its self—styled capital in syria. the flags of a us—backed militia are flying over the city. but scores of the jihadi militants are still being pursued amid its ruins. china's top officials are gathering in beijing for the start of the communist party congress, where the next five year plan is about to be revealed. and this story is trending on bbc.com: hollywood star reese witherspoon has alleged that she was assaulted by a director when she was just 16 years old. she said she was angry with the people in the film industry who had made herfeel that keeping quiet about what had happened was a condition of her employment. that's all from me now. and of course live coverage of the china peoples congress coming up. now on bbc news it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, with me, zeinab badawi.

as the world continues to follow the plight of the rohingya muslims in myanmar, condemnation has been put on the burmese authorities for not doing more to protect them from attacks from buddhist militants. my guest today is acclaimed swiss film director barbet schroeder, whose latest documentary is about an influential buddhist monk in myanmar who uses strong anti—muslim rhetoric in his speeches and writings. barbet schroeder has made the subject of evil the focus of many of his documentaries and films. he has worked in hollywood and europe and has been directing films for nearly 50 years. what has he learned about the nature of evil? barbet schroeder, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you. you said in 1990 that evil is more interesting than good. are you obsessed with evil? no, i'm not obsessed. as a filmmaker, i think it is more interesting because it gives complexities to the characters. and evil is human, unfortunately. it is a part of humanity. there is no other way. i don't believe it is coming from somewhere else. all the people that i've made portraits of as part of this trilogy, i think that about them too, i want to find out more about them and i didn't want to judge them. that was always the approach that i took. the trilogy, you are talking about the documentary made about idi amin, and jacques verges,

the french lawyer, and now ashin wirathu, the buddhist monk. the french lawyer, that was more about terrorism, because he was very close to carlos the jackal. but, yes, the idea is not tojudge those people to make them talk and to find out more about them. and eventually, you know, i don't have to say that, but still, give them enough rope to hang themselves. so did you do that, then, with wirathu, the monk in myanmar? well, he is very clever. he is very clever. he has done many interviews and when we were interviewing him he had his own crew filming us. that was a very strange situation. an example here, of the kind of thing he said to you in your documentary, when he is talking about the rohingya muslims,

"the main features of the african catfish are that they grow very fast, breathe very fast, and they are violent. they eat their own species and destroy the natural resources. the muslims are exactly like that fish." yes, this was so outrageous that i decided to have it as an opening statement from him. so the audience would understand what we are dealing with. i mean, when you say it's part of the culture, that he uses this kind of language, you also showed in your documentary that there were some very outspoken buddhist monks, who said, no, this is not what we understand buddhism to be about, we preach tolerance and we don't use this kind of rhetoric. of course, wherever you have that kind of prejudice, you have certain people who do not fall into that. you can observe that everywhere.

where you have fanaticism, or that kind of thing. do you think that the current actions we are seeing being meted out to the rohingya muslims by some buddhist militants is because they are muslim, or is it because they are seen as outsiders, that they are bengalis, that they belong to bangladesh, really, and not to myanmar? well, he started as an anti—islamic preacher. that was his beginning, in 1997. and then he went to jail for riots that took place in 2003 in his hometown, kyaukse. then he came out ofjail in 2012. and it is only in 2012 that the rohingya muslims came

into the picture. all the time before, he was calling to attention of the population the 2 million muslims, non—rohingyas, and that is the scary thing. even after 2012, he went out preaching in the centre of the country, not against the rohingya but against muslims. and the most horrible riots were organised at the time. you show also in your documentary that the persecution of the muslims, the fact that 300,000 of them were displaced back in 1978, decades ago — having been to myanmar, and studied what is going on there, why do you think that nothing is being done, nothing has been done in the decades that we know there was a problem? well, everybody mentions it,

