Tom Hardy (15 page)

One of the big challenges in bringing the Bronson story to the screen was that Bronson had spent most of his adult life in prison – and most of his prison life in solitary confinement. Surely this would be rather limiting when it came to making a full-length feature? The solution lay in imaginative and creative film-making on the part of the director and the director of photography. For a start, the story wasn’t told chronologically, it was carved up into bite-sized pieces. It also didn’t attempt to plod laboriously through the whole of Bronson’s life, only certain episodes were covered. The
storytelling
was stylised and varied and included close-up solo pieces to camera, imaginative and, at times, incongruous use of music, occasional use of real archive footage and scenes where Bronson would appear on a stage and deliver a monologue to an imaginary audience. As well as providing variety, it also, according to the director, was his way of taking Bronson outside the confines of his cell – even if he couldn’t physically leave, he could escape in his mind and the stage was a fitting setting for the ultimate showman.

During filming, Tom continued to seek Bronson’s approval
as far as possible. Present most days on set was Bronson’s close friend and link to the outside world, Mark Fish. If Tom or other members of the cast and crew had questions or wanted to find out how Bronson would feel about something, he would consult Fish, or Fish would somehow manage to contact Bronson to obtain his opinion. Equally, Bronson’s family were often turned to for advice and approval. Tom was insistent that Bronson was on side with the film: ‘You get into bed with the guy, with his family, and then you rob them? I ain’t part of that. And not just because I don’t want to be rolled up in a carpet and dropped to the bottom of the Thames,’ he told
The Times
, in no uncertain terms.

The director and the star made no secret of their artistic differences about the film. They were approaching it from two contrasting standpoints and each had their own priorities. The director’s focus was on making a film about the nature of celebrity, how one man managed to find it, and why. Tom was much more focussed, understandably, on Bronson the man and how he should be representing him on screen. Ultimately, though, they agreed that these contrasting points of view made for a richer, more textured film. There was also no question that the two men respected each other’s work. Tom said it had been ‘awesome’ working with Winding Refn and recognised that the director was as dedicated to his craft as Tom was to acting, commenting that Winding Refn ‘lives, breathes and doesn’t sleep film’. In turn, the director confirmed that Tom’s fascination with Bronson the man is what had made the character work on screen.

The way the film was constructed meant that it would stand or fall on Tom’s performance – he was in every single
scene and so was central to its success. And what a performance it was! The film’s highly stylised nature meant that the actor was constantly adapting his style depending on what was required for a particular scene. In one scene he would be performing like a vaudeville entertainer; in another he would be delivering a monologue straight to camera in close up. Naturally, there were also scenes where he needed to act with extreme aggression and violence. Perhaps the most stunning achievement, though, was that he succeeded in giving his character humanity and a sense of pathos that pushes the audience to like him in spite of his actions. Tom succeeded in giving a rounded insight into a very complex man.

Even though Tom was the centre of attention in the film, he was by no means a selfish presence on set. Actress Juliet Oldfield who played Alison, the woman for whom Bronson stole the engagement ring, said that Tom was ‘great to work alongside; he makes you feel extremely comfortable’. Hugh Ross, who played Bronson’s Uncle Jack, was impressed with Tom, saying he was ‘a dangerous, intelligent and exciting actor’.

The film opened in the UK on 13 March 2009 and its release date just happened to fall within a few days of a parole hearing for Bronson which, if successful, would see him moved to a lower-category prison. The premiere took place at Cineworld on Haymarket in London and a large contingent of the audience was a rogue’s gallery of underworld faces. Prior to the screening, something else happened that generated even more controversy but which also drew the public’s attention to the film. Somehow, Bronson had managed to record a speech to be played at the premiere and it had found its way outside. Contact with Bronson is strictly
limited and only granted by approval of the prison authorities, who were furious when they discovered that, somehow, this had happened under their noses. An inquiry into what had gone wrong was demanded.

