To many
moviegoers, British actress Helena Bonham Carter is probably still most readily
identified with stately period dramas and literary adaptations like “A Room with a
View” (1985), “Lady
Jane” (1986), “Hamlet” (1990), “Howards End” (1992)
and “The Wings of the Dove” (1997). Although she still dabbles in
that type of filmmaking from time to time—”The King's Speech”
(2010), “Great Expectations” (2012) and “Les Miserables”
(2012)—she has also been carving out a name for herself in recent years as an
increasingly familiar face in the world of fantasy filmmaking thanks to
appearances in such films as “Planet of the Apes” (2001), “Big
Fish” (2003), “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” (2005),
“Sweeney Todd” (2007), “Terminator: Salvation” (2009),
“Alice in Wonderland” (2010), “Cinderella” (2015) and, of
course, the last four installments of the Harry Potter franchise, where she
gave untold numbers of children nightmares with her turns as the malevolent
(and wonderfully named) Bellatrix Lestrange. Factor in her wildly unexpected
and wickedly funny supporting turn in the cult favorite “Fight Club”
(1999) and her vocal contributions to the stop-motion animation favorites
“The Corpse Bride” and “Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the
Were-Rabbit” (both 2005) and you have the kind of eclectic filmography
that suggests that if her name appears on the cast list, the results are almost
always going to be at least interesting and oftentimes more than that.
That is
certainly the case with her latest release, the charmingly oddball 3-D family
film “The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet.” Based on the book by
Reif Larsen and brought to the screen by acclaimed French director Jean-Pierre
Jeunet, the man behind such favorites as “Delicatessen” (1991),
“The City of Lost Children” (1995) and his worldwide success
“Amelie” (2001), Carter plays an ordinary mother and aspiring
entomologist who is so wrapped up in her work and her grief from a recent
tragedy that she fails to notice that her ten-year-old son (newcomer Kyle
Catlett) has not only invented a perpetual motion machine but has snuck away
from his family’s Montana ranch to travel by himself to Washington D.C. to
accept a prize for his work from the Smithsonian Institute. Offbeat, charming
and visually stunning, this would seem to be the kind of film that thoughtful
audiences the world over could easily respond to but that has not proven to be
the case in America. Completed and released in Europe more than a year ago, the
film was caught up in a battle between Jeunet and its American distributor, the
Weinstein Company, who seemed unwilling to release it, allegedly until Jeunet
made changes to it.
Finally, the studio did release it uncut in
the U.S. earlier this month, though “release” may not be quite the
right word—they dumped it out in a handful of theaters with no advanced word
or publicity to speak of (people literally didn’t know it was opening until
maybe the day before), no press screenings and, astonishingly, no prints of it
in 3-D. Needless to say, this caused no small amount of uproar—even those who
didn’t particularly care for the film thought that Jeunet was getting a bum
deal—and it seems to have had at least a little bit of effect as the film’s
current engagement in the Seattle area appears to be the first time that it is
being shown in the U.S. in 3-D. To do her part to help raise awareness of it,
Bonham Carter—who will next be seen this fall in the anticipated drama
“Suffragette” and will appear again as the Red Queen next year in
“Alice Through the Looking Glass”—phoned in from Florence, Italy to
talk about the film, working with Jeunet and getting the opportunity to throw
horse manure at her great-grandfather.
What is it that
inspired you to become an actress in the first place?
There
were a couple of films. There was a particular film that I loved called
“My Brilliant Career” with Judy Davis, who I got to work with in
“T.S. Spivet.” I think it came down to that I loved the idea of
pretending not to be me. Maybe it was just a lack of self-love or boredom with
myself. Also, I was interested in other people and working out how they ticked.
The idea of being able to escape myself has always been very tempting–until I
watch the thing and realize that I haven’t escaped myself at all. At least
there is the mental illusion of being able to escape from your own skin that
has always been exciting and liberating for me. I think it is just fun.
Although you
first became well-known for starring in a number of period dramas, you have also appeared in a number of fantasy-oriented projects
over the years. Is the fantasy genre one that
you happen to have any particular interest in?
No. I
think those are things that just come my way. I do like people with imagination
and I am drawn to directors with particular visions but it is not like I pursue
a particular genre. I am more interested in the characters or the writers and
if the project has a sort of credibility to it, then I am on for it. But no,
this is just the way that it has gone. I wouldn’t try to make any sense out of
my career at all—it is just a hodgepodge with no particular rhyme or reason to
it or any sort of design.
What was it
about “T.S. Spivet” that grabbed your interest?
