Jerry Rothwell is a documentary filmmaker whose work includes the award winning feature docs Heavy Load, about a group of people with learning disabilities who form a punk band; and Deep Water (co‐directed with Louise Osmond), about Donald Crowhurst’s ill‐fated voyage in the 1968 round the world yacht race.

Independent Lens sat down with Rothwell to learn more about how he came to make the quirky film Donor Unknown, which premieres on Sunday, October 23 at 11:30 p.m. on THIRTEEN.

Interview courtesy of Independent Lens. For more interviews and other Independent Lens film content, visit their blog.

What impact do you hope Donor Unknown will have?

I hope it provokes audiences to think about the impact of the technology of reproduction and what this means for our sense of connection to our biological relatives and to our ideas about family.  As with many areas of science, our social understanding lags far behind what technology is making possible, so I hope the film encourages people into a more rounded understanding of donor conception — and also to recognize how sometimes those, like Jeffrey (the sperm donor in the film), who seem most outside society are its pioneers.

What led you to make this film?

We first found out about Jeffrey because Hilary Durman (who is one of the film’s producers, alongside Al Morrow of Met Film) had been in contact with him while researching a drama she had made for BBC Schools about donor conception.   I first met him in 2008 in his RV on Venice Beach.  Jeffrey’s a unique and charismatic character who’s lived a life on the fringe of society – which made what was already a fascinating story even more surprising. Through a bizarre set of coincidences, he and his children are dealing with age-old human dilemmas – where do I come from, what is my connection with the past, where are the boundaries of my family – in a uniquely modern context.  I was excited about how those questions were raised for this specific group of people, connected by a single sperm donor.

What were some of the challenges you faced in making the film?

It was hard to make a film, which demands intimacy with its subjects, from 4,000 miles away.  I’d always prefer to be more closely available and able to shoot at short notice.

A second challenge was to structure a film that has so many characters.  I like making films that have an ensemble of people at their heart, because all of us live in connection with others.  There’s a convention that films need to portray an individual struggle but that doesn’t really reflect our interdependence and the way the social world influences how we act.  I think documentaries need to evolve forms of storytelling that can cope with that. But such films still need a personal core to them, and it was hard initially to find out what that was.  We were lucky that JoEllen’s story, which takes us from her discovery of her donor siblings through to meeting Jeffrey, could become the spine of the film.

How did you gain the trust of the subjects in your film?

We filmed first with Jeffery when we were in the United States for SXSW with another film. Then we started making contact with some of his children, who put us in touch with each other – and I think they got a sense we would treat the subject matter sensitively. Some of Jeffrey’s children preferred not to be in the film, and we respected that.  Others were happy to talk about their experiences, I think because they wanted to counter some of the mystique around donor conception. JoEllen, who had been the first to start looking for her donor family, still hadn’t met Jeffrey.  She was feeling it was time to do that – and was willing for us to film that process – and her search gave us a structure for the film.

What would you have liked to include that didn’t make the cut?

Perhaps more of Jeffrey’s world on Venice Beach – and more of the perspectives of the parents.

Tell us about a scene in the film that especially moved or resonated with you.

I like the moment in the film when one of the children arrives to visit Jeffrey at the same time as he loses the pigeon he’s been looking after.  It says something to me about the chaos that’s part of any kind of family.

What has the audience response been so far? Have the people featured in the film seen it, and if so, what did they think?

It’s a film that asks a lot of questions, but one doesn’t offer the answers – so it always provokes a good discussion. A surprising number of people who’ve come to see the film are either donor conceived themselves, have donated sperm, or are contemplating IVF using a donor.  Some have said the film gave them the impetus to look for their own donor, or changed the way they thought about whether they would tell their unborn child about their donor  – so I’m glad that the film rings true for people with similar experiences.

I always share a rough cut with the main protagonists – their comments made me change a couple of things and I think everyone involved is happy with the film.

The independent film business is tough.  What keeps you motivated?

