|
Uncut Magazine - The Wild and Wycked World of
Brian Jones
UNCUT MAGAZINE INTERVIEWS THE DIRECTOR,
SCRIPTWRITERS AND ACTORS ON THE SET OF THE WILD AND WYCKED WORLD OF
BRIAN JONES
Stephen Woolley, Director
UNCUT: After 10 years researching for this film,
do you consider that you'd personally have liked Brian Jones?
WOOLLEY: I don't think any of us would've liked
him. I think Brian was a true artist and a serious composer. He went
to Morocco to record music. He scored a film in Germany. The first
thing Jagger and Richards did was "Snip Snap Crackle", a Rice
Krispies jingle [Woolley plays a video of the offending ad]. While
Brian was hanging out with the great artists and minds of his time,
this is what Andrew Loog Oldham was making Mick and Keith do.
What were your priorities in telling the story?
There are almost six stories. There's Janet,
who wanders into this insane universe with Tom Keylock. Tom's
control over Brian and Frank Thorogood, Frank's relationship with
Brian... It's the stories of the three girls, Anna, Anita, Janet,
and the three men, Brian, Tom and Frank.
What happens in this world of Brian Jones the
[1970] film Performance is very much that story, a hard guy coming
to a rock star's house. When Mick read Performance, he said to
Marianne, "I can't do this, it isn't me." She said, "No, of course
it isn't you it's Brian.". Then Mick played it as Brian. If a
gangster came round to Brian Jones' house, Brian would definitely
want to fuck with him, get into his brain. If a gangster came to
Mick Jagger's house, he'd be on the phone and the police would be
round.
It was surprising to see Tom Keylock on the set.
Tom's one of our advisers. Quite a lot of the
details we got from Tom. It was his relationship with Frank that
triggered this whole thing off. It's quite a complicated story. It's
not like he [the late Frank Thorogood] just got up one morning and
decided to murder Brian Jones. It's the route that it took to get
there. We worked incredibly hard to try and be faithful to the
events.
Some sources have alleged that other people, not
just Frank, Janet and Anna, were at Cotchford Farm on the night Brian
drowned. How did you reconcile the contradictory accounts?
Janet, Anna and Tom haven't spoken to each
other for 34 years, and their stories don't vary. If there were more
people there, why would they lie? The other builders may have been
hanging around, and Anna and Janet may not have noticed them.
Nicholas Fitzgerald claims he witnessed three
people holding Brian underwater, watched by two others.
There's no evidence for that. His book was
never published in Britain. I think both Nicholas's and Anna's books
are exaggerations. The life of Brian wasn't as idyllic and lovely as
Anna painted it. There's evidence that there were other women round
the house, maybe when Anna was visiting London. Brian was also
seeing Suki Potier, who was probably more important to him than
Anna. We've fashioned the story to take these aspects into
consideration.
Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, Scriptwriters and
Co-Producers
UNCUT: How did you become involved in the film?
WADE: Stephen bought the rights to Return To
Sender, a script we'd written (which got made earlier this year). We
got on well. He said, "Are you interested in The Rolling Stones?" We
said, "Yes, but we're not interested in rock biopics." And we didn't
want to get involved in an expose.
PURVIS: Then we came across Terry Rawlings' Who
Killed Christopher Robin? That seemed to represent an authentic
version of events.
You've spent 10 years making this movie happen.
How come?
WADE: Stephen had a very busy life as a
producer. He needed to put his undivided attention to it.
PURVIS: There's been drafts, drafts and drafts,
but I don't think the script was right until Stephen decided to go
ahead, six or nine months ago.
WADE: Leo [Gregory, acting Brian's part]
would've been 15 when we started writing.
PURVIS: We've been working on it for longer
than Brian was in the Stones.
What is at the heart of the film?
PURVIS: Essentially it's about the relationship
between Brian and his builder and how they got into that situation
where something unpleasant can happen in a swimming pool. It's meant
to be a realistic relationship where they played games with each
other.
WADE: For us, Brian's death symbolises the end
of the Sixties even though people say it was Altamont, which was a
few months later. You could say the film is about the Sixties and
Brian is the most extraordinary man. It's literally a clash between
two archetypes, with Frank as the normal guy. This is not a
sensationalist thing. It's not a conspiracy - Keith jumped out of
the bushes and him and Mick drowned Brian in a bucket of water. It's
very important that personality comes through more than the fact
that Brian was in a band called The Rolling Stones.
Have you confronted Brian's misogyny?
WADE: The mother of one his children
[presumably Pat Andrews] talks of Brian like he was a god, and he'd
treated her very badly. He was a bad, bad boy. So that was one of
our difficulties. Suki Potier meant a lot to him. She dyed her hair
blonde to be like Anita, and she had the same kind of thing with him
but she wasn't into the violence. She was temporarily out of Brian's
life and may well have come back into it - but he died. We've seen
these pictures of her at the funeral. She's absolutely devastated.
