:00:10. > :00:18.Welcome to HARDtalk. I am Stephen Sackur. What do we want from the
:00:19. > :00:23.movies? Judging from global box office returns, the answer is
:00:24. > :00:29.escapism, super heroes and awesome special effects. That is not how my
:00:30. > :00:34.guest today became and A-list director. Paul Greengrass makes
:00:35. > :00:49.torte films that are not always easy to watch. His biggest hits worthy --
:00:50. > :00:50.worthy Bourne movies. How does he juggle truth, art and
:00:51. > :01:24.entertainment? Paul Greengrass, welcome to
:01:25. > :01:28.HARDtalk. Thank you for having me. Let's start with escapism. There is
:01:29. > :01:33.a thought that that is what people go to the movies for. But it is not
:01:34. > :01:38.what you offer your audiences. You invite them to dig deep into the
:01:39. > :01:46.events and situations that seem they might rather avoid. Well, listen.
:01:47. > :01:53.The movie experience is lots of things wrapped up in one.
:01:54. > :02:00.Fundamentally, going to the movies is an entertainment choice. It is
:02:01. > :02:04.pointless to pretend it isn't. But within that, I still think you can
:02:05. > :02:08.make films, and they always have been made, incidentally, in any
:02:09. > :02:15.given year there are films that have engaged with real issues and the
:02:16. > :02:20.real world. The point is, for a healthy movie industry, you need to
:02:21. > :02:26.have good entertainment, interesting films, and personal films. Films
:02:27. > :02:37.about the world beyond. You need a mixed portfolio. You wouldn't deny
:02:38. > :02:42.that you are the sort of hard end of it. I don't mean hard in any way
:02:43. > :02:48.other than... It is difficult to sit in some of your movies and not feel
:02:49. > :02:54.uncomfortable. Anguished. Well, some of those films have dealt with
:02:55. > :03:01.difficult subjects. Personally, I don't like to make miserable films.
:03:02. > :03:11.I would hope that is not the case. What I have tried to do is make
:03:12. > :03:17.films that are popular. The Bourne movies were popcorn movies, Saturday
:03:18. > :03:22.night entertainment. Given where I come from... I come from a British
:03:23. > :03:30.current affairs documentary background. Inevitably, where you
:03:31. > :03:34.come from informs you will work. The Bourne movies, I try to group them
:03:35. > :03:44.into the real world. But they were escapism. I hope escapism with
:03:45. > :03:51.quality. The other movies are, in a way, extensions of the work I did in
:03:52. > :03:56.current affairs. They are about real events. You try to depict them as
:03:57. > :04:02.authentically as you can. But of course you have to make compromises
:04:03. > :04:08.and turn corners. Movies are not journalism. They are not history.
:04:09. > :04:18.But they do have a responsibility, I think, to be truthful. I do believe
:04:19. > :04:22.they can contain truth. Very important issues there. Definitely.
:04:23. > :04:33.At the heart of it, I would say. This is the important point. They
:04:34. > :04:35.can all learn their place in mainstream movie experiences.
