Interview: Quentin Dupieux on Channeling the Surreal and Stupid in Mandibles

French filmmaker Quentin Dupieux shot to international recognition in 2011 with his breakout film Rubber, a sendup of American horror films featuring a killer tire. In the decade since, he’s made three other movies in the United States and another three in France, each with their own odd plot hook and skewed sense of comedic perspective.

Dupieux’s latest, Mandibles, ranks among his most gonzo concepts yet. The film presents an unexpected take on the old-school creature feature when two feckless French friends , Manu (Grégoire Ludig) and Jean-Gab (David Marsais), discover a giant fly in the back of their trunk. Upon encountering the massive insect, their eyes light up with dollar signs rather than terror.

Their picaresque adventure through the Cōte d’Azur trying to turn a quick buck off the fly results in a jam-packed 77 minutes of farcical comedy. In Dupieux’s absurd universe, the odd assortment of people the pair encounters as they try to hide their discovery end up being as strange as the fly itself—especially the strident and screaming Agnès, played with unexpectedly high-pitched intensity by Adèle Exarchopoulos.

I spoke with Dupieux shortly before the U.S. release of Mandibles. Our conversation touched on how he knows a stupid idea is worth developing, the funny pitches for his latest effort, and the difference between his American and French films.

How did you decide on the look and design of the fly?

We, of course, studied a little bit of the fly world. Then, slowly, we decided to go with one type of fly. We realized that we needed to create a giant fly, but it wasn’t just about making it big. We were looking at some fly footage, and at its normal size, it has no weight. It’s always sitting somewhere that you can tell, so we needed to make it heavy. That’s why it’s a little big on the end—so you can tell that it’s heavy. The people who actually built the puppet worked hard on the textures. It may look simple but it was a long process to get it right.

Did you also feel that it needed to be real and tactile for the actors to respond to it on set for performance purposes?

Production at one point said, “Why won’t you just do a CGI fly?” To me, it was just impossible to film everyone in front of a green screen and have them pretend there’s a fly there. That was not an option. It was important for the actors to have a connection with the creature. It’s super easy and really basic, just a puppeteer hidden somewhere operating the fly like in old movies. But it makes all the difference. For example, when the actors opened the trunk, it was the first time that they saw the fly for real. We kept the fly secret until this moment, just to get some nice reactions from them. And it worked. It was just more fun like that.

Mandibles, like all your films, toggles freely between the real and the surreal. Are you establishing that tonal balance at the script level, leaving yourself the freedom to discover how it will play on set, or tinkering obsessively in the editing room?

What you see is 98% in the script. I know there’s different methods, but when I shoot a movie, I trust the script. The actors follow the dialogue. If something doesn’t work, I can change it on the set. But most of the time, we shoot the script, and there’s no improvisation. When I’m cutting the movie, the only thing I do is remove the bad scenes. When it’s not good enough to me, I just put everything in the trash. But I don’t rewrite the movie when I’m editing.

So was Adèle Exarchopoulos’s dialogue written in all caps?

Exactly, yes, it was like that! I had a mention in the script every time that her character speaks to be something like “loud and psychotic.”

You’ve said that after five years of being unable to shake the idea of a fly in a trunk, you finally decided it was something worth pursuing as a film. How do you know that a “stupid” idea is worth pursuing?

I have tons of ideas, but I forget about most of them. This idea of the giant fly, I don’t know why, it stayed in my mind for a few years. And that’s why I was like, “Okay, if it stays, if it’s still here, maybe I should do it.” That doesn’t mean it’s good! You never know when it’s good or not, but it’s worth trying if the idea stays.

Are there practices you cultivate to help yourself generate the ideas that become your movies? Or are they truly just things you stumble into as you’re living and working?

I know when my mind is ready to write. I’m almost always writing stuff. I make one movie every year, and I’m always like one or two scripts ahead. It’s more like a sport when you do it almost every day. Ten years ago, when I was starting to write a script, it was like trying to find solutions while I was sleeping. Now I know how to achieve what I’m looking for. I don’t want to say it’s easy, because it’s not. But I know the road now and I’m never lost. I don’t have this stupid fear of the white page. I know exactly where I’m going, and I know how to go there.

Does it become harder to tap into that childlike part of yourself as the art becomes more like a craft that you’ve honed?

I’m very lucky because, basically, I can just write a movie like the one you saw and decide to shoot it three months later. I will find enough money to shoot it, and I will hire amazing actors to do it because they trust me. Right now, I’m very lucky. It’s easy for me to stay in this kid world because nobody’s saying to me, “You should do this, you should maybe do a different movie.” They let me do whatever I want, which is a gift and actually very rare. In the U.S., for example, I don’t think anyone has this kind of freedom because movies [are] a big industry. But I’m doing this like I was doing electronic music on the laptop.

Mandibles is your third consecutive film made and set in France after a long period of working in the United States. Do you see this as a different artistic period for you?

It’s a big difference because the movies are written in French, acted in French, and shot in France. Mandibles was shot where I spent all my holidays when I was a kid. I have more connections to France, obviously, even if I lived for seven years in Los Angeles. It was very interesting to work with American actors, to make these movies in English, and to discover everything in the U.S. But, of course, I feel closer to Jean Dujardin. He’s like me, a real French person. I feel closer to him than any bigger U.S. actors, and it’s normal.

From my perspective as someone from the States, I found your American movies interesting because it was like watching a version of the country from someone who primarily knew it from movies. Your French movies have that sensibility too, but they’re told from a more personal perspective derived from actual lived experience.

You said it better than me. It’s exactly that! When I was shooting in the U.S., I was inspired by American culture…but it was not mine. I was a stranger watching a different country. I’m super happy with the four movies I shot in the U.S. But those four movies are a bit like concept movies that don’t mean much. Today, the things I’m doing in France are more connected to real elements. Even if I’m still doing absurd and surreal stuff. They have more layers.

Didn’t you say the elevator pitch for the movie was No Country for Old Men meets Dumb and Dumber?

When I was pitching the movie, I used to say that it was E.T. mixed with Dumb and Dumber. That was just a funny way to pitch it because the real movie that basically guided me for this was, yes, No Country for Old Men. For some reason, I just loved the way this movie tells the story without any music, with this slow pace. Even if it’s very different, I was not trying to copy that movie, obviously. But it was more like a guide. That movie inspired me a lot.

Does your background being a DJ help when it comes to kind of finding that right blend of clashing moods or taking people through an artistic experience?

No, because I’m a bad DJ. I’ve been DJing only because some people enjoy my music. I always knew I wasn’t a good DJ. I’ve seen some good DJs, and it’s crazy amazing how they build something and take people somewhere. But I have never been able to do that. But my music ear maybe helps me in finding the right groove, especially while editing a movie. It’s a bit like making music, yes. Sometimes I just listen, and sometimes it’s all about the sound. You try to find the right pace and rhythm in the cutting.

What’s the status of your next movie?

There’s one I shot already like a year ago called Incredible But True. It’s hard to talk about it, but it’s fully finished. And I’m preparing the next one.