When one thinks of Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and presidential candidate, the first word that comes to mind is probably not “sitcom.” But it was for Steve Skrovan.
Skrovan, codirector of “An Unreasonable Man,” a documentary about Nader that opens today in Los Angeles, first wanted to create a show based on the experiences of his friend Henriette Mantel.
“She had worked for Ralph as an office manager in late ’70s and early ’80s,” Skrovan said. “She would tell me stories about working for Ralph. I thought that would be a good setting for a show ““ a public interest office.”
Skrovan did not pursue the idea further until much later on, when he was a writer for “Everybody Loves Raymond” and got a development deal.
“Years later, I ran into (Skrovan) and he said, “˜What have you ever done with all those Nader stories?'” Mantel said.
Skrovan initially went with his original sitcom concept, but once he learned more about the person ““ and legend ““ of Ralph Nader, the project took a different form.
“I started reading more about Nader for research and even wrote an outline for a pilot,” said Skrovan. “But I didn’t know that much about him ““ I was blown away by how much he accomplished and by the fact that a lot of his friends were mad at him (about his involvement in the 2000 presidential election). That’s when the idea of a documentary came about, to just tell his story. The idea that someone is a folk hero and becomes a sort of pariah is an interesting story arc.”
Mantel agreed on this new direction, realizing that Nader’s story would lend itself well to a realistic telling.
“The more we got into it, talking to real people, we realized it had to be a documentary,” she said.
Mantel got on board as a codirector, and the pair dived in headfirst, despite being first-time directors (their backgrounds are in writing).
They received Nader’s approval to make the film in 2003 and immediately started interviewing his friends and foes. After talking to 47 people over the next year and a half, Skrovan and Mantel saved Nader for last, interviewing him in 2005 over the course of three days.
“An Unreasonable Man” follows Nader from his days as an advocate for such consumer causes as car safety, to his public interest work on Capitol Hill (during which he was responsible for the passage of numerous landmark pieces of legislation), to his much-maligned runs for the presidency in 2000 and 2004.
The film features interviews from sources as diverse as journalist James Ridgeway, former California gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo, and former presidential candidate (and noted conservative) Pat Buchanan.
Skrovan and Mantel happened to start work on the documentary right before Nader declared his candidacy for the 2004 election, which gave the directors a sort of ready-made explosive centerpiece for the film.
“We didn’t know it was going to happen,” Skrovan said. “That’s when people really felt outraged. Because as much as people scapegoated him in 2000, what really seemed to appall people was that he would do it again. That idea seemed to really be offensive. What was good about having him declare again was that we shaped (the film) around him running again. So the movie sort of starts with that and is heading toward “˜Why? Why is he doing that?'”
Nader’s actions became increasingly politically divisive, as evidenced by such clips as those of his former friend Jimmy Carter excoriating him for running in 2004, and die-hard liberals Michael Moore and Bill Maher getting down on their knees to beg him not to run.
Despite this, Skrovan and Mantel strove to include sharp sentiments from all sides without favoring any particular viewpoint ““ a course of action which, for them, is in the service of simply telling a good story.
“The more we talked to people, the more people had an opinion,” Mantel said. “It’s not wishy-washy opinion when you mention Ralph Nader. We were kind of just letting the story lead us. … It’s interesting; following the story is much easier than making up the story.”
And in a story of the man responsible for the standardization of air bags and seat belts and who once called hot dogs “missiles of death” for their harmful additives, some of the most substantive parts have become obscured by labels of “spoiler” and “egotist.”
Skrovan’s objective as a documentarian was never to pedestal Nader, but to at least bring some of Nader’s non- (or not-as-) political accomplishments to the same level as his recent headlines.
“We put the political part of his career in the context of his whole career,” said Skrovan. “We weren’t out to rehabilitate him; we were just out the tell the story of someone who is an important historical figure. This is not a lightweight figure; this is an historical figure who deserves a fair hearing of his story.”
The reaction of the main character to his own story is especially interesting, in light of Nader’s complicated relationship with the spotlight, explored by the film.
“For Ralph Nader, (the film is) really just a functional thing ““ if it will remind people of this history and recruit young people to civic activism, it will have done its job,” Skrovan said. “As far as being something that calls attention to himself, he’s embarrassed by that.”