When Dad Defended Terrorists
http://www.utne.com/Arts/When-Dad-Defended-Terrorists-7135.aspx
4/9/2010
by Keith Goetzman
The film documentary William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe is
about a remarkable man's life and career: Kunstler, a defense lawyer,
fought on the legal front lines of key civil rights and antiwar court
cases in the '60s and '70s. The movie, directed by his daughters
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, chronicles his unlikely trajectory from
low-key family man to wild-haired radical, representing the Chicago
Seven after the foment of the 1968 Democratic Convention. It also
follows him as he takes on other less noble causes including that of
avowed terrorist El-Sayyid Nosair, who was convicted in the 1993
World Trade Center bombing and the murder of Israeli politician Rabbi
Meir Kahane. (See a full article about the film in the May-June Utne Reader.)
The movie manages to be several things at once. It is an ode to a
father's life, yet it dares to question his motives. It is a
documentary, but also a biography of a firebrand lawyer and a family
memoir. And it traces several pivotal episodes in U.S. social history
without feeling like a lecture.
I spoke with Emily Kunstler in March in a phone conversation that
Sarah Kunstler later joined范arah having been delayed by a court
appearance as, yes, a defense attorney. They discussed their unusual
childhood, their deeply ingrained sense of social justice, and their
cinematic portrait of their dad:
--
Your father was at the epicenter of some of the biggest cultural
moments in modern U.S. history. When did you begin to get a sense of
his importance and fame?
"Well, I don't think we understood it in a larger context until much
later, but when we were kids we certainly had an understanding of how
he felt about himself. You know, we remember going around the corner
with him to buy all of the major newspapers so we could bring them
home to see if he was in them. (laughs) Or turning on the family
television in the kitchen to watch him on the local news. So we knew
something was different苑ut you know, when you're a kid, it's your
only experience. You have no basis for comparison. It just sort of felt normal.
"Also, when he would walk us to school in the morning, you know,
which was five blocks from our home, it would take us half an hour to
get there because every 10 feet someone would stop him. As kids it
was more of a frustration." (laughs)
You say in the film that "when he spoke about his past, he was like
a hero from legend." Did you and your sister also believe for a time
that he was a hero? And when did doubt begin to creep in?
"Well, the stories of the work that he did during the civil rights
movement or the antiwar movement were our bedtime stories. And I
think like most young children, you have this sense that your parents
are all good and can do no harm. And it's this real moment, I think,
in adolescence when you realize that your parent is a human being.
"But I think that experience was a little bit exacerbated for Sarah
and I because our father lived so much in the public eye. It wasn't
just something that was happening privately in our home. You know,
when he started taking cases that got a lot of negative public
attention was when Sarah and I started to question the choices that
he was making, because of the impact those choices were having on our
family. I mean, particularly the cases that made our lives the most
difficult were the Central Park jogger case, which was a big case
here in New York and in part nationally. It was when race relations
were really polarized and a group of five adolescents, black kids,
were accused of brutally raping a white woman in Central Park. And it
played on a lot of the fears and cultural stereotypes of that
particular time. So our father ended up defending one of these young
men, and it just要o one really understood why he made that choice. No
one was really supporting him during that period. But for him, he
really saw that case as a throwback to the rape trials in the South;
he saw the Central Park Five as the new Scottsboro boys.
"It turns out in the end that his position was vindicated負hey were
all exonerated, actually, after my father passed away, sadly. But I
think for him it wasn't really about innocence, it was about standing
up for the unpopular, and protecting the rights of someone who had
been vilified in the media and convicted before they ever saw the
inside of a courtroom. So that trial was difficult for us, and maybe
even more so than that was his defense of El Sayyid Nosair, because
we had protesters in front of our house for over four months. Coming
and going as a kid, with that experience, was pretty heavy. You know,
we had our windows shot out, my father received bullets in the mail,
he had death threats regularly. We couldn't walk to school by
ourselves; we were escorted.
"The most important thing for a kid, I think, for a young adolescent,
was to feel that they are safe in their own home. And we certainly
didn't have that during that period."
At that point in your lives, did you ever wish your father had a
low-key, uncontroversial profession?
