Six questions for ‘Legend’ director Brian Helgeland

As a writer, Brian Helgeland has been responsible for some of the most era-defining crime fiction (“L.A. Confidential‎”), while, as a director, he’s told of some the greatest battles against injustice (“42”). His newest creation, “Legend,” mixes both of those themes (OK, mainly the crime part) as the film focuses on the notorious 1960s gangsters Ronnie and Reggie Kray, nightclub owners who built a crime empire in the rough-and-tumble East End of London.

Tom Hardy plays both halves of the sibling pair, starring as the more methodical and grounded Reggie as well as the erratic and hotblooded Ronnie. In two weeks of limited release from Universal, the film has grossed $1 million in the U.S.‎, about what Hardy’s earlier piece-de-resistance performance showcase, “Locke,” did when it came out a little while back.

SIGN UP for the free Indie Focus movies newsletter >>

In a semi-regular feature (we hope), we asked Helgeland six questions about his new movie — a mix of the soft, hard and wild card.

What made you take on this story? The Krays certainly don’t seem like obvious heroes.

There were so many interesting aspects. They were brothers, which gives you a certain dynamic. And they were so public -- the American Mafia spent a century denying they even existed and they were being photographed by famous photographers. Reggie also had Frances [Emily Browning, his romantic interest] and their complicated relationship -- a love triangle, really, with Ronnie. And Ronnie was gay and out of the closet at a time when he could go to prison for it; for all the brutality, he had a bravery about him in a way. And everywhere I turned there was strangeness and absurdities around them. But the best part was the mystery. Basically I thought they were part of so defined an era and yet so little truth was known about them. All we know is that a lot of the stories revolve around violence.

Choosing the same actor to play both roles was both a formal achievement and probably a major headache. What prompted you to do it this way?

Tom I knew was someone who could be the lead I was waiting for. I’d seen him in “Warrior” and there was a [cooler and more efficient] Reggie quality to him there. So I knew I had that. I didn’t know whether he should play [the more supporting] Ronnie or whether we should get a second actor. But he really wanted to play both of them. I think I got manipulated by him a little. He said, “I’ll give you Reggie if you give me Ronnie.”

What was the greatest challenge, then? Was it technical or performative?

It was very clear from the beginning that If this becomes a gimmick it undoes the film, even before we start prepping. I talked to him the way I would about two different characters. It wasn’t an ordeal to get him out of one and into the other, because he’s not a Method actor. The trick was how to keep the interaction alive and spontaneous. It was easy to get them in the same frame technically, and Tom was very mathematical -- like he would have the sound of the other in his ear, and a body double. But how do you get them to feel like they’re interacting? That was the challenge.

Some of the reviews thus far have been mixed, questioning the use of what are essentially character set pieces as opposed to a more propulsive narrative we’re accustomed to with gangster films. What do you make of those responses?

It’s an odd thing. The Krays in England are such a part of the fabric of the city that everyone has huge opinions, even the people who hate them. And the process of the movie has gone the same way. Look, they were different kind of gangsters and it demanded a different approach. There were many things that needed to get all in one film. It demanded a tone that, if you’re not expecting it as an audience it might take a little bit of time to get settled and realize what it is.”

I remember you talking about this movie when I interviewed you for “42.” You were thinking about both films simultaneously, which is odd, given how different their subjects are. Was there any kind of mental dissonance to contemplating the Krays and Jackie Robinson at the same time?

Actually, in a weird way they seem to be companion pieces, one era leading into the other, the ‘40s and ‘50s into the ‘60s. They go together strangely. Jackie is the catalyst for all the change that would happen in the ‘60s. And then the Krays are in it, in swinging London -- they’re not part of that, per se, but they’re certainly affected by it. It’s interesting -- the criticism on “42” is the reverse criticism of this film. Almost like you’ve made one guy [Jackie Robinson] too clean and another [Reggie Kray] too dirty. I think it’s more complicated than that. But maybe it’s the same criticism, the idea of a biopic of some people wanting someone who’s not there.”

Scott Cooper, who directed the Whitey Bulger movie “Black Mass,” another film about a notorious gangster, said that he was more limited than many other directors in this genre -- say, Scorsese, who in “The Departed” was making a movie that ostensibly also drew from Bulger’s life but was was fictionalized. Did you feel constrained by the facts?

The funny thing is, as soon as it’s real people there’s a different judgment. Think of “The Godfather.” As soon as it’s fiction you can get away with it, where when it’s people who actually lived, there’s the matter of ‘this is the truth.’ You can’t play with the facts. And this movie is even harder because it’s two people‘s lives. On the other hand, with the Krays a lot of people can’t agree on the facts. You rely on a lot of material [including John Pearson’s book “The Profession of Violence”] and want to get everything right, but sometimes you have to make choices about which version of a story to go with. That can be frustrating but also liberating. There is no one ‘true story.’

Twitter: @ZeitchikLAT

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Movie Review: ‘Legend’

Tom Hardy stays still on camera, and unbridled off it

How Brian Helgeland came to make Jackie Robinson movie ‘42’