Speaker 1: Hi Katie, Hi Brian. Did you have a nice Thanksgiving?
Speaker 1: I had a lovely Thanksgiving. You know why why I
Speaker 1: didn't cook a damp thing. We went to a restaurant
Speaker 1: and ate everything from soup to nuts. How lazy am I?
Speaker 1: How was your Thanksgiving? Brian? It was very good. You know,
Speaker 1: my family cook so the turkey was dry, but the
Speaker 1: pie was good. Old I've never had a voice turkey.
Speaker 1: Actually no, I mean I think we should have like
Speaker 1: a Thanksgiving ham or something. I'd like to I'd like
Speaker 1: to Thanksgiving rip ros myself like a prime rib. Anyway,
Speaker 1: but it is an opportunity to kind of have a
Speaker 1: little time off and to give thanks in all sincerity
Speaker 1: for our blessings and that our bously, our family, our
Speaker 1: friends are good fortune and you Brian, and this podcast
Speaker 1: and today I'm exceptionally thankful that I get to talk
Speaker 1: to Hugh Jackman, Matt Bye and Jake Carson. Did they
Speaker 1: sound like afterthoughts? Well? Maybe because a jack. Hugh Jackman,
Speaker 1: of course, has a new movie out called The front Runner,
Speaker 1: all about Gary Hart's ill fated campaign and what happened
Speaker 1: to him in three weeks back in seven when it
Speaker 1: looked like he was going to win his party's nomination
Speaker 1: for president of the United States. But it was when
Speaker 1: everything changed, not only for Gary Hart, but for the
Speaker 1: media and for our country. And we should provide a
Speaker 1: little bit of background. Gary Hart was a Democratic senator
Speaker 1: from Colorado. He had run unsuccessfully for president once before.
Speaker 1: Everybody sort of assumed he was going to be the
Speaker 1: leader of the pack. But then the media started digging
Speaker 1: around his personal life and that was kind of the
Speaker 1: beginning of the end for his effort. I'm going to
Speaker 1: show you, Senator, this is relevant. It's just that we
Speaker 1: saw you leave and come back with this woman, and
Speaker 1: we wouldn't see her. No one is staying in my home.
Speaker 1: There's no need for that, right, I am serious, sir.
Speaker 1: How long have you known this? One kind of question?
Speaker 1: What kind of questions are? Is she a friend? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know why I would tell you that, Tom,
Speaker 1: I am not going to you produce her to corroborate
Speaker 1: what you're saying. You have to produce anything. This has
Speaker 1: gone on along. We know you've made calls to this
Speaker 1: woman from Kansas and New Hampson every day. I don't
Speaker 1: see how I remember at your announcement speech. Okay, you said,
Speaker 1: you said, we weld ourselves the highest possible standards of
Speaker 1: integrity and ethics. Then why are we standing here now?
Speaker 1: Hugh Jackman did not do this on his own. It's
Speaker 1: based on a book written by Matt, by one of
Speaker 1: our favorites. We worked together when we were both at
Speaker 1: Yahoo News. Matt is still there is the National Political Columnists.
Speaker 1: So this movie is based on his book called All
Speaker 1: the Truth Is Out, The Weak Politics Went Tabloid. We're
Speaker 1: also joined by another one of my favorites, Jay Carson.
Speaker 1: Jay Carson helped adapt Matt's book into the screenplay along
Speaker 1: with director Jason Rightman. James had a pretty interesting career himself.
Speaker 1: He's only a senior advisor at Bloomberg Philanthropies. He's worked
Speaker 1: on a lot of big political campaigns. You and I,
Speaker 1: I think first got to know him ten years ago
Speaker 1: when he was the traveling press secretary for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: That's right. Fun fact. Ryan Gosling played the character based
Speaker 1: on j in the two thousand thirteen movie The Odds
Speaker 1: of March As I'm looking at you, Brian, Ryan Gosling
Speaker 1: could play you in the movie All About Our Podcast.
Speaker 1: You know, find a nickel for every time somebody said
Speaker 1: that's me, Katie, I'm you know, I'm confused for Hugh
Speaker 1: or for Ryan particularly Shirt. Anyway, we decided we were
Speaker 1: going to have a long conversation with them about politics,
Speaker 1: the media, about Gary Hart, and how you really take
Speaker 1: a story that happened in nine seven and make it
Speaker 1: relevant today. So we started out by asking Matt why
Speaker 1: he wanted to write a book about this chapter in
Speaker 1: American politics in the first place. There are just stories.
Speaker 1: I know you've had this experience, kidding, They're just stories.
Speaker 1: They grab you, they don't really let you go. I'm
Speaker 1: not a person who has a million ideas I want
Speaker 1: to live with for a long time. In fact, this
Speaker 1: might be the only one. But you know, I had
Speaker 1: met Gary Hart at the end of two thousand two
Speaker 1: when I was in New York Times magazine. I'd written
Speaker 1: about him. I'd been found myself really compelled both by
Speaker 1: him and his story and also about the things I've
Speaker 1: missed about his story. I mean, the more I looked
Speaker 1: into it, the more I found that some things were
Speaker 1: just so misremembered about it, even things I'd repeated. Honestly,
Speaker 1: they just weren't right. And I think to myself as
Speaker 1: a journalist. If we've if we've just put something in
Speaker 1: a box and we've we've collectively misremembered it. Why you know, what,
Speaker 1: what why why do you do that? You don't do
Speaker 1: that for no reason. You overlook something for a reason.