"I think definitely. I don't know how specifically we thought about
it. We were definitely raised with a belief in right to counsel. We
thought that everybody deserved a lawyer. We really felt that. I
mean, we believed in innocent until proven guilty. We had an unusual
education from a young age about the inner workings of the criminal
justice system. But we didn't know why our dad had to be that
lawyer苟specially when it made our family so uncomfortable. And he
was an established attorney背'm sure he could have found something
else quite easily. (laughs) So yeah, it was less like a political
difference that we had with him at that young age. It was more just
not understanding why he would make choices that would put the family at risk."
You say in the film that your father became "radicalized" by the
Chicago Seven trial. Why did this event radicalize him?
"It was one of the first trials where politics were really brought
into the courtroom. I think before that trial it was really the
lawyer who would dictate how the trial would run, would impose their
theory of the case. This trial flipped it on its head觔ur father
teamed up with his clients, and they really directed the show, and he
allowed them to put their politics on trial. So it was a
revolutionary period in general, but it was also this sort of
revolutionary concept in the courtroom, to try a case this way.
"He was in his 50s, and he completely embraced the hippie movement,
the antiwar movement, and I think probably began to feel like himself
for the first time during that period."
Was it the way that trial played out, with Bobby Seale being bound
and gagged in the courtroom, that radicalized him?
"Oh, yeah. It was that虹t was the binding and gagging of Bobby Seale,
it was utterly shocking to him. More than that, it was the
assassination of Fred Hampton. I think that he really虐e had seen the
government participate in great harm in the past, but I think that
moment really brought it home for him, to see that the government
would really stop at nothing. I mean, he saw how they were trying to
do it inside a courtroom, but to have that happen in the middle of
the trial, in Chicago, was pretty heavy."
"I mean, there's the clip in our film of our father saying, 'I killed
him. I killed him. All of the white people of America killed Fred
Hampton, because we stood by, racists all of us.' I think he really
felt that. He really felt like we're all responsible for the world
that we live in, and that if we're not working to improve the
situation we are complicit in it."
When Sarah confronted your father on local television, what was the
pretext of that interview? Did he know that she was going to confront him?
"You know, I don't remember exactly how it happened. I think they
asked him to be on a television show, and he just brought us with him
to the show. And they thought it sounded like a fun idea. (laughs) So
I think it was kind of casual the way that it all came together. I
certainly didn't know that she would confront him. But it's not as if
he didn't encourage us to question him, and to question the world we
lived in. We did all the time. He loved when we would show any
interest in the work that he was doing, whether it was positive or
negative. It wasn't as if that was an unusual moment, but it
certainly was unusual in the sense that it was broadcast to millions.
(laughs) I think she was referring specifically to the Nosair case
when she asked him that question, and you know, probably what she
wanted to say was a lot stronger, but that was what she was able to
ask. I believe she asked if he ever wanted to get out of a case once
he committed himself to it.
"She also in that clip says that she'll never become a lawyer."
I was going to bring that up. So what happened?
"Well, I think we all say a lot of things when we're 15 that maybe
don't remain true into adulthood. But we were raised with a sense of
the importance of having a deep commitment to social justice, and the
value of that, and the value of that work. We didn't know how that
would manifest in our own lives, but we knew that whatever paths we
took, that would be our focus.
"So Sarah saw that a great way to be an advocate is within the legal
system, and we also saw that a great way to be an advocate is through
making movies. Sarah and I for the past 10 years have been making
documentaries, short films, about injustice in the American criminal
justice system.
"So, essentially, our father taught us how to use the media觔ur
father taught us the importance of being a good storyteller, whether
it's with a video camera or inside a courtroom."
Had Sarah previously confronted your father in private with the sort
of questions that she raised in the televised interview?
"I think we would more ask questions about the cases he was taking
and didn't necessarily背 can't remember a time. But I didn't remember
that happening until I saw the footage. So it's hard to say. But we
always gave him a hard time. I do remember that. I remember more a
general theme than the specific moments."
There are some moments when interview subjects are clearly a bit
unnerved a bit that they are speaking to the daughters of someone
they're criticizing. Did you face difficulty in getting some of these
subjects on camera and convincing them that you were making an
even-handed film?
