BY ERIC KING-
The lady directing the Brand documentary about Russell Brand’s life-picked up by ignite channel- has revealed some of the reasons the controversial comedian has opposed the documentary about his life , which he initially supported.
Speaking to online publication- cosmopolitan.com, she revealed that Brand apparently asked for up to 10 changes to the documentary she made after she sent him a copy to view before releasing it to the public. Ondi Timoner reluctantly agreed to his requests, only for the comedian to request larger adjustments Brand, according to Timoner, told the director that he would “rather you shoot all my pets than have this movie see the light of day,”– a reflection of the extent of his disapproval with what was left of the documentary. The Essex born reformed former drug addict basically wanted to be depicted without blemish, and in a way that purely suited his own interest in terms of how he wanted to be perceived. The reality is that a documentary or any appraisal of a star or celebrity ought to candidly reflect the writer’s take on the individual, rather than the individual give his own take of himself. Autobiographies exist for such subjective agendas.
Brand wanted her to remove a scene of him arrested at a protest years ago when he was high and naked, one she objected to. In fairness, it is understandable why he would want this left out, but the producer also reserves the right to state whether his judgment to be seen naked reveals anything about him which she would like to evaluate. It could be said to say quite a lot about a man in the public eye who decides to appear in public naked, even if high. Being high does not excuse the act, rather it reveals some of the proclivities of the man in question and accordingly may provide some insight into the mindset and inclinations of Brand, which he would rather did not constitute the documentary.
Timoner clearly had quite a lot of footage of Brand. For instance, she had one of his childhood torturing of the family dog which Brand also wanted removed, but the film director unarguably considered it pertinent to her documentary, and felt her ability to autonomously give her perspective on one of Britain’s most audacious characters would be compromised if she yielded to his every request to dictate the editorial aspect of the filming. Why should she leave it out? I would want the fact Brand once tortured his family dog to be hidden from me as a viewer, rather I would want to understand why he would do such a thing to a pet. I’m sure many campaigners for animal rights would be livid in hearing he did this.
He also wanted romantic footage of him and Kate Perry in India cut out, most likely because she is now in his past. Timoner granted this request, but not a further request to exclude intimate details of his troublesome relationship with his father. Here again lies a public figure who consented to the making of a documentary about his life, also wanting to censor a big part of it. Intuitively, the public would want to have as much information about Brand’s private life as possible so that new information they have can help them modify or affirm their perception of him. Notwithstanding, it is not unreasonable for a celebrity to wish information about their relationship with one of their parents to stay out of the public domain, especially if the reasons have very private and complex details they would rather was not fed to the public. Yet, the inevitable contradiction of this stance lies in the mere fact that as a public figure, especially one so controversial and opinionated, discretion irrefutably lies with the examiner of the public figure who the public tacitly trusts to serve their interest in providing them with adequate information that gives meat and substance to the documentary. Brand effectively did not want anything that may publicly convey what may be perceived as his shortcomings
“Let me do my thing and I promise you’ll become legendary.” “You’ll lose a little along the way and win at the end,” she said she told him. Shortly after, she received a mail from him saying “This is your film now,” he wrote to her, sounding a vulnerable note. He acknowledged that the changes he wanted would have eroded the movie — “a propaganda piece with no personal footage, no vulnerability and no point,” he said in the email.
Still, he said, the movie caused him too much discomfort for him to be in any proximity to it. Brand has distanced himself from the film and is making no substantive comments in relation to the film or his decision to somewhat boycot it.
DISTRIBUTOR
Still, though he didn’t stop it, the very threat of action and the prospect of an absentee star gave distributors cold feet. The movie was eventually picked up by Ignite Channel, a little-known micro distributor.
The movie has toured — Canada, England, the U.S. and other points have been on the itinerary — all without Brand. That has created an almost ap
Despite all the drama, Timoner said it is disappointment more than resentment that she feels. “This is just a lost opportunity for him,” she said, echoing a rueful note she has sounded at screenings. Still, pressed a little harder, her emotions prove to be more complicated.
“I feel he’s an absolutely remarkable, unique presence on this planet. And that he is also a bullheaded, callous, self-centered and often selfish person,” she said. “As much as he is generous and compassionate, I think he’s a walking contradiction. And right now, as the result of me making an authentic documentary, I’m experiencing the fallout of his own inability to face who he really is.”
She added that she has tried to separate her feelings about what he stands for and how he’s acted, and has not always found it easy.
“He said to me, ‘It’s not personal.’ But of course I broke my back to create as close to a masterpiece as I could, she stated “
She paused. “If he walked in here now, I’d probably just give him a hug. I know what I’m experiencing are just his limitations.”
She is very right, the limitations of Brand is what has surfaced here. Brand only ever sees things from his perspective and conveniently overlooks other angles that may be worth considering. He overlooks the fact that the public do not want to see a half hearted documentary about him that only depicts things suitable to his ego. People want a genuine, fully informative documentary that gives them a complete insight into the person being discussed. Instead Brand wants us to be denied that insight and be presented with a biased presentation that favors him completely.