Just a Little Cherry on the Cake

In July 2004 Damien O'Donnell granted Film Ireland the first interview on his new feature film Inside I'm Dancing. For reasons of space the piece was heavily edited when it appeared in print. As a special bonus, we are presenting an extended version of the interview here on filmireland.net, including Damien's thoughts on Spiderman 2, the cinema experience, and short films.

Lir: Congratulations on the film. You've just finished the editing and you're into the press already.

Damien: The first time you do all of this it's a buzz, it's really exciting, because you're getting all of this attention that you've never had before. I remember going to a short film festival in Aungiers, in France, where you bring your first film; so it's like student films, first-time shorts, first-time feature films. It was the second place I brought 35 Aside to after Cork's reception, and Cork's reception was really positive. It was kind of exciting to see the film was working, but it was nothing on the scale of this film festival where people were asking for autographs, wanting to interview you for local radio. You went: 'This is bizarre, I've never seen anyone give so much attention to a short film'. But it's amazing how quickly you tire of it, as well. You do it once or twice and the novelty wears off.

Did you find 35 Aside to be a bit of an albatross?

Not at all. No, not at all. It launched me. This is it. Everything I have, or everything that I've done has come basically from that film. Really, it's like the best thing that's ever happened to me in my life, I have to say. Because I wouldn't have got East Is East - it was the producer of East Is East who saw 35 Aside and decided to approach me about it.

As a lifelong hater of soccer I wanted to applaud when the breadknife went into the football.

What's funny about it is that people see it, and they start talking to you about sports films! Don't you get it? This is clearly someone who's had a horrible time with people who love sport!

I was curious about the project's genesis. The screenplay is by Jeffrey Caine, who is best known for his work in the spy/adventure genre.

It all comes down to James Flynn and Juanita Wilson at Octogon Films - it's their project. Christian O'Reilly, who originated the story, worked as a personal assistant for a guy who has got muscular dystrophy, which is a muscle-wasting condition. This guy was quite an activist in disability rights, and he was involved in a campaign for assisted living, where people with physical disabilities could live outside of a care-home environment. They could live independently - have their own home - but they would always need physical assistance to carry on their daily life: Things like getting dressed, or eating... whatever. So Christian came up with the idea, he was working with James in the office, pitched it, James commissioned it, they developed it with Christian. They needed to give it a bit of a polish so they went to Jeffrey with it - James Flynn would be more precise about it. Jeffrey wrote a very engaging screenplay, which was sort of a progression of what Christian had done; made it much more about the friendship between the guys, kind of pictured it as a buddy film. And it was sent to me and I engaged with it. And I got involved, there was a lot I liked about it. I liked the characters, I liked the interaction, I liked the conceit of the fact that you couldn't understand what one of them was saying. So there were elements of it that really attracted me to it, and I got attached to it.

I'd never made a film in Ireland, and to be honest it took me a long time to read the script. But James was quite tenacious, he'd arrange meetings with me so I knew that by the time the meeting came I'd have to read the script. So I read the script, and I felt it was something I'd pursue. And James Flynn is a great man at putting a project together, he's got great experience and he has all the connections. And he's got supreme confidence, he's very convincing as a character - he's got no kind of doubts. He's a man of conviction. He says 'we're going to make this film, and we'll get it made, and you're our first choice' and all of that.

A lot of things seemed to converge: like being on a film [Edgardo Mortara] that collapsed prior to that - that's a real blow. Something that happens to you - and it happens to people all of the time, actually. But still, you work on a film for six or nine months and it collapses five weeks before shooting - that can really take it out of you. It's like a divorce. So I just thought: 'well, I'll engage with this now, and there's enough about this project that I like for me to want to get involved with it'. And it all came together; James came up with the financing - he was as good as his word, Working Title got interested, we had our meetings... I read it in April, and we were filming it by October. I think that's quite a nice position to be in. People can get attached to films years before they ever get made - and that's not something I'm into. I'm not into waiting around to make a film.

By the time you get to make it all of your energy has been sapped.