and that is how i heard about it. there are many universities that have written big treatises like that, about a genocide that is in progress, that is going to happen. is that how you see it? that is what those reports were saying. when i found out that, and that those associated with that were buddhists, i said i must go and find out. this is something that i cannot accept and that i cannot understand. because buddhism is exactly the opposite. it is one of the treasures of humanity. that is what i wanted to find out. as we said, this is part of a trilogy. in fact, this year in may, your 1974 film on the late ugandan dictator idi amin was digitally restored and rereleased. and in that film, using your own

words, you made idi amin look "nice, silly and extraordinary." was that the right thing to do, an man who was responsible for the deaths of 300,000 people? well, that is the problem with my system. it is that i try to find out what is behind those people. and he was nice and silly, was he? silly, i didn't think, well... you know, maybe a little bit. nice? yes. this was a man who killed so many people. of course. but that is the whole point of my documentary, which is to find out that someone who is a killer, who is covered with blood, can have a charm, some form of innocence, and that is very unsettling.

you did say, regarding idi amin, he was less guilty than somebody like pinochet, the former military of chile, or any other dictator. there are certain types of people who know exactly what they are doing, like ceausescu, the former romanian dictator. yes, or bashar al—assad, or many. do you mean that idi amin didn't know exactly what he was doing? is that what you are saying? i am not sure he knew exactly. i am sure it was part of his energy. he was like... i don't know. he was very charming to anybody in front of him. really? because, i tell you what, one critic, david ehrenstein, he said when he watched a film about idi amin, "knowing that this silly clown has the power to kill, the laughter catches

in our throats." of course. that's the reaction you wanted? of course. the idea is that you're terrified and you're laughing at the same time. this is something very scary. yes. that was the reaction you wanted from your audiences? yes. looking at the other film in your trilogy, it was a study of acts of terrorism, seen through the eyes of the late french lawyerjacques verges who defended people like carlos the jackal, who was imprisoned for life for acts of terror, klaus barbie, known as the butcher of lyon, the nazi. did you work out what motivates people to commit acts of terror in that film? well, he tried to explain, in the movie, and the movie was studying very closely the beginning of terror, the beginning of blind terror in algeria.

it was a very oppressed colonial country and it was a very terrible war that was taking place there. and that is how they decided, the liberation movement, to start putting bombs in the cafes that had customers of white colonial french people who were living there for many years. so it was absolutely terrifying, the series of bombings. and they were done by young, extraordinary women, one of them jacques verges became the husband of, and so it was an interesting study to find out how this all happened. so, a study of acts of terror, but one viewer, steve dollar,

a critic, wrote in an article in the new york sun in 2008, what he took from this film of yours: "it is dangerous to approve of terror, and there is no real difference between that and the twin towers attack of september 11." that is exactly what i wanted to show in the movie. to start from something that is very — a good cause, and that can cause triumph, and a country becomes independent — and then you go on into the palestinians blowing up planes, and then you go on into the twin towers. it starts like that and it can end up like that. so that was an interesting progression to be aware of. but that is a blanket condemnation, then, that you wanted people to have

of acts of terror? because there are those who would argue that it puts the resistance fighters in algeria against their french colonial oppressors into the same category as those who blew up the twin towers. it is very difficult. it is very difficult, i would say... i don't know. you know, give you an example, obviously we know it was the most brutal war of independence in africa and more than a million algerians died, and even the former general, of the french secret service, paul aussaresses, wrote a book in which he admitted that the use of torture was tolerated if not recommended by the french. absolutely. so they committed terrible deeds. absolutely. and yet one may come away from watching your film, with the idea is you just said that the algerian resistance fighters, even if they resorted

to acts of terror, should be put in the same category as people like those who blew up the twin towers. no, they should be put in the same category as the torturers of the french army. they were practising daily torture on the algerians. you didn't want to focus on that in your film? no, because this was something different. you know, with this body of documentary filmmaking, you have made evil, obviously, a big focus for you in your works. are you any closer, now, to understanding the nature of evil and what makes human beings commit evil deeds? i came closer to the conclusion that there is a human aspect in evil that you cannot remove. that it's part of humanity. that's what i came —

that's the conclusion. and that we just have to live with it, there's nothing you can do to eradicate it? no, i don't see — i don't see, and when i see the buddhism, that is actually the most beautiful religion for me, it's like a treasure of humanity for me, the buddhism. and when i see that that can be perverted, then i think of christianism, that was also perverted. and that every religion can be perverted. and so evil can surge at any point, anywhere. even in the most peaceful religions. so even when it comes to making feature films, moving on from your documentaries, you say "a drama is never about good things happening to good people."

