This week’s Hidden Netflix Gem: “Bronson” (2008)

“My name’s Charles Bronson, and all my life I’ve wanted to be famous.” That’s the opening line of Nicholas Winding Refn’s fictionalized biopic “Bronson,” starring Tom Hardy as the titular character, a man who the press often refers to as the “most violent prisoner in Britain.” You may be familiar with Winding Refn’s best known work, 2011′s “Drive,” starring Ryan Gosling, and recognize Hardy as the guy who played identity thief Eames in “Inception” and most recently appeared as Bane in “The Dark Knight Rises.” While those two pictures might be better films, I don’t think Hardy as ever put in a better performance than he did in “Bronson.”

Charles Bronson is not as well known stateside as he is across the pond. In the UK, the man is something of a national celebrity, both famous and infamous for spending the majority of his adult life in solitary confinement (28 of his 34 years in prison). Bronson was first incarcerated in 1974, at age 22, after being handed a seven-year sentence for armed robbery (of just  £26.18) from a suburban English post office. That seven years quickly became 14 as a result of his starting various fights and hostage situations involving guards and fellow prisoners. Bronson was released in 1988, but spent just 69 days on the outside (during which he began a “career” as a bare-knuckle boxer) before being arrested again. He’s been in prison ever since and his antics haven’t ceased.

Part of Hardy’s preparation for the role came from phone conversations with the man himself. In interviews discussing these interactions, you can see what makes the performance so special. In this clip, Hardy re-enacts a conversation he had with Bronson regarding a recent break-up. It’s one man sitting on a couch, but Hardy’s impression is so good it’s almost as if the camera is cutting back and forth between the actor and his subject (see the full interview here).

The film, which has been certified fresh and sits at 77 percent on the Tomatometer, is a clear homage to “A Clockwork Orange” (for reasons beyond the plethora of ultraviolence). “Bronson” begins with and includes many scenes of Hardy speaking into the camera and addressing the audience directly. The move allows the film to break the fourth wall, but also includes its own in-universe explanation: Bronson is performing a one-man play, narrating his life to a theater audience (sometimes while dressed in clown make-up). Alternatively (and more likely), he’s just imagining that’s the case, because in his mind, Charles Bronson is the most famous, best-loved man in the universe. The film is a biopic, but it’s highly fictionalized. It’s less about telling Bronson’s life story as it happened and more a character study. When the film’s events break from reality, it can be explained away by the fact that we’re getting Bronson’s version of the story. There’s no mendacious play at objectivity. Rather, we’re allowed to understand and perceive Bronson’s reality, for however brief a time, and thus try to figure out if Charles Bronson is really a crazy person or just far more sane than the rest of us. Either way, the answer might surprise you, and then being surprised might surprise you.

As mentioned, the thing that really separates this film from the pack is Hardy’s performance. He perfectly captures the comedic delirium that is being Charles Bronson. Frankly, I’m glad I saw “The Dark Knight Rises” first, because Tom Hardy and Charles Bronson were one and the same in my mind for a few days after watching this movie. I’m not sure how seriously I could have taken Bane after seeing Bronson/Hardy strip down and command a kidnapped guard to rub him down with grease, all the while yelling “Put on my armor! Everywhere, get it everywhere! Put some on my ass. Not in my ass ya faggot!” as the guard whimpers. To me and you it sounds like insanity, and it is, but for the 92 minutes “Bronson” is running, it’s his world, and we’re all just living in it.

 Check out the trailer below and follow the writer on Twitter @NateKreichman.

Aptly enough for a sports comedy, our interviewees today are a ragtag collection of lovable underdogs. Unavoidably geeky, Jay Baruchel’s starring roles in “She’s Out of My League,” “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” and “How to Train Your Dragon” have left him short of the A-list; he’s still perhaps best known as the lead alum of Judd Apatow’s beloved, quickly cancelled 2001 sitcom, “Undeclared.” Leading man Seann William Scott has worked in numerous films in a pretty wide variety of genres, yet to almost everyone he’s still obnoxious Steve Stifler of the “American Pie” series; he’ll be reprising the character for a fourth go-round in the upcoming “American Reunion.” Director Michael Dowse has some indie successes on his CV, but his last attempt to break into the mainstream, “Take Me Home Tonight,” was an unmitigated commercial disaster and, for the most part, a critical flop. (We, however, liked it a lot; so much for the Bullz-Eye bump.)

