Danny Boyle on Filming '28 Years Later' with iPhones and the Enduring Power of Apocalyptic Stories
In 2001, acclaimed British director Danny Boyle faced a significant challenge while bringing his vision for a post-apocalyptic horror film to life. The movie, titled 28 Days Later, required capturing scenes of its protagonist, played by a then-relatively unknown Cillian Murphy, navigating the eerily deserted streets of London. Filming in the heart of a bustling metropolis like London presented immense logistical and financial hurdles for a low-budget production. Shutting down iconic locations such as Westminster Bridge or Piccadilly Circus for traditional film shoots was simply not feasible, nor was the costly alternative of meticulously recreating the city on a soundstage.
Boyle's solution was innovative and, at the time, somewhat unconventional: he opted to shoot the film using lightweight, low-resolution Canon digital cameras. This technology, while nascent compared to today's standards, offered the portability and flexibility needed to capture fleeting moments in public spaces. Scenes at famous landmarks could be filmed quickly, often in under an hour, minimizing disruption and cost. Beyond the practical advantages, the use of these early digital cameras lent 28 Days Later a distinctive, raw, and grainy aesthetic. This visual style became a hallmark of the film, contributing significantly to its unsettling atmosphere and helping it stand out visually from other horror movies of the era.
Fast forward almost three decades, and Boyle found himself confronting a similar production dilemma for the sequel, 28 Years Later. As the title suggests, the new film is set precisely 28 years after the initial outbreak of the devastating "Rage Virus" that decimated the UK. In this future, the quarantined island nation has largely reverted to a wild, untamed state, a stark contrast to the urban decay of the first film, though pockets of human survivors and the infected still persist. To authentically portray this overgrown, abandoned landscape, Boyle once again required nimble, portable cameras capable of filming in remote and challenging locations that would be inaccessible or impractical for traditional film crews and equipment.
However, the setting this time was not the concrete jungle of London, but the rugged, untamed wilderness of Northumbria in northern England. And the chosen tool for capturing this desolate beauty and lurking horror was a modern marvel: the iPhone. Specifically, the production utilized the iPhone 15 Pro Max, outfitted with various accessories to enhance its cinematic capabilities. This choice represents a full-circle moment, showcasing the dramatic evolution of digital filmmaking technology from the early 2000s to the present day.
Speaking to WIRED, Boyle explained the rationale behind this cutting-edge decision. "Filming with iPhones allowed us to move without huge amounts of equipment," he stated. This mobility was crucial for capturing the specific look and feel of Northumbria. "A lot of Northumbria looks like it would have looked 1,000 years ago," Boyle noted. "So we were able to move quickly and lightly to areas of the countryside that we wanted to retain their lack of human imprint." The ability to traverse difficult terrain and film spontaneously in remote natural settings was a key advantage offered by the compact and powerful smartphone cameras.
The production of 28 Years Later marks a significant return for Boyle to the post-apocalyptic world he helped define. After the success of the original, which cemented his reputation as a versatile auteur capable of tackling diverse genres beyond the dark comedies like Trainspotting for which he was previously known, Boyle largely stepped away from the franchise. He had mostly sat out the 2007 sequel, 28 Weeks Later, which was directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. His decision to revisit this universe was spurred, in part, by the uncanny parallels between the fictional world of 28 Days Later and the real-world experience of the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw major global cities eerily emptied, much like the opening scenes of his 2001 film.
Boyle's return, collaborating once again with screenwriter Alex Garland, takes the franchise in intriguing new directions. The film is not just a standalone sequel but is intended to launch an entire new trilogy, expanding the scope and lore of the Rage Virus universe. Yet, despite setting up a larger narrative arc, Boyle emphasizes that 28 Years Later also tells a deeply personal and moving story. It explores themes of life, death, and the enduring, often complex, bond between a parent and child, grounding the apocalyptic horror in relatable human drama.
For Boyle, these narrative and creative opportunities were compelling reasons to re-engage with the world he and Garland created. He believes there was no 'wrong' time to make this movie, even if its release feels particularly timely given the context of recent global events and ongoing anxieties. The film taps into a collective consciousness shaped by the pandemic and other modern apocalyptic realities.
