The Tiger's Tail - John Boorman interview
Interview by Rob Carnevale
JOHN Boorman talks about making The Tiger’s Tail, the controversy it stirred in Ireland and some of the flak he’s taken about particular scenes…
Q. This is a very personal project for you, having lived in Ireland so long yourself. Did you feel that the time was right?
John Boorman: Yes, I’ve been living there for nearly 40 years in the same house and I’m very much involved in Irish life – particularly in encouraging and nurturing the film industry. I’ve helped a lot of young directors to get started, a lot of technicians have been through films with me, and I’ve been observing the changes in Ireland and they’re very radical. From being a country that lived in poverty for so many years, it’s now the richest country in the world per capita.
We’ve seen also the demise of the church, which was very repressive. So suddenly there’s money and all the boundaries have gone, and Ireland is a country charging into the future at a horrendously fast rate, searching for a new identity. It seemed to me to be a very dramatic situation to make a film, so I had this notion for some time about identical twins and the investigation into the nature of identity and it seemed a good match. Here was this character who was looking to discover his identity in the context of a nature trying to discover its new identity. That’s how it all came about.
Q. The Tiger’s Tail suffered a backlash in Ireland. Was that because people weren’t ready for what it had to say?
John Boorman: Well, before the picture opened it was enormously controversial because the Irish are very proud of their success in the Celtic Tiger. They’ve gone from poverty to wealth in such a short period of time and they feel that any criticism of this is somehow undeserved. Although these issues are spoken and written about within Ireland all the time – you know, the crumbling health service and the lack of sub-structure, roads, sewage, even Ireland where it rains all the time is running out of water – somehow when that’s put in a film and onto the big screen for the world to see they get very angry. Consequently, people perceive this as being a political film. It has political undertones but fundamentally it’s the story of a man and his family in the context of the Irish economic miracle. But when you put something up on that big screen it says so much more than something that’s written down.
Q. Was it easy to get funding?
John Boorman: It’s never easy to get funding. I wrote a book some years ago about the process called Money Into Light, which is actually what happens when you make a film. You take all this money and all these resources and they all disappear into this camera. At the end of it you have this light flickering on the wall – and that’s all you have. It’s almost turning matter into spirit; it’s like a modern version of alchemy. But somehow you have to turn that light back into money again. So that’s why people are so rightly nervous about investing money into films…
When I first went to America to make Point Blank I stayed in this hotel which had just been built called The Beverwil. The brochure told me that it had been built for exactly the same budget as the film I was making. It’s still there and it’s still functioning as a hotel some 30 years later. As it happens, Point Blank is still functioning as a film [laughs] but for the most part films don’t last that long. So, if you want to invest your money I’d advise you to put it into a hotel rather than a film!
Q. How easy was it to find the right balance between the humour and the emotion of The Tiger’s Tail because it really has something of everything in it?
John Boorman: I think most films are too predictable. They follow familiar patterns. I suppose audiences like to know where they stand but I like films that take me by surprise, take unexpected turns and twists. With this film, I wanted to make a thriller but at the same time a black comedy that’s going to give people some thrills and some laughs. The film laughs at itself in places. I know that people find that unsettling – people who have an open mind will probably enjoy it more than those who want the comfort of the familiar.
Q. I guess the less open minded might get stuck on a sequence such as the ‘rape’ that occurs between Brendan Gleeson’s twin and Kim Cattrall’s character? Have you had to defend that scene? And was it difficult to get right?
John Boorman: I’ve actually been taken to task on that scene by some women and I’ve pointed out that it’s not me doing it, but this character. He comes to it with bitterness, resentment and envy and wants to take what he can – money, he envies his twin brother, so taking the wife is the most gratifying thing for him. He has a brutal attitude towards her, which is why he behaves the way he does. By shooting it, I’m not condoning it. I’m merely expressing what this character would do.
Q. Kim Cattrall was very brave in the way she approached that scene and her character’s reaction towards it. Is it true she made it easier than expected?
