william gazecki: the
interview part 1,
the truth and a pile of facts
interview by Jason W.
Ocker January 14, 2002
Academy Award-nominated and Emmy Award-winning
documentary film maker William Gazecki got his start in the music
industry, where he helped produce albums for such talents as the
Doors, Bette Midler, Joe Cocker, and Leo Sayer. He then went into
television, where he won awards for his production work on shows
such as "St. Elsewhere," "Hill Street Blues," and "thirtysomething"
before finding his passion as a documentary film maker. Recently,
besides his ongoing film projects, Mr. Gazecki has been involved in
starting a new documentary production company called OpenEdge Media. I sat down with
Mr. Gazecki (in the modern sense of the verb, i.e. Alexander Graham
Bell-ing it between the coasts) for about an hour and pretended to
know what I was doing as an interviewer while Mr. Gazecki imparted
some of his thoughts on the nature and value of the usually
overlooked genre of the documentary film.
TiC: Originally you worked
in the entertainment industry, both in the arenas of music and
television, before moving into the realm of the documentary. Now as
a documentary film maker, do you still consider yourself a part of
the entertainment industry?
WG: Well, I certainly
consider myself to be part of the media industry, which is the
industry of communication, and it has a very broad range. There's so
many new niches now with all the new forms of media that, you know,
I think we're still sort of adapting in our terminology, so to
speak. You know, it wasn't that long ago that all we had was
television and movies and radio. And now we sort of have this
confluence of media that are coming together and interacting with
one another. So, I don't consider myself to be solely a person who
creates things for entertainment value, that's for sure. My
motivation, I think, probably has as much to do with how I would
categorize my products as anything, and so my motivation is to
communicate.
TiC: One of the reasons I
ask that, and you've already hit on it, is that there is more or
less only two places to watch a documentary, either on the
television screen or the movie screen, and right now in our culture
there is usually a certain mindset that goes along with those media
on the part of both the audience and the producers, namely
entertainment.
WG:
Well, you know, I think that learning can be entertaining. I've
always been an avid learner, and have always enjoyed the process of
learning and discovery. I think that one of the things that
motivates people in general is their curiosity, which I think is
sort of an innate human trait. So, you know, I think that part of
what I find challenging and what I'm interested in is creating
documentary products, documentary films that are "entertaining," and
in that sense what I'm saying is I think there are things that
inspire people to want to pay attention. They inspire people to want
to know more or to want to feel more included in sort of the overall
process of life.
TiC: Besides what you've
already stated, is there anything specifically that drew you to the
documentary form as opposed to a regular, and more popular,
story-type movie?
WG: Well, yeah, I somehow
at some point managed to discover that real stories, real life, can
be as compelling as anything that we can make up or fantasize about,
that we can imagine. We have a tremendous capacity to imagine
stories and to imagine events and situations, but a lot of these
things that we imagine are modeled after real life. There are a lot
of movies that have been made that are modeled after people's real
lives. You know, there's Cleopatra, things like that. You
know, that's not a documentary, but it's not a complete work of
fiction either. There are a lot of instances like that, and I think
at one point I just found that I personally identified more strongly
with real stories that were also compelling.
TiC: You just mentioned how
many movies are based on real events and real people, and it seems
to me the point of such a basis is to over-dramatize those
situations and people, to make them more interesting. It seems like
one could also do that in a non-fiction, documentary movie, and that
while in a story movie you'd want that, you wouldn't so much in a
documentary. Are there any safeguards that you set up to keep from
doing that in your films?
WG: I maintain my
integrity. I mean, one of the things that I think keeps me tied to
the documentary genre is that, you know, the real facts of the story
and the real coincidences and the real conundrums and paradoxes that
people find themselves in in their real lives are - if you manage to
really dig enough to find all of those little gems, those little
pieces of information, you generally end up with something that is
just as compelling as whatever you can imagine in a narrative
situation, in a dramatic film. So, no, I don't really, I personally
don't concern myself with the dangers of over-dramatizing. I think
that's, you know, something that perhaps people need to do because
they can't find enough interesting material to work on or something.
Do you know what I'm saying?
TiC: Sure, I think that's a
good point.
WG: So, you know, I think
it's a, what do you call it, something that you can be distracted
by, is the tendency to want to over-dramatize. But that's not a big
concern for me.
TiC: Could you tell us that
about any documentaries that might have influenced you in your
career, or not necessarily influenced you per se, but that you find
a lot of value in?
