"In this emotional documentary, we meet Chris Schoeck, a pint-sized powerhouse of a personal trainer. He spends his days pushing others to push themselves, but rarely challenges himself. In his mid-40s, he lives alone and admits he doesn’t have any meaningful relationships. But he has one growing passion: bending steel with his hands. Nails, horseshoes, crowbars, he’s building his abilities. When you bend steel, he says, you can do anything."
Over the course of developing, shooting and editing this film, did you learn anything about Coney Island you had not known prior? How has the atmosphere of Coney Island changed since the golden days of strongmen?
Dave Carroll: I was aware of the mythos and history of Coney Island but had never really spent much time there. The amusements, the beach, the food and the people were all relatively distant to me. It was just another place on the outer edge of the city that I would hear about from time to time.
Filming ‘Bending Steel’ changed that, as it required us to be out there regularly. We spent many frigid mornings on the beach catching that early winter light and many hot days on the crowded boardwalk during summer. Those moments galvanized a strong impression of Coney Island for me. Like all lasting impressions it required those experiences to make it personal and real.
It’s hard to say how Coney Island has changed over the years as it seems to be a place that is constantly in flux. There has always been forces that have tried to change it and modernize it, just as there have always been people who want to see it remain the same. It’s a magical place and some balance between old and new has to be struck before it’s bleached clean of its history. The strongmen coming back to Coney Island is a step in the right direction though.
Ryan Scafuro: I had spent a decent amount of time at Coney prior to filming Bending Steel. I remember my grandmother telling me stories about her experiences there when she was younger. So when I first moved back to NY from Boston and was living here as an adult, I tried to head down there whenever I could. As Chris says in the film, “every personality that wouldn’t fit in anywhere else should come here.” There are so many different types of people and characters down there, and that is a big part of what I love about it. It’s a place where anybody can fit in, or NOT fit in and still feel comfortable. I mean it’s a beach town complete with amusements and a boardwalk in one of the largest cities in the world. There aren’t many places like it. As Dave said it’s a community that is constantly in flux, but I think the diversity is something that has stayed the same through the years. And the strongman/sideshow presence is definitely part of that.
How did you initially come across the film’s premier subject, Chris Schoeck? Why did you want to tell his story?
Dave Carroll: I was in the basement of my apartment building doing laundry with my dog, Gizmo. We heard a noise off in the distance. She took off in that direction and I chased after her. We rounded a corner and standing before us was Chris Schoeck. He was in front of an open storage locker. Gizmo went inside to investigate. I didn’t get a good look at what Chris was doing until I went in to pick her up. The storage space was crammed with an assortment of bizarre objects. Nails were bent and thrown in to piles, phonebooks where torn and heaped together, chains hung from the ceiling.
The contents of Chris’ storage space baffled me. I had run in to him before, over the years that I had lived in the building. He would never make eye contact with me when I would greet him in the elevator. He was always awkward and uncomfortable.
I grabbed Gizmo and back peddled away, apologizing for the disturbance. Two weeks later I ran in to him again. I had been thinking about what I had seen ever since Gizmo and I stumbled upon it. I even told some friends about him. I couldn’t help but wonder. So I asked him what was going on down there. The result of that question was ‘Bending Steel.’
I wanted to tell Chris’ story because I found his struggle to be universally relatable. ‘Bending Steel’ was very clearly a metaphor for transformation with far greater implications than just the physical act of reshaping steel. It was about everything in Chris’ life leading up to that moment. He found something in this activity that was slowly changing his life. Everyone is searching for some form of fulfillment in life and it can sometimes come from very surprising places. You don’t have to bend steel to appreciate his struggle.
Ryan Scafuro: Dave and I had been looking for a subject to make short about, just a small project to work on during our free time. When he told me about that first meeting with Chris I was definitely curious. I’ve always been interested in offbeat activities or things that could be considered as a dying artform. The strongman world was a little bit of both. But as we filmed more and more with Chris, more was revealed about his character and the story became much more than just this fringe activity. It became a story about a man finding his place in the world. It became Chris’ story.
