Who Killed Amy Winehouse? Director Asif Kapadia Investigates

by

At the Visions du Réel film festival in Nyon, Switzerland, British director Asif Kapadia recently shared that while making his Academy Award-winning documentary “Amy,” he approached it like a detective solving a mystery – implying his quest to uncover the truth behind the life and death of Amy Winehouse. In other words, Kapadia’s statement implies that he was trying to find out who or what factors may have contributed to the demise of the talented singer, Amy Winehouse.

While creating the movie, Kapadia acknowledged its “very somber” tone. A friend cautioned him, “If you tell the truth, this film will never see the light of day.” Kapapdia responded, “What’s the truth? I don’t know what the story is.” Once he discovered the story, he realized, “This thing will never be released. It’s incredibly heavy.” There exists a more intense 15-minute version of this film that remains unreleased due to its weightiness, and his wife still feels irritated over not releasing it, but it’s simply too heavy for general audiences.

Throughout her life, Amy Winehouse faced intense scrutiny from the media. Similarly, Asif Kapadia has been under fire recently, facing accusations of antisemitism due to controversial social media posts about Israel’s actions in Gaza. He subsequently issued a sincere apology for these comments (more details can be found in EbMaster‘s story here).

Regarding his approach to the Winehouse documentary, Kapadia shared with the audience in Nyon: “The way I speak about it is as if I’m solving a mystery, like a terrible event has occurred. So, if you were to visit our editing suite, it would resemble a scene from ‘Zodiac’ or similar David Fincher films, filled with charts and whiteboards, displaying pictures of everyone – the potential suspects, characters, and so on, as we try to piece together the puzzle.

He gathered his “evidence,” if you will, from previously recorded sources such as YouTube archives and similar platforms, along with personal videos provided by his friends and relatives. Additionally, he interviewed individuals who were closest to the subject in question.

The initial motivation for his involvement with the movie was a curiosity about the British singer-songwriter, sparked by her troubled performances and frequent media attention while she was alive. Questions like “Why is she so unwell on stage?”, “Why does she keep making headlines?”, and “Who’s looking after her?” were on his mind. After her untimely death at 27, his confusion deepened: “How could someone die in this contemporary era without any consequences for those around her? I didn’t comprehend it.” It was this desire to uncover the truth that drove him to undertake the project – the movie.

To begin with, he and James Gay-Rees, the movie’s producer, first held discussions with several key figures in her tale. These included her father, the head of the record label, and her second manager. They wanted him to direct the film because they appreciated his work on his previous project, “Senna,” a movie focusing on another exceptionally talented individual whose life was tragically shortened: Brazilian racing driver Ayrton Senna, who passed away at the age of 34.

Kapadia stated, “We established our conditions prior to starting the project. I said, ‘If we make this movie, you must provide us with all the music and publishing rights, cover the costs, give us two years of creative freedom, let us decide who to consult, and not interfere with our work. After two years, we’ll deliver a film. However, it’s crucial to understand that it won’t have a happy ending. The character dies young due to addiction, so we’ll need to delve deeply into this aspect.’

He stated: “I interviewed approximately 120 individuals connected to her, spread across various parts of the globe. Trust was a crucial factor; nobody confided in journalists or camera operators due to fears of being exploited by paparazzi or having their photos sold to newspapers. Many of her friends were quite cautious and suspicious. They didn’t trust us because they thought we needed approval from those in power, and there was a lot of friction among people involved. Therefore, I had to work hard to gain the trust of everyone I interacted with. The last thing I wanted was to show up with a camera, so I figured out another way to interview someone. My method evolved into: Gaining their trust without a camera, just myself in a room with a microphone on a table. The microphone would be recording our conversation, and we’d converse while the lights were off, sitting in darkness.

I can say, ‘Feel free to come by at 2 a.m., whether it’s Saturday or Sunday, I’m available whenever you’re ready. Just give me a shout, and I won’t ask for any legal documents upfront. We’ll have a chat during the filming process. If you’re featured in the movie, I’ll share the final cut with you. If you’re satisfied, then we can proceed with signing the release.'”

