Oscar-winning British director Steve McQueen receives the Visionary Award at the Stockholm Film Festival 2024 for his latest feature film, Blitz — following his critically acclaimed four-hour documentary Occupied City for A24/New Regency, exploring Amsterdam under Nazi occupation — which underscores his fixation with revisiting historical London through neo-Dickensian storytelling.
The filmmaker of Caribbean descent raised in West London who wrote and directed his groundbreaking Small Axe anthology for Prime delves once again into themes of race, power, and historical injustice. He reflects on the industry's shift toward streaming, stressing that the magic of cinema will always lie in the shared experience of the theatre, “something that can never be replaced.”
Courtesy of AppleTV
Blitz is your sixth feature film, adding to an already remarkable career that includes documentaries and TV productions. At this point in your journey, how do you view your evolution as a filmmaker? And reflecting back, what initially inspired you to start making films?
I think it was always an evolution, in a way. As a child, with a crayon, you were always drawing the world, framing it on a piece of paper. So it was this evolution, dealing with images, towards moving images. For me, that was the evolution of wanting to look at the world, I suppose. I was genuinely interested in cinema, and I met this girl, a very important girlfriend of mine, who was a Swiss lady. I would go with her to see the cinema. We were very lucky to see feature films in the original format in 35 mm. You would see people falling in love, people eating meals, people fighting… You see people from all different places in the world. You see the world through cinema. That was really amazing for me. To be falling in love and to discover cinema at the same time was just one of the most amazing things as a 19-year-old. You're having sex all the time, and you're watching films. You're young and can run for days. You can have sex for hours and watch movies. So it was really kind of like I was in a fountain, sort of being replenished by culture and love.
Has anything changed or shifted over the years in your creative process as a filmmaker?
I have no idea. You can never follow me, or I can never put footprints in the sand and follow myself. I don't know how I do it. It's never the same thing that happens twice. It's kind of weird. All I can say is there’s a want and there’s a will, and things come according to that. There's no pattern.
Your new feature film Blitz stands apart from your previous work. How much did the unique backdrop set against the lens of modern-day culture in London shape your approach to this World War II story?
Blitz is, at least I think, a very different World War II film. To be honest with you, it was all a discovery. Because, again, how do I delve into the world of the Second World War? It started with a photograph of this slim, black child. A boy on a platform, ready to be evacuated. As in most cities in the UK, every child was evacuated. There were millions of children sent to the countryside. I came across this image, and through that image, I wanted to know more. I understood that would be my entry into the war. I had been a war artist in 2003, and I’d been to Iraq. Again, most of us have never experienced war, it’s a very abstract place. So, somehow, I wanted to bring war home from that experience. When I saw that kid, that photograph, and did my research, it was almost like shadow-mining, finding out these things.
I really wanted to make a movie about people who had to deal with the consequences of war, not the Churchills, the Eisenhowers, or the Trumans. It was about the people who had to deal with the cesspool left behind after decisions on war had been made. I was just finding things that were already there. Women were the backbone of the history of the country. As I said before, they were looking after elderly parents, raising children, working in ammunition factories, in aircraft hangars, and keeping things running at home to send ammunition to the front. When the men came back, often with post-traumatic stress disorder, these women were there to hold things together. They had also come together in ways where they weren’t just domestic workers anymore, they had found their purpose. Because of the war, they never wanted to go back to how things were before. That’s why they voted Churchill out the second the war was over. Usually, in war movies, these women are portrayed, excuse me for being blunt, as hysterical, or they’re just a wife at home having a cup of tea and getting on with their lives. But in reality, this is what they were doing. For some reason, it was a deliberate choice to portray women that way, just as it was with minorities. As my historical advisor, Joshua Levine, said, London at this time was cosmopolitan. But for some reason, people chose not to show it that way.
I really wanted to make a movie about people who had to deal with the consequences of war, not the Churchills, the Eisenhowers, or the Trumans. It was about the people who had to deal with the cesspool left behind after decisions on war had been made. I was just finding things that were already there. Women were the backbone of the history of the country. As I said before, they were looking after elderly parents, raising children, working in ammunition factories, in aircraft hangars, and keeping things running at home to send ammunition to the front. When the men came back, often with post-traumatic stress disorder, these women were there to hold things together. They had also come together in ways where they weren’t just domestic workers anymore, they had found their purpose. Because of the war, they never wanted to go back to how things were before. That’s why they voted Churchill out the second the war was over. Usually, in war movies, these women are portrayed, excuse me for being blunt, as hysterical, or they’re just a wife at home having a cup of tea and getting on with their lives. But in reality, this is what they were doing. For some reason, it was a deliberate choice to portray women that way, just as it was with minorities. As my historical advisor, Joshua Levine, said, London at this time was cosmopolitan. But for some reason, people chose not to show it that way.
Courtesy of AppleTV
How did you balance the portrayal of real events with your artistic vision instinctively?
That's the first and foremost thing, really. The historical research and taking things from historical narratives as such, are there to help the story, that's it. Whatever doesn’t help the story, it doesn’t make it into the story. It has to help the narrative. I'm not interested in ticking boxes. The foundation is George and Rita: their love, their connection are the foundations of the movie. Therefore, once you've got that, then you can go off and do whatever you want but that is the main focus of the picture.
You mentioned that this film should have been made 40 years ago. Do you feel a need to fulfil any cultural gaps for the mainstream audience with this film?
Well, no. I don’t want to, but I find that I have to. It’s exciting because when you dive into the whole business of the Second World War, you discover all these things. Like, there’s a street in central London called the Seven Dials. There were three black clubs there in the 1930s, and when you find out about these things, it’s like the Café de Paris, where people are living the life of Riley, while others are living off rations. Some people are being served oysters, while others are trading things to survive. It’s an amazing tapestry of an environment. I loved the idea of bringing this to the big screen, because it’s like science fiction, we’ve never seen this before. If you want to go and see a movie about men shooting each other in a field in Germany, well fucking go ahead. Not me.
