Nick Broomfield talks about his latest project, Battle for Haditha, and his revolutionary approach to filmmaking.
Nick Broomfield is the filmmaker behind the documentaries Biggie & Tupac, Kurt and Courtney and Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer. As the genre of documentary gains popularity, Broomfield has turned to a very different kind of filmmaking. He has directed his latest projects, Ghosts and Battle for Haditha, with a revolutionary approach that is growing in influence.
Looking back at your documentary work, Kurt and Courtney or Heidi Fleiss: Hollywood Madame, there are times when you put yourself in dangerous situations when tracking down some of the more difficult characters. Your films draw excitement and authenticity from this spontaneity, but from where do you draw your fearlessness?
I think you have to be intrepid to be an independent filmmaker. Certainly, if you want an easy life you don't become an independent filmmaker. Once you have chosen a path you have to go wherever the film is taking you. You can't suddenly decide to play it safe.
Part of being a director is that you go on a voyage with each film and you never really know where it will take you. You have to promise your audience and yourself that you are going to complete that voyage and confront whatever obstacles, mountains, monsters that you meet on your way.
Your documentaries unearth stories organically, often through accidental revelations. There never seems to be an agenda or viewpoint that you need to push. How do you feel about controlled documentaries such as An Inconvenient Truth or Fahrenheit 9/11?
The exciting thing about making documentaries is that they are about real life. They are spontaneous and out of control. As a filmmaker, you are trying to bring some sense of understanding to very out of control situations. Your ability is to record it all and make sense of it.
An Inconvenient Truth, I think, is a lecture. We are always trying to put labels on things that don't fit. An Inconvenient Truth is not my idea of a documentary. But, I think Michael Moore's films are very out of control. The only similarities between those two films to me, is that Al Gore is a star and Michael Moore is a star.
Is it curiosity that drives you to seek out a certain story? Before you start the filming, how much research do you do, for both your documentaries and your recent docudramas?
I did a lot of research for Ghosts and Battle for Haditha because I had to write a script and put all that research into a script. With the documentaries, I would find out about the characters involved and their links to each other, but most of the research was done during the shooting of the film. I want to avoid doing too much beforehand.
I don't like documentaries that have a script. I think you might as well do a feature film. You should be very open. The film should be a voyage of discovery of its own. You shouldn't be making it to prove some thesis that you have worked out before beginning filming.
In Battle for Haditha and Ghosts you worked with non-professional actors in most of the main roles, many who had experience of the reality behind the story depicted in the films. How do you direct non-professional actors?
I just discuss the scene with them very loosely, without directing. Non-actors are good at being themselves but once they start acting, it all falls apart.
For Battle For Haditha, we filmed with Iraqis in Jordan. I never gave the script out. The only person who got it was Elliot Ruiz [who plays Coporal Ramirez]. Everyone else was going from scene to scene and we tried to shoot them in order. We had a very detailed, structured script. So there weren't any gigantic surprises during the filming. On the whole, I would say the film turned out to be more visual than the script.
Why did you chose to make Battle for Haditha and Ghosts as docudramas, rather than documentaries?
I dislike the term 'docudrama'. It feels like a piece of soap in one's mouth. The term sounds like it isn't really a drama, but it isn't really a documentary, like a confused animal. I think these movies are very cinematic, very visual films, and they are very real, using real locations and real people as actors.
I would say Battle for Haditha and Ghosts are 'real cinema' rather than docudramas. I think this is something else. You aren't trying to recreate a drama. I would say In This World and Road to Guantanamo are 'real cinema', also.
'Real cinema' is a new form. I think it has only been possible very recently, because of all the possibilities arising from technical changes. I think it needs to be defined, rather than looking to old terms.
Do you feel this 'real cinema' is the future? There has been a trend with the progress of digital technology to bring documentary styles into feature films, as well as a growing interest in non-professional actors. Do you think audiences are boring of fiction?
I think it's very exciting to move into. I think 'real cinema' is the way of the future. The only problem being that it conflicts very badly with Hollywood, which is all to do with actors. And actors are very much like real estate. Hollywood is deeply invested in the star system, which is where it makes its money.
'Real cinema' would undercut everything that Hollywood is controlling. I think there will be difficulties getting this accepted in the mainstream. The whole publicity machine is driven by the star system. If you don't have stars in your film, it is hard to get publicity. The studios control cinemas, so that if you don't have stars you can't get your film into their chain of cinemas. If you aren't part of that, it's hard to get distribution.
There does seem to be a turn against the star system, with even the biggest stars now unable to sell a movie on their performance alone. Films are now being sold on the back of franchises, of stories. Stars are being seen as a liability. Do you feel then that it will be up to the audiences to instigate this change?
I think the change will come from the audience. I think they have to get over their obsession with stars and celebrities first, which is so fucking boring.
When you see these tired old actors wheeled out to do yet another performance, which is pretty much the same as the last one, you know this is not real. You don't believe it. Also, with the stars come the Winnebagos, the catering, the hair and make-up. So you might as well shoot on 35mm film, because it has all cost so much already. This needs to be moved on from. It comes with a whole lot of ways of making a film, all of which are ancient. And these ways don't make good films.
Is 'real cinema' more powerful and affecting than a fictionalised drama or a documentary? And is cinema an effective way of reaching people, helping them understand certain issues, and motivating them to act for change?
I think cinema is a fantastic way to reach people. I think there is a clear separation between cinema and television. With television you go to the news programming to get information, to get details and reports. With cinema you have the opportunity to put the human condition and the humanity of the situation back in. You can show what a particular situation means in terms of peoples' lives. I think that's very different from the immediacy of news.
With the Iraq War, people are bombarded with statistics and information, such as a bomb went off here and killed this many people. What we don't get from television is that human story, the humanity of it all. I think cinema can do that so well.
