|
|
|
|
Behind the Scenes with Stephen Erickson, producer of The Forbidden Voyage
Interview conducted by Julie Shapiro
> What attracted you to the story of The Forbidden Voyage?
Two things:
First, Earle was a good storyteller with this incredible experience. Then
perhaps more important was the way this story unfolds—the story behind the
story. What begins as the story of a professor, a family, a dream, sailboat, a
peace action, becomes a story about change. It's a story about unseen forces,
about circumstance, about chance and how these play out in Earle Reynolds life.
It is common occurrence, but seldom so clear to observe.
Then, a "Forbidden Voyage!!!" Who wouldn't be attracted?
> Do you think that The Forbidden Voyage is particularly suited for
radio? Are there certain stories that really are meant to be told aurally,
rather than visually?
I make radio. If I hadn't heard this as such, I wouldn't have begun. There are
two important factors here, good stories and a good storyteller.
The story is special. A professor of anthropology goes to Hiroshima in 1950
working for the Atomic Energy Commission and makes the first study about the
effects of radioactivity on children. Then that he takes his family along, has
a boat built, sails it around the world and then by chance meets this other
boat, takes up their banner and sails to Bikini.... Add to this that Earle is a
natural storyteller.
When I first made the recordings with Earle, I wanted to make a film. My first
idea was to make a film with no picture, just a soundtrack. Now, with the
soundtrack finished, I've thought a Ken Burns-esque pan across old still photos
might work quite well. However, wouldn't what happens in The Forbidden Voyage,
which would make a fine film, lose impact to the pictures? Would the story of
change, which is never mentioned in the radio piece, be lost to great sailing
pictures?
> Did you end up developing a lasting personal relationship with the
Reynolds family while working on the story? As a producer, how does a story
change, as you become more familiar and intimate with its characters?
Personal relationship is overstating it. I did get to know Jessica and Ted
while working on this but our relationship was always professional. We still
have occasional contact, for example I'll email them a note to let them know
that this story is here.
The close contact with the Reynolds, or any other subject, changes my ability
to tell the story. The more I learned from Ted and Jessica, the better I
understood Earle. In this particular case, what was interesting was the way
their three stories ran parallel, at times dovetailed and at times totally
diverged.
For example the memories of Earle and Jessica when the around the world trip
first began in Japan. Earle tells us that his wife, Ted and Jessica were all
ready, in fact anxious, to make the trip with him. The story Jessica tells is
quite different —the whirlpools, the feelings of her mother whose father had
died in a canoeing accident. It's a small point but it adds detail that informs
our understanding of Earle.
The story changes in its complexity. Then, as a documentary maker, I still have
to decide what to tell, what to build into the production and what to leave
out. The more I know the more that is left out. What is told, what is there, is
perhaps a little closer to a true picture.
> What sort of effect did this story have on you personally? For
instance, did it nurture any of your own nautical inclinations?
I first recorded Earle in 1985, ten years after I had first heard his stories.
I knew Earle was getting old and wanted to make sure the stories were
preserved. When I came back to New York with the tapes, I put together a demo
and tried to find some funding for a limited series, four half-hours about
Earle Reynolds. I was told by funders at that point that they liked the
proposal, but that the demo sounded like "a lot of other old people telling
their stories." Perhaps it was just too early for personal story telling.
I kept the tapes and knew that one day they would come off the shelf. In 1998,
I approached WDR in Cologne about a production. They didn't hesitate. So,
perhaps I moved to Germany to let Earle tell his story? My own nautical
inclinations.... A few years after I first met Earle, I thought a lot about
sailing. I took a course when I lived in New York and then thought about buying
a boat. I began a search in earnest, had a couple leads, then at that moment
radio poked its ugly, noisy wonderful head into my life.
End of story.
Beginning of story.
> Are you generally drawn toward stories with a historical side to them?
What are the challenges you face in telling personal stories that also rely
heavily on the past, and factual information?
No. I'm generally drawn toward stories with a political side to them.
Regardless, whether it's a historical or a political theme the challenge is to
find a form that lets the story live. How do we make stories that touch the
listener? For me this is this is generally letting people telling their
stories.
Isn't this what we are always dealing with even when we are involved in daily
reporting? Everything I see, record, experience is only a small part of the
story. My job as a radio maker is to make a connection between the subject and
the listener, only then have I begun to communicate. The difficulty,
communication isn't a passive act. Fortunately, I find that listeners here are
willing to do their part of the work.
> You moved from America to Berlin in the 90's. How does being an
independent audio producer in Germany compare with working in New York or
anywhere else you lived in the States?
Perhaps the most revealing comparison is in the diversity of programs on public
radio systems in the US and here. To start with, there are only 14 public
stations in Germany and no community radio. Yet, I would offer that there is as
much diversity and as good an audience. Moreover, there is diversity of both
content and style.
I live and work in Germany primarily because of the distinctive style of
documentary feature that has evolved here (and in fact in most of the world
other than the US) and because, as a program maker, I have tremendous freedom.
I work every time for a station, generally on a single piece. This means there
is already a support system in place. They arrange broadcast dates and take
care of publicity. I don't have to become a marketing expert, or even hire one.
I don't have to create a mega-series or become a grant writer. This of course
also means that as an independent I don't have the opportunity to build a
production empire.
I'm only a radio maker.
I know when a proposal is accepted how much I'll be paid. I'm free to find a
production style that best suits my story. There is no "house style". I express
my point of view and they want my productions because I have one. The myth of
balance isn't an issue. Balance (don't we really mean diverse viewpoints?) is
found in a broadcast system that presents hundreds of documentaries from
hundreds of independent program makers every month. Consider, in Berlin alone,
six hours of feature documentaries are broadcast each week. Add to this the
political documentaries, the literary documentaries, the current affairs
documentaries the special series. This adds up to real diversity, perhaps
balance and for independents, opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
