“Call me Mike.”
In response to being referred to as “Mr. Leigh” during an interview, the 82-year-old filmmaker Mike Leigh, who is battling myositis, a rare autoimmune disease affecting his muscles, explains that he relies on a cane for support and assistance in standing up but manages to move around fairly well. His works include acclaimed films like “High Hopes,” “Secrets and Lies,” “Topsy-Turvy,” “Career Girls,” and “Mr. Turner.
In the lobby of a hotel in Manhattan’s Flatiron district, Leigh is positioned by the elevator bank, wrapping up his pre-Oscar publicity tour for his latest movie, the intimate drama titled “Hard Truths“. Marianne Jean-Baptiste, an Academy Award nominee famed for her role in “Secrets and Lies“, portrays Pansy, a bitter woman whose aggression has left her husband, Curtley (David Webber), and son, Moses (Tuwaine Barrett), silent observers of their own lives. Her sister, Chantelle (Michele Austin), and two adult daughters, Sofia Brown and Ani Nelson, are concerned that Pansy is spiraling out of control. Leigh and Jean-Baptiste have garnered numerous awards for “Hard Truths“, even winning the New York Film Critics Circle’s awards for Best Actress and Best Screenplay. However, Leigh notes that the film faces challenges in Oscar recognition due to its modest scale compared to the grandeur typically associated with Academy-worthy productions.
As I take a seat in an inviting lounge within the lobby, a kind publicist assists me, and we dive into our chat. Leigh, the subject of our conversation, lounges comfortably in a plush armchair. A tray with a tea set appears nearby, though it remains untouched during the initial segment of our discussion. Leigh deftly deflects the first couple of questions, much like a pro at handling shuttlecocks.
In this conversation, we delve into the heart of a tale that primarily revolves around a family, as Leigh explains.
In simpler terms, the scene from Hard Truths where Pansy and Chantelle visit their mother’s grave and emotions run high doesn’t directly influence how I approach creating a positive human coexistence scenario. While I undeniably have personal feelings and recurring interests that shape my work, I don’t intentionally use these as guiding principles or consistent themes. My films are an expression of my feelings about life in general, including historical events, but they aren’t the result of a deliberate plan or ongoing preoccupation. In other words, I don’t consciously think about creating connections between my movies or making films that reference other movies. When I create a film, I don’t consider any of my previous works in the process.
In essence, it could very well be that your observation is accurate, but it’s up to you to discern and verify the connections. If I were to examine all the relationships in each of my films (which I won’t!), I might find instances that support your point. However, there would also be cases where such parallels wouldn’t hold. For example, many viewers have suggested a link between this film and “Happy-Go-Lucky,” based on the main characters’ names, Pansy and Poppy respectively. Yet, I never made that connection myself.
I never considered that before! It’s amusing, actually – people make the assumption that “Pansy” and “Poppy” from my films must be related due to their five-letter flower names. However, it’s all just a coincidence. A writer assigns a character a name like Poppy to reflect her energy. On the other hand, naming Marianne’s character Pansy was intentionally ironic and somewhat contradictory, showing that these are two distinct choices made for different characters.
It’s quite likely that if Poppy met Pansy during her travels, only Pansy could engage in conversation with her effectively.
Have you ever pondered over the fact that two characters from different films of mine seem connected in a significant way? After creating ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’, I noticed a resemblance between Poppy from ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’ and Johnny from ‘Naked’. Both are idealists, but Johnny is an unfulfilled idealist, a disillusioned one. Poppy embodies the idealist who faces situations, responds to them, and takes action. She is capable of doing so. However, each film stands on its own, and so does every character within it. It’s an evolving exploration.
23 years back, I initially spoke with Marianne while she was involved in Without a Trace production, at which point I enquired about her creative process. She responded, “Mike cultivates a film.” Now, what are your thoughts on that expression?