Already available on VOD, “Goon” is one underdog movie we’re definitely rooting for. Loosely inspired by minor league hockey star Doug Smith’s memoir and co-written by Canadian hockey fan Baruchel and veteran Apatow-scribe Evan Goldberg, the film focuses on Doug Glatt (Scott), a goodhearted bouncer of no great intellect who finds himself promoted to full-time hockey thug.

Featuring an outstanding supporting cast comprised of Baruchel, Liev Schreiber, Eugene Levy, Kim Coates (“Sons of Anarchy“) and Alison Pill as the dysfunctional love of Doug Glatt’s life, “Goon” doesn’t gloss over the ugliness of sports violence even as it humorously celebrates it. For that, it took some punches from the traditionally violence-averse British press on its earlier UK release. The Yankee press, however, has been kinder, and there may be some hope of a wide release if enough of you hit the initial U.S. screenings starting this Friday.

Low-key Minnesota native Seann William Scott, intense Montrealite Jay Baruchel, and matter-of-fact Canadian filmmaker Michael Dowse were still high on the afterglow of a successful industry screening the night before when a bunch of us journos met with the trio at the Beverly Hilton. Some amusing and informative highlights are below.

Jay Baruchel on creating Doug Glatt, the not-so-bright but incredibly decent hero of “Goon.”

My dad used to have this expression, which was “Don’t complicate a ham sandwich.” In my experience, a lot of the hardest guys I know are also the kindest and most mild-mannered and gentlest. This in no way means that [their kindness] should be mistaken for weakness. He’s a man who knows what he wants, or finds out what he wants and where he’s supposed to be. He’s fulfilled.

Seann William Scott on playing Doug Glatt.

He’s written to be such a lovable guy and so good to his core. It was written with that specificity and I consider myself to be a good guy, so it’s not hard for me to play that… I was always aware of wanting to make sure there were different colors. Anything that I could bring, but it was already written with that kind of code of honor that he has. He’s self aware of the kind of guy he is and where he is in the world, but it is kind of black and white.

Jay Baruchel on the casting of Seann William Scott.

There’s no movie without him and there’s virtually no alternative… We had no #2. With anything, it’s in your best interest to cover your ass and have your sort of top list of who you’d want. Literally, for Doug it was [a list of] one. It was that or maybe find an unknown, because there’s not a lot of boys in movies who look like they could kick the shit out of somebody that you’d find sympathetic, who would embody everything the guy has to embody. As slow as he is, he’s not simple in the least. I don’t know who can take credit for [first] mentioning Seann but it was a light bulb moment. When we all met him, within five seconds of meeting him we were like, “This is clearly our fuckin’ guy.”

Michael Dowse on why Doug Glatt — unlike real-life player and Goon author Doug Smith — is Jewish.

That was something that Jay and Evan [Goldberg] brought in there. It came out of Jay’s personal history. His dad is Jewish and played hockey. He had to negotiate that. It’s not a pretty picture, being a Jewish hockey player in Quebec.

Seann William Scott on how playing Doug Glatt fits into his (so far) Steve Stifler-dominated filmography.

["Goon"] would have been a movie that I would have loved to have done when I started off my career… I’ve been typecast for sure, but I still appreciate every job I get and you just have to make the best of it. [With "Goon"] I didn’t have to make the best of it. This was already great and I got this opportunity to work with filmmakers who believed in me as an actor…Then I got to go back and do “American Pie 4″ and I had an absolute awesome time. Would I love to go play a character like Eric Bana in “Chopper” or [Tom Hardy in] “Bronson”? That would be great, but I’m pretty psyched that I was in this.

Jay Baruchel on the “Goon” approach to depicting hockey, fights and hockey fights.