John Boorman: Yes, because she’s a woman who has explored her sexuality and could put herself into that situation very easily and understand it. It was more difficult for Brendan. He said to her beforehand: “I’ve never done any of this stuff really, so I’m going to need your help.” She was extremely generous about that.
Q. Was she always your first choice for the role?
John Boorman: Well, I didn’t know what I was getting into really. I was looking for someone approaching 50 who was nevertheless glamorous and sexy, who could play this kind of role. I looked at Irish actresses primarily but just couldn’t find anyone really. I never saw Sex & The City but I saw her in this play, Whose Life Is It Anyway? and she was fantastic. I then met her and cast her on the spot.
Q. This is your fourth film with Brendan Gleeson. What do you like about working with him?
John Boorman: He’s a very intelligent actor. He thinks a lot about roles and he’s very involved in them. We talk about them a lot beforehand and it rehearsal. But then when it comes to do it there’s some instinct that takes over from his intelligence and he sometimes does very unexpected things, which is what you’re always hoping for. You provide all the construction of the scene, the writing, dialogue and setting and then you hope some bit of magic happens, which it often does with Brendan. He takes me by surprise so often. We know each other so well and have worked together so often but he still takes my breath away at times.
Q. Was it your idea to cast Brendan’s real-life son as his son in the film?
John Boorman: I knew him and I was looking for a boy to play the part. So I asked Brendan whether he thought Briain would be interested. I then met him and auditioned him but the great thing about Briain is that of course he looks so much like Brendan that it’s very poignant because you see what the character of Liam must have been like when he was young. You see what he’s lost in a sense. But he was great.
Q. Did it make your job as director easier because they had that natural father-son bond?
John Boorman: Well, it was interesting because Brendan had to restrain himself. He had to work with his son like he would with an actor and restrain himself from helping him and telling him things. Whenever we did a scene and I was talking to Briain, Brendan would go away so that he didn’t have an influence and wasn’t involved. I could then function with Briain as an actor. So, it was hard for Brendan… I’m sure they talked a lot at night but on the set it was very professional.
Q. You’ve made some landmark films during your career. How have you seen the industry change during that time? Has it been for the better?
John Boorman: Well, in the ’60s and ’70s it was a great period for American films because studios were still run by individuals who worked off the seat of their pants and went along with things. At that time, they were very uncertain about what to make because of the influence of television, so we got away with a lot in those times. A lot of really terrific movies were made. But then the studios gradually became more corporate and were owned by corporations and run in that way and now they’re very nervous. You see what they make – sequels, franchises and try not to take risks.
All the interesting films are now being made by their subsidiaries for very low budgets. But the studios are not making money. They’re making these big, very expensive pictures that take a lot of money but don’t really pay for their costs. So they’re having a very difficult time. I can see the system breaking down. I think the American studios are a reflection or a metaphor for American industry altogether, which is failing in the world. Its economic domination is being broken down and I think the same thing is happening to the studios.
Q. Would you agree that there needs to be more risk taking in filmmaking?
John Boorman: Well, yeah. I do regret that there seems to be… the problem with Hollywood is the way they release films on thousands of prints and with everything dependant on the first weekend, originality is the enemy because how do you market an original story? You can only market the familiar. I remember pitching a story to the head of a studio and he said: “OK but how do you express that in a 30 second TV advert?” I couldn’t give him the answer, so he said: “Well, I shouldn’t make it because I can’t sell the film. If I can’t communicate it, then I shouldn’t be making it.” So everything has to filter through this very narrow gap.
Every now and again a film comes out of nowhere to become a big hit. But I challenge you to find any one of those films that hasn’t had a terrible history trying to get it made. Almost always, those films that are different and original – but which are successful – have spent years trying to make them and have struggled, mortgaged their house, etc, because the system mitigates against originality.
Read our review of The Tiger’s Tail
Read our interview with Kim Cattrall