Transcripts For CSPAN3 History Of Documentary Filmmaking In America 20240712

Tonight were presenting a program on the craft and varied history of documentary filmmaking. In the spring we hope to present a program on the creation of music scores for film by taking a close look at the storied career of max steiner, perhaps hollywoods most influential composer. It has been noted that we are presently in a golden age of documentary filmmaking with more documentaries being filmed, screened, and seen, than ever before. But what impresses me more than that, i suppose, is that ive noticed very often these days in advocacy and in educational groups, a particular recent documentary comes up in the group conversation. People reference it, recommend it, and in particular talk about its defining impact on them. Documentaries are becoming more pervasive and an integral part of our conversations about political and social issues. In fact, theyre often framing and shaping those conversations. Why this is happening is perhaps something our guests here tonight will talk about. Jon wilkman screening reality is a wide view of how american truth has been projected, discovered, defined televised , and streamed in more than 100 years of dramatic changes and suggests some of the challenges ahead for documentary filmmaking at a time when our Public Discourse is fraught with division. As i was reading screening reality and came to the final sentences of one of the chapters, i read some lines that felt to me like a cinematic transition and it dawned on me this book was being written by a documentary filmmaker and occurred to me maybe the best person to try to make a coherent narrative of documentary filmmaking was somebody who spent a career making them. Certainly with over 100 years of documentary films and telling the story, a lot of film had to be left, as they say, on the cutting room floor but seems something essential to the craft. Someone needed to be familiar enough with the subject to know the salient points and keep them in the story and know how to find a narrative line to identify the things that have changed, to note the innovation and impact of new technologies and outline the issues and challenges about screening reality that have seemed perennial and endemic that reflect the things weve always confronted in trying to explain to others what weve experienced as real and true. You can learn a lot in reading this book, not only about how documentaries were made but also the very writing of it seems an exposition of documentary skills. Im not sure the subject could have found a person better skilled and suited to tell this story than jon wilkman. Jon is an author and awardwinning filmmaker whose work appeared on abc, cbs, hbo, and a e. His sevenpart series, moguls and movie stars, a history of hollywood was nominated for three emmys. His previous book, footpath was an amazon Nonfiction Book of year. He is a Founding Member and three term president of the International Documentary film association. Tonight we have as a special guest talking with jon about his book, sonara bartels , the chairman of the documentary film academy in burbank and has been involved in making documentary features in television and commercial projects and worked as an assistant director on a number of projects including Reality Television shows for discovery and national geographic. She currently teaches screen writing and documentary writing and producing. And she continues to produce and direct. Please join me in welcoming jon wilkman and sonara bartells to the burbank public library. Thank you. [applause] jon can you hear me ok . What inspired me to write screening reality was a concern about modern arguments about what some have called a post truth era. I was convinced that insights and the evolution of nonfiction film, a craft i spent my professional life pursuing could offer important insights an cautions for the future. I take a long view of this subject. As you see on the screen, the past and future and present can stand side by side. On the left is a kinetiscope, edisons 1890 peep show box. You could listen to a phone graph a photographic record phonograph record wearing 1890s ear buds. On the right is a Virtual Reality scene. From a film called hunger in los angeles. Whats interesting is to see the glasses worn by the woman on the right and the person on the left peering into the peep box. In some ways weve come a very long way and in some ways not much at all. Setting the stage for the invention of movies, the first photographs that moved were created in 1878 by a eccentric california photographer, edward mibrage. He took sequential photographs of a Running Horse to prove that for a time all four mooves were hoofs were all 4 off the ground at the same time. Projected in rapid success, they produce an illusion of movement. So you can argue that the first movie or certainly proto movie from the beginning was a search for truth. Inventors in europe inspired and informed Thomas Edison when he created the first Motion Picture machine system. In 1890s, his associate, k. L. Dixon, shot movies in his shed called the blackmariah, the first movie studio. Ever the entrepreneur, edison captured lab workers sneeze which became the first copyrighted film. Again, it was a search for truth. What does a sneeze look like in a way you never could see in real life in real time . In france in 1895, the brothers august and louie lumiere projected movies on a screen not a box. Their first movies were proteau documentaries, scenes of everyday life and images of distant lands. They called them documentaires. When edison premiered his version of projected movies in 1896 audiences were impressed but many critics saw the inventors vitascope as just his latest toy. No one could envision what you would do with this. Could you sit in a theater and watch scenes from Street Scenes of cities when you can actually go to the city and walk around and hear things and see things. So movies were looked upon as maybe an interesting shortterm fad. The earliest nonfiction films were called actualities. Enterprising cameramen like billy bitzer would make movie history with d. W. Griffin clung to the front of a moving train and shot footage that took moviegoers on trips called phantom rides. That early film you see it now almost every day, the phantom ride continues in watching some of the spectacular imax film. By 1915, movies were no longer considered a fad. They told compelling fictional narratives. The photographer Edward Curtis looked for ways to show the real world. Curtis still photographs of native americans considered at the time a vanishing race led him to make a movie with the people of british columbia. His mix of fiction with fact was a Box Office Failure but suggested developments to come. Newsreels were early approaches to nonfiction filmmaking. During world war i