Duncan Jones's debut feature Moon (2009), a retro-1970s science-fiction/art-house epic that ingeniously managed to hit a lot of the same notes that Kubrick and Tarkovskiy hit despite a miniscule budget and having only one principal character (played by Sam Rockwell), nabbed Jones a BAFTA award for Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer and dumptrucks full of other nominations and accolades.
His most recent feature, Source Code (starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright) could be pitched as "Die Hard by way of Quantum Leap served in eight-minute repeating chunks of Groundhog Day."
SuicideGirls talked to Jones (who is the son of Rock god David Bowie) in Boston in a luxury hotel that used to be a prison, while Jones was getting texts from Gyllenhaal asking how things were going and two of the three devices brought to record the interview shit the bed. Warning, minor spoilers follow.
Michael Marano: Without giving away too much of their plots, both Moon and Source Code deal with issues with identity in enclosed environments, which are artificial constructs. Is modern society by definition a construct? And how do you find authenticity, which is sort of the quest of both these main characters [in Moon and Source Code], in these artificial constructs?
Duncan Jones: I would say that you're correct, that both these films do deal with that. I would say that it wasn't a conscious choice on my half to be doing two films that covered the same ground in that way--or, at least, different aspects of the same ground. When I read the Source Code script, because it was something that had been written by Ben Ripley, it was introduced to me by Jake Gyllenhaal. I actually had a chance to meet with [Gyllenhaal] and I very much wanted to work with him. I'm a huge fan of his. And he suggested that I read this script, Source Code. He was a big fan of Moon... and I think he was the one who saw the similarities, more than I was. I think he saw Moon, read Source Code, and said, 'I think that would work well together!' When I read the script, I was immediately getting excited about the big differences [between the two movies]. The fact that it was a pace-y, sort of Hollywood-feeling film where I thought there were some interesting ideas in it. There was a little touch of romance, a little touch of mystery. I would get to work with more than one actor! After Moon, this was a big move for me! And then it wasn't until afterwards that I started to notice the similarities. So I think that on a subconscious level, the question of identity in particular was something which was appealing to me.
MM: Both Moon and Source Code have protagonists who are facing, in the classic sense of the word, glamours--the appearance of a world or reality that is based on illusion.
DJ: I haven't heard that word in a long time! That's kind of cool.
MM: You came of age in the 1970s, in the UK, and that was a world of glamour and science fiction. It was a world in which women with purple wigs could be on Gerry Anderson's Moon Base [on the ultra-rad-mod-fashioned SF show UFO]. It was also sort of the Golden Age of Doctor Who. Does this inform your storytelling? This collision of glamour and hard science-fictional constructs?
DJ: I don't know. It's true that I was born in London in the early 1970s, but we traveled so much. I have a very eclectic taste in movies and literature, not only because of the fact that I was traveling so much. But [because] my father's influences, when I was growing up, were pretty varied. And what made him enthusiastic, obviously, trickled down to me. I used to read every evening. That was sort of a house rule. I had to read an hour or two a night. And science fiction in particular was one of the things that was kind of my candy. If I was finding it difficult to get my nose--or brain, rather--into a 'For Kids' biography of Abraham Lincoln, he'd hand me George Orwell's Animal Farm or something to keep me interested and keep me reading. That sort of was my introduction to science fiction.
MM: Source Code is, in some respects, a disaster movie. And yet the very nature of this disaster movie, which deals with identity, demands very strong subjective camera and sound work. How do you balance disaster-movie spectacle and intimacy, when you've got a story like this?
DJ: Well, reading the Source Code script for the second time--the first time I read it just as the audience--reading it for the second time, I was trying to do it with my director's hat on. And that's where you really see where the problems lie, or at least the puzzles that need to be solved. One of which is: we're going to be revisiting an event multiple times. Visually, I wanted to keep that stimulating and interesting and keep the audience engaged and feeling by the end of the film that they've seen something fresh the whole way through, and not been subjected to a repeated event. But at the same time, the whole story--well, as much as possible--is told from the perspective of Colter Stevens, our main protagonist, Jake's character. And you need to find a way to move the camera in such a way that it always, as much as possible, his perspective on things. I approached it fairly strategically. I broke down those elements where there is a repetition, and tried to ensure that each time there is visual variety. Not just in the camera positions, but also if there was enough of a change in the narrative or if new characters were being introduced, that we could move events around the environment, the train that he is on, so that by the end of it, it doesn't feel like you've actually seen the same thing twice.
MM: There are two main dramatic arcs in Source Code. You have the Jake/Michelle arc [taking place repeatedly on the train] and you have the Jake/Vera arc [taking place at the same time in a different context]. These are essentially two one-act plays that are going on simultaneously. How did you structure these two dramatic arcs? These two intense dramas happening parallel to each other?