Before you had met Chris and begun development of the film, how much did you know about strongmen culture? Was their world at all familiar to you?
Dave Carroll: I didn’t know much of anything regarding strongman culture. I had everything to learn about it, which I felt was an advantage in that it put me in the same position as the audience. Because the film goes far beyond that of strongman culture and focuses predominately on Chris’ personal journal, I wanted to tell the story in a similar manner to how I experienced it, with almost no background info and very little handholding. Subsequently the film unfolds organically, through firsthand witnessing of events as he shares intimate moments with us. These moments and events added both context and subtext to the film.
Ryan Scafuro: Same as Dave, I knew very little to nothing about the oldetime strongmen. We learned as we filmed, and we were learning from people who were immersed in the culture. One of the most exciting things for me about making documentaries is being thrust into a world you would never experience otherwise. That was definitely the case with this film.
What does one’s desire for inclusion/acceptance into niche culture say about our society as a whole? Did you find there are any common reasons that strongmen have taken up this profession over the generations?
Dave Carroll: I think it is not uncommon to feel disconnected from popular culture, even marginalized in some instances. It is second nature for society to operate under demographic consensus. It’s these generic images and ideas of how we are suppose to think and feel that are shoved in to our consciousness under the false pretense of universal compatibility. ‘If it works for some people than it must work for others.’ It’s these distractions that block self-discovery, foster isolation and create disillusionment. Chris was struggling to find his place in society and wasn’t able to find it in conventional places. In many instances he was made to feel bad for previous failures at conforming to standards set by society.
The other strongmen that were in the film seemed to all have similar stories. At some point in their life they felt that they had something to contribute in their own way. This need drove them to strongmanism, a place where improvement requires vast amounts of physical, but also mental, stamina and endurance. Like Chris they were looking for excellence in some form or another. It’s all about self discovery.
Ryan Scafuro: It’s part of human nature to want to feel included or accepted. Like many people, myself included, Chris wasn’t able to find that in traditional arenas. As a youth I found that in the punk rock scene. Chris finds it in the strongman community. It’s a place where he feels comfortable, where he can excel, where he finds approval. I think that has historically drawn people to this world, it becomes a family to them.
Your film has had a very healthy festival life so far. Moving forward, what are your plans to get the film out to the widest possible audience?
Dave Carroll: We plan to continue running the festival circuit for the time being while we make negotiations for theatrical distribution. It’s been a real joy to bring the film to audiences around the world. The reactions to the film have just been phenomenal. People are really inspired by Chris’ journey.
Ryan Scafuro: Word of mouth is crucial for a film like ours. As Dave said, the audience reaction to the film have been amazing. It has been a great experience for us as filmmakers and for Chris as a person. When someone comes up to you after a screening and tells you that the film that you made has changed the way they look at life, it’s overwhelming. We have more festival screenings coming up throughout the summer and fall, and we are all very excited to continue to bring Chris’ story to audiences across the world.
- Interview prepared by David Teich & Steve Rickinson
Read the interview at IndieNYC.com
David@IndieNYC.com
Monday, July 8, 2013
Review: 'Comrade Kim Goes Flying'
“Comrade Kim Goes Flying” is the first movie of its kind. Co-financed by Western producers and helmed by directors Kim Gwang Hun (North Korean), Nicholas Bonner (English), and Anja Daelemans (Belgian), it represents unprecedented artistic cooperation between North Korea and the West. But despite Western influences, this story of an aspiring female acrobat is an ode to North Korea’s communist working class. As far as propaganda goes, it could have been worse. The blood hardly boils when the film emphasizes the value of teamwork and community. The problem is artistic: Those elements dilute the sense of individualistic drive that makes rags-to-riches stories soar.