The audience were pleased, though, as it’s rare that anyone gets to hear Bronson speak. In his message he said that he was sorry he couldn’t attend the event and thanked everyone involved in the film. He of course paid homage to Tom, saying: ‘What an actor, what a man – max respect.’ He confessed that he had shaved off his moustache and sent it to Tom to use in the film, so that a little bit of him would be able to appear in it. He also expressed regret at his past acts of violence and stated that he had matured since then. He concluded by saying: ‘I’m proud of this film because if I drop dead tonight, then I live on.’

Bronson
was never going to be an easy film to defend and was always bound to attract a slew of media attention, much of it negative. Newspapers with right-of-centre tendencies were decidedly up in arms about it. The arguments were predictable: the film glorified violence, it gave a voice to a man who didn’t deserve one, it neglected to show the harm Bronson had inflicted on particular people and it brushed his offences under the carpet. T
HE LIONISING OF A MONSTER
screamed a headline in the
Daily Mail
in March 2009. The article quoted the National Chairman of the Prison Officers Association, Colin Moses, who was, unsurprisingly, opposed to the film. ‘This film is glorifying someone who’s spent his life attacking and assaulting prison staff and taking innocent people hostage for his own gratification. It’s an outrage to decent, law-abiding people,’ he said. The
Daily Mail 
concluded its piece by branding the film ‘tawdry, exploitative and indefensible’.

Nicolas Winding Refn chose to answer some of the criticisms by issuing a statement saying: ‘I certainly would never make a film that glorifies violence or anything in that demeanour. On the contrary, all my films have always had a very strict moral code to them. I also think Bronson has.’

Other newspapers were more measured in their response to
Bronson
and chose to judge it on artistic merit rather than where they stood on the matter politically. Some understandably took issue with the fact that the film stood on shaky moral ground in that it seemed unapologetic about Charles Bronson’s violence. Tim Robey in the
Daily Telegraph
found the film to have too much flamboyant style and not enough substance. ‘Refn and Hardy are talented fellows but they’ve egged each other on to flaunt their gifts to excess, staging a loud but hollow tough-guy pantomime which has little, if anything, to say for itself,’ he wrote.

Several critics chose to mark out Tom’s performance as something worthy of attention. The
Daily Star
called it ‘a considerable tour de force of acting’ and the
Observer
said, ‘It isn’t… a pretty sight, but in a brave and bravura performance, Tom Hardy makes it a compelling one.’

Tom, in the meantime, put himself on the frontline to defend his work. As well as giving interviews for print media, he also made television appearances to promote the film and was inevitably called upon to respond to criticisms. When he appeared on
This Morning
, the presenters read out to him a ‘charge sheet’ of Bronson’s crimes and Tom was asked how the man he knew differed from the man the press painted him
as being. Tom reiterated that he is an actor and that his job is not to judge but to ‘observe and reflect’ the person he found in front of him. He hadn’t met Bronson with an agenda, he just wanted to be able to listen to him tell stories and to pick up the rhythms of his speech. He added: ‘The man I met wasn’t a monster… [he has] massive anger problems and [is] incredibly charismatic, very, very funny, but very insightful and very gentle and calm too.’

In response to the common accusation thrown at the film – that it glorifies violence – Tom disputed this by explaining that ultimately Bronson’s story was a tragic one. Every act of violence leads to him being incarcerated for longer. If anything, the film showed that ‘fighting the system is not going to work – it’s tragic, actually’.

Whatever the divided opinions of the world on
Bronson
, it proved a bold and wise career move on Tom’s part. His performance didn’t go without formal recognition: he won the award for Best Actor at the 2008 British Independent Film Awards and was nominated in the same category at the
Evening Standard
British Film Awards.

As he’d been at pains to point out, now that he’d done something extreme, people were starting to take notice of him. Thanks to making some noise with his talent, he was signed up by a big US agency who also represent the likes of Meryl Streep and Brad Pitt. In spite of this, Tom still had his feet firmly on the ground and was aware that he was still hovering around the bottom rung of the Hollywood ladder. As he explained, he’d have to ‘eat a lot more dirt’ before he could be considered on a par with Tinseltown’s elite.

