Terry on PATRICK'S DAY.
Growing
up, what movies left the deepest impressions on you?
My
father, who I wasn't very close to at the time but am now, loved
movies and he told me one Saturday afternoon to sit down and watch a
movie with him on TV. The movie came on and I pissed and moaned that
it was in black and white. He wanted to kill me. The movie was 12
ANGRY MEN (1957). I had never seen him respond to a film in that way and I
had never seen him insist that I sit down and watch something with
him. It was a wonderful film but what was going through my head was
''What if in fact Henry Fonda's character was The Devil and him
trying to turn everyone against finding the guy guilty was an
orchestration of The Devil rather than a noble, human celebration of
innocence?'' I was only a single-digit kid but my unique perspective
of the film fundamentally altered my experience of watching it. Years
later when I became immersed in the idea of wanting to write
material, that experience of watching the film came back to me, and I
started asking myself questions. Who presumes that a certain reality
of a situation is the reality? Who presumes to know that what you're
being told is true versus what you have been told is false? Who
presumes to create an illusion or a delusion to protect their
worldview or to manipulate or alter your worldview? I think,
thematically, that came from 12 ANGRY MEN, and has existed in
everything I've ever written since.
What
was the inspiration for CHARLIE CASANOVA? Was it dissatisfaction with
the way society was going in Ireland at the time?
We
still have pure scum deciding our destinies and they are the
weakest-minded, most pathetic cowards imaginable. They're
Machiavellian, manipulating scum. They're in power now and the
consequences of their policies and austerity and dehumanisation is
manifesting everywhere. CHARLIE CASANOVA was an attempt to take a
character who is a complete lying piece of shit and explore how he
can justify his position in the world, and how we allow him to behave
with impunity. I thought it would be clear to the audience that that
was what the intention of the film was. It was almost a Brechtian
construct where you're going ''This guy is lying to you. Watch him
lie to you. What are you going to do about the lie?'' But instead, it
seemed to generate a profoundly extreme hostility that made it become
a national story that was played out in the media. I was depicted as
a psychopathic moron who needed to be stopped. Even though it was
picked up for distribution by Studio Canal in the UK and Ireland, it
was utterly destroyed on its release. It's a very interesting process
to go through where you're trying to make a film that deals with how
the controlling class destroy the working class, the underclass, and
you end up having it manifested in your real life. You realise you
are utterly powerless against the small coterie of people who
controlled the narrative of what CHARLIE CASANOVA became in the
national media, and destroyed you as an individual. Then when banking
tapes that revealed the systemic corruption in Ireland were released,
and we started to see the narrative of the lies unfolding, it was
interesting to see the film going through a revisionism or a
re-assessment. What was seen as cartoonish in its grotesquerie became
almost banal compared to the reality of what these guys were capable
of doing, and how they use language, and how they dehumanise, and the
consequences of their behaviour.
Why
do you think it got the hostile reception it got?
There
are certain people who simply didn't like it, and they are absolutely
entitled to feel that way. We also had some remarkable champions. I
was very happy to embrace conversation with the people that didn't
like it. But there were other people who saw the film as coming from
a guy who did not go through the necessary process, the evaluation
process that allows your decision making to get rubber stamped. If
the film had come from Neil Jordan or someone who was authorised to
engage in these complex issues, then the film would have been treated
in a very different manner but because CHARLIE CASANOVA was made for
less than a thousand Euros and had been made outside any given system
and suddenly plucked out of total obscurity to be in competition at
South by Southwest, immediately it generated an odd reaction. Some
people celebrated it in a way that was quite beautiful, and they
embraced the whole journey from before it came out to the way it
played out for the next year and a half. But there were others who
thought I was just a mouthy prick who didn't have the right education
or background and so no authority to talk about the topics I wanted
to address in the film. From the outset, it became a conversation of
Us vs Them.