Everyone got a bit dinged up. Everyone tagged each other at some point. Not on purpose but I don’t even know how many fights we have in our movie. When you have as much fighting as we had with as many big boys together on skates, somebody’s bound to tag somebody.

… I don’t want anybody to smell bullshit because I think that hockey has, for the most part, been very poorly photographed in movies. I think it’s the lack of space and the speed and the size. For whatever combination of reasons, people have never shot hockey the way it should be shot in a movie, for the most part. We needed to nail that.

We [also] needed the audience to feel every punch. There are different types of fights in the movie. They run the gamut. Some are played more for fun; some are meant to be exhilarating. Some are meant to be straight unpleasant — as it is. We wanted people, when they sit down to watch our flick, that they’ll either experience on their inside kind of what it feels like to be out there or, at the very least, what it feels like to be in the stands. It’s a love letter to a very specific, strange job in professional sports.

Seann William Scott on learning to skate and fight like Doug Glatt, who initially doesn’t know how to skate at all but definitely knows how to fight.

I knew [how to skate] probably better than most non-skaters. I hadn’t put skates on since I was a little kid. I was able to move around a little bit. I did the best that I could before the shoot to practice. What you see in the movie — those are my highlights. That’s my A-game. The fights were pretty intense [and were harder to accomplish than the skating] but it was worth it. Watching the movie, the fights looked awesome… Surprisingly, there weren’t major injuries. There should have been.

Michael Dowse on improvising with Jay Baruchel.

Jay is a filthy improvisor. I knew he was talented but until you actually work with him on the day [you can't tell]. I mean, he disgusted me with some of the stuff that came out of his mouth. That’s saying a lot. I’ve heard a lot of bad shit. I would turn to [the continuity person] and say, “What did he just say? ‘Colostomy bag’?”

Jay Baruchel on hockey movies.

The only hockey films that have any influence on me would be “Slap Shot” and then it’s pretty barren after that. I’d also put what I think is at least one of the best sports documentaries of all time, a very under seen movie called “Les Chiefs,” following a minor league team outside of Montreal for one season in a fight league. That doc centers around this guy who was born to a family of doctors. His brother’s a filmmaker, and he has no interest in doing [medicine] and they all shit on him constantly for it. That, plus the book itself, Goon, and my dad. Just a bunch of different ingredients came into it.

Michael Dowse, who plays hockey, on hockey movies.

I just thought there was a need to make a really good hockey movie again. It had been a while and there’d been a lot of really bad hockey films. I don’t know why they make such bad hockey films. There’s always chimpanzees and tooth fairies and weird shit going on.

Seann William Scott on his work out regimen for “Goon.”

You don’t see me with my shirt off in the movie. There’s a reason for that. To be absolutely honest, before the movie got its money, I’d been training my whole life as an athlete or just to stay in shape. I said, “I’m going to take some time off.”

I’m the kind of guy who, if I don’t work out, I will get a little bigger and look like a guy who used to play sports. Then, when it looked like we were going to do the movie, it was a combination of already changing how I used to train and to gain weight, which was easier. I thought the only way it would look legit for me to take on these guys was to look bigger… It wouldn’t make sense for me to be a gym rat.

The first couple of times I watched the movie, [I'd say] “Man, I’m pretty big there.” But it works so well for the character and makes him more lovable. Now, when I watch the movie, I don’t notice how many Twinkies I ate that day.

Michael Dowse on re-teaming “American Pie” costars Seann William Scott and Eugene Levy.

One of my bucket list things is to work with every single member of SCTV and see if I can get them in a film somehow. So, to work with Eugene was a dream come true. We wanted to do something different, and I think he responded to that idea. Because of the history of Seann and Eugene in a movie together, we definitely needed Eugene to play it seriously. I think he’s actually shown some really great dramatic chops in this film… He kind of surprises people because they expect his eyebrows and all that jazz. What they get is just a really concerned father.

Jay Baruchel on the sense of validation he’s getting from the good response to “Goon.”

