tavis: good evening. from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. tonight a look at the anticipated movie "game change" this director jay roach. it focuses on the 2008 presidential campaign and the drama that said -- that was the john mccain-sarah palin ticket. advisers are already criticizing her trail in the film. "game change" exist debut on hbo on march 10. we are glad you have joined us. a conversation with jay roach coming up right now. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it's the cornerstone we all know. it's not just a street or boulevard, but a place where

walmart stands together with your community to make every day better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. tavis: jay roach is one of the most successful filmmakers of our time, with a long list of films like "austin powers" and "meet the parents." he has once again teamed up with hbo for a new film called "game change." it takes a look at one of the most historic presidential campaigns and all of u.s. history. it premieres march 10 on hbo.

here is a scene. >> we cannot win without are based. -- our based. . >> who can we win with? >> none of them. >> obama changed the dynamic. it is a change year. we need a game changing pick. none of these middle-aged white guys are game changers. tavis: sarah palin was the answer? >> she was, she was for them at that time. she was a bold choice. they needed something bold. obama was surging in the polls. mckean had been up and down. they had tried the idea of to lieberman. everybody thought that would be bold but everyone -- that leaked it was an idea. the far right spoke out and made

it clear that would not fly. they had to make another bold choice at the last minute with not a lot of from time to figure out if it would work. tavis: i do not think there is anything i don't already know or anything i would want to know about sarah palin that i have not already heard. how do you put together a project about somebody who we have watched and are still watching in real time and expose us to something about her we do not already now? >> and two parts to that, everybody is probably more interesting in private or the parts of their lives you do not get access all of the time than a public, iconic persona that gets invented. we were determined to to learn as much about her from her own

books. i listened to both of them. she reads them out aloud. i talked to everybody i could to get access to the person and try to show some aspect of her that people would not have expected. on one side for people who might dismiss her. she is an amazing person. she was a popular governor. she fought corruption. she had five kids. one of them went to iraq. teenage daughters. then she stepped in and did as well they she did at the beginning of the campaign. i knew there was more layers to heard then i could show for that side. for the other side, she went through a tremendous, a dramatic phase going into the debate. not a lot of people knew about

it. the other thing was i wanted to make a film that was not so much about sarah palin but the guys and john mccain, who made that choice, watched it work for a while and then watched it did more complicated and had to figure out how to keep it going. i tried to center it on -- it is larger than her in a thematic way. it is asking questions about what works and what might not work about our political process. tavis: to your point, what is the value of being immersed in a tv movie about a team of people, it is not just about sarah palin, about an individual, and about a promise that was

terrific. i am trying to get a sense of, what is the take away from seeing something we know was a blunder its effort -- blunderous effort? >> i do not know all that much about politics. i throw myself into these things because i am curious. i think i know a certain amount and then i sense there is more to it. i have questions. i love this country. i believe in democracy. i think it is the best system to run a civilization. it depends on a certain faith in the process. or a certain legitimate days and -- legitimate authority. i do not know if it might be

losing some sort of a sense of effectiveness the way it is working. how did these guys make this decision? what does this say about the when is it all approach to politics that has become the strategy for elections? shouldn't we be able to do it better? shouldn't there be multiple choices of excellent leaders in every election? has it gotten to the place where it is a cult of personality where it is not about issues, you know what i am saying. is this working the way it is supposed to work? whichever party you are on. both parties have questions. if not, where does it go off the rails? no matter what you think about sarah palin or john mccain, this

went off the rails. it became a very contentious campaign. everybody inside the campaign, it is not about anybody else than those people. i just wanted to get in there and be on a fly on the wall. tavis: i want to ask you a question but to tell you the answer you cannot give me. there is no villain. you cannot tell me there is no villain. who is the villain? i ask because, to my mind, agree or disagree, love or hate sarah palin, she was picked. somebody picked her to be their running mate. john mccain has a team of the divisors lange out the possibilities for him. some -- a team of advisors laying out the possibilities for

