Program #22 The Film and the City Frederick Wiseman

[00:38 - 00:43]
The films can deal impressionistic live provocatively with subjects but they don't
[00:43 - 00:48]
necessarily. There's no kind of one to one relationship between a film and social change alone the
[00:48 - 00:53]
case of the ticket Follies which is the film made about the prison and mental hospital in part
[00:53 - 00:58]
of it's because of the film. Over 300 people have been transferred out of the institution to other
[00:58 - 01:03]
state institutions or old age homes and the public has become somewhat more aware of
[01:03 - 01:18]
the conditions although not as much as they would be if they had a chance to.
[01:18 - 01:19]
Serve an incumbent.
[01:19 - 01:24]
An analysis of the continuing crises facing one of the centuries men in.
[01:24 - 01:30]
American city.
[01:30 - 01:35]
Todays recorded guest is Frederick Wiseman. Producer director of the film did a
[01:35 - 01:40]
couple always High School Law and Order and a hospital. Based
[01:40 - 01:45]
program. Frederick Wiseman. The film. And the city.
[01:45 - 01:50]
Questions asked in the following program are merely the moderator's method of presenting many sides
[01:50 - 01:59]
of today's topic. Here is your host Joseph Harvey.
[01:59 - 02:04]
It may be a little difficult to do a radio program about films and
[02:04 - 02:09]
with a film producer. But in the next 30 minutes we're going to try because our guest
[02:09 - 02:14]
is doing films on city problems. This is a city series. The films take a hard
[02:14 - 02:19]
perhaps even an unmerciful close up look at urban institutions. They show them at
[02:19 - 02:24]
their best and at their worst without any glamour. And they've been described as some of the most depressing
[02:24 - 02:28]
films in the past 10 or 20 years. Fred Weisman is the
[02:28 - 02:33]
producer Fred Weisman. We're sitting here in your office in Cambridge Massachusetts could you tell
[02:33 - 02:38]
us about some of these films that you made particularly the one on Harlem the one Law Order
[02:38 - 02:43]
in Kansas City and the one on the New York Metropolitan Hospital the one called hospital made at New
[02:43 - 02:46]
York Metropolitan Hospital and one called Law and Order.
[02:46 - 02:50]
But the Kent City Police Department can City Missouri police department were both documentary
[02:50 - 02:55]
films that is they were films about real events where nothing was staged. One in Harlem
[02:55 - 03:00]
called Cool world was made eight years ago it was done with actors and was shot in Harlem on the streets
[03:00 - 03:05]
but trying to recreate real life situations. But generally my
[03:05 - 03:09]
interest is going into an institution like the hospital or hanging around with the police department
[03:09 - 03:14]
for a period of time for anywhere from four to six weeks and taking a lot of film generally around 40
[03:14 - 03:19]
hours of film and then cutting it into an hour an hour and a half film which tries to
[03:19 - 03:24]
express in at least an impressionistic sense the nature of the institution
[03:24 - 03:25]
and some of the typical.
[03:25 - 03:30]
Problem is they have to deal with as you've indicated an interest in doing a film
[03:30 - 03:35]
on a city with a population of 50 to 60000 sort of a middle sized
[03:35 - 03:37]
city. Why why this interest.
[03:37 - 03:42]
One of the problems in each of these films is getting a subject you can kind of get a
[03:42 - 03:47]
handle on as it were to get your arms around it. If it's too diffuse
[03:47 - 03:52]
you have to spend too much time and you don't begin to see the relationships. One of the things that's
[03:52 - 03:56]
interested me about doing this institutional series is that with the exception of the police film
[03:56 - 04:02]
it's all been in one building or you know a series of connected buildings and you can rather quickly get a
[04:02 - 04:06]
sense of what's going on in the relationship between the front office and you
[04:06 - 04:11]
know the back wards as it were. And it's very important to see those kind of connections and get them on
[04:11 - 04:16]
film to try and do a large city like New York you would be too diffuse You could spend
[04:16 - 04:21]
your life and you'd never be able to trace the connections but if you take a smaller city you might be able to take some
[04:21 - 04:25]
picture say in a club where. 10 to 15 of the key
[04:25 - 04:30]
bankers or insurance executives or whatever had lunch every day and you
[04:30 - 04:35]
could see the relationship between that and some policies in the mayor's office or.