We weren’t paid any heed for a very, very long time or taken seriously at all [in Hollywood]. To show it down here last night and to have this sort of jaded L.A. industry crowd — a lot of agents and execs and shit in there, they couldn’t care less about anything… So, when they see our movie and it connects the way that it did, I was like, “Yep, see. Toldja.”

Sean William Scott on the inevitable question: What’s “American Reunion” going to be like?

I’m pretty excited about it, I have to say. We set out to try to just make a great comedy with these characters. Obviously, if I was going to play this role for a fourth time, I didn’t want it to be cheap. I’ve already been typecast — it doesn’t bother me, but if I’m going to do it again, I want it to be a standalone great comedy. It exceeded my expectations. The guys are in their 30s now; they’re dealing with a little bit more real stuff… I think coming back for the high school reunion, it almost feels like a direct sequel to the first one. I was surprised, when I saw it, that it has a lot of heart and a lot of romance for that kind of movie.

Seann William Scott on whether Steve Stifler has married anyone by the start of “American Reunion.”

[Snorting] Oh, no! He’s lucky to get a date.

One word of warning: the potential for spoilers exists within the piece…like, to the point where Firth asks during one of his answers “not to turn this into spoilers when you write about it.” But, look, if you don’t want to know, then don’t read it. But given that the original novel was published in 1974, followed by the TV miniseries in 1979, it’s not as if you haven’t had plenty of time to absorb this information already…

Journalist: Are you a fan of the espionage and spy films?

Colin Firth: I like the good ones, yeah.

J: Do you have any favorites?

CF: No, not really. [Gesturing toward the journalist sitting next to him.] We talked about this, actually, him and I. He had to help me out. [Laughs.] No, I’m one of those people where, if you say, “Tell me what your favorite music is,” I can’t think of any music in the world. So that’s a difficult question. You throw something at me, I’ll tell you whether I like it or not. But, yeah, I’m a fan.

J: Well, we’re all like that. You ask me, and I’d do the same thing.

CF: Yeah, I know. Nothing is more guaranteed to draw a blank, I’m afraid.

J: In the film, we were trying to figure out exactly who the people up in that big office were.

CF: [Uncertainly] Oh, I hope I can help…

J: What does Bill Haydon (Firth’s character) do?

CF: He…right, okay, I’m going to get stuck here, so don’t trust me too hard on this. [Laughs.] He runs London Station, which means that, basically, he’s in charge of operations in the home base. From the home base. And I…don’t quite know how that configures, because MI-6, as I understand it, technically does not exist. Nobody acknowledges it. It’s so secret that there’s no such thing. And then MI-5, I guess they call it Military Intelligence Five, but Six, because it’s to do with foreign operations, and there aren’t supposed to be any… [Clears throat.] So that’s the zone that they’re in. So he’s one of the very, very senior guys, and very much a candidate to take over the whole thing.

J: Those are all senior guys up there, right?

CF: Yeah, those are the five guys.

J: How would you describe your character without giving anything away?

CF: Can’t. [Laughs.]

J: I loved that you didn’t telegraph it at all, but…how do you carry the knowledge (about your character) throughout your performance without giving it away?

CF: Well, it’s a tricky one in a way. I mean, some people would say that they did know. I mean, it’s obviously not a state secret, because the book’s been there for 40 years, and there was a TV series. So we’re not entirely dependent on not knowing. Because the story, in the end, is about much more than that. The thing is, everybody who is featured has some sort of alternate life, another agenda, whether it’s some sort of broken relationship or some guilt or disappointment. They’re all wearing a mask for one reason or another. And I think the beauty of the film is that we get that revealed in little hints. I think in a way it’s much more a personal, emotional story about the kind of things that people hope for and are disappointed in, and about loneliness and the failure to find trust or intimacy, than it is about who did it. Smiley has an attractive wife who will betray him constantly, and he will constantly forgive her and constantly take her back. And I think he feels that way about…his institution and about his country. You know? He has this endless faith in what the value system should be, and the romance that he bestows on it…he will stay committed to that no matter how often he is disappointed. And I think that is accurate in his marriage.