Absolutely, you’ve got it right! Filmmakers create films, much like painters create paintings or novelists write novels. In my case, I’m embarking on a journey of understanding what a film truly is by actually making one. To put it another way, just as a plant needs care and nurturing to grow, a film starts as a tiny seed – often just some vague ideas or possibilities. Sometimes I have a clear vision, other times it’s more fuzzy. But either way, we work with what we have and watch it grow over time. That’s the essence of the process.
If you’re creating a movie like “Secrets and Lies” or “Vera Drake”, what serves as the initial idea or inspiration? For instance, for “Secrets and Lies”, it was the personal experience of having family members who adopted children, which led the filmmaker to focus on a baby given up for adoption reuniting with their birth mother. Other details, such as the prevalence of mixed-race babies being given away by white working-class girls in the 1960s, were discoveries made during the development process.
The inspiration behind Vera Drake was my recollection of life in the U.K. prior to the 1967 Abortion Act, when people faced unwanted pregnancies and resorted to illegal abortionists. I held onto this idea for around 40 years, and it has continued to be a topic that interests me, serving as a catalyst for my creative process.
But to start to really answer your earlier question: I start with the casting.
For this movie, you’re aware that Marianne resides in Los Angeles, yet we’ve managed to stay connected and catch up when she visits London. The idea of collaborating again seemed attractive, and we strongly felt it was necessary. Initially, we planned to shoot the film in 2020, but COVID-19 halted those plans. However, Marianne was the one who initiated it first.
How about considering others as well? All the performers I collaborate with must excel at portraying diverse characters. By character actors, I mean they don’t simply show up and be themselves. Instead, we pondered, “Could we bring Michelle Austin on board?” We chose Michelle because she and Marianne have a strong rapport, and it seemed fitting to give Michelle a more prominent role in this production compared to her parts in some of my other films.
How do you go about creating characters and a story in conjunction with actors? Typically, I initiate by asking each actor to compile an extensive list of various types of individuals they’re acquainted with. We subsequently discuss these characters, select some, and refine them into a single character. For this particular project, there was a shift since, while I had included Black characters in my previous films, it was crucial that if we were focusing more on the Black experience, every detail should be authentic. Therefore, any potential names must reflect the specific cultural background of each character. Names like Pansy, Chantelle (alongside many others in the film such as Curtley and Moses) are all appropriate for individuals from a British Jamaican background.
Additionally, it’s worth mentioning that I’m drawing from both conscious and unconscious thought processes, delving into current concerns. In other words, many people who have watched the movie – among them might be you, but I can’t confirm – often share with me sentiments like, “I feel I know a Pansy.
I’m acquainted with a Pansy. It seems like most people are, don’t they? As for cultivating a movie, isn’t it similar to the experience of many novelists who say, ‘I wasn’t sure what would happen next, but then I figured out it was this‘ while working on one of their books?
In all our films, there’s an exciting sense of exploration and uncertainty, much like when you’re starting to write a story. You never truly know where the narrative will lead until you reach that point in the journey. When I discuss filmmaking with aspiring filmmakers, they often ask about the three-act structure. To which I respond, “Frankly, I don’t have any strong opinions on it.
Why is it because the structure is too rigid or restrictive?
No, because no matter what you do, you can’t escape the necessity of having a three-act structure in storytelling! The steps are: You present an initial state, you disrupt that state, and you resolve the disruption. This is essentially a three-act structure! It’s a natural progression. At some point during our creative process, the story adopts this structure. For instance, on this film, we spent 14 weeks developing characters, exploring their relationships, conducting research, collaborating with the production designer and costume team to visualize how things will appear. After all that work, I then draft a brief outline, serving as a sort of blueprint for the three-act structure.
To start off, Marianne compiled a lengthy catalog of women she’s acquainted with, either deeply or casually. Next, Marianne and the main participants underwent one-on-one sessions to delve deeper into each character’s list individually. I then suggested we eliminate certain people from the lists, resulting in a reduced number of individuals. Eventually, through an intricate procedure, these characters were combined to form a single character – our foundation for further development. This method yielded one primary character in this case.
