Michael Caton-Jones and John Hurt

Following a special preview at the NFT of Shooting Dogs we were hugely pleased that one of the lead actors of the film, John Hurt, and the film's director, Michael Caton-Jones, joined us after the film to talk to Nigel Floyd.

Interview © BFI 2005

NF: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Nigel Floyd. In a moment I'll introduce you to our two guests this evening. Just before I do that, for any of you who haven't been to an event like this before, I'll just explain the format. We've got about 30 minutes, which is quite tight, so I'll ask a couple of questions at the beginning, just to get the ball rolling and then I'll throw it open to the audience - to ask your questions. And we will wrap up probably around about a quarter to nine... people will start going like this... to me from the wings saying 'it's got to stop now.' Without further ado, please let me introduce to you Michael Caton-Jones and John Hurt. [applause]

Okay, my questions are going to be fairly basic and general – your questions, of course, can be as specific as you like about the film – but I'm just going to try to fill in a little bit of background to the project. Let's just talk a little bit... Michael, perhaps I'll start with you... you had worked for a long time in America, in Hollywood, and you'd made big movies like The Jackal [1997] with Bruce Willis. So it was quite a surprise when I learned that you were going to be making a movie for about £3 million with the BBC in Africa. What was it that drew you back here, to this project in particular?

MC: Well, it was actually making films like The Jackal with Bruce Willis. [laughter] You know, when you make something like that there are so many compromises that you've got to do on a daily basis that is was just not much fun and it wasn't very creative and I couldn't do... I didn't feel very good about making that kind of film anymore. And I had asked my agents in Hollywood if they could find me smaller films that I could, you know, really get my teeth into or feel something about... which went down like a cup of cold sick because there's no way they were going to give up their money, you know, I was taking quite a lot of their commission anyway. So they... I realised that the only way I was going to be able to make any film that I was interested in was to actually go and find it. And that in general means you've got to go down to the lower end of the budget range. And you have to take a financial hit to get a film made, in general, that's the way it has to be. So I decided the only way I could do that was come back to Europe and find something and that's... I actively started looking.

NF: And was it actually a finished script?

MC: It was, I think, a second draft at the time that I came on, and it was... I knew very, very little about the subject matter – actually I knew nothing – and I simply reacted to it as a human being. I thought this is... I didn't know this was going on, I didn't know this happened. I thought I could make a film... that if I didn't know this had happened that perhaps I could make something that would show other people that didn't know what had happened. It really was that simple, I related to it as a human being.

NF: John, you'd worked with Michael Caton-Jones before, on Scandal [1988] – my favourite of your films actually – and on Rob Roy [1995]. When he approached you about this film, did you know anything about the subject matter, prior to this... more than we knew from the news?

JH: Yeah, I think I knew basically what most people knew... that there'd been awful times in Rwanda, they were reported in the press and so on. I didn't know any more than that. I knew that there was difficulty with... in terms of the United Nations and the fact that it was a genocide and it hadn't been recognised. But I have to say mea culpa that I hadn't taken any more notice than anybody else in actual fact. So, you know, when Michael came along... actually Michael, when he gave me the script, said 'I don't think you're going to like this...' [laughter] he said 'but I think you have to do it.' And in a sense it was with a certain amount of trepidation that one went into it because it's – well you've seen the film – it's a huge responsibility to try to do something like this and it sort of goes beyond making a film, in a sense. It becomes a kind of experience. It was an experience for us to make it, as I think probably it is to see.

NF: A lot of the interviews that you've done and a lot of the things that have been written about the film emphasise the fact that your father was a man of the cloth and that one of your brothers was a monk, as if somehow or other you were therefore automatically qualified to play this guy and there really wasn't any work involved.

JH: But that really is typical of the press, isn't it? Absolutely. It always amuses me, but one feels you have to answer it with some sort of seriousness. Yes, I mean, if... there they are... but I'm not qualified in that sense whatsoever, and it doesn't help you to perform it. I do know... I mean I do know certain ways in which people do behave. I mean I know when... things that are irritating about people who are pretending to be clergymen, you know, if they don't get it right. So there are certain things that it's helpful to know. But in terms of the man's spirituality and the man's meaning in Africa and all of that... it's not any particular help, no.

NF: Michael, the obvious contrast between this film and another one, which people might not have seen, Hotel Rwanda [2004], was that that film was shot in South Africa, this film was shot in Kigali, in the places where these events took place. Can you explain why it was so important to you to do that, and why you couldn't have thought of making the film unless that were possible?

