The Most Dangerous Filmmakers in America
By Doniphan Blair
Documentary Warriors Rick Goldsmith and Judith Ehrlich introduce a new generation to truth-telling that changed American history. photo CineSourceJust in time for another seemingly misguided war, Berkeley documentarians Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith have debuted "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers." Considering that he leaked those papers to the New York Times (all 7,000 pages), that it lead directly to ending the war - and that the Nixon administration didn't assassinate him - the episode stands as a backhanded compliment to the American system as well as a vigorous commendation of Daniel Ellsberg.
Originally a Cold War analyst for the RAND corporation, Ellsberg walked patrol in Vietnam to witness the war first hand, studied the terrible details, and snuck the evidence to the press. He even escaped Los Angeles to become a Berkeley resident himself. But Goldsmith and Ehrlich were surprised to find their neighbor's brave actions were not well-represented on screen.
Goldsmith and Ehrlich hail from the cabal of Berkeley documentarians who once resided in what was once once the Fantasy Building, after the famous recording studio at 10th and Parker in Berkeley, and is now the Saul Zaentz Media Center, after Fantasy's eccentric owner, who did give them cheap rent until selling it in 2007. They bring all that talent and more to bear on Ellsberg's story - no wonder "The Most Dangerous Man" is up for the doc Oscar (final nominees to be announced February 2).
Goldsmith is no stranger to the Oscars, having received an Academy nomination over a decade ago for "Tell the Truth and Run," about George Seldes, a century-old muckraker. But "The Most Dangerous Man" is at another level - right from its punky, copy machine titles. Goldsmith and Ehrlich use every trick in the post-mod-doc playbook: superb sound design, intimate reenactments, some animation - even bringing in an editor of national renown, Michael Chandler. Their perseverance pays off: "The Most Dangerous Man" cranks up and grabs your attention, much like its hero.
After eleven days underground, Ellsberg turned himself in on June 28, 1971, two weeks after the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers. After the lengthy 1973 criminal trial, the case against Ellsberg and co-defendant Anthony Russo was dismissed. The presiding judge noted that ransacking Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, illegally wiretapping him, and offering the judge the directorship of the FBI constituted denial of fair trail - uh, duh! And that was hardly the half of it: "plumber" G. Gordon Liddy wanted to "incapacitate" Ellsberg, either physically or with LSD. The second option was rejected by the CIA, who claimed acid was an unreliable crazy-maker, according to their research, by a certain Harvard prof T. Leary.
Goldsmith and Ehrlich show a 60s with few psychedelic fringes, although Ellsberg was known to be somewhat lifestyle-open himself. To them, it's an espionage morality tale, swirling and stylish, with great interviews with Ellsberg, the still handsome and astute near-octogenarian, who still leads the charge on these issues, notably Afghanistan, which he sees as another Vietnam.
Released by First Run Features, "The Most Dangerous Man in America" is opening this month nationwide, and locally on February 19, both at the Landmark Shattuck in Berkeley and a Landmark theater in San Francisco. The filmmakers and the Ellsbergs will be in attendance at several shows during the opening weekend - check http://www.mostdangerousman.org. It is also available on DVD for educators through New Day Films, http://www.newday.com, and will air on PBS's "POV" in the fall - quite a timely, bold and artistic achievement. I met with Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith separately, at their half-block apart offices, but married the interviews for ease of read and repartee.
What's up with 'The Most Dangerous Man?'
Judith Ehrlich: We just got back from the international documentary film festival in Amsterdam [the IDFA], the biggest in the world. We won the Special Jury Award but they didn't tell us. At the time I was at their office across town, and was disappointed I wasn't there for the ceremony.
Would you say the Europeans are more interested in documentaries?
JE: Yes, but the US is catching up. When I walk down Shattuck [Avenue, Berkeley] half the screens are docs. 10 years ago none were. But the Europeans have more venues, especially on television.
You've done a lot of this?
JE: I have been involved with documentaries, PBS and stuff, but this is the first one that has theatrical exposure.
(To Rick, who has done docs that end up in theatres) Do you have any tips on how to get there?