Last year, you directed and produced the 4-hour documentary Occupied City, and before the anthology series Small Axe. Has your experience making TV series influenced the way you approach storytelling in your films?
When I was growing up in England, we had this thing called Play for Today. They would shoot it on 16mm, and some incredible filmmakers worked on these projects. In the UK, that’s how we made feature films. It was amazing because you had great filmmakers using the format to make their films. For me, as a child, I remember that these were fine feature films that happened to arrive on TV. With Small Axe, it was due to be screened at Cannes but with Covid that never happened. But then, when we premiered Small Axe on TV, OMG! The response was extraordinary. I think what made it special was that when we’re invited into people’s homes. It’s a private space, and it’s beautiful that people can receive you in their homes. The response was so personal, and I was really touched by that. These weren’t just TV shows; they were films, and the audience’s connection felt very intimate. I loved that.
Now that you have experience working with both traditional cinema and streaming formats, how do you see the future of filmmaking evolving, particularly with stories shifting from 90-minute films to 20-hour narratives?
I've been offered some crazy stuff. And it's like, I'm not interested in Sequels and stuff like that or a franchise. I find it very difficult because I do think people want to still be surprised. I think people want to be given the opportunity to discover things. I think the cinematic format is the best way to discover things. Especially when you're an audience. There's the oohs, and the ahs, and the shudders and stuff. Can you imagine being on the rollercoaster ride on your own? Half of the thrill is that you're with other people in the theatre and you're hearing screams. It's fantastic.
I was thinking about someone like Billy Wilder. He'd edit a movie so part of the comedy was people laughing in the audience. Watching a comedy on your own at home is, I’m not saying it's not funny, but it's much more entertaining when you're in an audience. It allows you to participate. I'm going on a bit because I'm in love with this format. I was saying to you before, is this opera? It's got to be hip-hop. It's got to be rock and roll. It has to be edgy. How do you get younger people, and how do you get people interested to come to the cinema? Like, Dune: Part Two. I don’t mean any disrespect at all, but haven’t we seen this before? We want something which is the original and which is going to excite people. I think, at least, even a movie that costs $10 million could be something of interest. It's important for the survival of cinema. It's important for our own stimulation. To see the same movie three or four or five times, I mean, come on!
I was thinking about someone like Billy Wilder. He'd edit a movie so part of the comedy was people laughing in the audience. Watching a comedy on your own at home is, I’m not saying it's not funny, but it's much more entertaining when you're in an audience. It allows you to participate. I'm going on a bit because I'm in love with this format. I was saying to you before, is this opera? It's got to be hip-hop. It's got to be rock and roll. It has to be edgy. How do you get younger people, and how do you get people interested to come to the cinema? Like, Dune: Part Two. I don’t mean any disrespect at all, but haven’t we seen this before? We want something which is the original and which is going to excite people. I think, at least, even a movie that costs $10 million could be something of interest. It's important for the survival of cinema. It's important for our own stimulation. To see the same movie three or four or five times, I mean, come on!
Courtesy of AppleTV
How do you view the lasting impact of a film or artwork on its audience?
The beauty of movies is that you watch them, and then they stay with you. It's like a painting. It's not just about the moment you look at it, but what you take from it, what you take home with you and carry with you afterward. When something's truly good, it's what you take with you, not just about appreciating a beautiful painting in the moment. I remember seeing Zéro de conduite by Jean Vigo and how it stuck with me. And I see these kids on the train with their hands in the air. It's not just about seeing them in that moment, it’s about liberation, freedom from institutions. That’s what stays with you.
As a filmmaker of Caribbean descent, your work often engages with issues of race, power, and historical injustice. While you have the freedom to tell your own stories, do you ever feel constrained by the expectations placed on you to be a voice for these themes in your work?
No, because I find it exciting to talk about it. It’s exciting for me, and they’re great narratives. It just happens. You open the door and walk around and find a great narrative.That's all.
How does this film fit in with your previous work?
My first film was about a guy on hunger strike and I just wanted to go for it. When I made Hunger, I thought I'd go out with two guns and blazes. I thought it would be my first film and my last film. So be it. I'll take some of you guys with me. Fuck it. It turned out to be a success. Okay, I'm going to do this new one. Shame. Oh, shit. All these movies I do, it's like, oh, so they want to watch this? It's also about storytelling. When there's two people in a pub telling the same story, one of them bores you to tears and the other one’s got you on the edge of your chair. There's a craft, a way of telling a story which is very exciting to me.
It's just like George in Blitz. You can cut from him on the station and his mother looking at him, cut to his naked feet under a bed. We've already established, there was a suitcase under the bed. Now we've got naked feet dangling. Then you cut to when his mother comes in and the suitcase is on the bed and so he’s going away. He puts his vest on, his shirt on. It's poetry. There's an amalgamation of images that you know [what’s happening]. What's beautiful about visual storytelling is that people are so highly intelligent visually that they sense and see people with their nose and they see with their eyes and their ears. It's just the best. When it's good, it's fucking good.
It's just like George in Blitz. You can cut from him on the station and his mother looking at him, cut to his naked feet under a bed. We've already established, there was a suitcase under the bed. Now we've got naked feet dangling. Then you cut to when his mother comes in and the suitcase is on the bed and so he’s going away. He puts his vest on, his shirt on. It's poetry. There's an amalgamation of images that you know [what’s happening]. What's beautiful about visual storytelling is that people are so highly intelligent visually that they sense and see people with their nose and they see with their eyes and their ears. It's just the best. When it's good, it's fucking good.