MC: Well, when I was asked... when they decided... the BBC actually originally wanted to make it in South Africa and I didn't feel comfortable that I knew how to recreate Rwanda in South Africa. I knew we didn't have much money, but I just didn't know what the country was like. So I went out there and had a look around and I thought 'this is nuts, you can't not make it here... you really can't, I mean it's their story, there is so much... it's everywhere.' When you go to Rwanda it's everywhere, not physically but just when you talk to people. You know, it permeates every aspect of their life in one shape or another. And I felt what I was going to try and do... what was the tack that I wanted to take was to try and keep it as close to the truth – I mean whatever truth is – as possible, the truth that I could find.

I felt quite strongly that it was my job to be more a conduit to what had gone on there than a filmmaker really. It was kind of strange. I've never felt that humble, you know, because I'm a director, mainly, and it doesn't come naturally. [laughter] But you know, you really did submerge what you... your feeling that you have to jazz things up and make it an entertaining – you know that's what you do... your job as a normal director is to jazz things up and make it exciting – and you actually have to rein that natural instinct away. And part of that was actually going to the place, hiring people and letting them tell you how it was. And whether you liked what they were saying or not, to use that.

I also was aware that Hotel Rwanda was being made at that time. And I've worked on and off in the studio system, I understand what the compromises are and it was kind of what I was running away from anyway. You're going to have to have some sub-plot, either a love story or... certainly you're not going to be able to show a vast amount of the reality of what was going on there. And I can only imagine that they started and the other film started with the same impulse, which was to tell the story of what happened there and to try and explain to the rest of the world what it felt like to be there. But I think the difference between all these things is a question of approach and, for me the only approach that I felt comfortable with – I felt that I could make the film for the money with even – was to go there and to really try and make it as truthful as I could find there.

NF: Okay, I'm going to open it up to questions in a moment but I'll just ask John one question before I do that. The scene that, in a sense, gives the film its title, Shooting Dogs, is the scene where the Belgian Commander of the UN Force says they're going to have to start shooting the dogs because they're becoming a health hazard eating the bodies that are strewn around. Your character at that point becomes somewhat animated and gets into the whole question of did they shoot first? Were they firing on you because the mandate says that you're not allowed to fire on them? Can you just try and give us a picture... when you're building up to doing a scene like that with Michael in this location, can you try and evoke for us what that's like, how that works? I mean to what extent is it a nuts and bolts thing, to what extent is it a sense of the script and to what extent is it a sense of, in a sense, history as well?

MC: Glad he asked you.

JH: Well, I don't think history has much to do with it, as I remember. I think that it's part of the pattern of the character within the story that we're telling. It's a moment that... between us, I think, we decided that he was approaching his lowest ebb and it's a moment where he just feels that he can take no more. And it's a horrible release of pent-up energies and so on, which, of course, he manages to master later. But in terms of the graph of the character, it's at that point where he can contain himself no further, regarding the whole business where he's kept himself very contained regarding... and understanding what the difficulties were for the Belgians and for the UN altogether, because it's very easy to wag your finger; it's very difficult for them to know what to do, and I mean I think they're the... perhaps the least cared for of the affected really because... that's ruined a few lives too... people who sat through that genocide, unable to do anything because it wasn't their remit. But anyway, that's beside the point. It was part of the... that's where he's... that scene came then and that's all I can say. And then he manages to get himself together again in his own terms.

NF: Okay, we'll open it up for questions now. Please bear with me if I don't spot you straight away, especially if you're over there because there's a light which means I can't see anyone in this third of the thing. Just there... sorry, there is someone with a microphone who will try to get to you as quickly as possible.

Audience member: Did you speak to many of the UN people who were actually there? I mean obviously you spoke to locals, being in Kigali.

MC: I spoke to some but not a lot, no, because they weren't there anymore. You know, there was some... the captain there was a guy called Luc Lemaire. He was in charge of the contingent of the ETO and he kept a video diary, which I saw a lot of at the time. The producer and the writer had done a lot of the research, talking to people. I was basically trying to use the UN people that I came across who had been there for verification for how things would have been. It was not necessarily... I wasn't necessarily so interested in how they felt, necessarily. I mean the difficulty with what we did in the film was of course that you... because it was a low budget film you had to filter everything through the character of one UN guy. And obviously it's... you know, there were many different view points going on within many different people, but if you can't afford to have a load of different characters, you can't show all these different viewpoints. It's one of the shortcomings of the film that I just couldn't do... you know, you had to filter... you have to make a load of compromises with characters sometimes. But basically we tried to get it as accurate as we could.

