Britflicks' Fleur Disney (FD) talks with the husband and wife team behind 'Hide And Seek', Daniel Metz (DM) & Joanna Coates (JC).
Sitting down to my cappuccino with Daniel Metz, producer of Hide and Seek, we chat about my review of the film - which recently won the Michael Powell award for the Best British Feature at Edinburgh International Film Festival. I make the very serious decision about which cake to order and as director Joanna Coates arrives, fresh from another meeting, the two of them have a quick catch up whilst I make a start on a brownie. Since meeting at a film festival and making a film together about four young London types who turn their backs on society - to live in a polyamorous cottage in the country - the two got married and it's clear they have a fun and comfortable working relationship. Our initial chatting quickly turned philosophical and without realising I had the answer to my first question without even putting it to them.
FD: The script itself developed from chatting about relationships, but it seems deeper than that to me. The conversation must have run to the bigger picture - like what's important?
JC: We all feel there are things wrong in our world but we all approach how we deal with that differently. We felt pretty strongly about creating an uncynical paradigm for people to engage with as an idea of how to start that debate. We all know what's wrong, we just don't know how to fix it. I think what the characters do in 'Hide and Seek' is right and it's wrong. Some of the things that are right about it are the lack of cynicism, naturalism, bravery. But I think what they do - turning their backs on society - is also questionable. There's a sting in the tale [sic] and that's the turning inwards and asserting their right not to care about other things, such as the news. That kind of bucolic idyll is very much there on purpose and I defend that. The film isn't a fantasy wish fulfilment - far less so than many other films - it's to do with innocence and play. It would be better for the world if there were less cynicism and more play in the world; it wouldn't necessarily be better for the world if everyone were in denial that there were problems - but at the same time I'm not sure if any of the strident political figures that have tried to change the world have been that successful, all things considered. The film is more about exploring the options available to us - everyone has a brain and can respond if they're open enough.
DM: We certainly asked ourselves 'what makes us feel bad?', 'what are the things about life that aren't all that great?' Relationships are a major factor - people aren't always happier when they're in a 'normal' relationship. We were dissecting how relationships work, in addition to the political conversation. People are used to fitting their lives into a predetermined way of living "I have to have a serious girlfriend who I live with and devote leisure time to ..." but it doesn't mean it's the best way to live. Another factor of the film is that we don't feel people are always free to express themselves, which is why the whole performance element is so strong.
JC: I think it's insidious; somehow society seems to have determined that performance and expression have become things to be judged and sneered at. Can you sing, can you sing well enough? Things like X Factor, where a few privileged people have the power to create harsh conditions and decide what's successful - it's a form of clamping down on self expression. So I'd say the film is about life and something wider through looking at relationships. You're not going to change anything about the world if you can't change the way you think and feel. I think often the need to come up with a manifesto or a definitive answer has superseded the importance of just raising an issue - it's like you haven't got the right to question if you haven't got an answer.
FD: As we saw when Russell Brand dared to mention the revolution.
JC: Exactly - it's quite scary.
DM: The characters in our film would definitely say don't vote. They'd be against voting. Or maybe they'd say 'none of the above' like in Colorado ...
FD: I see you want to make people think, how essential is this for you in a film? We're in danger of straying into the 'what is art' territory . . .
DM: I'd say we want to make people feel more than we make them think.
JC: Yeah and you can't feel without thinking ...
FD makes a wry note of how this winning married couple, opining on the value of non standard relationships, compliment one another even in their interview answers . . .
DC: At the end of the film there is a proposal, and as an audience member you think this polyamorous experience is over - we wanted the audience to feel sad.
FD: You nailed it.
DC: In traditional films you want people to stay together or get back together, to maintain the relationship. In 'Hide and Seek' there's this moment where you're like, 'oh no we don't want the (four way) relationship to break up'. And we want people to stop for a minute and realise, 'wow how did I get to this point where that's what I wanted to continue' - a polyamorous, partner swapping, solipsistic commune. That's about feeling and thinking I guess - caught in the moment where first you feel but hopefully later you think about your preconceptions.
JC: I'll tell you one thing I find a bit embarrassing is that you can go and pay your money to see a show that uses an issue which someone else has to live with and can't escape, and uses that as two hours of entertainment. You then go off feeling cleansed and can have dinner and forget all about it. I find that quite hard to deal with. If you can effect change from making a film then that's brilliant, if all you can do is make people feel that they've dealt with something and then hide from it again, then that's not so great.
FD: The film is character rather than story led - did this make it hard to pitch?
DM: At times. In terms of the narrative structure we're trying to do something different. For me we're looking at the narrative structure of reality TV shows which tie together a number of different character types who are strangers, force them to live together without technology and see what happens. They have all these different permutations to see what happens if we put these people and these people together. That's what we did with the bed sharing schedule. Reality TV is much more episodic than film; there are mini stories and gripping moments because the characters and the scenarios are compelling.
JC: There have been certain forces in cinema who say 'that's not a story, this is a story'. It was about finding the balance between story and character and giving just enough information about the characters to keep the audience interested. I think so often the real drama is in the little moments of life, and it was important to us to show normal people with everyday issues and hangups, taking control of their own lives.
FD: Hide and Seek has a sunny, wholesome feel, but there's also a fair amount of sex. How did you decide on the balance?
DM: Those things are the same - being naked and having sex is very wholesome and very natural.
JC: That was our concession - it's not about how we felt but how certain audiences are trained to read sex in film. Our editor was helpful in that transaction, working with how people might read it. She toned it down a lot because there's a danger that people can think you're trying to shock them. If you think the sex scenes are intended to shock it just goes to show what we're used to thinking what sex is used for, which says a lot about society. We all do it, we're all here because of it!
DM: But it is also suppose to be erotic. People seem to be scared to admit something is sexy. It can be scary it can make you cry but people don't seem to want to say it's sexy.
JC: Often sex is used because the director is trying to be gritty, but in reality it's someone being unimaginative and just showing a naked woman.
FD: Well I think it's sexy, even in the sensual way it's shot when there's no nudity. It's just about engaging with the senses, which is what it all pares down to really doesn't it?
FD: Rumour has it the two of you are working on a couple of new features and perhaps a TV show?
JC: What can we say without giving too much away? I'd like to do something punchy and vivid. We still want to engage with some worldly issues - how do i put this? Expectation and culture clash. I think with more female directors we're going to see that we'll have less hit you over the head dramas and violence, which I'm sorry to say is something I associate with traditional narrative. I think they'll be looking at different things, where the stresses lie in life. What I think is ironic is that someone might not see that dealing with love is dramatic enough, but trying telling someone not to feel sad when their marriage breaks down.
DC: We're looking to collaborate with Kanye West on our next project. Oh and Miley Cyrus.
JC: Actually Miley is another example of how people have mixed up priorities. People get really angry about her. It's says strange things about a society where a 21 year old girl, who was essentially a puppet of a massive corporation, is the focus of all your anger about the world.
FD: Daniel Metz and Joanna Coates thank you for talking to Britflicks.
Fleur Disney
@Fleurdiz