“Comrade Kim” centers on Kim Yong-Mi (Han Jong-sim), a small-town coal-miner who dreams of becoming a trapeze artist. After her father lets her move to Pyongyang to join a construction crew, she auditions to become the lead female trapeze artist at the famed Pyongyang circus. She blows the tryout, and the lead male trapeze artist, Pak Jang-phil (Pak Chung-guk), insults her.
The film repeatedly emphasizes Yong-Mi’s social support structure over her personal ambition. As a member of the “working class” – a term exalted throughout the film – she has encouraging comrades and a benevolent foreman, Commander Sok Gun (Ri Yong-Ho), who helps her train. Shortly after her failed audition, when she dances at a festival, her coworkers beam beatific grins. Yong-Mi’s own toothy smile stretches across her face throughout the film, threatening to tear her lips apart.
Up-by-the-bootstraps stories only work if we invest in protagonists’ desires. This is far easier if they are trying to escape an unpleasant existence and operate under their own steam. From Dickens’s ‘Great Expectations’ to Avildsen’s ‘Rocky’ to Raimi’s ‘Spider-Man’, effective rags-to-riches films begin with, well, rags. And while protagonists may have help along the way, they must ultimately leave the herd. Not so with Yong-Mi. When, for example, she beats Jang-phil in a cement-mixing contest, it is clear she takes pride in her craft and her working class status. We are asked to invest in Yong-Mi’s individual aspirations even though her life and relationships are already ideal.
Jin Sok Hwang’s cinematography, filled with vivid colors and expansive long shots of the Pyongyang cityscape (geared toward maximum glorification of the city), is admittedly impressive. And the film does, at points, showcase Yong-Mi’s individualism; an arduous third-act training montage illustrates her intense personal drive.
When the film emphasizes Yong-Mi’s solo efforts, it is genuinely affecting. When it suggests she can only succeed with the help of her working class brethren, it is harder to care about her journey. But perhaps a North Korean film that expresses any individualistic sensibilities whatsoever is a minor miracle.
Read the review at IndieNYC.com
David@IndieNYC.com
“Comrade Kim” centers on Kim Yong-Mi (Han Jong-sim), a small-town coal-miner who dreams of becoming a trapeze artist. After her father lets her move to Pyongyang to join a construction crew, she auditions to become the lead female trapeze artist at the famed Pyongyang circus. She blows the tryout, and the lead male trapeze artist, Pak Jang-phil (Pak Chung-guk), insults her.
The film repeatedly emphasizes Yong-Mi’s social support structure over her personal ambition. As a member of the “working class” – a term exalted throughout the film – she has encouraging comrades and a benevolent foreman, Commander Sok Gun (Ri Yong-Ho), who helps her train. Shortly after her failed audition, when she dances at a festival, her coworkers beam beatific grins. Yong-Mi’s own toothy smile stretches across her face throughout the film, threatening to tear her lips apart.
Up-by-the-bootstraps stories only work if we invest in protagonists’ desires. This is far easier if they are trying to escape an unpleasant existence and operate under their own steam. From Dickens’s ‘Great Expectations’ to Avildsen’s ‘Rocky’ to Raimi’s ‘Spider-Man’, effective rags-to-riches films begin with, well, rags. And while protagonists may have help along the way, they must ultimately leave the herd. Not so with Yong-Mi. When, for example, she beats Jang-phil in a cement-mixing contest, it is clear she takes pride in her craft and her working class status. We are asked to invest in Yong-Mi’s individual aspirations even though her life and relationships are already ideal.
Jin Sok Hwang’s cinematography, filled with vivid colors and expansive long shots of the Pyongyang cityscape (geared toward maximum glorification of the city), is admittedly impressive. And the film does, at points, showcase Yong-Mi’s individualism; an arduous third-act training montage illustrates her intense personal drive.