but surely, sometimes it is, and that's the premise that informs so many big successful movies. people want to go and eat the popcorn and watch a feelgood movie. right. well, i can say that the venerable w is a feel bad movie, that's for sure! and the feelgood movies are entertaining, but, you see, recently, i've seen many movies coming from hollywood that have budgets of more than $100 million that are very extraordinary because they are not the feelgood type of movies. there is one called mother. there is another one called dunkirk. there is another one called wonder woman, there is the planets of the apes. all those movies now, people say always this stupid thing

about big commercial american movies, but recently, all those movies that i mentioned, they are over $100 million budget, maybe $200 million in some cases. and they are not in that category. so there may be something changing, you never know. but they're based on fiction, i guess, aren't they? and your feature films, most of your movies at least are based on — inspired by real people you've known or you've met or well—known figures or events that actually took place, like amnesia, your last feature film in 2015, was loosely based on your mother's story, and it's a film about a german woman who goes, and escapes to the island of ibiza and has a love affair with a musician in a nightclub. the musician — he plays in a nightclub, but she doesn't meet him in the nightclub, no. no. the musician plays in a nightclub.

but why do you always have to make movies which are somehow based on reality? 0h, because that's the only thing that inspires me — to see the fiction at work in the reality. because the drama, the tragedy is always something that comes — that works in art, and i like to see those elements in the reality, because it's more interesting for me. so for example, one of your best—known films, reversal of fortune, for which the lead actor, jeremy irons, won an oscar, based on a 1980 case of the socialite class von bulow who was put on trial for apparently — but he was acquitted — of murdering his drug—dependent

wife. the film is totally ambiguous, talking about evil, we have exactly somebody that's absolutely charming and brilliant and, at the same time, maybe he's evil and the question is there up to the very end and it's part of the suspense of the movie and that's whyjeremy irons was able to do such a great performance, because there was this ambiguity at every second. 0k. does it matter then if a film based on truth, on fact, does it have to stay true to what actually happened? and i'm thinking of the latest movie, for example, victoria and abdul - queen victoria and the relationship she had with her indian muslim manservant, abdul. and is it important, do you think, that a film like that should be based totally on what really happened ? or can itjust use the facts as a springboard and imagine... if the names are used, of course you have to respect the truth. you cannot start inventing,

if the names are used. and we actually respected completely in that movie, reversal of fortune — every little detail was true. and it's important, you think, that any film it has a name like victoria and abdul and so on should really respect the truth of what actually happened? of course. otherwise you can invent whatever you want and use other names, yes. but your first big break in hollywood was in 1987 with the film barfly. and a very famous story about how you actually managed to get it funded and made. what happened was that one person decided that they were interested in the project. "0h, great!" we started negotiating. sure enough, he started to ask a million more of the producer. and i said, "you can't do that. i don't have the time to go to a lawyer." so my firm will be black & decker and i threatened to cut my finger in front of his office.

with a chainsaw. with a little, little thing to cut the ivory. but a little chainsaw from black & decker. and then, of course, it worked. it worked, definitely. so you threatened to cut off a bit of your little finger with this little saw? yes. i was totally anaesthetised. i didn't feel a thing. and it would have not have been a big problem. i don't play piano. i was not typing at the time. thankfully, you didn't have to do it. did it work — did the threat work? yes. but i was really ready to do it because i wanted to do this movie more than anything. i had worked for seven years trying to put together this movie. and you did, and it was a great success starring faye dunaway and mickey rourke. it still is. it's a cult, yeah.