As well as helping to propel him towards the big time,
Bronson
had been a learning experience for Tom, one that had helped him to grow as an actor and expand his field of vision when it came to building characters. ‘I’ve been somewhere I’ve never been before and I think it will help me – and has done – to walk into rooms that I used to be frightened to walk into.’

Working on
Stuart: A Life Backwards
had made a deep personal impact on Tom and led to the development of a lasting relationship between the actor and a Cambridge-based charity called FLACK.

FLACK had its origins in a magazine produced by and for homeless people in the city called the
Willow Walker
. Alexander Masters at one point edited the magazine and, through his involvement in
Stuart
, Tom became a patron of the
Willow Walker
. Out of the
Willow Walker
grew FLACK, which expanded its services and ultimately replaced the magazine’s role – Tom then continued his patronage for FLACK. ‘I met wonderful people when filming
Stuart
and I feel supporting homeless issues in Cambridge helps make me part of a community and a responsible human being. And it keeps me healthy to be useful in other areas of my life that don’t involve acting,’ he told the BBC.

Tom supports FLACK in all sorts of hands-on ways. In May 2010, he took part in a charity screening of Bronson with a question and answer session in Cambridge, the purpose of which was to generate funds for the charity (at that point newly formed). The audience comprised homeless people who were involved with FLACK, Hardy fans and some Charles Bronson aficionados too.

At the start of 2012, Tom was called upon to help FLACK’s urgent appeal for funds. FLACK had been founded on a grant of just
£
7,000 from the Kenneth Miller trust. The magazine had launched in October 2011 but by December of that year, according to creative director Kirsten Lavers, it had become clear that FLACK could not sustain itself on such a tight budget. The production of the magazine was putting huge time pressures on the staff and they were finding themselves with little time for crucial matters such as preparing funding bids. The trustees told FLACK that unless they raised
£
45,000 by January 2012, they would face closure.

Cue Tom. Lavers contacted him to inform him of their plight and the actor immediately swung into action. With his fame as his platform, he reached out to his fans and asked them, on his behalf, to donate to FLACK to help them reach their target. He and Lavers launched a Tom Hardy appeal page for JustGiving and Tom’s message to his fans informed them that everyone who donated
£
2 would be entered into a prize draw to win signed Tom Hardy goodies and would also receive a thank you email from the actor. The response was overwhelming. Tom kept on posting updates on the page and on 9 January he announced the great news:

‘100% thank you so much. FLACK is no longer facing immediate closure. Now their work really begins, FLACK still needs our support – if you haven’t already donated please do.’

In just five weeks they had exceeded their initial target. ‘Much of it is down to our patron, Tom Hardy, and his fans,’ said Lavers to BBC News. ‘They have sent donations from all over the world. It’s really quite humbling.’

Tom didn’t stop there, though. In February 2012, he
announced that he would be embarking on a road trip – across Siberia – in order to raise money for FLACK. Again, his popularity meant the press were all too eager to run any kind of story he gave them so it didn’t take long for his fans to learn of his latest fundraising venture. He said on his JustGiving page: ‘So please do cheer me on as I brave the Siberian Steppes by donating whatever you can afford. I hope to send the odd pic from along the way if I can work out how to use my phone without taking my gloves off!’

FLACK isn’t the only charity Tom is heavily involved in. He is also an ambassador for the Prince’s Trust, a charity that helps young people to change their lives for the better. It offers practical and financial support and, since it was established in 1976, has helped more than 600,000 young people. It aims to reach out to those who have had problems at school, been in care, who are long-term unemployed or who have been in trouble with the law. In short, it gives a second chance to young people who have struggled – something Tom was bound to identify with.

In May 2010, The Prince’s Trust announced Tom as one of its new ambassadors. To mark the announcement, Tom met eight young people aged between 19 and 24 who had turned their lives around with the help of the charity. They had all overcome their own setbacks which ranged from drug addiction to homelessness – areas familiar to Tom. He did some role plays with the group to help build their confidence and self-esteem. ‘I find their enthusiasm incredibly infectious, partly because I can really relate to their struggles,’ he said. ‘It’s great to be able to put my personal experience to some use, and help them build up some confidence.’