Last time we spoke, we discussed the McConaissance.
I’ve seen it. It showed up other places.
It should. It’s a great word.
It’s the “sance” part of it that sounds so cool. It’s got a good meter, doesn’t it?
When you mentioned that, my first reaction was that it was so much better than “The Year of McConaughey.”
Yeah [laughs], it’s got a little more of a zoom to it.
I’ve decided, though, that this year is the Year of McConaughey, not last year. Because last year just set the scene that you’re doing these good movies.
Right, right, right …
And now we’re used to that. I mean, “Mud” premiered at Cannes last year, but it didn’t get a lot of buzz until now. Do you think that’s because people are now thinking of you differently?
Ah … well, it doesn’t hurt. It doesn’t hurt. Because “Mud” doesn’t feel like a “knock, knock, knock, can I come in?” It feels like we’re all in the room.
But why is the buzz hitting now?
Well, we’re coming out in April, so obviously there’s a machine that kind of gears up. And the fact that I had a successful last year sure as heck doesn’t hurt it. It helps the film, for sure. It doesn’t make it like a, “What?” or a, “Oh, that’s novel.” It’s coming on the back of some work that I’ve done that people have liked and they go, “That’s different and we liked it.” Do you know what I mean? [McConaughey makes a trumpet-sounding noise].
How do I transcribe that noise?
[Makes the trumpet sound again] That’s the opening music to the McConaissance. That’s the “sance” in the “McCon.”
From now on when you’re introduced, that should play.
So I’ve got to go, “All right, all right, all right” …
You don’t do that one anymore — we’re moving on to your new theme.
I can’t give that one up though, man. Those were the first words that I ever said on film. [Trumpet sound] That’s the “sance” in the “McCon.” There were some sort of satellite views on “Mud” from Cannes, but Cannes still felt like it was “over there.” And now people are seeing it — and I’m interested to see what happens. So far, it seems like there’s been a lot of positive reaction to it for very specific reasons, which is cool. And I sure hope it gets ink because I’m endeared to this movie. It’s got an innocence and, oh, it takes me back in a wonderful way.
For some reason from the description I thought it was going to be a comedy. I think it’s because Mud is referred to as an “outlaw,” so I got “cowboy” in my head.
Oh, you wrote that he’s more of a fugitive.
I think that’s the better description.
Outlaw sounds like there are more guns blaring and he’s much more of an aristocrat of the heart. And, yeah, he did kill a man — for one reason. Really, the only reason he kind of would: over the love of a woman that has kicked him off the porch a thousand times. And he ain’t countin’ and he don’t care. And there’s also more mystery. I love the mysterious aspect; the superstitions. It’s not an aggressive movie.
I feel like you and Jeff Nichols are a good team.
It is a good team. I hear you. I love working with Nichols because, look, he wrote this thing. And we didn’t change hardly a word. Didn’t need to. I mean, I had things I’d go off on, but it was just to really help me understand and explain the actual text that he wrote — which was always better. It’s simple working with Jeff. This movie is very representative of who he is — he’s a really decent man. And confident enough to not insert himself when something is going well, you know? But, specific enough to go, “it needs to be this and this.” Also, confident enough to go, “That’s it, we got it.” Let’s move on, basically. A lot of directors who are younger will go, “OK, we’ve got that, how else can we do it?”
I feel bad because last time we spoke I may have been a little hard on “Fool’s Gold.” I mean, I do get your point about what you said about “mailbox money” and “90 days of Saturdays.”
Yeah, that’s the Saturday characters, those are …
But I didn’t mean to pick on “Fool’s Gold.”
I don’t give a shit if you pick on it. I don’t care. I don’t care of you don’t like me in a film. I don’t give a shit — we can still sit here and talk about it. I mean, thank God people have different tastes. But it is Saturday. Something like “Fool’s Gold,” something about romantic comedies — they’re built not to grab a hold. You can’t have a character obsessed 100 percent. Mud is obsessed. You can grab a hold of that. it’s not about coming back to the center because we’ve got to hit a plot point. All of the characters I’ve been doing lately, they’re obsessed about something. And I’ve been able to get feverishly drunk on their obsessions. Now, you can’t get feverishly obsessed in a romantic comedy. They’re built not to do that.
The movie that I think was the transition from a movie like “Fool’s Gold” and where you’re at now is “Lincoln Lawyer.” I think that movie started the McConaissance.
I think you’re right.
It caught people off guard.
Well, what people did is — and this is the objective awareness I’m throwing at you now — what happened there, people went, “I like that thriller … yeah, ‘A Time To Kill,’ man!” They flash-backed a little.
So a callback to your ’90s work?
A callback … so it switched that view on me a little bit. They didn’t go, “Oh, it’s brand new.” It called them back a little, is what I felt. It called them back and they say, “That’s right, he’s good in that type of movie.”
Was that the plan with “Lincoln Lawyer” from the start?
Well, I knew it had some of those aspects — the drama and the thriller aspects. But I didn’t know. I figured if it worked and people saw it and liked it, that they would go, “Oh yeah, we haven’t seen him in something like that before.” Because it had it in the script — it could pop enough to be something that goes around and makes $50 million, or whatever it made. You know? And we didn’t make it for that much. But I also thought it had enough solid drama in it, so it could balance that. It’s not a serious film, but it’s about some pretty serious shit. And it was a fun thriller. I love getting manipulated in that film, as viewer. And a good thriller, that’s what it does: it manipulates.