News Video Reviews Exclusive Content About/Contact

Interview with James Callis on the production of Beginner's Luck (IMDB,TMDb). For the video review click here. Held via Skype call on 06/08/19 FD: What can you tell me about the inception of this project? What prompted you to write the script for Beginner's Luck? What was the inspiration and the intention? At what stage did Nick Cohen joined the project, and how was that collaboration established and developed? JC: It's based on a true story. I did this with Nick Cohen from the outset. We developed it together, wrote it together, we directed it together, we edited it together. It's because we actually met on this dramatic theatre traveling company. We met on such an experience, and tried to chronicle that experience as a film. FD: Was your intention to co-direct the movie from the start? JC: We made this short film together, Surety. And it was a neat little piece that basically involved 3 actors in mostly one location. We decided after that, the next thing we wanted to do, was to chronicle this kind of...real life train wreck of a tour. We met on this tour, and very many things in the film are based totally on reality. We really can't deny it! It happened. Nick went to Cambridge, acted there. I was friendly with him. I was at York university. I ended up acting in some plays that he put down there. But it was before we went to university, that we did this tour. That's how that happened. When we initially came to writing the script and telling the people we were going to do it, most people were telling us we couldn't, and we were mad, and it would never happen. FD: So it mirrors the experience from the script in a way? JC: It really does! Talk about being young and impressionable. More that we were told it can't be done, we wanted to show that we could. FD: How did the structure and the look of the film develop? Were you specific about certain things, or did they develop organically during the shooting? JC: We were very new to it. The first film only required, in some fashion, fewer angles because there were fewer people. It chronicles the first night of a married couple, who end up in their bathroom, while they are burgled downstairs. This alters the course of their relationship, and it isn't based on reality. And this thing was trying to chronicle exactly what happened. School-leaver has an idea, he's gonna go and take this wonderful vision of this play. And when we were writing this script, we were thinking about what's out of the real sphere, what's in the mind of somebody or the subconscious, what's the thing going on. Which is where we developed this idea of an island, and this guy being essentially marooned. But he doesn't realize that that's the case. What happened on this particular project, as we went along, the filmmaking and the ideas became better and more fluent. Every shot that was constructed was possibly better than the last. Really the last stuff of the movie was shot in Paris. And by that stage collectively we really got together as a group of people that knew what each was going to do, and knew where we wanted the cameras. And that particular part of the film has a fluency. It's almost holographic, in the sense of the struggle that's kind of mean, like a real struggle in the front. And as the grit goes on, it becomes maybe slightly more unusual, dance like, strange, until the denouement. FD: How went the process of financing the film? Was it difficult to secure the funding for the film, and were you happy in the end with the available budget? How much was it a constraint/an issue? JC: It was all guerrilla filmmaking. Stolen moments here, and there. Essentially, we had settled screenings of our short film, to bring on investors. And we invited people in the industry to attend them. And some of these screenings were more successful than the other. And in one of these screenings we had two producers from a company called Angel Eye. Richard Osborne and James Harding. I think they've met Nick Cohen previously on some event. And they decided they would be our co-producers and help us with making the film. With them on board, they've made stuff before on TV, they've made their own films, advertising campaigns, they've brought a structure that we very much appreciated and needed. And we also had the help of a young lady called Harriet Evans-Lombe, who I think was also at Cambridge with Nick. She was very smart, very together, and she became our third producer. So there was essentially five of us initially making this thing happen. Getting private investors and tax breaks. We never had started with a whole budget. We started with whatever we had, and our vision was that we were going to continue filming until we run out of money. Looking back on it now, it was a bit hectic, and it was a bit of crazy, but it was also a lot of fun. What happened was, we hired, between us, some really extraordinary actors. Some people that had some real gifts. And many of them were actually friends of Nick, who Nick knew from before. Several of them were friends of mine as well, because by that stage I was leaving drama school. So it was a collection of all of our actor friends. And our actor friends, I just think they were brilliant. Presented with the script, we would film the script, and then the actors would say, "I got some funny stuff I can do with this", "I got some stuff that we could change around". Then we would