When the film emphasizes Yong-Mi’s solo efforts, it is genuinely affecting. When it suggests she can only succeed with the help of her working class brethren, it is harder to care about her journey. But perhaps a North Korean film that expresses any individualistic sensibilities whatsoever is a minor miracle.
Read the review at IndieNYC.com
David@IndieNYC.com
Rooftop Films Filmmaker Profile: Mia Engberg (Director - 'Belleville Baby')
"What do you do when an ex-boyfriend calls you after mysteriously disappearing years before? What do you do if you’ve moved on from that painful loss, happily started a family, completely changed your life for the better? What do you do if your past is something you’d rather forget, something perhaps unpleasant? Filmmaker Mia Engberg received such a phone call, and wanted to ignore it. But she couldn’t. Her memories, foggy and unclear, were too alluring.The hybrid documentary ‘BELLEVILLE BABY‘ is framed by the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. His lover sucked down into Hades, Orpheus negotiates her release (via an act of beautiful artistry) on one condition: that he not look back, not remember what he’s seen. The man in this film is desperately trying to look back, and once again the search may not be beneficial for the woman. Our man has indeed been in an unspeakable place, a cruel and violent prison, and he has developed a necessary blunt cynicism he is now trying to pierce by rekindling beloved memories."
Your film involves reconnecting with Vincent, a criminal with whom you shared a romantic relationship many years ago. You have said the story was so personal that during production you were not sure if you would show anyone the completed film. What made you initially decide to pursue the project? How was this film’s production important to you personally?
I didn’t really want to make this film, but I couldn’t get it out of my system. It kept coming back to me so finally I just went with the flow and made it. I guess it was my way of dealing with the loss and the sorrow after realizing that Vincent wasted all those years in prison.
At first it was just a text and a black film. The images came later. While making it I wasn’t even sure if it was going to be a film.
You frame the film by recounting the Greek myth of Orpheus. Can you explain how the myth applies to your own narrative?
The Orpheus myth is my favorite among the greek myths. Orpheus goes down to the underworld to get his beloved Eurydice back, but he loses her in the last minute. To me it is a story about passion. You try to grasp it and it’s gone. It is also a story about wanting to save someone with your love. Everyone who has been in love with someone who is into crime or drugs or any kind of addiction knows that it is impossible. Everyone has to deal with their own darkness. That is the heart of Belleville Baby. The sorrow of not being able to save someone you love.
The film, which mixes a variety of audio and visual content, is experimental. You have even said that at one point you were worried few people would understand it. Why was it important to tell this story in such a non-traditional way? How did the format complement the content?
I find mainstream fiction and documentaries very boring. The stories are predictable and the way they are told doesn’t trigger my fantasy. Why does every feature film has to be told in the same way? Who made up those rules? I like films that try to use the cinematic tools to make something new and surprising. I wanted to destroy classic cinema. Like Marguerite Duras and Chris Marker.
In the film, you and Vincent remember the past differently. In what ways is memory an interesting topic to you? What does the film say about how subjective the idea of memory can be?
Me and Vincent don’t remember the same things about our common past. In the film he tells me about the happiest moment in his life, that we spent together, but I don’t remember it. I think we chose our memories to create ourselves. Our identity. In a way you could say that memory is our way of writing the fiction about ourselves. I find the concept of time interesting too. And scaring. One moment we are here. The next moment we are gone. Isn’t that very scary? I think that’s why we we make films - to resist time, to freeze the moment and make it eternal.
Since “Belleville Baby” has only recently begun screening in the U.S, how have American audiences received the film so far? Does their reaction differ from that of European audiences? To what extent will you now focus on the U.S. festival circuit?
After Belleville Baby screened in Seattle Film Festival I got a wonderful letter from someone in the audience who wanted to tell me about his own memories. This happens every time the film shows actually, same in Europe, people feels personally connected somehow and want to tell their own stories. I never had that with my previous films. I guess we all have a Vincent somewhere in the past. Someone lost and loved who stayed in our memory.
