Full disclosure: Donnie Darko is one of my favorite films of all time. So it was a little nerve-wracking preparing for my interview with Richard Kelly, as I couldn’t help but think how my perceptions of the film might change if he ended up being some kind of spoiled Hollywood asshole. It’s hard when your idols disappoint you (oh Roman, why’d you have to play us like that?), and harder still not to view their past creations with somewhat of a sour taste in retrospect.

I’m happy to report, then, that during my short 15-minute conversation with Mr. Kelly via cell phone, he couldn’t have been any more gracious or kind (especially considering that I was doubtless coming in on the tail end of a long day of interviews for him). In fact, he not only seemed like an authentically nice guy, but also a pensive and intellectually curious one.

It’s this curiosity that made Kelly’s first film, Donnie Darko, such a rewarding viewing experience. On top of the inventive camerawork, great soundtrack, heart-stoppingly intimate scenes and gripping sense of urgency, the movie had something profound to say about the universe and our place in it. Interpretations of exactly what Kelly was saying surely depended on the person you were asking, but for most viewers it was hard to deny that the film as a total package managed to not only work its way under your skin but, even more rare, to make a home there for awhile. Even Southland Tales, while it proved to be something of a disappointment in relation to Darko, still managed to convey the boundless (if somewhat muddled) capabilities of Mr. Kelly’s imagination.

In both films, Kelly managed to combine a sense of mythical underpinning with an erudite grasp of profound metaphysical concepts to craft something wholly original and intriguing. Certainly, even in Southland Tales there were scattered moments of penetrating insight that I couldn’t help but wish had been utilized in service of a more coherent film. At the end of the day though, I also found myself grateful for the attempt, and in all honesty I would gladly watch the film again. See, in an industry where the majority of product is just that – product – churned out mindlessly by studios and filmmakers with their eyes focused solely on the sparkly allure of a quick buck, we need more artists like Richard Kelly. Because regardless of the end quality of his films, he always strives to give us something we haven’t seen before – at least not in quite the way he’s showing it to us.

Ok, so I’m on the call with Richard now, my 15 minutes are ticking (no not that -- on the phone, silly!), and my nerves are put instantly at ease by his laid-back demeanor. Phew! Let’s begin.

CHRIS EGGERTSEN (Bloody Disgusting): When did you first discover the Richard Matheson short story on which you based the film? Or did you watch the Twilight Zone episode first?

RICHARD KELLY: I have to say it was probably the short story. I’m actually, legally I’m not allowed to talk about a certain television program [he means The Twilight Zone], just so you know.

CE: I can probably guess which one you’re talking about.

RK: Yeah, yeah. The short story is actually what I optioned from Mr. Matheson. It was a story that was written in 1970. It was written before I was born, but it was definitely sort of a product of the 1970’s world and the reality of the world at that time. So it felt like a timeless morality tale, a fable almost, something from ancient myth. But it also felt like something very grounded in the world of 1970’s suburbia, where you had insurance salesmen and Avon ladies, and people like that ringing doorbells while the husband was at work and the wife is home alone. It felt from that world…for me it was a challenge to figure out how to adapt it into a feature narrative.

CE: Something I was thinking about was if it had taken place in modern day…Cameron Diaz and James Marsden would be doing, like, frantic Google searches trying to find out about the box.

RK: Exactly, they’d be Googling everything, doing Internet searches and they’d be in front of their laptop for half the movie, you know? (Laughs) They wouldn’t go to the library, no one goes to the library anymore, [people just surf] a bunch of websites. That’s not fun storytelling, you know? But unfortunately, that’s what would really happen [in the modern world]. It just became essential for us to try to hold on to the realities of the 1970’s while still [touching on] modern predicaments that couples find themselves in, when their house is being foreclosed upon and they’re having financial hardships. Obviously, the recession brings that reality home right now, but [developing and shooting the film] we didn’t have to deal with any of the annoying technology that we have today. (Laughs) [It’s] very convenient in real life, but it’s sometimes annoying to have to acknowledge all the realities that come with modern technology.

CE: Absolutely, it just makes everything more complicated.

RK: Yeah, exactly.

CE: It’s kind of interesting though because even though it does take place in this period setting, I kind of saw a parallel between the movie and the Internet age in that we’re sort of in this “global community” now, and everyone’s connected across the world over great distances and how technology also ironically really distances us from each other. I kind of felt like that plays into a lot of the moral issues in the movie as well…that distance, that anonymity, makes it hard to sympathize with other people. So was that something you sort of had in mind while writing the script, is that something you were thinking about at all as far as the modern parallel?

RK: Yeah, I try to hold on to [and remain] aware of all these things, you even see in Arlington Steward’s [the character played by Frank Langella] lair, you see sort of the analog supercomputer that he has…a computer processor of some sort, and that was sort of like our way of trying to acknowledge future technology in a way that’s still analog and of the aesthetic of 1970’s technology. We were always very aware of the modern themes that were still resonant, that’s why I was so [interested in] the story because it felt relevant to this day. But we just were so grateful for the restrictions of 1976, because it made our lives so much easier as storytellers. (Laughs)

CE: I know you based the James Marsden and Cameron Diaz characters off of your parents in a lot of ways, you incorporated stuff about your life growing up in Virginia, your dad worked for NASA, etc.…and so when you were going into the casting process, were you almost in a way looking for actors that sort of exhibited some qualities to you that reminded you of your parents?