It’s difficult but incredibly satisfying and exciting.  It’s a great privilege to immerse yourself for a period in other people’s worlds and make something that explores the meaning of that world for others.

Why did you choose to present your film on public television?

PBS seems the natural home for a film like this.  Independent Lens is a great series it we’re very glad to be part of this season.

What didn’t you get done when you were making your film?

Spending time with my family.

What are your three favorite films?

It changes all the time, but right now In The Mood For Love, Forest of Bliss, and Little Miss Sunshine.

What advice do you have for aspiring filmmakers?

Don’t hang around waiting for someone to ask you to make a film – start making films in whatever form you can.   Be prepared to change your ideas when events point you in different directions from those you expected. Ground your films in your own interpretation of what you’ve seen, and approach them with honesty: your thinking is as important as your style.

What do you think is the most inspirational food for making independent film?

Something that leaves you hungry.

Isaac Solotaroff shoots footage for his film in Indonesia. (Photo courtesy of Independent Lens)

Independent Lens caught up with Isaac Solotaroff, the filmmaker behind Wham Bam Islam!, a film about a Kuwaiti entrepreneur trying to launch a comic book series in the Middle East featuring heroes who embody the 99 virtues of Allah.  Solotaroff took a parallel journey in creating his documentary, and in the end won the trust of his subjects and survived a grueling shoot.

Wham Bam Islam! airs Sunday, October 16 at 11 p.m. on THIRTEEN.

Interview courtesy of Independent Lens. For more interviews and other Independent Lens film content, visit their blog.

What impact do you hope Wham Bam Islam! will have?

I hope the film surprises and challenges some preconceptions. I was drawn to Naif as a protagonist because he is such an iconoclast — the son of a conservative Kuwaiti family who could easily be mistaken for a fast-talking New Yorker. He can go toe to toe on points of Muslim theology in Arabic and then get weepy talking about the impact of John Lennon on his life. Hopefully, there are plenty of other moments and characters who leave Western audiences slack-jawed. My personal favorite is a university student who wears the burqa and compares Naif to William Butler Yeats. I think as the Arab Spring showed us, young people in the Middle East have spent a lot more time discovering what we have in common than their counterparts in this part of the world have done.

What led you to make this film?

When I was researching this project, it became clear that Muslim societies across the world were at a fascinating crossroads. There were the forces of fundamentalism that wanted to anchor the culture to Qur’anic strictures and modernists who wanted to find a way for Islam to integrate with the rest of the world.

Naif al-Muftada talks about 'THE 99' in Dubai at his TED Talk. (Photo courtesy of Independent Lens)

I was fascinated to see what would happen to someone like Naif who was so demonstrably planting his flag on the side of those who want to push Muslim societies into the 21st century. Beyond that he was doing it in a way that could be seen as highly provocative — a children’s entertainment property based on Western-styled superheroes with powers that are borrowed from Allah’s 99 names! — I figured that was likely to stir up the hornets’ nest.

What were some of the challenges you faced in making Wham Bam Islam!?

The biggest challenge was maintaining a degree of objectivity in both fundraising and editing the film. In both cases, the documentary’s subject matter required a fair amount of explanation and cultural translation. Once I cleared that hurdle, I had to get people (whether funders or an audience) to care about the protagonist and his mission.

In the process, it was easy to come across as sycophant or a pitchman for Naif and his company which at the end of the day is both a social venture and a for-profit business. I hope I was able to tell the story which does some justice to both the successes and failures of THE 99 and its creator.

How did you gain the trust of the Naif and others in the film?

I’m not sure I fully had Naif’s trust, until my second production trip which was to film him launching THE 99 in Indonesia. It was an unbelievably taxing week for both of us — I was working 20 hour days with a local crew who didn’t speak English, in sweltering tropical heat. Naif was booked every day with school visits, book signings and media appearances which included interviews/interrogations with hard-line Islamists. And it was Ramadan! No food from sun up to sundown. It was the crucible of our working relationship and we were able to distract each other from our growling stomachs with a lot of shared laughs.

What would you have liked to include in your film that didn’t make the cut?

