RT Interview: Director Baillie Walsh on Ziggy, Roxy and Daniel Craig in Flashbacks of a Fool
The first-time helmer sits down with RT.
How long have you been waiting to make a feature? Did you have others on the back-burner?
BW: No, this is the fourth script but the closest I ever got before was I was in New York to start and it never happened. It's always been very close. Yeah, I've been waiting a long time, but it takes a lot of money and for people to put up that money, a lot of things have to come together. Daniel's support on this one made it happen.
The film opens and closes in LA, and even the Britain you present isn't quite Britain, but the film is very British...
BW: Yeah, it's the idea of Britain, but I always wanted to make a British film. I didn't want it to be grimy realism. It's about memory, so it's the idea that memory plays with our summers, and our experiences - all is bright, and blue and sunny. I liked the idea it was a heightened reality. I did want to make a British film set by the sea, but I knew that Clacton-on-Sea, where I'm from, wasn't quite the right backdrop. So I played with it in that way.
But so long as there's a great story I'd make a film anywhere. So long as I can find something I can believe in, it doesn't matter where it's set.
It seems like you feel location is important to really setting the environment of a film for you, though.
BW: Yeah, I think so - I want a film to be interesting visually. I love photography and I'm very interested in the way things look. It's part of the story you're telling and part of the whole feeling of the thing. But I don't want it to take over and I don't want that to be the only thing, but it's very looking.
Harry's fantastic, what were you looking for during his casting?
BW: A young Daniel Craig. Harry walked through the door and knew I'd found him. I completely believe that this boy could be a young Daniel. He was the first boy I saw and I didn't even ask him to read, I just knew he could do it. He had naturalness to him, he didn't seem like a stage kid, he felt really raw and teenaged and just great.
Harry mentioned that he and the young cast went down to South Africa for the filming early...
BW: Yeah, because I wanted all the boys to be mates. I wanted them out there early so they'd hang out. I didn't want them pretending to be friends, I wanted that to come naturally to them. And it did. It was amusing seeing them, because they really lived it up and I think they had a great time. We were in a great hotel and it was just a really good vibe.
Does it make a difference to have a happy set?
BW: It does. This was the best moment of my life and I wanted to make it as joyous on everyone else as possible. It was hard, it was really hard, but it was a very good time and I wanted my happiness to be part of the film. When you can say, "I'd like to build three houses here," and have someone say, "OK," it's fantastic!
Do you think that's a better way to approach a first film - to go in with a bit of money rather than try to make something low-budget with whatever you can scrape together?
BW: Oh yeah. I tried many ways to make this film and one of them was with no money. Even with money it's hard, but with no money I would never have achieved the atmosphere I wanted. I'd have had to do it in Clacton-on-Sea in a whole different set of circumstances.
joe shmo
OK, this has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, but I'm posting this open letter to the RT Staff because something feels really fishy about this whole News system now.
I was thinking about it last night and wondered 'how can jeff giles go from the most featured writer on the site to doing very little writing at all, basically over night?' all RT staffers ever said was 'jeff will still be contributing" or something.
answer this: did Jeff Giles get fired or demoted or whats the actual deal, because i find it really hard to believe that all of a sudden the entire News section changes and he's no longer featured much.
I do recall an article not long ago regarding the new oliver stone movie 'W' in which jeff made some slightly leftist remarks and then had to spend the rest of the thread defending himself (with some help from loyal RT readers). Now it could well be a stretch to think that this had something to do with Jeff not being allowed to do his daily stories, but at this point I'm looking for SOME explanation.
And I think we deserve more of an explanation then 'well we're trying some new stuff out and are continuously updating the site to make as good as possible for all of you.' whatever, that doesn't cut it.
Can you RT staffers see how much you've changed the core of the site? No one is commenting on the stupid external link stories and all that remains as far as RT material is an occasional story but mostly features like interviews, critical consensus, total recall, meet a critic, etc. etc. The features are fine, but the story threads were where people really got into the discussions. We had a strong core community of regular posters and now it just doesn't feel the same.
so RT, I really need you to explain why you've altered not only the aesthetic, but the entire dynamic of the site. It's less personal and frankly, less interesting. This is my go-to site and so i really am curious as why a lot of the fun has been sucked out of it in favor of redirecting us to outside pages.
What happened to Jeff and what are the chances that things will return to the good ole days of putting an RT spin on a specific story, making it humorous and palatable and letting us all sling mud over it?
thanks for your time.
-Dahluzz
Apr 18 - 10:47 AM
matthew rivers
i always thought there was something fishy with RT with there reviews and articles
Oct 10 - 08:13 AM