ACG: Your television movie The Other Boleyn Girl (2003) didn’t claim to be a historical documentary, but a historical drama that perhaps explores truths rather than facts. You made Dunkirk (2004) as a documentary. Where does Saddam fall between the two?

AH: When you have dramatization of historic events, you always have to find that place where truth and fact overlap. Even in Dunkirk, which was based heavily on first-hand accounts, there was still a need to re-imagine events in order to recreate emotions rather than just recording facts. In House of Saddam, we stuck as close to the facts as was possible, but there were always multiple interpretations of the people and events we discussed. You have to be guided by an understanding of a character, to find a deeper truth, and make your decisions as to how you represent situations on that basis.

ACG: What are you hoping viewers will learn from the program?

AH: Primarily this is a study of the character of a man who changed the course of history. We looked at the workings of his inner circle. We get to see much of how Saddam interacted with the West and the terrible consequences of his regime for the Iraqi people. But ultimately our focus always returns to the man, his strengths and his flaws.

One thing the series does try and do is to provide the family and micro-political background to some of the more significant geopolitical events of his time in power. For example, in the section about the invasion of Kuwait, we had to look at what was going on his family, and the inner circle, as well as the regional factors to get a proper understanding of Saddam’s decision to invade. (Iraq had been economically devastated by the Iran-Iraq War and, in the miniseries, Saddam is depicted as regarding Kuwait’s refusal to cut oil production as betrayal by an Arab brother. — ACG)

ACG: In the miniseries, the Saddam character often makes patriotic declarations about Iraq and seems to genuinely love his country. Shortly before he is captured, he is shown kissing the Iraqi flag. Do you think Saddam came to confuse himself with Iraq and vice versa?

AH: I have no doubt there was both a conscious and an unconscious decision to identify himself with his country. He needed people to believe that any attack on Saddam was an attack on Iraq.

But Saddam took this level of identification between himself and the country to extremes. In Part Two of the series there is a scene in which a sculptor shows him a miniature of the Victory Arch Saddam wanted built to commemorate what he called a victory in the Iran-Iraq War. The arms holding the swords are actual casts of Saddam’s own arms. What is remarkable is that the arms and hands of the actual arch weren’t just representations, they were replicas of Saddam’s arms and hands—right down to the sworls on his thumbprints. That is a very strong example of how Saddam identified himself with Iraq. Later in his regime, he placed an Islamic statement on the flag; it is in his own handwriting.

ACG: The Saddam character deludes himself into believing he had won the Iran-Iraq War, which was actually more of a bloody stalemate. Later, that same self-delusion leads him to conclude he won a great victory in the First Gulf War. What are you thoughts on this delusional side of the real Saddam’s personality?

AH: Saddam was a man who believed in himself. He was able to conceive events in a way that he wanted. He chose the facts that suited him best and created a story out of them.

That had an impact on how he thought he should be treated by his neighbors. Even more disastrous than his misrepresentation of the Iran-Iraq War was his misinterpretation of what lay behind the decision of Coalition Forces in the First Gulf War to halt their advance into Iraqi territory. He read this as a sign of weakness on the part of the U.S.–led forces. In 2002–2004, based on this misrepresentation, he miscalculated the true intent of the coalition forces this time to actually occupy the country.

Pages: 1 2 3