Mar 13 2008
Cleveland native Thomas G. Miller's documentary, One Bad Cat: The Reverend Albert Wagner Story, is one of 240 films being screened this year at the Cleveland International Film Festival. I met with Miller in the hospitality lounge at the festival. He discussed his views on Albert Wagner, making this movie, and the state of documentary film in general.How did you get involved with Reverend Albert Wagner?
Nancy Dickenson, the producer on this film and former manager of the Mather Gallery at Case Western Reserve University, met him in the late 1970s, early 80s. She hired me to direct the story and production started in September of 2005. We've worked together in the past. She made a film about Viola Liuzzo that I worked on.
In the scene where the Oberlin professor brings his students to meet Wagner, he mentions that the last time he came Wagner was ill shortly thereafter. Was that why he brought the students in very slowly, almost one at a time?
Well, physically, when we'd see him I'd sometimes think, 'Maybe that's the last time we'll ever see him.' He suffered from so many health problems: gout, diabetes, congestive heart failure ... Meeting people really energized him. He wanted to live. He wanted people to know his story. He was very cooperative and enthusiastic, but he was also getting more ill over time. He was so happy and encouraged by the process; his goal was to get his art to the four corners of the earth. Johnny Coleman [associate professor of art and African American studies at Oberlin College] used to do that quite a bit, bring students to visit him. Knew it invigorated him to meet other people. He brought them in slowly because it was easier for them to meet each other that way and talk. Also, did you see the size of the room? It was pretty small.
What do you feel the story and narrative ultimately turned into over time?
The question became: can you be transformed by art? I feel that's the theme of the film. Some people think you can and some think you can't. For him, I think he was transformed through it. That, and through his ministry. He tried his best to preach and live a life of positive influence according to his beliefs. In a documentary, you let the footage tell you what the story is about. If you're open to what you're shooting I think a documentary can be much richer. In the filming, I discovered his many transgressions in early-mid and mid-life. That helped explain what themes we were seeing his artwork. I saw mainly three themes running through them.
What do you feel those three themes were?
Well, one, the theme of growing up in the South: slavery, segregation, persecution, emancipation. That I did know about him already. The second was the sexual aspect to his art; works on the street, gamblers, prostitutes, women, crime. From years twenty to fifty he was witness to this life and perhaps, sometimes a participant. The third theme was religion and how his life changed; we see it in Biblical scenes, lessons he wanted to teach. He didn't do any artwork until he was 50 and these themes were intertwined through his career.
He was conflicted and human, but who isn't? He tried the best he could to overcome compulsions that affect men, and women: ego, greed, lust. I said last night (at the House of Blues special friends and family preview of the film) that I was happy to be given this film and subject, but basically they gave me a man who didn't leave his room and was at times, difficult to find likeable.
How did his family feel about the film when they saw it on Wednesday?
It went over well. His family loved the film. They were crying and touched, saying that he would have liked the film, and they loved the narration by Delroy Lindo. (An actor, Lindo has received critical acclaim for roles in Clockers, Crooklyn, and Lackawanna Blues, among other portrayals.)
How long did the film take? How long does a documentary generally take?
Well, we started on this in 2005. Generally, it takes two years. We showed the film at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in January 2008; it received the Best Documentary Award. Our strategy is to get it into festivals and, hopefully, get it to distributors. It's important then that people like your film. I wanted to explore issues that sometimes get left out or overlooked: racial tension, a discussion of race and art, themes that are different and important.
You mentioned earlier you were a doctor. How did you go from medicine to film?
I grew up in Shaker Heights and then went to medical school and practiced in pediatrics. I developed arthritis in my vocal chords and had to have a tracheotomy. Because of that, I was getting sick all the time from exposure to patients with illnesses. Because there's no filter with the tracheotomy I was prone to respiratory infection. I was already taking classes at John Carroll University and consulting for Sesame Street. They were introducing a baby to the show and I was advising them on a child's natural growth and development. I knew I didn't want to practice medicine any longer. I just felt I needed a break and wanted to get into warmer weather for my lungs. I'd had three years to come to grips with what happened to me. Decided to go to USC film school in Santa Monica; I fell in love with documentaries. To me, it's the last place for freedom of speech; you may not agree with a documentary but it isn't filtered. That's why I love it. It gives people the chance to explore interesting subjects and it's a place for people to explore their passions. I teach at USC School of Cinematic Arts and am a board member of the International Documentary Association, a non-profit organization.
What other films are you working on?
I have a project on building green houses - where people are creating entire houses that are green friendly. I've also started a film called Limited Partnership, about bi-national gay partners and the trouble they have with immigration. We estimate there are 100,000 such couples hiding in the US who come in on a visa and can't stay. So what can they do?
