Anonymus: Interview with Roland Emmerich

At the Frankfurt Book Fair, director Roland Emmerich presented his latest film Anonymus in a rather unusual way. After a screening of the film, the filmmaker better known for big special effects blockbusters like Independence Day or 2012 took a stand in a panel discussion on the theses he puts forward in his film. Moderated by a somewhat overwhelmed Hellmuth Karasek with his handheld microphone, Emmerich, Prof. Dr. Tobias Döring (Chair of English Literature and President of the German Shakespeare Society), Dr. Kurt Kreiler (author of The Man Who Invented Shakespeare) and Frank Günther (Shakespeare translator) discussed the various theories that have been circulating about Shakespeare for a long time. Did he write his works himself, or were they penned by someone else? Maybe a nobleman? While all participants agreed that Emmerich's film is not only visually convincing but also offers good entertainment, there was a lively discussion about the question of authorship. In the end, of course, there was no agreement, because everyone sees his own view as the only real truth. But this discussion round was entertaining in any case. Afterwards it was much more quiet and relaxed in a small circle. In a cosy atmosphere Emmerich answered questions from interested journalists. Very sympathetic and in a good mood, Emmerich revealed why he chose this rather unusual material, what he thinks of the Shakespeare discussion and what he plans for his cinematic future: Question:Why did the preparation for the film take so long? It took a couple of years. Roland Emmerich: It took about three quarters of a year until the script was there. And then I took it to my agent and he said This is great, let's go to Sony with it. And they said great. Let's make this movie and they asked me how much budget I needed and I said 40 million. Great. And then I thought, let's go to London, I was excited, but after three or four weeks of planning the budget was 45 million dollars and at one point it was 50 and then it was 55 and we still didn't have a single cast. Then the studio said: Stop the whole thing again. So I wasn't mad, I understood that. That's why I knew I had to make the film with a very specific fixed budget, otherwise someone would come along and say, "Stop it again. That's why I more or less thought up everything myself about how the film would be made, how it would be financed, where it would be made. And then I went back to Sony with the facts. And after Amy Pascal, who had already liked the film when we first met, asked me after 2012, "What do you want to do next?" I said that I finally wanted to make my Shakespeare film. And then she immediately said: Yes, but it's so expensive. And then I said: No, 25 million and the worldwide rights and you're in. And we kept to the budget. F: The special effects didn't really have to be there. You could have staged the whole thing as a chamber play. RE: Yes, but then it would not have been a film of mine. That was very important for me. I just wanted to do it that way. I also kind of wanted to model how you can actually make a period film look big for not a lot of money. That was just one of my private things that I wanted to show like that. I wanted to show the city, I wanted to show the bridge, I wanted to show that the bridge was a link between the wicked Bankside and the capital, those were all things that I wanted to show. And you just can't explain those in words, you have to show them. F: So what guidelines was this designed to? Can you be sure that it really looked like that? RE: I really have to say: Research! I have to praise my production team, they meticulously used everything there was from the time and then went to original locations where there were still old streets in some form, photographed them all and then our London was created from this material. The bridge, for example, is absolutely identical, down to the last nail. They did a really good job. And I always told them: We have to be especially accurate on this film. We know that for dramatic reasons we're claiming some things that didn't happen, so let's at least make the first movie where London and the interiors look the way they really looked. Look at Elizabeth. I liked Elizabeth as a movie, but when I saw it later with the look I have now, you almost want to believe Elizabeth lives in a church. And she didn't, but it's cheaper to shoot. I know exactly how that works, because you can't get permission to shoot in an Elizabethean house, because there are these wall hangings everywhere and they're so careful about it that they won't let you shoot there. But for me it would have been wrong to shoot in a church. F: And then how did you manage that on Anonymous? RE: It's really so interesting when you think about it. I came to Berlin and everyone was clamouring to be in this film and I said, not so fast! This is not one of my big films and of course there was a lot of horror at first when the different departments heard their budgets. But then everybody said: Let's do it! And for example, all the interior shots were done in a modular system. We had high walls, half-high walls, and low walls. They were each in a very specific style and you could combine them endlessly like building blocks. And with that we built endless sets from just a few walls. We also made a lot of things digitally, a lot of streets and houses for example. The Courtyard, that didn't exist. Only one gate was real. We only had one gate at all, and that was always done differently with different pieces. The only thing I insisted on was that the theater was real. And that was a long discussion. Then my line producer, Larry, the only American on the team by the way, said: Roland, can't we at least do the upper part digitally? and I always said no. F: Why was the bracket with Derek Jacobi in the film? Surely it could have been limited to the historical alone. RE: I kind of wanted to make it a little clear that it was also a fictional story. I didn't want to make the mistake that Stratfordians make, that they all say, whatever my book says, that's exactly what happened. That's why I used exactly what Shakespeare did a lot of in his plays, which is just have someone come on stage in a prologue, like in Henry V, and explain to the audience what it's about and ask them to use their imagination. And in my film, I wanted to convey to people who know nothing at all about the subject matter: There are some problems in the story, now let's show an alternative version of the whole thing. I actually also love that we then have him reappear at the end and then he does a closing monologue. (Image: The ANONYMUS discussion panel at the Frankfurt Book Fair) F: Aren't you worried that your