Having become known for a gory, gruesome franchise, those going to see their latest film, Insidious, which was co-produced with the team behind Paranormal Activity, may be in for a little surprise.

Insidious is the story of a couple played by Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson who appear to become the occupiers of a haunted house after their young son falls into a coma. But what initially seems like a fairly generic Amityville Horror style chiller soon turns into something markedly different, yet all the while retaining a stripped back, spooky feel, light on gore but heavy on atmosphere. The pair seem eager to speak about what seems like a new direction.

Why did you want to make this film?

LW: I think it was the exact right moment to make it. James and I had been working on various projects, together and separately, that were moving very slowly for various reasons. And we started talking about going back and making a completely independent film with a  video camera. James was talking to me about it, and I started really warming to the idea of, just going out and shooting something. Why do you need someone’s money, just shoot it! And right at that moment the producers of Paranormal Activity came to James and said ‘we’d love to do a very low budget film with you guys’, and it was just perfect timing. That started the whole thing.

You say it’s a very conscious step away from the sort of work you are known for, and about being frustrated. Was Insidious an antidote to Saw?

JW: I think the very nature of a haunted house movie is that it doesn’t need to be a blood and guts movie like Saw. I think I wanted to show people that it’s possible to make a scary movie without relying on all that stuff, the blood and guts, and that was part of the reason. But we’re also just big fans of those movies, and of supernatural stories, and we wanted to make a really scary haunted house film, but one with a new twist that we would bring to it.

You talk about the influence of haunted house films that you love, which you can spot whist watching it. Are those nods intentional?

JW: Yes and no. Story wise we were very much influenced by ghost stories we’ve heard over the years from family and friends. Visually I went back to make a very old fashioned looking haunted house film,  so I went back to classic films like The Haunting by Robert Wise, The Innocents, classic old fashioned haunted house movies.

LW: But also using that weird David Lynch sense as well.

There is definitely a bit of Twin Peaks in the scene where Barbara Hershey [who plays the mother of Patrick Wilson’s character] is talking about her dreams

In unison: Yes!

LW: Right, right, we love that…

JW: That sequence is actually based on a particular story that happened to my grandmother. Someone told me they had had a really scary dream that involved her, and I though ‘Oh my God this is scary stuff’, so we found a way to put it into the story. But it definitely has a very Lynchian sensibility to it.

You have generally worked together. Is there something about the relationship that you think is particularly fruitful?

LW: I think we have similar sensibilities. The types of films that James wants to see are the same types that I want to see. So when we get excited about an idea it’s great, partly because we’re really tough on ourselves and because we don’t want to put all the effort into making a film unless we really think it’s special.

Going back to the influences, did you ever feel burdened by them? Did you ever feel worried that what you were doing was going to be seem too much as a genre piece?

JW: I think that’s part of the fun, knowing the conventions in these kinds of films and knowing what to break and what to embrace. One of the things that Leigh and I really hate fake scares, the shot in the mirror when there’s somebody standing behind them. We’re not big fans of that. If I’m creating a suspense sequence, we want it to be real. We want it to be because there’s a ghost or a demon about to break through. So it allowed me to stay away from things that I think are cliché, but at the same time take a cliché and subvert it and spin it around. For instance, the couple in this film do something that most couples in haunted house movies of this type don’t usually do. But I won’t say any more!

You have several different supernatural elements operating within the house. What was it about that mixture that appealed to you?

LW: We felt that the different elements of this film is what made it interesting. We’re not really into making films as an exercise, like making our version of a straight western. We would need to have a twist on the western that we thought no one had seen before, and that’s how it was with Insidious. Haunted house films are very rigid. It’s a very ‘over done’ genre and we wanted to bring something different to it. I don’t think we could have done it without all these different elements.

How did you come up with the different ghouls?

LW: Different stories that we’d heard

JW: Also coming back to wanting to make a movie that harked back to old school style of filmmaking, movies that take place in the Victorian era have ghosts in the corner in a Victorian gown. This movie has entities that are from another period, and I would say and it adds another little layer to this film. And it’s what makes it fun for me, because i get to design the way they dress, the way they put their makeup on and the way their hair is done. That’s what actually sets it apart from other haunted house films

So it’s a toy box, where you pick the elements you like.

JW:  Yes, but hopefully it still feels organic to some extent and doesn’t feel too out of the box. It still has this umbrella over the whole thing.

Not to give too much away, but what about the casting, especially of the creepy old lady ghost. Was that hard to do, to find the right people?

