Thursday, 11 June 2020

When I Was Allowed to Be in "The Atticus McLaren Mysteries"

 
 Despite my tasty showreel of shorts, for a forty-something actor who really likes film and telly I've done next to no film and telly acting, so I felt very lucky at the beginning of last year to be asked by Spring Horton (top row, second from the right) to come up to York for a week and appear in their passion project filming with an actual crew, playing a likeable supporting character with an actual arc, for actual money. I felt other things as well of course... trepidatious, is it? Can we not just say "trepid", the opposite of intrepid?... but that was in the lead up to the shoot. During and after, I simply felt lucky.


Spring: "Is the clock in shot?"  Amanda, DOP: "Big time." 

 That's Thomas Jennings on the left as the autistic and aromantic asexual hero Atticus, and me as his estranged brother Scout, (which I didn't twig was a Harper Lee reference until three days into the shoot). An autism-friendly adaptation of Spring's own book, The Atticus McLaren Mysteries: Murder at the Museum was the perfect job for a first timer like me. I think Spring was a first timer as well, producing and directing, but they betrayed no particle of the anxiety that they write about here for example, and the simple story of these two brothers reconnecting was so soundly plotted I felt that, for all my inexperience, there was no mistake I could make dumb enough to derail it.


 And I did make mistakes, that's clear when I watch the finished show, available to view on youtube HERE, which is one of the reasons I didn't share this until now (another reason being that Spring hinted they may want to re-edit). Don't get me wrong. I don't bring any lights down or anything, and all my clothes stay on, but my idea of naturalism tests the limits of how much one can pointlessly fidget in front of a camera, which turns out to be not at all ideally.

  That might be why I've got my hands in my pockets here, although looking at it, let's face it, this does seem a little disrespectful. 

 It's fine though. I was learning. And when the shoot was done I was no longer a first timer. I'd finally played a person on a show, and without any shadow of "impostor syndrome" hanging over the enterprise because there didn't seem a done way to do this; I was another of Spring's decisions, like putting the credits in comic sans. I'd been invited to work on something someone wanted to say, a dream they'd taken seriously enough to see realised with confidence and kindess. And I love doing that more than anything.

Spring talks more here.

3 comments:

  1. The only instance of fidgeting that springs to mind is from that scene in which Scout stands by during DI Barnes's first attempt at interrogating Atticus - and even then, I only noticed it because of the way Scout's hands/the leaflet are framed in that particular shot. Which makes me wonder just how hard it is for the actors to adjust their performance to such things as camera shots and angles, something I'll admit didn't so much as cross my mind before.

    Be it as it may, I love the way you brought Scout to life, and how well you and Thomas played off one another. And if memory serves me right, most of the scenes were shot over the space of just one week - without the option of a later re-shoot, should the editing process call for it. Meaning the cast and crew did an amazing job at making the best of however little time (and money) they were afforded.

    (For my part, I still feel incredibly lucky, albeit for entirely the wrong reason, and in spite of achieving absolutely nothing except getting in everyone's way. My apologies. With my most sincere thanks to Spring, regardless.)

    One small thing, though - it probably isn't even worth pointing out in the context of this post, and it's not explicitly stated in the film itself, but as far as I know Atticus is asexual but not aromantic. (I believe he was meant to have a romantic interest/potential boyfriend in an earlier script, which was cut for time/budget reasons.) None of this can probably be inferred from his (one) line about 'not being interested in people that way', but, yeah. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you. The leaflet fidget was particuarly noticeable because I'd consciously decided to do it, but yeah, it had been discussed, no regrets. And you were absolutely not in the way but I can understand how it can feel that way if you're not on camera. Cheers also for the clearing up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah! I've just relocated a Shadowplay article that had been playing on my mind https://dcairns.wordpress.com/2020/05/27/pg-17-5/ It's the second quote, from Robert Mitchum: "If you sit or stand or talk the way you do at home, you look silly on the screen, incoherent. On screen, you have to be purposive. You have to be moving or not moving. One or the other."

    ReplyDelete