fighting for our lives

Making and Restoring
F IGHTING F OR O UR L IVES
THE UNITED FARM WORKERS’
1973 GRAPE STRIKE
Directorʼs Notes
by
Glen Pearcy
Historical Context
1965 -1970: The First Grape Strike and Contracts
"
In 1962 Cesar Chavez founded the United Farm Workers Union (UFW). On
September 8, 1965 the UFW joined mostly Filipino farm workers in the Delano,
California area in a strike against table grape growers, who had refused a wage
increase from $1.20 to $1.40 per hour. However, soon the harvest was over and the
strike rendered ineffectual. If it were to bring the growers to the bargaining table, the
UFW had to come up with new tactics.
"
The UFW sent a small group of protesters to the docks in Oakland, CA where
they succeeded in persuading the union longshoremen not to load the grapes for
shipment. Ten thousand tons of grapes rotted on the docks. In March of 1966 Chavez
led a three hundred mile pilgrimage from Delano to the state capital in Sacramento to
draw public attention to the plight of farm workers. Then the UFW hit upon a winning
tactic, the consumer boycott. The union sent farm workers and organizers into major
cities all across the country and Canada to urge consumers not to buy table grapes.
Grape sales were crippled. On July 29, 1970 first contracts in the grape industry were
signed by Chavez and the growers at the UFW headquarters in Delano.
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 2
1973: Growers Sign Sweetheart Deals with the Teamsters
"
Between 1970 and 1973 the UFW expanded its organizing efforts to iceberg
lettuce workers in Californiaʼs Salinas Valley, and farm workers in other crops in Oregon,
Washington and Florida. Worried about a boycott of its highly recognizable soft drink,
the Coca Cola Company signed a contract covering its Minute Maid citrus workers in
Florida. The union was expanding rapidly.
"
In 1973 the original table grape contracts, the cornerstone of the union, were up
for renegotiation. Instead the growers signed sweetheart deals with the Teamsters
Union. The growers simply handed over their workers to the Teamsters without any
representation elections. If this tactic succeeded, the very existence of the UFW would
be imperiled. Chavez called a new grape strike, which raged from April to August, from
the Mexican border north to the Sacramento Valley. 3,500 strikers were arrested,
dozens were shot at, and two were killed. At the end of the harvest, Chavez renewed
the boycott.
Making the Film
"
My wife Susan and I joined the UFW staff in April of 1972, moving with our son
Noah into two rooms in what had been a tuberculosis sanatorium, remade into the
unionʼs headquarters and renamed La Paz, in the foothills of the Tehachapi mountains
south of Bakersfield, California. I became the staff photographer for the unionʼs
newspaper, “El Malcriado”, which loosely translates as “The Brat”, and Susan did
graphic art for the newspaper and other UFW materials. We were soon dispatched to
Phoenix, Arizona, where Cesar held a 25-day fast protesting that stateʼs newly passed
law limiting the rights of farm workers to organize, boycott or strike.
"
I had made a couple of films while working with the Southwest Georgia Project, a
descendent of the civil rights movement Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
(SNCC), and told Cesar I was interested in doing something similar with the UFW. By
early 1973 Cesar knew a major struggle for the survival of the union was coming, and
gave me the assignment of documenting it on film.
"
It would be fair to say I was unqualified for the job. My two previous films were in
many ways amateurish. Thankfully Cesar had not seen them. However, I was an
experienced documentary still photographer, which served me well in shooting the film.
But I was untrained and inexperienced in editing, which would cause delays in finishing
the project.
Production
"
The film was produced in 16mm motion picture film, a common documentary
format at the time. In part because I had no camera assistant who could have juggled
different film stocks in different magazines, I decided to go with one film stock, Eastman
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 3
Kodak 7242, because it was relatively fast (ASA 125) and could be used in both dim
and bright light. It was a reversal film, and relatively contrasty, widely used in news
applications. “ECO”, a less contrasty and finer-grained film stock, was widely used at
the time, but I didnʼt want to get caught in a low light situation with that stock in my
camera, as it was very slow. Consolidated Film Industries (CFI) in Hollywood was
sympathetic to the union and, as I recall, gave us free processing and work printing 1.
