The Comic Genius of Maggie Smith

Dame Maggie Smith was already in her late 70s when I chaired a Q&A for the film Quartet, in which she co-starred with Tom Courtenay, Michael Gambon, Billy Connolly and Pauline Collins (Obituary, 27 September). After first warming up a distinguished panel, which included the film’s director, Dustin Hoffman, I threw it open to an audience of international press. From the middle of the throng, a young man from South America raised his arm and declared: “Dame Maggie, in my country we have a sandwich named after you.”

My panel looked at each other with some bemusement before Dame Maggie, at her most Downton Abbeyish and still sharp as a tack, retorted breezily: “Might that be ham, dear?”

Quentin Falk

Little Marlow, Buckinghamshire.

 

Maggie Smith’s entrance in Jean Cocteau’s The Infernal Machine at London’s Lyric theatre in 1986 was via a rope from the flies. It took her several minutes to descend. By the time her feet hit the stage, the audience was laughing uncontrollable hysterically. She’d not uttered a word. Everything was registered in an ever more contorted grimace. Never forgotten. Pure comic genius.

Tony Humphries

Bromley, London.

 

I have always found that dealing with a difficult situation or person is easier if I channel my inner Dame Maggie Smith.

Sue Ball

Brighton, East Sussex

Why are we avoiding the ‘what if’ of nuclear war?

The clear and present danger of nuclear escalation that once lurked over the civilised world’s head has dissipated into the ether, and the nonchalant manner that the world has adopted toward it raises many questions, Stewart Mackinnon writes. Exactly 37 years ago, on a bleak outlook overlooking the Atlantic, the two remaining Cold Warriors met in Reykjavik and proposed the almost unthinkable - to rid the world of all nuclear weapons.

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev began a dialogue that set in motion a series of summits that would ultimately not achieve this bold objective but resulted in what many historians cite as the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

However, the question remains: to what end?

Nuclear weapons are deadlier than ever

While the Cold War came to a close, the threat of nuclear war did not. The global nuclear arsenal had reached its peak in 1986 with over 63,000 weapons in circulation compared to 12,500 today, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

But the number of missiles is immaterial, as today’s weaponry is five times more lethal than Big Boy and Fat Man - the two bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII.

In addition, the range and mobility of the current arsenal have expanded significantly with the ability to reach any destination - from London to Moscow to Washington - in a matter of minutes, wiping out millions of people instantaneously.

The lethality of the weapons has advanced greatly since their inception in 1942. That historic moment, which was so aptly captured in the sure-to-be award-winning film Oppenheimer, showcased how the technology for “the bomb” was developed.

However, except for a few symbolic scenes in the film, the true horror and devastation of the weapons were largely glossed over. A missed opportunity.

A flawed concept to be sure. Yet the MAD strategy (which it truly is) remains the primary nuclear conflict deterrent today.

Nuclear engagement is not out of the question

Adding to this MADness is the nonchalant manner that a large part of the world has adopted toward the threat of a nuclear conflict.

The possibility has shifted to the back of our collective psyches allowing us to focus on more important issues crowding our agenda.

A case in point is the most recent Republican presidential debate. While there were several questions around Taiwan and Ukraine, there was no specific reference to the “what if” of a nuclear engagement.

The subsequent arms race that ensued between America and the Soviet Union led to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD, that served to handcuff both sides with the premise that “if you fire on me, I’ll fire on you.”

Many survivors were burned beyond recognition and exposed to high levels of radiation that would burden them physically and psychologically for the rest of their lives.

From Megadeath to Mutual Assured Destruction

In 1945, history was irrevocably changed with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, leaving 80,000 citizens dead and another 30,000 to later perish from radiation exposure.

The term “megadeath” - a unit used in estimating the number of casualties from a nuclear bomb strike - had become a reality and the horrific devastation wrought on its victims was unimaginable.

