An article by Jamie Stuart
I
recently sat down for a conversation with filmmaker Steve James in preparation
for the release of his new documentary Stevie. We spoke about his career
and the current state of film. I enjoyed our talk so much that I’ve chosen to
reprint it verbatim.
In 1995, James scored with the monumental Hoop Dreams, a chronicle of two
inner-city high school basket ball players. It was subsequently voted by Roger
Ebert to be the best film of the 1990s. In the years between Hoop Dreams
and Stevie he directed several scripted films including Prefontaine
and Passing Glory. Stevie is the first feature documentary he’s
released since 1994, and it follows his own attempts to come to terms with a
ghost from his past. In college he mentored a young boy named Stevie Fielding, a
troubled kid being shuffled between a broken family and foster homes. As James
catches up with him a decade later, he learns that Stevie has been arrested on
child molestation charges. During the period leading up to Stevie’s conviction
and sentencing, everybody around him attempts some type of personal redemption
-- yet at no point is he ever excused of his actions.
Jamie Stuart: How has the film been received so far?
Steve James: So far, it’s been, I think, quite well-received. It’s
funny. It’s a film that -- of the stuff I’ve read so far, both online and in
print -- a great majority of people seem to be really compelled by the film and
find it to be a powerful film experience. There are some that hate me and hate
the film. It seems like it’s one of those extremes. Now, fortunately thus far,
the great majority that I’ve seen has been in the positive camp, which I’m
happy to report. But the few people that don’t, I think they really have an
averse reaction to the film and an averse reaction to me making the film. Taking
them to this part of the world. Or, I’ve been accused of being a bleeding
heart, middle-class liberal dweeb. Whatever. But very few so far. I find it
interesting. I think it says...in some ways, it says more about...it’s pushing
a button with them.
JS: Right after I saw it they called to ask what I thought of it, and I
said, it’s gonna be similar to the way -- remember the movie Max that
came out the end of last year?
SJ: Right, about Hitler...
JS: Yeah, it’s a similar type of thing where you’re humanizing
somebody that society chooses to demonize. So, it’s going to have a very
polarizing effect on people.
SJ: I think that’s true. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. As
long as we get our share of the good. You know what it is...if someone doesn’t
like the film, I just want them to take it seriously. And I think that’s the
thing. I think, too often nowadays when people don’t like something they just
dismiss it, instead of really thinking about it. (Referring to a columnist)
...She said that at the very beginning of the film she got very angry at me.
Like, oh, what is he doing this film for? Then she found herself thinking about,
why is this making me so angry? And it made her think about her own life -- why,
cause I don’t want to be here? I don’t want to be subjected to...it made her
think about herself. I think the people who the film pushes buttons for, that
reflect on it, have a lot more interesting things to say than the people that
kinda go, why am I with this band of misfits? Why is he putting me in this world
with a band of misfits? What do you do with people who want to look at the world
that way?
JS: I think it’s good, cause I think that we’re starting to go
through a phase where more movies are coming out that are pushing people’s
buttons. For so long we had movies...even during the ‘90s when it was like the
big independent film thing, the movies really weren’t about anything. They
were about pop culture.
SJ: Style.
JS: It seems like in the last...maybe since ‘99, give or take, there
just seems to be more and more movies that are coming out. The film that just
came out Irreversible...
SJ: Yeah.
JS: People are getting angry at it. And that’s good. People are
actually having a reaction.
SJ: Right. And talking about it. When I was younger, during the sort of
heyday of the golden age when some of the really great films that actually came
out of Hollywood were made... The Godfather. Raging Bull -- that
was like ‘81. There was a sense then that people really actually talked about
films. In the media and not just in the media, but among friends. You really,
really talked about them. That you spent time debating them. I think you’re
right that in recent years a lot of that seems to have gone away. Maybe it’s
coming back now. Which is to really grapple with a film, not just say, “Oh, I
didn’t like that!” Or, “I love that!” Cause a lot of the ones people
love there’s not much to say about them. At least the Hollywood product. And a
lot of the independent -- I mean, I couldn’t agree with you more about a lot
of the independent films, because a lot of the times they’re not really about
that much. Except posturing and style.
JS: It seems for something to be good there shouldn’t be a unanimous
decision that it’s good.
SJ: Right.
JS: Then it hasn’t made you think about anything.
SJ: Well, with Stevie, some people have said...some people have written
some very, very wonderful things about the film. That it’s a very brave film.
To me, the very definition of a great film, is a film that...a brave film
isn’t a brave film if everyone says it’s brave. Then everyone loves it! It
just cannot be that brave. A brave film is a film that upsets some and really
stimulates others.
JS: I thought the attitude of it was very sort of -- I hate to put it
like this -- a very sort of Christian attitude. It wasn’t necessarily excusing
what he did in any way, but it was trying to come to terms with who he was. And
trying to find some type of redemption.
