|
|
|
.gif){kind=spacer}
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
| ||||||
| Flexing his quads: Interview with Mike
Figgis Mike Figgis introduces sex, stars and no scripts with low-budget ‘Hotel’
DAILY BRUIN SENIOR STAFF hho@media.ucla.edu Mike Figgis sits in a canopied square in the Farmers' Market on 3rd Street and Fairfax Avenue wearing sunglasses, suggesting that perhaps he prefers watching people without them knowing it. Indeed, as his improvisational films "Timecode 2000" and the newly released "Hotel" prove, he likes to see what people will do when they don't have a script. After Oscar nominations for "Leaving Las Vegas" (Nicholas Cage won his), Figgis followed with other small, if not smaller, projects; he off-handedly calls them "weird little movies" ("The Loss of Sexual Innocence," "Miss Julie," "Timecode"). "Hotel" repeats that trend in Figgis' filmmaking; it was shot in four weeks with no script and little money, though you wouldn't know it from the roster of actors involved: Burt Reynolds, David Schwimmer, Salma Hayek, Lucy Liu, John Malkovich, and Julian Sands, among others. The film is self-deprecating, depicting a low-budget film shoot, except in this film the cast and crew also have to worry about bloodthirsty, sex-crazed vampires. Like "Timecode," Figgis reprises his four-quadrant technique, showing at once four screens of simultaneous activity, a method simplified by Figgis' own invention, a do-it-all camera rig that allows one person to record picture and sound without needing a crew. Besides being an inventor, Figgis has also done art installations, acted in theater, and played jazz (he scores most of his films). While "Hotel" has taken almost two years to get American distribution, Figgis' new film for Disney, "Cold Creek Manor," is coming out promptly this September. dB Magazine: Why did it take so long to get distribution? Mike Figgis: You saw the movie? I think that's the answer. The movie actually was ready for distribution on Sept. 11, 2001 at the Toronto Film Festival. Obviously we cancelled that and we screened it the next day. People seemed very shocked by the film. They were feeling very tender and fragile. dB: Part of that seems to be the fact that sex and sensuality is a big theme in your films. MF: It is in most films, isn't it? dB: But in your films they're not terribly repressed. It's controversial to step outside of that set of morality. MF: I don't quite understand the Protestant ethic of repression in European films and American films. Most of the films I grew up influenced by – Japanese films, Eastern European films, Russian, French, the New Wave, all that – they didn't have that repression. This is like a new Puritanism, surrealistic Puritanism because if you look at American television, the amount of repressed sexuality on television is something that is deeply unhealthy, responsible for all kinds of neuroses. dB: "Hotel" merges that sexuality with a new type of filmmaking of four quadrants and improved structure. Why do you use the four quadrants? MF: I'm personally fascinated by the four-quadrant technique. One of the limitations I've realized is that film has always been the one point of view. It ties in with theories about pornography and the voyeuristic eye. The minute you open it up to two, three or four points of view, you've taken the audience out of the perversity of voyeurism and into a more general idea of observing the way you observe in life, though we could never duplicate it nor would we want to, but to approximate it is interesting. If you have three or four points of view, you find your brain props open to a completely different relationship to imagery and you start to look for connections. They're not being given to you. dB: It's like a God's-eye view. Were you consciously developing it after "Timecode"? MF: Absolutely. "Timecode" was always going to be a story playing out in a bravura style, a joyful demonstration of a technical idea. Within that limitation, it was happy and fulfilling. However, while I was doing it, what was more interesting were moments when all four cameras suddenly started to do something together. It was almost like the choreography of the camera work could become a narrative of its own. When I was editing "Hotel," a hundred other ideas came to me. dB: What would you say to people who think your films are just technical exercises? MF: It's clear to me that there's really a huge revolution in filmmaking now. This technology has opened up everything so that we can't even look at film the same way we did 20 years ago. It's different whether we like it or not. I'd rather be on the train going somewhere interesting than simply saying it's so awful with these reality shows. Why are people so horrible to each other? They are because no one told them any different. Our culture encourages them to gravitate to porno and violence. It's part of the repression. dB: A lot of the film is actually improvised. How do you keep it from turning into chaos? MF: Improvisation is the ability to keep a structure in your head. It's never anarchy. The problem with improvising, going without a map, is that you only have your own brain, your own memory of that structure. dB: Do you write stuff down? MF: I'm a notebook hound. Way before I get anywhere near a group of 35 actors or musicians, I need to know that I have a clear structure that will work even if I change it. The actors need to know I have some kind of plan. dB: It seems the improvisation and control explains why you can attract the stars you do. MF: They get a lot of control. They also get to work with other very good actors, which is important for them. But very quickly I have to establish a certain rule which is that you're in an ensemble. It's not star-based. You might have your moment of solo, but when it's someone else's turn, you have to be supportive. It's also not success-based. If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter. It's really about experimenting and trying something you wouldn't normally try, which by definition is fun. dB: In the cases of Lucy Liu and John Malkovich, they get off a plane and do a few scenes and leave. How do you get them to do that? MF: You ask them in a certain way. If you want to have fun for a couple of days or in John Malkovich's case a couple hours, it would be great. If you don't, it's not a big deal either. It's taken a while to build up to that level, 12 years in fact. Working with actors, you either have a good reputation or a bad one depending on how you treat them. I was an actor for 15 years. I pride myself on understanding the fragility and the insecurity of actors. dB: It's interesting that you sell it by saying it's fun. How fun is it really? MF: It's a lot of fun. For example, I have actors turning up in the morning ready to go to work, "What are we going to do today boss?" What you normally get are actors who've been in the trailer for three hours in make-up and look tired by the time they arrive on set. They're also ready to work, but it's a different vibe. The minute you say to an actor it's your responsibility, you wear something interesting, feed yourself, take responsibility for your own props, they fall apart the first day and get it, and after that they start to take real pride in what they're doing. dB: You've just finished your new Disney movie. Is that your day job, so to speak? MF: It's your full-time job whatever you do. But I've also done a documentary on the blues, an installation in Spain with 17 screens, hundreds of photographs, sound, and sculpture, which is way far out. I've been trying all these things, but I really can't wait to go back to pure film and to try something that pushes these ideas. I'd quite like to go back and combine film and digital video. I always felt that film and video both can be used depending on what you want. It's all going to end up on digital anyways, as it should. Interview conducted by Howard Ho. |
| Printable Version |
| Click here for a printable version of this article. |
| Contact Us |
| Email Arts &
Entertainment at ae@ media.ucla.edu for questions or concerns about this article. |
| |||
| |||
|
