Interview: Natalie Bailey

Following a successful international debut at SXSW in March, Natalie Bailey’s Audrey is set for its Australian premiere at the Melbourne International Film Festival this week, with additional screenings at CinefestOZ in September.

Audrey is a complex ensemble piece that follows the wildly dysfunctional and eccentric Lipsick family, featuring the resentful and delusional mother Ronnie (Jackie van Beek), the affable and curious father Cormack (Jeremy Lindsay Taylor), their stubborn daughter Norah (Hannah Diviney), and the titular character, Audrey (Josephine Blazier).

The film dives into some dark and unthinkable actions by a few of its lead characters, particularly Ronnie, who assumes the identity of her comatose daughter. There’s no shade dark enough to describe the black humour in Audrey, especially when it comes to the film’s final act.

Audrey is directed by first-time feature filmmaker Natalie Bailey, a versatile screen practitioner with an esteemed 25-year career across theatre, music, film, and TV work on acclaimed series like The Unusual Suspects, Bay of Fires, and Joe vs. Carole.

In this interview with Cinema Australia, Natalie discusses the origins of Audrey, her meeting with writer Lou Sanz at a filmmaker speed dating session, the challenges of balancing character arcs, and the surprising similarities between herself and some of the the film’s main characters.

Jackie van Beek as Ronnie Lipsick in Audrey.

“I am very aware of how horrible we can be to our parents as kids. And now I think if everyone just talked a little bit more and we were more open to talking about what is really going on, then I think maybe younger people would understand their parents a bit more.”

Interview by Matthew Eeles

Audrey screened at SXSW in March. While the film explores universal themes, it’s a very Australian film, especially in its humour. How was Audrey received by the mostly American audience?

It was a great experience. There was some worry because the film contains a lot of sexual content, and there was a Christian group in attendance at that particular screening. We were concerned that many people would be offended, but thankfully they weren’t at all. We received some really interesting responses. One of our favourite responses was from a mother and daughter who had attended together, and it was fascinating to hear their perspective. They really loved it and enjoyed talking with us about the film during the Q&A. The pressure that this mother puts on her daughter and the loss of a mother’s career to parenthood were interesting topics for them to discuss. They were laughing a lot, which was good – they saw the humour in it. We had some great people who came back to see it twice, which was a lovely feeling.

You’re well-known for your excellent work in television. Why the shift into feature films?

I’ve always wanted to make a feature film. I came from a theatre background originally, and then I started making short films in the 90s in Brisbane. TV was really a diversion for me. So making a feature film is a return to my original path, which I had always intended to follow. I love cinema so much, and while I love TV, I’m more likely to watch cinema than television.

That’s very interesting to hear, considering the amount of TV you’ve made. You’ve created so many Australian favourites.

I love the work I do. With anything I do, it’s the writer that I’m most interested in. And I’ve had the pleasure of working with so many great writers over the years. A great writer is what has always attracted me to television. I continue to make TV because of that. I think satire, in particular, is fantastic, and I love a bit of dark comedy. I’ve been very lucky to work with someone like Andrew Knight, who co-wrote Bay of Fires, which I directed for four episodes. I’m a big fan of Andrew’s work. With Bay of Fires, Andrew was returning to his comic roots, and I like that dark kind of comedy.

I’ve been on television sets, and I’ve been on feature film sets, and from what I’ve observed, there really is a big difference in how the two are directed. From your perspective, how does directing television compare to directing a feature film now that you’ve had this experience?

It really depends on the show, but you have much more autonomy with a feature film. I think that’s the important thing. A feature film feels much more curated because you’ve had the chance to sit with it, usually for such a long time, before you call action for the first time. You really know what you want, and everything is so well planned. You go into it with such clarity and work so closely with the DOP to achieve that. With Audrey, I wanted to work as closely as possible with the writer. With television, you might only direct two episodes of a show, so you don’t really get the feeling of ownership. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t – it definitely depends on the team you’re working with. So to me, that’s the biggest change. And all television shows have tough schedules. You’re often given a little bit of extra time with film. The budgets are also very different. The TV I make has quite massive budgets, so I really notice the difference when you’re doing a small indie feature. But in a way, that’s also kind of nice. It means your team is smaller, and there’s more focus on what everyone is trying to achieve.

Jeremy Lindsay Taylor as Cormack Lipsick in Audrey.

I’m a big fan of Lou Sanz’s work. Life Support was a big part of my adolescence. How did Lou’s Audrey script make its way to you?

