:00:09. > :00:19.Welcome to HARDtalk. The Oscars are upon us and as ever, Hollywood is
:00:20. > :00:23.awash with speculation, spin and yes, self importance but this year,
:00:24. > :00:27.with Donald Trump in the White House and America deeply divided,
:00:28. > :00:33.real-life has thrown up a melodrama which makes the movies look tame. My
:00:34. > :00:38.guest today's John Madden, and Oscar-winning director whose latest
:00:39. > :00:42.film is set in the murky world of Washington politics. But is
:00:43. > :01:15.Hollywood doing justice to the times living in? John Madden, welcome to
:01:16. > :01:19.HARDtalk. Thank you. Let's start by discussing the process of making
:01:20. > :01:23.your most recent movie. It's called Miss Sloane. Perhaps the most
:01:24. > :01:27.striking thing about it is that you were working in Washington, making a
:01:28. > :01:32.film about the underbelly of Washington politics at the very time
:01:33. > :01:39.America was experiencing a political earthquake. How disconcerting was
:01:40. > :01:45.that? Well, you know, it was really like, I suppose if a movie metaphor,
:01:46. > :01:52.it is to train 's kind of colliding. But we had no idea this other train
:01:53. > :01:56.on the track. I'm sure explaining the obvious here but when you start
:01:57. > :02:00.to make a movie, you don't necessarily know exactly when the
:02:01. > :02:05.movie is going to be shot, you don't know when that movie is going to be
:02:06. > :02:12.released and it's about a very hot button topic which is the issue of
:02:13. > :02:17.gun control, gun legislation. And it centres around the female lead
:02:18. > :02:21.character who is a brilliant, ruthless and not altogether
:02:22. > :02:26.sympathetic character. She is one of the top lobbyists in Washington.
:02:27. > :02:30.Yes, yes. It was a dive into the swamp which was -- which is to
:02:31. > :02:34.appropriate a player --a phrase which was not current one we made
:02:35. > :02:38.the film. It is about a lobbyist and a rather interesting parenthesis to
:02:39. > :02:45.this to say how this film came about. The script is written by a
:02:46. > :02:49.first-time writer called Jonathan Perera who lives in Malaysia who was
:02:50. > :02:54.given the idea of the film by this programme and by you, actually. I
:02:55. > :03:01.have no idea what you were talking about. I deliberately didn't tell
:03:02. > :03:06.you before the programme started. You didn't interview with Jack
:03:07. > :03:12.Abramov. The person who changed the face of lobbying. And here, I think,
:03:13. > :03:17.was on your programme talking about an autobiography. Because he fell
:03:18. > :03:23.foul... He did fall foul. He underwent a congressional hearing
:03:24. > :03:31.and went to prison. Johnny Perera, the writer, was just beginning to
:03:32. > :03:33.flex its muscles as a writer and he watched the programme and thought
:03:34. > :03:40.this is interesting and enact an aspect of politics I have never
:03:41. > :03:46.seen, certainly never been examined in fictional form and that was the
:03:47. > :03:50.genesis of the film. I want to bring it back to the process of making the
:03:51. > :03:56.movie and the political climate. Yes. I put it to you that most
:03:57. > :04:01.liberal, progressive, creative people working in the film industry
:04:02. > :04:05.like yourself had no time for Donald Trump and didn't per second believed
:04:06. > :04:09.he was going to win and were extraordinarily taken aback when he
:04:10. > :04:15.did win. Would that be true? That would be a fair valuation with the
:04:16. > :04:18.one exception, that we had experienced Brexit in the middle of
:04:19. > :04:23.June and those of us over there who had had the experience of the Brexit
:04:24. > :04:29.upending of everybody's expectations, it felt very much that
:04:30. > :04:33.the same thing could be happening there. What I'm getting too is this.
:04:34. > :04:39.The film, and I confess I have not seen it because it is not out in the
:04:40. > :04:42.UK but it is out in the States, the film, as I understand it, looks at
:04:43. > :04:46.the gun lobby and it doesn't betray those who advocate gun ownership,
:04:47. > :04:51.the National Rifle Association and others, in a particularly positive
:04:52. > :04:55.light and many people around Donald Trump and who supported Donald Trump
:04:56. > :04:59.and you voted for Donald Trump have looked at this movie and say, there
:05:00. > :05:05.you go again. Another Hollywood movie which doesn't get America,
:05:06. > :05:08.which belittles and casts a negative light upon all those Americans who
:05:09. > :05:14.don't live in the big cities, who love their guns and you are
:05:15. > :05:19.upholders, as they would see it, of American values. Yes. The
:05:20. > :05:25.Constitution is key to the argument here, quite clearly. There are
:05:26. > :05:30.several things to say about it. The film is not and was never intended
:05:31. > :05:34.to be a polemic. Not that it doesn't have a point of view, clearly it
:05:35. > :05:38.does have a point of view but I would say the topic of the film is
:05:39. > :05:42.more political process, actually, vanity is the gun issue, per se.
