Ryan Coogler grew up watching the "Rocky" movies, and now he's director and co-writer of the spin-off, "Creed"; How "Toy Story" saved a struggling special effects firm called Pixar; "The Hunting Ground" inspires the question: can journalism and advocacy co-exist in documentaries?
'The Hunting Ground' and the axis of journalism and advocacy
The documentary “The Hunting Ground," by producer Amy Ziering and director Kirby Dick, is a powerful documentary about what the filmmakers call an epidemic of sexual assaults on American college campuses.
The film debuted at the Sundance Film Festival and had a brief theatrical run earlier this year. But it has been criticized by some of the colleges in question for not being even-handed. The filmmakers of “The Hunting Ground” say they stand by their work, but the criticism raised the question — is the documentary journalism, advocacy or both?
Simon Kilmurry is executive director of the International Documentary Association, which supports and promotes the work of documentary filmmakers. He’s also the former executive producer of “POV,” the long-running documentary series on PBS. The Frame's John Horn spoke with Kilmurry about the role of documentary films in the journalism world.
INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS:
For documentaries that are related to news events or societal issues, are there two distinct schools of filmmaking — one leaning towards objective journalism and one more about advocacy — or are they inseparable?
I would say they are inseparable. The roles of independent documentary filmmakers is to be giving a voice to those who are marginalized in society, and I think Kirby and Amy's work definitely fits with "The Hunting Ground" and "The Invisible War" and their other films. I would say it's probably more of a spectrum rather than a clear delineation.
You used to run the PBS documentary series "POV." Is it essential that a documentary have a point-of-view and does the audience need to know what that point-of-view might be?
I think, certainly, when I was running "POV," we would look for films that did have a perspective — a point-of-view from either the filmmaker or from a main subject. I think there's a great tradition in documentary film of filmmakers coming to the stories with a particular perspective.
But are there certain journalistic attributes that all documentaries should share, regardless of their intent?
Yes, I think we have an obligation to be accurate and as truthful as we can be. I think we also have an obligation to be transparent, and that transparency also comes through in the forms of who's supporting the films. I think those are obligations that clearly fall on every filmmaker.
But we live in an era where Fox news has its standard on the one side and MSNBC has its other standard on the other side. In that realm, are documentary filmmakers in between?
I think filmmakers are certainly performing a journalistic enterprise in a lot of work that they're doing. When we look at documentary films, we're generally looking at a piece that's an hour or 90 minutes long, and within that scope of time you have much greater opportunity to embrace the gray areas, the challenges, the inconsistencies than is typically demonstrated on outlets like Fox News or MSNBC. A filmmaker approaching a complicated topic will approach it with a complicated narrative.
Part of that complication is the intent of the filmmaker. Critics of “The Hunting Ground” cited a couple of e-mails sent by one of the film’s producers to the attorney for a purported sexual assault victim. It said, in part: "We don’t operate the same way as journalists — this is a film project very much in the corner of advocacy for victims, so there would be no insensitive questions or the need to get the perpetrator’s side.” Is that a common — and fair — way for documentary filmmakers to operate?
In this particular case they are being honest about their perspective and about their position. They have made a piece that clearly a lot of people are talking about or are very passionate about. I don't think they have misrepresented their own perspective in this.
How director Ryan Coogler went from 'Fruitvale Station' to a Rocky movie
Director Ryan Coogler raked in awards with his first feature film, "Fruitvale Station," which dramatized the true story of a man's death by Oakland police officers in 2009. It was a daring project that seemed to only whet Coogler's ambition. Now, with "Creed," the 29-year-old is taking on the "Rocky" franchise.
The first "Rocky" movie not directed by Sylvester Stallone, "Creed" focuses on the new character of Adonis Johnson. Adonis is the son of Apollo Creed, Rocky's rival who became his friend and trainer, and who passed away in Rocky's arms in "Rocky IV." Rocky takes on a surrogate father role to Adonis in "Creed" as he trains the young boxer to live up to his father's name.
"Creed" tackles the theme of legacy — both living up to it and, as is hinted in Stallone's role, passing it on. Coogler developed the idea for the movie while watching his father, a diehard "Rocky" fan, battle a neuromuscular condition. As Coogler told The Frame's John Horn, the importance of the "Rocky" films to his family stretches back several generations.
INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS
Adonis Johnson is played by Michael B. Jordan, who was your star in “Fruitvale Station.” But I understand your interest in "Rocky" goes back. Did you grow up watching these movies?
Yes I did. My father was a “Rocky” fan. He would watch them as bonding time with me and my brother . . . We watched the movies constantly and grew to love them through my father.
When did you pitch this movie?
It was around 2011-2012, [when] I went to film school. I was getting ready to make “Fruitvale.” My father got really sick. My world kind of crashed. He had a neuromuscular condition, so he was becoming weaker. In the process he was struggling mentally. I got this idea about telling a story about it. I thought, What if this happened to my father’s hero, to Rocky? That’s kind of when I came up with the idea of Adonis, and the idea of the movie.
What was it about "Rocky" that was so meaningful to your father?
My dad always kind of saw himself as an underdog. But I later found out it was really about him and his mom. She was diagnosed with breast cancer when he was 8 or 9, but she fought the disease for 15 years. My father saw her as an underdog, fighting like Rocky. In the last few months of her life, they would kill the time by watching TV. “Rocky II” was on television all the time. That’s what made the movie so special to him.
If the first "Rocky" were made today, it could have played at Sundance. It was made like an independent film. I’m wondering if that same mentality informed how you wanted to shoot "Creed" — not too fancy, but a little gritty and indie-looking.
I think you’re absolutely right. "Rocky" was a United Artists movie. The producers were running around without permits. They were hiring people with weird technology, which ended up becoming the Steadicam. It was like a rebel style of filmmaking. Later on, the films took on the perspective of their era. In the '80s, they were a little more grand.
These days, filmmaking is a lot more grounded. It’s closer to how it was back in the '70s. For instance, a film like "The Hunger Games" couldn’t get a bigger budget, but you’ll see that intimate, handheld camera work, to make it almost documentary-style. It’s become the language of cinema in 2015, where we see so much shot on iPhones. That style tends to be more acceptable.
You’ve made two features, each shot by women. Rachel Morrison made "Fruitvale" and Maryse Alberti shot "Creed." "Creed" is a very male story — it’s about guys in the gym beating the hell out of each other. Gender clearly isn’t an issue for you when you look for your cinematographers.
No, it’s not an issue for me looking at anything. What’s funny is Rachel was going to shoot “Creed,” but then she got pregnant. By the time we got greenlit, she was like four-to-five months along. Then I wound up meeting Maryse. She had such a great filmography in the documentary space as well. She and I really hit it off. For me, gender doesn’t matter anywhere. It matters to me that our crew is as diverse as it could be. “Creed” is about male fighters, and masculinity is a theme in the movie. But to me it was important to have the perspective of women. We have great women characters in the film . . . With these boxers, you see that the women in their lives are the ones kind of shepherding them.
When you’re talking about the diversity of their crew, your movie is coming out a year after
I try to look at stuff from a personal perspective. As a kid who was very much into pop culture, I definitely would notice when there weren’t a lot of characters that [looked] like me. I would often get frustrated watching a show that’s supposed to represent a large swath of America — a generic high school, or a big city — and I would feel that the levels of representation were inaccurate. It was a big reason why I got into filmmaking. I wanted to tell movies that came from the perspective of characters that I wanted to follow, that I wanted to watch. I hope we see a shift, where we see stories from a more diverse perspective. That when we watch movies, it looks like the world we live in.
Do you think that diversity is not only an opportunity, but also a responsibility?
As an artist, your greatest responsibility is to yourself. If the work you’re doing doesn’t mean something to you, it’s not going to be good work. That being said, I think, absolutely. It always make sense to have an understanding from a social context.
"Creed" opens in theaters on Nov. 25.
'Toy Story' at 20: How Pixar gambled on computer animation and changed movie history
Twenty years ago, moviegoers witnessed the birth of a new filmmaking technique that would prove as revolutionary as sound and color: computer animation. The movie that brought it to the masses was “Toy Story.”
