Tag Archives: Endeavour Harvest

THE ENDEAVOUR INTERVIEWS 2018: Russell Lewis Part IV

2 Replies

EXT. WOODS/GINGERBREAD HOUSE – DAY 1

Late afternoon. ENDEAVOUR makes his way through the woods. At last, he reaches, an ancient dwelling that seems to have grown out of the earth itself. Mossy. ENDEAVOUR comes to the door. A raggedy broomstick leant against the wall. ENDEAVOUR knocks.

ENDEAVOUR: Hello? Miss Chattox?

ENDEAVOUR pushes open the door. Darkness…

ENDEAVOUR (cont’d): Good afternoon. My name is…

ENDEAVOUR reacts to something out of view — backs away.

The business end of a single barrel SHOTGUN emerges from the gloom…

DOWSABLE (O.S.): Morse. That’s your name, isn’t it?

… the weapon held steadily in the hands of the formidable DOWSABLE CHATTOX, (80s).

DOWSABLE (cont’d): Morse. I’ve been expecting you.

– HARVEST (P.35 Readthrough Draft)

THE OTHER PLACE

Exclusive ENDEAVOUR interview

With Russell Lewis

Interview copyright © Damian Michael Barcroft 2018

~~~

With thanks to Rosemary Woodhouse

DAMIAN: And I’ve been expecting you Mr… Lewis. Way through the woods indeed! Anyway, who had the wonderful idea to cast Sheila Hancock?

RUSS: It’s been a twinkle in our eye for some time. But the 30th Anniversary seemed to be the right time. It probably took us that long to pluck up our nerve.

DAMIAN: Did you meet her at any point?

RUSS: I’ve met her before – but not during the shoot.

DAMIAN: Chattox? A nod to the Pendle Witch trials?

RUSS: Indeed.

EXT. BRAMFORD MERE

DOROTHEA: Good morning, Miss Chattox. Dorothea Frazil. Oxford Mail. I interviewed you a few years ago, about your battle with the Power Station.

DOWSABLE: I remember you.

DOROTHEA: Still fighting the good fight, I see.

DOWSABLE: If you mean they haven’t seen me off yet, then, no – they haven’t. Nor will they.

DAMIAN: Please tell me this scene was actually filmed and still exists somewhere?

RUSS: I’m not sure it was shot. There was a lot of what the eye doesn’t see, the heart doesn’t grieve over on this one. I think I only became aware of what hadn’t been shot after the event. Our time with Sheila was quite contained – and this may have been a casualty of the schedule.

DAMIAN: I found HARVEST to be a game of two halves; the latter had something of The China Syndrome about it but it was the former element that I was particularly taken with involving Morris Men and their Horse and Fool which evoked films such as The Wicker Man. We’ve spoken more generally about the horror genre before but what specific influences from what we now term “Rural” or “Folk” Horror might we see in HARVEST that contributed to that strange and yet curiously British and creepy atmosphere?

RUSS: Well – obviously – as you’ve identified – The Wicker Man.

The Wicker Man

S4:E4 Harvest

Above photo kindly provided by Charlotte Mitchell

But also Robin Redbreast and a bit of Nigel Kneale’s Beasts. There were a couple of Brian Clemens’ Thriller that played with that ‘something nasty in the woodshed’, thing. One that featured an old family friend John (Juan) Moreno – who you’ll probably know best as Bond’s contact, Luigi Ferrara, in For Your Eyes Only. Cloven hoofs a go-go.

Robin Redbreast

DAMIAN: Also possibly relevant to HARVEST, to what extent would you agree that Professor Bernard Quatermass is the single most important and influential character in British Science Fiction?

RUSS: Did he pave the way for a certain Gallifreyan? Quite possibly. The TV Quatermass casts a massive shadow – but most of it even before my time. Quatermass and the Pit is a classic — but until the Euston Films/John MIlls version – what was that? ‘79-ish? – he was more a character one got second-hand from memories of the previous generation.

Andrew Keir in Hammer’s third adaptation of Nigel Kneale’s work, Quatermass and the Pit (1967)

DAMIAN: Many great actors have played Quatermass over the years but who would you say gave the definitive screen performance?

RUSS: I liked Andre Morrell, but probably Andrew Keir — the TV and film incarnations in Pit — which is probably my favourite story.

INT. THURSDAY HOUSE. HALL/LIVING ROOM – NIGHT 1

Onscreen – black and white: a rangey Dennis Hopper-alike, at the wheel of an open top car on a lost highway. Poor Man’s Process with much over-steering of the wheel.

