Susan, a new facet of our weekend poetry festival for 2010 will be a film showing. What are your thoughts about "Killer Poet" being screened in Cobourg at the POW! Festival?

I love you Canadians! For some reason Canadians have been drawn to this film from the beginning. Killer Poet premiered at Hot Docs in Toronto. The audiences were packed, full of energy, thoughtful, great. Hence, I am really happy about the screening and hope I will be able to meet more wonderful people there.

Please tell us about this film. What drew you to make a poetry-themed movie? Please tell us about other work you have created in your career, too. For example, are all your films in the documentary category?

The Norman Porter story came to me through a personal connection I made working on another film. I was moved less by Porter's story than by the impact he seemed to have on everyone personally involved in his story. The poetry element was important in two ways.

One, there may not have been a film had he not been a poet. If Porter had lifted weights in prison instead of written poetry, nobody would have cared so deeply that he had been caught and sent back to jail for the rest of his life. The fact that he was poet of the month in Chicago when he was arrested provided a stark contrast between the killer and the rehabilitated man. It is hard to imagine that someone who had dedicated his life to poetry was still a threat to society.

Secondly, the filmatic potential that poetry offers intrigued me. It adds another element to the pallet of tools I had to work with to make this more than just a news story and I was excited to see how it could be used.

All of my films have been documentaries. I am a firm believer that real life is better than fiction and that even the best actor can never come close to the best real life character. If you don't believe me, go watch "My Brother's Keeper" and take a look at the characters in their court scene. Fiction films are easier in the sense that you can always create what you need to see on screen.

Documentaries are infinitely more difficult in this area because if you weren't there with a camera filming when it happened, you have your work cut out for you telling the story in an interesting way.

I like the challenge.

At POW!, you will make yourself available for a Q & A session with the audience after the showing. Where have you done these Q & A sessions before for "Killer Poet"? Are they valuable to you as well as to the audience?

The honest truth is that I live for the Q & A sessions. For every film I have ever made, I remember one moment when making the film mattered. That has always been during screenings where I can see for myself the impact the film has on the viewer. When documentaries are broadcast, a lot more people see them, but the filmmaker never gets to hear the reaction and thoughts of the viewer. Ultimately, that is who we make these films for. In the Porter screenings, it is when the very difficult issues that this film raises about the criminal justice system are debated - from both sides - with passion. That is when all the struggle that is involved in getting a film made is worth it. For the early screenings, representatives from both sides of the argument, the pro and anti-Porter factions would come to the Q & A sessions and debate the issues with the public. The Q & A sessions were better than the actual film.

When did you start making films? What prompted this career choice?

I began my career as a political organizer and moved into journalism from there. I began making documentaries at the Columbia School of Journalism because I thought they had the most impact on viewers. I also like their ability to step back and provide a thoughtful analysis of the daily bombardment of news. When I went to Europe, I learned the subtleties of making documentaries in more of a filmatic way. And less of a newsy way. I learned to have more of an emotional impact on people and tell stories through characters.

What inspires you to pursue a film project?

Usually the bigger picture. In this case, I was learning about Porter's story at the same time a series of articles came out in the New York Times called "no way out." They talked about how the life sentence in the United States was originally meant to be a 15 to 20 year sentence by the judge who gave them. Long enough for violent young men to grow up, learn other ways of living, and no longer be a threat to society. But because the criminal justice system has become so politicized in the United States, it is basically a death knell for a politician to be seen as "soft on crime." The result is that today, men who went into prison at a young age like Porter (19 or 20 years old) come out in coffins, having spent their lives in prison and died there. I thought I could tell this bigger story through the story of one man.

Can you describe (a little) your personal act of creation with a new film, not the full production process but your part at the inception and near-the-beginning of this creative act?

I always begin by asking questions and doing as much reading and research on the subject as I possibly can. I usually end up telling the story in the same way that I myself learn about it.

In the case of Porter, it was to listen to the point of view of the defense first and more briefly. Then, the side of the prosecution, in great depth, getting to know all of the characters. Then, back to the side of the defense in more detail.

When I was immersed in the opinions of one side or the other, I could see where that side was coming from very clearly.

Then I step back and weigh for myself. In the end, where did I believe the answers lay?

You will notice in this film, that is the way the story is told. The viewer finds themselves on the prosecution's side, the defense's side, the prosecution's side. Back and forth and then at the end they have to decide for themselves where they stand.

It's not easy for a lot of people. We - I bring my editor, Andy Kukura, into this: he was a very strong advocate of this approach - never tell you what to think.

I also liked playing with Porter, the killer, and J. J. Jameson (Porter's alias), the poet, as two different people, only to come to realize they were actually the same person and justice had to be administered to both. J. J. Jameson's friends in Chicago had a hard time reconciling the two men. A lot of viewers of the film will have the same challenge.

The POW! Festival has learned already that the simple act of scheduling a showing of the film "Killer Poet" and inviting Susan Gray to attend to interact with the audience produces opposition, intense feeling and strong personal attack against you as an individual. You have responded, "Yes, we know there is a lot of controversy around this film. People are either extremely for or extremely against Norman Porter."
How do you respond to that controversy?

Watch the film.

See for yourself why everyone feels so strongly about Porter. He is a polarizing character. He's not obviously good or bad. He is both. We were asked why we didn't pick a character who had obviously been wronged, someone who had not committed the crime, was falsely convicted, openly remorseful, more sympathetic. The answer is that those cases are easy. Anyone can know how they feel.

But our criminal justice system also has to deal with the not-so-clearcut cases. The person who isn't clearly good or bad, right or wrong. That's when it becomes challenging and the answers become more murky. That is what we were trying to show with this film.