Ae Fond Farewell...? Paul Laverty on Jimmy's Hall

“You just never take it for granted, and I’m sure this’ll be the last time,” says Paul Laverty a couple of days before escaping Auld Reekie to Cannes – his eighth time with a film in competition – with new feature Jimmy’s Hall. Whether this is Ken Loach’s long-time screenwriter just being modest – and a man of great modesty he is – about their continuing popularity at the famous French film festival or a more pointed reference to rumours of Loach’s imminent retirement from narrative features remains unclear. The former lawyer and human rights activist is way too savvy to be tricked into confirming anything. “We’ll just have to sit down when the dust settles,” Laverty explains. “If he does documentaries, he’ll do that with other collaborators. We’re very close friends; we’re talking and there’s a dialogue all the time. He’s my friend first and if he wants to take it easy, that’s great.”

Should Jimmy’s Hall prove the duo’s dramatic swan song, it will be a fitting one; the story of Jimmy Gralton – communist leader, agitator and educator in post-Civil War Ireland – couldn’t be more suited to their thematic agendas. Laverty is relaxed, charming and eager to talk as we meet immediately after a screening of this impressive new feature. It was actually an old friend from his time in Central America, playwright Donal O’Kelly, who put Laverty on to the tale of the only native ever to be deported from Ireland. “It was a lovely little ripple from Nicaragua,” he says. “Donal sent me some information on Jimmy Gralton, which sparked my interest, and then I found out about his little hall.”

Gralton, who emigrated to the US 1909, built the Pearse-Connolly Hall on his first return to County Leitrim in 1921. In defiance of the Church-driven, oppressive regime Ireland was subject to, the hall was used as a free space for education, dances and Gralton’s socialist rhetoric before being closed by the Free State Army just a year later. His life in danger, Gralton fled to back to the States. Laverty and Loach’s film focuses on their subject’s second return home, and his re-opening of the hall. “There’s so much mischief in it,” continues Laverty on what attracted the filmmakers to the project. “There’s a group of people coming together, there’s dance, there’s music, there’s free space. It resonates beyond Ireland in the 1920s, it resonates beyond the Catholic Church. It’s about power. And building a free space where you can ask tough questions, but you can also dance and have fun and educate yourself.

“It’s a very interesting moment in Irish history,” explains Laverty. “De Valera – who lost in the civil war – ten years later he gains power, so there’s talk of support for the farm labourer, support for the small farmer, support for the poorer community, and it felt like things were beginning to open-up after ten years of authoritarianism after the very brutal government after the civil war.” It was this change of government that prompted Gralton to head home once more, the promise of newer, modernist free thinking. “That turned out to be illusionary,” as Laverty and Loach’s film dolefully points out.

The Pearse-Connolly Hall was re-opened for classes and Gralton’s addresses upon his return, and once again came into opposition with the Catholic Church. Jimmy’s Hall sticks very closely to the historical events that took place, but with Gralton’s character – and interactions with other characters – embellished. “The personal relationships are imagined. We don’t really know what happened,” says Laverty. “I talked with Jimmy Gralton’s relatives. I asked if there were any relationships he would have had with anybody in the area and they said, ‘You would never know.’” They’ve created a charismatic, but unassuming character, tenderly played by the little known Barry Ward (a dead ringer for Aiden Gillen, but without his innate sinister edge). “If you’re going to see a character all around, you’ve got to imagine what their person, what their soul’s like. If you don’t, it’s dead.”

The balance with which the story is told is one of the great successes of Jimmy’s Hall, and Laverty’s script. The oppositional Church figures are very skilfully drawn: if not quite sympathetic, they at least come across as having genuine concern for their parishioners, if being misguided in that concern. “I’m glad you feel that,” says Laverty, “because that’s very, very important.” He continues on this topic at length, clearly enthused by discussing the better written antagonists. “The priests denounced him from the pulpit, and there were several of them, so instead of writing three or four priests we turned them into these two characters. When you read their speeches, or what they did, I mean… they just were like monsters. And they were very, very crude. I’m just guessing now, but judging from their speeches, and what they said, I suspect [the composite characters] Father Sheridan and Father Seamus are much more sophisticated and more humane, really.”