government sponsored film reports played a role in forming the home front but also stirred accusations of propaganda that shattered debates about the role of documentaries in decades to come. The persuasive power of the movies was recognized early, during the first decades of the 20th century when america received new generations of immigrants, educational filmmakers added americanization to classroom curriculum. Films produced by unexpected moviemaker henry ford taught lessons as they promoted his latest automobiles. Another idea which would continue with documentaries of mixing commerce and art in america. By 1922, american movies dominated the world, the products of a hollywood dream factories. That year a surprise hit started inuit family of seal hunters in the canadian arctic. Robert flaherty seen here with his collaborative wife francis produced nanook of the north considered the first documentary. Limited by the bulky camera equipment at the time was inspired by a vision of reality. Flaherty admitted sometimes its necessary to lie to tell the truth. Husband and wife Martin Johnson brought their african adventures to movie audiences in the 1920s and 1930s. Osa in particular was a inspiration to a new generation of women who aspired for a freer life. In the dark age of the great depression, Franklin Roosevelts administration applied Government Solutions to national problems. A 31yearold film critic was chosen as f. D. R. s shooter, his film the plow that broke the planes and the river were examples related to conditions in the great plains advocating for a new deal solution that conservative republicans considered socialistic if not worse. Truly socialistic if not communistic, critiques of the injustice of the 1930 americans came from radical filmmakers like leo horowitz and paul strand. Their docudrama native land made accusations of racism and strong arm union busting. But with theaters controlled by Hollywood Studios it was hard to get it shown beyond small venues with audiences that were already convinced. During the 1930s and 1940s the most popular source of nonfiction filmmaking was the march of time series. Although march of times stories featured actors and reenactments an were far from politically radical they had important influence on Public Attitudes towards the truth in a time of isolationism in the face of an emerging war in europe. Encouraging americans to acknowledge the dangers ahead. When war came to the United States in 1941, many of hollywoods greatest directors signed up to apply their fictional movie skills to making documentaries, seen here upper left, frank capra below with George Stevens and in the center right,rd, and to the William Weiler traded carefully cultured scripts which did not follow plot lines. Screening reality, the nonfiction filmmakers and their films interacted with the world around them. During world war ii a long tradition of Racial Injustice needed to be confronted. The documentary, the negro soldier was an attempt to include africanamericans in the nations military history even as segregation remained in place. After victory, in the film let there be light hollywood director john huston addressed the reality of what combat can do to the human mind and spirit. Even as his film showed how therapy can help, his portrayal of the less heroic sight of war let there be light to be banned for more than 20 years. With the rise of television in the late 1940s and 1950s, even if air time was mostly consumed by easy to take entertainment, the power of documentaries revealed by the journalism of edward r. Murrow and fred friendly and their critical examination of the toxic influence of joseph r. Mccarthy contributed to his downfall. But it wasnt long before challenging long form documentaries and cultural programs were headed towards extinction on advertising driven american tv networks. During the tumultuous 1960s, new Technology Made a new approach to documentary film reality possible. Lighter cameras, more light sensitive film stock and easier recording of synchronous sound made cinema very to possible. Bob drew and ricky leecock to filmmakers like the left and da pennebaker follows bob dylan. Below him, consulting with al meisel and his brother david. In the lower left, fred wiseman contemplates the next edit on his examination of contemporary american life. Then 1973, american viewers were transfixed by cinema verite captured lives of a family. It starts as a sociological examination of the modern American Family and took on the trappings of a reallife soap opera. Again, suggesting things to come. Cinema verite brought a new adage about what a documentary could and should be. Old attitudes that nonfiction films met were meant to be for your were challenged by films like what stock, mixing entertainment with closeup looks of the counterculture in action. Making a documentary required equipment that could be expensive. The cost of processing and editing added a financial challenge to independent documentarians. That began to change with an advent of relatively inexpensive videotape systems. In the 1970s, a new movement called guerrilla tv launched by groups like video freaks. And true value television, tv to be. Tvtv. They fought for airtime on television and succeeded, although their revolution was shortlived. Alternate points of view found more lasting success on Public Television as america became more diverse and multicultural. Henry hampton junior in the upper left produce eyes on the prize about the modern american , civil rights movement. The documentary series chicano did the same for mexican americans. Broughtand the left other stories to the american narrative. The story of harvey milk brought lgbt stories new respect and relevance. Even native americans found their voices on film. Women have been pioneers in the first decades of hollywood history, but by the 1930s, they were sent to decide when the movies became big business. Documentaries created an alternative for women filmmakers to thrive. Barbara koppel captured the power of organized labor and the beginning of the end of the Labor Movement that emerged in the 1930s. In the face of the influence of cinema verite, the historical documentaries of ken burns are proudly traditional. Lengthy looks at the American Experience based on indepth research, formal interviews, and thoughtful narration. During the 1980s and 1990s, the television monopoly for serious documentaries by pbs programs like frontline was challenged by the discovery channel. Perhaps the greatest contribution to the new golden age came from edgy emotional and uninhibited films supervised by hbos director of documentaries, sheila evans. In a time when postmodernism claims truth is the result of multiple perspectives, not objective reality, truth the films of errol morris begin with the thin blue line, argued that how truth is discovered is as important