Going directly to the source: interviewing Duncan Jones about Source Code

While Hollywood's the king of sequels, IndieMovies is doing a one-two punch of its own. Kimberly Gadette interviewed filmmaker Duncan Jones in 2009 about his first feature Moon; she now gets a second shot with his second shot, the film Source Code.

Jones was fairly unknown in 2009, a Briton who'd studied philosophy in grad school in Nashville, Tennessee before Tony Scott took him under his wing, suggesting he learn all about the film industry by working in commercials and music videos. He was the fellow with the silly moniker of Zowie Bowie (son of rock legend David Bowie), who ultimately found his voice not with music but with film.

The 39-year-old writer/director couldn't have written a better story for himself, with Moon garnering ten awards, including an Outstanding Debut BAFTA. Mixing it up once again, instead of following that first feature with a project of his own (rumored to have been the film Mute, now being reconfigured as a graphic novel), when Jake Gyllenhaal approached him to direct the Ben Ripley-written Source Code, Jones agreed to sign on.

While his sophomore effort may still be in the sci-fi genre, with minimal sets (a train, a lab and a pod) and a protagonist who wrestles with identity problems, the slam-bam pace and action/thriller vibe of Source Code is about as far away from Moon as, well, the earth. Here, Gyllenhaal's decorated soldier Colter Stevens is on an experimental mission in which he's sent back in time, jumping into the body of a stranger who will die, along with every other passenger, on a doomed train in eight minutes. He can't prevent the fiery explosion; he can only find the bomber in the hopes that he can stop the terrorist from carrying out worse mayhem in the future. Stevens is sent back repeatedly, each time gleaning more information. The other film's principals include his love interest (Michelle Monaghan), Stevens' immediate superior (Vera Farmiga) and the architect of the source code (Jeffrey Wright).

It seems that Jones is on a mission of his own, proving himself as both auteur and noteworthy director-for-hire. "Hopefully on the next film, I get to do my thing, but on a Hollywood budget." He spoke to us by phone the other day, still as enthusiastic and upbeat as he was two years ago.

IMO: When we talked in 2009 about Moon, you mentioned that the three people you wanted to see your film were Terry Gilliam, Neil Gaiman and Ridley Scott, who all gave favorable responses. Who's on your list this time around?

DJ: This time around it's tricky; there's certain actors I'd very much like to work with in the future. George Clooney is the ultimate for me in that he's the kind of leading man who is incredibly charismatic, who the audience can immediately find a way to bond with. So George Clooney, who I have a huge amount of respect for ... I'd love him to see it. If he can watch Moon and then Source Code afterward and then hopefully conclude, "Maybe this is a director I want to work with ...!"

IMO: Could you talk about the decision to give the hero eight minutes? Why not round up to ten? Or, as in the original screenplay, seventeen?

DJ: In all honesty, when the script came to me (I came on to the project fairly late in the game), the eight minutes had already been nailed down. I know that they went through a long process of trying out different times. What I believe happened is that with the cycle of having to go over the same event multiple times, they wanted it to be a constrained enough period of time so that it felt like there was a real urgency to it. If it stretched out too much, they'd lose the sense of urgency; if it got too short, then obviously then you couldn't get anything done within that timeframe. So eight minutes happened with them working on it from a number of different angles and ending up with that amount of time.

IMO: You'd talked earlier about how on Moon, it was easy it was to work with your one actor. Here you had to contend with four principal players, all coming from their own methods, all bringing in their own styles and expectations. How challenging was it to communicate with each individual performer?

DJ: It was an absolute delight, the reason being that I worked with some truly amazing performers. Just look at the names: Jake Gyllenhaal is obviously an incredibly talented actor; Michelle Monaghan is beautiful and charismatic and funny; Vera Farmiga is an extraordinary talent, able to work on a nuanced level, able to communicate with just the smallest detail in her performance; and Jeffrey Wright is a bit like Sam Rockwell, one of these acting entities that everyone in the industry knows about, but people outside maybe don't know how good an actor he is.