In many ways, elderly priest Sheridan is a more interesting, conflicted character than Gralton. He has a curiosity and awareness of the changing world, but he's unable to disassociate himself moralistically from the conservative Church. “For me he knows about poverty,” Laverty says of Sheridan. “He knows about Marxism and The Communist Manifesto – ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ – and he realises in a time of poverty that notion of solidarity is very, very important. And he respects that solidarity but, because they’re atheists, he feels he must crush them. He thinks they’re antichrists. But he’s got respect for Jimmy, because he’s not selfish, he’s not corrupt – in some aspects he’s got amazing respect for his integrity.” The complexity of their relationship makes the central drama that bit more immersive; the nuance of the characters bring the conflict to life, giving it room to breathe. It's far more than simply demonising the low-hanging fruit of early 20th century Catholicism.

There is an authentic feel to the characters and a number of set-pieces that suggest improvisation, but this was apparently minimal. Laverty bristles a touch when asked how much of the dialogue was fully formed before filming; the goodwill we’ve built-up dissipate slightly. “There’re a lot of stereotypes kicking around that simplify… I mean, the script is very, very carefully written, and rewritten, and rewritten, and rewritten.” I am admonished. “Ken always gives space to the actors to throw lines and to say things. It goes back to editing, though, and sometimes it can go back very, very close to script again. But sometimes there are marvellous lines added in the moment. I mean, if you’re watching a film, and you hear the script in your head, you’ve totally failed. It’s got to sound alive and fresh. I think Ken’s masterful at that, at getting that from both actors and non-actors.”

---

“I just want Ken to do what he feels like doing. But he comes to life at work, and he’s still like a Whippet” – Paul Laverty

---

A standout scene, where Jimmy and his cohorts discuss an invitation for Jimmy to become more politically active in the community once more – and the potential pitfalls of that invitation – is one which certainly feels alive and fresh, thanks to the contribution of the actors. “There’re so many different points of view that you’re trying to balance. You’ve got to make it live and they’ll throw-in lines here and there, but all those positions have to be worked out and carefully analysed and true to the characters.” The dynamics of the scene are superb, and the tension of the room comes across wonderfully: ideally, everyone wants Jimmy to stand up, but it could just be too dangerous. It is beautifully played, with a number of the participants despairing at their willingness to deny their beliefs to keep their leader safe. “It must’ve been a very difficult decision for them to make,” continues Laverty, “because they must’ve known they’d come for Jimmy again.”

The discussion turns to his collaboration with Loach on the film and over the years. “I was over for all the prep and all of the shoot, which was handy because I’d done all the research!” he says. “Ken’s a guy who really welcomes a writer. You couldn’t find a more generous director to writers: he’s not scared of contributions, he’s the exact opposite. He’s a man who collaborates massively.” 

And what of Loach’s rumoured retirement, and Laverty’s future plans? “Ken said that at a moment in time when he was right in the eye of the storm really, you know? He was away for the best part of a year, and that’s a massive effort when you’re in your late 70s. He’s got great, great energy and I just want him to do what he feels like doing,” Laverty says, pausing before offering a playful caveat: “But he comes to life at work, I have to say, and he’s still like a whippet – so I’ll wait and see how all that settles!”

I have to press Laverty to talk about how he sees his own future in filmmaking progressing, if he even has one. After all, so intrinsically linked is his career to his director, it wouldn’t really surprise me if he doesn't plan to give it a thought until Loach’s plans are confirmed. He is reluctant to move into directing himself, however. “Nah, I think everyone should do what they get most excited about really, and I suppose digging around and writing is what I get most excited about. I think they’re very different jobs, writing and directing,” he explains, then again turns the subject to Loach. “I think it’s great to find good collaborators who’ve got talents that you don’t have, and I’ve just been fortunate to work with such a talented director for so long. We’ve had a great run and I’ve learned masses from him, so I consider myself very fortunate.” We can only hope it’s a partnership that continues a while yet, but, if this is to be the end, we can all count ourselves fortunate it lasted so long. A great run, indeed.