assassination in malaysia. police say before kim jong—nam died, he told them he was grabbed from behind and had liquid splashed in his face. a postmortem is due to be held to establish the cause of death. michael flynn's departure as national security advisor raises more questions than answers. they stress he was forced to resign over an erosion of trust, not over the legal question of when he broke american law in his contacts with the ambassador. the central african republic is descending into anarchy, possibly genocide. christian and mush and —— was the militias began fighting more than three years ago. now on bbc news, it's hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. the oscars are

upon us and as welcome to hardtalk. the oscars are upon us and as ever, welcome to hardtalk. the oscars are upon us and as ever, hollywood is awash with speculation, spin and yes, self importance but this year, with donald trump in the white house and america deeply divided, real—life has thrown up a melodrama which makes the movies look tame. my guest today's john madden, which makes the movies look tame. my guest today'sjohn madden, and oscar—winning director whose latest film is set in the murky world of washington politics. but is hollywood doing justice to the times living in? john madden, welcome to

hardtalk. thank you. let's start by discussing the process of making your most recent movie. it's called miss sloane. perhaps the most striking thing about it is that you we re striking thing about it is that you were working in washington, making a film about the underbelly of washington politics at the very time america was experiencing a political earthquake. how disconcerting was that? well, you know, it was really like, i suppose if a movie metaphor, it is to train ‘s kind of colliding. but we had no idea this other train on the track. i'm sure explaining the obvious here but when you start to make a movie, you don't necessarily know exactly when the movie is going to be shot, you don't know when that movie is going to be released and it's about a very hot

button topic which is the issue of gun control, gun legislation. and it centres around the female lead character who is a brilliant, ruthless and not altogether sympathetic character. she is one of the top lobbyists in washington. yes, yes. it was a dive into the swamp which was —— which is to appropriate a player ——a phrase which was not current one we made the film. it is about a lobbyist and a rather interesting parenthesis to this to say how this film came about. the script is written by a first—time writer called jonathan perera who lives in malaysia who was given the idea of the film by this programme and by you, actually. given the idea of the film by this programme and by you, actuallylj have no idea what you were talking about. i deliberately didn't tell you before the programme started. you didn't interview with jack abramov. the person who changed the

face of lobbying. and here, ithink, was on your programme talking about an autobiography. because he fell foul... he did fall foul. he underwent a congressional hearing and went to prison. johnny perera, the writer, was just beginning to flex its muscles as a writer and he watched the programme and thought this is interesting and enact an aspect of politics i have never seen, certainly never been examined in fictionalform seen, certainly never been examined in fictional form and that was the genesis of the film. i want to bring it back to the process of making the movie and the political climate. yes. i put it to you that most liberal, progressive, creative people working in the film industry like yourself had no time for donald trump and didn't per second believed he was going to win and were extraordinarily taken aback when he

did win. would that be true? that would be a fair valuation with the one exception, that we had experienced brexit in the middle of june and those of us over there who had had the experience of the brexit upending of everybody‘s expectations, it felt very much that the same thing could be happening there. what i'm getting too is this. the film, and i confess i have not seen the film, and i confess i have not seen it because it is not out in the uk but it is out in the states, the film, as i understand it, looks at the gun lobby and it doesn't betray those who advocate gun ownership, the national rifle association and others, in a particularly positive light and many people around donald trump and who supported donald trump and you voted for donald trump have looked at this movie and say, there you go again. another hollywood movie which doesn't get america, which belittles and casts a negative light upon all those americans who

don't live in the big cities, who love their guns and you are upholders, as they would see it, of american values. yes. the constitution is key to the argument here, quite clearly. there are several things to say about it. the film is not and was never intended to bea film is not and was never intended to be a polemic. not that it doesn't have a point of view, clearly it does have a point of view but i would say the topic of the film is more political process, actually, vanity is the gun issue, per se. it's about how you take an argument and make an argument. it's about persuading people to take points of view and so on. understood but here is one conservative com —— commentator. you know who the gun lobby actually is? never mind this movie. it is the 80 millionplus gun owners who don't want their rights infringed upon. it's not the nra. its ordinary american people antisocial movie did not reflect

that at all. it is about lobbyists and what a lobbyist does in order to get people to sign up to a particular, in this case, fictional amendment that is going through congress. it is not, as i said, it is an examination of the political process. the film is more balanced in terms of the arguments than you might think. i'm not saying that it adopts a particular point of view. but what it does do, is it says... the whole issue of gun ownership and gun legislation in america is about narratives, about competing narratives, about competing narratives and the key voice in legislative terms is the nra and to the nra habitually relates every single issue to do with that to the basic issue of, well, the fiction of