The film has been very well received everywhere except in France, which is interesting since the story takes place in Paris and Vincent did his time in a French prison.
I am very much looking forward to have more screenings in the US. There seems to be a great interest here in independent cinema. This week we screen in Rooftop Films in New York and then Mill Valley Festival in California. I hope there will be more.
Read the interview at IndieNYC.com
David@IndieNYC.com
Your film involves reconnecting with Vincent, a criminal with whom you shared a romantic relationship many years ago. You have said the story was so personal that during production you were not sure if you would show anyone the completed film. What made you initially decide to pursue the project? How was this film’s production important to you personally?
I didn’t really want to make this film, but I couldn’t get it out of my system. It kept coming back to me so finally I just went with the flow and made it. I guess it was my way of dealing with the loss and the sorrow after realizing that Vincent wasted all those years in prison.
At first it was just a text and a black film. The images came later. While making it I wasn’t even sure if it was going to be a film.
You frame the film by recounting the Greek myth of Orpheus. Can you explain how the myth applies to your own narrative?
The Orpheus myth is my favorite among the greek myths. Orpheus goes down to the underworld to get his beloved Eurydice back, but he loses her in the last minute. To me it is a story about passion. You try to grasp it and it’s gone. It is also a story about wanting to save someone with your love. Everyone who has been in love with someone who is into crime or drugs or any kind of addiction knows that it is impossible. Everyone has to deal with their own darkness. That is the heart of Belleville Baby. The sorrow of not being able to save someone you love.
The film, which mixes a variety of audio and visual content, is experimental. You have even said that at one point you were worried few people would understand it. Why was it important to tell this story in such a non-traditional way? How did the format complement the content?
I find mainstream fiction and documentaries very boring. The stories are predictable and the way they are told doesn’t trigger my fantasy. Why does every feature film has to be told in the same way? Who made up those rules? I like films that try to use the cinematic tools to make something new and surprising. I wanted to destroy classic cinema. Like Marguerite Duras and Chris Marker.
In the film, you and Vincent remember the past differently. In what ways is memory an interesting topic to you? What does the film say about how subjective the idea of memory can be?
Me and Vincent don’t remember the same things about our common past. In the film he tells me about the happiest moment in his life, that we spent together, but I don’t remember it. I think we chose our memories to create ourselves. Our identity. In a way you could say that memory is our way of writing the fiction about ourselves. I find the concept of time interesting too. And scaring. One moment we are here. The next moment we are gone. Isn’t that very scary? I think that’s why we we make films - to resist time, to freeze the moment and make it eternal.
Since “Belleville Baby” has only recently begun screening in the U.S, how have American audiences received the film so far? Does their reaction differ from that of European audiences? To what extent will you now focus on the U.S. festival circuit?
After Belleville Baby screened in Seattle Film Festival I got a wonderful letter from someone in the audience who wanted to tell me about his own memories. This happens every time the film shows actually, same in Europe, people feels personally connected somehow and want to tell their own stories. I never had that with my previous films. I guess we all have a Vincent somewhere in the past. Someone lost and loved who stayed in our memory.
The film has been very well received everywhere except in France, which is interesting since the story takes place in Paris and Vincent did his time in a French prison.
I am very much looking forward to have more screenings in the US. There seems to be a great interest here in independent cinema. This week we screen in Rooftop Films in New York and then Mill Valley Festival in California. I hope there will be more.
Read the interview at IndieNYC.com
David@IndieNYC.com
Rooftop Films Filmmaker Profile: Penny Lane (Director, 'Our Nixon')
"As years pass, historic figures appear less human and more legend; Richard Nixon has gone all the way to caricature. For those on the right, Nixon represents the tough but dowdy old school conservatives; to the left, he’s “Tricky Dick,” the wily cheating bully. The real Nixon was a more complicated character. Reading about Nixon today may spark startling revelations about some of Nixon’s remarkably liberal policies, or his undeniably villainous abuses. But nothing will reveal the truth about this complex figure better than his own staff’s home movies, artfully crafted here by director Penny Lane."
