Q&A

Q&A

What inspired you to make this film?

I became enamoured with Alfred Hitchcock and Sydney Lumet films at the time, specifically ‘Rope’ and ’12 Angry Men’. I liked that classical style of revealing information to the audience through camera moves and raising the stakes over the course of a story taking place in one location with minimal characters and simple, developing shot choices to control the flow of information.

Is the story based on real events or people?

I wouldn’t say that the film is necessarily based on any real peoples, but to a certain extent the design choices for Ducker were inspired by Humphrey Bogart in ‘The Maltese Falcon’ and ‘Casablanca’, which was done specifically to make him feel like an out of place/ out of time character, as if he is clinging to these old film characters for validation of his actions; in a sort of “I’m just doing what these guys needed to do to get the job done” situation.

What themes were you most interested in exploring?

I wanted to write what is a fairly simple story about a detective playing cat and mouse with the young girl that invited him into her family’s house; in the course of doing so emerged themes of: public mistrust in the police, the validity of vigilantism, and how we as a societymeasure intelligence in young people.

Why did you choose this genre or format?

I have always been a huge fan of detective stories. When I was younger, I was a fan of Skulduggery Pleasant, then during my teen years I picked up Sherlock Holmes, and now as an adult I am obsessed with detective games such as Disco Elysium. I feel the private detective archetype is perfect for film as it provides what is essentially a normal person, not a superhero or action hero, but someone who is prepared to go beyond what is usually permissible for one to do in order to achieve their goals.

Regarding format, we decided on going for a classic aesthetic as it felt right for the project given how much influence had been taken from those films. A lot of the shots chosen were also focusing on people and faces, hence the taller but narrower 1.66:1 aspect ratio, again tying into those post-war, old-school Hollywood films. I had also spent several years attempting to improve my celluloid emulation skills, so this seemed like the perfect project to channel my desire to make a narrative that emulates film and get it out of my system so I can approach future projects without that urge digging away at the back of my mind.

What was your writing process like?

Writing is a pretty lonely process, You sit at your desk for hours, until you see the blue light of dawn poking through your curtains, then you look back at your screen and realise you’ve watched four hours of videos about screenwriting but written nothing for yourself. For this film the first draft was easy, as is usually the case. I sat down one night and decided to just write every idea I had accumulated about making a compelling story into a small script. I was done by the morning, sent it to our producer (Nicholas) to get his initial thoughts, and to my surprise he was taken with it. Such a thing is rare with early drafts of a script, much less the very first. That gave me confidence to continue as we felt we were onto something, so new drafts were slowly constructed over the course of a couple of years post university.

It took far fewer drafts than our previous projects as I was very set on the course of events, so I was going in every so often and tweaking and pulling the dialogue around, trying to get it to sound like the films I love as best as possible. Towards the end of the writing process, I started including more people, asking for their opinions and notes on the script. Through this we identified several major points that needed shifting, which lead to some significantchanges in the script before we once again settled into this push-and-pull rhythm of tweaking small aspects until we felt it was ready. 

How long did it take to develop the script?

The screenwriting process itself took approximately a year and a half, from Spring 2023 until the week before shooting in November 2024. The idea had taken shape prior to that in the form of alternative film ideas that explored similar themes, but the bulk of the dedicated writing happened during the aforementioned period. During this time we were of course in pre-production (starting around the time the third draft was complete) as we knew from previous projects that we needed an awful lot of time before we would actually be ready to shoot, so around Spring of 2024 we began pre-production with the aim of shooting that Summer, although location delays and a desire to continue working on the script pushed the shooting days to Mid-November 2024.

Did anything change dramatically from script to screen?

The most significant thing that did not translate from the script was that it was supposed to be raining which, much to my disappointment, was not feasible on the day. I think that the logistical issues it would have caused would far outweigh the benefits of having dynamic weather in a film that takes place largely indoors. Ultimately Erica (production designer), Nicholas decided that we couldn’t afford to spend any more time on trying to generate fake rain and chose to focus on more important aspects of the story. With hindsight being 20/20, this was the correct decision.

What were your biggest challenges as a director?

I often get very focused on how a line of dialogue should sound in accordance with how I imagined it, rather than trying to communicate to the actor exactly the emotion or meaning behind the line. This was less of an issue on this film despite there being a lot of dialogue in the piece, as the majority of the story occurs through the character’s actions and reactions to one another. This allowed me to focus on the small moments that needed to be perfect: a movement, a glance, or the way in which silence settles in the room.

How do you approach working with actors?

I think that controlling the flow of information is the singular, primary function of a director, to guide everyone involved in the project towards a singular goal without shouldering them with unnecessary responsibilities or concerns. I try my hardest to make the actors privy to my train of thought however possible, whilst trying to avoid overwhelming them with information. On this project, I found myself often directing people to act as if they were bored with the goings on within this story. I felt that for a cast of characters all with their own hidden motivations, shielding those thoughts and emotions behind a perceived lack of emotion, it might make the cracks in that façade more poignant. At the time, this piece of direction felt like the most efficient way to get across the particular effect I was looking for, without trying to long-windedly orchestrate every single syllable of the actor’s cadence and, with any luck, giving them the freedom to explore at will within the parameters of the direction I was giving.

