Read our exclusive interview with Jen Gatien, who served as one of the producers on the new documentary ‘Limelight.’ The film, which was directed by Billy Corben, chronicles the rise and fall of the nightclub career of Gatien’s father, Peter. Known as the king of the 1980s New York City club scene, Peter built and oversaw an empire and helped create the culture that defined an era. However, his club empire declined in the late ’90s after Mayor Rudy Giuliani cracked down on nightclubs. After pleading guilty to a tax evasion charge, Peter was deported back to his native Canada. ‘Limelight’ also features interviews with some of the government officials, witnesses and co-defendants involved with Peter’s trial. Gatien discusses with us, among other things, why she approached Corben to make the documentary, and what the filming process was like.
Shockya (SY): You approached Billy with the idea to make a documentary about your father’s career and trial. Why did you decide document his side of the story?
Jen Gatien (JG): Essentially, it had been something I had been developing for a long time. At one time, Akiva Goldsman wanted to do a feature based on the story, and then it laid dormant for awhile. After seeing ‘Cocaine Cowboys,’ I saw how Billy was able to set a story against a city, and in this case, it was a cocaine story set against Miami. I thought he was the right match to do something, not just about my father, but the transformation of New York as a whole.
SY: Billy has said that when he attended the Toronto International Film Festival, your father wasn’t very happy with the final version of the film. What was your opinion about the final version of the movie?
JG: I felt the film was slanted towards the more sensational aspects of the story. There are a lot of people who made Limelight happen, not just the people that are in the film. From my father’s point of view, there were a lot of aspects that made Limelight historical that were missing from the film, to not just club culture or techno culture, but to rock-n-roll as well. Bands like Pearl Jam and Guns N’ Roses performed. There was a party on Tuesday nights called Communion that was an alternative night. So I think he felt the movie didn’t encompass everything that Limelight stood for, and instead only focused on one part of it.
SY: Did you have any involvement in who appeared in the film, or have any ideas of who you wanted to appear in it?
JG: Well, what happened was Billy did all the outreach to the government side, all of who didn’t know about my involvement in the film as a producer. But I want to stress that I’m one of several producers who worked on the project. Alfred Spellman is one of Billy’s producing partners, and he was integral to the project. But I was able to get interviews with people who would otherwise have had concerns about participating in a documentary because things tend to skew so sensationally with this case. I think I brought a comfort level to people, not just my father. People like Ben Brafman, or Steve Lewis. They knew that the movie’s going to look at this with sincere consideration and research.
SY: How has the movie been received here in New York, as opposed to Toronto, where your father is currently living?
JG: It’s funny, I actually missed the Toronto screening. I was shooting Xan Cassavetes’ film (‘Kiss of the Damned’), and I unfortunately couldn’t make it to Toronto, so I’m not sure how audiences received it there. It’s not necessarily a Canadian story. I feel that audiences in New York might respond much more strongly, because it’s such a New York story, versus that of being a Canadian story.
SY: What was the filming process like in telling your father’s story?
JG: It was interesting, because I am an independent film producer. With every project I do, I participate in a different way, depending on the director. In the case of Abel Ferrara, who I worked with (on the 2008 documentary ‘Chelsea on the Rocks’), I was on the set and was with him all the time. I helped formulate questions about our documentary about the Chelsea hotel. This (‘Limelight’) was interesting, because Billy made an effort to not have me present at interviews. The editorial process was essentially his to figure out on his own, so it was a nerve-racking experience. But I was hoping with enough research and by looking at transcripts, he would end up with a film that really would look at the story carefully, and not just go for the obvious headlining and tabloid-like project.
SY: What was your working relationship with Billy like?
JG: I would say I’ve never been less involved with a director than I have with Billy. I interfaced mainly with Alfred, setting up the interviews and dealing with budgets and locations, film festival submissions, the typical indie producer stuff. But I rarely interfaced with Billy.
SY: How was it decided who would be interviewed?
JG: I gave a list of people that I thought should be considered. Some Billy choose to go with, and others he didn’t. I would say I was instrumental in landing interviews, but it was ultimately Billy’s decision who he wanted to speak with.
SY: While you were filming, did you hope the film would show your father’s side of the story, as opposed to just the witnesses and the government agents’ sides?