Naif was sent by his parents, unknowingly, from Kuwait to a predominantly Jewish summer camp in New Hampshire when he was 7. This is the place where Naif first discovered comic books and also first learned that there are more things that unite us than divide us. He not only didn’t tell his parents it was a Jewish summer camp when he came back but insisted on going back every year for the next 10 years and now sends his children there as well.

I filmed at the camp with Naif when he went back for a reunion and we even developed some animation scenes with awesome renderings of Naif as a pre-adolescent in the early 1980s to go along with the camp footage but unfortunately we couldn’t squeeze it into the allotted PBS time.

Tell us about a scene in the film that especially moved or resonated with you.

Without giving too much away, there is a point in the film when things are really going badly for Naif and THE 99. After a lot of early success and recognition, I think it shook Naif’s confidence and tested his mettle in an unexpected way. It also made him more reflective about the journey and the personal and emotional stakes for him.

The independent film business is tough. What keeps you motivated?

A rendering of the official who banned "The 99" in Saudi Arabia. (Photo courtesy of Daniel Diaz)

Motivation has nothing to do with it. It’s a dependency. With every project comes multiple vows that this is the last time. Then towards the end of the project, I get an idea for a new documentary — a story that’s too good to pass up — and I swear that it’s going to be different this time. This process has repeated itself about five times now.

What didn’t you get done when you were making your film?

Started about three or four other films that other people went on to do with great success.

What advice do you have for aspiring filmmakers?

Find a mentor who you respect and needs help. Leverage your ability to work for very little money and work very hard to make yourself absolutely essential to this person. It’s the best way to learn the process of filmmaking and likely disavow yourself of the romance of filmmaking.

President Felipe Calderon of Mexico with Peter Greenberg (Photo courtesy of Robert Landau)

Inside Thirteen spoke with travel journalist Peter Greenberg, who recently received a personal tour of Mexico by President Felipe Calderón for Mexico: The Royal Tour. From Chihuahua to Cozumel, Greenberg and Calderón cross the country to explore Mexico’s historical treasures, and even venture into Calderón’s hometown.

Here, Greenberg discusses his visit and what he learned from his experience in Mexico.

Mexico: The Royal Tour airs Thursday, September 22 at 8 p.m. on THIRTEEN.

Mr. Greenberg answered our questions via email.

Inside Thirteen: Was there anything you were surprised to learn about Mexico from your visit?

Peter Greenberg: Most people mistakenly think of Mexico as either a dusty border town with people wearing sombreros and drinking tequila, or a high-rise resort destination. I’ve been traveling to Mexico since I was 23 and a correspondent for Newsweek, and thought I’d seen most of the country. Mexico: The Royal Tour certainly showed me how much I didn’t know, and how much I hadn’t yet experienced. It allowed me — and hopefully will allow our viewers — to see a Mexico they didn’t know.

IT: Which location impressed you most on your tour?

PG: That’s a  tough one to answer. I was blown away by Palenque, I was seduced by Oaxaca, and then there was the Cave of the Swallows. What impressed me with that experience — where I repelled 110 stories off that cliff and into the cave with the President, was that we both survived!

IT: Were there any  places in Mexico that you wanted to visit but were not able to for the show?

PG: None. We were granted an all access pass.

IT: What was it like traveling with President Calderón and visiting  his hometown?

President Calderon with his family and Peter Greenberg riding horses on a tequila plantation (Photo courtesy of Robert Landau)

PG: I’ve also had the opportunity of traveling with U.S. presidents on Air Force One…there’s no waiting on the runway, and we’re always on time! But on this trip, we traveled with the president by  horseback, jeep, train, teleferico (gondola), boat, we ziplined, we dove, and yes, we repelled…the only thing we did on the presidential jet –  after shooting 16 to 20 hour days – is sleep on the way back to Mexico City!  But visiting his hometown, and especially his family, was very special. I got to meet his brothers and sisters, and also his  mother.

