How did you prepare to get the gritty realism that you capture on-screen?
I wanted to make a heraldic medieval world. I was really into making a Tarkovsky and “Andrei Rublev” but for my country. So, the Tarkovsky was always in the background. That big, poetic realism was always in the background to drive this film for me. I wanted to make everything feel as real as possible. You had to add all the elements. The original castles, the original armor, you need to infuse realistic elements to make it look realistic. That’s what made this film come alive.
How lengthy was the shoot for that final battle scene?
That battle only took a week to shoot. I look back and wonder, “How the hell did we do that?” It coordinated with the stunt team, trying our hardest not to glorify the violence, not make it seem choreographed. The messiness and blunt force of how it must have been like. When you have all the stunts we needed, you had to submit to the fact that there is a lot of choreography but we tried to not make it look too choreographed on camera.
On paper I saw the name Wallace, I immediately thought of “Braveheart.” The setting, the characters, the backstories etc. How did you try to distance yourself from that film and make your own unique take on the Scottish epic? Which I think you have done, it is a different picture altogether.
“Braveheart” was made 20 years ago and I deliberately chose not to see it. It’s also quite dated. The method of filmmaking that Gibson used was a big cry of rage, it felt very simplistic. I’m not interested in that type of movie. I’d rather do something more complex. By the way, the term ‘Braveheart’ was a term used to describe Robert Wallace and not William Wallace. The film also portrayed Robert as a pathetically cowardly individual until the climax. It’s very disingenuous about Robert. Obviously, I can’t escape the shadow of ‘Braveheart.” My film is different from it. However, Gibson’s film does exist, I have to accept comparisons. Also “Braveheart” is 3 hours long, ours is just 2.
A film like yours which feels epic but intimate at the same time works surprisingly well on the small screen, but obviously watching this kind of ambitious cinematic canvas is best on the big screen. How does it feel having a film that is streaming on Netflix?
It’s being screened in 193 territories. A massive reach which I have never had before. I know people that on Friday, when it is released, are going to be sitting in front of their massive entertainment system in 4K and that, to be honest, is better than watching in a theater. At a theater, they will try to turn down the bass, scared that the sound will pollute the next theater. I think people have got a slightly romanticized version of what the big screen experience is and I find many of the mainstream theaters that people go to are not well managed, I’m talking about the multiplex. The Netflix experience is the modern experience and I don’t see why we can’t adapt to that in the near future. All the other studios will be making their own streaming services at any moment, so the “theatrical” experience is an artificial nostalgia.
I tend to agree with that. I’m blessed to be able to go to press screenings where the type of crowd that attends them tends to respect the film and be in the moment, so to speak, but whenever I buy a ticket to a normal public showing there are always distractions, texting, talking, munching on popcorn and it’s maddening.
I used to go to the theater twice a day as a youngster, I’m too busy these days. Used to love it. But when I do go I agree, it’s a strange experience and not particularly pleasant. So many people are giving Netflix a hard time for the films not being on the big screen. Well, you can make your own home viewing experience now, you don’t need any of the distraction involved in going out of your way to watch a movie at a multiplex.
“Outlaw King” is available now on Netflix.