"
At first I rented equipment out of Los Angeles, Eclair NPRs mostly, as I recall. My
first sound recordist was Gayanne Feitinghoff, also a staff member of the union, who
had previous film experience. Later Cresson Fraley took over audio recording, and did
so for most of the film2. I had no assistant camera person for the entire production.
Unfamiliar with motion picture film practices, I was a poor camera assistant. During the
five months of production I donʼt think I ever cleaned the gate, a common practice in
filmmaking but not in still photography. That shortcoming shows up in several scenes in
the film where emulsion build up is visible (see p. 10).
"
Not long into the film
Cesar decided to invest in
our own camera and audio
equipment. I chose the
Eclair ACL3, a new model,
designed for hand held
shooting. We also got the
newly designed Angenieux
9.5-57mm zoom lens, which
had a nice wide angle at the
short end, also made for
hand held production. And
the UFW bought a Nagra
4.2 quarter inch audio deck,
matched with a Sennheiser
815 shotgun microphone.
Eclair ACL camera
with 400-ft magazine
and small motor
1
A “work print” is a copy of the original film. The work print is used in editing, to avoid damaging the
original; the original is put aside until the film is ready for finishing.
2
Fraleyʼs experience as a sound recordist was less than mine as a cinematographer, namely none. Yet
he did excellent field recording. When Robert Dalva (see p. 5) screened the restored film on DVD he
commented on the excellent quality of the original audio.
3
In keeping with its small size and light weight, this camera was originally designed to work with 200-ft
film magazines. 400-ft magazines were much more common, and soon Eclair also made those for the
ACL. That created a problem. The motor on the camera was designed for 200-ft rolls of film, and
sometimes would strain to pull the heavier 400-ft rolls, especially at the beginning of the roll. Sometimes
this would result in a strobing effect: as the motor labored to get up to 24 frames per second, it would
actually run at a slower speed for some frames, yielding longer exposure and brighter images. Then it
would get up to speed, producing properly exposed frames. Sometimes it would oscillate between the
two, producing the strobing effect. There are some scenes in the film where this is evident.
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 4
"
Grape harvesting moved from south to north with the advancing warm weather.
So the strike began in mid-April in Coachella, east of Los Angeles near Palm Springs
and not far from the Mexican border. By mid-summer the strike had moved into the
great San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys, which occupy most of the middle of the
state. By September the harvest was coming to a close, so the strike ended, and the
UFW turned back to the boycott to continue the struggle.
Post Production
"
As the strike ended I turned to editing the film. My memory is that I shot about
30,000 feet of film, about fifteen hours, a reasonable ratio for an hour film, but a
mountain of material for someone with virtually no editing experience. I had finished two
previous 16mm films while working in the Civil Rights Movement with the Southwest
Georgia Project, but I was completely untrained as a film editor, and my understanding
was primitive. Coming from still photography I envisioned each scene like a still
photograph, complete from camera start to stop, to be
strung together in some order, thematic or chronological. I
had no sense of rhythm, pacing or structure. Inserting a
cutaway was a new concept.
"
As I started work my equipment was equally primitive:
a four gang synchronizer with a “squawk box” for audio
and a small viewer. This was the kind of equipment I had
used on my two previous films. The poor quality of the
picture was surpassed only by the awful audio. Playing
four gang synchronizer
rewinds with viewer
the film and sound was done by manually turning the rewinds. Attempting to
approximate 24 frames per second was a challenge to dexterity which left little attention
to watch the picture or monitor the sound. If you wanted to hear more than one audio
track (narration? music?) things got really complicated. Keeping everything in sync was
very cumbersome. It occurred to me Iʼd better start putting marks on the film and sound
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 5
so I could re-establish sync the next time I worked on a roll, a primitive version of edge
numbering4.