Do
you think your own pronouncements in the press contributd to any of
the controversy? I exacerbated the Us vs Them stance deliberately
after we were decimated at South by Southwest. We were the first
non-American film to be selected in competition in six years, and the
first Irish film to ever be selected. We were expected to win the
Grand Jury Prize but a reporter from Variety came and saw the film
and gave it one of the most savage reviews Variety has ever given. So
we went from the heights of our film being plucked from obscurity and
put on the world stage to the absolute depths of public evisceration.
We had no idea what to do, so we went back to the hotel, got drunk
and at 4 in the morning, I decided it was time for a simple epiphany
– it was time to become John Lydon from The Sex Pistols. It was
time to drag this movie out of the fucking grave. I became a mouthy
frontman because no-one else would do it. I presumed that people
would understand I was presenting a persona to push and provoke and
divide an audience. The film ended up having an extraordinary
festival life, it caused fist-fights and all that kind of stuff, and
it had such extreme reactions that those who embraced it were so
protectively in love with it that it was almost embarassing, and
those who despised it were equally as embarassing in how determined
they were to be destructive towards it. I realised that what I had
created was destined to be a punk rock film, and if you create
something like that in a society that has been anaesthetised by boy
bands and can't hear you, it's like listening to Mozart and then
listening to The Sex Pistols. Your ears become so abrasively reactive
to it that your reaction is either ''Wow! This is something new'' or
''Fuck that shit''. The ones who thought the latter were in power and
it was very easy for them to destroy the movie.
Was
the impetus of writing the film to get your anger off your chest or
to provoke a debate?
The
whole point of writing it was to explore a central character that I
had personally encountered too often. It was the arrogant swagger of
a Viagra cock, a cocaine induced machismo and the facility to behave
with impunity towards those lesser than them with a lack of
consequences. That was a thematic exploration on a political level
that I was very interested in on a human level. I am interested in
the illusions we generate for ourselves to convince ourselves that we
are not the person we know are, which is a complete coward. In terms
of making the film, I was sitting in a flat with the missus and kids
and it was 3 in the morning and coming close to Christmas. They were
asleep and I was suffering from insomnia, sitting there with a glass
of whisky and a sense of desperation that drove me to do something so
stupid that it embarassed me the moment I did it – I typed on
Facebook ''Intend making no-budget feature, CHARLIE CASANOVA. Need
cast, crew, equipment, lot of balls. Any takers? This is sincere.''
Social media was something that was strange to me at the time. As I
read what I had posted, I cringed with sheer exposed embarassment.
When I reached across to delete it, someone responded. Within 24
hours, 170 people had gotten back to me. My only stipulation was that
they had to read the screenplay. They seemed to have a profound
reaction to it. In Ireland, everything shuts down at Christmas so I
thought ''Let's try and make it in January.'' It was one of those
notions of ''If you will build it, he will come.'' I ended up getting
cameras for eleven days from Bradog Youth Organisation. They said the
cameras had to be back by midnight on the eleventh day, so our
production schedule was eleven days. When I turned up three weeks
after my Facebook post, I met many people for the first time that
day. We had a tiny crew and a tiny cast and we put everything we had
into it. I had no idea what would ever become of it. I certainly had
no idea it would become the international fiasco it became. Also, I
had no idea it would take me to places all over the world, and that
occasionally it would hit people with such a visceral force that the
very political agenda you set out to engage with in the first place
ends up manifesting itself in an immensely exciting and provocative
way.
How
did the Irish Film Board respond to the project?
The
Irish Film Board have been very generous to several of my scripts.
It's not as if there is any malice on their part in rejecting it. But
they read it and said ''What the hell is this?'' You can't really
blame them, because there was no precedent for that kind of movie in
Ireland. Mike Leigh can make a movie like NAKED (1993) in England, and you
can understand it, and you extrapolate further what his agenda is.
But a moron like me makes a movie like CHARLIE CASANOVA and the
reaction is ''This is a mouthy scream from an incoherent asshole.