NF: Just here, please.

Audience member: I was wondering where the line from the BBC journalist Rachel comes from, about the difference between covering Bosnia and covering Rwanda being... you could see family in Bosnia and in Rwanda you just saw black people. Was that a construct or was it something that someone actually told you?

MC: Didn't tell me, I mean, I didn't write it, remember. David Wolstencroft wrote it. I thought it was an incredibly brave line to put in a film because there's a kind of unpalatable truth about it that we kind of don't want to face... what the line is, not what she says but what it means. You would have to ask them.

NF: There's someone right in the middle there, please... I'm sorry, we can't hear that from here.

Audience member: How did you come across Dominique Horwitz?

MC: How did I come across? How did I find him? Why did I choose him? Well, I've read a lot of... actors. It is, of course, part of the process of making a film... a German-English co-production and I had to find people from Europe to play the parts. I tried to look for some Belgians and I couldn't find any. I mean, they're there somewhere, but I couldn't find any. [laughter] I don't mean that badly, I don't mean that badly at all. But Dominique came in and he read for me and I thought he was terrific. He looks extremely Gallic, he understood English very well, which is much more important than you would imagine. You know, really, because I knew I was going to have a lot of different people speaking different languages, and I was trying to minimise, in some regard, how miserable it was going to be for myself. And if you could speak English, you were pretty much guaranteed you were going to get a part. [laughter] He came in and he read for me, and I thought he understood the character very well, what I was trying to get out of it.

Audience Member: I wondered how much of the... how did you decide how much of the reality to actually show. I mean, given the scale of it, it would have been perhaps unwatchable to show a certain or a sort of X% of the slaughter. It must have been a terrible decision that... did you agonise over this?

MC: I don't think it was a terrible decision. I think it was a constant decision. I think it is something that you have weigh... there is actually not a lot of violence in the film, if you analyse it. There are a couple of incidences... but I felt that you couldn't soft-soap it too much. When you were going to show it you had to show it properly. And the process for making a film is that you shoot a lot of that stuff and you put it in, in the first cut and then you look at it and when people are going 'ughhhh' you realise you've put too much in and you take some out. And it's... any film's the same, whether it's violence, whether it's sex, whether it's... whatever... it's a constant process of refinement in the editing room. And you see... a lot of it is also – which people would maybe not be aware of – is sound. There's a lot of suggestion in the film, which is actually smoke-and-mirrors. The sound of things is actually a much more visceral effect for what you get out of a movie, especially with action scenes or scenes of violence. But it was a constant juggling process.

NF: Somebody there.

Audience member: I just – oh sorry, I didn't know it was that loud. Hi, I'd just like to ask a broader question about... well with films like The Constant Gardener [2005] and Good Night, and Good Luck. [2005] and Siriana [2005] that have come out recently, do you think there's a general consensus that Hollywood is getting a bit more socially conscious and more political?

MC: No. [laughter] No, if that makes money, they'll make it.

JH: But that's the interesting thing, I think, the fact that it might... that it stands the chance of making money is interesting, which suggests that there is a need for it, which suggests that there probably will be more politically-minded films, I would have thought.

MC: As long as they've got George Clooney in them. [laughter] Ah... that appears to be the secret... [laughter]

NF: I can't see anybody with their hand up. There must be somebody... somebody just here? Please? Alright, there, wherever... yes?

Audience member: I was just going to ask whether you came across any opposition to making the film out there? Was there anyone who wasn't happy with you being there and doing what you were doing?

MC: I think there were some people within the government who were reticent, for sure. You know, because it's an open question, which is... is it too soon to be making a film like this? Is it 'right'? Whatever that means... but there was some grumbling, but I think it was so minor that it didn't really matter, to be honest, because the economic benefits of taking a film to a place like Rwanda, which is an extremely poor country, far outweighed the negatives or the qualms about making something. And also, something that I found quite strongly there is this desire by a lot of people to tell the world what happened. They really felt abandoned, in many ways, and they want people to know what it was like there.

NF: Just here and then there is somebody else there.

Audience member: I don't know if you read the comment by Linda Malvern in The Observer this Sunday but one of the reasons she criticises the film is the portrayal of the BBC in the film. In particular she says that there wasn't actually a BBC film crew at the school or even in Rwanda during the first few weeks and that the BBC didn't use the word genocide in their reporting until the 29th of April, but a slightly different impression is given in the film, especially the scene where she's questioning the general in the camp and she uses the word genocide?