DJ: I think it's fair to say there were unique acting challenges for all of our principal actors in this film. Jake has the obvious one. He's a character who finds himself at the center of a mystery with revelations occurring throughout, that really allow him to react in dramatically different ways throughout the whole film. So, as an actor I think he has the opportunity to do many things. But there is a lot of freedom there. For Michelle Monaghan, who is a character who finds herself on a train repeating the same event, she has an arc which has to last over the course of the entire film, and she has to repeat [the same] eight minutes, and generate parts of an arc each time. So that every time, she's starting in the same place. And each time, there's a different ending. And if you look over the course of the film, there's an evolution from the start to the end of the film. That's particularly difficult. One of the things we were able to do [for her] was shoot the film in order, to try to help her. Otherwise, it would have been pure chaos. For Vera Farmiga's character, it was a very different problem. She has an arc, but she also has to perform inside a confined environment. A lot of her performance is being recorded by a camera which is sitting right in front of her [character]. And she has to be able to communicate and get across her state of mind with small nuances, knowing that the camera for most of the time is capturing her in a medium close-up.
MM: Source Code deals with quantum physics and different universes, and I couldn't help but think of a quote from Philip K. Dick which says all existences, all possible universes, are like an infinite number of suits lined up in an infinite closet. And God wears different universes and realities according to His different moods. Looking at your take on alternate realities and universes in Source Code, where does quantum physics end and philosophy begin? Or, did you just want to make a fun movie?
DJ: Well, that's an interesting question. Because Ben Ripley has written a script which I think is structurally incredibly sound. [A]s a fan of science fiction, I see that genre being split between hard scifi and soft scifi, with hard scifi being stories where you can see how the world we live in today can by a process of evolution or technological innovation wind up where the science fiction is. And soft science fiction is where you're talking about dragons and magic and crazy stuff. Now, time travel and parallel realities, for me, feels like it's in the gray area between [hard and soft scifi]. And although I think the logic is consistent and makes sense in its own right, it's difficult to know how we go from the reality we're in now, to one where we have the technology to actually be able to access that power. So, I wanted to set up some very clean rules at the start of this film that explain what it is that we're investigating, [and to] through lightening the tone of the movie, and injecting it with some humor, ask the audience to just take a leap of faith.
MM: And speaking of quantum issues, and quantum leaps--
DJ: I can see where you're going with this! [Laughs]
MM: There is a [vocal] cameo from a certain, well, it's [Quantum Leap star] Scott Bakula! Can we say it?
DJ: Yes! It is the Scott Bakula!
MM: Can we say it?
DJ: Absolutely!
MM: Do you want to address this bit of vocal casting?
DJ: It's kind of fun! And for people who read this and see the film, and know ahead of time, I'm sorry. But at the same time I think, hopefully, what is particularly effective about this cameo is that it's at a moment where I think the audience will be emotionally invested to the point that they will just buy into what's going on. And that suddenly, for those of you who are fans of Quantum Leap, you will realize that the voice is Scott Bakula, which makes a lot of sense, when you've seen the film. And that's one of those little in-jokes. For me, it's kind of fun, and I am a scifi fan, and when I was reading the script, there was a particular moment at the start of the film, where Jake sees himself in the mirror and sees someone other than who he thinks he is. And I was just thinking, 'Ah! It's Quantum Leap!' [Laughs] And to have that opportunity to make a little tip of the hat the show was important.
MM: If I could just jump back to Philip K. Dick and written science fiction. Source Code, in terms of theme and outlook, has more in common with a lot of Philip K. Dick, than do a lot of recent movies that are nominally adaptations of his work. [In Source Code] you've got the fragility of reality, scary government agencies working behind the scenes pulling the levers of reality, you have the question of 'What is human and what is construct?' Were you consciously referring to Philip K. Dick?
DJ: A great deal of my imagination stems from my love of Philip K. Dick, and also J.G. Ballard, another science fiction author I love. So, absolutely! Certainly not in a conscious way. But he was formative in my appreciation of scifi.
MM: Source Code deals with an act of terrorism on US soil. Did you feel a need to be sensitive with regard to possible raw nerves while making this movie, so that you could make it a fun ride?
DJ: There were early drafts of the script that were set in New York. And I know that the producers felt it was important to move it from New York for obvious sensitivity reasons. They were looking for a city that would work. And Chicago, being a location everyone on the East and West Coasts can relate to, seemed like a sensible idea. I think that Chicago is a great city anyway. It's very multi-cultural. And for me, in particular, there is this sculpture in [Chicago's] Millennium Park by Anish Kapoor called The Cloud Gate, which really lent itself to some of the subtexts of the story. And I wanted to use it. Fortunately, Mr. Kapoor gave us permission and we were able to. So there was extra value added by being based in Chicago.