Let's switch it off. '' The Film Board ended up being very kind to it
in the end after it was selected for South by Southwest and then for
the Edinburgh Film Festival and multiple other festivals. Then they
actually came on board and put forward the funds for what they call a
'Cinevator' print, which is a form of 35mm print. They don't exist
anymore. We had a bunch of reels in a box with this movie on it, and
unfortunately we had to physically cut out parts of scenes because we
couldn't get the rights to particular songs. We played the film at
some festivals and we got standing ovations at some places and won a
slew of awards. And then we got the opposite. The same social media
that generated the capacity to get the film made was also used to
eviscerate it. It was very interesting to find yourself on both sides
of its value and potential engagement, and then see how it devalues
and then how it destroys.
I
used to live in a bedsit, and I used to watch five movies a night
because if you rented them after midnight and brought them back by
8am, you could get them for next to nothing. These movies would
become the greatest school imaginable. You would walk down the steps
the next day with a sense of empowerment and potential that you
didn't think you had the right to have beforehand. I wanted to make
CHARLIE CASANOVA for people living in bedsits - some guy or girl
stumbling across the movie and thinking ''What the fuck is this?''
and it ends up becoming their own personal discovery. It's these
kinds of people who seem to have discovered the film again and again.
As recent as last night I got an email from someone who lives across
the world who saw athe film and had a profound reaction.
How
did you put together the cast and crew?
The
title character is played by Emmett Scanlan, who before the film had
had very little acting experience. I had originally written the role
for another wonderful actor called Declan Conlon, but he wasn't
ready. Scanlon had all the arrogant swagger of inexperience, and the
belief that anything was possible. I told him ''I might regret this,
but I think you're Charlie Casanova.'' He said ''I'm all over that
shit.'' Then he read the script and he nearly shit himself! I went to
his house and we took one small block of one of the monologues and I
beat the living hell out of him with it. I explained to him the
structure of the form and how to do it. I told him that that was the
model for everything else. Because of his pure tenacity and pragmatic
application and extraordinary generosity he locked himself in a room
over Christmas to learn the dialogue over and over again. When he
turned up on set we had a tiny rehearsal period in order to help the
other actors understand the rhythm and the form and the beat. He just
went for it in a way that I thought was extraordinary. One of my only
disappointments about the whole aftermath of the film is that I had
no problem being attacked personally by the media in the end because
I had put myself front row centre for a real face kicking, but it
saddened me that some people started to attack Scanlan. His
performance is completely fearless and extraordinary. It's been
proven subsequently. He's a very successful actor in America now, and
has been appearing on television there. He's on the road to a great
career.
The
money really went into the food, which my missus made. It wasn't just
rough and ready, it was also the worst Christmas that we had had in
recorded history. On the other hand though, there was a powerful
sense of community, and a warm, humorous, loving engagement. We felt
that we were making something that was unprecedented, no matter how
it was going to be embraced. Even though a lot of nonsense happened
when it was released, it's amazing how many people still come up to
me and say ''Because of your film I made my first film.'' It's great
to know that it created a precedent that empowered people who had
previously felt disenfranchised to suddenly think ''If he can do it,
I can do it.''
Was
the film influenced by any other particular films? I sensed
Cassavetes, AMERICAN PSYCHO (2000), BRONSON (2008) and others.
I
adore Cassavetes, particularly A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE (1974), although
I would never claim to have the capacity to make as great a film as
that. I remember seeing AMERICAN PSYCHO when it was released and
thinking it was a truly extraordinary film. Mary Harron got under
the male psyche far more effectively than any other male thought was
possible. At the time, the film was seen as almost pornographic or
indulgently psychopathic or whatever. The film went through its own
revisionism as well. Now it is seen justifiably as an absolute modern
classic. I love the way it has a central character that is so utterly
repugnant and is still able to be engaging to an audience. One of the
most remarkable things about the movie is the sheer tenacity and
courage of Christian Bale's performance. The scene where he is
screwing the two prostitutes and flexing his muscles and looking at
himself in the mirror is one of the iconic images of modern cinema,
something that gives you an indication of the time you are in. The
themes of the film would have fit CHARLIE CASANOVA across the board.
