In some circles, Fox News is heralded as the only alternative to the "lamestream media." To most, however, the network is derided for its political leanings that emphasize fearmongering and opinionated editorial hosts over actually reporting the news audiences need to hear. Regardless of one's opinion on the controversial cable news station and its roster of anchors, most can agree – Bombshell.
Directed by Jay Roach (Trumbo, The Campaign, Austin Powers), Bombshell follows three women and their quest for justice. Co-producer Charlize Theron stars as Megyn Kelly, Nicole Kidman plays Gretchen Carlson, and Margot Robbie portrays Kayla Pospisil, a composite of several real-life people who could not be named in the film for legal reasons. John Lithgow plays Ailes. Kidman and Theron were both Oscar-nominated for their performances in the film, and Bombshell won the Academy Award for makeup thanks to the way the film practically transforms the actors into their characters; Charlize Theron, in particular, is the spitting image of the real-life Megyn Kelly.
While promoting the home video release of Bombshell, Jay Roach spoke to Screen Rant about directing the politically-charged comedic drama, which entertains and delights as much as it lays bare the horror of the sociopath, Roger Ailes, and his decades-long campaign of terror against the women of Fox. He discusses the politics of Fox News and the a controversial and fascinating person, regardless of anyone's political leanings.
Bombshell is out now on Digital HD, DVD, and Blu-ray.
Let's jump right in. Fox News is something of a punchline in certain circles, to say the least. How does one go about making an empathetic story about the actual people who work in those particular trenches?
That, for me, was the key. I definitely have a problem with a lot of what's on Fox. But I watch it because I'm interested in how ideas grow and spread. Any ideas. I'm interested in that. But in this case, I was even more interested in the predicament that these women found themselves in, and the fact that it was at Fox made it sort of surprising to me. Or at least I wouldn't have expected this kind of clash at this kind of a network. Megyn Kelly, in particular, has repeatedly said she doesn't want to call herself a feminist, and some of the women at Fox News have had trouble with the women's movement. So, for them to then find themselves in the tractor beam of Roger Ailes' toxic, cult-like, male-centric, ego-centric thing and then decide to stand up to it, I thought that specific predicament made it interesting to me. It also made it interesting, I thought, to a wider audience, including watchers of Fox News. A lot of my family are Fox watchers, and I don't know if they would tune in to a story about women's empowerment story that came up on their feed. But I thought they might if it involved people they knew about, like Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson on Fox. It was definitely an interesting choice to take this on, but for me, there were lots of good reasons to try it.
Fox News has a unique culture, and it's very high-profile, but I don't think that situation of a small group of old guys at the top who make things miserable for a lot of their employees, particularly the women, I don't think that's a unique situation, right?
No. It's not unique to Fox, and that's a problem. There's a pattern of this kind of behavior, which I do think made the film even more important to me. This story happened a year before the Harvey Weinstein news broke. Certainly, #MeToo had been around, but it really didn't take off until a year after this. So these women had to stand up and address this without expecting a big public groundswell of . But the fact that, again, in kind of an unlikely situation, you find this same kind of behavior, this same entitlement to professional loyalty, but also to this weird expectation for quid pro quo and how the male gaze that Roger would project onto people and require them to live up to in of the look these women should have when they're selling his news, all that stuff is not unique to Fox. But in a certain way, because it happened a year earlier, I didn't really much about it. I think the NDAs the women had to sign, the fact Roger didn't have to go to trial, there were settlements... It meant this might be a story people may not . So I thought it was good to point out, this is part of the pattern. what happened to these women, and how courageous these women were. Though you may or may not root for from a news personality standpoint, you had to root for what they did, for them to take him on at that time, with so little chance of success.
There's that theme of sisterhood, of women needing to each other, stick up for one another, but how difficult that can be.
That's an interesting part of it, too. They did need to stick up for each other, but it was also a compelling part of the story; for a long time, they couldn't! That's what the elevator scene was all about. You have three women in one elevator, all of whom have been harassed or are currently being harassed. You would hope that they could turn to each other and say, "Hey, is what happened to me happening to you? Because I have some tips for how to cope with this. Let's band together and take this guy on!" But instead, because of the fear he was able to inject into them about their hopes to continue working, he was able to pit them against each other. It was his system, his cult, his set of rules. The NDAs, especially, to not tell their stories, even to each other. That seems tragic and fraught. I thought that elevator scene, with hardly any dialogue, captured that.
Speaking of Roger... On set, did you have to reassure John Lithgow that he's actually a pretty handsome guy in real life?
(Laughs) No, but John's such a pro and such a great character actor. For him, this was pure engagement and fulfillment, taking on such a complicated villain. A powerful, charismatic, persuasive person who also has this predatory, soul-crushing tendency. And character actors love that stuff! We worked quite a bit on what the tone of that performance should be. For me, hearing people describe Roger, he was very charming, fun to hang out with. I've heard even left-wing people say that. I think that makes him, in the story, all the more dangerous and creepy. He could be a father figure and mentor to these young women, offering professional benefits. But entitled to this sexual fealty, that just seemed even more creepy. I wanted to cast John because he has a likability, and if he could tap into the darker, predatory thing and have that coexist with his normal likability, charisma, and grace... John Lithgow is a great storyteller, and so was Roger Ailes. If that could all be combined into this one complicated portrayal, I thought it would be ten times more interesting.
