Stephen Daldry

FROM THEATER TO FILM IN ONE HIGH-FLYING LEAP

The tidal wave of Brit theatrical directors who have successfully crossed over to film lately does seem understandable. Sam Mendes (American Beauty), Nicholas Hytner (The Madness of King George), and Roger Michell (Notting Hill), to name a few, each have years of experience working closely with actors and writers and producing some of London's best theater over the last decade. Perhaps that's why Stephen Daldry's feature, Billy Elliot, a.k.a. Dancer, has been getting so much attention. Although the film is Daldry's first, it certainly carries with it the confidence of the director's rich theatrical career. He spent more than twelve years combined as Artistic Director of the Royal Court Theatre and the Gate Theater in London. Here, Daldry talks about that and Billy Elliot, the story of a lower class English boy who dances his way out of the world of striking coal miners and onto the stage.

DAVID FURNISH: Your first feature film, Billy Elliot, recently opened in England, and is now hitting U.S. shores. Tell me about your journey from theatrical director to featurefilm director.

STEVEN DALDRY: The only reason it happened is because someone asked me to direct a film. I know that sounds nuts. I love trying out new things. I didn't know a lot about it, but thought it would be fantastic to learn. All my life I've been engrossed in the arts. As a child I was involved in youth theater and acting. Moving from working as a director for the stage to the cinema was a natural extension of my love of the arts.

DF: Weren't you terrified? They really are two completely different disciplines.

SD: No, not at first. I just thought that directing films sounded so interesting. I had hung around with other theatrical directors who had made the transition, so I knew what I was getting into.

DF: It's a big trend in cinema these days. Look at all the British theatrical directors who are now making successful feature films.

SD: Exactly. So I hung around with some of them and just watched to see how it all works. [laughs] I was even an extra in two films. Once I got more involved, it did start to become scary. It got seriously scary because it's so different and the learning curve is so intense.

DF: How is directing theater different from directing a film?

SD: The primary difference is that theater is essentially a collegiate creative atmosphere. At its point of creation, anyone involved in the production will know whether it's working or not. What you see when you rehearse theater is what you get when it's performed on stage. Everyone will know whether it's a bad run-through or a good run-through. Whereas in the movies, no one really knows what's being made at all. The only person that really knows is you [the director]. With the whole process, you take the film through all these incredibly disparate groups [screenwriters, cinematographers, editors, and composers] and only you know the film. It's incredibly lonely as a creative person and very un-collegiate. Also in theater, ideas can come from anyone, and it's all right for directors to say, "I don't know." Well, you absolutely cannot say that with one hundred people standing around you on a film set. As soon as the crew senses doubt or reflection or unease, it's like they smell blood. It's like a meeting of the troops. The pressure is enormous! You have a million decisions to make very fast, and you have to keep your eye on the ball and the ball is the story. For me, that's the nightmare--losing the story.

DF: You must have had some moments where you really lost your confidence.

SD: There were days when it was hard shooting and there were some days where it felt so gorgeous. I was really lucky. After awhile, people, like the two prop boys, started to chip in with ideas. The crew finally felt like they could do that, and they started making some of the most wonderful suggestions.

DF: What you've just talked about sounds more like the collegial creative process you were describing in the theater.

SD: I tried, obviously. I tried to make it a situation where everyone felt like they were emotionally engaged in what was being made. I have to do that because then I can work better.

DF: Do you think this more collaborative approach is why we're seeing this fantastic run of successful British theatrical directors working in cinema?

SD: I think it's about giving more power to the actor and actually following what the actor is doing rather than predetermining how a scene might work. Actually working it out on the floor with the actors. I feel more alive working that way.

DF: Do you have to motivate actors differently when you're working in film?

SD: The methodology of theater is predicated on the idea of repeated action. The actor needs to know and understand what they do, because they're going to have to repeat it continuously eight times a week. Whereas in the movies, there is no repetition. It's all about spontaneity and capturing the right moment, the right feel and the right emotion at the right time.