:00:12. > :00:19.private investment. On BBC News, time for HARDtalk. Welcome to
:00:19. > :00:26.HARDtalk. My guests today has had a career of mind-boggling diversity
:00:26. > :00:29.and creativity, at devise an easy label. Jonathan Miller, is known as
:00:29. > :00:34.a director and producer of brown theatre. He is also a writer,
:00:34. > :00:38.performer, sculptor and photographer, who trained in
:00:38. > :00:41.medicine and sometimes seems more fulfilled by science than his life
:00:41. > :00:44.in the arts. For five decades, he has been a dominant figure in
:00:44. > :00:54.British cultural life, but he has never seemed entirely at ease with
:00:54. > :01:24.
:01:24. > :01:30.HARDtalk. Thank you, it is nice to be here. Scientists and artists. Is
:01:30. > :01:37.it possible for you to tell me which matters more to you? It is quite
:01:37. > :01:43.hard to put any sort of emphasis on one at the expense of another. I was
:01:43. > :01:50.brought up and learnt to be a biological scientist, eventually
:01:50. > :01:54.taking up the medicine. Then, by an accident, fell into the theatre, and
:01:54. > :02:02.went on to do it as a result of receiving many invitations to do
:02:02. > :02:08.more. Can I start without? Were you seduced by performance, by the
:02:08. > :02:11.stage? By the adoration of crowds question mark absolutely not.
:02:11. > :02:18.just that I had finished qualifying as a doctor. Someone came from
:02:18. > :02:25.Oxford, saying, would I like to take part in a show at the Edinburgh
:02:25. > :02:30.Festival? It was with two people from Oxford, me and someone from
:02:30. > :02:39.cabbage. It was much more successful than any of us thought it would be
:02:39. > :02:42.-- Cambridge. It played in London for nearly 18 months. And to remind
:02:42. > :02:47.people who aren't aware of how big it was, we're about names that
:02:47. > :02:51.resonated for years. Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Alan Bennett, and you.
:02:51. > :02:59.We come back to this notion of seduction. You had in on a track to
:02:59. > :03:05.go into scientific research... neurophysiology and neuropsychology.
:03:05. > :03:10.I thought that I would take time out, I never thought it would lead
:03:10. > :03:13.to a succession of unsolicited invitations to do something else.
:03:14. > :03:20.suppose, particularly since the publication of a long biography of
:03:20. > :03:23.you recently, which was titled, in two minds, there is a temptation to
:03:23. > :03:30.see a constant tension within Europe between the desire to prove yourself
:03:30. > :03:37.as a scientist, and your equally strong attraction to performance, to
:03:37. > :03:41.directing, to that world of entertainment. I was always
:03:41. > :03:46.interested... Performance was something I did very briefly, for
:03:47. > :03:50.that to a half years. I never performed again. I used to present
:03:50. > :03:55.television, but that was not performance, that was a way of
:03:55. > :04:02.talking about my interests. I went on doing television for the history
:04:02. > :04:08.of medicine and that sort of thing, I talk to psychologists and so
:04:08. > :04:13.forth. I don't think I felt, I was in two minds. I wished I had gone in
:04:13. > :04:18.-- gone on ?I ? -- gone on tended to do, or which my parents intended
:04:18. > :04:24.me to do, but something cropped up which I could never have
:04:24. > :04:27.anticipated. I don't want to sit here and sound like a very
:04:27. > :04:32.unqualified psychiatrists, but your father was a psychiatrist, a very
:04:32. > :04:36.famous one. I was just wondering whether, throughout your life, for
:04:36. > :04:41.all of the successes we will talk about in theatre and opera and
:04:41. > :04:49.elsewhere, there was a nagging sense that you should be someone else?