Sadly, such an event is not out of the question. Russia’s Vladimir Putin has openly threatened the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

And recently leaked documents revealed plans to conduct nationwide nuclear war drills in Russia along with the testing of a nuclear weapon in the Arctic as a show of force to the West.

His comrade in arms Kim Jung Un regularly rattles his nuclear sabre threatening his neighbours near and far and touting North Korea’s advancements of long-range missiles capable of reaching Western shores in the not-too-distant future.

It was refreshing to see nuclear disarmament on the agenda at the United Nations General Assembly meeting a few weeks ago even though it is not one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

However, the issue was largely overshadowed by other global issues from climate change to artificial intelligence. Truly, these are important topics to tackle but they become irrelevant with the launch of a nuclear war where there are no winners, only losers.

One would hope bright minds in political capitals around the world are gaming how to avoid a nuclear conflict.

But that notion calls to mind a moment when President Reagan after being briefed on the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction posed the simplest of questions, “What is Plan B?” to which his advisors had no answer.

And today as we celebrate their famous meeting in Iceland almost four decades later it is time again to ask our leaders - “What is plan B?”

Stewart Mackinnon is the CEO of Circle Pictures. He is the creator of Amazon’s 'Man In the High Castle' and 'Human Shadow', a new drama series now in development about the threat of nuclear war.

We still don’t have a plan B?

As a child of the Cold War, I can still remember the air raid drills in my community and hiding under my school desk.

That clear and present danger had lurked over the civilised world’s head but has since dissipated into the ether.

Time for a New Renaissance

By Nancy Soderberg & Stewart Mackinnon

In “Traveling the Equator,” which chronicled his steamship voyage around the world, Mark Twain noted, “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.” Arguably, we have never lived in stranger times and it is stunning to see how many accept pure fiction as fact. In this difficult, dangerous, and disorienting era, we must think creatively about the possibilities for change – and have the courage to implement them.

We have done so before. European civilization produced the extraordinary Renaissance following the Black Plague that wiped out a third of the European continent, killing some 25 million people during the Dark Ages. Like today, instability was fueled by what currently is called “fake news” and Europe’s rebirth was triggered by a resurgent focus on classical learning, art, and science. It produced the invention of paper, printing, the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, the discovery of new continents, the growth of commerce and some of the most breathtaking art ever created. In the last century, the tragedies of World War II sparked the building of today’s international system and delivered to America its “Greatest Generation” that contributed to one of the most productive periods of creativity and prosperity in the country’s history.

More recently in the United States, art enticed people to evaluate their society and implement dramatic, systemic change. For instance, during the Vietnam War and the societal conflict of the 1960s, we saw some of the most meaningful films of all time emerge - from “The Deer Hunter” to “Easy Rider” to “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” They grabbed our attention and fueled our emotions and got us to look in the mirror.

Today, our international system is failing. Inequality is growing, with the world’s eight richest men owning more wealth than the bottom 4 billion people. According to Freedom House, 2019 was the 14th consecutive year of decline in global freedom, with fewer democracies today than a quarter century ago. Across the globe, populist leaders seek elimination of checks and balances through attacks on the judiciary and the media and the demonisation of perceived foes, usually minorities. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spike, having already infected more than 15 million people and killed over half a million. We are now seeing communities from Spain to Australia resume lockdowns as we brace for continuing surges and a possible more deadly second wave of the virus, while America looks on.

On top of the pandemic, we have seen racism once again rear its ugly head stoked by the senseless killing of George Floyd in plain sight, captured on video and streamed across social media around the world. Like the Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, who triggered the Arab Spring by setting himself on fire in frustration over economic and racial inequality, the brutal death of an unarmed black man has set off global protests around the failure to provide equal rights and dignity to minorities. It has served as a rallying cry for all regardless of their nationality, age gender or race - to protest, discuss and hopefully spark society’s rebalance.

While many of the great works produced in the 1960s were panned by some as the voice of the counter culture, in fact, they were reflective of the conscience of the masses. It was the arts that aligned with our purpose and spawned change. It can again. The studios and streaming networks should see this as an opportunity to produce drama that has something meaningful to say.

