Carey Mulligan on Dano's Paul Wildlife – Daily Awards

Share

Carey Mulligan has been doing great, challenging work for over a decade now. With her latest role as Jeannette in Paul Dano's directorial review That becomes a woman becoming quietly more fraught in 1960. After the death of her husband, she becomes desperate for a sense of security. A state that leads to difficulties and even disturbing choices.

In our interview, we discussed Jeannette's motivations, her process of getting inside the role, and what it was like working on Paul Dano's first film behind the camera.

How did you come to Wildlife?

I've known Paul (Dano) and Zoe (Kazan) for ten years. Zoe and I did The Seagull on Broadway together. We shared a dressing room and became very good friends. She was with Paul, so I put Paul through her. We've been friends for a decade and have always talked about working together. Particularly me and Zoe. Her being a writer, I was always telling her story. We both loved working together on The Seagull. She and Paul wrote it together over the years and Paul called me up two years ago – I think it was a Friday night. He said I'm going to email you so we do together and let me know if you like it. I read it immediately and called him back. I think he tells the story that I called him the next day, but I immediately called for it, and said thank you for offering me this share. Yes, please. It was very quick and easy.

Your character is very supportive of her husband (Jake Gyllenhaal), even during his failures. Eventually though, Jeannette becomes more focused on survival and security. Which culminates dramatically in the dinner scene with Warren Miller (Bill Camp), where she reaches out to an older wealthy man in front of her son. She seemed so desperate. That scene felt like a thriller to me.

It is 1960. She has no skill set or higher education. You are looking for someone who is trying to attach to someone who can support her. She's got a 14-year-old her to feed, to clothe, and house. I think she's catastrophizing, but I do not think it's outside the realm of possibility that Jerry (Gyllenhaal) never comes back, he could die (fighting fires in the mountain). She's on her own now. Going to Warren Miller, he represents everything she never had with Jerry. He is stable and secure and wealthy. He lives at very different life. I think she imagined when she was younger she had a life like that. I think going to that house, she's presenting her as part of the package. If you're going to take me on, my son comes with me. It seems so inappropriate to take him (her son), but she feels she is doing the appropriate thing. If I'm going to get into something with this man, if he's going to be the one who's going to rescue me, he's going to rescue my son. So he's introduced (to Warren). She's kind of scolding him for dinner, what university he wants to go to. It's kind of fueled by alcohol, but she's trying to align with Warren Miller and have her like it. Goal Warren is not playing the game. That throws her off. And she keeps being confronted by her son. Just by him being there. Just see her face is a reminder of her real life and her husband. This is a bit of a fantasy. So she has to change strategy every day. I think when she stands up to excuse herself … I think what she's doing is trying to get back and coming back from the bathroom and crush this. But then she goes up and goes to her head. You know the way you are and you are more likely than you are. It was not perfectly mapped out, but we had a good idea of ​​what was going on during the scene.

When the scene appears to end, and Jeannette and her get into the car, he looks like they just made a narrow escape. But then Jeannette runs back into the house and her What do you think was going through her head then?

I did not want to be in my mind again. I think it's going back in to smooth over what just happened. I do not think it's going back to it, I think it's going back to reclaim its dignity. Because at the end she says "Joe's bored" and stomps out of there. I think she's trying to go back and be more measured and then she gets pulled into that kiss.

Wildlife reminds me of the Revolutionary Road and the domestic scenes in Tree of Life. Where a woman is dependent on the man, but does not exactly know their place in the world. Did you feel any connection to other work that you've seen or have part of?

No, I did not. Of all the scripts I've ever read, this felt like one of the most complete pieces of writing I've ever come across. Most particularly, with Jeannette, Nothing to add, nothing to edit – the character was just so much on the page. They had given a lot of complexity and richness to her. I'm sure subliminally I was thinking of things that inspired me, and certainly both of them movies, but there was nothing I was actively pulling into that role. Because it felt unique to me and I felt excited about how much of being on the page to figure out.

You have to play a lot of interior emotions that are just barely under the surface in this movie. Can you talk about that challenge?

I was trying to figure it out as I went to the most challenging part. When I got a handle on her, it did not feel hard. The first scene I was the scene in the diner. That was such a tricky place to start because it was so bad in the middle of this week of this identity crisis, so I could not calibrate where it was. We did it a bunch of different ways and Paul edited it. I remember texting I have no idea what that was. If that was vaguely what you were thinking when you wrote that scene. We did not go back to Oklahoma and did not go back to Jerry. Then after a couple scenes with Jake, who were at the top of the story – when they are together or when he loses his job, those scenes we shot first. Then I started getting a sense of her and it did not feel hard. The stuff with Jake at home, we got into a really great way of working with Paul and we felt like we were doing live theater sometimes. It was exciting. It did not feel hard, it felt so fun.

What was it like working with Jake?

It was great. Jake and I put on Brothers. I was in it for 25 seconds and that was about ten years ago. So we've been friends since then. Jake and I have missed a couple of opportunities where we have worked together and it has not worked out. We read a play together and did not end up doing it. Being great friends, we were really comfortable. He's amazing to work with. He's like a lightning bolt. No take is ever the same. He's always trying to throw something into the mix to make it different. It was the same with Michael Fassbender in Shame. I always felt like they were raising my game. Which is just the best way to work.

It was hard to believe this was Paul's first movie as a director.

I've known Paul for so long and he's the most calm, smart, wonderful guy. He's got such energy and he's so lovely to hang out with. I do not know what to do with a film in a film, but I can see it at some point (laughs), or see it just a little bit ruffled, and I just did not. He was the picture of calm the whole way though and so assured. I really think that was a huge part of creating the environment for you. It was one of those sets that was so creative and wonderful to be on, and he made that happen. He understands obviously, because he is one of the greatest actors of his generation, so he was so intuitive about the performances, and about giving notes. You start with the director and the attitude of the director. His was just the best. So, everyone wanted to do their best work. You would never know in a million years it was his first feature.

While watching the movie, I could see Paul at a younger age playing the part of the sound. He has to be so reactive and speak for himself through his eyes. A type of acting Paul is really good at.

I would not speak for Paul, but certainly when he read the book, I think it was the character of his really well connected with. He felt deeply moved by the experience of the boy. I think that's absolutely the case.

You often gravitate to more intimate projects. Is that by design? Because you've had success in larger movies like Gatsby, but you seem to keep coming back to these independent movies.

It's really just about the role. Daisy in The Great Gatsby, which was a huge film which we did a lot of prep for and got a huge release, was just a fascinating role for me. If they'd done it for $ 5 million, I would have done it. Between doing plays or movies, I just follow the best part. Maybe sometimes the role and wanting to part of a director's vision. I really wanted to work with Nicholas Winding Refn (Drive) and Dee Rees (Mudbound). It was more about the role of the director, and it is more important that the director is going to be more advanced. For the most part it's been where's the best combination of role and director. That's going to be more in the indie world.

I was actively angry that Mudbound did not get more Oscar nominations. That's a wonderful movie. I know the Oscars are not the reason why you need it, but it often leads to more options for talented people.

That is the truth. And also, it encourages people to take a chance at making these kinds of movies. It's similar to Wildlife. If we want to see movies about real women on the screen, we've got to get them into the cinema. It makes a difference.

Share