:05:43. > :05:47.It's about how you take an argument and make an argument. It's about
:05:48. > :05:51.persuading people to take points of view and so on. Understood but here
:05:52. > :05:55.is one conservative com -- commentator. You know who the gun
:05:56. > :06:00.lobby actually is? Never mind this movie. It is the 80 millionplus gun
:06:01. > :06:04.owners who don't want their rights infringed upon. It's not the NRA.
:06:05. > :06:10.Its ordinary American people antisocial movie did not reflect
:06:11. > :06:14.that at all. It is about lobbyists and what a lobbyist does in order to
:06:15. > :06:18.get people to sign up to a particular, in this case, fictional
:06:19. > :06:24.amendment that is going through Congress. It is not, as I said, it
:06:25. > :06:30.is an examination of the political process. The film is more balanced
:06:31. > :06:35.in terms of the arguments than you might think. I'm not saying that it
:06:36. > :06:44.adopts a particular point of view. But what it does do, is it says...
:06:45. > :06:48.The whole issue of gun ownership and gun legislation in America is about
:06:49. > :06:54.narratives, about competing narratives and the key voice in
:06:55. > :07:01.legislative terms is the NRA and to the NRA habitually relates every
:07:02. > :07:09.single issue to do with that to the basic issue of, well, the fiction of
:07:10. > :07:14.confiscation. I'd like to give people a Labour of the movie. It
:07:15. > :07:19.stars Jessica Chastain in the lead role as this very powerful and
:07:20. > :07:23.somewhat unsentimental, ruthless lobbyist who, in a sense, flips
:07:24. > :07:28.sides. She normally works the corporate America but she takes on
:07:29. > :07:33.the brief of working for the anti-gun campaign against the NRA --
:07:34. > :07:44.NRA. Let's look at this clip. Any head case can buy an assault rifle
:07:45. > :07:49.from a Bowlorama without ID. You can't possibly win this. This is
:07:50. > :07:56.about foresight. Anticipating your opponent's moves. We are on. It's
:07:57. > :08:03.about making sure you surprise them. And they don't surprise you. Let's
:08:04. > :08:09.talk a little, not just about guns but about the role of women in
:08:10. > :08:12.Hollywood. It's very interesting, this Jessica Chastain
:08:13. > :08:15.characterisation, the role she plays. It is deeply unsentimental
:08:16. > :08:22.but she is in control from beginning to end, pretty much. In one sense,
:08:23. > :08:28.she is and in another sense, she is not. True. Events spin out of
:08:29. > :08:31.control but she is a controlling person and she is unsentimental and
:08:32. > :08:36.her emotional life is not given much room in the movie at all which I
:08:37. > :08:39.would say is quite unusual for female characters. Her emotional
:08:40. > :08:43.life is given more room than you might imagine. The emotional
:08:44. > :08:48.backstory, to use an industry term, is not given much room because it's
:08:49. > :08:53.not relevant to the story we are watching but it is also important to
:08:54. > :09:00.say that it's called Miss Sloane for a reason. It's a study of a very,
:09:01. > :09:11.very extraordinaire character, an obsessive, an outsider in an insider
:09:12. > :09:16.'s job. Somebody desire is to win. You have a long career in the movie
:09:17. > :09:21.is now going back to the 90s. He won a Best Picture Oscar for Shakespeare
:09:22. > :09:26.in. Great success with the best exotic marigold H series. You've
:09:27. > :09:32.worked with a lot of the very best female actors. Is it important for
:09:33. > :09:38.you when you read a script that the female characterisations are just as
:09:39. > :09:42.strong as the men's? There is so much debate about whether women,
:09:43. > :09:46.older women get a fair shake when it comes to scripts and parts. It's
:09:47. > :09:50.been observed several times, not particularly by me because it was
:09:51. > :09:59.not an agenda that governed by choices that I have made, a lot of