as what it is. His films challenge preconceived notions and demanded viewers question. It up likely motivated environment, many prefer not to. Michael moores politically provocative films are , but he brought something new to his arguments humor. ,his fans laughed. His opponents struck back with rightwing films funded by the deep pocket production money made possible by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. It declared the expenditure of money for political purposes was an expression of freedom of speech. One of the most prolific documentarians today is alex gibney. His films, like oscarwinning enron, the smartest guys in the room are often based on indepth , print journalism. The film draws a wider audience to investigative reporting that has become vital in truth challenged times. The days when theaters dominated distribution was eclipsed by broadcast television and then the choice of cable. Options,ntly streaming Services Like Network Netflix use of documentaries to expand growth and influence and impact. Making a murderer spans decades with courtroom fiction and crime documentary. Another nonfiction trend is the personalization of filmmaking made possible by inexpensive and easy to use equipment. And Available Online this as division alternatives. As early as the 1920s, americans produced their own home movies, and starting in the 1980s, trained documentarians like russ mcelroy made their lives the subject of films. Like shermans today, everyone march. Has a cell phone and can record and distribute video. With the making experience easy to acquire, audiences can become more sophisticated consumers of screen reality or make truth more insulated and personal. Turning everyday people into tv stars can be traced to the cinema verite adventures of the lives of the American Family. Today producer mark burnett is the king of the document a stout mutant called reality tv. Even if viewers know what they are watching is not always on the up and up, many dont care, preferring to be entertained by the truth they prefer to believe. The apprentice, one of the most successful reality shows crossed the line from credibility appearing artifice to the real world with donald trump becoming the president of the United States. Some documentaries demand viewers confront hard realities. Others are about engaging experiences. The first show films were viewed as carnival attractions, glimpses of the unusual. With bigscreen projections, they can be spectacles, like a train running head on into a station. In the attempt to counter the appeal of television, hollywood filmmakers developed largescreen cinerama 3d. Moderate imax camera is a common way to make watching documentary an immersive expense. Imax could soon be passe if Virtual Reality achieves its promise to conjure Environment Center immersive. It becomes a challenge of story finding, not storytelling, again, document cherries will be challenged by Technology Maintaining a commitment to , evidentiary truth will be more difficult than ever and never more essential. That is it. Thank you very much. [applause] i look forward to talking with you. I have to say that johns book is expansive. Yes, i read it all. I read every 446 pages. Its an amazing breadth of knowledge, an amazing dip into this. Is funny. It im glad you did this slide show so the audience has some context. Have to have, i guess. For me . Ok. Got it. Im glad you put up the slideshow to give people context because initially i had a sort of conservative approach to the the book. Because i thought to myself, how does someone do a history of documentary without including international influences . How does that work . Then as i read the book, i began to lean into it, and the moment i leaned into it, was the moment he got to osa and Martin Johnson. The reason was because i remembered as a child my mother in the 1960s was 30 years old, the mother of six children, housewife, and she decided to become a working mother. Years later, i said to her, how did you have the courage to do what you did . She said osa johnsons books. Jon i married adventure was her big best seller. Sonara this woman who had been a documentary filmmaker with her husband went on to write books about it. How do you think those two Robert Flaherty came first, but you talked a little bit about that. How did they open up the world for americans, influencing americans . Jon they are a complicated couple. Particularly as far as women are concerned. In the 1920s, women had an opportunity to be liberated. They got the vote and could work outside the house, or at least potentially good. Osa johnson was this idol for so many women. I tell a story in one of her films, there is a scene where a lion is coming to attack martin and osa, she brings out her rifle and shoots the lion dead. The next scene, she is back in camp baking an apple pie. [laughter] sonara i can bring home the bacon. Jon that was satisfying to women because if it was only theyng liens lions, could never relate. Baking the apple pie, they could relate. Osa crashed an airplane near here, killing martin. Survived. Killing her, martin survived. As i talked about in the book, every found, you cannot tell everything. Is often another film behind what you show, around what you show. In the case of those the case killing martin. In the case of those the case of osa johnson, as inspiring as what she was, from 1920 on, she was a serious alcoholic. She could not take the pressure. One knew that. It would have ruined the story. I could not tell that in the book. That and Robert Flahertys story, which if you want to get into it, we will. There is always another level you can go. You can widen the frame if you want. Sonara the question i had about Robert Flaherty, and im going to go back in time and leap forward in time a little bit. No nanook of the north is described as the first commercially successful documentary. It was huge. They wanted him to go out and make another one. Is that me . Ok. What is interesting about nanook of the north is that there were certain liberties taken when he was shooting nanook. And there is a moment where nanook bites a record as though he does not know what a record is. There was an anthropologist at the time who said, no, no, he would have known what that was. So im not quite believing everything robert is showing us. Cut forward several years, bowling for columbine comes out, and it is one of the most popular documentaries of its time. The highest moneymaker of its time. Portraydid not fully the truth and did things that were in that moment made up and it also had statistics that were made up. So, im wondering what is your take on creative license and truth . Jon well Michael Moore, i will , not remember the quote properly, but roger ebert had a wonderful quote about Michael Moore. He said some of this film is true i will get it wrong. What people forget