Matthew Chapman's THE LEDGE explores our faith -- and where we elect to place it; a Q&A with the talented writer/director

An intelligent, anti-religion tract brought to thrilling, pulsating life, THE LEDGE may not be a great film but it is a very, very good one -- cleverly imagined, sharply written and beautifully acted by all concerned. Written and directed by Matthew Chapman (who is, not coincidentally, the great, great grandson of Charles Darwin), the movie's plot pits the mind and spirit of a Christian fundamen-talist against those of an atheist. At stake, is, well, everything. Is this movie provocative? Yes indeed.

That the Christian is acting against every tenant known to have come from Christ Jesus' teachings only makes the movie more realistic and believable so far as what has happened (and continues to happen) in these United States over the past decade or so. Those beautiful Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount -- landmarks of ethical behavior -- have long been left behind by the most zealous, proselytizing Christians in their hypocritical search to deprive homosexuals of their rights, find and kill doctors who practice abortion, and see that women return to their role as "helpmeet" to their man. Our Christian here is played by Patrick Wilson, above, in yet another performance so much better than it needs to be that perhaps they should create an award just for this particular skill. Mr. Wilson has moments of such specificity and honesty that, as dreadful as is the character he plays, the actor never loses us by descending to cliché.

The role of the atheist is essayed by Charlie Hunnam, above, and this is certainly the best job I have seen this young actor deliver so far. He brings a fine intelligence and quick, easy wit to the role, as well as an underlying seriousness and gravity that allow the film to take the course it eventually does.

Beginning with a scene that must be every father's quiet nightmare, in which Terence Howard (above) delivers yet another fine performance as a police inspector who suddenly discovers some unsettling news, the movie opens up into the workplace -- a rather standard, mid-level hotel, where Hunnam's character manages the chambermaid staff -- and the home, an apartment building in which both pro- and antagonist reside, the latter of which has a wife (Liv Tyler, below) who proves the catalyst for all that happens.

Ms Tyler is also giving a performance that as good as anything she's done so far. Playing a woman with a past who is stalled between gratitude and genuine love, she brings not only a tender neediness but surprising seriousness and heft to this role, and she is finally instrumental in allowing us to believe how very far these men would go to possess her.

There's a minimal subplot about Hunnam's gay roommate, which might seem unduly schematic were it not for the very charming, easy performance by Christopher Gorham (above). Homosexuality is the but first of the "sins" our good Christian hopes to eradicate in his neighbors. If only he had stopped there.

The Ledge -- from IFC Films, opens this Friday in theaters (in New York City at the IFC Center, and in Los Angeles area at Laemmle's Sunset 5), and is concurrently available via VOD -- incorporates several genres, but mostly stays in the will-he-or-won't-he (and why?) thriller mode. Chapman handles the flashbacks (necessary, when the tale begins on that ledge) with ease and smarts so that we know what we need to, when we need to, and learn the rest as we move along.  If you've seen as many man-on-a ledge films as have I over the past 70 years, you'll appreciate one as different and pungent as this. It proves its point efficiently and effectively, while entertaining us and making us think. Can you ask much more from a movie?

***************

TrustMovies couldn't, but he could and did ask the filmmaker a few questions -- via phone, but we spent about an hour just gabbing. Matthew Chapman (shown below) and I share a belief in atheism, if that is not a contradiction in terms, and he is such an interesting, open and enthusiastic verbal presence that conversation was easy and plentiful. Unfortunately, the fellow was so much fun, and so interesting at times that TM simply stopped typing and just kept talking and listening. Consequently, he failed to transcribe everything and then had to try to reconstruct it. Below are the highlights, with TM in boldface and Mr. Chapman in standard type.

Boy – how wonderful it is to see a movie about faith – but faith placed in something besides god. Your movie gives us faith in love, in another person, in a kind of “social contract,” in doing the right thing, in, well, anything but religion and that "un-provable" deity!

You got it. And I am so glad.

Yes, and I think most other critics and audiences are going to understand this -- and how important it is -- too.

Let’s hope.

What? You think that some -- even many -- critics will let their own need for religion stand in the way of their appreciation?

I would not be surprised.

I hope not. I read in our press material that you are the great, great grandson of Charles Darwin, so of course we would expect you to have some interest in challenging the fundamentalist religious viewpoint. But how did you get involved in making a movie about this?