"
I soon realized Iʼd never be able to edit the film this way. Luckily I had been
approached on a picket line during production by Frank Greer, who headed Public
Interest Communications in San Francisco. He volunteered to connect me with his
friend Robert Dalva, a seasoned film editor.5 I gratefully accepted the offer, and my
family (now four of us with the addition of Rebecca, born just before the strike started)
accepted the gracious invitation of Frank and his partner Karen Ohmans to move into
their home on Potrero Hill in San Francisco, and I went to work with Dalva.
"
Dalva was the head of the Commercial Division at American Zoetrope, Francis
Ford Coppolaʼs production company, then housed on Folsom Street in San Franciscoʼs
warehouse district. At first he put me on an upright Moviola, a classic piece of film
Upright Moviola!!
!
Four-Plate Steenbeck
editing equipment ubiquitous since the thirties. A big step up from the four gang
synchronizer, it was nonetheless a noisy, clattering machine, and certainly not state of
the art. But soon Dalva promoted me to a four-plate Steenbeck, a Ferrari by
comparison. I edited the film on that machine.
"
Without Dalvaʼs help “Fighting For Our Lives” probably never would have been
finished - at least not by me. He taught me how to edit, explaining everything from
structure to scene-to-scene cutting. Every filmmaker knows that editing is where a film
4
After the picture and sound are put in sync by the editor, the lab applies identical numbers to the edges
of each, so as they are handled they can easily be kept in sync. The video equivalent is time code.
5
Dalva edited “The Black Stallion”, for which he was nominated for an Academy Award, and directed the
sequel, “The Black Stallion Returns.” He also edited “Jurassic Park III”, “October Sky” and “Jumanji”.
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 6
is created, and this is especially true for documentaries, where there is no script to
guide the editor. Robert Dalva taught me to edit, and enabled me to make this film.
Finishing the Film
"
When I started editing the film back in La Paz, in my naivete I had told Cesar the
film would be complete in a matter of weeks. A week or two of winding the footage
through the synchronizer disabused me of that idea. Even after hooking up with Dalva I
continued to give Cesar optimistic projections - after all, I was now working on
professional equipment. But months passed. I was working hard, but it was a big task,
and I was engaged in on-the-job training as an editor.
"
Periodically I would return to La Paz with a dual system projector6 to screen the
film for Cesar and the unionʼs Board of Directors. Each screening left my audience
unimpressed. The limitations of the equipment and my still-developing skills as an editor
yielded cuts that were incomplete and unpolished.
"
Until the final cut. When I screened the final cut for Cesar and the unionʼs Board,
as the lights came up Cesar approached me and, clearly moved, said “You did it,
brother.” Of course that endorsement was very gratifying. But in retrospect I think it also
reflected Cesarʼs protection of me during the editing process. Originally promised in
weeks, the film had taken a year to edit. I imagine Cesar must have insulated me from
other union leaders who were advising him to call off this misguided project, or take it
out of my hands and give it to someone who knew what they were doing. For his
support I will always be grateful.
"
Every great social movement has its music, and the filmʼs soundtrack is blessed
with performances by Luis and Daniel Valdez and El Teatro Campesino. Luis also edited
my script, and it is his voice that narrates the film. And what a gift to be able to end the
film with the great voice of Joan Baez.
"
I sent the final cut of the film back to CFI where the camera original, kept safely
vaulted during the editing process, was now matched to my edited work print. And I did
the sound mix. The various sound elements - live dialogue, narration, music and sound
effects - were split out into multiple reels for mixing down to one track. Thanks to Dalva,
I had a state of the art facility to do that, Francis Ford Coppolaʼs sound studio at
American Zoetrope, where I had edited the film. I was finishing my film around the time
the sound mix for “The Godfather Part II” was being done by Walter Murch, a legend in
6
During editing the picture and sound are on separate reels - indeed, the “four plates” on the Steenbeck
editing machine are arranged to handle one roll of picture (one feed and one take up plate) and one of
sound. So to project the film you use a similar projector, with separate but synchronized picture and audio
playback. Having only one audio reel means you are very limited, usually to just dialogue, with no
narration, music or sound effects. I would try to compensate for this limitation by reading narration aloud
from a written script as the film was projected. At best the process gives the audience a very crude
approximation of what the finished film will be like.