:04:49. > :04:54.Yes. I felt I will take time out, do the show, make some extra money,
:04:54. > :05:00.because you did not get paid much as a junior doctor. I thought it would
:05:00. > :05:02.give me a little more affluence and I could take up jobs that won't that
:05:02. > :05:12.well-paid in those days. One thing led to another. I just simply
:05:12. > :05:16.Mariano Rajoy -- gradually drifted away. All the interests I had
:05:16. > :05:22.developed from the age of about 16 onwards in biology and in the
:05:22. > :05:26.history of ideas continue to preoccupy me to this day. We will
:05:26. > :05:32.talk about this later. I want to get into theatre now. Your career is
:05:32. > :05:36.amazing in that one looks through the course of it, and you have done
:05:36. > :05:39.a lot of Shakespeare. You've been with the Royal Shakespeare Company.
:05:39. > :05:46.You have done New York. You have directed performances all over the
:05:46. > :05:51.world. You have worked with Laurence Olivier, all sorts of greats. And
:05:51. > :05:58.yet, again, an odd thing. You don't seem to like the theatre that much.
:05:58. > :06:02.It is not that I dislike it, I like doing it, but I don't like going to
:06:02. > :06:10.it. My parents used to take me to the old Vic, and I could remember
:06:10. > :06:17.seeing Shakespeare. Nowadays, the last 20 or 30 years, I have hardly
:06:17. > :06:20.gone to the theatre, I enjoy making it and doing it. There are tasks
:06:20. > :06:30.that preoccupy me, which go back to what it was that interested me in
:06:30. > :06:32.
:06:32. > :06:36.medicine. You make it sound almost a soulless and technical... No, it is
:06:36. > :06:38.a way of really investigating what the soul is, if it exists. One of
:06:38. > :06:44.the things that preoccupies me about the theatre and performance, what is
:06:44. > :06:48.it for someone to be a living person? What is it that I would
:06:48. > :06:51.encourage them as a director to do to convince the audience that they
:06:51. > :06:56.are in the presence of someone other than the actor who is doing it on
:06:56. > :07:00.the stage. I was very struck by something you told the New York
:07:00. > :07:04.Times years ago, that you, it was about the little details. We talk
:07:04. > :07:12.about the size you worked with, and no one could begin with anyone other
:07:12. > :07:15.than Olivier, even for him, was a key question of persuading him the
:07:15. > :07:21.tiniest of details on stage, the mannerisms, the hand movements that
:07:21. > :07:27.they matter in must lay. That is what this is all about. That is what
:07:27. > :07:29.I was encouraged to direct my attention to as a young doctor will
:07:29. > :07:35.stop the diagnostic skill is partly to do with noticing something which
:07:35. > :07:40.would otherwise pass unrecognised. Then, you build up a diagnosis on
:07:40. > :07:45.the basis of it. You worked with Olivier when you were relatively a
:07:45. > :07:52.young director, and he was an ageing superstar. You have always had a
:07:52. > :07:58.repetition for being forceful. Never forceful. If I was forceful, it was
:07:59. > :08:05.because I reminded people, my performance of what they knew
:08:05. > :08:09.anyway. The forcefulness was just simply them saying, oh yes, of
:08:09. > :08:16.course, how stupid not to have remembered that will stop I have
:08:16. > :08:23.never, with one or two exceptions, ever bullied someone to do things
:08:24. > :08:28.that they did not recognise was truthful. If you don't mind, we will
:08:29. > :08:32.come back to that. But I am struck with you not having worked in
:08:32. > :08:38.theatre for sometime, you are back and you have a play that was not
:08:38. > :08:43.very well known. I admit I did not know it. I did not know much about
:08:43. > :08:50.it, at all. I was invited to do it, I read it, I thought it was
:08:50. > :08:56.marvellous. I have been doing it on tour. Having not done it for six
:08:56. > :08:59.years, and this is a quote from the Independent newspaper, you said, I
:08:59. > :09:06.am not interested in the theatre and frank we never was, are you would
:09:06. > :09:11.juices flowing again? They always were flowing. I enjoyed doing
:09:11. > :09:16.theatre, I enjoy directing. Not because I am dictatorial. It is not
:09:16. > :09:19.directing in that sense. I like the collective experience of working
:09:19. > :09:26.from 10am in the morning until 530 in the evening with people finding
:09:26. > :09:31.out how to be someone else. Talking about Olivier and the past, do you
:09:31. > :09:33.think that right now in theatre, I am thinking of the London West End,
:09:33. > :09:37.there is a preoccupation with getting the biggest names,
:09:37. > :09:41.particularly for movies and television onto the stage. Is it
:09:41. > :09:47.getting in the way of good production? Yes, I think it might
:09:47. > :09:52.be. I don't know, because I have not seen many of them. To be fair, it
:09:52. > :09:56.hasn't stopped you from commenting. I comment only in the sense that if
:09:56. > :09:59.you are interested only in casting celebrities, the chances are that
:09:59. > :10:04.you are not interested in directing the negligible details of reality.