‘The Man in The High Castle’ Producer Stewart Mackinnon Launches Circle Pictures

As Amazon prepares to launch the fourth and final season of 'The Man in the High Castle' on Friday, the show’s exec producer, Stewart Mackinnon, has gone out of the gate with Circle Pictures. The newly minted production outfit will, Mackinnon told Variety, work across TV and film, and will major on drama projects with a purpose.

Mackinnon was co-founder and CEO of Headline Pictures until earlier this year, one of the production companies making Philip K. Dick adaptation 'The Man in the High Castle,' and behind shows including ITV’s 'Peter & Wendy,' starring Stanley Tucci and which won an International Emmy.

He has also produced films including Dustin Hoffman’s directorial debut “Quartet” under the Headline banner, having co-founded the company with the late Mark Shivas, a former BBC head of drama.

“Whether it’s for a broadcaster or one of the new platforms, my interest is always in telling stories that have strong underlying themes,” Mackinnon said. “They may be fun, they may be serious, but they also need to carry something else as well.”

Amazon took 'The Man in the High Castle' around the world as one of its first originals and the advent of global platforms mean a guaranteed audience for the type of content in which Circle will specialise, said its founder.

“If you aggregate [viewers] around the world, what’s interesting is you can do things that are profound, that might not be mass-market, but will appeal to a distinct group,” Mackinnon said. “Viewers nowadays are aggregating their drama much like they do their news and we are going to meet their demands by delivering content that has something meaningful to say.”

The new London-based banner is privately backed and, without an industry backer, a true indie. The word the seasoned producer keeps returning to in conversation is “purpose,” and Circle’s output will tackle environmental, social and political concerns accordingly. There is a development slate that spans international series, period drama, a trio of movie projects, and family-skewed animation. The first projects are funded and set to be unveiled soon.

Britain’s film renaissance: made in UK, owned in USA?

The mood inside London’s Roundhouse was exultant last month when the UK government announced its new £150m Creative Industries “deal”. Ministers enthused about the strength of a sector that employs more than 2m people and that is growing at “twice the speed of the economy as a whole”. Film was at the heart of the discussion. By 2025, some were predicting, revenues from film inward investment to the UK “could nearly double to approximately £4bn a year”.

To those who had witnessed the travails of the British film industry over the past 30 years, the irony was obvious. Where once politicians had either ignored the country’s filmmakers altogether or chided them for their wastrel ways, now they were proselytising on their behalf.

Back in the mid-1980s, no one in government wanted to go near the British film industry. Cinema admissions dropped to an all-time low of 54m in 1984. Production rates plummeted. An occasional Bond movie or big Hollywood movie such as Tim Burton’s Batman in 1989 may still have been shot at Pinewood Studios but the industry was on life support. Frantic lobbying from Richard Attenborough and David Puttnam helped keep it alive but few would argue that British cinema was thriving in this period.

Since then, a remarkable transformation has taken place (as chronicled in my new book Stairways to Heaven: Rebuilding the British Film Industry, published by I.B. Tauris). Britain has had the video boom, The Crying Game, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Harry Potter, tax breaks, National Lottery investment, a huge upsurge in British-based visual effects and post-production houses, and more and better Bond movies. Stars Wars and Disney appear to have taken up near-permanent residence at Pinewood. The cinemas themselves, with their luxury seating, “dynamic pricing” and digital projection facilities, are very different from the smoke-filled flea pits of the 1970s and early 1980s.

Every region in Britain is currently hosting big film or TV shoots and reporting an upturn in business. Since its pilot in 2009, HBO’s Game of Thrones has been based in Belfast, which is now also host to big new superhero series Krypton; Scotland has Amazon’s Outlander filming in Cumbernauld; Wales has its new Wolf Studios in Cardiff. Work is being done everywhere from converted bottle yards in Bristol to former RAF sites in Yorkshire and car factories in Swansea. Even Essex is getting in on the act. Dagenham looks set to have its own film studios in time for the opening of the Crossrail train line over the next two years.

