C.

Cate Blanchett

This is Cate Blanchett’s time. The most exciting actress to emerge in recent memory, she’s now starring in no fewer than five films, including the wartime romance Charlotte Gray. So why can’t she bear to see herself on screen? Nigel Farndale meets her

 

IF there is a correct way to sit when heavily pregnant – finishing schools are a little hazy on this point – I would guess Cate Blanchett is sitting it, here on a sofa in the Dorchester, her pale blonde hair luminous against a black velvet suit. Her ankles are drawn together, as are her knees, which are turned slightly to one side of her 5ft 8in, straight-spined perpendicular.

The 32-year-old Australian actress has long thin fingers and these are cupped together, resting in her lap, her arms framing her bulge. Her face – angular eyebrows; pronounced, almost swollen cheekbones; a puffy curve for a top lip – is raised fractionally, her head tilted, indicating courteous, if guarded attentiveness.

Beautiful, of course, in that etiolated, otherworldly, strong-nosed way of hers. But warm and playful Cate Blanchett is not. ‘I’m not nervous about the birth,’ she says with a low, diluted Australian lilt, levelling impassive blue eyes at me. ‘Excited, but not nervous.’ It’s hard to imagine her being nervous about anything.

Spookily self-possessed, yes. Industrious, certainly. But nervous, no. And why should she be? She is starring or co-starring in five – five! – films gripping or about to grip America and Britain: the £100-million blockbuster Lord of the Rings, Bandits, The Shipping News, Heaven and, to be released next month, Charlotte Gray (based on the Second World War novel by Sebastian Faulks).

She is planning to return to work within the next couple of months, baby in arms or, rather, in maternity nurse’s arms, to star in a film about Veronica Guerin, the Irish crime reporter murdered in 1996. Did she arrange her pregnancy to fit her schedule? ‘I wish my life were that well planned,’ she laughs politely. ‘We conceived during Charlotte Gray, one of those happy accidents. On the day I found out I was pregnant I had to film a scene in which my character [Charlotte, a Scottish linguist who joins the SOE and works with the French Resistance] does an assault course as part of her training. It was a physical film but I’m very fit and, because I was working, I was being responsible – not drinking, getting lots of sleep.’

‘We’ refers to herself and Andrew Upton, the Australian scriptwriter she married in 1997. They met the previous year when she was appearing in The Seagull. He thought her aloof, she thought him arrogant. Not love at first sight, then? ‘No, I was looking in the other direction, I guess. We didn’t like each other much at all.

Then he kissed me and it was one of those, “Oh my God! What was that?” moments.’ In the same year they married Blanchett appeared in her first major film role, in Oscar and Lucinda, based on the Peter Carey novel, opposite Ralph Fiennes. Next came her starring role in Elizabeth, in which she portrayed the Virgin Queen as a warm and passionate woman who transforms herself into a chilling hermaphrodite with plucked and peeled features and chalkily phosphorescent skin.

For that role she won a Golden Globe and a Bafta and was nominated for an Oscar. She followed it with equally acclaimed performances in An Ideal Husband and The Talented Mr Ripley. Her husband’s biggest success so far has been with the script for Babe – Pig in the City.

Does he have to make compromises in his career in order to accommodate hers? ‘When you both have careers you have to negotiate and juggle,’ Blanchett says. ‘I think you have to be honest, really, take pride in each other’s successes and acknowledge each other’s failures. I try to go with Andrew whenever he has to work abroad, but that’s been difficult since I’ve been pregnant. The painful thing about when he was in Australia recently and I was in Dublin [researching for the Guerin film] was the physical distance. We were on the phone constantly; you know, three in the morning. As long as the two of us are together we don’t really mind where we live. I know couples who live apart for four months at a time but we don’t have that kind of relationship. We’re hopelessly co-dependent!’

The couple have homes in north London and Sydney (on the waterfront). ‘It has forced us to think hard about where the baby should be born. I do think of myself as an Australian. That is my identity.’ Cate Blanchett’s mother, June, a property developer, still lives in Australia, as do her brother and sister (Cate is the middle child).