MC: Yeah, well it's a film, you know. It's not an article and it's not a documentary. I read what Linda wrote and she's written a fantastic book, I've got to say, it's a really good book. But the truth of the matter is that books and articles and documentaries have been made for the past ten years and they haven't communicated a lot in the way that a film can. It's really that simple. I wasn't making something that had to obey the letter of the law and it's churlish to point out anything. The BBC paid me like shit, frankly, so I'm no fan of them. And there was no way I was going to make them look good if I could help it, frankly. But the truth is, there was no reporter there, no, but there was a reporter. Mark Doyle was in, for instance, was in Kigali and it was far more important to illustrate that genocide was occurring than say, eleven days late... this is eleven days before they used the word genocide... who cares, frankly? [applause] You know, it's churlish.

Audience member: Actually I think a lot of people would see that as quite an important point though because...

MC: Well, you get them and tell them 'don't come and see the film.'

Audience member: Okay I will.

MC: Okay, good.

NF: Just here.

Audience member: I just wondered, filming and working so closely with members of the community while you were out there, whether you encountered any tensions or feelings left over from that period.

MC: There was only one... there was one incident, when we made the film – which is fairly well documented – about some school children being traumatised. Yeah, that happened when we were there but over the rest of the period, no, very little. I mean we were very careful, we had trauma councillors and doctors stood by on set all the time. And no, I can't say that that was the case at all.

Audience member: There were quite a few Hutu families killed as well in places like Burundi and in Rwanda prior to the genocide. The film is fairly one-sided in that respect, maybe as a matter of budget, but is there a way that you could have shown some of the reasons why the Hutus had, in their mind, a reason for perpetrating genocide, i.e. showing their side in terms of the hurt that they felt, which then led to it?

MC: Yeah, I mean it was kind of outside the scope of the film, to be honest. The truth of the matter is, of course, that the politics and historical context of Rwanda and Burundi is extremely complicated. There's an awful lot of reasons why things happened over a period of years. As I said, there have been articles and books and documentaries made, which do a far better job of explaining it. That was not what I was trying to do, it really wasn't. What I was trying to do was to show what it felt like to be there and if it could shine a light on it, then people could go and educate themselves about it. But I couldn't tell every story or else it would be still be going on, it would be going on for another two days.

NF: Okay, this will probably be the last question, I think, just there.

Audience member: The final scene at the public school, why do you think that was necessary? And was that your call, or the writer's, or somewhere in between?

MC: I guess it was my call. It was written in the first place, I felt strongly that it should be in, simply because I didn't want to leave an audience on a false note of triumphalism, you know, that all these people died and then all the school ran off into the sunset. I felt quite a lot that even though this happened ten years ago - twelve years ago - in a different continent, that the effects of it are still with us. And the effects follow everyone that was involved around forever. I mean it's like a ripple, and I wanted to show that life has to go and these scars... I knew that it was not going to be a particularly comfortable ending but I thought it was a far more important view. And it's just the call I made.

NF: Okay, just before we finish, I just want to round things off by saying that the film is... will shortly be shown in Kigali where it was shot and where, of course, these events happened. And I'm just wondering, John, are you going out for that screening?

JH: Yes, I am, yeah.

NF: I wonder what your feelings are about going back there and I gather it's not just in a small cinema either.

JH: No, it's not. It's about 5,000 people in the sports arena. It's quite a dangerous call, I think. But I think everybody is well aware of that. The only... where I think it's probably... it's the greatest difficulty – but I think as far as I know this has been very much addressed – is that I don't, even though they have taken part in the film, a great many of them, it's a very different thing when you see a film like this put together. And they... I suspect... certainly many will not be aware of how that is going to play on their emotions and so on. So I think it will be... it won't be an easy time. But I think it is something that they... well I know that they very much want... they want to see it, they want to understand it, they want to have it there... from the people that we worked with. And I just hope that it goes without too disastrous... without any disastrous effect.

NF: Michael, do you want to add anything to that?

MC: No, I'm kind of looking forward to it with a bit of trepidation, because no matter how we feel about it, this is a reality that these people have to live with every day. And if... it's something that is far closer to them than to us, obviously, and I have no idea what feelings it's going to engender down there. But I think at least – and I've spoken to quite a few – again they feel that at least they've been given a voice, however painful that voice is.

NF: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid that's all we have time for. It just remains for me to thank Michael Caton-Jones and John Hurt. Thank you. [applause]