Mike Leigh talks Happy-Go-Lucky

It's a warm Monday night in Glasgow. Winter seems finally to have departed and there's a corresponding atmosphere of good cheer. Outside the GFT on Rose Street, a crowd has gathered. They line up along the sides of the red carpet, waiting for a car. Then acclaimed director Mike Leigh comes walking up the road from the pub. He's not a man for celebrity glamour. In life as in his films, he likes to keep things real.

Inside, the cinema is packed full for a special screening of his latest film, Happy-Go-Lucky, which stars Sally Hawkins as Poppy, a young woman whose spirited attitude to life affects everyone he meets. Leigh introduces it brusquely, not being a believer in speeches, but after the film he returns to answer some questions. First up - does the film contain any autobiographical elements? Has he taken driving lessons, as its heroine does, and perhaps met a driving instructor like the unhappy character of Scott?

Mike Leigh: It so happens that just the other day somebody asked me if Scott was a stereotypical driving instructor. I have to say that I would be horrified to think that there was anybody like Scott out there teaching people to drive! Eddie Marsan, who played him so brilliantly, and I worked together to create an idiosyncratic monster. We were very strict with all of the characters. We asked if somebody like that could potentially become a driving instructor and we subjected it to very intense, thorough scrutiny and decided that yes, he could. Also, one significant aspect of the film is the idea of teaching and education, and this is a guy who really thinks he's got the hang of education. He actually talks about it and he's got ideas about it and all of these ideas are incorrect... so, to answer the question, yes, it is autobiographical!

Do the ideas about teaching presented in the film reflect his own?

ML: It's not a conscious agenda, but the film does embody something of my own views about learning and education. There's no doubt in my mind that you're only as good as your teacher. Teaching should really be about the teacher's passions and strengths. I speak as a product of state education. I had a very good primary education and a mediocre secondary education, and mixed teaching at various art, drama and film schools. I've taught a lot and I'm a parent. One thing that I'm absolutely, fundamentally sure about is that I flatly disapprove of any kind of national curriculum, because I believe that education, if it's going to be any good, must vary in its form and content and structure and details according to the particular passions of the people that teach. I find Scott's prescriptive, detached, reactionary approach to teaching abhorrent.

Poppy, the film's heroine, approaches teaching and learning in a very different way. How much of this is due to the contributions of actress Sally Hawkins?

Sally Hawkins versatility was key to the success of the role of Poppy, says Leigh

ML: Sally is a very versatile actress. Amongst the other things she's done is Persuasion, the Jane Austen adaptation. She was in both of my last two films, All Or Nothing and Vera Drake, in which she was the posh girl who gets raped and goes to have an abortion. So Poppy is not Sally. But my decision to make a film where I put Sally at the centre certainly involved an intention to tap into her energy and her vitality. So that's there in Sally and that's what's exploited, if you like, in creating Poppy. Sally said that she enjoyed the part very much and that she took a lot away from playing Poppy because of Poppy's positiveness. The film is about spirit. We all know Poppies. Don't you?

Not everybody in the film is as nice as Poppy, however. What about the various bullies who appear during the course of the story - Nick, the boy at the school where Poppy teaches, and Scott, and so forth?

ML: I see what you mean about that. I also think you could say that Poppy's pregnant sister is a bit of a bully. But I have to say that I didn't really think about bullying as a theme. I was aware, obviously, during the construction of the film, of some of the implicit relationships or correlations between Scott and the kid, although I think that even that is over stressing the case. But you can see that what Nick is getting from school, from Poppy and from the social worker is the kind of thing that the Scotts of this world could have done with. When you put together a film that's got all kinds of multifaceted, hopefully three dimensional characters and all sorts of references, things do reflect each other and overlap, but it's not a simple schematic.

Was it fun to make a film with such an ebullient central character?

