Until this month, if the Danish director and screenwriter Nikolaj Arcel was known at all in the English-speaking world, it was as the co-writer of the screenplay for the original version of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.” But after winning two prizes at the Berlin Film Festival a year ago, the latest film he directed, “A Royal Affair,” is now getting attention in Hollywood as one of the five contenders nominated for the Academy Award for best foreign-language film.
“A Royal Affair” is set in the late 18th century, in the court of Christian VII, the mentally ill king of Denmark. A German doctor with progressive political and medical ideas, Johann Friederich Struensee, is hired to attend him, but after some initial improvement in the king’s behavior, things begin to take an unexpected direction: the doctor fills Christian with the revolutionary ideas of Voltaire and Rousseau at the same time he secretly becomes the lover of the young English-born queen, Caroline.
The film is the fifth Mr. Arcel has directed and features Mads Mikkelsen, who has appeared in “Casino Royale” and “Clash of the Titans,” as Struensee and Alicia Vikander, seen most recently in “Anna Karenina,” as Caroline. This week Mr. Arcel, 40, spoke by telephone from Denmark, where he is at work on a new project, about the genesis and objectives of “A Royal Affair.” Here are edited excerpts from that interview:
Your film portrays an episode virtually unknown outside Denmark. How well-known is it among Danes in the 21st century?
This is probably one of the most famous historic episodes in Denmark, and I would say that every single Dane knows about it. But it’s funny, because as soon as you cross the border, nobody knows it. So basically it’s only Denmark, where it’s taught in schools.
Did this story fascinate you as a child?
Yes, as it did most Danish kids. Of course you can’t understand the complexities of it when you’re in second or third grade, but what you can understand is that a beautiful young girl married a crazy king and had an affair with a rebellious revolutionary doctor. The adventure of it got to me as a kid.
So why hadn’t a movie version of this story been made earlier?
It’s a very ambitious project. I knew a lot of people had been trying to make the film for many, many years; obviously it’s been a bit of a holy grail for Danish filmmakers. But of course because of financing and various other problems, I guess it didn’t get made.
I never thought I would be crazy enough to try and do it. But then eventually after my third film, I thought, “O.K., if nobody is going to do this film, maybe I should give it a go.” Then cut to five years later, because it did actually take that long to get it done.
To tell the story, you opted to make a genre film, somewhat in the style of the costume dramas that the British do so well. Why did you take that approach?
Denmark is known for smaller sort of films, the Dogme films and small dramas, but what my entire career has been about has been making films that are very non-Danish in their look and way of storytelling. So I always find joy in trying to do something that has never been done in Denmark before. In this case it was the big, epic, lavish sort of costume drama.
When you talking about your films looking non-Danish, what do you mean?
I was part of a generation raised on American films, on the films of the ’70s, the new Hollywood, and I was a big fan of those. We grew up with a healthy mix of Hal Ashby, Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg and Lucas, and you can see that in other filmmakers my age now in Denmark. They have a slightly more Americanized way of telling stories, a slightly more lavish scope and are making films that are a little bit more genre and not so much dramas that are about divorce and death and family. We like to tell slightly bigger stories. I’m a big political nut myself, so a lot of my films have politics.
It’s interesting to hear you say that, because I thought you were using the costume drama and romantic triangle in “A Royal Affair” to deal a lot with politics, and not just 18th-century politics but also issues that confront us today.
Yes, the big fight between conservatism and idealism. When I was writing, it was general feelings that I had about things that are still being discussed. When we were at Berlin, it was very timely because of the Arab Spring. Everybody thought we had done a film about the Arab Spring. And then when it came to America, it was the presidential election, and everybody in the U.S. thought we did a film that spoke to the American political situation. But this just goes to show that these are discussions that never end. We’re still discussing the same issues.
So the debate in the film about whether to inoculate the population against smallpox is a kind of stand-in for current issues like global warming and whether the 1 percent should pay more in taxes?
Yes, and you can even relate it to the health care discussion: should we use money to make sure that people are healthy? The conservatives at court are saying we don’t have money for that, we’ll just inoculate the wealthy— which is something that still goes on, I think.
Lars von Trier is listed as one of the executive producers of “A Royal Affair.” Could you talk a bit about his participation in the project?
He’s a friend and obviously a mentor to me and to almost every Danish filmmaker. I asked him to be the main consultant for the screenplay and also in the editing. He came in and read the screenplay at various stages and gave his notes and came up with some ideas. He was the one, for example, who suggested that we follow both Caroline and Struensee instead of following just one of them. He said, “You should go epic and spend the time it takes to be with both of them, instead of just one.” And that was very good advice.
And in the editing process?
He also came into the editing room and sat with us for a couple of weeks. He gives very good, concise notes, he’s very good at that. The good thing about Lars is that he’s a brutal guy. He will just tell you if something doesn’t work, and he will tell you right away ‘I hate that’ or ‘I love that.’ (Laughs)
Specifically, he did help us take out some overexplaining at certain points. We thought the audience wouldn’t get certain things, but he said, “Take this out, delete this scene, you don’t need that.” He is basically the mentor of this film.
I know you’re being told you’ve got an uphill climb, being in the same category as Michael Haneke’s “Amour,” but you sound like you’re pleased just to be one of the nominees.
Yes, of course. I mean, who wouldn’t be? I think that being nominated for an Oscar is something quite joyful and if you start really stressing that you want to win, then you get … I think winning is not the important thing. It’s really an honor to be in the company of Haneke and some of these other directors. I’ll just be happy with that for now. (Laughs)
