One year out from the 2016 Presidential election, we hear from Beau Willimon, an executive producer of "House of Cards," and Jay Roach, director of an HBO film about Lyndon Johnson.
Jay Roach looks to LBJ in 'All the Way' for hope in democracy
Did you miss Bryan Cranston on Broadway? Not to worry: Cranston's portrayal of Lyndon B. Johnson in "All the Way" will be preserved in the adapted HBO movie that's slotted to air next spring.
The Tony Award-winning play, written by Robert Schenkkan, tells the story of LBJ's first hundred-or-so days in office. Assuming the Presidency in the wake of John F. Kennedy's assassination, Johnson sought both to heal the nation's trauma and to capitalize on it by aggressively forwarding legislation that Kennedy had proposed — most notably the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Jay Roach is the director of the "All the Way" adaptation. He's a veteran director of political movies, having dramatized John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate in "Game Change" (2012), and the story of the 2000 Florida vote epsiode in "Recount" (2008).
John Horn recently met with Jay Roach on the set of "All the Way." Roach was in the midst of shooting the scene of the newly inaugurated President Johnson addressing Congress days after Kennedy's assassination.
What does it feel like to walk in as a director and see what your production design and extras are able to do in this space?
It’s inspiring and humbling as a – though this sounds cheesy – student of history. I’m really fascinated with those moments where things were very fragile and could have completely unraveled with a different path taken by someone. That Johnson chose this path at this moment enabled us to overcome an incredible tragedy at a fragile time.
I’m moved by people who still believe in democracy and government as a force for good . . . That we can pull together in any form, much less on such a grand scale with so many interests. Clearly, one would wish that more constructive work could be done. But that an institution like this even exists, and that democracy works as well as it does, is moving to me.
In political films that may not always be factually accurate, is there an overriding idea that you have about what you want to tell people?
The complexity of [LBJ's] psychological choices — the dysfunction in the man, coupled with the unbelievable capability to actually get something done as important as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — I have to get that right.
Is there a movie you think about as “getting it right” in terms of the way of dramatizing politics, but also revealing some other truth?
I always go back to "All The President’s Men."
One of the interesting things about that story is that Hal Holbrook’s character [Deep Throat] — who is Mark Felt, as we now know — never said, Follow the money. He never said that! He gave out a series of details that implied there there might be a paper trail, but the film was so much better because he said, Follow the money. We could understand it. We could see what they were up to . . . So that to me is a prime example of, they got that right, but they took some license.
This movie will probably come out in the spring. We’ll be in the heat of the Presidential elections.
What I think is relevant today in LBJ’s story — particularly in these 11 months from November ’63 to when he’s reelected in November ’64 — [is] that it’s a story about how true statesmen get together and figure out how to get something really important accomplished, even when they could not be more diametrically opposed . . . [LBJ] found a way to use all the forces that were part of his own dysfunction and function, and turn his own drive into accomplishment. He was able to actually fight for something through all of his political contradictions and his ego and all of the other psychological flaws that he had. He knew what mattered. And he fought for it and he didn’t let anybody step so far out of line that he couldn’t pull it off.
As someone who clearly cares about politics, what is it like to step inside the world of this film — in which politics actually worked — and then walk into the real world, where politics doesn’t work as we would define?
You know, it’s always a miracle when anything is accomplished politically. The Affordable Care Act is a miracle. Whatever side you’re on, it happened . . . Who knows what went into that deal? But there is still hope in modern government.
It drives me nuts how slow it is — how wasteful and inefficient the process seems — but I think that’s part of how the system is set up. I’m not cynical about it. I actually believe it’s the best form of government. As long as people care about it and are willing to tell stories about how it’s worked in the past, and believe in how much better it could work in the future, I believe it’s worth talking about. That’s all I want these films to do: is to spark the conversations, to get people to compare those leaders with today’s leaders. To get people to wonder, how can we do this better? There must be a better way. And to maybe get involved.
