One of the most extraordinary time-travel films of recent years takes George MacKay and his co-star Callum Turner aboard a spooky fishing boat. Mark Jenkin's Rose of Nevada is as much a magical cinematic experience as it is a haunting ghost story about grief and loss - and a lesson in suspense that uses limitations to amazing effect.
MacKay plays the young Cornish family man Nick, who needs money to repair the broken roof of his house and therefore decides to join the three-men crew of a previously abandoned fishing boat that is set to head out to sea again. However, when the sailors return after a successful voyage, they have not only travelled 30 years into the past but are also mistaken for the dead fishermen from the past.
For MacKay, who conveys hidden emotions with every fibre of his body and soul, this is yet another great role to demonstrate his versatility and skill across genres. Since starting off as a child actor in Peter Pan (2003), the English actor has starred frequently and consistently in homegrown fair from Private Peaceful (2012) and For Those in Peril (2013), to his international breakthrough performance in Sam Mendes' WWI drama 1917 (2019) and winning the British Independent Film Award for his role in Femme in 2023.
Working with Jenkin, however, has been a job like no other, MacKay recalls. "What I've specifically taken from Mark is an understanding of the benefit of accuracy," he says. "When you know that you can do 10 takes, you want to do it 10 times just for your own neurosis. But if you get only one single go at it, you really commit to that."
PAMELA JAHN: How much of a natural fisherman are you?
GEORGE MACKAY: Probably as much as my character in the film. I like the water, I like the sea, but I'm under no aspersions that I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to fishing.
Could you easily relate to the people living in Cornwall?
During the first week of prep, we spent time there. Mark wanted us bedded in. At that time, I was also watching this documentary called This Fishing Life, which gives insights to the day-to-day experience of the Cornish communities. A big part of it is that people there don't speak very much. And being there, I almost wanted to be quieter than I am. Usually, I'm quite social, if we were to meet each other out and about, but I actually also like being quiet. I'm very good on my own. It's out of politeness that I fill silences sometimes.
Did you have to practice overcoming that habit?
I got Mark to interview me in character twice, where I would be Nick for a while, and unless something was necessary to say, he - as in Nick - didn't say anything. It wasn't sad or a bad thing. He simply answered as briefly as possible; he was economical with what he said, not for any kind of reason other than it just is what it is. And that's what I had written on my script, the Cornish translation for 'it is what it is', because that's at the core of his character. It's not a big secret that he's carrying or anything like that. He just makes the best of things in a simple way in a very extraordinary situation.
Would you call it a lesson in austerity?
Yeah, in a way. The film opens with him going to a food bank. Many people in these seaside towns fall on hard times, especially in the winter when they can't go out fishing for a living. Also, if the tide's wrong, you can't get out the harbour. They live at mercy with nature. I remember one of the fishermen in the documentary had been out on the water for 3 days, but he didn't catch a thing. And all he said was, 'well, that's why they call it fishing, not catching.' That taught me a lot.
When Mark Jenkin first approached you, was it clear that he wanted you to play Nick?
No, I read the script with both characters in mind. It was only after we met for the first time that Mark decided I'd be right for Nick. But don't ask me why, because we didn't talk about Rose of Nevada at all. We just had a very unconventional conversation about films we enjoyed, our attitude to filmmaking, directors that we liked. We chatted about sport, just about day-to-day stuff. In the end he said, 'I think that's everything I need to know.'
Who appealed to you first though, Nick or Callum Turner's character Liam?
Well, truth be told, I had a slight leaning towards Liam initially. I read the script multiple times to have my interpretation of it and, therefore, I had an idea of who I thought he was and how I would play him. But when it turned out that Mark wanted me to play Nick, I was thrilled. On hindsight, I'm much more like him, we have a similar point of view on things.
What is Nick's coping mechanism to deal with the fact that he's suddenly living in a different time?
What I liked about him is his straightforwardness, the simple directness of Nick as a character. He says to himself, I'm going to try and get home. I'm good, that's all there is. He takes this strange situation head on. And he's pissed off when Liam doesn't want to go back for his own good reasons, because he's trying to be there for his family as best he can.
Mark Jenkin's films are always richly textured. There is something peculiar in both their form and content. How does that affect the work on set?
Mark's filmmaking process is born out of the mechanisms of the camera. He has this wonderful ethos of having limitations being the key to creativity, like the fact that the camera only runs for 27 seconds - it economises what you can actually do, and therefore you get really innovative with those very few choices that you have. At the same time, he's very clear and precise in that he only shoots what is going to be in the film.
Can you think of an example?
Yeah, we might run a whole scene, but if he only needed that one line of dialogue or a single gesture, he would only run the camera for those bits. Also, because of logistical reasons to do with the tide and location, we were filming certain shots weeks apart, like we would shoot one line Liam said, finish the scene, and then three weeks later we would shoot my coverage from that same scene. And of course, that can be disorientating for an actor, but Mark was always very clear on how he directs and why.
Has working with him changed the way you approach acting in general?
That’s an interesting question. Maybe certain strings or elements of that will carry over. On the other hand, in that same year I did a job where almost all of it was improvised; it was the complete opposite. It's a British drama directed by Paul Wright in which my character is experimenting with extremes, and we would do that with the camera running and finding our way. We were doing 11-minute takes where you're just trying to come up with stuff and work around a theme rather than a specific script.
You've started out very young in front of the camera. Looking back, do you feel that was a blessing or a curse?
Everything has its peaks and troughs. And I only know my own experience of it. But there are so many things about my beginnings as an actor that I'm grateful for. It's part of my identity. As a kid, I had so many experiences where I watched other actors or was around really great experts without feeling any pressure, it was just imaginary and great fun, or certain elements that I might call upon doing a scene today I learned by osmosis. And I also got some really good lessons early on from people that I've always held on to through the highs and lows.
How do you remember the success of 1917 and the way it elevated your career?
Of course, certain things changed with the film, but I also feel there's still work to be done. Ultimately, I approach acting on a very personal level in every sense of the word, and that's not dictated by the size of the movie or its reach. A film's popularity will always be defined by other people, it doesn't affect your own experience, because none of those people who later talk about the film were actually there on set. Understanding that made me concentrate even more on doing things that feel gratifying and important to me. And then you hope that it translates to the audience as well. Or as my character Nick would say: It is what it is.
Add comment