WG: Yeah, I haven't been
terribly influenced particularly by documentary film makers. I'm
really a fan of the film genre in general. You know, the cinema is a
very complex art form and a very sophisticated art form that
includes so many different sub-art forms. The visual aspect, the
story telling, the writing, the music, all of those things combined
together I feel quite enamored with, so I'm really a student of all
film making. I will say one of my favorite film makers, one of my
favorite documentary film makers, is Ken Burns. I really admire him
a lot, and I really admire what he's done, and the reason I admire
what he's done is because he is able to take fairly conventional
subjects and marry them with what I consider to be really authentic
human qualities. I think Ken is a very insightful film maker, really
does an excellent job of bringing in passion and humanity into his
stories in a way that is very accessible, and I admire that. Another
film that has influenced me, I like the Woodstock film a lot,
because it's a very honest portrayal of an event in time, and I
think that it successfully portrayed a certain moment in terms of
history in a fairly heartful and accurate manner. So I, you know,
sort of have a soft spot for that.
TiC: If I remember
correctly, one of the more intriguing aspects of that film is that
there is no, or at the very least little, narration in that
film.
WG: I don't think there was
any.
TiC: There are just
connected images of what was actually going on.
WG: Yeah, and I think it
communicates that moment in time very well, you know. Another piece
that I like a lot is The Trials of Nuremberg, which is
certainly not Woodstock, but again, it's history. It's
letting us know what really happened, and who was really who, and
what's the story behind the story.
TiC: You've probably
already answered this, but if you can add to it, what do you think
the ideal value of the documentary film itself is either within the
context of film in general, or maybe even within our culture, or,
heck, even life?
WG: Well, I think that
there are a number of stories that are available to be told that are
important stories, that are pivotal moments in time or pivotal
moments in history or even in contemporary or current times, that
can show us more than we might be exposed to on a day to day basis
about who we are and how we operate and what motivates us and things
of that nature. I think there's value in that. I think there's value
in seeing things that are true that aren't necessarily commonplace
and that are indicative of some aspect of our collective
character.
TiC: Now, I've seen in
other places where you've mentioned and put a lot of emphasis on
what you term "human experience" in connection with your work, is
that tied into what you just said about collective
character?
WG: Yes, it is, as a matter
of fact.
TiC: Well then if you could
just elaborate, if you would, on exactly what you mean by phrases
like "collective character" and "human experience."
WG: I think it's
interesting that you mention that. You know, human experience
determines to a great degree how we view the world, what our
worldview is. And similarly, any individual's worldview, any
individual's set of morals, ethics, values, standards, you know, the
fiber of their character, so to speak, has a lot to do with what
they do in life, what decisions they make, what actions they take,
which I think ties in with sort of the general, you know,
superstructure of laws and morals and values and all that. There's a
lot of talk these days about family values and morality and this and
that, and I think a lot of this is tied to what we experience, you
know, how we experience life. So my, I like to play in this arena, I
like to play in the arena of actual and real experiences. And again,
it ties into what I was saying before about exposure to things that
aren't common, things that are maybe out of the ordinary or are in
some way suppressed or hidden. Waco was about a suppressed
story, for example. I think people, I have found so far, that people
who have a chance to learn more about these kinds of experiences
benefit. They take a little piece, you know, people identify. They
identify with a little bit of this, a little bit of that. I think
people find value in that.
TiC: Before we move into
your film on Waco more fully, I would like to ask you one, sort of a
technical, question. Since the documentary is a visual medium, since
you are presenting facts, viewpoints, what you've summed up as the
"human experience" in a visual form, what do you believe are the
strengths of that kind of presentation, as well as what might be
more of a weakness in having to present these things
visually?
WG: Well, again, we're kind
of getting into some similar concepts. You know, facts, the tendency
to perceive documentaries as about facts kind of implies that facts
are in and of themselves not dramatic, you know, that there's no
drama to facts. And, you know, there's a difference between the
truth and just a pile of facts. The truth often involves conundrums,
paradoxes, uh, confusing facts, facts that don't necessarily agree
with one another, contradictions. And these are things that aren't
necessarily, you know, dry. They can be quite fascinating. They can
be quite, quite mysterious. And as far as the visual element of that
goes, I think that one of the things that I rely on in my films is
character. So, visually we may be looking at a talking head, but
character-wise and emotionally, if we are connected to the story, if
we are engaged and involved in what the story is saying to us, then
there's something there to grab onto emotionally. It's not just a
talking head, it's a person that has a certain character that we
identify with in a certain way, or we don't identify with, we
dis-identify with. So I rely a lot on character, as opposed to
glamorous visuals. You know, it's true we live in a very visually
sophisticated environment right now as far as the medium is
concerned. There's a lot of visual tools out there, and I actually
like not being sort of forced to be committed to sophisticated
visual work, you know, special effects, creating whole universes
that are completely artificial, it's technically very
demanding.
TiC: Well, what I meant by
presenting things visually is not like special effects, or what do
they usually say, "visually stunning," I think is what they always
put on video box covers. What I mean by visuals is as a visual
medium, as opposed to books which use the printed word and plays
which use live dialogue.