Nonetheless, some industry insiders urge a note of caution about the nature of the film business that Britain has engineered for itself. The emphasis, they suggest, has been far more on the “industry” part of the equation than on the “creative”.

“The correct thing is to say we’ve become a film-making nation as opposed to a film-creating nation. You could argue that we’re so busy making that we have no time for creating,” Puttnam suggests, adding that the UK has become “a successful film-making factory, very successful, probably more successful than any of us would have imagined 20 or 30 years ago”.

This is a point echoed by fellow producer and industry stalwart Iain Smith, who chairs the British Film Commission. “The truth is that what we do is . . . export. Even though we call it inward investment, what we are actually doing is exporting goods and services,” he says. “There is a serious money stream coming in, letting British crews and facilities work on content that they would never be able to do within the British context . . . we’ve benefited to the tune of billions.”

Even in the dog days of the 1980s, British auteurs such as Derek Jarman, Terence Davies, Sally Potter, Bill Douglas and Peter Greenaway were carving out international reputations. Today, we still have Ken Loach and Mike Leigh, as well as such distinctive voices as Andrea Arnold, Steve McQueen and Lynne Ramsay, but it would be very hard to argue that this is a golden age of British filmmaking. Nor has Britain seen the emergence of any new production companies to match Working Title, the Universal-backed but proudly British outfit behind Four Weddings, Bridget Jones, Darkest Hour et al, or independent distribution outfits that compare with the Green brothers’ Entertainment Film Distributors.

In 2016, Working Title became the first British company to pass the $1bn milestone at the UK box office, but there is little chance of that feat being emulated by anyone else in the near future.

Some argue that Britain’s public film policy has been as much to the benefit of Hollywood as of the domestic industry. “Everyone talks about the ownership of intellectual property, but I can tell you that the only people that are acquiring IP are American-owned companies,” says Stewart Mackinnon, producer of Dustin Hoffman’s 'Quartet' and of the Amazon series 'The Man in the High Castle'.

Top British talent is currently working on US studio-financed, Netflix- or Amazon-backed projects. Without the creativity of those individuals, many of the most memorable films and TV dramas would never have been made — but the underlying rights inevitably belong to the big US conglomerates.

“The voice of the producer, the distinctive British values - and I am not waving a little Union Jack, I am just saying the way we think about the world, our human values - that is our unique selling point,” Mackinnon says. He suggests that this distinctively British flavour is in danger of becoming lost. The goal of creating sustainable British independent film companies remains as far away as ever.

Independent British producers are in an invidious position. If they make films with budgets of £3m or £4m that don’t have big-name stars attached, they will not recover their money. However, if they do manage to cast big-name stars, the budgets are likely to be far higher and they will almost certainly lose control of the projects (and of the IP).

“There is no business at all in independent film, full stop,” declares Mackinnon. That is a gloomy thought worth bearing in mind when we hear the boosterish rhetoric about the hundreds of millions of pounds in inward investment and the thousands of jobs that the UK film industry is generating.

It would be perverse, though, to see things in too negative a light. Thirty years ago, that industry was in the doldrums. No one then could have imagined that levels of activity would have risen to their present heights. In the past, the British film business was a closed shop. It was very hard to break into at any level, especially in production. Now, thanks to initiatives such as the new London Screen Academy being set up by Working Title and the British Film Institute’s Future Film Skills action plan, opportunities are opening up for diverse, young talent that simply weren’t there before. “The skills base, the expertise in Britain is just dazzling,” Mackinnon acknowledges.

Many of the biggest-grossing films in recent years, whether Stars Wars instalments and Marvel superhero movies or Disney spin-offs such as Beauty and the Beast, were made in Britain. As for Oscar-winners, there has been no shortage of those either. All that is lacking is ownership of the rights behind these movies.