Q: The fact that he's not politically committed doesn't make him a serious person

A: He's suspicious of politics, like a lot of people. Yet he isn't a profound thinker, he isn't represented as the world's brightest guy. He's a type who doesn't believe, say necessarily, that elections and politics and taking positions is at all the right way to get things done; he's on to something that's more fundamental, he thinks. But he's not necessarily an intellectual. He is, in fact, like a lot of liberal candidates, that is, intuitive, confused, with potentiality to be led by his emotions. Now you say, "Whether Ritchie and Larner feel this process necessary, and McKay's actions morally justified, is unclear." Well, I think that that's the most ridiculous statement in the review, no, the second most ridiculous statement. I think it's crystal-clear whether one thinks this process necessary or his actions morally justified. We're not moralizing. We're not moralizing because that would be all too pat to moralize but there's no proof for that in any part.

Q: No proof

A: Right, there's no part of the film you could point to that would say this process is justified. We're showing you what the process is, we're also showing you how silly it is and how little it has to do with getting good people to lead us. To say that...

Q: It seems to me what you're doing then, as you've done in your previous points, is merely proving what I think of as limitations in the film. For example, outdatedness. If you were thinking in terms of real politics and how audiences could effect things in real situations, you wouldn't have to worry about outdatedness...

A: We're not interested in showing people how they could effect a political situation. We're making a movie about a certain kind of character in a certain kind of process in a certain kind of situation. We are not serious in your sense. We're serious in the sense of being artists. Artists do not have to solve political problems. One argument is they shouldn't care. We're not telling people what to do. We're showing how this kind of candidate can get elected, totally unprepared to exercise power. That's not everything but it is alot. And over the weeks it's gotten very disgusting when high brow reviewers try to pin us with a purpose bigger than we intended...and missing the point of what we were trying to do.

Q: But it is a real criticism to say that the limits you set yourself are too limited to validate your statement.

A: There's nothing we leave out of the campaign that would happen in a campaign. He is not pressured on the war in Vietnam any more than he would really be. You should know what his position would be on Vietnam. It would be to bring the war to a close...Would it show our moral integrity if we had another scene on Vietnam?

Q: It's not really a question of moral interests

A: But you said it was a cop-out.

Q: OK I say in my sense if I made the film, it would be a cop-out and I do think it's still unclear whether you think McKay's actions justified.

A: Then how could we present these men as being so venal and stupid?

Q: If you take that situation as the given you work with and you say that this is what the men have to go through then you say he is morally justified in participating

A: You're saddling us with a theme we do not have. Given a certain person, this is what happens. This explains the candidacy of John Lindsay for example. But it doesn't say something different couldn't happen to another candidate. It does say, look, this is what happening. Certainly the implication is we could do a hell of a lot better. You're confusing art with preaching.

Q: No. I'm not, I can point to works of art which a have messages