Premiering at the 2025 Cambridge Film Festival, AMR: DYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD is a striking 68-minute documentary directed by Alex Tweddle and narrated by Brian Cox, tackling an urgent yet under-reported global crisis: antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The film creatively personifies the microscopic villain, giving it a metaphorical ‘voice’ to guide audiences through the human, environmental, and economic consequences of drug-resistant superbugs. Following its UK premiere and his Q&A with Professor Dame Sally Davies, Alex Tweddle sat down to discuss the creative risks behind personifying a microbe, the ethical challenges of depicting real lives, and how documentary filmmaking can inspire change.

Duru Usanmaz: AMR isn’t something most people think about every day. What made you want to tell this story through a film? Was there a specific moment or idea that made you decide it needed to be on screen?

Alex Tweddle: It was probably going back two years. I had made a film with a gentleman called Dr Yusuf Hamid. He’s a philanthropist. We made a film in Africa about ten years ago and were kicking around some ideas. We try to make films that have an impact. We were looking at areas that we felt were overlooked in the mainstream, and he said to me, “What do you know about AMR?” I said I knew a little bit, but not that much. He told me to speak to Dame Sally Davies, former Master of Trinity [College, Cambridge], who is the UK Special Envoy for AMR. We had a number of meetings, and she sent me a book. I read it and eventually understood the scale of the problem. There are so many contributing factors. The challenge was how to tell a story like this to the general public in a way that was engaging and not too scientific. That’s when we came up with the idea.

DU: Did the filmmaking process teach you anything new about AMR?

AT: Yes. I didn’t realise how many different elements make up the issue of AMR. It was a complete learning curve for me.

DU: One of the most creative choices is giving the microbe itself a voice. What inspired that idea?

AT: I had been seeing young people using first-person drones and doing interesting things with them. I thought about how I could incorporate that. We decided to give the microbe a voice — like a James Bond-type villain. At the start of the film, he addresses the audience. Then we use drones and his voice-over to travel around the world, seeing who hinders and who helps his progress. Dame Sally said it was a real risk and she wasn’t sure it would work. But for something like this, you have to take a risk, otherwise it becomes too scientific. We also needed personal stories to show the impact on everyday people.

DU: How did you imagine audiences would respond to hearing the microbe’s voice?

AT: I wasn’t sure. I hadn’t seen that approach before, so it was a big risk. But people have found it compelling, engaging, and even chilling. I think it worked.

DU: Visually, the film looks stunning — the colours and close-ups are striking. How did you develop that visual style?

AT: I’ve always been interested in the visual style of documentaries. I don’t think they have to look traditional. We wanted to give it a unique look and show some elements more desaturated than others, to remove colour where needed. When doing the [colour] grade, we gave each scene a different style. Africa was slightly more colourful, but for the drone sequences, we softened the edges so it looked like a point of view. With all the transportation of pigs, we wanted to humanise it, so we desaturated it, almost black and white.

DU: There’s a moving scene with a young girl affected by AMR. How did you approach that part of the story, especially from an ethical perspective?

AT: It was difficult because the parents didn’t want to be on camera. She had never really talked about it before. We found it hard to include because statistics for children contracting AMR are high, so we needed that element in the film. We wanted to give it…not a dreamlike feel, but a reflective one. I tried to shoot it off-camera, over the shoulder, but it wasn’t working. So I said, “Let’s just go and have a conversation about it.” We went into a room and talked.

DU: Was that after the other scenes were shot?

AT: Yes. We took all the shots first. I tried to do an interview, and it didn’t work, so I said, “Let’s have a conversation in the room,” and I just recorded it. That’s when she opened up. Since then, she’s said she’s pleased she did it and with the message it sent.

DU: You mentioned ethical considerations in documentary filmmaking. How do you handle those moments?

AT: It’s always hard to handle those scenes. You have to build a relationship with the person first. I previously did a film about forced marriages, and the woman hadn’t spoken about it before. It’s about building trust and explaining that we’re not making a film for commercial reasons — it’s to create impact and change. That’s what we do.

DU: What do you hope audiences take away from the film?

AT: I hope the public talks about it and understands that antibiotics are precious. We should cherish what we have and not overuse them. They don’t work on viruses, yet 70% of antibiotics globally are given for viruses. It’s about valuing what we’ve got. Pharmaceutical companies should rethink how we use existing antibiotics. Governments and the farming industry also need to reconsider how we treat animals and food. We have several industry events coming up, and hopefully, we can engage governments and heads of industry to rethink how they see antimicrobial resistance.

DU: How did Brian Cox become involved in the project?

AT: I worked with a casting director who got in touch with him. It was a long process because he’s so busy. His agent was slow to respond, but the casting director bumped into him at the airport and asked if he’d read the script. He said, “I will now.” He read it and agreed to do it. He’s passionate about animal welfare and has spoken out against intensive farming. That’s what got him interested, I think — plus a letter from Dame Sally probably helped.

DU: The film feels like a wake-up call. Was that your intention?

AT: I think it had to be a wake-up call. At the end, we see what the world would look like, but hopefully we’ll never reach that point. More people are becoming aware of AMR now, especially with the Fleming Initiative. We’re doing screenings with them, including at Blacksauce, and there’s a European Heads of Industry roundtable in November. We’re doing as much as we can.

As our conversation draws to a close, Tweddle’s passion for purposeful filmmaking feels unmistakable. AMR: DYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD is more than a documentary; it’s a call to awareness, urging audiences to recognise the invisible battles shaping our collective future. By merging scientific urgency with cinematic imagination, Tweddle transforms a complex medical issue into a compelling human story. As the film continues its festival journey and sparks dialogue across industries, its message remains clear: awareness is the first step toward change.