Mike Figgis

Tweet

An interview by Stephen J. Szklarski

This British film director has taken the film and music mediums with an approach to present visually and stimulating audiences with dynamic sound and vision. He is a brilliant composer of vision and sound which makes his films universal, appealing to moviegoers worldwide. His compelling films such as Leaving Las Vegas, One Night Stand, Time Code, and his latest, Hotel showcase his great talents, collaborations with actors and the risky content that he has chosen to make films of. Figgis takes the art of moviemaking to new levels by using the latest tools of technology which enhance many of his films.
Like a jazz musician, he uses a fusion of music and a fusion of film to tell a compelling story. Or several stories at one time. Mike Figgis is not just a brilliant independent director. He is also a composer of unique storytelling, using the latest filmmaking tools to compose brilliant works of art.

IFQ: Like jazz music, a fusion of different sounds, your last two films Time Code and Hotel, tell a revolving story with many different scenes viewed simultaneously. How did you come up with the idea of film fusion?

MF: It has been a long process. The filmmakers that I have always admired, Altman, Godard, etc., have all been obsessed with the multi-layering of film. For many years, I have been trying to pack in as many ideas into each film as possible. However, it wasn’t until the digital film revolution that I became aware of the possibility of splitting the screen and doing more complex sound mixes.

IFQ: How is the script broken down and written?

MF: I use music paper for the split screen sequences. Just like writing for a string quartet. Each stave represents a different camera scenario, and each bar line represents an equal measure of time, usually one minute of screen time. This way all the four scenes are on exactly the same time frame. It is very simple to teach actors to use this technique.

IFQ: The content of the films you have written have been made up of complicated characters that the audience falls in love with. How do you find the people that you write about?

MF: I am an observer of life. Hotel lobbies, railway stations, and airports fascinate me. I have kept a detailed notebook for the past 30 years. I find that I go back and explore these notes regularly.

IFQ: In your latest film, Hotel, you shot in Italy, again using DV cameras and a well-organized sound microphone placement. You capture the goings-on of a small dogma film crew staying in this hotel. How did this voyeuristic idea come to you?

MF: The work I am doing at the moment has very much to do with filmmaking itself; the new equipment, the new ideas that are discussed by people who enjoy the experience of filmmaking. I thought it was useful to have the filmmakers as characters in the film itself.

IFQ: How long was preproduction, with the actors and finalizing the script before shooting?

MF: We had a couple of weeks getting the hotel ready. The actors came in a few days before the shooting began. It really worked in a different way from this though. Each scene had its mini preproduction; a time for discussion and looking at the film already shot. It was also possible, under this system, to re-shoot a scene if we were not particularly happy with it.

IFQ: What type of DV cameras did you use and how many altogether?

MF: The PD 100 (Sony) was the main camera I used. It is the one which I particularly like working with. We had four of these. We also had two PD 150’s and a DSR 500. All cameras use the DVCAM system. Another valuable camera was a special Night Vision camera, also made by Sony.

IFQ: Editing while the film was being shot is a very fast way to work. How were you able to do it and with what editing tools?

MF: We did not edit while shooting. I did rough assembly for the cast and crew on a daily basis. This was just using four DSR 50 Sony field units. A lot of sound pre-editing filing was done though, which made life much easier later on. This was done using a Pro-Tools system. Sound was recorded on the cameras, a DAT machine, and also on many mini-disc recorders, which the actors wore and operated themselves.

IFQ: Film vs. DV?

MF: I think of it as if a painter’s palate became larger. From an economic standpoint, it is a complete revolution of course. But it doesn’t follow that it is any easier to make films—it is just cheaper and much more accessible.

IFQ: Is it much easier for a director to get distribution with a DV film, rather than a movie shot on 35mm?

MF: Not at the moment. It will take some time yet before distribution has the necessary revolution that will allow the circle to be complete.

IFQ: Any final words on the latest technology that can help producers and directors?

MF: Yes. It is quite a political situation—get involved in distribution, don’t just leave it to the gods!