[04:35 - 04:40]
The one experience you've had that remotely approximates this. Your law and
[04:40 - 04:45]
order film in Kansas City you follow the Kansas City police all over town right
[04:45 - 04:45]
literally.
[04:45 - 04:49]
Well that's right what I did Kent city is divided up into three police
[04:49 - 04:55]
precincts and I worked out of one was called the Admiral Boulevard station and I
[04:55 - 05:00]
picked that because 50 60 percent of crime in Kansas City was thought to occurred in
[05:00 - 05:04]
that district was a poor white and poor black neighborhood and rather than cover all of
[05:04 - 05:10]
Kansas City I rode the cars on all three shifts in the precinct.
[05:10 - 05:14]
Did you have any preconceived notions about police prior to making this
[05:14 - 05:15]
film.
[05:15 - 05:20]
I went to Cannes City about three weeks after the Democratic Convention in 1968 and I guess
[05:20 - 05:25]
I had the idea. Which I think a lot of people have really had no experience with
[05:25 - 05:30]
the police other than parking tickets or what they read in the newspapers or see on the telly that the
[05:30 - 05:35]
police were all Higgs as they're called these days. I don't know whether I subscribe to that view but I
[05:35 - 05:40]
certainly didn't like the police. I realized after about two days in the corps that my view of the
[05:40 - 05:45]
police had very little to do with the reality of day to day police work. Not that the police don't
[05:45 - 05:49]
do some things which are pretty dreadful because they do and some of those things are
[05:49 - 05:54]
shown in the film. But also people try to do pretty dreadful things to the police and
[05:54 - 05:59]
do some pretty bad things to each other which makes it necessary to have police in the first place.
[05:59 - 06:04]
And I think the film what the final film tries to do is to get into the complexity of the
[06:04 - 06:09]
policeman's role and how he has to be everything from a confessor to a
[06:09 - 06:13]
family counsellor to an expert shot to someone doing a lot of
[06:13 - 06:18]
paperwork. The variety of roles the policeman has to perform give him more
[06:18 - 06:22]
discretion and control over people's lives and you know the average vice president of a
[06:22 - 06:27]
bank. And yet the policeman is poorly paid and frequently poorly trained
[06:27 - 06:32]
for the complex job that he has to do. And what I try to do in the film is present
[06:32 - 06:37]
some of things I hope to learn in the film because they're contrary to what a lot of middle
[06:37 - 06:41]
class people think about the police. I haven't had any experience with them.
[06:41 - 06:47]
We should explain to the audience who obviously can hear telephones ringing buzzers buzzing.
[06:47 - 06:52]
We're talking with Fred Wiseman film producer in his office a friend I'd like to
[06:52 - 06:56]
ask you whether you have any preconceived notions about these other two films that you made the one on the
[06:56 - 06:58]
hospital the one on Harlem.
[06:58 - 07:03]
I start off each one of these films on an institution feeling that some way or another
[07:03 - 07:09]
going to catch the bureaucracy in you know typical bureaucratic boondoggle ing or callousness.
[07:09 - 07:14]
But the hospital film is another example of a situation was probably contrary to
[07:14 - 07:19]
my expectation in that the hospital staff turned out to be by and large
[07:19 - 07:24]
extremely sensitive concerned responsible dedicated
[07:24 - 07:28]
and really working very hard. The point of the hospital film was not so much the
[07:28 - 07:33]
inefficiency or not at all really the inefficiency of the staff but rather the
[07:33 - 07:37]
overwhelming health needs of the community which these people were desperately trying to cope with
[07:37 - 07:42]
but they couldn't really cope with even if there'd been 20 other hospitals in that section of Manhattan that this
[07:42 - 07:44]
hospital serves.
[07:44 - 07:48]
Tell us a little bit more about this film why were the needs of the community so overwhelming.