I had already written two books about this sort of thing. As a young man, I wasn’t really interested in Darwin because, in Europe, there is simply nothing controversial about him or about evolution. I thought that maybe the sort of odd and quirky piece of luck of being a descendent of this man might provide me with some interesting battles to fight and places to go.

So I wrote the book Trials of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir about the Scopes Trial, and I took a road trip down to Dayton, Tennessee, to see the town where the original trial took place and to learn if it had evolved since 1925.

Had it?

It certainly had not. It seemed pretty much the same, maybe even a little less tolerant. I did meet some great people down there, however. I met a lot of people who were fundamentalists, and some of them were really terrific in certain ways.

Then I wrote a second book called 40 Days and 40 Nights, about a contemporary evolution-versus-creationism trial in Harrisburg, PA: Kitzmiller v. Dover Schooboard. There, fundamentalist parents had gotten control of the school board and instituted the teaching of creationism/intelligent design, as well as evolution. It got very ugly, and eleven parents sued to have the intelligent design taken out of the curriculum.

What confuses me – and I come from a very religious background as a (now-lapsed) Christian Scientist – is how welcoming and kind Christ Jesus was in literally everything he said and did (except maybe whipping the money-lenders out of the temple, which is something we could use a lot more of just now). And yet the Christian fundamentalists, in their hatred and anger, seem completely unaware that they are going directly against Jesus’ wishes and directions.

I believe these people wear a Jesus costume -- but inside they are Moses.

Oh, boy -- that was well said. Is that original?!

Yes, and it just came to me now, talking to you

Did you cast the movie yourself? Fine choices! Charlie Hunnam was particularly good: he -- and you and your writing -- really capture the mind and heart of an intelligent atheist.

Yes, and you know, we only had a single day to rehearse.

One day? Boy, in legitimate theater you’d have a lot more than that!

I’m sure. I was indeed involved in the casting, and this was exactly the cast I wanted, and I think all of the actors are so good, so exceptional. I think that Liv Tyler and Charlie Hunnam are as good as they have ever been, and of course, Patrick Wilson and Terence Howard are always so good.

Wilson is so effortlessly good at being cold, and yet in other roles – like the current Insidious – he’s full of innate charm. Tyler, under-used and often given a bad rap, really proves herself here. And Hunnam is just about perfect as a non-believer who’s whip-smart and won’t put up with any bullshit. And it is his character most of all that nails your thesis, I think. The fact that genuine faith need not be at the service of god or religion.

You know, I went to show this film at a meeting of more than 1,000 atheists in Des Moines, Iowa, and around 120 of them were either military or ex-military. I met many of them, talked and hung out with them, even got drunk with them. Clearly, these were people who would have sacrificed their lives for their comrades in war. So it’s clear that people do sacrifice their lives out of and for simple human decency, without any promise of an afterlife.

You may not know the answer to this, but do you think that your actors’ interest in this film came somewhat because of its (and maybe their own) take on religion and fundamentalism?

 
I didn’t probe into that question with them, except a bit with Charlie, because of the particular role he had. There are parts of actors that which you honor better, if you let them keep a few things to themselves. You get more out of them that way.

That’s true, I think. I used to act. Way back.

Really?

Yeah, but I couldn’t mange it for long. It’s such a difficult struggle. You have to be so strong to take that near-constant rejection.

My daughter now wants to be an actress. And I worry about this.

I think if parents -- and I suspect you have already done this -- provide their kids with the tools to form their own good self-image while growing up, then whatever career the kids decide to tackle, they’ll have a better chance of success.

Well, one thing I did tell my daughter is, Just keep your sense of humor. That is so important. Really, that’s probably why England survived the Blitz and WWII. Hitler had no sense of humor, but Churchill certainly did. If you have as sense of humor, this can really help take the pressure off.

Can we talk about Heart of Midnight?

(Chapman laughs) 
{Editor’s note: This was one of Chapman’s earlier films.}

Sure. Actually, that’s why I stopped directing. We had a disagreement on what the movie should be. I wanted it to be an art movie, the producer wanted a horror movie. And so the finished film was constantly fighting against itself. After that, I thought, I don’t want to get rushed into another movie where I don’t care about the ideas or don’t understand them.

