For a generation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults now in their 60s, 70s and 80s, silence was, for a long time, a way of life.
Often, these men and women didn’t talk about sexual preferences with anyone other than their partners. Often they struggled with fear, shame, and isolation, along with a deep-seated distrust of authority and a dread of discrimination.
For adults with this kind of experience, growing old and becoming ill and dependent can stir up painful feelings. Am I a worthwhile person? Will others stay by me or abandon me if I show them who I really am? Can I trust that I won’t be judged? Will I be treated well if I display my vulnerability, or do I have to put up my guard?
Beset by these anxieties and stung by prejudice displayed by caregivers, many older people head back into the closet to try to shield themselves from rejection. After a lifetime of struggling to claim their identities, this final struggle can be especially hard and laced with sadness.
Filmmaker Stu Maddux, a former television journalist, anchor and producer, takes us inside this world in Gen Silent, a powerful new film that profiles six LGBT seniors and the issues they’re facing as they age. Gen Silent has been featured at dozens of film festivals in the United States and Europe, and is being shown widely across the country over the next few months.
Maddux, who lives north of San Francisco, recently spoke at length with AHCJ topic leader Judith Graham about making this film. Highlights of that conversation appear below. (Click here to see the trailer for Gen Silent. For a copy of the film, contact Maddux here. For a list of related resources on LGBT aging, click here.)
How did you come upon this topic and decide to do this film?
Maddux: I’d done an earlier film about two older men who’d been together for 52 years. That got me thinking – why don’t I see more of this older generation in the gay world? It’s because they’re silent. Invisible.
Invisibility for LGBT people is a survival tactic. Gay people are very adaptable; we have coping skills. And one of those skills is to be quiet, to shut up and be invisible as much as possible if things don’t feel safe.
How much did the film cost to make? How did you raise the money?
Maddux: The total budget was $250,000. I put in $35,000 myself and deferred income for a couple of years. It’s easier for me because I don’t have children and I don’t have a lot of debt and I had other sources of income. The rest of it we raised from various other places.
How long did it take to make the film?
Maddux: Two years. We researched for six months, shot for a year, then edited it in six months.
Who’s the “we?”
Maddux: It’s me. I always say we; I don’t know why I do that. Except that there are a lot of people who invest in you through their donations. It’s like they’re coming down the road with you. So it’s really like a team effort.
I like to do it all myself (interviewing, shooting, writing, editing) but when we went to the premier I realized I hadn’t gotten enough editorial input. That’s one thing I’ll change next time.
What hit you at the premier?
Maddux: There were some graphics in the first version of the film that made it very didactic. There would be words that would come across the screen like “isolation” “fear” and things like that. It just didn’t work. It would have been easy to take it out if I had made more time beforehand to show it to people.
What were the greatest difficulties you encountered?
Maddux: The hardest part was – I became a caregiver for KrysAnne, the transgender woman in the film. And that was difficult at the time. She was dying, and she wasn’t at peace with it. She was very angry, and rescinding her DNR (do not resuscitate orders) back and forth. Then, to go back and replay all the footage after she passed away (KrysAnne died while Maddux was making the film), it was like re-living those final days of her life all over again.
I was only a caregiver for KrysAnne for a couple of weeks at a time before I was given a break by someone else. But even during that time, I was surprised by how much I lost myself during the caregiving process.
Why did you choose to set the film in Boston?
Maddux: We found a lot of good work going on in the Boston area around LGBT aging. We worked with an organization called the LGBT Aging Project and they helped us find the subjects. We started out with 12 people and narrowed that down to six. It was important to locate the film in one city for economic reasons too, and so we could spend more time on the ground with each subject.
How did you manage the travel?
Maddux: I would go back and forth for a couple of weeks each month for about a year during the production. Rarely did I stay in a hotel. A lot of the time, I stayed with KrysAnne or people at the aging project who had become friends. I think, psychologically, it’s good to stay with people. Because it keeps you from being isolated and it gives you a sounding board for your story line.
What kind of preparation was necessary?
Maddux: In terms of the research, I met with people one-on-one initially. Once I decided to shoot that person, I did a lot of pre-interviews on the phone. I researched visual opportunities I’d need and worked out any permissions I had to have in advance, to shoot in a nursing home, for example.
How did you gain your subjects’ trust?
Maddux: First of all, the most important thing that worked in my favor was time. I spent as much time as possible with them, hours and hours until they were sick of me. I had to do that, to get the level of intimacy that I needed.
The other thing that worked in my favor was having a small camera and a one-man production. Where it’s just me and the camera, the camera becomes invisible after a while.
Which of your subjects were most mistrustful?
Maddux: The older lesbian couple. Because I was probably the 50th person who’d come to them and wanted to do an interview. And the others hadn’t followed through or followed up. So they were distrustful of media people in general.
Did anyone have any special requirements?
Maddux: The only one was Lawrence, who was seeing someone new while still caring for the gentleman he’d been with for many, many years. He was adamant about not being asked about his new relationship on camera. But when we shot him at a poetry reading, the man was there and the eye contact between them was amazing. I couldn’t leave that out. So, I did do a bit of an ambush on Lawrence.
Did you let him see what you’d done?
Maddux: All the subjects had the opportunity to see the final cut. Some chose not to. I don’t think we had any objections. I didn’t expect any because I’d worked so closely with them all along.
At that point, I’d become so close to these people that I would have had a moral dilemma if anyone had objected. What would I do? I think I would not have taken stuff out. I felt strongly about that.
What have you learned from making Gen Silent?
Maddux: One thing is that the demographic most interested in this film is not people in the older age bracket. The group most interested was those 40 to 60 years old. That’s when people really begin to think about aging. They have the realization for the first time that they are mortal. So this issue is closer to them than someone who’s already grown into old age.
How has the film been received?
Maddux: We‘ve gotten standing ovations that have lasted a minute. It’s motivating people to take action personally and in their communities. It’s been the most rewarding thing I’ve ever done.