NARRATOR (V.O.): Meet Edwin Brewster, age thirty-five. Occupation, drifter. A nobody from nowhere, about to make an unscheduled stop in a town not found on any map.

WIN watches TV — not taking it in.

NARRATOR (V.O.): For he has entered a dimension that lies somewhere between sleep and waking. Dream and nightmare. Life and death. It’s a region we call, ‘The Other Place.’

Opening sig for ‘The Other Place’ – theramin and surf guitar.

DAMIAN: You could have made up any TV show and yet you chose something reminiscent of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. Why?

RUSS: It seemed fun to do. And played into the overall theme. Originally – the American couple were a nod to a particular Ira Levin novel that came out in ‘67.

I think there was more material to do with them trying for a baby… So between them, and the paganism — we were setting up a blind to what was really going on. The Other Place thing was just underlining that deceit. But – yes, it was our salute to Rod Serling – who casts a giant shadow.

DAMIAN: What’s your all-time favourite episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits?

RUSS: Too many to choose from. I like deserted town stories – so Where Is Everybody? – the Pilot, I believe – would have to be up there. And Stopover in a Quiet Town also falls into that category.

Where is Everybody?

Much of The Avengers has a similar vibe. A lack of Supporting Artists in the background lends everything a slightly surreal and dreamlike quality. How much of that was a budget call which dictated a creative decision, I don’t know — but in my memory at least – it seems very much a part of the the show’s DNA.

E/I. ENDEAVOUR’S FLAT. BASEMENT – DAY 3

ENDEAVOUR is fingerprinted. SCENE of CRIME dusting for prints. TREWLOVE, back in uniform, fingers along ENDEAVOUR’s mantel — finds the photograph of ENDEAVOUR as a boy with his mother.

STRANGE: Little toerags. Sorry, matey.

ENDEAVOUR: One of those things. We see enough of it.

STRANGE: Yeh, but you’re one of our own. What d’they nick?

ENDEAVOUR: Radio. Record player. My signed Rosalind Calloway LP. Beside that there was nothing worth taking.

STRANGE: Why they smashed the place up.

Amongst the wreckage — STRANGE spies, the JAMES LAST LP he bought for ENDEAVOUR as a house warming present. He picks it up, slips the LP out of its slipcase. Vinyl intact. STRANGE exhales — relieved.

STRANGE: Least this one made it.

ENDEAVOUR: Small mercies.

DAMIAN: While Lewis was obviously mischievously joking when he asked Morse in the original series if the piece of classical music he was playing in the car was Andrew Lloyd Webber (a beautifully played moment), Strange is completely genuine and oblivious with regards to James Last and isn’t it fantastic moments like these that economically sum up almost all we need to know about him and his polar opposite relationship with Endeavour?

RUSS: I suspect their differences are why they get on – in their fashion. Strange makes much more of an effort with their friendship than Endeavour. He’s clearly fond of him – and there’s admiration too, for his abilities. A thoroughly decent cove is old Strange. And the one man you’d want to see coming round the corner if you were ever in a tight pinch.

DAMIAN: If someone asked me if Endeavour would have a picture of his mother I would have, obviously incorrectly, said absolutely not. And yet, there it is in his flat following the burglary, a photograph of Endeavour as a boy with Constance. I thought Endeavour was almost in denial about his past so why would he want to have this sitting in a frame on his mantlepiece?

RUSS: I think it was put there as it was something he recovered from the wreckage and didn’t want to lose. The plan would have been to put it away again once he’d got the place straight. As you say – it’s something that would have been laid up. Out of sight, out of mind. Sometimes we reach to the back of a darkened drawer only to catch our fingers on a forgotten knife.

DAMIAN: Of the many scenes that never made it to the final cut, was it particularly painful to lose Sam’s return home which obviously resulted in him not appearing in the entire fourth series?

RUSS: Yes. We all love Jack B., and miss him around the homestead. But story is always king — and the plan had always been to reflect the changing times by way of the Thursdays changing family circumstances.