Rick Goldsmith: We were fortunate. Judy and I got a grant from ITVS [Independent Film & Television Service, out of San Francisco] for about half of our mid-six figures budget. I would say the key to raising money is to know what your subject is and to feel comfortable in your own skin. The only way to sell the film to others is to be really clear what you want to do. I think we did that early on. We had a good treatment, a good description and a good trailer.
So you shot some -
RG: Early on we got some foundation money, a nice grant from the Deer Creek Foundation. I am a firm believer that if you get any money - put it into production! That is going to help you get a trailer and help the film come alive in your eyes and other peoples' eyes.
A lot people don't realize that documentaries also need scripts.
RG: It is not the same as a drama, where you need a shooting script. For this film we did several treatments, we were always updating. We had various length treatments, from two to fifteen pages, but they can be longer. The one we did for ITVS was about ten pages, I believe.
JE: You do the filmmaking and, one day, you wake up and you have to be a marketing expert. At IDFA [in Amsterdam] the entire session was 7 minutes, but this is the correct amount of time - three to show a clip and four to do your pitch! We got this wonderful agent to take it around the world - Jan Rofkamp, he's Dutch but based in Montreal. He really tries to build a community among the filmmakers he represents.
We thought it would be a US story but there has been more interest outside the US - the festival invites are flooding in: Finland, Sweden, Denmark - just yesterday, Hong Kong, Brazil.
Rick you seem to be drawn to muckrakers?
RG: That is not by accident. I find stories of people who stick their necks out and take action compelling because they're going against the status quo and they will touch people, especially young people. They will inspire people take a risk and help make this world a better place.
JE: I started as an educator and then [I was] a photographer and radio producer at KPFA [Pacifica Radio, Berkeley]. I also managed the Center for the Study of Bertolt Brecht, with Ronnie Davis who started the SF Mime Troupe, and I was the director of a private school in Oakland.
Do you see filmmaking as continuing education?
I do. I got my degree from [UC] Berkeley in political theory; I still teach at Berkeley City College. I see this as an extension of classroom. I am trying to reach people of all ages to give them new stories to see new ways of looking at things.
Ellsberg was a nerd, as a Jew, Harvard alum and think tank analyst, but he was also handsome and adventurous, walking patrol in Vietnam with the grunts to get their side of the story. photo courtesy D. & P. EllsbergThe new film has a very modern look. Was that in your mind?
RG: It was a group effort. From the beginning, Judy and I had different notions of the same story. We agreed there was always some notion of recreation, but we didn't agree what it would be. Animation was something Judy pushed from the beginning. I should say it was a difficult partnership because we had different approaches. But we also listened to each other and forged something new.
Lawrence Lerew, who came on as the second editor, added a lot, including the notion of Ellsberg as a first person narrator. It was a source of contention. I thought we should have third person [narration], to help with credibility, but Lawrence and Judy pushed for first person. I think it was the right decision but it was not easy. The reason it works is because he was on the inside. There is something about him telling his own story: it creates more intimacy.
Jim LeBrecht did the sound design, making it into a theatrical sounding film.We hired Dan Krauss, who is just down the hall, to shoot the recreations. He added new ideas.
To the interview look?
RG: From the beginning, talking with Vicente [Franco, their director of photography], we wanted something edgy. We had to appeal to an audience that would not see a lot of 20-somethings on the screen. We don't have a lot of so-called 'experts.' For me it was very important [for the story] to be told by people who were there. Look at Hedrick Smith, who was there - 'Look at what we got!' - he just comes alive. For me, if you tell stories through remembrances, it only works if people have that enthusiasm.
Judy, you were sort of the force for the more avant stuff in the film?
JE: Rick Prelinger said, 'Not all documentaries are three act stories, [you] are trying too hard to make it fit.' So much was done in secret. It could have been done with all talking heads and archival footage but adding dramatic scenes made it juicier. Lawrence pushed for recreations and I jumped on the bandwagon. It took a while for Rick to come around.