JW: Well that comes back to wanting my ghosts to be a bit more quirky. I knew I wanted a boy ghost, but I didn’t want it played by a little kid. And I knew I wanted a creepy old woman ghost, but I did not want it played by an old woman. I’ll just leave it at that!

What’s next for you both?

LW: We’ve been talking about a sci-fi film, and we’ve mentioned it so much we’re going to have to make it. I better whip something up quick! It will actually be a musical comedy but it will be set in 2028.

Could there be a sequel to Insidious?

LW: We never really think about stuff like that. It seems strange coming from the Saw guys because that is seen as this huge franchise. But on the original Saw film we weren’t thinking of sequels at all. We thought it had a really hard, clear ending, and we think the same with this film. But who knows what the future holds.

Insidious is out now.

FAN THE FIRE: Can we go back to the beginning, how did you get involved in the project? Did you find the audition process difficult or challenging?

EMILY BROWNING: I think it started out the same way for all of us; we all put down the same monologue of Sweet Pea’s. Then after that, for me, I was called in to meet with Zack, who was great, and I read the script before that, which I loved. I thought it was amazing to see such a strong, well-written action film with almost an entirely female cast; something you very rarely see. Then a couple of weeks later Zack asked me to put myself on tape again, this time reading as Baby Doll and he wanted me to sing for him too. That aspect of it was certainly challenging.

FTF: Did you worry that you were not going to get the part?

EB: Absolutely! I’ve never sung before in my life, but I wanted this role so badly, and I love Zack so much, so I agreed to do it, and went into my agent’s office, locked myself in a room and did maybe 20 takes before finally telling my agent, “you pick it, I can’t even look at which one we’re going to send him,” then I didn’t sleep for about three days until we heard back.

ABBIE CORNISH: I did the same initial audition that everyone did, which was with the Sweet Pea monologue; so when I got called back in to actually audition for Sweet Pea I was really excited. I read the script in between those two auditions on the Warner Bros. lot. and was beside myself; I couldn’t believe someone had come up with this film, had developed this concept in their mind and managed to transfer it to the paper, let alone to the screen. It really is a testament to Zack that he got Sucker Punch all the way from his mind onto the screen.

FTF: What did you like about Sweet Pea?

AC: I just felt that there were so many layers to her; I was interested in the idea of someone living in those confines; within an imprisonment that was placed upon her by the outside world, and what that did to her as a human being, as a woman. She had learnt to live by the book, squashed all of the sensitivities of the inner child, all of the vibrancies of who she is, deep deep down inside, and locked it away so no-one could get to it, no-one could harm it. She took on the role of the protector, the survivor, particularly having a sister like Rocket who’s so wild and free, she really is Rocket’s reigns. To play and explore that, and the journey of Sweet Pea releasing and opening up, the journey back to find that place deep down inside and bring everything back again, was amazing.

FTF: Where did you find the motivation for the role and did playing such a dark and layered character take it’s toll when you were off-set?

AC: I was constantly thinking and processing, not just about the film, but about the relationships, about the metaphors, about the symbolism, about this character; I kind of danced a fine line for a little while, between those things that were inside of her, and then this tough outer shell. I didn’t know whether to try and embody it all within the whole film or to have faith in the book-ends of the film, and let Sweet Pea be a dimensional character that you see different sides of in different worlds. But certainly, it was hard to play a role that tough every single day, and sometimes I would get home and all I wanted to do was snuggle up, cuddle and be sensitive. It was an interesting thing for me because I was playing a character that’s hard on the outside, who’s tough, who has to drive decisions, who has to look after her sister, and there is no relief for her from that.

EB: I think everybody has a certain darkness that they’re able to tap into; just as humans we have that side to us. I just spent a lot of time thinking about the character and imagining her back story and there’s where it came from for me; I think you get a pretty clear idea in the montage at the beginning of the film that Baby Doll’s home life had not been the most pleasant.

FTF: Is there an actress or character in action movies that you drew further inspiration from?

AC: My female action hero was my mum; I had inspiration that I lived with. My mum was Australian national karate champion when I was about 9 years old, full contact champion. It was pretty amazing.

EB: My mum wasn’t a karate champion [laughs] but I feel like I have a similar relationship; she was my main female role model, and similarly in a physical way, my mum played basketball her whole life, she was a personal trainer for a long time. Every time I bring a boy home she wants to arm wrestle them, and usually wins [laughs], so it was a similar kind of thing for me I suppose. In terms of cinema, definitely there are some very cool female characters in the Kill Bill movies; I think Uma Thurman’s character is just amazing, and also the schoolgirl with the pigtails, the Japanese schoolgirl…

FTF: Gogo Yubari?