BRONSON
is another extraordinary film. You watch that film and you realise
that is making you so uneasy that you don't know where you stand on
any level. Sometimes you have to watch a movie a second or a third
time before you can actually relax enough to have exhalation and be
able to say ''I'm actually really enjoying this film.'' What's
interesting about CHARLIE CASANOVA is that many people who did see it
two or three times seemed to have a profoundly different experience
of the film and suddenly perceived it differently. People have
articulated brilliantly to me how it affected them and it is very
exciting that a film can still affect people in that way.
I
was homeless for a while, and when you're homeless, you don't exist.
You're a ghost. I was never frightened of violence or any of those
scenarios, and I had been in multiple scenarios that I survived. But
the thing that nearly fucking killed me was loneliness. It descended
like a cancer. A contagious cancer because you felt that people saw
it and sensed it off you and got away from you as fast as possible. I
had a stammer as well and dodgy legs. It was like a comedy in its own
right, a FORREST GUMP (1994) scenario. I was a teenager at that time so I
didn't even know who I was. I wasn't eating properly so my body
wasn't developing. Everything that should be about the ebullient
sense of self and discovery was the opposite. Eventually I withdrew
so far into myself that the only responses I had were an incoherent
mumble or a private silent cry. You have to invent a version of
yourself before you can take the first step in discovering who you
are, but you end up creating an imitation of who you are. You hope
that that created self becomes some kind of humanistic, noble,
decent, warm, embracing individual. But the idea of an orchestrated
created self that comes with an ugly, destructive force is so much
easier to create and so much easier to get away with and to exploit.
That to me is where Charlie Casanova would have manifested in terms
of a constructed self and it's going to have the capacity to destroy.
Charlie's objective is to be a member of the Ruling Class but he has
to destroy every residue of his humanity and his history to get
there. He has to prove his newly constructed self is capable of the
sickening dehumanisation deemed necessary to control others.
Do
you think such experiences created the artist in you?
For
the longest time, even the use of the word artist would have been
something I blanched at for being ridiculous. Because to me an artist
is a painter, someone like Egon Schiele. I felt I had no birthright
and no sense of self, and there was no precedent to be given
permission to engage in that kind of language. I had allowed my own
doubts and own prejudices to censor an aspiration that's quite
beautiful. I don't know that I am an artist but I do know that I
adore art and it always makes me feel almost like a teenage boy who
has fallen in love again and again and again. It blows my mind. It
invades my soul, and haunts my life. If within that construct I'm
occasionally allowed to feel capable of being an artist, then what a
privilege.
Some
of my friends who worked on the film talk about a Charlie Casanova
type. One of them is a very good friend of mine, Johnny Elliott, who
plays the guy Charlie kills at the end. He's a taxi driver, and he
talks about a Charlie type all the time. He'll say ''Charlie got into
the car again last night.'' He talks about these guys who get in his
taxi who are hopped up on drugs, talk about themselves like they are
Masters of the Universe, and as if you should consider yourself lucky
to be in their presence, to be graced with their articulation as they
breathe all over you and sweat on your back seat. These guys are the
manifestation of greed in its ugliest form but also the dehumanised
notion that people are nothing more than products to be exploited and
discarded. Some suggest that we exist in a culture that is only ugly.
We don't. Most of the people that I encounter are generous, warm,
human, shy people, but unfortunately scum like Charlie see that
vulnerability and see how easy it is to exploit it. The moment they
start exploiting it, our reaction to it is to acquiesce because of
our decency and our natural shyness. But at what stage do we
individually or collectively decide that it has to stop? We don't
seem to have arrived at that stage as a culture yet.
I spoke to Terry by telephone on 5th November 2015, and would like to thank him for his time.
CHARLIE CASANOVA is available in the US from Brinkvision and in the UK from Studio Canal.
Interview by Paul Rowlands. Copyright © Paul Rowlands, 2016. All rights reserved.
I spoke to Terry by telephone on 5th November 2015, and would like to thank him for his time.
CHARLIE CASANOVA is available in the US from Brinkvision and in the UK from Studio Canal.
Interview by Paul Rowlands. Copyright © Paul Rowlands, 2016. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment