Quentin Dupieux‘s “Full Phil” has been described as a “White Lotus”-esque project based on its high concept pitch, starring Woody Harrelson as a wealthy American industrialist attempting to reconnect with his daughter – played by Kristen Stewart — during an opulent trip to Paris. Yet, the prolific French director tells Variety that his movie is “more like ‘Emily in Paris’ in hell — a fever dream, a nightmare version of it.”
A highly prolific and iconoclastic filmmaker, Dupieux (who describes himself as a “washing machine running non-stop”) says “Full Phil” was sparked by his desire to make a film in English after making 10 movies in French. At the start of his filmmaking career, he had made a few projects in the U.S. such as “Rubber,” which lensed in California with a cast including Stephen Spinella. “When you change languages, your brain enters a slightly different zone. It’s very interesting,” Dupieux says in an exclusive interview with Variety on the eve of the EFM.
The surreal black comedy, which Studiocanal will introduce to buyers at the European Film Market in Berlin, also stars Charlotte Le Bon (“White Lotus”), Emma Mackey (“Barbie”), Nassim Lyes (“Under Paris”), Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim.
Now in post-production, “Full Phil” shot on location in Paris and marks the first film co-starring Harrelson and Stewart. They turned out to have the perfect chemistry, Dupieux says, adding that “making the Kristen–Woody relationship believable” was key for the movie. “Even if my films are often absurd, I always want believable worlds. I wouldn’t have liked it if they didn’t feel like family,” the helmer says. “But they’re great professionals. We never questioned it. He really is her dad, she really is his daughter.”
Yet, “Full Phil” isn’t a deep exploration of a father-daughter relationship, says Dupieux, who is known for his absurdist and quirky sense of humor. The synopsis suggests a surprising subplot, mentioning “French cuisine, a 1950s horror film and an invasive hotel employee” disturbing their lavish Paris trip. “Pure emotion as an objective isn’t my thing,” he says. “What I like is fantasy, and above all, making people laugh and be entertained — but not through traditional comedy.”
“The film is funny in other ways. I started with this father-daughter story, and then there’s a second film inside the film,” he says. “I see these conceptual films like amusement parks. It takes us on emotional, comical and fantastical rides.”
“Full Phil” reteams Dupieux with producer Hugo Selignac at Paris-based Chi-Fou-Mi Productions (a Mediawan company). They have made eight films in six years together, including “Mandibules,” “Smoking Causes Coughing,” “Yannick,” “Daaaaalí!,” “The Second Act”, “The Piano Accident” and “Signaux.”
The pair are already working on another project with American actors. “There are many actors I still haven’t worked with. In France, I’m close to exhausting the possibilities. In the U.S., I’m just getting started,” Dupieux says.
What’s the origin of “Full Phil”?
I’m a bit like a washing machine that runs non-stop. Projects are born and feed off each other constantly. I know there are people who work differently, who tackle a project one day and for whom there are reasons and a strong desire. For me, it’s more like a washing machine. Right now, I’m really at the end of “Full Phil,” and I’m already revisiting scripts I had in progress, and we’re already relaunching other projects. So there isn’t this system of a project being born in my mind. It’s not a race — I do it calmly — but this project was born in my laboratory, like all my other projects, in perpetual motion. It’s very hard to find what triggered it.
Was it perhaps a meeting with Woody or Kristen?
More likely a desire to confront the English language again. When I was just starting out, I made a few small films in the U.S., in English, and I had a lot of fun. When you change languages, your brain enters a slightly different zone. It’s very interesting. Then I came back to France and eagerly made 10 French films in quick succession. I met lots of French actors, and there are many films in that group that I’m very proud of. That’s pretty much where it all started — a desire to change register through language. My films rely heavily on dialogue, and changing languages means confronting a different rhythm, a different music. That was the starting point. After that, Woody and I met because he saw “The Second Act” and “Yannick.”
How did that connection happen?
He was very taken with “The Second Act” and “Yannick,” which surprised me because those films are based solely on text. It’s hard to imagine Anglo-Saxons watching something like “Yannick,” which is an hour of subtitles and very little action. You’d think those films wouldn’t travel, but they do.
What people don’t necessarily know about Woody is that he has a very intellectual side. A few years ago, he made a single-shot film broadcast live. I didn’t see it, but he immediately told me about it because there are long shots in “The Second Act.” You wouldn’t think it, but he has that kind of thinking. His film was like live theater, and my films are quite theatrical too — very focused on actors and dialogue. That spoke to him, and we connected. At that point, I was already writing “Full Phil,” and that meeting boosted my desire to do it. Having direct contact with an American actor like Woody makes development much easier. In France, I can call actors directly, text them, get decisions very quickly. In the U.S., everything takes longer. Decision-making is slower. Given that I like immediacy — my films are short, I make several a year — that’s not always easy to combine with the American system. Here, it worked because Woody really wanted it.
What about Kristen Stewart?
We embarked on the film as soon as Woody came on board. He accepted without reading the script, which is extraordinary for an American actor. He was so enthusiastic about the two films he’d seen. I finished writing, and we had to find the character of his daughter. We always start by checking availability, because I like immediacy. We set dates right away — we don’t say, “We’ll see in a year.” That’s the DNA of my projects. They’re very prepared and very written, but we do them quickly. We started looking for a young woman who could play Woody’s daughter and who would be available, and we quickly came across Kristen. It was a great choice. The combination works perfectly. We’d never seen them together, but something was immediately obvious. She took a weekend to consider it and accepted within 48 hours, which is rare. I think there was a challenge in the film that excited her. She joined just like that — very brave of her.