And also you might have turned down the opportunity to make other films. That's my lesson from East Is East; when I finished East Is East it was such an unexpected success I felt I was under the headlamps. I felt 'now, how do I top this?' You think 'how you I improve upon this?' Because everyone's expectations are raised. The lesson I learned is fuck everyone's expectations, make whatever film you can. Because it's the law of chance, you know. Very few people make three or four great films in a row, you have to accept that whatever you do next won't live up to your first one. If you wait around looking for the next perfect project it's a mistake, you know. Make a bad film next - not that I did, because I don't think I did - but make a film that's a flop, or whatever, it just takes off so much pressure! You can relax into what you're going to do.

Did you feel a burden of expectation on you after the success of East Is East?

Yeah, but I think there's a burden of expectation on anyone who makes a successful film. It's also how do you judge success? But this industry is driven by financial success. If films didn't succeed financially there would be no film industry, because it's just too fucking expensive to make films. But a financial success doesn't mean a box-office boom. It means if you're making a decent return, an above-average return on the money invested in your film - 10%, 15% - and you get more of a chance of doing that on low-budget films. Fortunately what's been brought home to me in my experience is it's an economic activity, and that really is the machine behind filmmaking. And anyone who wants to make art films or personal films does so on the back of films that have economic success. And there's not a distributor or an exhibitor who will show your film if they don't think they're going to make money from it one way or the other. Even the IFC makes money from films because they get government support, and that - if you feel there's a cultural imperative for films, it still needs financial support. You can't just stand there and say: 'we need to make films for our culture, but here's no money to make them'! At the end of the day, people will make money - and you have to. You have to make a living out of any art, I think, unless you can support it by other things - and people will string me up for saying that! Ah, I don't care...

To lead you into another minefield - this is the first feature film you've shot in Ireland; was it a very different experience?

Yes, I didn't get any per diems (laughs), that was a big deal! It was nice, but a lot of the people I worked with on the film I'd worked with before, like Tom Conroy has worked on all my feature films; Lorna Mugan did costumes; Peter Robertson [director of photography] I'd worked with on commercials; I knew James Flynn from the Film Board days - he was on the Film Board when 35 Aside got the Short Cuts award; I knew people like Eamonn Hunt in the cast, and certainly I was aware of Gerard McSorley, so I knew most of the people, or was aware of the work of most of the people. So in that way was it wasn't a strange experience, or unexpected. It was good, it was different, I haven't really reflected on it too much.

Obviously working abroad on a film has a certain exotic appeal, even if you're working in the north of England, which is quite similar to Dublin in many ways, there's still a certain exoticness about the fact that you're in a different culture; like on East Is East we were working in an Asian culture, on Heartlands we were going through the north of England - Blackpool - which is like so close, but it's a world away at the same time. On Edgardo Mortara, the Film Four film that collapsed just before we started shooting, I got to go to Romania, and live in Italy - you get that education - whereas here was more familiar, in some ways I suppose easier, because you had the shorthand.

You have new Dublin and old Dublin coming together in the film.

We talked about it in post-production about showing Dublin in a new light, showing it off, but the script didn't really justify that, so we didn't really take that idea very far. We wanted to shoot all around the new docklands area, and we looked at it as an opportunity to show Dublin, but the film itself is quite restrictive in narrative; the two main characters are confined to wheelchairs, one is incomprehensible and the other one can only move the fingers on one of his hands. In a way you find that you're mostly with peoples faces; you're just watching emotions play across peoples faces, and people interacting. It's not a project on a grand scale, it's not a love-story set in Dublin; it's quite an intimate film. You're always very close to individuals - it's about human relations, and it really could have been made anywhere, to be honest.

It's a universal story, it's not tied to an Irish setting.

Not at all. There's nothing that's peculiar to Ireland about it, I think. But at the same time, if you can make a universal film why not make it in Ireland? I couldn't see what could be gained by making it anywhere else. At one stage I did think we could set this in Scotland, cause our two leads are Scottish, and I was more worried about them playing in Dublin Accents, so I thought because the film is not confined to Dublin, why not bring it to Scotland? Because they'll be acting in their natural accents. They're two great actors, but I have this thing about accents - accents can be a real barrier to a performance, and good actors can fail miserably because their accent hasn't worked out, or they're focussing so much on their accent that they lose the instinctive ability to perform. So I did kind of toy with the idea, but in the end it wasn't really that serious. And in the end their accents were so great. I mean, I've seen some Irish films where people come in doing Irish accents - everyone has - where the accents are not in the slightest bit convincing. And as I was watching it, I have to say, I didn't know if their accents were good enough. Even the character of Michael, played by Steven Robertson, even though he's got cerebral palsy and he's incomprehensible, he was coached to have a Dublin accent. So he's got cerebral palsy with a Dublin accent! And if you listen to him do it you can actually hear the difference. I've heard people with cerebral palsy, and it's true - you can hear an accent - even though you think: 'I can't really understand what he's saying, I have to really concentrate', but there is an accent, which is perfectly natural, it's to be expected. So just because his communication wasn't comprehensible, that didn't let him off the hook in terms of where he was from - because he's from the Shetland Islands; James McAvoy is from Glasgow; Romola Garrey is from London. They've all worked very hard.