IT: After your visit and your time with President  Calderón, is there anything you think the U.S. can learn from Mexico?

PG: Mexico, like so many countries, firmly understands the importance of travel and tourism to build bridges of understanding. Also, its strength as  a huge economic engine. It is somewhat embarrassing that the U.S. government has never fully understood the economic power and social necessity of travel and tourism.

Robin Small, American Idol's James Durbin, and Ariel Small (Photo courtesy of John Block)

Different is the New Normal takes a closer look at Tourette Syndrome through the lens of Ariel Small, a teenage boy who grew up with Tourette’s. Small overcomes the difficulties of his condition and inspires others to do the same by raising awareness about Tourette Syndrome as a Youth Ambassador. Here, Ariel and his mother, Robin Small, discuss the film, the future, and embracing differences in order to succeed.

Different is the New Normal airs Thursday, September 15 at 8 p.m. on THIRTEEN.

Inside Thirteen: Robin, when did you first notice that something was different about Ariel?

Robin Small: Ariel’s Tourette’s started to show itself when he was six.  His first symptoms were facial ticking, blinking, twitching, rolling his eyes and sticking out his tongue.

Different is the New Normal (2011) – Trailer from Hourglass Films on Vimeo.

IT: Are there resources that children with Tourette’s and their parents can turn to that you would recommend?

RS: I would recommend reaching out to every resource available… your local Tourette Syndrome Association chapter, support groups, internet, neurologist, tap into the school’s social worker.  Educate yourself.  Focus on an activity your child likes… sports, music, art.  Focusing on something your child enjoys can release a lot of the built up frustration and tension and help with the ticking.

IT: Ariel, Is there anything you’ve learned about yourself from your experience of growing up with Tourette Syndrome?

Ariel Small: I’ve learned that there really is no limit to what we are capable of. That is, we can use the obstacles we face as a way to strengthen our resolve to reach our true potential.  My Tourettes has simply been a hurdle in my life, and I am sure there will be many more to come.  I have to continue to jump over these hurdles time and again.  I have also learned to have more empathy and insight into other people and what they might be struggling with or going through.

IT: What inspired you to become a Youth Ambassador for Tourette’s?

Photo courtesy of Robin Small

AS: Middle school was a very rough period for me.  I felt as if my disorder was very misunderstood by my teachers and classmates.  I realized that the best thing I could do for myself was to be my own best advocate and educate others.  Education is truly the answer to reducing or eliminating misconception and ignorance.  By speaking to other schools I can help to reduce or eliminate ignorance at a young age and help raise awareness so that no one else will have to go through the same things that I did.

IT: What was it like getting to interview James Durbin from American Idol for the documentary?

AS: Interviewing James Durbin was a dream come true.  I was literally star truck when I met him.  He had such a presence and was so open, honest and genuine.  I felt a connection and was extremely inspired by his courage and perseverance.

IT: What are your plans for the future?

AS: As of right now, my goals are to win conference for football and go far in the playoffs.  I hope to get into the college of my choice.  I plan on majoring in Engineering and hope to join the U.S. Marine Corps to serve my country.

IT: What message do you hope people will take from the film, and are there any misconceptions that you hope the film will clear up?

RS & AS: We hope that this documentary changes people’s perceptions of Tourette Syndrome and will inspire children who are struggling with it.  It is extremely important to separate the person from the disorder.  We are all different and it is these differences that make us unique.  Understanding and empathy are qualities of a successful perspective that will help individuals succeed in life.

Filmmakers Jim Tusty and Maureen Castle

The Singing Revolution tells the story of how hundreds of thousands of Estonians gathered publicly to sing forbidden patriotic songs and share protest speeches, risking their lives to proclaim their desire for independence from the Soviet Union.

Here, filmmakers Maureen Castle and Jim Tusty discuss what inspired them to make the film, and what makes Estonia and its people so special.

The Singing Revolution airs Saturday, August 20 at 3 p.m. and Sunday, August 21 at 11 p.m. on THIRTEEN.

Q:  How did The Singing Revolution project get started?