We really saw the film differently. I think in the end that made the film stronger. If you start with the same idea, you go, 'Well, that is good enough.' But if you have to convince someone else, you must make a stronger argument. And Michael Chandler really helped. He is a dramatic editor - he did 'Amadeus' [as well as 'Howard the Duck,' 'Mishima' and many docs]. To work with him we had to move Moab, Utah - a nice place to be stuck.
He pumped up the volume?
JE: He had this amazing ability. To have someone go through your footage and find things you never figured out how to incorporate. For example, the magic show: when Ellsberg is doing a magic trick. It takes you out of the barrage of information. He did a great job bringing in new things, cutting sections out, and making it flow better. He was also very helpful in developing the narration.
We reviewed 100 hours of archival material and interviews of 23 different people. We interviewed Dan four times each for four hours. So that's about 60 hours of interviews. Then there were the recreations. We first thought we would shoot in one day and it took four. We shot in the UC Journalism school, in the library - brought in a crane.
You got some flack for the recreations?
JE: We did get a little. In retrospect, we sent them an early version that wasn't fully colorized. David Denby, in 'The New Yorker,' went after it and then the others jumped on. But it has been 100% on Rotten Tomatoes[.com] and extremely strong on IMBD [the movie info site]. We have gotten very good reviews overall. We just won two National Board of Review of Motion Pictures Awards: one of the five best documentaries of the year and The Freedom of Expression Award.
RG: Hey, everyone will have something to say. I am happy with the recreations. Sometimes you sit back and say, 'What was I thinking?' But with this film I am happy with every element. We have gotten good feedback, including the animation, which gets some laughs. That was a struggle - the last building block that fell into place.
Appeals more to young people?
RG: Maybe so. The young people we've talked to have responded well. Judy said we wanted it to be a political thriller and that is true. Documentary film has changed over the last ten or twenty years. You have to make it more gripping without losing the heart of it, [which is] the real people and the real events.
JE: We tried to make it a political thriller, to get people in the door. We tried to make it funny, to max out the political theater. In Poland, this 15-year-old kid came up to me and said, 'I was on the edge of my seat, I didn't know any of it.' We had long Q and As in Berlin and Poland. I don't think there was one question about filmmaking. Especially the people behind the Iron Curtain who had never heard of Ellsberg, they were interested to hear the story of a dissident.
I have got to say, Europeans overall are hypnotized by Obama. Ellsberg is disappointed about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan [but the Europeans] don't want to hear it. I am also hopeful but critical. That is one of the messages of the film. Another message is the imbalance of the branches of government. It takes an active citizenry to push Congress.
Which docs do you look back on?
RG: One of the films that had a big impact on all of us is 'Man on Wire,' that is almost all recreation. [On the other hand,] look at Errol Morris's 'Fog of War' - he just had McNamara.
I am a fan of Michael Moore, although my films are nothing like his. He is a muckraking filmmaker in the tradition from a 100 years ago. He takes a social subject and dramatizes the issue. He has reached a mass audience and has done it skillfully. I give him kudos for that - he uses his own way of storytelling.
This goes for dramatic as well as doc filmmakers: the more you can develop your own style [the better]. It is like jazz musicians; I don't think it is any different with filmmakers. We decided to tell the story in the way we chose.
Were there other documentaries about this?
RG: No, that was surprising. I went to Dan shortly after he came out with his book 'Secrets' in 2002, but I got involved with other work. Then Judy came to me and proposed a film on Ellsberg. We looked but a documentary on Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers hadn't been done. We had to sell Dan that we were the right people.
He had a book about him ['Wild Man: The Life and Times of Daniel Ellsberg,' by Tom Wells] that was somewhat of a character assassination. But he knew each of us. I had interviewed him as part of the Seldes film and Judy had used him as an advisor on her film, "The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It, " on conscientious objectors during World War II. We did some initial filming and cut a trailer that he and Patricia [Ellsberg's wife] looked favorably upon. It was building trust over several months.
What attracted you to the Ellsberg story?
RG: In 2004, we were in two wars, at least one of which we had been lied into. We knew this story of Daniel Ellsberg was going to resonate today. Speaking out against war has been a lifetime [effort] for Ellsberg. He is as relevant today as he was in the 1971.