In essence, we’re not only verbally creating characters but also giving them substance through physical actions. As we develop and shape these characters, we encounter a variety of choices – from real-life decisions regarding their traits, to character-specific choices about their personalities, and even decisions on the dynamics of their relationships.
In my tale, it’s I who bring forth Chantelle into existence, and from the moment she draws her first breath, I begin weaving the bond between her and Pansy. The narrative unfolds primarily from the day Chantelle is born, as that’s where the story logically begins. If you seek hints regarding this intricate relationship, they are subtly unveiled in the cemetery scene.
Moving forward, let’s focus on the section that discusses their upbringing, particularly the incident when their father left the household?
What part of creating Pansy’s character did Marianne and you find most entertaining?
As a film enthusiast, let me clarify that we didn’t intentionally craft a complex character because, honestly, I wouldn’t understand what it means to deliberately create such a figure! Even if a screenwriter were to decide on this in a room, they would still need to engage in the process of developing a character with depth and layers, one that feels organic.
In your historical films, do actors improvise during rehearsals based on historical research? To clarify, is every off-script line required to be footnoted in a way? Yes, indeed. For our historical films, extensive research is conducted by everyone involved. “Topsy-Turvy” was like a mini-university. Everyone, not just the actors, delved into the period, not only Victorian theater, music, and culture, but also politics, religion, and more. People read newspapers from that era and we had an abundance of old copies of Punch magazines to help understand the language. I carried a trolley full of various texts and pictures with me all the time for easy access during research. I believe the book I mentioned most in shaping dialogue was the Savoy operas by W.S. Gilbert, as the approach to phraseology and irony was deeply embedded in that work. At one point we even held etiquette workshops.
In both ‘Mr. Turner’ and ‘Peterloo’, the methods were consistent. Interestingly, for ‘Peterloo’, I decided in advance that only actors from the northern part of England would portray working-class characters. We stumbled upon an old dictionary of Lancashire working-class dialect from the early 19th century and it served as our guide. With thorough research and a determined approach, you can accomplish anything.
In reflecting upon your insightful comments regarding the three-act structure in your films, I must confess my admiration for the unique manner in which you skillfully deviate from traditional plot development norms. For instance, the captivating scene featuring Maurice’s ex-partner in “Secrets and Lies” was a delightful surprise to me, as it did not initially seem connected to the narrative flow. However, upon reevaluation, I realized that this seemingly tangential moment served a pivotal role in revealing more about Maurice’s character and his past.
As you are aware, there were those who felt this scene was superfluous and should have been eliminated for time constraints. Interestingly, our French financiers shared similar concerns, advocating for its removal along with another significant scene involving Hortense and her friend. However, we staunchly defended these scenes and ultimately triumphed in our argument, ensuring their inclusion in the final cut of the film.
This battle was crucial, as it allowed us to secure a place at Cannes and ultimately win the Palme D’Or with those very scenes intact. The importance of the scene featuring Maurice’s ex-partner lies in its function as a vital moment for the audience to witness Maurice grappling with another individual and confronting personal issues that become crucial when we reach the film’s climax, where a significant revelation unfolds. In essence, the scene serves an essential purpose in contributing to our understanding of Maurice’s character development.
In addition to the main subject at hand, as illustrated in Hard Truths, there is often significant value — or extra advantage, if you prefer — in presenting fully fleshed-out, multi-dimensional portrayals of seemingly insignificant individuals, such as the girl in the store, the man in the parking lot, and the patrons in the market. These characters, who may not initially appear related to the case, can provide unexpected insights or perspectives.
