Funny Boy, Beans, The Nest, Underground (“Souterrain”) and Nadia, Butterfly are this year’s contenders for the top prize set to be handed out at the Canadian Screen Awards next month.

Going into the ring, four of the five Best Motion Picture nominated films are also up for Achievement in Direction – with the exception of director and co-writer Tracey Deer for Beans.

Four of the five films come from original screenplays, while three are second feature films, three are projects with Quebec roots, and three have stories that unfold on foreign soil. It should also be noted that four of the five (Beans, Funny Boy, Nadia, Butterfly and The Nest) were on TIFF’s Canada’s Top Ten list.

As expected, there’s also some overlap between this year’s best picture nominees in other categories such as cinematography (Beans and Nadia, Butterfly), sound editing (Funny Boy and The Nest), sound mixing (Beans and Funny Boy) and original screenplay (The Nest and Underground).

Here, Playback catches up with three creatives behind the films up for the award to talk about their project’s journey, surprising facts and even why their project should win.

Check back tomorrow for part two with Deepa Mehta (Funny Boy) and Tracey Deer (Beans).

Nadia, Butterfly

Pascal Plante (writer/director)

Quick fact: Rose-Marie Perreault was previously nominated for the 2019 CSA for Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role for Plante’s first feature film Fake Tattoos.

Up for: Three awards, including Achievement in Direction for Plante and Achievement in Cinematography for Stéphanie Weber Biron.

Playback: How long did it take to bring your project to screen?

Pascal Plante: I’ve had the idea for an Olympics-set swimming movie dealing with the struggles of sports retirement as early as 2013, but I only started writing the screenplay for Nadia, Butterfly in 2017. This was shortly after the premiere of my previous narrative feature Les faux tatouages (“Fake Tattoos”), and following the momentum generated by Telefilm Canada’s Pitch This! the same year. We got lucky with the funding, and we were able to shoot … (late summer 2019) and have a completed film in early 2020. Nadia was shown for the first time in September 2020: almost three years to the day after Les faux tatouages‘ premiere and our Pitch This! competition.

PB: How did you pitch your film to funders? And what was your budget?

PP: The final budget of Nadia, Butterfly ended up being $1.6 million. We were able to do a film like this on such a budget because we were extremely prepared. We did it all on a 20-days shoot (16 in Quebec and four days in Tokyo). Being a former national-level swimmer myself, I mostly pitched the film to funders by showcasing its authenticity and its originality. It was precisely the kind of film that the ex-athlete in myself wanted to see, but couldn’t! We told everyone from the get-go that we wanted to film with real international-level athletes, and some of my previous short films (which featured non-professional actors) were key in convincing them that the performances by first time actors could work.

PB: Tell us one surprising fact or story someone wouldn’t know about your film.

PP: Since the film features active swimmers, still performing at the highest level, we were only able to shoot during their two-weeks summer break. Katerine Savard came back from the Pan-American Games in Peru, and was on set the following morning… and we even shot all the underwater scenes on a weekend before her Pan-American Games! It just goes to show how busy these girls were (swimming full time and either full-time jobs or full-time studies). It’s a small miracle that they were able to do it!

PB: You were previously a high level swimmer – what personal moments or aspects did you want to incorporate from your time into Nadia, Butterfly?

PP: The film is not really autobiographical, since my transition from sports went really smoothly! Moreover, the screenplay was written before Katerine Savard’s involvement, so it is not a film based on her life either (even if her vast experience came in handy in making the film even closer to an athlete’s reality). That being said, years and years of swimming helped me define the proper aesthetic of the film (the blurs, the colours, the sensations, the sound treatment, etc.). In many ways, Nadia, Butterfly is more inspired by countless hours spent in the pool than by other films! The character of Nadia is an imaginary amalgam of ex-colleagues – friends and acquaintances. I was particularly inspired by my very talented friends who stopped early because they did not like it enough. They were prisoners of their own talent in a way, and I felt this was an interesting angle for my fictional main character.

PB: Additionally, your film sees Canadian competitive swimmers Katerine Savard, Ariane Mainville and Hilary Caldwell all star. Can you tell us about how you approached the casting process?