To me, Dan has one of the sharpest political eyes of anyone I know. That is why I think it is necessary to hear his voice. He is very outspoken on Afghanistan; he likens it to 1965 in Vietnam, the same troop levels and same prospect of success. Every time we go to war, at least in my lifetime, they trot out every retired admiral and general. What we need is it to be counterbalanced by the Daniel Ellsbergs, people who have been inside. We need that voice.
Judy and I were talking in 2004 [after] we saw Dan and Patricia at a speaking event. 2005 was preproduction and we got shooting in 2006. So four years total is not bad for a feature doc. We got the Nixon tapes from the national archives - there for the listening. We got Walter Cronkite from the National Archives. We nosed around. Towards the end, we got in touch with John Dean [Nixon's lawyer, who was convicted and briefly incarcerated but has rejected Republican beliefs as well as tactics]. He said, 'Do you know about the Gannon interviews?' We said, 'What is that?' So we researched it, found it and that on-camera interview of Nixon is in the film. Lynn Adler, a local filmmaker, was the head of the research and Max Good was the associate producer; he was really good at digging [things] out.
Ellsberg tells his story with passion in a frame from "The Most Dangerous Man." photo courtesy The Most Dangerous ManDid it come together like an arch (with the various elements joining in the middle)?
RG: We knew what we were going for: what Ellsberg was doing at that time. By maybe mid-2008, we had our first assembly: six hours. I was the editor at that point [Rick started as an editor]. We sat down and looked at it and we knew: we had a great film here - if we can make it.
Where do you see documentaries going?
JE: The big question is what is going to happen to newspapers? Will documentaries be taking the place of long form journalism? This [doc] took four years, so we are not going to take the place [of that] but we are taking the space in the public arena. People are able to work cheaper, with lighter equipment, which is exciting. There is a place for more creativity without organizations behind the project. But I don't think it reduces the need for higher standards. There is a place for both the more lively and impressionistic and the more professional.
A lot of 'Burma VJ' [about the 2007 priest protest which turned violent] was shot on cheap consumer cameras, under cover [VJ means video jocks]. It had a big impact. There was another piece on 'Frontline' shot on phone cameras, about the woman killed in a protest in Iran [Neda Agha-Soltan, June 2009]. We're seeing more access to images. There is integrating the low rez - that wouldn't live any other way - and at the same time documentaries going toward [the look of] feature films.
A good story is, in the end, the thing that sticks in my mind. Whatever the style - is the character interesting? Half our job is casting - finding a good story, a great character, who does something that people will be fascinated by. Reality is more fascinating then anything you can create. Just the fact it is real has a certain fascination.
RG: The movie is this grand story on a huge scale but it is a very intimate story. When Dan Ellsberg took this risk, he could be going to prison for life. Hedrick Smith said, 'We didn't know if we were going to jail.' Jim Goodale, the lawyer, said, 'We didn't know if the 'New York Times' was going down.' Senator Mike Gravel [who read the Pentagon Papers on the floor of Congress] said, 'Didn't know if I would be going to jail.' Everyone was putting their ass on the line, and did the 'right thing.' Only Bud Krogh and John Dean made the opposite decision. Bud said, 'I was too caught up in what I was doing.'
Dan was the one who chose to look at his conscience and to act. That is how history is made. Patricia [Dan's wife] was asked, 'Did she think putting the papers out would make a difference?' She took a risk on her whole life. She said, 'If I give him the answer that would insure he will be with me, it would be a sham of marriage.'
Would you have any recommendations to an up-and-coming documentarian?
RG: Don't do it! I'm kidding, or at least half-kidding. The only thing for the young doc filmmaker is to think about how your story will affect a large audience. Tap into your own vision, don't try to copy other films. In the end, a film will work because of the passion, heart, creativity - the realness of the maker. Pay attention to your connection to the subject.
Coming here (to the old Fantasy Building), I noticed some sort of equitable transition was made (after the conflict of kicking out the docmakers).
