Why Alien State State's captive drama is not a Trump movie

2011 Climb of the Planet of the Apes was an intriguing surprise. At first glance, it looked like another tired restart of the franchise, but it looked more like a personal drama than an action movie about the monkeys, and that led to a thrilling climax that set the tone. to a pleasant life. Monkeys movies. Hard not to see Captive state, the last feature of ascend director Rupert Wyatt, as closely related. It's also a surprisingly masterminded insurgency film, a sci-fi feature film about revolution and resistance that defies the expectations of the genre and puts more emphasis on a personal story than on big highlights.

Ashton Sanders plays the role of Gabriel, a Chicago teenager living on a land occupied by a powerful race of foreigners. His parents died after trying to escape Chicago and his older brother, Rafe, became a martyr in a guerrilla movement directed against them. His father was a policeman whose former partner, William Mulligan (John Goodman) keeps an eye on Gabriel, but also suspects him of being involved in an ongoing rebellion. But while their relationship is at the center of the film's concerns, it is also important to take into account the resistance movements that remain against the extraterrestrials. The film gives the impression that it was designed for the current cultural moment: while the extraterrestrials are exploiting Earth's resources, a handful of human collaborators have become rich and powerful by selling to their new masters and a subgroup permanent is fighting to survive.

At the SXSW interactive festival, I explained to Wyatt why Captive state highlights his extraterrestrials in the first moments, how the racial divisions of Chicago are incorporated in the film, why he is not specifically turned to America from the Trump era and how he compares to Climb of the Planet of the Apes.

This interview has been modified for reasons of brevity and clarity.

It's so normal for monster movies to hold the monster for as long as possible, but you want characters to take a closer look at your extraterrestrials in your opening sequence. Why did you want to structure the story this way?

That's a very good question. I think the retention of the monster is obviously tried and tested. This is the Wizard of Oz effect, as if you were pulling the curtain to reveal the face of the enemy. And it became clear to me and Erica that really, the enemy is inside. It's about us. This is what we are as human beings and the moral choices we make under duress. People expect a film like this that the enemy is the alien. So it was clear to me that I had to remove that expectation, this idea that the extraterrestrial would have a bigger revelation when we would have finally seen it. Instead, we put it in the foreground at the beginning of the film, so we understand that it's the underlying threat, the engineer of everything, but that ultimately the problem is that he creates, this society under occupation. For me, this is the interesting sandbox in which to tell the story. Therefore, it is clear that our government is the real enemy of this story.

At the same time, your design evokes a strong reaction of fear. What thinking has been initiated in the design process of your extraterrestrials?

There is a lot to say about the aesthetic value. We wanted to show the terror that an extraterrestrial could convey. But it had to be built on plausible foundations. The idea was that they come from a carbon-based planet, and that they are here to strip us of our fossil fuel resources. The question is, what are the origins of their species? In many ways, we followed the idea that it was wasps and we were bees, protecting our hive, and we are ready to sacrifice ourselves for this hive. We were inspired by the idea that they are of insectoid origin. They live underground, they do not breathe our atmosphere, they may be quite weak and vulnerable.

So to protect themselves and hide this fact through technology, they have this incredibly strong and terrifying frame that they can use to emulate, hence their kind of piggy look. And this was inspired by Antony Gormley, the sculptor. He makes these amazing sculptures, some in particular, these humanoid sculptures entirely made from spikes. That's where I got the idea.

Photo: Characteristics of the focus

The structure of the film is also unusual. You focus a lot on a complicated big conspiracy, but you do not really portray the participants as people. They look more like functions. Does it come from the idea that the collective is important and that the individual is not?

That done. It's interesting that you say that. There will always be an audience waiting for something different and who wants the hero's journey. In modern cinema, in particular, it's a classic structure, and you always have to follow that idea. But here, when we introduce for the first time the character of John Goodman, Mulligan, in his apartment, it is barely audible, because I did not know what to lead, but there is a radio documentary on the wasps attacking a hive of bees. And this has always been part of the structure, and behind this idea that some of us are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the greater good.

I liked the idea of ​​creating a spider web of those characters who, by the very nature of a long and finished film, and not a TV series, we we really had to color, by shortening, by placing these very disparate characters in a pot fusion to tell our story. So, a former Catholic priest, teaming up with someone from the trans community, with a car worker – all kinds of very different people, hiding in plain view – is the basis of our story.

