Article content continued

I read how you described this movie as a panic attack followed by a hug. Was your aim to shock and awe people in that way?

That’s a privilege of cinema. You can see and hear and feel another person’s point of view, which you rarely get to do in your life. I wanted to immerse you as much as I could with the tools I had to, hopefully, make you feel what the main characters are going through.

The emotional topography is really vast in this movie. How did you plot this landscape?

I like to say the movie works as an autobiography and then fictional narrative, like a circle. There is a lot going on in this story. I was pulling from all these different things in my life and trying to portray them as honestly as I could. Hopefully, it evolved into something bigger and more universal.

Was it always the two parts?

It’s been the spirit of that idea for a long time. I got really excited by the idea and I love two-part films. For me, the movie works as these two dichotomies — the high and lows of our lives… I’m fascinated by that. The good and bad between families and relationships and the question of: is there a way to come out of that and grow?

You apprenticed under Terrence Malick. What was the biggest lesson you took from working under him?

I was so privileged at such a young age to see a completely unorthodox filmmaker work. But I caught on pretty early that I’d be a fool to try and make the same kind of movies in the same kind of way he’s making them. I had to figure out if I had a voice and if I had my own way of making movies.