Speaker 1: And I really began to look into it, decided I
Speaker 1: wanted to do the book, which really people did think
Speaker 1: was a crazy idea except for Jay, my wife, you
Speaker 1: know people. But you know by um, you know, the
Speaker 1: book came out in and you know, I should imagine
Speaker 1: because we started talking about um, all of us behind
Speaker 1: the movie, but you know, the driving force behind the
Speaker 1: movies Jason Reitman, our director and co writer, who uh
Speaker 1: you know, who heard me talking about the book on
Speaker 1: a podcast and on a radio that piece and just
Speaker 1: was immediately got it, you know, just was hooked. Read
Speaker 1: the book immediately, you know, if you know, Jason just
Speaker 1: like write the book in about twenty seconds. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I had the movie in his head by the time
Speaker 1: we all sat down, and uh and we we all
Speaker 1: just had this kind of magical collaboration. Really and what
Speaker 1: was it, Hugh that made you think, Gosh, I want
Speaker 1: to play Gary Hart? Well, Jason was a big part
Speaker 1: of it, and I didn't know a lot about the story,
Speaker 1: and I was amazed when I read it all how
Speaker 1: this incredible for me, incredible candidate and with an unbelievably
Speaker 1: strong ideas somehow quit politics forever, like this was the
Speaker 1: guy who was definitely going to be the next president.
Speaker 1: Three weeks later he's out forever. And this sort of
Speaker 1: mix about principles and ethics and public versus p of it.
Speaker 1: There was so much about it that fascinated me, and
Speaker 1: I was in probably twenty pages into the script. I
Speaker 1: thought the writing was so smart. I loved being part
Speaker 1: of a movie that wasn't heroes and villains. It was
Speaker 1: just a whole bunch of characters. I love the way
Speaker 1: that women were portrayed in the movie, and it really
Speaker 1: made me think, which ultimately is great thing if you're
Speaker 1: going to see a movie, and if you're going to
Speaker 1: be in a movie and you're gonna dedicate six nine
Speaker 1: months to be alive. He wanted to be something that's
Speaker 1: really going to grab you. Jay. There were very few
Speaker 1: negatives on Heart, but one was the sort of undefined
Speaker 1: sense that he was a little bit flaky. He had
Speaker 1: changed his last name he had changed his signature, he
Speaker 1: had even changed his birthdate at one point. But the
Speaker 1: other was Heart's reputation as a womanizer. And of course
Speaker 1: before reporters didn't look at the private lives of candidate's
Speaker 1: pretty much. Ever, why do you think this changed? Why
Speaker 1: do you think the Heart campaign was the moment that
Speaker 1: this shifted. I mean, there's a confluence of events that
Speaker 1: happened around eight um that lead to this moment shifting,
Speaker 1: and it shifts in it and it never returns. But
Speaker 1: there is a rule pre ad eight, which is that
Speaker 1: someone's personal life is never relevant. Um. The rule post
Speaker 1: is that it's always relevant. What we're arguing for in
Speaker 1: this movie is some judgment on the part on on
Speaker 1: all of our parts, the voters, the journalists, the candidates.
Speaker 1: Certainly there were times pre a eight where it was
Speaker 1: relevant we should have known what was going on behind
Speaker 1: closed doors. Certainly there have been times post eight eight
Speaker 1: where we don't need to know. And that's that's sort
Speaker 1: of what we're trying to start that conversation, UM, because
Speaker 1: I think that absolute rules, whether they are ideology or
Speaker 1: something like always and never are they're just lazy on
Speaker 1: all of our parts. So what Was it about the
Speaker 1: atmosphere though then and the environment Matt that this confluence
Speaker 1: that Jave referred to, that was it increased competition? Was it,
Speaker 1: you know, the US weeklies of the world coming into play.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I remember because I had worked
Speaker 1: at w TVJ in Miami and I was big admirer
Speaker 1: of Tom Fieedler's But yeah, he's from the Miami Herald
Speaker 1: that was really involved in in breaking this story. Right,
Speaker 1: What was happening that caused this? There are moments in
Speaker 1: time where things come together in a way that changes
Speaker 1: and it's not just politics, changes the culture. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, in retrospect, what's easier to see now than
Speaker 1: at that moment in the mid nineties, you had a
Speaker 1: bunch of things going on. You're about a decade after Watergate,
Speaker 1: which changes journalism in a couple of profound ways. It changes, yes,
Speaker 1: in a sort of based career ambition way. Right, if
Speaker 1: you can take down a politician, now you can get
Speaker 1: rich and famous. But also quite quite rightly, I think
Speaker 1: puts the focus on moral character of our leaders more
Speaker 1: than it had been. And because it was embarrassing for
Speaker 1: the media to have missed that about Richard Nixon. You
Speaker 1: had the rise of feminism on the left, which changed
Speaker 1: attitudes about adult three, you had the rise of the
Speaker 1: moral majority on the right, which also put personal behavior
Speaker 1: much more in the realm of political discussion. And then
