[MUSIC PLAYING]
KEVIN VLK: So welcome to Google.
ALEX GARLAND: Thanks very much.
KEVIN VLK: So I saw it.
It's phenomenal.
It comes out on
February 23, globally.
And so we're super excited.
So this is based
on a novel, and so
by Jeff VanderMeer's
trilogy, Southern Reach.
So I wanted to talk a
little bit about when
was your first time when
you discovered the book
or read the book and
what attracted you to it.
ALEX GARLAND: It was
sent to me by a producer.
I just worked with him on
this movie "Ex Machina".
And I was in
postproduction, so editing
and s on of "Ex Machina".
He sent me a book and he said,
you should take a look at this.
And I read it and
sort of decided
as I was reading it
that I'd like to give it
a try at adapting it.
It had two particular things.
It's genuinely
original as a book.
And that is unusual in
itself, because most stories
that we encounter in
literature and in cinema
and in television are
actually repeats of stories
that we tell ourselves again and
again and again, for whatever
reason.
It's like a form of
reassurance or a ritual that we
need or enjoy or something.
And this wasn't like that.
It just stepped
outside it completely.
So first off, it was original.
And it also had a very, very
powerful, strange atmosphere.
The reading of the book is a
little bit like having a dream.
And that was also very unusual.
It presented a lot of issues
in terms of how you adapt it.
I've worked on
adaptations before where
you have a certain
kind of narrative
that you're almost cutting
and pasting the narrative.
And this, I couldn't see how
it would function like that.
But the thing that
attracted me to it
was true originality and
this crazy, dreamy, trippy
atmosphere.
KEVIN VLK: Right, and you
wrote your novel "The Beach"
back in the 1990s.
ALEX GARLAND: A long time ago.
KEVIN VLK: A long time ago.
And it was adapted into a film.
So what was your experience
like now kind of on the reverse?
So you had your book
adapted into a film
and now you're adapting a book.
ALEX GARLAND: Well, I mean,
that was 20-something years ago.
That was a long time ago.
And I've been working in film.
I basically stopped
writing books
and I started writing
films and working in film.
Over that period
of time, I've done,
I think, three
adaptations, as films
that got made at any rate.
One was "Never
Let You Go", which
was an adaptation of a book.
One was "Dredd", which
was an adaptation
of a British comic-strip
character called
Judge Dredd from a sort
of anthology series called
"2000 AD".
And then there was
this, "Annihilation".
That was the third one.
And in each case
it was different.
"Never Let Me Go", very almost
slavish adaptation of the book.
"Dredd" is set in
a big sci-fi world.
I work in a low-budget arena.
I can't really do that stuff.
So I was faithful
to the character.
It was an adaptation
of the character.
And in this instance, it
was like an adaptation
of the atmosphere I
would say, broadly.
That's very broad.
What was it like?
It was really, really hard.
I mean it was seriously
difficult. But that's OK.
That's the job.
KEVIN VLK: What about
Jeff VanderMeer,
so the original
author of the book?
Did you work with him?
Did you get any advice from him?
Did you have to clear
anything with him or did
he kind of say--
ALEX GARLAND: Yeah,
I had to clear it--
KEVIN VLK: --kind
of do what you--
ALEX GARLAND: --definitely.
Because having written
novels years ago
and had them adapted, and
really what I am as a writer--
when I think of what my job
is, I'd say I'm a writer.
And so I feel an affinity
with the writer of the book
and a kind of duty to them.
And what I said to Jeff was--
I was upfront.
I said, I'm not going
to be able to do
a beat-by-beat
adaptation of this
because I don't
know how to do it.
Somebody else might be able
to do it, but it's not me.
And so in a sense partly
what I needed from Jeff
was his blessing,
his permission.
And then I wrote the screenplay
and I showed it to him.
KEVIN VLK: That was it?
ALEX GARLAND: Yeah.
KEVIN VLK: And it's
crazy because--
how many of you
guys read the book?
Have people read the original?
And the book is--
I had just read it, and I was--
because the characters
don't have names.
They just go by kind
of their occupation.
