While covering the news desk in Cairo for a colleague over the Christmas holidays, Australian journalist Peter Greste was arrested and accused of terrorism. He became a pawn in the middle of a deadly game full of corrupt officials and ancient rivalries. The subject of his own worldwide news story, where only his wits and unlikely allies kept him alive, Greste’s very survival meant staring down a brutal regime. The Correspondent is a gripping thriller and a compelling true story about the relentless defence of the truth and triumph of the human spirit, starring Richard Roxburgh as Greste, and directed by Kriv Stenders.
As the film arrives in Australian theatres this week, our Peter Gray, after speaking with director Stenders (you can read the full interview here), caught up with Greste and Roxburgh to hear their thoughts on bringing the story to the big screen, if there was a catharsis in that process, and how their respective views on filmmaking and journalism have shifted since.
Peter, how does it feel seeing aspects of your life being told here? Is it cathartic at all? Surreal?
Peter Greste: It’s not catharsis. That’s not the word for it. I’ve processed this a lot. I’ve written a book about it. I’ve given countless lectures and talks about it. I’ve built a career on it. So I kind of processed it pretty solidly. Pretty thoroughly. Also, I was really wrestling before I saw the film with how I was supposed to feel about it. Everyone asks that question, “How does it feel?” And I realised that it’s not me. What I’m watching is an artist. An extraordinary artistic interpretation of that story, with literally dozens and dozens of creatives who’ve all had their own input into this product and work of art. And what comes out is a really wonderful, extraordinary, powerful, genuinely authentic rendering of what I went through. But it’s not me.
Having said that, I also didn’t really expect just how it would wallop me. Watching it for the first time, what Rox (Richard Roxburgh) does so incredibly well, and what the film achieves, is a kind of emotional intensity that nails things like that. The sheer confusion around the arrest, the kind of claustrophobia in the cells, the frustrating nature of the trial, and the weirdness of my release…all those elements are right in there. And also the sheer tragedy of Kate’s story* as well. I hadn’t really engaged with Kate’s story in anyway of the same extent. And seeing that on screen was quite tough.
*Kate Peyton was a British journalist and senior producer for the BBC Johannesburg who was killed in a shooting incident in Somalia in 2005; Greste had accompanied her to her hotel only hours before the shooting occurred.
I spoke to Kriv the other day, and I mentioned to him that I was surprised at some of the depictions of the prison life. For you, Richard, was there anything that you learned about Peter’s experience that you were surprised to hear?
Richard Roxburgh: I think the story is full of all kinds of weird and surprising corners. Part of what sets the film apart is that it’s an exploration of those things as much as anything. So, in that way, it defies a lot of the prison tropes. It’s really quite beautiful to see the relationships he developed with the people around him. The relationship with the warden of the prison is such an odd, but quite beautiful thing that I haven’t seen on film. There’s these kind of fascinating angles that I found interesting to be immersed in.
What was the collaboration process like between the two of you? Was anything off limits? Did you have to interpret certain things? How was that relationship in bringing Peter to screen for you, Richard?
Richard Roxburgh: There was no effort to mimic Peter outward. There’s this essence of Peter that’s really important. There’s a kind of calm quality to him, and, for one of a better word, there’s a sense of Northern European otherness about him as well. It’s odd talking about this stuff with (Peter). But I found those really interesting tendrils that an actor will pull on to find a character…it was never about that. It was never going to be a bunch of manifestations.
We’ve seen journalism come under siege in many aspects. Do you look at this film as a personal story first, more than a political one?
Peter Greste: How do I answer that? First and foremost, it’s a damn good drama. I really don’t want anybody thinking that they’re going to go along and see this sort of polemic lecture. This is a socially responsible film that you have to go and see to appreciate written attacks on leading freedom. Those themes are shot through the narrative. But it’s just a brilliant piece of filmmaking, and a really intense, thought-provoking drama that works on all sorts of levels.
As a journalist, what I’m trying to do is draw out meaning from stories, from narrative, from things that really took place. And the whole reason I wrote the book was to try and make not just sense of the kind of proximate experience of being in prison, but also place it in some kind of historical context and unthread the politics of what we’re experiencing. To see if I could understand it in a much larger global narrative. And the more deeply I thought about it, the more I realised that this isn’t what happened to us. It was a really visceral, vivid example of what was taking place the world over when it comes to a much wider assault on journalism.
At the time I wrote the book, back in 2017, and soon after when Carmel Travers (producer) optioned it, I remember saying to her that we needed to get the movie out quickly. Because the longer we move away from 9/11, which is when I really think the narrative began, I felt the more we’d grow up and journalism could recover its role in society and the rhetoric around terrorism and national security would start to feel old . I was tragically wrong in ways that I never really expected.