It's funny, but I remember thinking, when I saw it when it first came out, that this was a movie that didn't know what it wanted to be.  Then came Consenting Adults…

Another movie with problems.

The Color of Night, which for all its bad press, was still kind of fun in a campy way. And then What’s the Worst that Could Happen? What was that last film like to work on?

That was one of the best scripts I ever wrote. Donald Westlake, from whose novel I adapted the screenplay, wrote me, telling me that this was “the best adaptation of any of book of mine, ever” – which I am really proud of! But you do this work and think you’ve written a good script, and then…. the director comes aboard. So, after about 20 years of people misdirecting your work, you finally think, “Well, I‘d like to mis-direct my own work.”

Runaway Jury, though – now that was another good script --and a good movie!

Yes, but because The Insider has just come out and was about the prosecution of the tobacco industry, the producers wanted me to find another subject in place of tobacco, since they had bought the right to the Grisham book. So I turned the subject to the wrongdoing of a gun manufacturer. I did a lot or research into issue of guns their control and distribution. For instance, when you pull the magazine out of certain guns, often that gun is left with a bullet in its chamber.

What? Really?

Yes. So people pick up the gun and think that because there is no magazine in it, it’s empty. But, still, there’s a bullet in the gun. Gun companies could get around this by doing all kinds of things, but they just don’t bother. And that’s disgusting.

Yep. I’d like to think that Runaway Jury at least got viewers thinking about guns and gun control. Before I forget, are Hussy and Stranger’s Kiss (these are two of Chapman’s earliest films) available on DVD or streaming?

You know, I don’t really know. And also, the things you did way back then are from such a different time that it’s like a different person wrote them.

Yes: I used to write plays, and when I look back at them 30 years later, it’s like they belong to someone else.

While you might change some things and make it better, you can’t really capture the spirit that was you at that time. I would love to write for the theater. The famous theater director Peter Hall has a son Edward Hall, who runs The Hampstead Theater and he wants me to turn The Ledge into a theater piece. Which I hope to do.

I can see that happening fairly easily, for there is already so much good dialog there. If somebody had told me that The Ledge was already based on a play, I’d have said, “Of course.”

Speaking of Darwin, did you see the movie Creation, and what did you think? I thought it could have been better but even so, there were some marvelous things in it.

I was hoping they would ask me to write Creation. But they didn’t. But I thought the movie had some wonderful stuff in it, too. You know, Darwin was such a scientist – and interested in so many different things. He wrote this enormous book about orchids and earthworms; he really had a scientist’s mind.

Were you raised in England?

Yes, in Cambridge.

I notice during the end credits that you dedicated your movie to two names.

Yes -- to two men Dick Chapman (my uncle) and Ben Duncan, who was his partner and is now his husband. They were the first couple to marry in Cambridge, England, and are somewhat, you might say, gay icons. I love them. They were the only functional couple in my entire childhood. I love and revere them because they were such a good example to me. They were also a huge inspiration to the film -- because homophobia is one of the most awful and visible aspects of religion in general and of Christians, Muslims and Jews in particular. But I don’t think I know a single religion that isn’t homophobic. When I was growing up, these two men who lived next door to me. If they had been caught, simply as two practicing homosexuals, they would have faced up to 30 years in prison during the 1950s and 60s – that was the maximum sentence in Britain. From the age of eight or nine, I thought this law was outrageous and very peculiar.

Where does this hatred come from?

One does not have far to look. The Church of England was always very homophobic.

Still is, pretty much.  Now, your movie is opening simultaneously in New York and Los Angeles, right?

Yes, but whether it opens nationwide depends on how it does in the first couple of weeks. So whether it makes it into the smaller town or even mid-size towns in American – which is where it really needs to be seen -- depends on how well it does in those first couple of weeks.

Because it’s from IFC, it’ll still be available via VOD all over the country.

Yes, but to be really empowering and to provoke discussion, it needs to open in a local theater where the local critic will then cover it.

Right – although more and more often now, you see VOD debuts and straight to DVD covered by the media, especially the blogs. 

But we need to get the major critics to do this, too.

Yes -- so we will do what we can.  Thanks so much for your time, Matthew, and I wish you the very best for your really special and provocative film.

Thank you.