Sally Potter is the writer-director behind films such as “Ginger & Rosa,” a coming of age tale set against the Cuban Missile Crisis, the romantic, iambic pentameter-performed “Yes,” and the groundbreaking Virginia Woolf adaptation “Orlando.” Her latest film, “The Party,” is a black comedy about a celebratory-turned-nightmarish social gathering. The film — which counts Kristin Scott Thomas, Patricia Clarkson, Emily Mortimer, and Timothy Spall among its ensemble cast — won the Guild Film Prize at the 2017 Berlinale.
We recently spoke with Potter about “The Party,” getting political on-screen, the future of feminism, and the importance of representing “soft issues” in film.
“The Party” opens in New York and Los Angeles February 16.
This interview has been edited. It was transcribed by Sophie Willard.
W&H: Talk a little bit about what inspired you to make this movie.
SP: Well first of all I wanted to make a film that allowed people the opportunity to have cathartic laughter during very difficult times, politically, and to do it through the microcosm of the crises that these individuals are experiencing in the private space of their lives, even when Janet [Kristin Scott Thomas] — the central character — is somebody who is living out a very public life as well, in the world of politics.
At the time when I started to write it, in 2015, it was the time of the UK General Election when both parties had moved into a kind of center; you couldn’t really tell the difference from one to the other, nobody was saying what they really thought, and everyone was in a world of political spin. So I thought it would be interesting to write a story that was about people trying to speak the truth and having difficulty doing that.
W&H: Yes, it seems that all the time everything is political yet we never hear anything real anymore.
SP: Exactly. So in the process of revealing what is real in these people’s lives, they move into a state, obviously, of great crisis but without that truth-telling we can’t really move forward.
W&H: Your cast are people who we don’t always see in films, mostly over-40 actors. Do you feel that with the issues that they are confronting — health issues, marriage issues — if you had written it for people who are younger, would it be a completely different take on it, or could it be similar in terms of the issues that you address?
SP: I think it is generational in the sense that each of these characters has got visible scars. They’ve lived a bit, and suffered a bit, and struggled a bit, and in many cases have been through — well, as Patricia Clarkson’s character says: “Remember all those marches we went on together, thinking somebody in power would listen?” So there’s some disappointment or sadness about how far they have managed to get.
But then we go to the next phase and realize that that desire to be effective, and to make change, is still there. You could say that’s the crisis of that particular generation; I think it equally applies to much, much younger people. I’ve noticed that in screenings across Europe, it’s not just the people who identify with these characters who get on with the film: younger people are facing the same dilemmas. It’s just that they have a slightly different shape and form to them.
W&H: What’s very interesting is while we don’t see any children in the film, there’s a lot of conversations about people who choose not to have children, and people who do choose to have children. Why was that a theme throughout the film?
SP: First of all, it’s observably the case; these are conversations that I’ve heard in one setting or another, and I think that the choice — particularly for women of the age that are portrayed in the film — to have children or to have a professional life was a very meaningful conversation. That’s not quite the same now. I’ve seen younger women who seem to be more able to juggle both things — but with some difficulty, it has to be said.
I think also for me it is a very important thing as a filmmaker to occupy a space and subject matter that is not only continuously about what are considered to be — wrongly so — female issues. In others words, motherhood, romance, love — the so-called soft issues. We have to have the right to tackle every possible subject matter in every possible way. This [film] is about people struggling with their beliefs about politics, about medicine, about religion — the big human issues.
W&H: So are you saying that you think that people still push aside those kinds of themes — the “soft issues” of our culture — and feminize them, and one of the things that you want to do is make sure that they are front and center in the public conversation?
SP: Well — Have you read Mary Beard’s book about women and power [“Women & Power: A Manifesto”]? About the silencing of women in the public space?
W&H Yes! I have.
SP: That spoke to me very, very strongly, and then I started thinking about female filmmakers and the kinds of subjects that we are somehow supposed to be tackling, and there is often this feeling of being, in a certain sense, pushed back into the home! So that landscape has to broaden out. We’ve witnessed in public what happens — the castigation of female figures in public life — so [the film] deals with some of that as part of the subject matter: the struggle of men to be supportive of the women in their life — possibly failing, possibly succeeding — and how we handle conflict. So [we must] have a rich and open canvas. That includes reproduction — after all, there is a character in this film who is not only pregnant but rather heavily pregnant.
