Text/Claudia Dreifus; translation/Gong Siliang
After an extraordinary period in American politics in January 2021, Aaron Sorkin, author of The White House and The Trial of the Seven Gentlemen of Chicago, began to reflect on political events he had foreseen and unforeseen. In the interview, Sorkin and Claudia Dreifus talk about Biden's inauguration with Harris, the "political farce" that erupted in Washington on Jan. 6, the changes in American voters over the past four years, what the Trump administration and the Republican Party have done, and the story behind his creation of "The Trial of the Seven Gentlemen of Chicago."
The interviewer is an American journalist, educator and lecturer, Claudia Dreifus, the producer of the New York Times Science Weekly Feature " Conversations ..." – known for interviewing important figures in world politics and science. She is an Associate Professor of International Affairs and Media at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). This article was originally published in the New York Review of Books.
Alan Sorkin
The day after Joe Biden was finally sworn in as president, Aaron Sorkin, America's preeminent political playwright, seemed as relieved and happy as anyone else. But for the nearly sixty-year-old writer who has created more than a dozen films, four TV series and six stage plays, this moment has a special meaning. His best-known work was the NBC Emmy Award-winning four-season "The West Wing," which built his entire career on American democratic political dramas.
Sorkin's screenplays, including "The American President," "Bulworth," "The Social Network," and "Charlie Wilson's War," explore different aspects of American life. His most recent work, The Trial of the Seven Gentlemen of Chicago, revolves around the courtroom plot of the late '60s, a climax of turmoil, conflict and division. And in 2018, Sorkin boldly adapted Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" to update the story of racial inequality and personal conscience in the American South before the civil rights movement for Broadway viewers in the "black-and-dead" era.
There have been many writers in the past who have written plays based on political themes, to name just three: Gore Vidal, Dory Schary, and Robert Sherwood. Many filmmakers have also raised tough questions about American democracy in films such as "All the King's Men," "A Face in the Crowd," "The Last Hurrah," and "The Candidate." But it's hard to imagine any other writer who, like Sorkin, single-mindedly made the "American experiment" of autonomy his own unique theme.
After a political farce in Washington, D.C., that is unique in modern American history, it seems that the time has come to ask Sorkin what he thinks of it all. Here are the edited and condensed conversations we recently had through Zoom.
Claudia Dreifus: How do you rate biden and Harris' inaugurations?
Alan Sorkin: It's all just right. In terms of picture and sound, Everything was normal with Biden's speech, plus Kamala Harris' inauguration, and Amanda Gorman and her recitation. As a writer, I can't forget how capable this young woman was.
It all felt like a cool breeze to me. That's still how I feel. I know things are going to happen: the honeymoon won't last long, but I enjoyed our life during the honeymoon.
It is clear to me that a big problem remains. 74 million people looked at Trump and said, "I believe what you say. "For some reason, tens of millions of people believe that the election results have been stolen. This is a big problem. We have to find a way to fix it.
Claudia Dreyfus: The ancient Greeks told us that great drama can vent emotions. Is this how the inauguration gives you?
Alan Sorkin: Ironically, you could say this: It's not so much a catharsis as it's like the end of one of the worst, longest dramas in the world. The curtain fell, it was all over, and we were happy to get out of our seats and usher in the end in a better seat.
Now, the catharsis of emotions has come. Amanda Gorman's line goes like this: "Somehow we have withstood the test; witnessed a country that is not broken, just unfinished." It's a catharsis... But that was a real hit, and we don't want to be so close to the brink of collapse anymore.
We see Americans not protesting, but attacking the Capitol. They do this because they are indoctrinated with a lot of bad information. The question, in my view, is: How do we get the First Amendment, and "everybody has to agree on a factual level," to coexist?
Claudia Dreyfus: We also witnessed the second scene at the inauguration. The country's first female vice president, the daughter of an Indian and Jamaican immigrant, had two senators from Georgia sworn in: one of them a black minister and the other a Jew. Georgia was the place of numerous lynchings of African Americans; Leo Frank, a Jew, was lynched here in 1915. Did you impress with this contrast?
Alan Sorkin: Of course, A few days ago, I was thrilled when I saw that they were going to win a second round of elections (the election system of two ballots when they couldn't vote in one election). I think the gospel song is right: change comes quickly, change comes slowly, but change comes.
Claudia Dreyfus: You have a character in White House who is Jewish. How would he see this moment in Georgia?
Alan Solkien: Toby, the character of Richard Schiff. He's going to love the moment in Georgia. But I also think that people like Toby are naturally going to take a step back when everyone else is probably clapping their hands in celebration. He would say, "Watch out for a backlash in Georgia (which may arise)." "Some people don't like to see Democrats, blacks, Jews represent Georgia, and they're not going to stop there.