JG: From time to time, I would get a question from Billy via e-mail, or really Alfred, about my recollection. I think he would use it as a foil for what he was hearing in interviews, to sort of see if it added up. But I had very little involvement in my father’s version of events. My father was speaking for himself for the first time.
SY: What do you remember from when your father was here in New York and running the nightclubs?
JG: You know, I really give my father credit for inspiring me in my own career. As a producer, I’m essentially managing artists and simultaneously running a business. It runs very parallel to running a nightclub, in that you’re putting people together and managing personalities. You’re dealing with conflicts and balancing the business with the creative aspects of filmmaking.
SY: You produce both documentaries and feature films. How is making documentaries different, or maybe similar, to making features?
JG: I would say that with features, you have a roadmap to where you’re going to end up. You ultimately have a floorplan of what the film is going to be. Documentaries don’t, and there’s a lot more into putting a documentary together. I think with the documentaries I’ve produced, they’ve never sort of come together or finalized in the way in which they were conceived.
SY: So how do you feel your father’s clubs influenced New York nightlife?
JG: There was a time, and I feel like it was when I was in my late teens and early 20’s, that I felt very privileged that nightlife was really part of meeting, and exchanging ideas with, people. I can’t tell you how many people I met from those places that ended up being a part of my life as a filmmaker. I’m not sure if that would happen in today’s nightclub culture. I don’t know how many filmmakers would go to nightclubs and meet an aray of people that would later go on to be forces in the indie world, or in Hollywood. Limelight had a range of employees that ranged from Justin Theroux to Vin Diesel. So I’m just not sure that nightclubs have the same meaning that they once did culturally.
SY: The movie stated that there were a lot of celebrities that attended Limelight as guests. Did you ever meet them?
JG: I did. What is interesting about celebrities is that they felt much more approachable, and they didn’t have the larger-than-life personas that they have today, because of the internet, or TMZ, or Perez Hilton. So they had freedom in nightclubs that they don’t necessarily have now. Certainly, there were no cameras, which you can tell in the film with the footage that we do have, which is quite limited. Camera phones weren’t around during that time. So meeting a celebrity happened, but I would have to say it wasn’t as big of an event as it may today, as virtually it wasn’t documented. It was very casual, and people were sort of there to blend in.
SY: When people think about New York discos and nightclubs from the ’70’s and 80’s, they mainly think about Studio 54. So how do you think Limelight was different from Studio 54?
JG: It’s funny, because I feel that the Studio 54 generation must be people that are now in their 50s and 60s. I’m hoping that people who went to Limelight are now in their 30s and 40s. Limelight is now what Studio 54 once was, for the younger nightclub culture.
SY: What were the unique aspects of Limelight, given that it was set in an old, historic church?
JG: Architecturally, churches are the most ornate, beautiful spaces that one can ever imagine, as they have high ceilings and stain glass. So I think it added to the experience, and certainly, I think some people would be offended by it. But I think it was a building that was beautiful. It had been deconsecrated, so it’s not as though it was being put to other uses for many years after its use as a church. Essentially, it was one of the most beautiful buildings in New York.
SY: Do you think the movie can help change people’s perceptions of your father here in New York?
JG: I don’t, in the sense that people who made up their minds are probably pretty fixed in what they believe. But maybe the film will shed some light on how my father became a target of the DEA, and maybe look at the justice system a little more closely. The federal government wins 85 percent of their cases. The odds were stacked against my father, and the fact that he persevered is a testament to the fact that he was not running a criminal enterprise. I think that people forget that, because the headlines were much bolder upon his arrest than his acquittal.
SY: So what was the feeling like when he was acquitted among you and your family?
JG: Without getting into the intense sadness and terror that those 60 seconds of not guilties that came in, it was the most exhilarating moment. But it was hard to express in words what it feels like to know that you could be losing your father for 17 years to life.
SY: Why do you think your father was so targeted by the government, even though he wasn’t running this criminal enterprise?
