Unveiled in Toronto, and a spectacular, surprise hit at the British box office, I Swear [+leggi anche:
recensione
intervista: Kirk Jones
scheda film] by Kirk Jones enjoyed its international premiere in competition at the 26th Arras Film Festival, where the movie won both the Audience Award and the Young Jury Award.

Cineuropa: When did you first hear about John Davidson and where did the idea for making a fiction film about his life come from?
Kirk Jones: I saw the documentary John's Not Mad in 1989. I wasn’t a filmmaker at the time, but I remember thinking his life would make a really good story for a film. I later saw an updated version of the documentary, when John was about 20, in which he said he’d like to have a girlfriend but that whenever he approached a girl, he would spit in her face. I found that heartbreaking. With each documentary I saw – I watched another one when he was 30, and then I saw him receive an honour from the Queen of England – I realised just how dramatic and pretty tragic his life was, but at the same time I sensed a degree of humour around his condition. So I contacted him and asked whether it bothered him or made him angry if I said I sensed that. He told me not at all, that Tourette syndrome can be a very difficult condition, but it can also result in situations that are genuinely funny. Within that particular community of people who have that syndrome, they laugh about it together. So I thought: I’m looking at an incredible journey, an unusual condition that people don’t really understand, but also a really powerful mix of humour, emotion and tragedy, and I was fascinated by the combination of all those elements.

(L'articolo continua qui sotto - Inf. pubblicitaria)

Did you alter John’s life for the screenplay?
The first thing I did was listen to him for a few days. I said: "Tell me everything you remember about school, your parents, looking for work, etc." Then I organised everything that interested me in all of that. Almost everything that happens in the film is exactly what happened to John. It’s just that I sometimes changed the order of events and tweaked his age a little. As we talked, I also studied his tics and tried to incorporate them into the script. I also made him an executive producer so he’d have a say on the script and the film, which I was very nervous to show him when it was finished, just as I was very nervous about showing it to the Scottish and UK associations involved with Tourette syndrome too. It was really important that the community were happy with it. And they’re absolutely thrilled. They think it might mark a turning point in the understanding of Tourette syndrome because the story is presented in an authentic, truthful way. But it could easily have gone wrong, because of the humour and the tone of the film, and I had no idea what the reactions would be until we started showing it to audiences.

How much did Robert Aramayo improvise? He delivers an incredible performance as the adult version of the character.
Every single tic was scripted, but on the first day of the shoot, Rob said: "You’re not expecting me to stick to the script for the tics, are you?" I thought he was absolutely right. You can’t script it because it comes out of nowhere. If the performers had known when the tics were going to happen, we would have lost that really special energy created by the unexpected. Nobody knew what was going to happen. Most of the time we followed the script, but Rob was totally free to interject. It kept the other actors on their toes: they had to be really attentive and react to whatever he did. But Rob didn’t just invent those tics; he identified them during his research by meeting people affected by Tourette syndrome.

What were your main visual intentions?
I wanted the film to be very realistic and credible, for it not to feel stagey or too sugar-coated. I wanted it to be beautiful and very honest and, even if it’s not a documentary, to feel like the most beautiful documentary ever made. We didn’t move the camera too much because the most important thing was what was happening right in front of us: the story, and John, whom we wanted to pay tribute to because he’s an incredible human being.

Was it easy to finance the film?
We managed to find a way to fund it that allowed me to do everything I wanted. And that freedom filtered down through to the actors and the crew, enabling everyone to give their best. If we’d gone down the traditional route, I knew the funders would have asked for less swearing and a love story. In my 30-year career, it’s the first time I’ve had complete control over a film I’ve directed.

What do you think about the huge success the film has enjoyed in British cinemas?
I hoped for it, first out of selfishness, because it’s my film. But also because the British film industry is struggling to find financiers who believe in it. If our film had been a disaster, the financiers would have said: "You see, it doesn’t work. People don’t want to watch British films anymore. I Swear is a good film, it got good reviews, but nobody went to see it in cinemas. So why should I invest my money in British cinema?" But the opposite happened and people are saying: "Do you remember The Full Monty? Billy Elliot? Real British films." Audiences still want to see that kind of film, to go to the cinema and buy their tickets. So I hope I Swear will help other people get British films made.