[07:48 - 07:53]
Metropolitan Hospital is the only city hospital that serves as the area from Forty second Street
[07:53 - 07:58]
200 16th Street east and west. There are other hospitals in that area but there are private
[07:58 - 08:03]
hospitals and there they have clinics but it's the City Hospital in that area. And a million
[08:03 - 08:06]
roughly a million and a half people living in that area.
[08:06 - 08:11]
And when I get to people that can't go any other places people can't go any other place and what you see in the
[08:11 - 08:16]
hospital is it's a reflection of all the American social problems to be seen from a medical
[08:16 - 08:21]
point of view you find people that can't read there that are brought in because they've been bitten by
[08:21 - 08:26]
rats. You find fathers having to take care of large families because the mother is
[08:26 - 08:31]
left or vice versa. You find people all people without any place to go you
[08:31 - 08:35]
find drugs sleeping in the car because again they have no place to go.
[08:35 - 08:39]
So they you get all the literacy housing
[08:39 - 08:44]
poor education lack of jobs lack of vocational training you get all those
[08:44 - 08:49]
problems that the hospital staff has to deal with at the point where they're being converted to
[08:49 - 08:54]
medical problems or even if they're not being converted to medical problem. What I got a sense of is that
[08:54 - 08:59]
when the hospital is not the place to deal with a lot of these problems because they were all of America's social problems
[08:59 - 09:03]
and that they in effect couldn't be dealt with in the hospital right 20.
[09:03 - 09:07]
You mention that the hospital reflected the full range of American social problems. Certainly
[09:07 - 09:12]
the section of New York known as Harlem reflects one of the primary
[09:12 - 09:17]
problems that our society faces poverty and the effects of white
[09:17 - 09:22]
racism creating ghettos. As a reporter do you find anything that surprised you.
[09:22 - 09:27]
A metropolitan house for example that serves Harlem I guess and through Spanish Harlem It also
[09:27 - 09:32]
takes in an area with lots of white people and the film is shows the hospital really
[09:32 - 09:36]
is a genuine melting pot of all races creeds colors shapes and
[09:36 - 09:41]
sizes so that I don't think that I would want to generalize particular racial
[09:41 - 09:42]
aspect of it.
[09:42 - 09:47]
I would certainly you certainly see the intimidating and powerful and
[09:47 - 09:52]
pervasive effects of poverty whether they're dealing with white people or black people
[09:52 - 09:55]
or yellow people I'm speaking more of your first film.
[09:55 - 10:00]
I believe the title was the cool world cool world yeah and it was well received around the country.
[10:00 - 10:04]
What was the situation you found in Harlem when your cameras went there.
[10:04 - 10:08]
This was back in 1962 before it was you know as
[10:08 - 10:13]
fashionable to deal with some of these issues as it is now. I suppose what was found was
[10:13 - 10:18]
the same things I was talking about before the totally degrading effect of poverty and how it
[10:18 - 10:20]
drives people.
[10:20 - 10:25]
The lack of any other road with to all kinds of futile and
[10:25 - 10:28]
occasionally childish attempts to deal with their situation.
[10:28 - 10:32]
What about some specific problems in a ghetto area. I happen to be Harlem
[10:32 - 10:38]
but it could be any ghetto area white or black. The drug world for example or the relationship
[10:38 - 10:39]
between the citizen and the policeman.
[10:39 - 10:44]
I was surprised to find out about Harlem or any poor neighborhood is the degree to which the people the neighborhood
[10:44 - 10:49]
depend on the police and want police protection whether it's white or black police because the incidence of
[10:49 - 10:54]
crime is so high in poor neighborhoods that very often the people aren't
[10:54 - 10:59]
concerned with the political aspects of the civil rights aspects of the police problems but
[10:59 - 11:03]
are more concerned with just getting ordinary day to day police protection.
[11:03 - 11:08]
I want to find out why you use this on the spot filming approach. One of
[11:08 - 11:13]
the advantages disadvantages. What criticism would you make of the standard
[11:13 - 11:16]
television documentary that may or may not use this on the spot reproach.