I only found that out after I'd seen the film - I assumed they were Irish.

That's a relief, to be honest. That was one of those concerns that you have; if your cast seem isolated from their environment - particularly to an Irish audience, or anyone who's sensitive to difference in accent - then it that way that distances you from the film. Because we were surrounded by such a high quality Irish cast: Gerard McSorley, Tom Hickey, Brenda Fricker, Ruth McCabe, Eamonn Hunt - we had all of these people, and if they don't work in that millieu it's just going to look a bit shit. It was only that people told me that their accents were working or, like you say, they didn't know they weren't Irish... and that's a huge relief.

It's great to see Tom Hickey getting to play a part other than a priest!

He's a good actor, you know. I mean, there are a lot of great Irish actors out there; the problem is they don't seem to get the work, or not sustained work, or they're typecast, or whatever.

Physical disability is central to the film, did you find it difficult to avoid making a PC 'issue' film?

I think it's a buddy film, that's what I related to. If you look at films about disability, the majority are based on personal experiences. And the inevitable comparison to make would be between this film and My Left Foot. My Left Foot is based on Christy Brown's autobiography, so it has a personal connection. This film doesn't have a personal connection to an individual whose story it's telling. The real challenge for this film was to be convincing about it, to be accurate about it, and at the same time to still tell a universal story. My worry was that, because it wasn't coming from a personal perspective, we might make mistakes, or it might just seem facile or unengaging. But we never focussed on the disability, we focussed on the friendship, and that was my driving force, and I think when people watch it they forget after a while....

It's not a film about disability.

I wouldn't have thought so, I think it's a film about liberation and friendship and love. It's hard to avoid the comparisons with My Left Foot when you have Brenda Fricker and Ruth McCabe in those two parts! There's a definite connection with it. My Left Foot is a brilliant film; it's a different film. I would like to think that they compliment each other, rather than compete with each other. My Left Foot's just so far and away a fantastic piece of work - it was quite humbling to watch it again, it's just so well made; it's Jim Sheridan's first film, and it's brilliant. All that you can do is hope that you can work on that level, or that at least you hope you don't suffer by comparison, because they're different films, they have different approaches, but what they have in common is the issue of disability. It's just nice to be seen as part of that canon, rather than someone who's competing with it. Obviously I've been reflecting upon this quite a bit... because it's gonna happen!

Brenda Fricker's performance reminded me of Louise Fletcher in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

When we had to pitch this film we came up with a shorthand title, which was One Flew Over My Left Foot.

That's the high concept?

Yeah, that's it (shifts into pitching mode): It's a high-concept movie; we've got the home, we've got the liberation, we've got the disability... we've got it all, man, we're gonna make a million!

Some of the subject matter is very serious, but it's a very funny film as well.

Funny and touching... a sentimental film for the older woman! That's how it's tested.

The treatment of often serious issues in an amusing way seems to be a feature of your work. Do you find that easy to achieve?

It's just that I can't take anything seriously, that's my problem. I have to make jokes about everything. That's my character. Try to get me to do a serious film about a serious subject - that would be impossible. I'm always looking for the gag. But I enjoy films with a sense of humour, I just saw Spiderman 2 - that's a brilliant film, I have to say, and I didn't expect to like it at all. But it just has such a rye, self-deprecating attitude to itself that I just latched onto, you know? It's almost like it's self-aware, but in a good way, unlike Shrek, which I think is a disgusting piece of commercial manipulatism. Manipulatism - if that's a word?

It is now.