start doing the improvisations. And the improvisations became a lot more fun that the film. Keeping a straight face during some of them was really hard. That did present us with a problem, in the editing. Essentially, we hadn't filmed the thing that we had on the paper. Because, version of the things that we improvised, we were more in favour, since they were organic, they worked better, they were funnier, they were in the moment. FD: That's interesting to hear, that the film developed organically, during the shooting. JC: I want to highlight one thing. It developed organically, but everything that happened in film, happened in real life. We were improvising around, etc., but for example, some things, like the key being lost in the door in Edinburgh, and one of the people deciding they would kick the door down and do a kung fu kick, breaking a leg in the process, did actually happen. It was morbidly hysterically funny at the time. Even though the guy was in a lot of pain. FD: Can you tell me a bit about the casting process for this film. Did you know any of the cast before? What can you tell me about the collaboration with Tom Redhill (Sacha Grunpeter) and Rosanna Lowe? I see Rosanna Lowe didn't continue with an acting career, while Tom Redhill's tragically died in a car accident, unable to complete the work on his last film. It was a shocker for me to discover this, because I think he was a shining star of Beginner's Luck and had a great future ahead. He delivered a really great performance in Beginner's Luck. JC: All the performances were fantastic. Tom Redhill was always an outstanding actor. He was an outstanding actor at Cambridge, when Nick was in Cambridge with him. I really knew only of him, from people telling me how great he was on stage, what they've seen him do. Actually, for some long time there was a discussion that he would play Mark the director, and I would play Jason. We got together with Nick, and it didn't work out like that. I think, for the better. What happened in the real play was that Nick took some friends of his, and audition some people as well. And during the play and its disintegration around Europe, the friends who had been real good friends from college and school, fell out with each other, and the relationships broke down. We always knew that was the way we were going to end the film. This ridiculous bubble, that doesn't really mean very much, suddenly comes to mean a lot, and is all about to burst. And the weight of that is hardest on friends who follow this...slightly freckles director, impresario...on this journey. We loved filming that stuff. In the house, in Paris, with the eggs. I remember Tom wanting to do that, again and again. Yes, he was absolutely fantastic. And then, Rossana. I believe she is still acting. I think most of the people who were involved in Beginner's Luck are still acting, in some form or another. But Tom is no longer with us. Which is the case with few other people involved in the film. FD: The film also features quite an extended cast and several cameos. How did Julie Delphy got involved with the project? Would like to point out any specific member of the cast or say something on the overall collaboration with the actors? Did the character of Andrew Fontaine came about with Christopher Cazenove in mind? How did he join the project? JC: Julie Delphy was Nick's idea. Nick thought she would be perfect for that role. I thought he was insane, and that she would never want to participate in this project of ours, given her profile. But she really loved the idea of it. Then she met Nick in Paris and I think she realized it's something should would really like to do. It was much the same like in the film. We started the film without Julie attached, and same as the characters in the film didn't know who this person who will turn up to save the theatre company would be. On the day of her filming, Julie arrived in London, ready to start filming. And we filmed that scene, of me going outside and telling the group who is the girl who is going to be Ariel, first. Andre Fontaine. I think he might have been my creation. Essentially, in literature, or in stories, you could have a bete noir or a thing that is not you. Or if you are ying, it's yang, etc. It was like, who is going to be the person you watch on television and think: look at him, they got it made. Basically, they are doing the same, but one is fluent and charming. Also, there was the idea that all of the Andrew Fontaine company would be beautiful. Chris Cazenove agreed to be in it, and he was just wonderful. Literally, most of these people who would agree to be in this film had very short notice. Because sometimes we would film something because we had the location, not because we had everything else. I do remember Chris arriving in a taxi, literally arriving into almost filming, and after a couple of hours again leaving in taxi. And that was just wonderful...for us. FD: The character felt a bit like a satire, a parody of a successful theatre actor. JC: Yeah, we didn't want him to be perfect, we wanted that there would be some edges about him, that would then make you sympathize more with these underdogs. If it was a bit glib or a bit silly, that was intentional, in a sense, he found success, but he hasn't found the answer to life. FD: What can you tell me about the very principal photography? Did you encounter any unplanned obstacles? How do you remember