Warning: Spoilers follow for 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.
28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is now in theaters and serves as the fourth film in the franchise that began back in 2003 with 28 Days Later. This story picks up after the events of last year’s 28 Years Later, and we had the chance to speak to director Nia DaCosta and Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal actor Jack O’Connell about the evolution of the infected, the real danger behind the Jimmys, and much more.
You can read excerpts from our chat below or watch the full conversation in the video above, and we also encourage you to check out our 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple review, the five questions we have for the next 28 Years Later film, and everything you need to know about Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal before watching this movie.
IGN: Maybe we can start with Jimmy’s backstory, which we sort of were filling in as an audience after the previous film, but how much did you guys dig in on the particulars of what happened to Jimmy since he was a child to now?
Jack O’Connell: It was a huge gray area, wasn’t it? So, we have to assume that whatever they are, they’re efficient because they’ve survived. I don’t know if we went into too much detail about the in between of it, but I think it was important to see Jimmy and the Fingers. That is a wild statement if you’ve not watched the film.
Jimmy and his Fingers are very proficient at what they do. And that was important to me. So we do see them dispatch members of the infected with casual ease. And I think that gives you some sort of insight.
Nia DaCosta: And also just what their dynamic is. I think you have a very clear sort of inciting incident for his life, which is the first scene of Danny [Boyle]’s film. And then you can infer like, okay, from that he became this. And so the most important thing for us I think was like, what’s the dynamic within the group? What’s the power structure within the group? And so we talked about that.
IGN: Do you think he’s a villain?
ND: Yes.
IGN: Obviously, when we meet him, yes. But I mean, he’s not when he’s a kid though, is he?
ND: Well, kids are innocent, but they can do villainous things. But no, he’s just a little booboo running from his father, Satan.
JO: Throughout, even through The Bone Temple…
ND: Now we’re getting emotional.
JO: And when you view him as that, he’s a lot less threatening.
IGN: When you see Spike, who’s sort of maybe a bit older than Jimmy was when things went down all those years ago, Spike’s a good kid. We see him fighting against what Jimmy is now. But Spike, could he become that also?
ND: I don’t know. Jimmy’s dad is weird. When you meet him, he’s like, “Here [the infected] are.” And you’re like, “Girl, that’s not what’s happening.” And I think despite the flaws of Jamie, I think he’s, as a father, instilled some better morals and ethics into Spike than the vicar has.
JO: Totally. I think with Spike, there is hope. With Jimmy, there’s none.
IGN: Nia, can you talk about humanizing Samson? He’s obviously so scary when we first get to know him, and then over the course of this film, he becomes a character, which is a new thing for the infected.
ND: I think that all started obviously in the script, but when Alex [Garland] created these different kinds of infected in the first film, there’s the Slow-Lows and then there’s the Alphas or the Berserkers, depending on what you call them, and then the ones that we’re used to.
I think introducing this idea that they can develop differently also introduces an idea that they can have different paths and they can think differently. Being able to create a journey for that character alongside [Ralph Fiennes’ character] Kelson was really special because I think it really speaks to a theme of the film, which is like, can people change? Because a question of the film is like, is there hope? And people with hope tend to do better things than people without. Samson going on that journey kind of reveals that the film and the filmmakers believe that change is possible and hope is important.
IGN: Did you feel beholden to any stylistic aspects of the previous films?
ND: Not at all. When I came in, I said, “I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to try to imitate what Danny’s doing.” But if there’s something that I’m like, “oh, that’s interesting,” sure I’ll take it, and the thing that I took was the shutter angles.
IGN: Can you explain that?
ND: When Danny shoots the infected, he changes the shutter angle. So, that’s why if you watch 28 Days Later again, whenever an infected attack happens, it’s more stuttery and jarring. I just thought it was really effective and I really loved that in the original film. I also thought it was a nice way to kind of have an homage, but one that was really effective for what I was doing. And because that Jimmys are also in that space of the infected because of how much violence and horror they bring, we use that for them as well. My DP and I, Sean Bobbitt, who’s amazing, we had three settings for the shutter angles, but we mostly used like 43.8 degrees or something, because you have to get really specific so that the lights aren’t flickering.
IGN: That’s awesome. Jack, what’s Jimmy’s grasp on reality? Because he thinks Ian might… he’s a little unsure and is like, “is this guy [Kelson] actually Old Nick?”
JO: I think there is a vulnerability to him, which was a rare opportunity to show because, in other times, he is so obsessively in control. So I think to his mind, I mean, what is reality anyway in this world that we’re in? Everything’s been very completely skewed and sure, Jimmy Crystal is entirely corrupted. So what is that sense of reality? And I do think it’s partly because of his insanity and that he does believe that he hears voices, which was my sort of ethos on him. Until he doesn’t, until he starts using that as a guise and a tool to manipulate the people around him to his gain.
ND: But to your credit, you’re very clear performance-wise when you are talking about really hearing voices and when you’re full of shit, because one of my favorite performance moments for you is when you talk about how, your talking to Kelson and he’s like, “Oh, you hear him in your head?” and you go, “The whole fucking time.” And it’s really sad.
JO: Yeah, like he’s afflicted. I understood him as quite a sociopath. And then there’s a moment in the film, in the scene with Dr. Kelson where, because Dr. Kelson is a doctor and he starts [treating] him, he sort of makes him feel something. And maybe that’s the only time he feels a human emotion.
IGN: Yeah. Because also I think his gang, they live in fear of him basically, right? But then, here with the doctor, it’s a different dynamic that Jimmy’s probably not even used to experiencing. There’s just someone approaching him just as a regular person who he wants to help.
ND: Also, who’s kind of dad, you know?
IGN: Yeah.
If Alex Garland is around and listening to this, I think [Jimmy] could have died a whole lot more, because we see people really die in this film.
IGN: Is there a world where we see Jimmy again? Is Jimmy done or could he come back still?
JO: I think he could have died more. Where that’s concerned. And if Alex Garland is around and listening to this, I think he could have died a whole lot more, because we see people really die in this film.
IGN: Thank you for making me not feel dumb, because that’s my take on it. Ok. Cillian Murphy. What was it like getting to do this, as the fans have been waiting for this character for so long.
ND: It was so cool. I mean, 28 Days Later was the film that made me such a big fan of him. So, him coming back and me being the one to direct that scene, and getting to decide what that would feel like and look like was, I mean, it’s utterly insane for me as the 12-year-old girl who’s like, “I like films.” It’s really cool.
Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