Her father, Bob, a Texan naval officer who moved to Melbourne in his twenties and became an advertising executive, died from a heart attack at the age of 40. Cate was ten at the time and thinks now that she probably underplayed the psychological affect on her. ‘He died incredibly young. But children adapt. It becomes who you are. You assimilate that change, that pain. It was harder for my mother to lose her partner, so that was where my empathy lay. I didn’t think about it much then, but I did think about it when I got married, and am thinking about it again now I’m having a baby. And there are times when I see friends with their fathers and I think, “What would Dad have been like?”‘

She once said that she wished she lived in a haunted house – perhaps, she thought at the time, as a way of connecting somehow with her father. In her late teens she also developed a fascination with horror movies, and fantasised that her father had been abducted by the CIA and that she might catch a glimpse of him in the street. She doesn’t think she had any replacement father figures as a child.

‘Not consciously, anyway. But I had a strong mother figure and my grandmother lived with us, and that was just the way our family was. Matriarchal. My poor brother!’ It makes her sad to think that her father never knew what became of his daughter. ‘But that is how it is – so I accept it. He’s almost an abstraction now. My memories are only those of a child. But we talk a lot about him in my family, so I now know more about his history and background than I probably did when he was alive. Most of my memories come from photographs, they fill in the gaps. My brother made a compilation of home-made films, and on it I saw footage of my mother and father on the beach together – it really freaked me out. He’s moving! I thought, “That is so strange. There is the human being, my dad, moving.”‘

She shifts her weight delicately on the sofa, runs a hand over her belly, remains erect. ‘It was magical, and I think now I’ll become one of those obnoxious parents who constantly videos her child!’ Has she considered the possibility that she might see ghostly genetic echoes of her father in her baby? ‘Yes. I wonder. I wonder. My father had beautiful hands’

She trails off, then, returning efficiently to film promotion mode, she adds: ‘There’s a lot of that father-daughter stuff in the novel of Charlotte Gray. There is a deep level of unresolve and disquiet.’ In the film her character takes a word association test with a psychiatrist: has she ever tried anything like that herself? ‘Yes, I have, actually. I really wanted to try it before I did that scene so I went to see a psychiatrist in Hampstead. He was great. There was no preamble – he didn’t make me feel comfortable at all, just sat me down and threw words at me. The intensity of the concentration – I had to do it with my eyes closed – was quite strange. I surprised myself with my answers. I went in there feeling very clear-headed, like the character I was playing. I wasn’t going to be intimidated – but then the word that came up a lot was “fear”.’

And her fears are? ‘I’m not sure. Um, I used to be superstitious about taking certain flights, but now I quite like flying. I like the long trips home to Australia because, well, because it means I’m going home. I love it because you get to watch films and read books. With security stepped up since 11 September, I think it’s the safest time in the world to fly.’

Unexpectedly, given her fluency and dynamism in performance, Blanchett can seem a little awkward physically. It is as if she almost deliberately avoids calling upon her acting skills to help smooth out situations in real life. Perhaps this is to do with her belief that you only realise how precious your anonymity is once it is taken away. She talks of acting as shedding skin; does she want to strip away her own personality?

‘It depends. Often you start with a point of connection between yourself and the character you are playing, then you explore the differences. I’m not interested in playing myself, even though I’m sure there are parts of myself in things I do. I don’t want to reach a level of self-consciousness where I become aware of them. That is why I don’t like to watch the daily rushes during filming, for fear that I will over-analyse my performance and lose my spontaneity.’ When asked to describe this ‘self’ she is not interested in playing, she says, ‘Passive-aggressive, a very Australian quality.’

A duality seems to be indicated, certainly. In some ways she is remarkable for her ordinariness, or at least for not being as starry as might be expected. But she is also enigmatic. Her best friend is a social-worker. To relax she plays gin rummy and bakes bread. During pregnancy she acquired a craving for sardines, but she doesn’t believe in faddish diets – ‘If you starve yourself to the point where your brain cells shrivel, you will never do good work.’

She is self-deprecating, too, saying that she never feels she makes sense in conversation, drifting off instead into silence. ‘I feel there is something missing in me and so I’m always trying to find that last piece to complete the picture. Everyone loves clarity but I’m incredibly incoherent, so people will have to be satisfied with the incomplete sentence.’