Speaker 1: you have the birth that you know better than I do,
Speaker 1: the birth of to like television right, CNN launches in
Speaker 1: the early nineteen eighties, flyaway satellite dishes. Right. Suddenly you
Speaker 1: have this moment where you can broadcast live anything from anywhere,
Speaker 1: and you've got to keep people in their seats, and
Speaker 1: the definition of news changes when it's an hour to
Speaker 1: hour sort of keep the ratings up, uh issue, And
Speaker 1: so all of these things come together, I think in
Speaker 1: that moment, and as a result, what happens is that
Speaker 1: we begin from that moment to treat our candidate's much
Speaker 1: more like we treat our celebrities. And I would submit
Speaker 1: that when you treat politicians like celebrities and create a
Speaker 1: process that demands celebrity, you will get celebrities as politicians
Speaker 1: and wanting to enter the process. And I think that's
Speaker 1: been the direct line that you can follow from that
Speaker 1: moment to the one in which we find ourselves, frankly
Speaker 1: more relevant than we thought writing the script. We we
Speaker 1: had the script done before thee election, but I think
Speaker 1: I think events have just made it so unsettlingly timely
Speaker 1: in some ways. You know, I think you accomplished something
Speaker 1: that I thought was impossible. You made Hugh Jackman actually
Speaker 1: unappealing to one. Thing that struck me, you know, because
Speaker 1: I remember Gary hard. I think I've interviewed him on
Speaker 1: a number of occasions, and of course I remember the
Speaker 1: story well. Even though I was in local news when
Speaker 1: this this story happened. Um, you know, I kept thinking, God,
Speaker 1: he's so humorless, and he's so lacking in Christmas. He's
Speaker 1: so obnoxiously earnest. That's what I thought when I watched
Speaker 1: this movie. Did you set out to make him that way?
Speaker 1: This is the least amount of acting I've ever done.
Speaker 1: I know he is, I know you. He's the antithesis
Speaker 1: of everything you are. I mean, did you just have
Speaker 1: to like try to sublimate any personality? No, I have
Speaker 1: a different perspective from meeting him and spending time with him.
Speaker 1: I find him very mercurial in a way. Like I
Speaker 1: actually jokingly said to him, have you ever thought about
Speaker 1: being an actor? Because when I'm around a lot of actors,
Speaker 1: I always feel like any adjective could work with that actor,
Speaker 1: Like actors have to chop and change so much that
Speaker 1: they can to time to be grumpy or earnest or funny.
Speaker 1: And I found him maybe because of everything I'd heard
Speaker 1: or read. I was surprisingly warm, funny, very inviting, very
Speaker 1: very hospitable. He was quite serious and brief in what
Speaker 1: he did, and people were even his own campaign team
Speaker 1: at important moments, were on eggshells at times around him
Speaker 1: because he was very serious and he wasn't mucking around.
Speaker 1: But I I my job was to bring you close enough,
Speaker 1: but never let you in. That's what I felt, and
Speaker 1: Jason I talked about that a lot, because he is
Speaker 1: a very private person, and a lot of people I
Speaker 1: spoke to even to this day, once it's been years
Speaker 1: around it was like I couldn't quite grab onto who
Speaker 1: he is. So I'm a little even hearing you now,
Speaker 1: I'm like, maybe I didn't quite work. I was hoping
Speaker 1: for a bit like I think I've got it, but
Speaker 1: I'm not sure like that, I mean, I mean, I
Speaker 1: felt he was almost contemptuous of the People magazine culture.
Speaker 1: We were moving towards definitely think it's a discomfort more
Speaker 1: than anything I think, And I think that's what he
Speaker 1: brings across so brilliantly. I do think he is absolutely
Speaker 1: brilliant this film. I think we all do, and and
Speaker 1: and part of it is is telegraphing something that's very
Speaker 1: hard to telegraph with your face, with your emotions, with
Speaker 1: your emotions. Is this this discomfort with the arena is
Speaker 1: not being able to feel yourself, with feeling always under
Speaker 1: a microscope and and feeling the ground shifting underneath you,
Speaker 1: and not being able to adapt to it. It's a
Speaker 1: hard thing to get across with somebody who doesn't deliver
Speaker 1: long soliloquies, which is and I think you did a
Speaker 1: great job. Don't get me wrong. I just didn't find
Speaker 1: Gary Hart very appealing for me because I think he
Speaker 1: was so intent upon maintaining this zone of privacy. As
Speaker 1: somebody who watched the movie, I you know, I just
Speaker 1: wanted to mess up his hair and slap him around
Speaker 1: and get him drunk. Right by the way he got
Speaker 1: mad drunk. He makes a main mountainy when I said
Speaker 1: in his house, oh yeah, no, no he can, he
Speaker 1: can throw him back, but he yeah, No, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's interesting because I think it was. I DAS was
Speaker 1: so important to him, and he spent hours on them.
Speaker 1: And so when he was doing a speech on economics
Speaker 1: or in anything, it had been years of working things
Speaker 1: out before he ran. He had been to every country,
Speaker 1: met with not just the leader but the opposition leader.