DAMIAN: Not that she isn’t genuinely sorry and traumatised, but was there ever a sense for you as a writer, or perhaps between Shaun and Sara in playing the scene, that Joan was using the Wessex Bank robbery and the death of Ronnie Gidderton as an excuse to leave Oxford and escape the conventions and expectations of an almost predetermined life that she’s only half in love with?

RUSS: Mmm. I’m probably a bit more inclined to take her at face value. I don’t think anyone realised quite how deeply Ronnie’s death affected her. She held herself utterly to blame. It was too much for her. She had to get away – but I think the self-imposed exile was also her punishing herself.

EXT. OXFORD – DAY

WIN and SAM on their day out.

WIN: Well, that was nice.

SAM: So, what do you fancy for this after?

WIN: Oh, I don’t mind. You pick. I am glad you’re home, Sam.

SAM: I know.

WIN: I wouldn’t want you to think I wasn’t. Just… with everything.

SAM: She’ll come home. You’ll see. You know Joannie.

WIN: Stubborn. Like her father. You take more after me.

SAM: Well. Some of us have got to be sensible. Right?

SAM slips his arm through WIN’s and they tootle off…

DAMIAN: If Joan does indeed take after her father as is stated in this cut scene, does this perhaps foreshadow even more dark times and trouble ahead?

RUSS: I wouldn’t want to give anything away.

DAMIAN: I thought when I first watched it that there was something about the production design that reminded me of early the Bond films and then there it was in the script when I read it; your description of the Bamford Goldenrod Reactor Building as ‘A Ken Adam fantasy of gantries and walkways towering high above the floor.’

In addition to Fleming obviously, the cinematic Bond owes so much to people like John Barry (for the sound if not composition of the Bond theme – not to mention eleven glorious music scores), Peter Hunt (the innovative editing style and later direction of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) and the fines tastes and style of director Terence Young. Visually speaking however, isn’t Ken Adam arguably one of the most significant contributors to the 007 series?

RUSS: Yes. Absolutely. He’s a bit of a touchstone for us — and gets another run out in this series.

DAMIAN: We’ve touched on Bond many times, but remarkably, I don’t think I’ve ever asked you who your favourite Bond is…

RUSS: Easier to pick a favourite Bond movie. Daniel Craig’s Casino Royale is the best of the modern era. Certainly my favourite of his to date. There’s been some great set pieces in the others – but, come on, Mads Mikkelsen for a villain, and Eva Green delivering arguably the most fully realised female character in the franchise. (Dame JD’s ‘M’ notwithstanding.) But – you know – it had pretty incomparable source material to drawn on. Consequently, it felt more faithful to Fleming’s original vision than anything for a long time.

And yet… It’s a dead heat for me with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. With Lazenby’s sole outing maybe just edging it by a period nose. John Barry’s sublime score. Dame Diana Rigg. Telly Savalas turning in the best Blofeld of the classic period. (Apologies to Donald Pleasance). Ilse Steppat’s Irma Bunt. Gabriele Ferzetti. Piz Gloria. The set pieces – the various ski chases and bobsleigh sequence – are sensational. It’s just a first rate adventure/thriller that can be enjoyed on its own terms. I’m a sucker for snow.

The first three Connerys are pretty sacred. But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Goldfinger’s blockbuster success set the template in concrete – which is a bit of a pity. Dr. No very much a period piece now. From Russia With Love is a great spy movie, and felt very much its own thing. After Goldfinger, you can pretty much follow the bouncing white dot at the bottom of the screen, knowing exactly how it’s going to unfurl. I’m sure there are exceptions to the rule, but a good number of them thereafter seem locked into the tramlines. The only place left to go is bigger. It starts to creep in with Thunderball, and by the time of You Only Live Twice it’s just massively overblown. Which is probably why OHMSS felt so refreshing – like the reset button had been hit.