the process? On several occasions the film has quite a cinema verite feel to it. Did the process involve any guerrilla filmmaking? JC: Even if we ended up shooting what for a great part wasn't written, the shots themselves were quite thought-out, what you can notice. Like I said earlier, I think with time we just got better at it. We saw the first rushes and we realized we were very conservative, and we didn't like that style. We went hand held many times to keep the movement, and keep the pace. I think that every city had its own kind of rhythm. Every place had its own kind of visual language. We did want Edinburgh do be kind of cold, sombre, and ominous, because that's when everything threatens to fall apart. And we did want Paris to be, or France in itself to be, I know it sounds a bit lofty, but like the opening of a spiritual experience, for some of these people. And the dream sequences were shot in Zanzibar, in a place called Fundu Lagoon, off the Island of Pemba, which is a twin island of Zanzibar. FD: How much did the movie came into shape during the editing, or was it pretty much fixed in your mind before this stage and editing was simply putting that vision into reality? What more can you tell about the post production process of the film? JC: Because we were producers and directors, and we owned the project, there was nobody hurrying us on, we had all the time in the world that we needed. We spent more time in the edit suite than we did shooting. We had this incredible deal at the place called Luxe in London. One of our close friends was helping us edit. I don't know how long we were in edit suite, but it was months and months. But we were essentially developing our skills as storytellers, and working out what we needed. And because I think it was our first film, that took longer than it should have had. And we knew that we would need some reshoots. There were some things that we weren't happy with, or they didn't satisfy us. Or we felt that some parts of the story needed to be topographically changed. So getting seven or eight people together again for reshoots sometimes, or finding places that could conceivably be where you were, like Paris or Edinburgh, when you were not anymore, were also considerably difficult. FD: What can you tell me about the distribution of the film, how much audience it was able to reach, and what was the initial feedback, both from the audience and the critics? Was it shown on festivals? JC: It went to a number of film festivals. I remember it being in Berlin, I think. There was a mixed reaction. It was a true story, and we tried to make it as amusing as possible and/or as different as possible. Distribution came in the form of ICON, who we met at Cannes, when we were also filming actually, bits that are now in the film, at the front of the film. It seems like a year later, but it's actually from the time when we were actually trying to sell the film. And that appears in the film as well. But that was shortly before or after we had a deal in place with ICON, who had seen our first film. A gentleman called Simon Crowe at ICON seen our first film, and very much liked the idea of this one. There were a few people looking at it, and they've put it out on a very limited release in London, for like a couple of weeks, and we had a print somewhere else. And then it went in like a digital catalogue. FD: What were your feelings about the film back then, and what do you think of it today? Would you like to change anything from today's standpoint? JC: I haven't seen the film in years since making it. But, I supposed as well, I would need to watch it again. It was very raw, the film, and I think some of that could have been in the sound that was not clear as it should have been. FD: To me, didn't feel like a jarring problem. I personally really liked the cinematography and the look of the film in general. JC: There are elements in it that are visually quite compelling and/or beautiful and/or strange. For example, the forest sequence, where everybody goes off and does their thing, individually, didn't really happened. But we decided that in the forest would be some form of transformation. And the transformation, although if it might feel idyllic, there are already people in the group who are very unhappy. For example, as well, the walking through the fountains, that was all guerrilla filmmaking. We weren't arrested, but we were stopped by the French police afterwards. And all of that physical theatre was improvised on the spot, outside Centre Pompidou. Things that we needed towards that was the rehearsal rooms in London and the house in Edinburgh experience, to have that fluency with the filmmaking, because I don't think we would be able to pull that off in London, at the beginning of filming. FD: But how did you feel at the time of the release of the film? Were you satisfied with the result? JC: I've heard this thing afterwards. I've been involved in many films subsequently...but the thing I hear from many directors is that the film is never totally finished. It's just abandoned in the end. Essentially, the studio says, you only have this time in the editing room, that's it! This is the finished version! But no, I don't consider it entirely successful. It has elements in it, that I'm very proud of. I still think it's very funny, and/or beautiful, and/or poignant. And I think the spirit of it carries it long, and the performances, of