- [announcer] funding for overheard with evan smith is provided in part by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation and hillco partners, a texas government affairs consultancy and by klru's producers circle, ensuring local programming that reflects the character and interests of the greater austin, texas community. - i'm evan smith. in no time flat, he's emerged as one of hollywood's most celebrated writers and directors. his critically acclaimed films include mud, midnight special, and most recently, loving, which earned an academy award nomination this year. he's jeff nichols, this is overheard. (upbeat music) (audience applauding) let's be honest, is this about the ability to learn or is this about the experience of not having been taught properly? how have you avoided what has befallen other nations in africa-- you can say that he's made his own bed, but you caused him to sleep in it. you know, you've sought a problem and over time, took it on and-- let's start with the sizzle before we get to the steak.

are you gonna run for president? i think i just got an f from you, actually. (laughing) this is over. (applauding) jeff nichols, welcome. - thank you for having me. - good to be with you. no shame in losing to emma stone, i suppose. - (laughs) right. - if you in fact, lost. for all we know, there's another card some place. (laughing) and ruth negga won. we can just assume, it's possible. - i did wake up this morning thinking if ruth had won, would loving have been announced as best picture winner? - oh god, that would've been great, huh? - i think there would've been less confusion. - let me say, i thought it was one of the best pictures of the year. i suspect you probably feel the same way, although you're partisan, as far as that goes. - i'm certainly partisan, but i'm also very self-deprecating, so in equal share, it all makes sense but-- - however it turns out, you're good. - i, pretty much, yeah. i'm very proud of this film, you know. - [evan] yeah, it's a big film. - i'm proud of this film in a way that even it separates from the others simply because it's not my story. it's richard and mildred's story. - well, it's vastly different than the others in many, many ways,

beginning with the fact that as you point out, it is not your story, it is a story ripped from the pages of history and from what i can tell, because i went back and was curious to see, well, how much was embellished? how much was condensed? you've told this story almost to a point, exactly as it went. - as best we could. - yeah, given the time constraints, right? - certainly. you know, we're covering nine plus years in two hours. i made a rule for myself, which was to not create anything that i couldn't point to fact. so, there are some things that were condensed, some things that were combined, but i have some reasoning behind each of them and i think the result is more than fair. - well, anybody who knows the history of this case, which as we sit here, the supreme court case was 50 years ago, as we sit here, so we're kind of at a milestone moment. anybody who knows the circumstances of that case, what led up to it, and the resolution of it, would look at this film and say, "this is pretty much the story." - sure.

- right, i mean, and that was at least, the other thing that's different i think is the tone of this film is different from the tone of your previous films. this is an understated film and your other films, for whatever the reason, were a lot bigger and louder and more action and this was more quiet in the telling. - well, for sure. i mean, each film has attached to a genre. i'm a fan of genre. i grew up in little rock watching movies at our local theater, so i grew up watching everything that hollywood had to produce. and so, it made a lot of sense in my early films to attach to genre and then, try to twist that genre or view it with some type of independent voice. when i got to loving, my voice didn't matter as much. i certainly have a style. i certainly have a wheelhouse, but i was trying to pay tribute to the integrity of richard and mildred loving. you know, to what they did. and that seemed to be the defining fact when i started to break down the story.

the tone, the pace, it-- - well, it matches their story. their story is actually a story of kind of quiet, persistent heroism. - [jeff] for sure. - they're not flashy people. what they did, they did not to get in the headlines, necessarily. they were just living their lives and in some ways, the tone of the film matches the tone of their actions or activities through this period, which is think is a very nice, you didn't turn them into people who they were not. - certainly not. i remember someone asked me the question, "do you consider them activists?" and i said, "no." and they were taken aback. i think they were slightly offended and i didn't have a chance to really explain myself, which was-- - this is pbs, all we have is time, so you go ahead and explain yourself. (laughing) - good, good. you know, was that they weren't activists in the traditional sense. they became activists by benefit of their place and by their choices, but they did not choose this position that they were put in.