Source Code in theaters now
His most recent feature, Source Code (starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright) could be pitched as "Die Hard by way of Quantum Leap served in eight-minute repeating chunks of Groundhog Day."
SuicideGirls talked to Jones (who is the son of Rock god David Bowie) in Boston in a luxury hotel that used to be a prison, while Jones was getting texts from Gyllenhaal asking how things were going and two of the three devices brought to record the interview shit the bed. Warning, minor spoilers follow.
Michael Marano: Without giving away too much of their plots, both Moon and Source Code deal with issues with identity in enclosed environments, which are artificial constructs. Is modern society by definition a construct? And how do you find authenticity, which is sort of the quest of both these main characters [in Moon and Source Code], in these artificial constructs?
Duncan Jones: I would say that you're correct, that both these films do deal with that. I would say that it wasn't a conscious choice on my half to be doing two films that covered the same ground in that way--or, at least, different aspects of the same ground. When I read the Source Code script, because it was something that had been written by Ben Ripley, it was introduced to me by Jake Gyllenhaal. I actually had a chance to meet with [Gyllenhaal] and I very much wanted to work with him. I'm a huge fan of his. And he suggested that I read this script, Source Code. He was a big fan of Moon... and I think he was the one who saw the similarities, more than I was. I think he saw Moon, read Source Code, and said, 'I think that would work well together!' When I read the script, I was immediately getting excited about the big differences [between the two movies]. The fact that it was a pace-y, sort of Hollywood-feeling film where I thought there were some interesting ideas in it. There was a little touch of romance, a little touch of mystery. I would get to work with more than one actor! After Moon, this was a big move for me! And then it wasn't until afterwards that I started to notice the similarities. So I think that on a subconscious level, the question of identity in particular was something which was appealing to me.
MM: Both Moon and Source Code have protagonists who are facing, in the classic sense of the word, glamours--the appearance of a world or reality that is based on illusion.
DJ: I haven't heard that word in a long time! That's kind of cool.
MM: You came of age in the 1970s, in the UK, and that was a world of glamour and science fiction. It was a world in which women with purple wigs could be on Gerry Anderson's Moon Base [on the ultra-rad-mod-fashioned SF show UFO]. It was also sort of the Golden Age of Doctor Who. Does this inform your storytelling? This collision of glamour and hard science-fictional constructs?
DJ: I don't know. It's true that I was born in London in the early 1970s, but we traveled so much. I have a very eclectic taste in movies and literature, not only because of the fact that I was traveling so much. But [because] my father's influences, when I was growing up, were pretty varied. And what made him enthusiastic, obviously, trickled down to me. I used to read every evening. That was sort of a house rule. I had to read an hour or two a night. And science fiction in particular was one of the things that was kind of my candy. If I was finding it difficult to get my nose--or brain, rather--into a 'For Kids' biography of Abraham Lincoln, he'd hand me George Orwell's Animal Farm or something to keep me interested and keep me reading. That sort of was my introduction to science fiction.
MM: Source Code is, in some respects, a disaster movie. And yet the very nature of this disaster movie, which deals with identity, demands very strong subjective camera and sound work. How do you balance disaster-movie spectacle and intimacy, when you've got a story like this?
DJ: Well, reading the Source Code script for the second time--the first time I read it just as the audience--reading it for the second time, I was trying to do it with my director's hat on. And that's where you really see where the problems lie, or at least the puzzles that need to be solved. One of which is: we're going to be revisiting an event multiple times. Visually, I wanted to keep that stimulating and interesting and keep the audience engaged and feeling by the end of the film that they've seen something fresh the whole way through, and not been subjected to a repeated event. But at the same time, the whole story--well, as much as possible--is told from the perspective of Colter Stevens, our main protagonist, Jake's character. And you need to find a way to move the camera in such a way that it always, as much as possible, his perspective on things. I approached it fairly strategically. I broke down those elements where there is a repetition, and tried to ensure that each time there is visual variety. Not just in the camera positions, but also if there was enough of a change in the narrative or if new characters were being introduced, that we could move events around the environment, the train that he is on, so that by the end of it, it doesn't feel like you've actually seen the same thing twice.
MM: There are two main dramatic arcs in Source Code. You have the Jake/Michelle arc [taking place repeatedly on the train] and you have the Jake/Vera arc [taking place at the same time in a different context]. These are essentially two one-act plays that are going on simultaneously. How did you structure these two dramatic arcs? These two intense dramas happening parallel to each other?