The least said about Diamonds Are Forever the better. Great theme song – but otherwise very hard to love. There’s a sourness about it that leaves a nasty taste. Maybe it’s that much of the main section of the film has a Las Vegas setting. It’s suddenly vulgar – reeking of stale cigar smoke and a gambler’s desperation – in a way it never had been before. Bambi and Thumper. Plenty O’Toole. Eek… A sign of the changing times. Tricky Dickie in the Willard Whitehouse, and Watergate just around the corner…

I suppose Ernst Stavro Blofeldd had to be grafted on as the stories were shot out of sequence, and there had to be a pay-off for the ending of OHMSS, but I always preferred the fate of Dr. Shatterhand in the novel of You Only Live Twice.

I guess that’s one of the things I like so much about 007’s latest incarnation. He bleeds.

DAMIAN: I agree with regards to OHMSS which I personally believe to be the best and certainly the most stylish of the series. I’m a huge fan of Lazenby’s 007 and think he did an amazing job especially considering it was possibly one of the most difficult roles in cinema history to take on after Connery. However, for me, he’s in joint first place with another underrated Bond – the magnificent Timothy Dalton. Yeah, his two entries weren’t the best (although I greatly admired the grittiness of License to Kill) but he’s possibly the greatest actor to play Bond. And there’s just something about his look – those eyes – which is how I imagine Bond when I read the novels. Personally, I think they should leave the current franchise alone and simply adapt all of Fleming’s original stories almost word for word, set them in their proper period of the fifties and sixties and adopt the style of From Russia With Love. That said, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson seem to be doing OK without my input.

Anyway, back to Endeavour and the power station, in the script Blake turns to find Endeavour ‘frozen to the stop — staring down between the latticed steps to the ground, floors below’:

BLAKE: Constable.

ENDEAVOUR: Heights. I can’t bloody move.

BLAKE: Vertigo, is it? Poor chap.

DOROTHEA comes across.

DOROTHEA: Just shut your eyes and take my hand. Come on. One foot in front of the other.

Freudian nightmares aside given the circumstances in which she was cast, am I completely wrong is suspecting that Dorothea is attracted to Endeavour – just a little bit?

RUSS: Hate to disappoint you, but I don’t think any of us look on their relationship that way.

DAMIAN: You occasionally recycle scenes that don’t make the cut for future films so, and as much as I would love to because it’s quite a revelation of sorts, I won’t describe it in detail – let’s just call it the lime-juice and gin scene – please tell me you have plans to revisit it?

RUSS: Mmm. Yes. Most of these scenes we’re talking about are character moments — and they’re always the ones to suffer in the cut. I repurpose and redeploy some of them – not out of general indolence – but because they’re important, and shed a light on our heroes and heroines. Plots can change – but the characters still have the same baggage. And it’s nice to see some of that from time to time.

DAMIAN: What can you tell me about FILM 4: COLOURS?

RUSS: Not much. Part of its genesis was a news report that turned up in research – concerning a hairdressers in Oxford. It seemed to fit with our theme for ‘68. Turbulent times. Elsewise – there’s a collision of worlds.

DAMIAN: Russ, thank you very much indeed.

RUSS: You’re welcome.

BRIGHT: Oh – there was one more thing. I have this day received a letter…

[The following scenes appear as originally written in the readthrough draft intercut with those between Endeavour and Joan in hospital which are pretty much how we saw them in the broadcast version and so not included here]

EXT. THURSDAY HOUSE

THURSDAY at the kerb. TAXI there. WIN in the back seat.

WIN: Come on, Fred. We’ll be late.

THURSDAY: Just give him another five minutes.

SAM comes out of the house.

SAM: He [ENDEAVOUR] can’t make it.

THURSDAY: What d’you mean he can’t make it?

SAM: That was him on the phone. Something’s come up.

THURSDAY: I’ll give him ‘Something’s come up’ when I see him.

SAM: Go on. Good luck.

THURSDAY get in the TAXI, which pulls away. SAM watches after them…

EXT. LONDON. THE MALL

A BLACK CAB drives up the MALL towards BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

