Unraveling the Mystery: Who Really Caused Amy Winehouse’s Tragic End?

by

Asif Kapadia, the British director of the Academy Award-winning documentary “Amy,” recently shared with a gathering of documentary specialists at the Visions du Réel film festival in Nyon, Switzerland, that he approached the making of this film 10 years ago as if he were solving a mystery. In other words, he was asking, “Who or what contributed to the tragic end of Amy Winehouse?

While creating the movie, Kapadia was mindful that it was quite somber. A friend warned him, “If you tell the truth, this film will never be released.” He pondered, “What is the truth? I don’t know what the story is.” After learning the story, he realized, “My goodness, this thing will never see the light of day. It’s incredibly heavy.” There exists a longer version of this movie that lasts for 15 minutes more, which is quite intense, and his wife is still displeased that they didn’t put out that version, but it’s simply too much to handle.

He described his work process as if he was solving a mystery, as if something tragic had occurred. Speaking at Nyon, overlooking Lake Geneva with the Alps in the distance, he likened our edit suite to a scene from a movie like ‘Zodiac’ or one directed by David Fincher, filled with charts and whiteboards, where everyone – the potential suspects, characters, you name it – are pinned up, and the aim is to piece together all the puzzle pieces.

He gathered his “proof,” if you will, from preexisting sources such as archived videos from platforms like YouTube, personal videos provided by his friends and relatives, along with interviews he carried out with people who were closest to the subject.

As a cinephile, my interest in taking up this movie stemmed from unanswered questions about the enigmatic British singer-songwriter, who seemed troubled on stage and often made headlines. Questions like, “Why does she struggle so visibly on stage?” “Why is she constantly in the news?” “Who’s looking after her when she needs it most?” After her untimely death at just 27, more questions arose, such as, “How could someone die in this modern age without any accountability?” I felt compelled to unravel these mysteries, to bring some light to her story. In essence, I aimed to unearth the truth through this film.

Firstly, he had an initial meeting with the producer, James Gay-Rees, along with some key figures from the movie’s plot – her father, the record label head, and her second manager. They sought him out because they appreciated his work on his previous project, “Senna,” a film focusing on another exceptional individual whose life was tragically ended: Ayrton Senna, the Brazilian racer who passed away at 34 years old.

Kapadia stated that prior to starting the project, our conditions were already set. He explained, ‘If we proceed with this film, you must provide us with all the music and publishing rights, cover the costs, give us two years of freedom, and not interfere with our decisions or instructions. Simply let us work for two years, after which we will deliver a film.’ However, he added a caution, ‘It’s important to understand: this isn’t going to have a happy ending. The protagonist struggles with addiction and dies young, so we’ll need to delve deeply into these aspects.’

He mentioned that he had interviewed approximately 120 individuals who were connected to her life, spread across various parts of the world. The crucial aspect was: No one had faith in journalists or cameramen. Everyone suspected they could be paparazzi, ready to secretly take a photo for sale to newspapers. Many of her friends were quite wary, and they didn’t trust him or us because they assumed that if we were making this film, we must have the approval of those in control. There was a lot of animosity among people, so he had to work hard to gain the trust of every person he spoke with. The most detrimental action would be showing up with a camera. So, how did I interview someone? The approach became: Gain their trust, avoid using a camera, just myself in a room with a microphone on a table. The microphone would be recording while we conversed, and I’d simply turn off the lights, and we’d sit in the dark.

I’d say something like, ‘Feel free to drop by any time, be it Saturday or Sunday, even at 2 a.m., it’s all good with me. Just let me know when is convenient for you. No formal paperwork is required initially. We can simply have a chat. At the end of the project, if you agree to be part of the film, I’ll present it to you. If you’re satisfied, then we can discuss the signing of a release form.’

Kapadia outlined his approach during the interviewing and archival study process, mentioning that he continually edits the footage concurrently. This simultaneous editing often uncovers fresh leads for him to explore further.

