The rising British actor reveals the leap of faith that brought her opposite Amanda Seyfried in Ann Lee as the Shaker epic hits theaters in the U.K.

WORDS

DATE

SHARE

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Email

Portrait of actor Viola Prettejohn from The Testament of Ann Lee

For actor Viola Prettejohn, the experience of making The Testament of Ann Lee—in which she plays the titular character’s niece—was defined as much by vulnerability as by cunning craft. Already a familiar face to viewers of the HBO science-fiction drama The Nevers and as the young Princess Elizabeth in The Crown’s sixth season, Prettejohn entered the project while riding this momentum, only to find herself back in beginner’s territory. “A lot of us hadn’t sung out in a professional capacity before, or danced, or moved our bodies in that way,” she explains. “It felt like we were all learning together.”

That collective leap into uncharted territory continues to shape how she talks about the film now, on the eve of its U.K. launch. She jokes about finally booking a London cinema to screen the finished work, in order to appease friends who have been following the unwieldy project for more than two years and are, at last, able to see it.

Next up, Prettejohn will appear in the northern Italy-set thriller Brides, alongside Olivia Cooke and Jodie Turner-Smith. For CULTURED, she reflects on trusting her process, learning from seasoned mentors, and the rare intimacy of trying new talents as a crew on set.

Have you enjoyed the response to the film so far?

It’s been amazing. Even if people don’t get it—it’s doing a lot—they still appreciate that it’s a massive achievement given the artistry behind it, and that’s been nice to see.

Could you tell us about navigating set life with Amanda Seyfried? What did you learn from her?

It was the best on-set experience I’ve had. She has this amazing ability to come in and out of character seamlessly. There’s this idea that to be a great performer, and to create these characters you have to be super self-serious. Watching her on set, she is one of the great performers of this generation, which I think people are finally realizing from the run she’s had this year. 

Still, she doesn’t take herself seriously at all. The moment the camera is cut, she’s back to Amanda and we’re talking about something entirely different. She put in, what I think, is a truly monumental performance in this film. It’s encouraging, because sometimes you think, Am I not taking this seriously enough? Do I need to lock myself away from everyone and focus on the craft? Maybe sometimes you have to do that, but it’s encouraging to see someone not do that and still put in an incredible performance. 

How did the cast transform into a trained group of Shakers?

We had a quite lengthy rehearsal period before filming, which is not always the case. So often you just have to arrive and do it, but with this film that would have been impossible. We had extensive dance rehearsals, and then we had a couple of singing workshops. The singing was more spread across the film—we would go and record in our spare time—and that was less structured. 

In our first singing workshop, we all sat in a circle as a cast and had to make the noise that came into our heads whenever we wanted. We did it for 20 minutes straight, either singing, screaming, or just making any noise. It’s like with the Quakers, where if the spirit moves you, you have to stand up and speak. Doing that immediately loosened us up. Both Amanda and I were classically trained in singing, so unlearning the idea of being perfect and in key was difficult.

Tell us about your research on the Shaker religious community.

It was really beautiful. After filming, I went to Hancock Shaker Village. They were still doing some filming there, and I visited and watched everyone. Being there was quite emotional actually. The community we created on set unintentionally felt like a Shaker utopian society, almost like we were living in their experience. That was kind of my research. I also looked at a lot of their drawings, because I draw a lot in my spare time. 

Portrait of actor Viola Prettejohn from The Testament of Ann Lee

Can you describe your experience working with Mona Fastvold?

She’s the most amazing person to work with, and has such a calming presence. With a film that has so many moving parts and so much that can go wrong, like huge dance sequences, it never felt like she was flustered or didn’t know what was going on. We had that community feeling because of her. She has an incredible talent for bringing the right people together. She chose people she knew would work well together. Even though she was obviously incredibly busy as the director, I always felt taken care of. She had such self-assuredness in knowing she had a vision and seeing it through. There was no panic, no questioning her choices. It was just: I’ve assembled the right people, I have a vision, and we’re going to execute it and it’s going to be great. That kind of confidence is so reassuring on a set.