Maureen Castle: Jim and I were in Estonia, teaching a three-month film course at the first university to teach film after the departure of the Soviets. People started to share stories with us: casually at first, sitting over dinner, through friendships. But as the tears would flow, these powerful stories and images began to unfold. When we returned home, it was amazing to tell the story outside of Estonia. Maybe history would have been different if the rest of the world understood the Estonian situation in 1939.  Maybe this film can help prevent something like this happening again.

Jim Tusty: The story of the Estonian occupation, the Singing Revolution, and then independence were all current events for those then living in Estonia.  We were afraid that Estonians might feel that two people who live 5,000 miles away didn’t have the right to tell their story.  But we were told by Estonians that this is a story that needed someone from the outside to tell it—someone with no prior bias but who also didn’t have to start from scratch to understand the situation.

I’m a dual citizen—my father was born in Estonia and came over during the pre-Stalin years. Most Estonians who fled Stalin in 1944 formed incredibly tight communities and, to this day, third and fourth generations still speak fluent Estonian. They always planned on going back when it was finally safe to do so. But my father came over in 1924 when he was 10. He came through Ellis Island and wanted nothing more than to be an American. He married a non-Estonian, and English was the language of my household. This would create a unique position for me because I wasn’t raised in one of the strictly Estonian communities, yet I have been very aware of Estonia from early childhood.

Q:  What were some of the issues that you thought about while making the film?

Maureen Castle: One of the major questions it brought up to us was if we were there ourselves, what would we have done? Estonians feared a replay of Hungary 1956, when Soviet tanks came in and mercilessly suppressed an independence movement.  Up until that time, Estonians held hope that the British and the US would eventually pressure the Soviets to leave the Baltics, but when they saw that the British and Americans left Hungary to its fate, they understood they were alone.  It changed the country’s mindset about the future.

The Soviets had a history of doing their dirty work under the cover of another international incident.  That way, their actions were less likely to make the front page.  For example, Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary massacring its citizens under the cover of the Suez Canal crisis of 1956.  Similarly, in 1991, Soviet soldiers killed peaceful Lithuanian demonstrators (Soviet tanks killed 14, injured 200 as their tanks ran over those demonstrating) just as Desert Storm started.  A short time later, they killed six more people in Latvia.  We doubt that was a coincidence.  It was intended to teach the independence-minded Baltic people a lesson.

You can hope that you’d stand up to this aggression, but you don’t know until you’re faced with the decision.

Q:  Tell us a bit about the events that led to the Estonians standing up to the Soviets.

Jim Tusty: Gorbachev gave Estonians their opportunity when he announced perestroika (economic restructuring) and glasnost (free speech). The Estonians calculated that they could use these concepts to their advantage.  By rigorously staying away from violence (which would have given the Soviets a reason to crackdown and jail any protestors), they could push and push at the walls surrounding them until they collapsed.

Estonian lawmakers even made the hammer and sickle (the Soviet official symbol) illegal, and under glasnost there was little the Soviets could do about it!  Gorbachev furiously reprimanded Estonia, but his bluff was called and he actually did little.

Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev had a rivalry building about where the Soviet Union was headed.  This was basically a standoff of modeling Western democracies (Yeltsin) vs. maintaining Communist control (Gorbachev). Six months before the fall of the Soviet Union and the declaration of independence by Estonia, Yeltsin signed a “mutual respect” pact with all three of the Baltic nations, effectively saying that should anything happen, each country agreed to respect the decision of each of the other countries. So when Estonia reaffirmed its independence in August of 1991, it was very logical that Yeltsin announced independence the next day for Russia.

Maureen Castle: It was the perfect storm adding up to the fall of the Soviet Union: a weakening Soviet economy, Gorbachev’s ascension to power (who never understood feelings of nationalism in the Soviet occupied countries), U.S.-Soviet geopolitics, together with determined action by the Estonians and the other Baltic States.

Q:  What is it about this small country and its people that make it so special?

