Time for another IBL interview, this time with producer/director of the independent film "Ghost Bird," Scott Crocker. Most readers here are by now probably familiar with this award-winning documentary, even if you haven't had a chance to see it yet. I actually emailed Scott these questions some months back, but probably wouldn't change them much if I were doing the interview anew today. His answers are both interesting and sometimes provocative. Enjoy....
1. CT: Although your film, "Ghost Bird," shows both sides of the IBWO story, I think it leaves the impression that you lean toward the belief that the original claims were mistaken/overblown, and the Ivory-bill is most likely now extinct. Is that a fair summary of your current viewpoint?
SC: I originally set out to make a film that explored both sides of the debate more fully and left the viewer to wrestle with the uncertainty of the Ivory-bill's continued existence. The further I got into the project however, this intention changed to reflect a more skeptical point of view. The main reason for this was the uncooperativeness of Cornell in not allowing their search team staff and associated recovery participants to be interviewed. Their circle of control widened out to individuals who were not employed by Cornell but were under their immediate influence.
Obviously, this limited who I could interview and which perspectives I could include in the film. As time passed, there was a broadening of the debate between believers and skeptics, and as passionately as it was argued by both sides within the birding community, this heated discussion didn't really travel beyond the birding world. My conversations with non-birders left me with the impression that while most folks had heard about the rediscovery of an extinct woodpecker, they were unaware that the rediscovery had been contested by other scientists and birding experts. Furthermore, people often attributed evidence to the rediscovery that had not been obtained, like clear photographs or roost holes with feathers or eggs in them. Since the confirmation of the Ivory-bill's existence carried more popular weight than the criticism of the evidence, the more skeptical perspective that Ghost Bird ended up having seemed to right the imbalance. Based on the general feedback I have heard from viewers, the film achieves this delicate balance.
On a related note, I am often asked what I think about the bird's existence. While I did a lot of poking around and had lengthy conversations with many of the better informed people chasing Ivory-bill's, I think the question misses the mark. Whether I think it is or isn't alive doesn't mean very much. The more central question that I believe the film raises for viewers is whether the search beginning in 2004 compromised the scientific method in its effort to confirm the species persistence. My personal answer to that question is "yes". That still leaves open the question as to whether the bird was seen flying through the Bayou DeView. Without irrefutable evidence to support the alleged sightings, only the eye-witnesses have an answer to that. The rest of us are left choosing between believing that they saw an Ivory-bill, or not. Unfortunately, no matter how you look at it, that is a choice of faith not science.
2. CT: Were there any individuals who you really wished to interview or otherwise include in the film who refused to participate, and can you say why they chose not to take part?
SC: While there are many people I wanted to interview for the film, most of them originally agreed to participate. It was only after agreeing to being interviewed that they retracted their consent. In the case of Cornell search leader Martjan Lammertink, his consent was retracted for him by the Lab of Ornithology's Director of Communications. Needless to say, that set a strong precedent with respect to the Lab's position on my interviewing their people. As I previously mentioned, the Lab exerted its influence over numerous others beyond just the individuals who had signed non-disclosure agreements with them. This sounds like paranoia or a conspiracy theory, after all we are talking about scientific research and a major university, both of which we expect to meet our expectations of openness and inclusiveness. However, my experience has been corroborated by both a senior editor and a writer at Science, the same publication that originally published Cornell's confirmation paper. The bottom line is that individuals who had agreed to be interviewed were coerced not to participate.
This leads one to ask why would the Cornell Lab of Ornithology do this? What is most telling is that most of the interview denials happened in 2005, before the public skepticism had really galvanized. My sense is that initially, the Lab's exclusivity and control of access to people and information was driven by their understandable desire to keep the story from being scooped. After all, they immanently anticipated finding an active roost hole and photographing Ivory-bills at close range. As the months flew by, their coercive behavior looked more and more defensive. After several search seasons ended empty-handed, their controlling behavior appeared more like damage control.
While it may sound shocking, I have spoken with a number of people who work in academia that say Cornell is hardly alone in this kind of activity which is becoming increasingly common as research funding gets tighter and the race to publish accelerates. Sadly, science takes a back seat.
3. CT: Were there certain people whose views you found particularly convincing and well-thought-out among all those you interviewed?
SC: Everybody I interviewed had something to offer so it is hard to single anyone out. I especially appreciated David Luneau's contributions. As someone who has searched for Ivory-bills for over a decade, both independently and with Cornell, he was able to put a lot into perspective. He is also really methodical and was possibly one of the most thoughtful scientists involved with the searchers. Where others were quick to express optimism, David seemed to maintain a healthy degree of open mindedness. Jerome Jackson has also been a great resource and was incredibly generous with his time and knowledge. This is nicely illustrated by one of the nine extra scenes included on the DVD where Jerome leads a tour of his collection Ivory-bill memorabilia. It's truly astonishing and a reminder both of the profound legacy of the Ivory-bill and the tragedy of its demise as a species.