ALEX GARLAND: That's
right, biologist, surveyor,
psychologist.
Can't do that in the film.
KEVIN VLK: Well
obviously, right.
Yeah, you need character
names, especially when
they're calling each other out.
ALEX GARLAND: Well,
you don't need them.
But what I figured was if
you didn't have names--
because we use names when
we're talking to each other.
And if you completely
avoided that in a film,
it might feel arch.
It might feel like
an affectation.
And in a book, I
think because it's
such a sort of internal,
first-person book,
it doesn't matter and it's
actually kind of cool.
But in a film I didn't want it
to feel mannered in that way.
So I just gave them names.
KEVIN VLK: And so "Ex Machina",
which you worked on before--
this was your first
directorial debut--
what did you take away or learn
from that film as a director
that you brought
over to this film?
What was easier for you--
ALEX GARLAND: Nothing.
KEVIN VLK: --or nothing at all?
Fair enough.
ALEX GARLAND: Basically, any
way, the job never changes.
I find myself repeating
this again and again,
but it's because of--
I think it's the way
we perceive film, which
is as a pyramid structure
and at the top of the pyramid
is a director.
And it's just not my personal
experience of filmmaking.
I don't really like
pyramid structures anyway.
I have to say,
they're not my scene.
But I would see it more like
a mountain range, a mountain
range with a kind of
parallax effect happening.
So sometimes one mountain feels
more prevalent than another.
And then you shift your
perspective and everything's
different.
And that has always
been the case.
At different times
in the process,
in development,
shooting, postproduction,
the parallax is shifting.
That didn't change before
"Ex Machina", after.
And the truest way I can say
it is that it's a collective.
I work in a collective,
and it's a group of people.
Some of them I've worked
with for 20 years.
Some people come in
new and then they
have to learn the vibe of how
the collective works together.
I'm not saying this
as lip service.
It's literally true.
It's something like
a version of anarchy.
But it's not anarchy as chaos.
It's anarchy where you have a
collective of autonomous bodies
who are all working
towards the same goal.
And that's the sort
of methodology.
So I never sort of, quote,
unquote, coax a performance out
of an actor.
The actor is responsible
for their performance.
After we do a line up, a
rehearsal and all the crew
comes in to see what the
blocking looks like, I then
turn to the DOP and I don't
say, put a camera here and put
that lens on it and
move it like this.
I say, how do you
want to shoot it?
And that is the whole process
the whole way through.
KEVIN VLK: Wow.
And so you're
talking about working
with a lot of same people and
kind of building up your crew.
You were with Oscar
Isaac on "Ex Machina".
And you brought
him back for this.
So what was--
ALEX GARLAND: He came back.
KEVIN VLK: Well he came
back I guess for it.
When did you guys
meet and what kind of
wanted you to recast
him again in this?
Just a good partner?
ALEX GARLAND: We
met in "Ex Machina",
trying to find the right cast.
And Oscar is a bunch of things.
Part of what I'm saying, part
of what I just said before
relies on like-minded people.
So if you're not going
to fit into that vibe,
it's not going to work.
And Oscar fits into
that very naturally
because he's a very
self-possessed actor.
He thinks about it on his own.
He comes to a conclusion.
He arrives between takes.
He varies the takes.
He says I want to
try it like this
and then he tries it like that.
So it's partly that.
He's just this flat
out brilliant actor.
He's very self-possessed.
He's also a good
guy to have around.
He's very witty.
He's got a fantastic
sense of humor.
He's kind of relaxed.
What's not to like?
KEVIN VLK: No, he's phenomenal.
He's phenomenal in this.
He's phenomenal in "Ex Machina".
And you have an incredible
cast with Natalie Portman, who
plays the lead, Gina Rodriguez,
Tessa Thompson, Jennifer Jason
Leigh.
And so--
ALEX GARLAND: And
Tuva Novotny, who's
also a brilliant British actor.
KEVIN VLK: Yeah, no.
And it's a phenomenal,
phenomenal cast.
So when you're casting
your lead and you're
kind of looking at the
characters in the book
and then you're trying to adapt
that to what your vision is,
how did you land on-- especially
with Natalie being the lead,
how did you find her
and what qualities
did she bring to that?