:10:00. > :10:04.films with women smack in the middle of them. Women in power to some
:10:05. > :10:11.extent and also I supposed the emotional and political intersection
:10:12. > :10:17.of those two things. I think that women are fascinating, to me. I
:10:18. > :10:21.don't make any apologies for it. I was very sympathetic to Obama's
:10:22. > :10:25.characterisation of his First Lady as being superior in more or less
:10:26. > :10:31.every respect so I probably take that particular point of view. It's
:10:32. > :10:34.interesting, as we talk now, with Donald Trump very firmly in the
:10:35. > :10:38.White House and the Oscars approaching, the relationship
:10:39. > :10:44.between Trump and his closest political advisers and liberal
:10:45. > :10:50.Hollywood, if I can put it that way. We are all overrated. It is very
:10:51. > :10:54.sour. We saw Meryl Streep at the Golden Globes making a high-profile
:10:55. > :10:59.statement of deep dislike distant -- discontent of what she hears from
:11:00. > :11:03.Donald Trump. Is that helpful or wires for actors or directors to
:11:04. > :11:13.grandstand in that way? We are very easily disqualified as being people
:11:14. > :11:17.who just by using a celebrity to kind of the above head and
:11:18. > :11:22.shoulders. It is hard not to engage in this particular circumstance.
:11:23. > :11:27.More than any of us could have imagined even 12 months ago, really.
:11:28. > :11:35.It is a riveting to behold as political theatre. I would say that
:11:36. > :11:39.People's engagement, particularly people who live outside the United
:11:40. > :11:50.States who I think are still reeling and probably very fearful about
:11:51. > :11:57.exactly what is going on. Do we need more luvvies dumping on trumpet.
:11:58. > :12:02.Matthew McConaughey, one of Hollywood's leading actors, said on
:12:03. > :12:06.this subject, "We have to face it and he is our president and it is
:12:07. > :12:10.time to embrace that fact. Shake hands with the fact, be constructive
:12:11. > :12:14.with Trump over the next four years." That is a message you do not
:12:15. > :12:20.hear from too many actors. That is true. It is a point of view. I have
:12:21. > :12:23.to say, it is hard to think of a political figure who has been more
:12:24. > :12:30.provocative and more divisive than the current President of the United
:12:31. > :12:34.States. I... You know, Meryl Streep, I read an interview with her last
:12:35. > :12:42.night, I think she was speaking at another engagement and obviously,
:12:43. > :12:51.she has endured a lot of very visceral attack is of one sort of
:12:52. > :12:56.another. And her view was, I don't have a choice, I have to. Because
:12:57. > :13:01.she is so affronted by the values appearing to be represented. I don't
:13:02. > :13:07.think it's... I don't see there is any in it. I realise... It's not as
:13:08. > :13:11.though Hollywood has a great record in terms of diversity itself. Yes,
:13:12. > :13:16.some high achievers like Meryl Streep can make their big
:13:17. > :13:21.statements... But what is the alternative? Not to say anything? On
:13:22. > :13:26.the one level, Hollywood generates this voice which is so liberal and
:13:27. > :13:30.so attacking and everything that they believe Trump represents the
:13:31. > :13:35.same time, if you dig deep into the structure of the movie industry, the
:13:36. > :13:39.industry you have been in so long, it is totally lacking in diversity.
:13:40. > :13:44.It is not open to people of all colours and all economic classes.
:13:45. > :13:49.Learning some hard lessons right now. That's absolutely true.
:13:50. > :13:57.However, no individual person who stands up says, we are perfect. They
:13:58. > :14:03.are simply taking issue with some of the policies statements that are
:14:04. > :14:11.being made and I suppose the way, the way the country is being driven,
:14:12. > :14:15.betrayed, given an account of as far as the rest of the world.