J: Haydon had (a relationship with) a boy and a girl in the film, so…

CF: [Laughs.] Haydon doesn’t care too much. He cares enough to tie the ends up. You can argue that Haydon’s the most mysterious character in a way. The motif of the Russian doll…what do you call those, when it’s a doll within a doll within a doll?

J: Nesting dolls.

CF: That was actually used in the TV series as the logo, in the opening credits. And that’s drawn from a passage in the book, where Smiley, having just interviewed Haydon at the end, he speculates…he spends about three pages trying to guess what Haydon’s motives are and what he’s really made of. And he compares him to one of those dolls. You get an interpretation, you look inside, and there seems to be another one, and then there seems to be another inside that. Is he motivated by genuine altruistic political ideology, or is he just a narcissistic sociopath? Is it all about him? He thinks he’s Lawrence of Arabia. He wants to drag the ignorant and afflicted out of the darkness and lead them into the light and into prosperity. But he also just wants it to be about him. He’s the guy leading on the light charge, you know? So you can ponder that forever. I’m trying to answer your question, but…he’s affectatious. He wants to convince us that he’s a bohemian of some sort. He’s powerful and bright, forceful and charismatic enough to break some rules. He’s not a swaggering non-conformist, but just enough to…it’s little grace notes. This is why when I read it…it’s not described in terms of what he wears and everything, but I just said, “Well, he paints, let’s put him in the tweeds so he’s not as city-business-y as the others. And let’s give him red socks. And a flowery pocket handkerchief or something.” Just to say a little flamboyance and a twist.

J: But in a way, by betraying others, he stays true to himself.

CF: If you believe his ideology is as sincere as he says it is, yes. This is precisely what he says – and, actually, it’s a line I have to say because the script was, brilliantly so, pared right down. But the first draft of the script didn’t have the line about having to choose a side, and we didn’t ever really find out what Haydon’s motives were. And I said, “Well, listen, I don’t want to make it about Haydon and what he did and why, but I do think it adds complexity to the universe of that film.” Because that’s not an uncommon point of view. Certainly of that generation, during the period of Communism, where it wasn’t…loyalty to an ideology or a cause took precedent very comfortably for a lot of people. Loyalty to your nationality, what your government tells you to do. And if you profoundly disapproved of your government or your country, then I think some people did feel a loyalty to ally themselves with one that they approved of. And he says that. “Yeah, I had to pick a side, and the west had become so ugly.” And in the book, he goes into greater and greater detail about that. He deconstructs it. And he certainly wouldn’t have been the only one.

Burgess, Mclean, Philby, Blunt…they’re not famous names to anyone who’s not British, but these were spies of that generation who…again, I can trust all of you not to turn this into spoilers when you write about it, because when applied to Haydon, it gives too much away. But these men shared secrets with Soviets for reasons which were not to do with self-advancement or finance. They just did it. And they were all like Haydon: educated in the elite system, I think most of them went to Eaton, or if not, Oxbridge. There was an above average number of gay guys among them. They were considerably about average intelligence. And privileged. And you have to ask, “Why?” Why would privileged people, who are taking all the benefits of the decadent Western capitalist society, throw it all away for giving secrets to a system which is to do with egalitarianism and is anti-capital and anti-wealth?

A very interesting piece of symmetry, just from my own personal point of view: the first play and film I ever did was called “Another Country,” which was entirely based on Guy Burgess’s formative years, asking, “Why would someone from a privileged school like that become a spy?” And it was, in the theoretical world of this writer, it was connected to his homosexuality and to the era in which he grew up. The 1930s, during which communism could be far more comfortably idealized. We didn’t know about Stalin’s purges. The Spanish Civil War was raging, people were flocking to fight the angels or the devils, however they saw them. And the fact that the Burgess character, if you like, who’s called Guy Bennett, the fact that he’s gay means that he feels that he has to hide a lot. And he feels that he has to use subterfuge to conduct his personal life. And, therefore, the school becomes a sort of training ground to become a spy. And it also becomes the place where you most learn to want to screw the system. So that story ends the character saying, “You know what? To hell with them all. I will take their privileges, but I’ll be undermining them and I’ll be screwing them at the same time.”