about Michael Moore is, he is a satirist. He is not a journalist. He makes jokes. And it is a famous story. We are talking about flaherty. There always people from todays , perspective they say flaherty was doing a historic film he , wanted to show the inuit as they were before the white man. Of course they knew about gramophones and they had rifles. We are spelled today. If he was going to take a picture of something, he had a camera this big. A huge tripod. You did not go chasing after none of on the ice fields nanook on the ice fields with abu mike overhead. You had to set up everything and stage it. What i talk about is, it comes down to what is the intent of , the filmmaker . Is the intent to deceive you . Is the intent to entertain you . Is the intent, in the case of someone like Michael Moore, to catch your the story that is told and bowling for columbine is a famous scene in which he goes to a bank, and that the bank if you deposit 500, they give you a gun. He hands the 500 to the woman. The next shot, he is outside the bank waving a rifle. His critics said this is totally false. It is totally untrue. He is lying. The film was made called Michael Moore hates america. He is the biggest liar. In fact, it was a lie. You have to wait a day to get your rifle. However, the bank is giving away guns. Sanora they gave you a certificate that you took to a Sporting Goods store. That they took to a Sporting Goods store, and you still have to go through a check, a twoweek check. The documentary evolved rapidly through this social issue, documentaries of the 30s. I found a world world to the world war ii documentaries fascinating. Often the nonfiction films that they made, except for that last one i got banned for 20 years. It was too true. Right. For the most part they supported the war and drummed up support for the war. In your mind, what is the line between documentary and propaganda . Is that line drawn by the filmmaker or the distributor . Jon it is actually drawn by the audience. The filmmaker can have all kinds of efforts to tell the truth. If the audience does not believe it, chooses not to believe it, or the filmmaker tells a falsehood and the audience loves it and believes it, there is this exchange between the two. In world war ii, hollywood got involved. Through the history of documentaries, the movies are Entertainment Industry primarily. Documentary is a separate realm. Even nanook, it was meant to be funny when nanook is biting that gramophone. The modern generation of filmmakers, the oldstyle, the take was that the documentaries are the d word. A documentary is good for you, entertained you, educates you. From the very beginning, filmmakers who are making films in the context of the hollywood entertainment business chafed at this. Whatever they could, they pushed the boundaries. They wanted the films to be more dramatic. They developed narrative arcs. One of the famous films that the measles did was called giving shelter. It is about a concert during which a man is killed. The editor, she wanted to tell a dramatic story. She withheld information as you would in a mystery story. She used slowmotion, freezeframe, all this stuff that the cinema verite purists hated. She called them the cinema verite police. In a fiction film about a murder and a nonfiction film about a murder, it is certain that the victim is permanently unavailable for a second take. [laughter] you can reenact it, but there is a difference. The postmodern, which is the big morris gets involved with, it is all just lies. The movie business is lies. You do a documentary, what happened after he turned the camera off . What happened before you turned the camera on . What is happening outside the frame . It is all a lie. Dont trust me. Or dont trust anything, just trust me. People pick away at documentaries and forget that what you are after is the intent. A fiction filmmaker can have a bomb and make another one, do another marvel sequel and do another one. A documentary filmmaker has a special relationship with the audience. It is built on trust. When you say i am making a documentary, the audience says you are telling me this is not the latest marvel. This is your best effort to tell me what you found and show me what you found. I will trust you. I will not trust the fiction filmmaker who is out to make money and entertain me. You are trying to tell me about the real world. If you failed to do that as a documentary filmmaker, you lose trust. Without trust, there is no documentary film. There are no documentary filmmakers. Ethical issues are constant in making documentaries. One of my earliest experiences when i was a youngster and doing a documentary, a story about a man who in the bronx those days in the bronx were like a war zone he gathered his neighbors together, and they fixed a park. They planted plants. It was beautiful. At the end of it, i interviewed him. He is talking to me. As he is talking to me, tears start pouring down his face. As a young documentary filmmaker, gold, terrific, we will fade to black. Afterward, he apologized and said, im sorry. I did not mean to cry. I said, no. He said, actually, my dog had died yesterday, and i have not gotten over it. [laughter] wise old editor that i worked with, who i talked to today on the phone, his first question to me was busy crying about the park or dog . I did not know. I thought probably it was the dog. I said it is going to be a hell of an ending. He said, you are the director, whatever you want to do. I left it out. If i never know about the dog, that is one thing. Those are the ethical questions that are critical to documentary filmmaking. Sanora i kind of hate that he left it out as a storyteller, but i kind of love that he did. Go ethics. Obviously, the evolution of documentary filmmaking i love the innovations. I love that you put the peak show with Virtual Reality. They do not appear in the same place in the book. I had not put them side by side. That is so genius. There are many innovations, including the pancake film camera during the war. That led to an evolution. What has led to the recent uptick in the popularity of documentaries . Part of it is economics. There are more outlets to make films for. Documentaries are cheap. The influence of reality tv is huge. What i talk about in the book is this idea of trust. Everybody knows reality tv is phony. Nobody believes what is going on. The argument is always unscripted, it must be more true because it does not have a script. The audience is the key to it. The audience decides i dont care. Theres a wonderful quote our use from pt barnum. I use from pt barnum. He says audiences prefer to be amused even when they know they are being deceived. That is the key to what is going on now in politics, and it is a struggle when you make documentary films. Sanora i think that is interesting. There is a statistic right now. I was talking