She is at her most animated – and, yes, coherent – when talking about her craft. She refers to ‘energy production’, ‘spheres of concentration’ and ‘how to use your entire body to transmit ideas and feelings’. She says her theatre work taught her how space works and how to control her voice. ‘It’s about having the tools to problem-solve,’ she says. ‘It means you don’t have to be a paranoiac dredging up childhood fears of drowning in order to connect to a certain moment.’

She laughs. ‘Am I making any sense at all? Not much. Perhaps it’s to do with being pregnant.’ Affectingly, her character in Charlotte Gray tries to save two Jewish boys, orphans, from being sent to a concentration camp. When she watched the preview screening of the film – heavily pregnant and, presumably, with her hormones running amok – was she emotionally swept up in it? ‘After getting over the initial shock of seeing myself in close-up and thinking, “Oh my God, I can’t look, it’s me, me, me, me up there,” I was swept along, yes.’

Why would it bother her to see her face in close-up? ‘Think about it, it’s awful.’ For someone like me, perhaps, but she is used to it – and she is photogenic. ‘I am more used to it than I was, true, and I have become more objective. But I rarely watch films a second time, so why would I want to see myself twice?’ With a shrug, Blanchett describes herself as ‘looking ugly’ in certain of her film roles. She thinks that the greatest compliment she was ever given was when another actor said that she had ‘an actor’s face’.

Is there anything about herself she would change? ‘Sure. Can’t think what, offhand. But sure, why not?’ Perhaps, I suggest, it will be easier for her than it is for other women to accept the ageing process because she knows her youthful self is preserved on celluloid. ‘I doubt it. And I doubt they will be having a festival of my movies when I’m 60. But…’ She trails off. ‘There is an enormous pressure on actresses to stay young and beautiful. Film can be a very superficial medium but if you can overcome that and dig deeper within it you can do something worthwhile. I’m not wedded to looking a certain way. I don’t feel I’m carving, as actresses did in the 1940s, a certain niche for myself. I do what I feel is required for the role and if that means not looking particularly attractive, then that is my job. If someone said, “She doesn’t look very attractive, I don’t want to work with her,” then I’d think, “F- him, I don’t want to work with him either.”‘

She smiles widely at this thought. She has rarely if ever felt self-conscious, she adds. At school, the Methodist Ladies’ College in Melbourne, she was, she says, part extrovert, part wallflower. Her mother introduced her to acting when she sent her – aged 12 – to a theatre workshop. ‘I always thought I was quite shy at school, but apparently not. When I speak to old schoolfriends they remember me as the one who was always instigating things, organising things. I was probably a show-off. I went to drama classes and did a lot of drama at high school but I never imagined I would do it as a living because I thought there were two separate categories in life: fulfilment and work.’

After school Blanchett won a place at the University of Melbourne to read fine arts and economics, another duality, the one for fulfilment, the other work. She laughs at the memory. ‘God, my brain is so deeply unmathematical it’s not funny. I thought I’d do economics so I could get into international relations. But instead I travelled for a year, came back, dropped the economics and took up architecture instead. I used to love the reading side, but my essays were a mess. Scrambled. Too many jumbled thoughts, and no through-line. It wasn’t for me. I always think if you are meant to do something, you don’t need to pursue it actively, it comes about. So I didn’t actively pursue the theatre, it just came about. Finishing my degree was on my must-do-when-I’m-pregnant list, but it hasn’t happened.’

It seems disingenuous of her to take such a fatalistic view. After all, she did pursue the theatre actively enough to enrol at Australia’s National Institute of Dramatic Art. After graduating in 1992 she worked in the theatre with Company B, a loose ensemble of actors including Geoffrey Rush, who later starred in Shine.

According to Rush her prodigious gifts were obvious even then. ‘She was an emotional acrobat swinging from tragedy to comedy to ecstasy,’ he has said. Anthony Minghella, director of The English Patient and The Talented Mr Ripley, has gone further, calling Blanchett the most exciting actress to have emerged in recent memory.

