Dylan Southern is making the leap into the world of fictional storytelling with The Thing with Feathers. Better known for his work in the field of documentaries, music videos and recorded live performances, ranging from the blur-focused No Distance Left to Run to Aziz Ansari’s Buried Alive stand-up special and Showtime’s Meet Me in the Bathroom. Even amid these projects, however, Southern never lost sight of his Thing with Feathers dream as he spent the better part of a decade developing the film.

Based on Max Porter’s similarly тιтled Grief Is the Thing with Feathers, the movie centers on Dad, a graphic novelist with two sons whose world is rocked by the sudden death of his wife and their mother. In the midst of his grief, Dad is suddenly tormented by the appearance of Crow, an eight-foot-tall talking manifestation of the book he’s working on who may or may not be a force for good. Benedict Cumberbatch leads the film’s cast as Dad, alongside Richard and Henry Boxall as his sons, Eric Lampaert as the physical performer of Crow and David Thewlis as his voice.

Following the film’s world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, and continued festival run, ScreenRant interviewed Dylan Southern to discuss The Thing with Feathers. The writer/director reflected on his ten-year journey to bring the film to the screen, including what remained his North Star throughout its development, and broke down the creation of Crow for the film, beginning with approaching sculptor Nicola Hicks to create the base design to the various other artists he brought on to help.

Southern Had 1 Big Goal When Figuring Out How To Adapt Porter’s Book For The Screen

“You feel seen when you’ve read the book.”

With Southern having spent the better part of a decade trying to crack the code on how to translate the source material to the screen, it would be understandable if the writer/director made some changes along the way. Regardless of whatever changes were made, however, Southern’s biggest goal was “retaining the DNA of the book“, even as he found himself making certain departures from the source material to better fit the film structure:

Dylan Southern: Yeah, I think the thing that was most important to me was retaining the DNA of the book and all of the things that felt incredibly special about the book to me. And I think for me, the book is visceral, it’s experiential, you feel like you’re going through this period with the family. There’s no plot in the book, it’s kind of episodic, but not — that sounds bad, but these are moments from this family’s life over a huge span of time. The biggest change was that to make this work as a film, I would have to shorten that period. By the time you get to the third section of the book, it’s jumping 30 years in the future, or it’s going back in the past.

It becomes very, very fragmented in a way that a piece of literature can, but if you do that in the film, you’re into kind of far too experimental territory. So, it was about maintaining the DNA of the book and maintaining the kindness and the cathartic nature of the book, especially if you read it, and you’ve been through a bereavement, if you’ve been through a period of grief. You feel seen when you’ve read the book. And I wanted to make a film that had those qualities. But, by its very nature, a film has to be contained, it has to fit. I didn’t want to make something that fit perfectly into a film template, but I couldn’t make something that was so wild that it just threw people out.

Another major element of the novel that proved to be an interesting challenge for Southern was capturing the genre fluidity of it, which the movie does as it fluctuates between being a horror movie to a drama and absurd comedy. For the writer/director, he actually found this to fit the overall point of the story in that it’s Dad going through the various stages of grief, for which the initial stages “do feel like horror“:

Dylan Southern: I wanted to make a film that, as much as it could, felt like the experience of grief. The initial stages of grief do feel like horror. But I never said to myself, “I’m making a horror film here.” There are moments in this experience that we go through that feel like horror, and it’s also a really useful genre to unnerve people and to mess with their nervous system, which then makes some of the more tender or raw — the true horror in this film is in the situation the family find themselves in, domestically.

Going on without a loved one, having your whole kind of family relationship completely blown apart. That’s the thing that’s horror to me. But, when you’re making a film, you want things that are familiar to an audience, that you can then use in a way that is unexpected. This was never a horror film, and it was never just a drama, and it was in the same way that Max’s book is kind of uncategorizable. This film was a big swing in terms of making a film that doesn’t conform to people’s expectations, and honestly, that’s what excited me about it. It can be something that is its own thing, it doesn’t have to be one thing or the other.

And I think largely that’s worked with audiences, because they’re kind of blindsided a little bit by having these expectations, and then finding themselves incredibly moved by the end of it. And I think for me, that’s what’s exciting about filmmaking, is that you don’t have to fit into a template. More people should be trying to do things that don’t conform and are unusual. That was what was exciting to me about the prospect of taking this particular book and adapting it for the screen.