JG: My thought is that hype can only be generated with high profile arrests. The DEA needed something bigger than a bust in the Bronx at a bodega to let the world know, or the people in this country, that they were doing their job, and to justify their budgets. My father sort of served as a poster boy. As the biggest nightclub owner in town, he was just a surefire way to get headlines, and to build careers. That’s how careers are built, unfortunately, for politicians and DEA agents that aspire to have their names in bold print. The agents in this case were relentless in trying to ruin my father’s life.
SY: It’s also believed that celebrities get off easy when they’re arrested and charged. Do you feel that people thought your father would be acquitted, because he was a well-known figure?
JG: In fact, it was quite the opposite. I think when you walk into a federal court room, there’s a massive amount of prejudice just upon being charged. I think basically, in federal court, you’re guilty until proven innocent. In my father’s case, I felt very strongly that many people thought he was guilty. His celebrity factor was used against him, rather than helped in any sort of way.
SY: Did you have any contact with the government officials, or the DEA agents, in your father’s case while filming the movie?
JG: My last name, unfortunately for the DEA, is probably something that fires them up considerably. Losing a big federal case is a big problem when you spent an enormous amount of time researching, and of course budget-wise, when building a big case. The federal government doesn’t like to lose. When they spent a lot of money on prosecution, cooperation agreements, time, headlines, there was a lot riding on this case. What was interesting is that the DEA agents on my father’s case declined to participate, even without knowing my involvement. But we were ultimately able to land an interview with the DEA. It was done on the agreement that my father’s name was not allowed to be mentioned.
SY: Do you feel that your last name helped, or hindered, your career?
JG: I think it has been quite meaningless in that my world as an independent film producer. My father’s name wasn’t really built in that industry, so luckily for me, it’s never worked for or against me. I think I have been relatively anonymous, which is why this film is sort of incredibly touching in some ways. The very thing that I sort of protected and not have out there about my family life is about to be put out there in the world. I did intentionally try to get a filmography before taking on this project to show that there’s no nepotism at hand, that there’s nothing my father can do for me in a film career. But I feel that if this story wasn’t told, that someone else would do it, and I wanted to beat them to the punch.
SY: So what have been some of the challenges of being an independent producer?
JG: Everything is pretty difficult. But independent filmmaking is the most exciting and challenging career in that there’s no formula. I never really know what’s going to resonate with investors or actors. I’m hoping that I can choose projects that can resonate, so that they can be made and be successful.
SY: One of the more anticipated projects that you’re currently working on is ‘Jack and Diane.’ What’s the filming process been like for that?
JG: (Enthusiastically smiles, throws arms up and snaps.) That has been an utter joy because that’s a project for which I’ve been with for many years. It’s taken a long time to get made. It’s a lesbian love story, and I feel that the actors involved, Juno Temple and the extraordinary Riley Keough, are going to be revelations. It’s one of the best films I’ve ever been part of.
SY: Can you discuss the plot, or any production details, about the film?
JG: It’s a look at first love. Whether it’s gay or straight, those feelings still come with first love, of not knowing what’s happening to your body. Physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually and being consumed with another person. So I feel the film is just a portrait of two teenage girls who find love for the first time.
SY: So how has filming ‘Jack and Diane’ compared and contrasted to filming ‘Limelight?’
JG: You know, they’re both challenging in their own ways. ‘Limelight’s been a much longer process, because documentaries take a lot longer to put together. While ‘Jack and Diane’ took years to come together financially and cast wise, it was a much quicker shoot. The fact that we did it in June (2010), and it will have a year-and-a-half turnaround, in terms of being released, it’s just a much faster process to make a feature than a documentary.
SY: Do you have a preference of continuing with documentaries or features?
JG: I’d like to make meaningful films, and if it comes in the form of a documentary or a feature (it doesn’t matter). It’s just sort of what captures my heart, or if the directors carry a vision that I’d like to be a part of.
SY: Do you have any other projects coming up, or that you’re looking at?
JG: Yes. My last film was just with Xan (Cassavetes), and I feel that I’ve met my directing partner-in-crime. (laughs)
SY: So you have a good working relationship?
JG: We do. It’s interesting, because we have a lot of parallels in our lives, of women filmmakers, finding your voice outside of a very larger-than-life father figure. Besides that, she’s someone I believe in, and is going to be a very formidable force in Hollywood.
Written by: Karen Benardello