In some ways, though, Blanchett’s fatalism is understandable. In childhood it may have been a pragmatic way of dealing with the misery of losing a father. And there was an incident not long ago which does seem strangely coincidental. She believes she was destined to play Charlotte Gray because she was chosen for the role while playing Susan Traherne, an SOE agent, in David Hare’s Plenty at the Almeida in 1999.

‘A friend suggested I read Charlotte Gray because both Susan Traherne and Charlotte had SOE encounters. I was moved by the book and felt lifted by the sense of hope and love it has, which was juxtaposed to the post-War despair that Susan Traherne experiences. Then, out of the blue, Sebastian [Faulks] sent me a copy saying it is going to be made into a film and I would make a wonderful Charlotte.’

She leans back and pats her bulge. ‘It was as much a happy accident as the timing of the baby, really.’

R.

Robert Altman

Robert Altman is a gambling-mad war hero with an eye for the girls. He’s also one of the best – and most independent – American flim-makers around. So why’s he making an English country-house drama? He talks to Nigel Farndale

RUMOURS, and rumours of rumours, float around Robert Altman like winter mist. Fingers of truth poke out occasionally, then shrink away again, the fog closing silently around them.

Can it be true, for example, that as a 19-year-old co-pilot of a B-24 bomber he was shot down over the South Pacific, escaped to the life-raft, then, remembering he’d left his cigarettes behind, jumped over the side, swam back and retrieved them from the plane before it went down? And what about his first wedding day (the 76-year-old film director has been married three times)? He and his fiancée, LaVonne Elmer, were in a car crash; he was unscathed but she had her jaw mangled so badly it had to be wired up and, during the ceremony, she had to mutter her wedding vows through clenched teeth.

There are dozens of similar examples, but the latest rumour to blur Altman’s edges is that when he began directing his 38th film, Gosford Park, in England last year he kept forgetting the names of the actors – and an assistant had to be on permanent standby to whisper reminders in his ear. To be fair, he had never worked in England before, and his all-British cast was only slightly smaller than that for Ben-Hur, but it did include the biggest stars of the British stage – among them, Sir Michael Gambon, Sir Derek Jacobi, Dame Maggie Smith, Dame Eileen Atkins, Helen Mirren and Alan Bates. If it were not for Altman’s famously casual approach to film-making, this hearsay could be easily dismissed. But the truth, or at least the rumour, is that he rarely even bothers to read a script – halfway through filming The Long Goodbye (1973), based on the Raymond Chandler novel, he still had no idea how it ended.

Robert Altman is tall, hunched and lugubrious looking – domed forehead, hooded eyes, Kentucky colonel beard – and his manner, if not quite tetchy, is distinctly laconic. When I meet him in the Bloomsbury office of a film PR company, there is no time for small talk; he sits down, props his head up on one hand and lazily raises his eyebrows.

Well, to start with, how did Altman cope with all those giant egos on the set of Gosford Park? ‘Y’know,’ he drawls, smoothing out his moustache with long, thin fingers, ‘I didn’t find it a problem. They were all skilled actors, and they all had lead roles. When a film is fully cast I step aside and the actors take over and do the art. It’s like living pigment. I put them on the wall and they crawl around and make the painting. I didn’t have much to do. Storylines don’t interest me unduly. They are just something to hold an audience’s attention. What I am interested in is the detailing around that, the behaviour of the characters. Storylines mean doodly squat to me.’

Still, Gosford Park has a story. It is set in 1932 – a country house, a pheasant shoot, a murder committed after dinner – and the tale is told from the point of view of the servants below stairs. On one level it is about the English class system, an odd choice of subject for one of the most American of American directors. Altman was, after all, the man who made M*A*S*H (1970), the anarchic black comedy which was one of the films that came to define the Vietnam generation in America. Nashville (1975), the film widely acknowledged as Altman’s masterpiece, was about 26 characters searching for the American Dream as they struggled to become Country and Western stars. And after he saw Short Cuts (1993) – based on a series of Raymond Carver stories – Gore Vidal remarked: ‘It looks like the great American novel turned out to be a movie.’

Altman’s Gosford Park is, as the adjective goes, Altmanesque. There is overlapping dialogue, improvisation, an all-star cast working as an ensemble, and a loose enough plotline to enable character’s lives to criss-cross. He worked with two cameras shooting simultaneously, tracking around different sections of the action, and he listened in, seemingly at random, to the miniature microphones he had taped to the actors.