Poster for the seventh season of The White House
Claudia Dreyfus: In The White House, you fictionalize that President Josiah Bartlet is a principled liberal who is trying to move the country forward. The compromises he chooses to make (or not make) are often dramatic. In the years from 1999 to 2007, when the show aired, did you want the show to replace the conservative politics of our lives?
Alan Sorkin: No, the engine of White House is not a reaction to our realpolitik. Our first season began in the final year of Bill Clinton's administration. "The White House" runs through George W. Bush. George W. Bush's first term and half of his second term. And it has nothing to do with realpolitik.
I am by no means a political expert, and I am well aware of that. I just think politics is a great place to tell stories. If you like idealized and romantic writing as much as I do, this is a great pool for you to take a dip in.
Overall, in popular culture, the leaders we elect are either Machiavellians or idiots. I wanted to make a TV series about the workplace, set in a very interesting workplace: the White House. The staff there are as competent and dedicated as the nurses and doctors in the hospital drama.
Claudia Dreyfus: The tradition of cinema about American politics has always existed, but why hasn't a drama like "The White House" ever appeared on television before?
Alan Sorkin: Shows about politics always fail on TELEVISION, just as everyone thinks The White House is going to fail. When I was writing the first episode, I didn't expect there to be a second episode.
This was not only about politics, but people were also quite open about their political positions at the time. The characters in the play have strong political views. It turns out that the reason audiences keep chasing the show is because they like the characters in the show — even those who disagree with them.
Claudia Dreyfus: In 2016, the morning after Donald Trump won the presidential election, you wrote a letter to your daughter, then 13, which was later reprinted in Vanity Fair magazine. In that article, you called Trump "an incompetent pig with dangerous ideas, a severe mental disorder, no knowledge of the world, and no curiosity." Did you foresee how things would unfold?
Alan Sorkin: It's something I can't imagine. I think he's going to be an awkward guy: a clown who is supported by people who "know what they're doing." I thought at the time that their political views were not at odds with mine, but at least they knew what they were doing. At least they will respect democracy.
I can't imagine that someone ordered a child to be taken away from the parents at the border; sympathizing with another parent is the easiest thing in the world. So, I can't imagine (he would do something like that). Regarding what white supremacism does, I'm not surprised he would do it. But to my surprise, he has been making "parts that should have been kept secret" public. I was amazed at how many out-and-out corrupt people and outright criminals he had around him.
So yeah, even though my expectations are low, I'm still shocked almost every day.
Claudia Dreyfus: What do you expect?
Alan Sorkin: At first, I thought the government would continue to evolve. He's doing nothing about climate change, and maybe we're going to be in a stupid war. But I never thought about what would have happened, because without the collaboration of Lindsey Grahams and Mitch McConnells, many things would not have happened. I was struck by every Republican in the House, and almost every Republican in the Senate who supported him.
I never thought that adult men and women would lie to others like this. I didn't expect tens of millions of Americans to be so easily deceived.
You know, the presidents we think are terrible, whether it's Richard Nixon or Herbert Hoover, they still understand what it means to be president and act within the rules. Neither of these men are as stupid as Donald Trump.
Claudia Dreyfus: Is there a novelist or playwright who can create a convincing work of art based on the character of Donald Trump?
Alan Sorkin: I don't like to speak in place of other writers, especially those who are more talented than I am, but I don't believe any writer can do it.
I believe that the best living writers in America right now (I mean playwrights, screenwriters, not novelists) — Tony Kushner, David Mamet, and others — can't write this character as if you give them all the time in the world.
You can only think of him as a behind-the-scenes character that everyone else is talking about. Those can be interesting, dramatic conversations: Between the people around him, most of them have a clearer mind, and they are going through something. That's drama. That's interesting. And he's not.
Another thing that disqualified Trump is that he is not an interesting hero, even an anti-hero without a conscience. At least for Richard III, the burden on him was heavy. That's why the play is so gripping. Donald Trump has little to shoulder on him other than a variety of popularity metrics. He was a villain, a cartoon villain; an incompetent man surrounded by the masses.
Claudia Dreyfus: So how did he win the 2016 election?
Alan Sorkin: I think there's more than one reason. One is that Trump is a great prop to poke liberals in the eye. It may sound a bit masochistic, but I still visit Breitbart regularly. The common theme of the past four years has been "I like that he drives liberals crazy." ”
There are some people who feel that people like me and you think, "We're better than them." I believe that one of the reasons for his election was the feeling of inferiority of tens of millions of people.
When Hillary Clinton said half of Trump supporters could be classified as what she called "a bunch of poor people," we were all outraged. But there isn't a single Trump supporter who is not to blame. As a Trump supporter, you're saying, "I'm not a racist, I just don't mind a racist." I'm not going to break up my family at the border, but I don't mind because then I can get what I want. "It's regrettable.