old fans might be alienated by this very different film? RE: I don't think it matters that much to people who's directing it. I mean that's where people would take themselves too seriously. I think if you make the right film, people will come and if you don't make the right film, they won't come. That has nothing to say about the quality of a film, because if it was about quality, then the audience is usually completely wrong and I think the critics are too. But my next film will also be another slightly more expensive film, but again something completely different, more like an attempt to make an intelligent film about the future set in 2050 that asks itself a big question. F:Was it a different working with Anonymus then, because the special effects weren't so much in the foreground, but rather the actors? RE: Absolutely. That also came about because I've used English actors a lot throughout my career, Ian Holm (The Day after Tomorrow) or Jason Isaacs (The Patriot), I'm always looking to England if there's anyone there I could cast. And it was absolutely clear to me that there had to be an all-British cast in Anonymous. And Amy Pascal agreed with that and said that it's easier to sell today because of Harry Potter. Potter made a very, very big difference there. And when you look at how many British actors are now playing roles in big American films, it's almost scary. And I have to say that every day when I went to the shoot I was really excited, like a little kid. Because it's also like, the older you get, the more you realize how everything is already set when it comes to action scenes, from storyboards to previz, because you want to make absolutely sure that everything is right. When you're shooting something like that, it's just diligence. You can't change that much anymore. But then you look forward to those moments when you have someone like John Cusack (in 2012) and you can shoot a long dialogue scene with them. That's when you really look forward to it, because there are fireworks. And the older you get, the more you look forward to those moments. F: Was it also due to the budget that more unknown actors were hired for Anonymus? There are really only four big names. RE: Yes, but it's actually also because of the genre. I took a bit of a cue from Amadeus there, you hardly knew anyone there either. He did it even more extreme than I did. F: Has there been any reaction to the film, especially in England? RE: Yes. F: Angry ones? RE: Angry ones, not so angry ones, praising ones. There were some particularly angry ones from Stratford in particular. There's a guy called Stanley Wells, he always gets all red-faced. I always thought that if the Kreiler and Stanley were to talk to each other, it would cause an explosion. But I welcome the discussion, because of course I made the film primarily as an entertainment film, but I just think that such a topic only really works when people are shaken up and start discussing it and making noise. How else are you going to get attention with a film like this. Because also the advertising budget, simply everything is smaller with this film. F: what was the feeling to shoot such a film in Germany, which would not have been possible a few years ago? RE: It was interesting. For me it was especially interesting to come back, especially with a film like this. All of them, some of them after initial doubts, were fully committed to the film and two or three of them will work again on my next film. F: Are you back in Germany? RE: No, because it's going to be something bigger again and the tax system here is good for smaller films but bad for bigger productions. I always tell the two owners of Studio Babelsberg: You have to try to do something like in England or Canada, because then big films will definitely be shot in Berlin. F: How long has it been since you shot in Germany? RE: 23 years. I was always renting some factory space back then that had just gone bankrupt. On my first film, The Noah's Ark Principle, it was a washing machine factory, on Moon 44 it was a textile company. That was cool because it was all clean. (laughs). So I said: Great, that's great. By the way, back then at Moon 44 I already used the same module system that we used at Anonymus. My camera assistant from back then, Anna, has now also been behind the camera again for Anonymus. I actually wanted to work with her again on 10,000 BC, but then the film got bigger and bigger and then she herself said that it was too big for her and that it was too big a risk for her. And then I said: If I ever make a film that is a little smaller, you will do the camera. And now, until something terrible happens, she will be my camerawoman. It's also great that it's a woman, that's extremely unusual. The Camera Union in America is a total men's club, there's I think one or two other women, that's it. Of all the camera people! And I don't think I've ever worked with a camera that was that creative. Anna came every day with new paintings and showed me how the light was there and how it was there, said that we had to copy that and then tinkered endlessly to get a very soft light. She came up with a crazy amount of stuff to make the film look the way it ended up looking. F: Were you inspired by Shakespeare when you were at school? RE: I don't know where you went to school, but I went to a science high school and in English class our teacher didn't dare to put Shakespeare in front of us, but then he pulled out plays by Pinter and the like. And in German class, of course, you go through Schiller, Goethe, Hölderlin, etc. As a high school student I was totally enthusiastic about literature, I read everything there was in modern literature, Thomas Mann, Dostoyevsky, I devoured everything. My mother always said: Can't you go out on the street and play like everyone else? Then I said: No, I don't like football, I'd rather read. So I've always been interested in literature, but I had no idea about Shakespeare. It wasn't until I was in film school that I saw a few films based on Shakespeare plays. But it wasn't until I read the script for Anonymous that I took a crash course and watched all the films that were based on Shakespeare's works. That's where you get how different something like Hamlet can be, from one director to another. And from that my Shakespeare knowledge is so from the last ten years. And now, of course, I'm constantly renewing it and looking forward to every new Shakespeare adaptation. Many thanks to Roland Emmerich for the nice talk and to the colleagues present in the group for the interesting questions. You can find all further info on the film at: www.anonymus-film.de Images: Copyright Alexander Heimann (Large), Sebastian Betzold (Small)

Ein Artikel von Frankfurt-Tipp