to somebody at netflix. They said from 2015, maybe 30 of the people were watching documentaries. By 2018, that number had changed to 70 of the audience. There is this gain right now in popularity in audiences. Not just in that they have become popular to make, but there is the audience seeking truth. Jon they are also being made in a style which is fiction. All these murder mystery series that go on forever, it is the narrative style of fiction. They are real people. They are going to go to jail. They are in a real courtroom. The story is told as a fiction story. Thats suddenly broke through to audiences. Rather than having edward r. Murrow tell you Joseph Mccarthy is a bad person and putting together evidence in a journalistic way, you can watch these movies as if you are watching a fiction film. I talked about this in the book. If you made films, you know when filmmakers are fooling around. There was a successful film called catfish. It is as phony as a two dollar bill. If you are in a car, and the phone rings, and someone picks up the phone and says we just learned so and so is happening, we should go right away. The chances of the phone ringing with the camera running is zero. You have to find a way to inform the viewers that, and it can be very subtle, that you are not getting the up and up. If there was never a phone call, that is a total lie. It happens all throughout the film. They know all about this woman. Look at this woman. She is doing this crazy thing. They know about her weeks ago. They are faking the story because it is better from a narrative drama point of view. You start flowing around with chronology, omissions. The story of the guy with the park, i could have still used the tears, but we will not tell anybody about the dog. You cannot do that if you are a serious filmmaker. Sanora there is a sense in all documentarians that we can team up and create something with a without a lot of people. As we discussed, writing is still key. Story is still key. Talk to me about how story is evolving or devolving. How documentary storytelling is evolving or devolving . How else can we respond . Jon you look at the work of the most Popular American documentarian, ken burns. His scripts are wonderful. Writing narration scripts is out of fashion and has been for some time. Watching factory, a very good film, but they are struggling not to have a script. They are putting in title cards. They are doing everything they can to avoid having a script. They are struggling to get away from formal interviews. This is the legacy of cinema verite. Cinema verite is no more real than any other form of filmmaking. Fred wiseman, who is probably my favorite documentarian, he says that much of what he finds when he is shooting is coincidental, but nothing you see in the film is coincidental. He is structuring a story. He is not fooling around with the chronology. He is not lying to you. He is also not during the dramatic arc of a mystery. You get into situations like the jinx, the movie that is now being done. In the 1960s, cbs did a documentary called the uncounted enemy about vietnam, and that the general westmoreland had been fooling around with the numbers of the viacom that had died to make it look like we were winning the war. There is evidence of that. This documentary came out and said that he was fudging the numbers. He sued for 120 million. The problem was when they did that, the editor of the film, why were you excited about this . They did three or four questions around the same subject. They combined answers to different questions in this thing. It is the same subject, but he wasnt answering that question. Even if it is close to what he did. Eventually the lawsuit was dropped. Now you moved to reality tv. The term in reality tv is called the franken bite. Franken bites, you take a paragraph, flip the words around, at this, and make it better. In jinx, the famous scene is that durst is going to the bathroom, and they leave the microphone on. In the bathroom, he appears to confess to these murders. What did i do . Ive killed them all. Thats what i did. They claim they only discovered this tape, this material very close to the hbo premier. People are saying they knew about this for two years, and they wanted to time it. The other thing is they had created a franken bite. They moved the sentence around so the last thing he said was i killed them all. Much more dramatic. He did say all that. But the defense wants to throw that interview out as being false. It is going to stay. You are making a more dramatic statement, the next thing, you may get a man off on a murder charge because you did not Pay Attention to what you did. Not only that, they possibly obstructed justice for two years by sitting on it. You and i have both been on a set. If you are a sound person, you have got your cans on or around your neck, even if you have stopped filming. We call them cans. If somebody started talking in the restroom, murmuring, if my guy started murmuring, what is he saying . Wouldnt you be doing that . Jon or they heard him babbling to himself all the time. They said, lets just keep the microphone running. Lets see what he says. It goes back to this idea of trust, which is so critical. You can be as creative as you want. I have made films with monty python animation. In the 1980s, i was doing the Richard Speck murder case in chicago. Shot it in black and white. I used the transcripts of the trial for the script. You have all kinds of freedom, is whatever thing style you use, you never sacrifice trust. Younger filmmakers chafe at that. It is so much cooler if i do this. Maybe you can do it, but you have to find a way that the audience knows you have not fooled them. Sanora i have one last question. Jon we are not going to go on for another hour . Sanora i kind of want to do a spoiler alert with one of your final quotes. It is such a great quote. When you get to it, you go mind blown. I was going to read jon rearrange the words to make it better. Sanora just as an example of what we are talking about. He says films that honestly involve other human beings in the real world are crucial to maintaining a society that is inclusive and free. That brings me back to the times magazine cover in the preface. That cover is, is truth dead . Is truth dead . Jon you dont make documentaries and not be an optimist. Im an optimist. We are in really critical times. American democracy is hanging by a thread in many areas. It is going to be this combination of documentary filmmakers and audiences. I talked briefly at the end, what is going to happen technologically . What is going to happen next . You have all heard of deepfakes. You can take a piece of video and swapped somebodys head easily. There is a famous story that there is a speech that obamagate when he was president. You see him talking. The words coming out of his mouth were the