‘My films fail mostly because, if you look at them superficially, you’ll get bored with them or lose interest,’ Altman says, stretching out his fingers and waggling them limply, as if playing an invisible piano. ‘Maybe it was arrogant of me to try and make a film about the English class system, but I’d never been to Nashville before I made that film, and in this one I was the only foreign element. I didn’t take anything for granted. The research was thorough.’ Pause. He absent-mindedly makes a frame with his hands and narrows his cold blue eyes. ‘Besides, we have a class system in America, so the concept wasn’t that remote to me. I think class is like a language. In America we try and disguise it more, but snobbery comes down to the same things: stupidity and parochialism.’

Altman and his two younger sisters were born and raised in Kansas City. Their grandfather had a jewellery business and their father sold insurance. Where does that background place him socially in America? ‘My family was probably upper middle-class. Both sets of grandparents were well-to-do, but that had all gone by the time my parents came along. My father’s business was all about belonging to a country club, playing golf and gin rummy. Meeting people that way.’

His father was also a gambler, womaniser and hard drinker. ‘My parents had a stable marriage in that they married young and stayed together till they died. Yes, my father was a gambler, and I kind of admired him for that. Thought it cool. You win or lose, you take risks. The money doesn’t make any difference.’

Altman was a disruptive pupil at St Peter’s Catholic School, Kansas, and was sent off to Wentworth Military Academy in Lexington. After graduating he joined the USAF and saw action against the Japanese just before the War ended. (And yes, the plane story is true.) Upon his return to America he married and moved to LA where he tried his hand as an entrepreneur, inventing a dog-tattooing machine. Around this time he saw two films – David Lean’s Brief Encounter and Vittorio De Sica’s Bicycle Thieves – which had such an impact on him that he gave up his job and began writing screenplays. He sold his first, Bodyguard, at the age of 23, but when this success turned out to be a one-off, he became disillusioned, separated from LaVonne (the wedding story is true, too) and moved back to Kansas City to make public information films about road safety. According to Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, Peter Biskind’s recent account of Hollywood in the 1960s and 1970s, Altman contrived to bring what he imagined was a Hollywood way of life to Kansas City. He gambled, drank heavily and ‘during lunch he would repair to the home of hooker for a quick $2 blow-job. Altman had this idea that it was a very Hollywood thing to do.’

In 1954 he met and married his second wife, Lotus Corelli, a newscaster. They had two boys, and the marriage lasted three years before Altman returned to Hollywood alone to make a B-movie, The Delinquents (1957). Alfred Hitchcock happened to see it, liked it and offered Altman the job of directing Alfred Hitchcock Presents for television. He went on to direct other television shows including Bonanza and Whirlybirds – on the set of which, in 1959, he met the actress Kathryn Reed.

‘How are your morals?’ he asked her. ‘A little shaky,’ she replied. They married, had four children and have stayed married for 42 years. What went right? ‘The secret was I met a girl who was smarter than me,’ he says. ‘And she’s always attracted me more than anyone else has.’

Up to a point. In 1975 in an interview with the Washington Post, Altman admitted to having several mistresses (one of them was rumoured to be Faye Dunaway). For her part, Kathryn has said: ‘I think it makes Bob feel exciting to feel unfaithful.’ Not all women share her understanding: after starring in The Player (1992), Greta Scacchi complained that Altman was ‘a manipulative, weak, lecherous old bastard’. Altman himself seems to put his reputation down to his being very comfortable with women. ‘I was first drawn into the film business because of girls,’ he tells me with a shrug. ‘That’s where all the pretty girls were, after the War. Then I found that the movies were an art form as well, one I could really relate to. It was all about me at that stage of my life. I was very self-centred and arrogant.’