[11:16 - 11:21]
Well the advantage is when you get it you get reality. I mean you get what's actually going on
[11:21 - 11:26]
and you put people in middle of the events in. And you know
[11:26 - 11:31]
don't tell them what to think about it. A traditional television documentary has
[11:31 - 11:36]
always been very balanced on the one hand this on the other hand and they'll frequently be a narrator
[11:36 - 11:41]
sitting behind a desk or you know perhaps out on the street with a microphone who wrote his nick
[11:41 - 11:46]
in essence telling you what to think and what I've been trying to do with these films is to put the audience in a
[11:46 - 11:51]
situation where they have to think themselves. It's like the prosy a march in the theater.
[11:51 - 11:56]
I want to break down as much of a barrier as I can between the audience and the
[11:56 - 12:01]
events. The use of narration or you know the ballot the so-called objective
[12:01 - 12:06]
approach although I don't really think there is any such thing as objectivity in this kind of work.
[12:06 - 12:10]
I think it makes it possible for the audience to sit back and say that well they're really not
[12:10 - 12:11]
involved in what's going on.
[12:11 - 12:17]
Do you equate an attempt by the as you describe the usual television documentary to be balanced
[12:17 - 12:22]
with an attempt to either consciously or unconsciously tell people how to think what's wrong with a
[12:22 - 12:26]
balanced approach. I mean not all white all black but the gray in between the middle.
[12:26 - 12:31]
Well it depends with what's meant by balanced approach because sometimes a situation may be in a tense
[12:31 - 12:35]
situation. But the way it's presented is 50/50. Since you're putting your name to the
[12:35 - 12:40]
work you're presenting it as scientific study. You know trying to hide the fact that this
[12:40 - 12:45]
is your view of it. It's like a column in a newspaper.
[12:45 - 12:50]
Buckley For example I mean I agree with everything that Buckley writes in his column which says on his
[12:50 - 12:55]
program but I know that it's his point of view to which he's entitled and I think
[12:55 - 12:59]
that these films that I'm doing are my point of view about the material.
[12:59 - 13:04]
But when you put one man's point of view on the nation's television networks
[13:04 - 13:09]
into all of the homes in America don't you have a duty to present both sides to
[13:09 - 13:14]
present a balanced point of view because there's such a tremendous power and being able to
[13:14 - 13:19]
dominate the minds of millions of millions of Americans for even a half hour of their lives.
[13:19 - 13:23]
I don't have any feeling that I'm dominating anyone's mind. The hour and a half or so that I get on
[13:23 - 13:29]
television every year and a half. I don't think it's going to.
[13:29 - 13:34]
Promote too much thought control in the United States. I just think that the
[13:34 - 13:39]
audience I'm hoping that the audience is sufficiently intelligent enough to respond to the films where
[13:39 - 13:43]
they where they don't have to agree with me. And I think the films would be pretty
[13:43 - 13:48]
tepid if everybody agreed with my point of view. I think if the films do anything they begin a
[13:48 - 13:53]
process of discussion and evaluation and consideration of
[13:53 - 13:58]
alternatives from which the change may or may not occur. I try to make
[13:58 - 14:03]
complex films and I hope in making complex films I'm respecting the intelligence of the
[14:03 - 14:07]
audience too. To respond to the material about liking or not liking it but at least by not being
[14:07 - 14:08]
indifferent to it.
[14:08 - 14:13]
Well you recognise the problem of thought control through television through the mass
[14:13 - 14:18]
media you give as. One reason why this would not be a danger in your hands
[14:18 - 14:22]
that you have a small audience in a rarely on national television. I wonder would you
[14:22 - 14:27]
change your approach would you make it more balanced if you were on national television had the opportunity to
[14:27 - 14:32]
dominate where it was originally about national television I've been a national television and educational television that
[14:32 - 14:35]
certainly doesn't reach as large an audience as the networks.
[14:35 - 14:39]
But I have always felt that whether it's educational television or the networks that program should be
[14:39 - 14:44]
controversial there shouldn't be bullying and that people should be exposed to all kinds of points of
[14:44 - 14:49]
view and no one point of view should dominate. I don't know that it's always
[14:49 - 14:54]
necessary to have equal time and you know make a pro prison film next week you have to have an
[14:54 - 14:58]
anti prison film television program should reflect the same kind of diversity and
[14:58 - 15:03]
complexity as exists in this kind of society. I don't think it
[15:03 - 15:05]
does. I think it should.