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 7
film editing and sound design. I can still recall standing in the equipment room at the
back of the mixing studio watching him work on scenes from that film.
"
Of course Murch did not mix “Fighting For Our Lives.” That was done by Todd
Boekelheide, a young sound designer in the Zoetrope family, and his work was
excellent7 . He mixed the film to a professional Hollywood format, a 35mm three-track
magnetic master8 , rather than the more common 16mm one track format. Finding that
35mm master in the Wayne State Archives was critical to the full restoration of the film,
because it was as well preserved as the images, and yielded an excellent digital
transfer.
Distribution
"
The film was used by the union to highlight its struggle for survival and generate
support for the UFW boycott, which had been renewed in cities across the United States
and Canada. Cesar used his influence in the Hollywood community to arrange a big
fundraising screening. The film was subsequently nominated for an Academy Award in
1975 in the Feature Length Documentary category. “The Man Who Skied Down
Everest” won the prize.
Restoring the Film
"
In March of 2007 I received this e-mail from Ed Carter:
I am writing to you about your film FIGHTING FOR OUR LIVES. I am the
Documentary Curator of the Academy of Motion Pictures, and one of my
duties is acquiring the best possible film prints of Academy Award
Nominated films for our permanent collection. We do have a print of
FIGHTING FOR OUR LIVES, but its condition is not so good -- the color
is pretty faded, it has bad scratches, and there are many splices. Do you
have, or know the whereabouts, of either the original negative or any
printing elements? We would be interesting in having a new print made, to
add to our collection. Any help you could provide would be greatly
appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you.
7
8
Boekelheide won an Academy Award in 1984 for his work on “Amadeus”.
In the technology of the day, by the time a film was ready to be finished the editor had compiled multiple
rolls of audio: dialogue, sound effects, music, narration, etc. Because each of these various elements
often overlapped (dialogue, music and narration running at the same time, for example), each of these
elements usually had multiple reels. Thus for a “simple” documentary there could be eight or ten or twelve
rolls of audio to be mixed down to one (only one, because 16mm film was monophonic). For feature films
there were often dozens of sound rolls assembled for a mix. 16mm films were usually mixed down to a
single 16mm master sound track. 35mm feature films were usually mixed down to a “three stripe” 35mm
master track - a magnetic track 35mm wide with three separate sound tracks, usually dialogue, effects
and music. “Fighting For Our Lives” was mixed to this more robust feature format, with separate music,
narration and dialogue+effects tracks.
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 8
I wrote Carter back saying “It is propitious that you should write at this time, because I
have recently begun an effort to locate the original materials with the hope of preserving
them.”
"
Around the same time I began to get inquiries from other filmmakers interested in
incorporating clips from my film into new films they were producing about Cesar or the
farm worker movement. Some of them had located pieces of my film at Wayne State
University, and were asking about securing the rights to use them. I referred them to the
Cesar Chavez Foundation, established to preserve and protect the legacy of Cesar and
the UFW. But these inquiries were a reminder that, while at the UFW, I was aware that
the union was establishing an archive at Wayne State to preserve its historic records.
"
So I contacted Wayne State. Indeed, they said, they had a sizable collection of
film materials from the UFW. When I started inquiring about specifics, (like the “A” and
“B” rolls of camera original from which the final film was produced; or the magnetic track
master audio mix), the silence from the other end of the phone reminded me that no one
born after the film was made would have any idea what I was talking about. The
technology had changed completely, migrating from film to video to digital, and my
questions were like asking a newspaper reporter about how the Guttenberg Bible was
made. It was clear I would have to go out there in person.