By the late 1960s Altman had grown his hair long, taken to wearing beads and kaftans and become an active protester against the Vietnam war. But his interests in peace and love seem to have been more theoretical than practical. He became known for being antagonistic, moving from studio to studio as he fell out with one executive after another. He also got a name for excessive drinking – passing out in restaurants and having to be carried home. One of his assistants had the job of making sure Altman turned up on the set on time and, once there, that he stayed awake. According to George Litto, his agent at the time: ‘The truth of the matter is he [Altman] was a lousy business investment. He took up an awful lot of my time and I didn’t make that much money out of him. But I enjoyed it because he was this bombastic rebel, bomb-thrower, crazy son of a bitch. He was confrontational. He would get in your face and tell you to f- off. He didn’t suck up.’

Altman was 44 when he had his first box-office hit, M*A*S*H, a film he was asked to make only after 15 other directors had turned it down. True to form, he managed to cause friction on the set. His leading actors, Elliot Gould and Donald Sutherland, were so unnerved by the way Altman ignored them and concentrated on the extras instead that they went to the producer and tried to have him fired during shooting. Carl Gottlieb, who had a small role in the film, noted at the time:

‘I love his work but he can be pretty mean and cruel and manipulative and, contrary to popular belief, he hates actors. He doesn’t allow them a complete performance, he always breaks off.’

After M*A*S*H came the equally brilliant McCabe & Mrs Miller (1971), starring Warren Beatty and Julie Christie. With these and Nashville four years later, Altman’s status as a ‘New Hollywood’ director was confirmed (this loosely defined group included Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Sam Peckinpah). But none of the others, not even Coppola, went on to compile such an erratic body of work. Altman’s darkest hour came in 1980 when he made Popeye, his last Hollywood studio-backed film, with Robin Williams and Shelley Duvall. Don Simpson, president of Paramount, which made the picture, along with Disney, later dismissed Altman with the words: ‘He was a true fraud, such an alcoholic. He was full of gibberish and full of himself, a pompous, pretentious asshole.’

A decade later, Altman made a triumphant comeback with The Player (1992), a satire on Hollywood in which Tim Robbins plays a movie producer on the make. He followed this with Short Cuts (1993), a critical and commercial success, then another flop, Prêt-à-Porter in 1994.

‘I’m not part of the Hollywood establishment,’ Altman says with another shrug. ‘I couldn’t tell you the name, right now, of a person who runs a major studio in Hollywood. I couldn’t tell you their name! Let alone say I knew him. We’re in a different business. They sell shoes and I make gloves. I don’t feel contempt for them, any more than I would, say, for my banker. But they are mean to other people and it seems to be part of the culture in Hollywood – and that I don’t approve of.’

So, is he the opposite of mean? ‘I don’t know. I think so, yes. I hope I have integrity. We all have a point where we sell out, I guess.’ He folds his arms. ‘Don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining here. No film-maker, ever, has been better treated than I have. I’ve made, what, 38 films, and miles and miles of television and I’ve never once had a film taken away from me. Never had a film cut on me.’

That’s not quite true, is it? Didn’t Jack Warner once sack him from a film? He gives a wintry smile. ‘He did, he did. That is true. That was on the film Countdown in 1968. He saw it the day after I’d finished shooting. He’d been out of the country and when he came back he called for the dailies [rushes] and said, “This fool has actors talking at the same time!” They wouldn’t let me on the lot the next day. Wouldn’t let me edit the film.’

Doesn’t he ever wish he had played the game more with Hollywood, been less experimental and obstinate, and as a consequence made himself rich beyond the dreams of avarice? He sighs. ‘But I didn’t want to, in any circumstance, compromise. I would rather do something else, paint a wall.’

Certainly, compromise does not come easily to Robert Altman. He once found himself sitting next to a studio executive in the first-class cabin of a transatlantic flight. The executive greeted him cheerfully and held out his hand, but Altman, believing that the man had once cheated him, said, ‘I don’t speak to scumbags.’ And he didn’t – for the whole 11-hour journey. He has never exactly shied away from confrontation – indeed he has gone through his career clocking up enemies and ignoring advice – but his intransigence has won him admirers. It must be grand for him to have the respect of his fellow directors, and grand, too, to have an adjective made from his name?

‘It is a tribute, yes, it is. But I don’t? This stuff doesn’t last long. These little triumphs, where you think somebody got it, it fades as quickly as pain.’

He hasn’t craved approval?

