Simon recently premiered his new production 'The Tayberry Bush'; below is an expanded version of his talk which went along with the premiere.
--------------------------------------------

Director Simon Woolf receves a prize at a previous annual competition.

Emily brings her new boyfriend home to meet the parents.  Her mother is less than impressed that the boyfriend is a former prison inmate, and his early release was partly due to Emily’s interest in him and correspondence.  The boyfriend’s visit changes the dynamics in the house and has a permanent affect on the relationship between Emily’s parents.  The Tayberry Bush is a light thriller centred on the human need for contact.

The film took over a year from first being introduced to the writer to completion of the editing, of which the shoot itself was 4 full days.  In discussion with the writer the script was totally changed, so that the plot, the ending, the charaters, their relationships and motivations were almost all unrecognizable from the first draft, and yet it was still fundamentally the writer, James Dennison’s work.  I enjoyed working with him because he was very flexible and was able to turn our script developments into naturally written dialogue.  What did not help production was that at the centre of the film was an almost unknown fruit,  which even in high season was impossible to get hold off.  You can add ‘never work with soft fruit’ to the list of things to avoid on set, because over time the fruit gets softer and softer and it verges on a pulpy mess.

It is easy to forget that in the chaos of the film shoot the actors, when called, have to suddenly find and deliver a top performance.  As a director I have to provide the environment that enables them do this, and the simplest way is to treat them well. Forget complication, basically this involves food and ensuring that this is a fun film on which to work.  Thus even in the auditions I am thinking ‘is this actor going to get on with everyone else’ and that applies to all the people helping on the set. When actors give their time for nothing I want to give them back two things, an enjoyable experience and a quality film which will improve their personal showreel.

The editing shows up all the deficiencies in the shoot.  Continuity of movement is always a problem and from this film I have learn’t that in close up action sequencies you need greater coverage and more big close ups to compensate for this and get you out of trouble.

And lastly there are all the compromises one has to make artistically.  In one scene I wanted to have blood oozing away from the victim over the floor.  The house we were shooting in had been lent to me by a good friend, and although the white tiles were hard the grouting was not, and I did not particularly want to leave a lasting reminder of the shoot on the floor.  Despite protecting it with vaseline I was reluctant to sanction the visual image I required, and it was commented on ‘that I had compromised my art for the sake of the grouting’. Would Tarantino do that?