A Game Between Two Characters: A Conversation with ‘Bugonia’ Screenwriter Will Tracy

Two conspiracy obsessed young men kidnap the high-powered CEO of a major company, convinced that she is an alien intent on destroying planet Earth.

Bugonia is both a terrifying and satirical look in the mirror – universally, frankly. It’s not spoon feeding us. It’s not provocative just to be different. Tonally, both drama and comedy ride side by side equally. The filmmakers give space to both sides of the coin. It’s definitely a film you will find yourself gravitating back to you, whether you loved it or not – just to prove why you did or didn’t. And who knows, maybe you’ll find the answer to something else you weren’t entirely looking for.

Screenwriter Will Tracy returns to Script to discuss his approach to writing the script, focusing on the relationship dynamics between two complex characters, dealing with the subjective nature of reality, all while mainlining the films ambiguity while also being creatively in lock-step with director Yorgos Lanthimos.

This interview has been edited for content and clarity.

Will Tracy: … The original film, it really announces its premise pretty immediately. So pretty much from the jump, I thought, oh, OK, I think I know why Ari [Aster] pointed me towards this, that there's something in that premise that felt like there might be some purchase there for kind of a contemporary Anglo American kind of view on that, using, I guess, kind of current that have only become more current political and cultural themes and attitudes germane to our moment in this country and globally, and there's something there in that premise.

I essentially, I did a bad job of being a movie goer because I didn't do what you're supposed to do, which is sort of watch the movie on a proper screen and just let yourself be immersed. Instead, I kind of was just watching this thing… on my laptop and taking notes immediately for what my version would be, because I kind of felt immediately how tonally and structurally I wanted to make something different, not out of any disrespect to the original film, but if anything, as a way of honoring that and letting it stand on its own two feet. And I really don't see the need or reason to adapt anything, unless you're going to take a pretty free hand and try to make something new.

So, to try to make a long story short, I kind of wrote a sort of outline or pitch of what I would do with it. I had a a break from Succession and other things to write it - it happened to be spring of 2020 kind of March, April 2020 so I had a lot of time on my hands, because I was locked down in New York, and we had a new baby, and in a little studio apartment… like everybody, I think, feeling pretty freaked out and paranoid and confused.

And I wrote the script then very quickly, and then it just sort of, I don't know, maybe waiting for the movie business to open back up again. That was maybe part of it, or just, you know, these things just take a while. It was then, I think, another year or so, until Yorgos [Lanthimos] finally came on. I didn't kind of write a Yorgossian movie on purpose. He was not in my head at all. And certainly, Emma [Stone] was not in my head or Jesse [Plemons], but I think it ended up being the right match of everybody.

Sadie Dean: Absolutely, yeah. That is such an interesting way, though, to approach and adapt an existing movie, and be so inspired in the moment to just start taking notes. We can watch a movie over and over again and analyze it and re-analyze it forever and then, OK, what do I do?

Will: That's right, exactly. I really tried to make it hard on myself, or try to make a path towards something original clearer by only watching it that one time. I still haven't seen it since. And if I ever found myself while writing the script feeling stuck at any point in the script or in the story, I would not allow myself to go back to the original film and say, 'Well, what did they do?' I just wouldn't allow it. I think that was ultimately the right move, and again, hopefully honors both movies.

Sadie: It’s like adapting a book. The book lives, it has its own life, let it do its thing, and it's totally fine, and you got your own version, which can exist at the same time.

You kind of spoke on this, with how this film touches on the political and cultural climate… I feel like this movie does this really great thing of keeping the lie alive. And this idea that reality is subjective… Emma Stone’s character says at one point, “Lies. Truth. What's the difference?” For you as a writer, keeping that fine line of what the lie is and what the truth is, how are you tracking all of that, before they essentially diverge and become one?

Will: I honestly was not really thinking that much about the kind of, I guess, the big secrets, or the big reveals, I guess maybe because I knew they were there, and I knew I wanted to do those. And maybe in some ways, what interested me for the bulk of the film was really getting these people in a room together, these people with very different cultural and political ideas and backgrounds and attitudes, who, I think both of them enter that room with probably a very well defined sense of who they want to present to the world and also who they think that other person standing across from them is, right? Maybe they've even been having an argument with that person in their head or with that person online. But usually it's not face to face, right? So, let's get them in the room, and let's really have it out and have the conversations.

And so, I guess my initial worry was, yeah, it's quite boring to have a film that's just, 'You're an alien.' 'No, I'm not.' There's only so much you can get out of that. That's good for maybe the first confrontation, the first scene, but you have to find a way to evolve their relationship as maybe that idea of who they want to present to the world is dismantled by the other person, by their interlocutor a bit, and then we, the audience, get to see a little bit more of the real emotional bias or agenda that's driving them, right?