'House of Cards' writer says the show isn't about politics, it's about 2 people
The Netflix original series, "House of Cards" tells the story of the power-hungry couple, Frank and Claire Underwood. Claire struggles regularly with her conscience, but Frank is relentless. He manipulates, lies and even murders his way up the political totem pole until he finds himself at the very top, stationed within the Oval Office.
While "House of Cards" moves in and around the D.C. political world, show-runner and writer Beau Willimon maintains the show is not about politics. Rather, Washington, D.C. is just the stage for a story about two people and their lust for power.
Season four is set to come out in the early months of 2016, though an exact date hasn't been announced. Willimon recently spoke with The Frame's John Horn about the show and its inevitable political parallelism while on the set in Baltimore.
On knowing that President Obama and First Lady watch "House of Cards":
That’s pretty flattering. It’s also surreal, to think that someone who has the fate of the free world in their hands is spending any amount of time watching television. From all accounts, they’re television fans. They watch a lot of shows and ours happens to be one of them.
One thing we definitely don’t do is try to have a political agenda. The characters in our show, the protagonists, are completely non-ideological . . . While they may address or take on certain causes, they do it in a self-serving way — not because it’s rooted to a belief system. Their belief system is themselves.
But you don’t think the show has the ability to take a position on important issues?
That’s not the responsibility of the show. We don’t take political positions. We’re telling the story of Frank and Claire Underwood. And they don’t take political positions. They will take political positions on the surface in order to achieve a goal. That goal is unwavering — and that is the consolidation of their own power.
But they have to take positions. He’s the President of the United States. He has to put forward policies and platforms and bills.
Sure. But you asked whether we’re trying to put political positions into the show in order to advocate a certain agenda. And no, we’re not. We’re never driven by trying to change the world.
Why not?
I don’t think that that’s the responsibility of art . . . I think at its heart, the making of art is a deeply selfish process.
The perspective of politics in this show is probably informed by your own experiences in politics.
[I worked with] Chuck Schumer first in 1998 and then Hillary Clinton in 2000, Bill Bradley in 2000, and [Howard] Dean in 2004.
Do those experiences shape how this show portrays government and politics?
I guess to a degree. I can only draw from what I know, what I learned and what other people have told me. My experience of those campaigns was very low-level. I was in the trenches.
But let me be clear. I don’t think "House of Cards" is a reflection of all of D.C. We’re taking a very specific sliver and exaggerating it to tell the story of these larger-than-life characters who lust for power on an epic scale. Most politicians, in my experience, are good people — for the most part — who want to serve their country. But they sometimes — especially the more power they find themselves wielding — face all sorts of ethical forks in the road. And there’s the machinery of politics, which means horse-trading, making deals and sometimes back-room compromises. But D.C. is not the protagonist. And politics isn’t. I don’t think "House of Cards" is a show about politics.
But it has to be. It’s about the President of the United States.
No, it’s about Frank Underwood. It’s not about the President and whoever happens to fill that seat. It’s about this one man who happens to get there. For the first two seasons, he’s not there. I mean, that would be like saying “Richard III" is about the British monarchy. It’s not. It’s about Richard III.
And so, this particular man, who lusts for power in this intense way, finds himself betrayed. And that liberates him to throw all allegiances aside, to operate completely on his own. And he gets to the presidency. But the interesting thing is, how does that man deal with the responsibilities of the presidency? Not, What is the presidency? The presidency is unique to whoever inhabits the Oval Office.
Either by accident or design, your next season will premiere in the middle of the presidential primaries. Does that matter to you? Is it relevant?
Sure. It’s relevant in the sense that whenever the show comes out — we haven’t officially announced [a premiere date]— there would be a certain alignment with what’s going on in the fictional world and what’s going on in the real one.
It’s impossible to say where we in the real world will be next year. The only thing I’ve really learned about politics after this many years of being engaged with it, is it’s impossible to predict anything. Right now we have a reality show star leading the Republican pack. And we have a doctor who’s never held elected office close on his heels. I mean, who could have ever predicted that?
Consistently, truth tends to be stranger than fiction. So, who knows where we’ll be two months, six months, or twelve months from now?