscape shots look just like paintings themselves, but not in a twee way.
Yes, the benefit is obviously the stuff we can do in post-production. This isn't something I normally do, but I did watch a bunch of other films about artists before making this film and there is a huge variety. I was interested in the aesthetic but only alongside character. Other film-makers have different priorities. Derek Jarman, who I have a great deal of affection for, made a film about Caravaggio that looks great but nothing much happens in it. It’s quite boring, in fact, because it's mostly about people looking gorgeous.
What do you think Turner would have thought of digital filming?
We had this conversation a lot when we were making the film and we felt quite strongly that Turner would approve of it. He embraced new technology.