Crow Proved To Be One Of The Most Important Elements For Southern To Nail

“…he’s a creation that came about through so many different artists and craftspeople.”

One of the biggest elements that helped anchor the various genre shifts is that of Crow, who begins the film as a more terrifying enтιтy before transitioning into something of a tough-love therapist. For Southern, Crow notes that the character’s personality “was never meant to be subtle“, and as such, by turning him into an eight-foot-tall talking crow, it proved to be one of the most exciting elements for the filmmaker to put together, as he pulled in a unique team of artists to create him:

Dylan Southern: The first thing I’ll say is Crow is not subtle, and was never meant to be subtle. This is an eight-foot crow that’s existing in a very small flat with a family. The thing I love about Crow is he represents our worst instincts about ourselves. Anytime Crow is saying something to Dad, that’s what Dad is thinking about himself in that moment. And just being able to put that into a shape, put it into this formidable and imposing character of Crow was really exciting. And I love Crow, because he’s a creation that came about through so many different artists and craftspeople.

When I first read the book, everyone would say, “How are you going to do Crow? How are you going to do crow? Is it going to be CGI? Is it going to be this? Is it going to be that?” And I’m an ’80s kid, so the only option for me was in-camera practical effects. It had to be a dude in a suit, but I also wanted him to have the right look. There’s a sculptor that I absolutely adore called Nicola Hicks, who’s really respected in the art world. She makes these incredible sculptures that are sort of half-man, half-beast, almost mythical-looking things. And I was like, “She has to design Crow, but she’s in the fine art world.” I spent two years trying to get in a room with Nicola Hicks, and eventually I did, and she was the most lovely, willing collaborator. She said yes, straight away.

Later on, I ordered one of her catalogs from one of her art shows from eBay, and when I opened it, Max Porter had written an essay inside it, so there was already a connection there. She does these huge sculptures that’s kind of the right aesthetic, because Crow isn’t a crow. In the book, Dad’s an academic, and he’s writing a thesis on the poet Ted Hughes, who did this amazing book of poetry after the death of his wife called Crow, and there’s this big literary illusion. And [Grief is the Thing with Feathers] is a book that got turned into a play with Cillian Murphy, and then my film is the third iteration of it.

I wanted each thing — the book does what a book can do, the play did what a play can do. And I wanted my film to be visual, so I changed Dad to a graphic novelist who’s still doing a project on Ted Hughes’ Crow, but it’s all these kinds of abstract drawings, which is where the next collaborator comes in, who was this brilliant graphic novelist called Lucy Sullivan, and I’d seen a book she did called Barking, which is this incredibly kind of personal, semi-autobiographical piece of work that she’d done, and I’d loved the style of it. So I was like, “She’s got to do Dad’s drawing.” So, that was the starting point for Crow with these scratchy, abstract drawings that Lucy did.

So, this film was a dream for me, because there’s a handmade quality to it. Everyone I brought on was an artist that I really loved, and I was like, “Okay, so you can bring your thing to the party, we’re all creating this. And then the next part of Crow was getting Conor [O’Sullivan] and the guys at Creatures Inc. to translate Nicola’s design into this wearable suit. And then, there was someone who had to wear it, who’s this amazing physical actor, Eric Lampaert, who studied at Lecoq in Paris and brought this immense, intimidating sort of physicality to Crow.

After putting together the various physical elements of the character, the final piece to the Crow puzzle was that of casting The Sandman alum David Thewlis to voice him. For Southern, he recalled that the Golden Globe nominee was “the only voice in my head” when he was writing the script for the film, specifically pointing to a scene from the acclaimed 1993 black comedy Naked as being a sort of inspiration for Crow’s voice:

Dylan Southern: So, we’ve got these four or five ingredients already, and then the final part, when I was writing the script, the only voice in my head was David Thewlis, and particularly his performance in Mike Leigh’s film Naked. Thewlis does this whole speech where someone asks him why he’s come to London. “Was it because he was bored?” And he starts going, “Was I bored? No, I wasn’t f—-ng bored.” When I read Max’s book, when I wrote the script, when I was working on the film, it was always David Thewlis’ voice. It was always this kind of rhythmic, angry, spiky voice.