:14:16. > :14:22.We talked about the fact that this movie is talking about big an
:14:23. > :14:28.argument, it was made by the British. Do you think movies get
:14:29. > :14:32.made that represent the views or sort of as sympathetic to white
:14:33. > :14:43.working-class American gun murders living in the middle of America? --
:14:44. > :14:48.gun owners. I have to sort of defend on presumption here, which is the
:14:49. > :14:52.presumption that we attack the gun lobby with this movie. That's not
:14:53. > :15:01.the case. I would say the movie is a political thriller, it's not an
:15:02. > :15:08.earnest polemic. That doesn't bail me out. I suppose it is about
:15:09. > :15:13.different voices represented in one of the key cultural forms,
:15:14. > :15:16.moviemaking. We've learnt a lot about the anger, disillusionment of
:15:17. > :15:23.white working-class people over the coming months, in the US and around
:15:24. > :15:27.the world. With your experience, are those sorts of voices ever
:15:28. > :15:30.represented in moviemaking? Thankfully we have somebody over
:15:31. > :15:35.here who has just won best British film who has been doing it all his
:15:36. > :15:44.life, Ken Loach, and I think there are people in America who do similar
:15:45. > :15:48.things and there's a multiplicity of voices. Can you think of any off the
:15:49. > :15:55.top of your head? There's a wonderful movie out called Loving,
:15:56. > :16:03.which is made by a very fine director called Jeff Nichols. That's
:16:04. > :16:14.about an interracial marriage in Georgia. A very quiet film about
:16:15. > :16:19.blue-collar life. Yeah, a very, very low key examination of people in a
:16:20. > :16:22.situation, in a highly politicised subjects, which doesn't take a
:16:23. > :16:29.political point of view and doesn't raise its voice. There's another one
:16:30. > :16:36.called hell on High Water, more of a thriller, I suppose. A dark Texan
:16:37. > :16:44.thriller. Brilliant, with Jeff Bridges playing a retiring cop.
:16:45. > :16:48.Those films do get made. It strikes me that sometimes Hollywood reacts
:16:49. > :16:53.and responds to criticism and tries to sort them is out perhaps a little
:16:54. > :16:57.bit superficially. Last year there was a lot of attention on the fact
:16:58. > :17:01.that when it comes to the making of movies and the movies that are given
:17:02. > :17:06.the plaudit, like actors and directors are not well represented.
:17:07. > :17:11.This year with had some great black stories, Moonlight, Fences and
:17:12. > :17:18.others, but when you look at the stats still only 4% - 5% of films
:17:19. > :17:23.over the last ten years in America have been made by black directors.
:17:24. > :17:28.Yeah, but the truth of the matter is you have to set that against the
:17:29. > :17:32.larger picture which is that 90% of films made in America aren't even
:17:33. > :17:41.about human beings. I don't know where you go with that. There's a
:17:42. > :17:45.tiny, little independent sector that is struggling to make films or find
:17:46. > :17:49.a place for films, find an audience for films, but are actually about
:17:50. > :17:53.people and the way they behave. So you have to see it in that context.
:17:54. > :17:57.That's an interesting point. There's a massive amount of work to be done
:17:58. > :18:00.in that regard, there is no question. It is interesting you
:18:01. > :18:05.raise the bottomline and the commercial realities in the US.
:18:06. > :18:12.You've made films in the US and the UK. How damaging to you, I'm going
:18:13. > :18:17.to try to put this politely, but it's a blunt question, how damaging
:18:18. > :18:22.to you is it when you make a film... I think Miss Sloane may have cost
:18:23. > :18:26.about $12 million and it has the grossed about 4 million, so it's a
:18:27. > :18:33.massive loss maker. How damaging is that the UN to your brand as a
:18:34. > :18:36.director? I think it is not great. -- to you and your brand. But
:18:37. > :18:41.equally everyone knows the way movies work, so the last couple of
:18:42. > :18:47.movies I made nobody thought anybody would go and see a hand they did
:18:48. > :18:53.extraordinarily well. Marigold Hotel? Yeah. You can't make the kind
:18:54. > :18:58.of movies I make knowing the film will be successful or not. But is
:18:59. > :19:02.your gut a good signal of whether it will be a success or not? As you
:19:03. > :19:06.say, the marigold to tell movies weren't deep to be good successes,
:19:07. > :19:12.but they made the film companies lots of money and Shakespeare in
:19:13. > :19:17.Love didn't look like a massive commercial hit, I did it great. Do
:19:18. > :19:21.your waters tell you whether you have a hit on your hands? Know and I
:19:22. > :19:25.do believe anybody who says that. Occasionally you come across people
:19:26. > :19:29.who say, from now on we are just going to make successful movies and
:19:30. > :19:38.you think, of course! What were we thinking about! What do you learn?