him. we have to. to somebody for some ases am -- cynicism. >> there were a number of people who thought this was a great idea. what is fascinating, i agree with you. not only did somebody pick, we enable our political system to way -- to work. we are a people who governs itself by the choices we make. the people who are involved in politics are chosen by people we have chosen. john mccain was elected. sarah palin was elected. we are all in it together in terms of plane and keeping it going as effective as we do. what is fascinating about this story is one of the guys, probably the main guy who

fought the hardest to get her on the ticket, steve schmidt, started thinking, this is a great idea. this is how weak and trump obama. -- we can trompe obama. a few months afterwards, he goes on "60 minutes" and implies he made a mistake. he takes blame for being part of it. that arc, of a guy who was a main proponent and a couple of weeks later said, if she runs in 2012, it will be a catastrophe. he has said, he says a more directly nowadays, he wonders if it was too big of a risk. possibly even a reckless choice, especially when you think how

little of vetting they did. whatever you think of her comment to take someone in who had never been on the national stage. half of a few interviews and say yes, she should be the person next in line after john mccain. tavis: i have been fascinated to watch this year's presidential race. one of the things to the benefit of sarah palin is that she, to my mind, has been the victim of sexism. we've lived in a patriarchal world. a sexist country. some of the push back has been -- and because she is a woman. hillary clinton got some of the same stuff. rick perry in a male's body

proved to the same thing that sarah palin proved which is even though your governor, you can be in over your head when it comes to national politics. it is clear that she is not in over her head because she is a woman or governor. you can be over your head. i ask this question, what did you learn about how so over her head she was? how can the people in alaska have ever elected her? the same thing about rick perry. >> i only know about her and i do not know anything about rick perry. in alaska, she was very popular. 80% popularity, had taken on the oil companies and one tax rebates to everybody in the

state. $1,200 per person because she had raised taxes on an oil company. she fought corruption, was very popular. that was the world within she was functioning. i think once she was shoved onto the national stage without much time at all, and with a new baby with down syndrome, a son going to alaska, two teenage daughters, one pregnant, and also carrying the state and being thrown into this, i think it would have been a lot to expect her to suddenly ready for that kind of spotlight, those kind of attacks. i take your. and i related with her or empathized with four. -- with her. people accused her of pretending

the daughter's baby was hers. saying horrible things. many of them unfair. she was also surfing the chaos of being constantly attacked. i think they are separate things. separate jobs. it came on to her so fast i do not think there was any time to be more ready than she was. >> the movie does not shy away from the other part of the answer, her attitude, her intellect, or lack thereof. >> it does not show her as being in any way an intelligent. tavis: jay, you. at the map and say this is germany. >> we show her being very eager. we know this is true. she accumulated knowledge.

writing down every single thing. that is all we show her about germany. we showed she was not that knowledgeable according to the people we talk to about international affairs. she went through a phase of multiple interviews where that came out. she was not that well prepared. they figured that out 48 hours into the campaign. they were stunned. they did not catch that that she did not have a lot of exposure to international issues. they hustled and brought in experts and try to get her to cram a lot of information. again, she went on to interview shows and struggled but she was amazing in to the bureau straight speeches. -- two straight speeches. given time, who knows?

my point about the movie is not judging that. i do not know what let to those performances. i do now that the campaign put themselves in a position to make those decisions about bringing someone onto the ticket in that timeframe, which was rushed. everybody else was a six-eight weeks. many lawyers. they had some any secrecy issues they had to restrict the team doing the research to a few people who did not go to alaska. they did not ask people who might have negative things to say. or just not -- did not do a thorough that. -- vet. tavis: my view is you guys went soft on john mccain. it comes across that everybody around him gave him bad advice. he is a war hero and a senator

for more years than i can count. you know, this is john mccain leader, the buck stops with me. we are supposed to believe that people around him let him in this direction? >> i think they did. i think they helped him get to the place as you saw in that scene. that was very close to what we think actually happened, almost word for word. they were in a pickle. they said you can go and lose or try this bold thing and maybe we will lose but at least we went for it. they made it so that there was no other way to win. we definitely show he made the decision. there is a key scene toward the end of the film when steve schmidt says i need your help. i need to figure this out. he said i am not -- i think it