I've invented it. I find that cynical, where strangely enough, and probably for no good reason, I find Spiderman 2 amazing, and not that way. It's the genius of Spiderman in a lift, Spiderman washing his Spiderman outfit... those are the kind of touches you engage with that just gives those action films a human touch, which puts it far and away ahead of anything that competes in the same genre. I'd love to make a film like Spiderman... as opposed to a film like - for all its merits - The Story of the Weeping Camel. I just don't get engaged by that. They should have got Sam Raimi to direct that... Sam Raimi's Weeping Camel.

He might get to do the Hollywood remake. I read that Paramount have bought the rights to remake Wild About Harry, Declan Lowney's film.

Have they? Well good for whoever's involved in that. Fantastic. I watched that film and I liked that film. It suffered from lack of distribution, they never pushed it. That's the sad thing about it. I was having a talk with someone who's a distributor in London about the reality of exhibition these days. It's harder for small films, because all of the big cinema chains are up for sale, they're all concerned about their market share, therefore they have to make as much money from their exhibition as possible. I was in the west end of London at a cinema that had ten screens, but six of the screens were occupied by three films - all the big films - they were showing them one an hour. So it wasn't about choice, in terms of variety, all you have is choice about when you can see it. I can see it at 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock... but I can only see that film. The choice I have is when to see it, not what film to see. So the squeeze is on the screens for independent films, or just lesser films, basically word-of-mouth films. No-one can risk word-of-mouth anymore, studios aren't interested in that - they want to have a return on what they invested, and they know that if they make a certain type of blockbuster film, they spend a certain amount of advertising on it, they'll make their money back. And exhibitors will as well; exhibitors want to show the film that has all the advertising.

And it's all based around the opening weekend.

They have a formula. They look at what they get in the opening weekend, and there's a falloff, a degradation of return over like ten weeks, but they can calculate from the opening weekend how that will fall off, so they can actually estimate the box-office. Whereas things like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, or The Blair Witch Project, or The Passion of the Christ - no-one realised. Word-of-mouth has made those films suddenly take off, but there's less opportunity for that to happen now. And increasingly more films are being discovered on DVD, which is a fucking shame, because at the end of the day you want to see a film in a cinema. Part of the experience is sharing it with an audience, sitting down with your popcorn, squeezing past people and taking your seat. And no-one pressing pause when the phone rings. I have to say, and this will come like fucking heresy, I have lots of favourite films, but my most memorable cinema experience was going to the Savoy 1 on a Sunday afternoon many years ago, watching Arachnophobia. It wasn't that it was a particularly great film, but the experience of watching it in a full house in the Savoy, of adults and children, and just listening to the laughter, the screams, the reaction - that was like a thrill, an absolute thrill to be participating, rather than to be watching a film on your own on DVD; you're enjoying the film for its own sake, but you lose out - especially if it's a film that's out to please audiences - a crowd-pleasing film, and there's nothing wrong with a crowd-pleasing film.

But there has to be a crowd to please.

Yes, exactly. You can't really show a crowd-pleasing film to two people - that would be a couple-pleasing film!

I wanted to talk to you briefly about Heartlands; after its cinema run it got great word-of-mouth - then it disappeared.

I would probably get myself into trouble, or sued... The thing about Heartlands is - let's be frank about this - Miramax didn't like the film that they financed. And they weren't really interested in promoting the film. Also, Miramax were involved in Edgardo Mortara and, for a variety of reasons Miramax, in their wisdom decided that they weren't going to support the film. However, Buena Vista, who have the right to distribute the film, supported it as best they could, but they were tied up contractually... this is all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes... they were tied up contractually with Miramax... basically Miramax and Buena Vista had to agree on the amount of money they were going to spend promoting the film. Miramax didn't want to spend anything, in fact they cancelled the release ten days beforehand, so it was only because the good people at Buena Vista fought for the film that it got out - I think on about fifty or sixty screens in the UK and Ireland, but contractually they couldn't spend a huge amount of money on the film because Miramax wouldn't approve it - because it's a Miramax film they have to approve how much money is spent on it. Miramax wanted to bury the film, effectively, and...

Did.