That was quite a fun little thing. It was a speed dating session for filmmakers organised by the Australian Writers’ Guild for producers and writers. I still produce, but I don’t produce full-time anymore. At the time, I was both a producer and a director for Princess Pictures. So I went along to meet a few different writers, and one of them was Lou. The writers had the opportunity to pitch three different shows, but Lou pitched me two series as well as a film. The film was what I was most interested in. There was another director attached at the time, so originally I was on board as a consultant for them, more in an executive producer role. Over time, the other director became busy in the U.S., so I managed to get the directing gig on this project, which was fantastic. I felt so lucky because I really wanted this.

Lou’s script is bonkers. It’s completely unhinged. It covers almost every genre, from drama to the blackest of black comedy, and even romance. How did you interpret the script when you first read it?

Well, for me, what I loved about Lou’s script was that I felt like this story was my own sliding doors moment – it could have been a reality for me. This could have been my life. I’m an ex-actor, and I never wanted to have children. I will not give up on doing what I want to do, and I was very aware of how hard it is for parents, both men and women, in this industry. You’re constantly leaving your family behind. I’ve watched people who are desperate to be there for their families but can’t because this industry is all-consuming. I really related to it from Ronnie’s perspective. I watched a lot of my friends’ careers halt when they had children, so that’s what really appealed to me about Audrey.

Considering how well you related to the Ronnie character, did you expand on this character and develop her beyond the original script?

Yes. Also, the role of Max changed quite a lot. There was a lot more teen involvement. For example, the Max and Audrey characters explored the pressures on teenage girls to have sex. That’s still there in some capacity, but there was a lot more that delved deeper into those characters. There were various reasons that could have made the viewer wonder why she jumped off the roof. It was a lot darker. So I think that Audrey’s journey was the one that was probably adapted the most. The Cormack character has remained solid, as has Norah’s. Norah has always been a very solid character for us. When Hannah Diviney joined the cast as Norha, there was a lot of consultation with her to make sure that we represented cerebral palsy in the right way. When you’re dealing with comedy and these darker themes, you’ve got to be accurate when it comes to representation. You’re really balancing on a thin line that we want to test and push without being too safe.

I keep thinking about how this film almost plays out like a television series in that all four of the main characters get their own story arc with no character left behind. How important was that for you, and was that your approach?

It was my approach. I thought that was very important for a film like this. They’re all such great characters, and I didn’t want to leave anyone behind. You’ve asked a very interesting question because there are some beautiful films like American Beauty, where they follow each character as much as the next, even though there’s obviously a main character, which I would say Ronnie is in Audrey. In American Beauty, you follow the journeys of those characters, and you feel like you’re a part of their lives. You follow the kids, the neighbor – everyone had their journey. That film was a really good template for us. It took a lot of work to balance those characters. Norah is such a strong, funny character. For a while, she was dominating the story a little too much. So when Lou was writing it, giving the characters an almost equal amount of screen time was one of her priorities. We aimed to give a little more focus to Ronnie while still keeping everyone active within the story. It’s an ensemble piece.

Josephine Blazier as Audrey Lipsick in Audrey.

That’s interesting to hear you speak about this. Going into it, I thought Norah was going to be the main character, but it’s really Ronnie’s story to tell. Jackie van Beek’s casting intrigues me the most. It’s not hard to see why you’d want to cast someone of Jackie’s comedy caliber, but what was it exactly that made her right for this role?

Most importantly, we were looking for someone you had to love. We didn’t want an actor the audience would just tolerate because, at the end of the day, Ronnie is a very selfish person. Jackie is fantastic at that; she has that perfect light shade where she can say something nasty, but audiences still like her because she’s just so enjoyable to watch. There were a few things we were looking for, which made it a tricky casting for us. We couldn’t have asked for anyone better. She just nailed it. We wondered if we needed someone younger to pull this off, as we didn’t want it to come across as completely delusional that Ronnie was trying to pretend she’s 18. Jackie can get away with that in a comedic way. She can get away with having that delusion, and I think that’s what she’s so superb at. She’s fantastic. Not that we had too much of it, but I always like working with people who can improvise. It just helps if an actor has that looseness in their performance.

Her ability to switch between comedy and drama is quite extraordinary. Does Jackie require much direction?

No, she doesn’t. No, no, no, no. She and I worked really well together, actually. I think we have a similar style, so that was great. She can naturally just get to where the script needs her to be. Her ability to cry on demand is a sight to behold. She’s a well-rounded performer and extremely intelligent.

Without giving anything away, that final scene is incredible to watch almost entirely because of Jackie’s performance alone.

It is such a great monologue, and it’s the best performance of that character’s life, right? There are just so many moments of her. If you understand the story, which by that point you hopefully do, you realise that she’s playing into the trauma. But there are moments where she’s still being critical of her daughter, so it’s quite lovely. Jackie nailed that comic timing. It really is a complete performance.