EB: Yeah, and the actress is also in Battle Royale, so especially in terms of inspiring the Baby Doll character, who has that same school girl kind of look, but also is just a very stoic, tough character, though obviously baby doll is the good guy, helped inspire me a lot.

FTF: As Australians actors, what do you think it is about the country that is producing such fine film talent?

AC: I’ve got a theory on it [laughs], it’s just from my experience; I feel like Australia is such a beautiful landscape, and so expansive and untouched, I think it’s a very spiritual place. I know growing up as a kid, I have some of my fondest memories there; I grew up on 170 acres, so I had so much space to think and imagine, and you could see every star in the night sky, the sunsets were exquisite, and when it rained, it rained, you could feel the earth kind of reacting. And then there’s something about Australians, we’re relatable people, we’re interested in each other, we like to have a good time and get to know each other. We love the earth, we love to get our hands dirty; the floor and fauna of Australia is incredible. It’s a place that has a lot of energy.

FTF: Were you an urban girl Emma, or a farm girl?

EB: Both actually, my dad lives in the city, so I spend a lot of my time in Melbourne with him, and then my mum lives 45 minutes out, which in Australia, is country essentially. I kind of had the best of both worlds; I would run around barefoot and build treehouses and swim in dams all the time when I was out of the city, and that was amazing, plus I have the urban upbringing as well.

FTF: With Sucker Punch being such an ambitious project, it was was thing to make the movie, but surely entirely different to see it for the first time, what did you make of it when you watched the film for the first time?

EB: I loved it. I was completely blown away.

AC: I loved it as well, for me it kind of evoked even more thought and I’m more and more becoming fascinated by the bookends in the film. I’m kind of fascinated by the symbolism, and every time I watch it I see more details, if that makes sense, which is interesting because after having worked on it for seven months, and talking about it for seven months, to actually watch it, sometimes it takes a while to understand and uncover the film’s subtleties.

Sucker Punch is out now.

It’s an altogether harsher, more dramatic experience than we’re used to from him.  But Tatum seems relaxed with the demands of an arduous shoot in the Scottish Highlands, breezily recounting an unfortunate accident on set as he slips into a London hotel to talk about a film that may well give him a new level of credibility.

“They try to keep us warm”, Tatum recalls when discussing how hot water would be poured into their clothes to keep them warm on set. “This poor guy was running up and down a hill that was about ten minutes out of where we were shooting. He forgot to dilute the boiling kettle water with river water. Once it’s poured down you pull your suit away from your body and it just keeps going lower. I had no skin anywhere down there to speak of. But we’re good now; it’s pretty regenerative down there!”

If that seems like an unusually jovial way to recount a pretty gruelling experience,  then it is in keeping with the tone of the conversation. Jamie Bell, Tatum’s co-star, is also on hand to discuss a long, cold shoot. Despite the travails it seems they had a whale of a time. “It was childish stuff” says Bell, grinning ear to ear. “We got to ride around and throw swords and spears on horseback . It was really good fun.”

The story of The Eagle, even if it takes in some serious themes of honour, reads like the perfect boy’s own adventure.  Based on  Rosemary Sutcliff’s much-loved The Eagle of the Ninth, it sees Tatum plays Marcus Aquila, a young centurion who travels north of Hadrian’s Wall in AD 140 to recover the eponymous Eagle, the standard of his father’s regiment which disappeared more than twenty years before. Joined by Bell as Esca, the slave on whom he relies to pass unnoticed amongst the Gaelic speaking tribes, it is a tale of an arduous journey and blossoming friendship across societal and class divides.

Kevin MacDonald (The Last King of Scotland)  came to make the film as a fan. “I read the books when I was eleven or twelve, and it made a big impact on me.  I grew up in Scotland, and I couldn’t imagine there being any Romans there, so it captured my imagination. Then I heard 25 years later that Duncan [Kenworthy, producer] had the rights.” His stars, though, had some catching up to do. “It was my favourite subject in school” says Tatum, explaining his attraction to the part, “I think because of the stories and the characters. Gladiator and Braveheart were my favourite films. But Kevin was great. He comes from the documentary world, and he inundated me with a lot of material that I could sink myself into.” Bell came to the film from a different perspective. “I was completely unaware of the novel, and it was really the screenplay that I read a long, long time ago. After I had met Kevin I then went and read the novel, which is obviously a fantastic journey of the same characters.”