BRIGHT (V.O.): I am instructed to inform you that Her Majesty The Queen has graciously approved the award of…

INT. BUCKINGHAM PALACE. AUDIENCE CHAMBER

A gloved hand pins the GEORGE MEDAL to THURSDAY’S breast.

BRIGHT (V.O.): …the George Medal to Her entirely well-beloved subject Detective Chief Inspector Frederick Albert Thursday for Special Services in Defence of the Realm…

EXT. BUCKINGHAM PALACE

THURSDAY and WIN outside the palace.

BRIGHT (V.O.): Given the circumstances details pertaining to the award will be neither cited in the Gazette, nor entered into the public record.

WIN inspects the medal.

WIN: ‘For Gallantry’. Get you.

THURSDAY: Fancy the pictures? As we’re here. There’s a Lee Marvin at the Gaumont.

WIN: War, is it?

THURSDAY: Pie n mash after, if you play your cards right. I might even let you take me home.

THURSDAY slips his arm through WIN’s and they head off.

DAMIAN: Every week I’ve tested your patience by asking why such and such a scene was cut but again, this is even better than what we saw onscreen isn’t it?

RUSS: What can I tell you? We’re always up against it for time. I think in this instance we did shoot this sequence — but it didn’t make the cut. I write them pretty much to length — and then there’ll be requests for additional material — something that’s not landing just so that needs help, or something that hasn’t been realised quite as well as we envisioned — and the original stuff gets squeezed out. Perhaps one day — when we get to the end — we’ll look at them again, and do definitive, unexpurgated cuts. Or at least package together all the out-takes – and moments that didn’t make it. You have to be careful though — the tone of something can change hugely in the edit. Structure too. And some of them wouldn’t bear the reintroduction of those excised scenes.

JIM LOACH: An exclusive interview with the director of tonight’s ENDEAVOUR

Jim Loach – Director

An exclusive ENDEAVOUR interview

by Damian Michael Barcroft

DAMIAN: Hello Jim and thanks for this. Quite understandably, and for rather obvious reasons, you never originally intended to become a director. However, would you agree that even very early on in your career, you still clearly felt compelled to tell stories in some form or another?

JIM: I guess. I mean I was always telling stories – most of them quite tall, and they often got me into trouble!

DAMIAN: So, having studied philosophy and worked in news and current affairs, why did you then decide to actually become a director after all, and perhaps even more to the point, although I can appreciate the link between this and your recent projects, why did you leave campaigning journalism to work on soaps such as Coronation Street and Hollyoaks?

JIM: Well my heroes were people like John Pilger and Paul Foot and the great Don McCullin. I wanted to be a heroic journalist, and so documentaries and current affairs was an incredibly exciting place to find myself. Plus I was lucky enough to be making documentaries for World in Action, which was the iconic current affairs show at the time. At Granada television, there was kind of an understanding that you could move from World in Action to Coronation Street – directors like Michael Apted had done it. And by then I’d admitted to myself I wanted to make drama, so they let me have a go on the Street.

DAMIAN: I wonder if forging your own identity as a director was an important issue for you, and if so, were you therefore ever tempted to stay clear of projects that one might, rather simplistically, describe as films with a social conscience?

JIM: I’m still working it out, I think. I mean it’s probably no secret it’s something I’ve struggled with at times, but I kind of don’t think about it too much anymore. You know there’s some things that are easy to pass on because they’re just too close to my Dad, but generally I’ve kind of made my peace with all that. I just follow my gut, and do the things that I’m passionate about. People write what they write, think what they think, it’s not for me to try and control. Mostly it’s OK.

DAMIAN: And given that identity was a central theme in both Oranges and Sunshine (2010) and Life of Crime (2013), do you think this is what attracted you to two these projects?

