Okay so full disclosure: I'm in the film! I play Josh, the charming(ish) guitar player whom Jennie falls for and cheats on her husband with. Before I critique the film let me just say that whatever you think of the film what Neil Rolland achieved as Director/Writer/Producer was astonishing for the budget. He reckons he spent just £1000 and when you look at the talent involved it was honestly so impressive. Notable crew included the cameraman Grant McPhee who's a legend on the independent scene in Scotland and the fantastic up-and-coming director John McPhail as AD. In fact when you look what almost all crew have done since then it's almost like it was a training ground for a generation of Scottish talent and I was just glad I was able to contribute in any way.
The film has all the problems of a small budget production: namely it simply had to be limited in it's scope. Principle shooting only lasted 5 days - I shot my scenes in 2 days and I'm on the screen for 20 minutes which is nuts - and I know that on one day they shot over 20 pages of the script which must be some kind of record! Does it show... yes and no. The film still looks great and the story is very traditional, which is at the same time refreshing, but has to be very narrowly focused which makes it a very intimate personal film but also leaves it slightly under-cooked. It involves unsatisfied lives of both a husband and a wife and what temptations there are to everyday people. In that regard it's extremely relatable and Neil is very good at teasing out scenes that we've all probably experienced ourselves many times - though sometimes we'd prefer not to think about it. When I saw the film I objectively enjoyed a lot of it but felt that Neil had a fantastic 50 minute story that had been stretched into being an hour and 15 minutes. I think if he'd added more development in the third act we'd be looking at something a little larger than what we got. Obviously I understand this keenly but I wonder how a general audience might feel? The acting is good (obviously) and was an absolute joy to be part of. I love my scenes with Kerri. It was her first major film role and she knocked it out the park. I have issues with how timid her character is but Kerri played the role as best she could. I was playing a bit of a cliché and I'll leave it entirely up to the viewer how well I did. What I did try to do was humanise the character so that although he's a bit of a cad he's at least understandable. Neil himself plays the jerk husband and had a lot of fun with it - though he plays a loser.
Overall I can see the film's failings clearly but to me they don't matter. There's a compelling, realistic drama at the heart of it and I genuinely enjoy watching it. But most of all I'm immensely proud of being able to help Neil achieve a bit of a minor miracle and hope he goes onto bigger and better things in time which I know he's eminently capable of.
The film has all the problems of a small budget production: namely it simply had to be limited in it's scope. Principle shooting only lasted 5 days - I shot my scenes in 2 days and I'm on the screen for 20 minutes which is nuts - and I know that on one day they shot over 20 pages of the script which must be some kind of record! Does it show... yes and no. The film still looks great and the story is very traditional, which is at the same time refreshing, but has to be very narrowly focused which makes it a very intimate personal film but also leaves it slightly under-cooked. It involves unsatisfied lives of both a husband and a wife and what temptations there are to everyday people. In that regard it's extremely relatable and Neil is very good at teasing out scenes that we've all probably experienced ourselves many times - though sometimes we'd prefer not to think about it. When I saw the film I objectively enjoyed a lot of it but felt that Neil had a fantastic 50 minute story that had been stretched into being an hour and 15 minutes. I think if he'd added more development in the third act we'd be looking at something a little larger than what we got. Obviously I understand this keenly but I wonder how a general audience might feel? The acting is good (obviously) and was an absolute joy to be part of. I love my scenes with Kerri. It was her first major film role and she knocked it out the park. I have issues with how timid her character is but Kerri played the role as best she could. I was playing a bit of a cliché and I'll leave it entirely up to the viewer how well I did. What I did try to do was humanise the character so that although he's a bit of a cad he's at least understandable. Neil himself plays the jerk husband and had a lot of fun with it - though he plays a loser.
Overall I can see the film's failings clearly but to me they don't matter. There's a compelling, realistic drama at the heart of it and I genuinely enjoy watching it. But most of all I'm immensely proud of being able to help Neil achieve a bit of a minor miracle and hope he goes onto bigger and better things in time which I know he's eminently capable of.