RG: It worked out. Both sides had to give some. Some of us stayed, some of us left [Rick is the former, Judith the latter but only a block away]. But also what came out of it was the Berkeley Film Fund. The new owners [Wareham] and the city put some money into a fund and they made their first grants totaling around 100,000 dollars a few months ago. Out of a difficult situation, some good things came. Posted on Mar 08, 2010 - 05:03 PM
By Doniphan Blair
Documentary Warriors Rick Goldsmith and Judith Ehrlich introduce a new generation to truth-telling that changed American history. photo CineSourceOriginally a Cold War analyst for the RAND corporation, Ellsberg walked patrol in Vietnam to witness the war first hand, studied the terrible details, and snuck the evidence to the press. He even escaped Los Angeles to become a Berkeley resident himself. But Goldsmith and Ehrlich were surprised to find their neighbor's brave actions were not well-represented on screen.
Goldsmith and Ehrlich hail from the cabal of Berkeley documentarians who once resided in what was once once the Fantasy Building, after the famous recording studio at 10th and Parker in Berkeley, and is now the Saul Zaentz Media Center, after Fantasy's eccentric owner, who did give them cheap rent until selling it in 2007. They bring all that talent and more to bear on Ellsberg's story - no wonder "The Most Dangerous Man" is up for the doc Oscar (final nominees to be announced February 2).
Goldsmith is no stranger to the Oscars, having received an Academy nomination over a decade ago for "Tell the Truth and Run," about George Seldes, a century-old muckraker. But "The Most Dangerous Man" is at another level - right from its punky, copy machine titles. Goldsmith and Ehrlich use every trick in the post-mod-doc playbook: superb sound design, intimate reenactments, some animation - even bringing in an editor of national renown, Michael Chandler. Their perseverance pays off: "The Most Dangerous Man" cranks up and grabs your attention, much like its hero.
After eleven days underground, Ellsberg turned himself in on June 28, 1971, two weeks after the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers. After the lengthy 1973 criminal trial, the case against Ellsberg and co-defendant Anthony Russo was dismissed. The presiding judge noted that ransacking Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, illegally wiretapping him, and offering the judge the directorship of the FBI constituted denial of fair trail - uh, duh! And that was hardly the half of it: "plumber" G. Gordon Liddy wanted to "incapacitate" Ellsberg, either physically or with LSD. The second option was rejected by the CIA, who claimed acid was an unreliable crazy-maker, according to their research, by a certain Harvard prof T. Leary.
Goldsmith and Ehrlich show a 60s with few psychedelic fringes, although Ellsberg was known to be somewhat lifestyle-open himself. To them, it's an espionage morality tale, swirling and stylish, with great interviews with Ellsberg, the still handsome and astute near-octogenarian, who still leads the charge on these issues, notably Afghanistan, which he sees as another Vietnam.
Released by First Run Features, "The Most Dangerous Man in America" is opening this month nationwide, and locally on February 19, both at the Landmark Shattuck in Berkeley and a Landmark theater in San Francisco. The filmmakers and the Ellsbergs will be in attendance at several shows during the opening weekend - check http://www.mostdangerousman.org. It is also available on DVD for educators through New Day Films, http://www.newday.com, and will air on PBS's "POV" in the fall - quite a timely, bold and artistic achievement. I met with Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith separately, at their half-block apart offices, but married the interviews for ease of read and repartee.
What's up with 'The Most Dangerous Man?'
Judith Ehrlich: We just got back from the international documentary film festival in Amsterdam [the IDFA], the biggest in the world. We won the Special Jury Award but they didn't tell us. At the time I was at their office across town, and was disappointed I wasn't there for the ceremony.
Would you say the Europeans are more interested in documentaries?
JE: Yes, but the US is catching up. When I walk down Shattuck [Avenue, Berkeley] half the screens are docs. 10 years ago none were. But the Europeans have more venues, especially on television.
You've done a lot of this?
JE: I have been involved with documentaries, PBS and stuff, but this is the first one that has theatrical exposure.
(To Rick, who has done docs that end up in theatres) Do you have any tips on how to get there?