Were you like, this is my Lena?
ALEX GARLAND: What
Natalie has as an actor is
she's got these two
concurrent things going on
at the same time.
One of them is an
enormous amount of poise.
She has a powerful
presence in her behavior,
in the way she looks, in
the sort of aura around her
and all that kind of stuff.
I'm primarily talking about
in terms of performance,
because obviously that's the
thing that is on the screen
and that's what
you're looking for.
But she also has
something else, which
is she has the
ability to demonstrate
damage between the cracks.
And so as well as
having all of these
actually rather
intimidating features,
there's something she
can tap into which
is broken and explosive
and kind of wild.
And so there's a sort of
subversion inside her.
And that made her exactly right
for this particular character.
KEVIN VLK: Yeah, and she's
absolutely phenomenal.
The entire cast is just so
well cast and so well chosen
and phenomenal.
And the movie is just,
it's crazy weird.
We talked about this a
little bit where it's just,
it's really weird, it's
a mind-numbing thing,
and it's phenomenal.
Like it's so, so,
so freaking good.
ALEX GARLAND: Cool.
Thanks.
KEVIN VLK: Was there
any kind of-- no,
but was there any kind of--
[LAUGHTER]
No, it's phenomenal, but
was there any inspiration
in terms of the story?
Because it did change
from the novel.
Where did you kind of pull from
in terms of-- was it a story
you were resting
on for a while--
ALEX GARLAND: No.
KEVIN VLK: --or did
it just kind of evolve
as you were writing it?
ALEX GARLAND: There
was two things.
I think always when
I'm working there's
something that's obsessing me
for some reason or another.
And in this case, it was
about self-destruction.
I had this kind of thing
that I'd become aware of,
or I believe I'd
become aware of, which
was that everyone I know--
and I would speculate everybody
in the room at the moment--
is self-destructive.
And you meet some people
and their self-destruction
is very apparent.
They almost offer it up to you.
They're an alcoholic.
They're a heroin addict.
They keep committing crimes.
They're recidivist
or whatever it is.
And you can see it.
It's sort of demonstrated.
And then you also meet people
who are very confident,
comfortable in their own skin.
They've got a great job.
They own a lot of money.
They have a fantastic family.
And you feel always
slightly on the back foot
because those people
are intimidating.
And you also feel that
they have cracked life
in some kind of way.
They've cracked it.
And then if you become very
close to one of those people,
you discover odd
fishes here and there
and you discover
very strange bits
of meaningless
self-destructive behavior.
And it was the
meaninglessness of
the self-destructive behavior
that I found interesting.
And people are--
even the sort of
supernaturally
prepossessed person is
sort of dismantling
their job or they're
dismantling a
friendship or they're
dismantling their marriage.
And so that became
the kind of fixation
that was overlaid
onto this film.
It is basically a film
about self-destruction.
And it has a kind of thesis
within it about why we do that,
and the various forms in
which it takes I suppose.
And then in terms of overlaying
that onto Jeff's really
beautiful novel--
which is about another
kind of destruction,
more eco, the planet.
I thought, reading this
book is like a dream.
So what I'm going to do is I'm
going to adapt it like a dream.
I'm not going to
reread the book.
I'm going to adapt it from
my memory of the book.
And in a way, that was what
Jeff gave me permission to do.
So in some places it will
correlate very closely,
and in another places it won't.
KEVIN VLK: Because you're
tapping into that feeling
that you got from the
book versus just how--
ALEX GARLAND: It's a dream
response to a dream book,
kind of.
And it's an interesting
thing as well because then it
becomes about the nature of
memory, I think, to an extent
as well.
Years and years ago I
was watching some TV show
and there was a cop
talking about eyewitnesses,
and he said eyewitnesses
are useless.
Everyone thinks an
eyewitness is the best
thing you can have in solving a
crime, but it's like the worst.
And what you need is empirical
evidence, fingerprints and DNA
and stuff like that.
And he was saying someone
runs into a restaurant
and there's a violent
crime and someone's killed
and one eyewitness will say
he had a gun, shot five times.