"
The UFW film was stored at the Walter Reuther Labor Archive at Wayne State
University in Detroit. I made my first visit there on April 23, 2013. I was thrilled to find
that the film materials had been kept in cold storage, necessary to prevent deterioration.
The archive has a large cold room, whose temperature is maintained at about 50degrees. The UFW film materials were a small but significant part of the collection
stored there.
CFI storage can with my original film
"
The archive staff at Wayne State was as
friendly and helpful as I could have hoped for.
They had pulled a dozen or two cans from the
vaults that they thought might be what I was
searching for. Eastman Kodak sold its film in
round cans, and filmmakers and labs often
reused the same cans for storage. However,
Consolidated Film Industries (CFI), the
Hollywood lab where I had the film processed,
used square cans to store their materials. So I
was thrilled to find among those the archivists
had pulled several CFI cans.
"
My excitement only grew when I opened them and examined the contents. The
leaders on the rolls of film inside bore information indicating that these were indeed the
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 9
camera original “A” and “B” rolls.9 And I was thrilled to find my personal notes to the CFI
color timer, typed up in November of 1974, with instructions on how I wanted specific
scenes timed.10 I thought I had found what I came for.
"
Not only that, I also found in the Archive the 35mm 3-track magnetic master
sound mix.
"
Mary Joann Wallace and Elizabeth Myers and the staff at the Reuther Center
were beyond accommodating, they were gracious. After explaining that I wanted to
restore my film to a modern, digital format, they were very cooperative about allowing
me to remove the materials and take them to a lab for that purpose.
"
The lab I chose for that job was Colorlab in Rockville, Maryland, just outside
Washington, DC. Susan and I had moved to that area in 1979, and in 1981 I started my
own film production company, and from then on Colorlab was where I (and most of the
other filmmakers in the Washington area) had lab work done. By 2013 analog film
technology was dying, but Colorlab had done a good job of adapting, and was heavily
devoted to the conversion of film materials into modern digital formats for restoration
and preservation. One of their biggest clients was the United States Government,
archivist of vast amounts of film from the preceding century. Russ Suniewick, president
of Colorlab, had guided the lab through film and video and digital transitions for all its
years, and I took “Fighting For Our Lives” directly to him.11
"
Russ and I spooled a few feet of the original film off the CFI rolls and we were
both very pleased with what we saw. “This looks like it was shot yesterday,” he said. The
exposure was good and the colors true, a testament to the excellent conditions for
preservation at Wayne State.
"
The only disappointment was discovery that one element was missing. Because
of its hour length the film had been divided in two, each half of which had an “A” and a
“B” roll of picture. I had found three of the four rolls; one was missing. I was both
mystified and worried, because I had examined all of the “square” CFI storage cans.
"
So I made a return trip to Wayne State. Going through the UFW archives again I
noticed one of those round Eastman Kodak cans with an odd label. I opened it and
9
I was not able to view the images on the film itself. The archive did not have the equipment to permit
that - not even rewinds and a viewing table (see p. 4 above). They did have an old Steenbeck editing
table (see p. 5 above), but it was broken. Its condition was irrelevant, because I would not have risked
damaging the original film by running it through an editing machine.
10
Film timing is the equivalent of todayʼs color grading in video, or manipulating color and contrast of stills
or graphics in Photoshop or similar programs. However, the old film tools were more primitive, limited to
changes in exposure, hue or saturation over the entire image through a series of color filters.
11
I was fearful that the AMPAS would want the film sent to Hollywood for restoration, but when I informed
them of my wish to work with Colorlab they accepted immediately. Colorlabʼs work in restoration and
preservation had given them a national reputation, even in Hollywood.
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 10
there was the missing roll of camera original film. I was lucky to find it. Not only had it
been stored incorrectly (not in the the square CFI can), the label on the can gave no
indication of its true contents.