[15:05 - 15:10]
The question of balance is very much in the minds of our audience since Vice President Agnew's
[15:10 - 15:15]
indictments of the mass media for not being balanced enough and so without him I know asked one more question then we'll
[15:15 - 15:20]
quickly move on. Is there anything that could be said for balance for the usual
[15:20 - 15:21]
television documentary.
[15:21 - 15:26]
You know let me throw the question back at you how would you balance this
[15:26 - 15:27]
program.
[15:27 - 15:31]
Well this particular program it might be difficult to balance. However we could go
[15:31 - 15:33]
get a little parameter back on that.
[15:33 - 15:39]
For example that would of course be only one way of balancing it. I would hope that you know ultimately led to
[15:39 - 15:44]
the conclusion that the only way of presenting real balance is to trust of your
[15:44 - 15:49]
own integrity about the situation you might feel you might want. You know 10
[15:49 - 15:55]
to 1 Fred Wiseman if you felt that was fear in terms of your programming decisions that
[15:55 - 16:00]
would be balanced but it might or might not be as fair as they say.
[16:00 - 16:03]
One Fred Wiseman and one Otto Preminger.
[16:03 - 16:08]
How would you describe the kind of films would you produce you apparently.
[16:08 - 16:13]
Discarded. One of the phrases used to describe the new realistic film they call it cinema very
[16:13 - 16:19]
French for the movie of truth.
[16:19 - 16:20]
Well I don't know.
[16:20 - 16:25]
It is well I don't know what is adequate. You know I don't know I can call it a
[16:25 - 16:30]
new phrase. I mean I just there's something misleading about that which is related to the objectivity
[16:30 - 16:36]
issue that we were discussing because I think it's pretty plumpest to say that you are delivering
[16:36 - 16:40]
people the truth. You're presenting your version of the truth which you naturally want to
[16:40 - 16:42]
defend but it's not the truth.
[16:42 - 16:47]
We should pause at this point in the program to let our audience around the country know.
[16:47 - 16:52]
What we're talking about who we're talking to. We're talking about. The
[16:52 - 16:56]
new form of film motion picture. Call it what you may the more
[16:56 - 17:01]
realistic form that has come along in recent years past five or 10 years and more specifically
[17:01 - 17:06]
the past three or four years and one of the leading proponents and producers of this film
[17:06 - 17:11]
form Fred Wiseman Fred one of the.
[17:11 - 17:17]
Unique aspects about your approach to films is that you're not out to make money.
[17:17 - 17:22]
And you are out to change a few minds though subtly though not
[17:22 - 17:27]
didactically would you describe yours over as a man with a social mission. Your films are
[17:27 - 17:29]
to do with social problems.
[17:29 - 17:34]
I'm interested in problems of change I think though that my films have to work for us as films and by that I mean I
[17:34 - 17:38]
have to like them as they work in film terms for me before they do anything else
[17:38 - 17:43]
naturally I hope that they will. First I hope they'll bring information to
[17:43 - 17:48]
people and bring information to people in a way that they're not accustomed to to getting information
[17:48 - 17:53]
say from the newspapers or frequently from the television. By exploring in
[17:53 - 17:57]
detail one kind of situation. But I don't think any of the films tell
[17:57 - 18:02]
people what to do about the situation. It was kind of saying before that I think the films are
[18:02 - 18:07]
successful they will get a process going at where what people have seen in the
[18:07 - 18:12]
films can be used as illustrations for one point of view or another about what's
[18:12 - 18:17]
needed to change both in terms of something the film may strike people something very
[18:17 - 18:22]
good which they want to push more than it's taking place or it may strike someone as
[18:22 - 18:27]
being pretty horrible which they wanted to take steps to alter.