it was thrust upon them. and they did accept it and in that sense, they are activists, but i thought it was very important that it be known, and this is my belief, the whole film is my interpretation of the events, but that it be known that they fell in love sincerely. they did not fall in love as a way to resist or to make a point. - this wasn't a stunt. - not at all. and i think it's important because of the way the audience receives the story. if they feel like they're being preached to, if they feel like these are two people that are trying to make them change their minds about something, rather race or equality of marriage, equality, whatever it is, then i think we identify with richard and mildred differently. the reason they're such beautiful people is that they really didn't have an agenda. they didn't care what you and i thought about them. they felt this one thing very deeply for themselves. - but to your point about, you know, they accepted their role in this,

but it was not the thing that necessarily motivated them. there's a scene in the film where mildred gets the phone call from the aclu attorney. she's written a letter to robert kennedy and robert kennedy has passed this on to the aclu attorney, who's played by nick kroll in this film. calls her and says, "look, i'd like to meet with you. "we'd like to represent you. "it's not gonna cost you anything. "i've got an office in washington." that turns out to be only partly true. "come see us." and she pauses before she answers and then, she eventually says, "okay, we'll come." and you see sort of, that's really the crucial moment. she might've decided, "actually, nevermind." and then, none of this happens. - for sure. - she made the decision, "nope, we're going to accept this. "we sort of set this in motion." and they go and even when they go to meet with him, they're kind of reluctant, you know. the joel edgerton character, loving, says, "well, can't you just go back to "the court in virginia and deal with this?" the scope and the magnitude of it is not lost on the aclu attorney, but they're not entirely sure that they want to go.

i love that because the genuineness and the authenticity of those characters is so evident in their ambivalence. - well, and it answers a big question, which is, how could these two people go down this path and think they could get away with it in the jim crow south of the 1950s and '60s? and the answer is, they didn't think they were important enough to be bothered or to bother anyone. - right, although, they knew, as it's been pointed out, not only in connection with your film, but it's been pointed out in the telling of the actual story, they went to washington to get married because they couldn't get married in virginia. they at least were aware of the barriers-- - richard was. - richard was, so the lives that they wanted to lead, so they went to washington to get married. then they return. - [jeff] correct. - the police bust in on them at night. the fact that they're legally married, in terms of washington d.c.'s-- - does not matter. - doesn't make a difference. - but there's an interesting point there, actually, and it's a fact that told me a lot about richard loving.

he hung his marriage certificate up. - up on the wall. - he framed it. and that was, you know, that story had been told by several people many times and that was a fact, that happened. who does that? you know, who hangs their marriage certificate up? and i think it was his view that he went to d.c., he got this piece of paper and, "we're good." i think that was his proof, you know, 'cause he was preparing for the worst. little did he know, you know, the intricacies of the law was, well, actually, if you leave the state to get married and return, that's actually the law that you've broken. so, it was actually the proof of his guilt, according to the law, but it says something about a guy that he understood that legally, "there might be trouble here, "so i've got my certificate, i'm gonna take care of it." and it was his undoing. - well, but from his perspective, as the saying has become commonplace these days, love is love, right? from his perspective, that was it.

and the relationship is so nicely portrayed by the actors in this film. joel edgerton is loving and ruth negga, who got the oscar nomination as mildred, they are themselves as understated as the film is. maybe the film is understated because their performances are understated. and how amazing that you have an actor born in new south wales, australia and an ethiopian irish actress playing credibly, southerners. - right. - american southerners. - right. - how much voice coaching or accent coaching did you have to subject to to get them to be-- - there was a lot, but you know, that became of part of the decision. so, when i wrote mud, i wrote that in matthew mcconaughey's voice, even-- - intending for him to be the guy, even though you had not got him. - i didn't know him. - did not have him for the film. - i wasn't important enough to be connected to him, but i did that and when we were on set and he spoke those lines for the first time, it was this, it was just a wonderful moment because it's what i had heard in my head for so long.