"
I brought the final roll to Russ, who had his technicians do a digital transfer from
all four camera original “A” and “B” rolls. I used these files to digitally restore the film.
"
I did the restoration work in Final Cut Pro 7.0.3. Colorlab had done a “one light”
transfer, so each scene needed color correction (or “grading” as it has come to be
called). And each scene needed to be matched to those surrounding it - a sequence of
shots at the same or similar location and time of day needs to look similar. This work
took several months.
"
My guiding principal was to restore the film, not “improve” it. Todayʼs digital
technology enables images to be manipulated in ways not possible at the time the film
was made. I was determined to avoid that. A simple test: would a viewer find the
experience of watching the restored version on a good HD monitor comparable to
viewing a projected 16mm print?
The upper right corner of this frame exhibits a fine
example of emulsion buildup.
"
I decided to extend this
“restore, not improve” principle even
to obvious flaws. For example, you
may recall (p. 3) my ignorance of
the practice of cleaning the gate in
the camera. The result can be
scratches in the original film, or
emulsion buildup as the film is
pulled across the gate opening
where it is exposed, and the edges
of the gate scrape off some
emulsion. At a few places the film
exhibits each problem, especially
significant emulsion debris in the
corner of some images. This kind of
problem could be fixed with todayʼs
“Photoshop” techniques. I decided
to leave these flaws in place, just as
they appeared in the original film.
"
I made two small exceptions. On the picture side I inserted new titles digitally. I
did this for several reasons. Firstly, while I had recovered the “A” and “B” rolls of camera
original film, I had not found the title rolls (“C” and “D” rolls from which the titles in the
16mm film are superimposed photographically on the images). As part of restoring the
film to its original 16mm analog format for the AMPAS, Colorlab planned to rebuild the
title rolls and produce a new internegative of the film, from which a new print would be
made. Russ suggested that I do my digital restoration from that internegative. But I
Making and Restoring “Fighting For Our Lives”!
p. 11
didnʼt want to wait for that lengthy process to be completed. Also I wanted to restore the
film from the camera original and not a second generation internegative. And I knew
digital titles would look cleaner and be more legible12. Nonetheless I stuck to my
“restore, not improve” principle in other important ways: I tried to approximate the
original font and size, and I also kept the duration consistent - a significant concession,
since I had long felt that many titles are displayed too briefly. Lastly, I added the people
and organizations who had made the digital restoration possible to the filmʼs ending
credits.
"
On the audio side, having three separate tracks enabled me to make two or three
very small adjustments where I thought some dialogue was buried under music or
effects, allowing me to boost the dialogue and lower the competing audio. Otherwise the
soundtrack is as originally mixed. These violations of my “restore, not improve” principle
were very minor, affecting no more than a few seconds of the sound mix, and do not
reflect a criticism of Boekelheideʼs excellent work, for which I remain grateful.
"
When I authored the DVD and Blu-ray versions of the restored film I made
another concession to modern technology: I added the option of screening segments of
the film, or “Chapters.” I wanted the give viewers the option of reviewing parts of the film
without having to search the disk manually, a worthwhile feature of DVD technology.
"
Without otherwise comparing myself to the master, like Orson Welles I probably
made my best film on my first attempt. While arguably not my first, since I had done two
previous films in Georgia, “Fighting For Our Lives” was the first film I produced
professionally, using industry standard equipment and techniques. Forty years later I
feel it holds up well, both technically and cinematically. I hope you find the same to be
true.
"
Of course the film would have no power without its subject and its story, people
struggling for justice. The farm worker and civil rights movements are two of the great
stories of twentieth century America. I am grateful to have been able to witness and
record some of that history.
Glen Pearcy
Barnesville, Maryland
February, 2015
www.GlenPearcyProductions.com
12
In another small violation of the “restore, not improve” principle, I also added a subtle drop shadow to
the titles for better legibility. This was especially important in scenes where the white titles appear over a
bright background.