Q: Your documentary film, "If I Could" was born out of a film you made in 1979 for CBS Reports called "The Wagon Train Trial." Let's start there. How did that come about?

In 1979, on my way home from shooting another story for a CBS magazine show, I stumbled upon an article in Parade magazine which talked about a wagon train for troubled kids. They took the 'throwaway kids' that the system had discarded and nobody really wanted. It sounded like a really compelling story to me, and it was an issue I knew very little about.

I was a young producer, I wasn't that far way from being a teenager myself, and the plight of these children seemed unfathomable to me. I sold the concept to my executive producer for a 12 minute magazine piece and proceeded to trek out to Arizona to start filming. The real thing that hit me, was seeing the pain at such an incredibly heightened level that you could almost touch it---it was so moving. It was a bit earthshaking, because what it said to me was, that this was the beginning of the unraveling of the fabric of our families at their core. The months of filming and editing this story changed my outlook on the way society dealt with its institutionalized and incarcerated youth. I guess I realized for the first time, how we 'wasted' kids just like we waste a lot of other things in our culture.

Q: How did your first meeting with Bob Burton go?

The first day I met Bob Burton, the founder of VisionQuest. I was intrigued and suspicious all at the same time. Suspicious, because he was doing something that no one else was doing. He was convinced he was doing the right thing, but he had a lot of controversy surrounding him. Some traditionalists in the field thought he was using kids to float an idea.

I thought to myself, "Was it really helping kids or was his style of intense confrontation at that time really abusive?" However, I was intrigued because that same intensity that he had, was also the same thing that was connecting these defiant and angry kids back into the world. He told me he had nothing to hide. As far as I was concerned, I needed to find that out or myself.

Q: And how did Tracy get into the mix?

I had decided that out of the 90 kids on the wagon train that were traveling between southern Arizona over the Rockies and back home to Denver, I was going to select and intently follow five of them. On the first day out, this 14 year-old teenage girl, very articulate, dramatic and full of rage, burst onto the scene in a major confrontation with one of the staff. First, I heard her voice, then, I saw her eyes darting through her long dark tresses.

Her name was Tracy and she demanded attention when things weren't 'going her way. As a filmmaker, first I saw a character---a film subject that jumped off of the screen. And as I watched her throughout the day, I was aware that she had the right balance of guts, beauty, pain and vulnerability to tell an emotionally compelling story. She, on the other hand, wanted very little to do with me and my cameras. She only saw intruders and strangers who were in her way.

Q: You must have been pretty proud of that film. What was it like for you as a young filmmaker?

This film was supposed to be a 12 minute piece for 30 Minutes, the teenage version of 60 Minutes. After my first five-day shoot, I came back to CBS in New York knowing in my heart that I was on to something---something that really deserved to be told in long form. It was pretty inconceivable at that moment, because hour long docs were hard to come by, and they rarely bloomed out of magazine pieces.

But I was young, determined and passionate about this project and wouldn't quit until I got the Vice-President of CBS News to sit down and watch some footage. I got my hour, but most of all, from that day on, no longer was it my success about my assignment. At that moment this film had a life of its own and was off on a journey to uncover hidden truths and harsh realities. And I thought to myself, "Wow, I'd better be able to do this right, because this is important." One of the old-timers at CBS said to me, "This is good stuff, but I can't guarantee that your viewers are prepared to understand it." The challenge for me was, "How do I tell this story in a way that people are going to be forced to hear it and get it?" It was a lot of responsibility for someone in their 20's.

Q: What are you most proud of about the 1979 film?

That I was able to make a film that did not resemble anything that was going on CBS REPORTS. It didn't have talking heads; it didn't have a lot of experts; it didn't have the news-edged approach. For its time, it had a more a feature feel, yet it still had an investigation, it still had information. It was a real story with a beginning, a middle and an end.

No one knew what it would look like in the end. The film didn't go back and cover something in the past. It was unfolding drama, in the here and now. I knew back then that there were purists who turned their nose up at this film, but it never bothered me. People were drawn to the film, because it was something that they hadn't seen. The really exciting part was that people were getting it. It energized them. They were starting to care about those 'throwaway kids' that nobody ever thought about. And it felt good, because by now, I cared deeply about them.