...And did, really. I mean, the word of mouth was good here, it was less good in England. I've met people who have absolutely hated this film, but I knew that there are people out there who haven't seen it. The DVD is only coming out now, but there have been a huge number of fuck-ups on it, really to be honest. It's been really frustrating for me, but it's like you're powerless. Unless you own everything, unless you're producing on everything, you're powerless. When a film goes into Miramax that's it - you can forget about it, they'll do what they want with it. I didn't get to do commentary on it; when the DVD comes out I have no idea what's on it, because no-one consulted me about it. Another issue that's overhanging is that the music in the film - which is a really important element for me - when you telecine a film, when you transfer it onto tape, everything is speeded up. And most people don't notice that, but the music speeds up by 4%, and it actually sounds like different music, so I had to go through a lot of hassle to correct it on the video masters; I did it for the VHS, but I wasn't able to do it for the DVD, so I have no idea if the music on the DVD is okay. It's been a nightmare, really, and I feel a bit flummoxed by the whole thing. I'm not even sure if the DVD itself will be the right speed, I've no idea what's on it, I wasn't able to do a commentary on it - not that I'm interested in commentaries. But what did happen: I met someone who absolutely hated the film, someone who works in the industry, but he was so articulate about why he didn't like it that I actually asked him would he do a commentary on it. A lot of DVD commentaries are like a bullshit extra. I remember doing the one for East Is East, and what they did is they put me in a room, and they put it on the screen, and I had to go and talk about it on my own. It was an excruciatingly embarrassing experience, and I said I'd never do that again.

I actually listened to a bit of it.

It's bullshit. It's bollocks. Cause I was just stuck in a room and I didn't know what to say. There are some DVD commentaries where they're talking about it, and they engage in conversation with people involved with it, which is interesting. But I thought, wouldn't it be really interesting if one of your commentary tracks was by somebody who really didn't like the film, who hated it, explaining why they didn't like it? As long as they did it in an articulate and entertaining way, I think that's a bona fide extra. Do you know what I mean? And I haven't heard of anyone doing it, but now I've told you - someone else is going to come in and steal my idea. Bastards. But Heartlands will be out, and people can make whatever they want of it. But I like it, and I'm proud of that film. It is what it is, it was supposed to be a very small little film, it was sort of a counterpoint to the other film that I was doing, the pseudo-Hollywood historical epic. But anyway, that's life, that's what happens in the industry.

I've just realised that, you know, in my experience of my involvement with Miramax - as great a reputation as they have - I kind of lucked-out on the Miramax experience: East Is East didn't do very well in America, Heartlands hasn't been seen anywhere apart from Ireland and the UK; it was withdrawn from the Toronto Film Festival, it was withdrawn from San Sebastian, no-one has seen it outside of Ireland and England. And maybe - it's such a small film, half of me thinks that's the way to discover it, to discover it by yourself without any kind of fanfare - because it was never a fanfare film. But Miramax was involved in Edgardo Mortara, which was the film that didn't happen, it just kind of makes you think for all the great films Miramax have done, maybe me and Miramax aren't a great combination! That's kind of a bad chemical formula.

I got an e-mail from a bishop in America about Edgardo Mortara… I had to mail him back and tell him it's not going to happen.

It's such a great story, really. It really is. It's so engaging, so contemporary, it has issues of faith and power, and how people manipulate your faith. I'm still very passionate about it. I think they're trying to put the film back together again, and as far as I know they might be looking for a different director, which is a shame because I'd love to do it. But that's the industry for you, you know; there is no loyalty in this industry. The whole process is so ephemeral - but I don't want to sound bitter about that - he said sanguinely! Is 'sanguinely' the right word… it's like Victoria Beckham said about David Beckham: 'No, David can express his feelings, he's very expressionate!' I think: 'I want to be expressionate.' I'd like my films to be expressionate.

That's worthy of George Bush…

Yeah, what's it… 'Fool me once - shame on me… well you won't fool me a second time!' Classic.

You can't write dialogue like that.

No you can't. Unless, maybe he has his scriptwriters.

I think a PR man commits hara-kiri every time he opens his mouth. This leads us bizarrely on to Tony Kenny…

Tony Kenny. He's a star.

He certainly is. But whose idea was it to put him in the film, can you claim the credit?