Maureen Castle: Estonia is an amazing nation.  Just look at the power of—the undeniable strength of being able to say — “I am Estonian.”

Estonians have inhabited Estonia for 5,000 years or more.  But for 700 years, from 1228 to 1918, they were not the ruling class. The country has incredibly valuable trading ports, yet in recent history the Estonian people were always in the service of others. Finally, the people of the land said “we want to rule ourselves again”. It’s time Estonia and Estonian identity rises. Their culture and the history of the land are so interconnected. Estonia is one of the oldest continuously inhabited lands in the world. When you’re on the land for 8,000 years, you can survive anything.

Making War Horse is the story of how Michael Morpurgo’s young adult novel became one of the most popular and acclaimed productions in the National Theatre’s history.

From its early development in the NT Studio, viewers see how Adrian Kohler and Basil Jones of the Handspring Puppet Company created the groundbreaking techniques that brought lifelike horses to the stage.  Behind the scenes and in the rehearsal room, the film features interviews with the cast and creative team to document this unique theatrical collaboration and the creation of a stage classic.

Watch the full program here:
(View full post to see video)

Caterina Murino and Rufus Sewell (photo credit: BBC for Masterpiece)

This Sunday, Masterpiece Mystery returns to THIRTEEN with Zen, based on the Aurelio Zen mysteries by Michael Dibdin. The series follows Zen, an honest cop who brings justice to modern-day Italy, even when his bosses are on the side of the lawbreakers.

Zen stars Rufus Sewell (Aurelio Zen), Caterina Murino (Tania Moretti), and Ed Stoppard (Vincenzo Fabri). The series premieres this Sunday at 9 p.m. with “Vendetta,” followed by “Cabal” (July 24) and “Ratking” (July 31).

Watch a preview:

Go behind-the-scenes of the series with the cast:

Alan and Susan Raymond filming 'An American Family' (Photo credit: WNET)

Inside Thirteen recently had the opportunity to speak with Alan and Susan Raymond, filmmakers of the original series, An American Family, public television’s groundbreaking reality series from 1973 documenting the lives of the Loud family in Santa Barbara, California.

Nearly 40 years later, the Raymonds have produced and edited down the show’s twelve hours of footage into a two-hour program, An American Family: Anniversary Edition, capturing the most compelling moments from the series and introducing a new generation of viewers to the show.

Here, the Raymonds discuss memories from the show, filmmaking, and the experience of consulting on HBO’s recent film, Cinema Verite.

An American Family: Anniversary Edition airs Friday, July 8 at 9:30 p.m. on THIRTEEN.

Inside Thirteen: How did you get involved with An American Family and what first interested you in working on the show?

Susan Raymond: We had a working relationship with WNET and the producer, Craig Gilbert. We had previously worked with him on the The Triumph of Christie Brown, which was nominated for an Emmy, and this was his next program.  He wanted us to start immediately filming the family, as soon as he found them.  We jumped at the chance, and knew it was going to be exciting. Alan and I were the ones who decided to use the cinema vérité filming approach.

IT: Why was public television a good venue for the show? Was PBS at all hesitant to take on such a risky show?

Alan Raymond: I think we should understand first the early days of public television.  The initial incarnation I think at the time was that WNET was National Educational Television.  As I understand it, they were looking to do something in the way of some signature programming that would be high profile.  As a result of Craig Gilbert proposing this series, they decided this might be the kind of program that would call attention to itself.  I don’t think anybody understood how momentous the show ultimately would become. The two executives at the time who were involved in green lighting it were Jim Day and Curt Davis – Jim Day was head of the station, and Curt Davis was head of Cultural Programming.  So, it was kind of a risky venture.  I think the biggest risk obviously was to see if anything would develop in the way of a storyline, which I guess is always the reservation about any kind of cinema vérité project.

SR: It was extremely risky for the executives to sign over twelve hours of airtime to one program – it’s pretty unheard of, actually.  I don’t think you could go and find another that followed it, either, with twelve hours in a series.

IT: Did any ethical issues arise during the making of the show, particularly with regard to the Loud family’s privacy?

