Los Angeles Journal


	Home My Account Register

2008-04-24

by John Esther

Interview: Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro

Summary

Co-directors talk about the Body of War

Article

Who voted for the Iraq invasion? Who pays the price? Those are the two primary questions driving co-producers and co-directors Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro’s documentary, Body of War.

Four years in the making, Body of War mixes the personal with the political by assigning some long overdue accountability to those who voted for this war while putting a personal face on those who eventually would suffer for that vote.

Divided into two major intertwining threads, the more personal string of events follow Tomas Young, a 25-year-old veteran from Kansas City, Mo., who was paralyzed less than a week into his Iraq tour. Young had signed up on Sept. 13, 2001, to go get Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but destiny had other plans (Where is OBL anyway?). Young never fired his weapon.

The other primary thread reminds us who voted in favor of and, more importantly, who voted against, the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Forces against Iraq (H.J. Res 114), which essentially gave President Bush the authority to declare war at whim. Thus sending young men like Tomas, and his brother, Nathan, off to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Laced with songs by Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder, Body of War is an unabashedly, strident anti-Iraq war film that, once again, makes for the argument that it is time to bring the troops home.

In this exclusive interview, Los Angeles Journal sat down with the infamous former talk show host, Donahue, and the Austin-based filmmaker Spiro to get their thoughts on the documentary, Tomas, Iraq and Ralph Nader.

Los Angeles Journal: Why did you two want to make this documentary about this particular person?
Ellen Spiro: Phil met Tomas per synchronicity. He was not looking for a soldier’s story. He met him while he was visiting Walter Reed Hospital with Ralph Nader. After he met Tomas Phil just couldn’t stop thinking about this young guy.

LAJ: Was he the first injured solider you met?
PD: Yes. This is a sanitized war. Our purpose here is to try and lift the curtain on thousands of homes in this country where the same drama is being played out as you see in our film. If you send a nation to war you ought to be able to show the sacrifices being made. We don’t see this. It’s all being hidden. Less than five percent of the American population is sacrificing for this war. There are thousands of injuries like Tomas’. He can’t walk. He can’t cough. It just goes on and on. So I called Ellen – we had never met – and I said, “We should show this, show the pain.”
ES: Absolutely. It completely changed the way I think about the war from reading articles and statistics to somebody I knew. It’s not an entirely sad and painful experience because we’re dealing with a remarkable man who is becoming an important figure in the American cultural landscape and he’s finding his voice; he’s becoming a new person. So you’re really watching this birth of a new person. How he transformed that pain and anger – there’s plenty of both – into something really powerful and meaningful and bigger than himself -- into something productive. That’s the most important thing. If he were just wallowing in his own pain it would be a different story.

LAJ: Did it have to do with the realization that this was the first person you had met who had been injured in the war and that this was not an isolated event? In fact, the vast majority does not know these young men and women.
PD: I don’t think there’s any doubt. This is sanitized. The President said we couldn’t take pictures of the coffins and the press capitulated.

LAJ: The documentary delves into a lot of the personal and mental anguish Tomas went through. Was there ever a point where you said, “No, I can’t film this part?”
ES: Mostly we were not filming. If you look at how much time both Phil and I spent with the family, a lot of that was not with the camera on. We made choices when to film and not to film.

LAJ: How would describe your collaboration making this documentary?
PD: Well, the swelling in my jaw is just starting to go down [Spiro laughs]. We did pretty well for two A-types. I worked alone all my life. I had people around me but out there I worked alone. We pushed and pulled. She has a terrible habit of talking back to me [Spiro laughs]. Whatever we went through helped the movie.
ES: It’s a process everybody should go through, where you don’t share the same sensibilities. Making those sensibilities work in the same story made it a much better final product.

LAJ: What are your greater political intentions with this documentary?
PD: We want to stop this war. We hope this film will put wind to the backs of the millions of people who’ve already been out there trying to do that. We have a very effective spokesman here. Tomas is a warrior turned anti-warrior. He’s insightful. For a 20-something male he’s unusually empathetic with other people who fought in the war and lost people in the war. When he speaks you can’t take your eyes off of him. He’s informed and that was another surprise.

LAJ: There have an unprecedented amount of documentaries about a current administration, our foreign policy, and film such as Stop-Loss and Redacted. How effective are these films in changing popular opinion?
ES: All we know is that audience members tell us they feel changed after seeing our film. Rather than a quick, entertainment flick this resonates for a long time.
PD: What good does it do? If you ask that question too often you kind of get into a cynicism that just says, “It doesn’t matter what I do. What good does it do? Therefore I will do nothing.” I’ve seen so many people over the years on my show who didn’t give up. Who kept on even while understanding how helpless they were. It’s the Rock of Gibraltar and you are a feather. Iraq docs are playing to empty seats. We know we have a challenge here. Hell, if it were easy, we’d be bored.

LAJ: What do you say to those who say these kinds of documentaries and films undermine our security and efforts abroad?
ES: Tomas’ brother has been Stop-Lossed over there and he would like to see Nathan return. Tomas would like to see the film as a counter-recruitment. Something that will show young kids, “This is something you might get into.”

LAJ: Does Nathan want to come home?
ES: Nathan wants to come home. Nathan completed his contract.