but talking about hollywood culture and the kind of films that are made, there you were, a european swiss film director, trying to break into hollywood. is it very difficult, and is a very different now? it's changing, it's changing. you know, that's what i love. the cinema is taking new shapes, there is new ways of distribution, there's new ways of filming. everything is changing, and it's changing more and more, and more rapidly, and i don't belong to the group that says it was better before. i'm always trying to find out under what is the side that is better that could be better, that could be more interesting. but, you know, we tend to think of films that are made by european film talent as being, you know, less brash and less appealing to the mass media than the hollywood blockbusters and so on. i don't know.

i think that, for example, i can see a future where all those interesting movies are financed by something like amazon or netflix or all those new forms of financing, and they may exist through that instead of the system that was there before. it can take different shapes. finally, i don't know what you have planned in the works, but do you think that your body of work is really too pessimistic? might you consider doing a comedy or something in the future? i think that reversal of fortune is my first attempt of comedy, it's maybe a comedy of manners. but definitely, comedy is one of the hardest things to really do well, in an interesting way that lasts, and if i can do it, definitely. would you describe yourself as a pessimist? happy —a very happy pessimist,

a joyous pessimist, let's say! barbet schroeder, thank you very much indeed for coming on hardtalk. thank you. well, wednesday is expected to be quite a mixed day across the uk. there is certainly some rain in the forecast. the clouds have been gathering for the last 2a hours or so. some quite pretty pictures, gloomy pictures in places. here is one from dorset, and this is the weather front moving in from the south. here it is as it drifts in from the bay of biscay across france. and this is going to bring some quite wet weather for a time across southern and some central areas, particularly around the midlands, during the course of wednesday. so first thing in the morning, i think, from the southern counties through the south midlands, into the east midlands, there'll be some rain around. but many northern areas, northern england, northern wales, clear here. and, across the far north of scotland, even a touch of grass frost in one or two areas,

particularly in those sheltered glens. so let's have a look at the morning weather, then. this is 8:00am, and it really is looking very cloudy, very dull in many areas, temperatures around 11 or 12 degrees. and then we move a little bit further northwards, into northern wales, the north—west of england, around cumbria there, and into northern ireland. here, i think, some sunshine first thing in the morning. it is going to feel a lot fresher, so a much better start to the day. but, even here, notice that there are a few spots of rain through the lowlands, here in glasgow and edinburgh. this is really light, and we are back into the sunshine at 8:00am in the morning across most of yorkshire, and then back into that weather front across the midlands, east anglia, and down into the south—east. now, through the course of the morning, into the afternoon, what is going to happen with this weather front is it'll move a little bit further northwards. but it is also going to introduce some very muggy air, so it is not going to feel particular cold across the south. it is going to be sort of that damp, muggy, grey sort of feeling, with on—and—off light

rain or drizzle. you can see those temperatures, despite the cloud and the rain, getting up to 17 in london. but then the other side of this weather front here, further north, it is a lot fresher. it is only 13 degrees. here is a look at thursday. you can see it is relatively quiet, but cloudy, with a few spots of rain in eastern areas, but this weather front of low pressure moving in. and that is going to introduce some wet and windy weather to some of these south—western and western areas during the course of thursday evening. and then, on friday, that weather front and the low pressure is moving northwards across the uk. quite brisk conditions, windy conditions for a time. fresher there in scotland and northern ireland, at 13. still 16 in london. and then we are watching this next big area of low pressure heading our way. a lot of isobars, the track of the low still a little uncertain. it is probably going to go a little bit further north. but severe gales are on the cards, especially in the south. this is newsday on the bbc.

i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: celebrations as the so—called islamic state is driven out of raqqa, the syrian city isis once claimed as its capital. it's power politics, beijing style, as china's political elite prepare to unveil their vision for the future. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme: we have a special report on the people who have risked everything to escape from north korea. and the festival of diwali begins today in the world and in singapore. rico has promised a special surprise for me — we'll find outjust what he has in store.