Fail again, fail better

Fail again, fail better
Audiences love him, playwrights want him – so why is Michael Gambon never happy with his performance? Emma Brockes meets the actor as he limbers up for Beckett

Emma Brockes
Wednesday June 28, 2006

Guardian

The last time Michael Gambon played a non-speaking part was in the late 1960s, at the National Theatre, when he walked on stage carrying a spear, trying to look innocuous. When he advanced to speaking roles, he earned a reputation for treating the script with a certain levity, something that the more sensitive playwrights found mortifying (of which more, later). Now, at 65, he is silent again, this time in a production of the Samuel Beckett play Eh Joe, in which the entire 25-minute script is delivered as a voice-over by Penelope Wilton, while Gambon’s face describes the action. You would think he would lose concentration, sitting up there alone with nothing to say; but it’s quite the opposite, he says, “because you are so frightened”.
It is a source of some amusement to Gambon that, after a career of playing sadists, malcontents and the great Shakespearean anti-heroes, what comes up when you type his name into Google these days is pages of Harry Potter fanmania, analysing his role as Dumbledore. “It could be anyone under there,” he says, of the heavily bearded role, which was fun to play but unrepresentatively twinkly.

Gambon is not twinkly – or rather, his twinkliness has an edge to it, like a bad Santa. There is something rueful around his eyes that suggests apology-in-advance, a sort of weary recognition that whatever he is about to do, it will probably piss somebody off. He looks partly sorry, and partly indignant that he is supposed to be sorry.

Gambon’s ability to cause upset is legendary, and the glee with which he recounts his own misdemeanours is made funnier by his attempts, a second later, to soberly chastise himself for them. In the rehearsal room, he is always the ringleader of any seditious mutterings about the director. After a performance at the Gate Theatre in Dublin of Eh Joe, an American academic asked him what he imagined his character was doing up there on stage. Gambon replied “watching EastEnders”. He looks delighted, then abashed, and says: “It’s cruel, I shouldn’t have. He didn’t know what I was talking about. I said, ‘I’m only joking.'”

Gambon has a pilot’s licence, and his most famous gag – accounts of which have been doing the rounds for years – was pretending to have a heart attack at the controls of a light aeroplane, knowing full well that his passenger, the actor Terence Rigby, was afraid of flying. When I ask if he has been up to anything lately, however, he looks innocent and says: “No, I don’t know where this reputation comes from. I’m quite serious, really.” Then his face lights up and he recounts being in the audience at the Hay-on-Wye literary festival last month and feeling compelled to grab the microphone at the end of a “quite heavy” talk by David Hare. The questions from the floor had been mainly reverential, about the influence of politics on Hare’s writing and so on, so Gambon said: “David, in all your years in showbusiness, have you ever met Diana Rigg?” It brought the house down. “He was quite cross,” says Gambon, “but he’s OK now.” He starts giggling. “Good question, wasn’t it? ‘Showbusiness’ – that would’ve hurt.”

Reverence is not, to Gambon’s mind, a particularly helpful attitude, in acting or in life. He thinks Samuel Beckett is treated a good deal too reverentially and that it puts people off him, obscuring how funny he is. Eh Joe was originally written for television in 1965 and depicts Joe, devastated in his dressing gown, reacting to a woman’s disembodied voice as it summarises his life. His face is projected on to a scrim that covers the whole proscenium, so every twitch is magnified; it’s this that makes the character so terrifying to play, Gambon says.

What Gambon loves about Beckett is “the formality, the frame” of his writing, which Harold Pinter for one might find bitterly amusing; Gambon is notorious for monkeying around with the “formality” of the script. At a recent gathering in honour of the playwright, Gambon told his audience that Pinter had told him not to worry too much about the pauses – which even Gambon had to admit, in retrospect, sounded unlikely. When he played King Lear for the RSC, it came out differently every night. “Some performances, I used to play it at the beginning as if he had Alzheimer’s, but that’s a crude way of finding a device for his behaviour. Then I’d play him the next day with my hand over my face for the whole scene. It’s interesting, the routes.”

