Heres how it went…
Can we start with the predictable stuff first?
I always wonder this when anyone writes an autobiography: why do it?
Why put your life down in a book, who is it for, and did you enjoy it?
Well, lets go backwards on that.
Yes, I enjoyed it very much.
Who is it for me?
Even if its been varied.
You see what I mean?
Ad content continues below
You mean in terms of peril?
I dont think of myself as a very bold man.
I dont go in for extreme sports or anything like that.
And I thought Id like to do that.
Philosophies of life, that sort of thing.
Does that explain what you dont talk about in the book then?
Well, I think when I started to write it, I hit a style fairly early on.
And I didnt know if I was going to do that because Ive written dialogue all my life.
For instance, I have a feeling that Id find it very, very difficult to write a novel.
I couldnt do it.
Its an odd thing to say, but I just dont think I could do it.
And my editor said yes, most people have difficulty with the dialogue and can do the narrative.
I soon realized that I wasnt going to get through the whole of my life or anything like it.
Then you suddenly think this is worth doing.
If you follow the Michael Caine path of course, you have to do a volume two?
Does that interest you?
Because you leave this one on a lovely final line.
Yeah, but I think Ill have a year off.
So I think I should take a year off, and then come back to it.
It was an intense period of activity, and I think youve got to be very careful.
Because even those of us who are good at this, weve only got a limited spread of talent.
And it’s possible for you to easily start appearing too much on television.
People can get to the point where they say I know what he does.
I think its terribly good to take breaks.
So people didnt get fed up with me.
At one stage, I was doing so much.
I got a sense that there was a certain fearlessness in those 20 months, though.
Well, suddenly something comes along and you think that might be interesting.
Thats the only criteria.
It seemed like a good idea.
But a lot of times things really came out of the blue.
You dont get luckier than that.
You cant get lucky that way anymore in television, can you?
We were in television at absolutely the best time.
And they trusted their talent.
They learned comedy all the way up.
Then they decided to go around the world, and she went around the world.
Then a few years later, she was head of comedy at the BBC!
They sometimes were able to make very good judgements about trusting people.
The audience was reacting more to them just being there.
That he was making statements?
Do you think thats the prevalent way of thinking in comedy now?
I think that stand-ups taken over.
There was a phase where they became very popular.
Then stand-up developed and had a bit more of a point of view, a slice of life.
I think that was a very interesting development, because it was unheard of.
Because it injects a certain energy.
I think there is quite a lot of talent, but only a certain amount of it.
So, stand-up has become more about better entertainers than better comedians?
Comedians play arenas now with 10,000 people, and thats a show to me.
Its wildly different to the intimacy you get from 100 people and a microphone.
I dont get the pleasure of going to a huge arena and watching someone on a screen.
Its just like sitting at home and watching them on the television.
You get a better view on the television.
And I dont get that.
It seems to me to be about a pissing contest.
Its just about ego.
It seems to me that the very best comedy, theres an intimacy to it.
Hence you make the point about using the two-shot in comedy.
The two-shot is what its really about.
Its the interaction thats funny, not the individual.
You want the close up here and there, but really, its about the two-shot.
Comedy at its best is about some sort of intimacy.
And that gives you an intimacy.
But I dont think Id want to see a comedy in a big arena.
It wasnt really funny.
I thought it was the opposite of really good comedy.
And the book argued that whilst Oz was a perfectionist, Henson just needed it to be right.
The perfect performance, yeah.
I knew Frank Oz very well.
You didThe Muppet Show, of course.
You sometimes see the balance against the script.
Then theyve come in in the evening, and if it didnt work, they would rewrite it.
But sometimes I felt it would have worked with more rehearsal.
If they thought it didnt work, they didnt say rehearse it again tomorrow.
It was almost as though the writers had too much power.
Normally they have too little, and people worry about reflections and bits of lint.
They dont worry about whether the performance or the script was good.
Can we talk about the filmClockwise, then?
And yet in the past, youve argued that the ending ofClockwisewas a bit too harsh.
That your character, Brian, should have had a slightly happier ending?
I thought the ending wasnt right.
I talked to Michael Frayn, whos one of my heroes.
And I think I made a suggestion about the ending.
He said that he didnt really think anybody ever learned anything in life.
I said I agree with you, but its an artistic convention that they do!
The last two or three minutes.
It was true that the only time I was ever sent a truly wonderful script for a lead wasClockwise.
I did twice get offered very, very good parts by Mike Nichols.
On one occasion it was to do the Robin Williams role inThe Birdcage.
And I just couldnt do it.
They had dates for their movie, and I was already committed.
The other time wasThe Remains of the Daywhen they wanted me to play the butler.
And I thought the novel was so brilliant.
I though it only existed with the humour.
Otherwise it was relentlessly down.
But I was never crazy about the script.
Do you regret decisions like that, though?
I think it would have been much better for my career if Id done it!
But I think Pinter got the ending quite wrong.
I dont regret it artistically.
I think hes terrific.
But he makes all the decisions in the organiation.
Getting the feedback on the script was difficult.
I thought the first draft of the script we did was very good, but it was completely changed.
But ours was much less about a family, more about a small town with an inventor arriving.
But Jeffrey was happy to give me a credit, and I was very happy to take it!
My last question, then.
Why was he so special for you?
The wonderful thing about Charlie Crichton is that you never notice his direction.
They put shots you notice in their films.
I think once you notice the shot, then suddenly, youre not in the movie anymore.
Youre looking at it from a technical point of view.
The moment directors do things to get noticed as directors, I believe theyre stepping outside.
Thats not what its about.
He always chose a shot because it was absolutely the right way to shoot that particular scene.
John Cleese, thank you very much.
So, Anyway is out now in hardback, published by Random House.
Like us onFacebookand follow us onTwitterfor all news updates related to the world of geek.
AndGoogle+, if thats your thing!