"Everyone who participated in the film did so enthusiastically, even
if they had reservations. I mean, there were people who refused to
participate, period, and that was more of a difficulty. We realized
early on that we couldn't disguise who we were. We had this idea that
we wanted to make this film with this sort of journalistic balance,
you know, have this even split between the positive and the negative
and have the audience decide for themselves. And then people started
saying no to us. I mean, being our father's daughters was sort of a
blessing and a curse in this process, because it gave us tremendous
access to a lot of people who wouldn't have spoken to us otherwise,
but it also closed some doors. So we thought, well, maybe we can send
in our producer, who can do the interview, because people give
interviews to other people, just not us. (laughs) But then we
realized that it was important that people were speaking to us, that
this was our journey and the most important criticisms and questions
were going to come from us."
Did you learn new things about your father, or reach new
understandings about him, in the process of making the film?
"Definitely. Well, first of all we got to build an adult relationship
with him, which is something that we wouldn't have had the
opportunity to do otherwise. And I don't think we'll ever agree with
every choice he made, but we definitely have a greater understanding
of his motivation. I think toward the end of his life, when he was
taking the cases that we were most critical of, he'd gotten to a
point in his career where he really had absolutely no trust in the
government and in the court system苔t all. I mean, he had seen his
friends assassinated, he had suffered many defeats. And some
victories, but you know, he felt that basically the system just
chewed people up and spit them out, and that the role for him to play
was to stand up next to people who were either brutalized or ignored
and make people pay attention to them in a different way, in the
hopes that their rights would be protected.
"He really saw his unpopular clients as sort of canaries in the coal
mine. He thought that rights were most likely to be violated when
people were vilified, and that where their rights were violated
everybody else's rights could be violated, and that it would set a
legal precedent for that to happen and continue to happen."
Even when he took on questionable clients, it seems that it was
still mainly about principle, not money. Is that your perception?
"Oh, it was never about money. Maybe it was about fame. A combination
of fame and principle, I think. There were some cases that he took
for money. When we were interviewing Jimmy Breslin胡immy Breslin's
been around in New York, covering a lot of our father's work for
years, so we asked him about the mafia cases, because Sarah and I
were a little obsessed with those for a while. And he got really
frustrated with us, because we were so interested in these mafia
cases, but that's what bought us sneakers, that's what put food on
the table胎arry Davis wasn't paying. (laughs) He was a provider, and
he did have to take some cases that paid. But none of his political
work and most of his criminal work did not pay. Our family was
primarily supported by his speaking engagements."
There are a lot of important historical moments in your film負he
Freedom Riders, the Chicago conspiracy trial, Attica, Wounded
Knee負hat I'm afraid have fallen off the radar for a lot of
Americans, or never made it onto their radar in the first place. Do
you have some hope that your film provides a window into this history?
"We really hope so. It's one of the reasons that we're doing such a
big educational push with the film, because the stories that you
mentioned are not typically taught in public high schools across the
country. And if they are mentioned, they spend like an hour here or a
day there and it's not really part of the history. So we've been
working to put together together some educational companion material
and are really trying to get the film in any way we can in the hands
of high schools, colleges, and law schools across the country."
Frankly, it educated me a bit to be reminded of these episodes in
history.
"It helps to see it all together and to draw connections between
those movements. At the very least our father's life is a great
storytelling vehicle for these major moments in American social
history of the last 60 years. He moved in and out of these worlds."
What do you think your dad's reaction would be to your film?
"I mean, he was his own favorite subject, so I think in that sense he
would be happy about any film that focused on him. But I think that
he would love that we made the choice to commit four years of our
lives to getting to know him better and understanding him苔nd in a
sense sort of bringing him back to life, and bringing his story to
generations of people that have never heard of him. So I think he'd
be thrilled. I think he would have loved to be at all of our Q&As
across the country.
"His favorite thing was talking to young people, and inspiring young
people, and really motivating people to make choices in their own
lives, to take personal risks to stand up for what they believe in.
So hopefully this movie will continue to do that for him."
You're doing Q&As across the country?
"Yeah. We've been in over 35 film festivals; we opened theatrically
in over 25 cities. So in the last year there's been a lot of travel
with the film."
What were some of the common themes at the Q&A sessions?
"It brought some of the most interesting people out of the woodwork.