Q: Did you keep in touch with the film's subjects?

Tracy was a very memorable film subject in "The Wagon Train Trial." People remembered her name and asked me about her wherever I went. I stayed in touch with her on and off for a couple of years. She would write me letters and I would try to inspire her to write, because the journal she kept on the wagon train was prolific and honest.

Tracy was 'hanging in there,' even though her mother was alternately homeless and jobless and her life was far from easy. Then we lost touch for a long period of time until we reconnected in the late 80's. She had a 2 year-old son named James and a baby on the way. Tracy was struggling with her husband, Jimmy, and I tried be a friend and advisor whenever I could. It was a long-distance relationship, but ever since we formed that first solid bond on the wagon train, the trust continued over the years.

As far as Bob Burton goes, we had numerous professional contacts in the 80's. Out of curiosity and interest, I kept abreast of what was happening with the program over the years. Watching its development and its evolution with the times.

I saw Bob Burton go from a youthful maverick, who had a healthy ego and large heart, to a serious and pragmatic childcare professional who kept wanting to create new ways to make things better in his field. He truly believed that he could and would influence the system in America by not locking up kids. Probably what I admired the most about him, was his willingness to take risks and his ability to see his mistakes and try to fix them.

One thing that has never changed since I've known him, is his love for, and devotion to, children. In the 90's, the alternatives to youth corrections were starting to emerge. I came to understand that his program, VisionQuest, and the man, Bob Burton, played an important and effective part of this new way of treating troubled kids, and that without them there was very little fuel to keep the fires burning. I realized that even if you didn't agree with everything he said or did, that you had to appreciate Bob's courage to 'take the heat' and continue to fight for his vision. He was determined to give every kid a fair chance at life. My feeling is, "This is America and it's guys like that that have the right to be heard. He's earned it."

Q: Okay. It's twenty years later. How did the story come to life again?

Late one afternoon in March 1999, while sitting in my office, I got a telephone call from Bob Burton who said, 'You'll never believe who called me." I said, "Who?" He said, " Tracy Marasco. Your girl from the wagon train." I told Bob how we'd kept in touch over the years, but we hadn't actually spoken in about twelve years. He said that she wanted to speak to me and gave me her number. He also told me that he had just agreed to take her 12 year-old son, James, into the program on scholarship.

Bob said that it was at that moment that the knew why he was in this field. "When you see these histories comin' around again, you understand the importance of the commitment you've made to families from generations before. It's not their failures--- just that they don't have strong support systems in their families and communities---and that once you step in, you can't really step out."

Hearing his words, my head began to spin. As a filmmaker, I saw in front of me, an opportunity that most storytellers never get---a time-arc of great proportion. And, hopefully I could get the footage from the past to reveal a family's modern day plight. As a human being, I was concerned for Tracy, her son and her family. But I was relieved to know that there was somebody from her past who was willing to intervene and help her change the dynamic of her life.

It's very interesting to me that even though she had succeeded in many ways after her wagon train experience by curtailing criminality and many other negative aspects that could've destroyed her life, there were still other more complicated parts of her family history that she couldn't handle. And the community and her family had no tools to support her.

It became very clear to me that success and failure can parallel and intersect lives on the way towards one direction or the other. She was choosing success and her journey has been a long and bumpy one. Someone else might have come to the same crossroads and self-destructed. And then, it really hit me like a thunderbolt when Bob stepped up to the plate for Tracy all these years later. And I said to myself, "This is what's wrong, no one wants to commit, they want quick fixes and if it's not fixed, they're out...oh well, another failure. Tracy was worth fighting for and at that moment we both knew it."

Q: When did you commit to making this film?

When Tracy and I spoke on the phone, the conversation lasted three hours. We found ourselves back in the same familiar environment, one of trust and of respect for each others purpose. She recapped the last twelve years of her life and the horrific progression of her son's deterioration in the system in Colorado. I felt tremendous sadness and even more, anger at this revelation.

I knew I had to make a film, but I wasn't sure whether Tracy was ready or willing because 'to do this right' it would have to be a dramatic and intimate film, one that would show honesty of the intergenerational issues, but most likely her own dysfunction and vulnerability.