is a moment tough on him. i just got off the phone with another journalist saying we did not show him as a film with humor. everyone has their view. there is a debate about that. i think that is what a film should trigger. i am happy to see that people have different opinions. all we could do was ask everybody we could possibly find to what really happened. how did it feel. we could not get access to john mccain or sarah palin. i tried personally to get access. i wanted to find the layers that people did not see. tavis: she has found you. >> she did not want to get involved but for people very much want to have some say. tavis: what to make of the push

back? >> it is hard to be objective because, our research is so thorough. we based this on a book, "game change." they worked very closely with us in preparation, making the film. we were very closely consulting with them. we trusted their research to get it right. our mantra was we just have to get it right. it has to be a true story. if you are in the audience and you will be taking -- taken out of it if something is fake, i stand by that level of research. i screenwriter on this, just like on "recount," interviewed

everybody again to confirm the stories. we are confident that we are telling it as close as you can to what actually happened. tavis: because you are a filmmaker, let me talk about the cast. kudos to your casting director. can you put a picture of julianne moore in your film next to a picture of sarah palin. it is hard. talk to me about woody harrelson and julianne moore. >> she took on the challenge of this, the scrutiny she knew she would be under. really stepping into the spotlight. we were all concerned that it be as close to her as possible without being an in person nation or character.

-- impersonation or caricature. she tried to go into sarah palin's head and find out what did she care about. how did it feel to be tossed out on that stage, to be attacked as viciously as a lot of members of the press attacked her. what were the anxieties she faced, having to prep for the debate? that is one of the most revealing sections which we double, triple checked. she really got that down before the debate and was almost shut down? i had a number of people say it was even worse than you are showing. i relate with her. i have had to step into summer in places where i feel over my head.

she was not surrounded by people she felt she could trust. it was that difficult of a campaign. there was that much animosity between people who had been with john mccain. tavis: i have never figured out how it is that anyone let's themselves getting into something they know they're not prepared for. so much of life is knowing your limitations and abilities. to think you can do x when you're not prepared. >> if you waited to fill prepared, you might not do anything. about there talking president, it is different then hosting a show on pbs. >> you are right. she was saying, we think she will be ready. one of the scariest lines, a lawyer says, she might be able

to get ready by the time she needs to get ready. that is the level of risk, i is it really worth taking that much of a risk? with the country's well-being to guess whether she could get ready in time. tavis: i want to close talking about risk. why, after "recount," you knew this box was going to be opened up. why take the risk? there are thousands of movies you could be doing. >> again, i had questions. i believe in the system but i look around and say, our country started as such an idealistic place. it was such a noble experiment. it took an incredible leadership to pull it off. it has taken an incredible leadership to keep it going and

overcome a civil war, the wars we have dealt with, 9/11, we have kept going. is the political process as effective as we want it? whichever party you are in. the recent primary is one more step. it does not look like it is as statesman-like or as much about a policy. tavis: that is a generous to read. >> i believe everybody is doing the best they can given what they have. that may be too generous but i want it to be better. i ask questions, i want to raise them for myself. i want to learn about the issues and i hope people will say, yes, where are all the great

choices? tavis: i am glad you do it and you do it well. "game change" premiere on hbo on march 10. directed by jay roach. that is our show for tonight. until next time, keep the faith. >> senator, i am honored to be chosen as your running mate. [applause] it was noted in denver that hillary clinton left 18 million cracks in the highest class ceiling in america. but it turns out the women of america are not finished. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley.

join me next time for a conversation with joe scarborough preview of the primaries. that is next time. we will see you then. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it's the cornerstone we all know. it's not just a street or boulevard, but a place where walmart stands together with your community to make every day better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> be more. pbs. >> be more. pbs.