confiscation. i'd like to give people a labour of the movie. it stars jessica chastain people a labour of the movie. it starsjessica chastain in the lead role as this very powerful and somewhat unsentimental, ruthless lobbyist who, in a sense, flips sides. she normally works the corporate america but she takes on the brief of working for the anti—gun campaign against the nra —— nra. let's look at this clip. any head case can buy an assault rifle from a bowlorama without id. you can't possibly win this. this is about foresight. anticipating your opponenfs about foresight. anticipating your opponent's moves. we are on. it's about making sure you surprise them. and they don't surprise you. let's talk a little, notjust about guns but about the role of women in hollywood. it's very interesting,

thisjessica hollywood. it's very interesting, this jessica chastain characterisation, the role she plays. it is deeply unsentimental but she is in control from beginning to end, pretty much. in one sense, she is and in another sense, she is not. true. events spin out of control but she is a controlling person and she is unsentimental and her emotional life is not given much room in the movie at all which i would say is quite unusual for female characters. her emotional life is given more room than you might imagine. the emotional backstory, to use an industry term, is not given much room because it's not relevant to the story we are watching but it is also important to say that it's called miss sloane for a reason. it's a study of a very, very extraordinaire character, an obsessive, an outsider in an insider ‘sjob. somebody desire is

obsessive, an outsider in an insider ‘s job. somebody desire is to win. you have a long career in the movie is now going back to the 905. he won a best picture oscar for shakespeare in. great success with the best exotic marigold h 5erie5. you've worked with a lot of the very best female actors. i5 worked with a lot of the very best female actors. is it important for you when you read a script that the female characterisations are just as 5trong female characterisations are just as strong as the men's? there is so much debate about whether women, older women get a fair shake when it comes to scripts and parts. it's been observed 5everal comes to scripts and parts. it's been observed several times, not particularly by me because it was not an agenda that governed by choices that i have made, a lot of films with women 5mack choices that i have made, a lot of films with women smack in the middle of them. women in power to some extent and also i supposed the emotional and political intersection

of those two things. i think that women are fascinating, to me. i don't make any apologies for it. i was very sympathetic to obama's characterisation of his first lady as being superior in more or less every respect so i probably take that particular point of view. it's interesting, as we talk now, with donald trump very firmly in the white house and the oscars approaching, the relationship between trump and his closest political advisers and liberal hollywood, if i can put it that way. we are all overrated. it is very sour. we saw meryl streep at the golden globes making a high—profile statement of deep dislike distant —— discontent of what she hears from donald trump. i5 discontent of what she hears from donald trump. is that helpful or wires for actors or directors to grandstand in that way? we are very easily disqualified as being people

who just by using a celebrity to kind of the above head and shoulders. it is hard not to engage in this particular circumstance. more than any of us could have imagined even 12 months ago, really. it isa imagined even 12 months ago, really. it is a riveting to behold as political theatre. i would say that people's engagement, particularly people who live outside the united states who i think are still reeling and probably very fearful about exactly what is going on. do we need more luvvies dumping on trumpet. matthew mcconaughey, one of hollywood's leading actors, said on this subject, "we have to face it and he is our president and it is time to embrace that fact. shake

hands with the fact, be constructive with trump over the next four yea rs. " with trump over the next four years." that is a message you do not hear from too many actors. that is true. it is a point of view. i have to say, it is hard to think of a political figure who has to say, it is hard to think of a politicalfigure who has been more provocative and more divisive than the current president of the united states. i... you know, meryl streep, i read states. i... you know, meryl streep, iread an states. i... you know, meryl streep, i read an interview with her last night, i think she was speaking at another engagement and obviously, she has endured a lot of very visceral attack is of one sort of another. and her view was, i don't have a choice, i have to. because she is so affronted by the values appearing to be represented. i don't think it's... i don't see there is any in it. i realise... it's not as though hollywood has a great record

in terms of diversity itself. yes, some high achievers like meryl streep can make their big statements... but what is the alternative? not to say anything? on the one level, hollywood generates this voice which is so liberal and so this voice which is so liberal and so attacking and everything that they believe trump represents the same time, if you dig deep into the structure of the movie industry, the industry you have been in so long, it is totally lacking in diversity. it is not open to people of all colours and all economic classes. learning some hard lessons right now. that's absolutely true. however, no individual person who stands up says, we are perfect. they are simply taking issue with some of the policies statements that are being made and i suppose the way, the way the country is being driven,

