And at that point it was just the one point of view, right?

Yeah, the “Him.” Jess was always going to play “Her.” When I Was first offered it it was only “Him,” and I said no to the film because the film was about something horrible that happens to him, and it was quite close to me having a baby. So two years later they are making the movie again,Joel Edgerton had backed out for some reason and had a couple days to get somebody else in. They came back to me. I read it again and loved it. I had been a dad for two years by that point so it wasn’t all raw…

So when I came back into it, I came for the first day of rehearsals and I swear to you, I did not know we were doing two films. Because when they asked me to do it, they needed a quick answer because they were going to lose financing. So I got the script from my old original email from two years previously and just read that and said “I’m up for it!” I think my agent or somebody mentioned there were two films, and it was just one of those things that didn’t quite compute. I was just like, “What the fuck is she on? Eh, nevermind.” And it was the first day of rehearsals and I was sitting there and my script was incredibly think. And I was like “Holy fucking shit!” I don’t think I admitted that to the director for two weeks, actually. And Jess only found out today.

Obviously in every movie you shoot multiple takes for each scene. How much more work is it to do a whole second point of view?
What we would do is just do a scene for one movie, and then once we’d finish it entirely, we’d come back and do it all again [for the other movie]. Otherwise you could just do the same camera angle, change costumes, then move on. But we wanted both scenes to be different in their composition and not just in their acting or in the lighting. The camera wanted to be in different places. Otherwise it would just look like the same scene re-edited, you know? But it’s kind of weird, because one of my most hated things as an actor is when you have to reshoot something. I don’t know why. I don’t mind doing theater, and that’s recreating every night. But film and tele, it’s just horrible for some reason. And yet we had to do that in this a lot. But it was kind of different I suppose. You weren’t recreating. You were sort of creating a kind of a reflection of what had happened, but it would be skewed, as if through water and not through a metal surface. It was rippling and it was changing and the colors were different and the attitudes were different and the reaction to a line would be different and the memories to a line would be different.

Let’s talk about what you have coming up. What can you tell us about Victor Frankenstein?
Frankenschteeeein! Frankenschteeeein! I think what we’ve done with it is going to be a little bit unexpected.

That’s risky, since it’s such a legendary character.
Yeah, there’s a massive expectation and you’ve got to respect the expectations that audiences have. You’ve got to respect the fact that an audience thinks Frankenstein is the monster, even though it’s not. Frankenstein is the doctor behind the monster. So you’ve got to give them that monster and you’ve got to give it properly. But the existential crisis of the monster isn’t that interesting. What drives somebody to do something that is deemed outside the barons of, not just good taste, but what is allowed by nature and what is allowed by god, that’s really interesting. So the relationship Frankenstein has with Dan Radcliffe’s character really forms the backbone of the movie. And they are both kind of maverick genius characters who riff off each other and sort of egg each other on and build each other up, and not necessarily in healthy and wholesome directions. It’s a bit of a tragedy, but also a kind of rompish tragedy as well. There’s a lot of crash-bang-wallop in it. There’s a lot more crash-bang-wallop in it than I thought there would be. But me and Daniel are both quite physical, and the director just kind of seemed to run with it. So there’s not many scenes where we aren’t flinging each other around the room. It was good fun.

Before I let you go, I have to ask you a random question: Do they play "Braveheart"in Scotland as much as they do in this country?
[Laughs] Um, for me it is one of the best––and it’s not just because I am Scottish, because there’s a lot of things in the film that are historically bullshit, like the fact that [William Wallace] sleeps with the princess of England, the French woman, she would have been fucking four years old in reality, so it’s total pedophilia. But for me, it’s one of the best sword epics. And also, fight scenes for a lot of big epics––and I won’t name them––I can’t actually see what’s happening in the fight scenes…

The edits are too quick.
Too quick! Too dirty! Too much happening! But “Braveheart” when somebody gets their eyeball gouged out, you can see it. And that’s really cool. But, I don’t think we play it as much as you guys play it, simply because we don’t have 5,000 TV channels. But we do love it.

"The Disappearance Of Eleanor Rigby" opens in theaters on Friday. And in case you're interested, here's our review of 'Him' and 'Her' which we liked much better. And here's another piece that compares and contrasts the truncated 'Them' version to the two longer films.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/interview-james-mcavoy-on-eleanor-rigby-playing-frankenstein-watching-braveheart-20140910?page=2#blogPostHeaderPanel