TPMCafe
« A Pragmatic Book for a Pragmatic Time | Home | Fact, Fable, Fiction »

House of Saddam: Behind the Movie

user-pic

When I first heard of the proposed mini-series 'House of Saddam' I was suspicious. Why would the BBC/HBO, UK/America, want to make a drama series about Saddam Hussein? I wondered what the hidden agenda might be. Were they trying to cash in on the demonisation of Saddam - already Enemy Number 1 as far as the Western media were concerned? Whose "version" of history was this going to be? After meeting Alex Holmes I soon realised that this drama series would be different. Not a lesson in the history of Iraq, not about condemnation or praise, it was to be about understanding a tightly knit group of people whose lives orbited around their sun, Saddam Hussein. The perspective was going to be from inside the inner circles and family, looking out. It would be an attempt to go behind closed doors and shed light upon the man himself. That really interested me so I spent the next 2 ½ years researching and script editing the 'House of Saddam' mini-series.

I had been to Iraq in 2003 working on a documentary series for British & Arabic TV. There, I conducted harrowing interviews with the Iraqi people. I met grieving families of all faiths and political persuasions at the Free Prisoners Association, who were searching for their missing loved ones. I stood at the mass graves of Hilla and saw the remains of Saddam's victims - shreds of clothing, prayer beads, a child's shoe. There were thousands missing, thousands tortured, countless thousands dead. The atrocities the Iraqi people have endured as a result of this man's rule are well documented, but after Saddam their suffering has continued. Some Iraqis I know even wish him back. So who was he? What formed his character and drove him? Here was an opportunity to present a different perspective and to try to understand the most important question... WHY he did what he did. I don't know if I found an answer but I certainly understand more about Saddam the man as a result of looking at events through his eyes. What would you have done if Hussein Kamel fled into the arms of the CIA with Iraq's weapons' secrets?

Initially Saddam Hussein had an admirable vision of a strong and modern Iraq and he worked hard to create it. He built hospitals and schools. The Iraqi people were well fed and well educated. Even UNESCO praised his literacy programs. He was a supporter of women's rights. Yet behind these successes the fear and the terror existed, growing like a cancer as time went by. Ultimately his own paranoia and brutality eroded away everything he had accomplished.

What emerged from the research and interviews was a portrait of a man full of contradictions. After executing his best friend Adnan Hamdani he went to visit his friend's widow to offer his condolences. There were tears of sorrow in his eyes. He modelled himself upon past dictators, studied Stalin, and yet wrote romantic novels, which he published anonymously. And despite his bloody reign he went to the gallows like an innocent man, full of Bedouin honor, head held high, reciting the Qur'an.

The Iraqi people I interviewed were also full of contradictions; they both hated and admired Saddam simultaneously and in equal measure. But looking into his past one can begin to understand where the admiration came from. Saddam grew up in poverty, illiterate, and fatherless in Al Awja, a backwater of Tikrit. To be fatherless within Arab or tribal Bedouin society cannot be under-estimated. It meant to have no status or future. Who could have predicted that this barefoot boy would become the ruler of Iraq and change the course of world history? He single-mindedly forged his journey with sheer determination and willpower and it is clear that his childhood shaped his character. Refusing to endure regular beatings from his cruel stepfather, Saddam ran away from home at the age of eight and an uncle took him in. At school he was further humiliated by having to learn to read and write with children half his age. But he quickly taught himself both and rose through the ranks, determined to prove his worth. His need for status and power came from a start in life where he was deprived of everything. Once he had that power he began to reinvent himself into the hero he had wanted to become. In the end he believed his own mythology as the terrified individuals around him reinforced it. And the circle completed itself; he ended up hiding on a farm, only miles from the place of his birth.

This mini-series presents a more human image than the Western media usually portrays. As a result, we better understand not just Saddam the politician and tactician, but Saddam the father and husband. Those who met him were always amazed at how respectful and caring he was; he loved children; he never broke a promise; his charisma had all the ladies swooning. Humanising him is not a denial of his crimes and I don't think we were 'easy' on him. The facts exist and his crimes are documented in the series. However, this approach gives us a wider viewpoint, the chance to ponder different questions, and to learn more perhaps about the nature of dictatorship itself. Sadly, Saddam's rule is an example of many regimes still in operation today.