RK: It all started with Cameron, [and she was able to] base her performance off of my mom’s accents and her mannerisms, and her very specific Texas accent and stuff like that, so it was exciting to think of Cameron trying to orient a character like that, which she’s never done before. And then, I guess when James Marsden came into the equation, he was sort of a nice fit, because my dad has a similar kind of charisma and a sort of laconic sense of humor. And also a very deep, inquisitive scientific mind. And so it was just a wonderful opportunity for these two amazing actors…you know, they’re not facsimiles of my parents, they’re playing fictional characters, but they were adopting a lot of the true-life elements of their personalities.

CE: Your parents spent some time with them, didn’t they?

RK: Yeah, they were on set quite a bit…we had dinners, and they spent time alone with each of the actors, and it was a real thrill for [my parents] to get to meet them and hang out with them and feel like they were a part of the process. And it was also a great thing for Jimmy and Cameron to feel like they had real flesh-and-blood people to use to sort of complete their vision, their portrayal of these characters, that there was some real flesh and blood to work with.

CE: What made you take that approach, as far as using elements from your own life?

RK: Well, I felt it raised the emotional stakes, it made it emotionally relevant to me, and it made Arthur and Norma people that I care about deeply, and it was an opportunity also to make a movie specifically for my parents, like the kind of suspense films that they absolutely love. So it felt right, it felt like the right decision to make, and [we set the movie in] my hometown of Richmond, Virginia, and it just felt like this wonderful opportunity, and it was obviously a risk, you know. I wanted to make sure that they were…it is a fictional movie, it’s not exactly them, but it does draw upon a lot of real-life elements…and discussing it [with them] I wanted to make sure that they were okay with that…luckily, they’ve been thrilled at the whole process.

CE: I know you filmed at the Langley campus at NASA, right?

RK: Yeah, the real deal there at Langley, in Virginia.

CE: How else was NASA involved in the movie, if at all?

RK: They were completely involved in giving us all the permissions to shoot at all the locations, and we had to sign a Space Act agreement at the headquarters, to obtain all the legal permission to shoot, and it was a big ordeal, it was a year-long approvals process with NASA headquarters, with the government, and all the people at Langley to allow us onto these locations that are very kind of high-security places. Everyone on the crew had to submit security clearance background checks, and it was definitely a big process of approval to get down there to Langley, absolutely.

CE: I saw the film a couple days ago. I really liked it. In the movie, it’s really apparent that you’re really interested in existential kind of matters, particularly questions concerning the existence of God and the afterlife…do you see this as a companion piece at all to Donnie Darko? Or even Southland Tales?

RK: I think there are kind of interwoven, interconnected themes that are common I guess in my work, and I guess that’s when you start to see patterns emerging in your own work where you start to learn a little bit more about yourself in a way…because there is a question or quest towards a search for divine entities, and through science fiction and true moral questions and challenges and you know, a lot of it is all kind of wrapped up [with the] Joseph Campbell mythology and the Hero’s Journey in a way. In The Box, there’s two heroes, Arthur and Norma, and they both have to make that journey together.

CE: Compared to your last film Southland Tales…this is a much more straightforward narrative. Was it your aim to make a more commercial, straightforward movie after Southland Tales was a little disappointing as far as the commercial reception?

RK: Yeah, absolutely. I completely realize that I need to remain viable in this business to keep doing this for a living and part of that is trying to do something more within the studio system that they can sell…to a wide audience. With this short story and this concept, I had found that, I had stumbled across that. At the same time, I got to make the most personal movie of all three. So I got to kind of have I guess the best of both worlds, making a more mainstream, commercial picture but also something that’s very emotionally connected.

CE: Are there any directors that you kind of patterned you career off, people that you feel have been able to do that? Bridge the gap between the personal and the commercial?

RK: Obviously Steven Soderbergh is someone who kind of goes back and forth between doing something really commercial -- [A brief, panicky moment as we are disconnected. I mutter several choice four letter words under my breath, thinking it could have perhaps been the fault of my shitty, straight-from-the-late-1990s cell phone (speaking of outdated technology). Then he calls back – from his publicist’s line. He explains that his cell phone died, and we continue.]

CE: So you were talking about Soderbergh I think, and how he influences you.

RK: Well, he’s obviously learned to work within the studio system and he kind of goes back and forth between really intimate films and much broader, commercial films like the Ocean’s Eleven movies, and he’s doing a big action film next, so he’s obviously just an icon in terms of working consistently in the studio system, and then there’s also the Coen Brothers, who have held onto their unique voice but have always found a way to kind of stay within the studio system for the most part…they’ve never changed who they are, as far as I can see, and in their last three films have been as pure from their essence as I’ve seen throughout their whole career. So they’re obviously huge idols of mine.

CE: [The Box] is really filmed in a very classic, almost Hitchcockian style. Are you a big fan of Hitchcock? Because I sort of felt like I was almost watching a Hitchcock movie, but in modern day.

RK: Absolutely, he’s a huge influence, and I’ve watched a lot of his films, and I wanted it to feel like there was a very deliberate way of moving the camera, and placing the camera, and for the film to feel designed very specifically. There wasn’t one time where you felt that the camera was either in the wrong place, or there was an unnecessary cut. We wanted it to feel very, very artfully constructed with the primary motive being the suspense, and capturing that suspense in each moment that Arthur and Norma are going through…each scene almost unfolds like a little one-act play, without a cut at all…[we constructed] each sequence so that it had that feeling.

CE: You did a great job.

RK: Thanks.

CE: So what’s next for you?

RK: I’m working on my new script, I’m probably on the eighth draft of it right now, and I’ve just kinda been waiting for The Box to come out to see if I can get [the project] off the ground. It’s a thriller set in Manhattan in the year 2014. We hope to shoot the movie in 3-D, and part of the movie would be filmed using full CGI motion capture.

CE: Awesome. Thank you so much.

RK: My pleasure. Thank you, too.