when i wrote richard and mildred loving, i was writing the real people. i had this documentary footage, this archival footage that was unearthed and i could hear 'em, i could see them move and so, i needed to find richard and mildred and you know, ruth was the first person to audition for this part. - she had not had a particularly long career as a leading actress in films or-- - i had no clue who she was. - she had done some stuff but i actually went back and looked her up because i was so interested in who she was. - she'd had a bigger presence in the uk. - but not here, not known to audiences in this country. - certainly not. and so, she walks in, we were in la. francine maisler's my casting director. she's big time, she's really important. and ruth was the first person she brought in. and ruth walks in and immediately, i say, "well, that's unfortunate. "she's just too short." because mildred was quite tall. in fact, they called her string bean because of it. and i thought, "well, i'll just listen anyway. "we'll give her a shot." and her posture changed and her face changed

'cause mildred would always do this thing with her lips where she would purse her lips and i thought, (snaps) "that's interesting." and then, this voice came out that she had already had built. little did i know, she had spent, i think, the last 48 hours locked in a hotel room just listening to mildred over and over and over again. - [evan] oh wow. - and she just, she had mildred built as a person, as a character, as a voice. and then, joel and i had been working on midnight special together and i got to see the mechanics that ruth had applied in that hotel room behind the scenes, i got to see joel do that in front of me in midnight special. he was playing a texas state trooper and you know, i live here. - you know what a state trooper sounds like. - i'm a fair judge and we did this really cool thing with joel. he likes to have a real world example to build his accent off of, even though that was a fictitious character. so we watched the thin blue line by errol morris, which is the documentary-- - right, the randall dale adams story. - exactly, outside of dallas. and there was a detective from vidor, texas

that had this great natural texas accent. so we pulled all of his words and i would hear joel before a take in midnight special and he'd be reciting the thin blue line, which i know backward and forward, and he would get into this voice and then go. and so, i knew that i had enough of richard loving speaking, just barely, 'cause he never spoke very much, that joel could probably build this voice and so, with hindsight, it makes sense that you would actually cast foreign actors when you're not just trying to get an accent right, you're trying to get the way these two people spoke very specifically and you have examples of it. - well, they did extraordinary work at that and of course, you say you've worked with joel before, he's a terrific actor, he was wonderful in midnight special. this is a jeff nichols film, so by law, michael shannon has to be in it. (laughing) - he is. - and so, he was briefly in this film. the casting of it was great. actually, bill camp, who was also in midnight special, right? - midnight special. was incredible. - was in it. people now know better from the night of, the detective in the night of--

- and should know even more. i think he's one of the greatest actors. - well, you have a really good eye for actors and actresses. why has it been so good for you or so successful for you? you've built very quickly, like a repertory company almost. - certainly and i plan to use them for a very long time, if i'm lucky. it started with michael shannon and you know, i'll take some credit for it. you know, mike, i witnessed for the first time on a video cassette from a professor of mine in college had been at the sundance labs. and the sundance labs is a workshop where you have a script that you're workshopping and you videotape scenes from it. well, my professor in college, gary hawkins, wanted to show me some of his scenes, kinda show off what he'd done. but michael shannon had been there at that workshop acting and i just was like, "who is that? "who's that guy?" and he's like, "oh, that's mike." and so, i wrote shotgun stories for him, very much like writing mud for mcconaughey, even though i didn't know the guy. and luckily, he showed up and shotgun stories's my first film he was the lead in.

