James Appleton began making films whilst studying film and media at Goldsmiths College. From these no-budget shorts he was able to put together a showreel that would see him commissioned by Screen East to direct a short as part of the UK Film Council's Digital Shorts scheme. The resulting comedy, The Sound of Silence, about a struggling writer's battle to concentrate on his work, went on to be screened at festivals all over the world, showcased by Sony Europe on the PSP console, and even be humorously introduced on UK TV by none other than Stephen Fry. Music videos for Inchinchilla and Junk Box followed.

In 2005 James shot three quirky comedy mircroshorts back-to-back for Waveform Films which have brought further success. In the first the End of the World is Nigh, and a nagging wife makes sure her husband knows it. Goose Sock Blender Wok see a scruffy salesman peddling the latest extremely bizarre fashionable accessory. While the surreal The Last Place You Look has become affectionately know to some as "that sofa film". Like The Sound of Silence, the latter two films were also both screened on the PSP. The Last Place You Look has been screened on the Berlin U-bahn as part of Interfilm festival's "Going Underground" competition, where it won second place.

More recently :-) was made in partnership with arts organisation Signal Media. The short represents quite a sea change from James' previous comedy work, being very much more in the social realist tradition. It sees a group of bored teenagers mimic TV shows by making video clips with 3G phones. Loner Jake wants to be known and liked, but peer pressure takes hold, reality blurs, and what started as innocent fun with new friends turns into a disaster.

:-) is quite a departure from your earlier, quirky comedy shorts. Was this a deliberate move on your part? And how did the film come about?

Yeah, I think it was a deliberate move in so much as I was looking for some different challenges. As you say I'd been making quirky shorts for a while, and wanted to challenge myself to try to make something more naturalistic and with more substance, with social relevance and a fuller narrative. Also the three shorts I'd filmed before this project were very short s16mm films where pretty much every shot was tied down quite rigidly as the scripts were short and very tight. Those projects were great to work on, but at this stage my thinking was towards a different approach to give my work some variation, to having a go at working on a looser, more improvisational approach to a digital film, something which allowed the cast and myself more flexibility during filming.

Signals Media Arts were commissioning a few micro budget films. My co-writer Peter Devonald and I won a commission, we developed the script with Signals, and my production company came in on it and we were in production pretty quickly.

As for the story, it came an idea which Peter Devonald and I felt compelled to work on as at the time we were noticing more and more stories in the press about happy slapping victims. This was the catalyst of our thinking, but we wanted to make the story seem wider – about mass media influence, the effects of the internet, changes in popular entertainment and house this in a coming of age story. The script was developed between us hand in hand with looking at photos a location I was keen to use (Great Yarmouth, Norfolk) and from workshops with the kids which played a part in helping to pin the characters down.
 
What was it like working with such a young cast on :-) ?

Yeah, really good fun. During the time, when Peter and I were looking at different ideas, I approached the Norwich Young People's Theatre to sees what the likelihood of casting the film from their young actors would be. Laura Cordiner there was extremely positive about it and helped set up some auditions and workshops, as well as make suggestions about possible castings.

In the workshops I'd managed to get to know them all a bit, so by the time we shot I kept the shoot quite loose and flexible, or at least more so than previous short film shoots. I chose not to be too exact about things with them, but to explain the scene, its purpose, and make some suggestions. Then we'd try a few things out, see what seemed to work and what they felt natural doing, and turn over on it. The cast were so enthusiastic, committed and energetic that it was humbling!
 
Your shorts tend to do very well getting into festivals. Does a lot of that come down to having a well-thought out game plan once the film is finished and sheer perseverance?

Well I hope it's because people enjoy watching them! But yes it's a good point, I think its important to learn about the festivals, to try to gauge which kind of films play where, and to give plenty of time over to promoting your film once its finished. This is really important, even if you aren't happy with the film, and I think it's good for directors to learn this early on. I think you owe it to your cast and crew to promote it, even if sometimes not to yourself.

There seem to be so many shorts which don't see the light of day after the cast and crew screening, and it isn't always related to the quality of them, often people just move on. This can be a shame because the entire point of making films is for other people to see them – who aren't friends and family. I also think it's important to be realistic about festivals, to be honest with yourself about the quality of a finished film and to try to aim at festivals accordingly, rather than enter buzzword fests like Cannes, not get in, then give up. It's important to see the admin which follows the completion of a short film as part of the wider process of making a film. 