Rick Goldsmith: We were fortunate. Judy and I got a grant from ITVS [Independent Film & Television Service, out of San Francisco] for about half of our mid-six figures budget. I would say the key to raising money is to know what your subject is and to feel comfortable in your own skin. The only way to sell the film to others is to be really clear what you want to do. I think we did that early on. We had a good treatment, a good description and a good trailer.
So you shot some -
RG: Early on we got some foundation money, a nice grant from the Deer Creek Foundation. I am a firm believer that if you get any money - put it into production! That is going to help you get a trailer and help the film come alive in your eyes and other peoples' eyes.
A lot people don't realize that documentaries also need scripts.
RG: It is not the same as a drama, where you need a shooting script. For this film we did several treatments, we were always updating. We had various length treatments, from two to fifteen pages, but they can be longer. The one we did for ITVS was about ten pages, I believe.
JE: You do the filmmaking and, one day, you wake up and you have to be a marketing expert. At IDFA [in Amsterdam] the entire session was 7 minutes, but this is the correct amount of time - three to show a clip and four to do your pitch! We got this wonderful agent to take it around the world - Jan Rofkamp, he's Dutch but based in Montreal. He really tries to build a community among the filmmakers he represents.
We thought it would be a US story but there has been more interest outside the US - the festival invites are flooding in: Finland, Sweden, Denmark - just yesterday, Hong Kong, Brazil.
Rick you seem to be drawn to muckrakers?
RG: That is not by accident. I find stories of people who stick their necks out and take action compelling because they're going against the status quo and they will touch people, especially young people. They will inspire people take a risk and help make this world a better place.
JE: I started as an educator and then [I was] a photographer and radio producer at KPFA [Pacifica Radio, Berkeley]. I also managed the Center for the Study of Bertolt Brecht, with Ronnie Davis who started the SF Mime Troupe, and I was the director of a private school in Oakland.
Do you see filmmaking as continuing education?
I do. I got my degree from [UC] Berkeley in political theory; I still teach at Berkeley City College. I see this as an extension of classroom. I am trying to reach people of all ages to give them new stories to see new ways of looking at things.
Ellsberg was a nerd, as a Jew, Harvard alum and think tank analyst, but he was also handsome and adventurous, walking patrol in Vietnam with the grunts to get their side of the story. photo courtesy D. & P. EllsbergRG: It was a group effort. From the beginning, Judy and I had different notions of the same story. We agreed there was always some notion of recreation, but we didn't agree what it would be. Animation was something Judy pushed from the beginning. I should say it was a difficult partnership because we had different approaches. But we also listened to each other and forged something new.
Lawrence Lerew, who came on as the second editor, added a lot, including the notion of Ellsberg as a first person narrator. It was a source of contention. I thought we should have third person [narration], to help with credibility, but Lawrence and Judy pushed for first person. I think it was the right decision but it was not easy. The reason it works is because he was on the inside. There is something about him telling his own story: it creates more intimacy.
Jim LeBrecht did the sound design, making it into a theatrical sounding film.We hired Dan Krauss, who is just down the hall, to shoot the recreations. He added new ideas.
To the interview look?
RG: From the beginning, talking with Vicente [Franco, their director of photography], we wanted something edgy. We had to appeal to an audience that would not see a lot of 20-somethings on the screen. We don't have a lot of so-called 'experts.' For me it was very important [for the story] to be told by people who were there. Look at Hedrick Smith, who was there - 'Look at what we got!' - he just comes alive. For me, if you tell stories through remembrances, it only works if people have that enthusiasm.
Judy, you were sort of the force for the more avant stuff in the film?
JE: Rick Prelinger said, 'Not all documentaries are three act stories, [you] are trying too hard to make it fit.' So much was done in secret. It could have been done with all talking heads and archival footage but adding dramatic scenes made it juicier. Lawrence pushed for recreations and I jumped on the bandwagon. It took a while for Rick to come around.
We really saw the film differently. I think in the end that made the film stronger. If you start with the same idea, you go, 'Well, that is good enough.' But if you have to convince someone else, you must make a stronger argument. And Michael Chandler really helped. He is a dramatic editor - he did 'Amadeus' [as well as 'Howard the Duck,' 'Mishima' and many docs]. To work with him we had to move Moab, Utah - a nice place to be stuck.