The result is a surprisingly physical adventure story, and one that has gotten into some trouble with American censors.  “We agreed that the film would tell us what the rating should be” Kenworthy explains. “You can’t have a film on battle and warfare without having some violence, but we weren’t making it because we were driven to make a gory spectacle”. Of the cuts, he says “I’m glad that the film is 12A here, and that is the director’s cut. It was rated a hard R in America, and the studio wanted a PG-13, so we had to make a few.” MacDonald elaborates. “They’re very literal in America. You’re allowed blood on the ground but not  in the air”, to which Channing responds “I’m sorry!” in a voice of mock-apology. The spirit of the team seems unusually good, and MacDonald in the end dismisses any controversy over the film’s gore. “I think that it’s striving to be historical, and to put these men’s lives into some sort of context. In doing that you have to have a certain amount of horror to show the danger they’re in.”

It was a tough experience, but one that was aided along by a spirit of fun, as well as an element of competition. “We’re both competitive with each other, and we really pushed each other through some of the harder scenes”, says Bell. “You know, whose got the fastest horse, whose got the best fight scene, who can stay in the river for longer!” Tatum agrees . “Jamie and I did get along so well right off the bat”, he says.  “We had to make sure we reminded each other of it because we never really laugh until the very last scene, but we were laughing all the time [on set]. It’s just a small knit family and you go through hell together. I really think that’s what Jamie and I did”.

MacDonald agrees about the arduousness of the shoot.  “A lot of the shooting was in quite remote locations, particularly in the villages up in the Northwest”, he says. “You had to walk quite a long way. It was so windy and there was a terrible a patch of weather just before we started shooting. The guys were only wearing period costume most of the time. It was hardly Gore-Tex”. Tatum nods in agreement. “Even if they’d told me it was the coldest thing you’ll ever go though in your life, I still don’t think I would have understood until the second day. You’re soaked all the way though, and outside for thirteen hours like that. We couldn’t get trailers out, and we would hike in for twenty or thirty minutes. Kevin  was carrying cameras and reels out to the set”. If the film’s producers had asked why only Rob Roy had really shot on location, here was why.

An often spectacular battle with the terrain, The Eagle is a physical, CGI-light affair. Bell at least was partly prepared, having had a similar experience when making Defiance with Daniel Craig. “The next time I make a film and it’s comfortable, that will be uncomfortable” he grins. Indeed, while the plot becomes increasingly silly, the thing that keeps it compelling  is the convincing physical journey of the two leads. “The physical nature of getting it done was part of the struggle” Bell says. “In the story, it’s their endurance and stamina that gets them though it. I don’t think we had the same endurance and stamina. There were moments when we had to keep each other going”.

It was not just the landscape that needed conquering . “I think we got very lucky, because we’re very good physically”, says Bell, discussing the training that went into the roles. “We both have physical backgrounds, predominantly in dance, and you can compare that to things like sword fighting or even horse riding. I had never ridden a horse before, which was a big gamble, but I was very honest about that. A lot of actors lie, but I learned from scratch.” Bell’s training, though, was very different from Tatum’s . “I tried to bulk up a little bit, as we wanted these characters to feel that they could  definitely take care of themselves. But obviously Channing is very big, and his character is a trained, formal fighter. We wanted to differentiate Esca as a feral, wiry, instinctual fighter. We did that in rehearsal.”

Tatum, meanwhile, practised relentlessly with weapons in the lead up to the shoot. “My first training was probably in the backyard swinging around sticks, and I have had training before with martial arts. But you’ve got to be really careful. You want to make it look like it’s an extension of you, just a part of you that you’ve trained over and over again.” Portraying a fearless centurion decorated for bravery, his determination also extended to stunt work. “We did almost all the stunts except for the river scene”, he says, talking about a sequence in which Marcus and Esca swim down a dangerous river canyon.  “They wouldn’t let us go down the rapids because it had been raining for a month straight. The river had risen three feet, so it was too dangerous.” You can sense the disappointment in his voice.

Bell seems to agree about the toughness of the stunts, although the seriousness doesn’t last for long “I think when you’ve got your fellow actors incredibly game for doing a stunt” he begins, “and obviously very competent at doing it, it requires you to really step up”. Channing instantly starts guffawing at Bell’s use of a film title that might be coming back to haunt him now he’s in the serious acting world. Bell protests, “that really wasn’t intentional at all! You can’t pussy out on them, you’ve gotta step up to it!” The whole table breaks into fits of laughter.