"There has been no diminishing of the appetite for apocalyptic stories," Boyle observed. "Whether that's because we’re in the worst of times, I don't know. Certainly, the horrors of the world have not diminished since we made the first film. If anything, they've gotten worse, and they bleed into the film, whether it’s the horrors of war or the horrors of infection." This perspective highlights how the film serves as a mirror to contemporary fears and anxieties, making its themes resonate powerfully with modern audiences.
Ahead of the movie’s highly anticipated release, WIRED had the opportunity to delve deeper with Boyle, discussing the motivations behind revisiting the franchise, the technical specifics of shooting a feature film on an iPhone, and the surprising ways the Covid-19 pandemic shaped the sequel's narrative and themes.
“Poor Man’s Bullet Time”: Capturing Violence with iPhones
One of the most intriguing technical revelations about the production of 28 Years Later involves the innovative use of multiple iPhones to capture dynamic action sequences. Earlier reports, including a behind-the-scenes look published by IGN, revealed a massive, custom-built rig designed to hold approximately 20 iPhone 15 Pro Max cameras. These cameras, each likely equipped with specialized lenses or accessories, were arranged in a half-circle formation, all pointed towards the central subject or action.
Boyle elaborated on the purpose of this elaborate setup during the interview. He explained that this array of smartphones allowed the crew to capture complex action scenes, particularly moments of intense violence involving the infected, from multiple angles simultaneously. "It allowed us to do what is basically a poor man's bullet time," he said, referencing the iconic visual effect popularized by films like The Matrix, where time appears to slow down as the camera pans around a frozen or slow-moving subject.
However, unlike The Matrix, which used bullet time to emphasize stylized, physics-defying combat and movement, Boyle's application in 28 Years Later is focused on depicting the raw, brutal reality of the film's violence. By capturing the action from numerous perspectives at once, the technique allows for a fragmented, intense, and disorienting portrayal of the attacks by the infected. "We use it for the violence," Boyle stated. "It was startling and unexpectedly depicted at times." This suggests the iPhone array helps to convey the speed, chaos, and visceral impact of the Rage Virus carriers in a fresh and impactful way.
Boyle's use of iPhones extended far beyond this specialized rig. He confirmed that the Apple device served as the "principal camera" for the entire film. He praised the "immediacy" that shooting on a smartphone offers compared to the often cumbersome and intimidating presence of traditional, large-format movie cameras. This immediacy, he believes, subtly influences the actors' performances. "Although it's a recording device, because of people's familiarity with it, actors are slightly different with it," Boyle observed. The less imposing nature of a smartphone might allow actors to feel more relaxed and natural, leading to more authentic performances.
In some instances, Boyle even experimented with handing the iPhone directly to the actors, allowing them to film scenes from their own character's perspective. This technique can immerse the audience directly into the character's experience, enhancing the subjective horror and panic inherent in the film's premise. It's a bold choice that leverages the ubiquity and ease of use of smartphone cameras to create a unique cinematic perspective.
Despite the numerous advantages, Boyle admitted there were some minor drawbacks to using iPhones for professional filmmaking, primarily related to the device's built-in, user-friendly software. "You have to override the working system," he explained. A prime example is the iPhone camera's automatic focus feature, which is designed to intuitively lock onto what it perceives as the main subject, often the brightest or largest object in the frame. While convenient for casual photography and videography, this automation can be problematic for a director meticulously crafting a scene.
"Drama is often not following necessarily where the brightest light or the largest object is," Boyle pointed out. "It's where you want the story to be." Filmmaking requires precise control over focus to guide the viewer's eye and emphasize specific narrative elements, regardless of automatic camera assumptions. Overriding these default settings adds a layer of technical complexity that isn't present with professional cinema cameras, which offer granular manual control over every setting.
However, Boyle reiterated that these small annoyances were easily outweighed by the significant benefits of filming with iPhones. He particularly lauded the high resolution capabilities of the iPhone 15 Pro Max, which can shoot in 4K resolution at up to 60 frames per second. This allowed him to capture both the stunning, desolate beauty of the Northumbrian landscape and the brutal, chaotic violence of the infected with remarkable clarity and detail, all using a camera that weighs a mere fraction of the digital cameras used for 28 Days Later.