betrayed, given an account of as far as the rest of the world. we talked about the fact that this movie is talking about big an argument, it was made by the british. do you think movies get made that represent the views or sort of as sympathetic to white working—class american gun murders living in the middle of america? —— gun owners. i have to sort of defend on presumption here, which is the presumption that we attack the gun lobby with this movie. that's not the case. i would say the movie is a political thriller, it's not an earnest polemic. that doesn't bail me out. i suppose it is about

different voices represented in one of the key cultural forms, moviemaking. we've learnt a lot about the anger, disillusionment of white working—class people over the coming months, in the us and around the world. with your experience, are those sorts of voices ever represented in moviemaking? tha nkfully represented in moviemaking? thankfully we have somebody over here who has just won best british film who has been doing it all his life, ken loach, and i think there are people in america who do similar things and there's a multiplicity of voices. can you think of any off the top of your head? there's a wonderful movie out called loving, which is made by a very fine director called jeff nichols. that's about an interracial marriage in georgia. a very quiet film about

blue—collar life. yeah, a very, very low key examination of people in a situation, in a highly politicised subjects, which doesn't take a political point of view and doesn't raise its voice. there's another one called hell on high water, more of a thriller, i suppose. a dark texan thriller. brilliant, with jeff bridges playing a retiring cop. those films do get made. it strikes me that sometimes hollywood reacts and responds to criticism and tries to sort them is out perhaps a little bit superficially. last year there was a lot of attention on the fact that when it comes to the making of movies and the movies that are given the plaudit, like actors and directors are not well represented. this year with had some great black

stories, moonlight, fences and others, but when you look at the stats still only 4% — 5% of films over the last ten years in america have been made by black directors. yeah, but the truth of the matter is you have to set that against the larger picture which is that 90% of films made in america aren't even about human beings. i don't know where you go with that. there's a tiny, little independent sector that is struggling to make films or find a place forfilms, find an is struggling to make films or find a place for films, find an audience forfilms, a place for films, find an audience for films, but a place for films, find an audience forfilms, but are a place for films, find an audience for films, but are actually about people and the way they behave. so you have to see it in that context. that's an interesting point. there's a massive amount of work to be done in that regard, there is no question. it is interesting you raise the bottomline and the commercial realities in the us. you've made films in the us and the uk. how damaging to you, i'm going

to try to put this politely, but it's a blunt question, how damaging to you is it when you make a film... i think miss sloane may have cost about $12 million and it has the grossed about 4 million, so it's a massive loss maker. how damaging is that the un to your brand as a director? i think it is not great. —— to you and your brand. but equally everyone knows the way movies work, so the last couple of movies work, so the last couple of movies i made nobody thought anybody would go and see a hand they did extraordinarily well. marigold hotel? yeah. you can't make the kind of movies i make knowing the film will be successful or not. but is your gut a good signal of whether it will be a success or not? as you say, the marigold to tell movies weren't deep to be good successes, but they made the film companies

lots of money and shakespeare in love didn't look like a massive commercial hit, i did it great. do your waters tell you whether you have a hit on your hands? know and i do believe anybody who says that. occasionally you come across people who say, from now on we are just going to make successful movies and you think, of course! what were we thinking about! what do you learn? there's a distinction. you can make a movie and think, you know what? i think this movie is strong, is the way i would say it, if i feel like a movie is really working but it is biting and it has traction. i'm using that not necessarily about a film ina using that not necessarily about a film in a political subject, you think a film is clicking in some way and sometimes that manifested self in an audience wanting to go and see it and sometimes it doesn't. i think with this movie in particular, miss

sloane, we literally collided with the biggest political upending that there's been in my politically conscious lifetime and i think we hit a sort of... what one of the actors in my film called a nauseated aversion to anything political. i think actually a political film has to get through a very narrow opportunity, much narrower than a political series does, which can be objective. —— than a political series. there are many different forms of storytelling on video. they are on television and you can tell a story over a longer period. that's a perfectly reasonable observation and a lot of people in the industry generally, and by that i mean people working in filmed diction, are splitting their time between the two anyway, because the lawn form story, which is television special, is an