Not all of the shoot was such fun, though. Of shooting a scene in which Tatum holds nemesis the Seal Prince (Tahar Rahim, A Prophet) underwater, he says “It’s so cold that when your head goes under all thought, all air goes out of and you, and you are just in shock. He’s supposed to tap me when he’s ready for me to pull him up, but he didn’t”. Rahim was unharmed (he is sitting next to Tatum as he recounts the story) but it underlines the risks of making such a film. Unpleasantness of a different kind occurred during a scene in which Esca, accustomed to the necessities of surviving in the wild, forces Marcus to eat a dead rat. “I still don’t know what they gave us to eat, do you know Channing?” says Bell, with Tatum laughing, shaking his head. “They said it was the gelatine that holds together Haribo treats. Bullshit!” MacDonald pipes up at this point:  “Let’s break out the rats!” he says gleefully. Tatum glances at him, amused.  “He decided to do a  few extra takes because I think he was enjoying it so thoroughly. We were literally retching!”

It is in these scenes that The Eagle manages to separate itself from the pack, by acknowledging the harsher realities of a warrior’s world. This extends to the near total absence of women. “I don’t think it’s ever refreshing not having women around”, says Tatum, “but I thought it was really smart to make the decision to really stay with these two, and not feel the need to fall into the stereotype of needing to have a  love story. They really just focus on the friendship”. Bell agrees.  “I don’t know how you bring that convention into the film without it becoming convoluted . But there was a serious lack of women around; way too much testosterone!”

Bell was filming Steven Spielberg’s  motion captured adaptation Tintin shortly before making The Eagle. “They’re two completely opposite things. One is technology, one is nature”, he says.  “You would think that one would be more freeing then the other, being in nature and having that physical environment, which did inform the performance. But I find that motion capture allows you to ‘fill in the blanks’. It is a space which is inventive, and it becomes much more creative than you can imagine. It’s strange to go off to the Highlands of Scotland and actually interact with real animals and real people. But it’s funny, it works against the way you think”. It’s an appropriate final note about a film, and its stars, that impress in ways you don’t expect.

The Eagle is out now.

Publicists buzz with anxiety, journalists shuffle self-consciously, but here Sutherland is completely and perfectly at home; the ultimate pro, the born performer.

Sutherland is in town to promote The Mechanic, the new ultra-glossy, ultra-violent ‘Stath’ vehicle in which he has a small yet significant role. “How are you?” Fan the Fire asks in a timid attempt to build rapport. He takes his time to respond. “I’m 75. Never ask anybody how they are at 75.” Nervous laughter all round.

Sutherland’s voice purrs. He looks, a little, like a humanised lion, with his long, stately face and shock of grey hair. It’s a face and a voice that has starred in over 150 movies, including The Dirty Dozen, MASH and Don’t Look Now. And yet Sutherland is still going strong, appearing in six movies this year. What keeps him going? Why, as a 75 year-old millionaire, does he carry on acting?

“It’s a drug, acting. It keeps you young for a very short period of time because when you walk off the set you’re still yourself. It’s the pursuit of truth, I think. It’s really a boring thing to say but it’s true. I have a hero – Michaelangelo – and when he started a sculpture it would start fat but it would become wire thin. He cut it down to the essence of the character. So you try and look for that.”

Before interviewing Sutherland, Fan the Fire had heard stories. He’s known as the Sutherland Express – however much you try and guide the interview, he’ll pick you up and take you wherever he wants to go. He’s been in the business, and played the game, for over 50 years and has picked up a few stories on the way. When asked what he thought truth was in acting, this is what we got:

“Brecht wrote a poem to the factory workers of Denmark when he was escaping the Nazis in Germany and heading to Hollywood. And he wrote this poem to the guys in the theater. It’s a long poem but at the centre of it is that they must compare and observe, compare and observe, and to distill it down until what you give to the audience is like what Alexander Pope said: ‘True Wit is Nature to advantage dress’d,. What oft was thought, but ne’er so well express’d.’

“You know Sam Goldwyn years ago addressed the screen writers guild and he said that he had discovered the secret of acting. He said the secret of acting is honesty, and once you learn to fake that, you’re in. But you can’t fake it, it has to be honest.”

This is man who has received direction from Fellini, Roeg and Altman and acted opposite Brando. The film he is here to promote doesn’t seem to fit in with his oeuvre. Maybe he’s too good at the press trail, but he seems genuinely excited by his new film, and by the force that is Statham.

“To see a young actor like Jason Statham come from what he was in the Italian Job. He was a performer in the Italian Job, and he was good. He held himself well. In this film, and in the scenes with me he was stoic and implacable. And golly the stuff he did at the end, it was exquisite. His love, his grief, his love, his loss. He was able to bring that out and I was thrilled. It’s an action film, it’s a violent film. But more than that, Simon West has been able to make a film about the relationship between fathers and sons, which is important to him and it’s important to me. And those two boys did a wonderful job.”