And the client who needs a smoking break during their hairdressing appointment.” The provided example expands on this by describing a more complex and dramatic scenario involving the client, which is reminiscent of a scene from the movie “Secrets and Lies” featuring Maurice dealing with a troubled individual. However, it also highlights Chantelle’s empathetic nature and her ability to listen to others, making the scenes in the hair salon about her multi-faceted in their function.
As I watched the cemetery scene in Hard Truths, I momentarily considered how Maurice might have been impacted. If Maurice had continued trying to bind his extended family together as he did, could he have become as bitter as Pansy? However, I’m not sure about that. Maurice seems inherently generous, and it’s hard for me to see that same trait in Pansy. Speculating like this is much like when people ask what really happened at the end of a movie, such as “So, what exactly occurred?”, or they question things like why Curtley threw the flowers away. I don’t have the answers to those questions. That’s for you, the viewer, to decide and interpret.
It’s interesting that you don’t remember a movie of Mike Leigh’s where he explicitly tells viewers what to think, but you can identify some of his films as being more straightforwardly political than others. Among them are Peterloo, undoubtedly, and Naked, which some might interpret as such due to its themes. However, it’s up to the viewer to decide. Mike Leigh made three films in a row – Looks and Smiles, Four Days in July, and High Hopes – that were more overtly political in subtle ways than his other works. These movies are now part of the Criterion Collection. The first, Looks and Smiles, was inspired by unemployment conditions under Thatcher. The second, Four Days in July, deals with Northern Ireland and thus has implicit political connotations. Lastly, High Hopes explores the struggle to act on one’s convictions about what is right, as depicted through the character Cyril’s dilemma. While all of Mike Leigh’s films have political undertones, Peterloo stands out as the most overtly political film due to its focus on a historical event.
Let’s talk about the filmmaking!Did you know that Dick Pope, who shot most of my films, has died?
Indeed, that’s correct! You composed an obituary for him, huh? I must admit, I recall reading it. It was truly saddening news about such a remarkable individual. He was not just a fantastic artist but also a superb collaborator. One could say he was irreplaceable. However, it’s as if he’s urging us from wherever he is now: “Carry on, find someone else.” I will, but it won’t be easy. It’s quite a challenge.
How did your collaboration with Dick Pope influence your work?
After that point, in each movie we produced, his preparations involved testing different methods, even going as far as locating a company able to produce Victorian theater light bulbs for the production of Topsy-Turvy. When we reached this phase with Happy-Go-Lucky, I mentioned, “You know, it’s all about primary colors.” He responded, “Alright, I’ll consider that.” A few days later, by chance, there was an annual film industry fair in London. Fuji had a booth, and they introduced a new stock called Vivid for vibrant primary colors. Dick exclaimed, “This is fantastic! I’m working with Mike Leigh,” and they were so surprised to find someone interested in their products that we received it free of charge!
One intriguing fact about Dick, as you’ve noted, is that prior to our initial encounter, for extended periods, he filmed documentaries in remote areas worldwide for ‘World in Action’. He used concealed cameras in hazardous locations. He filmed in the Orient. He filmed in deserts. Moreover, he’s renowned for creating music videos for prominent celebrities. However, the documentary work is significant because Dick had a genuine knack for capturing authentic moments from the real world. It wouldn’t have been fitting for a cameraman or cinematographer to tackle the kind of material in my work with a documentary-style naturalism, so it’s stylized and intensified. But he was absolutely up to the task.
Are there times during post-production when you find it necessary to remove scenes from your films for various reasons such as pace or runtime? Or do you meticulously plan your work beforehand and only execute the predetermined plan on set?
In the case of our film, “Topsy-Turvy,” we had to eliminate two scenes because the movie was running excessively long. There was a debate about it, but they are now included as extras in the Criterion version of the film. Sometimes, during editing, we realize that the film is better without certain scenes.