‘Oh I’d love approval but it never happens and I don’t think it makes any difference. My films are very personal. They are like my children. One tends to love one’s least successful the most.’ So what has driven him? ‘Fear of failure, of not being able to work. I’m happy when I’m working. I get bored and frustrated easily when I’m not working. I feel like little Eliza [in Uncle Tom’s Cabin] crossing the ice-floes with dogs snapping at my ass.’

But isn’t it tantamount to failure, still needing to make films, so long past retirement age? ‘I don’t want to get it out of my system because it’s all I know. It would be like saying, “You’ve got six children now, stop fornicating.”‘

Is it, for all his apparent nonchalance, his Parnassian detachment and disdain, that he cares about posterity? ‘I’ll never know what people say about me when I’ve gone, so why fantasise about it? I don’t have a religious dimension. Look at the world today. That is where religion gets you. People crashing planes into tall buildings.’

Is he materialistic? ‘No. I don’t gather fortunes. If I stopped working now, by next year I’d be in big trouble.’ I say I don’t believe him. ‘Sorry, but it’s the truth. I didn’t make a penny on this film [Gosford Park]. The backing was about to collapse and they said, “OK, go ahead, but you can’t have a cut,” and I agreed to it and it’s the best bargain I made in my life. I had the best time. I love this film. It makes me anxious to get on with the next one. What do I need with someone saying, “You’re going to get $800 million a year”? I wouldn’t have any idea what to do with it. Buy a yacht? Corner my personal drug market? I don’t know why all that is desirable. It fucks your children up. In every case.’

Altman once lost $60,000 on an America football bet. Is he addicted to risk? ‘The fun is in walking on the tightrope. Gambling is about losing not winning. It’s about risking security. It’s, like, if I spend all my life making my home comfortable, then I get in a poker game with you, and I think I’ve got you beat, and I bet my home, then you are really up there on the tightrope. Gambling is like jazz. If you’ve got to ask what jazz is, you’re never going to know. It is the opposite of boredom. It’s about anxiety. When do you feel the most alive? When you are in jeopardy of losing your life.’

Is that why he went back to the B-24 for the cigarettes? He laughs. ‘Well, these are important things. I guess I wasn’t assessing the situation very well and, having escaped from something dire, I thought nothing could be worse. Also I’m sure I was playing up to my comrades a bit, too.’

So his lifelong addiction to gambling is a consequence of near-death as a young man? ‘Maybe. I was so young then. I don’t remember how I felt. I don’t think I was reckless particularly. I was frightened a lot. In action, I didn’t have a choice. Your adrenaline shoots up and at the end of the day you feel great because you have survived and you have been in life, in battle. Fear helps you focus. How else can you be happy that you didn’t die unless you were sure you were going to? When the plane went down I reconciled myself to dying and I remember – actually, I don’t know how accurate this really is – you cross a point where you are scared to death. You think, “I’m actually going to lose my life here,” and then a great peace comes over you. I’m quite sure it’s a defence mechanism in the brain, otherwise you would go mad with fear.’

Perhaps this experience also left him with a craving for stimulation, for acknowledgement that he is, as it were, living every moment. This might explain his self-destructiveness, his need always to swim back to the wreckage. Why else does he like, as he claims, to spin himself around to make himself dizzy?

Equally, though, it could be a form of escapism. Is that why he smokes grass? ‘No, I think it’s just that I like changing my temperature. Grass is not addictive. No one has ever died from it. It will be decriminalised everywhere soon.’ He smokes grass, he adds, the same way he used to drink. ‘I’ve never drunk in the morning, apart from the odd brunch on vacation when I started pushing Bloody Marys down. I never drank when I was working, it never affected my work, and the same with grass. I was never an alcoholic because I never lost a day’s work to it, but I just did too much. I stopped drinking because of my heart [it became enlarged]. At the end of the day you want to have a laugh and sit down and smoke a joint, which I do every day of my life.’

Every day of his life? Of such stuff are rumours made. But perhaps it’s true. And it puts me in mind of a recent comment made by Richard E Grant, who has starred in several Altman films, including Gosford Park: ‘I always feel that Altman understands life – watching everyone all the time and being slightly amused.’