[18:27 - 18:32]
But the way in which that's done in a particular community or in a particular institution. It really
[18:32 - 18:37]
presented in the film the films can deal impressionistic Lee and provocatively with
[18:37 - 18:42]
subjects but they don't necessarily. There's no kind of one to one relationship between a film and social
[18:42 - 18:46]
change although in the case of the ticket Follies which is the film made about the
[18:46 - 18:51]
prison mental hospital. In part of Leeds because of
[18:51 - 18:56]
the film over 300 people have been transferred out of the institution to
[18:56 - 19:01]
other state institutions or old age homes and the public has become somewhat more
[19:01 - 19:06]
aware of the conditions although not as much as they would be if they had a chance to see it.
[19:06 - 19:11]
Apparently the film was an amazing a definite impact on one reviewer because his
[19:11 - 19:15]
reaction was what sticks in the mind is that and what
[19:15 - 19:20]
really hurts is the sight of human life made cheap and betrayed.
[19:20 - 19:25]
There must be quite a wallop that your films pack.
[19:25 - 19:30]
Because they do quite well up but I think one of the reasons they pack a wallop is that most people are
[19:30 - 19:34]
unaccustomed to dealing with reality and generally and or certainly on film
[19:34 - 19:39]
and to the extent that more documentary films get made perhaps they'll
[19:39 - 19:44]
produce less of a whack because people are more accustomed to looking at real things. Our
[19:44 - 19:49]
minds are so polluted by the typical TV and Hollywood pap. That
[19:49 - 19:53]
we when we see real events their reality becomes frightening reality becomes like you know a
[19:53 - 19:58]
science fiction movie in that it's strange and it's very weird when you think of it
[19:58 - 20:04]
what goes on in a hospital or a prison or a high school should be that strange.
[20:04 - 20:07]
What do you mean when you say the typical Hollywood pap.
[20:07 - 20:12]
There is no complexity about human relationships. In these films and these films they're
[20:12 - 20:17]
very one dimensional. You know like a Doris Day movie or something. The Doris Day movie
[20:17 - 20:22]
about marriage sweetness and light. Yeah. Or even when there's fights I mean it it's
[20:22 - 20:27]
it's not real or even a Jimmy Cagney movie about a prison. There's very
[20:27 - 20:31]
little relationship between that and what goes on. And it's that disparity
[20:31 - 20:36]
between what's presented as real and the reality that
[20:36 - 20:41]
creates the fantasies you know you're talking with thought control of the extent of people's minds or images or
[20:41 - 20:46]
shape their shape in false directions by these things that don't really deal but pretend to be
[20:46 - 20:46]
real.
[20:46 - 20:49]
How would you change that.
[20:49 - 20:53]
How do you feel that your approach is more real what it means to me is that at least the
[20:53 - 20:58]
situations that are shown in my films situations that aren't staged. They
[20:58 - 21:03]
show people talking and reacting to each other as they as happens in
[21:03 - 21:08]
ordinary day to day events in their lives. And to me that's a lot more interesting
[21:08 - 21:14]
a lot more complicated than the way Hollywood has restructured reality.
[21:14 - 21:18]
It doesn't mean to say it can't be done in a fictional movie. It's been done very successfully in
[21:18 - 21:21]
movies like Battle of Algiers for example.
[21:21 - 21:26]
You think that more of these kinds of documentary film investigations will be done in the future.
[21:26 - 21:30]
Yeah I think so. Are you personally planning to or actually doing
[21:30 - 21:34]
any influencing of the young film directors producers.
[21:34 - 21:39]
You know everybody kind of finds their own way I don't you know the influencing is not something you
[21:39 - 21:44]
know. You know very interested in the get to the extent of people
[21:44 - 21:49]
seen my films they'll get ideas to make other films better films different
[21:49 - 21:52]
films and that's the way it goes.
[21:52 - 21:57]
Then you're not a proselytizer for the new real isn't an American film.
[21:57 - 22:01]
I know I'm going to trust trying to do my own films and that's really
[22:01 - 22:03]
what interests me most.
