I always work like lightning I'm two-take Charlie 
He was for his services to British film, but Sir Ridley Scott is also a major Hollywood player, with the Best Director Oscar for "Gladiator" under his belt. And with classics like "Thelma & Louise" and "Alien" to his credit, you could almost forgive him for "GI Jane".
It's interesting that you chose to cast Alison Lohman as a 14-year-old, given that she's in her mid-20s...
Well, when I met with Alison, that was the only time in my life I've ever been conned, because she walked in and I just bought the fact that she was 14. I didn't discover she was actually 22 until rehearsals. But I didn't need to know. It wouldn't have made any difference, and actually it worked out really well; she's got the wisdom of someone who's 22, whilst being able to play a 14-year-old. You know, there's wisdom in certain children sometimes - you can feel you're in the presence of a little old soul.
What about Nicolas Cage - he's known for being quite an intense actor, and very physical. Did you ever have to rein him in?
Rarely do I start getting into emphasis with an actor. With Nic, it was about knowing what I had to have in the editing room. In the event that I think the accumulative effect of what he's doing is too much, I can always cut it back in the editing room. It's better to have more than you need, than not enough. I would never say to him, "That's too much", because then he'll shrink like a flower - all we're left with is total insecurity. I need an actor to be totally confident.
And Nic has good taste. He's very astute, and very knowledgable about film, and not just American movies. When I said Jacques Tati to him, he knew exactly who I was talking about and he says, "Oh, yeah, I hadn't thought of that." So we had this point of reference. And I'm referring to the awkwardness of Tati. There's a lot of body language attached to the comedy.
And the idea of Nic's character [Roy] torturing himself with trivial obsessions is inherently funny...
You know, what you see at the beginning - him doing everything three times over - reminded me of a play about a guy who burgled this place and was convinced he'd left his fingerprints on an apple, and drives himself nuts. He goes back to clean the prints off, goes outside and thinks, "Maybe I didn't do it", so goes back and does it again. In that instance you have to think about when does it stop becoming entertaining, and start being sad. I didn't want Roy to look sad, because it's not about that. It's about guilt, although it's amusing as well.
Did you give your actors room for improvisation?
To a certain extent, particularly with comedy, I like it to happen. But we had the luxury of a well written script, so if it's not broke, don't fix it. With this, improvisation tends to be a quip here or there. Little things like that can come out of the blue, and if it happens, it's great. Once I say, "Action!" it becomes organic. That's why I always have two, or three, or four cameras going for an ensemble cast.
Working with a low budget is unusual for you. Does it affect the way you work if there's less pressure?
No, I always work like lightning. I'm two-take Charlie - but that only comes with experience. In the last ten years, I've been getting faster and faster. I find it's better because actors, for the most part, like to feel like they're really moving forward. But even if I think I have the scene as I want it, I always ask the actors if they're happy before moving on. The actors' call is very important as well. If an actor wants another take, you just give it up, and do another one. It's faster to just do it, than talk about it. Producers particularly can drive you crazy with a whole dissertation about a scene and I'm like, "Shut up! Let's just do it!"
