Wisconsin Public Television University Place Entrepreneurialism in Society  Michael Camerini and Shari Robertson "Entrepreneurs in Documentary Filmmaking"  Oct 27, 2010 UP510   cc >> This is Entrepreneurship in Society, a course that's offered through the University of Wisconsin School of Human Ecology. I'm Jeanan Yasiri. As we begin today, I'd like to extend thanks to our partners in supporting this course, the UW Office of Corporate Relations, the UW College of Engineering for their technical support, and financial support from the Marion Ewing Kauffman Foundation, which is committed to advancing academic education in entrepreneurship. Additionally, we thank our media partners, Wisconsin Public Television and their University Place crew for taping today's lecture. Today, I am very pleased to introduce our special guests, Michael Camerini and Shari Robertson, of the Epidavros project. Shari and Michael are a documentary filmmaking team that shares a commitment to making films about ideas and the cross cultural links that unite people. Films that challenge, provoke, dissect, yet stay close and human. They've created award-winning films across a broad range of subjects and locations, from film festival hits to to prime time television investigations, to multi-camera expedition projects, to indepth projects in the developing world. Michael and Shari have worked in several dozen countries, and in collaboration with worldwide scholars. One of their recent projects, "These Girls Are Missing," is now translated into seven African languages. 

And the unprecendted documentary feature, "Well Founded Fear," which was nationally broadcast by PBS and carried worldwide by CNN have both been cited for bringing a new and provocative approach to examining emotional and difficult subjects embedded in public policy debates. Today, they're working on completing their 12-part series on "How Democracy Works Now," a compelling look at the practical and gritty politics behind immigration reform issues. Shari and Michael develop their projects through their non-profit production company, the Epidavros Project, Inc., based in New York City. Shari grew up in Texas and New Mexico, where she trained in anthropology and film. Her documentary work includes co-productions and broadcasts in London by the BBC, in France, Germany, and Spain, as well as National Geographics Explorer, PBS Innovation. Michael Camerini grew up in Madison, Wisconsin, actually just a stone's throw from our classroom here. He is a University of Wisconsin alum. His approach to filmmaking is notable for a style that encourages people to tell their own stories, whatever the cultural context. His insterest in what it means to be a foreigner is the unifying theme of his work. As we explore using innovative methods to inform, educate, and catalyze people, to think about issues in new ways, considering the work of documentary filmmaking is an imperative. 

Having Michael and Shari share their experiences is a supreme honor for us. And I know you join me in welcoming Shari and Michael. (applause)  >> Well, is this working? Yeah? Thank you so much for that very kind introduction. It's really an honor for us to be here. We rarely get to think of ourselves as entrepreneurs so consciously as we have since we got this invitiation. And it's really been a pleasure for us. >> We make documentary films. And we've tried to get as much freedom for ourselves to make our own films as possible. And a lot of the strategies over the course of our, first separate careers, and then our careers together, are built around that. So, we thought today we would tell you a little bit about what we are at the moment, and then trace a little bit of how we became that. 

>> I don't know, how many of you ever entertained the idea of being a filmmaker, or you have friends maybe who do. There are so many different ways that filmmakers exist in the United States. There are hundreds of thousands of us. In our case, we have a production company that's based in New York. And it expands as contracts according to where we are in a proejct. But usually, we are running the company on the basis of foundation grants. That's how we fund our work. When we make a sale to a broadcaster, or occasionally win a prize and get some money from it, that goes into the productions as well. But most of our work is funded by foundations. >> So, maybe we should start by giving you a little bit about how we ended up, how we started. 

And we'll show you some clips along the way. There's a filmmaker's disclaimer, always. Some of these are from old VHS tapes we found in the closet, and the quality of the early ones is especially a little shakey. But bear with it. And we'll show you a piece, and then maybe give you a little bit about what we now see about those pieces. >> Yeah, it was kind of fun to trace back. One thing you do in this kind of a non-profit, is you're constantly kind of paddling as fast as you can to survive, and you don't look back that often. You know, thinking about how we got to where we are now, was a very interesting exercise. And it's heightened by looking at old work. But the two of us started in pretty different ways, actually. 

I'll let Michael tell you about how he got started. For me, I had studied anthropology as an undergraduate. And I loved it. It seemed like a way of looking at the world that just fit me perfectly. But I wasn't going to be an anthropologist. And searching around for what I thought I might do, I decided that I could be a disciple of Jean-Luc Godard, the avant garde French filmmaker. And that's really wanted to do, but I needed to know a little bit about filmmaking before I went and threw myself at his feet. So, I searched film schools in the United States, and there were very many fewer film schools back in the late '70s. I decided on this place called The Anthropology Film Center in Santa Fe that seemed to me a little off subject, because it was mostly devoted to documentaries. But they did have a lot of equipment. 

