Q&A WITH HARRY LIGHTON

Q. There is an immediate, comedic aspect to seeing Harry Melling and Alexander Skarsgård opposite one another in this film. How did you decide on casting this pair and what were your intentions in making this game of contrasts so pronounced for the viewer?

A. There is an eroticism in big versus little dynamics.

But, I also wanted a version of Colin who had a lot of charisma without that charisma being packaged in your typical alpha-male form. Harry is incredibly captivating both in real life and on screen. There was something antithetical to the idea of giving him, with all that charisma, the role of a submissive.

I cast Harry first and then thought, “Who is going to provide a punchline in terms of physical contrast?” There’s only so many  6’5″ hunks in the world… Alex was the immediate thought. What I love about him is that, on one level, he is your classic Hollywood hunk, but across his performances he’s very mischievous and plays against his classic good looks. And, I wanted Ray to be someone who was head-turningly attractive, but also psychologically dominant.

Q. Pillion offers an unexpected representation of a biker gang, side-stepping the usual focus on aggro-masculinity to instead foreground the tenderness that thrives within its sex-forward queer community. How important was the input of the real-life bikers involved in the film’s production when it came to coming up with a contemporary portrait of a gay biker group?

A. It shaped it massively. I was always very set on the fact that this was going to be a fictional biker gang, because there obviously isn’t a group of bikers in the world where they’re all neatly divided into doms and subs, riders and pillions. The film is winking at biker culture, rather than trying to do a documentary portrayal of it.

But, I wanted there to be a texture of reality, so I went and hung out with the GBMCC, which I think is Europe’s biggest gay bike club. In our first meeting, they were all so generous in terms of talking to me about their experiences. And, they also clearly had a desire to put themselves on screen in a way they thought was truthful.

So, having met them, it was kind of a no-brainer to cast them instead of casting actors. Once I did that, I chatted with them individually and was like, “You’re playing a role and it’s not you, but is there anything that you would like to bring to this part, whether it’s your own fetish gear or something about your experiences?” For me, the greatest pleasure of the film has been seeing how much those guys liked seeing themselves portrayed.

Q. Your interest in sex and transgression has been evident since your first short film, but with Pillion what’s surprising is how you’re able to reveal the vulnerable dimensions of what’s considered transgressive and the limits of what are considered progressive attitudes toward sex. Could you speak about these subversions?

A. With the parents, I was interested in exploring the definition of progressiveness and the fact that certain versions of homosexuality are deemed more acceptable than others. I wanted to reverse the normal trope in queer cinema where the parents initially reject their child’s sexuality and then, in the final scene, are all like, “Oh no, it’s alright.” I wanted to do the opposite of that: to have the parents be incredibly supportive, almost to the point of being pushy, and then withdrawing their acceptance once their child falls in love with someone who they think is wrong for him.

Then, I wanted Colin to push up against the relationship model Ray sets up for him. I think that people like Ray, who have carved out their own hyper-specific way of life, often become alienated from normative society. There’s a victory to being able to live life on your own terms, but there’s also a loss because it’s painful to exist outside the norms. With that pain comes vulnerability and regret, which is why I wanted to find the soft center of Ray.

Q. What is the last film you saw and loved?

A. It was a film called The Love That Remains by Hlynur Pálmason. He is definitely one of my favorite directors. Godland was an absolutely extraordinary film. He’s truly an auteur. I love his films!

Q. What comes to mind first when you’re working on a project — stories, characters, sounds, or images?

A. Environments. Whether it’s a world I know or one I don’t know and want to learn more about, the first thing I do when I start working on a project is spend months, often longer, reading everything I can about that world. Through that, the characters start to emerge.

Q. What’s a project you’d like to make someday, however impossible it might seem now?

A. Part of me wishes that Peter Jackson hadn’t made The Lord of the Rings, but I wouldn’t want to rob myself or the world of his Lord of the Rings. They were my favorite books growing up and I would have loved to make those books into films.

Q. How far back do you usually sit in a movie theater?

A. I always sit two-thirds of the way back and on the aisle because I’ve got a weak bladder. The cinema ushers think I’m mental because I always go up to them and ask, “Where’s the toilet?” But what I’ve started doing is not drinking anything five hours before the cinema, because I don’t like missing anything in a film, obviously.

Q. What have you been listening to lately?

A. I have been listening to Anna von Hauswolf’s new album ICONOCLASTS. It’s amazing! There’s these eight minute songs that are somewhere between Kate Bush and Irish mythological figures. And there’s loads of organ and cello. It’s really sensory music.

Q. What image would you like to end this interview on?

A. Elliot Erwitt’s dog legs.