SR: Alan and I had our own code of ethics on what boundaries we were going to cross, and I thought that we kept a balance in letting the family have some private time every day.  In Santa Barbara, there were six people, so we would follow one or the other for whatever activity – work, or if the boys were practicing, the girls were dancing – whatever, and that would give the other person a breather and privacy to do what they were doing.

AR: I think there were barriers of intimacy in this series that were crossed for the first time on television, and that was one of the things that was so unsettling for many people – how could the Louds allow filmmakers to record this intimate material? As the storyline began to develop during the first months of filming, there was tension in the marriage that ultimately led to a divorce between Bill and Pat Loud.  We did have many reservations about how much to force the storyline or to get Bill and Pat to appear in scenes in which these issues were discussed.  But, that’s also part of the strength of the series, so it’s kind of a Catch-22.  There are and always remain moral and ethical issues with filmmakers who use real people as subjects of their documentaries.  On the other hand, if you don’t break certain barriers of intimacy, I think especially in a family documentary, you’re not really telling the whole truth.

IT: Do you have a favorite episode or scene from the show?

Alan and Susan Raymond filming Michele and Patricia Loud (Photo credit: WNET)

SR: Show two with Lance in New York was the most fun.  It was the first day of shooting, we didn’t know what to expect, we didn’t know what the family was like, and they didn’t know what we were like.  We just walked into the hotel room that Lance was staying in and started shooting.  We started shooting Pat as she got out of the cab.  It was exciting, and it literally unfolded.  Lance and his friends kept making plans for what to do with Pat during the visit, and each thing they came up with was even more fun than the last, so it was a great introduction to the family, to the filming, and to Lance.

AR: It’s one of the few episodes to have a self-contained story within the one hour.  It’s also a kind of classic theme, the older child separating from the family and the parent coming to visit them in the big city. The fact that Lance was openly gay I think gave it a kind of resonance that, certainly for 1973 viewers, was quite unsettling and maybe to many viewers, surprising. Now in hindsight, I guess not so much – you have to remember the time. I’d have to agree though; episode two is my favorite.

IT: What was the experience like of consulting for HBO’s Cinema Verite?

AR: That was a dramatization of the events in the making of the series in Santa Barbara.  So, you have to deal with dramatic license – some scenes were condensed, some scenes were totally made up that never actually existed.  In general, we worked with everyone on the production – we started with the scriptwriter over a period, and then we worked with the various actors and we were on the set in Los Angeles. We spent a lot of time with Patrick Fugit and Shanna Collins, who played us in the movie, mainly to give them a sense of how to make the filming scenes look realistic.

Overall, we felt the storyline was accurate.  We know for a fact some of the material in the film was created for the drama, and some scenes we had some problems with, but overall I think we tried to make the film as realistic as possible.

SR: It was actually a learning curve, and when we started we told them everything that happened, and then it became apparent that they were going to pick and choose which parts they found interesting.  Whereas, of course, we found it all interesting!  At one point, we just realized, it’s their movie, and it was a fictionalized account, and they were going to make it.  At that point you just have to let go and realize that it was going to be a version of what happened.  And it was pretty good!  We just accepted it for what it was, which is basically, an incredible life experience for someone to decide that you, a documentary filmmaker, should have your life reenacted.  The thing that I’ll always be thankful for is that the HBO people allowed us to be included in the process, so as filmmakers it was an up close and personal way to see how they make a movie – to see how many times it changes when every hand comes into it.

IT: How do you feel the role of documentary filmmakers has changed since An American Family?

AR: One of the issues that has emerged from the legacy of the American Family series is the shadow of reality television and how in some ways there was something of a template created in the original PBS series for using real people to tell stories in a weekly format that would captivate an audience like a dramatic movie would.  I think that is where you get on to the real slippery slope. We don’t consider those [modern reality series] a genuine form of documentary – they’re sort of a hybrid form of entertainment documentaries.  Obviously, those don’t (I don’t think) follow the same ethical rules that professional journalists who produce serious documentaries, like HBO documentary films or FRONTLINE or something like that, have to basically adhere to.  So, you have a bifurcated group of filmmakers, half of whom are chasing a kind of entertainment goal where they are using real people but maybe giving them lots of suggestions or scripted lines to say or planting situations very artificially, whereas the real documentary filmmaker has to work within the confines of traditional broadcast journalism.

