P7

1. Magazine copy by George Wetton
Selective quote: “This characterfinds braver acts later on in the film and that level of
hypocrisy in comedy is something which I feel George strives for in the writing of the
novel.”
Peter Harding discusses his personal thoughts on the newly released ‘Blood Moon’, and
his natural anxiety in playing the character, Steve Target.
Headline
Reliving the 80’s through the eyes of someone who doesn’t know why they are there. This is
what happened to St Hill’s student Steve Target as he battles the mysteries behind his
identity crisis, along with the uncovering of many murders around the streets of York. Steve
and his friends, Chris Bond and Lauren Pike all work together to uncover the mysteries
behind the disappearances. This comedic horror deals with a lot of dark humour earning it
the rating of an 18. The reviews written so far have been successful and the filmhas been
highly complimented. George Wetton’s direction of making the audience not know if they
want to laugh or cry is a comportment which makes this film very unique. The film has been
critiqued for dealing with issues of dyspraxia and religion rather well; two themes that
aren’t normally seen together in this genre. Whilst it may be set in the 80’s, and to be
honest we have seen this in previous ideas such as the cult TV serious ‘Ashes to Ashes’, but
this film isn’t just about the fashion and music and unchallenged misogynistic attitude of the
decade, this film delivers the promise of change, tackling serious issues which were
prominent of the time, and the showing of strong character development, something which
this film has managed to do successfully well.
Here today we have an exclusive interview with Peter Harding, the star of the Target Zone
franchise, as we discuss the main processes and complications behind the filming.
Blood Moon, the film adaptation of the first book in the franchise, will be released on May
18th with screenings at all major cinemas.
So, first of all Peter, what was your thoughts when you were handed the copy of that
script?
“Well thought it was an interesting one. At least I hope I did or else I wouldn’t be having this
interview, (laughs) it was certainly a bit by bit process. The writer and director, George
Wetton, had pitched me the idea at a very early development stage and, whilst I had read
the book, I will admit I was a little unsure and self-conscious about the casting. My original
casting choice was the role of ‘Brick’ but after seeing my audition they just knew that I was
better suited for the role of Steve, which naturally I felt flattered about. But having said
that, it also came with a lot of pressure. I felt like it would be such a big gamble because it’s
a franchise and hopefully there’ll be more films than just first adaptation. I didn’t want a
huge part, and I certainly wasn’t expecting it! Plus, there is the fear of being type cast, but I
am so glad I accepted it and I can’t wait to hopefully do more. The other thing I noticed was
how non-linear the script was. There were certain flashbacks and scenes that were in
different areas of the film. They were a lot more difficult to read and understand on a paper
script but when you’re acting, in character, and then see the editing process, even just those
short frames when you review the ‘take’ on set, you understand what the director is trying
to portray and that helps you in evolving the character you are playing, even just into the
next scene. It really is a process of evolution.”

2. When you said, you had originally auditioned for Brick was there any particular reason?
Did you feel a connection with him that made you want to act in that role?
“No, he’s not my favourite character but I felt like his part would have been the most fun to
play. To be honest I didn’t think I had the skill and the ability to audition for such a complex
character like Steve. In fact, I actually never read the books until I heard about the audition
from my agent. Halfway through the book, I had already realised that Lauren is my
favourite character. I love her no nonsense attitude. However just because she doesn’t
suffer fools gladly, doesn’t mean she can’t be a fool herself sometimes. We see a lot of
smart egotistical female fictional characters in film and TV increasingly nowadays, but I think
Blood Moon pushes this view, and especially in the context of the eighties decade with, for
example, the first female Prime Minister, George has tried to expand and focus on this.
Whilst Lauren is not the key character, her resilience and her strong personality makes her
natural confidence more believable and relatable. She’s strong… tough and ironically out of
all the characters, she’s the one that can defend herself the most. However, that doesn’t
make her a genius. George has done a good job of swapping the stereotypes and making
them work even more in my opinion. I think Beth (who plays Lauren) is an admirably strong
actress who did an excellent job and that tough side was shown well on the screen.”
What was your favourite scene to shoot?
“Whilst I can’t give too much away because the ending is very important, the ultimate
scenes were definitely my favourite. I love the physicality and doing my own stunts as that is
very important to me personally. You see a lot of action characters being replaced by stunt
doubles. Sometimes it can be very obvious. So, I wanted to stay in the character and do my
own stunts a much as possible. I also, personally had a lot of fun filming the cricket scenes. I
am a huge cricket fan and, as you can imagine, working on set with the same people over a
length of time, they become like family and friends, so rehearsals felt like just a bunch of
good friends relaxing and knocking a ball about in the local park. It was just great to bond
and have a laugh, however I needed to not get caught up in my competitiveness and needed
to focus on my character and his coordination problem of dyspraxia and then having the
challenge of finding that enjoyment in cricket; I think it’s an interesting concept. The
character can skateboard which is one of the only things that he can control but his
enjoyment for cricket is challenged because of the condition that he suffers from.”
What was the hardest scene to film?
“The hardest scene for me personally was the soliloquy that is played halfway through the
film. The scene was very demanding and pretty much sums up the whole film, apart from
the ending because that’s not happened yet. It’s almost like gathering your thoughts on a
journey to that particular stage. I felt it very pressuring and because George likes to filmin
one continuous take, which I think does work really well, when it comes to script learning
and constantly being on top of the character it was quite emotionally exhausting. The
monologue came after the scene, which was filmed with the other two characters, which
resulted in the scene being a lot longer than I was initially expecting. The script itself could
be a little demanding too; you’re playing this character who is knowledgeable on some stuff
apart from just the basics. How do I describe it? It’s concept is like someone who has a head
injury and they don’t know anyone in their family but they know the simplicity of how to
make a cup of tea. This is how my character feels. He knows how to do everything in his life