It looks like a compressed television season because the cast is so big. Was the plan still to do that like a feature film?

C & # 39; was. This is not the first time I hear this reaction to the film. Maybe everyone, you included, raises a very relevant point and that it should be from a television series, from a longer story. But the formative stories for me, the ones that really inspired this film at the film level, are movies. Two in particular: Army of Shadows, Jean-Pierre Melville's film about French resistance fighting against the Nazi occupation, then the Battle of Algiers, Gillo Pontecorvo's film of the late 1960s, on the French occupation of Algeria. They have huge casts, like a hundred talking pieces. You really browse the map, following these characters in different situations, in this story in real time, quite emotionally dry. I was really excited to be able to emulate that in the context of modern America, where I had never seen this style of history before. For better or for worse, I do not know. It's up to you to judge.

Photo: Characteristics of the focus

You've talked a lot about these two movies talking about this one, and some of your historical inspirations, such as the Pinochet Chili Study. But what did you want to talk about contemporary America, current politics?

We started writing it before the current administration in America. The rise of populism was happening, but we never intended to make a controversy. I am neither right nor openly left. As a storyteller, I always try to find human history. It turns out that in this case, the idea of ​​an authoritarian government was created because in the end, a government capitulated to this external invading force, for its own benefit, for its own short-term profit. , and I think it's very relevant to everyone. number of levels, both in America and beyond. But the most political aspect of this film, I would say, lies in the way we treat our environment and in which society and government are not the guardians of the planet as we should. It depends a lot on big business, capitalism and short-term profit. And this must absolutely be taken into account and treated.

Americans today have a strong resonance in placing a black family at the center of history and focusing on the tension between a white policeman and a black young man trying to come to terms with his family legacy. What were your intentions in the racial dynamics of the film?

As a Chicago, you know very well – and I understand a lot – that the cultural and ethnic diversity of your city is extraordinary and varied, but that policies are demarcated by district, as do many modern cities. My intention was to tell the story in the most authentic way possible. I therefore chose to place the film in a community of merchants belonging to the working class and the lower middle class. I know that Pilsen is changing in Chicago, it's gentrifying, but it has an old world base. And the people we tell the story are teachers, police and women, dentists, doctors, medical students, priests, people of all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds. So it was wonderful to be able to tell a story where this racial divide, this racial question about what it means to live in a modern society, according to the color that you are, was not at the center of this story .

J & # 39; hope Captive state is a film full of hope, as these tribal divisions become questionable, irrelevant and totally superfluous. Because in the end, individuals from different backgrounds must unite under the flag of the fight against the common enemy. Just look at the history of the 20th century to see this play. Or any period of history, frankly. Those who have the most to lose invariably collaborate with an enemy and those who have the least to lose are the heroes, those who make the choice to fight back. It's never as black and white as that, it's never completely binary. But in this case, it is the neighborhoods and areas of Chicago that are more marginalized in society, which are less economically dynamic, which become hotbeds of militancy. I think this is trying to play the truth.

Photo: Characteristics of the focus

With Climb of the Planet of the Apesyou also tell the story of an underdog, an uprising and a mass resistance reversing the status quo. But in this case, the story is so focused on the hero's journey, with a visionary leader with a strong personality. Did working on this film shape this one? How do you see them as different?

They are both concerned with repelling the walls that can surround us and raging against the machine. Who are we as a species and what is pushing us forward? But they are very different. Planet of the Apes was a fairy tale in many ways, a fable. I enlightened her as such, I approached the tone as such and I like to think that it is the basis of its success. I mean, there are many other reasons why the movie has finally been successful, with all the amazing people involved. But deep down, I think the tone and approach of storytelling appealed to all age groups.

Captive state is a little different. It's more founded, it's more what we see today in front of our window. His approach seems more like a documentary for the purpose that we are putting on the scene. And therefore, it is more granular. The sun does not always shine, it's the gray and cold sky of Chicago. This does not necessarily leave a public so easily. It usually takes time for people to invest in the film.

But at the same time, I strove to do something exciting and challenging, emotional and hopeful. Planet of the Apes. With the end of this film, although it may seem strange to say so, it is a very encouraging end. I think we should ask our leaders today why we should believe in them if they are willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I think we explain this request in the movie. The film is science fiction, but it is an issue that is important to us. For those with this level of responsibility: "What do you want to sacrifice?" I think this question is at the heart of all the great leaders.