8 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

They just played a tape that featured my all time favorite, Eleanor Roosevelt. She actually went to Russia and met with Nikita. IN 1957. They used to have a panel asking the questions on Meet The Press and Eleanor was the guest. A woman with a silly hat asked questions that attempted to chastise her for an editorial she wrote about Nikita as friendly, warm family man. IN 1957!!! The silly hat was attempting to make Eleanor, the greatest lady this country has ever produced, into a commie loving liberal. Eleanor was so deft in maneuvering around this bitch, that I was amazed. I do not get HBO on basic, but I would love to see this presentation and I thank you for taking the time to describe it. I can imagine some conservative nut absolutely foaming at the mouth after reading your post. And that thought, greatly gratifies me. Thank you.

user-pic

I'm sure this will be very entertaining. Both the BBC and HBO are very adept at this kind of "you only thought you knew Hitler!" literate revisionism.

But on the list of Grand Nemeses, Saddam is pretty small potatoes. He is notable as being conveniently used by the West as a foil against an emergent, hostile Iran, and as a stooge through which two American presidents, father and son, were able to begin (at least) an imperial occupation of the Middle East.

Warlords and maniac killers are favored subject matter for film makers. I look forward to this as entertainment... not history.

user-pic

Looking forward to watching! Should be very interesting.

-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive

user-pic

This is going to be good stuff. You just can't make up a life story like Saddam's. Truth is truly stranger and more terrible than fiction.

user-pic

Thank you all for your comments.

Dickday:
Yes, I can see how reminding people that Saddam was human could be uncomfortable territory for some. However, if in the forties they had met the barefoot, abused, and unloved eight-year-old boy, I think it would have been hard for them not to be filled with compassion. But most children grow up and the 'sins of the fathers' revisit us.

I would also love to see that Eleanor Roosevelt clip. An Orwell quote comes to mind, "In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." This raises the question what 'the truth' actually is and how we can ever know it... and that’s something researching this mini-series made me ponder on a daily basis.

For example, we knew that certain individuals were in a room having lunch on a specific day. But how could we know exactly what they had said or done in that room? Our approach was to gather as many first hand accounts as possible. This was followed by second and third hand accounts and so on. But, as Alex mentioned in his blog, memory can be selective and even two first hand accounts did not always tally. Where Saddam Hussein was concerned I quickly discovered that everybody had his or her perspective, none of which were neutral. Of course we had to assess the reliability of our sources in terms of credibility, bias, and authenticity. I spent months working on this backed up by BBC and HBO’s legal teams.

So, I soon realised that our sources could never give us 'the facts' about what happened as ultimately we were relying on subjective observations and memories. We had access only to what they considered important, interpreted, or remembered. So, we pieced together a credible version of what happened from our many different sources. However, the result and this mini-series is only our interpretation. Yes, it’s a coherent version of what others described to us, which lies within the boundaries imposed on any interpretation by the documents we had to hand. But calling it a ‘true’ account of what transpired is meaningless because it's never possible to compare it with anything. We can never get past interpretation to reach an objective ‘truth’.

However, what really helped this project was the lengthy 2 ½ years of research. Because of the depth and length of time we studied our sources, we were able to empathise with them and gain an understanding from their perspective. This was the key to unlocking what motivated our characters and why they acted as they did - essential for an honest portrayal. As any of those I interviewed will attest to… after numerous five-hour long conversations there’s not much left out.

And San Fernando Curt:
I agree with you. This is a piece of drama, however, it’s a vigorously researched piece of drama. Often the words in character’s mouths come from actual transcripts, and from archive film and audio footage we managed to access. As for being entertaining… that was also the aim. So I hope it both entertains and informs. And Saddam being used as a pawn for an imperial occupation of the Middle East… Oh boy, where do I begin?

And Dorn 76:
Truth IS truly stranger and more terrible than fiction. But maybe truth is only majority opinion and all good advertisers know that people can be very fickle.

user-pic

Sally,

Thanks for the information. There has been a lot of information about Saddam over the years, but I was always skeptical of information about him coming from anyone named Bush or anyone connected to that name.

Would it be true to say that Saddam killed only those who he saw were a threat to him and his rule?

user-pic

That really interested me so I spent the next 2 ½ years researching and script editing the 'House of Saddam' mini-series.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what your relationship to the production is. Are you employed by the production company which makes the miniseries? Or was the 2.5 years of research and script editing a gratis deal?

user-pic

I was employed by BBC Drama who made the mini-series.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address