Where do you stand on sitting down? Do you think it’s weak or lovely? Or both, like a kitten? And why do we ask “where do you stand on…” something rather than where do you sit on it? Can you not properly hold an opinion while seated? They seem to manage on Question Time.
Standing appears to have the moral high ground linguistically and, as that idiom demonstrates, so does height in general. Why shouldn’t low ground be more moral? A righteous ditch, a chasm of goodness. I think the image is probably military: high ground helps with both attacking and defending, which makes it desirable. But then morality and desirability certainly don’t always go together. And what about trench warfare – why weren’t they building little hills like the Normans did for their wooden castles? Was William the Conqueror morally better than Field Marshal Haig?
Why do we “stand for”, “stand against” and “take a stand on” issues, rather than sitting for them, sitting against them or taking a sit on them? Why does sitting make the issues sound respectively like exams, bales of hay and the loo? Wouldn’t these ethical assertions be more calmly and thoughtfully made from a position of greater metaphorical repose? Is it all because sitting is closer to lying and lying is a homonym of lying? Come to think of it, that’s a bit of a hostage to ambiguity; it would be far clearer and more sensible to have dishonesty and corporeal horizontality represented by different noises and/or sequences of letters. Yet more evidence that there’s no God.
I suppose there’s “sit-ins”. They have a moral fibre to them – a rectitude in passivity to rival “taking a stand”. A sit-in definitely beats a stand-in. A stand-in is a poor substitute. But then again, sitting out is feeble non-participation whereas standing out is what everyone in a job interview or on reality TV strives for.
I’ve been thinking about sitting versus standing (overwhelmingly, I must admit, from a seated position) because of Anne Hathaway and Christopher Nolan. Last week Anne Hathaway was doing a Zoom chat with Hugh Jackman for Variety magazine. I’m afraid that’s the sort of thing people have to do nowadays – I’m sure they’d both rather be making films. Well, the subject of films came up funnily enough (that’s my hope anyway), and they started talking about the director Christopher Nolan, with whom they have both worked.
“He doesn’t allow chairs,” said Hathaway, “and his reasoning is, if you have chairs, people will sit, and if they’re sitting, they’re not working.” Does that reasoning stand up? Or sit down but in a way that’s correct? I wouldn’t for a moment claim to be anything other than an out-of-touch media-bubble scumbag, but I have a vague sense that there are some forms of work that can be accomplished seated: appearing on comedy panel shows, flying an aeroplane, delivering a Christmas message to the Commonwealth, rowing in the Olympics. That’s probably about it but there may be others.
Hathaway continued: “I mean, he has these incredible movies in terms of scope and ambition and technical prowess and emotion. It always arrives at the end under schedule and under budget. I think he’s on to something with the chair thing.” But many respondents on social media thought he wasn’t on to something. They reckoned he was the opposite – he was off something, or possibly on something, but not on to something at all. But he should definitely let his employees put their bottoms onto something if they’re tired. Others queried the accuracy of the story or reckoned it was only a rule for actors.
So Christopher Nolan’s spokesperson was forced to speak: “For the record, the only things banned from sets are cell phones (not always successfully) and smoking (very successfully).” The only things?! What about guns, incest or playing the bagpipes? She continued: “The chairs Anne was referring to are the director’s chairs clustered around the video monitor, allocated on the basis of hierarchy not physical need. Chris chooses not to use his but has never banned chairs from the set. Cast and crew can sit wherever and whenever they need and frequently do.”
Poor old Anne Hathaway! She’s been standing around for no reason! She must feel like a mug: not only has she got no one to sue if she ever develops varicose veins but she’ll have to go back to the drawing board to find an explanation for Nolan’s scheduling and budgetary excellence. And she isn’t the first person to think chairs weren’t permitted. Actors Mark Rylance and Barry Keoghan mentioned the policy in 2017 when being interviewed about working on Dunkirk. They also didn’t think they were allowed bottles of water. Nolan’s messaging seems as confused as the government’s during the lockdown.
Of course, Christopher Nolan’s decision not to sit down himself is going to keep lots of anxious actors on their feet, whatever the actual rule is, while others will deliberately sit down as a way of standing up for themselves. The relationship between actor and director is always potentially problematic because both jobs attract, disproportionately if not exclusively, people who want to be the centre of attention. While a film is being shot, the director wins that contest. And then the film comes out and someone else’s face is on the poster.
It’s revealing that Hathaway, Rylance and Keoghan all interpreted Nolan’s preference as a rule. Making a film is professionally risky – as the history of cinema shows, the chances of any given movie being reputationally damaging or disastrous for those involved are unsettlingly high. Plus a light might fall on your head. You’d have to be statistically inept to feel confident but, as most performers will tell you, without confidence, you’re even more likely to fail. Actors, like gamblers, need a reason to feel lucky, they need a system, and a sensible director will try to provide it. Such things are vital to keeping a show business career on its feet.