Speaker 1: So he knew, like his detail on how he could
Speaker 1: possibly lead the country very well overnight year period was incredible.
Speaker 1: Did he have enough EQ for this current environment and
Speaker 1: for mass media? And you know when they say people
Speaker 1: vote for the guy or gal they want to have
Speaker 1: a beer with, Like I mean, he just didn't seem
Speaker 1: to have any of those. Hey, let's let's hang out qualities.
Speaker 1: I know what you mean. And I think I find
Speaker 1: myself in the same place sometimes scolding myself for needing
Speaker 1: the person to have the right EQ. And and I
Speaker 1: have through the process of writing and doing this movie,
Speaker 1: I wanted to flip that around in my head and
Speaker 1: wonder why we put so much stress on that. Right,
Speaker 1: We're watching someone who's clearly brilliant, who's clearly thought the
Speaker 1: job through, but we don't like them enough. And this
Speaker 1: is weird thing where like we would never cheat our
Speaker 1: airline pilot that way. I mean, I flew through a
Speaker 1: lot of turbulence to get here last night, and I
Speaker 1: wasn't thinking as I was laying there trying to to
Speaker 1: sleep through the through the bouncing around, like do I
Speaker 1: like my pilot? Is he nice enough? I'm like, I
Speaker 1: want him to be able to fly the goddamn plane
Speaker 1: and landed and we flipped it around with President, which
Speaker 1: is much more serious than flying just two hundred of
Speaker 1: us across the country. I personally want to pilot chat
Speaker 1: and they do both right. They're funny and they can fly.
Speaker 1: But like, I'll take flying over funny and likable every day.
Speaker 1: But we have I do it too, Like I would
Speaker 1: pick candidates I would work for based on do I
Speaker 1: like them? Do I want to be around them all
Speaker 1: the time? That's not the right prioritization. Don't they have
Speaker 1: to be great communicators though, Isn't that? Part of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's problem is that he just doesn't know how to
Speaker 1: heal the nation and times of duress. He doesn't know
Speaker 1: how to inspire anyone. All he knows is how to
Speaker 1: you know, hate on people really and and to me,
Speaker 1: communicating and setting a tone is as important as having
Speaker 1: the cerebral qualities of coming up with the best policies.
Speaker 1: But let me just add another little thing into that mix,
Speaker 1: in that there's a great documentary about his eighty four
Speaker 1: run and he's on camera saying, I'm I'm often called
Speaker 1: cool and aloof that when we win that first primary,
Speaker 1: everyone will call me enigmatic and he and and that's
Speaker 1: exactly what happened. So he wins in a landslide. If
Speaker 1: anyone's like, who's this guy out of nowhere? And Heart
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, people seem in this different prison.
Speaker 1: So if we cut to seven, let's say he wins
Speaker 1: the first four or five pa these twenty points, they
Speaker 1: hit a bush. People seeing him in a whole different light.
Speaker 1: He probably carries himself in a different light. He doesn't
Speaker 1: have to work so like it would might have fit
Speaker 1: perfectly with his character and we would have just gone, ah,
Speaker 1: a lot of this guy. He's got great He doesn't
Speaker 1: have to talk on and on like I think it's
Speaker 1: it's just interesting that he did have an understanding of
Speaker 1: human nature. And maybe it was events as much as anything. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm front runners are covered differently. Heart was supposed by
Speaker 1: everyone to be the next president United States, and so
Speaker 1: he generated a lot of extra scrutiny. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to ask you about how much the rules actually changed.
Speaker 1: Because after Heart, Bill Clinton and Frankly, our current president
Speaker 1: have gotten away with extramarital affairs. Why do you think
Speaker 1: they were able to get through these controversies? But Heart
Speaker 1: was I mean, Brian, it's it's exactly what I was saying.
Speaker 1: You know, It's just what I was saying a moment ago.
Speaker 1: Because you create a process that rewards a certain amount
Speaker 1: of shamelessness and evasion and the willingness to drag your
Speaker 1: family uh in one of the cameras and uh and
Speaker 1: Frankly to be dishonest and uh, you know. I mean
Speaker 1: you can look at it and say, well, Bill Clinton survived.
Speaker 1: Now I look at Donald Trump and he's got all
Speaker 1: this checker stuff and he just says whatever he wants
Speaker 1: and sales through. Okay, But but I would look at it,
Speaker 1: I would suggest that it's very different, which is, you
Speaker 1: created a process that rewards an entirely different set of qualities.
Speaker 1: What we think of his leadership now is not what
Speaker 1: we thought of his leadership prior to. It's not about ideas.
Speaker 1: It's not about intellect, it's not about even a certain
Speaker 1: amount of reserve, which people generally expected in their leaders.
Speaker 1: It's now about how well how well can you evade
Speaker 1: the traps, how well can you emode on que how
Speaker 1: much of us? How much are you willing to share? What?
Speaker 1: How much can you humanize yourself? Uh? And and and
Speaker 1: how you know, can you lie effectively to get around
Speaker 1: the things about yourself that would be that would be
Speaker 1: morally damaging. I think when you create, when you change
Speaker 1: the definition of what makes a great candidate, you you
Speaker 1: you you get the candidates who meet those qualifications and
Speaker 1: a pretty good candidate instant. It ends up being incidental.
