Mike Leigh Discusses Another Year and Why He Will Never Make a Superhero Movie

Was alcohol an intended theme throughout Another Year? Especially for Mary?

Well, you know, alcohol is not about alcohol. It's about pain; the pain that drives people to drink. Of course, there are different kinds of drinking in the film. I mean, Tom and Gerri, they simply drink in a moderate way and they drink in a pleasant way. But people like Mary and Ken, you know, this is a serious alcoholic problem because these are people in pain. So it's about the pain; it's not about the alcohol as such, of course.

And Ken displays that with the T-shirt he was wearing. I believe it said, "Less Thinking, More Drinking."

Well, those are around. The costume designer found it... somewhere. In a market, I think. And we just thought that it was something that he could easily have. The rule on everything that everybody wears, and everything else, is, "Would he really have this? Is this what he would wear? Is this what he could afford?" With the T-shirt, it's the joke that he would indulge himself.

With your last film, Happy-Go-Lucky, and now with Another Year, is happiness itself an emotion that interests you from a filmmaking perspective?

It's a difficult question because neither of the films are just about happiness as just a pure thing just in its own right. It's true of both of these films [that] you can only discuss what you might call happiness in the context of a whole range of things that are going on, both positive and negative, obviously. Although Happy-Go-Lucky was called Happy-Go-Lucky, that's more my way of simply evoking an atmosphere than it is a description of what's in the bottle -- you know, a literal description of what's in the bottle. Actually, what's going on within that film, there are a whole lot of complexities with people who are indeed happy and people who are extremely unhappy; people who have all these different kinds of needs and so forth. And the same is true of this film. So I don't really have an interest in a kind of abstract or exclusive interest in something called "happiness," because it doesn't really mean anything. The study of what you may call happiness in this film, if it makes any sense in the wider context -- or in the contrast, if you like -- or an opposition to the other things that people are experiencing in the film is not what you would call happiness.

Your last couple of films, including Another Year, were shot in a wider aspect ratio. What caused you to switch at this stage of your career?

Well, the thing about doing that is, in a way, it would be erroneous to say that it's automatically better. Because, actually, the reason why we hung on and didn't do that with films for so long is because we like 1.66 and 1.85 -- we like those old ratios. But, when it came to Happy-Go-Lucky, it felt, because of the bursting energy of the film and the bright colors that we were using, we decided that it was appropriate. And having done it for Happy-Go-Lucky and having enjoyed it so much, we thought that we would simply do it again.

Is it something that you will continue, or is it a film-by-film decision?

Well, I think it is on a film-by-film basis, but we may well continue to do it because it's very nice. And, also, it's cinematic. So, yeah, why not? You can enjoy it beyond just being panoramic, because it's actually very good for doing close-ups. But, I mean, I can imagine in a certain circumstance we might see fit to go back to one of the other ratios. I just don't know, it's an open question.

What is your role in deciding who is up for what award? Lesley Manville has been the one submitted for Best Actress but you could make a case that you have two lead actresses in Another Year.

The American distributor makes those decisions.

Did they ask for your input at all?

Well, we sort of do. But, in the end, they do what they think is right and I go along with it. Because the bottom line is both Ruth and Lesley are main characters. So, I'm happy whatever they do.

How much do you care about awards? The Golden Globes were announced and Another Year didn't get any nominations.

To be honest, I've been busy all afternoon so I actually only know that we didn't get any nominations. I have no idea what the other nominations were. I'll find out later; you don't have to waste time telling me now. I'm philosophical about these things. If you get nominations, or, indeed, if you get awards, our peers are respecting what we do. And that's great. And we do make movies. We are in showbiz; we're not Trappist monks up a mountain. A lot of people are involved in making a film, so it's good for everybody. But on the other hand, if you don't get them, you don't get them. In the end, ultimately, we're making films for audiences to experience. That's what it's about.

I've seen you get frustrated with some questions in the past from reporters. Has the discussion about films, at times, gone to a place that you don't particularly like?

Well, you know, actually, the truth of it is that I'm a perfectly nice guy who loves having a conversation with anybody about anything. And I only get testy with some kinds of journalists when they really talk rubbish or they are offensive in some way, which they sometimes are. But, otherwise, it's not a problem. I'm very happy to have any conversation with anybody about anything, really. And I respect everybody's opinion. But if people talk crap, which I have to say, you are not at all... I don't really think that this is an especially interesting subject that we are on at the moment. This is about journalists and it's not really about the film.

Fair enough. And I hope this doesn't qualify as rubbish, but I have wondered if you have ever consider doing a drastic change of genre? I hate to say "superhero movie," but something that is that drastic of a change like Aronofsky or Branagh are doing.

Well, see, the thing is, in the proper wide context of what we call world cinema, of which Hollywood is a tiny little sliver, it's very natural for lots of us out here in the world cinema to make organic films about the real world in a completely non-Hollywood way. Because Hollywood is not really part of our world -- it's not what it's about. Personal films, in other words, made without interference. I am that kind of filmmaker. I use film to make a personal kind of film in a very specific, particular way. And there is no more reason for me to do what I think your suggesting than there would for me to give up being a film director an become the pilot of a jumbo jet flying across the Atlantic. Or a brain surgeon or, indeed, a coal miner.

So it's a matter of freedom?

Well, it's not a question of that. I mean, I do what I do. Life is short. I'm 67. I'm going to go on doing what I do. I'll never get through all of these I'd like to do before I'm finished, you know. And the guys you are talking about are eclectic filmmakers, they are people that chose to be that. First of all, I make films with no script. I am given limited budgets and I get the freedom to go out and investigate to discover a film. Now, you're talking about the kind of filmmaking that just doesn't square with at all -- the kind of commercial, formulaic kind of filmmaking. And there are plenty of people who are really good at that and there's no reason why I should even think about it. And make no mistake about it, because what I haven't said is that I only want to make small-scale movies. Because given more money, I would want to make bigger scale movies of the kinds of films that I make. That's a very different thing, of course.

Would you worry that with more money you would lose some control?

Well, if I did lose control then it would be a waste of time. It only makes sense if I have the same control as I have now. That's a given.

Pages: 1 2