and honestly i think, since then-- - he took a chance on a new director, did he not? - oh, 100%. i remember he asked me, you know, "well, do you have any short films i could see?" and i had made four of them in college. and i said, "no, they're not good enough." and he still showed up, you know. it was a miracle. but, i think mike's an actor's actor, whatever that means. i think actors respect him and that has led me down this path to work with really terrific actors. i remember jessica chastain, one of the big draws she told me about for take shelter was working with mike, you know? so i don't discount the fact that he's given me some credibility. - well, it's impressive that you have these people who are so much in your films and in your life and they've been as much a part of making these movies successful as anything else and they've come to be associated with you. you know a jeff nichols film now when you see one, which is great. you have a distinct thing. does the fact that this film, loving, was based in the south and is around the idea of civil rights,

tie back in any way to the fact that you grew up in the south? you grew up in little rock. you went to central high school in little rock, which is where school desegregation, you know, draw the line back, it's a historic school. did that speak to you personally? is that why you ended up gravitating to this story? - um, certainly, you know, i graduated in-- - could a non-southerner have made this film, i guess? - sure. but i wouldn't have liked it as much. (laughing) - yeah, i bet. - you know, i graduated in '97 and the desegregation crisis at central happened in '57. we were inundated with civil rights history. but when this story comes to me in 2012, i never heard of it. so, i never heard of richard and mildred loving and that, i was confused by that. i was disappointed in my knowledge gap, but more importantly, in regard to my career and the idea of race in the south and race in storytelling about the south,

i had purposefully avoided it. and the reason was because i had been reading a ton of larry brown and harry crews and flannery o'connor and william faulkner and i felt like i wanted to tell a contemporary southern story that wasn't simply about race and it's very hard in the south because race is such an issue. if you have a black character and a white character, all of sudden, that's going to start to absorb the trajectory of the story. in mud, for instance, that happened to be a community where on that river, i actually just, we didn't encounter a lot of black people and a lot of black characters, so it made sense for that. but, i always knew i needed to address the topic of race. i always knew i wanted to. i always knew it was integral to the fabric of the south, but how do i do it? how do i make a comment of it? how do i, a middle class white kid born in 1978, talk about this?

what do i have to say that someone else couldn't say better and with a better point of view? when loving came to my attention, it felt like the right story. it felt like the right time. i identified greatly with richard loving. he reminded me very much of my grandfather, who obviously was not in an interracial relationship, but was very much this type of man and i could see how painful it would be for that type of man to have to annunciate his love for his wife in public. that just seemed like a tortuous thing for someone like my grandfather and definitely someone like richard. it felt like this was the time. it also felt like a comment on marriage equality. it felt like a way to talk about race without having to be an expert on the civil rights movement, even. i just really needed to be an expert on the relationship between these two people

and the love they felt for one another. - and you said 2012 was when this story came to you first. - [jeff] yes. - so, 2012 was very different from 2016 or 2017, in terms of the conversation we're having about both race and marriage equality in this country. in many respects, this film comes out at a moment that is perfect to be contemplating these issues, not because we knew it would be, but just because of the circumstances or the accident of politics. now suddenly, this is, it's a hot issue. - well, it's been fascinating for me. we premiered in cannes in may of 2016 and that was one conversation. and then, by the time we kind of, were launching into our fall awards campaign and release in november, we're in another version of that conversation because in may, there was so much aggression and the conversation around the black lives matter movement that then you have the shootings in dallas and baton rouge of the police officers,

i think everyone, it just woke everyone up to the power of this conversation, how important it is. - and the lack of resolution after all this time, right? - 100% and how we, as a society, need to figure out a language to talk about it. - i want to, in the remaining time we have left, ask you about how you got into the business of directing films. not a lot of people come out of college and have the success, relatively quickly, that you did. when did you first know that you wanted to do this? and when did you know that you could do it? - those are different things, yeah. i went straight out of high school into film school. there was, north carolina school of the arts, which now is university of north carolina school of the arts and it was a small program. they had only graduated one class by the time i got there. i had never been on a film set. growing up in arkansas, i just didn't have much access to-- - you went to the movies, you were a film fan, but you know, this is not the family business.