So if (this film) helps trigger conversations, if it makes people think a little bit more deeply about that stuff, then we would have done something important and valuable. But, again to underline that point, it’s not primarily a film about press freedom. It’s primarily a film about the really surreal experience of a journalist who was caught up in a bigger political drama and about the relationships and dynamics of that prison cell.
Looking at filmmaking and journalism, for the both of you, has your aspect of the other medium changed?
Richard Roxburgh: I’m definitely more attuned to the world of journalism. To the encroachments on that world. I’m so shocked at what has become of the core profession that journalists, from being protected under the Geneva Convention, are now regarded in any war as an enemy combatant. And so they’re deliberately targeted. You only have to look at Gaza to see that this is the case. It’s happening in the Ukraine. It’s everywhere.
The fact that everybody’s a “journalist” now, because everybody has thumbs, and I don’t think that’s a safe place to be. There has to be some arrows drawn. There has to be some deeper understanding of what it is, or was, that journalists actually did before the world changed. And hopefully we can find our way back to that.
Peter Greste: I’ve come away with a far deeper respect for the craft making and the really deep thoughtfulness that these guys have put into it. Listening to some of the conversations between Rox and Kriv, and some of the conversations that I’ve been involved with Peter Duncan (screenwriter) and Kriv and Rox, as well, and seeing how those conversations somehow seeped into the DNA of the film to create something that was really impactful has been really interesting to watch.
Richard, there’s so much happening with your performance from an internal point of view. Does that come from conversations with Peter? Or are you taking something else on to emulate that isolation and fear we’re seeing on screen?
Richard Roxburgh: Peter was fantastic support. He was a supporter of the project from day dot. He was there at the first read through. I could see the way he was with people. I could see the impact he had in a room. Actors are constantly scanning and looking for stuff, so that was incredibly helpful. I could also message him if need be with weird questions I had along the way.
I guess it’s just a matter of trying to find your way into the singular reality of the environment and what (he’s) going through. It was a tough shoot, which was helpful, and I don’t know if this was deliberate or not, but I was very isolated. I isolated myself during filming. I’m usually quite social on film sets. I’ll have lunch with the crew and chat. I didn’t do any of that on (The Correspondent). In a sense, it was kind of painting myself into a very quiet corner, which was odd, lonely and solitary. I guess because it was easier to get to the places I needed to get to.
Peter Greste: Was that a conscious choice?
Richard Roxburgh: I don’t think so. I think it just came about because I think otherwise I would have found if I’m chatting and laughing it up with the crew and actors at lunchtime, and then have to go to these really deep, dark places at times…It’s just too big a stretch. I feel like I would have snapped.
Peter Greste: I’m wondering whether you thought that you needed to do that for creative output? Or whether it was you just didn’t want to engage with people?
Richard Roxburgh: I can’t remember deliberately thinking….I think it just happened as a result of the emotional imperative. And also because so much of it was done in a first person way. Yeah, there was no relief. There was no downtime.
When you read the script, and you see what both Kriv and Richard are doing, is there anything that you perhaps want to alter or heighten in a certain way? Or something that’s an absolute must for you in being relayed on screen?
Peter Greste: I found everyone involved with this, even the engagement I had with set designers and costume designers, there was a level of curiosity, genuine interest and empathy all the way throughout. I didn’t feel as though, at any point, I needed to worry about what they were going to do with (my story). I kind of found a degree of trust that they were going to take the story and create something worthwhile with it. The only thing that I was worried about, and I spoke to Kriv about this, that they would flatten out the kind of stereotypes around brown characters and prove, very explicitly, that they would break the prison (genre) tropes. It broke those narratives and stereotypes. So, you know, I didn’t have to explicitly say, “You need to make sure that these guys are respected.”
The one thing that I really did want, and I’m glad you brought it up, was I wanted the tension between me and my family articulated. I didn’t want the family to be seen as a villain. I wanted the audience to see where they were coming from. We had two very different world views. I don’t expect everyone to necessarily agree with the family, but more to see and recognise the tension of the fundamental differences of how we both understood and related to the world. And the really difficult experiences that was created in prison.
Richard Roxburgh: Yeah, it’s interesting. Peter has this way of talking about the way that his family have perceived the film. It’s like somebody describing an elephant, and you have your own picture of what the elephant looks like, because you can see your part of it. So the experience that Peter’s mum and dad had during his imprisonment was one very particular part of this element of their world. So when they come and see the film, it’s nothing like (Peter’s) elephant. It’s such a strange experience. I feel like what (Peter) is talking about there with that experience is that they both have a version of the elephant. I can see what it looks like, and they’re on the other side saying something different.
Peter Greste: Yeah, that’s a really good way of articulating it. I remember having conversations with Peter Duncan about that. About needing people to connect with the family. To see and understand the piece of the elephant.
The Correspondent is screening in Australian theatres from April 17th, 2025.