[22:03 - 22:08]
Beatrice Berry in the New York Times wrote that you were an artist who has a point of view about life but
[22:08 - 22:13]
apparently you would rather risk having your work misunderstood and spell out on the screen your
[22:13 - 22:18]
own solutions for social problems now. You want to change the world I
[22:18 - 22:22]
gather I sense that you haven't stated it though I doubt if you would deny it but
[22:22 - 22:27]
you apparently want us the audience to figure out after viewing a film
[22:27 - 22:32]
how best to change the world to figure that out for us so I don't Miss Birdseye article in The Times.
[22:32 - 22:37]
She indicates something about the work possibly being misunderstood I hope it's not mis
[22:37 - 22:42]
understood the point that I'm trying to make is that I don't like to water
[22:42 - 22:47]
down the complexity of an event. In order to
[22:47 - 22:52]
communicated better because I think I won't communicate it at all unless I do
[22:52 - 22:57]
it in a way that in a sense is fair to my judgement
[22:57 - 23:02]
about what's going on and that the films will lack something
[23:02 - 23:07]
and I trust the audience's intelligence to figure it out and they don't necessarily have to figure it out
[23:07 - 23:11]
just in my terms. You know I think all of the films I've made have a distinct point of view
[23:11 - 23:17]
and a very. Kind of well worked out structure. But
[23:17 - 23:22]
whether anybody else sees that structure or agrees with the point of view is not as important
[23:22 - 23:26]
as the overall impact or lack thereof that the film makes. Do you believe
[23:26 - 23:31]
that and you would ask that you would ask a painter or someone who writing a short story or a
[23:31 - 23:36]
novel to be more explicit you would accept on his terms the
[23:36 - 23:41]
method in which he felt he had to present his material. You might say he did it more or less successfully
[23:41 - 23:46]
but he would credit him with the right to present it as complexity as he felt the material deserved
[23:46 - 23:51]
you believe the film such as yours will ever find a place on commercial television. Oh I think
[23:51 - 23:57]
it's hard to just maybe maybe it depends what kind of audience they build
[23:57 - 24:01]
I think it's possible you would produce a documentary for a network.
[24:01 - 24:05]
I produced a documentary for a network as long as I have control over it. I'm never. Going to ever have
[24:05 - 24:09]
control I don't know. There are some indications now that it might be possible
[24:09 - 24:15]
even. Extended view could be the producer the director and the editor I would never make a film that
[24:15 - 24:18]
I didn't fill all those functions on.
[24:18 - 24:21]
Because otherwise I would rather be in another business.
[24:21 - 24:26]
I sense a reluctance though you do feel that there are definite things to be lost by going to work for say
[24:26 - 24:27]
ABC NBC. Oh yes.
[24:27 - 24:32]
Oh absolutely because you know we traditionally don't have that kind of control. We all are saying is that I would only do it if I had to
[24:32 - 24:36]
control there's some indications now that I'm late because.
[24:36 - 24:41]
Why has I think it's remote. Why does Hollywood the film capital of the nation more or
[24:41 - 24:45]
less. And television. New York Los Angeles Film
[24:45 - 24:50]
couples why do they shy away from the kinds of topics that you treat in your film documentaries.
[24:50 - 24:55]
I don't know I guess because they're thought to be controversial or they sometimes don't turn out
[24:55 - 25:00]
to be as controversial as people think. It's also because the networks both radio and television
[25:00 - 25:04]
networks are more profit oriented and they have to reach a larger audience so they get a
[25:04 - 25:09]
sponsor that will pay them you know money can be made. And it's not that I don't want to make money
[25:09 - 25:14]
on these films but I'm content just to make the cost of the films back in order to make the film the way I
[25:14 - 25:19]
want to make it and I don't have to be concerned with whether a one sponsor or
[25:19 - 25:23]
another is going to like the film or whether it's going to offend one group of people or another.
[25:23 - 25:29]
We're drawing to the end of our program something that has occurred to me as I've talked with you in the past half
[25:29 - 25:34]
hour is how much money it costs to produce a film like this one usually gets the
[25:34 - 25:39]
impression that Hollywood films are multibillion dollar ventures. Obviously
[25:39 - 25:43]
this is the kind of film you produce is not but it must cost still quite a bit of money.