Speaker 1: You know, you may have someone who knows how to
Speaker 1: do the job, but that's their performing ability that we're
Speaker 1: looking at first. It's just what I was saying. It's
Speaker 1: it's not can they fly the plane, it's it's their
Speaker 1: performance ability. And oh, incidentally, they may have gone to
Speaker 1: flight school. But we're not really asking those questions first.
Speaker 1: That we have a process that rewards shamelessness. Is it
Speaker 1: because there's no marketplace of ideas? I mean, is it
Speaker 1: because of our modern media culture that emphasizes sort of
Speaker 1: the quick uh, you know, dramatic theatrical aspect of a
Speaker 1: candidate or a president. I mean, why did it all change?
Speaker 1: I mean, are we just stupid? I mean, what is it? Well?
Speaker 1: I think that's that's a chicken and egg question, right,
Speaker 1: is it is it? Does the process dumbed down the
Speaker 1: dialogue and and bleed bleeded of ideas or or does
Speaker 1: a lack of ideas create a more vapid process. And
Speaker 1: that's part of the conversation. I think people can debate,
Speaker 1: you know, when they when they think about these issues.
Speaker 1: To your point B about Presdental Bomba, which is a
Speaker 1: very interesting case and I think very actually quite similar
Speaker 1: to Center Heart in some ways in terms personality. I
Speaker 1: would actually argue that while President Obama is different than
Speaker 1: the other people we talked about, his mere existence as
Speaker 1: a candidate and president would not have been possible in
Speaker 1: a process that we're not dominated by a kind of
Speaker 1: entertainment narrative. He was the star of a drama. You know,
Speaker 1: we call him no Drama Obama. The truth is he
Speaker 1: had very little experience, very little qualification, had thought through
Speaker 1: very little about governing the country. But he was a story.
Speaker 1: There was a great story, arc and a great character
Speaker 1: to what he sold the country. And I don't I
Speaker 1: don't know, I know him, and I don't argue he
Speaker 1: wasn't a good president. I'm simply saying he is part
Speaker 1: and parcel of of an euro where entertainment has become
Speaker 1: intertwined and inseparable from politics. And I think this is
Speaker 1: what we're looking at. Here is a genesis moment. It's
Speaker 1: a moment, you know. What we're trying to show people
Speaker 1: is a moment where it shifted so they can leave
Speaker 1: and reflect and argue about how it got here, whether
Speaker 1: it should have been different, and where the responsibility laws.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, I was frustrated because ja I
Speaker 1: kept thinking, why couldn't Gary Heart just keep it in
Speaker 1: his pants? What the hell was wrong with him? I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, is it too much to expect?
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm just not idealistic and naive, but I kind
Speaker 1: of want my president to be faithful? Is that weird? Matt?
Speaker 1: You want to notice that Teddy White said that of
Speaker 1: all the candidates he covered in half a century for president,
Speaker 1: only three Harry Truman, George Romney and Jimmy Carter had
Speaker 1: not enjoyed the pleasure of quote casual partners, which is
Speaker 1: kind of unbelievable. We could have I guess we could
Speaker 1: have twenty Carter administrations if that's what you want. But uh,
Speaker 1: you know, what should should I not care? You know?
Speaker 1: You should care? I mean I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: part of what we're arguing this movie is that like,
Speaker 1: it's okay for you to care, that you and a
Speaker 1: big block of voters do care, and that's that's just fine.
Speaker 1: It's not we're not arguing to go backward. No no,
Speaker 1: no, no no no. But everyone everyone may not care, um,
Speaker 1: but it's absolutely if that's on your if that's you know,
Speaker 1: if that's if they didn't care about Bill Clinton and
Speaker 1: suddenly now they care again because of Montica Lewinsky. M hmm.
Speaker 1: But I mean to bring it back to the movie
Speaker 1: The Clinton Cases. The Clinton case is an interesting one
Speaker 1: because it goes back to what we're talking about. There's
Speaker 1: a the performative skills and the and the willingness to
Speaker 1: do anything to get through a scandal leads to you know,
Speaker 1: he takes a number of steps that Gary Hart wasn't
Speaker 1: willing to take. A eight you know, if you'll the
Speaker 1: sixty minutes interview to start right, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: heart was like, I am not going to force my
Speaker 1: wife to sit next to me and and do an
Speaker 1: interview about this. I'm just not going to do it.
Speaker 1: And you know, other other candidates, they all had us.
Speaker 1: They also had seemed to have a super weird relationship.