He has, to be honest, got a point. The Mechanic is burger and chips after a few pints cinema, but even a good burger and chips has its own distinct charm. Something suggests The Mecahanic won’t be an experience Sutherland will remember for the rest of his days. But this is a man of the movies, through and through. What, Fan the Fire wonders, is it that he loves so much about movies?

“A good movie takes you to another world. It lifts your psyche and your intelligence and allows you to participate in a world that you would never have been invited in. And for two hours time stops. And with any luck, it informs you. La Strada, or Paths of Glory – those two films sit in my heart. All Quiet On The Western Front sits in my heart. Klute, even still my own film, sits in my heart and speaks to me.”

And so he raises to shake hands, before passing his hand through his grey mane, and shooting a glance at the stoic, implacable cardboard cut out of Jason Statham.

They were granted unprecedented access to the Hicks’ estates mountainous archive of unseen footage and photographs collected by the wild man himself throughout his career. They have been given what may well be the last say on one of America’s most important spokespersons, and they have proved more than worthy of this huge responsibility.

FtF: How did a project like this leapfrog LA, New York, Chicago, etc and end up at your door in London?

MH: Bill is always someone that was thought of as culturally significant in the UK, and for some reason there had never been a full length telling of his story. There was a short documentary made shortly after he died which was just over 35 minute film. But it struck us that Bill had this amazing life which has this wonderful, almost Hollywood, arc to it in terms of his overcoming the drink and drugs and becoming very successful and then getting terminal cancer at the age of 32. It seemed that that story was something that people needed to know about because Bill lead this real life of meaning, and he was also a groundbreaking comedian who changed the way a lot of people saw what comedy could do. So I think that it was something we both believed that, as a story, had a wonderful aspect to it, over and above any personal interest that we have in Bill

PT: And it was one of the great, unmade bio-pics as well so we were fortunate that it came along for us to pitch at channels. Then it’s a case of making something that stands out. This began as part of a series for Channel 4. There had been a few documentaries in previous years, such as The Kid Stays in the Picture, that had used a more basic version of the animation technique; and Touching the Void was also this hugely cinematic documentary that didn’t feel like a generic documentary, so already we knew that the documentary form was evolving at that stage. And it was becoming more cost-effective to do it on computers, you didn’t need to employ Hollywood Studio or the more expensive Post-Production houses here [in Soho], regular animators can now do this. So lots of things all came together at that time to make this possible.

MH: And also, the Hicks family hadn’t spoken for 12 years. They had had offers but I think that they were very wary of going with people whose motives weren’t quite clear, and wanted to make lots of money. So they were quite cautious but I think they also felt that now is the time to put this story down as a historical record. They knew Bill’s story was important and they needed to tell it. So all of these things were coming together at the same time and we were lucky enough to be in the middle of that.

FtF: And you had organised Bill Hicks tribute evenings in London before hadn’t you?

MH: Yes, we had done some live events which involved comedians and then footage of Bill which I had sourced on the internet, but this was back when you bought VHS tapes. The idea of that was just a tribute night, ten years after he died, and that was when we first got in touch with Bill’s family so we had been in touch with them before taking a film idea to them. We just wanted them to know what was going on in the UK, and how their son was still being thought of. And that was our first contact with Bill’s family.

FtF: What was it like sifting through Bill’s enormous archives of footage and photographs? Did you already know what you were about to find or was that a voyage of discovery for you?

PT: We didn’t know at all. The animation side of things developed as we went along, so we just had to start at the beginning and build on it as the story developed. We knew it was going to work as an approach but we didn’t know, scene by scene, what it was going to involve. We didn’t know how much or how little the photographs would relate to the story we were telling; and as the story develops there are more and more constructed scenes that have to be put together to tell the story. All the interviews were conducted right at the beginning, but then you job is to uncover the real story. So you cant go in with preconceptions of what people have said and what you have read. Especially with Bill’s family where there is a very polarised view that has been presented before. The job is to put all of that out of your mind and really find out what the truth is.

MH: In terms of the archive, there was some amazing stuff that we found. We were aware that there would be some unseen footage, and a lot of the material is either Bill’s personal tapes that he had got out of the back of VHS camcorders, some of which were over 30 years old, or stuff that his brother Steve shot, and that’s the sort of shaky Handicam stuff towards the end. But I think the most affecting stuff was some of the voice-recorded tapes that Bill made for himself. He was alone quite a lot, and when he had no one to talk to he quite often spoke to a tape-recorded. And just the idea of that 18-year-old kid in LA scared about whether he is any good at comedy is very touching; and also, in a weird way, we felt that Bill hadn’t made that tape with any specific use in mind, and we were the ones that ended up using it so that was very strange. It actually felt, on some level, like he had actually made that tape for us; and it felt very personal. Obviously are job is to make sure everybody else gets to hear it as well because it gives a lot of insight into who he was as a performer and a person. But that was certainly one of the most interesting bits of archive, that these real little personal messages that Bill had left on little tape recorders, which were lying in boxes in his mum’s spare bedroom.

