Peter Strickland's 'Flux Gourmet' Takes Bodily Functions Very Seriously

"I would never be one to say you can't laugh at a fart."

IFC Midnight
IFC Midnight
IFC Midnight

A knife methodically chops a series of large vegetables. A spoon stirs a bowl full of pulverized fruit. Viscous, red liquid bubbles and boils in a large pot atop a table full of sound equipment. An audience has gathered to watch the latest performance of a collective of “sonic caterers,” whose mission is to test the boundaries of art by making music from noise.

If that sounds absurdly pretentious, it is. English director Peter Strickland’s latest oddity Flux Gourmet, which comes to limited theatres and VOD June 24, equally skewers (in all senses of the word) the world of art and the world of criticism, concocting a hilariously gross and grossly hilarious parable of the impossible interconnectivity between those who create and those who consume. Set inside an artistic residency overseen by an overbearing director (Gwendoline Christie), the film follows the sonic exploits of a trio of artists (Fatma Mohamed, Ariane Labed, and Asa Butterfield) who spend their days plugging amplifiers into various foods and seeing what comes out. The group is observed by a journalist named Stones (Makis Papadimitriou), who is fighting a mysterious and uncomfortable gastrointestinal disorder, and when the group catches wind of his misfortune, he is slowly absorbed into their work.

Strickland’s films, which include erotic romance The Duke of Burgundy and haunted dress horror movie In Fabric, tend to exist in these delightfully liminal spaces, where reality is bent and twisted and every character is a heightened version of themselves. The director spoke to Thrillist about the ways in which his latest film is a commentary on filmmaking itself, the joys of playing around with language, and taking farts seriously.

Thrillist: You tend to create these wonderful worlds, these pocket universes in your movies, where absurd things tend to happen and you just have to accept them. Do you have the idea of the setting in your head first? Or is it more borne out of the writing itself?
Peter Strickland: I wish I could pinpoint exactly how this one started, because it was a bunch of things coming together and they all kind of interlinked, somehow. I know the more I got into it, the more I realized that, to my knowledge, I wasn’t aware of many films dealing with stomach issues in a serious way. What if I took something which is normally played for laughs in cinema, and what if I put a different context to it and treated it, you know, more seriously? A character who’s hiding things all the time, and that extreme discomfort, and then that claustrophobia of being with a band. And then even worse than that, the band wanting to jump on the bandwagon of his own pain and discomfort and kind of rope him into their work. It just said a lot about, as writers, this game we play of how much we’re hiding, how much we’re revealing to an audience. Stones, when he says that line about when he has this colonoscopy in public, something so private “sacrificed for the sake of art.” I was interested in looking at that.

When someone has some sort of bodily issue, it’s mainly treated as a punch line. And in this case, not only is it kind of the plot of the entire movie, but it’s a lot more empathetic.
Well, yeah, I mean, I would never be one to say you can’t laugh at a fart. But it’s all context. In his case, he’s suffering and those symptoms are synonymous with not just celiac disease, but bowel cancer and irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease. I think what he has is quite specific, it is an autoimmune issue. Even people who don’t suffer from it, I think everyone’s had a bad night. So much violence is not taboo at all [in film], but everyday natural functions of the human body are always taboo. If you can open up a conversation where you can talk more freely, it can’t be a bad thing.

There’s this online joke format that’s been going around called “Hot Girls with IBS,” which I thought about a lot while watching this.
[Laughs.] Whatever, whatever.

You have two movies going on here. There’s this satire between artists making their art and this embattled relationship with the people who are funding them. And then a little bit of a darker movie where someone is suffering from this pretty common but serious medical condition. How do you mesh those two ideas together?
I think part of it was taking something which is normally funny in film, and attempting to make it serious. And taking something which is often done more as drama, and making that comic. What I’m hoping is the humour with all the bickering with the band and these ridiculous power struggles between them and the patron is as inconsequential as a tiny sonic effect. You put yourself in a situation where you try to go further than you would in real life. It was very important for me to not take sides, and to portray everyone, apart from Stones, in quite a bad light. So you, as an audience, you’re not quite sure where your bearings are, you’re not quite sure what the filmmaker is telling you to think.