[25:43 - 25:47]
Yeah it cost somewhere between 50 and 70 thousand dollars. For each of these
[25:47 - 25:50]
rooms which is still a lot of money but not much.
[25:50 - 25:54]
When you compare it to what Hollywood films where do you get
[25:54 - 25:59]
financial backing like undertaking I get financial backing from foundations
[25:59 - 26:04]
in corporation public broadcasting or public broadcasting where.
[26:04 - 26:07]
Various aspects of educational television.
[26:07 - 26:10]
If a person didn't have this kind of money then he wouldn't be able to get into this kind of work.
[26:10 - 26:15]
Depends most filmmakers I know that started same way I did. Do you wing it you do it with credit and you
[26:15 - 26:20]
borrow film and borrow equipment to the point where you can get the financed and do
[26:20 - 26:25]
it in a more sound basis. But I mean that when I say
[26:25 - 26:29]
cost that amount of money that means people get paid but when I first started doing it.
[26:29 - 26:35]
You do it you still do it for the love of you as you get older you have to get paid a little more.
[26:35 - 26:40]
I wonder if we could tie in your filmmaking activities. Here at the very end of the
[26:40 - 26:45]
program to the fact that you are a lawyer and also the fact that you don't make
[26:45 - 26:49]
your living from producing films but are associated with an organization called
[26:49 - 26:54]
costy organization for social and technological innovations
[26:54 - 26:55]
AAs quite a title.
[26:55 - 27:00]
Yeah what's one we don't generally admit to we just generally call it OSS to see why or
[27:00 - 27:05]
what is the goal of this organization with a title like that with the goal of the
[27:05 - 27:08]
organization is very different from the title.
[27:08 - 27:12]
The goal of the organization is simply to work on various aspects of urban and rural
[27:12 - 27:17]
problems hoping to bring about some further enlightenment or a
[27:17 - 27:21]
change in those areas where it's possible to do it. But it's consists of
[27:21 - 27:27]
sociologists and lawyers and people interested in technology.
[27:27 - 27:32]
Those of experience with health problems education community organization advocacy
[27:32 - 27:37]
planning of one thing sort or another who pull their respective talents
[27:37 - 27:42]
to work together on these problems and the film projects are one
[27:42 - 27:43]
aspect that.
[27:43 - 27:48]
We've been talking in the past 30 minutes with a man who like this organization oste
[27:48 - 27:53]
hopes to shed a little light on society. He uses films cellular and
[27:53 - 27:56]
his name is Fred Weisman and Fred thank you very much for coming on the program.
[27:56 - 28:10]
The room wasn't a finger. Rest on the.
[28:10 - 28:15]
Program. Do not necessarily represent those of the program holders. Those of our favorite.
[28:15 - 28:20]
Northeastern University for this station. Questions I asked were merely the moderator's
[28:20 - 28:25]
method of presenting many sides of today's. Northeastern University
[28:25 - 28:30]
has brought you Frederick Wiseman producer director of the film and to pick up Holly
[28:30 - 28:34]
Hughes high school. Law and Order. And hospital. Based
[28:34 - 28:40]
program. Frederick Wiseman. The film and the city.
[28:40 - 28:45]
Your program host has been just as our major director department of radio production.
[28:45 - 28:50]
Urban confrontationist produced for the division of instructional communications at the nation's
[28:50 - 28:54]
largest private university. Northeastern University. Comments on this program
[28:54 - 29:00]
or requests for a recorded copy of any program in this series. May be addressed
[29:00 - 29:04]
to urban confrontation. Northeastern University in Boston Massachusetts
[29:04 - 29:09]
0. 1 1 find. This week's program was produced by Jeffrey
[29:09 - 29:14]
M. Feldman and Ellen trial and directed by Lenny demise. Technical
[29:14 - 29:19]
supervision by Jeffrey Feltman. The executive producer of urban hunting is
[29:19 - 29:24]
the three production supervision for northeastern Steve Friedman. Your
[29:24 - 29:36]
announcer paid him.
[29:36 - 29:39]
This is the national educational radio network.