He pumped up the volume?
JE: He had this amazing ability. To have someone go through your footage and find things you never figured out how to incorporate. For example, the magic show: when Ellsberg is doing a magic trick. It takes you out of the barrage of information. He did a great job bringing in new things, cutting sections out, and making it flow better. He was also very helpful in developing the narration.
We reviewed 100 hours of archival material and interviews of 23 different people. We interviewed Dan four times each for four hours. So that's about 60 hours of interviews. Then there were the recreations. We first thought we would shoot in one day and it took four. We shot in the UC Journalism school, in the library - brought in a crane.
You got some flack for the recreations?
JE: We did get a little. In retrospect, we sent them an early version that wasn't fully colorized. David Denby, in 'The New Yorker,' went after it and then the others jumped on. But it has been 100% on Rotten Tomatoes[.com] and extremely strong on IMBD [the movie info site]. We have gotten very good reviews overall. We just won two National Board of Review of Motion Pictures Awards: one of the five best documentaries of the year and The Freedom of Expression Award.
RG: Hey, everyone will have something to say. I am happy with the recreations. Sometimes you sit back and say, 'What was I thinking?' But with this film I am happy with every element. We have gotten good feedback, including the animation, which gets some laughs. That was a struggle - the last building block that fell into place.
Appeals more to young people?
RG: Maybe so. The young people we've talked to have responded well. Judy said we wanted it to be a political thriller and that is true. Documentary film has changed over the last ten or twenty years. You have to make it more gripping without losing the heart of it, [which is] the real people and the real events.
JE: We tried to make it a political thriller, to get people in the door. We tried to make it funny, to max out the political theater. In Poland, this 15-year-old kid came up to me and said, 'I was on the edge of my seat, I didn't know any of it.' We had long Q and As in Berlin and Poland. I don't think there was one question about filmmaking. Especially the people behind the Iron Curtain who had never heard of Ellsberg, they were interested to hear the story of a dissident.
I have got to say, Europeans overall are hypnotized by Obama. Ellsberg is disappointed about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan [but the Europeans] don't want to hear it. I am also hopeful but critical. That is one of the messages of the film. Another message is the imbalance of the branches of government. It takes an active citizenry to push Congress.
Which docs do you look back on?
RG: One of the films that had a big impact on all of us is 'Man on Wire,' that is almost all recreation. [On the other hand,] look at Errol Morris's 'Fog of War' - he just had McNamara.
I am a fan of Michael Moore, although my films are nothing like his. He is a muckraking filmmaker in the tradition from a 100 years ago. He takes a social subject and dramatizes the issue. He has reached a mass audience and has done it skillfully. I give him kudos for that - he uses his own way of storytelling.
This goes for dramatic as well as doc filmmakers: the more you can develop your own style [the better]. It is like jazz musicians; I don't think it is any different with filmmakers. We decided to tell the story in the way we chose.
Were there other documentaries about this?
RG: No, that was surprising. I went to Dan shortly after he came out with his book 'Secrets' in 2002, but I got involved with other work. Then Judy came to me and proposed a film on Ellsberg. We looked but a documentary on Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers hadn't been done. We had to sell Dan that we were the right people.
He had a book about him ['Wild Man: The Life and Times of Daniel Ellsberg,' by Tom Wells] that was somewhat of a character assassination. But he knew each of us. I had interviewed him as part of the Seldes film and Judy had used him as an advisor on her film, "The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It, " on conscientious objectors during World War II. We did some initial filming and cut a trailer that he and Patricia [Ellsberg's wife] looked favorably upon. It was building trust over several months.
What attracted you to the Ellsberg story?
RG: In 2004, we were in two wars, at least one of which we had been lied into. We knew this story of Daniel Ellsberg was going to resonate today. Speaking out against war has been a lifetime [effort] for Ellsberg. He is as relevant today as he was in the 1971.