If people like it it was my idea, if people think it doesn't work I can blame the writers, the producers, and Tony Kenny himself… for insisting he be in the film. It was… I think Catherine Tiernan - one of the co-producers of the film - suggested Tony Kenny. We just wanted to have a scene showing the kind of entertainment you'd expect in a home, but heightening it slightly. I mean Tony is a great guy, and he's a total professional. He read the script, and we had a chat with him about it, and he knew exactly the film was in, you know. It's like it's not supposed to be brilliant, let's say. It's a guy trying to entertain this crowd… there's actually more to the scene than we've left in it, because when you go through the editing process everything gets abbreviated, the scene was much more than it was in the film. But this is the kind of thing that happens - people go into a home like that, and put on a show and provide entertainment. And I guess the point we're making is that, for these two guys, for Rory - who's into bands like Raging Speedhorn, and death metal - maybe Tony Kenny, to put it diplomatically, isn't the best choice for him - as they say in the film: 'maybe Tony Kenny isn't the right choice for him at the moment'. Maybe he'd much rather go to a gig. I met people who were staying in care homes who were constantly at gigs, constantly going to rock concerts or discos and whatever. But people put these shows on, and it's all done totally with goodwill, but it's like saying: 'you've a disability, you're in this home, therefore you're the same as everyone else with a disability in this home; you're all a collective, and therefore you will collectively enjoy what we will supply to you. Which is not true, because everyone is their own person.

I guess that was the point to make, that these two people feel isolated from this, from the world that they were contained in, and they wanted to break free, they wanted to have an independent life, make choices about what they do of an evening. You'll end up in a situation where another person will think they what's best for you, it happens in life, in any situation, and they're not necessarily right. And in that scene some of the residents are clearly enjoying themselves, but not everyone. Just because they're having a great time doesn't mean that our heroes are. What we tried to avoid was going to extremes with this. What's beautiful about One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is that it walks this really fine line - you can almost sympathise with Nurse Ratchett, and how they work, and how reasonable they are; you can almost agree with them.. It seems 'well, that's not too unreasonable', but ultimately it's on the wrong side of reasonableness. It's not an actual comment on those who work with people with disability, it's just a statement about how governments and organisations can presume to know what's best for you, and can presume that they know better than you do yourself. And I think it's about choice, and it's about fucking things up - and that's what they say in the film: 'We fucked it up, nobody did it for us'. If things are going to get fucked up, I'd rather be the one who did it. I'd rather I fucked my life up than somebody else fucked it up. And that's really the point of it, you know…

Did the film change much after it was shot? I know you re-shot the last scene…

Did it change a lot? The film was in a constant state of change, I think it's always changed. I'm sure if you read Christian O'Reilly's first draft for James and Juanita, and then compare that to the first draft that Jeffrey wrote, and then compare that to the draft that I read, and then compare that to the draft that we went into production with four months later, and then compare that to what we shot, the finished film - it's a whole evolutionary process, and that's what's exciting about it, that you're always in a position of refining. It didn't change thematically, and it didn't change on an overall level, but details of it changed, elaborated, toned-down; scenes that were in the script that I didn't like that I wanted to change, things that the actors contributed to it, things that came up in the editing process. It's not that we re-shot the ending, well… we did a couple of things with the ending. We had an ending, which no-one was really satisfied with, even when we were shooting it, because everyone kind of had a niggle doubt - was this the way to handle it? And the ending of a film is the hardest part, it's fairly easy to start films, it's very hard to end them… well, to end it well.

We had various ideas, and the opportunity came up to shoot a new ending, and we just decided… we shot a couple of alternatives, we shot what we had done, but we used a different camera move, so that we had to put an ending that was sort-of a close-up - a two-shot - and it felt a bit abrupt, because it just ended - to black - on the two-shot. It didn't feel like an end shot. So we re-shot exactly the same scene, but on a crane, so when he's finished saying it we just pulled away and showed the world - which is one thing. And then we shot another, an alternate to that… I showed it to people whose opinions I respected, because I wasn't sure… you get so close to the material, you don't know. An I asked what they thought, and I listened to what they said, and in the end I sided with them and just go for the most economic ending… So we ended up changing the ending, but only because people weren't satisfied with it.

So it didn't go through a testing process?