SJ: I agree. I think that, you know, I’m not a practicing Christian.
But I grew up in a Methodist family. And I think you’re right. I think the
film is about seeking a certain type of redemption or salvation. There are a lot
of characters in the film seeking that. I’m trying to seek it. Stevie
in his own way keeps trying.
JS: His mother.
SJ: Absolutely. You know, those kinds of spiritual needs and desires are
universal, whether you think of yourself as a religious person or not. I mean,
even the most hardened atheist -- and I consider myself, believe it or not, at
best agnostic, maybe atheist -- both those are universal human desires.
JS: Did you find it easier to make this film in the aftermath of Hoop
Dreams, or do you think you would’ve still gone forward with this had it
not been for the success of Hoop Dreams?
SJ: That’s an interesting question. I think that...I started this film
in ‘95, when Hoop Dreams was still actually kicking around theaters. I
started it in part because I wanted to do something that was very small and
modest and unambitious. Really. I thought this was just going to be this little
portrait of this kid. I’ve always felt like, you make the best films about
things -- this is a cliché, but it’s true -- you make the best films about
things that you care about. Things that you have some real passion for. I knew
that Stevie -- who I’d lost touch with -- in the course of reconnecting with
him, I knew that I was intensely curious. I knew I felt a lot of feelings about
that time. Guilt. Curiosity. In other words, it was something that had hooked
me. And so I thought, well, this’ll be nice and interesting. And it’s not a
film that I had seen before to do. So I thought, this would be an interesting
thing to make, this small -- it would just be a little film. But it’s
something I can be comfortable with. After a film like Hoop Dreams,
it’s like, what do you do next? What’s your next thing? And this seemed like
a safe thing, frankly, at the time to do. I swear. It’s true. And then it
changed. It changed considerably. It was a very, very hard film. It was a hard
film for me personally to make. It was harder than any other film that I’ve
had to make. It was also a hard film to get made. Because you would think that
the success of Hoop Dreams would make it easier to fund. But this film
was harder to raise money for than Hoop Dreams. Because of Hoop Dreams,
people wanted to see it. “Oh, yeah, yeah, send it to me! I wanna see that!”
We’re doing this series called The New Americans on immigrants that’s
going to come out in the fall on PBS. Much easier to raise money for that.
People could get their minds around it. Okay, yeah, people coming to America,
starting a new life. And I’m really proud of that series. But given the
subject matter, and the troubling subject matter with a troubling central
character at the middle of it, people were like...we didn’t get one American
broadcaster to fund the film. In the course of making it we got money from the
BBC, God bless ‘em. They came in early and saved us. We got a small grant from
the CBC. Then, really, it was Kartemquin Films, which also made Hoop Dreams,
that sort of nurtured and cared and carried this process. We all put our own
money in. It was a classic kind of guerilla thing. Then, at the end, this guy
with a new company, Robert May with SenArt Films, came in. He started up a new
company to fund films and he put the finishing money up. So, it was the classic
struggle, despite the success of Hoop Dreams -- which, to me, tells you
just how hard it is to get films made. We’re living in a time when it’s
easier than ever in way to make your living as a documentary filmmaker,
quote-unquote “easier.” There’s a lot of commission work from cable. A lot
of low budget commission work. But to really make your own independent stuff
that challenges certain assumptions or pushes the envelope in any way it’s as
hard as ever. For documentary filmmakers.
JS: You’ve done both documentary and regular narrative. Do you have a
preference, or is it good just to go back and forth?
SJ: Well, I love going back and forth. I love stories. I’m just
interested in stories. That’s my big hook in both forms. But documentary will
always be closest to my heart. I think I’m a better documentary filmmaker than
I am a dramatic filmmaker at this stage in my life. I want to get better. I want
to continue to do the other. But if I was forced to choose for creative reasons
I’d absolutely choose documentary. Unfortunately, it’s hard to make a living
doing the kinds of documentaries that I want to do. But I’ve been fortunate,
because I can do the dramatic films -- all the ones I’ve made thus far have
not been things that I have developed. Well, one was. But they’ve been things
that have been brought to me. Projects...you know, are you interested in this?
My own, I can’t get set up. (laughs) But whereas in my documentary stuff
I’ve been fortunate enough -- partly because of that work -- I’ve been able
to kind of do the things that I want to do. So, I’ve been lucky in that
respect.
JS: How’s Stevie doing at this point?
SJ: He’s not doing great. His spirit is good, for the most part. I get
letters regularly from him. His spirit is by and large pretty good. But he’s
been in and out of trouble in prison. He looks like he’s going to serve his
entire 10-year sentence.
(Stevie, a Lion’s Gate Films release, will open in New York and L.A. on
March 28th.)
-Copyright
2003 by
Jamie Stuart