Cast members have likened acting on stage with Gambon to being in an unstable dinghy in the middle of the Atlantic. When he played Falstaff in the National Theatre production of Henry IV last year, it came out differently every night, too – “miles differently”, says David Harewood, who played Hotspur in the same production. “People were just coming off stage in fits of laughter, or looking at each other like, what on earth? Other actors might find out what works and stick with it, but Gambon never did that. He always tried to find something new.”

He is never satisfied with his performance. Shortly after his run as Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing, he says he saw Derek Jacobi do it to perfection and sat there thinking, “Derek, fuck! How could I have missed this?” One of the only parts he thinks he did justice to was Eddie, in the 1987 revival of Arthur Miller’s A View From the Bridge. Of his Falstaff, he says: “I don’t think I was very good. I kept losing my way. Everything I do that’s quite big, I want to do again – I want to learn how to control it. It’s almost as if I don’t know how to use rehearsal time properly. It slips away from me. There are some actors who are rehearsal actors, and some who are not. I’m not. Having said that, I don’t know what I’m talking about.”

Gambon was immensely popular with the younger actors in Henry IV. He didn’t want the same awestruck relationship he had had with Laurence Olivier, when he worked with him as a young man at the National, although, he says, “all that sort of deference we used to have, for Olivier and Ralph Richardson, has gone out of the window. It’s a thing of the past and that might be a good thing.” And so, he says: “I cared for them all a lot and tried to make them into a happy company by having lots and lots of jokes.”

“People just loved him,” says Harewood. “He was open and vulnerable and generous.” He also instigated a series of water fights that got so out of hand that theatre security raided the dressing rooms, looking for water balloons. “We were threatened with having our windows locked at the height of summer,” says Harewood. “All started by Gambon.”

Gambon grew up in Camden, north London, one of three children of Irish-Catholic parents. He remembers getting Hamlet out of the library as a small boy and learning one of the soliloquies, which he would recite to himself as he walked down the road. “I just liked the sound of the words.” Before he became an actor he was an engineer for seven years at Vickers-Armstrong. He was good, he says. “Very careful. People say how can you be an engineer and then become an actor. I think they’re quite close, actually. Both quite creative. Building blocks. The way a part is structured. Find your way through this maze by routes.”

I ask what he is like when he is not working and he says: “Well, in a way, the truth of the matter is, when you’re not working you don’t really exist. It’s all right for a couple of weeks, cos it’s quite exciting and the kudos of what you’ve just done is still lurking. But any longer than that and you begin to go … ” – his shoulders sag – “… you come into nothing, you become like a shell.” He laughs. “And then you get jealous. I meet Tom Hollander and we go and have a drink and talk about being jealous of other actors.” Who is he jealous of at the moment? “I’m very jealous – he’s a dear friend – of Bill Nighy. Bill’s such a handsome, successful actor. I’m jealous of him.”

In 1992, Gambon thought he was going to hit the big time. He has always been happy in the theatre – “because it makes me feel more legitimate” – but of course Hollywood is hard to resist. He won a part opposite Robin Williams in the big-budget, 20th Century Fox film Toys. Before long people started whispering that he was likely to be Oscar-nominated for his role. “And then, halfway through the shoot, everyone started to get a bit anxious about this movie. I didn’t, because I’m totally thick and didn’t realise what was going on.

“And then one day I was outside my trailer and this guy came up in a golf buggy. And he stopped and said, ‘Excuse me.’ He said, ‘Tell me, what is this movie about?’ I said, ‘Well, er.’ He said, ‘I mean, is it for children or adults?’ I said, ‘I don’t know.’ I got a bit frightened then. I said, ‘It’s more for adults.’ He said, ‘Oh, I see’. And off he went. “And then the director, Barry Levinson no less, ran over and said, ‘What the fuck did you say to him? What did you say to the head of 20th Century Fox?’ I said, ‘Oh,’ and told him he’d asked, ‘What is this film about?’ He said, ‘Oh, fuck.’ By which time they were $100m in.” When the film came out Gambon thought his telephone would ring off the hook with offers. But it didn’t. “What can you do?” he says.

