Duwayne Dunham on David Lynch

Do you feel that “a fable for our time” is what the world needs right now? Do you like the idea of watching Josh Whitehouse, Thomas Haden Church, and Colm Meaney on the big screen? Are you curious about a surreal western-y movie without many of the classic western tropes? Are you excited to watch a strange epic directed by Duwayne Dunham and executive produced by Leo Matchett and none other than the late David Lynch? If either of the above, or some or all of them, apply to you, Legend of the Happy Worker has you covered.

The “human comedy about a simple man who is thrust into power, falls, and finds redemption,” as a synopsis puts it, world premieres on Aug. 7 in an out-of-competition slot at the 78th edition of the Locarno Film Festival. It also promises “a story of faith, work, good versus evil, and the search for life’s meaning in an imperfect world.”

The story revolves around a group of workers, including Joe (Whitehouse), who are digging a hole under the supervision of their boss, Goose (Church), with shovels. But the way of work and life they are accustomed to ends up facing challenges. Drama, laughs, and a healthy dose of absurdity ensue. A golden shovel and the question “why?” play a role, for example.

That will be less surprising if you have followed Dunham’s career. You may know him for his directorial debut with three episodes of Twin Peaks, co-editing Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi, and his editing work and collaboration with Lynch on the likes of Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart. For his editing of the pilot episode of Twin Peaks (1990), he received a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Editing.

He then moved into directing family films, beginning with Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993) and Little Giants (1994). In 2017, Dunham returned to the Twin Peaks universe as the editor of all 18 episodes of Twin Peaks: The Return.

Dunham worked on the screenplay for Legend of the Happy Worker with Jerold Pearson and S.E. Feinberg, on whose play The Happy Worker the movie is based. The ensemble cast also includes Meagan Holder (Joanne) and Rhys Mitchell (Sam), with Bill Borden serving as producer, and Reed Smoot handling cinematography.

Dunham talked to THR about the themes of the cinematic tale, how it fits into the age of AI and what it says about the pursuit of happiness, the rhythmic dialogue in Feinberg’s play, why it is hard to define heroes and villains, why this was the hardest story he has ever worked on, and the role that Lynch played behind the scenes. After all, the end credits say that the film is “in memory of David Lynch,” whose “creative spirit inspired the world of Legend of the Happy Worker,” according to Dunham.

The play that your movie is based on has cult status. Can you talk a little bit about how you discovered it and how much you changed it for the film?

The play was a one-act play, but it is really intact in the movie. It’s almost the first 25-27 pages of the script. Steve wrote that play many years ago, and I got this script and a copy of the play from David Lynch right after we finished Blue Velvet. So that was a long time ago, 1985. David was presented the script, and David brought it to my attention. He just said he thought, with my sensibilities, maybe I could turn it into something. And so it sort of became an obsession over the years.

In my initial reading, I loved the dialogue. It’s written by a playwright. The dialogue for me is really great, melodic, and interesting. There are double meanings everywhere, and sometimes I wondered, “What is this guy talking about? He says he’s drinking Sherry by the barrel!” I love this character, Goose. So I was hooked, and that and the brilliance of the dialogue kept me coming back to the story. This story kept drawing me back, and years went by.

The Colm Meaney character Clete was not in that one-act play. We developed that. When we finally did get the money and the time slot to make this movie, the one thing I told the actors was: “Just trust the dialogue! Just play it straight. It will take us where we want to go.”

It may have taken you a long time to make, but the movie feels very timely…

I would like to think that the whole notion of machine and man and the simplicity of digging a hole and that metaphor are more appropriate today, or more meaningful today, than they were back then. And maybe the happy worker’s time has finally arrived.

Did you add anything to update the story for this age, and what’s your hope for the film?

We added a lot. This story is full of subtlety and nuance, and it’s specifically a little bit like dream logic. And some things are kind of open-ended and really meant to generate discussion among people who see it. What I would hope for is that you’d see the movie, go to a coffee shop and sit down and say, “What did you make of that?” I’d like it to just generate discussion in the world we’re living in.

In one memorable scene, Colm Meaney as Clete recites the lyrics to the song “Eve of Destruction.” What’s that about?

“Eve of Destruction” was written in 1965, and it’s as timely, if not more so, today than it was back then. And that’s reflective of the play, too. P. F. Sloan, the songwriter, was 17 years old when he wrote the song. I happened to meet him 10 years ago or so up in Berkeley. The song was banned in many countries around the world and was banned by many radio stations in America. It was very controversial, but it was a huge hit in France. And it was seen as an anti-war song. The song wasn’t in our script then. I said, “Phil, I’m just curious: Was it an anti-war anthem? Did you mean it to be?” And he said not at all. He said: “I was 17 years old. I was living in my parents’ house, and an angel visited me in the middle of the night and said, ‘Get out five pieces of paper and a pencil. We’re going to write five songs’.”

So, he said it wasn’t an anti-war anthem at all. He said it was a prayer for humanity. That really struck a light bulb with me, and I said, I’ve got to find a way to not necessarily use the song, but get this in. I didn’t use the whole song. I sort of cherry-picked it. The song goes back to 1965, predating my first reading of the script in 1985.

