DALY: Is this a political film? MALKOVICH: I think so-called political films are usually just polemics, and I’m not really interested in that. I don’t have a party, I don’t have a belief, I don’t have any position to support or defend. It’s just telling a story. And even if it were a film about Sendero Luminoso–I don’t see them as very political, at least in the best sense of the word; I see them as murderers.
You’re more interested in the effect of conflict on people’s lives? On the individuals, and if there’s anything political, it’s that. As Rejas, the lead character, says in the script: “Success might have come sooner if we had a clear policy and if the state had an image of being just, generous and firm.” Unfortunately, the state isn’t that. [Nor is] the group that represents Sendero in the movie. The film is not even really just about Peru, because we steal things from Argentina and Chile and Bolivia. So if that’s political, then I guess it’s political, but I really see it as sensible.
How does the love story fit with the other themes? There is a line in the script where Rejas and Yolanda, the dancer, go to a photo exhibition. Some of [the people in the photos are] murder victims. And one asks the other, “Who is that?” “I think he’s a judge.” And in fact he’s a murderer. The point is that we get half the people we meet wrong, and that’s what this story is about. If it succeeds it will be more of a thriller than anything political. I don’t think there are even really good guys and bad guys.
Though the Spanish actor Javier Bardem says his character, Rejas, managed to capture the leader of Shining Path without firing a bullet… That’s true, and he’s an heroic character in that way.
Do you have to fictionalize to tell the truth? Actual events take place, but history is so messy, what a story has to do is help order our comprehension. Stories order history and render us able to comprehend at least a version of history. I’m sure somebody from Sendero who could write well would have a whole different version, but one sometimes has to mistrust–there’s a great truth in being inside a history, but often great lies result from being inside.
You don’t see a single truth? Not usually. I think there is religion and tribalism and dogma and murder, and I don’t see a lot of truth in most of those things. Truth is, people suffer. And the truth is that politics, which should be most simply defined as the solving of societal problems, is often anything but that.
Can movies change the world? Sure, but only for really refined sensibilities. And the best movies don’t even set out to do that. “The Battle of Algiers,” I don’t think [takes] a side, it just tells that story.
You’ve said you enjoyed producing the movie, maybe more than directing it. Absolutely, because producing is deciding what is the story, what is the topic, what is the shape of the story, how is the story told, how does it unfold–and I like that. I think there is a dearth of really good producers. If it were the old days and I were really wealthy, I wouldn’t mind being a producer.
Do you often think, “It would be easier if I did it myself”? Most things would be easier if I did them myself. I mean, I’m incredibly arrogant but it’s actually true. And I do a lot of things myself, I shoot a lot of it myself, I wrote a lot of it myself. But that’s not what filmmaking is. It’s working with other people. [It’s about] what their demands and needs are and I’m perfectly amenable to that. But it’s slow.
The actors say you are very calm, that you never scream at people. Not very often. I don’t see it as conducive to working well. If I’m really upset about something, of course I scream and if I’m just quite upset then I’m a lot more unpleasant than most people. But I rarely get that way.
Do you ever wish that you were acting in your film? No, never. There’s much more waiting in [acting]. It’s just waiting. I always brought a book, or something to sew, or draw, or write, and I’d put it down just a second before we worked–otherwise I would have been quite mad 20 years ago.
