Stefan Forbes Explores the Boogie Man of American Politics

New documentary traces the impact of Republican strategist Harvey Leroy "Lee" Atwater

by Douglas Polisin | Published October 3, 2008

Stefan Forbes interviews Michael Dukakis for Boogie Man.

Four years ago it was “Dean Screams,” horse faces and expensive haircuts; a ceaseless white noise that centered on everything but real issues. In 2008 the race to the presidency has been marked by absent lapel pins, arguments over pledging allegiance to the flag and quips over age and experience, popularity and celebrity. Oh, how times have changed.

With the nation rapidly approaching election day, the debates underway and mudslinging campaign ads from both sides, one thing is certain: The presidential race is about to get ugly.

But when did politics become more about cutthroat mudslinging than great ideas and rhetoric? How did we get ourselves into this politics-as-war ideology? The answer lies in the documentary Boogie Man, directed by Stefan Forbes, which covers the life (and death) of Harvey Leroy “Lee” Atwater, a political consultant and strategist for the Republican Party during the elections of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Atwater’s abrasive negative campaigning not only made him a star in the eyes of his party and George W. Bush’s “number one soul mate” but also set the playing ground for the dirty politics we know today.

Forbes gave MM the scoop on Boogie Man after its screenings at both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. Here, he discusses everything from making a documentary on such a controversial figure to the importance of the Atwater story on the current political climate and upcoming election.

Douglas Polisin (MM): What drew you to making a documentary of Lee Atwater’s life?

Stefan Forbes (SF): I was intrigued when I first saw Atwater on TV at the [George H.W.] Bush Inaugural concert. He was hamming it up with R&B artists like Carla Thomas and Chuck Jackson after just having run the most racist presidential election in 150 years. Talk about inner conflict! I approach documentaries like feature films, looking for character growth and a compelling story. You’ve always got to cast your main character carefully and I knew Atwater would hold the screen. There’s something fascinating about someone who presents him or herself as a cold-blooded assassin; you have to wonder what vulnerabilities they’re hiding. As a musician and composer, I was also drawn by the central role of music in his life and the possibility of using it as a Greek chorus to comment on deeper themes. But what made me ‘green-light’ the project for myself was Atwater’s illness. A charming, handsome cynic turns into the Elephant Man, desperately searching for spiritual redemption—how many stories have third acts like that? I’m still amazed no one else had done it.

MM: Did you go into making the documentary with preconceived notions of Atwater? If so, what were they?

SF: Of course, filmmakers always do. You really have to stay conscious of your blind spots or you’ll miss the surprises. From the press, I thought he’d repented on his deathbed for everything he ever did, but the truth is much more interesting.

MM: Do you think Boogie Man takes a single position or gives equal weight to both sides of its argument? Did you go into the making of the movie with this intention or was it molded this way through the process?

SF: Atwater’s friends and enemies voice different positions all through the film. If a film doesn’t set up conflict between opposing ideas, it can get stale and lifeless. Lee’s career is bitterly contested cultural ground in America, so even reporting truthfully on his tactics might be considered partisan. But I didn’t want to pull punches. How can you make a wimpy film about a guy who reveled in politics as war? I just let guys like Ed Rollins, Mike Dukakis and Sam Donaldson argue things out and trust the viewers to come to their own conclusions. I didn’t want a “Voice of God” narrator, but without narration or extensive title cards, it was incredibly difficult to take viewers on a journey from dirty tricks in rural South Carolina campaigns to the Bush compound in Kennebunkport and the White House. I had to step up my game as an interviewer and get interviewees to tell every plot point clearly, yet with emotion.

MM: Watching the documentary, I found myself falling for Atwater’s charm. From his free-spirited guitar playing and love of hot sauce to his Southern drawl when saying farewell to a crowd of reporters with a “Thanks for coming out, gang,” I could see what made Atwater such a great political competitor. As a documentarian, did you ever have problems of objectivity when making this movie?

SF: The question of objectivity is huge and complicated. You can’t be completely ‘objective’ because films are about emotional truth as well as facts. If you and your audience don’t empathize with the character, there’s no emotional journey. You’ve got to be on the side of your character. Yet if, as Tucker Eskew says in the film, Lee’s story is about “pride, sin and redemption,” then you can’t let Atwater off the hook for his “sins.” There are different truths, and you’ve got to tell all of them.

1 of 2

SHARE THIS STORY

COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT

Comment by sniper2 on 9/26/11 at 3:18 pm: موقع زفات
زفات
Comment by imwilliam on 11/16/11 at 6:08 am: He has been able to capture on celluloid a significant segment in the history of politics. Documentaries put a lot of complicated issues into perspective. Sometimes a documentary centers round controversial legal issues; I think before making any such move, a film maker should consult with a legal expert like Anne Segal Tucson.