You’ve portrayed an amalgam of historical figures, imagined and real. Is this something you’re drawn to? Do you seek it out?

I think I have quite a historical face. Like, she’s never seen an iPhone in her life. Which is believable for me, by the way. I’m technologically incompetent. I look suited to those time periods, and I’m interested in [historical films] because a lot of people nowadays find stories from the past inaccessible or harder to relate to. It’s interesting to make those times more real to people. That’s the amazing thing about Ann Lee—it all feels very tangible and lived in. The people feel like real people. For period projects, there’s an association with stuffiness and closed-off characters, and that doesn’t have to be the case. I’m always trying to bring a modern sensibility to the work.

Are there any historical figures you’d be interested in portraying? 

Oh wow! That’s a tricky question. I’ve always been fascinated with 19th-century French literature. When I was an early teen, I read all of Maupassant’s short stories and novels, then Zola, then Balzac. I really think of myself in that time period. 

People keep going for Les Misérables, which is great, but there’s so much more there. I dipped back in recently and read The Drinking Den by Zola. What struck me about this particular novel is that it deals with very current issues. The central figure is a woman dealing with financial issues of her household and becoming a single mother, and this is all happening in 19th-century France. I would love to do something in that period. There’s something attractive about how grimy, dingy, and sordid it is. It’s deeply depressing but in a romantic way.

Looking ahead, are there any Easter eggs that you can share from Brides?

I was back out in Budapest again, and it was a very different experience. A lot of blood was involved, and a lot of amazing costumes. People are going to have a lot of fun with it. It’s a very different character from any that I’ve played before, and a challenge. I’m excited for people to see me do something completely different.

Where will you be spending Ann Lee’s U.K. release?

I’m hoping to book out a cinema in London and bring all my friends. I need to figure that out! I’ve been talking about it for nearly two years, and all my friends are desperate to see it. They’re kind of begging me to stop talking about it.

 

More of our favorite stories from CULTURED

10 Collectors Share the Book That Changed How They Think About Art

Nobody Sings About Sex Like Peaches. With Her First New Album in a Decade, She Shows Us Why.

Stylist Jason Bolden Spotlights 3 Young Black Designers You’ll Soon Be Seeing a Lot More Of

Masturbation on the Moors: Emerald Fennell’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ Is a Bodice-Ripper for the Internet Age

The 14 Horniest Places in New York, According to Jordan Firstman, Francesca Scorsese, and More

Sign up for our newsletter here to get these stories direct to your inbox.

You’ve almost hit your limit.

You’re approaching your limit of complimentary articles. For expanded access, become a digital subscriber for less than $3 a week.

You’re approaching your limit of complementary articles. For expanded access, become a digital subscriber for less than $2 a week.

Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here

You’re approaching your limit of complementary articles. For expanded access, become a digital subscriber for less than $2 a week.

GET ACCESS

Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here

Want more in your life?

For less than the price of a cocktail, you can help independent journalism thrive.

Pop-Up-1_c
Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here
Pop-Up-1_c

Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here

Want more in your life?

For less than the price of a cocktail, you can help independent journalism thrive.

Pop-Up-1_c
Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here
Pop-Up-1_c

Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here

You’ve almost hit your limit.

You’re approaching your limit of complimentary articles. For expanded access, become a digital subscriber for less than $3 a week.

You’re approaching your limit of complementary articles. For expanded access, become a digital subscriber for less than $2 a week.
Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here
You’re approaching your limit of complementary articles. For expanded access, become a digital subscriber for less than $2 a week.

Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here

Want more in your life?

For less than the price of a cocktail, you can help independent journalism thrive.

Pop-Up-1_c

Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here

Pop-Up-1_c

Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here

You’ve reached your limit.

Sign up for a digital subscription, starting at less than $3 a week.

Already a Subscriber? Sign in Here

Want a seat at the table? To continue reading this article, sign up today.

Support independent criticism for $10/month (or just $110/year).

Already a subscriber? Log in.