PP: I enjoy the casting process very much, and I’m very involved in it! For all the lead roles, my producer Dominique Dussault and I basically did it all ourselves. As stated above, I did not write Nadia, Butterfly with somebody specific in mind. What helped is that athletes of that calibre have numerous traces of themselves online (lots of interviews!) and it’s crazy what you can find only by… stalking people online! I went to the website Swimrankings and looked at the top 20-ish Canadian swimmers in numerous events, and then assembled a casting document based on that. Lots of coaches still knew me from my own swimming days, so I felt comfortable to ask if I could come on pool deck to meet their team, say “hi” and present my project. Later, down the line, we did audition some athletes. It was a lucky coincidence that the strongest butterfly swimmer in Quebec ended up being the more solid in front of the camera to play our lead! As for the other roles, we knew we wanted Pan-Canadian cast. I knew Hilary Caldwell solely from watching the Rio Olympics (where she won a bronze metal in a backstroke event) and I remembered that she made a strong impression on me during an interview. As for Ariane Mainville (who plays Marie-Pierre), she is one of Katerine’s best friends and training partner, so their chemistry was naturally very good! She is the younger sister of another Olympian medallist (Sandrine Mainville) who was one of my sports consultants at the screenwriting stage. Funny how everything lined up… but yeah, we ended up doing good old auditions to make sure they could carry a whole feature film on their shoulders!

PB: And pitch yourself – why should your film win Best Motion Picture?

PP: Oh that’s a funny one… especially since I’m such a big fan of some of the films in that line-up (especially The Nest, which was FANTASTIC!)… I guess I’ll go with this angle: there’s a lot of talk about diversity (or the lack of diversity) on screen, and I cannot agree more! Not to diverge on such an important topic, but in a way, elite-level athletes were never properly represented in fiction films. You’d be surprised at how many times an experienced swimmer or an ex-Olympian (of any discipline, really) came to me and said “Thank you. Now, thanks to this film, I can show my parents; or my friends; or my significant other what it was like to live that life, with all its ups and downs, its addictive euphoria and it’s profound solitude.” It made me realize that there weren’t that many sports movies that actually tried to build a bridge between athletes and cinephiles. I humbly hope that I managed to do that, with Nadia, Butterfly.

PB: And finally, what’s next for you? What else are you working on?

PP: As terrible as it is, the pandemic had one thing going for it: it gave us time to research and write! So, I am currently co-writing a new feature with Nadia, Butterfly‘s producer Dominique Dussault. It’s gonna be a drastically different endeavour: it’s a period film about the horrifying transatlantic crossing of the first Filles du Roi (King’s Daughters) in 1663… where one fourth of the ship’s passengers ended up dying at sea during a four-month-long cursed journey. We almost treat that story as a folk horror tale, and it’s very exciting!

Underground (“Souterrain”)

Sophie Dupuis (writer/director)

Quick fact: Dupuis’ first feature film Family First was previously nominated for Best Motion Picture, direction as well as best first feature film at the 2019 CSAs. Théodore Pellerin ended up walking away with the prize for Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role for his role in Family First.

Up for: Four awards, including direction, original screenplay and performance by an actor in a leading role (Joakim Robillard).

PB: How long did it take to bring your project to screen?

Sophie Dupuis: I’m from Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a small region six hours north of Montréal. Everybody in my family worked in mines, even my mother as a nurse. But I had never been in a mine! When I was studying cinema in Montréal, I was visiting my father back home and he brought me underground. That’s when it hit me – I said right away “I have to make a movie about mines!” That was 14 years ago. I started researching the subject and visiting mines in 2010. During this period, I didn’t yet know what my movie would talk about. During my visits, I was moved by the solidarity and the friendship between the miners. They were all saying that a mine was like a family. That’s when I understood that my movie would be about fraternity. And from then on, I wrote several different versions of Underground. Two years ago, we finally shot it in my hometown.

PB: How did you pitch your film to funders? And what was your budget?

SD: This is a $3 million film. We pitched it as a film about fraternity, about a group of men who understand each other because they’re the only ones who can. We wanted to talk about an inhospitable workplace that forces its workers to care about each other. A mine is a little community; you’re never alone in a mine. No one is left behind – even if you don’t fit in, even if you’re different and even if you feel unloved. When underground, miners are all the same.

PB: After Family First – did you feel any pressure when taking on your second feature film – Underground?

SD: Absolutely! When I made Family First, I thought I had one chance to establish my career. I was wrong. It’s not because your first film is successful that everything is set. The second movie feels more stressful than the first one. It’s like everyone is waiting to see if the first movie was beginner’s luck! But you know what? I like it that way. When you feel in danger, you push yourself further. It forces you to work hard, to always try to reach a better version of your script, of your shot, of your editing. It forces you to not be satisfied with your material but to seek the very best.