Prior to the films production, what interested you in the Nixon presidency? How were you confident the raw archival footage (shot by Nixon’s staff) would make for a compelling narrative?
I was not particularly interested in Nixon or the era of his presidency before this project. The narcissism of the baby boomers, who now occupy almost every position of power and influence, has meant that a seriously disproportionate amount of attention is paid to the 1960s and 1970s in our popular culture. Someone my age (I am 35) has spent their entire life listening to an endless drone about Nixon, Vietnam, Woodstock and all the rest, sort of as if nothing else of interest has ever happened. So I am the last person in the world one would expect to make a Nixon movie.
But, then there were these amazing home movies, and I simply could not resist them. Brian (my co-producer, whose actually had the original idea for the film) and I were quite confident that the Super 8 home movies were fascinating, but as to whether or not they on their own made a compelling narrative – well, no, they didn’t. Not at all! So first, we spent as much time as possible just watching them, out of context, without initially knowing very much about the people, places and events depicted in them, to try to listen to what story they wanted to tell. And once we had decided what that story was, we set about positioning the home movies within a larger framework of news footage, interviews, White House tapes, diaries, etc., which of course involved a tremendous amount of research.
What are the specific challenges in producing a coherent documentary wholly from archival footage? During production, was it ever frustrating to be unable to film and/or interview your own subjects?
Well, you’re constrained to the historical record, so you can’t make (or ask) someone to say or do something you feel would really help your film. But that didn’t really bother me. Both Brian and I have made lots of films using found and archival materials, so the scavenger working method was familiar to us. There’s an element of chance and luck that I find exhilarating. And frankly, I am uncomfortable pointing a camera at people, so this is great for me in that way.
But Brian and I made it even harder on ourselves by deciding we would not use still images (i.e., photographs or newspaper headlines) or any kind of “reconstructions,” even in voiceover (i.e., having an actor read from Ehrlichman’s memoir, or having a single narrator). In part, we made these decisions because we wanted everything to feel as present tense as possible, but we also wanted to stay as far away from the audience’s preconceptions about the aesthetics and tropes of “historical documentary.” I don’t know why one would spend years of one’s life working on a film, just to make something that looks and feels like every other film. That just seems boring.
But there are, of course, plenty of challenges to this method; for example, there were certain themes and story ideas we were really interested in that we just had to let go, because we didn’t have the material to flesh them out. That was a bit frustrating. And our editor, Francisco Bello, had to work really hard with us to construct a coherent and entertaining narrative out of all these fragments of history, without relying on the typical “historical documentary” devices. One of the reasons we chose Francisco was that he wasn’t just willing to take on these challenges; he was really enthusiastic about them, just as Brian and I were.
It must have been hard, if not impossible, to approach Nixon’s presidency without preconceived judgments. What steps did you take to remain fair and objective? In what ways did your views of Nixon and his staff change over the course of production?
I am completely certain that each and every one of us knows too much (or just enough) about Nixon to have quite a few preconceptions. And we were actually counting on that and planning for it in the edit; we knew that our audiences would come to the film with a lot of their own thoughts on the matter. As did we, of course. But Brian and I were able to come to this with a lot more distance and “objectivity,” if we want to use that tricky term, than many others might have, because we just don’t have a dog in this race. We didn’t really care all that much about Watergate, or the anti-war protests, or any of it. We didn’t want to make sure that our viewers would walk away feeling indoctrinated into some particular ideological stance.