:04:36. > :04:43.Audiences can come and see the Bourne movie and also see a film
:04:44. > :04:49.like United 93 or Captain Phillips. It is all part of the cinematic
:04:50. > :04:53.experience. Let's talk about the new release, Captain Phillips. This is a
:04:54. > :04:58.movie that is set in the world of Somali pirates. It tells the story
:04:59. > :05:07.of one US container ship which is hijacked by pirates. To what extent
:05:08. > :05:19.were you very aware of the need not to characterise this as a good guy
:05:20. > :05:27.entering the evildoers' lair. Yes, I was aware of that. But you have also
:05:28. > :05:33.got to be aware of creating moral equivalence. In other words, you
:05:34. > :05:40.have to paint a picture of these events that authentic, that conveys
:05:41. > :05:46.a truthful picture of, for instance, four young men from Somalia who go
:05:47. > :05:53.out with AK-47s and attacked a ship. It is based on the real story of an
:05:54. > :05:56.American ship captain who was taken by pirates. But of course his
:05:57. > :06:00.account of the affair is, by definition, all about his
:06:01. > :06:04.perspective. What you have done is take his story at them actually film
:06:05. > :06:08.it from two different perspectives, that of him and his crew, but then
:06:09. > :06:17.also the perspective that begins in Somalia. It is the process. It is
:06:18. > :06:23.the same in 93, the same in Bloody Sunday, and the same in my work in
:06:24. > :06:28.television. In other words, you start with a story, a chain of
:06:29. > :06:37.events, narrative, whatever it is, and in it are two things. Firstly,
:06:38. > :06:40.there are dramatic events with compelling characters. Also, there
:06:41. > :06:45.is something about those events, to my mind, that seems to offer
:06:46. > :06:51.meanings. Those meanings can often be contradictory and elusive. The
:06:52. > :07:00.process of film-making is to tell the story as simply as you can and
:07:01. > :07:04.with regard, true regard, for the facts, in order to explore what
:07:05. > :07:08.those meanings are. You don't start with the meanings. They emerge out
:07:09. > :07:13.of the telling of the story. Can I stop you now to have a bit of the
:07:14. > :07:17.story before our eyes. Let's look at a short clip from Captain Phillips,
:07:18. > :07:21.where we see use use those dual perspectives. Film from the
:07:22. > :07:27.freighter and also from the point of the Somali pirates.
:07:28. > :07:44.This is your final warning! Stop the ship!
:07:45. > :08:35.So, there we have a lot of action. Tempting, maybe, to see that as
:08:36. > :08:40.another genre thriller. But as the movie develops, it is incredibly
:08:41. > :08:47.intense. It is a character analysis of two men, the ship's captain,
:08:48. > :08:53.played by Tom Hanks, and the Somali pirate leader, an actor we have been
:08:54. > :08:59.introduced to. For you, is that more important, the up close, intense
:09:00. > :09:04.analysis of those characters? You have got to get the method clear.
:09:05. > :09:08.You start, in this case, with Richard Phillips are part of the
:09:09. > :09:14.story. His book is an account of his first person story with his wife.
:09:15. > :09:19.When I started make the film, I make a decision not to tell the wife's
:09:20. > :09:25.story. I wanted the story on the ocean. Then you take up a process of
:09:26. > :09:30.research, as you would on any story. As you did as a journalist.
:09:31. > :09:35.Definitely. But it is not journalism. But you have got to have
:09:36. > :09:41.that initial journalistic fact -based process. You need to know
:09:42. > :09:45.what has really happened. You are not just telling the story from one
:09:46. > :09:52.person's point of view. You are going to make a film out of it. They
:09:53. > :09:55.movie is different. But if you are going to make a movie ace on real
:09:56. > :09:59.events, you have to start with the real events. Otherwise you have got
:10:00. > :10:04.no basis for making judgements. How do you reflect all of the multiple
:10:05. > :10:11.points of view? That is the process. I understand that. You
:10:12. > :10:15.dramatise, but you have to use your imagination, to imagine yourself
:10:16. > :10:21.into the life and the values of Muse, the Somali pirate captain. In
:10:22. > :10:29.doing that, you sort of humanised him, in a way. I would hope I
:10:30. > :10:34.humanised him. But maybe you invite simply for him. The real captain of
:10:35. > :10:37.this, who has been talking about the movie, says he wants the world to