For instance, while working on “Secrets and Lies,” Timothy Spall and I spent an entire day with a High Street photographer covering a wedding. We were fascinated by this experience, which led to a brief scene of Maurice in a church in the final cut. However, there was also a longer sequence showing Maurice going around the house with the bride and bridesmaids. In the end, we decided that this additional sequence was more of a distraction than an enhancement to the storyline.
I’d like to discuss your approach to blocking actors in crowded scenes, specifically referencing an instance such as the cookout scene from “Secrets and Lies.” This scene is notably large-scale and intricate.
In the way Pope and you arrange the characters within the frame, it seems as if every person is visible, yet it doesn’t appear to be restricted or confined. To clarify, the goal isn’t to simply let events unfold spontaneously; instead, it’s about meticulously rehearsing each scene to make it feel natural. Although most characters in the scene avoid overlapping their dialogue, there are deliberate moments when they do, adding tension and intrigue. For instance, Maurice is grilling while Monica serves food. When she sits down, they exchange the salt, creating a subtle sense of anticipation. Will Hortense’s presence reveal a secret? This controlled atmosphere results from careful rehearsal, ensuring that each element is placed strategically without sacrificing the actors’ characters or motivations. Essentially, it’s about precision, patience, and a relentless pursuit of authenticity in every detail.
The entire procedure commences with ad-libbing, which means by the time we film a scene such as the barbecue, the performers instinctively find themselves in the right positions for their characters. Consequently, my primary task is to guide them, saying things like “You should move over there and you should move over there,” so that they can both be seen within the same frame. However, the placement of actors, or blocking, is always purposeful. The Mother’s Day scene in the kitchen following the cemetery scene in the film Hard Truths, for example, shares a similarity with the barbecue scene, as the actors are positioned closely and deliberately blocked.
This scene carries immense impact, showcasing your main actor’s exceptional improvisation as Pansy collapses emotionally. I couldn’t conjure such a genuine, spontaneous moment in a script or through conversation alone. Not even Marianne and I could have planned it out. We hadn’t anticipated this kind of emotional explosion when constructing the sequence. However, when it occurred, it was explosive and powerful beyond description, with its underlying motivation being incredibly deep and multifaceted.
Why are there two similar long shots of the house where Pansy and her family live, at the start and near the end of the movie? The director likely chose this for a natural progression: In the initial shot, we see Curtley (the contractor) and Virgil (his worker) departing in the van after getting into it. This sets up the expectation that something significant will happen within the house. And indeed, events unfold inside as promised. At the end, Virgil exits and drives off, echoing the earlier scene. This repetition of the shot serves as a reminder that Pansy and Curtley are still inside the house – in different rooms – and we’re left wondering what will occur when they come together again, which is subsequently revealed in the following scenes.
Inside the house, there’s been quite a transformation since our initial shoot. The first scene featured a large tree standing tall in the driveway, but by the time we came to film the second shot, that same tree was nowhere to be found. It seems the local council had it removed while we were away. When someone suggested adding the tree back digitally for the second shot, I replied, “No one would even notice.
I can’t wait to avoid coming across a thesis on the secret symbolism behind the absent tree!
Read More
- FARTCOIN PREDICTION. FARTCOIN cryptocurrency
- Skull and Bones: Players Demand Nerf for the Overpowered Garuda Ship
- Gaming News: Rocksteady Faces Layoffs After Suicide Squad Game Backlash
- Mastering the Tram Station: Your Guide to Making Foolproof Jumps in Abiotic Factor
- League of Legends: The Mythmaker Jhin Skin – A Good Start or a Disappointing Trend?
- SUI PREDICTION. SUI cryptocurrency
- ‘The Batman 2’ Delayed to 2027, Alejandro G. Iñarritu’s Tom Cruise Movie Gets 2026 Date
- Smite: Is the Current God TTK Too High? The Community Weighs In!
- The Hilarious Realities of Sim Racing: A Cautionary Tale
- Honkai: Star Rail Matchmaking Shenanigans and Epic Hand-Holding Moments!
2025-01-21 17:55