:10:04. > :10:08.That is the only thing that the -- interests me. I am very interested
:10:08. > :10:11.in people doing things, and getting people who are pretending to be
:10:11. > :10:15.someone else to do things so realistically that the audience can
:10:15. > :10:19.actually maintain this double vision of delighting in the fact that they
:10:19. > :10:24.are seeing this that or the other known actor pretending to be someone
:10:24. > :10:30.who they aren't will stop isn't there something really important
:10:30. > :10:33.about getting big names into the theatre, in the sense that, I can
:10:33. > :10:39.speak from personal experience, I took my daughter to see Macbeth.
:10:39. > :10:43.knew from a couple of movies who he was. I looked around, there were
:10:43. > :10:48.more than an average number of young people. Young boys and girls in the
:10:48. > :10:53.audience. It seemed to me that was what one way in which theatre is
:10:53. > :10:59.reaching out to a new audience. Maybe now that is the case. There is
:11:00. > :11:05.a great deal of, as you know in this medium, in all media, there is a
:11:05. > :11:08.preoccupation with celebrity. And I think that an awful lot of young
:11:08. > :11:13.people have become seduced by famous names, and they will go to see
:11:13. > :11:18.someone who is famous am rather than engaging in the absolutely
:11:18. > :11:23.extraordinary experience of seeing people are tending to be people that
:11:23. > :11:26.they are not. Of course, Olivier was a superstar. Perhaps you are judging
:11:26. > :11:31.these names today because then made their names in television, and
:11:31. > :11:37.perhaps you don't care to that. but there were still lots of people
:11:37. > :11:39.who were not superstars, when I'd worked with Olivier, I worked with
:11:39. > :11:44.extremely distinguished younger actors who were not at that time
:11:44. > :11:51.very famous, but who were extraordinary. Olivier, I bless him
:11:51. > :11:58.to this, never loomed larger than the other people with whom he was
:11:58. > :12:02.working. He just simply took part in a community of performance. That was
:12:02. > :12:06.what was so attractive. I think that when people came to see it, although
:12:06. > :12:12.there were obviously delighted to see someone like him, they were also
:12:12. > :12:17.delighted to see that he was participating in something where in
:12:17. > :12:24.fact lots of people were acting really. The cliched phrase is,
:12:24. > :12:33.dumbing down. I wonder if you, when surveying British culture, looking
:12:33. > :12:40.across theatre and television, whether you sense a dumbing down of
:12:40. > :12:44.high art. Do you worry about it? do worry about it. It means people
:12:44. > :12:51.are distracted from most of what is interesting about high art, if there
:12:51. > :12:58.is such a term. The arts are interesting, all should be
:12:58. > :13:02.interesting, because it actually draws your attention to aspects of
:13:02. > :13:12.reality and aspects of your own personal experience, which you would
:13:12. > :13:13.
:13:13. > :13:16.otherwise overlook. That is the only thing that interests me. What is
:13:16. > :13:20.something that is alive? How does it display itself and make itself
:13:20. > :13:23.distinct from the inanimate? But it is also important to reach a broad
:13:23. > :13:29.audience. I do not think that is important at all. You are happy to
:13:29. > :13:32.put on a show that attracts an elite audience? Not an elite audience, but
:13:32. > :13:42.an audience that already has an interest in seeing something like
:13:42. > :13:48.