3. but what he doesn’t have knowledge on is the things that should matter the most and be
the most personal to him. Anger was one element that I had to play throughout of the film.
He feels robbed. He doesn’t know these supposed people, that are telling him he’s their
friend or son. This anger is an emotion that I think pushes him to work harder against the
case. Halfway through you realise. It’s not even about going back to his own life but realising
the anger he holds for the person responsible for putting him in this world. Whilst the killer
is of course the most dangerous character, he himself becomes dangerous as the story
evolves. That anger I found hard to do in some scenes because it’s an inspiring anger. This
character doesn’t want to live that out-of-date life and that’s something which he will do
anything to escape from. Its compelling but difficult emotion to portray.”
Your hometown was originally York, wasn’t it, but I understand you haven’t been down
there for a while? What was it like going back to see it all?
“Oh yeah it was brilliant. I thought it was a huge coincidence that the main location setting
was York. The filmdoes a good job of exploring the important and instantly recognisable
sights that tourists often see. It was very interesting to see the locations on screen. Seeing
places like the bar walls, Minister and Clifford’s Tower, you really get that sense of the
geography on the screen, but the experience was very surreal. I missed it. Having grown up
in York it was just such an amazing place to film, and I’m proud to say that this beautiful city
is my home. What I thought was rather noticeably different is that normally the backdrop of
York is used for portraying much older periods.. Georgian.. Victorian, most recently
‘Gentleman Jack’ for example with Suranne Jones, but to have York as a setting for
something more modern was quite unique. Any 80’s British film just seems to be normally
London based”
I’ve heard your direction has shifted a little from acting to filmmaking. You’ve stated in a
previous interview, that this encouraged you be more interactive with how it looks on
camera. Could you talk more about this?
“Yeah absolutely. I think it was mostly through George’s direction that I felt engaged with
his continuous shots. Having seen the film ‘1917’, I found that the concept of the camera
following the characters and having no cuts made you really feel like you were in that world
and it felt a lot more engaging. Something which I think George has captured very well in
this film. It’s not just the camera work that I admire though. It’s also the cinematography.
The practical camera work I found very inspiring, but I also like looking at the editing. The
monochrome style of including hues of red and blue from selective colour is something that
I have never seen before. Time is also a heavy concept in the film, whilst time travel would
be a bit of a stretch when talking about the story’s plot, time is always there throughout the
story and is the main aspect of the story. So, the visuals of all the different clocks and how
the camerawork focus on them… I feel like they have taken a really unique direction on
that.”
Even though it was quite an anxious role to have taken on and the character is very
different to most characters that are in the film, do you see similarities between the
character and yourself?
“Wow, that’s a good question. Like you say Steve’s a very different and complex character. I
think he does have an overwhelming socially awkward trait to him which I found the easiest
to play because I can be somewhat like that myself. I didn’t live through the 80’s so seeing