"It gives you a recording of beauty and nature that was a huge part of what we wanted to contrast the horror with," he said. This contrast between the serene, reclaiming natural world and the terrifying, persistent threat of the infected is a core thematic element of the film, and the iPhone's capability to capture both extremes was essential to Boyle's vision.
Inspired by Covid-19: Reality Bleeds into Fiction
When Danny Boyle first depicted an empty, post-apocalyptic London in 28 Days Later, he never imagined that such a scenario could manifest in the real world. Yet, in early 2020, a global pandemic swept across the planet, bringing about lockdowns and urban desolation that felt eerily similar to the opening scenes of his film.
"You saw cities emptied overnight in a way that one would have thought unimaginable outside a movie," he reflected. "Then it literally happened in people's lives." The surreal experience of seeing iconic cityscapes devoid of human activity, a visual cornerstone of 28 Days Later, played out on news channels and in personal experiences worldwide. This real-world echo of his fictional creation was a powerful catalyst for Boyle and Garland to revisit the universe.
But while the initial shock of global lockdowns provided a sense of déjà vu, it was the subsequent human behavior, the subtle shifts in how people reacted and adapted as the pandemic wore on, that truly inspired the narrative direction of the sequel. "The big discovery was thinking about our own behavior after Covid," Boyle revealed.
He drew a parallel to the early days of the pandemic, when strict hygiene protocols were widely followed. In the first weeks or months, actions like washing hands thoroughly for 20 seconds, wearing face masks in public, and even sanitizing groceries were common, almost ritualistic behaviors driven by fear and caution. However, as the lockdown persisted and people grew accustomed to the new reality, a gradual relaxation of these strict measures occurred. The initial intense fear gave way, for many, to a calculated assessment of risk.
"You start to take risks over time," Boyle explained. "It was something we could all relate to. We all had stories." This collective experience of navigating personal risk in the face of an ongoing, invisible threat provided a rich psychological foundation for the characters and communities in 28 Years Later. The film explores how survivors in a world where the Rage Virus is still a threat might adapt their behavior over decades, learning to live alongside the danger rather than in complete isolation from it.
Boyle and Garland applied this understanding of human adaptation and risk assessment to the world of their sequel. The story centers on a community that has found refuge on an island off the northeast coast of England, specifically Holy Island (Lindisfarne), a real location known for its causeway that is submerged by the tide twice daily. This natural barrier provides a seemingly impenetrable defense against the infected on the mainland. The community on Holy Island has managed to remain completely free of the Rage Virus for 28 years.
However, the passage of time and the relative safety of their sanctuary lead to a crucial shift in their behavior. After nearly three decades of isolation, the survivors begin to venture back onto the mainland, despite the inherent and obvious dangers. This mirrors the post-lockdown human tendency to weigh the desire for normalcy, resources, or exploration against the known risks.
"Twenty-eight years after an infection, there would be risk-taking," Boyle asserted. "There'd be enormous amounts of risk-taking, because they'd have worked out the parameters of how far they can go and still stay safe." This concept introduces a new dynamic to the franchise, moving beyond initial survival panic to explore the long-term psychological and societal impacts of living with a persistent threat. The film delves into the calculated risks survivors take, the boundaries they push, and the potential consequences of becoming complacent or overconfident.
Boyle offered a specific example related to the virus's transmission. "In the original movie, if you got a fleck of blood on you, you were hacked to death by your fellow survivors," he recalled, highlighting the extreme fear and immediate, brutal response to potential infection in the initial outbreak. "Whereas in this one, they can operate. That was really interesting, and that came out of Covid for us." This suggests that in 28 Years Later, survivors may have developed methods for dealing with potential exposure, perhaps through medical intervention, quarantine protocols, or a better understanding of transmission vectors, allowing for a less immediate and fatalistic response to contact with the infected. This evolution in the survivors' approach to the virus is a direct narrative consequence of reflecting on real-world pandemic experiences.