course. FD: How much were you successful, in your opinion, with communicating what you were trying to communicate with the story? Do you think the movie succeeds in this sense? How do you read the story? How would you describe it. My personal impression that it was a quite brave and relentless portrayal of a total train wreck in execution of an ambition, that doesn't end with this train wreck, but simply continues with these characters not giving up, never stopping to pound you with disheartening reality of their impending failure, holding no punches. It starts with black, but still light hearted energetic humour, and then becomes very dark towards the end. I felt the comedy was tapering off toward the end, as the story became more and more hopeless for the main cast. Not sure how much this was intentional. For a moment I felt you were going to go all the way and finish with someone dying or something. Also, I like how the film flows and looks, and these two aspects in combination is what intrigued me the most about Beginner's Luck. I know there are more layers to the story and the main character that perhaps I'm unable to verbalize, but I'm aware there is more to the story. JC: We just didn't realize so many of the things as we were taking on the enterprise. There is a nice scene in Paris in theatre, shortly before my character decides to break in somebody's house so they can live somewhere. And everything in the room, it all just became so quiet. It was like the language has stopped. It was kind of perfect. The strange thing was, we set out to have this great fun adventure, chronicling this...what was a real bit of a disaster. But the thing what we were doing was also running on very thin ice...almost constantly. And I think that also an interesting dichotomy. FD: I'm quite intrigued by the Anya character, but it is not clear to me what she supposed to represent. I she a reference to something in the Tempest the play? I would be happy to hear your response on my impression of the film. JC: Actually, she's based on a real person, called Sarah. There was something about her character in the sense of the dream world connecting with the real world. Reality not exactly as you think it might be. Some people come into your life and perform this function. They hold you up for some while. And you can't believe the lucky star landing on your head. And it did. But it doesn't stay there forever. Necessarily. Unless you know what to do with it. I think Julie gave a really beautiful performance. This person who is kind of...she was there, but she wasn't there. Very light. She kept everything light. Which is very lovely. FD: I quite liked the soundtrack. Can you tell me something about the choices for the songs appearing in the film? JC: We got together with several people who were interested when we said we were doing a film. Lots of people send us music. We liked certain things. And then what we end up doing, we would be in the edit suite, we would cut the music we liked, an then we would go to the people who we were working with, as asked if they got anything like this. Sometimes they would present something totally different that we haven't thought of, and their idea would work better than ours, and subsequently we would use their thing. FD: I've discovered The World Party through this movie. Karl Willinger. JC: Yeah, lots of great music from Karl. I know Karl through his nephew, Nathan Willcocks, a very fine actor who is also in the film. We know each other from a long time ago. Karl liked the idea of the film, and liked the idea of supporting an independent British film. The soundtrack is very eclectic. I can't remember the individual composers now. FD: You've mentioned that there was a making of documentary made for this film. JC: Yeah, there was. It's hanging around somewhere. But I'm not sure where to find it now. FD: Finally, would you like to say anything more about this movie and/or your work on it? JC: It was an incredible experience, from start to finish. And it was an education. In both of those two parameters it was so vastly valuable to me as a person, as an actor, as a writer, as a editor, as a filmmaker. I obviously have a lot to learn, and I learned a lot. And you learn every time you do a project. Through learning you hopefully become better at it. You learn what works, and what works less well. You become more aware of how what you are writing will have an impact on how it will be filmed. FD: Would you like to direct another movie sometime in the future? Did you enjoy the process? Is this something that still interests you? JC: Pretty much after Beginner's Luck, I've just been doing a lot of acting. That's the thing I've been doing. But I continue to write, actually. I have directed a couple of things. There is a short film All Cock And No Bull! I did in 2017, with Michael Trucco and Tahmoh Penikett. It's something that I very much continue to do, and want to continue to do. Essentially, it's just bound up to telling stories. FD: What are you working on now and are there any projects in the near future that you would be willing to share now? JC: One of the things I'm doing recently is Castlevania, an animated series on Netflix, I am voicing one of the vampires. And I've recently wrapped the first season Blood and Treasure for CBS. FD: Thank you for your time and this interview. JC: Thank you Dean. It's been fun remembering. Copyright by Film Drifter 2019