Pistorius director Vaughen Sivel on dealing with contentious trial of South African sprinter in documentary series

A four-part documentary  on the life and trials of South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius premiers on Amazon Prime Video on 6 September. The show focuses on his rise as an extraordinary athlete, his journey from the Paralympic Games to the Olympics, and more prominently his trial for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. He argued that he shot her mistakenly for he assumed she was an intruder. While initially he was convicted for culpable homicide, a higher court later turned it into a murder. Firstpost got in touch with the director of Pistorius, Vaughen Sivel, for an interaction about his experience of making a documentary on the contentious figure. Had the story of Oscar Pistorius been as intriguing without the entire legal angle? Would you have chosen to make a documentary if he was not a criminal? It’s quite likely I would have, to be honest. I’m not sure of the format though. I may not have made a four-part documentary series on it, spent three years of my life on it. Had the tragic incident not happened, not only would Reeva still be alive but also Pistorius would have still been an inspiring figure. The reality is extremely sad. What he did for the people of inability, for South Africa, is exceptional. He was like a statesman. He was iconic to many people. Pistorius discovered his inclination towards sprinting as a side effect of his rugby injury. He realised how well he can run as sprinting was a part of the recovery process. Had it not been for the rugby injury, do you think he would have been a sprinter anyway? I think certainly it was the meeting with the athletic coach who rehabilitated him that made him the sprinter. Till then, he had no interest in Paralympic sports. It is a work of fate. But he certainly wasn’t an academic. Whether he would have become a sprinter had it not been the rugby injury, I don’t know. [caption id=“attachment_5121501” align=“alignnone” width=“825”]  Vaughen Sivel during the making of Pistorius[/caption]   The synopsis of the documentary says it is “the story of a man and a nation both born to great disadvantage”. Do you believe what Pistorius went on to become was also because of the country he was born in?  I think so. If you look at the times he was running early in his career, in the Paralympic movement, there was nobody like him at that time. It was not that because he was born in South Africa that he got the prosthetic that helped him run. They were actually made in Iceland. So yes, he could have been from any country. But what South Africa did was to help him in his story. He came from a country that saw extreme poverty and lack of wealth. Having been born right after (Nelson) Mandela’s leadership, which led to a new South Africa, it was inspiring on his part to grow along with his nation. When he ran in the 2012 Olympics, there was a fair racial mix. But since his upward journey coincided with that of his nation, it made his story more poignant Pistorius has a Bible verse tattooed on his back which means, “I do not run like a man running aimlessly.” For such a determined and focused man, would the premeditated murder of his girlfriend not be a remote possibility? It has not been proved whether Reena’s murder was ‘premeditated’. He was an extremely determined young man. He was deeply religious, deeply compassionate. He was known to have weaknesses in his character but he also had a heightened sense of his safety. When you consider that he was coming from a place of defense, the weaknesses in character do not come into play. What value or fire do you intend to add to the debate around his character through this documentary, that has not been explored by other chroniclers So far, nobody has gone into the details of the absolute truth. The only way you can show one’s character is only by telling what we know as it is. After all the research, we came to the conclusion that he did fire the gun and that Reeva was killed from the gun that he had in his hand. Everything else is rather unclear. I don’t know why he did what he did. John Carlin, the director of The Trials of Oscar Pistorius, had said, “Pistorius is intelligent and self-contained, stupid and hot-headed.” Do you also agree that he was a man of unbelievable extremes? No, I don’t think he was exceptionally intelligent. You need a certain kind of intelligence to have the skill that he had in his training and coping with his disability. Otherwise, I haven’t seen anything that would suggest that he is ’exceptionally intelligent’.   [caption id=“attachment_4059353” align=“alignnone” width=“1280”]  Oscar Pistorius. Twitter[/caption] The Pistorius family had threatened legal action against an unofficial biopic in the past. Have you tried to incorporate their views and side of the story in your documentary? Yes, we have. They were willing to be a part of this. They put forward their thoughts truthfully about what they felt about Oscar and the trial. Finally, how did your take on Pistorius’ case change from before you embarked on this journey to now that you have wrapped up the post-production? Sadly, as I said, I don’t have a definite answer on what he meant to do that night. What has changed is my perception of the case, of modern South Africa. Also, my perception of the legal process which I think is global. It is certainly true of the West. I don’t think that the legal process of South Africa is terribly unusual. It will be unfair to say that. But yes, what has changed certainly is my perception of what is the role of the state prosecution, the defense, in a case that is so complicated, and took so long.