The Making Of
|
|||||||||
What led you to make this film?
THE PAPER grew out of my frustration with not finding news about issues that mattered to me in accessible places. I found out that I wasn’t alone. It turns out that public trust in the news media has been steadily declining for years. So I wanted to make a film that explored the American media system and addressed our lack of faith in it. But I also wanted to do it in a fresh way. The microcosm of the college newspaper struck me as an ideal starting point because it’s the training ground for future newsmakers. All the pressures and problems of the media are played out in embryonic form.
What were some of the challenges you faced in making this film?
The biggest challenge was the rigor and exhaustion of just being there every day. Because news is always happening or might be happening, I decided early on that I should always be at The Daily Collegian’s offices. Of course the reality of a news office is that there’s a lot of downtime. But there’s also always this low-level beehive of activity going on, and just the possibility of breaking news made it a very seductive place to film.
How did you gain the trust of the subjects in your film?
Because I work with a small crew (most of the time, it’s just me) people don’t feel like they’re dealing with a nameless production entity. And I end up spending a great deal of time with the characters in my films, both on camera and off. I enjoy it. It’s one of the pleasures of doing documentary film—finding subjects and a subject matter that you are interested in and getting to hang out in a place past the point where the uninitiated usually go home. One of the advantages of this type of filmmaking is that people get to know you and feel reasonably comfortable with the presence of the cameras.
Has working on this film affected your views of American journalism? If so, how?
Yes. For one thing, I learned a whole lot. I’m definitely no expert now, but through hanging out in the laboratory of this college newspaper, I became exposed to some of today’s most pressing media problems and questions. And I really became fascinated with journalism, and how important it is. No matter what your number one issue or concern (health care, education, the environment), your number two issue better be the media because all the information you get is filtered through it. And if the media is doing a poor job reporting on these issues, chances are someone wealthier or more influential than you is going to have their way (and say) over yours.
I also became aware of a worrisome assumption of the journalism industry—news is something that “happens.” It sounds simple and harmless enough, but it boils down to this: Many issues which don’t “happen” in an event-driven newsworthy way get shunted to the back pages or are completely ignored. Racism, sexism, environmental degradation—things that happen all the time, but usually in less dramatic fashion—too often don’t make the cut unless a protest or event surrounds it or a public official makes a stink. This is deeply troubling.
Do you think that newspapers are featuring more fluff these days?
This is a question raised in THE PAPER: Should newspapers cover stories that are “good for you” or that “taste good.” Perhaps an even larger question is, even if you don’t want to read social and political reporting, or exposés on government and corporate corruption, don’t you want to know that somebody is covering these issues? I’m not a hard news junkie, by any stretch. I’m a sports fan, and I digest my fair share of celebrity and trashy media. But I also have the voice in my head telling me too much is probably not all that good for me, and that the more space fluff takes up in our media landscape, the worse off we are. Because ultimately, I want to know that someone out there is holding powerful people to account. That someone is making sure we’re not getting ripped off, making sure the schools are giving kids the best possible education, that the hospitals and parks are not rat-infested. That seems to me an important function of a newspaper. It’s an institution that’s looking out for you.
What didn’t get included in your film that you would have liked to show?
In the process of editing a film you cut together a number of scenes, many of which are really great on their own. But when you put the entire story together, they don’t work, or don’t jibe with the overall structure. For example, there was a segment on the influence of advertisers that didn’t end up fitting. And there was a segment on the politics of the students at the newspaper, and how many of them, fearing the label of “liberal,” tended to slant stories to appease Republican constituents on campus. This latter story revolved around the 2004 presidential election, and by the time I finished the film it seemed dated.
Tell us about a scene in the film that especially moved or resonated with you.
The scene that unfolds after the newspaper receives a homophobic letter in response to a picture they ran of two gay couples kissing was one of those dramatic discussions that at the moment of filming I knew was going to be an important part of the film. The debate over whether to print the letter and what the aftermath would be on campus was heated and passionate and it got to the heart of many important issues surrounding a newspaper’s role and responsibility to the community it serves.
