1. What makes The Constant Gardener interesting to Transparency International is its political dimension, namely the angle on corruption.What originally attracted you as a producer to this project? Did you hold any strong political beliefs as you began? Have your beliefs changed in any way as a result of your work on the film?

When I originally read the pre-publication draft of the book, what attracted me to it was the fact it was an angry book, a passionate book, on a subject which I believed to be pertinent and relevant then, and which I perceived would continue to be relevant for many years to come. And it still is. The research that we did showed that it was absolutely clear it was still going on.

Beyond that there was the love story, there was the thriller element. But mainly it was about a subject which I believe will resonate for years to come, and sadly that is true.

2. In which ways did corruption as the political background topic of the picture influence how much attention the movie got and how it was promoted?

The truth is, I don’t think at all actually.We weren’t pointing the finger at the Kenyan government. If anything, it was simply pointing the finger at the UK government for being complicit in this. What is so interesting now is the fact that John Githongo, who used to be the anti-corruption tsar under Kibaki, had to leave Kenya for fear of his life, because he was exposing corruption at the very highest levels…

And the brilliant thing from our point of view is that John Githongo is a trustee on the Constant Gardener Trust, and we are very proud of that: we are delighted to have him as a trust member. Equally so with Sir Edward Clay, the past British High Commissioner in Nairobi who retired last year, and who still fights the World Bank giving loans to Kenya until they sort their act out. Sir Edward Clay and John Githongo are voices that need to be heard at the moment, and need to be listened to.

The movie was treated as a feature film, which is what it was. It was made as entertainment, but entertainment with a bias towards a truth. What I found interesting is that there were two or three articles along the way, which I felt were possibly politically or corporately written with a view to slagging the film off, that we were misrepresenting the situation, but those were few and far between. On the whole, we were treated as we wanted to be treated, which was as a serious, commercial film.

3. Bob Geldof visited Transparency International in Berlin recently to speak with the staff on the necessity of fighting corruption to help beat poverty. He stated that it had been a mistake to concentrate on economists and not on culture, because “culture plays more into corruption than anything else.”
Geldof would say that his experience has been to fight poverty using music. Do you think the popular aspect of culture, i.e. music, films and art can further a political cause, and do you see this as being effective?

That is a very difficult, yet very pertinent question. I believe absolutely what Geldof says… So our feeling is very much that film, music, the arts in general can unite people in a way that perhaps other well-intentioned mediums cannot.

4. As a producer, do you see a trade-off between entertainment and advocacy? Is it a concern that politically-focused films will suffer at the box office?

Well, I have already said that for me, this is entertainment in the first position, but based upon a truth. Is there a trade-off? I hope not. I hope you can be entertaining and truthful at the same time. I would hate to think that you were giving a political message through film that was blatantly and obviously untrue. Now that accusation has, of course, been put to Michael Moore for the film that he did, Fahrenheit 9/11 , and I think your readers should take an opinion on that.

5. What can Hollywood do to help resolve political issues, such as the problem of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry portrayed in The Constant Gardener? More specifically, has there been any sort of follow-up by the cast, crew, or civil society groups to build upon the momentum of the film to deal with the issue of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry?

I am not really certain what Hollywood can do to resolve political issues. I want to entertain, but I want to entertain on my own terms. I don’t want to make blockbuster Hollywood films: nothing I have done has been a blockbuster Hollywood film. With The Constant Gardener we very consciously kept it a British independent film. It was one of the things I promised John Le Carré when he allowed me to take the rights for the film: that we would remain a British independent project. I would like to think that The Constant Gardener has in some way highlighted - pinpointed -corruption’s malpractices, perhaps in a way which we don’t even understand. I can’t say that we are directly responsible, but I would like to think that in making the film, we might have had some small opportunity of bending in the air here or there which might have made a difference, even though this is not what we have set out to do.

What we have done is to create the Constant Gardener Trust. The website is www.constantgardenertrust.org . As a group we were very determined. We were filming in some very big open areas - the slum of Kibera - which has one million people living in it. There is no running water, no electricity, no sanitation, or very little. With the help of Marius Zvan, the boss at Blue Sky Films, I went to see the various community leaders. We decided we were not going to pay elders, community chiefs and leaders fees for where we were filming. But we would propose that we put the whole of the location fee into building projects that would benefit the whole community.

So in Kibera, we built a bridge over a river which is, in less pleasant terms, an open sewer. And then we built a ramp, that was essentially a temporary construction for the film, which we have now decided to build permanently.

Beyond that, we have put in three 10,000 litre water tanks. We have put in three sets of showers and toilets, and a fourth 10,000 litre water tank and a fourth set of showers will go in before Easter. When I go back next week, work will have already started on that.

For me, it is a question of making sure that none of the money is being ill-spent, and that savings that are made. The building process is very rigorously overseen.

We have additionally built a new classroom in a primary school that had holes in its roof. It was in an absolutely appalling state, absolutely appalling. But we have put in 60 double desks and a new blackboard, and now it is a nice, light, airy classroom for 60 primary school kids.

Then when we went north, 600 kilometers north of Nairobi, to the most inhospitable terrain imaginable. They don’t have secondary schools in the country. There is a primary school which takes kids up to 11, and what they wanted was a secondary school. So part of what we did was to agree with everybody that our facility fee for filming up there, would go into the building of secondary schools. And that for every single person that we used [on the film ] - about five or six thousand man days, as extras and as builders and local craftsmen - 50 Kenyan Schillings, the equivalent of 30 pence or 50 cents, would be deducted and paid into the secondary school fund. That would ensure that every single person who worked on the film really felt that they had some sense of purpose about what they were doing, and that they were really a part of building the new school. Beyond that, we have raised money through the charitable trust to build the secondary school.

I will return there in the middle of March, where I will actually open with the education people, a secondary school in Loiyangalani. And it will be fantastic, because it will be the only one for many hundred kilometres. And the government is putting in a headmaster. Twenty-three boys and five girls have turned up, and we have built dormitories for them. It has running water and a septic tank.

6. What has the response been from the pharmaceutical industry to the film?

There is a sort of dignified but stuffy silence in the main. Apart from that, there are the corporate slings and arrows which have come in our direction saying that the film is actually a pile of rubbish.

7. Part of The Constant Gardener was filmed in Kenya, arguably one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Were you, or any of the cast or crew, asked for a bribe while on site in Kenya? Did you come face to face with corruption personally in the making of the film?

Yes, I am sure that to a large extent that is true. Having said that, we were treated with due respect, and were helped by four specific ministers to get us filming over there. And no, we were never asked for a bribe in Kenya. And I have to say that none were offered either, at any level. We were asked to come up with more money for things, but nobody ever said, “This will not happen unless you come up with x”. Palms were greased, but no more than palms would be greased over here.

8. If your next film had to have the same type of socially conscious angle as The Constant Gardener but you were able to choose the issue, what would it be?In other words, what is the next story that needs to be told?

I have no idea whether I should actually tell you this, because it is a film we are probably going to make, and I don’t want to blow it out of the water.

Disclaimer