In other words, the greatness of the film would be at her expense. I talked with her about this and told her it was entirely her decision and that of her family. She needed time, because she also knew that if she did this, she would do it 'all the way.' She admitted that the only reason she was even considering it, was that she hoped she could give back to others what she had been given over the years. Tracy understood that by exposing her wounds and the damage that they had caused, it could possibly help heal the many others whose lives paralleled her own.

Once Tracy was on board, I had to make sure Bob was comfortable with our cameras returning to a VisionQuest camp to follow James. He agreed as long as Tracy and James accepted the situation. We were off and running with great energy and focus. It was a little while before we realized we were 'rowing upstream without a paddle.'

Q: Financially, how did you pull this off?

In the beginning, money was the last thing on my mind, even though I knew somewhere in the far reaching corner of my brain that it was a serious issue for us. My enthusiasm for the story encouraged my partners to "jump off of the cliff" with me.

My partner, Michael Miller, had been with me 20 years ago when I made the first film. There was very little debate, it was just understood amongst us that we would make this film. With that said, we weren't fools and we knew that we had to get to work to raise some money. Actually, on day one, our crew was there filming without any funding. I'll tell you this much... we didn't leave home without our American Express card.

We shot from April through August with no guarantee of funds. There was a lot of interest, but nothing yet in bank and for some reason it didn't distract us from our mission. Our responsibility and our commitment to make this film overshadowed any of our economic deficits. We just kept believing that something good would happen...and then one day, it did. An angel (an anonymous Hollywood celebrity) flapped her wings and swept away the first chunk of debt we had accrued. We were back on track and at this point, we felt the fate of it and our desire to complete this film became unstoppable.

We've had a few more 'angels' along the way, including a private investor from Denver and a corporate sponsorship partner in AT&T. By the way, AT&T stuck their neck out with a film this raw and edgy, because they believed it was time to stand up for something. Since this is a feature documentary that took over a year and half to shoot, with numerous locations and high production values, not to mention editing, this film still remains under-financed, as we continue to seek other sponsors or individuals who want to help us with finishing funds.

Q: Once you decided to go forward with it, who did you enlist to work on it and why?

When you're an independent producer and you have your own company, your vision of a film includes your partners at the onset. For me, the four of us ,who make up FILMSTERS, work closely together and know our strengths and our weaknesses. We are there to support each other and build a team.

Michael Miller, my writing and producing partner, whom I've known the longest, lives in L.A., but we communicate as if we are together. His creativity inspires me. For well over twenty-fives years we've had a profe ssional bond and a close friendship that relies on respect, honesty and love of what we do. Sometimes we disagree on the little things, which just makes the work that much better and challenging. Yet we never disagree on the grand plan, why we are doing it and how much we care. Creating with Michael is like sitting in front of a warm fireplace.

Lee Anderson, who came to FILMSTERS in the mid-nineties, has given us the greatest gift. She has worked tirelessly and loyally to put our company on the map. Her energy and across-the-board talents have given us the organization it takes to move forward. When "If I Could" landed on our plate, Lee had enough faith and heart to take the heat as Line Producer and, sometimes against all odds, continued to make it happen. Lee and I run the East coast office with passion for our work, friendship and humor...we must not forget the laughter, and believe me, we don't.

Every film needs a champion. For us, that is David Dizenfeld. As a producing partner with FILMSTERS, David handles all of our business. "If I Could" was no easy scenario...an independent film with no up-front money, venue or distribution. David has taken the essence of the work and what it stands for, and has parlayed that into sponsorships, as well as creating new ideas for exposure for this project. It must be a FILMSTERS trait, but David is another one who won't give up and he never takes no for an answer. He'll be out there exploring new ways to get in the door. Marketing and the business of film might be his hook, but he is every bit as committed to the project and his partners, as the rest of us.

David Ewing, the Producer/Editor on "If I Could" and I had worked together before, in fact, we knew about each other for years and had been trying to find one another. When I finally tracked him down one day, I found out that he was in Egypt and offered him an editing job on wildlife film I was about to make for Turner on wolves. Creatively, we speak to each other in many ways...sometimes just by our presence. Dave has a way of understanding a vision. Visually and editorially, he captures the soul of a story. His quiet demeanor sometimes hides his fierce professionalism and talent for his craft. His sensitivity and editorial eye have been invaluable on this project.