JIM: Yeah I guess. Plus I liked the characters in both, and I wanted to see them on screen. Identity is always fascinating to me – who we are, what makes us who we are, I think all drama can be reduced to this, in a way, because it’s the essence of the human condition isn’t it ?

DAMIAN: To deal with Oranges first, was the impetus behind the film to explore the person, Margaret Humphreys, or the issues her work raised?

JIM: Well I came across the story and I just was amazed and shocked by it, and really wanted to make the film. The fact that an incredible woman was at the centre of the story, with her own dilemmas, just made it stronger to me. So it was both those things really, in tandem. I thought there was something very primal about the idea of children being separated from their parents, and the story had very visual elements – so I knew pretty much straight away I wanted to make the movie.

DAMIAN: Who approached Margaret [above] and what was her initial reaction to making a film based on her memoirs?

JIM: I went to see her, and she was pretty wary. For good reasons, which I fully understood. Maybe I just wore her down, I don’t know! Margaret is a very close friend now, and I’m so fond of her.

DAMIAN: Like someone such as myself asking their subject interview questions such as those found here I suppose, how does a writer or director get to the truth about a real person they are making a film about without becoming manipulative or exploitative?

JIM: I think you just tell the truth, as it seems to you in that moment. Honestly I don’t see it as any more complex than that. When we made Oranges, we didn’t want to be mawkish or sentimental, and of course we felt a huge responsibility to the real people involved, to make sure they would be OK. But at the end of the day we also had a responsibility to make a film that connected with a wide audience.

DAMIAN: Emily Watson gives yet another extraordinary performance in this film. Using Emily’s portrayal of Margaret as an example, can you tell us a little bit about your method of working with actors in terms of research, exploring characters, rehearsals and possibly improvisation?

JIM: With that film, Emily spent some time putting in what I call some building blocks for the character…. where she went to school, college, where she’d met her husband, where she worked, that kind of thing. I think working out the stuff that’s before the events in the film is most important, rather than rehearsing scenes from the script. Emily and I worked together very intuitively, I think. Not too much chat, we’d set the scene up as truthfully as possible and then just start shooting – always very long takes, not too much cutting. There was a lot of emotional content to every scene, so we didn’t want to hinder that in any way.

DAMIAN: In many ways, both Margaret Humphreys and Denise Woods, the character in your three-part police drama Life of Crime, share quite a few similarities don’t they?

JIM: Well they’re both very strong women, not to be messed with!

DAMIAN: What do Oranges and Life of Crime say about our society when the relationships between the husbands and the lead female characters in these two stories are severely challenged, or ruined in the latter case, because of their work as crusaders for truth and justice?

JIM: I think the private cost of public duty is a great dramatic dilemma – it’s a circle that can’t ever really be squared, although it doesn’t stop anyone trying.

DAMIAN: Hayley Atwell who played Denise Woods is probably most famous internationally for her appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe such as Captain America and Agent Carter. How did she become involved with Life of Crime?

JIM: I love her work and we met up and talked it through. It was a tough shoot, and Hayley turned in a brilliant performance.

DAMIAN: Obviously an actor will audition for a part but how does a director usually get chosen for a film or television project?

JIM: Well there’s a difference between the projects you have developed yourself, and those that are sent to you. I like both, but it’s a different process. If it’s a script you’ve been sent – you have to audition, like everyone else! But I tend to be quite careful, you have a sense of where your zones are, material-wise, if you know what I mean. And my agents tend to only send me stuff they know I’ll respond to.