He has just made a film with his idol, Robert de Niro, Steven Soderberg’s The Good Shepherd, the most enthralling part of which was getting to call De Niro “Bob”. Of Peter Greenaway, in whose film The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover, Gambon played one his most famous roles, as a murderous gangster, he says: “Oh, he was great. He’s like a school teacher. He wears an overcoat. He’s intuitive, I liked him very much. That was a good film – weird.”

Gambon is reticent about his private life. He was married, a long time ago, to the actor Ann Miller, and they have an adult son called Fergus. “If there was any way to be an actor and not become well known, I would like it. Does that make sense? I wish you could be an actor and nobody knew about you.”

Fergus works at Phillips, the auction house. “He’s one of their ceramics boys, quite senior. He’s brilliant about Welsh porcelain.” He is also an expert in 18th-century dolls’ houses. “He’s the only male member of the dolls’ house society,” says Gambon, raising his eyebrows. “He’s one of those lucky people that found the job of his life. Wonderful, isn’t it?”

The older he gets, the more Irish he feels, he says. He is going back to his roots. “I feel at home in Dublin, although it’s changed a lot. It’s like every other bloody city now.” When Gambon goes there, which he does, frequently – one of his best friends is Michael Colgan, who runs the Gate theatre – he lets his accent slide into Irish. Last time he was there, he went to a function at Trinity College and for a laugh used his Irish accent all night. At the end of the evening, one of the university professors called him over and said, “Michael, don’t speak like that, in that accent.” Gambon said, “Why not?” The man replied: “It’s common.” Gambon looks thoroughly pleased by this and bursts into peels of laughter.

composer Ligeti dies

Influential composer Ligeti dies
Austrian composer Gyorgy Ligeti, whose music appeared in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, has died aged 83.
He was known for his avant garde compositions, including the 1962 piece Poeme Symphonique, which is played on 100 metronomes.

His most famous works are those used in the Stanley Kubrick film, including Atmospheres and Lux Aeterna.

Ligeti was born in Romania in 1923 to Hungarian parents, and later adopted Austrian citizenship.

He began studying music at the conservatory in Cluj, Romania, in 1941 and continued his studies in Budapest.

In 1943 he was arrested and, because he was Jewish, was sentenced to forced labour for the rest of the Second World War.

Although Ligeti survived, the war claimed several members of his family – including his brother and his father.

Playful

After his release at the end of the war, he returned to Hungary, where he taught music at the Liszt Academy.

His musical ambitions were constrained by Hungary’s communist regime, with the result that much of his work from this period was based on folk music.

Following the 1956 uprising, Ligeti fled Hungary, settling in Vienna, Austria.

Here, he came into contact with avant garde composers like Karlheinz Stockhausen, and Gottfried Michael Koenig.

After this time, his writing became more adventurous and playful – often challenging the conventions of music and performance.

Ligeti’s 1961 work, Future of Music – A Collective Composition, consists of the composer looking at the audience from the stage, and the audience’s reaction.

He wrote in a variety of styles, including chamber music, opera and electronic music.

In 2004, he was awarded Sweden’s prestigious Polar Music prize, and judges praised him for “stretching the boundaries of the musically conceivable”.

Ligeti is survived by his wife, Vera, and a son, Lukas, a percussionist who lives in New York.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/5072858.stm

Published: 2006/06/12 15:15:03 GMT

Banville’s waves

May 6, 2006
Page 1 of 4 | Single page
When the acclaimed Irish novelist John Banville won the Man Booker Prize last year, he didn’t hold back in his comments. He explains why to Angela Bennie.

WHEN JOHN Banville was announced the winner of the Man Booker Prize last year for his novel, The Sea, “a shocked hush fell on the glittering gathering”, as one report described it, and “ice began to form on their upper slopes”.

The shock was genuine. Julian Barnes’ Arthur & George had been the clear favourite, closely followed by previous Booker winner Katsuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. Banville’s The Sea was a long shot, given its dark, dense, meditative mood, its preoccupation with grief and death, its highly self-conscious literariness.