Another one will shot once.
Another one will say there
wasn't a gun, it was a knife.
And you can't really
rely on memory.
And actually in my life, I've
often observed that's true.
And so it was sort of
making that application
of that thing
about subjectivity,
I suppose, to the story.
KEVIN VLK: And so
it's a beautiful film,
beautifully shot, and
the set design stuff.
So I want to talk a little
about that in terms of,
where was it shot?
How did you expand upon
using practical facts
and practical set
design versus CG?
ALEX GARLAND:
Where it was shot--
so one of the things
about this movie
was to make everything
off, kind of.
It starts in a
suburban setting and it
ends in a psychedelic setting.
This is suburbia to
psychedelia story.
And so the offness, how you
get the quality of offness
was an important part of it.
And so what we did was
we, rather than shoot it--
it's notionally set
somewhere on a coastal part
of North America, Florida-ish.
And we could have shot
it in Northern Florida.
We could have short
it in Louisiana.
It's got a good tax break
and all that kind of thing.
But we ended up shooting it in
England just outside London.
And we dressed an English
forest to look kind
of like a distorted version of
a North American bit of Southern
North American coastline,
in the hope it would give us
some of the otherness
we were looking for,
a rightness and a wrongness.
And I kind of think it did.
KEVIN VLK: Yeah, no, it's great.
When you are working with
things like that and stuff--
because it's a very
complicated film.
There's a lot going on.
There are monsters I guess
I could call, or animals--
yeah, evil animals.
And so when you're
working with, what
was the most difficult
scene that you
had to work with or get
right, or challenging?
ALEX GARLAND: The film got
progressively more difficult
because there's a kind of
contract that is, in a way,
made with the audience at the
beginning of the film, which
is that this is going to
end in a strange place.
And creating
strangeness in a film
is complicated, partly
because like Jeff's novel,
it has to be original.
And so we had to find out where
we sourced that strangeness.
That was part of the question.
And also strangeness itself has
a kind of diminishing return.
So if you start a story strange
and end it strange, by the time
you get to the end you're
kind of acclimatized
to the strangeness
and it's actually
lost the quality that you
specifically wanted at the end.
So hence suburbia, starting
in a suburban setting,
and progressively giving
a film a nudge forward
into a more and more
hopefully earned
hallucinogenic kind of state.
KEVIN VLK: And we're going
to take audience questions
in just a few minutes.
There's a mic there if
you want to stand there.
Just make sure you flip it on.
But when you're obviously
crafting the film
and you're shooting it and
then you get in the editorial,
was there anything that you had
to cut for time or for pacing
that you wish that you
could have kept in it, or--
ALEX GARLAND: No.
KEVIN VLK: --everything was
in there that you wanted to?
ALEX GARLAND: No,
part of the job
is making sure that the
end cut, the end thing
is the thing that the collective
was working towards and being
respectful of that.
And that can involve
conflict sometimes.
But you've got to
stay true to the thing
that you intended to do.
And so nothing is on
the cutting room floor
that should have been in there.
And nothing's in there
it shouldn't be in there.
As a collective we are
judged on the final product.
So you better respect
the final product
and do it the way you meant to.
KEVIN VLK: Right.
And were there any
directors or films kind
of when you were
growing up that helped
kind of inspire you to become
the director that you are,
and the writer that
you are as well?
ALEX GARLAND: Loads, yeah.
The first film ever made a
really strong impact on me
was probably "Apocalypse Now".
I also loved the
first "Alien" movie.
I think it's just an
incredibly beautifully
constructed, intelligent
bit of filmmaking,
and subversive as well.
I think I like films
that are subversive.
I like things that
work within genre
and then fuck with
the genre in some way.
AUDIENCE: You mentioned kind
of the anarchic environment
that you work in when
you make your films.
Does that bleed into when you
write or is writing totally
solo?
And then my second
question is, now
that you've done writing,
directing, and both,
do you have a preference?
ALEX GARLAND: No preference.
I think it's the
same job, basically.
And in terms of the
solo aspect, yeah, you
start writing on your own.