DAMIAN: And can you describe how and why you think you were approached for ENDEAVOUR?

JIM: I was really keen to get back into British television, as I’d been away for a long time. And I met Helen Ziegler, our supremely talented producer, and we talked it round the houses. For me, it’s always a combination of the material, the writer and the producer that makes me want to get involved.

DAMIAN: So you get the job, you read the script and then, because I’m fascinated by the whole process, I wonder what happens next – can you take us through your approach to directing tonight’s ENDEAVOUR, HARVEST?

JIM: Well we started with a brilliant script of course. Without that you really haven’t got anything. But then I loved the elemental feel of it, and the very pagan, ritualistic story, set against the modernity of nuclear power. So that central conflict seemed very cinematic, and like a representation of Morse’s inner conflict. So together with the brilliant Ed Rutherford, our director of photography, Alison Butler, the designer and Charlotte Mitchell our costume designer, we developed the visual plan for the piece. We wanted to use lots of low, direct light straight into the lens, flares and all that… we wanted a kind of ethereal, ‘other worldly’ feel, where anything is possible.

DAMIAN: In terms of camera angles and setups, do you ever wish you’d have approached certain scenes differently when you see the rushes of during the editing process?

JIM: Shall I lie ? Yeah, course. You’re constantly confronted with your mistakes, but you learn to try to work in a way that enables you to cut them out! It’s when you’re stuck with them you’re in trouble. But then again, you’ve got to take risks I think – playing it safe isn’t really an option. No guts, no glory, I reckon.

DAMIAN: I don’t know if you’re a fan of ENDEAVOUR or INSPECTOR MORSE, but do you think it is a help or a hindrance if directors are “Morse literate”?

JIM: I think you can do it either way. I don’t personally like to get too hung up on what’s already been done, and the references and all that are cool, but I’d personally prefer to leave them for the audience. You kind of have your own thing going on, and you want to develop that.

DAMIAN: There are often many revisions to the script throughout the shooting of ENDEAVOUR, can you describe your collaborative process with the writer Russell Lewis?

JIM: Russ is an exceptionally talented writer and a pleasure. Basically he told me what’s going to happen, and then I got on with it! We had a lot of fun, and he’s a very collaborative writer, full of ideas. When everyone sat and pondered, he’d go out for a crafty smoke – and come back with the solution.

DAMIAN: I know that Shaun Evans has a very particular view and insight into his character, often sharing his own opinions regarding the motivations of Endeavour etc. At what point would you say that most of his queries are resolved, during pre-production or while shooting?

JIM: Well anytime really. Anytime is fine with me, so long as it’s post coffee. We talked all of the time, throughout the whole process. Inevitably a lot of stuff gets worked out as you shoot, because the whole thing has come to life then, and the questions become more urgent and real, in a way. Shaun has a brilliant eye for the detail, which is important because ultimately he’s the guy that’s got to tell us what’s been going on. I loved watching him from the camera.

DAMIAN: And with a cast of such a high calibre as ENDEAVOUR, isn’t it a little daunting to direct actors who know their characters inside out and have been performing them for some years now?

JIM: Not daunting no, because actors are actors, you know? The process is the same. You’re all searching for the the truth of the piece, and looking to stretch yourself creatively.

DAMIAN: As opposed to projects such as ENDEAVOUR, would you say you enjoy more creative freedom when directing your own films which might be described as a little more intimate or personal?

JIM: In a way, yes, I mean on my films you kind of have complete freedom, because you are the originator of the project. But then I have to say the producers gave me a lot of creative freedom with this, which was really brilliant. It’s exactly what you want from producers really – encouraging you to go for it, to have the courage of your convictions. So creatively it was very rewarding, and I’m very proud of the result.