Certainly, as Brian and I got deeper and deeper into our research and our thinking, we developed all kinds of opinions, but we did try to keep ourselves out of it. Our approach was to set up the events and themes in the film as a sort of series of battles, and conflicts of points of view, many of which are perhaps irreconcilable in the end, but some of which maybe aren’t. We know our viewers will come in, at least the older ones, with their ideological side already chosen, and that they will root for their team along the way. But if the film is successful, there are moments where even those with the most rigid and settled point of view on Nixon will feel challenged, or will see something in a new light. That is our humble goal.
As far as fairness goes, we weren’t out to hang anyone, or to glorify anyone. We aren’t setting up your sort of standard documentary “pitched battle” where we are telling you who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, and helping you out by cherrypicking the bits that make the good guy look the most good. In a given exchange – let’s say an interview clip where Mike Wallace challenges H.R. Haldeman – you may think that either Wallace is the correct party and the clear winner of the debate. That’s a perfectly fine conclusion, but it is your conclusion, not ours. I don’t think we included one line in the film if we didn’t think the speaker had a fair point.
Well, let me take that back… I can’t say “never.” When Nixon goes on his rant about how homosexuals are destroying America just like they destroyed Rome, we didn’t include that because he has a “fair point.” He definitely does not! We included that bit because it is insane, and insanely hilarious, and gives a sense of both his personal biases and the state of mainstream culture in the 1970s. It’s probably the easiest laugh, and thus the cheapest shot, in the film, and it was debated quite a bit in the edit. But it does serve a point!
This film is as much about Nixon’s staff as it is about Nixon. H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Dwight Chapin – these names are rarely mentioned outside the context of Watergate. What kinds of new discussions do you hope your film will start about these figures?
It will depend what point of view each individual brings into the film. But as I said before, the film provokes some people to think about old ideas a little differently.
Have you noticed increased sympathy from audiences in regards to the Nixon presidency as a result of your documentary? How have audiences reacted to the film in general?
Some people say it makes them like Nixon more, and some say it made them like him less. In general, people laugh a lot. Younger people say it was more interesting than they expected, which is my favorite comment. The response has been overwhelming to us, because we weren’t totally sure if anyone else would be interested in yet another movie about Nixon!
Read the interview at IndieNYC.com
David@IndieNYC.com
Prior to the films production, what interested you in the Nixon presidency? How were you confident the raw archival footage (shot by Nixon’s staff) would make for a compelling narrative?
I was not particularly interested in Nixon or the era of his presidency before this project. The narcissism of the baby boomers, who now occupy almost every position of power and influence, has meant that a seriously disproportionate amount of attention is paid to the 1960s and 1970s in our popular culture. Someone my age (I am 35) has spent their entire life listening to an endless drone about Nixon, Vietnam, Woodstock and all the rest, sort of as if nothing else of interest has ever happened. So I am the last person in the world one would expect to make a Nixon movie.
But, then there were these amazing home movies, and I simply could not resist them. Brian (my co-producer, whose actually had the original idea for the film) and I were quite confident that the Super 8 home movies were fascinating, but as to whether or not they on their own made a compelling narrative – well, no, they didn’t. Not at all! So first, we spent as much time as possible just watching them, out of context, without initially knowing very much about the people, places and events depicted in them, to try to listen to what story they wanted to tell. And once we had decided what that story was, we set about positioning the home movies within a larger framework of news footage, interviews, White House tapes, diaries, etc., which of course involved a tremendous amount of research.
What are the specific challenges in producing a coherent documentary wholly from archival footage? During production, was it ever frustrating to be unable to film and/or interview your own subjects?
Well, you’re constrained to the historical record, so you can’t make (or ask) someone to say or do something you feel would really help your film. But that didn’t really bother me. Both Brian and I have made lots of films using found and archival materials, so the scavenger working method was familiar to us. There’s an element of chance and luck that I find exhilarating. And frankly, I am uncomfortable pointing a camera at people, so this is great for me in that way.