He mentioned: “There will be an individual appearing in the frame, situated behind Amy in a particular room, and when this happens, I’ll ask, ‘Who is that person? Are they holding a camera? Could they have some footage?’ Consequently, a significant part of it involves scrutinizing the image meticulously. Afterwards, I engage with someone who then shares information that leads me in a different direction.

After viewing a short segment featuring a private phone message from Amy Winehouse to Nick Shymansky, her first manager, as well as other materials, Kapadia commented: “In that brief sequence, there are likely around 50 unique archival pieces. The fact that someone has kept such a personal mobile-phone message and is willing to share it with me only comes after a lot of trust has been established. People don’t just hand over such items casually. Initially, everyone says they have nothing. It takes time to reach the point where they share material you wouldn’t even think to ask for.

As a movie enthusiast, I can share that it was Shymansky who initially approached me when Kapadia was gathering friends of Amy Winehouse for his film. He came to me and said, “I’m not going to discuss this project with you, I don’t believe in it, but strangely enough, I enjoyed ‘Senna,’ so I thought I should meet you.”

Initially skeptical, I was intrigued by his admiration for ‘Senna.’ So, when he expressed his reservations about the project, yet mentioned his appreciation for my work on ‘Senna,’ I felt that I had found a valuable ally. I introduced him to our team in the edit suite and showed him the extensive research we’d been doing on Amy.

Seeing our dedication to understanding Amy, Shymansky remarked, “No one has ever taken Amy as seriously as you have. You have literally studied her in a way that no one else has.” For him, this validation was significant because it confirmed that we were putting in more effort than most people around Amy had. This endorsement from someone close to Amy gave me confidence that we were on the right track with our project.

Then he replied, ‘I have nothing but a few videos.’ I asked if I could take a look at them, to which he responded, ‘I won’t hand them over to you, but I’ll let you see them.’ He did show me the videos, and they ended up being included in the movie. The initial part of the film consists entirely of his material. This is all based on trust and nurturing our relationship.

Additional items, such as photographs and Amy Winehouse’s journals, emerged through a comparable method of discovery and persuasion. One person would usually lead to five more people, and each person would then guide another five people. Initially, everyone refused, but eventually there was a turning point where people began communicating with one another, suggesting, “You should speak with him,” and ultimately recommending that others talk to me. This film, in particular, served as therapy for people to openly discuss their grief, sadness, guilt, and all the other emotions associated with losing a friend at a young age. Everyone I encountered considered themselves her best friend, while everyone else was not.

In my role, I never disclose confidential information shared by one individual. Instead, I maintain neutrality and focus on presenting facts based on what I discover. I always ensure to provide evidence for my findings. My primary goal is to visually narrate a story in an effective manner. When footage isn’t available, as in this case where we have numerous still images at our disposal, these images help convey much of the narrative. That’s essentially how I operate.

The movie commences with Amy Winehouse conversing with her friend Lauren Gilbert, who is operating the camera on her 14th birthday. As director Kapadia stated, what makes this film unique is that it captures a specific time when people used home video cameras. This was prior to iPhones and mini DV cameras were in use instead. Consequently, the perspective shifts based on who’s holding the camera. The opening scene features Lauren, later transitioning to Amy’s first manager Nick, and Amy is consistently addressing the lens. She speaks to her friends, including us, the audience, making us feel like we’re the ones behind the camera. This journey progresses from Lauren, a friend, to Nick, her manager, to Amy performing in front of the camera, eventually moving on to TV appearances. Subsequently, paparazzi become involved, followed by her boyfriend and father holding the camera. Towards the end, it seems as if Winehouse is being pursued by the camera, experiencing physical attacks from it. A particularly poignant scene occurs when she films herself alone, appearing broken but somewhat at peace, yet this moment signifies a very low point in her life.

Throughout the movie, she constantly engages the viewers, creating a profound emotional impact. This dynamic is crucial to the film’s narrative. Subsequently, we pursue her relentlessly – from our perspective as the paparazzi, chasing her down the street.

Read More

2025-04-14 00:47