extraordinarily powerful and in many ways less productive creative process. which do you prefer? here's what i would say. there are certain stories that have the perfect weight for a movie that actually can tell a story over about 90 minutes, two—hour time frame and that can be immensely satisfying. it can create an impression that is very strong. u2 often see movies that are way too long for that format are way too small for that format and so when you get it right it is something very memorable that can come out of it. there are some good examples of that currently, films in condition this year. i want to end with this from alan parker. he is conflicted because he said some of the best work is on telly. in the end he said

this. the cinema is still the locomotive that pulls everything else along with it, as it creates and establishes the reputations of our best at this, direct is, writers and technicians. it is more ambitious and more creatively fulfilling. you buy that?” ambitious and more creatively fulfilling. you buy that? i think that's fair. i don't know whether that's fair. i don't know whether that still will remain true, because i think the creative surge in television right now is pretty extraordinary. the only worry that i would have about television is that it may burn itself out, because there's so much product nobody can keep up. i don't know a single person in the world who says, oh, no, i meant to see that i haven't caught up. the answer is they will never keep up got there something else to see. that is an incredibly satisfying for, i think, the long form, because you simply don't have to resolve it. i did a pilot for an american cable network show about the sex there of —— a sex therapist.

the studio ten to see the pilot and said, i don't understand what makes him behave the way he is behaving. we really need to know. and i said, that's a movie perspective. if you know the issues around the main character are within 20 minutes you haven't got a movie. whereas in television, you should simply be an packing that person probably over the whole of the first season, so that people then become powerfully engaged in what's going on. so movies can be a hard needle and thread, but when it works i think they can be powerful and they lodge themselves in people's minds in the way a television show can't moment for moment, powerful ally. will we on hardtalk only have 25 minutes, so iam afraid

on hardtalk only have 25 minutes, so i am afraid we have run out of time. john madden, thanks for an much. thank you. —— thanks very much. hello, there. we are looking at changes to our weather now. we've lost that cold easterly, the grey weather. something a bit milder coming from the south. but, in the next 2a hours and for the rest of this week, weather will be coming in off the atlantic. and that is what we're looking at, i think, overnight. some weatherfronts pushing up from the south, introducing more cloud around. some rain across central, northern areas, which will be clearing its way northwards. then we have two areas of rain pushing toward southern england by the end of the night. generally quite a misty, murky, cloudy night to come, but that will blanket in temperatures, so we should be looking at anything from 5—9

celsius, but some chilly spots in northern scotland to begin the morning. we have rain pushing toward south—west england and towards south wales. heavy bursts mixed into there. wouldn't be surprised if you heard a rumble of thunder, perhaps, through the morning. a mild start. elsewhere, dampness across the south—east, but generally cloudy for england and wales, and quite grey, misty and murky. a little bit of rain, some showers affecting the irish sea coasts. some of it pushing towards northern ireland and south scotland. central northern scotland, a cold start here, perhaps a touch of frost in northern glens. but, at least for you, you'll probably see the best of the sunshine through the day. same too for northern ireland. further south, the weather front pushes northwards and eastwards as the day wears on. and again, some of it could be heavy towards the midlands and towards the south—east,, potentially some heavy bursts for northern counties

of england, too. a mild feel to things here. a little bit cooler further north, but you've got the sunshine, so it will compensate. now, that weather front pushes towards the north. things turns dry for england and wales. winds turn light as well. a cool night, maybe mist and fog to start thursday morning. an area of low pressure will sweep to the north of scotland. this brings frequent showers to northern ireland and much of central northern scotland and fairly strong, blustery winds. but for england and wales, actually, quite a quiet day. with light winds, some sunshine, it will feel pleasantly mild, 11 or 12 celsius. the low pressure pushes towards scandinavia. the ridge of high pressure nudges in for friday. that means with light winds and damp air we could start the day on friday with some dense fog patches around. but they should generally clear and lift, to allow for sunshine to develop, certainly through friday afternoon. so this is friday in a bit more detail. we will start off with some dense mist and fog, particularly england and wales. through the day skies should tend to brighten up. feeling mild, temperatures in double figures. but notice out west there will be strengthening winds and outbreaks of rain. that takes us into the weekend, and for most of us, staying mild. there will be a little bit

of rain in the forecast, but for most of us it should stay dry. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: confusion surrounds the death of kimjung—nam — was the half—brother of the north korean leader poisoned by assassins? damage limitation at the white house as officials admit president trump knew there was a problem with michael flynn weeks before his resignation. a special report from the central african republic as rival militias drive the country towards anarchy and the un warns of a potential genocide. going home — over 200,000 people, evacuated from the area around america's tallest dam are told it's now safe to return to their houses.

hello.