FtF: What was your experience of working with the Hicks family? Did you get a sense that they were trying to guide your depiction of Bill? Or were they as open as memory would permit?

PT: Well that’s kind of our job as filmmakers… to make sure that nobody ‘guides’ you. We had several days with each person and they were deep and emotional interviews. The family were very open about everything really. They were aware that there had been earlier depictions of Bill’s childhood, and obviously what you have is the mists of time, so you are asking people to remember things from a long time ago. But there was never any sense that they were really trying to portray him differently. But how did that seem to you?

FtF: I got the impression that they were entirely honest in their recollections of Bill; he has a public persona of being quite volatile and corrosive, and so I thought perhaps his friends and family might be overly defensive of his character, but they clearly see no reason to hide elements of his character or try to portray them in an insincere way. He was who he was, and the people who knew him loved him for it and clearly still do.

PT: Well yes, and you also have to remember that they have been portrayed by other people in the past. There certainly were words had in that household and Bill was certainly a fiery teenager, but with only that side of the story being told by friends who saw him shouting with his parents… I mean all teenagers shout with their parents! And this is certainly something that I have been aware of throughout my career, is that there is often a lot of pressure from broadcasters to go for the sensational. I mean everybody cried during these interviews, but we haven’t just pasted that across the screen. Now I know full well that if we had done that in a Sky doc and Sky had seen that footage, they would have insisted that I have everybody crying on screen. So obviously, if you’ve got a few lines about a kid shouting at his parents, that’s what you’re going to put in. But then all you end up doing is distorting the real picture, and your job as a filmmaker is to present an accurate and rounded overall picture, and that’s what we did.

FtF: Was it difficult to track down any of the people from Bill’s past that hadn’t been involved with his family and friends for a long time?

PT: Yes that was certainly an issue at first because we were just two unknown British guys. I suppose a lot of the early work happened with the family. It was a case of winning trust because I think they had a fairly strong idea of who we were and so they were willing to talk. Then it was a case of us building the project and getting broadcasters involved, because the family are approached by people all the time so they want to know that a project is realistic. Mary really helped by letting other people know that the family were getting involved with this project, but it still wasn’t until the last minute that everything really came together; literally the day before we flew a couple of people weren’t decided and it was only when we were on our way that they agreed. But of course what happens then is they meet you and you start doing interviews and you build up a proper bond, and trust gets established when they find out who you really are.

We did the interviews in quite an unusual way because we didn’t take any crew in, it was just the two of us. Because these people aren’t celebrities, and it’s very easy to put people off when you turn up with crew and lights, so instead we went for a very naturalistic set-up, with people sitting at home in their own environments. And we even started recording without the camera, so it’s just pointed at the floor, just to get people talking, and then we introduced the camera more slowly, which is why it comes across so naturalistically, but it is very easy to blow that.

FtF: How much did Bill inform your opinion? Did you look back at his famous routines and find you had a new perspective on them after interviewing his relatives and sifting through his archives of personal footage and pictures?

PT: Well, everything in the film started with the material on stage, and I think it is fairly natural that that informs everything that is happening. One thing we had the benefit of was watching scores more performances than other people have seen. And often it’s the bits between the well-known routines where you really feel Bill, and a lot of those moments have ended up in the film. The essential job is to be true to that person; we obviously had these ten people telling the story, but the job is to convey who this enigmatic character is, and that counts for both the onstage material and the interviews. There is a subtle job being done by everything and so when you leave the theatre you can come out with a very strong idea of who a person is. Showing what Bill’s comedy was about, and who he was as a person, informs most of the storytelling. You start with a much longer version of the story that isn’t as coherent, and as you edit the thing down you cut the bits where Bill’s character isn’t coming across as strongly or the story is wandering of the track of his comedy developing; and the more you cut it down the more distilled a picture you get of this guy.

FtF: Did you ever worry about making a film that would appeal much more to Bill Hicks’ fans than the wider public?

