Reel History:

Acclaimed filmmaker Peter Davis confronts disturbing gaps in America's social fabric

NICK UT/AP Peter Davis confront the moral and psychological destruction of the Vietnam War

Peter Davis, a filmmaker, writer, and journalist, has investigated some of the most unsettling social and moral issues of our times. In the documentary 'Hearts and Minds,' he explored both the physical and psychological devastation of the Vietnam War. In 'Seventeen,' which later won first prize at the Sundance Film Festival, he examined the joys and woes of adolescents in a working-class town. In his latest book, 'If You Came This Way,' he described the forgotten underclass of America and showed how " the war on poverty of the '60s has evolved into the war on the poor of the '90s." In a conversation with the Herald, Davis discussed how he utilizes the non-fiction format to crystallize reality on film.

Yale Herald: Your documentary "Hearts and Minds" portrayed both the moral and physical destruction of the Vietnam War. What specific issues did you have in mind to investigate during the making of the film?

Peter Davis: The Vietnam War, by the time I started shooting "Hearts and Mind," was already the longest war America had ever fought. It was longer than the American Revolution. There weren't many in the country who still defended the war. Nixon wanted to end the war. The Democrats wanted to end the war tomorrow or even yesterday. When I started the project, there wasn't much disagreement about the ending the war. The film, though certainly anti-war in many ways, was more of a psychological inquiry to investigate three questions. Why did we go to Vietnam? What did we do there? Finally, what did the war do to us? Nowhere in the film are those questions directly posed or answered.

YH: The only major war that this generation has lived through was the Gulf War, a quick victory for America that came without significant human cost. The mainstream media and the public supported the Gulf War since many Americans perceived themselves as being on the "right" side again. Do you think that we, because of the Gulf War, have regained the innocence that we lost during Vietnam?

PD: I don't think we gained our innocence again with the Gulf War. We simply had a quick and very easy victory. As proof that we didn't regain our innocence, we didn't know what to do when that war was over. After WWII was over, the U.S. was certain that it should introduce democracy into Japan and to help the more progressive, social-democratic elements into power in Germany. We knew exactly what our goals were in the international arena. After the Gulf War, though, we had no idea what to do. We didn't even know if we wanted to bring down Saddam Hussein. The policy-makers and those in the media are still arguing about that. I don't know if I agree with the regaining of innocence theory.

I do think we have a very innocent president right now. This is very dangerous in a way. I do think, though, that he's not going to stay innocent for very long. I don't think we should blame his innocence on Yale, however. I think he's innocent because of Texas. Texas is an insolated part of America. It's bigger than most of the countries in the world. Some of the people from Texas don't even know what's going on in Utah — much less in France, China, or Iraqi. Essentially Texas is so provincial and that atmosphere amounts to a kind of naivete that we could call innocence. President [George] Bush [DC '48] is not captive of the right wing as he's being accused of. I think he is a captive of a completely simplistic view of what the world is like.

YH: The one common element in your films and literary works is their social and political consciousness. What is your position on the political spectrum?

PD: I'm a liberal. I believe that the Cold War and President [Ronald] Reagan have put liberals on the defensive to such a degree that it's still unpopular to call oneself a liberal. I've been well to the left of Liberals for the most of my life. I don't consider myself a Radical because I'm not out there marching and putting up barricades. As a commentator on contemporary affairs, however, I would say I agree with radicals more so than with liberals. I also agree with people who called themselves progressives more that I agree with either radicals or liberals.

In a general sense, I'm for disagreement with the party in power. My political orientation is disagreement with power. Whoever the president, I would disagree with him. I believe in holding power up to the brightest light possible. When I was making films, I believed that light was your movie screen or television set.

YH: It's often said that it takes a kind of ruthless objectivity to make non-fiction work. How do you feel when a documentary you're making presents a subject in a negative light? Are you concerned with the impact the film might have on the subjects' lives?

PD: Definitely. I always ask myself if the film is fair to the subject or if the subject — especially if he or she is a child or adolescent – understands the impact of what he is revealing to the camera. I don't, however, have these kinds of concerns for public figures. These people know how to manipulate the media better than I do. They know exactly what image they want to project and how.

YH: Why were you first drawn to the television documentary format?

PD: Early on in my career, I thought in the future that television documentaries were going to become as much a staple of television programming as non-fiction literature to publishing. I was wrong about that. Television documentary withered and died for some time. They died because of the popularity of "60 Minutes" and the slew of spin-off news shows. If one could do a story in 12 minutes, why use an hour for it? The proliferation of cable however has once again made documentaries a viable format for television.

Honestly, very few people watch any documentary on a network. This is one of the reasons why the networks have shrunk their documentary commitment. The networks used to put up documentaries as a way of satisfying the FCC requirement that they provide public affairs programming. Most of these documentaries couldn't break even in terms of profit. Now, the networks have turned to these news magazine shows that generate large profits, draw in enormous viewership, and satisfy the public-affairs programming requirement. So why do documentaries?

YH: Unlike many documentaries on the major networks, a lot of your works are not narrated? Why do you feel that the film is more effective without a narrator?

PD: Since I left the networks, I haven't made a film that had a narrator. I would greatly prefer if a film reveals itself as it goes along rather than having a narrator preaching at the audience. This is not possible on the networks because they always wanted to promote their stars. I don't like to use narration in a film. I'm not so crazy about interviews on film either. I would rather film people who are doing something other than being filmed and being interviewed. If you're filming a doctor, film him with patients. A lawyer? Follow him to the courtroom and film an argument between him and a client. The film you produce then is much more faithful to reality and not nearly as artificial.

YH: Is there a contemporary social issue that you feel is overlooked by filmmakers? In other words, if you were to make another documentary, what controversy would it confront?

PD: Definitely the problem of poverty. We are the richest nation in the world and yet we're plagued by it. There have been films made to high light this poverty, but definitely not enough. The worst thing that happened during the Clinton administration is that people completely forgot about the poor. By people I mean the middle class and the upper-middle class. The only interest anybody had of the poor was getting them off welfare. Clinton kept on repeating that "we have to end welfare as we know it." But as who knows it? Clinton didn't know welfare. His advisees didn't know welfare. Only those who are on welfare know welfare.

My last book, If You Came This Way, is about the underclass. For this book, I traveled among the underclass — the poorest of the poor in this nation. I realized that you can't take them off welfare. They would starve. Those who are on welfare would love to get off if they could. Many of these people are emotionally disturbed and intellectually deprived. A lot of them are virtually illiterate. Many are addicts of one drug or another.

I do believe there should be more films and more books focusing on this problem. Suppose one went to a welfare office in Chicago, planted camera there for two months, one would come out with a great film. A filmmaker or a writer needs to keep reminding the public that these terrible lacks exist. There are lacunas in our web of prosperity. Now with the stock market falling, people are going to pay even less attention to the 39 million people who fell below the poverty line.

YH: Do you think that New Haven would make a fitting setting for such a documentary since we see such a sharp contrast between the two ends of the "Hour Glass Economy?"

PD: I don't know New Haven well. But when I taught a Calhoun college seminar on writing and films, I did notice the two sides – and there are really more than two sides – of New Haven. One could easily plant a camera on the streets of or at a welfare office in New Haven and make a wonderful film. It would be great if a Yale student could make film on the underclass, a crucial segment of the population.
 

Back to YH Features...