And equipment is something that was hard to come by in film school. So I went there thinking, I'm just going to learn how to run a camera and that's it. I have no interest in documentaries. But along the way in the one-year course, I kind of got seduced by the process of making documentaries, how interesting it was, and really, how much harder it was than executing a script for a feature. So that's how I got started in documentaries. And from there, I, you know, devoted myself to this idea of ethnographic film. I was pretty shocked to get out of school and in the world, where you're supposed to make a living, find out that there really wasn't a way to make a living in ethnographic film. It didn't really exist. So, I ended up working on commercials and starting to write grants. And eventually, getting into a partnership with an anthropologist who had connections in European TV. 

And that's how I ended up really learning how to direct, making films for the BBC and Channel 4 in London. So, the clip that I brought to show you first is from a piece that we did in Cambodia. The title is just like you'd expect for one of those news shows, "Return to Year Zero." They were generally one-hour shows. And they would be about some kind of a geo-political situation in a very particular place, geared toward a European audience that really knew more about what was going on in the rest of the world than most American audiences do. And it's in a very particular style. I think it's going to feel very archaic to you. It does to me. It's also the worst quality of any sample that we're going to show you. But I hope if you just stick with it, you'll get a sense of how I got started.  (indistinct talking) >> There are two trains in the entire country that used to be called Cambodia. 

Both travel with gun cars and military escorts.  Rides are free on the first car of this train. It's the one that sets off landmines hidden along the rails. Explosions don't happen often enough to keep the cars empty. But they do happen often enough to keep the fare free.  (indistinct talking)  Cambodia is fixed in the world's imagination as a land of beauty and horror. The graceful beauty of a classical dancer from the Court of Prince Sihanouk. And the brutal horror of Pol Pot's Killing Fields.  (indistinct talking)  This countryside looks peaceful, but there are unseen dangers here. Buried landmines, small guerilla units, rocket attacks Khmer Rouge weapons of psychological terror. 

In Phnom Penh, the capital city of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. The PRK government claims that this city is completely secure, and it seems to be so. They still impose a curfew from 10:00 at night to 5:00 in the morning, but that's two hours shorter than one year ago. By 7:00am, it's very hard to imagine that ten years ago, this was an empty city. No --, no bicyles, no cars, no people. In 1975, the Khmer Rouge emptied the entire city in four days, driving the population into the countryside. It remained a ghost city until the Vietnamese invation in 1979. Today, Phnom Penh may look poor, but there has been steady improvement in the economy since 1979. Recovery has been hard, cut off from outside aid, save what is offered from the Soviet block.  The horror of the Khmer Rouge years remains a daily fact of life. 

Not a single family escaped loss of loved ones. The dance instructor is 72 years old. She began dancing at the age of six. And up until April, 1975, spent her life as a Royal Dancer.  During their period of rule, the Khmer Rouge leaders were power without a human face. Everything was done by the faceless Angkar, literally the organization. All power flowed from Angkar. All allegiance was owed to Angkar. It was said each member must hand himself over for Angkar to build. One must trust completely in the Angkar, because Angkar has as many eyes as a pineapple. 

To be sent to see Angkar meant torture and death. Angkar's most chilling monument is the infamous S-21 Interrogation and Extermination Center known as Tuol Sleng. At least 20,000 people were imprisoned here: some 2,000 in 1976, more than 6,000 in 1977, and at least 12,000 in 1978. Of these, seven survived. Every prisoner was photographed as he entered. And after he had confessed to fanciful crimes, he was photographed again, to prove that he had been killed.  >> On the 23rd of September, 1976, we received instructions from Angkar to use torture. We started using torture in the morning. >> Of one prisoner, we beat him four or five times. He was humbled by the beatings, and then the water torture. 

>> It terrified them, confused them in clever ways, made them give up hope they would ever live again. >> The purpose of torture is to get their response. It's not something we do for fun. We must hurt them so they respond quickly. We beat them to make them afraid, but absolutely not to kill them. >> Tuol Sleng was the embodiment of the chilling Khmer Rouge slogan, "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss." Most of the goulish work of Tuol Sleng was carried out by peasant teenagers, boys and girls. These are photographs of the guards. All escaped hours before the Vietnamese invation. Many made it to the Thai border.  >> It went through your mind, that I'm doing the wrong thing... 

>> Sorry, so one of the things that struck me about this clip was that even though it's such a standard style, with the RP narrator and the straight-on interview. I can still see that I was trying to get a little more ethnographic stuff in there, you know? The idea of documentaries that I had learned in film school was that you don't even pick up the camera until you've learned the language of the people that you're going to film. And then, everything you're shooting, it's intended to be a translation between the culture that you're basically, you know, visiting, and the one that your audience is comprised of. So, in a way, though I felt really lucky to be working on these shows, they weren't what I had set out to do. And I wasn't sure that I would ever be able to do the kinds of films I set out to do. And I hadn't met Michael. >> I started, I was a student here. I had an incredible professor, Joe Elder, who taught a course on the civilization of India. And they ran a college year in India program. So I went on the college year in India and I made a movie as my project. 