As a group we decided on our crew, and in this case, we had a lot of faith. Our cameraman and soundman were recommended, but we had never worked with them before. They were from Oklahoma City, which was our first location, and neither of them had done a long-form documentary before. In my first conversation with Director of Photography, Jim Green, I knew that if he could shoot half as well as he understood and valued the effort and the purpose of making this film, that we were heading in the right direction. After seeing the dailies, any concerns I might have had dissolved. I knew Jim was going to shoot the hell out of this thing...and I was excited!

His partner, Larry Wallace, 'guru sound man' who had traveled the world doing amazing sound for famous rock stars, was at heart, a Texas cowboy. His attention to detail, his ability to catch intimate moments, and his unrelenting quest for top quality sound was a huge part of the power of this film.

Between Jim & Larry combined, they received one bloodied shoulder from 20 straight hours of shooting, several ruined pairs of wet and muddied shoes, bug bites, rashes, stains from kneeling in horse shit, one case of the flu, one sprained ankle on the battlefields of Gettysburg, not to mention the daily emotional upheavals and verbal abuse from troubled kids. To top it off, we ended up with a soundman who burst his eardrums on the last flight home.

I was pleasantly surprised that after all of this, they hadn't lost their sense of humor. One day, in his dry tone, Jim pointed out an old shriveled up, hunched-over cowboy who resembled an aged Willie Nelson. He turned Larry and said, "See that guy over there? He was the cameraman on Patti's last film." And Larry never ceases to remind me that, "I gotta piece of my ass in this film." I love these guys.

In my years working at CBS NEWS, I was never allowed to use music to underscore the developing story. Now as an independent filmmaker, the documentary world has changed and music has become a big part of it. I've tried very hard never to abuse the opportunity to use music. My CBS training taught me that.

Ron Riddle, a gifted musician and composer, brings to this project a rare insight into the film's evolution. He's one of the few composers who wants to spend time discussing the characters in the film, what's driving the story and its emotional highs and lows. He and I spent hours discussing motivation and feelings throughout the whole project. I remember the day we all listened to his rough tracks and how it brought our film to life. In fact, it may have been my first real goosebumps.

As this film became its own entity, I often describe it as a ski boat and I'm the skier behind it. The boat is going and I'm just hanging on. It was definitely on its own path. We had all been thinking about the name of this film and what direction we should go in.

Early on in the project, Michael called from L.A. one day with a concept. He remembered a song that had been recorded numerous times by different artists, entitled "If I Could" . It was a mother's profound attempt to relay her regrets, fears and hopes for the future to her child. Not only did we love the song and its meaning, we realized how often Tracy used that phrase when describing different aspects of her life. So now, we had a title and a title song, we just needed a singer.

There was never any question in our minds who should sing this song for our film. I've known Baby Jane Dexter for over 25 years. What Baby Jane brings to her music is similar in honesty and vulnerability to Tracy's voice. Baby Jane's performances have evoked such depths of emotion in her audiences that people have come to know her as a 'musical healer.' And for this reason, hearing her poignant finale offers a chance for our audience to empathize with Tracy's journey. Her performance offers a fresh perspective. Baby Jane's involvement in this project has elevated its message.

Q: For you personally, what was the most difficult moment of filmmaking that you encountered?

There were a lot of difficult moments on this film, but there are two that jump out for me personally... that took me outside of my role as director. Having had the history with Tracy, and being there when she revealed her dark secrets at fourteen, it was extremely difficult for me to witness her coming face to face with her father.

That whole day was traumatic, but the moment that is seared into my psyche forever, was Tracy's emotional effort to be validated, begging her father to admit his abuse of her. And the only real comfort she was getting was from her twelve year-old son, who gently put his arm around her, letting her know he was there. Knowing how volatile her relationship was with James, even if that's the only time in their lives that this will happen for them...at least they have that.

The other situation was an explosive one. Lee and I found ourselves (after releasing the crew for a break) alone with Bob and James in Tracy's house. Anger had been building up inside of James throughout the day...he lost a football game, but more importantly Bob Burton was in town and he was putting his two cents in with Tracy about boundaries for James. The neighborhood was a threat to James' success and so was the lack of community support. James attacked Bob physically and verbally (not unlike the way many troubled boys rage at their fathers.) We had the DV camera and tried to capture the incident as it unfolded, without creating more tension and antagonizing James. It very difficult for us to watch Bob open himself up to a personal attack.

