Filmmakers hope to expose Americans to different political viewpoints

Four years ago, America endured a tumultuous year, from the COVID-19 pandemic to protests following the killing of George Floyd to a contentious presidential election. While Americans were dealing with all these events, a dozen people gave FRONTLINE and viewers a glimpse into their lives in a documentary. American voices: a nation in turmoil.

American Voices 2024FRONTLINE’s latest addition to election-related programming follows many of the same people to see how their lives, hopes and fears have changed since 2020.

In a conversation with FRONTLINE, director Mike Shum and producers Qinling Li and Arthur Nazarian talked about the challenge of weaving together the stories of multiple people from different states into one cohesive narrative, and how many of the people who appeared in the 2020 version of the documentary were “excited” to be involved again . They also talked about how they hope the documentary will allow viewers to “walk into someone else’s living room and listen to what they have to say.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

In 2020 pandemic caused movie idea. Was there a specific moment when you decided you wanted to come back and do an updated version in 2024?

Mike Shum: This was a conversation between Rainey Aronson-Rath and Andrew Metz about what if we revisited each of the people we followed in 2020 in the upcoming election? And, at least for me, it was a natural yes. There was a natural curiosity about where everyone was. It was very interesting for me to be able to interact with them in this capacity. It’s just consistent with the mission and mandate that we started with, to create this broader tapestry of people across the country facing the collective unknown.

Arthur Nazaryan: In long-term, somewhat character-driven filmmaking, where you build those connections and there’s an opportunity to keep coming back and digging deeper and learning more about their lives – that’s kind of natural for me too. Especially with national elections approaching.

Qinling Li: The idea of ​​continuing a theme is a very important part of not only documentary filmmaking, but also journalism. I think that’s a pretty powerful part of this journey and storytelling, keeping in touch with them and showing them growing and progressing.

What was the cast’s reaction when you asked them to resume filming in 2024? And how long did it take to restore mutual understanding and trust?

Lee: I was a little worried that if someone might not like the idea of ​​us coming back and filming. You never know until you talk to them. What really amazed me was that everyone was excited and everyone loved being a part of the film. They wanted others to know about the changes in their lives. And they also love that they can see other people’s different perspectives that are covered in the documentary.

Nazaryan: I was surprised when Qinling called me. My first thought was, “What about the people in the film?” Almost everyone – even those who I thought might have a controversial reaction – were all on the side. I think this is a very strong sign that Mike in the 2020 film really tried to make the film fairly balanced in its sensibility. It is clear that the rapport we established in 2020 has continued. So the one thing that applies to everyone, at least in my experience, is that when we filmed them in 2020, the pandemic was still going on. It’s fun to reminisce about the past together – like a whimsical memory in a fever dream.

More: Behind ‘American Voices’: How 2 Dozen Filmmakers Followed People Across the Country for FRONTLINE’s Latest Film Documenting 2020

Can you tell me about the writing process: how did you weave all the different stories together?

Lee: Senior Producer Callie Weiser created a near-flawless workflow between script writing and post-production. Every time the footage came back to us, editors Robert Kirwan, Brian Truglio, Mark Dugas would make a featured reel for me. And I would decide which message from this participant is the most important. I would do individual scripts for each person. This way we will have what I call a library of puzzle pieces representing different scenes to choose from, which can be categorized by topic, such as “debate”. It becomes easy, fun and exciting. It’s a creative process that everyone on the team can be a part of to try to figure out how best to tell the story.

Noise: The challenge was that we weren’t going to take them down voting and we weren’t going to take them down after they voted. So what will make it strong? And there are two areas at work here. Arthur was very persistent and I’m glad we need some unifying moments. We all agreed that the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would be the rallying point across the country. And it’s a powerful scene because I think it’s a way for the film to hold up a mirror to the audience to say, “We were all a part of this. In a way, we share this together.”

But Qinling, you know what I liked about this direction: “Well, what does the future look like when we think about our members?” It was a very inspiring conversation in which Yu Qinling said that many participants talk about the next generation; they talk about what will happen to their children and grandchildren. How do they think about the future as it relates to the continuity or legacy of their generations? And I thought that was great. And it was such a beautiful, elegant way to talk about everyone’s fears and hopes, because it’s less about them and more about, “What am I going to pass on to my children, to my grandchildren?” So that was a huge angle that I think really brought all the soul to this version of the film.

Can you tell me a little more about the debate scene? How did this happen?

Nazaryan: The thought was, “What can we do to get everyone involved to some degree?” I think it’s safe to say that 40 years ago the debate became more theatrical. There’s a very high chance that you’ll get a natural reaction from people—whether there’s a camera in the room or not—but just as much as you’ll react intuitively to what’s happening on screen. So I thought, okay, you’ve got two birds with one stone. You get a unifying moment and you get a very natural, almost subconscious reaction in front of the camera.

You worked with the participants in 2020 and now in 2024 and probably got to know them very well. How do you think their attitudes toward politics and government have changed over the past four years, if at all?

Nazaryan: For the most part the only change I would say is that some people have become more distant. Therefore, they have even less faith in the possibility of change, for example: “I don’t like either candidate and I could vote for A or B, but I’m not excited.” But I don’t think very many people have a complete tectonic shift in views, which, again, I think in real life most people tend to crystallize in their politics by the age of 40.

Noise: I do think I saw more distrust in the establishment, in structures, systems and institutions. I’ve seen a lot of questions: “What should I do with the leftovers of the pandemic?” I do think there’s a sense of “we’re on our own.” So in some ways I see more—not quite a transformation—but a strengthening of perspectives. I felt like I learned a little more about the country through this in-depth, through these interviews. And maybe they were just more open this time.

Mike, in 2020 you described how this project was an attempt to document how ordinary Americans respond to the “collective unknown.” Is there a similar overarching theme or commonality in what these same people will face in 2024?

Noise: I think Qinling captured this thread – concern for future generations. I don’t know if they care as much about this election as they care about what’s going to happen in the future. And this election is part of that. So I would say that future generations are a central theme for me in this particular iteration. Not to say that this was not the case in 2020, but at this stage of filming it seemed more tangible and tactile.

Lee: I think the big issue in 2024 will really be the elections. This is what brings everyone together to share their views on where this country is heading. “Does this align with my values ​​and hopes for my life?”

What do you hope people take away from watching this film?

Nazaryan: I hope that you will, at a minimum, gain an empathetic understanding of other people’s views and lives. It is not my responsibility to direct these opinions, people’s thoughts in one direction or another. My job is to provide a somewhat truthful account of the lives of these people.

Lee: It’s really just about breaking the bubbles you stay in with people you agree with. This film gives each character the opportunity to show their point of view, but also introduces them to other points of view. Many of the characters in the film also said that they were looking forward to it – not only to see themselves, but also to see what everyone thought about what their experiences have been like over the past four years, and how how to move on. elections.

Noise: I think the point of all my work is to invite the audience to see different points of view. Here we give people the opportunity to break down silos so that people can see different sides of the country that they don’t usually get to see. I want people to experience the diversity that this country actually has. The message I would like to convey to the audience is: “Walk into someone else’s living room and listen to what they have to say.”

---