:13:48. > :13:51.that, in seeing something real. Not interested in having a statistically
:13:51. > :13:54.larger number of people coming to watch it then otherwise would. It is
:13:54. > :14:04.very nice, in fact, if the theatre is packed. But I am perfectly happy
:14:04. > :14:05.
:14:05. > :14:15.to have a theatre... Everyone in the cast is happy if there are 400
:14:15. > :14:21.people there, rather than 2000. did a lot of work in opera, not just
:14:21. > :14:25.in London. All over the world.We have talked a lot about your
:14:25. > :14:35.relationship with the bigger stars. You had a very difficult
:14:35. > :14:40.
:14:40. > :14:50.relationship... She wanted to do something that was not proper. She
:14:50. > :14:56.
:14:56. > :15:04.wanted to put in two arias. It would make her more noticeable. You said
:15:04. > :15:10.they were Jurassic. If I go on doing the same part, over and over
:15:10. > :15:18.again... They assume they know the person they are playing. The person
:15:18. > :15:21.they are playing does not exist. There are an infinite number of
:15:21. > :15:24.versions of the person who bears that name, that might be the
:15:24. > :15:34.difference in the way in which you, or whoever, has played it
:15:34. > :15:37.
:15:37. > :15:42.previously. I wonder if you ever sought to intimidate. Either you
:15:42. > :15:47.were directing or producing for the theatre. No. I have always just
:15:47. > :15:52.chatted to people. That is how I direct. Informal conversations. I
:15:52. > :15:59.would usually say, "Wouldn't it be interesting to say..." I would not
:15:59. > :16:02.put people into fixed positions. When you're singing, we were
:16:02. > :16:12.thinking out loud, you must face in one direction and fiddle with your
:16:12. > :16:21.
:16:21. > :16:24.clothes, while we were talking. was a fascinating example. Almost
:16:24. > :16:27.all of the interesting performers, as opposed to the Jurassic Park
:16:27. > :16:35.singers, would say I was right. "I have suddenly discovered the way to
:16:35. > :16:43.sing that aria, which I did not know how to do before." Let me flip this
:16:43. > :16:47.around a bit. Let me put the spotlight on you. As a star and one
:16:47. > :16:57.of the most famous directors in your time, to be honest about it, do you
:16:57. > :17:00.
:17:00. > :17:05.thank you had been too thin-skinned, over the years, for your own good?
:17:05. > :17:12.--think that you. I'm thin-skinned about being written about by people
:17:12. > :17:19.who the audience never meet. There is a wonderful scene where the girls
:17:19. > :17:25.go out to some mysterious place, where the Wizard of Oz is. This
:17:25. > :17:30.voice booms out of them. The little dog runs across and pulls aside the
:17:30. > :17:36.curtain. And you reveal the person who has been the Voice and he is a
:17:36. > :17:39.negligible figure. If you are frequently written about and you
:17:39. > :17:49.suddenly realise, if only the public had seen the man behind the curtain,
:17:49. > :17:55.
:17:55. > :17:58.they maybe... You may disagree with that critic. But he probably was not
:17:58. > :18:03.delivering his verdict with malign intent. Yet you take it very
:18:03. > :18:11.personally. For example, one famous incident, you reacted really badly
:18:12. > :18:16.to criticism from Tom Sutcliffe. Then you happened to meet him. And
:18:16. > :18:21.then you had a huge row with him. You allegedly said, "I wish you were
:18:21. > :18:31.dead." I never said anything like that. I did not like him. He has
:18:31. > :18:36.