At first, we were unclear and didn't know what we should do, if anything, to help keep things safe. We didn't know whether there was an out-of-control situation here, but we took visual cues from Bob telling us to keep our distance. This was SO hard to watch on two counts. One, we were worried about Bob's safety, since he was alone in the incident. And two, we were worried about James' emotional state. We felt powerless in our ability to stop the tormenting James was doing to himself.

Fortunately, Bob stayed with him for many hours to bring him through it and to a resolution---explaining, so that James had an understanding of why these things have happened to him and why society is not going to accept it. Personally, I felt sick to my stomach. I've been asked the question, "Why did you keep shooting?" I don't know if I have an answer for that, other than my gut instinct was to keep rolling, with the understanding that if we don't tell a story in its full context, you never really get the truth.

Q: Why didn't you choose to do the film as a first person narrative from Tracy's perspective?

We thought long and hard about letting Tracy tell her story. It may have been an easier film to market as a first person narrative, but about half way through shooting this film, we came to understand the perspective and the opportunity we had to uncover profound truths. When the film subject tells their story, it is only their perspective that is realized and it is their perspective that drives the story. Because the issues were SO complicated, SO deep and SO controversial, we needed other points of view to clarify what was happening.

Q: Now, tell me about the editing process. How long did it take and what was the most challenging part of telling and structuring the story?

There would have been no editing and no film if we had not been able to secure the rights to the 1979 CBS footage from the CBS Reports: "The Wagon Train Trial." It's not something that CBS usually gives license to, but with my past relationships at the network and our convincing argument that this footage would lie in a heap of dust forever, as opposed to being used to make a powerful film, they respectfully said 'yes.'

The most complicated part of the editing process came in making the decision about whether this film would be a series of sound bites cut against old footage, or a longer more thorough unveiling of an intergenerational saga. As much as lengthy films are often difficult to sell, and watch, there are many reasons why we decided not to 'chop' this story to bare bones.

We determined that the story structure had four 'filets' or 'meaty parts.' The first segment that developed the story, involved James's revelation about his abuse in the classroom with Bob and his mother. After that, the story transitions, driving it to the next high point, which was Tracy confronting her father after seventeen years.

That section was particularly difficult to edit because we were not just looking to string together dramatic moments, but rather attempting to let each character be true to their own individuality. We were definitely in search of the truth. Nothing in this scene is out of context. We were very careful not to edit any of it out of context. Once we put Tracy and James' revelations behind us, we moved on to the next unfolding arc of the story. Editing action, as it happens, is exciting, yet protecting the reality is more imperative. It was the intervention with Bob and James that challenged us. We tried carefully and sensitively to reveal the boy and the man who was trying to heal him.

The final dramatic scene in the film occurred when Jimmy, James' father arrived on the scene. There were many ways we could've gone with this, because a lot of information and details of the reasons behind the dissolution of a family occurred in these hours. In fact, many very important aspects of their life is on the cutting room floor. Yet, we believe that we selected the parts of their life and history that answer the questions and connect the pieces of the rest of the film.

Q: Why did you choose Sally Field to narrate the film?

Sally Field has always been outspoken about mental health issues. As a single mother, who respectfully understands the plight of many American women, she has taken on dramatic roles to bring these difficult and often unpopular issues into the spotlight.

A champion in this area, Sally's down to earth, caring and smart choices have allowed audiences to change the way they think about people with these kinds of problems. When we asked her to narrate the film, her response was heartfelt---she truly understood what we were trying to do. I can't imagine anyone being more right for this than Sally. And she was a sheer delight to work with---prompt, professional and anxious to please.

Q: Who came back into the picture who was also around for the first film?

Well, the only person that worked full-time on this new project who had been part of the original project, was Michael Miller, my co-producer and co-writer. Twenty years ago, Michael had been with me on several of the longer shoots in the Colorado Rockies. There was something about being around the wagon train, and those kids, that was very seductive to us. While we were there, we were completely wrapped up in the world around us. Over the years, we talked about Tracy and mentioned her name often--- like a friend we haven't seen in a longtime---so when this all happened, we were right there.

