Read our exclusive interview with director Billy Corben, whose newest documentary, ‘Limelight.’ is set to hit theaters on September 23, 2011. The film tells the story of legendary nightclub owner Peter Gatien, who rose to fame with his New York City nightclubs Limelight, Tunnel, Palladium and Club USA in the 1980s and ’90s. While Gatien initially served as the figurehead for New York nightlife for a generation and defined the image of an era, he was eventually brought down during Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s determined crackdown on clubs. ‘Limelight’ features interviews with notorious players of the 1980s and ’90s club era, key informants in Gatien’s tax evasion trials and the nightclub owner himself. Corben discusses with us, among other things, how he became involved with the film, and what kind of research he did before he began filming.
Shockya (SY): What was your motivation in telling Peter’s story, and chronicling the rise and fall of his nightclub empire?
Billy Corben (BC): Well, his daughter, Jen Gatien, who is a producer on this project, had seen ‘Cocaine Cowboys,’ which was a movie we made in 2006. She is an accomplished indie film producer, and was looking to partner with someone to tell her father’s story in a non-fiction film. She liked ‘Cocaine Cowboys,’ the style of it and our approach, and wanted us to get involved in the project. We talked about it internally for awhile. It was our first outside of Florida project, it was our first non-Miami centric project, and was really the first project that was instigated by someone not in house. It was someone else’s idea, that we didn’t develop. So we thought about it, and (Corben’s producing partner) Alfred (Spellman) called her back and said we’d have to get final cut, because for us, this is not an image rehabilitation piece. We’re not going to be the PR wing of the Gatien family. I came up with this line early on that this movie is not going to be ‘Memoirs of a Gatien.’ If he wants to do that, he can set up a camera and tell his own story his own way. We were going to have to have all creative control, and all control over the edit. We know that’s true, because Peter’s not happy with the movie. (laughs) He and I got into a shouting match at the TIFF theater in Toronto. So I guess I did something right (laughs).
SY: Was that the first time Peter had seen the film, in Toronto?
BC: No, he had seen it before, which is why he was pissed. (laughs) He had taken out several pieces of paper that he had folded up in his pocket, and he had notes for me. (laughs)
SY: When you first began filming ‘Limelight,’ did you have any apprehension or concerns about telling Peter’s story?
BC: The concerns were access, because this is pretty recent history. It was a real sore subject for almost everybody involved, whether it was the DEA agents, the US attorneys, Peter, any of the witnesses against him, any of his co-defendants. Obviously, this was a very sensitive subject, and a subject that many people did not fair well. They did not come out of it unscathed, reputationally, occupationally or otherwise. So that was the concern, who was going to talk on-camera, and who’s not. Fortunately, we were not only able to get a lot of access on-camera, but anyone we didn’t speak to on-camera, we spoke to many of them off-camera. That helped to influence our base of knowledge, the edit of the movie, based on things we were able to learn. I spoke with two of the three US attorneys who prosecuted the case. We spoke with, either on-camera or off-camera, almost every government witness in the United States vs. Peter Gatien case. We spoke to one of the two primary DEA agents, who didn’t want to give an on-camera interview, but at least we got a little information from him. We got just as much, if not more, information off-camera as we did on-camera. But that’s reflected in the final piece. The audience does get the benefit of the information from the sources we had that weren’t on-camera. It helped shape the piece, and make it stronger, I think. But ultimately, a lot of people did not want to talk about this.
SY: So what was the process like in getting people to agree to appear in the movie, or at least talk to you off-camera?
BC: Well, one of the benefits we had, of course, was Jen (Gatien), who knew the witnesses even against Peter. She knew that at one point in time, they were all friendly back in the day. (laughs) So Jen was extremely helpful in that regard. Also, having her as a producer on the project made access on the other side less helpful, regardless of our contractual relationship, i.e., we have complete creative control over the project. There’s a certain perception, obviously, at having her involved on that level, that made people, like the US attorney’s office and the DEA, who were already not enthusiastic about participating, even less so, if that’s possible. So that was both a help and a hinderence with access.
SY: How did you decide which interviews you would include in the movie?
BC: Everyone we interviewed on-camera appeared in the movie. Obviously, the interviews were a lot longer than they are in the movie. But we didn’t talk to anybody gratuitously. Everyone we spoke with appeared in the movie. I think there’s one exception to that, but I think that’s a relevance issue. We were going to include anyone who was willing to participate. Everybody, the DEA, the US attorney’s office, was going to get a fair opportunity to tell their side of the story, if they choose. Ultimately, when you say how did we choose, they choose us. (laughs) It was a matter of them saying yes or no. A lot of people said yes, but a small handful of people said no.
SY: Besides Peter, have you received any complaints about the movie?