- no, my dad owns a furniture store and i had no clue of the process of making a film and there was a very important film that got made after my second year, called george washington by a filmmaker named david gordon green. - david gordon green, right. - and that came out around 2000 before i graduated and was a big indie success, you know, especially from our standards. and i watched david. he's a great guy and still a friend and was a producer on my first film. really kicked down the door from our point of view. he was one of us and i looked at that film and i looked at how he did it and i said, "that's what i want to do." new york and la kind of freaked me out. i'm scared to go there and get caught up in a system. i want to go home to arkansas and make a movie and i used george washington, less as a stylistic example, but more as a business model. and so, i had in my mind that i wanted to

make a film by the time i was 25, partly because that's when citizen kane was made by orson welles and partly because i knew that filmmaking was a selfish endeavor, that if i one day had a wife and had a kid, it would just get harder and harder and harder because i don't mind eating ramen, but it's hard to force your kids to do it. (laughing) and so, i really was on this trajectory of making something. the problem was there was some knowledge gaps. after leaving film school, i was in the directing program, which was you know, kind of a coveted slot at film school but they didn't teach me any practical producing skills and oddly enough, no one wanted to show up to arkansas to make my movie for me. (laughing) and so, i ended up moving down to austin and was very fortunate to get a job with margaret brown, the filmmaker making a documentary about townes van zandt, which is extraordinary. - be here to love me. - be here to love me, if you guys haven't seen it. - a terrific film. - and working with her kind of filled in some practical knowledge gaps, how to budget, how to schedule,

how to order film, process film, and that gave me enough confidence to go back to arkansas to produce my first film. - i love the idea that you apprenticed for somebody who is herself probably apprenticed for somebody. there's a pay it forward aspect to this, isn't there? - well, that's how the business used to be. - that's why it's such a nice change from the-- - it is. - go go times that we live in right now. - yeah, get a digital camera and go make a film and then they'll give you a superhero movie. (laughing) i'd like to think i've been just unsuccessful enough to be allowed to craft five films the way that i really-- - right, but clearly it's changing. once your film is nominated for an oscar, once you yourself are a plausible nominee as best director, which you most certainly were in this last year, your ability to do you want both grows, but is also constrained because it gets derailed a little bit into something more conventional, right? more of a hollywood thing. now suddenly, people are saying to you, where's the, but i seem to remember a couple years ago, there was a rumor that you were gonna

direct an aquaman movie, is that right? - yeah, well, you know, i was at warner bros. making midnight special at the time that they were activating their dc universe so it was hard not to be a somewhat capable director on the lot and not be asked about the dc universe. - "would you like to do a superhero movie?" - yeah and so they asked me, they were like, "what would you like to do?" and i was like, "i think aquaman's really cool." (laughing) - so there was actually something to that. - yeah, we talked about it, you know? but it just didn't develop. again, i had been given such an opportunity over four films to have a voice of my own. that was a really plug and play kind of job where zack snyder was building this universe through the batman v superman film and into justice league, i would've had to jump on a moving train. - on the other hand, it's a hell of a paycheck. right, i mean, you're thinking about the independent film directors whose success has basically been one for me, one for them, one for me, one for them. in some ways, you do one of those films and you enable yourself to do the films-- - i need a one for them. (laughing) i'm due. - if anybody's paying attention. - i know.

i need a one for them. - ant-man 2, jeff might actually be happy to come and do ant-man 2. - but, you know, i've always had that. after take shelter had a lot of success out of sundance, although it wasn't a huge financial success, critically, it was very well received and you know, they offered me a big movie remake and it's so funny, they thought i was negotiating, but i said, "well, i have this movie, mud, "i've been trying to make for 10 years." i'm like, "i'll make that." and they just kept upping the paycheck until i had an offer in front of me that was for a million dollars. and i remember looking at my wife and saying, "honey, they're actually "gonna offer me a million dollars to do this "and i'm gonna go take dga minimum "to go direct this other film." and she's like, "of course you are." - well, you married the right person. - and that's why we're married. (laughing) - yeah, that's good. we have about a minute left. you're writing your next film. - i am and it's one for them. - you want to tell us what it is? is it really one for them, it is really? - well, i'm actually writing three things right now. i'm writing an animated children's film, which everybody in texas will know about

