IMOGEN NEALE reacquaints with In My Father’s Den ingenue Emily Barclay, returning to the screen in We The Living, a new short film travelling the country as part of the Homegrown: Works on Film programme at the Telecom New Zealand International Film Festivals.


WHEN I FIRST interviewed Emily Barclay we were both working at 95bfm. One lunch break we nodded at each other and headed outdoors – to do an interview a magazine had commissioned. Although we’d seen each other around the bfm corridors we really hadn’t spoken. In her black stovepipe jeans and rock/punk chick kit I had assumed she’d be all bristling attitude and empty stares. I’d been quite wrong. Emily laughed, fidgeted and at times become quite self-conscious as we talked. She was, in short, delightful. Almost two years later, post-In My Father’s Den, I was able to talk to her again. This time about death, love, preparation and We The Living.

Loss, human coping mechanisms, shock – these are themes that you are revisited in many of your performances/appearances. Do you think these types of subject positions seek you out or, do you go looking for them?

I don't think I consciously go looking for those particular subjects but I guess I am inexplicably drawn to them... drawn to characters who are damaged or lost – because it makes them feel complex and real and I guess I enjoy exploring the darker side of humanity. It's more challenging and interesting and perhaps also cathartic in some way. I think also that perhaps different things speak to you at different times in your life and in turn your work reflects where you're at at different stages in your life.

In terms of what it takes to prepare oneself for a role – does a short film require more, less, or similar preparation? Sounds counter intuitive I know but I can imagine that short films might take more to prepare for...?

I spent time thinking and writing about the character and who I thought she was. I guess some characters fall into place more easily than others, regardless of the length of the film. Freya seemed to be someone who I could understand and identify with quite readily. I think it's about being able to put your imagination into a character and bringing them to life – like when you read a book and a character rings true straight away and you think 'this could be me.' Sometimes it's harder and they're more removed from you and less accessible and you have to do a lot more work in order to feel comfortable in their skin.

How did you come to have a role in We The Living?

I read the script and I really liked it. Then I auditioned a couple of times for David Rittey, the director.

In your opinion what does the title for the film refer to – what is its relationship to the narrative?

I think the title relates to the narrative thematically in terms of death and grief and those left behind. Learning how to live again and having to go on with your life, even if you don't want to... about the relationship of the living with each other and with death.

Most stories begin because someone believes they need to be told – why do you think We The Living needed to be told?

I'm not sure what David's reasons were for making the film but for me it was a beautiful, haunting story about death and loss and how differently it affects different people and about relationships and two people coming together and making a connection and sharing something. The story really affected me and that's why I wanted to be a part of it.

Short films are often paired with a full length film or a collection of other short films. As you see it, what are the pros and cons of this practice?

I think it's a pity that short films have such limited exposure. Personally I really enjoy seeing a short film before a feature at film festivals etc. and I think they should bring back showing them before features in all cinemas. I think that if the short is good it's good, regardless of whether it's shown alone or before another film.

The place this film was shot – did you have any previous connection to it prior to shooting?

We shot at a couple of different locations, one of which was Whatipu - I'd never been there before and it’s seriously one of the most incredible places I've even been to. It's so isolated and insanely beautiful... it was amazing shooting out there. Everyday I remember thinking 'god damn, I'm spending my days having fun in the sun in this beautiful place and getting paid for it' haha...

In the film your character discovers a man who is almost dead – do you think his identity matters? Is his identity figurative more so than literal?

I don't think it matters in terms of the plot and by not revealing his identity I think it involves the audience more - not only in regards to the fact that they could relate it to their own personal loss or their lives but also because it raises questions about the characters relationships to the dead boy and gives them more depth and more history. It draws the audience in. I definitely think his identity is more
figurative than literal.

Do you explore your character and the world of the script in more depth prior to shooting than you would for a full length film?

Not more than, I mean with this film everything was more condensed than when I did In My Father's Den or Suburban Mayhem – where you have two weeks rehearsal with a feature, you have two days with a short film. There was certainly a degree of exploration and discussion about the character and her back story but not as much as a feature film.

Does a full length film come into its own world more than a short film which is instantly there?

I think with any film you have to have a pretty thorough understanding of the story you're telling and the world you're stepping into, but I think that with a feature it changes more as you go along – the film doesn't necessarily end up being what you thought it was in the beginning and you learn more about the script and the characters as you go along and interpret it in different ways.