Or simply:
“I can tell you, ‘Come whenever, it’s 2 a.m. on Saturday or Sunday, I’m here and ready. No forms to fill out first. We’ll chat during the filming, and if you appear in the movie, I’ll show it to you. If you like it, we can then sign the necessary documents.’

During the interviewing and archive work, Kapadia simultaneously edits the footage, which in turn provides him with fresh leads to explore further.

He mentioned: “There’ll be an individual in the frame, positioned behind Amy in a certain room, and I’ll ask, ‘Who is that person? Are they holding a camera? Could they have some footage?’ Thus, much of it involves scrutinizing the image meticulously. Then I converse with someone, and subsequently, they share something that sends me down a different path.

After viewing a short video containing a private phone message from Amy Winehouse to Nick Shymansky, her first manager, along with other materials, Kapadia stated: “That brief sequence contains around 50 different archived items. Sharing something so personal as a mobile phone message only happens after months of earning trust. They don’t just give such things away. At first, everyone claims they have nothing. It takes time to reach the stage where they share material that you wouldn’t even consider asking for.

Kapadia shared that Shymansky was the initial friend of Winehouse to establish a connection with him. “He approached me and said, ‘I’m not going to be involved in this film. I think it shouldn’t be made, but strangely, I really enjoyed ‘Senna,’ so I decided to meet you.’ I thought: ‘Here’s an opportunity.’ I introduced him to our editing room, and said, ‘This is the team.’ He looked at all of the work we had displayed on the walls, and he remarked, ‘No one has ever taken Amy seriously like this before, as if you have been studying her in a way that no one else has.’ For him, this meant: ‘You’ve already invested more effort than most people around her did.’ This was beneficial to me.

Later on, he remarked, “I don’t have much, just a handful of videos.” I asked if I could take a look at them, to which he replied, “No, I won’t hand them over to you, but I’ll show them to you. I won’t give them to you.” He displayed them for me, and eventually, they became part of the movie. The opening scenes of the film consist entirely of his material. All of that is due to trust and fostering a strong relationship.

Additional resources, such as photographs and Amy Winehouse‘s journals, were obtained through a similar method of investigation and persuasion. One person would often lead to five more people, and each person would then lead to another five. At first, everyone declined, but eventually there was a turning point where people began discussing with one another, saying, “You should speak to him,” and then they’d recommend that others speak to me. This film, in particular, served as therapy for many, allowing them to openly express their grief, sadness, guilt, and other emotions associated with the premature death of a close friend. Everyone I met claimed to be her best friend, while everyone else was not.

In my role, I never disclose what someone else has shared. Instead, I strive for impartiality. I’ll present only what I discover, but I always support my findings with solid evidence. My main task is to find the best way to visually narrate the story, and if there’s no footage available, as in this instance, we have an abundance of still images that can effectively tell the tale. This is essentially how I operate.

As a devoted cinephile, I find the unique approach of “Amy” particularly captivating. Instead of traditional storytelling, this film is a snapshot of Amy Winehouse‘s life through the lenses of those who knew her best. It’s a journey that begins with her friend Lauren Gilbert on her 14th birthday, captured by her own camera. As the movie progresses, we transition from Lauren to Amy’s first manager, Nick, and eventually, she is performing for the camera, which becomes us, the audience. This cinematic journey takes us through various stages – from intimate moments with friends, to public performances on TV, to the intrusive presence of paparazzi, her boyfriend, and even her father. Eventually, Amy seems overwhelmed by the camera, a metaphor for the relentless scrutiny she faced. A poignant scene towards the end shows Amy filming herself alone, broken yet somehow finding solace, marking a low point in her life’s story.

Throughout the movie, she consistently addresses the audience, which is an incredibly impactful emotional aspect. This tactic creates a strong bond between the audience and the character, only to be broken as we pursue her relentlessly, capturing the chase from the perspective of aggressive paparazzi following her down the street.

Read More

2025-04-14 09:18