It's not just a conversation about ideas. We get to really see how you became the person that you are. And just trying to focus on that relationship with Don, Teddy's cousin, being some something of an audience surrogate. I kind of liked that structure and focusing on that.

Hopefully that's what makes the movie, because my other fear was that once you know some of the surprises in the film that I didn't want the movie to be like, as I've said before, like a wind-up toy, where it kind of does one surprise and that's it. And there's no reason to go back to see the movie again, that I want it to be the kind of movie that you're kind of quite eager to go back and see the second time to watch for some of those emotional nuances, to watch the game between the two characters hopefully will become even more interesting on a second watch, was the hope.

Sadie: Absolutely. And there were times where I did feel like I was Don, feeling out both sides. With both Michelle and Teddy, there’s this fine emotional line between sympathy and empathy for both of them, and how you straddle that coupled with their attitudes and their agenda is really interesting. How do you maintain that while making sure to keep the audience invested in these characters?

Will: Honestly, for Jesse's character, Teddy, it wasn't particularly difficult for me to, despite all the monstrous things he does in the film. I found it quite easy throughout and to this day, I have a lot of time for him, that character, and I do have a lot of empathy for him. He's not, as I've tried to make a point of stressing, he's not entirely wrong, actually ends up being [laughs] mainly correct about a lot of things, but wrong on some crucial aspects, but I think right in a kind of in the generality.

I think he's someone who feels as though he doesn't have a life and doesn't have a future, and sees that same kind of immiseration and hopelessness in his family and his community and his workplace, and he wants, what's the answer, what's happening? Why am I so atomized? Why am I so isolated? I'm told I live in a democracy, but don't really feel like I'm part of any kind of democratic project.

Obviously, I live a much more advantaged life than Teddy, but I feel those things sometimes. I know a lot of people in my community and friends and family and neighbors who feel that way. I live out in kind of a rural area, and I get that feeling a lot. I wouldn't say that he's necessarily a heroic character, but I do think he's a sympathetic character who is, again, on some of the particulars, and in a general sense, I think he has a point. So, giving him a good argument was part of it, because I didn't want him to be this kind of boogeyman you read about in the Atlantic or something, where it's like, ‘oh, he's one of those too online, kind of right-wing leaning incel, toxic lonely males’ or whatever. I'm sure that's a thing that exists.

But I also think it's a little bit of a media boogeyman. I didn't want to put him in any kind of box like that. I wanted to give him a very particular worldview. And part of my thinking behind that was, I wrote this before, some very recent examples of this phenomenon. But we see this a lot right where there's a kind of a shooter or a kidnapper, a domestic terrorist. And there's some immediate rush to put them in some sort of category, right? 'Oh, I think it's one of those right-wing people from their side.' 'He's a leftist.' 'We found this on his backpack.’ And then, of course, we get at some point after everyone has argued with that for a week, quietly, the real story comes out that, 'Oh, he was a registered Republican person who liked Antifa websites, but was pro-gun but identified as non-binary.' It's like all over the place, right? It's completely incoherent. Like most people, we believe all different things, and not a lot of the things that we believe necessarily agree with each other. So, I wanted him to have that feeling to him.

And then in terms of Michelle, maybe, because I'd come from Succession, I kind of maybe knew a bit about how to write a sort of C-suite kind of character, like a corporate kind of animal. But she's a little bit different, right? Because she tries to code as being kind of progressive or broadly liberal... not Logan Roy. [laughs] And then, of course, learning what we learn over the course of the movie about her, you kind of see this quite vicious and heartless facade, we kind of see the thinking behind it. And she has a pretty good argument too in the movie, and she's right about a few things herself. 

Sadie: There’s that one scene where Michelle tells her employees they can leave at five, unless they have work, then stay, but you know, five is the target. I thought that was hilarious and just spot on for a character like that.

Will: [laughs] I wanted the CEO to be a woman - in the original film it's a male CEO - so I was doing a little bit of research into kind of prominent American women who are CEOs. And I did read an interview with Mary Barra, who's the CEO of General Motors, one of the more prominent American women CEOs, and she had said something in some interview, 'There's this meeting that was going late, and I knew I had to be at my daughter's soccer game at 5:30 and so I said everyone, you know what, I'm sorry. Maybe this makes me not a proper CEO, but damn it, I'm leaving at 5:30 for my daughter's soccer game. And if any of you ever feel like you have to leave or something like that, do it, because work life balance is important.' And I read that interview, I thought it sounds nice, [laughs] but I do wonder if you ask her assistant or the guy taking her key at parking, do you think you can really leave at 5:30? [laughs] So, sort of the impetus for that idea.

Sadie: [laughs] Yeah, she's trying to make herself human, [laughs] but she's very disconnected.