Speaker 1: To me, I'm okay. First of all, the assumption that
Speaker 1: all that happened with Gary is not a given. Uh
Speaker 1: so that's not deny it actually, and he has been
Speaker 1: on record to saying they had two separations to maybe
Speaker 1: three during they just celebrated sixt winning anniversary and I
Speaker 1: stayed with him at their house and Gary as she
Speaker 1: was recovering from elective hip surgery. And Gary, at six
Speaker 1: o'clock in the morning, we had the tray with the
Speaker 1: folded napkin and her pills for the thing and taking
Speaker 1: the breakfast to her, and I saw nothing but love
Speaker 1: and devotion and family and come on you sixty years
Speaker 1: it's never it's not going to be all right. But
Speaker 1: the point of the movie is not did he or
Speaker 1: didn't he? Even if he did, is that disqualifying? But
Speaker 1: I just feel I'm sitting here going I have to
Speaker 1: stand up with Gary because I know if Gary's he
Speaker 1: was like, well hang on his sex stop assuming that
Speaker 1: I'm one of those presidents, but you know who or
Speaker 1: presidential candidates who did or didn't. We're talking to Hugh Jackman,
Speaker 1: j Carson, and Matt By about their movie The front Runner.
Speaker 1: Will be back with Moore right after this quick break.
Speaker 1: Now back to Hugh jack and Jake Carson and that
Speaker 1: by Q. There's a famous moment that's covered in the
Speaker 1: film when your character is asked by a reporter who's
Speaker 1: e J. Dion in real life about his womanizing reputation.
Speaker 1: God sick. Just ask whatever it is you came here
Speaker 1: to ask. Whatever you're read. I told you to ask me.
Speaker 1: This is beneath you. Okay, m do you feel like
Speaker 1: you have a traditional marriage? Yeah? You want to know
Speaker 1: what I'm doing all my spare time. AJ is that
Speaker 1: it follow me around, put a tail on me, be
Speaker 1: very bored. A couple of points on that heart. Didn't
Speaker 1: think anybody would actually do it, and the Miami Herald
Speaker 1: reporters were already part They used that post facto as
Speaker 1: a justification. Yeah. I think I think Matt's book for Gary,
Speaker 1: one great takeaway for him was that Finally, I mean
Speaker 1: for probably the smartest politician that may have ever been
Speaker 1: in American one the smartest to be known as doing
Speaker 1: the dumbest thing. Well, I think to him was one
Speaker 1: of one of those great injustices, as Matt Book put
Speaker 1: that to right, so that it was a throwaway comment.
Speaker 1: And yeah, and they were already following him around, you know.
Speaker 1: But I encourage people to, Okay, so view the movie
Speaker 1: and his this whole three weeks from the idea that
Speaker 1: he did it right. Okay, so he did it, and
Speaker 1: then view it from the prison that maybe there was
Speaker 1: nothing we donn right, maybe nothing that he meant. Maybe
Speaker 1: there's there's this whole story in the Atlantic that Lee
Speaker 1: Atwater had set the whole thing up, And okay, take
Speaker 1: that as a and view it from that prison, and
Speaker 1: then watch a man who did not made it every time, right,
Speaker 1: but buy a ticket every time. You just mentioned that.
Speaker 1: It's kind of an aside that Jim Fallows piece in
Speaker 1: the Atlantic was pretty fascinating, man, I'm curious your view
Speaker 1: on this, since you're the world's expert. Basically, Fallows spoke
Speaker 1: to a very famous media guy, Ray Struther, who were
Speaker 1: for Heart, who had like a deathbed conversation with Lee Atwater,
Speaker 1: George Bush's strategist, who told him that the monkey business,
Speaker 1: the images, the whole thing was sort of set up
Speaker 1: by Bush's campaign. Do you buy that? I don't know, Brian,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I'm like you. I find it fascinating.
Speaker 1: I think here's what I know. I I think it's
Speaker 1: perfectly plausible that the Republicans would have set out to
Speaker 1: do Harden at that point. Uh. I also think that
Speaker 1: so many decisions were made by people who I known
Speaker 1: were not part of a plot that week that you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think you could construct a Rube Goldberg machine
Speaker 1: quite that intricate, right, people used judgment and bad judgment often,
Speaker 1: and so I think, uh, it's possible both things were
Speaker 1: going on. I don't think you could any conspiracy could
Speaker 1: account for all the things that happened that week or
Speaker 1: how it unfolded. But ultimately, for us, you know, where
Speaker 1: it's it's just interesting. I mean, we're more interested in
Speaker 1: the forces that set it all in motion and how
Speaker 1: it changed the industry. I mean, we regardless of what
Speaker 1: set that in motion. Um, So I'm fascinating. I've talked
Speaker 1: to Jim Follows about it, and I've given him new
Speaker 1: paths to down and I hope he keeps looking at
Speaker 1: it because I think it's a fun thing to speculate about.
Speaker 1: But it is just really expect relevant if if it happened,
Speaker 1: is it still is that like maybe for you that
Speaker 1: is that that disqualifies someone as a candidate. But I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't know if it does or not. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I think sometimes it's a reaction to it um that
Speaker 1: that if he had said I don't know if I
Speaker 1: if we can go back to seven and say, well,
Speaker 1: what should he have done? What could he have done?
Speaker 1: Could he have somehow gotten out of this for the
Speaker 1: good of the country to to push forward his idea?
Speaker 1: I think that I'm watching it. I was like, if
Speaker 1: Gary was only interested in political survival, I have no
Speaker 1: doubt he could have got out of that in a seconds.
Speaker 1: What we have done here, I've been I've been for starters.
