‘Working for the building’: An Interview with Ben Wheatley http://www.ballardian.com/working-for-the-building-an-interview-with-ben-wheatley Author: Jamie Sherry • May 30th, 2016 Ben Wheatley’s High-Rise opened earlier this year, garnering praise, bemusement and opprobrium in roughly equal measure. Some critics perceive a lack of fidelity to the novel, while others attack the film for misogyny. Still others hail it as a thoroughly Ballardian triumph. In this exclusive interview, Jamie Sherry speaks to Wheatley about the process of adapting the film, Wheatley’s attraction to Ballard, and his working relationship with scriptwriter and editor Amy Jump. Welcome to the High-Rise. In terms of adaptation, what drew you towards High-Rise, compared to any of Ballard’s works? When I first read it as a teenager it fitted in very neatly with themes that I was interested in anyway, certainly to do with society collapsing and people’s responses to that. I also really liked Mad Max, and I was reading a lot of SF comics like 2000 AD which was swirling around at the same time as I was reading Ballard and High-Rise specifically. The first ever edition of 2000 AD I read was ‘Block Mania’ (1981) which has so many themes relevant to High-Rise, and so for me it was the perfect primer for reading Ballard. It would be easy to see it as a High-Rise for kids, but actually for what it is, 2000 AD is extremely sophisticated. But I think there are many similar themes in the comic, which thinking back now, would have come out only about six years after the novel, so that for me was very interesting. The building itself is a real achievement of design. I imagine it was very important that you got that right. Many people feel like they want to live in the building, and they quite like it until “all the weird shit happens” which I think is surprising, but enjoyable. Myself and Mark Tildesley (production designer) spent a lot of time making sure that the building looked and felt real, but we also did not want it to be a parody of Brutalist architecture. It was important that it wasn’t filled with elements of the 70s that have become clichés, like circular televisions and 70s crockery, and the men wearing ridiculous flares and kipper ties. We wanted to be of the time but also out of time. One of the things we wanted was this idea that the 70s never existed in isolation. All houses have furniture that dates back to previous decades so we didn’t want the contents to be only of that time. We wanted it to avoid it looking quintessentially 70s. But there are cultural echoes in the building – with references to cinema and television of that period. Then we had practical considerations such as the fact that in the script there are conversations from balcony to balcony. I think we made assumptions about how that would function visually. I stayed in a very Brutalist hotel in Slovakia but when I went out onto the balcony I realised that this doesn’t work at all because it would be heads popping out. It was an awful wake-up call. So, we did storyboards and we started to see the building like a hand, with the towers like the fingers, and the swimming pool wrapping around it like a pond or a palm of the hand. We realised that having the towers slightly bent made it look like a hand coming out of the ground. So the fingers created these sloping balconies, and characters could actually interact between them. For us it was initially a technical necessity, but quickly it starts to affect the aesthetics of the building as well. Laing’s apartment is completely bare, and the concrete is very apparent. It’s also sparse, with just the photograph if his dead sister on the wall, and some squares where he has tested paint. But you get a strong sense of the building by observing his room. The building is literally in the room. Mark and I felt that we wanted the structure of the building to come into people’s space, to infiltrate their normal lives. That came about because I stayed in a hotel in Sweden and there was this large pillar in the middle of the room. So the building was impinging on the room, which they were making available at cheapest rate. It was like they didn’t give a fuck about the people staying in there, with no forethought to comfort. But for me it’s important that the film isn’t seen as a critique of Brutalist architecture. The building itself is a metaphor, and although it has a presence it is more about the characters and how they react to it, and the choices they make. So, no worries at all? Well, the thing is, and this might sound ridiculous, but I didn’t really think about the audience at all, until the time came to actually show the film to other people. It’s difficult because it could go either way, and all we can do is adapt the book and make the film that we are happy with. There was no other agenda in terms of how we adapted the novel, no snidiness or ill-will, and so I always felt that the end product would work. The problem with book adaptations, I suppose, is that even in a short novel like this there is still a lot of detail that simply cannot be included, or no way to communicate it to audiences. Something written down that fills you with fear, awe, and disgust is one thing, but when that is transposed onto the screen and we see it in the flesh it becomes something else entirely. I think that’s the main problem, and perhaps where books get bent out of shape in adaptation. Over the years you have amassed a core crew of people that you seem very loyal to, and who you use on each film project, not just Amy but also Laurie Rose (DoP) and Nick Gillespie (camera)? Was Jeremy happy with this relinquishing of control? Yes, I do have a lot of crew that have come into this after working on my films, which is an approach I like. So yes, I brought in Laurie and Nick, but also Anita the script editor, and then of course Amy and I edited the film. So there is a core crew of people that have moved from film to film. Jeremy was completely happy with this. He was there for most of the filming, but he had the lightest of touches in terms of creative or technical decisions, and mainly he was just very encouraging, which is what he needed him to be. Yes, people may not be aware that you have directed commercials, and I wonder if that has affected your filmmaking. Firstly, it’s massively helpful, and allows directors to work and live and pursue projects that either do not get off the ground, or allow them work in that early planning phase when there is no actual money around. I’ve directed commercials for many years, which has not only been financially helpful but also gave me a really good grounding for something like High-Rise. People have asked how this bloke who makes small films for little money, a lot of it handheld, could cope with something of the size of High-Rise, in terms of camerawork and money management. My answer is that I have been doing that sort of thing for years. Jeremy Thomas mentioned that you watched Ridley Scott’s commercials as research for High-Rise? Did you do this together, or just talk about it? I wanted to look those up for personal reasons amongst many. Scott talks about that work on commercials as being the basis for much of the work that he eventually did on Blade Runner, Alien and Dune – he spoke about how he had done over a thousand adverts during the 1970s. I had seen a lot of the key adverts but I’d not seen all of them, and I wanted to see what he was producing prior to those films. I find that really fascinating, and not just because I shoot adverts. He was obviously projecting a future 1970s himself – a kind of glamorous 70s that never really existed. It tapped into that nostalgia for a 1970s which resulted in optimistic, nostalgic messages about Britain, exemplified by Scott’s famous Hovis advert. That advert is made in 1973, just out of the 60s, and just a couple of years before High-Rise itself. A time of great optimism, the vast majority of which was misplaced. It was a past that never existed and did not reflect a future Britain either. I found that very relevant to what we were doing with High-Rise. The thing about Scott is that those advertisements were so incredibly expensive that if you had the same pro-rata budget for a feature film, it would take you about a year to shoot it, whereas Scott is spending 2-3 days to shoot 30secs of advert, and it would cost a fortune. Those 70s adverts are the budget equivalent of Star Wars or more – so you can’t really replicate the look of it as it is produced within an advertising bubble. Why did you decide to film in Bangor, Northern Ireland – and did it have an effect on the film? There has been a cull of Brutalist buildings, and some of the best ones are constantly used, such as the Barbican, or some Universities.