But Brian and I made it even harder on ourselves by deciding we would not use still images (i.e., photographs or newspaper headlines) or any kind of “reconstructions,” even in voiceover (i.e., having an actor read from Ehrlichman’s memoir, or having a single narrator). In part, we made these decisions because we wanted everything to feel as present tense as possible, but we also wanted to stay as far away from the audience’s preconceptions about the aesthetics and tropes of “historical documentary.” I don’t know why one would spend years of one’s life working on a film, just to make something that looks and feels like every other film. That just seems boring.
But there are, of course, plenty of challenges to this method; for example, there were certain themes and story ideas we were really interested in that we just had to let go, because we didn’t have the material to flesh them out. That was a bit frustrating. And our editor, Francisco Bello, had to work really hard with us to construct a coherent and entertaining narrative out of all these fragments of history, without relying on the typical “historical documentary” devices. One of the reasons we chose Francisco was that he wasn’t just willing to take on these challenges; he was really enthusiastic about them, just as Brian and I were.
It must have been hard, if not impossible, to approach Nixon’s presidency without preconceived judgments. What steps did you take to remain fair and objective? In what ways did your views of Nixon and his staff change over the course of production?
I am completely certain that each and every one of us knows too much (or just enough) about Nixon to have quite a few preconceptions. And we were actually counting on that and planning for it in the edit; we knew that our audiences would come to the film with a lot of their own thoughts on the matter. As did we, of course. But Brian and I were able to come to this with a lot more distance and “objectivity,” if we want to use that tricky term, than many others might have, because we just don’t have a dog in this race. We didn’t really care all that much about Watergate, or the anti-war protests, or any of it. We didn’t want to make sure that our viewers would walk away feeling indoctrinated into some particular ideological stance.
Certainly, as Brian and I got deeper and deeper into our research and our thinking, we developed all kinds of opinions, but we did try to keep ourselves out of it. Our approach was to set up the events and themes in the film as a sort of series of battles, and conflicts of points of view, many of which are perhaps irreconcilable in the end, but some of which maybe aren’t. We know our viewers will come in, at least the older ones, with their ideological side already chosen, and that they will root for their team along the way. But if the film is successful, there are moments where even those with the most rigid and settled point of view on Nixon will feel challenged, or will see something in a new light. That is our humble goal.
As far as fairness goes, we weren’t out to hang anyone, or to glorify anyone. We aren’t setting up your sort of standard documentary “pitched battle” where we are telling you who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, and helping you out by cherrypicking the bits that make the good guy look the most good. In a given exchange – let’s say an interview clip where Mike Wallace challenges H.R. Haldeman – you may think that either Wallace is the correct party and the clear winner of the debate. That’s a perfectly fine conclusion, but it is your conclusion, not ours. I don’t think we included one line in the film if we didn’t think the speaker had a fair point.
Well, let me take that back… I can’t say “never.” When Nixon goes on his rant about how homosexuals are destroying America just like they destroyed Rome, we didn’t include that because he has a “fair point.” He definitely does not! We included that bit because it is insane, and insanely hilarious, and gives a sense of both his personal biases and the state of mainstream culture in the 1970s. It’s probably the easiest laugh, and thus the cheapest shot, in the film, and it was debated quite a bit in the edit. But it does serve a point!
This film is as much about Nixon’s staff as it is about Nixon. H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Dwight Chapin – these names are rarely mentioned outside the context of Watergate. What kinds of new discussions do you hope your film will start about these figures?
It will depend what point of view each individual brings into the film. But as I said before, the film provokes some people to think about old ideas a little differently.
Have you noticed increased sympathy from audiences in regards to the Nixon presidency as a result of your documentary? How have audiences reacted to the film in general?
Some people say it makes them like Nixon more, and some say it made them like him less. In general, people laugh a lot. Younger people say it was more interesting than they expected, which is my favorite comment. The response has been overwhelming to us, because we weren’t totally sure if anyone else would be interested in yet another movie about Nixon!
Read the interview at IndieNYC.com
David@IndieNYC.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)