BC: (laughs) Not anyone in the movie. Besides Peter, I’ve never gotten any complaints from any subject of any documentary that we’ve ever made. People have said, “Oh, I don’t like this part,” or “I would have done this differently.” Kind of friendly things from subjects of our documentaries. But never before have I seen a list of notes. Literally, he reached into his pocket and pulled out notes for me. He’s the only one. (laughs)
SY: What kind of research did you do into the New York nightclub scene before you began filming?
BC: So much. There’s literally hundreds of thousands of transcripts from the trial, from hearings, pleadings and indictments. There’s news stories from The New York Times and Post, and The Village Voice. (There’s also) Frank Owen’s book (‘Clubland: The Fabulous Rise and Murderous Fall of Club Culture’). There’s copious, copious amounts of pictures, and hours of news footage from all facets of his career, from the glory days to the downfall. (I did) massive, massive amounts of research. There’s so many facets to the story. There’s so many angles, so many different people and relationships that contributed to what happened, and how it happened. It’s difficult to take any nuance story that spends decades and include it in a 100-minute piece of infotainment. So a lot of research.
SY: How closely did you follow his trial while it was happening in the ’90s?
BC: I knew of it, but did not follow it at all. It wasn’t until we got involved with the project that I knew more. I had certain ideas about what had gone down, and what it meant, and who was to blame. But they were essentially ignorant views, formed as a result of what little media I had caught at the time of it. I think that was a plus for me, for the project. I think that was part of the appeal for Jen, as well. She could have thrown a rock outside of her window, and hit ten documentarians on the street of New York that had been to any, or all, of these venues when Peter owned them, or were part of the scene, at least. Or they had some sort of relationship or connection to it. She wanted something a little more objective with perspective, an objective perspective. I think that was beneficial, because I didn’t have a dog in the fight. I was able to remain objective, and have to learn it from the ground up. I was able get an idea about what my thoughts and ideas and perceptions were, based on the record that had accumulated, and not on my own personal experiences and ideas that I had from keeping up with it at the time it was happening. So I think that was a benefit in this process.
SY: What was the filming process like, given that Peter is living in Toronto? Was it difficult?
BC: Well, we went to Toronto. Over the course of two or three days, we shot Peter’s interview. So it wasn’t terribly inconvenient. He’s very well-liked and well-respected there. He has friends with bars and venues there, that we were able to location scout, and pick a comfortable spot where we could sit with him and talk to him for hours and hours and hours on end each day. It was convenient. Toronto’s a pretty easy town to work in and navigate.
SY: Like you said before, all of your previous movies were shot in Florida. So how was making ‘Limelight’ different than making those movies?
BC: Well, I think most importantly, it was the aesthetic. I’m kind of a slave to the story, where I let the story dictate the style. So really, it was that ecstasy aesthetic, as opposed to cocaine in ‘Cocaine Cowboys,’ or pot, as in ‘Square Grouper.’ There was a lot of traveling around New York City, obviously, looking for locations, and looking for city views for certain characters, and bars and clubs for other characters. Shooting in New York can be difficult, at times. We’ve done it quite a bit on this project, and the new ESPN movie that we’re working on for the spring. But this was not that tough. We only got towed once. (laughs) We got our equipment truck towed once, so that’s pretty good, I think, for a shoot. (laughs)
SY: You’re working on the post-production for your next documentary, ‘Dawg Fight.’ Are there any details you can give about that?
BC: Yeah. I think the new ESPN movie ’30 for 30′ might come out in the spring, before ‘Dawg Fight.’ We had two releases this year, ‘Square Grouper: The Godfathers of Ganja,’ and now ‘Limelight.’ Next year, we’re going to have the new ’30 for 30′ for ESPN, ‘Dawg Fight’ and the new ‘Cocaine for Cowboys’ remix. Now we’re going to have three releases for next year. ‘Dawg Fight’ is about unsanctioned, illegal backyard fights in the suburban ghetto of southwest Miami-Dade, Florida. It’s the neighborhood (boxer and mixed martial arts artist) Kimbo Slice came out of. It started this movement of backyard fighting that people would videotape and post on YouTube to try to create a following, as Kimbo did. It’s kind of replaced basketball, football and hip-hop as a way out. One of the guys that was part of Kimbo’s entourage, a young guy, in fact he was a bodyguard of Kimbo’s, decided to become the Don King of the backyard, and start promoting and managing fighters in these illegal and unsanctioned fights. It’s a really, really fascinating subculture that we followed for a year-and-a-half, that we followed literally from the backyard to the Hard Rock, where they had these legitimate MMA fights. So we followed this guy, and told his story. (We also followed) these other satellite characters, most of which are convicted felons, who have very little opportunity outside of beating the s**t out of each other in a 12×12 ring in the backyard in Perrine, Florida.
Written by: Karen Benardello