Hannah Diviney has only two acting credits to her name, including Audrey, and is predominantly known for her work as a disability and women’s rights advocate. Outside of her performance, what did Hannah bring to this film from your perspective?

We couldn’t believe she had only made one other series before this. It was a very interesting casting for us. It took us so long to find someone to play Norah. I don’t know if there are any other performers who can play that age, who are female with cerebral palsy, and who want to do it. I don’t think we had anyone else at the point of Hannah’s casting. There were people who used to be able to play that age group but are now too old. So it really breaks my heart that there aren’t more like Hannah coming through. It’s a great indication of how much we have to challenge the future and make sure more people with disabilities are represented visibly on screen. We need to encourage more people like Hannah to get into performance, writing, directing, or whatever, because the truth is that they’re just not there. Norah is such a great character, and Hannah brought a lot to that role. She contributed really interesting ideas that you really don’t think about as a director. One thing Hannah taught me a lot about was my ableism as a director because, in the beginning, I was constantly trying to get her to maintain eye contact with the other actors. It’s really difficult for her. So there were things like looking up – she had to look up a lot, and that’s hard for her. There were other things, like us asking her if she could sit up on the bed. Of course, she couldn’t. I learned so much that I just didn’t think of previously. So it was such a fantastic learning curve for all of us, even from our work practices and making the set accessible. But more than anything, Hannah has fantastic comic timing. She had a fire in her, her spirit was feisty. She’s the actor who deserved this role more than anyone. It was also a huge learning curve for her. She’d never been away from her family for this long. She brought so much joy to our set every day. She’s hilarious. This character was originally written for someone with cerebral palsy who wasn’t a wheelchair user. When Hannah was cast, everything had to change. We had to rethink everything, and that was good. I’m glad it ended up where it did. The film is much more interesting for it. Even the house on the Gold Coast – I don’t think it’s possible to use a wheelchair in the Gold Coast. The houses are all on stilts, and they’re impossible. We found it so hard to find a house that was right. We had to build ramps so that Hannah could access the space. She’s better at talking about all this stuff than I am because that’s her life. But I know that the experience was fantastic. We did learn a lot about how much of an obstacle it is to work in our industry for someone like Hannah.

Hannah Diviney as Norah Lipsick in Audrey.

Again, without giving anything away, the scenes towards the end of the film set in the theatre are very impressive. Did you draw on your theatre experience when directing those scenes?

Yes, absolutely. But I also brought in Lou’s partner, John Kachoyan, to help me with that because it had been too long since I performed on stage. I was only ever an actor on stage, so for me to be able to talk to the lighting team about what we were trying to achieve, I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with that. We came up with how we wanted it to look, and John helped me deliver that look within those scenes, which was fantastic. I did a lot of Greek theatre. I was very, very, very serious about my theatre, so I enjoyed the transition of the aesthetic of theatre to the screen. We had a lot of fun, and we had a great team.

I’d love to wrap things up by asking you how you treated your parents as a teenager.

Oh, God. Horrific. [Laughs]. But not as bad as some people in the family. [Laughs]. I was good to my mother, but I was terrible to my father. I really was. I rejected him so badly, and I’d say I mostly saw my parents as money givers, like most teenagers. There’s a little bit of Audrey in me, but I was also very different from Audrey at the same time. I wanted to be in theatre. I had been performing since I was a kid. So I look back with shame at how I was to my family and how I rejected them. You don’t understand when you’re a kid how much of a struggle your parents are going through. You don’t see that they may be depressed and that they never give up on you no matter what difficulties they’re experiencing mentally. My mother gave up working when she was 23 to be a mother and was training as a psychiatric nurse. I’m sure she wishes she had completed her training and stuck with it. I am very aware of how horrible we can be as kids. And now I think if everyone just talked a little bit more and we were more open to talking about what is really going on, then I think maybe younger people would understand their parents a bit more. But you don’t, so it’s both parties’ fault, really. But at the same time, parents don’t want to burden their children with their personal problems.

Audrey will screen at the Melbourne International Film Festival from August 16 – 23. Details here. Audrey will screen at CinefestOZ from September 4 – 8. Details here.

If you enjoyed reading this interview article as much as I loved publishing it, please consider supporting Cinema Australia’s commitment to the Australian screen industry via a donation below.

I strive to shine a light on Australian movies, giving voice to emerging talent and established artists.

This important work is made possible through the support of Cinema Australia readers. Without corporate interests or paywalls, Cinema Australia is committed to remaining free to read, watch and listen to, always.

If you can, please consider making a contribution. It takes less than a minute, and your support will make a significant impact in sustaining Cinema Australia as the much-loved publication that it is.

Thank you.

Matthew Eeles
Founder and Editor.

Make a donation here.