IFC Midnight
IFC Midnight
IFC Midnight

I prefer that over overly moralistic, “Here is the theme of the film. And here’s how we’re going to do it. And here’s how you should feel at the end.” This one definitely has more of a conversational element to it, where you can choose where you want to be by the end.
Yeah, even when it came to the diagnosis. There’s a danger of being overly earnest, which I find very offputting in film. So when I spoke with Makis and Richard [Bremmer], who played the doctor, I just thought it would be more interesting to do it like-do you have X Factor in America? These talent shows where you have the envelope and they’ll play it to death until you’re on your knees begging to know what the answer is. When I spoke with Richard, I said “Play it like X Factor. Just play him for all he’s worth and until he’s gonna go up and strangle you, basically.” I think filmmaking should be riddled with deviousness and mischief and deceit. I think all my favourite filmmakers have that.

The gastrointestinal issues plot fits in perfectly with the work that these artists are doing primarily with food and with eating. Did one idea come before the other?
I honestly can’t remember which came first. They pretty quickly came together. I used to be in a band that was dealing with making noise from cooking. We never went to that extreme. But, I was looking at people like the Viennese Actionists, who are really going out there in terms of bodily fluids, and then a bit too far. They were killing animals, and so on. I’m a vegetarian. It’s just too much for me. But, again, that confrontational element was something I was really interested in, the idea of taboo.

I think a lot of the bands that I was listening to were dealing with noise, were dealing with shock value. So it makes sense for Fatma’s character [Elle di Elle] to cling onto something that could give her performances shock value, such as Stones. It fed into the idea of how much of ourselves-emotionally and graphically, physically-we put out there for an audience. How cathartic is that to someone? You read about a lot of people who have these very private forms of cancer, who are very brave, and they open up. And I think for them, it’s very cathartic. It opens the door for other people to say, “I have the same thing.” So there’s an element of that. I think Elle would do anything to shock the audience. But as a filmmaker, it’s not so interesting. It’s such an easy thing to do. It’s only interesting when it opens up a conversation that somehow is socially liberating.

You’ve worked with Gwendoline Christie before, and she’s fabulous in this. Did you feel her playing this character while you were writing this?
I did think she could play that type of character, someone I see almost like a film executive, but very flamboyant. And we spoke a bit about Daughters of Darkness, that kind of look, and with her partner [fashion designer] Giles Deacon, who did her costumes, and [milliner] Stephen Jones. We had a very brief discussion, and I kind of left them to it. When we spoke it was, “Don’t turn up in jeans.” It was a loose discussion about the decadence of the character. Especially as she has this name [Jan Stevens], which is quite a regular name. The look was quite at odds with the name she had.

There’s so much wonderful use of language in the script and so many lines that I was furiously scribbling down while I was watching, like “bourgeois frittata” and “pseudo-Hellenic alpha-intellectual.” Does stuff like that come from actual conversations that you’ve had with people?
Some things are actually mishearings. I was walking past someone and I thought this woman said, “Have a stupid day,” to someone else. She was smiling and I misheard her. Oh, that sounds great, “Have a stupid day.” It doesn’t make any sense. I do mishear things, and I tend to jot them down. Some of them are just mistakes people make, like “one hundred percent-ly,” turning that into an adverb. Some things I make up myself. Some things are actually accidents on set.

Fatma, English is not her mother tongue. She accuses Asa’s character of having wet dreams, but she said “white dreams” by accident and I said, “Just leave it in, it sounds better.” And she was meant to say “technique without vision,” but she said “technique without visions,” and again, it has this kind of double meaning. Obviously, it’s very arrogant of me as a Westerner who doesn’t speak other languages to potentially make fun of Fatma’s English. I think it’s just something very interesting, when you have these differences. She knows me well enough. She knows I wouldn’t make fun of her.

I don’t know if you’ve ever read the short story “Bullet in the Brain” by Tobias Wolff. At the very end of it, this very forbidding, mean character has this flash of memory of a little bit of language that somebody misspoke, but he loved it so much that he thinks about it all the time.
No, that is a thing. It just makes you rethink. There’s something poetic about an adverb used incorrectly, and so on. It’s something just slightly off-kilter.

Get the latest from Thrillist Australia delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe here.

Emma Stefansky is a staff entertainment writer at Thrillist. Follow her on Twitter @stefabsky.


Why the Shocking Twist in 'Bodies Bodies Bodies' Is So Killer

The A24 horror-comedy has a lot to say about how logged on we are today.


This story contains spoilers about the ending of Bodies, Bodies, Bodies.Even if you’ve tried to game the TikTok algorithm to feed you videos from #fashiontok, #foodtok, or whatever else you might be interested in, when you open the app, you tend to be inundated with a whole lot of discourse. In many ways, it’s incredible how attuned young people are in knowing who they are and how comfortable they are having frank conversations. But in other ways, sometimes it can feel like quick-hit platforms have a tendency to deduce real issues or strip things of their meanings-whether that’s teens self-diagnosing themselves with mental illness, or people labelling musicians as “female or male manipulator artists” without ever listening to their music.

