Interview with Ken Loach
At the 22nd European Film Awards the European Film Academy will present an honorary award to Ken Loach.
Having begun his career in British television, Ken Loach made his first film for cinema, POOR COW, in 1967. His breakthrough came with KES (1970) and FAMILY LIFE (1971). Ever since he has established himself as a politically and socially committed filmmaker with films such as RIFF-RAFF (European Film of the Year 1991), LAND AND FREEDOM (European Film of the Year 1995), and SWEET SIXTEEN (EFA Critics’ Award 2002 - Prix FIPRESCI). Among his recent films are AE FOND KISS… (French César 2005), THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY (Palme d’Or in Cannes 2006, IFTA), IT’S A FREE WORLD (2007), and LOOKING FOR ERIC (2009).
Mr Loach, congratulations on the European Film Academy Lifetime Achievement Award!
Thank you. It was a big surprise. It is recognition of past work, really, and recognition from people you respect. So it is very nice. But what people omit to say is that films are made by a group of people. I can only call myself a director because of all the people I work with, particularly the screenwriter who I think is massively undervalued usually. I will accept it in behalf of all the people I work with. It’s the only way to do it, really. Otherwise it is too egocentric. I feel very honoured but I guess you can’t think about it too much, because you start to believe it and then you can’t work anymore.
Many critics and audiences were surprised by the rather light-hearted approach of LOOKING FOR ERIC. Have you mellowed over the years?
I have always done films that had a little bit of comedy in them. No, I don’t think I have mellowed. I have always enjoyed doing things with a scent of fun as well as being serious. And the same film can be a comedy or a tragedy. If it has a happy ending, it’s a comedy, if it has a sad ending, it’s a tragedy. But the group of characters can be the same; the situations can be the same.
How has filmmaking changed from your beginnings in the 1960s to now?
Well, it has changed a lot on the surface with new technologies. But the essentials don’t change – finding the characters, a good narrative, dealing with life, working with actors and performances. The big questions don’t change. Judging why a film is important or necessary to make.
And in terms of the political climate? You had a rather difficult time during the 80s.
But that didn’t affect only me. The onslaught of Margaret Thatcher was very savage. A lot of people lost their jobs. I got by but I found it difficult to work in the cinema. I did documentaries and they got mainly banned from television, five got banned altogether and another three were delayed or not shown properly. It was a quite hard time.
Did you ever think of giving up? Doing something completely different?
Well, I thought about it seriously. But I wasn’t young then. So it was rather difficult to think of another career. In moments of despair I was thinking I should never work again. Then I got a phone call from David Puttnam who was a producer at that time, asking me if I’d like to do a film for him. That led to Columbia Pictures which led to another feature film and to finally working again.
In retrospect, would you do anything different?
I don’t know… You certainly make a lot of mistakes but in a way you always take the best decision you can at the time. Within each film there are lots of things I should have done differently; I realise that every time I see the film. But in terms of big decisions? I turned to documentaries when Thatcher came to power because I wasn’t able to raise money for films and the relationships with writers I was working with weren’t very fruitful. And the upheaval in the country was so great that I thought it would take too long to make a feature film because the changes were so drastic and vast. There was certainly a great frustration but I am not quite sure as to what I should have done differently. You obviously make lots of mistakes in your career; I could talk all week about mine. But that is kind of different from thinking whether I should have made other decisions at the time.
You are one of the last remaining, really political filmmakers…
Oh, I don’t know about that! I think there are a lot of people who would make political films if they had the chance. It has to do with who gets the money to make films. And there are a lot out there, like Matteo Garrone’s “Gomorrah”.
Is your cinematic interest in working class mainly for political reasons or do you choose them also for other, maybe dramatic qualities?
For all reasons, really. When life is hard the drama in your life is more intense. There are no soft margins that money gives you. You’re dealing with questions of survival more intensely because the financial constraints are pretty tough. And working class people use language much more vividly. Certainly in our culture middle class language is very bland and tedious. Working class language is very rich in metaphors; the humour is much more intense. Most of the comedy in our culture is working class comedy. That is very important, apart from the political reasons. Change won’t come from people who have a lot to lose; it will come from people who don’t have a lot to lose.
Can cinema change society?
Most commercial films you see from the American studios have an implicitly right wing subtext about the lone hero who can conquer everything and solve your problems and that the gun is the answer to everything. And overtly they tell you that North America is a place of freedom and democracy and we know what a laugh that is. But I hope there is still space for radical and critical films.
Is there a stronger need today for political issues in cinema than before?
Yes! We are in a period of late capitalism where one financial crisis will be followed by another, where profit margins shrink, unemployment is a permanent feature of our society with all the problems that it brings. But these issues are not raised in mainstream media, whether it’s the press or television journalism. It seems there is no alternative to market economies. The basis of the European Union is an economy based on big corporations with the directives that big business must be allowed everything and governments cannot intervene. These ideas aren’t really challenged and maybe cinema is one of the few places left where you can.
What do you consider your most rewarding experience? Or what film had the most impact?
It’s not the film; it’s the people you meet in the course of making a film. Whether it’s veterans from the Spanish Civil War or people who fought for the Sandinista in Nicaragua or just working class people who retained principles, solidarity and resistance. Or people who deal with the casualties of the unemployed. Meeting those people makes you realize that being a filmmaker is a very privileged and protected position, really.
What’s your advice for young European filmmakers starting today?
Oh, dear! There are lots of things to say but the best advice is to not listen to any advice. If pressed, I would say: First, join the union with the other film workers because we need to support each other. We need to demand the politicians to protect the European film industry. In terms of directing for me the most valuable thing was working in the theatre because you learn about actors. A lot of directors believe that they can hide behind the camera and you can work with a good crew but no one will tell you how to work with actors. Rather than a film school I would work in theatre. Direct the classics with texts that are dense and difficult and then you will be able to see how actors work and think and how you can get good performances. Filming is essentially easy. You arrange for something to happen and then you photograph it and join the bits together. That is all there is to it, really. I think film schools can sometimes get very pretentious about what they do. And I think writing and directing are two different things. You can be a brilliant scriptwriter and not be able to direct and you can be a good director but have nothing to say. And I think there is this heresy that in order to be a proper filmmaker you have to write your own script and I think that’s not right. The best thing for a director is to find good writers.
What are burning issues that you haven’t dealt with yet?
I couldn’t possibly say. We have to nurse those quietly and not give them away.
So, the Lifetime Achievement Award is more stimulation than recognition?
It’s either telling you it’s enough now, go away or a challenge for the director to say, well, I haven’t finished yet. I consider it a challenge.
Telephone interview by Thomas Abeltshauser