4. all the sets and props, I has the same sense of amazement that Steve has. There definitely is
an overwhelming factor, not just to Steve’s character, but to everything that is going on
such as for example the cars used on set, the clothing. the hair! When making something
look like it’s set in the 80’s you don’t want it to come across as too cheesy, but you need to
amplify those qualities that tell you what time period you’re in, so that both the actors and
the audience can understand the era. There is also the trait of not knowing what’s going on.
This is definitely something which I relate to immensely no matter what I am doing. (Laughs)
However I hate to disappoint but I wouldn’t say there are many traits that I resemble when
putting in comparison. Steve is a lot angrier than me or any other individual I know, is but he
is also a lot more kinder than the average person too. This is something which I think they’ll
look up to; when the protagonist is able to have more struggles than the viewer despite
great successes in the past. That’s how you are creating a successful character. You’ve just
got to make that character’s arc pay off and either have a bittersweet ending or a feel good
factor.”
When you are thinking of the 1980’s, what are the first things that you think of?
“Well, the first things that come to mind when I think of the 1980’s is Rubik cubes! And then
of course technology? Computers? Wealth? I know my parents talk of Filofaxes, shoulder
pads, Dynasty, the “Yuppie”, but I wasn’t born in the 1980’s; there’s no personal memory
there for me to recall. One thing that this filmhas done, that the book did quite well but not
on the same level for obvious reasons, is bring the music to life. There is a lot of music from
bands that I currently enjoy such as ‘The Jam’ and ‘A-ha’ playing on the soundtrack. This was
music that despite not growing up in this era, I listened to a lot through my parents playing
the music. Researching for the film I understood more about the decade, the divide in social
class, people being on strike, AIDS and unemployment. It was a stark contrast between rich
and poor to us looking back on it now. And then you now take on board the opinions of the
world in the 2020’s and the Social Influencers and see how the world has changed. Although
the core protests are still about race and sexism, so I wonder if we have changed at all?
What are your opinions on character development in the film? Do you feel like they got
through a lot of it?
Yeah absolutely. Hopefully if this film is a success, then you can see the further development
of these characters. I think it’s just essential to stick with one film at a time. I do however
think there is a fair bit of character development in this film. It’s almost an introduction to
the world. The best part for me is humour and how you can play around the development of
the character using this. You have one scene where the character is hugging their friend,
saying you’re my best friend; we’ve already been through a lot, type of scenario, and the
next scene where they are talking about going to their deaths, which leads to one of them
cowering out and stepping back from that “we’re all in it together” bond. This character
finds braver acts later on in the film and that level of hypocrisy in comedy is something
which I feel like George strives for in the writing of the novel. Overall, there’s a lot more
personal conflict; it’s not just about solving the case. It’s about getting along and working as
a team. As well as the personal vendetta that Steve has, the view of who or what has made
him live his life this way, his first interpretation feels overwhelming, and then progressively
as the film goes along, you find the trials and tribulations of investigating sociopath’s
murders are a lot more of a struggle when putting it into a comparison of just living your
regular life. Eventually you grow tired of everyone’s attitudes in the same way. Steve is sick

5. of everyone’s behaviour because they are old fashioned and just wrong. Some characters
are a lot more forgivable than others though which I think the viewer will see but still be
unsure on whether to label he/her as an antagonist or a protagonist.”
What are you most proud of now that the film is finished?
“Well, I believe the thing I feel most proud of is the level of effort not just from the cast, but
the crew too. I feel like visually they have tried the best at making this as much as a success
as possible. I also don’t get too involved with it, but the marketing has been done very, very
well with this film. I feel like despite playing such a challenging role I was able to play that
character with an air of believability. Whilst I can’t fully judge myself as an actor, and
sometimes I don’t have the self-belief in my ability, l have had some nice comments on how
believable the role is and how well I played the insomnia side of the character. A concept
which I had initially thought I wouldn’t be able to play very well. Which is great.”
Now I’m guessing that you have already read the second book, just in the expectations of
a sequel? The main antagonist deals with an identity crisis in a similar sense as Steve does.
If you could pick someone for the role of this, who would you pickand why?
“Well, I don’t think that I am the best in making these sorts of decisions. I would usually
leave them to the director. But if I did have a say in the casting I would go for Anthony
Hopkins. I don’t know if I am being a bit too ambitious with that decision but having read
the second book, I think he would establish the tone of it perfectly well. He matches the
description and his brilliant sinister performance in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ (1991) was
outstanding. So, I really feel like he would excel in the role and would just be overall great at
the part. “
Well, that’s everything. Thank you for giving us the chance to interview you.
“Thank you for having me. I hope you enjoy the film.”