Mike Leigh has a reputation among press for not withholding his displeasure when confronted with a line of questioning he doesn't particularly care for. So our interview began with that slight pang of trepidation, only to give way to the reality that Leigh -- the six-time Oscar-nominated filmmaker known for such talky, trenchant English surveys as Life is Sweet, Secrets and Lies, Naked, Happy-Go-Lucky and next week's critically acclaimed (as usual) Another Year -- is willing to talk about most any subject if he finds that subject interesting. Up to and including, say, the almost ridiculous notion of a Mike Leigh-helmed superhero movie.
But first things first: Another Year focuses on a year in the lives of Tom (Jim Broadbent) and Gerri (Ruth Sheen), a happily married couple surrounded on seemingly all sides by decidedly less-happy friends and family -- including borderline alcoholics Mary (Lesley Manville) and Ken (Peter Wight). Movieline spoke to Leigh about the themes at hand in his latest film, the pros and cons of rewatching older work, his thoughts on award season and if we will ever see a Mike Leigh-directed comic-book movie (Hint: Don't hold your breath.)
Hello, sir.
Hi, Mike. It's Mike. And please don't call me sir.
I spoke to Sally Hawkins earlier and she wanted me to tell you that she sends her love.
Thank you very much, that's very kind.
When your name was brought up I mentioned that I would be speaking to you and she said, "Don't be scared."
Well, you have nothing to be worried about.
We were supposed to speak last week but it was rescheduled because you were recording the commentary track for the Another Year DVD.
Oh! It was you that was going to be late morning the other day? I hadn't realized that it was you. Fair enough, good, nice to talk to you.
Do you enjoy doing DVD commentary? I know there are a few directors that do not like doing it.
Well, I don't mind it. To tell you the truth, it depends whether you get on a roll or if you have anything to say, really. It's fine, you know. If people want to hear these things, fair enough. Actually, I was joined for part of it by Lesley Manville, who plays Mary. That made it quite a bit more fun, really.
So you two could play off of each other.
Yes, for just two or three scenes she came and joined in. It was quite interesting. Obviously, like many things, I could do without having to do it, but it's not as horrendous as some people will make out. But then, you see, I think some people have nothing to say. [Laughs]
Is it harder to sit there and analyze one of your newer films as opposed to an older film? Is it easier when you haven't seen something in awhile?
Had you asked me that question a while back, I would have said, "No, no, I could only do it for a new film." But, some time ago, I did four director's commentaries for old television films that had come out in a box set. And, actually, curiously, I found it quite stimulating and quite interesting and actually quite easy, really.
Why was it easier?
Well, just revisiting stuff and having to think about it. Thinking about what you did, to return to the old problems and old experiences. You perhaps come back to earlier work with a little bit of hindsight and a little bit of more experience. Or something.
When watching older projects, do you ever find yourself second-guessing some of the choices that you made?
Not very much. It's not so much a routine thing, but there are occasional and specific things like you think, actually that line of dialogue could have been better or it had been better if she had said this and not that. But really speaking, no. Because each piece of work lives where it was -- you were where you were when you did it and that's where it belongs.
Another Year centers on a relatively happy couple. If you weren't Mike Leigh, could you have gotten this film made?
Well, if in some hypothetical parallel universe, my actual finished films existed as mere scripts or pitches, I don't think any of them would ever have been made, quite honestly. So I think the simple answer to your question, which is a good one, is "No." I don't think they could have happened. Because it's not about the narrative, it's about what happens in the actual space. It's about the actual organic thing that's going on in front of the camera, isn't it? It's not narrative; it's not just ideas being worked out. It's actually the total experience. So, no, I don't think they would, really.
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.