Well, I
think Jean-Pierre Jeunet is a genius and I have loved his films. I loved
“Amelie”—it is one of my all-time favorites—and I have always loved
his aesthetic. I have always loved, oddly, his “Making Of” books—I
like doing scrapbooks and collages and things—and I love the way that he sees
the world. He had emailed me to say that he was writing a part and to tell him now if I wouldn’t be
interested because was imagining me in it. I couldn’t believe my luck—it was a
dream come true to be written for by him. I also loved that it was specifically
made for 3-D and the way that he used 3-D to get inside someone’s mind. It
really is magical and poetical and totally enchanting in 3-D.
Although the
film has a number of fantastical elements to it, the character that you
play—the mother of a young boy who invents a perpetual motion machine and
travels across the country alone to accept a prize from the Smithsonian—is a
tad eccentric but otherwise a normal contemporary woman. For you, is playing a
person like that a bigger challenge than the more overtly offbeat types that
you have done in recent years?
Well, it
was good to play somebody normal. I felt that it was about time that I should
play someone a bit more normal and low-key. It isn’t more difficult,
necessarily, but it is a different scale and pitch. I supposed that I like
getting away from myself—I like dressing up—but this character needed more of
an adjustment from inside. I liked her absent-mindedness—that I could easily
relate to because I am completely absent-minded myself. I didn’t have anything
to hide behind—I didn’t have any teeth to hide behind and my hair was
relatively straight. It was good for me to do something not quite so extreme or
loud or hairy.
When you do a
film like this that is based on a book, do you always make a point to read it
as part of your preparation?
Of
course, you scour the book. The book is a great bonus. It is like a bible of
information. I loved the book and Reif Larsen and how all of the diagrams and
illustrations in it showed that he and Jean-Pierre would see eye-to-eye because
there was such an overlap in their aesthetics. Having said that, the film is a
huge departure from the book but it was still a great source.
Throughout your
career, you have worked with a number of directors with very distinct and
pronounced visual styles—David Fincher, Tim Burton and now Jean-Pierre Jeunet
to name a few. Both generally and in regards to Jeunet, what is it about
working with a director with that kind of aesthetic that you respond to as an
actress?
It is a
great relief because you know that you are going to be in good hands. You can
listen to them and obey their every command because you know that they know
what they are talking about. With Jean-Pierre, it was the first time that a
director had given me an entire storyboard for the film. Not that he would
religiously adhere to it or carry it around on the set but you knew that he had
it all in his head. It was fun because there is always a sense of relief when
you know what kind of world they are trying to create. It is also a relief
because I happen to share that same taste and when it comes to things like
costumes and hair, we have an innate trust and I feel very comfortable.
Kyle Catlett,
who plays your son, has gone on to appear in other films, such as the recent
“Poltergeist” remake, but I believe that this was his first major
role in anything.
It is. I
think he had done some tellies. He is an amazingly small person for one and an
amazing little person because he is so interested and curious. He is a little
bit prodigious himself–he is brilliant at martial arts, he speaks about five
languages and is incredibly bright. He was great and fun and I love any kind of
enthusiasm and curiosity. Children can sometimes be quite tricky on film but he
was all eagerness.
Although a
couple of the Harry Potter movies and “Alice in Wonderland” were
released in 3-D, I think this is the first film that you have actually shot in
the process.
We had
these massive cameras and there were certain things that you couldn’t do.
Sometimes you couldn’t move too quickly if you were too close but there was no
way that you forget that the camera was there because it was so enormous. It
was quite inviting because everyone would disappear into the tent and you could
see what it was like in 3-D. There were certain colors that we couldn’t use and
certain gestures that were done deliberately for the 3-D effect that were great
fun with my implements and my insects. It is quite spectacular in 3-D and a
totally different experience–like going on a holiday without having to pack or
find your passport. It also allowed you to get inside of T.S.’s mind and, in a
way, into Jean-Pierre’s mind.
“The Young
and Prodigious T.S. Spivet” was released in Europe about a year or so ago
but the American release was delayed for a long time, reportedly due to
difficulties between Jeunet and the Weinstein Company, and when it finally did
come out earlier this month, it was without any publicity or press screenings
and only in 2-D. For you, how frustrating is it to have to sit and watch this
happen, especially with a film that could actually attract a decent audience if
given even a bit of a chance?
It is
very frustrating but at least it is coming out and that is all that I can say.
It could have just been dumped on video but at least it is being given a
chance. But no, it has been frustrating.
In your next
film, this fall’s “Suffragette,” you appear alongside Meryl Streep
and Carey Mulligan in the story of the fight for women to get the right to vote
in England.
I’m
playing a character called Edith Ellyn and what is peculiar for me is that I am
playing a suffragette and the prime minister at the time was Asquith, who is,
or was, my great-grandfather and the last liberal prime minister. I always
thought that he was a good one but in playing a suffragette, I saw him from a
different light. I saw someone who wasn’t going for that vote. In the film, which
is hilarious, even though they had to cut the scene, I got to throw horse dung at my
great-grandfather along with a lot of suffragettes who were trying to attack
and terrorize him.