Could Brian have lived if his friends had taken
better care of him?
WADE: He might have, but then, if you drive
your friends crazy...
PURVIS: In recent years, Keith's comments have
hardened into not-very-nice things.
WADE: Ossified - like his face. I think it was
quite remarkable that Keith didn't go to Brian's funeral. I imagine
the Stones must've felt some kind of guilt. But in any circumstance,
it's almost impossible to imagine Brian Jones still being around
today.
Terry Rawlings, Author of 'Who Killed
Christopher Robin?'
UNCUT: What triggered your interest in Brian?
RAWLINGS: I was working at Decca as a post boy
in the late Seventies. Most of the people that worked for The
Rolling Stones were still there, and they all had a story about
Brian Jones. Before you knew it, you had a wealth of information
about this complete lunatic. I always thought he was murdered. There
was always rumours around.
How did you set out?
Nearly 15 years ago it all started. The first
person I tracked down was Frank Thorogood. I knew he came from Mill
Hill so I went to north London and looked up his name in the phone
book. There was only one with the initial F. I went to his house and
knocked on his door. He was obviously a bit shocked but he made a
cup of tea. I didn't know then that he'd be the prime murder
suspect.
What were your initial hunches?
I thought there was a gang of 'em at Brian's
that night, that we were looking for a lot of people. And I'd read
all these stories - anyone that was going to look into this would
get done in. I was really disappointed no one ever came up and said,
"You're opening a can of worms, son you don't know what you're
getting into," Scooby Doo-style.
What happened next?
Frank made out he wasn't in touch that much
with Tom Keylock. I left my number for him to give to Tom if he
should happen to talk to him, and literally the next day Tom rang
me.
Your book reprints official documents, including
a sworn oath by Keylock that he witnessed Frank Thorogood's deathbed
confession to killing Brian. Do you believe this confession happened?
I think Tom was hoping that would put the tin
hat on it, but obviously, it just put more fuel on the fire. I think
it's really convenient for a lot of people to go along with.
Before Thorogood died in 1993, you took him and
Keylock back to the pool at Cotchford Farm. What did you do there?
We filmed them. We bugged the bushes, all of
it, up with microphones. I was putting someone's name in the frame
for murder, and it was a bit difficult to weigh up how I stood
legally as well as morally. But within the last couple of weeks of
my research, Frank died.
Are these experiences included in the three new
chapters of the book, re-published later this year to coincide with the
film?
Yeah.
What else?
I'd like to clear up the cover-up after Brian's
death. There's a hell of a lot of stuff that will upset a few more
people. Some real obvious things have been overlooked. New bits add
to it like a puzzle, and it gets bigger on its own. I've got so much
information that, like any murder, there's quite an obvious way of
solving it. It's not so mysterious after all.
Leo Gregory (Brian Jones)
UNCUT: Did you know much about Brian before the
film?
GREGORY: My musical preference is very
contemporary, hip hop and garage-based. I could have listed the
bigger of the Stones tracks but my knowledge was very limited and
Brian I hadn't heard of. I screen-tested and got the gig a week and
a half before we started shooting. I would've pooped myself but
there wasn't any time. I got some great Decca box sets of all the
early stuff. I read many books. I had guitar lessons. I just crammed
everything in. I watched video footage, although partly due to
Brian's mental state and largely due to the fact that Andrew Loog
Oldham, once he came on board, kept him away from interviews, the
things to look at were limited. A lot of my research was done
through the work of Gered Mankowitz, the Stones' photographer.
How difficult is it to convey the drama going on
in Brian's head?
It's tricky. I'm trying to play a guy who
didn't always know what he was going to do himself. He
contradicted himself so much "I've gotta tighten my belt," and
the next minute, "I'll go and buy a double decker bus or a Rolls
Royce."
He had a very unloving childhood. There
were pivotal moments where his family pushed him to the
periphery and he didn't really know why. His parents were very
conservative. Not to totally paint them as the bad guys - Brian
was amazingly intelligent, he could've done the Oxbridge thing,
so you can understand why this crazy rock'n'roll was not what
they wanted for their son. That upbringing and that isolation
stuck with him and messed him up and he didn't know how to deal
with Anita, someone he really loved.
Have you addressed Brian's alleged bisexuality?
There was this definite campness about him he
and Anita used to dress up - but you don't want to make this guy
a... fairy, cos he really wasn't. It's a very fine line. You can't
make him overtly gay. Clearly with five illegitimate kids, he had a
thing for women. If he'd lived he may have come out.
What's your reading of the murder theory?
There's too much mystery, too much cloak and
dagger, and too many lies for something not to have happened. I'd
say it was in the interests of the two main players [presumably
Thorogood and Keylock] to get as many differing stories out there
and to shroud and confuse as much as possible. The way we're doing
it is very responsible. I believe it to be not too far from the
truth.