J: Could your character exist now?

CF: I can’t imagine it. Not in those configurations. I can’t imagine somebody…I think those figures, the components aren’t the same. That generation of pre-WWII, pre-Soviets elite English schoolboys who were weaned while the British Empire was still very much alive as an idea. And so was Communism. And those things made very convenient polarities in people’s political minds. Now, those polarities have disappeared, so those components are gone. So it’s very hard to see how anybody…how exactly the same kinds of people would do those same kinds of things for the same reasons.  I think it’s pretty unlikely.

J: There’s also the idea of someone from a privileged background who’d like to share his wealth.

CF: Now, I think that is possible. Absolutely. I was listening to a guy on TV…he didn’t come from a privileged background. He came from a poor background, but he became a successful lawyer, and he gave it all up for politicking. This guy was on C-SPAN this morning, he was talking about Occupy, and he’s part of it. He just said, “No, I’ve thrown that away, because I think it’s far more important to think about how we should live our lives, that they aren’t just to do with personal gain and personal achievement.” And he’s a highly educated guy who had the capacity to…who I think did earn a lot of money, but he decided to go a different way. So I think there are variations on it, just in terms of people giving things up. Having said that, I’m not going to idealize the likes of, for instance, Kim Philby, on whom I think Haydon is largely based or at least inspired by. And I know that le Carré would not want that man idealized. le Carré was an active intelligence officer at the time they killed Philby. He was active, and…I know this from interviews that le Carré’s done – it’s not anything I’ve been privy to, that I’ve heard personally [Laughs.] – but, yeah, you know, he’s just a very harsh judge of Philby. He’s very clear on the fact that Philby’s treachery cost lives. And I think we’d probably question the purity of his ideals as well. So it’s complex. And I wouldn’t say that Burgess, Mclean, Philby, or Blunt were motivated by exactly the same things. Burgess seemed to be to be a more feckless creature than Mclean, who I think was more serious politically. They just happened to have come up through the ranks together.

J: How familiar with the book were you?

CF: Not at all.

J: Have you read it since?

CF: Oh, now I have, yes. Several times.

J: But not back then?

CF: No.

J: And the TV series?

CF: I don’t know whether I saw it. It’s one of those things that’s so present in one’s life that you know it whether you’ve ever seen it or not. I mean, I probably saw some episodes, and it was…whatever you were watching on TV at the time was so constantly being traded that you were being aware of it all the time. And then people talked about it all the time. So it had a huge presence and a huge impact. You know, I remember at one point not being able to remember if I’d ever actually read “Great Expectations.” [Laughs.] Or if I’d only ever seen films and TV adaptations and had it read to me at school in class. Had I ever actually at any point sat down and read it? But I could probably take you through that story in great detail…and I don’t think I read it! And le Carré’s a bit like one of these cultural reference points. When the Berlin Wall came down, I think most people were less concerned about what would happen to the political geography of Europe than they were about what would happen to John le Carré. [Laughs.] Actually, I think some of his best work is post-Cold-War stuff.

J: Having read the book finally, are you impressed that it was pared down to just over two hours?

CF: Absolutely. Well, yeah, I think what the film has done – and I think this is why he has endorsed it so heartily – is, instead of trying to capture every prosaic detail of the whodunit and all the strands, it basically focuses in on what the experience would be like, to have put your trust in an institution like that and to be in that world, where it’s all you’ve got. Because you can’t put trust in your personal life if you’re a spy. You can’t share that. You know, I think that I do know…I’ve heard that there was a response from a group of spies who saw this film, and there’s a line that Tom Hardy has, where he says, “I’ll do this one condition: I’m out. I want a family. I don’t want to end up like you lot.” And apparently it got a big laugh…of painful recognition. [Laughs.] And I think it’s as much about that as anything else. It’s about loneliness – male, mostly – and isolation, and I think it’s to do with what that feels like, rather than chasing down all the storylines.