And when he came on board, I was over the moon, because we’d created this whole character through a graphic novelist, a sculptor, an amazing physical performance, the skills of a whole team of model makers, and then David Thewlis’ voice on top. For the nerd in me, that’s filmmaking. It’s like, we’ve made this new thing out of the incredible talents of all of these different people, and to be there, sort of watching it happen was just sort of a dream come true. That is the element of it that I loved the most.

For all the effort put into the character, though, Crow is used stylistically for many scenes in the film, often being kept just slightly out of frame even while talking to Cumberbatch’s character. Southern explains that the extent of Crow’s role in the film comes from the fact that he represents multiple aspects of Dad’s grief, including the “little spikes” of intrusive thoughts he can’t avoid, and even pointed to a few unique inspirations for the character:

Dylan Southern: Yeah, well, I always saw the film as a journey into Dad’s head. So, you’re stuck kind of objectively in the early stages of the film watching Dad, and then we get these little spikes, anytime those horror twinges come in, we’re going into a kind of subjective or representational view of what’s happening for Dad in his head. These intrusive thoughts, these things that you can’t keep away, and Crow comes into it really more and more. But, like anything, less is more. You watch Jaws, and there’s a reason you see less of the shark than perhaps Spielberg originally intended it. There is something incredibly true about holding something off that makes it stronger, in a way.

It makes those scenes where we do kind of dip into absurdism, like the dancing scene or the demon fight, all the more powerful, because Crow, you want him to turn up at the right moments and do the right thing, even if the right thing is wrong. And that’s the great thing about Crow, is he’s sort of horrible, but compelling, and you want to spend time with him. And ultimately, without giving too much away, he’s a force for good, but he’s sort of dangerous and weird. Those kinds of characters are always interesting to me. I’ve always said he’s a combination of a demented Mary Poppins, Tyler Durden — you ever see the film Harvey with James Stewart? He’s Harvey, but he’s also Don Logan from Sєxy Beast. He’s also the lead singer of The Fall, Mark E. Smith, was someone I kept thinking of. He’s this combination of compelling, but dangerous characters, but he’s there for good.

The Movie’s Wide Release Plans Are Starting To Come Together

“…we’re just getting such positive feedback from audiences and there’s a lot of conversations happening…”

Having now made its world premiere at Sundance and also being shown at Berlinale, interest is steadily rising in a wide release for The Thing with Feathers. While there was nothing concrete when we spoke, Southern did ᴀssure that the right pieces are falling into place for it to do so, saying they’re getting “such positive feedback” from those seeing the movie at both festivals and expressing his excitement for a European audience to see it:

Dylan Southern: Yeah, we’re doing Berlin next week, so we play Berlinale on Tuesday the 18th. I’m hearing positive things from all the producers, but I think it’s just been a weird Sundance this year in that I remember the first time I went to Sundance was with one of my documentaries, and it was in 2012, back in the days where the film plays, and then suddenly your whisked away to the house that you’re staying at with a bunch of agents and sales people, and the phones are going and stuff. And those days seem to have gone a little bit. But we’re just getting such positive feedback from audiences and there’s a lot of conversations happening, so we’ll be hitting a wider audience this year. But I just want to get through Berlin next. It’s gonna be really interesting to show it to a European audience and to see it in that context, so I’m really excited about it.

About The Thing With Feathers

Struggling to process the sudden and unexpected death of his wife, a young father loses his hold on reality as a seemingly malign presence begins to stalk him from the shadowy recesses of the apartment he shares with his two young sons.

Two-time Sundance Film Festival alum Dylan Southern’s (Shut Up and Play the Hits, 2012; Meet Me in the Bathroom, 2022) adaptation of the acclaimed Max Porter novella Grief Is the Thing with Feathers artfully emphasizes the transformative and terrible momentousness of one family’s bereavement. The film’s inspired execution of the physical manifestation of their grief on screen creates an exquisite visual rendering of the sinister reality dominating the family’s unkept home and shattered lives.

Benedict Cumberbatch submerges himself in his performance of a shell-shocked father while the film juxtaposes his character’s altered reality with that of his two vivacious boys. The sons, played with sensitivity by Richard and Henry Boxall, grapple with both the enormity of their loss as well as their unmoored father’s attempts to carry on parenting them alone.

Check out our previous Thing with Feathers interview with Benedict Cumberbatch and Dylan Southern at 2025’s Sundance Film Festival!

Source: ScreenRant Plus