FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Entertainment

KILLING TIME IN LONDON

Do you know what it's like when all your attempts to connect with people fail, and you'd do anything for just a bit of affection, and you feel so desperately lonely that you resort to murder just so you can have some company in your bed? British director Gerard Johnson's first feature follows unemployed social reject Tony around London as he attempts to reach out to anybody--be they junkie, prostitute, or even the Chinese guy selling pirate DVDs--who'll give him the time of day. Filmed in 10 days for £40,000, Johnson mixed actors with non-actors (playing characters similar to themselves) and shot the film guerrilla-style. Although some of it is rough around the edges, his directing and casting choices pay off. Heavily influenced by Alan Clarke and Ron Peck (director of the fantastic

Advertisement

Nighthawks

),

Tony

is beautifully seedy. Johnson's grimy realism benefits from Peter Ferdinando's incredible lead performance, as the pair construct a character who is fascinating to watch as he awkwardly maneuvers his way through day-to-day city life, shunned by practically everyone for no other reason than he just doesn't have much--if anything--to offer. He also kills a few people. The movie comes out in theaters in the UK tomorrow, and on DVD on Monday (don't things move quickly these days?). I spoke to Johnson about filmmaking and serial killing.

Vice: Hello. I heard your original idea was about a man who talks to mannequins.

Gerard Johnson:

Yeah, I had this idea of a guy in a flat becoming quite lonely and having to talk to mannequins, and then that changed to dead people. Obviously I've been influenced by the

Dennis Nielsen

case. I remember that happening when I was a child and it always stayed with me--this lonely guy talking to dead people in his flat, dressing them up, putting them away again under the floorboards, and having to get rid of them when they got too rotten. Obviously Tony's a completely different character; it's not a biopic, but I've taken the elements of loneliness.

The great thing about your film is that you could almost have the killings taken out of it and it would still work as a character study.

Yes. Exactly. It is frustrating actually because people keep asking me, "Why did you do a serial killer film?" And I never once said it was a serial killer film. I never wanted to make a serial killer film. I made a character study, it's just that normally social realism is about an alcoholic father or a pregnant mum. This is about a lonely guy who happens to have a sick habit of killing people. But it's more a study of loneliness in London, living in a big city. I'm taking a well-worn genre and doing a different take on it.

Advertisement

The title though, or at least the tag-line on the poster is, "Tony: London Serial Killer". Was that a decision by [the distributor] Revolver to make it sound more salacious?

Yeah, but I can see their side. The industry's a business, and they're getting the film out to a lot more people than if I'd had it marketed without the serial killer element. If you make a film that ticks enough boxes to make it a genre film, you've got to then accept that people are going to use that angle. I don't class

Taxi Driver

as a horror film, but it's got a horror element in it.

Fair enough. Did it bother you though? Did you try to fight it?

Yeah, I did, but I've got no stars in the film, I'm a first-time director--it's not like I'm Jim Jarmusch or Woody Allen. Actually, up until the very last day, the poster design we were gonna go with was my one, then Revolver said it wasn't marketable enough. They're looking for what stands out, and the poster they went with really does stand out. To get distribution for a low-budget film with no stars is tough, so you have make concessions somewhere.

You want as many people as possible to see it anyway, and it's not false marketing. He does kill a few people.

Yeah. It's a little too on-the-nose for me, but I sat down with Revolver and they're good at what they do. More people will know about the film than they would seeing the artwork I would have used. With mine it probably would have gone to the ICA for a week. Ten people would have seen it. But I want to say that I didn't set out to do a serial killer film, because people attack me for not having enough gore in it. It's a character study about a lonely guy who chops people up. Anyways, I'm OK with the artwork. And the great thing is, my film is my film, it's intact. Nobody touched that.

Advertisement

In the original short film you made a few years ago, Tony covers himself with talcum powder and wanks off before killing someone. The same scene's in the feature but without the masturbation. Is that because you wanted to move it away a bit from the stereotypical sort of serial killer who gets off on murdering people?

Yeah, I think it was a bit gratuitous, I didn't need it. If I had made

Tony

when I was younger it would probably have been a lot more shocking. As I get older I think you can hint at stuff more. With the violence as well, I wanted it to be powerful, but I don't think you need to over-egg it. You have to show what occupies his day but you don't need blood and guts. With the talc, I think it's stronger if you think, What's that on his face? rather than showing him wanking in a mirror, because wanking in a mirror looks like we're trying to get attention. Better to leave it up to the viewers.

I watched it with a friend who thought making his face white was some sort of vampire metaphor.

Actually it comes from Dennis Nielsen; he was obsessed with death and used to cover himself in talc and masturbate in a mirror. But yeah, I love the fact that people come up with their own ideas. I like films that leave me with questions--I don't think everything needs to be explained. In a lot of films, especially American stuff, it's like everything needs to be resolved. Why? We're all intelligent enough to think of stuff on our own, and it's great if people disagree. I think that's what films should do: pose questions.

Advertisement

How much of a social comment are you trying to make, in terms of Tony being a product of his environment?

You block out certain elements of society in London, if you look around you're never quite sure who's sitting next to you in the pub. There's a forgotten class. There are certain people not given any hope. With Tony, maybe if he was given more encouragement, maybe if he did get a job, he wouldn't do these things. I'm not saying it's the government's responsibility, but maybe he wouldn't be doing what he was doing if he was given a chance. He's never given any hope and he's gonna explode.

The city's a big character in the film. It's a great London film actually, probably my favorite since Peeping Tom. It really smells and feels like London.

Brilliant. That's exactly what I intended to do. I'm from London, my family ran pubs in London, and I've always been slightly disappointed in how London's been portrayed in films--they never quite get it right. You've got the gangster stuff, the Richard Curtis stuff, you never quite get the atmosphere.

They're all a bit hyper-real.

They are. The stuff that appeals to me more is mood and atmosphere, rather than plot. London's such a beautiful city and it's never utilized well. There are certain films, as you said,

Peeping Tom

, and in

Withnail & I

it looks great in those parts it's in, but on the whole… I wanted to make something that really got the atmosphere.

Advertisement

Is it true that Peter was actually living in the flat you filmed in? Was that so you could get a more authentic feel for a man in his living space?

Yeah, the production were not very keen on it because of the insurance, but I insisted, I said we had to have him in there even if we didn't tell anyone. The whole point of having a real flat was that he could live there. So he moved in and he personalized it. We used to leave him in the evening and he'd settle down in his dressing gown and watch action films. He was there every single day; he'd let the make-up artists in in the mornings and freak them out to no end.

Did he stay in character?

No, he was Peter, but obviously it's easier for him to keep some of the characteristics while he's doing it. So he sounded a bit like Tony, the walk stayed, it made the whole shoot more authentic. It was brilliant to have that.

ALEX GODFREY