Speaker 1: I've been on record. You know, my wife and I
Speaker 1: have been married for thirty years. We've had two or
Speaker 1: three separations, but we're together, we're working on it, and
Speaker 1: like any couple, we committed to doing our best. Anyway.
Speaker 1: Can we move on to economic like moving on, like
Speaker 1: so in the moment, because that's what I'm saying. If
Speaker 1: you view from the prison, Let's say nothing happened right
Speaker 1: with that situation, and then you've got a man whose
Speaker 1: principle is the first thing is I'm going to protect
Speaker 1: my wife and children. So every time I get asked
Speaker 1: a question, my now grown up children are listening to
Speaker 1: this about their mom and dad. My wife is hearing
Speaker 1: me talk about this right, and he was against that.
Speaker 1: That's like, that's a betrayal to them. And it's not
Speaker 1: my right to just talk about our private life as
Speaker 1: well as the political process. Like every time I answer
Speaker 1: that question, every time I answer the question boxes or
Speaker 1: briefs or what's my dog's name, I am draining down
Speaker 1: the i Q of this political process. So he refused
Speaker 1: to do it. So let's say he's innocent, he can
Speaker 1: save himself politically, but he opts, you know what, I'm not,
Speaker 1: that's not a question I'm going to answer. Then he
Speaker 1: becomes almost like a marter, you know. So that's what
Speaker 1: I find is interesting about this process, you know. But
Speaker 1: I think everyone just vieuses from the perspective of personal survival.
Speaker 1: And he could have saved himself, but he may have
Speaker 1: had more at stake, I guess, but he really fell
Speaker 1: on his sword, right, And Donna Rice was just sort of,
Speaker 1: you know, just one instance. And I mean maybe I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: but weren't there a lot of other Daly? I mean,
Speaker 1: he been, he been, as you know, you have separated
Speaker 1: twice for a long periods of time, so it's it's hard. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the candidates do not hang out with Warren Beatty.
Speaker 1: There's still a close friend in the film. You know,
Speaker 1: you see, you know, the evidence of another diet. But
Speaker 1: since you raised Donna Rice, can we talk about that
Speaker 1: from it, because because that was really, um, really important
Speaker 1: to us, both and Donna Rice. You know, somebody who
Speaker 1: went through this kind of modern scandal as the other
Speaker 1: woman for the first time really gets reduced to a
Speaker 1: punch line is just as defined by this and and
Speaker 1: made justice to dimensional as hard was, and then you know,
Speaker 1: expanding that to all the other women you see in
Speaker 1: the film. You know, we really it was very important
Speaker 1: to us. You know, obviously I talked to Don a
Speaker 1: lot for the book. This is very important for us
Speaker 1: to make sure that that perspective was not just expressed
Speaker 1: and not like in a token way, but actually like
Speaker 1: that we had three dimensional cares that Donna Rice was
Speaker 1: shown to be a very real human being with potential
Speaker 1: and emotions and she's bright and she's principled. And you know,
Speaker 1: we worked very hard at Helen Esterbrook, our producer. You know,
Speaker 1: everyone writing the script were guys, obviously, and Helen our producer,
Speaker 1: who was so brilliant and kept you know, with every draft, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, pushing us on, you know, what was complicated enough,
Speaker 1: what was important to understand about a woman's bit of
Speaker 1: how women in these situations get burdened with speaking for
Speaker 1: their entire gender. You know, I have to stand in.
Speaker 1: We really worked hard at it, and I think it's
Speaker 1: one of the things we're all really proud of. And
Speaker 1: the performances women in the film gives Sarah Packson chief
Speaker 1: among them. I just think it's um and and very famiga.
Speaker 1: Of course, it is amazing. Just I just you know,
Speaker 1: she brings you to tears, and I just think that's
Speaker 1: an aspect of the film. We've worked for a hard
Speaker 1: one and we're very, very proud. I really liked the
Speaker 1: line by the Washington Was that the Washington Post I
Speaker 1: couldn't quite figure out she had a big job at
Speaker 1: the yeah yeah, and she said a line about power, Uh,
Speaker 1: he's a man. A man with power has opportunity and
Speaker 1: take responsibility. For me that that line really resonated because
Speaker 1: as I wrestled myself watching this like doesn't matter? Should
Speaker 1: it matter? I felt like she was channeling the me
Speaker 1: too movement? And this is we wrote it before that
Speaker 1: and right the moment when the Donna Rice character says
Speaker 1: to the female heart aid, I've worked my entire life
Speaker 1: so that people like you wouldn't look at a person
Speaker 1: like me the way you are right now. Very powerful. Really,
Speaker 1: we tried to show everyone in this as as three
Speaker 1: dimensional human beings, the journalists, the women, and the candidates,
Speaker 1: the voters, um, you know, and show their their struggle
Speaker 1: and their pain as they go through this crazy process
Speaker 1: that no one had ever faced before. Now, you guys,
Speaker 1: I know, want this to be relevant and you want
Speaker 1: this to spur conversation. I mean, what do you hope
Speaker 1: that are some of the issues that people will be
Speaker 1: grappling with long after they leave this movie, in terms
Speaker 1: of the role of the press and the responsibility of
Speaker 1: our leaders and the climate and what we need to
Speaker 1: care about, etcetera, etcetera. I mean, what are you hoping
Speaker 1: people will think of? Certainly all of these questions and
Speaker 1: hats off to both of you guys and Jackson, which
Speaker 1: it's a script really without answers, And it would have
Speaker 1: been easy to give answers. You guys know that world
Speaker 1: inside and out. It would have been easy to give that,
Speaker 1: but you don't. And in the end, for what that
Speaker 1: does for me and I hope perhaps it does for
Speaker 1: everyone else, is what's my personal responsibility? Now I'm actually
Speaker 1: a historian, but of course you still wear responsibility. It's
Speaker 1: my fault. But we do in our choices of how
Speaker 1: we consume news, of how we vote. Are we what
Speaker 1: is our civic duty? Rather, you know what, how are
Speaker 1: we participating in the process? What is important to me?