Why brave? Is she doing stunts?
You don’t know it yet, but there’s a delicate aspect to what she does in one part of the film. There was a whole thing about cuisine, but I can’t say more. Sometimes the difficulty is physical transformation or stunts or shaving your head. Here, it’s something completely different. I’ll leave the mystery unresolved.
Is it a film about cooking?
Not at all. I’m dissecting a father-daughter relationship in a complicated situation. It’s about a widowed father trying to reconnect with his daughter, who’s about 30. There’s a very emotional, grounded part with real characters. And then the film slips — inevitably — into something more fantastical.
There are often fantastical elements in your films.
That’s because a straight film about a father and daughter isn’t my thing. Many people do that very well — I’m thinking of “Sentimental Value” recently. That’s not my specialty. I dabbled in it, but inevitably I ended up doing something else. Pure emotion as an objective isn’t my thing. What I like is fantasy, and above all, making people laugh and be entertained — but not through traditional comedy. The film is funny in other ways. I started with this father-daughter story, and then there’s a second film inside the film, which is also a surprise. You can guess it from the synopsis: Kristen and Woody’s film is mixed with a 1950s horror film. It’s done in a very playful way. I see these conceptual films like amusement parks. The film takes us on emotional, comical, and fantastical rides.
What worked in particular? The chemistry between Kristen and Woody?
That was the major challenge — making the Kristen–Woody relationship believable. Even if my films are often absurd, I always want believable worlds. I wouldn’t have liked it if they didn’t feel like family. But they’re great professionals. We never questioned it. He really is her dad, she really is his daughter. That was a great success.
Another gamble was integrating a 1950s horror film into a modern story. On paper, it sounds crazy. The synopsis is mysterious. But that ingredient worked too. It makes the film joyful, special, and quite new.
There’s also the theme of Americans in Paris, which can feel artificial. We shot in real locations. The film could have been partly shot in a studio — it would’ve been easier and cheaper — but we refused. It really takes place in Paris, in real streets and buildings, and that gives it real charm.
Some people compared your film to “White Lotus” based on the pitch. Do you see that?
I recently watched a few episodes of the latest season with Charlotte Le Bon, who’s also in my film. I don’t really see the similarity. “White Lotus” is quite realistic. Yes, there are two people in a hotel, but there’s much more than that. And we don’t stay in the hotel the whole movie.
Did you ever think of setting “Full Phil” in L.A.?
I could have told the story anywhere, but I’d never filmed in Paris before. I usually escape — deserts, sea, mountains. I live in Paris, so I need dreamlike places. Recently, I made “L’accident de piano” in Haute-Savoie. Here, it was interesting to invite Americans into the cliché of Americans in Paris and actually shoot in Paris. It was part of the DNA from the beginning. And the cooking element wouldn’t have worked anywhere else. It’s more like “Emily in Paris” in hell — a fever dream, a nightmare version of it.
Do you let actors improvise?
No, that’s not my system. The script is a score, and it must be followed. But within that, I’m completely open to real life. I love being surprised by performances. I work by ear. I listen to rehearsals or the first take, and I know what to tell them. Sometimes it works immediately; sometimes there are misinterpretations, and I correct them. When a line sounds wrong, it’s like music — I ask for another tune. The rhythm is musical work. We explore. Sometimes we get stuck on three lines for no reason. That’s part of the job. It’s not improvisation, but it’s not robotic either.
Kristen Stewart is also a filmmaker. Did that influence the collaboration?
She was very nice and let herself go. She immediately saw that my method was unique and not conventional. Because I write everything myself, I’m behind the camera, I decide when we stop and start — it’s a little wild. She understood it quickly and trusted it completely. The same with Woody. For the first two or three days, they were spectators of a method they’d never encountered. It was a very serene set. I think it made an impression.
What defines your method?
Speed. We shoot very quickly, but without stress. The team is extremely professional. Actors often tell me that on traditional sets they spend their days waiting. On my films, Woody and Kristen were on set all day.
You also edit during filming?
I pre-edit during filming. As soon as I have a doubt, I lock myself in a dressing room and check if the editing works. That way, I avoid shooting unnecessary footage. Many directors would keep shooting “just in case.” I don’t. I check. It means I don’t exhaust the actors by repeating things endlessly.
What stage is the film in now?
I’m finishing the editing now, and I’m very happy with it. I’ve never done anything like this before. It’s new, even for me. And I’m delighted it’s in English with Woody, Kristen, Charlotte Le Bon, and Tim and Eric. Cinema is often compared to cooking. There are ingredients. Sometimes recipes don’t work. In this case, I found a recipe that really worked.
Did this experience make you want to make more English-language films?
Absolutely. We have other projects in the works. One was written even before “Full Phil.” It’s like changing music. English has a different rhythm. I saw it during editing — it’s new music, very enjoyable. I’m not tired of French at all, but this is a musical respite. And the U.S. is a wonderful playground. There are many actors I still haven’t worked with. In France, I’m close to exhausting the possibilities. In the U.S., I’m just getting started. So I’ll absolutely continue developing projects in English.
Your producer Hugo Selignac says many American actors want to work with you.
Yes, we are in demand, which is very pleasant. It reinforces our conviction. But actually making it happen is complicated — schedules, huge stars, timing. My method is fast-paced, and I can’t project myself two years into the future. I live in the moment. So I’ll end up working with those who accept that speed. Woody and Kristen were the first to try it. They loved it. It went very well. And we hope to convince others to go just as fast.