Mimi Edmunds was the Associate Producer for CBS Reports at the time. She had just come back from a year in the Sudan and she was anxious to get her hands into a meaty project. I sent Mimi out to the wagon train to meet with Bob Burton early on, allowing her to do a quiet investigation. We needed to get some good research, so we would know what was coming. Mimi is now a professor at the University of Southern California, teaching documentary filmmaking. She also is an on-air feature reporter for 'Arizona Illustrated' in Tucson. She wasn't able to work on our project full-time, but from a distance, she added her thoughts and critiques, and was so disappointed that she couldn't be with us.

Betsy Aaron was the original correspondent on the 1979 CBS wagon train film. Betsy and I were both fired up about this story early on and she was a real trooper by making several trips on location to do the work through the rain, the mud, the heat and the pain of so many children. Betsy was very interested in having an opportunity to take another look at this story two decades later, and joined us at two locations where she was able to interview Tracy again after all of these years. With the second film being a feature documentary, it was good to have Betsy's journalistic eye and sense of the original story.

Greg Cooke, our DP on the old film, had gone on to become a producer for 60 Minutes and then went to Hollywood. Greg set the standard early on for the kind of intimate, yet sensitive approach that we would take in a story such as this one. He, too, was unavailable for the second film, yet came to one of our early screenings in L.A. where he was equally thrilled and moved. Seeing his work of 20 years earlier turned into something with a message of this magnitude, exceeded his expectations.

As far as the characters go, Judge Weeks from Denver Juvenile Court gave me permission in 1979 to film Tracy. Tracy was a 'ward of the state' at that time and VisionQuest wouldn't let us turn the camera on unless the release had been signed by her judge. I took a trip to Denver and marched into Judge Weeks' office one day. She gave me that look with her eyebrow raised as if to say, "Don't try to be too pushy here." I did my pitch, and half way through I knew I really was fighting for something that I believed should matter.

Surprisingly, the judge gave me the go-ahead with Tracy's approval. I realized then, that there was a judge out there who knew how to put kids first. Twenty years later, I called her up on the phone asking if she remembered me. She said in her deeply graveled, long drawn-out voice, "Yessss Patti, of course, I do."

After all these years, Judge Weeks remembered Tracy and the film and she was very excited that we were pursuing this intergenerational saga. So quite naturally, she became a character in the story. I felt very proud to know her once again.

Q: In your opinion, what makes this film unique?

I'd have to say, the twenty year time-arc is what gives this film its originality. Not that there aren't other films that have spanned time in people's lives, but this is more than that. This film was able to capture causes and effects, and ultimately, outcomes. It's so rare that a compelling story has the depth of time. That's what makes it unique.

Q: Why do you think that audiences are reacting to this film the way that they are?

It pushes every emotional button that we as human beings have inside of us. It's not just the issue, the unspeakable things that happened to Tracy, the horrific things that happened to James, it's the fact that its about a family...its the circle. The things that are coming out in this film, our audiences are identifying with... These are the dynamics inside the family and the fragility of those relationships that are so poignant in this story--- and, so easy to relate to. People are responding to the emotional ups and downs, and even if their lives are not like Tracy's or James'---parts of them are. Or, it's about people that they know and care about. But it's also a film about inspiration and hope.

Q: In a perfect world, what do you envision for the future of "If I Could"?

Ideally, what I'd like to see happen is what we always hoped for, since the day we shot our first frame of film. We've had an interesting and successful run on the film festival circuit this past year, and we will continue to pursue this for a while. But our real goal is to get this film seen. I guess I liked Tipper Gore's line when she wrote to us, "Surely this film will affect all those who see it. Which I hope to be millions!"

I'd like to make this film available for conferences that bring people in the field together, to see this film in every mental health, juvenile justice, prisons, family counseling clinics, high schools and college campuses around the country. I'd like to see it used for parenting, and in family therapy.

I'm anxious to see this film get theatrical and broadcast distribution--a venue on American television and in Europe and after that, outreach, outreach and more outreach. If I could, I would make all of that happen---and maybe I can.