James Norton is no stranger to playing less than fine characters thanks to his role as psychopath Tommy Lee Royce in “Happy Valley” and the son of a Russian mafia boss in “McMafia.” In “Rogue Agent,” he steps back into the skin of a man whose moral compass is slightly skewed. Based on a true story, “Rogue Agent” tells the story of Robert Frigard, a British car salesman who seduced at least seven women and exploited several women (including two men) in the 1990s by claiming to be an MI5 spy looking for new recruits.
In addition to cheating his victims out of more than £1 million, Frigard also isolated them from their families, made them perform strange “training tasks”, such as sleeping on the street for days at a time, and persuaded them to go jogging with him claiming they were being pursued by terrorists. A woman even gave birth to two of his children believing she was in hiding from the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
Norton says it was a role, he knew he wanted to play once he read the deeply researched but never published article by journalist and producer Michael Brunner (“Mauritanian”). “I read it, I ate it, I loved it,” says Norton, who quickly decided he wanted to make the film himself. He brought in former Black Bear Pictures exec Kitty Kaletsky and together they put together London-based Rabbit Track Pictures to make the feature, which in turn stars Gemma Arterton (“Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) as the victim of Frigard who eventually brings him down.
“It’s clear why it’s so compelling,” Norton says of his desire to put the article on screen. “It’s this story that no one has ever heard, and no one can believe it’s true. And it’s all of the things that I love.”
With “Rogue Agent” appearing on Netflix on Friday, August 12, Norton sat down with him diverse To discuss production, directing, and mysterious phone calls believed to have come from Friedgaard himself.
What kind of research did you do for this movie? Have you spoken to Robert Frigaard or his victims?
I did not speak to the victims. We wanted to honor their shared trauma and how terrible this experience was to them and didn’t want throngs of actors, producers, and filmmakers on their doorsteps. So we let Michael be our bond with them. The big question is whether we’ve talked to Freegard. We didn’t intentionally talk to Robert Frigard. We’ve contacted a few people, reached out to the production team, and made some somewhat questionable claims. And the question remains, if you’re a narcissist or that kind of manipulative and control-freak as Freegard is obvious, and you hear in the professions that a movie is made of you, well, what do you do? I am sure you are trying to please yourself with this movie. So there were a number of moments where two producers turned off the phone [and said] “I think I had just spoken to Robert Frigard. How strange.” So those were chilling. But no, we haven’t had any direct contact with him, and I don’t think we’d like that either. We know where it goes – we think we know where it is. A recent victim reached out and wanted to help us make the movie because that seemed like a way [of] hold him accountable. Other than that, I think it might still be around. Perhaps not very remorse. But who knows?
I was going to ask if I was concerned about any repercussions of playing a real crook.
The work we did didn’t suggest or feel like we were dealing with someone who was – I’m probably taking my word here – but in the immediate sense, he was dangerous. He’s a control freak, and he lives this fantasy, because he probably has a lot of self-doubt, has nothing other than imagination and needs control, because everything else around him is a mess. So we didn’t feel that we had any imminent danger. say that [but] Who knows after this movie was shown in the United States and suddenly we met Robert on the street … But yes, I think this is the danger of making films of this kind.
Courtesy of Netflix
Your characters in “Happy Valley” and “McMafia” are also somewhat sinister. Is this something you are attracted to?
I’m not looking for a villain specifically. The characters I think I’m attracted to are often the ones that are farthest from me. And as an actor, you have this wonderful opportunity to delve into these very complex minds, which are so different from your own and try to solve the mystery and solve the big questions about “why”: why did humans end up so much. Was it removed from anyone else? Why are they able to manipulate their moral compass to such an extent to justify these appalling acts? And I think we all, as humans, have a Jungian shadow, all wondering if we’re able to manipulate the moral compass. And so I find it inherently interesting.
I guess I’m only drawn to people who are puzzled and complex in nature because that makes my job so exciting.
With the projects you’re working on in Rabbit Track, what’s the balance in terms of the ones you stand out in versus the ones you don’t?
In the beginning we talked about owning 50% [projects] Which I’ll be in – not necessarily up front but in some amplitude – and then I won’t be at 50%. And in fact, it turned out to be roughly 80/20. 20% I participate as an actor and 80% I am not. Partly because our menu is really healthy and growing at an extraordinary rate considering our age and size. And also partly because it’s more interesting. I’ve learned that I love sitting at a desk and reading texts, editing texts and transcribing texts. It’s a whole other skill set, another kind of creative nourishment, being able to read a book and trying to see it in a cinematic sense and trying to get a vision of something and then who might direct and who might write this.
Which leads me to wonder – is directing something you thought about moving into?
Yes, it actually is. I mean, it was an interesting experience knowing so much about this, and having such a creative hold on not just the role, but the whole story. Knowing all the characters and all the decisions, and then having people come up to us who would take creative control of my mind, knowing in my head calmly how I was going to direct it. And again, just setting the tone for our company, I don’t think it would have been right – we know it wasn’t right – for me to take out our first project as a company and to direct it that he hasn’t directed before. Having said that, I’ve been in a movie for the past 15 years and I know what I like, I know the stories I want to tell and how I want to tell them, so there’s a softly chomping director ready. to stand behind the camera. And I guess I just want to make sure that the story I’m coming out with is the right one. I think as an actor people are interested in your first movie and now I love getting to know it from the production side. And I think by the time I find the story I want to make out, I’ll already have this whole world behind the curtain. So yeah, basically, that’s the plan but [I’m] Not quite sure when.
You also live with type 1 diabetes. Is this something you might visualize on the screen?
Kitty and I are constantly talking about how we can get one of the characters that I play or the characters that we build and develop, and how we can get one of them to have type 1 diabetes, because I think it’s too late. we need [it] Just for awareness. And also because they’ve been through so many times in Hollywood. I mean, that moment in ‘Con Air’ when a guy is hypoglycemic [an episode of low blood sugar], and they’re like, “Give him a jab! Give him a jab!” I’m like, “No! You’ve got to get him sugar!” It’s unreal. So we have to correct all these errors. We have to empower those kind of people out there. And the number of times you’ve had kids and parents come out and say how great it is to see you act and play these characters and live this life on the road and you can manage your diabetes. So that was one of the most satisfying things about having any kind of public profile to be really honest.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.
[ad_2]