W&H: I thought one of the interesting points of this was how it was very publicly stated that Janet’s husband, Bill [Timothy Spall], had supported her, and they had made decisions as a couple that would support her career in certain instances, and not his. When watching it, you see him sitting there, and feel in some respects the weight of those decisions playing into that room.
SP: Yes, absolutely. And I think it is a big issue. It is not easy for men to take second place, the place that women are so familiar with. It is not easy for men to do that, and struggle to support their women. In this instance, what we find out is that, although he appeared to be supporting her — and probably did for many years — that had led him into a place of loneliness and frustration that had led him to have another, secret life in order to get appreciation. This is something I have seen too, in friends, and in public. That’s one of the issues.
But each of the characters in this story is trying to be — in their own way — a good person, and what we find is that they are failing in different ways, each of them, as most of us do. So I wanted to create characters who are nuanced in that way. They’re not just one thing; they’re not a good man or a bad man, a good woman or a bad woman. There are co-existing struggles as they try to be what they want to be and do what they want to do.
W&H: Right. And whilst it’s not overt, I think one of the things that is clear — especially just having this conversation with you — is it’s such a feminist movie in terms of dealing with equality between men and women.
SP: Yes.
W&H: I know that you are supportive of the Raising Films women and men who are working on this issue, which I believe so strongly in, too. With everything going on in the film world with the #MeToo movement and the #TimesUp movement, and you’ve been doing this a long time, pushing for more parity and opportunities for women — can you talk about being a filmmaker now in the world with this huge tectonic shift going on? What are you feeling for the future?
SP: I see it as the latest wave and the latest manifestation of the move towards progress and equality. Each wave, or each generation, is standing on the shoulders of the previous ones. We have to remember that this struggle for female equality is really recent; women only got the vote in 1920 in the United States. Women, amazingly, in Switzerland, only got the vote in 1971. Women in Saudi Arabia got the vote in 2015.
So, when we think about progress, and we think about #MeToo, I think it’s really helpful that we see it in that quite recent historical context. That will make us more respectful and more understanding of its function as the latest wave of focus, the latest way of tackling it and moving forward. I feel very grateful to the women who have spearheaded that, and excited about where it will go. It’s inevitable that it will go through teething problems, and there will be backlashes, as there have been with every other moment and wave in this history, and for every social group that struggles for equality, and dignity, and respect.
W&H: I think people who have been doing this for more than five years or ten years or more, really understand that this is a long struggle, and that there is going to be a push and pull to it, and it’s not linear in any shape or form.
SP: Yes, and I don’t think that’s a derogatory thing to say. I think it’s useful, because otherwise people get disappointed if — a few years down the line — things possibly haven’t changed as much as people right now would hope that they have. It’s good to bear in mind that each step is a meaningful step along the way, and a learning process about how to be more effective.
W&H: What do you want to say to your male director peers who are really having a hard time — some of them — with this conversation?
SP: Are they having a hard time?
W&H: There are some who feel like there is a witch hunt going on.
SP: Well first of all, the term “witch hunt” is completely inappropriate. If you want to know about a witch hunt, trying being a female healer in the Middle Ages, who was burnt at the stake for having opinions. Or try being the woman in the UK [Caroline Criado-Perez] who got trolled and attacked for trying to get a female face [on a British bank note]. Or try being Mary Beard, a great professor and classicist of Roman history, who was getting death threats and rape threats every day for having an opinion. So that’s the appropriate place to use the phrase “witch hunt.”
I think however, as women watching men struggle with it, let’s look at this from a different angle. How about how it feels as a white person when you become uncomfortably aware of white privilege, when it’s pointed out by somebody of color? It’s not comfortable to be identified as an oppressor, as part of the oppressor group. It makes you feel like, “What, me? I’m on the right side, I’m with you!” But you have to own up to your privilege, you have to see where it is, and you have to see that it is in everybody’s interest that that changes. I think from that perspective, though, it’s useful to have some compassion for how difficult it is to be described as an oppressor when you don’t feel like one.
W&H: What advice would you share with women directors who are up-and-coming, in terms of sharing your experience? I’d love to hear any thoughts.
SP: What advice? Keep going! Don’t give up! I think people often underestimate the sheer power of persistence. Don’t retreat. Do not contribute to the erasure of female voices and talent. To keep going really is the key. And strive for excellence because, in the end, what filmmakers want to be known for is not their gender but how bloody good they are, and how extraordinary their work is in contributing to the cultural life and public imagination, so I think that’s it. Keep going, and keep working.