but i'm not gonna talk about right now. and then, fox called me and asked me to do a big sci-fi film and i said, "i don't want to do that sci-fi film "but i've been thinking about a big one on my own." - this is another one of these kids with laser beam eyes again? - no. (laughing) no, not exactly. there are aliens in it. there are aliens in it, but it's-- - [evan] don't ruin it for us. - it's a film about refugees so there's some political consequences to that. - and then, the third one? - the third one's, that one's even further out. i've been trying to write this 1960s biker film for a long time. - okay, so you're working. - yeah, i'm working. - we don't have to be concerned about you having to go back to eating ramen. - ahh, well, not yet. - okay, good. congratulations, old friend. happy to see you succeed as you deserve it. let's give jeff nichols a big hand. thank you very much. (audience applauds) we'd love to have you join us in the studio. visit our website at klru.org/overheard to find invitations to interviews, q&as with our audience and guests,

and an archive of past episodes. - i was able to get final cut on midnight special, but you know, if the sci-fi film i write turns out to be $100 million film, there's no chance. - [evan] that you're gonna get final cut. - yeah, you don't even ask. and in a way, i don't even want it. it's kinda like no, i want everybody, if you're gonna spend that much money, i want everyone to be signed off on this. - [announcer] funding for overheard with evan smith is provided in part by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation and hillco partners, a texas government affairs consultancy and by klru's producers circle, ensuring local programming that reflects the character and interests of the greater austin, texas community. that reflects the character and interests

steves: i'm meeting my florentine friend tommaso at i fratellini, a venerable hole in the wall much loved among locals for its tasty sandwiches and wine sold by the glass. -grazie. -tommaso: thank you. and when you're done, you leave it on the rack. steves: boy, it's intense in the city. tommaso: yes, it is. well, if you want to leave the tourists, let's cross the river, and let's go to where the real florentines live and work. -steves: what's that? -tommaso: the oltrarno area. steves: there's much more to this town than tourism, as you'll quickly find in the characteristic back lanes of the oltrarno district. artisans busy at work offer a rare opportunity to see traditional craftsmanship in action. you're welcome to just drop in to little shops, but, remember, it's polite to greet the proprietor. your key phrase is, "can i take a look?" -posso guardare? -man: certo. steves: grazie. here in this great city of art, there's no shortage of treasures in need of a little tlc. this is beautiful. how old is this panting?

woman: this is a 17th-century painting. steves: from florence? woman: we don't know. -maybe the area is genova. -steves: genova. each shop addresses a need with passion and expertise. fine instruments deserve the finest care. grand palaces sparkle with gold leaf, thanks to the delicate and exacting skills of craftspeople like this. a satisfying way to wrap up an oltrarno experience is to enjoy a florentine steakhouse, which any italian meat lover knows means chianina beef. the quality is proudly on display. steaks are sold by weight and generally shared. the standard serving is about a kilo for two, meaning about a pound per person. so, both of those for four people? woman: yes. steves: the preparation is simple and well established. good luck if you want it well done. man: i am hungry, yeah.

oh, look at this. ah! steves: oh, beautiful. [ laughs ] man: wow. steves: chianina beef. -woman: white beans. -steves: okay. perfect. man: and that one. steves: so, the meat is called chianina. tommaso: that's its name, because it comes from the chianti. steves: oh, from chianti. okay. and tell me about this concept of the good marriage of the food, you know? tommaso: well, when you have the chianina meat, you want to have some chianti wine, and they go together well. they marry together. we say, "si sposano bene." steves: si sposano bene. a good marriage. in other words, the wine is from tuscany, -and the meat is from tuscany. -tommaso: exactly. you don't want to have a wine from somewhere else. that's it.