Do you tend to watch many shorts at festivals yourself? What's your favourite short that you've seen recently?

I do watch shorts whenever I can. Recently I've been too busy to go to fests but more and more shorts are appearing online so I watch them there. Actually, I've only just seen Chris Cunningham's Rubber Johnny yesterday, and thought it was stunning – exceptional images and tone, and I enjoyed being taken into another world for a few minutes. That editing must have taken months – definitely a testament to his commitment to the project! The other day I saw Nits by Harry Wootliff which I found really touching. I was impressed by how quickly the film generates empathy for its characters – it gets its claws in as early as the third minute... Oh, and Highrise by Gabrielle Russell – its only 4 minutes long but the idea is extremely strong and the execution solid. Simple dramatic idea with high stakes, shot well.
 
What is the single most important quality you look for in a script?

The idea behind a script is everything. A script can be well written, but if what is at its core isn't interesting or original, then that won't really matter. I suppose economical writing, keeping to the point, a clear story and lead character arc, or if it's a joke-based piece a strong punch line or reverse. Coherence I guess, something which hangs together, feels compact, and as though all the ideas in it feel like they are in the right film – so consistency in tone and style.

Also I do seem to like scripts which are conducive to some kind of quite specific visual challenge or shooting style, but I think this is because I'm still in my early days and do really like to try different things out. More generally, I think some scripts speak to you, and some just don't. But this isn't necessarily anything to do with the effectiveness of the script; it can depend on where you're at in your thinking – what kind of film you've just done and what you are interested in working on next.

At this point I'm finding that its becoming more tricky to find a short that gets me buzzing, whether its an idea or my own or anyone else's, because it has to have challenges which are fresh and new – technical, thematic, whatever. I'm just keen to keep learning and don't want to cover the same ground too much. I'm looking to put more of my own signature on my films in the next couple of years, so think my approach is going to shift a bit. I have more shorts in the pipeline which I'm excited about and will be pushing things out a bit further. I'm looking to film them this winter.
 
Many of your shorts have national and international sales and distribution deals – surely the Holy Grail for shorts filmmakers – does this at least impart dispel the myth that shorts can't make money?

Shorts can make money, but it obviously depends on the size of the budget. If the budget is small then obviously you haven't got far to go until you're into profit. Also the reality is that when distributors sign films it's by no means a guarantee of TV sales and such like – it just makes it far more likely and possible. The distributor has connections with the networks and other distribution and screening possibilities.  I do think the best way to approach shorts is to forget about the money – they are calling cards, and I don't think people should expect them to be anything more. If a short does go into profit, I'd say grab some beers and enjoy it as an unexpected bonus! I think shorts make money more indirectly – maybe not contained within the project, but they can help raise your profile and get you work, and we all have to start somewhere.
 
Earlier in the year three of your shorts were showcased by Sony Europe on the PSP console – was it a pretty surreal experience to see your work displayed on games console?

I didn't see them! Shame, I would have liked too. I'm definitely a fan of unusual exposure like this; things are changing so fast, TV is just one platform of so many now.

You are currently developing feature film projects. What excites (or even worries) you the most about moving into feature films?

It's something which seems like it's on its way but something I'm going to be careful about. I'm not in a particular hurry on this, though things are starting to move in that direction. The way people, especially short film makers, talk about features is too often like it's the promised land – get there and everything will be ok. The harsh reality is that there are too many low/no budget features being made with little prospect of making any mark and I want to be realistic about it. Making a feature is one thing, making something which will do anything is quite another. As I director I'm sharing a producer's concerns about features – it needs to do business, and I won't make one until I believe that will be the case, however this comes about. I'm reluctant to cobble something together on a small budget – this has been a possibility in the past but one I haven't gone for. I know lots of filmmakers have really kicked their career off doing this with no budget hits, but it's just not really where I'm at. Things are moving quite quickly at the moment though, and you never really know what's round the corner.
 
How easy do you find the co-writing process? What pattern of work do you personally adopt when writing with another person?

I think I work best directing the writing and coming up with ideas and options, but it depends. Its fluid really. It's about batting ideas back and forth, discussion, seeing what fits and things like that. I think it's great to work with another writer because every decision during the process is questioned and needs to be justified. This means it can take longer than working solo, but it doesn't matter if the result is stronger. I really believe in discussion and ideas, not endless draft writing. If you get the game plan tight before a draft is written, I think you can save loads of development time, draft writing and reach the shooting script more quickly.
 
