With his three quietly impressive features, Lenny Abrahamson has moved to the front rank of British and Irish filmmakers. What Richard Did stands in contrast to most contemporary portraits of Ireland and offers a unique perspective on the pains of growing up. Here Abrahamson talks about the making of the film.
The representation of the Irish landscape and Irish life in What Richard Did is refreshingly different.
What distinguishes What Richard Did from most other films made in Ireland over the last few years is that it takes place amongst the middle class. It’s a leafy, attractive world of nice houses and good-looking people whose lives are not so dominated by the usual concerns that might affect many of us – of just getting by. Irish cinema has, like a lot of cinema in our part of the world, concentrated on people who are on the margins and living harsher, more challenged lives. We’re used to seeing the gritty streets of inner-city Dublin – I’ve filmed them myself – or, in the case of Garage (2007), an isolated and fairly dysfunctional rural community. So it does make a change to see Dublin looking pretty, with people going to summer houses and walking on lovely beaches. Ireland’s a beautiful place and outside of the more saccharine Hollywood representations, we haven’t tended to show this aspect of it.
This beauty is captured by the cinematography which makes the most of natural light.
I worked with the cinematographer David Grennan, who is young and relatively new. This was his second feature as cinematographer, but he’s worked a great deal as a camera operator. We watched a lot of films together and talked about approaches to lighting in scenes. These discussions are partially aesthetic, so you’re talking about how black the blacks should be and whether the image in a particular scene should feel crisp or whether you want it to be softer. They’re also practical: how I want to shoot and how much freedom there is to move the camera. This impacts his work. If I want to be able to shoot in all directions, that’s something that Dave is going to have to facilitate; whereas if I was shooting it in a controlled, pre-planned way, then he could light a location more specifically. We had these discussions all the way through, so by the time we shot the film, it was a very easy working relationship and we were able to find an approach to a scene very quickly.
Jack Raynor is remarkable as Richard. How easy was the casting process?
It was a long process. Louise Kiley, the casting director, went to so many schools, sports clubs and drama groups – anywhere where she would find kids that would understand the drama of the film. That took several months. At the same time, we were also looking for experienced actors. It wasn’t really until we found Jack that I knew we were going to make something interesting. It’s an obvious thing to say, but if you don’t find the right Richard for a film called What Richard Did then you’re in trouble. He’s such a great actor and he knows that world intimately. He went to the same school that the school in the film is modelled on. He has the same charisma that Richard has, which is crucial. Likewise, Roisin Murphy is amazing as Lara.
What makes the characters so credible are the stories they tell. Their conversational style feels natural.
The script was mostly written, with about 20 percent improvised. The stories the actors tell are almost all real. So Jack’s story about drowning his pet hamster when he tried to give it a bath in a shot glass actually took place, when he was five years old. That scene wasn’t even meant to be shot. He told it as we were setting up and we just recorded it there and then. I spent almost a year working with the cast and these stories cropped up all the time. My co-writer Malcolm Campbell and I would write them down and then remind an actor of things they had talked about so that they could incorporate them into a scene. That kind of fluidity was really exciting. Even during the shoot, while travelling from one location to another, you would overhear something the guys were saying. Once or twice, we took those and put them into a scene we shot later that day. So they were really fresh and there was a lovely immediacy to it, and the textures of their delivery were the same as when they first told it.
These conversations also shift audiences’ expectations about what they’re watching.
I enjoy the challenge of thinking about structures within a film that aren’t just the off-the-shelf creations. In Adam & Paul (2004), you allow the audience to become comfortable, thinking they’re watching a certain kind of comedy. Then you turn that on its head and make it a much less comfortable film. I think there are things to learn from structure, which is an expressive element. So those choices are made not just to keep an audience interested and to surprise them; they also inform the film at a deeper level. They allow you to explore some interesting ideas. In Garage, you think you know who Josie is at the beginning of the film; you’re invited to participate in the town’s image of him – that’s he’s a village idiot – but he defies that categorisation by the end of the film. It makes you think how easily you consign people to simple stereotypes and how dangerous it is to do that.
In What Richard Did, while there’s always a tension in the film because of the title – you know something’s going to happen – when you watch the first 20 minutes, it’s not possible to know where you’re going to find yourself emotionally at the end of the film. As a filmmaker, I do like to allow myself to discover things about a character and the story as I make the film. If you know everything in advance yourself, what is there to explore? It’s important for me to have that. That then makes the editing process exciting, because there you can refine the film.
The editing shifts with the change in tone.
That’s true. The film has an observational style at the beginning, watching this group of youngsters, as you would if you were at the same bar they were in. Then, half-way through the first beach section, when Richard’s character gets up first to walk through the garden to the dunes, the film creates more of a sense of an interior. It’s also the point where the music comes in for the first time. It’s not as observational and the subjective elements become more apparent as the film continues. These shifts in perspective and tonal change are what I’m most interested in, both as a director and audience member.
With thanks to Curzon Cinemas.
What Richard Did screens at Cornerhouse from Fri 11 January. Buy tickets here