Produced by what was then a little-known company that operated out of modest offices in the San Francisco Bay Area, “Toy Story” was Pixar’s first feature film. It was also the first computer-animated film released in theaters. Rather than use hand-drawn images filmed in rapid sequence, “Toy Story” artists worked with computers. Buzz and Woody, the two main characters, were purely digital creations.
But they almost didn’t get created. Before “Toy Story” came out, Pixar was clinging to life. It was a struggling special effects company making commercials for clients such as Listerine and Life Savers.
The company had started experimenting with short films that were computer animated, including "Luxo Jr.," which was nominated for a 1987 Academy Award, and it's the origin for Pixar's iconic hopping lamp. Then, the company's "Tin Toy" won the 1989 Short Film (Animated) Academy Award. The films were, in a way, the research and development for "Toy Story."
All the same, Pixar was on the ropes. Its chairman and owner, a computer whiz by the name of Steve Jobs, was actually trying to sell Pixar just before “Toy Story” was released.
"We did not know that Steve was writing our paychecks from his own personal bank account," recalls Pixar producer Galyn Susman. "He was completely bankrolling the whole venture. He just sat down in front of us and said, 'I am an exceedingly wealthy man, [but] I'm not that rich. We have to pick one thing, and I have to bet on one horse. I am going to bet on the animation horse.'"
It was a very smart wager. A lot of people underestimated "Toy Story" — Mattell wouldn’t allow Barbie to appear in the film — but critics and audiences loved the movie. (Mattell came on board for the sequels.) Importantly, it grossed more than $360 million at the global box office. Right after the movie opened, Pixar filed for its initial public stock offering. When trading began, Jobs became a billionaire.
Pixar had created a new way of merging technology and storytelling, and in the wake of “Toy Story," many imitators followed. They included DreamWorks Animation, which produced the “Shrek” movies, and Universal Pictures’ Illumination Entertainment, the outfit behind the “Despicable Me” films.
But the tipping point for Pixar was “Toy Story 2,” which was released in 1999. It was originally intended to be a direct-to-video sequel. But not long after the movie was given the green light, the creative leadership at Pixar realized they had made a bad decision by making a less-than-perfect follow-up.
Longtime Pixar director Pete Docter remembers, "Everybody kind of said, Alright, let's do this. It's going to be fast and cheap. [But] along the way we realized that we can't put this out unless we [were] proud of it ourselves."
So Pixar fired one of the film’s original directors, shut down production on “Toy Story 2,” and started all over.
"It was an intensive time to make it as good as it could be and release it as a feature in the same way we would an original film," Docter says. "Since then, we've done a combination of original stuff and sequels. But regardless of what they are, we tried to make every film as strong, unique and powerful as we can."
Unlike most sequels at the time, “Toy Story 2” actually outperformed its predecessor, taking in more than $485 million around the world. The results — both commercially and critically — proved that Pixar was right in believing that it sometimes had to destroy its movies in order to save them.
Pixar is famous for its exhaustive process. Movies are assembled, torn apart and reassembled —sometimes many times over. It’s why the studio didn’t even release a movie last year. Every Pixar movie must now be reviewed by a group of filmmakers called the Brain Trust, which includes directors Pete Docter, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich, among others.
Jonas Rivera started as a lowly production office assistant on Pixar’s first “Toy Story” film. Now a veteran producer whose credits include “Up” and “Inside Out," he explains:
We make movies in some ways the same way we did in 1994. We write, re-write, create a storyboard, cut reels, and we mock it up. Then we throw it away and do it again. That part is unchanged. The actual creative part of the filmmaking hasn't changed, but the toolset and the technology we use has evolved tremendously.
So even as Pixar’s computing power has become ever more powerful in the 20 years since “Toy Story” premiered, the studio's focus — making sure its stories are as good as they can be — hasn’t really changed at all.
That's largely why Pixar is the most successful studio in modern Hollywood history — even though it's still based in the Bay Area. Its films have won 12 Academy Awards, with global ticket sales of more than $9.4 billion.
And the company is still going strong. After a quiet year in 2014, Pixar saw its first double-release year in 2015. "Inside Out," a story in which an 11-year-old girl's emotions are anthropomorphized, was released in the late Spring to much acclaim.
And “The Good Dinosaur," in theaters on Nov. 25, will be Pixar's sixteenth feature film.