Q : What was the reaction to your initial idea for the film?
PM : The initial reaction to my idea about making a film about this relationship was not so good. Stories about politicians didn't rate - the golden rule was no stories about politicians or journalists. But ITV drama head Nick Elliott’s reaction was instantly positive. He told me to stop whatever I was doing and do a draft as soon as possible.
My initial thoughts and research did not inspire me. The foot and mouth epidemic and the first rumblings of Iraq gave me the distinct impression that other stories were going to be bigger than a story about Gordon and Tony. It felt as though the Gordon and Tony relationship was no longer the story.
Then two things happened - firstly I watched the 2002 Labour Party Conference and saw Gordon Brown's thunderous expression while Bill Clinton was talking about what a great guy Tony was.
For me this was the picture of the Conference - not Kevin Spacey or Bill Clinton - but the look on Gordon's face while Bill Clinton was essentially saving Tony Blair's bacon. When I saw him, I thought this story is still burning.
The other thing that convinced me that there was a story here was that I'd heard that Cherie Blair had commissioned an £850,000 facelift of Downing Street. That didn't sound like a guy who was about to give way to Gordon.
Q : How quickly did you come up with a first draft?
PM: I wrote the first draft in an absolute frenzy in three weeks. By Christmas, the first draft had been written and revised. Details have changed, of course, but essentially that first draft and the shooting script are very similar, with exactly the same structure.
Everybody we spoke to was continually asking about the factual details of the story. For me, though, it's the story of a friendship. The details are an important factor but in essence it's a love story about the two most powerful men in the country. They meet, fall in love and they fall apart.
Q : Can you talk about the research process?
PM : We had a team of researchers who spoke to numerous MPs and people in the world of politics. One of our researchers had worked for the Labour Party in the '92 & '97 elections so our connections were good.
At first most people were prickly and were not keen to meet us but then word about the film and about our intentions got around, and things got much easier. Some recent films set in the world of politics have had an extremely cynical tone. I never wanted to do that. I've never had an agenda.
My intention was to write a film where we like and admire both leading characters and by implication we like what they do. I'm not interested in making any judgments whatsoever on their policies or the direction in which they're taking the Labour Party.
Traditionally, we represent politicians as evil pantomime villain characters, always up for bribes. I wanted to avoid this at all costs.
The research process did, of course, turn up some useful stuff, though. Small details such as the way that Gordon writes - usually very loud, aggressive and squeaky. Turns of phrase that they would or wouldn't use; the extent to which they would swear, how blokish were they with one another. Gordon's personal reticence for example - his extraordinary privacy.
Everybody we saw was either a Tony man or a Gordon man and it seems that the whole of Westminster is split between the two. You are either one or the other in the Labour Party.
Q : How do you read the relationship between Blair and Brown?
PM: Everybody focuses on the supposed animosity between Gordon and Tony. I believe there is a very positive side to this though.
The only effective opposition that Tony Blair has had since he's come to power is actually from his neighbour and closest friend. The Conservatives have been less than useless but Gordon has been an extremely effective foil.
It is true that they have a very exclusive relationship and that Cabinet members have little or no power I believe, and that almost all policies are conducted out of 10 and 11 Downing Street. This would be dangerous if they finished one another's sentences and were essentially the same human being but that is emphatically not the case. They violently disagree on so much.
This is a two-headed beast with the two heads almost always in conflict with one another, but I do believe it is a situation that actually works brilliantly. However, the nature of power and ambition is such that everyone only comes into politics for the big job.
Q : Did you come to admire the two characters?
PM : Yes. I came to have really weird feelings of protectiveness over both of them because given that this is an original screenplay, albeit about real people, I grew to feel about them as I would about characters that I had created.
They feel like my children in a strange way. So I hate seeing Tony and Gordon getting slagged off in the press, particularly in that period leading up to the Iraqi conflict where Tony was having such a tough time.
Actually this is a story about real feelings and that actual feelings get hurt. This isn't a story about the betrayal of Labour’s socialist values, the price that Labour has paid in getting into office or what price Labour are prepared to pay to keep themselves in power.
None of that really interested me. What interested me was the highly emotional story of how an elder brother, if you like, was overtaken by a younger brother and the elder brother’s heart was broken.
We've aimed to be right down the middle. We've shown that Gordon and Tony are both to blame, that both could have made it better. I think that we persuade people that Tony is the right man for the job but that Gordon's heart broke and Gordon's been waiting ever since.
Interview with directory Stephen Frears
Home page
Top
