Originally, you conceived Beneath the Roses as a film. Do you think that you would want to try evisioning something in that way again?
GC: I don’t think it’s in the movie, but around that time there was a lot of interest around Hollywood. So I wrote a treatment. I had a meeting with a big Hollywood producer, and it was one of the most awkward moments of my life. He read the treatment and I could just see his face falling, and he was like, “Nothing happens in this. It’s just descriptions.” And it was! It was like: “a guy gets out of the car and it’s raining and he has a car full of so sod. Cut. A woman walks across the lawn nude, pregnant.” He’s said, “It’s not connected in any way.”
That’s very of Malick of you. Also, it would be difficult for you to make a movie if you want to shoot in the same style that you do now.
GC: It would be the most expensive, hugest-budgeted movie where nothing happened. Like Terrence Malick is famous for shooting just during magic hour—it would be like that. But unlike Terrence Malick—who I’m a huge fan of—I consider myself a storyteller first and foremost. So I would never make a movie like that. If I were to make a movie, it would have to be a real story.