Will: Yeah, that's right. [laughs]

Sadie: This film feels like such a tone down Yorgos. It reminded me of his earlier, more human story, grounded films, like Dogtooth. And then he does what he does, pushing and pulling those emotional nuances. Once he came on board, what were your creative conversations were like between the two of you, with him putting his spirit into the script, while also keeping your spirit alive in it as well?

Will: Not a whole lot changed, really... Usually, I think Yorgos is very involved in the development of a script, even if he's not co-writing it. He's usually there from the very beginning, to shape it, going through it kind of page by page with the writer. And in this case... it was done basically. I think he thought this is ready to shoot.

But for me, personally, Yorgos Lanthimos to shoot it, I think he felt like here's maybe a few tonal things, some restructuring around the beginning, a few little things toward the end. I think we changed some things with the cop character, but everything he gave me was very clear and actionable. It wasn't sort of, what does it all mean? What are we going to do? What is this story about? And how can I make this story about what I want it to be about? We didn't talk about that at all.

We really didn't talk much about theme. I think he just thought he knew what it was, and he knew how he wanted to shoot it. And here's some ways to make it more shootable for him. Dialogue, nothing really. And maybe, I think he was, as you said earlier, maybe looking for something where the dialogue felt a little bit more human or natural, or something that we can recognize - you see Teddy and Don, and you kind of feel like, I know people like that. Maybe not that extreme, but I kind of know them. Which maybe was less of the case with some of his more recent films, quite by design.

Sadie: That must be such a good feeling to know your script was solid enough for him.

Will: Yeah, it's a good feeling. But also, as a screenwriter, sometimes it's 'this is good.' And then there's also a little bit of back of your head worry, as there always is with writers, like, 'maybe there should be a few more notes' or the other fear of like, 'maybe there's not a lot of notes, because he's the kind of director who when I'm gonna visit set, they're basically improvising it.' [laughs] It was both happy and also a little bit worried. But luckily, neither of those things ended up being true. He really did shoot it. I think he knew what he wanted, and he shot it like a play. I got lucky.

Sadie: There's a couple of scens and moments that come to mind, specifically the black and white imagery with Teddy's mom.

Will: That's a great example! Yes, that was the one that he probably most wanted to, again, the same dialog and everything, but the way he wanted those structured was, yes, that was definitely new. So, I kind of had to rewrite it around what he wanted around that to make them not literal. I don't really like doing flashbacks or dream sequences or anything like that, but I knew we needed something. We needed to know the connection between Michelle and Teddy that preexisted before the kidnapping, that they had this connection, which was the mom and this medication that she was kind of in the trial subject for.

I just couldn't think of a way to do that that wasn't in a flashback, that wouldn't step on or ruin anything that came before it or after it. It was elegant that the audience would understand. So, I kind of did them as these little flashbacks. And I think Yorgos agreed that they needed to be in there, but was eager to make them, I guess, mess them up a bit, make them a little bit less literal.

I think what neither of us wanted was that feeling of Teddy is looking at a window deep in thought and we cut to the flashback, and then we cut back to him at the window, and he looks at a picture of his mom. We didn't want to do that. You're not really sure when you see these things, if they are flashbacks, is this in Teddy's head? Is the movie dreaming this? Where's this coming from exactly? Make them more abstract.

Sadie: It works so well in this case. The ending, personally for me, was a chef’s kiss. I'm so glad you guys went there. Not holding back and just going for it, because you could have gone in any direction. It’s left open for interpretation.

Will: Yeah, I felt that. You could have ended before that, and then she is who she said she was at the beginning of the film. And you could probably make an interesting movie like that. Maybe some people think they want that ending, but I have a feeling they might have been underwhelmed if that had been the ending. And also, I think what the film can be about, or what it's saying thematically, just becomes bigger. And also, I think a bit more, hopefully pleasingly ambiguous, open it up to something quite epic in scale.

That was the hope was that then people could leave the movie... I've been happy to discover wildly different reactions to that. I've heard people say it's kind of a very bleak ending. Some people find it hopeful. Some people find it funny. Some people find it optimistic. Some people find it deeply unethical and nihilistic. I think anyone who goes back and sees the movie again, I don't think at any point the movie gestures or pushes the audience toward any one of those interpretations, I think they're all valid. I like that in movies. I mean, maybe some people want it a completely unambiguous statement at the end of a film, but no, I like it to be open to a bit of interpretation, and for the movie to allow that, in my opinion, I think that is one of the things I like best about the ending.

Sadie: I think it just makes it an even stronger film, and it does invite you to come back and watch it again, because all these other things you’ll pick up along the way. But I think at the end of the day, the message is, be nice to bees.

Will: [laughs]

Sadie: Because without them, we wouldn't be here.

Will: That's again, another perfectly valid conclusion. [laughs]

Bugonia is now streaming on Peacock.