:10:38. > :10:43.understand, and these are his words, that this was a guy, Muse, the
:10:44. > :10:46.fictional version of the bloke, this was a guy who told me he had
:10:47. > :10:53.kidnapped and murdered another captain. He told me I was going to
:10:54. > :10:57.die in Somalia. Let's be clear, he is just a thug who doesn't care
:10:58. > :11:00.about other people. And the point is what? All of that is reflected in
:11:01. > :11:06.the film. What I'm talking about is this. You have got to avoid two
:11:07. > :11:10.things. You have got to avoid sympathising or creating moral
:11:11. > :11:17.equivalence, and you have got to avoid, in drama, demonising. Those
:11:18. > :11:21.are the two things you want to avoid. What you have got to get to
:11:22. > :11:25.is observing authenticity. In other words, you need a portrait of that
:11:26. > :11:30.young man that is truthful. In other words, that means a portrait of a
:11:31. > :11:38.criminal, because that is what they are. A ruthless criminal in gait
:11:39. > :11:44.environs and kidnap, all of which is amply reflected in this film. But
:11:45. > :11:49.also, understand what has given rise to those choices. In other words,
:11:50. > :11:56.the hopelessness and the hotchpotch of things that growing up in Somalia
:11:57. > :12:01.at that time would give you. In the end, you have something that is in
:12:02. > :12:04.the middle. It is not demonising and not sympathising. It is just
:12:05. > :12:08.truthful. In terms of what you are talking about with Richard Phillips,
:12:09. > :12:15.Richard Phillips repeatedly, and I was there when he saw the film, what
:12:16. > :12:21.he says is, you absolute nailed the portrait of those pirates. So let's
:12:22. > :12:26.be clear about that. That is his view. He thought that we absolutely
:12:27. > :12:33.nailed what they were like. Do your see yourself as a political
:12:34. > :12:39.film-maker? I don't, no. You have a sense that you have a scepticism
:12:40. > :12:44.about the powers that be, whether it be global capitalism, which is sort
:12:45. > :12:50.of a theme that runs under Captain Phillips, as a movie. You allude to
:12:51. > :12:53.the plight of the Somalis who can't face because of overfishing. Captain
:12:54. > :12:57.Phillips has to go through with his journey because of immense
:12:58. > :13:02.capitalist pressures on him. In other movies, you have looked at the
:13:03. > :13:08.way state power is exercised. There is a political scepticism to your
:13:09. > :13:13.film-making. I wouldn't put it like that, obviously. I think I have got
:13:14. > :13:18.a strong point of view, that is for sure. And so I should. Anybody who
:13:19. > :13:23.wants to make films need to have a strong point of view. You have to
:13:24. > :13:30.make your film as the product of your honest and clear point of view.
:13:31. > :13:35.Is that why you left documentaries? In the end, you have the facts and
:13:36. > :13:40.that is what you are presenting to the best of your ability. In film,
:13:41. > :13:47.you can, you have license, to manipulate and you have list -- life
:13:48. > :13:51.is to weave your message in. I don't agree with that. I think that is
:13:52. > :13:56.nonsense. I left documentaries because I had done them for ten
:13:57. > :14:00.years and I had always wanted to make films. That was my dream and
:14:01. > :14:04.that is what I did. I wanted to write and direct and make films. But
:14:05. > :14:10.the principles are the same. Not entirely. They are, because you are
:14:11. > :14:14.suggesting that if you move from documentaries, where the values are
:14:15. > :14:20.good, and in movies you can and it believe the truth. I don't accept
:14:21. > :14:23.that. I think there is truth you can get at journalistically. There is
:14:24. > :14:26.truth you can get that through the process of history. There is also
:14:27. > :14:34.truth that can be got at through movies, and that truth is truth of
:14:35. > :14:38.behaviour. It is complex. I'm not saying that truth is better or
:14:39. > :14:45.worse. They are different tools at getting at authenticity. You are
:14:46. > :14:50.suggesting that somewhere, movie-making is, by its nature, less
:14:51. > :14:53.truthful. I don't accept that. I don't think you could look at 100
:14:54. > :14:59.years of film-making and suggest that. In United 93, an intense
:15:00. > :15:04.portrait of what happened on that particular flight as it was taken by
:15:05. > :15:09.the hijackers on 9/11 and the passengers decided to fight back...