With the casting in general, it kinda reminds me of Saving Private Ryan. Every person who is based on a real person could be the lead of their own movie. I would kill to see a Richard Kind one man show as Rudy Giuliani.
Me too, me too! Wait, when you say Saving Private Ryan, what do you mean?
It's like, there's a lot of big stars in that movie who only show up for a second, the idea being that they wandered off the set of their own war epic to spend a minute in this one.
Yeah, yes. It's funny, I'm not usually thinking about it that way. I do like casting people... When I know the audience is looking at the trailer, I want the audience to go, "I might want to see that because I like this actor or that actor." But I didn't really think about it, almost until we saw the first cut. It was like, "Wow, there's a lot of talent in this movie!" People like Alanna Ubach, for example. She plays Judge Jeanine Pirro. She's amazing. She was in Meet the Fockers with us, and I love Richard Kind. The surprise greatness of their performances, they just show up and are fantastic. I cast them because I know they'll be great. I'm not looking to have a lineup of stars to brag about our cast. I want every single moment to be fantastic, and I try to find the very best person who's willing to come in. Because the script was good, because Charlize was involved, because this was a story and an issue that a lot of people were very interested in, I figured we could get the very best people, and we were able to! We were lucky. We were fortunate.
I want to shift gears a little tiny bit. I know you've worked together before, but I want to understand this relationship: at this point, do you and Adam McKay arm wrestle to determine who's going to direct which politically-themed dramatic comedy?
That's a funny question. Adam and I have been friends for a long time. We've developed things together. We did The Campaign together, and we've developed a few other projects. We definitely have interests in some of the same zones. He's amazing. He's great, and I'm lucky to feel associated with him and to call him a friend. I'm envious of the films he makes. He makes great films. I wish I had made The Big Short! He's so good. I've never felt competitive, though. I'm always just glad that anybody can take on these kinds of subjects and somehow deliver a movie people want to see. If we can do it together, all the better. But if we're doing it separately, I'll root for every movie he's making.
Almost every character in the movie is a real person, except Margot Robbie's character, who is a composite of many different people. Can you talk a bit about the storytelling hoops you had to set up with her character?
That was important to us because the other characters are clearly real people. In some ways, the most important story to tell was the story of the women who can't come forward and name themselves and be identified, either because they were afraid to come forward to begin with, or because they did file a claim and settled with Fox, but then had to sign an NDA and couldn't talk to us or to journalists or to other women. Those women, some of us did come forward to talk to us, and sort of broke their NDAs to talk with us. But we also heard their stories through other people they confided in. We knew we had to give those women a voice. It was important to all of us, to Charlize, and certainly to Margot, once she decided to take this on, to get this right, to have a character who represented what they had all gone through. And the only way to do that, since they obviously weren't going to name themselves, was to create a character who stood for a number of them. She's a combination of a number of stories we had heard. I feel, and this has been confirmed by women of Fox who have seen the film, that is was a very authentic combination of those stories. What she went through wasn't invented out of nothing. It's completely derived from the stories of multiple women who went through this late in Roger's career. He was harassing quite close to, or during the time period our stories takes place. It was a risky choice, but we tried to cop to it quite clearly. Upfront, the first thing you see in the movie is the disclaimer that explains that. And we've been very open about it in the press to make sure you are watching our film with that awareness, and even a healthy skepticism of, "Is this authentic?" You know, "What's an interpretation or license that was taken?" There's no such thing as a totally accurate version of any docudrama. There's never been a docudrama that was totally accurate. But there are some that try really hard to get it right, to be authentic, to capture the essence of it, and we try to be in that latter category every single time.
Maybe I'm just naive or something, but the whole idea of the non-disclosure agreement is super weird, right?
Absolutely. It's something that prevents women from talking to each other. That's really unfortunate.
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me today. I think all young people get interested in politics through some form of art, be it a movie, TV show, stage play, there's always a catalyst that thrusts them in the world of politics. For me, I was 17 when Recount came out. That was my catalyst, my coming-of-age epiphany. Things were different after I saw that movie, and I wanted to thank you for that.
Man, thank you for bringing that up! I really appreciate it. That was my first foray into this stuff, and it still gives me anxiety (Laughs). A lot of these films, I just try to make them for therapy. Like, How, then, shall we go forward? How's it supposed to work now? Especially election security. I hope people are watching it again right now. We all need to be thinking a lot more about protecting elections and making sure they're fair and that it's easy to vote.
Right. So, "Russia, if you're listening..."
Yeah, exactly.
Bombshell is out now on Digital HD, DVD, and Blu-ray.