PT: Well that is the advantage of being independent, in that you are free from that sort of pressure. I suppose there was pressure early on to include celebrities, but we knew that wasn’t the right approach because we were going for the people that really knew Bill. But one thing we were aware of from the start is that this film had to work for fans who already love Bill and for the people who have no idea who he is. But that is quite an unconscious thing that happens when you are forming every scene. You are just automatically aware of an audience and you are crafting it for that wider audience. There are things that particularly play to fans or play to the uninitiated; but it’s really just a great archetypal story, and our job is just to tell the story properly so that it will work for both camps.

FtF: Have there been any big surprises in terms of people’s reactions to the film at the North American festivals you have been to?

PT: Well one interesting thing is that we took a pole at the beginning of a screening and about a quarter of the people said they knew Bill quite well, so that means three quarters of the viewers had come along either to find out more or because they had heard it was a good film.  And that’s great because our job here is to get Bill known on a much wider map, and the festivals certainly seem to suggest that that is working. I was actually kind of expecting some kind of backlash, because the film received so many good reviews up front I was just expecting there to be a journalistic camp that reacted against that. I mean some people haven’t liked the animation and some people have thought it was too long, but overall it was a great reaction and people have told us they have never seen reviews like that for a documentary… ever!

MH: We have always been quite keen to find out what the audience make up was in each of the screenings and so quite often we’d do a poll and just ask how many people in the audience would consider themselves to be either a fan of Bill’s or someone that knew him quite well. That number has been fairly consistent, between 25 and 35% in the US (at the London Film Festival it was considerably higher), and that is very encouraging because that means people have either seen the reviews or the description of the film and decided it was something they wanted to see, or they have been dragged along by somebody who already knew Bill. And that is one of the stated aims or goals for the film is to try and get his word more popularised, and so that has been very encouraging for us to see the diversity of the audience make up. It’s not just for Bill fans, there is a very wide range of people coming to see the film.

FtF: Everybody talks about Bill’s performance at Just For Laughs in Montreal in 1991 as being a watershed moment for stand-up comedy. What are your memories of that event?

MH: Well I personally was just someone who had seen bits of this guy on TV, and then this full length performance, which really blew everyone away, and I think that it wasn’t just the material he was talking about – specifically the Gulf War, which at the time really made people, and especially English comedians, sit back in amazement – it was also the performance skill was so crafted and so adept. He was able to move between really filthy material and really quite sophisticated political ideas, and he could just seamlessly take you on these wonderful flights of fancy. I don’t think people were really ready for him; it wasn’t as if he had developed and grown in the UK comedy scene. People had no idea who he was when he first came over and he suddenly lit everybody up like a Christmas tree. It really was something that people were talking about. I remember people coming up to me asking if I has seen this guy, and that isn’t something that happens much anymore. People used to always talk about The Play for Today and Cathy Come Home and people would say “don’t you remember when…” about specific moments in television history, and everybody had seen them. And that Montreal performance was certainly one of those moments.

PT: We spoke to Bruce Hills, who runs Just for Laughs festival, and he recounted that at that time they were looking to do these one man shows in Montreal but they didn’t know who was going to do them. And Bruce Hills saw Bill in New York, doing over an hour of material on stage, and it just blew him away. And he made a phone call and said, “Right, I think I’ve got the guy.” And Bruce counts that as his proudest moment in terms of the world of comedy. And then Tiger Aspect were over there doing stuff for Channel 4 and saw Bill and got to know him there. And they then brought him back to the UK.

FtF: Web 2.0, and the rise of Youtube, has facilitated a huge increase in the number of people familiar with Bill’s work as snippets of his more famous shows receive millions of hits online. Was this a consideration for you as you started working on the project?

MH: Well I’m not sure that we thought about it in terms of now being a “good time”. I think this film is something that always needed to be made, because of who Bill was and because of the legacy and work that he left behind, and because of how important he is on a cultural timeline. Obviously it is gratifying for us that his most popular clips are getting 1.7 million hits because it means that more people get a chance to find out about him, but I don’t think we considered that as part of the reason for doing the film. It was something that sort of happened in tandem; the rise of Youtube was happening while the project was being made. But the great thing, as you say, is that it gives people a chance to delve into a bit of Bill in bite-sized chunks. I think that is something that Youtube does very well, if you are looking to try and find ten of fifteen new things and you’ve got an hour and you can watch two or three minutes of lots of different stuff. And I think we are hoping that people who have been intrigued enough to watch a four-minute long clip on marketing and advertising might now come along and find out a bit more about the man that came up with those routines and where he was in his life and what may have inspired him to go and do that.

American: The Bill Hicks Story is released in UK cinemas this Friday (14th May). Read my review of the film here.