:18:36. > :18:41.this way of condescending upwards. Talking about condescension,
:18:41. > :18:45.superiority and inferiority. Here is a fabulous quote from you. You said
:18:45. > :18:54.having your work assessed by some of the London critics was akin to
:18:54. > :18:59.rolling a Faberge egg under a pigsty door. In some respects, I do think
:18:59. > :19:02.that. You have one heck of a superiorty complex. I know what I
:19:02. > :19:08.can do and I know many of them cannot do it - it's comparable
:19:08. > :19:11.things. It is very irritating to be written about by people like the man
:19:11. > :19:21.behind the curtain, that the little dog could pull the curtain, so the
:19:21. > :19:28.
:19:28. > :19:36.public could see the person. I see what you're saying about critics.
:19:36. > :19:42.This is not just about critics. This is a journalistic exaggerated thing,
:19:42. > :19:50.the friction. It is true, is it not? You have called Peter Hall a
:19:50. > :19:53.safari-styled bureaucrat. I am not certain I ever said anything like
:19:53. > :20:03.that. I worked with him very briefly after having worked with a much
:20:03. > :20:03.
:20:03. > :20:07.greater figure, Laurence Olivier, who employed me. Then I was kept on
:20:07. > :20:17.by Peter Hall in order to give the impression he was not sacking the
:20:17. > :20:18.
:20:18. > :20:22.people who were his predecessors' stars. I did not get on with him. I
:20:23. > :20:32.did have an enormous amount of condescension from him. I just got
:20:32. > :20:41.out. Then he began to talk about me in a way which I found was very
:20:41. > :20:51.irritating. It was a madness, that misrepresentation of why I got out.
:20:51. > :20:52.
:20:52. > :20:57.You get judged and it is difficult sometimes. Obviously for you.
:20:57. > :21:05.just irritating. You strike me as somebody, in the broader sense, as a
:21:05. > :21:08.sensitive man. I get irritated. But I never met anyone who works in the
:21:08. > :21:18.theatre and who does not have the same sort of feeling about this
:21:18. > :21:21.
:21:21. > :21:30.curious sort of condescension which they experience from critics.
:21:30. > :21:33.of them did not get in the press, like I do because I write. You have
:21:33. > :21:37.the gift of the phrase. I want to move on from that.
:21:37. > :21:39.This is difficult, in a way, but in deeper terms, at times of your
:21:39. > :21:47.creative life, you have actually struggled. Struggled to find the
:21:47. > :21:52.energy to be creative. You have suffered from depression,
:21:52. > :21:58.have you? I get gloomy. But most people do, at one time or another. I
:21:59. > :22:04.do not think about creativity. I think about what I thought about
:22:04. > :22:07.when I was doing medical science or biological science. Theatre has
:22:07. > :22:10.struck me as something in which you can be interesting because you have
:22:10. > :22:19.recognised, unidentified aspects of human life or aspects of biological
:22:19. > :22:23.life which previously had not been seen. That is the only reason why I
:22:23. > :22:32.do it. I am driven by something that is sociological, or scientific
:22:32. > :22:42.curiosity. Most of the scientific and socialogical curiosity is driven
:22:42. > :22:43.
:22:43. > :22:48.by a determination to see what had not been recognised before. You have
:22:48. > :22:53.taken a particular path. You have struggled with your skills and
:22:53. > :23:02.talents in the sciences and art. Do you regret some of the decisions you
:23:02. > :23:05.have taken? Maybe even the path you have taken? Not really, no. But it
:23:05. > :23:08.would have been nicer to go on looking at people with pretty
:23:08. > :23:17.serious brain damage in order to understand what seeing and acting
:23:18. > :23:21.consists of. You once said something very striking. You were asked what
:23:21. > :23:27.you would like your legacy to be. You said, "One respected scientific
:23:27. > :23:30.paper would be the legacy I would really like." I might have thought
:23:31. > :23:33.that at one time. I am perfectly happy to have people see a
:23:34. > :23:43.production of mine, which drew their attention to aspects of a human
:23:44. > :23:44.
:23:44. > :23:51.existence which they had previously not noticed. That is what is so
:23:51. > :23:54.interesting about the arts and the sciences. When you come up with a
:23:54. > :23:56.scientific truth, you actually draw people's attention to the aspects of