words of a speech he gave at harvard 20 years before. If you look close, you can figure it out, but soon you will not be able to. The demands of audiences right now is that they have to start demanding from what they want and what they believe. Documentary filmmakers have to work with them and not let them escape into lies or fantasy. If you lose that credibility, we are gone. Particularly in a democracy where you need an educated electorate who makes wise decisions about what they want to do. When they make mistakes, they correct that. Documentary filmmakers are critical and pivotal to our country historically from 1890 and even more so right now. Sanora we are about to open up questions to the audience. That one . This one . This is actually a better mic. There you go. Im sure you have some questions. Dont be shy. Let me get over there so i can get it on the phone. What do you think in terms of a filmmaker as the subject first . Im thinking about paris is burning. It was a huge hit, but when they were making that, i dont think they were expecting that kind of reaction. Jon it is a great film. I did not included in the book. I liked it a lot. [indiscernible] the music rights are going to kill you, and she said music rights . [laughter] what i tried to do is they are not the one hit wonders. They have a career in films. People like Michael Moore and errol morris and all those folks. They spent their lives making films. I did this film called chicano rock. You can probably guess i am not chicano. I met people who had written a book called land of a thousand dances. It took 10 years to make the film. I knew the idea was good. The problem is the east coast is where the money is. Who is going to care about them in california . Nobody is going to watch this around the world or country. [indiscernible] that story, that was a great story. Sanora i think we choose stories. I teach this all the time, sometimes you think youve got a great topic for a documentary, but what you should be looking at is what is the story . Who are the people involved . Paris is burning is a beautiful film because of the characters, because of the people involved, and they take our heart. I talked to ramel ross, who came out with mchale county morning and evening, and the thing he talks about is we are coming into an era of radically personal stories. We are trying to share us as people so that it is not just about education, but it is. An educated voter thing, but it is not just about that. Who am i . Who are you . I am you. You are me. We are all together. Jon i taught at usc for awhile. I would ask people for an idea of a film. They would say im interested in pet chihuahuas. I want to do a film about chihuahuas. My grandmother is an interesting person. I want to do a documentary about my grandmother. I was not popular. I want you to do a documentary about someone you dont know. Not your grandma. Somebody elses grandma. With all these cell phone cameras, archivists will get these shots from disneyland, and they are incredible. What do you get today . You get your face and the face of your friends. With all the power of technology, how do you get people to turn the camera the other way and look at people you dont know, come to understand them and share them. The tendency today is fragments. In the case of nanook, he wanted to talk about these inuit people. He wanted to show them. How do we make a film . I go down and get drunk with the guys and make a movie. Its not about him. Its hard. A lot of the younger filmmakers want to make it about them. Im going around and seeing my friends. You do that film. It may be a great film. In the case of jennie livingston, she found a world of people she did not know about. That is important. Sanora they did that in skate usa. United skates. I want to point out anyone here, any of the movies you mentioned are mostly on criterion. Paris is burning just came out. Just came out. So i wanted to ask you, what is the documentary that inspired you to make documentaries . Is there a specific movie that just set you off on your path . I knew i was going to be asked this question. So i am sort of going to mildly cop out. I was watching when i was young, there was a tv series called on the mbus. They did a documentary about a violinist, joshua. You got to know him. At one point, he was playing a piece of music that was incredibly fast. And he was technically really amazing. And they would show his fingers in slow motion. He saw him make these enormous leaks back and forth across the keyboard. I had never seen Something Like that before. I now understand more about why he is a great violinist by having seen that. It is not a true documentary. When people ask me why i make documentaries, it is very simple. When i make a documentary, i go out and find a story. I go shoot it. I find something. I look at something. I go wow. I make the film. I show it to somebody else, and they go wow. It is that experience. They are wowing what you wowed over. There are hundreds of them. Also a similar film, japanese film, very moving film. Its endless. What i often have, for my own inte, is that i am concerned many cases where affection for each centricity becomes voyeurism. A lot of young people today say, look at that guy. I have never seen anybody dress like that. Are you really having affection for this guy, or are you using him as a source of entertainment, voyeurism . A lot of documentary films are voyeuristic. You want to if not love these people, you want to respect them and care about them. Susanne raymond, the sound person on American Family, said, again to young people, she said everybody is excited about American Family. It was a huge hit. There was this drama, drinking, and divorce. Lance was gay. It was just, you know, great. But Susan Raymond said, you have to realize, when you make a film, you are showing somebody in that film to the rest of the world. And you better have that right. You are going to go on and make another film. They are going to live with that image you created of them. And you had better be careful about what you are doing. Hi. What madeted to know you want to pursue documentary mmaking over why didnt i do the real thing . It is the word that drove john hendrix, the founder of discovery channel. It is simple. It is a word that drives every documentary filmmaker. Curiosity. I was curious. I wanted to find answers and share those answers. I wanted to share experiences i had. Blank wanted to make connections with people i would not meet, would not see. And that kind of stuff. And although i love fiction films, and i did a whole series for Turner Classic Movies of the history of fiction films, called what is a movie star, and for me, i like the idea that what i was exploring and what i was showing was real. And that, to me, was really appealing. Also the difference between being entertaining, which is what