IMO: So they were all easy to work with, you didn't have to deal with any diva stuff?

DJ: You know I wouldn't tell you if I could ...

IMO: Yes, I do know that!

DJ: But it's not the case. It was an absolute pleasure working with all four of them.

IMO: Many articles written about you mention your extensive preparation and storyboarding that I understand comes from your prior work in commercials. How then, do you balance your pre-determined set-ups with the happy accident, leaving room for improvisation?

DJ: You know, there's got to be a looseness to it. A storyboard is kind of like the spine ... when you work with a film like this, where there's a lot of effect shots (I think we had over 800 special effects shots), you really do have to be able to give the people who are going to be creating all the elements a pretty good idea of what it is you intend to do. So that's why it's necessary to be specific. But as you say, when you work with actors, you also want to have the flexibility to be able to catch things that they do, spontaneous actions or improvisations which will really give the film some life. So I work very closely with my effects supervisor; we kind of go "off-piste" quite a lot. So even though we have a storyboard, we both are aware of each others' responsibilities, so that we can steer away from that if we need to, and change it dramatically if that's needed, but know that we've always got something to fall back on.

IMO: Sounds like an incredible juggling act! [he laughs]. There's your career vision -- and then there's all the twists in the road. You met with Sam Rockwell about one film and ended up doing another. You met with Jake Gyllenhaal about one film (Mute) and again, ending up doing another. As an artist, how do you stay focused, how do you keep working on a particular pet project, when the universe keeps leading you down other paths?

DJ: You work on a really, really long timeframe. And that's what I've been doing. I have always had in the back of my mind certain projects that I want to find ways to get to – whether it's working in music videos, or commercials, or working on a film (which I feel very proud of, and felt very passionate about like Moon) – all of these things have always in my mind as a very long-term goal to getting to make the films that I want to make. So far I'm about eight years into my plan!

IMO: And you're really able to split yourself? While the concept of long-term sounds great, say you've been shooting all day, you're exhausted ... do you really want to pick up the draft of that other project and try to work on it?

DJ: I would never try and juggle two film projects at the same time. When I was on Moon, I was exclusively on Moon. I wouldn't touch or think about anything else. And Source Code is exactly the same; in fact, I had to stall the Source Code producers a little while because I was still finishing the international press for Moon, and I felt a responsibility to do that job to its completion. I think I stalled them about a month. I said, "Look, I know you guys are really in a hurry to get into pre-production on Source Code, but you need to give me the time I need to make sure I've done everything I can for Moon first."

IMO: Big balls, there ...

DJ: (bursting into laughter) Yeah!

IMO: So right now, you're tweeting, you're blogging, you're doing the press tour for this film ... since we're talking about this, are you able to carve out a little time in the day for anything else?

DJ: Absolutely not ... no time at all! But this time it's different than it was on Moon because Summit Entertainment [the film's production and distribution company] has been incredibly generous in letting me bring my girlfriend with me, which makes things much easier. Having your family with you as you do this, it really takes a huge weight off your shoulders

IMO: I notice you're even sharing your blog writing with her.

DJ: Absolutely! She does great.

IMO: Though it's early in your career, do you have any concerns that you're going to be known as the altered reality, sci-fi guy?

DJ: Aaah yeah, of course I do! But although I understand the similarities between Moon and Source Code, on a tonal level and even the kind of films they are, I think they're different enough. The slower, more thoughtful pace of Moon versus its polar opposite with Source Code. And that, I think, should give me some flexibility as far as making my next film. And hopefully that next film will steer things in a different direction; and by then I'll have opened things up enough so that I can move into different genres, and do other kinds of films.

IMO: Any thoughts about working on a project that features a female protagonist?

DJ: (after a very long pause) I'm keeping my lips sealed. All I would say is that it's absolutely right up there at the top of my priority list for film number three.

IMO: Though I hate to ask the go-to question, I don't think it can be ignored: can you give us some thoughts about the pitfalls of working as a director-for-hire versus shepherding your own project from start to finish?