It did go through testing - and that's the first time I've done that. On Heartlands we did no tests, East Is East was only tested after the film was finished to gauge an audience reaction, to see who the film appealed to most, so you can determine who you're going to market it to. So this is the first time where we tested it… which was nothing, it was Working Title's process - they test all their films - they test their Bridget Jones and they test this film. And it's just the way they go with it. And it's interesting, because the one thing I picked up on was an issue of pace. People felt the film was slow in parts. I'm kind of aware of things like that; I think you should tell your film as quickly and efficiently as possible. Especially a story like this. Heartlands was all about pace, it had to be slow, the whole thing was slow. Heartlands was like an opposition to action-packed road-movies. It had a very deliberate pace to it, which people either get or don't get. With this film we wanted to tell the story, we wanted to tell it as well as possible, and if people felt, in the feedback we were getting, that the pace of the film in parts was a little bit too slow, or things weren't clear, well, that's something that you sit up and pay attention to. Because it means your story isn't communicating as best as it could. So we changed some things, speeded things up, took some things out. But we've tested in England, tested in Ireland, tested in America, and all of the test results are the same, which is encouraging; it means that it plays well…

Universally?

Well, in those three territories - that's what George Bush would say: 'universally - it tested well in America, therefore it tested well universally'.

Do you think there's a particular quality that you bring to a film?

Yes. I always bring to my films - whether they make it into the final cut or not - the unexpected arrival of authority. In fact there was a scene in Heartlands that was cut out, like there was a scene in 35 Aside, where the police arrive. Did it happen in East Is East? Maybe I'm just imagining it! Because in Heartlands we had a scene where Alan is watching Morris dancers, and the Morris dancers get baton-charged by police. It was quite a good gag, but it just felt out of place. It was one of those 'seems like a good idea on the day', but unluckily it just seemed out of place, so we never used it in the end. And in this one there's a joyriding scene where the cops turn up. The thing about the process of making a film is… I don't think I'm a particularly visionary director, you hear about all of these people who have their visions; what I like to do is squeeze as many good ideas out of everyone who's working for me as possible! And I can just try to get everyone to make a contribution to it - filter the best, that's what I like to do - act as a filter. You have your own ideas, but just because you're a director doesn't mean you have all the best ideas… there are people out there who have better ways of doing things than you, you just have to listen to them. If you don't - okay. Part of it has to do with that it's not a personal film, I'm not telling the story of my life, or my family, or anything. You're just telling a story that engages you and that you want to engage as many people as possible, really.

This year a lot of well-known Irish directors are making films in Ireland. Do you think of yourself in terms of an Irish film industry… if there is such a thing?

Do you want me to say something controversial? I'll say something controversial if you give me the cover!

Paddy Breathnach's made a film this year [Man About Dog]; Lenny Abrahmson, who I've known for years, has made his first feature [Adam & Paul], he's been making commercials for years, and he made The Three Joes in and around 35 Aside, certainly I've been waiting for him to do a feature film. Pearse Elliot is making a feature film [The Mighty Celt]; Kieron Walsh is hopefully going to be making one soon… I think it's great that people get a chance to make films. Irish film has got standard-bearers in Jim Sheridan and Neil Jordan, and to a lesser degree Thaddeus O'Sullivan. Pat O'Connor - I don't know what he's been doing lately.

Do I think of myself in terms of the Irish film industry? Inevitably I'm Irish and I make films in Ireland, and I think that's the only association. But the thing is it's an international industry, really. It's hard to kind of isolate countries. I mean, look at the British film industry, a lot of the best British directors have made films in America, you know. France, I suppose, because of the language issues, probably have more indigenous filmmakers making French films for a French audience. What was great about something like John Crowley's Intermission was to open people's eyes to an Irish film by an Irish director about an Irish subject. That, I think, has been the most important Irish film in recent years. It was a low-budget, first-time director, first-time screenwriter, but it just made an impression, you know? This is not to denigrate Neil Jordan's work or Jim Sheridan's work, cause they actually all made their mark, like My Left Foot made a huge impression. But there was a sense that things were going away from that over the years, but then Intermission comes along and makes… I think Intermission was as important a debut for Irish films as My Left Foot was, but for a different reason. My Left Foot was a superbly produced and directed quality film, which had an appeal, but Intermission was a film that I heard people talking about on busses, and that's a big thing. Because word-of-mouth is one of the most important thing you can have, good word of mouth for films generally, is the most important thing you can get, and if you have a lot of people talking about films… and it was great to hear people talking about Intermission like that. So I'm really chuffed for Alan Moloney and John and for Mark O'Rowe, who's a brilliant writer. And what you would like is to be able to make films that make an impact on an Irish audience then can travel, because the reality of it is that Ireland isn't a big enough economy. Like Spin the Bottle, for instance, which I think is a good film, and the intention behind the film is absolutely perfectly correct that they should make it, but I think the appeal of it was so limited that even though it was still a success, you wonder, I doubt whether a film like that would ever travel. You want them to.

