In the 1970s and 1980s, more than 30,000 people in the UK were infected with HIV and hepatitis C after being given contaminated blood products. It’s a scandal that should’ve caused shockwaves but has, for the most part, remained unrecognised. Luke Shelley’s new Slick Films produced short What We Wished We Could Be is centred around this scandal but rather than taking a documentary or even docu-drama approach, Shelley decided to tell his story from the dramatised perspective of a couple who have been directly affected by the issue. It’s a tense and confronting watch, showing how two people can be torn apart by something so out of their hands. With the film making its festival premiere at Rhode Island International Film Festival this month followed swiftly by a screening at HollyShorts, DN invited Shelley to join us for a chat about the making of the short, the decision to frame the story from a grounded, humanistic perspective, and the blessings and challenges of capturing it all on 16mm.
When did you first become aware of the scandal and what inspired you to make a film about it?
The concept for What We Wished We Could Be came from a meeting I had with screenwriter Jenna-Louise Hawkins. Jenna shared an early draft script exploring the challenges of loving a victim of the contaminated blood scandal. The concept was profoundly moving and kickstarted my education on haemophilia and the blood scandal. What made this story special was that it was based on the real life experiences of Jenna and her husband, Seán, which made developing the script a challenging process, in that we needed to balance authenticity and drama.
Why did you choose to centre the film around their relationship dynamic as opposed to the illness?
From the beginning, we both knew we wanted to find a way to tell the story that avoided the usual docudrama tropes, avoiding a scene-by-scene retelling of their lives. We wanted the film to explore the complexities of being in love with a haemophiliac infected with Hepatitis C and how it affects normal life goals like marriage and children.
It was crucial for us to make sure that Aidan specifically was not defined as a character by his medical conditions.
The story had to feel large in scale but also intimate, not trying to depict the entire history of the scandal, but instead depicting the impact at a grassroots level. It was crucial for us to make sure that Aidan specifically was not defined as a character by his medical conditions. Making him a singer with a passion for music allowed the character to shine and emphasised that those who were infected weren’t just statistics, but real people with hopes and dreams.
Once you had that more humanist perspective in mind, how did you take that and apply it to the screenplay?
Jenna described two memorable conversations she had with her husband during the early stages of their relationship, which really informed how we shaped the script. She spoke about the first time Seán told her he was a haemophiliac infected with hepatitis C and what that meant for their relationship. The other was later on in their relationship when he was offered antiviral treatment, which would have a profound impact on their lives moving forward. This sparked the idea of telling the story using a dual timeline because of the parallels in the heavy weight of these respective conversations. This meant we could showcase the changes in the relationship over time, allowing us to see Aidan and Charlotte’s progression through the years.
Most Popular
You shot on 16mm, which always brings challenges but looks incredible. Why did you feel it was the right shooting format for this story specifically?
From the very beginning, Yannick Hausler, my DP and I always felt this story needed to be shot on 16mm. The decision to shoot on 16mm was motivated by a desire to give the film a tangible, tactile look, to create intimacy between the audience and our characters, and help the characters feel relatable. This was my first time shooting on film, and honestly, it was one of the most beautiful experiences I’ve ever had on set. Shooting on film provoked focus and precision from the entire cast and crew, which was amazing. But it also had its challenges. We had 23 pages to shoot and the usual budgetary constraints, so we had to be very careful with our shooting ratio and only gave ourselves two takes at most to get what we needed, or only one for some of the more extended scenes.
The story had to feel large in scale but also intimate, not trying to depict the entire history of the scandal, but instead depicting the impact at a grassroots level.
I think casting brilliant stage actors like Jamie Muscato and Anoushka Lucas helped the overall film experience. Their preparation and theatre training allowed them to deliver all necessary nuance in a scene in just one or two takes. My background as an editor also helped me prepare for the shoot and the limited stock because having an idea of how you will cut the film together enables you to avoid shooting coverage you won’t use.
Speaking of which, how do you feel your background as an editor informs your work as a director? Are you always mentally assembling ahead of production?
In the case of What We Wished We Could Be, it was a huge advantage to have an editing background because of the limitations of the film stock; I needed to be sure of what shots were essential for the film to work. I try to be a director who doesn’t overshoot for the sake of coverage; I often find it overwhelming going into the edit with too many options. I think it also helps with communication between a director and an editor if the director has an understanding of the process, which I hope our amazing editor Flaura Atkinson can attest to.
What camera, lens and film stock did you opt for? Was there anything about those pieces of kit that you respond to and made you want to use them for this short?
We shot the film using the Arri 416 HS camera with Zeiss Distagon S16 lenses. The 416 hadn’t been upgraded so we were stuck with an SD video tap. It really meant that myself and Yannick had to trust the process and each other. We frequently collaborate and already have a short hand, which just made the process very exciting.
The decision to shoot on 16mm was motivated by a desire to give the film a tangible, tactile look, to create intimacy between the audience and our characters, and help the characters feel relatable.
We decided to shoot on 500T Kodak film stock as we wanted to really push the 16mm look, emphasise the grain and keep the grittiness around the border to show the imperfections, as we thought it helped with the story and our characters. We took the decision to use the tungsten stock to help us achieve the evening scenes and added an 85B filter for the daylight scenes. We also didn’t have the biggest lighting budget so it helped us with general exposure over the 200T stock. The final shot of the film was actually shot on the 200T stock due to our final roll being accidentally exposed on set.
For the black and white sequence we used the Kodak Double-X stock which Yannick decided to push in processing by +1. This allowed us to get extra grain and contrast in the image to enhance the isolated stage darkness feeling and hide the pillars and white walls of the location we were filming in. We used Cinelab in London to process all the rushes and used their Scanity 4K. They were incredibly helpful and supportive throughout the process.
The scandal recently gained traction again back in May when the final Infected Blood Inquiry Report was published, has that had any effect on your journey with the film so far? Are you seeing a change of engagement for What We Wished We Could Be with the renewed interest in the scandal?
The release of the Infected Blood Inquiry on May 20th was a massive and long overdue moment for the community and campaigners, who have sought recognition and accountability from the government for over 40 years. The mainstream media coverage of the report findings did an excellent job of informing the general public about the devastating reality of the scandal. It was consistently being delayed and pushed back so we always separated the film from real life. When it was finally released, as a team our primary concern and care went to Jenna as well as the campaigners we’d spoken to on our journey.
By the time the Inquiry was receiving the levels of press attention seen in May, all of the creative decisions had been made on the film, so I wouldn’t say it had a direct effect on the film itself. However, it did impact how we felt about the role that the film might play in raising awareness as it became evident that even with the Inquiry Report published, too few knew about it, or understood the gravity of what happened, or the effect it had on people’s lives. And now that the Report has been published and the world seems to have moved on, more than ever we hope that our film can continue to touch audiences and remind them this happened, and must never happen again.
How’s the future looking for both you and the film at present?
We are very excited to have our world premiere at the Oscar-qualifying HollyShorts Film Festival in LA, which will kick-start our festival journey. We are working with The Haemophilia Society and sharing the film with those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal at various events around the UK and Ireland. Jenna has already begun working on a long-form version of What We Wished We Could Be, as there are plenty more stories to tell surrounding the blood scandal. We are also collaborating on an exciting feature film, 100 Mile House, a Western folklore horror based on an insane true story.