Speaker 1: Have I really thought this through? Do I actually know what? What? Sorry?
Speaker 1: I know about the boat and the girl? What will
Speaker 1: Gary huts policies? Again? Like you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Like when we pick up our phone, and we all
Speaker 1: have the phone, it gives us four stories right the
Speaker 1: moment you wake up, and two of them one of
Speaker 1: Ariana Grande and Pete Davidson. And do we click on
Speaker 1: that one. You know what, are we actively working out
Speaker 1: what is important over what is entertaining or interesting? And
Speaker 1: I think that's the question I hope people end up
Speaker 1: grappling with. Now, that's that's really well said from my prospect.
Speaker 1: Drum mean and we we we deliberately made a film
Speaker 1: that we hope gets people thinking and debating among themselves.
Speaker 1: We we we hope and it's been our experience that
Speaker 1: people walk out of the theater actually having an argument
Speaker 1: about it because we don't have the answers, as Jason
Speaker 1: always says, and it really resonates with me as a
Speaker 1: journalist because it's always been my journalistic impulse as well.
Speaker 1: He starts a story with a question and that he
Speaker 1: wants to ask, not with an answer. And this is
Speaker 1: not a film that gives you answers. If you're looking
Speaker 1: for them, you might be disappointed. I think this is
Speaker 1: a This is a This is a film that that
Speaker 1: shows you a moment that you may not have known existed,
Speaker 1: where it set us on a path, and and asks
Speaker 1: everybody involved, including you sitting in there watching it, to
Speaker 1: reflect on on where what the consequences of those decisions are,
Speaker 1: Whether you would have made the same decisions, and I
Speaker 1: think it's a for that reason, it's a very personal experience.
Speaker 1: I think watching it, we could use a little less
Speaker 1: relevance with this movie. And honestly, yeah, we started writing it,
Speaker 1: like you know, during the Obama administration, and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, it felt like the world was catching up
Speaker 1: to the movie in terms of two thousand and sixteen
Speaker 1: election and me too, and um, it's really a question
Speaker 1: of what's what's relevant and what's important, and the movie
Speaker 1: actually asks that of you. From the first shot to
Speaker 1: the last, and that first two and a half minute
Speaker 1: one or which is our Hollywood speak for it's just
Speaker 1: a single shot uncut, you're tracking through different conversations. You're
Speaker 1: trying to figure out what's going on, and you're trying
Speaker 1: to do I want to listen to the guys talk
Speaker 1: about how to jump at a golf cart? Or do
Speaker 1: I want to watch this? Do I want to watch
Speaker 1: Walter Mondale on TV? Do I want to watch Gary Hart?
Speaker 1: Do I want You're trying to catch up to the
Speaker 1: last scene where you have a marriage trying to hold
Speaker 1: on on the left side of the screen and Gary
Speaker 1: Heart giving a speech on the right side, and We're
Speaker 1: just literally asking the audience for the entire time, for
Speaker 1: the entire time, to grapple with what's relevant and what's important. Well,
Speaker 1: it's really timely despite the fact everything happened in nine seven.
Speaker 1: I can't think of a better dream team to bring
Speaker 1: this story to life than the three really three of
Speaker 1: my favorite people all around the table and YouTube. Brian
Speaker 1: really really appreciate it and love to see you all.
Speaker 1: The front Runner, starring Hugh Jackman is in theaters now
Speaker 1: and that's all we got for you today. The crack
Speaker 1: team that made this show is producer Emma Morgan Stern,
Speaker 1: associate producer Nora Richie, and audio engineer Jared O'Connell, and
Speaker 1: is always a big thank you to Julia Lewis who
Speaker 1: helps with my so social media, Jim Brown who helps
Speaker 1: us book guests, and Beth Demas my assistant. Jared Arnold
Speaker 1: composed our theme music. You can find me on Twitter
Speaker 1: under at Goldsmith b and Katie is breaking the Internet
Speaker 1: every day while keeping her clothes on on Instagram, Facebook
Speaker 1: and Twitter as what else k K. Most most days
Speaker 1: I'm keeping my clothes on. If you have thoughts about
Speaker 1: the show, our questions for us please reach out. Our
Speaker 1: email address is comments at currect podcast dot com, or
Speaker 1: you can leave us a voicemail by calling nine to
Speaker 1: four four six three seven. As always, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for listening. We so appreciate your support and we'll see
Speaker 1: you next week