Were there any technical challenges you faced while shooting, and if so, how did you resolve them?
The newsroom was a relatively small space crowded with bodies and computers, and finding decent angles to shoot was always a challenge, especially when we had two cameras running. We did a lot of squeezing behind computers, quick rearranging of furniture, and standing in garbage cans to get good shots.
Another challenge was trying to keep up with the students and their various stories throughout the day. The film has multiple characters and multiple storylines, and sometimes they all seemed to be going on at once. With a small crew—I was fortunate to have Wayne De La Roche shooting with me, but he was only there 25 percent of the time—there really wasn’t ever a satisfactory resolution to this. We’d just go with our instincts as to where was the best place to be.
What has the audience response been so far? Have the people featured in the film seen it, and if so, what did they think?
What’s been really great is how much THE PAPER stimulates debate. The film raises a number of provocative issues about our media and our society, and it doesn’t wrap them up in a neat way. Because these students are learning the ropes, you get a lot of raw insights in the film. And it seems that, like these students, audiences come to unexpected conclusions and formulate new questions as well. I hoped that this film would inspire discussion and debate about our media system, and I’m glad it seems to do that.
As for the reactions of the students from the Collegian, one credo I have is that I show my films to the main characters before anyone else sees it, so they get first crack at it in a sense. I know people were shocked to see their entire school year boiled down to 78 minutes, and I’m sure many of them given the 300-plus hours of material I had would have chosen to emphasize different themes. But overall, the students stand by the way I presented the essential truths of that particular school year.
At festivals, the students especially have said they’re proud of providing a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the workings of the news media. Journalists and the journalism industry are traditionally very closed, and the students and staff of The Daily Collegian were courageous in opening its doors to a documentary film crew. The Collegian is an institution dedicated to teaching and learning, and I think that comes across in the film.
The independent film business is a difficult one. What keeps you motivated?
I didn’t always want to be a filmmaker. I wanted to be a writer for a long time, but I got hooked on making movies. Combining not just words, but images and sounds to tell a story seems like an impossible and magical assignment. I think that’s why I always want to make another film. After five films I still feel that I have so much more to discover, that there are many more unexplored ways to tell stories using this medium.
Also, documentary work in many ways is about perfecting the art of looking and listening, and this process motivates me to keep making films. We go through so much of our lives not paying attention to everyday things, overlooking details, spacing out, thinking about what to say while someone else is talking (and so not listening). But when you’re making a film, you’re forced to pay attention, to be aware of all the fine points, plot twists, character quirks in the narrative happening right before you, because these are the elements that will help make a compelling story. As a result, you end up looking and listening in a way that’s really intense and rewarding.
Why did you choose to present your film on public television?
I’ve made five films including two shorts, and I’m pleased to say they’ve all been broadcast on public television. Many of my films contain heated discussions and debate about social issues like race and immigration, and I’ve never been asked to alter, edit or soft-pedal anything for public television. Like many filmmakers, I spend a great deal of time making these films, and I want to insure that as many people see them as possible. The PBS audience is incredibly broad and diverse, reaching into nearly every American home, and it is a discriminating and interactive audience. This makes the viewer response and commentary after the film one-of-a-kind.
One other incentive for showing this film on public TV: I’ve become convinced after doing this latest film of the importance of having a public media system that exists outside the framework of the five corporations that control our information. One of the ways we can challenge our news media to get better is by expanding the breadth and depth of information on mainstream channels. The concentration of corporate control over our media has had tragic results for our news media system. With fewer gate keepers determining the flow of our news, the vitality of democratic dialog has been hampered. Having a vigorous public media is essential to having an informed and engaged citizenry. So, really what better venue to present a film which explores the American media system than PBS?
Learn more about the filmmaker >>
Get the DVD >>