:19:39. > :19:42.There's a distinction. You can make a movie and think, you know what? I
:19:43. > :19:47.think this movie is strong, is the way I would say it, if I feel like a
:19:48. > :19:50.movie is really working but it is biting and it has traction. I'm
:19:51. > :19:55.using that not necessarily about a film in a political subject, you
:19:56. > :20:01.think a film is clicking in some way and sometimes that manifested self
:20:02. > :20:09.in an audience wanting to go and see it and sometimes it doesn't. I think
:20:10. > :20:12.with this movie in particular, Miss Sloane, we literally collided with
:20:13. > :20:16.the biggest political upending that there's been in my politically
:20:17. > :20:23.conscious lifetime and I think we hit a sort of... What one of the
:20:24. > :20:29.actors in my film called a nauseated aversion to anything political. I
:20:30. > :20:34.think actually a political film has to get through a very narrow
:20:35. > :20:39.opportunity, much narrower than a political series does, which can be
:20:40. > :20:45.objective. -- than a political series. There are many different
:20:46. > :20:50.forms of storytelling on video. They are on television and you can tell a
:20:51. > :20:54.story over a longer period. That's a perfectly reasonable observation and
:20:55. > :21:00.a lot of people in the industry generally, and by that I mean people
:21:01. > :21:04.working in filmed diction, are splitting their time between the two
:21:05. > :21:11.anyway, because the lawn form story, which is television special, is an
:21:12. > :21:17.extraordinarily powerful and in many ways less productive creative
:21:18. > :21:23.process. Which do you prefer? Here's what I would say. There are certain
:21:24. > :21:30.stories that have the perfect weight for a movie that actually can tell a
:21:31. > :21:36.story over about 90 minutes, two-hour time frame and that can be
:21:37. > :21:42.immensely satisfying. It can create an impression that is very strong.
:21:43. > :21:46.U2 often see movies that are way too long for that format are way too
:21:47. > :21:51.small for that format and so when you get it right it is something
:21:52. > :21:57.very memorable that can come out of it. There are some good examples of
:21:58. > :22:01.that currently, films in condition this year. I want to end with this
:22:02. > :22:06.from Alan Parker. He is conflicted because he said some of the best
:22:07. > :22:09.work is on telly. In the end he said this. The cinema is still the
:22:10. > :22:14.locomotive that pulls everything else along with it, as it creates
:22:15. > :22:18.and establishes the reputations of our best at this, direct is, writers
:22:19. > :22:23.and technicians. It is more ambitious and more creatively
:22:24. > :22:27.fulfilling. You buy that? I think that's fair. I don't know whether
:22:28. > :22:30.that still will remain true, because I think the creative surge in
:22:31. > :22:35.television right now is pretty extraordinary. The only worry that I
:22:36. > :22:39.would have about television is that it may burn itself out, because
:22:40. > :22:43.there's so much product nobody can keep up. I don't know a single
:22:44. > :22:48.person in the world who says, oh, no, I meant to see that I haven't
:22:49. > :22:51.caught up. The answer is they will never keep up got there something
:22:52. > :22:57.else to see. That is an incredibly satisfying for, I think, the long
:22:58. > :23:04.form, because you simply don't have to resolve it. I did a pilot for an
:23:05. > :23:13.American cable network show about the sex there of -- a sex therapist.
:23:14. > :23:17.The Studio ten to see the pilot and said, I don't understand what makes
:23:18. > :23:26.him behave the way he is behaving. We really need to know. And I said,
:23:27. > :23:29.that's a movie perspective. If you know the issues around the main
:23:30. > :23:35.character are within 20 minutes you haven't got a movie. Whereas in
:23:36. > :23:41.television, you should simply be an packing that person probably over
:23:42. > :23:43.the whole of the first season, so that people then become powerfully
:23:44. > :23:53.engaged in what's going on. So movies can be a hard needle and
:23:54. > :23:57.thread, but when it works I think they can be powerful and they lodge
:23:58. > :24:02.themselves in people's minds in the way a television show can't moment
:24:03. > :24:08.for moment, powerful ally. Will we on HARDtalk only have 25 minutes, so
:24:09. > :24:10.I am afraid we have run out of time. John Madden, thanks for an much.
:24:11. > :24:34.Thank you. -- thanks very much. We are looking at changes
:24:35. > :24:37.to our weather now. We've lost that cold
:24:38. > :24:39.easterly, the grey weather. Something a bit milder
:24:40. > :24:42.coming from the south. But, in the next 24 hours
:24:43. > :24:46.and for the rest of this week,