Music, Style & Culture

Interview: We Were Here Director David Weissman

We talk to the man behind the moving and personal AIDS documentary.

Arriving in UK cinemas this week after a tidal wave of acclaim at this year's festivals is We Were Here.

Filmmaker David Weissman teams up with former commercials and music video director Bill Weber for the second time, following their 2002 exploration of the legendary San Francisco theatrical troupe, The Cockettes.

We Were Here is a powerful, moving and personal account of the AIDS epidemic in 1980s San Francisco, told by five individuals affected in various ways at the time. Read our review to find out more.

We met with Weissman (pictured above right with his film crew) in London to talk more about his superb documentary, released on 25th November.

How did you come to make this film?
I would say the day before the idea came up, it would've been the last thing I would've imagined myself doing. I don't think I really wanted to make another documentary after I made The Cockettes. Partially because I thought, what subject matter would interest me enough to go through it again. The idea to make it was suggested by a younger boyfriend of mine who had not lived through those years, and had heard me talk about it a lot. When the idea came up, my initial reaction was that it was the last thing I would want to do, but then very quickly I realised it was the logical thing for me to do. The film covers pretty much the exact period of time I lived in San Francisco, and it hadn't been told with the benefit of hindsight, and a breathing period. It felt to me that it was important that it be told by someone who lived through it, than an outsider coming in and doing interviews. So once the idea hit, it made a lot of sense.

As it was so personal, did you ever consider being in front of the camera?
People started asking me right away if I was going to be in it, because the way I talked about it was so passionate. I'm not really crazy about documentaries where the filmmaker was in them. I feel liked I used those five people to tell the story I wanted to tell. So I'm very comfortable. But it is a very personal movie - most of the obituaries shown in the film are for friends and colleagues of mine, or my filmmaking partner Bill Weber. So it is a very personal film. I never set out to make an encyclopedic look at the epidemic in San Francisco, but I tried to capture the human experience. It very much reflected my perspective of those years.

How did you choose the people you interviewed?
It was a combination of chance encounter and intuition. They were all people I knew a little bit, and happened to run into. The only one of the five I knew in advance I was going to interview was Ed, because I knew his history. When I would say to the others that I was making a movie about the AIDS epidemic, the way they responded was very indicative of what you see on screen - an emotional generosity, a willingness to introspect around painful subject matter, and a kindness and loveability. They were things I was looking for.

It must've been quite an experience for them to speak about it on film.
None of them had ever spoken on film, or been interviewed. There's never been a movie like this. There were a lot of movies made during the epidemic, but there's been nothing reflective. I don't think any of them had had the opportunity to tell their stories so intimately, or to such a willing listener. They come to every screening they can come to. I think it's been hugely validating, personally. It's been cathartic, they're getting enormous amounts of affection from people who see them. It's given them a sense of their own history in a new way.

It's such a personal documentary, not just a talking heads piece - how did you decided on the tone?
I think the tone very much reflects who I am. I knew that if I was going to make a movie like this, it would have to have a sense of humanity, hope and inspiration. Just because I couldn't see myself making any other kind of movie. The tone was inherent in that fact.

What about the political aspects of the film?
My politics are not overt. I perceive politics as going through people's hearts and emotions. There were a lot of stories to be told about that period. Certainly there are films being made about Act-Up in New York, and the activism, and that's a huge and important part of the fight. That was less of the situation in San Francisco, because we had more of a benevolent community. The situation was less adversarial, but I didn't want anger to be a central element.



How do you and Bill Weber work together?
It was a little different to how it was on The Cockettes, as we were co-directors, and this is more my movie. But we work incredibly intimately. Bill is a genius of an editor, both his sensitivity as a person and his sense of visual style. Bill would edit on his own for a day or two, then I would come over and talk about things. So I wouldn't sit with him for all the editing, otherwise it would've driven him crazy. He just works better that way. I would say for the last two months we cried together every single day in the editing room. It was a very emotional experience for both of us. We're very close friends, and I think we saw eye to eye almost all the time, which isn't always good. Sometimes it's good for there to be creative tension, but on this project we had such deep sensitivities around the issue, that our synchronicity worked very well.

You have glimpses of Harvey Milk in the film. I was wondering what you made of Gus Van Sant's film Milk?
It was interesting for me to see it as I knew virtually everyone in the story. A little disorientating to see them portrayed as actors - Cleve Jones and I were sleeping together during those years! I think the movie was very important in terms of speaking to people who had not seen the documentary or had lived through those times. In many ways, young people are responding in similar ways to We We Here - a sense of admiration to the feeling of community that existed in those days.

Can you talk about some of the feedback you've had from screenings?
It's been hugely gratifying because the responses have been powerful from every shape and size and sexual preference. In Salt Lake City, Utah, a woman came up to me and said, "I want you to meet my 14 and 16 year old daughters." These teenage girls were just flabbergasted by the film and knew nothing about it. The responses that matter most to me as someone who made the film are from the people that lived through it - the gay men and the people who cared for them. That has been beautiful for me. They found it very validating - this did actually happen. They found it healing and cathartic. Younger gay men are completely blown away by it.

Do you think it's teaching the younger generation something they didn't even know?
Even we had forgotten the early history of this. It's been hard for people who didn't live through it to viscerally understand what it was like. It allows young men to ask themselves - what would it have been like for me? To be losing my friends and fearing my own illness and death?

It was a stark reminder of how much the now well-managed AIDS virus did ravage people's bodies. It's not something that's really shown nowadays.
It was hard to get images of sick people, because people didn't want to photograph them. The whole thing was just too painful, and people just didn't want to be photographed. The images that we do have are powerful, and simultaneously beautiful. There's beauty in every image in the film, even the more horrific ones. Yes, I think people are shocked when they see images of the Kaposi's sarcoma lesions. Many things about San Francisco were unique, but because of the political, out-of-the-closetness of the gay community, as well as the geographical concentration, we saw AIDS on the street in a way I don't think anywhere else in the developed world did. You would see people every day on the street. In European countries, people tended to hide when they started to look sick. In San Francisco, that was not the case. You would see someone come towards you in the street holding a cane, and you would think it's an 80 year old man, and it was a 25 year old friend of yours. We would experience the visual horror of the illness in a very concentrated way.

Did you learn anything yourself during the making of the film?
I don't think in terms of information, but the thing that continues to perplex me is the juxtaposition of the insanity of what was going on, and the normalcy that existed in the midst of it. I look at photographs of me and my friends at that time, and we're having fun and hanging out in cafes and parties. It's not like we were living in boarded-up houses with tumbleweeds rolling down the street. So that continues to amaze me. You hear about people in wartime situations who talk about how it enhances the other parts of life as well. I still can't entirely reconcile how normal it continued to feel.

What drives you as a filmmaker?
I don't think of myself as driven! If I had a choice I wouldn't work at all! That's probably a little bit disingenuous. This is going to sound silly, but I really am driven by wanting to contribute to the world things that I care about. With The Cockettes it was about celebrating the spirit of nonconformity and rebellion and art and counterculture. With this one, I wanted to speak to how humanity can respond in a situation of terrible crisis, and also speak to the beauty of the gay community, in particular the San Francisco community.

What's next for you?
I have never in my life had a plan! I have no idea! This year has been very busy with festivals, so I'm looking forward to taking a break. It's been very intense for me to revisit this part of my life so intensely. Beyond that, I have no idea.