DJ: I think it's fair to say there were unique acting challenges for all of our principal actors in this film. Jake has the obvious one. He's a character who finds himself at the center of a mystery with revelations occurring throughout, that really allow him to react in dramatically different ways throughout the whole film. So, as an actor I think he has the opportunity to do many things. But there is a lot of freedom there. For Michelle Monaghan, who is a character who finds herself on a train repeating the same event, she has an arc which has to last over the course of the entire film, and she has to repeat [the same] eight minutes, and generate parts of an arc each time. So that every time, she's starting in the same place. And each time, there's a different ending. And if you look over the course of the film, there's an evolution from the start to the end of the film. That's particularly difficult. One of the things we were able to do [for her] was shoot the film in order, to try to help her. Otherwise, it would have been pure chaos. For Vera Farmiga's character, it was a very different problem. She has an arc, but she also has to perform inside a confined environment. A lot of her performance is being recorded by a camera which is sitting right in front of her [character]. And she has to be able to communicate and get across her state of mind with small nuances, knowing that the camera for most of the time is capturing her in a medium close-up.
MM: Source Code deals with quantum physics and different universes, and I couldn't help but think of a quote from Philip K. Dick which says all existences, all possible universes, are like an infinite number of suits lined up in an infinite closet. And God wears different universes and realities according to His different moods. Looking at your take on alternate realities and universes in Source Code, where does quantum physics end and philosophy begin? Or, did you just want to make a fun movie?
DJ: Well, that's an interesting question. Because Ben Ripley has written a script which I think is structurally incredibly sound. [A]s a fan of science fiction, I see that genre being split between hard scifi and soft scifi, with hard scifi being stories where you can see how the world we live in today can by a process of evolution or technological innovation wind up where the science fiction is. And soft science fiction is where you're talking about dragons and magic and crazy stuff. Now, time travel and parallel realities, for me, feels like it's in the gray area between [hard and soft scifi]. And although I think the logic is consistent and makes sense in its own right, it's difficult to know how we go from the reality we're in now, to one where we have the technology to actually be able to access that power. So, I wanted to set up some very clean rules at the start of this film that explain what it is that we're investigating, [and to] through lightening the tone of the movie, and injecting it with some humor, ask the audience to just take a leap of faith.
MM: And speaking of quantum issues, and quantum leaps--
DJ: I can see where you're going with this! [Laughs]
MM: There is a [vocal] cameo from a certain, well, it's [Quantum Leap star] Scott Bakula! Can we say it?
DJ: Yes! It is the Scott Bakula!
MM: Can we say it?
DJ: Absolutely!
MM: Do you want to address this bit of vocal casting?
DJ: It's kind of fun! And for people who read this and see the film, and know ahead of time, I'm sorry. But at the same time I think, hopefully, what is particularly effective about this cameo is that it's at a moment where I think the audience will be emotionally invested to the point that they will just buy into what's going on. And that suddenly, for those of you who are fans of Quantum Leap, you will realize that the voice is Scott Bakula, which makes a lot of sense, when you've seen the film. And that's one of those little in-jokes. For me, it's kind of fun, and I am a scifi fan, and when I was reading the script, there was a particular moment at the start of the film, where Jake sees himself in the mirror and sees someone other than who he thinks he is. And I was just thinking, 'Ah! It's Quantum Leap!' [Laughs] And to have that opportunity to make a little tip of the hat the show was important.
MM: If I could just jump back to Philip K. Dick and written science fiction. Source Code, in terms of theme and outlook, has more in common with a lot of Philip K. Dick, than do a lot of recent movies that are nominally adaptations of his work. [In Source Code] you've got the fragility of reality, scary government agencies working behind the scenes pulling the levers of reality, you have the question of 'What is human and what is construct?' Were you consciously referring to Philip K. Dick?
DJ: A great deal of my imagination stems from my love of Philip K. Dick, and also J.G. Ballard, another science fiction author I love. So, absolutely! Certainly not in a conscious way. But he was formative in my appreciation of scifi.
MM: Source Code deals with an act of terrorism on US soil. Did you feel a need to be sensitive with regard to possible raw nerves while making this movie, so that you could make it a fun ride?
DJ: There were early drafts of the script that were set in New York. And I know that the producers felt it was important to move it from New York for obvious sensitivity reasons. They were looking for a city that would work. And Chicago, being a location everyone on the East and West Coasts can relate to, seemed like a sensible idea. I think that Chicago is a great city anyway. It's very multi-cultural. And for me, in particular, there is this sculpture in [Chicago's] Millennium Park by Anish Kapoor called The Cloud Gate, which really lent itself to some of the subtexts of the story. And I wanted to use it. Fortunately, Mr. Kapoor gave us permission and we were able to. So there was extra value added by being based in Chicago.
Source Code in theaters now