Ad content continues below
I dont think theres a plan at work.
I dont have a plan, I must cover all these genres before I die.
Im never quite sure why Im particularly attracted to projects.
Yeah, its all to do with the script.
Initially, its all to do with the script.
In that sense, youve collaborated with a handful of name writers, such as Hanif Kureishi.
How does that relationship work out?
Its very collaborative, and we spend long periods between films developing.
So, it takes a long time.
And, otherwise, somethings come through the letterbox, like this script.
So, whats your take on the creative role of the director, then?
No, I think writers are crucial to film.
Its such a collaborative art.
To keep everyone making the same film, which is more difficult than it sounds.
Its simply a historical error.
Does that change things at all?
I think if youre any good, youll make the material your own somehow.
And I think that you have to feel very personally connected to the material to make the film sing.
So, I dont think that the author then becomes the author of the film at all, no.
On my English films, I dont take a possessory credit.
That just feels idiotic and arrogant.
I do on American films, but thats for different reasons.
Is that the convention over there?
Its more of a courtesy.
Its sort of a complex, contractual thing.
Youve been working on both sides of the Atlantic throughout your career.
What is the difference?
Budget, I suppose?
Because one organisation pushes the button, and pays for the whole thing.
You have to listen to what people say.
And how did that process work out withMorning Glory?
The script came through your letterbox, then what?
Most of the directors job takes place during the prep.
As David Mamet says, All mistakes happen in prep.
Because in prep, you make your film, really.
You dont have time to make your film while youre shooting.
Youve got to have it all sorted out.
Im sure people think that directing is hanging around on set with a canvas chair, being creative.
And it really is nothing like that at all.
Theres no hanging around.
Theres no Oh, where shall we go today?
Or Why dont we put the camera there?
Theres no time for that.
Its like a terrible war being prosecuted by a chaotic army.
And you have to be so prepared, so organised, otherwise you dont get through the day.
So, all the creative stuff happens Im exaggerating before.
Thats the fun part.
And then the post is the fun part, where you do the final rewrite of the film.
The shoot is process, thats the tough bit.
So, is it not fun?
The shoot is a nightmare.
I wouldnt recommend it.
But you say rehearsals are important for the actors.
Thats something that I do, but my backgrounds in theatre.
So, I choose to rehearse the actors on all my films.
Was it different from working with Peter OToole or Leslie Phillips?
Well, they were younger.
[laughs] Thats for sure.
No, theyre actors.
Theyre film stars, but theyre also actors.
And I think they like being treated like actors.
When working with that class of star, do egos come into it?
Is that part of the nightmare of shooting?
People like Harrison Ford are always early on set, always ultra-prepared.
They like sets, they like crews, they like being around.
So, I think they enjoy themselves.
Thats something thats said about Harrison Ford.
They talk about his background working in manual trade as influencing his very professional approach to acting.
I think thats right.
Was that a reason to get them on board?
Well, you aim high.
You go for the top of the list.
And usually you end up with number seven.
On this occasion, we ended up with all our number ones.
Jeff was in New York anyway.
Hes been doingLaw And Order, and hes been producing it as all.
He was over here last year, as well.
He did a play, didnt he?
But he had a week, so we got him for a week and he was wonderful.
The film is almost like a rom-job-com.
Youve got to come up with a better way of saying it.
Rom-job-com sounds slightly weird.
Its a bit of a mouthful.
How would you term it?
Traditionally
He would be the girl!
I think its absolutely fair that the tables are eventually turned in respect to gender.
But the key relationship is the spine of the film is the relationship between Rachel and her dad/mentor.
Whatever the relationship is, thats the romantic thing that the audience yearns to be resolved, I suppose.
And for Rachel to find a family.
She starts the film effectively an orphan, with this ghastly mother.
And he starts the film effectively a widow, a childless widow.
And they both end up forming this strange but vaguely functioning family.
I suppose thats the spine of the film.
I like the fact that the work world is so detailed, and so interesting.
Because, in this country, its different.
Our Daybreak hasnt been doing so well on ITV.
But morning news programming must still be a huge institution in America.
Its much bigger than it is in Europe.
Its a very, very vibrant, weird, interesting world.
Theres also the conflict in the film between boring old news and the more light entertainment approach.
Do you see a resonance there with cinema, perhaps?
A conflict between populism and inscrutable preciousness?
I didnt feel that.
The film is particularly about morning television.
Its not about news.
Its not trying to say that news is being dumbed down, or has been dumbed down.
They are much more serious than that.
Hes not presenting a news show.
So, if you had to give a title for the genre, what would it be?
I think it would be workplace comedy drama, yeah.
Boring, but accurate.
Mr Michell, thank you for your time!
Morning Glory is released this week.
