Over the next few weeks, we at IDA will be introducing our community to the filmmakers whose work will be represented in the DocuWeekTM Theatrical Documentary Showcase, August 18-24. We asked the filmmakers to share the stories behind their films--the inspirations, the challenges and obstacles, the goals and objectives, the reactions to their films so far.
So, to kick off this series of conversations, here are Steve Skrovan and Henriette Mantel, directors/executive producers of An Unreasonable Man.
IDA: How did you get started in documentary filmmaking?
Steve Skrovan: I started as a stand-up comedian and eventually became a comedy writer. I had the good fortune to land on Everybody Loves Raymond in the mid-'90s, which led to my getting a development deal. In searching for sitcom ideas, I remembered my friend Henriette Mantel telling me stories about her first job working for Ralph Nader as an office manager in the late '70s, early '80s. Even back then when we were both just stand-ups, I thought that would be a good setting for a show--a public interest office where any quirky character could walk in. I didn't know much about Nader, but she began telling me funny stories and introducing me to people she worked with at the time. I also began reading about Nader and got as far as writing an outline for a pilot.
Henriette Mantel: I actually started in the documentary area while working on reality television such as The Awful Truth with Michael Moore and then on the first season of The Osbournes. Those were my first tastes of an edit room. It's addictive.
IDA: What inspired you to make An Unreasonable Man?
SS: As I continued reading I was amazed at Nader's past accomplishments and intrigued that this former folk hero was now considered a villain. So many of his friends and former allies were mad at him, blaming him for Al Gore losing the election of 2000. That seemed like an interesting conflict to explore and gave us a natural story arc: How did it come to that? Soon, the idea of a documentary took over from the sitcom. Nothing really definitive had been done about this very
influential historical figure, who had been on the scene for close to 40 years. There was a niche to fill.
HM: First job out of school, I worked for Ralph. After that I became a stand-up comic. I met Steve Skrovan in the comedy clubs. Steve was always into talking about Ralph, as I was, and to make a long story short, 25 years later I introduced Steve to all my former co-workers, including Ralph, so he could write a sitcom pilot about a public interest office. Steve inspired me by having such a genuine interest in telling Ralph's story. Ralph inspired me just by being Ralph. But the people who probably inspired me the most were all the friends and colleagues and lost souls who yelled at me after the 2000 election (thank you, Andy Kindler). Honestly, I don't care what anyone thinks
of Ralph because we live in America and we can think anything we want, but I was sick of people talking to me from an uneducated point of view. So now when people still feel the need to blame me, I just say, "See the movie; in fact, here's $10, my treat...." But there is no way I'm paying for their popcorn. And I hope they have enough gumption to take it in and then if they still think he's a jerk, God bless 'em. I told them the story, so now at least they will have the facts when they argue.
IDA: What were some of the challenges and obstacles in making this film, and how did you overcome them?
SS: The biggest challenge was getting Ralph interested. He's someone who is not really inclined to look back. We had to convince him that this would have educational value. Ralph's closest associate, John Richard, was instrumental in helping us not only talk to Ralph, but legitimize us in the
eyes of his family and other associates. These people may not have agreed to talk to us if not for John's intercession. Henriette is close with John and his trust in her helped grease the wheels. The other obstacle was getting people to be critical of Ralph. Many of those people who are mad at him were reluctant to go on the record.
HM: The challenge to me was to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That seemed especially tough because so many people who were mad at or disagreed with Ralph were very reluctant to go on camera. Maybe they thought it was bad seat-belt karma. I don't think Eric Alterman has a car, so he spoke freely and honestly, and for that I am grateful.
IDA: How did your vision for the film change over the course of the pre-production, production and post-production processes?
SS: We started in late 2003 and originally I thought that if Ralph ran again in 2004, we would follow him on the campaign trail and tell the history in between. That turned out not to be practical. I was still working on Raymond and could not leave for extended periods of time. We would hit the road for interviews during hiatuses from the show. Other than that, the shape of the story remained pretty much the same. We knew in order for people to be interested in what is essentially a talking heads story, the people in our movie would either have to be telling an interesting story together or arguing about something. That vision remained throughout the process.
HM: My vision didn't really change much from what I wanted and what we did. I always just wanted to show Ralph's history and then tell both sides of the story when it came to the 2000 campaign. I hope and pray to the docu-gods that we did just that. But the audience will certainly be the judge. The length was always somewhat of a challenge. Of course I am most grateful to the friends that sat through the almost three-and-a-half hour version to make sure it even made sense at all. Then the people at the 2:35 version at Sundance. Now it's down to 2:01. Actually 1:59 and two minutes of credits, but who's counting? I want my nieces and nephew's friends not be deterred by the length. But then again, they enjoyed King Kong and some people think Ralph is a 500-pound gorilla in the middle of the room, so I try not to worry.
IDA: As you've screened An Unreasonable Man--whether on the festival circuit, or in screening rooms, or in living rooms--how have audiences reacted to the film? What has been most surprising or unexpected about their reactions?
SS: Because we're comedians by trade, Hen and I are laugh whores. We're always measuring it by the laughs. We know that if people are laughing, they are engaged. You can't laugh at something if you're confused or bored. So, we have been very gratified to hear the laughs, especially the ones late in the movie when we're wondering if people are still paying attention. The other thing that has been gratifying is people telling us that they have been inspired. Whatever you think of Nader--and our film is set up to allow you to make your own decision--it's ultimately a story of someone who doesn't quit, of someone who has proven that you can fight city hall, of someone who, in spite of the beatings he has taken, refuses to give in to cynicism. There is also the thrill of telling someone something they didn't know. We get a lot of that, too.
HM: So far, so good. Nobody has punched us in the nose yet. My favorite remark from an audience member was a woman who watched the movie in Salt Lake City (part of Sundance) and stood up and said, "Please tell Ralph I'm sorry I've been mad at him since 2000. Now I remember what kind of an American he is. Thanks for making this movie." I just have to accept
the fact that it's not going to be a blockbuster comedy, no matter how hard we try.
IDA: In general, what docs or docmakers have served as inspirations for you?
SS: I used The Fog of War by Errol Morris as a model. I thought if he could make an 85-year-old man with liver spots interesting, then I could interview a whole bunch of people with liver spots. [Morris] is not only a great storyteller but a real filmmaker with a great visual sense.
Dropping plaster skulls from a ziggurat staircase and filming them smash as McNamara talks about the safety package Ford put in their cars in the '50s was a brilliant lesson in making a static story visually interesting. I spun a nickel on a coffee table. That was the extent of my visual sense.
Another inspiration was Mark Achbar's Manufacturing Consent, about Noam Chomsky. The lesson I took from that was how engaging it was when Chomsky was debating people. That's why in the part of the movie that covers the 2000 election, we tried to create an argument that appears to be taking place in real time.
HM: I have to say that when Michael Moore made Roger and Me, it gave me hope that movies about issues could be entertaining. And since I worked for both Michael and Ralph, I hope Michael watches the movie with an open heart and mind. If he chooses never to speak to me again, he can go on the list I've kept since grade school of people who are mad at me.
The Fog of War and Grey Gardens both inspired me just by how the stories unfolded in such a compelling way.
To view the entire Docuweek program, visit http://documentary.org/programs/index_06.php.
To download and view the Docuweek schedule, visit http://documentary.org/src/DW/DocuWeek_Schedule.pdf.
To purchase tickets to Docuweek, visit www.ArcLightcinemas.com.