What do you want to show the public of Brian?
It would be so easy to play him as "poor
Brian". He could be the most sweet, sincere guy, but we all know he
could be an arsehole at times. A lot of this stems from his
childhood and not knowing how to give or receive love. His violence
towards women ties into the same thing. Throw in a bunch of drugs
and insecurities not for one second is it acceptable, but you can
see why he lashed out.
Tuva Novotny (Anna Wohlin)
UNCUT: How did you feel about playing Anna?
NOVOTNY: I grew up with the Stones. I loved
them. But I barely knew of Brian, and I didn't know anything about
Anna. So when I met Stephen, he put me in the office with a pile of
books and said, "Read!"
What other preparations did you make?
I spoke to Anna. It must be so difficult for
her to talk about it. It's been 35 years, but it's like the biggest
shock of her life. She was lovely. She was very much into details,
like if I was wearing the same clothes she used to wear, which is
understandable. But as I told her, the Anna character is based on a
couple of women Brian had. She's mostly based on Anna, but some
things I felt I couldn't tell her cos it's not going to be accurate
to her picture of what happened.
How did you react to Anna?
It was a wonderful little talk but upsetting
because I realised how much effect this had on her. They lived
together for, like, three weeks, but Brian is still the love of her
life. It's the circumstances of his death that have made such a huge
impact on her. She tried to save his life in the pool. I don't think
she meant as much to him as she thinks. He meant the most to himself
and, second, Anita.
Did this conversation influence your work?
I had to let go of it and create the character
that would support the story in Stephen's way. I didn't want to feel
responsibility towards Anna, because this is so much bigger - so
many lives and so many stories. It's Stephen's piece of art. That's
what I want to contribute to.
Lucas De Wolfe (Mick Jagger)
UNCUT: Did anything surprise you about the
storyline?
DE WOLFE: I hadn't known anything about Brian
being the person who got the Stones together. He was the driving
force, getting them up and rocking.
What were the problems between Mick and Brian,
would you say?
Despite his image, Mick was very professional
in the way he worked and Brian started to drift away from that with
the Stones. He couldn't control his "Out-of-band activities" as well
as the others, and that frustrated Mick and caused him concern. Mick
probably came across as a parental figure in some ways, and that
probably pissed Brian off. They were scared of Brian. He was a
psycho. He had a violent temper. From what I've read, he once
dragged Mick out into a pond and tried to drown him.
The script overlooks the one-night stand between
Mick and Brian that's been alleged by Anita.
I'm quite glad I didn't have to play that...
Did Mick and Keith deliberately sideline Brian?
The film focuses more on his private life, but
there are moments that suggest Mick and Keith are ganging up on him.
They do contribute to Brian's mental decline. He's constantly
paranoid they're trying to force him out. In one scene, he's
comatose in the studio and we try in vain to wake him. Maybe it's
the first time Mick realises Brian's going to be too much of a
handful. The film definitely shows the effect on Brian of being
chucked out.
Do you endow Mick with a sympathetic side?
He genuinely cared about Brian. He wasn't a big
mean bad old ogre. I don't think anyone can be held to blame for
Brian's demise other than Brian. I have every belief Mick was
devastated when he died.
Ben Whishaw (Keith Richards)
UNCUT: How do you view the early relationship
between Keith and Brian?
WHISHAW: They had a very special connection
through their music. Playing guitars together was almost their
primary means of communication.
What's your opinion of Keith's betrayal of Brian
with Anita?
My personal view is that Brian knows something
exists between Keith and Anita and that given the way he's drifting
away from the group and into drugs, she will eventually fall into
Keith's arms. The scene where he almost forces them to sleep
together is Brian, weirdly, protecting himself from the inevitable.
He's controlling the situation "I wanted that to happen, therefore
I'm invulnerable to him."
At the same time, Richards was outraged at
Brian's unreliability...
Despite Keith's fury at the way Brian has let
down the band, I think he knows that he's a brilliant musician and a
valuable member of the group.
Do you believe Keith felt guilty in any way?
I don't think there's any real guilt about the
Anita thing, certainly not before Brian's death.
How do you interpret Keith's behaviour in the
sacking scene?
Keith is pretty glum. He doesn't really want to
do it. I think he finds it quite painful. At the same time, he's
realised that it's necessary. The whole film is really an
examination of how Brian came to die. Keith, Mick, Charlie their
treatment of Brian is a factor, but you can also see the mess that
he has brought upon himself through his own character, his own
nature.
Brian was murdered that's the major factor.
The interesting thing in the script is that it's almost as if Brian
pushes Frank to murder him. It was accidental, but in a way he
wanted it and he was pushing for it. It's kinda messy.
|