PB: Why did you want to re-team with Bravo Charlie and Théodore Pellerin on Underground? What made them the right fit for the film?

SD: My producer Etienne Hansez is one of my best friends. We know and understand each other very well. Etienne always accompanies me from the very first line. He knows everything about my intentions and he works really hard to give me everything I need in order to make the best film. He always manages to support me, even as a friend, during our crazy adventures. He’s my rock and we have fun together. We’re a really good team.

And Théodore Pellerin. Who wouldn’t want to work with him? He’s the kind of actor you don’t meet everyday. I like the way he approaches a character. He tries to see bigger than me, to bring it further than I did in the script. He never settles into a shallow version of the character. The most important thing he decides to do is to love his characters deeply, even with their flaws. This love comes through the screen and touches the viewer.

PB: Tell us one surprising fact or story someone wouldn’t know about your film.

SD: All the extras you see in the movie are real miners. When they understood that we wanted to make the film as realistic as possible in order to make an homage to them, they jumped in it right away. I asked them to comment on the mise en scène and the dialogues. They were very generous. I told my actors to listen to them and do whatever they say. They were so proud to share their passion with us! It was a beautiful thing.

PB: And pitch yourself – why should your film win Best Motion Picture?

SD: First of all, because it’s a film about a very important industry in our country that no one has ever talked about before. It’s shot in decor that you would probably never see on screen again. Also I decided to approach this subject by depicting the simple men behind it. Those who don’t see the light of day during winter, those who are passionate about a dangerous job, and those whose families are waiting while they’re away working hard, sometimes for weeks at a time. Those workers who touched my heart with their starry eyes, the brotherhood that binds them, their happiness and their pride. And as I made a poignant movie about those vulnerable men full of love for each other, men that oscillate between their emotions and being what “a real man” should be, I also made an entertaining and suspenseful movie. An action film. No one gets bored watching Underground!

PB: And finally, what’s next for you? What else are you working on?

SD: I’m currently writing my third feature film. It’s about a passionate love story between two drag queens that turns toxic. It’s going to be festive, colourful and vibrant. But shattering and heartbreaking at the same time.

The Nest

Sean Durkin (writer/director/producer)

Two quick facts: This marks the first time Durkin has been nominated for the Canadian Screen Awards. Additionally, there is a nine year gap between The Nest, Durkin’s second feature film effort, and Martha Marcy May Marlene.

Up for: Five awards – with Durkin also nominated for Achievement in Direction and Original Screenplay. The Nest‘s other nods include Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role for Carrie Coon, which is competing against fellow Elevation Pictures’ copro French Exit (Michelle Pfeiffer). The film is also up for sound editing.

PB: How long did it take to bring your project to screen?

Sean Durkin: So I started writing The Nest in 2014 and worked on it sort of on and off for the next four years basically. And then we shot it in 2018 and spent about a year in post and editing. So overall, it was about five years to completion from start to finish.

PB: How did you pitch your film to funders and how you got your partners on board? And what was your budget?

SD: I started developing the script with Rose Garnett and at the time she was at Film Four and she moved over to BBC Films. She took over BBC Films. So she’s been my sort of longest running partner on the film. We developed the script for years… it felt like we had turned a corner with the script and then I had met Ed Guiney at Element a couple of times through Rose. She put us together and I really liked him and so Element came on board, and then my producer from my previous show Southcliffe Derrin Schlesinger had also been involved the whole time and I’d wanted her to be part of it.

So that was the producing team. And once Ed came on, that was sort of the final piece and I can’t quite remember how we pitched it. The script was written and pretty clear, and so we went out to a handful of investors. Ed Guiney and the team at Element had previously done at least one U.K.-Canadian coproduction and maybe more, and so from the very beginning of them coming on board they knew how to pull that off. So yeah they really took care of that.

PB: Sean – I know you’re Canadian but that you moved to Surrey early on and that there’s references to New York, where some of your education took place. Was there anything in terms of a personal connection to those places that ended up coming through? Also the house you chose is spectacular.