WG: Right, right. All these
things have to do with the consumer, you know, and how the person
who is consuming the product, or who is your audience. It all has to
do with the audience. If the audience is involved internally, if
they are connected with what they are seeing, hearing, sensing, I
rely a lot on how is my audience going to react to this little sort
of interplay, say, between a couple of characters, much like a play.
You know, a play is dialogue. At the same time, there is something
that transcends just what you hear or just what you see or just what
people are saying. It's that next level up, again, of human
experience. It's how people experience things. That's what I like
about the film medium, is that it's experiential. More so than
writing alone or audio alone, you know, sound alone. It's a very
effective medium for getting people's attention and getting them to
be involved with something. And to me the critical factor is how
involved is my audience, is what I'm saying. How much do they become
a part of it.
TiC: Okay, you just
answered my next question, which was why you chose the form of film
to present non-fiction situations, as opposed to, say, a
book.
WG: Yeah, I think there's
much more of an opportunity to put your audience in the moment. One
of the one things that I keep focused in my mind while I'm making a
film is the moment when the lights have come up, and the audience is
walking out of the theater. Where is my audience participant going
to be at that moment? What are they going to be feeling? What are
they going to be thinking? Most of the time, what my goal is, I want
them to want to talk to whomever they've come to the theater with
about what they've just seen. You know, that's one of my primary
objectives is will people be motivated to talk about what they've
just seen with each other once they get out of the
theater.
TiC: Moving now to Waco: The Rules of
Engagement, the film for which you are probably the most famous
for, it seems to take a definite side on the issue, or to attempt to
make a point, compellingly I might add, as opposed to, say, an
objective, journalistic dissemination of cold facts. Is that how you
feel the documentary should be, or is that just your
style?
WG: Well, see, I view
Waco as nothing but a dissemination of cold, hard facts. You
know, there's no opinion expressed in that film. If you go back and
view it, there isn't one opinion given in the movie. What's given is
a lot of conflicting facts. There's a lot of information in that
film that's presented, I mean, a lot of that film is testimony
before Congress. When I made it, I wasn't really looking for
anything more than what I just said, how are people going to be
affected when they walk out of the movie theater. Not so much how,
but are, if they're going to be affected. So the only objective that
I held in my mind as I was making it was, I want to get through to
people. I want them to understand what happened. And because it was
so politically sketchy, you know, tentative - when we were making
Waco, most people thought, you know, why are you doing that? Why
bother? Everybody knows what happened there. That was the general
response that we got. Now, of course, working on it as deeply as I
was with my partners I knew there was a lot more that happened there
than most people knew. And my job was to present the facts, what
happened. And it goes exactly back to what we were talking about
earlier because it is a compelling story. It's a real human drama.
It's a real, actual, compelling, set of circumstances. And that's
just what it is. I didn't create the story, I just told
it.
TiC: That's actually a
rather amazing statement. In my own watching of it, as I just said,
I thought you were certainly taking a side. Many of the reviews I've
read also seemed to think something along the same lines in that you
were taking somewhat of the Branch-Davidian side in presenting the
story. I think it would be interesting, in re-watching it, to keep
conscious of what you just said, and see how that comes
out.
WG: Well, I wasn't so much
on the Branch-Davidian side as I was on the side of information that
was generally not available, which happened to be, which a lot of
what the film is is things nobody else knew. You know, I personally
like the little moments when somebody says, "Ah-hah" or "I didn't know that." And, that's just a
reflection of what my own process is. I was not a student of the
Waco incident. The idea of making the film was really introduced to
me from, you know, a friend of a friend. He came by the studio one
day and said he wanted to make a documentary about this, that's all.
I didn't know a lot about it. So as I was learning about it, in the
process of making the film there were many times when I went, "Ah, I
didn't know that." So I just made it a point to include those
moments in the film, because I thought what I found interesting I
thought other people might find interesting."
TiC: That was certainly me
all the way through that film saying, "I didn't know that."
WG: Yeah, for me, that's
basically documentary film making: "I didn't know that."
TiC: Now, your Waco
film, that was definitely a heavy, affecting experience, especially
toward the end, obviously. I watched the whole thing with my
eyebrows drawn down. How does that fit in with what you've already
talked about concerning the human experience, or, maybe I should
say, what does that say about the human experience?
WG: In terms of the
Waco film, I think you have to actually look at the Waco
incident. That incident involved, you know, thousands of people,
five, six, seven hundred on site while it was actually occurring,
and the film is really intended to be an honest reflection of their
experience. I mean, Waco's a heavy story, heavy-duty, and so no
wonder, the fact that the film affects people as a heavy story is,
tells me I did a good job in telling the real story, you know. It
was not a story that needed, with Waco in particular, I had
to tone down my own emotions severely and stay away from any
feelings that I might have and just tell the story.
Continue to Part 2 of
the William Gazecki interview, where Mr. Gazecki talks about his
most recent film, Reckless Indifference, details some of his
upcoming releases, and goes into what it means to be a documentary
film maker.
|