LAJ: The film also highlights the domineering war drumming during the fall of 2002 when both houses considered the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Forces against Iraq (H.J. Res 114). Here we are now five-six years later, the primary reasons for the invasion have been discredited. Why are we still in Iraq?
PD: We’re there for face. We have a lot of people in Washington trying to save face. And we are saying this is a massive blunder for which no other people should die. No young man’s life is worth an old man’s face. We aren’t sure what will happen if we get out, but we know what will happen if we stay. More Americans and Iraqis will die. We are sending more people to die because we already sent people to die. Will we be doing the same thing a year from now? Who’s to say in a year from now we will somehow be able to pull out? We went to the moon; we think we can pull out while at the same time protecting the well being of our troops. This administration has no respect for diplomacy. Now is the time to start getting cooperation with the United Nations, -- this agency the bomb-throwers hate so much. We need to start reaching out rather than lashing out. We have to stop bombing people.
ES: We don’t need the next president to be following in Bush’s footsteps.

LAJ: Two of the primary candidates did vote for Resolution 114. How will they change course if elected?
ES: McCain will continue the same disaster that we’re in. I don’t know what Clinton will do.
PD: Well everybody gets it now – after 4,000 dead people. Suddenly you can be an anti-war person on television. But it took too long to get here. It’s very important to understand the environment in which this Congress voted for this war. Every major metropolitan newspaper in this country supported this war. All the “Shout Shows” supported this war. The United States Congress supported this war. This president thought he was going to have a little merry war. We can see that in the aircraft carrier. “Mission Accomplished.” He thought, “Boy, I’m glad that’s over.” This war is not fair to the American troops.

LAJ: What do you say to those that “blame” Tomas for his own predicament? That he did not have to go over there. Millions were already screaming how bunk the ideas and reasons for going to war were.
PD: Millions of people saw that when?

LAJ: Here and across the world millions took to the streets in protest before the war took place.
PD: Yes there were.
ES: Tomas has said that if he had went to Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden there would be no Body of War. Tomas felt duped as do so many people in the country that he went to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction and that’s why he came home paralyzed. He felt betrayed. He signed up out of the patriotic fervor of the moment. He felt his “good intentions were bastardized.”

LAJ: Since Nader brought you together with Tomas why does he not appear in the documentary?
PD: For the same reason I don’t appear: it’s not necessary. Would you want sound bites?

LAJ: I do not see Ralph giving sound bites. I meant just from the perspective that Tomas wanted to meet Ralph as one guy looking out for him.
PD: We wanted the film not to be tedious, not to be a lecture, not to be a rant. We don’t think it is. The film is only 87-minutes long. Lean and mean about one story about one family. Without the congressional stuff it’s “Oh lad, poor lad, how sad.” Tomas and I didn’t want that. This is a non-nuanced anti-Iraq war film. The film shines a light on the superficial, bumper sticker debate Congress held in October 2002 where the president through the politics of fear (“The longer we wait the more dangerous he becomes.”) Everybody was saying, “Go.” Most of the biggest bomb-throwers would never think of sending their own kids. People are coming home blind. Not 200-300, this is 25,000-30,000. The legacy of this war will rattle around this nation for the rest of this century. This is awful and the American people are standing mute.

LAJ: You said this was a “non-nuanced anti-Iraq war film.” What efforts did you take to get some of the hawks and chicken hawks that drummed up the war?
PD: We have one in the film, Tomas’ stepfather. He’s a ditto head. We made no attempt. We’re not saying this is a balanced film. This film has a calculated, thoughtful, well-considered bias. These people you see in the film – Tomas, his mother, the young men who carried him up the steps of the Capitol, Senator Robert Byrd – believe this war is immoral, unconstitutional, unaffordable and un-winnable. That’s the truth our film shows.

LAJ: I would not say it is bias as much as a counterargument to the arguments for war.
PD: We don’t think a film has to have both sides. We think there’s plenty of the other side all over the “Shout Shows.” If a movie says the world is round I don’t think it has the responsibility to find somebody to say it’s flat. The movie is to tell Tomas’ story.
ES: Tomas has a side. He may not agree politically with Phil or me. It’s his views that are represented most strongly in the film.

LAJ: How is Tomas doing right now?
ES: He’s getting better. He was an executive producer on a music album. Eddie Vedder helped him out. Proceeds go to Iraq Veterans Against the War. He’s also juggling interest from a lot of women [Laughs].

LAJ: How did Eddie become involved in the project?
PD: I met Eddie in 2000 on the Nader bus. Both of us got off the bus in 2004. Over in a year ago I ran into by accident. I told him I was doing an anti-Iraq war documentary and he said, “Do you want a song?” He came to my place in New York, watched a two-hour plus version of our film, flew home, called Tomas, “Hi, Tomas; Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam.” Tomas dropped the phone. He talked to Tomas for over an hour. In four days I had the signature song for our film for free. That was another lucky break.

LAJ: You mentioned Nader. You have been a staunch supporter of his for years. Even though you did not support his campaign in 2004, how do you see him now in 2008 as a political figure still trying to fight the good fight?
PD: We have a very weird situation; people who believe Ralph is right on all the issues are begging him not to run. Ralph’s problem is the nation’s problem. We have two much invested in the two-party system. It’s too hard to challenge. The roadblocks challenging incumbents are significant. As long as there are only two parties you’re never going to get money out of campaigns. Corporations shower both. You have the parties controlling the debates.

LAJ: Whenever they bring that up nobody seems to notice this is a nation of 300 million people and to have two parties is downright anachronistic.
PD: Right, it’s not a constitutional convention here. It’s something that’s evolved. It’s hurting us. They’re both corporately managed parties. Imagine US Air and Budweiser sponsoring the debates. The people who decide on the debates are the Republican and Democrat Party chairman. Imagine how much they want Nader. This is the greatest usurpation of the peoples’ power ever -- for corporations to take over the debates. If you cannot get in the debates you will not be taken seriously as a candidate, and corporations and both parties make the decision over who gets on the debates.