In the film, you’re looking at an isolated world where these people have no worldly experience. They only know this one thing, and they’re digging in this red dirt, and everybody’s happy. It’s a strange situation to begin with, pretty much unbelievable. But then this guy from the outside world comes in, and he kind of issues this warning and offers a different way. The workers may want to know what’s on the other side, anywhere outside of this hole, and he lays it out for them, like a prayer. But they’re scared to death.

[SPOILER WARNING: The following question and answer include some spoilers.]

The theme of man and machine plays out in the form of the suggestion that shovels could be replaced by mechanical diggers. Right now, everyone is debating AI – in Hollywood and beyond. Was this debate already raging while you were making this movie, or has anyone who has seen the film wondered how it fits into the age of AI?

In the beginning, way back, it was all simply about mechanical machines. But as time went on, that has changed. AI has been with us probably since a chess match in the ’70s. AI has been with us a long time. We just haven’t been so exposed to it. It hasn’t been mainstream. Everybody has a cell phone now. Everybody uses Siri, which is [people] talking to a machine. It’s been a gradual proliferation of that technology. AI is no different from any particular machine. It’s a shifting of technology. What happened when the carriage replaced the horse, and so on and so forth. For me, this is all a bit like AI. Hollywood seems to be petrified of AI. I kind of get it. But you know what? It’s not going away. It’s here. That train of AI has left the station, and there’s no turning back. It’s just going to accelerate. And my thing is: We’ve been using encyclopedias and then other means of research forever. There’s no more powerful tool for research than AI. That’s all it is! Information in, information out.

Is it going to replace man’s feelings? That’s the happy worker. It’s not! It doesn’t matter what you’re digging with. What makes you happy, and who’s going to answer that question, is existential. If you’re content doing it, I don’t care what the hole is that you’re digging. If it brings you happiness and fulfillment, and you have hope for the future, then you’re good.

You brought up hope, which seems timely when you hear a lot of people feeling the world is a dark place. Can you talk about the theme of hope and its importance?

Well, it’s biblical. It’s what keeps us going. With the state of the world today, the turmoil we’re all exposed to, you’d think we’re close to the apocalyptic time, and it is dark. I can even go into a whole thing about entertainment today. There was a time when John Wayne never shot anybody in the back, and he never shot first. George Lucas struggled with Han Solo and Greedo in Star Wars. Han shot first, and then, he was like: “Wait a minute, that’s not right.” And then he wanted to correct that in the next version.

I remember seeing one of the Terminator films, with a scene where Schwarzenegger shoots a guard in the knees. It got a huge laugh from the audience. And I thought: “We’ve crossed a threshold.” Nowadays, violence is random and nonsensical. Where’s the hope?!

At the darkest hour, you can think of Goose’s question: “Now what?” What are you going to do next? And there is also that line in the film: “Where there’s hope, there’s life.” That means: readjust your thinking. Yeah, we’re in bad times, but hope.

You mentioned the legendary David Lynch earlier. And at the end of the film, you have this lovely tribute, saying, “In memory of David Lynch.” You worked with him so much. Was there any key input he gave on this film?

He basically said: “That’s your sensibility. You know how to tell this.” And that was David. He’s such a unique talent. I remember when he gave me the script for Blue Velvet and asked me to cut the movie for him. I read it and said: “I don’t know, David. It’s not really my cup of tea. I’m more of a Disney kind of guy. And we had a conversation, and I did it. David would never, ever intrude and give comments about this, that or the other, because he wouldn’t want people to do that to him as an artist.

Our working relationship was very, very interesting that way, because David has a certain way, and a film has got to be of one vision. The best art is one vision. And that rarely happens in the film business. Everybody has an opinion. We had a really good time. He played around a little bit when he had time, or had the notion to do so, and I was certainly open to that. That was our relationship.

To what degree do you see the movie as a Western?

The film looks like a Western, but there’s only one horse. There’s no saloon, there’s no gun, and there are two cars.

[SPOILER WARNING: The following two questions and answers include some spoilers.]

You said that you are a Disney guy, and there are scenes and visuals in Legend of the Happy Worker that seem like a reference to classic Disney style. For example, the diggers walk in a way that reminded me of the Seven Dwarfs…

It’s funny, the film is part cartoon, part a Disney movie, I guess, part dream. Hopefully, it generates discussion among people. And you don’t really know who the good guy is here.

I was going to ask how carefully you had to balance scenes because as a viewer, I was torn between who to like and root for…

Goose is saying the old ways are the best ways. We dig with heart, soul, we dig with shovels. Okay, fine. But the other guy, he’s not wrong to come in and say: nuts, bolts, and hard, cold steel machinery. And he speaks of how you could accomplish so much more with this. So, how do you use that technology? That’s the big issue.

Between the two main characters, neither is right nor wrong. And Goose has this strange thing about control. Having control is not bad. Being controlled is not good. That makes you think: What are we talking about here?

Is there anything else you would like to highlight?

This was, without a doubt, the most difficult movie I’ve ever edited. You make one shift, and the whole thing will fall apart. It was really a challenge to go down that line without favoring one side of the argument too much over the other side. It’s all out there for interpretation, like a dream is up for interpretation.