The Last Place You Look was screened on the Berlin U-bahn for the Going Underground competition; did you get a chance to see it play down there? Was it gratifying to win second place in a public vote against a lot of home grown talent?

Yes I went to the awards night in Berlin, and it was a great experience. Talking to people, there was such genuine enthusiasm for shorts there and I was really surprised by the scale of the awards night. The atmosphere was brilliant. It was in a concert hall with a few hundred people there, TV crews, and it was hosted by a couple of German radio celebs. The film was played and got an extremely positive reception which was cool. It was nice to place highly in a public vote competition. It was a really cool experience all round. Free endless supply of champagne too which wasn't unwelcome.
 
The Sound of Silence came about through the Screen East/Film Council Digital Shorts scheme. Did you find it a difficult selection process? And what advice would give to those looking to apply to Film Council schemes?

I got short listed as a director from my reel of student films, but to get selected was a bit more involved. There were script feedback sessions, there was also a director training course, and we had to submit a formal written pitch for the script we liked before we got the commission. As for advice for filmmakers, just apply really and see what happens. I would say this: it's not a good idea to see public funding as the emerald city when it comes to shorts. You don't necessarily need thousands to make a good short film, and I think audiences are getting more savvy very quickly – high production values can't mask over dodgy work. There are some cracking little films out there which are made with talent and imagination by a group of friends on as little as a couple of hundred quid. Obviously production values are important but you don't have to have lots of money to achieve them if for example a script is all daytime exteriors.  Some of these no-budget films do much better at festivals than many funded shorts, some of which never see the light of day because they aren't good enough – regardless of who has backed them. Getting short film funding isn't a fast track to an automatically successful film and bigger things; it's just another way of making a film. I was really happy to make a film with Screen East, but people shouldn't get hung up on funding – just do your thing. Also don't be afraid of funding films yourself if you can save up some cash – if you don't believe in yourself and your projects no one else will.
 
The Sound of Silence was shown at a test screening before you made a final edit. Did the film benefit from this process and have you used this tool on other projects? And are there any downsides to be wary of?

At the time, yes I think it was very useful. The exec from the film council came to use the opportunity to provide feedback before the edit was locked, but also members of the public were there, as well as people who were making the other films on the digital shorts slate.

Yeah it was useful to me. With shorts I think it can be very easy to actually find yourself too involved. What I mean is, there isn't much material to direct, they are small projects, and sometimes the trick is to keep it simple, keep it moving, and not get overly immersed in it. This can have a sort of drowning effect on a film because you overload it in the way you execute it, as though it's something bigger than it is. At the time I wasn't so experienced, so the objective viewpoint was very useful to keeping the film coherent and of the right tone to speak well to people who are seeing it for the first time. I've noticed that the more stuff I've made, the more I'm able to see a work with objectivity, which is why I believe quantity is really important for young directors, as well as quality.

As for any downsides of test screenings, well you're letting people see a work before its finished so it probably won't be graded, sound mixed, won't have music and sometimes not even fine cut. Amid some extremely helpful comments there will always be comments and concerns which are reacting to these elements being unfinished and not actually about finding a final cut. This can be a little frustrating at times, but it's worth living with – the benefits are far greater.
 
The use of sound seems to be an integral part of many of your short films, do you think some short filmmakers tend to neglect sound in their films, seeing it as somewhere they can cut corners?

In terms of capturing information you have two things in filmmaking – sound an image. Sounds simple but for some reason which I've never really understood, lots of people seem to be preoccupied by the image, leaving the sound as something you do afterwards. Obviously it depends on the script, but I tend to work quite rigorously in post production sound and work closely with sound designers who have a keen interested in really bringing something to a work, to add a texture to a piece, rather than just add at atmos and do the levels. In some cases, such as The Sound of Silence, the sound is planned before the shoot and the shots are planned accordingly. Good or bad sound can be enough to make or break a film, so it's worth spending time and effort on. I think sometimes people wrap their shoots and just want to get stuff out there as quickly as possible, which can be a mistake.

Images: 1) James Appleton, 2) James Appleton directs :-), 3) End of the World, 4) Goose Sok Blender Wok, 5) :-)
(c) 2006 Electric Eye Ltd, (c) 2005 Oliver Thom, (c) 2006 Waveform Films