Bands primarily make records. But with the media’s growing invasiveness, and film holding its status as the most gratifying information source, the steady stream of documentaries and biopics documenting the private lives of musical icons is not surprising. The most recent to be graced with a celluloid revival is Joy Division-- first in Anton Corbijn's Control, and now in its more straightforward counterpart, British director Grant Gee’s documentary Joy Division.

Both films were released to a ready-made audience of Joy Division fans, and he level of access to Ian Curtis-- with archived footage and interviews allowing a glimpse rather than a complete picture-- makes him a perfect subject to revisit.

Corbijn made Control from Deborah Curtis’ biography Touching From A Distance. So, when Gee began work on his own production, he decided to focus his lens on a slightly different set of relationships. As he tells us:

Where did the idea to make the Joy Division documentary come from?
It was not initially my idea. I got a phone call from one of our producers, Tom Astor asking if I would be interested in directing it. They had already contacted Jon Savage as consultant and talked to the various members of New Order, so, I just joined in.

I imagine you were already a fan of the band?
I’m of the age where it was impossible for me to have missed Joy Division. I was 15 when their first album came out. I bought the first album and loved the music but more than that, I loved the album itself, as an object. What Peter Saville did with the design of that cover was amazing. There had been great album covers before, but this wasn’t pop art. Saville gave children a minimalist luxury they had never been trusted to understand before. It was absolute perfection.

It’s surprising in the film when Saville reveals how little he knew about Joy Division. Did you have any ideas about what the film should be, to remain in keeping with the ethos of the group?
Because we knew Control was going to happen-- and that it was focused on the love triangle between Deborah, Annik, and Ian-- we knew we had to do something different. I was very aware that Joy Division was not only Ian’s band; their story wasn’t just Ian’s suicide. Joy Division was an actual physical phenomenon that existed for a moment in time. I wanted to encompass everything in our film. Other than that I had strong ideas about the aesthetics–- a small, daft idea-- but in the end, it makes the film what it is. I decided to shoot all the interviews against black. This gave some continuity and also meant we could layer archive material very easily and nicely.

Why was Deborah Curtis not involved at all?
She was! She gave us lots of Ian’s notebooks, but we started filming just as Control finished. She had been on set for most of their filming and by the end, she had just had enough. I am not unhappy that she wasn't one of our interview subjects. We wanted to focus on things besides Ian’s love affairs. If Deborah had been interviewed we would simply be revisiting Control territory.

How much did the film change during its making?
It changed constantly, mainly from the quality of archive footage tangential to the story we found. Clips initially meant to last 15 seconds ended up being five minutes long like the tape Jon Savage had of Ian being hypnotized. It was all so insightful and interesting, it seemed ridiculous to cut.

Music biopics and band documentaries are in vogue at the moment. Why do you think that is? And what do you think these films gives to audiences?
I think there is a surge partly because pop media has existed for some 40 years now and there is enough archived material to, posthumously, make something cohesive. Also, people in a position to fund films are usually in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. That generation grew up with rock bands. There have always been people willing to make documentaries, but on the whole, films only get made when the money is there, and now it is.

What is your favorite moment in the film?
The last five minutes. The half hour leading up to Ian’s suicide, it is a constant intake of breath waiting for the inevitable. Then it happens and there is a release, after which there is only five minutes left of the film. During that short time we manage to tie up five or six different threads without making light of the tragic event of Ian’s death. The camera moves away from this close-knit group of people to show the rest of the world, still ticking over. Other than that, lots of silly moments like the kids hanging outside Wigan Casino leering “We’re nothing," or the part where the band is threatening to beat up Paul Morley. That makes me giggle.

Why did you decide to use the band’s name as the film’s title?
Mainly because of who Joy Division was. The idea of calling it something like The Falling Dust of Angels: The Story of Shed 7 seemed a ridiculous attempt to make something prosaic out of something very minimalist in nature. Also because there was a WWII film called Joy Division that came out a few years ago. I remember reading a review of it beginning "…sadly not a documentary on the seminal 1980s Mancunian band but a rather badly made, stodgy war flick." I remembered that and thought, "It’s time to give one film critic what he was after all along."

~Iphgenia Baal