That it had even made the shortlist surprised many – critical disdain had dismissed it as a book with “a lot of lovely language but not much novel”.

Circumnavigating the icy slopes, Banville made his way to the podium to receive his prize. In a low, steady voice of thanks, he said: “It is good to see a work of art being recognised!”

Many cheered, whether for the unapologetic arrogance of the remark or for the truth of it, or perhaps stirred by the whiff of drama in the room. But the sense of outrage among certain of the glitterati only ratcheted up a notch, to spew out the next day in newspaper column-centimetres of invective.

“Yesterday the Man Booker judges made possibly the worst, certainly the most perverse, and perhaps the most indefensible choice in the 36-year history of the contest,” said the literary editor of The Independent, Boyd Tonkin. Another said Banville’s writing was “empty, vapid, cold, humourless, self-indulgent, snooty and pretentious”. A third was just “flabbergasted” at the result.

Banville wasn’t flabbergasted: he meant what he said, he says now from his home in Dublin, and repeats it – his book, The Sea, might be a novel, but it is, first and last, a work of art.

“I said it because I wanted to annoy them, all those literary London critics – they know how to turn the knife. Theirs is such a small world. So I decided to have a go at them. I meant what I said. I do think it good that a work of art has won.

“On the other hand, I do understand the point, why people might think a book like The Sea should not win the Booker. After all, the prize is there in order to keep people reading books, I understand that.

“So they think novels should be about identifiable things, that there should be a story, and all that. They believe that people when they read don’t want to have to think, they just want it to flow over them so they don’t have to think.

“But here is a book winning the Booker that is densely poetic. It is deliberately so. W. H. Auden used to say a poem is the only artform you have to either take or leave, there is no in-between.

“That is the quality I strive for in my writing. And for once they chose a book where the form is more significant than the content, a book that is a work of art, in other words. That is what I am saying.”

It is at this point that Banville now gives a quiet, devilish chuckle – or could it just be a moment of static on the line from Dublin?

“On the other had, all that reaction in the room might be all to do with the fallout from that other matter. You know, the McEwan thing.”

The McEwan thing was the savaging he had given Ian McEwan’s novel, Saturday, some months before in The New York Review of Books, and the literary spat that followed it in the NYRB’s letters page. Saturday (which was long-listed for the Booker) was a “dismayingly bad book”, he had written in his review, “a self-satisfied and . . . ridiculous novel”, its set pieces “hinged together with the subtlety of a child’s erector set”.

The “small world” that is the London literary scene exploded and divided for and against Banville’s critique “right down the middle”, Banville says with satisfaction.

“That cheered me up enormously.” There it was again, that now unmistakeable sound of a chuckle filled with wry pleasure. “But then when John Sutherland (who just happened to be the chairman of the judging panel of the Booker) joined in the fray on McEwan’s behalf, I thought to myself, well, there goes my chance at the Booker.”

As it turned out he had underestimated the Booker chairman. With the judges locked in disagreement to the very end, it was Sutherland’s casting vote that gave the Booker to Banville. The whole thing had been “painful”, Sutherland admitted publicly, “it was by no means a decision of acclamation”.

But in the end, and in the words of the judges collectively, the prize simply had to go to Banville’s “extraordinary meditation on identity and remembrance”, so “utterly compelling, profoundly moving and illuminating, it is unquestionably one of the finest works yet from a sublime master of language”.

This sublime master of language has all his writing life been striving to bring his kind of fiction to that condition of poetry Auden speaks of.

He remembers with amusement his first clumsy, overblown attempt at an opening line for a novel he was attempting at the age of 12: “The petals of white May blossom swooned slowly into the black mouth of the open grave.”

