Shane Meadows Interview 28/09/2004

[RydCook]

andyneilwright said:

Thanks for putting these up - I sat and watched them all.

He was very generous and open and whats more - how lucky was your sixth form to have someone like that come in and talk to you?

When I was at sixth form we got someone who had once worked as a camera man on the Bill come in and talk to us and that was it!

Fascinating especially the stuff on Once upon a time. He said one tiny thing I didn't really agree with but I could have listened to him talk all day.

What did you disagree with?

One thing i notice is Shane is very harsh on Once Upon... in this interview, i think it must have been because it was so fresh in his memory. But i believe since he's said he's watched it again, and thought it wasn't SO bad. Also said he wanted to do a re-edit and a new soundtrack didn't he? So for people who watch, he has changed his opinion slightly on that film i believe.

[Gareth]

I watched Midlands for the first time and really wasn't impressed but when you cut passed the western soundtrack etc. etc.

at the heart of it Shirley Henderson Rhys Ifans and Finn Atkins gve brilliant performaces, I think it would have been up there with the best of Shanes films if Jimmy Prophet had came back instead of Robert Carlyle. Just watch Midlands and then Jimmy Prophet the whole film pretty much plays through in your head. Imagine Finn Atkins asking Paddy about him killing that bloke

[halfpint]

Great stuff Ryd, very interesting!

Nice few pointers to take into consideration before i start filming on my short this weekend too Shane.

[Patty Dawes]

ryd22 said:

What did you disagree with?

[/quote]

Hmm.

I should start by saying - I'm obviously a massive fan of SM, I came to this website to find out more about his shorts and where I could see them and stayed for the banter with like minded fans.

Because I disagree It doesn't mean I don't like.

Also he wouldn't have said this had he not been so open and that is why the whole thing is really great to watch.

It came in the whole midlands section and his disappointment obviously colours things.

I just got upset as a fan when he talked about 'famous actors' the idea that they lose their hunger and their work becomes less interesting and they are less likely to give him what he needs in a film.

In my fairly worthless opinion acting is a craft, something you work at and develop over the years, for every DeNiro who will now phone stuff in you can get a Pacino who still shocks and surprises. Pierce Brosnans best work has come since Bond.

I worked with a very old actress at the start of the year who has worked with everyone back to Olivier and my house mate worked with Peter o'toole and said the same thing - every second is like a master class.

As a fan I would hate to see him not spread his wings and work with a star or group of stars again.

The reason these people are house hold names is because when the right opportunity came they showed they had talent far greater than the norm.

I know he knows more about Star behavior than me and he has probably mellowed since the interview (Paddy is a star now I'm sure he will continue to cast him)

But I would love to see him work with an Anthony Hopkins or someone of that ilk.

The other thing was - and I know completely where he is coming from but I don't agree about Mike Leigh - I don't know if Vera Drake was out at the time but it's brilliant and wonderfully subtle film.

I know about the audition process with him (Mike Leigh) but once you start working with him, although he is looking for the actors to bring work, it is definitely orchestrated by him.

I think sometimes things can be misunderstood on a forum.
I write not as a criticism of Shane, Im meerley opening up some interesting things he said for a discussion.

[Gareth]

I think the main problem for me with well known actors is it's hard to get that realism if you've seen them in 100's of films or TV, most british films I watch I spend half the time thinking 'there's so and so' and 'where do I recognise him from' 'oh yeah thats her off eastenders'

If shane can get that performance out of Tommo then who needs well known actors, I honestly think working with unknowns is probably the biggest part of Shane Meadows's process, well known actors couldn't commit to the amount of workshop and rehersal time that seem to shape Shanes films into what they are

I've read in other interviews him saying basically the same about the crew, DOP's turning up on set with A Touch Of Frost jackets on thinking this whole projects somehow benith them, the same thing happend in film school, people got abit of TV work or shot on 16mm and now DV projects are benith them and not worth the effort, where as if this is someones first (and possibly last) film then there going to give it everything they've got

[Patty Dawes]

I completely understand what your saying and I'm not trying to say who Shane should cast because it has got sod all to do with me.

Last year I had the most depressing experience of my life - I had done some good theatre, an advert, some good shorts and a couple of one/two day tv jobs. Then I got a guest lead on the Bill, only two episodes but a meaty character and filming spread out over 3-4 weeks.

Great i thought - but it was awful, the actors didn't know what scene they were shooting, rehearsal and direction were non existent and worst of all no one cared. We could have all been working in the office for to everyone on it, it was simply a job.

It was awful to do and not surprisingly awful to watch. This its a job attitude is the the worst thing you could have on a set.

But that attitude is not exclusive to stars (you couldn't call actors on the Bill stars) nor do all stars suffer from this problem. The stars that are actors will also make time for and enjoy workshop and rehearsal. Jamie Fox, Tom Cruise and Mark Ruffalo all did for collateral.

Last night on ITV Penelope Wilton gave a great performance and shes someone you would think would suffer from the "where do I know her from" syndrome. But when the script and performance are good, you buy into it instantly.

[anonlytwin]

this is great Ryd.. can't wait to get home and consume them...

[halfpint]

I'm sure Shane would relish working with the bigger stars, who wouldn't want to work with Bobby De Niro and Al Pacino?

I think his comments are more catered to the smaller stories he wants to tell....if he'd have got say Jude Law on board for TIE, yes it would have gotten more money and more promotion, but i don't think he'd have been as believable as one of the gang...even if his acting was on point, because TIE is a more small intimate story, a vast amount of the audience wouldn't find Law believable.

It's horses for courses, or however the saying goes....when it comes to British cinema, the 'big' stars should only be used in the right story and with the right character. Brad Pitt was great in Snatch, but that film wasn't really about realism.