Claudia Dreyfus: Do you think Trump is a typical sociopath? This is what his niece, Mary Trump, hinted at in her memoir, "Never Satisfied: How My Family Made the Most Dangerous Man in the World." I heard you say, I wish someone could come and write about him and make us say, "Oh! I understand. That's human nature. ”
Alan Sorkin: I can't believe you can actually write about Donald Trump. I don't like to quote myself, but let me give the example of "Few Good Guys." Jack Nicholson said on the witness stand, "You can't accept the truth." He defended the Marines who nearly killed a fellow soldier and explained why it was actually a good thing.
The power of this speech is this: a bad guy can have a good point of view. He may have gone crazy, but he's a very smart guy. But Donald Trump is not.
Claudia Dreyfus: About the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, can you imagine a scene like this in all your works?
Alan Sorkin: I can't.
When I was making White House, we did a documentary and we chose a week to air it (instead of replaying the White House episode). We hired a really great documentary filmmaker, and we interviewed people who worked in the White House from Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter. One of the interviewees, Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton's special adviser, told the story of Richard Nixon putting his children in his car when he resigned in August 1974. Their car was as close to the White House as possible, and Nixon said, "Listen, kids, at noon today, the most powerful people in the world are going to hand over power to someone else, and you can't see tanks on the street." This is the United States. ”
We failed to teach our children the same "like a fish in the throat" and shocking lessons, which will continue to haunt us.
Poster for The Trial of the Seven Gentlemen of Chicago
Claudia Dreyfus: When you wrote The Trial of the Seven Gentlemen of Chicago, did you intend to use it as a commentary on the present?
Alan Sorkin: Oh my God, no! First of all, I started writing this movie 15 years ago. One Saturday morning in 2006, I was invited to Steven Spielberg's house. This is uncommon. I don't hang out with Steven Spielberg. He said he wanted to make a movie about the Seven Gentlemen of Chicago, and he wanted me to write it. I said, "Sounds good, count me in." ”
As soon as I left his house, I called someone and asked them who the Seven Gentlemen of Chicago were. I don't know who they are, I just agreed to make a movie with Spielberg.
Then I started my research. There are more than a dozen good books on trials, some written by defendants. There is also a 21,000-page trial record. I talked to Tom Hayden and he was alive when I started investigating. To answer your question, I always wish the film was about today and not 1968. Over the last 15 years, I've changed twenty-five or thirty drafts, but only made it better in a screenwriting way. I have never made any changes to reflect the events of the world. The events were adapted to reflect the script.
Ironically, on Jan. 6, Donald Trump committed the exact crimes the Chicago Sevens are charged with.
Claudia Dreyfus: Do you think Trump will be prosecuted?
Alan Sorkin: Yes. I'm guessing the people who stormed the Capitol weren't from Washington, D.C., they crossed the state border to get there. Therefore, in addition, these people can also be prosecuted. They are committing exactly the same crime.
Claudia Dreyfus: If Trump is not indicted, if his second impeachment does not result in a Senate conviction, can a truth and reconciliation commission (like the one that exists in South Africa, Chile and Argentina) provide us with answers?
Alan Sorkin: We need something. First, there needs to be a committee. We'll have to figure out what happened on January 6th. We need to understand what has happened in the last four years.
It's not about chasing Trump to the ends of the earth, as if he were a robber leader like Butch Cassidy and we're law enforcers. It's a matter of the rule of law, and it's about the future. I don't think the United States can continue to tolerate tens of millions of citizens who are voting-age and so sure of misinformation.
Claudia Dreyfus: For more than four years, Trump and what he does have been at the center of our lives. In a way that had never been seen before, he aroused the consciousness of the people of the whole country. Will we "involuntarily" miss his reality show?
Alan Sorkin: You're right, Trump seems to exist in the air supply. Sometimes, I get into trouble because of my open optimism. However, we should be optimistic at this moment... Trump will find a way to get his voice heard, but it doesn't matter because he's just a Florida individual right now and has some resentment with Biden and Harris. After stepping down, he will not report as much as he did in the White House.
I think we'll end up with something like "Let's stop talking about certain cultural moments" (like the balloon boy's prank) [the "hot air balloon boy" scam happened on October 15, 2009, when a couple in Colorado said their son was taken to the sky by a helium balloon, and then a lot of manpower and material resources were deployed to rescue the child. The incident was followed up by the world's major media, but the incident was eventually confirmed to be a hoax orchestrated by the couple. ] way to stop the discussion of Trump.
[This article was originally published in the New York Review of Books.] Originally titled "I Never Imagined the Lying" by Claudia Dreifus
Editor-in-Charge: Shen Guanzhe
Proofreader: Yan Zhang