fiction filmmakers are about. It is great art, too. But, ultimately, they are entertaining. Documentary filmmakers are about engaging you in the world. It is interesting. I never considered working in fiction films. I have taught it. I did write scripts in new york, but they were all based on historical, factual events. So this pretty much goes along with what you were talking andt earlier about the use you, as well. With social media vastly expanding, and it almost seems like this world is becoming more and more divided, you said that you see the vlog style of it is my world, and i want to show it instead of finding that world, do you feel that in order to show the vulnerability of the person, the individual, maybe that might show the truth, and then you engage with more of the world . Jon i did not want to put down personal films. Ross malka we ross, if you do not know his films, you should see them. Shermans march, he walked around with the camera on his shoulder and talk to people. They talk to him. Some of them said get that camera off your shoulder. You know . That kind of stuff. I am so sorry. I have another question. If you have more and more people doing that, and since camera equipment is becoming more affordable and more available, anybody can create some construct that is completely false, how does one person stand out and actually be seen as a truthful documentarian . Jon it is not easy. It is not easy. I think that again, going back to the personal film, which was popular in the 1980s, a film called diaries about his own life, and because the equipment was so portable, you if what youund, and are showing is interesting, if it is you sleeping and hanging out with your friends in the kitchen and cooking, unless you are cooking interesting stuff, this might be interesting to you friends,sting to your but is it interesting to a Million People . What people found out, and i talk about this in the film, is that people found the tradition of home movies. Essentially, home movies were people would take movies that ther people would not, stories and other situations, the classic example of the worlds fair, a guy came along with his family and his camera and shot all of this stuff, and most of it was similar to the commercial films that were being used to advertise the fair. But he went on the midway in the where all ofair these scantily clad ladies were dancing. They were not in the promotional films. He adds a new dimension to what the fair is all about. I talk about another classic example. It is a wedding taking place in amsterdam. The guy is taking pictures of the bride and groom, and they are coming out on the street, and for a moment, he cuts away and there is a young girl , looking out into the street. It is anne frank. Totally accidental. The most famous home movie, the footage of kennedy being killed. With writing and i say this to filmmakers, too, why are you telling me this . The answer cannot be it is cool. There is more to it than that. Or these are weird people. And i what to show weird people. Your next layer . It could be your life story. It could be skateboarding. It could be surfing movies. People who are passionate for surfing, but that is the question. Why, out of all of the minutes and seconds of my life, should i give some of those to you . You may have a good answer. It could be anything you want, but you need to think of the filmmaker that way. I think it is worth taking five life toof your finite look at what i show you, and you will benefit from what i am going to show you. I think you have referred to this briefly in your introduction. If someone sponsors you to do a film, like the military, and you know it is going to be used for recruiting purposes, are we still talking about a documentary . Jon yes. What a lot of people dont know, and if you are independent filmmaker, if you are like me or someone very famous, only 20 of documentarians make a living at it. You make what is called sponsored films. You make films for foundations. I have done films for save the children, about children, particularly in war zones. It was paid for. I had no problem. The work was good. Some documentarians made films for a dog food and stuff like that. You have to do that. You turn stuff down, too. Sanora they have things now called branded content where they have these little micro documentaries, and at the end of it, you will see the word yeti framing the shop because it is really a yeti cooler commercial you have just watched. What they are showing you is a lifestyle that is true. They are showing you a Mini Documentary of this guy cooking food, out in nature, using rocks, giving you a recipe. They do this great little documentary. They are wonderful and fun, but they are branded content. Jon right. And if yeti mistreats their workers, that is not in yeti films. This goes back to the 1920s , where henry ford was the first to do educational films about immigrants coming to the country at that time, and he would put a the logo of the screen, model t radiator. Often as you are doing films, ford cars keep coming through the shot. Product placement in the 1920s. [laughter] but did i answer your question . It is sort of knowing what intent is an making sure jon yes. I do not do things that i cannot honestly justify to myself. Mainly, what i do is for foundations and nonprofits. Those are the kinds of films i have done. So they are really not commercial films. I have done a film for an Adoption Agency about adoptions. It promotes the agency, but the subject, i deal with the subject in a reasked realistic way. Save the children, i did a series of films for the metropolitan department of transportation, mta, here in l. A. When they were building the subway. It was about city planning, why you should have train stations and build cities around train stations. And i believe in that. It was promoting mass transit. I have no problem promoting mass transit. I was selling something i believed in. I thought it was ok. I have a question. Is the editor of the ida magazine. I hired him 25 years ago. t. It was ally didn couple of board president s later. Let there be light, people did not see it for 20 years. Reporting from vietnam did show the truth of the war. And im wondering about the let there bech light was shown. Was it one of the networks . Was it shown in theaters . Was there a big buildup . Jon it sort of slipped in the side door. It is a constant issue with documentary filmmakers. The argument of the military was these are people under huge stress, physically and mentally. I mean it is a very moving film. Treated inre being ways that are positive. The point of view is they are learning to cope with what they went through. But the army said to houston, you have made an antiwar film , and you have invaded the privacy of these soldiers. They are going to be seen on theater screens not able to talk, frightened, crying, all