A24’s latest horror comedy Bodies Bodies Bodies (out now in theatres) about a group of 20-somethings partying during a hurricane that turns into a hunt for a killer is like a movie downloaded from the current millennial-Gen-Z cusp moment of the internet we’re in. When the trailer for the movie directed by Halina Reijn and written by Sarah DeLappe, based on a story from “Cat Person” author Kristen Roupenian, dropped earlier this year, it made that very clear. In just over a minute and a half, we hear the cast of cool girl breakouts yelling, “You’re always gaslighting me,” “you fucking trigger me,” “you’re so toxic,” and “you’re silencing me.” Even the movie’s tagline is, “This is not a safe space.”

Bodies Bodies Bodies is very much logged onto millennial/Gen Z social media-isms throughout, from lines hilariously pieced together by the Twitter zeitgeist to scenes featuring TikTok dances. The movie operates on a delectable kind of slasher-movie paranoia, making the audience just as unsure as the slumber party gone wrong with who is killing them off left and right. But given how much of a playful satire it is of contemporary youth culture, it ends up being a twist that feels all but inevitable, and couldn’t be more razor-blade sharp.


Once the torrential downpour stops and the sun comes up, it seems as if Maria Bakalova‘s Bee is about to be our Bodies Bodies Bodies final girl, now that she’s realized how much her relationship with Sophia (Amandla Stenberg) is based on lies. As a test to see how easily Sophie can lie-and therefore deny killing all of her friends from midnight until dawn-Bee asks her if she cheated on her with Myha’la Herrold’s Jordan. It’s a fact that Bee already knows to be true, considering she came across a pair of panties in Sophie’s car that matched a bra she noticed in Jordan’s bag. When Sophie denies it, Bee tries to take her phone (which Jordan admitted would have texts about their recent hook-up on it), and the two start fighting outside in the remnants of the storm. Bee eventually pulls a phone out of the mud, and it looks like the WiFi and cell phone service that was gone all night is finally back. Thinking she’ll pull up the evidence she needs-and confirmation to get the hell out of there-she’s surprised when Sophie says, “That’s not my phone,” and even more surprised to see what’s on it.

It turns out that it belongs to David, Pete Davidson’s coked-out rich kid character whose parents’ house they’re partying at and was the first one to die in the movie. They know it’s David’s phone because it opens to a TikTok, soundtracked by the lockdown classic TikTok song “Bored In The House” by Curtis Roach and Tyga, that shows him waving around his dad’s decorative but very real sword (!) to try to open a champagne bottle (!), idiotically waving it towards himself, only to slice right into his own neck. As it turns out, nobody killed David-not an intruder, not Jordan, not Sophie, not Alice’s (Rachel Sennott) older boyfriend Greg (Lee Pace) she knew nothing about (except for the fact that he was a Libra moon), and not their friend Max (Conner O’Malley) who left early the night before. David accidentally killed himself, and hysteria is what killed everybody else. You could say that it’s almost predictable that it turns out to be a clout-chasing TikTok that led to the movie’s murderous spiral of events. Although, that would undercut what Reijn and DeLappe are trying to say with the darkly funny movie with an especially dark, funny twist. Like TikTok or Twitter, the movie is a constant feed of discourse, buzzwords, and blanket statements that snarkily laugh at and with its ensemble. There are many moments in particular that drive this home-like Alice trying to be sympathetic in talking about mental health, only to make the conversation about her, and David ridiculing his girlfriend Emma (Chase Sui Wonders) for getting all of her thoughts from Twitter after she says he “gaslights” her. On top of that, David picks up the sword and tries to go viral to begin with because his masculinity felt threatened by Greg, who did the trick in the first place.

While it would be downright terrifying if a party with people who are supposedly your best friends turned into a slasher flick, in Bodies Bodies Bodies, the horror isn’t a vengeful or heartless killer. Everybody may become a psychopath of sorts when they feel physically threatened or legitimately toxic name-calling and backstabbing ensues, but Bodies Bodies Bodies and its devilish twist is about the humour and horror in the devoid way we can use social media today more than anything else. Like Sophie and Bee’s terrified realization at the end, it makes you want to log off for awhile… right after you post a 100K-worthy tweet about it.

Get the latest from Thrillist Australia delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe here.

Sadie Bell is the entertainment associate editor at Thrillist. She’s on Twitter and Instagram.


Our Best Stories, Delivered Daily
The best decision you'll make all day.