We've had former FBI agents come to screenings. We've had clients of
our father's, long-lost relatives虹t's been really a mix. It's
interesting, because our father, although he toward the end of his
life was deeply suspicious of the government, he always had faith in
the jury system. He always had faith in people, in humanity, and he
really felt if you exposed people to a truth that they could change
their mind, they could evolve and come to a different conclusion. So
we hope that our film can reach people on a similar level, that
people can come to it背 mean, our father is someone who provoked
extreme feelings in everybody. People liked him or they hated him.
And we hope that this film will help people get a nuanced view, and
maybe have their own transformation in their thinking.
"We've experienced this with audience members. People have really
been grateful that we were able to tell such a balanced film from
such a personal perspective. I think the greatest fear is that being
his daughters, we wouldn't be able to do that. But Sarah and I felt
like it almost gave us the power to do that, because if we can be
critical and we can raise questions, then we can raise questions that
other people can't. And in doing that we give the audience permission
to have their own questions and to see shades of gray負o not have to
see things in these broad strokes."
[At this point Sarah Kunstler joins the conversation.]
Sarah, what type of law do you practice?
Sarah: "I practice primarily criminal law in federal court in Manhattan."
When did you decide it was OK to become a lawyer? On television as a
girl, you said you'd never become one.
Sarah: "I think at that point, for Emily and I, we just wanted to be
nothing like our dad. We wanted to forge paths that were completely
independent of his. So saying we weren't going to be lawyers, we were
going to be people who act, was like 'We're going to have
independence from you and do our own thing.' But at the same time we
learned social responsibility from our parents. We were imbued with a
sense that we still have that it's our responsibility to go out into
the world and fight for justice and make change, and I think that
somewhere along the way I figured out that being a lawyer was a way
to do that. I mean, I could do it on my own, separately from him. I
don't know exactly when I decided虹t was definitely long after he had
died. I know that I applied to law school around the time that Emily
and I made a film about a racist drug bust in Tulia, Texas.
"Our first film exposed a racist drug bust that imprisoned over 20
percent of the black population of this town in the Texas panhandle.
... How a town that tiny needed 46 drug dealers is beyond me. But it
ended up that the basis for their arrest was the work of one
undercover officer whose story and credibility kind of unraveled.
"They initially received sentences of 99 to 300 years in prison胃ov.
Rick Perry eventually overturned all the convictions. Emily and I
made a documentary about it that helped expose the injustice. It was
simultaneously kind of the beginning of our film career and part of
my decision to go to law school and be a lawyer. To me, the two
things are linked負hey're both different forms of advocacy. They're
different ways of telling a story and bringing a truth either to an
audience or to a jury, and trying to right a wrong. It led me to
pursue social justice work as both a filmmaker and a lawyer."
Emily, you say in the film that you and Sarah have "always been a
team." Did making this film and digging deeper you're your shared
family history bring you closer?
Emily: "Oh, definitely. I think Sarah and I have never been as close
as we are now. It's a very difficult and painful process in any
artistic endeavor苔nd having gone through that with my sister was a
really wonderful experience. I mean, it's not always peaceful here.
There's screaming, there's yelling, we're very emotional like our
father was, but at the end of the day we always end friends, and it's
very important for us not to sustain conflict. And you know, it's
great, because who can you trust more than your sister who's been
your co-conspirator since birth? So we really had complete trust in
the other one throughout this process."
It's clear from the film that you were already playing with film and
media as kids. Did either of you have early inklings that you wanted
to be a filmmaker?
Sarah: "You know, we didn't remember making those videos until we
were amassing material to make the film. But when I look at that,
what I see is two little girls engaging their father in the way they
see him engaging with the world苔nd also making fun of it. I think
more than anything else it kind of shows our awareness of The William
Kunstler, and a kind of humor at who that person was."
Emily: "In addition to the stuff that's in the film, we always had
recording devices, we always had cameras, we were always interested
in documenting things. There's one photograph in the film where we
each have like three voice recorders and a camera, so I think it's
definitely something that we were interested in. So I definitely can
see a common thread of interest from that period. And all of his
major press conferences he did on the front stoop of our house. So we
saw how important it was to communicate a message to the outside
world, and what kind of power that gave you. I think we definitely
took that to heart, and you can see that in the work we do today."
--
William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe will be shown on the PBS
documentary series POV starting June 22, and it is available on DVD
from New Video. www.disturbingtheuniverse.com.
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Sixties-L" group.
To post to this group, send email to sixtie...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sixties-l+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sixties-l?hl=en.