[RydCook]

andyneilwright said:

ryd22 said:

I think sometimes things can be misunderstood on a forum.
I write not as a criticism of Shane, Im meerley opening up some interesting things he said for a discussion.

It's cool mate! I know your not criticising him, i think theres a few things in the interview i disagree with, i'm sure there are others who watch it and feel the same. I'm glad we can discuss it! Its why i asked!

I personally much prefer watching no-name actors, makes me believe in the film so much more, i love getting so involved in a film that i think its real. I never buy a film simply because it has an actor i like in it, sure it helps, but its never the sole reason. But for the majority of the audience actors play a big part don't they?

I don't think Shane shouldn't cast big stars... i just think if he does theres gotta be good reason, and they have to be an actor that will put their all into it. I think in the interview he was talking about the likes of Ricky Tomlinson, Kathy Burke and that.. they're not really huge stars are they? I'm sure shane would be happy to work with a star if he thought it was right for the film. I mean Stephen Graeme is reasonably big, and he pout his all in for TIE and it was stunning. I'm sure no-one was thinking "Oh he's that guy from Snatch aint he?!" He IS Combo in that film.

So i half agree, and half dont... I think shane should use new actors, cos of the reasons he says, they're new to it, and they want it, and they'll put their all in always. But i don't think he should shy from using big names again, because it can work. But i'm sure he knows this by now anyway. We have to keep in mind that this is an interview from like 3 years ago now.

[anonlytwin]

ryd i wouldn't mind referencing some of this stuff in a piece i am writing at the moment (if that's cool?) what college ddid the interview take place at?

[anonlytwin]

aha, got it, long road 6th form college... how did you manage to persuade him to come along?

[RydCook]

My teacher, (the infamously named) Tom Woodcock asked him. He used to work at the Arts Picturehouse in Cambridge you see. And Shane was due to screen Dead Man's Shoes and do a Q&A with Tom on the same day at the Picturehouse. So i assume Tom asked him to come along to the college to do an interview with us students cos we were about to make out 4 minute films.

Its cool, you can reference it all you like! I know i did for my writing on Meadows.

[Patty Dawes]

ryd22 said:

andyneilwright said:

I think sometimes things can be misunderstood on a forum.
I write not as a criticism of Shane, Im meerley opening up some interesting things he said for a discussion.

It's cool mate! I know your not criticising him, i think theres a few things in the interview i disagree with, i'm sure there are others who watch it and feel the same. I'm glad we can discuss it! Its why i asked!

I personally much prefer watching no-name actors, makes me believe in the film so much more, i love getting so involved in a film that i think its real. I never buy a film simply because it has an actor i like in it, sure it helps, but its never the sole reason. But for the majority of the audience actors play a big part don't they?

I don't think Shane shouldn't cast big stars... i just think if he does theres gotta be good reason, and they have to be an actor that will put their all into it. I think in the interview he was talking about the likes of Ricky Tomlinson, Kathy Burke and that.. they're not really huge stars are they? I'm sure shane would be happy to work with a star if he thought it was right for the film. I mean Stephen Graeme is reasonably big, and he pout his all in for TIE and it was stunning. I'm sure no-one was thinking "Oh he's that guy from Snatch aint he?!" He IS Combo in that film.

So i half agree, and half dont... I think shane should use new actors, cos of the reasons he says, they're new to it, and they want it, and they'll put their all in always. But i don't think he should shy from using big names again, because it can work. But i'm sure he knows this by now anyway. We have to keep in mind that this is an interview from like 3 years ago now.

Your right - wise words.

Maybe I'm biased towards actors but I usually select my films on the back of a cast member, if I see a good performance I'm always asking myself if that is a good actor or a good performance.

I often go through someones back catalog - I'm on a Stanley Tucci fest at the minute (amazing actor but lots of crap films).

I would love to have a good experience v hunger debate - I must say I come down on the side of experience but I also don't think the two are mutely exclusive.

Interesting though.

ps - I thought Kathy Burke was good in OUTIM - been at least 4 years since I've seen it though.

[anonlytwin]

ryd22 said:

My teacher, (the infamously named) Tom Woodcock asked him. He used to work at the Arts Picturehouse in Cambridge you see. And Shane was due to screen Dead Man's Shoes and do a Q&A with Tom on the same day at the Picturehouse. So i assume Tom asked him to come along to the college to do an interview with us students cos we were about to make out 4 minute films.

Its cool, you can reference it all you like! I know i did for my writing on Meadows.

cheers ryd. this will help me out a lot

[Bill Edwards]

Re the stars v unkowns debate:

For me it's all down to performance (and my opinion too). I first turned my nose up at the thought of watching 3:10 To Yuma thinking it would be not be much more than a Crowe vehicle. After the film had finished it dawned on me that I had totally suspended my disbelief and not once thought I was watching Crowe and Bale but accepted I was watching two characters from the Wild West.

On the other hand Tom Cruise in WOTW is Tom Cruise in MI 1, 2 and 3 is Tom Cruise in etc...

Films are often wholes that are greater than the sums of their parts (sorry, bad sentence). A phoned in performance by a star can trip a movie up with devastating effect.

When I finally got around to watching 24/7 I began by thinking, 'Nice of Bob to do this. Bob's doing well. Amazing performance from Bob here.' By the end I thought I had watched a film with a bloke called Darcy in it.

I don't know how these thing are achieved but when it all works it can be utterly spellbinding.

Personally I would like to see Shane give it a go with an ensemble of well known stars again. From the interviews it seems to have been more to do with lack of artistic control than the actors' egos that hamstrung OUTITM.