:15:10. > :15:14.We know what happened in the end. You have used a huge amount of
:15:15. > :15:18.research to recreate what you believe happened on board. But you
:15:19. > :15:24.have made some things up. There is a moment where the German passenger on
:15:25. > :15:28.board is seen to argue with the Americans on board about the wisdom
:15:29. > :15:35.of taking on the hijackers. He says, no, we shouldn't do it. We
:15:36. > :15:43.should negotiate. Take it easy. You made that up. You had no way of
:15:44. > :15:50.knowing. Here is the process of the film. It goes to how you get at
:15:51. > :15:55.truth. You can know a lot that there are things about certain events that
:15:56. > :16:01.you cannot know. I agree with you about that. But what acting can do,
:16:02. > :16:07.the critical thing here, what the actor can do and accompanying actors
:16:08. > :16:13.can do is to take you very close to what it must have been like. You
:16:14. > :16:18.have to set a process that enables actors' instincts to be explored. In
:16:19. > :16:22.that particular case, and what it means is each actor has to have the
:16:23. > :16:28.freedom to interpret that space as they see fit, within what can be
:16:29. > :16:34.known. We could know a lot but certain things we could not know.
:16:35. > :16:38.What that actor felt, he was a German actor, he felt very strongly
:16:39. > :16:44.that a German citizen would be guided by the German experiences of
:16:45. > :16:50.hijacks, which were that they reached successful conclusions and
:16:51. > :16:54.that they did land. But that is a huge arrogance to taking upon
:16:55. > :17:00.yourself the right to portray a real person. I think this guy was called
:17:01. > :17:05.Christian Adams. He was on the plane and his family were still alive. #
:17:06. > :17:10.still alive. I do not know if they liked or disliked the portrayal of
:17:11. > :17:16.him. The fact is, there is a huge arrogance in deciding to portray
:17:17. > :17:20.that person. I do not agree at all. You are trying to get to the truth
:17:21. > :17:24.of what that must have felt like and what meanings it would have had. I
:17:25. > :17:29.would defy anybody to look at that film and think it does not present
:17:30. > :17:33.an authentic portrait of what that must have been like. You're not
:17:34. > :17:39.telling me it is likely that nobody on that aeroplane would have had at
:17:40. > :17:43.the front of their mind, despite what they were being told, that this
:17:44. > :17:50.might end happily if we could just land. It is not just your film. Lots
:17:51. > :17:56.of fictional recreations of real-life events... The arrogance I
:17:57. > :18:00.think is the journalistic arrogance which says we are the only tool
:18:01. > :18:07.which can get at truth. That I do not agree with. If I may say, it is
:18:08. > :18:11.one of the problems that has led journalism, particularly at the
:18:12. > :18:15.BBC, into problems. You do not accept that there are other tools
:18:16. > :18:21.getting at the truth which is just as important. That does not say
:18:22. > :18:28.these methods, and you are right to interrogate me, and that is right.
:18:29. > :18:31.We are talking about real people and real lives and consequences. A final
:18:32. > :18:36.thought on this. Dennis Bingham has written book called Whose Lives Are
:18:37. > :18:46.They Anyway? It looks at the way by optics work. He says that the --
:18:47. > :18:49.within the public memory is that sometimes the film perception of a
:18:50. > :18:57.person or event forever supplants the real person. Would you accept
:18:58. > :19:02.that? It is a danger. It is a danger, of course. It is a reality.
:19:03. > :19:08.Movies have a powerful effect. But let us go back to United 93. You do
:19:09. > :19:12.not think that I made that film without speaking to each and every
:19:13. > :19:16.family, because I did. Each and every family signed a release
:19:17. > :19:22.including that to kill a family. They all saw the film as well. If
:19:23. > :19:26.what you were saying was true, would you not have thought that all those
:19:27. > :19:32.families would have objected? On the contrary, I think they look at that
:19:33. > :19:35.film, and by the way, those families come from very different backgrounds
:19:36. > :19:40.and nationalities and different political views, I think they all
:19:41. > :19:44.see that film, I would hope and that is minder standing from their
:19:45. > :19:50.reaction, as a testament to what happened on that plane. So far from
:19:51. > :19:53.its planting in a negative way, it gives people a powerful sense of
:19:54. > :19:59.what is fundamentally important, which is that 40 men and women in a
:20:00. > :20:06.very narrow space of time, some 20 minutes or so, how to process the
:20:07. > :20:11.post-911 world, whilst we were all sitting there thinking, what is this
:20:12. > :20:15.event about, they knew they had to process it and overcome the
:20:16. > :20:20.inevitable feeling of, we must not do anything because it will be OK.