To me, Dan has one of the sharpest political eyes of anyone I know. That is why I think it is necessary to hear his voice. He is very outspoken on Afghanistan; he likens it to 1965 in Vietnam, the same troop levels and same prospect of success. Every time we go to war, at least in my lifetime, they trot out every retired admiral and general. What we need is it to be counterbalanced by the Daniel Ellsbergs, people who have been inside. We need that voice.
Judy and I were talking in 2004 [after] we saw Dan and Patricia at a speaking event. 2005 was preproduction and we got shooting in 2006. So four years total is not bad for a feature doc. We got the Nixon tapes from the national archives - there for the listening. We got Walter Cronkite from the National Archives. We nosed around. Towards the end, we got in touch with John Dean [Nixon's lawyer, who was convicted and briefly incarcerated but has rejected Republican beliefs as well as tactics]. He said, 'Do you know about the Gannon interviews?' We said, 'What is that?' So we researched it, found it and that on-camera interview of Nixon is in the film. Lynn Adler, a local filmmaker, was the head of the research and Max Good was the associate producer; he was really good at digging [things] out.
Ellsberg tells his story with passion in a frame from "The Most Dangerous Man." photo courtesy The Most Dangerous ManRG: We knew what we were going for: what Ellsberg was doing at that time. By maybe mid-2008, we had our first assembly: six hours. I was the editor at that point [Rick started as an editor]. We sat down and looked at it and we knew: we had a great film here - if we can make it.
Where do you see documentaries going?
JE: The big question is what is going to happen to newspapers? Will documentaries be taking the place of long form journalism? This [doc] took four years, so we are not going to take the place [of that] but we are taking the space in the public arena. People are able to work cheaper, with lighter equipment, which is exciting. There is a place for more creativity without organizations behind the project. But I don't think it reduces the need for higher standards. There is a place for both the more lively and impressionistic and the more professional.
A lot of 'Burma VJ' [about the 2007 priest protest which turned violent] was shot on cheap consumer cameras, under cover [VJ means video jocks]. It had a big impact. There was another piece on 'Frontline' shot on phone cameras, about the woman killed in a protest in Iran [Neda Agha-Soltan, June 2009]. We're seeing more access to images. There is integrating the low rez - that wouldn't live any other way - and at the same time documentaries going toward [the look of] feature films.
A good story is, in the end, the thing that sticks in my mind. Whatever the style - is the character interesting? Half our job is casting - finding a good story, a great character, who does something that people will be fascinated by. Reality is more fascinating then anything you can create. Just the fact it is real has a certain fascination.
RG: The movie is this grand story on a huge scale but it is a very intimate story. When Dan Ellsberg took this risk, he could be going to prison for life. Hedrick Smith said, 'We didn't know if we were going to jail.' Jim Goodale, the lawyer, said, 'We didn't know if the 'New York Times' was going down.' Senator Mike Gravel [who read the Pentagon Papers on the floor of Congress] said, 'Didn't know if I would be going to jail.' Everyone was putting their ass on the line, and did the 'right thing.' Only Bud Krogh and John Dean made the opposite decision. Bud said, 'I was too caught up in what I was doing.'
Dan was the one who chose to look at his conscience and to act. That is how history is made. Patricia [Dan's wife] was asked, 'Did she think putting the papers out would make a difference?' She took a risk on her whole life. She said, 'If I give him the answer that would insure he will be with me, it would be a sham of marriage.'
Would you have any recommendations to an up-and-coming documentarian?
RG: Don't do it! I'm kidding, or at least half-kidding. The only thing for the young doc filmmaker is to think about how your story will affect a large audience. Tap into your own vision, don't try to copy other films. In the end, a film will work because of the passion, heart, creativity - the realness of the maker. Pay attention to your connection to the subject.
Coming here (to the old Fantasy Building), I noticed some sort of equitable transition was made (after the conflict of kicking out the docmakers).
RG: It worked out. Both sides had to give some. Some of us stayed, some of us left [Rick is the former, Judith the latter but only a block away]. But also what came out of it was the Berkeley Film Fund. The new owners [Wareham] and the city put some money into a fund and they made their first grants totaling around 100,000 dollars a few months ago. Out of a difficult situation, some good things came. Posted on Mar 08, 2010 - 05:03 PM