DAMIAN: Each ENDEAVOUR film has had a different director (apart from FIRST BUS TO WOODSTOCK and HOME which were both directed by Colm McCarthy), is there ever a sense that directors are expected to remain consistent to a particular style or are directors free to put their own visual stamp on their episodes?

JIM: The producers told me to put my own stamp on it. There’s no ‘house style’. They want you to do your thing. So that was a big reason to get involved.

DAMIAN: Would you say that you have a particular visual style?

JIM: Oh god, you know it’s not always easy to articulate, because it’s sort of intuitive, it’s a part of you. It’s a reflection of how you see the world, people, relationships, your aesthetic tastes, your hang ups – absolutely everything. I mean, I would say definitely yes – but that’s probably for others to judge…

DAMIAN: Which film or television directors do you admire?

JIM: So many. Cassavetes was my hero, the Dardennes, Winterbottom, Lynne Shelton, David O’Russell. So many. I think I’m probably influenced by everything I see, in some way – I guess we all are.

DAMIAN: What can you tell us about your new film Measure of a Man which I believe is due to be released sometime this year?

JIM: It’s a classic American coming of age film, about an overweight kid, who just wants to fit in. It’s a film I’d wanted to make my whole life really – I think it’s a genre that American independent cinema does so well – and Stand by Me has been a film that I’ve always loved. I wanted to make a movie with more of a smile on its face, just lighter in tone – I thought it was time to have some fun. So there’s a lot of humour, but I think it’s a story that anyone can connect with, because we’ve all felt like an outsider at some point. Judy Greer, Luke Wilson, Donald Sutherland star alongside young Blake Cooper, who is incredible.

DAMIAN: And what is the legendary Donald Sutherland like to work with?

JIM: He’s deadly serious about the work of course, and tonnes of fun also, so it’s a good combination. I think he’s the most technically accomplished actor I’ve ever worked with, and he found an extraordinary emotional connection to the character. He’s done something quite special in Measure of a Man, and I can’t wait for people to see it.

DAMIAN: Your next film after that is another collaboration with screenwriter Rona Munro. What is it about her writing that you find so engaging?

JIM: Rona writes dialogue which is so beautiful, and so true, and we adore working together. I think we see the world similarly, which is important, and balance each other quite well, except she’s much cleverer than I am. I hope we can get to make another film soon – we have a script ready. But first I’m going to be making a film called The Panopticon – it’s a fantastic script by Jenni Fagan, adapted from her own novel. It’s set in Edinburgh, and a really special project.

DAMIAN: I notice that many films these days, particularly those with a relatively small budget, have many production companies, distributors and financiers credited in a list almost as long as its cast. How difficult is it to get your feature films made and into cinemas?

JIM: It’s hard, and getting harder, but others are better placed to say why. I just want to be able to raise enough money each time to make the films I want to make.

DAMIAN: What do you think you’d be doing now if you hadn’t decided to become a film and television director?

JIM: Ha, God knows! Centre midfield for arsenal?!

DAMIAN: Well I’m glad you did, particularly when you direct projects with such honesty and integrity. And I must say, I much prefer to see you directing in Oxford as oppose to Weatherfield. You know, I remember seeing Russ as a child and he kept a sick pigeon in a box at the bottom of his bed until it was well again. I wonder if you had any birds as a child – a kestrel perhaps?

JIM: HA! No birds, but we did have a cat called Fanny. Don’t ask why…

DAMIAN: Jim, thank you very much indeed and all the very best with all your future work.

JIM: Thanks!

All the interviews and articles on this website are original and exclusive and I would please ask that the copyright be respected. Therefore, please do not use quotes or any other information contained here without permission. Thank you.