SD: I was born in Canada and lived between New York and England as a kid. I was a bit too young for when the movie actually takes place. And I actually moved the other way, I moved from England to New York, and it was quite a positive move in my life, but I sort of reverse-engineered that for the movie and really wanted to delve into the economic situation in the U.K. in the mid ’80s. I wanted that to be the backdrop and the core of the family, the family struggle and chasing the American dream and bringing it back to England as this notion at the centre of the film. So there’s absolutely some personal references from my own life in those elements.

The house itself was not a personal element. It was something that I wanted to find that represented this ambition that this character has, represented this dream that he had been sold. This idea of success which was really celebrated at the time, but was not truly meaningful. So to find the house, it was a really complicated search. I mean, I had an amazing locations team in England that were looking and we knew it had to be within a few hours of London because of where production was based. And so we searched and searched, and finally, I think we got down to 10 finalists off of pictures and… I went around my DP, production designer and producers and we went and looked at places and you’d show up somewhere. And from the outside, it looked perfect and then you’d get inside and it would be just a series of rooms that you couldn’t really tell how big it was. And a lot of the houses were like that. I really wanted some open space. I want it to feel that there was open space to really create a sense of isolation for Alison, in particular and for the kids, and I wanted the sense that you couldn’t close all the doors, you couldn’t make it secure… The house we found was the last house we visited and we were really worried we weren’t going to find something. And so we showed up to the last house and walked in and it just had all of those elements.

It was the only one that was open, had some open space and from every room you could see into several other rooms and there were multiple doors in every room. So it really helped create that maze-like feeling that I wanted to give to the psychology of the characters inside the house. And also it felt like a house that was way, way too big for this family, but also not a castle. I mean, we went and saw some that were literally like mini castles with moats, which obviously would have been ridiculous. Finding that balance was really important and a really fun challenge for the movie.

PB: And then Sean, just because again, we’re talking about different elements of the film. In terms of working with the horse, Richmond, were there any interesting stories that kind of came about in terms of working with an animal?

SD: Loads. Yeah… it was amazing. I mean, we had great trainers in Toronto and had a really great time. Carrie was doing some riding lessons there with some trainers and they were really helpful. I mean, the first scene we shot the very first day of the shoot was at the stable in Toronto and the horse trainers were there and really great… And Carrie ended up using in her riding lesson where she teaches in the movie, she used some of the language that her trainer used with her and really embodied that, so that was really fun. And then when we got to England, we had this amazing team called The Devil’s Horseman, which are one of the top companies in Europe for film. And they were also incredible. And so the horse who plays Richmond is actually named Tornado, and he’s also Jon Snow’s horse in Game of Thrones… Carrie Coon always jokes that Tornado is the most famous person in the movie…

PB: The process of actually casting for The Nest in terms of attaching Jude Law and Carrie Coon. Did you want to talk a little bit about that process?

SD: I had met Carrie a couple times the year before we started making the movie. We had some friends in common and so we met and talked about working together. And then when we started casting and going through lists and things, my casting director [suggested] Carrie, and I was like of “course it’s Carrie.” It just made sense. She has this sort of grounded midwestern energy and also this ferocity and this like great versatility that Alison. So she came on board first, and then we sent the script to Jude. He responded and he was in L.A. and met with me. We were from the first meeting really on the same page about how to approach the character and how to always find… the sort of warmth and love that’s always under the surface, no matter what decisions Rory makes. He always believes he’s doing the best thing for his family. That was really important to both of us immediately. And then he came on board.

PB: And pitch yourself – why should your film win Best Motion Picture?

SD: Well, I don’t know that I could say that. I would just say that this is a film made with deep passion and care… Care for detail and trying to make something that is human, nuanced, complicated and truthful. It was made with such attention to detail and with love and passion for me, my producers, my whole creative team, editor, DP, production designer, costume, makeup… It was just a very beautiful effort on everyone’s part. And so it’s something we all care really deeply about and gave everything to.

PB: Looking forward, what’s next for you? What else are you working on? And I know, again, you’ve worked a lot in the American system – do you have any projects on the go that perhaps have a Canadian connection or Canadian producers attached? 

SD: Nothing active, but I certainly have some stuff coming up that could be. We’re still in the script stage and haven’t got out of that and started looking into production or setting things up, but absolutely, I mean. Basically everything I’m working on has that possibility. So I think when the time’s right, when something’s ready… setting something up there would be, you know, one of the first options to look at… And then hopefully I’ve got a feature that’s getting ready to go out.

Image of Sophie Dupuis courtesy of Eva Maude