DJ: I'm a glass-is-half-full kinda guy. There is a huge difference between working on your own project as opposed to working on something that's already in development. One of the good things about an outside project is that you do take the blinders off ... you're not blinded by the fact that you have to do it the way you originally thought that it needed to be done. You can look at it very objectively and say, "Yes, this works, and no, this doesn't." So, yeah, I think there are definite benefits to working on other projects as well as the obvious benefits to the opportunity to work on your own material.

IMO: You said something fairly curious in an interview earlier this year with WeGotThisCovered.com, posted January 17. The quote was, "I think we’ve ended up with something that I didn’t expect and I’m really happy with it." You want elaborate on that one?

DJ: Um ... (laughing) ... I know what I meant! I think it actually ties in very nicely to what we were just discussing about having that objectivity. I think when I read the original script of Source Code, I got excited by the pace of it and the conceit of the technology behind the idea. I was obviously incredibly excited about working with Jake – that was one of my main reasons for wanting to do the film – but I couldn't help but think that this script took itself very seriously; it was almost like an episode of 24 with some sci-fi in it. What Jake and I discussed early on, and experimented with when we first started shooting, was lightening the whole tone of it, trying to inject humor into the film. That wasn't part of the grand plan, but it was immediately something we both realized just made the film leaps and bounds more accessible, ultimately more fun for people to watch. So I think that's probably what that quote alludes to, the fact that tonally the film is very different than the project that was originally introduced to me.

IMO: From talking to you, and reading other interviews of yours, I can't help but notice that you have a marvelous sense of humor. I would assume that pretty much in all of your films, you're going to find corners of lightness and humor?

DJ: Sam Rockwell was the one who introduced me to the concept that humor is really an opportunity; you can use humor as a tool when making a film. It's not to get a cheap laugh; instead, humor is a way to bond, whether it's in the real world or with film characters. If you can get an audience to laugh along with your protagonist, or to see the absurdity of something so that they share that moment, humor allows for a wonderful way of connecting. That's very powerful in filmmaking because that's what you need to do ... you need to get your audience to empathize, to care about the people who they're seeing on the screen.

IMO: I wish more filmmakers embraced that. So often we see these wooden characters who are so rigid. I just saw Moon again – expect that penny from my Netflix rental coming to you shortly – and it was so great to watch Rockwell's older astronaut react to his younger self. He had some wonderfully funny takes that I'd missed the first time. Classic!

DJ: He's got it all. I can't wait to see what Sam does next. And I can't wait to work with him again.

IMO: Further to the concept of acting with partners who aren't there, since Vera Farmiga and Gyllenhaal never get to share the same physical space, what did you do to keep their scenes from feeling too sterile?

DJ: It's tricky; obviously having done Moon, I'd been through quite a lot as far as trying to help an actor work in those difficult circumstances. After we shot all the train locations with Jake and Michelle, we shot Jake's scenes on his own in the "pod" (the environment that the protagonist finds himself in between missions). Vera came in for a couple of days at the very beginning of shooting that material with Jake so at least Jake could get a sense of her tone, of what her delivery would be. And then Jake had to carry it on his own for the next four days, dealing with someone else reading Vera's lines on her behalf. But because we'd already established the tone, I think that set things up a bit better. When it came to Vera's material, Jake (the real pro, as always), stuck around for the first few days of Vera's performance and was able to read for her. They were both very responsible actors who were there for each other as much as they could be.

IMO: The story's concept of leaping into someone else's body, revisiting the same window of time, has been bandied about as a Quantum Leap meets Groundhog Day. Since you nodded to the former film with a cameo by Scott Bakula, was there any thought to bringing in Bill Murray?

DJ (laughing): I would have loved to, but I think Bill Murray's cameos have been tapped out after Zombieland. They did such a fantastic job with that, I wouldn't want to retread the same ground. The whole conceit in Groundhog Day is something that we liberally borrowed from, but our film is very different in the fact that Source Code is a contemporary thriller and Groundhog Day was a classic comedy.