:20:21. > :20:26.They had to process beyond that to the point of saying, no, this will
:20:27. > :20:35.not be OK. And then act. That is the picture that film portrays. A final
:20:36. > :20:39.point about that film. It is searingly realistic and part of the
:20:40. > :20:45.way it works is that you deliberately chose to use non-stars
:20:46. > :20:50.as actors. Some parts played well by the real people themselves, involved
:20:51. > :20:55.on that day. No stars whatsoever. Here you have made Captain Phillips,
:20:56. > :21:04.again about real events, tense and realistic. Using actors. Yes, using
:21:05. > :21:09.one of Hollywood's biggest stars, Tom Hanks. After United 93 you
:21:10. > :21:12.said, if passengers were betrayed by movie stars, you would not feel
:21:13. > :21:17.their ordinariness. If you do not understand the ordinariness, you
:21:18. > :21:22.cannot understand their courage. Why does not -- why does that not apply
:21:23. > :21:28.to Captain Phillips? Because the film is called Captain Phillips.
:21:29. > :21:34.Because you needed the big finance and studio behind it and it was a
:21:35. > :21:40.difficult pitch to sell? It was quite the reverse. He was already
:21:41. > :21:45.involved in the project. When you look at Tom Hanks, you think one of
:21:46. > :21:54.Hollywood's biggest A-listers. What I take from that film, I think that
:21:55. > :21:58.what they will find in that film is a sublime and powerful piece of
:21:59. > :22:04.screen acting. That is what I find out of it. Also, what is interesting
:22:05. > :22:09.is that it is a sublime piece of acting by a great, great film actor
:22:10. > :22:15.and an equally powerful performance by a young man who is just embarking
:22:16. > :22:18.on his acting career. That is an interesting relationship and that is
:22:19. > :22:25.what the film is about. The relationship between the two, which
:22:26. > :22:30.is informed by the movie star and the first time actor. That is why I
:22:31. > :22:35.did it that way. Before we end I want to lift your eyes to a wider
:22:36. > :22:38.horizon and think about the movie-making business. You have been
:22:39. > :22:42.in it for a long time. How difficult is it to win the financing, the
:22:43. > :22:46.backing, to get the marketing guys on board and to get all the
:22:47. > :22:51.paraphernalia on your side and these days still stay very loyal to your
:22:52. > :23:02.own values and principles and make what you want to make? It is always
:23:03. > :23:06.more possible than you would think. I have been very blessed. I was
:23:07. > :23:12.blessed when I worked in television here, as I could do what I wanted.
:23:13. > :23:19.It is the same there. Clearly, it is a difficult environment. And a money
:23:20. > :23:25.driven environment. It is commercial cinema. You have made some widely
:23:26. > :23:30.acclaimed movies but you are known best for the two movies within the
:23:31. > :23:36.Bourne franchise. When they made the fourth Bourne movie, you did not
:23:37. > :23:41.direct it. Did you want to step away from the franchise industry? Yes,
:23:42. > :23:48.they did ask me and I thought I had taken it as far as I could. Were you
:23:49. > :23:54.bored with it? No, on the contrary. I love the character but there is a
:23:55. > :23:57.limit to how many times you can operate within one franchise. It is
:23:58. > :24:03.one character, the same character. I had made two films. There are only
:24:04. > :24:08.so many movies you can make in a lifetime. If there was to be a
:24:09. > :24:16.Bourne 5, would you do it? No, I would not do it. Universal and I
:24:17. > :24:20.have had long discussions. It has been going on for three or four
:24:21. > :24:26.years now. I wish them well and I'm so glad I did the two films I did.
:24:27. > :24:29.I'm very proud of them. We will end there. Paul Greengrass, thank you
:24:30. > :24:32.very much indeed for being on HARDtalk.