European Films

Director Thomas Clay, in Rotterdam to promote his debut feature 'The Great Ecstasty of Robert Carmichael'. Photo portrait: Fabrizio Maltese for europeanfilms.net, 2006. All rights reserved.

British director Thomas Clay is in Rotterdam to promote his feature debut The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael, one of the most talked about films of the most recent Cannes Film Festival.  The editor of europeanfilms.net, Boyd van Hoeij, had a chat with him about the film (which is often frowned upon for its gory and violent closing scenes) and the director's festival experiences so far.

Could you talk a bit about the genesis of the film and how this corresponds to your “genesis” as a feature length filmmaker?
I’ve been working with co-writer/producer Joseph Lang for 7 years. We made short films before Carmichael, including a 40 minute digital movie, Motion, that played a few festivals. Carmichael was the third feature script that we wrote together. I had therefore created a series of films in my head before Carmichael and had a clear idea of what I wanted to achieve.

The film has a very distinct visual style and atmosphere, something rarely seen in debut films. How was this conceived and how much is this your personal vision and how much is this part of the team effort that filmmaking really is (e.g. your
collaboration with your cinematographer, production designer, producer/co-writer)…
I believe that a firm grasp of mise-en-scene is integral to expressing yourself effectively within this medium. I am always seeking to expand my knowledge of cinema history and from that I draw inspiration and form my own ideas. In making Carmichael, I was very particular about the shot selection, framing and choreography. The lighting is where my cinematographer Yorgos Arvanitis could really express himself, having discussed the film together at length. I wanted the production and costume design to have a realist flavour, in contrast to the other aspects of the visual design; the exception is the sets for the dealer’s flat and the chef’s living-room, which have a more theatrical quality and were planned around the framing requirements of those scenes.

The Great Ecstasy is not a particularly happy film for the viewers, and in the film art (music in this case) seems to leave Robert indifferent. Do you think art (and more particularly film) has as a function to move or shock people, perhaps even to heal or at least provide insight or attract attention to certain subjects?
I’m not sure you can rationalise the human need for art, though if anyone draws sustenance from a film you could say that it is serving a function. In Carmichael, Robert is not moved by the music he plays and this is part of his emptiness as a human being. Personally, I can walk away optimistic from even the most pessimistic of films, as long as the work is honest, inventive and unblinkered.

Was it one of the ideas behind the screenplay to reveal what you think is a current problem of society or would you say that this particular film should be seen as “just the story of this particular young man” (who is also explicitly singled out in the title)?
Robert is at the centre of the narrative, however his actions are informed by the society in which he lives. The society of the film is a construction, it is simplified and exaggerated to bring to the surface attitudes lying beneath the surface of our own society. My aim is to
create an accurate portrait of a time and place -- not a realistic depiction, but an artistic picture that is true to the spirit and the ethos of its subject.

The audience seems to talk mostly about the violence of the last twenty minutes of the film whilst ignoring the build-up that might be said to be what this film is really about; would you agree that the bloody catharsis is only necessary to drive the point home of what has gone before?
The majority of modern films seek to reassure an audience and reinforce a belief in their own essential goodness. Other times, violence is depicted in such an abstract context as to be meaningless. What I believe can make people uncomfortable in Carmichael is the implication of the violence -- to accept that Robert, a previously sympathetic character and a young man that we might see walking down our own street, would commit this act forces the viewer to address all sorts of uncomfortable questions. Yet this is precisely why it is essential to end the film in that way. Of course, his actions are informed by what has come before. The ending would be meaningless out of context. Robert acts, perhaps metaphorically, upon the lessons that have been taught throughout the film.

Could you talk a bit about your festival experience so far?
We have had a good festival run over the last year, beginning in Cannes and followed by screenings all around Europe, Asia and the Middle East. It has proved difficult to solicit a North American invitation for the film, but the US premiere has finally been arranged for March at the SXSW festival in [Austin,] Texas, a few days prior to the first theatrical release in France, Belgium and Switzerland. It would seem that my world view and the outlook of my film is controversial. However, many people have been extremely supportive and I’m very grateful for that. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the film must be having impact to make people quite so vitriolic, whether they care to admit or not.

Could you talk a bit about your future project(s)?
I am writing a new screenplay with Joseph on the privatisation of the military. We are both very excited by the project and hope to enter pre-production within the next year.