IMO: By the way, where do you stand on Groundhog Day? Many people hold it up as this amazing movie, far more complex than at first viewing, where others just shrug it off as just one more comedy.

DJ: I think it's a terrific film – I also loved Scrooged. But then I'm a big fan of Bill Murray. His delivery is so unique that anything he does, he makes it memorable. I don't think Groundhog Day would have been nearly as good if Bill Murray hadn't been in it.

IMO: Apologies for getting off track ... and speaking of trains, I understand that the film's commuter train was constructed like Lego, with multiple pieces able to break apart in order to get all the shots. While this sounds like a fairly freeing solution, you stated in the production notes that "the set imposed its style on us." Could you speak to that?

DJ: Yes. We built the train to be as camera-friendly as possible. But we were also shooting in a very constrained timeframe. Jake's availability was dictated by the fact that he had just finished Prince of Persia and he needed to disappear to do all the worldwide press for that film, so we had to shoot within that window. So you build a train with the idea that you're going to be able to just tear it up, put the camera where you want it, and just move around ... but when you build something like this from scratch, you have no idea until you start working on it how long it takes to tear out a wall, set the lights up, move the camera, etc. All of a sudden you find yourself bumping up against time limitations and assistant directors telling you, "I don't know if we're going to be able to do that, I think you're going to have to find a quicker way to get through this scene." So those were the kind of limitations that really started to affect us, and started to dictate what it was that we needed to do. Also, again, because the set's being built from scratch and you can't test all the things you want to do, because of the timeframe, once it's built then you have to start shooting and hope everything works the way it should. Certain pieces of the architecture are not where you thought they were going to be, and the camera doesn't quite fit. So all the time ... as in all filmmaking ... you're making compromises. But that's just the nature of filming.

IMO: I really appreciate your answer. As outsiders, we can read many things, but until we hear an explanation from the filmmaker himself, we don't always get a true sense. Thank you so much for that.

DJ: Yeah, sure.

IMO: Back to the train one more time: if you were like the stranger on the train (skirting the Hitchcock reference), say you're Gyllenhaal's protagonist Colter Stevens, scanning and assessing everything and everyone ... how would you assess Duncan Jones the director?

DJ: I don't know, that's a hard one! Not fair! I think you'd have to ask Jake or Vera or Michelle. OK, I try to be as open to ideas as possible. I would say (and I think Jake would agree with me on this), that I'm very blunt. If I don't like something, I tell you I don't like it. If I do like it, I get very enthusiastic. So I think for the actors, there's no games. They don't have to guess how I'm feeling, or what I'm thinking. I'm very obviously reactive.

IMO: In 2009, you were the new guy in town, your first feature quietly sneaking into a modest little spotlight. At the time, the PR people flatly instructed us before we interviewed you not to ask you about your father, David Bowie -- we weren't allowed to bring it up at all. Which is now pretty funny because what with all your awards, including the BAFTA for Moon, your dad might now be referred to as ... Duncan Jones' father.

DJ: (laughs delightedly)

IMO: Two years later, you've gone from a small indie hit to helming a Hollywood-budgeted actioner opening wide in many countries ... how are you handling it all?

DJ: I will be happy to bring up my father in this case. I saw the way he dealt with it; he was always a master at being able to keep his feet on his ground. He obviously did what he had to do when it came to press but when he was at home, he was my dad and he was always a very normal, grounded, lovely man. I've always appreciated that, and I've been very fortunate in the fact that I've been able to see that. So for me, I think I'm ahead of the game. I've seen it go wrong with other people, but I also know what you can do when you're in the limelight, and I would love to be able to follow in my father's footsteps in that respect.

IMO: On that excellent note, I'll have to stop and thank you so much for giving us your time.

DJ: Very lovely talking to you ...

This interview was edited and condensed for clarity. You can read Kimberly's first interview with Duncan Jones here.

More on IndieMovies:
Read the latest movie news and movie reviews. Watch free movies on the site now.