The problem is when one or the other, primarily the documentary filmmaker, begins to appropriate some of the techniques of reality television.  It’s become a more complicated universe to produce long form documentaries for sure, and it’s something that will always be evolving.

SR: It is an uncomfortable thing to watch because we like to adhere to the idea that nonfiction is the strongest story – truth is stronger than fiction.  It’s the best part of the story, so when people take all these shortcuts because they haven’t got time to wait for the character’s story to unfold – it’s very irksome and it confuses an audience to the point where I think they accept everything as true; it’s sort of like playing tricks and games on your audience.  I think that’s why An American Family stands after 40 years as the legendary television iconic movie that it is, because the Louds lived their lives on camera, and we lived their lives as they unfolded.

IT: What was the process like of making An American Family: Anniversary Edition?

AR: For An American Family: Anniversary Edition, we faced the challenge of condensing the twelve hours down to a two-hour feature-length version. We tried not to change the general pacing of the show; the individual scenes are still pretty much in tact. I hope that this two-hour version will be a user-friendly lens into the original series.

IT: Looking back, is there anything you would have done differently in the making of An American Family?

AR: In retrospect, seven months was too brutal for everyone, the Louds and for us.  The first ten hours of the twelve came from the first six weeks of filming.  So the additional five months we stayed all the way until New Years really didn’t yield much in the way of great material.  For them at least, it was something that must have at some point been kind of painful, after the family broke up and Bill moved out of the house.  There was a deflated feeling within the house, which was kind of depressing.  I think at that point we should’ve just packed up our equipment and left and gone back to New York.  Instead, Craig Gilbert, the producer, wanted us to stay for many more months.  I question the financial and logistical rationale behind that because it didn’t actually result in any new twists in the story.

I think in general we were happy with our work, we’ve always been very proud of the fact that we really were there in the middle of all these very dramatic scenes and assimilated ourselves into the family lifestyle. That’s a hard thing to do for any cinema vérité filmmaker, and I think part of the success of the series hinges on that – the relationships we formed with them.  These relationships continued for many, many years – we produced two more follow up documentaries: in 1983, An American Family: Revisited, which let the family talk about the experience.  Then, in 2003, we produced Lance Loud: A Death in An American Family — when Lance became ill, he contacted us and asked if we would make one more film.

SR: That phone call and request was far more emotional than having HBO do a cinema vérité movie on us.

On May 31, Great Performances celebrates the 120th anniversary of Carnegie Hall with  a concert featuring conductor Alan Gilbert and the New York Philharmonic, along with special guests, pianist Emanuel Ax, cellist Yo-Yo Ma, violinist Gil Shaham, and Tony Award-winning actress and singer Audra McDonald.

The concert features the works of Beethoven, Dvořák, Duke Ellington, and George Gershwin. The evening’s program includes Gershwin’s An American in Paris, Beethoven’s Triple Concerto in C major, Op. 56, and Ellington’s “It Don’t Mean a Thing if it Ain’t Got That Swing.”

Carnegie Hall’s 120th Anniversary Concert airs Tuesday, May 31 at 8 p.m. on Great Performances.

Check out photos from the concert:

On Wednesay, May 11, WNET hosted a panel discussion with Freedom Riders filmmaker Stanley Nelson and four people who participated in the historic protest. The event took place at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in NYC.

Freedom Riders airs tonight at 9 p.m. on THIRTEEN.

Watch the conversation:
(View full post to see video)

Enter to win a copy of American Experience: Freedom Riders on DVD, the companion book, Freedom Riders: 1961 and the Struggle for Racial Justice, and a THIRTEEN tote bag.