You do.
One of the first surprises I
had with writing actually--
I've been doing
it about 25 years.
And one of the first
surprises-- this
is going to sound like
a stupid thing to say,
but I realized you
never get promoted.
There's no ladder you
move up, because it always
begins with a blank page.
And that was sort of
a shock, bizarrely.
I thought something would
happen, but it doesn't.
So you start on your own.
But it then stops and it
becomes part of the collective,
for various reasons.
One is that the script is
effectively parceled out
to different departments--
production, design and wardrobe
and VFX and special effects
and all that kind of stuff.
And all of those people are
bringing their interpretation
to it.
Also what happens is
actors get involved.
And you are not the
possessor of the character
anymore when the actor
becomes involved.
It's actually their character.
And what I've found
with good actors--
and this is true across the
board, hence the collective--
is that they make it better.
They elevate it.
They do things you
just didn't think of.
And the first movie
I ever worked on,
the first one I ever wrote, was
a zombie movie "28 Days Later".
And there was an actor
in it, Brendan Gleeson.
And when he was
doing the lines, I
kept hearing things that I
had not intended or thought
of or known about, and I
realized right from the
get go what a good actor can do.
And so yes, it
begins on your own,
but it then really becomes
like everything else
in the film, which is
part of a big conversation
amongst the autonomous units.
AUDIENCE: Did you
go into writing
wanting to be a director or
did that just come and happen?
ALEX GARLAND: It just happened.
I didn't start writing
wanting to be a writer.
None of it was intentional.
I was a backpacker.
I started writing
about backpacking.
That turned into a book.
The book got made into a film.
I thought, hang on
a minute, you don't
have to sit in a room on
your own the whole time.
You can be with a
bunch of other people.
Then I was working on films.
And then gradually--
In a funny way I actually
became a director
to get rid of a
director, in truth.
Just for the absence
of the director.
AUDIENCE: I've
noticed personally
that I tend to
enjoy films and TV
shows where the writer and
director are one and the same.
And so I'm curious
your perspective,
when you fill both roles, what
advantage does that give you?
Or maybe inversely
if you're only
doing one of the
two, what handicaps
and why is that a powerful
combination in your mind?
ALEX GARLAND: I
mean, immediately
my brain starts filling
with directors who
are terrific who don't write.
But I take your point.
I think what it is,
is that in the end,
probably the most useful
thing that you can do on set
is to be able to
answer a question.
So if somebody is puzzled over
why this bit of motivation
is happening or why this
thing should look like that
or whatever it happens to be--
which happens to
all of us, right?
You are confused
about why you're
doing the thing you're doing.
And if you are in the position
of writing and directing,
you are in a very good
position to offer your opinion,
an informed opinion.
Now that doesn't
have to get observed,
but it does mean you
can say something
from a position of some
personal knowledge.
And I think in and
amongst the talents
it's useful to have someone
as a sounding board.
And I think that often what my
job is on a day-to-day level
is being someone you can
have a conversation with.
It may be that.
But then I'll tell
you another-- well,
there's no cookie cutter, right?
And one thing I've
learned is that you never
know how a film is made.
Whatever the credits
say at the end,
you never know
how a film is made
unless you worked on that film.
And the processes with
one group, another process
is with another.
And so different ball
game with other people.
That's just me.
AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm
going to bring it back
to "Annihilation" for a second
because I was introduced
to "Annihilation" and
the Southern Reach
trilogy via the trailer,
the teaser when I saw,
and I just was blown away and
I was like, what is this thing?
And so I read all the
books very sequentially,
and there's a little
bit of unresolvedness,
not only about the first one but
about all of them in general.
And I love that you said
the dream state and then
your dream of that is
what I was drawn into.
And I'm curious to know
how the other two either
play into this--
ALEX GARLAND: They don't.
AUDIENCE: --or don't at all?
ALEX GARLAND: They don't at all.
AUDIENCE: It's kind of,
they don't touch in any way?
ALEX GARLAND: They really don't.
I mean, it's partly because
Jeff was writing the trilogy.
He was still actually writing
it while I was writing
the screenplay for the first.
