Q&A Sessions: ‘Feel free to criticise’ Oscar series

British filmmaker Daniel Gordon talks to Luke Feltham about the criticisms levelled at his latest work, The Life and Trials of Oscar Pistorius, a new four-part documentary series that covers the Icarian fall of the Olympian, who shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, on 14 February 2014. The film — the first episode of which aired in South Africa a few weeks ago — has been met with loud, polarised reactions.

---

How much did you know about Oscar Pistorius before ESPN approached you to do the film?

I would have followed Oscar and his story, but at a distance. I’m a big track and field fan; I’m a big sports fan, particularly of soccer, and a lot of my films have a sports element to it — a sports backdrop to telling the bigger story. [Pistorius] wasn’t really on my radar and I hadn’t really followed the trial. I came at it very neutrally, for the entire story. 

So much that what I was finding was actually quite new. South Africa came into my lounge daily when I was growing up and I was seeing the state of emergency — everything in terms of the apartheid regime was coming into our house as a young teenager. There was a huge anti-aparthed movement in the UK and I was very aware of that growing up.

I had this sort of understanding of South Africa … but I had never been there until the World Cup in 2010. I had always been interested in the country as a whole since that time growing up. It was a case really of just getting my teeth into the story.

The film first garnered controversy when the BBC cut and released a trailer that failed to name Reeva Steenkamp. Did the backlash concern you?

It depends how you view Twitter backlashes. I’m not on it, I don’t engage with it. I was getting more people concerned for me … I wasn’t seeing a lot of it. It’s very demonstrative of the times that we’re in now. The only thing that really got to me was when people were saying that the filmmakers hadn’t approached the Steenkamp family, which wasn’t true. 

That’s now been cleared up and the family has put out a statement to clear that up. But at the beginning it was understood that the filmmakers hadn’t approached them. We had — and I’ve got — a good relationship with June [Steenkamp, Reeva’s mother] and I’m very aware of the trauma that she’s been through. I can never put myself in her shoes and go through what she’s gone through. 

It’s up to people — everyone’s got their own opinion and that’s fine I can respect that. I [hope] people can come to this film with an open mind and can just sit and watch it. 

That’s difficult for people in South Africa that have lived this story — it’s quite a difficult watch and everybody will remember their moment, their view of what happened, the trial, the coverage, whether they believe this version, that version. This sort of takes you to a place that maybe a few people had forgotten about.

How have you found the reaction to be of the film itself, from the regions where it has aired?

It’s been two extremes. It’s been either overwhelming praise or overwhelming … what’s the word … I guess some people have been very caught up in the story of where is Reeva in all of this? And what’s been difficult is I think we’ve gone … we do show Reeva in the film and I think we’ve been very respectful to her and to her memory and that is what I told June, her family and the Reeva Foundation from the very beginning — that I’m very, very conscious from the outset that we cannot forget that a person died here, the person had a name and the person’s name was not referred to in the trial and I wanted to try and change that. 

Reeva was mentioned as the “deceased’’, which is legalese but still very painful for the family. Having made all that — what I thought — was effort … there’s been a mixed reaction. 

I think some people can’t see beyond the furore that came out in the UK as a result of the trailer. And the trailer is a two-minute piece that didn’t mention Reeva’s name and the BBC acknowledged that was a mistake and they pulled the trailer and apologised to the Steenkamp family. But it didn’t stop people from damning the BBC and damning the trailer. Then it’s very difficult for people to get beyond that and take a look at the film.

One of the main critiques of the film is that Reeva is not proportionately represented in the film. Do you find any fairness in that criticism?

No, I don’t actually. I made the film that I wanted to make and I’m happy with the film. If people want to criticise it, that’s absolutely fine, they can do so. I’m not here to change people’s minds, I’m not here to damn people for their opinions. In our society, thankfully, everyone is free to express that opinion. Whether I think it’s fair or not is another question. But, again, personally I feel if you watch the film, you watch it all, then have a conversation and feel free to criticise the film. 

By the same token there’s been a perception floating around that this is a campaign film for Oscar. People want to know, why now?

The answer to “why now” is because we finished it now. It could have come out a year ago if it was finished quicker; it could have come out in another year if I’d taken more time. There’s no “why now” — there’s no timing. 

I don’t know where Oscar is in his legal process at the moment. Again I’ve heard — but not seen — of people questioning whether the Pistorius family was paid for their participation. I guess that’s a fair enough question to ask. The answer is no — no one is paid in these films. I also think, just look to my work — and by that I mean my filmography over about 20 odd years. I’ve made films in North Korea and about North Korea and I used to get very similar [reactions].

You know it’s a very polarising issue and I think Oscar is a very polarising debate. And I will expect to get, from Oscar Pistorius supporters — and there are still many — the same criticism: that I am giving too much weight to the prosecution, not enough to Oscar’s side. But, I’m happy with the film I made.

[/membership]