The Enduring Legacy of 28 Days Later and the Evolution of the Zombie Genre
Released in 2002 (in the UK, 2003 in the US), 28 Days Later had a profound and lasting impact on the horror genre, particularly on zombie storytelling. At a time when the dominant image of the zombie was the slow, shambling undead popularized by George A. Romero, screenwriter Alex Garland's concept of the "Infected" – living humans driven into a state of uncontrollable, violent rage by a virus – was revolutionary. These were not reanimated corpses but terrifyingly fast, strong, and relentless beings. Garland has mentioned drawing inspiration from the swift, aggressive zombie dogs in the Resident Evil video games, translating that speed and intensity to human antagonists.
The success and critical acclaim of 28 Days Later ushered in a new era for the genre. Subsequent films and media featuring fast-moving, aggressive infected became increasingly common. Movies like Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake (2004), World War Z (2013), Zombieland (2009), and the South Korean hit Train to Busan (2016) all, in various ways, borrowed liberally from the template established by Boyle and Garland's film. The visual style, particularly the raw, digital look and the depiction of desolate urban environments, also left a significant mark.
Despite his massive influence on the modern zombie landscape, Boyle revealed a surprising personal habit: he has largely abstained from watching the many zombie movies that followed in his film's wake. "I've tended to stay away from them," the director admitted. This wasn't out of disinterest, but a conscious choice related to his creative process and collaboration with Alex Garland.
"I always thought it was useful that Alex was an expert and I wasn't," Boyle explained. "That was a good dynamic in the way we'd approach the films." Garland's deep knowledge of the genre, including its history and tropes, provided a crucial foundation, while Boyle's relative distance allowed him to approach the material with a fresh perspective, less constrained by genre conventions. This dynamic helped them create something that felt distinct and groundbreaking in the first place.
Boyle added that maintaining this distance helps avoid certain creative pitfalls. "You have to be careful about either being too reverential or too avoidant. They're both equally dangerous instincts." Being too reverential might lead to simply rehashing established ideas, while being too avoidant could mean missing opportunities or inadvertently repeating tropes without realizing it. He relied on Garland to act as a guide, warning him if ideas for 28 Years Later felt too similar to other existing zombie narratives.
While Boyle himself avoided watching other genre entries, he acknowledged that Garland, the genre expert in their partnership, did draw inspiration from more recent additions to the horror landscape. Boyle specifically mentioned the critically acclaimed video game and subsequent TV series, The Last of Us. "I know he’s an enormous admirer of The Last of Us game," Boyle said. "In fact, I think that was influenced by 28 Days Later. One hand washes the other, in that respect." This cyclical influence highlights how creative works build upon each other, with Boyle and Garland's original film inspiring subsequent stories that, in turn, can offer new perspectives or ideas for the creators returning to their own universe.
Ultimately, 28 Years Later is positioned not just as a continuation of a beloved story but as another attempt to push the boundaries of the zombie genre, both through its storytelling and its technical execution. The decision to film on iPhones is a clear example of this innovative spirit, mirroring the impact the original film had with its use of early digital cameras.
While the wait for a proper sequel directed by Boyle has been lengthy – 22 years between 28 Days Later and 28 Years Later – the film appears to be arriving at a moment when its themes of pandemic, societal breakdown, and human resilience are particularly resonant. As the conversation with Boyle concluded, the obvious question arose: why not wait the full 28 actual years between films, releasing the sequel in 2031? It would have provided a perfect, perhaps even poetic, symmetry between the title and the real-world timeline.
Boyle's response, delivered with his characteristic dark wit and unmistakably British pragmatism, perfectly encapsulates the sensibility that made the original film such a hit. "It would have been cute, as the Americans say, and very neat for marketing," he conceded, acknowledging the potential promotional appeal of such precise timing. "But I couldn't guarantee I’d still be alive by then," he added with a wicked smile. "So we thought we should move now, just in case." This frank, slightly morbid humor underscores the urgent, unpredictable nature of life and the creative impulse, suggesting that some stories need to be told when the moment feels right, regardless of perfect numerical alignment. The world of 28 Years Later is one where the future is uncertain, and Boyle's decision to make the film now reflects that same inherent unpredictability.