Fourteen novels later, and each sentence, each finely wrought paragraph, is crafted in such a way that the reader has no choice but to go with him into a Banville place, a place both enchanting and disturbing. This place is highly sensuous, where smells are pungent and rank, putting all the senses on edge, where light casts ambiguous shadows, and the language sometimes seems cloaked with inexplicable menace and uncertainty – everything so finely tuned it is as if the whole edifice is balanced delicately on the cusp of the irrational. It is the kind of writing where there is no in-between, you have to take his fiction as a whole or leave it.

“I spend hour upon hour on a sentence and a paragraph,” says Banville. “That’s why I say I hate my books, every one of them. It is because I cannot read them. I know them so intimately, I am so knowledgeable about each part of it, I cannot read it as a reader would.

“When I do, I always see how I can make them better. I think they are just not good enough, compared with the idea of them. I read them with a kind of profound embarrassment.”

Writing fiction, Banville says, is like trying to write a dream.

“At least, that is the kind of fiction I write.

“You are saying to yourself, I am going to take this dream I have in my head and find the language for it, find how to put it into words. That is fiction; and the only analogy I can think of for it is the dream.”

When we dream, says Banville, we dream the most fantastic, complex things. This is what he wants his fiction to be.

“In my kind of dream, you can’t let your mind wander away. Some people don’t want that kind of reading experience, I understand that.

“In my books you have to concentrate, but I work hard to make it that, when you do, the rewards are quite high. It is strange, the imagination, the human imagination, don’t you think? What it does? And how we inhabit other people’s imaginations?”

Banville breaks off and then, quite unexpectedly, as if prompted by something or someone lurking in his own imagination, he says: “You know, I am having a shot at that other kind of writing that I was talking about. Only it won’t be me, it will be Benjamin Black writing it.

“These books Benjamin Black will write, they will not be the kind of books John Banville writes. They will be the kind Benjamin Black writes.”

Benjamin Black is Banville’s newly minted pseudonym. He was born in Banville’s imagination one day recently when he had just finished reading a Georges Simenon detective story.

“Those novels of Simenon, the neglected ones, what I call his hard novels, those novels to me they are the great unacknowledged novels of the 20th century. They are magnificent. And I thought to myself, well, if you can do this with unadorned prose, then I am going to have a go at it, too.

“So this novel Benjamin Black has written (Christine Falls, Banville’s attempt at a detective story), which is me as Benjamin Black, is a piece of craftwork,” says Banville. “It is not an art book, it is completely different to my usual work.”

Nor will Banville let Black take any notice of the critics, whatever they might say of his craftwork. Banville does not read his critics; he does not write for them, he says. He writes “to delight and terrify” his readers.

There is one review, however, that he does cherish.

“It was in 1989 for The Book of Evidence (which was also shortlisted for the Booker that year). I was running for the train and a workman came toward me on a bike, and as he rode past me he yelled out ‘Great f–kin’ book!” and whistled by. That was the best – best! – review I have ever had.

“I suppose the point I am trying to make is that the truth is that all kinds of people read my books.

“It is one world we live in, but our experience of it is different. I want my art to make people look at the world in a new way. I mean, what’s the point of the art of writing if it doesn’t take you into the mysterious?”

John Banville will be a guest at an Age Dymocks book event on May 30. Bookings and information: 9660 8500.

He is a guest at this month’s Sydney Writers’ Festival. The Sea is published by Picador; Christine Falls will be published by Picador in October.

John Banville

1945 Born December 8, in Wexford, Ireland. Educated at Christian Brothers’ School and St Peter’s College, Wexford.

1970 Publishes first book, Long Lankin, a collection of stories.

1971 Publishes first novel, Nightspawn.

1973 Second novel, Birchwood.

1976 Dr Copernicus, first in series of novels about science, wins James Tait Prize.

1981 Kepler wins Guardian fiction prize.

1982 The Newton Letter.

1986 Mefisto .

1989 The Book of Evidence shortlisted for Booker Prize.

1988-99 Literary editor of Irish Times.

1993 Ghosts.

1995 Athena.

1996 The Ark.

1997 The Untouchable.

2000 Eclipse.

2002 Shroud.

2003 Prague Pictures.

2005 Most recent novel, The Sea, wins Booker Prize.