But the common received wisdom is that you have to make ten films to make one good one, the ratio might even be higher, it might be fifteen films to make one good one. For a long time the Irish film industry was making one or two films a year, so there wasn't that head of steam behind it. And what's great now - and you have to give credit to the arrival of digital filmmaking - that more people are making films, so it's building up an energy level and it's getting to a critical mass where you will have breakout films - and that's what you want. Films that are made in Ireland, financed in Ireland, all with Irish talent suddenly breaking out somewhere else. That is your ideal. To be able to make a film for an Irish audience without having to consciously think about 'how would this play in America', or 'how will this sell in England', or whatever. To be able to make a film for Irish people by an Irish cast, by an Irish crew, and then suddenly make a really big impression elsewhere, that's a nice thing to see happen. I think Jim Sheridan did it, and I think Neil Jordan certainly has done it, but it would be great to see more people making that impact. I was lucky, I kind of got outside of that loop because I went and made East Is East, which was an extremely lucky break for me to do that. To kind of do my first film in the UK… I guess it was just luck really, you know? I don't think East Is East would have worked in Ireland, there wouldn't have been a big enough audience for it. Who knows. I mull over these things, I don't really have any definitive answers.

But here, I'll talk to you about my pet bugbear: Film logos. I think aesthetically there should only be one logo in front of a film, like in the old days - Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox - (makes sweeping arm motions) Da da da da da. It's like a fanfare to say your film is beginning. Now, because of the nature of financing of films, everyone's putting their fucking logo on it. Inside I'm Dancing has like one minute and fifteen seconds of logos - the Film Board, Working Title… Octogon could have had one but they omitted one… Universal, Studio Canal, and now Momentum, because they're distributing it. So there'll be five logos in front of it, it's like 'when is the film going to start?' And they all have this fucking fanfare music - which as a one-off is great - but when they play them one after the other is just so fucking tedious. I think someone should start a campaign: Stop this film logo madness - it's just bollocks, it really is. You're watching thinking 'here's someone having a wank, here's someone else having a wank, here's another wank…' I have to say the Working Title logo is quite tasteful, and it has no shit music over it. But the Film Board title, for the sake of being controversial, it's like someone's flushing a toilet in space! It's just a bit crap, and I wish that they would change it. It's like someone's had a dump in space, and they've pressed the flush button, and it's just been ejected out into the solar system - I call it 'turds in space'. I'm sure they'll all be pissed off about that, but I don't care. It's just ego wank. You have all these logos, and then you have their names again on the opening credits. So you have their names up twice. I had the option of putting 'A Damien O'Donnell Film', on this film, but I didn't put it on it… I should get my own logo of me just wanking… I'm having a wank just before the logo.

With fanfare music.

Yeah - da da da daaaa! Get over it. But that's just a quibble. It's just the fact that the financing is coming from so many places, they all want their logo on it. But one after the other after the other, you think 'when's the film going to start' it's added a minute to the running time of the film! All those poxy logos…

I'd rather have a short film, myself.

Well, one thing I'm hoping to do, because I love short films, I'm a big fan of them. I'm hoping we can put one of the Short Shorts in front of our film. I saw Stephen Burke's film Boris, which I think is hilarious. It's got Eamon Hunt in it, who was the dad in 35 Aside, he's also in Inside I'm Dancing. I saw that film and I thought 'this would be a really nice film to have in front of our film'. It's all got so commercial that you can't have short films in front of your films anymore, which is a shame. What I like about the Film Board's policy on Short Shorts is by keeping them under three minutes it's realistic to have short films in front of feature films. This should happen, I think it would be so good for the industry for people to see Irish short films as well as features, because who sees Irish short films outside of people who are interested. You want a general audience to see things like that. I think people will see Boris, Stephen Burke's film, and really enjoy it, that's why I'm actively campaigning to have that film put in front of it. It's a nice introduction to our film, even though it's got nothing to do with it. It's a little cherry on the cake.

Inside I'm Dancing is released in October.
A shorter version of this interview is printed in Film Ireland 100.