But it's not just that.
I mean, that's just sort of
factually the state of affairs.
But it's also because I don't
want to work on franchises.
I have no judgment
from people who do.
It's a completely
personal position.
And it doesn't
stem from anything
about the nature of
franchises or sequels
or anything like that.
It's because at the end
of a three-year process,
I know of myself already, I will
not want to work on it again.
[LAUGHTER]
That's it.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Alex, you touched
on this a little bit
about the idea of having
this thesis in your films,
especially in this one,
that you touched on.
How early does that come
out in your writing process?
Do you start with the
thesis or do you sometimes
discover it during the process?
And if you could
just maybe take us
through the beginnings of
a story for you and how--
ALEX GARLAND: It
starts with a thesis.
AUDIENCE: --you start with it.
ALEX GARLAND: It
starts with a thesis.
It will be some
particular thing that I've
started to get obsessed with.
And I'm thinking about it in
a repetitive, compulsive way.
It's not really an
intellectual process.
It's a compulsive process.
And in the case
of "Annihilation",
it was self-destruction
and the odd qualities
of self-destruction and the odd
places in which you find it.
And in the thing I'm
working on at the moment,
it was a principle
called determinism,
a sort of product of living in
a physical universe of cause
and effect, and some of
the implications of that
to do with free will,
and what potentially one
could predict of actions
and that kind of thing.
And so I get interested in that.
I start to read about it.
I start to obsess.
And then at some point, not
intentionally, a narrative
arrives that inevitably is
dovetailed to the thing I'm
obsessed about at that moment.
And it's another
reason why I don't
work on sequels,
because I want to be
interested in something else.
And I will be interested
in something else
because I've got a limited
capacity to know much about
anything, at a certain point.
So I feel, OK, I've learned
this up to my ability
or I've explored it up to my
ability, what's next, kind of.
It's not quite as prosaic as
that, but it's more or less.
KEVIN VLK: Last question.
AUDIENCE: Nowadays I know
that original content is
so hard to come by.
And so for you being
a writer and coming up
with original ideas
and stuff like that,
are you constantly
thinking about what
the next original idea
is going to be, or is it
just one day something
pops into your head
and you just go for it?
ALEX GARLAND: Well, in all
honesty, I'm not sure--
I think this is one
of the reasons I
was interested in Jeff's book
is I'm not sure I do come up
with original ideas.
I'm not sure that's what I do.
I think I often work
within existing ideas,
and sometimes then use the
ability to subvert them
or play around with them.
So no, I'm not thinking about
what is the next original idea.
I wouldn't be able to think
like that even if I wanted to.
If I think back of the things
I've written a spec scripts--
so, say a film like
"28 Days Later"
or a film like "Ex
Machina", I can point you
towards a lot of zombie
movies and I can point you
towards a lot of movies
that are concerned
with artificial intelligence
or the nature of sentience
or objectification or
whatever the concern is
within the thing.
In a way, that's
partly why I found
the book "Annihilation"
so interesting
is because maybe I lack
the capacity to do that,
and Jeff has done that.
And that's like a
honey to a bee--
nectar.
They make honey.
[LAUGHTER]
Some sort of
appropriate analogy.
[LAUGHTER]
KEVIN VLK: And to wrap up, as
a screenwriter and novelist
and director, what
piece of advice have you
received that has kind of
stuck with you over the years?
ALEX GARLAND: The first bit of
advice that came into my head
was my dad when I
was a kid saying,
"If you think someone's going
to hit you, hit them first."
[LAUGHTER]
KEVIN VLK: How does
that apply to--
ALEX GARLAND: That's got
nothing to do with it.
It was more just a
general life lesson.
KEVIN VLK: I got
you, fair enough.
ALEX GARLAND: So
it doesn't apply.
It's just the only bit of
advice that came into my mind.
KEVIN VLK: I cannot top that.
So thank you so
much for being here.
[APPLAUSE]
"Annihilation" comes
out February 23.
So go watch it.
It's phenomenal.
ALEX GARLAND: Bye.
Thanks guys.
KEVIN VLK: Thanks so much.