4. CT: Have you been at all surprised by the success and positive reviews of "Ghost Bird," or did you reasonably expect that it would strike a chord with viewers?
SC: I knew the birding world was fascinated by this subject, but my decision to make the movie was based on my I belief that the story of the Ivory-billed woodpecker had an important environmental message for everyone. The bird is iconic in its own right but it is also emblematic of other species that have needlessly gone extinct or had their populations severely reduced. What I was not sure of was whether I could tell the story in a way that would successfully resonate with a wider audience. Having poured five years of my life into Ghost Bird, I am incredibly grateful for the positive reviews that indicate I accomplished this. It is professionally very validating to have one of the more demanding critics at the New York Times write that the film is "a multilayered story that will fascinate practically everybody."
5. CT: In the making of "Ghost Bird" was there any one thing that stood out for you as the most surprising or unexpected element/occurrence that you hadn't foreseen?
SC: The most surprising thing I discovered while making the film had to do with the way government funds for searching for Ivory-bills had been robbed from grants to protect endangered species like Kirtland's warbler. This struck me as a disturbingly cynical way of celebrating the rediscovery of a species already believed extinct. Unfortunately, it also made a lot of sense given the Bush Administration's lip service with respect to environmental issues while at the same time it was de-listing species or increasing tolerance levels for toxins. In keeping with this underhandedness, I found it appropriately ironic when Gale Norton, who first announced the Ivory-bill's rediscovery, left her position as Secretary of the Interior to work as legal consul for Shell Oil. It's a slippery slope!
6. CT: A real hypothetical here: IF, in the next year say, the Ivory-bill was once-and-for-all documented to EVERYONE'S satisfaction, would you do some sort of follow-up to the story? Either another film or re-release of "Ghost Bird" with new material added?
SC: At this point I feel like the film does a really good job of chronicling the arch of the story beginning with the announcement all the way through to the loud silence of the inconclusive end to the search. It is an important time capsule. Were the bird to be irrefutably documented tomorrow, that would definitely upset the thrust of the movie which is fundamentally about uncertainty. In a strange way however, the current film would then become more about its own uncertainty rather than our collective uncertainty, which is still a powerful and profound message in an age of overwhelming information masquerading as knowledge. That said, it would be very tempting to do an epilogue for the next printing of the DVD.
7. CT: For fans, when will the film be out for purchase on DVD?
SC: The DVD is now available with forty minutes of extra scenes at www.ghostbirdmovie.com. We also have a cool Ivory-bill t-shirt that collectors and fans of the contemporary artist Mark Dion will love.
8. CT: What project(s) are you working on now?
SC: Believe it or not, Ghost BIrd still takes up most of my time coordinating materials for community screenings, launching the Educational Edition and promoting awareness of the film and the issue of species loss. I do have a project in suspended development about alternative energy and the race to find a silver bullet to our disappearing petroleum resources. You can get a preview at http://www.worldsfastestsubmarine.com.
9. CT: Anything else you care to pass along about the IBWO saga and your film that readers might be interested in knowing?
SC: One conspiracy theory about the rediscovery that I didn't have time to finish exploring has to do with the role of the Army Corps of Engineers and their plans to redirect and control the waters of the Bayou DeView on behalf of agribusiness in need of reliable irrigation for soybean and rice cultivation. Once the Ivory-bill was rediscovered, their plans have been put on indefinite hold. Sounds far fetched, but this is a huge industry in the Brinkley area, and it wouldn't be the first time a swamp was saved from destruction by unconfirmed claims that Ivory-bills lived there (read about Alex Sanders and the Santee Swamp). I am not implying the whole thing was a hoax, only that one guy in a kayak may have embellished a little to help preserve "the natural state". The rest, as they say, is history. True or not, I think if a similar hoax could have saved the Singer Tract and its Ivory-bills along with it, most people would have welcomed the deception.
CT: Thanks Scott, for your interesting, thought-provoking responses here, and continued good luck in your future film-making endeavors.
==> I realize some readers may take issue with various comments Scott makes here. I don't want to stifle opinion, but I will ask commenters to remain civil and on-point with any critical feedback they wish to offer. (...I'm grateful to all my interviewees who take time from busy schedules to answer a blogger's questions, and they ought feel free to voice their sincere opinions without concern about the tone of reader-response.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