During casting, I try to find the single most natural aspect of a person’s character and choose my talent based on that. It may very well be that the actor in question makes their explosive, tearful monologue feels as though it has come out of them involuntarily; but just as easily I could become fascinated a given person talks to the people around them during an outtake from another film. Whatever it maybe I actively encourage the actors I work with to use that most honest part of themselves and then build the character out from that. By stripping down the stress, nerves, or any other inhibitors I find that they sink far more easily into the cadence and style of acting that I search for in everyone I cast. I think this is why I’m so fond of actors who have theatre experience, as due to the clear distinction between their natural self and performing self, it’s far easier for me to guide them between those versions depending on what a scene calls for. They are also bloody good at remembering their lines!

What was the editing process like?

Our editor Piers made the editing process exceptionally straightforward on this project. Editing began around the 21st of January and finished on the 14th of April. He had an edit ready for us shortly after we passed him over the footage, and from then on I would meet with him regularly to rework, restructure and refine the film until we couldn’t anymore. Given that the main focus of the film is the actions and reactions of the characters, we approached the editing slightly differently to how one might do so normally by cutting around the person currently speaking as opposed to focusing on them too heavily. For important dialogue of course we cut back to the actor in question, but often times if we can cut to a meaningful prop or a character in the background slinking around, we would do so as it enabled us to both keep the flow of the edit from going stale, in addition to saturating the visuals with relevant information to the audience. Going into the project I really wanted the cinematography to have no fat, no wasted moments, such that the film could make sense and be followed even if the sound were turned off, and to that effect I think we succeeded.

How did you approach sound design or music?

Sound design was a whole other can of worms on this project as I had never worked with a third-party designer/composer. I think Chris did a fantastic job converting my uncertain ramblings into cohesive feedback here, so all credit to him. What I pitched to him was essentially a pseudo-realistic soundscape, in the sense that we have changes between the proper sounds that may occur in a domestic setting, interspersed with more stylised moments of sound design or music to create a very theatrical flourish within the scene. I believe this approach came from my fatigue with constructing scenes as carefully as possible, only for them to fail due to prolonged periods where nothing happens. 

Were there any scenes that got cut but you loved?

I think that 95% of the material in the script made it into our shooting schedule and then 99% of those shots/scenes made it into the final edit. 

There was, however, a scene of Ducker returning to his Private Investigator’s Office in the final shooting script but because it would require a secondary location we decided to scrap it, which I think was for the betterment of the film as it was already fairly long.

How involved were you in colour grading or VFX?

I was solely responsible for the colour grading/VFX on this project. I will say that there were very few VFX shots in the film, mainly just manufacturing clean plates as we needed some static shots of the house interior to make the pacing of the opening work. I also removed a handful of more modern technologies as I wanted to try and take the film out of a specific time. This was sometimes unavoidable, but where possible I tried to mask specific hints towards this film taking place in 2025 as opposed to the early 2000s or even potentially the 90s.

As for the colour grading, I aimed to replicate the effect that celluloid film brings to a project. I was particularly enamoured with films such as: ‘To Leslie’, ‘All The President’s Men’, ‘Network’, and ‘Challengers’, most especially in the way all those films handle highlights. The greenish hue in the brightest parts of the image was something I was very keen to replicate. I strived to create a very contrasty image, as a pet peeve of mine is how a lot of films are created with home TVs or streaming services in mind, thus sacrificing deep blacks and high contrast in order to be viewable on the widest range of devices. 

How many drafts did Ducker go through, and what was the biggest thing that changed from the first version to the last?

The film went through five official drafts before shooting started and I would say that biggest change occurred between drafts one and two. In the very first draft I don’t believe anyone was even injured and the film ended with a cliff-hanger of the parents returning home. We quickly realised that an entire second half of the film was needed, which is everything you see past the 12-minute mark of the film, thus reincorporating essentially everything from the first half of the film in one way or another. From that point onwards we were confident in our series of events being solid and after most of the work was on the dialogue throughout, as well as a couple of changes to the ending to make it a little more mysterious.

Did Ducker have a working title?

It had two! The very first title was ‘Intention & Obstacle’ which I used as a reminded as to what I was trying to achieve with my writing, by constantly putting challenges in the paths of both characters to create drama and a tension. 

The second title was ‘Ducker’, which we used throughout shooting as it felt like a simple, easy to understand title that felt very sharp. After post-production wrapped we struggled for quite a long time to find a title we liked. We had ‘Velvet Fiction’, but eventually returning to the character-focused title ‘Ducker’.

What did you learn from making this film?

I think on this project I learned to move back towards my old style of filmmaking that I had started to build up during university. I was very active, working with a small group of friends and using minimal lighting where possible, using only what we had available. At some point towards the end of my studies a shift happened wherein I was opting for very passive camera setups and trying to make sets as clean and the setups ‘perfect’, rather than really zeroing in on what makes a shot impactful. Working with a small crew allows us to communicate efficiently and work within our limitations, to focus on crafting cinematic moments with purpose.

How has this project changed you as a filmmaker?

I would say that this film certainly helped me get out of a creative rut. The need to film this project had been building for years and so the whole process was incredibly cathartic. My attitude to casting and cinematography where the most changed aspects of pre-production and production respectively, with the sound design process now becoming one of my favourite elements of post-production due to the how drastically it can change the emotion of a scene.

What would you do differently next time?

Next time I think I would strip the process down even further. Fewer lights, fewer setups, etc. The single biggest time killer on any set is the setup time, and I really want to maximise the time with my actors in the future as I felt that my attention was sometimes split too much. So not only will fewer setups allow me to spend more time focusing on the performances.

Tech Specs