that kind of thing. Houstons response was, if i ever made a pro war film, take me out and shoot me. [laughter] was yeah, that is a real issue. But the goal was not to make fun of these people. Wasnt that the purpose . No. It is to show how the treatment was used in every case. It is probably true in any case. It is fascinating. Stutterse individuals and cannot do s sounds. He cannot say s sounds. They put him under hypnosis and realize what he is responding to is the sss of the rush of incoming german artillery. He was caught in the sound and , he could not say ss. Sanora i think his question also was, if it came out 20 years later in the 1960s, did it come out because of the vietnam war . Were they deciding jon i am not sure about that. Certainly, it was possible. For example, films about nagasaki and hiroshima, i think it took 30 years before they were shown in all of the detail. The japanese did it first. Kind of a segue, another film that was censored that you mentioned before also shows Mental Illness in its truthful form. Was that the reason . Invading privacy was the presumption. There were lawsuits. Sanora that had to do the hospital i think. The hospital, the people, it is very stark. You have seen it, i have seen it. Jon but again, it is always the audience borderline. Like i say, why are you telling me this . Why am i watching this . Why do you want me to watch gosh, look at that crazy guy. He is Walking Around naked. Or do you want to say, these are people who were in a very bad situation the hospital, and the hospital people wanted the film made because they hoped it would improve conditions. But what happened was the same argument was made. You are invading the privacy of these people. So in some cases, many of the people had died in the film by the time it was shown. So then again, to me, these are fascinating things. As a documentary filmmaker, you have to be careful to think about it all of the time. Wiessman is terrific in how he finds things. When people asked the secret to his success, he said hang around and watch them. Hubert ok, we will take one last question because i want to leave enough time for jon to sign. You talked about curiosity as to why you did it. You talked about the importance of truth. You talked about facing the camera the other way. What are the considerations for this is personal, because it is not the branding or why you create the documentary, but your target audience, who you are speaking to . How do you consider what youre doing in regards to what audience you are trying to talk to, or do you care . Jon you care. You know, i dont target the audience like i am going for a scifi audience, i am going for a mystery audience, i am going om audience with a documentary. I hope the documentary is interesting to as many people as possible. If it is music like chicano rock, i would hope whether you have heard the music or not, you at the same time would be interested in these kids, growing up in east l. A. Trying , to find their identity in america. It is their struggle to find their own identity, so that is interesting. Documentaries, what happens with a lot of filmmakers is you find success, and you do the same story again. You find success with true crime, and then you get another one. Then you do another i have done one. True crime. I dont want to do it again. I do think in this day and age especially that we do think about who our target audience is, what our market is going to be, like as we are shaping, perhaps, the treatment. You start to think about those things. But you think about them in terms of, well, what is the title of it . How am i going to hook that audience, right . But then we hope it goes beyond that audience, so we do not change the story for an audience, but we might change how we sell the story for an audience. Jon and you have got to sell. That is really important. Sanora i do think people take it into consideration. Idea, again, going back. I am sounding like an old fuddyduddy. You dont compromise the film you are making to give it a sales hook. Hopefully, your sales hook is genuinely connected to the film you want to make. The hook is great, but it is describing what you want to do , and so youre not saying, oh, this guy is interesting character. I will make him bigger because people will be more interested in him. Well, if he is not interesting character, find another hook, because he it is not the truth. i want to thank you both for a really interesting conversation. [applause] and the audience as well. Thank you for some great questions. I will say that i knew jon would have some interesting things to say, but i especially want to thank Sanora Bartels for all the preparation. She did this all for the library on her own and her evening, and i appreciate that so much. Thank you very much. A great interview. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer you are watching American History tv, covering history cspan style, with archival films, lectures in college classrooms, and visits to museums and historic places, all weekend, every weekend, on cspan3. Are watchingu American History tv. Every weekend on cspan explore our nations past. Cspan3, created by American Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Watching you are American History tv, exploring our nations past every weekend on cspan3. This week, we are looking back to this week in history. A pleasure now to present the nation, withof our the Southern Area of the nation dealing with racism, dr. Martin luther king. King thank you, mr. Randolph. I would simply like to say that this has been one of the great days of america, and i think this march will go down as one of the greatest if not the greatest demonstrations for freedom and Human Dignity ever held in the United States. Announcer follow us on social media for cspan history for more clips and posts. History tvamerican on cspan3, exploring the people and events that tell American History. Wilkman onmaker jon how documentary filmmakers explored america from the late 19th century Thomas Edison films to the 20th century reality tv. At 4 00 p. M. , on reel america, two programs on civil rights leaders, starting with baldwin on racism in america, followed by a 1992 american profile interview with shirley chisholm. Also, at 6 00 p. M. On american historian and curator using artifacts from 1970, to the stories about clare booth luce and others. Watch American History tv today on cspan3. Dramatic moments at the democratic convention. In los angeles, a moment of decision as candidates are placed in nomination before a democratic nomination that reflects a tradition of hard infighting, despite a steamroller drive by senator john kennedy. There is a principal challenge. After a strong showing of support, he was named Vice President ial candidate in a bid for party unity. But from the start, the person to watch was the