ML: Yes, well, I've enjoyed making all my films. I mean, we had a laugh on Vera Drake! I always make sure to get people on these films, on both sides of the camera, who've got a big sense of humour, because if you have no sense of humour you can't live, really. If you're not sure what I mean, look at the character of Scott. He has such a hard time because he's got no sense of humour - he's devoid of a sense of humour. We always have fun, but it's always tough, and it was sure as hell tough making this film. One thing you should realise about the driving lesson in this film is that the actors are actually driving the car. The cars were rigged up for the film and they had to drive for real at the same time, so that was kind of tough and a bit hairy at times. But yes, it is a lot of fun, and it's great to go to work every day and think that we're doing a job that at some remote point we'll get paid for and it's enjoyable.

Is it tougher making comedy than tragedy?

ML: I don't really think in those terms. To me, life is comedy and tragedy; life is hilarious and terrible rolled into one. I don't think 'I'm doing a comedy now' because it's all the same thing.

So does he see similarities in his characters across all these films?

ML: I don't really think about that but I suppose they could be broken down into distinct groups. Somebody, if they had nothing better to do, could probably write a thesis on that, and as long as I don't have to read it I'm not going to have a problem with that. I have to say that there are elements of Scott which he shares with my late lamented dad. He wouldn't disapprove of that, and if he does, there's bugger all he can do about it now!

One thing that everyone notices about Mike's films is the wit and the natural flow of the dialogue. How does he approach this at a creative level?

ML: I make my films not by starting with a script but by working with the actors and doing a great deal of exploration and improvisation, out of which, through rehearsal, I then pin down and write exactly what happens in the dialogue.

Does this technique extend to the structuring and composition of the film as a whole? He nods.

Mike Leigh at the Glasgow Q&A

ML: This film, more than any film I've made - including Naked - focuses almost completely on one character, in the very obvious sense that you are with Poppy almost all the time. Even in something like Vera Drake, which very much focuses on a central character, I still aim to put on the screen a complex picture of a lot of people, a lot of things going on, a lot of words. In this film - Happy-Go-Lucky - I hope that I still do that even though we're with one person all the time. I think it's very natural, even if I haven't done it very much, to tell a story that simply puts a character at the centre of the experience, as each one of us is in our lives. Think about the number of people you interact with in the course of an ordinary day. Each one of them is the tip of an iceberg, with depths of story concealed under the surface, and the way that you relate to each one of them is subtly different, showing a different side of you. To me, that's what makes for an interesting story. So in terms of the construction of this film, I think in terms of this woman and her journey, but it would be meaningless without the people she comes into contact with. One starts to realise that they exist in different kinds of terms. When I start to bring this whole collection of characters into a single thing, the first element in the structure of the dynamics of the characters is Poppy and her two sisters. It's the logical place to start. Then other things start to intersect with the relationships between the characters. I make many films where what happens is quite static - people in their rooms - and it felt very important to me that this film should be very mobile, there should be a lot of movement.

I note that the way in which Poppy puts taking care of other people before other personal concerns reminds me of Vera Drake, and Mike agrees. At various points in the film, Poppy is chided for not growing up and taking on adult responsibilities like a mortgage and pension. Does he feel that she's taking responsibility in other ways by contributing to other people's happiness?

ML: Just taking her as a person, what do you think?

I suggest that Poppy is contributing on two levels: by directly caring for people, and by taking responsibility for her own happiness and thus inspiring them.

ML: Yes, but the thing about happiness is - well - you have to call a film something, and I never give my films their names until I've finished making them. This film isn't called Happiness, although people are talking about it in those terms. That's fair enough, but Happy-Go-Lucky rather evokes a mood, a spirit, an atmosphere, rather than happiness as the subject. I think that Poppy is not concerned with being happy for the sake of being happy - it's really about being fulfilled. It's not even about being positive in the kind of way that's denying the reality around her - she's very sussed about what's what - but it's about being focused and about being balanced. It's not about holding onto happiness in an insecure way; it's about a state of being positive. Does that make you happy?