How did the idea develop from its inception – what ideas did you set out to explore and how did the film you made reflect or differ from its origins?  

Essentially we set out to explore the lives and exploits of a rural rugby team to see why the game was so deeply important not only to the men involved, but by extension our culture at large. We were looking to discover through a rugby club’s various rites and rituals the codes, values and ideals that these men seek to uphold. In essence it’s a film about men and their relationships with other men. It’s a subject, like rugby, left largely, surprisingly, unexamined on the cinema screen. We didn’t have a grand theory to prove, or a statement to make – we just had a bunch of questions. We wondered things like – what are the challenges and expectations of being a man today? How have things changed for men, and how might they still be the same as for generations past? What does rugby offer men on an emotional level that makes the game so important? Do men behave the some way in a group as they do on their own? We began the process by calling it our 'man studies' film – and that’s exactly what we’ve ended up with!

Tell me a bit about your working relationship from development through production?

We’re very fortunate in that we have very complimentary skills so can cover most aspects of filmmaking as a small team of two people. We evolve our ideas together right from their conception and it’s very natural for us to get on the same page creatively, to share a creative vision – it’s just one of those kind of miraculous things that’s always been easy for us to do. Together we nurture and protect this vision all the way through development, funding applications, shooting the film and beyond. We discuss the evolution of the story together throughout the whole process, and because we’re married and see each other all the time anyway – sometimes we have to ban ourselves from talking about the film or various film ideas else we’d never have any down time.  

Can you talk about the role of the documentary maker as outside observer and how that role evolves with extended time as part of a community?

The challenge for a documentary maker is to both ‘fit in’, and yet retain the perspective that only an outsider can bring to their subject. When going in to film with a community we are always careful to maintain our own individuality and be clear about who we are and why we’re there. We don’t try to hide our difference (in the case of Reporoa that was being arty townies!) and our role there as filmmakers. We take our time to get to know people and most importantly, allow them time to get to know us too – trust is born from lots of cups of tea, dinners and conversations both with and without the camera present.

Nicholas Philibert’s philosophy of making films ‘with’ his subjects rather than ‘about’ them, is one, though the distinction maybe subtle, that we find to be both productive and very rewarding personally. Over the course of our filming we make genuine friendships and gain rich experiences precisely because of our differences.

Miriam, this was a really male dominated world that you lived in for the course of filming, how was that for you?  Did your presence as a female impact the filming process at all? If so, how did you manage this?

Well I must say it took my breath away when I first filmed the pre-game huddle in the changing shed! I was taken aback by the masculine roar of pre-game passion. It’s quite different to say a female yoga class! Actually, soon after this first bit of filming we decided to allow the men some private ‘man alone’ time in the changing shed - as I do the sound recording when we’re filming, so we would just set things up so I didn’t have to be in the changing shed to record, though the guys seemed unfazed either way, and often joked that I’d just be watching all the footage later anyhow. Which of course was true. I felt surprisingly comfortable with often being the only women amongst this rowdy group of men - they’re all very good natured and I trusted them and enjoyed their company. We also spent a lot of more quiet time filming with the men alone on the farms. As is clear in the film, none of their behaviour was ever censored because I was present, and I’m so very grateful they let me in to see and be part of their man’s world - and that now that it’s in a film, other women will also get to see and experience this ‘secret mens business’.

What was the most challenging thing about making the film?

This mode of observational filmmaking is inherently a very risky undertaking. You can never be sure that anything will happen – ever! And when it does, you can only hope that you’ll manage to capture it and to be able to edit it in such a way that it makes sense on the larger level of a feature film. Of course, there’s nothing more satisfying when you do in fact manage to craft something out of life’s beautiful chaos.

Beyond that, it’s a very long process both in terms of the shoot and the edit. Herzog once said, apparently, that filmmaking is more about athletics than aesthetics – and in this instance it was both an adrenaline and an endurance event!

The film is so cinematic, it feels like watching a work of art unfold.  Can you talk about some of your key directorial choices and why you made them?

The directorial choices stem from a simple desire to see/create something that we haven’t yet already seen – but would love to see given the chance! In terms of documentary for us this largely means, as much as it is possible, bringing the language and craft of drama films into that of the mercurial world of documentary. Subtext and metaphor hold sway over facts and explication. We have attempted to use photography, sound and music in such a way as to invoke an experiential response, rather than just to document surface reality.

How does The Ground We Won relate to your previous feature How Far Is Heaven. Were there similarities in the subject you recognised from the outset?  Were there others that revealed themselves through the process. 

As we were completing How Far Is Heaven we were often asked, ‘what are you doing next?’. Our somewhat evasive answer at the time was to say that we were making a film about New Zealand’s other great religion. And this in many ways was true. Norm, the club president in fact lists ‘Rugby’ as his religion on his census form.

We knew right from the start that we were making a film, like our previous one, that thematically addresses that worldly ‘push and pull’ between the sacred and the profane. In the changing shed, along with the obscenities and threats of violence, there occurs a kind of communion among men that you’ll never see outside those four walls. It’s in here that the members of the team are released of their individual wants and needs, and instead bound together under one common cause. They’ll describe that cause as being to get out there and 'smash those c**ts' – but with it, and a win, comes a moment of transcendence – a reprieve from the endless daily grind. And it’s in here too that the farm owner and farm worker are equals.

You use interviews much less in this film. What motivated you to opt for a more purely observational style? How did this alter your process in shooting and editing the film?

With The Ground We Won we felt that here was an opportunity to ‘stand back’ and let the men and their world speak for itself – we really wanted to show not tell. So we only interviewed our three main characters, to glean more insight into their lives, and these interviews which are all in the film are the only ones we shot. The rest of the film is crafted out of moments literally captured from real life as it unfolded.

David Long’s soundtrack is beautiful, haunting, poignant and really sets the mood. Can you talk about your process of working with him?

We were looking to create a soundtrack that felt both timeless and contemporary, and that also evoked a sense of tenderness. David Long was a dream to work with. To begin with we sent David a selection of scenes from the early stages of our edit process and he had a play at some different musical ideas, and we all liked the same ideas straight off, it was that clear. So from there the score just evolved organically with the edit – sometimes the music would influence the pacing of the edit and vice-versa.

Chris, you directed, shot and edited this film. Can you talk about how it was to take on all these roles?

In terms of the shoot it makes sense to work this way, because every moment you’re shooting you’re making a whole raft directorial decisions; where you put the camera, what you chose to film or don’t chose to film, how long you chose to hold a shot etc – all these things have significant repercussions on the final film. I’m also always thinking about how I’m going to cut the shots together, whilst filming a scene. This is so vital because it’s very rare to have events repeat themselves in such a way that you can come back later and get that essential cut away you may have missed earlier. This also helps later to stream line editing process proper, because I come to have a very intimate knowledge of the footage and know exactly what we are trying to say with the material. Of course, I still rely heavily on the additional perspective that Miriam brings – and that of our story consultant Julie Alp.

Do you have core motivation as film makers? Is this clear to you or does it somehow reveal itself as your communal body of work grows?

We simply endeavour to make films that we want to see! We’re inspired by a lot of 70s films, where the filmmakers took real creative risks and were really brave with trying to tell new kinds of stories. We want to make films that contain truthfulness, a sort of humane playfulness and a cinematic artistry that speaks to our times. We’ve got a lot of seemingly diverse documentary and drama film ideas that we want to make into the future – and we’re pretty stubborn about protecting the sort of ‘purity’ of our creative vision from the idea stage to completion – so we’re looking forward to seeing where this takes us.