And it was, you know, both meeting India, but also making a film of our really remarkable experiences. And I then came back, finished my film, graduated. The university found money for a set of films to teach about India for their course in the civiliztion of India. And I went back out to shoot and make some more films, and sort of to teach myself filmmaking. I learned a lot from this process about how you run a business, and how you find money. But the filmmaking part was about how do you make a movie in a place where you don't-- where you're an idiot, where you don't speak the language, you don't know 37 different layers of what's going on. How do you pay attention in a way that lets you be as smart as you can be, get help from people who are smarter in some things than you can be. What do you do? How do you watch people when you don't know the language they're speaking, to figure out, when do you roll, when do you shoot, what are you shooting? So I learned a lot of pretty central skills to everything I've done since in this process. Making myself a cameraman. When we work together now, Shari directs, I'm the cameraman, there's often a sound person, and an assistant. 

There's a crew. Except for the very last project, that's just been the two of us. So, I learned all this stuff, finsished those films. And after a couple of years, I had done other things, but I got a call from somebody who had seen one of the India films. It was a film called "Dadi's Family," which was sort of my graduation film from everything that I did for Joe Elder, which is a portrait of three generations of women within one village family in India. I got a call from a social scientist who wanted to make a film about a Baptist church in Massachusetts. So at this point, I had made films about Islam and about Hinduism. But I had never made a film about Christianity. So I was sort of interested. And I'll show you a little section from that film, that will be a little tease that'll give you a kind of-- it was the PBS open. 

But a thing that was remarkable, and was kind of like a lifting up, was that all of the things I learned about how do you shoot in a village in India worked. Every technique, every human technique, but also every equipment technique. When do you hold the camera, how do you move with a camera with people who don't know that they should trust you? All those things, all seemed to work in Worcester, Massachusetts. So that's what you'll see.  >> It went through your mind, that I'm doing the wrong thing. I'm actually stealing. >> That's right. That's exactly what I did. >> And you let it go through? >> I stole 33 cents, and I made a mistake. >> Thirty-three miserable cents, and you could-- You could slap God in the face for 33 cents? >> That's exactly what I did. 

>> This is the guy that's-- that you've been born again? >> Are you judging? Are you judging him? >> That's right, that's right. >> No! I'm trying to find out what "born again" is. See, my life isn't great. I don't feel my life great. See? And I really would like to know how to make my life great. >> When we started going to the church, things got worse, not better. >> Why did it get worse? >> Why don't you ask Bob? >> I'll tell you why. >> Okay. >> Because both of you guys fought the Will of God in your life. >> I would say to you, that you have to be partial. 

Although you might not think you are, you are. It's simple. Everybody's partial, one way or the other. Either partial to live without God, or partial to live with God. And we're all going to try to push our view. And we are commanded in the scripture, as Christians, to go out there and to win the world to the Lord, Jesus Christ, you know? So, we're not living unpartial. Either one of us. We have a cause.  >> The hatred is not the kind of hatred you would think of, as a violent hatred. It's a hatred, a defense mechanism she's built up, because she just wants to get out of that life. 

>> Get out of what life? >> Whatever life she had with you at the time that she left. She just wants to leave that whole mess behind. So, it's just like talking to a cement wall. Anytime she referred to you, it was with a great deal of hostility, and it was not very often. So, you know, my recommendation is just pushing on with your life. The thing of it is, Bob, not to get bitter or angry. There's nothing you can do about it. >> I'm going to tell you something, okay? I'm angrier now than I ever have been, okay? >> Bob. >> I'm angrier-- No, you know why I'm angry? You know why I'm angry now? I'm angry now, okay, not only because of me. But there's three kids downstairs, okay? All right, that need their mother. 

Okay? And nothing's been done about it. Absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. >> There isn't anything we can do about it. You can only talk and just pray that she does something. Let's just give the Lord an opportunity to finish whatever work she started in her heart. >> She hasn't done anything in her heart! You can see that! You can see it. >> Let me say this. God had to harden Pharaoh's heart before he could get Pharaoh to let his people go. She hasn't learned her lesson. 

She isn't going to learn her lesson. You know, I made it pretty clear that, you know, it's just one stupid move after another. There isn't any more you could do than that. >> She's left me in the same boat, John. She's up in Fitchburg having a gay old time, laughing about it. And she's left me right in the same boat. I've got to be alone. I've got to raise the kids alone. I've got to work like a dog. Okay? To raise the kids. 

Hey, to her, it's a piece of cake. She don't care. >> At this stage of the game, I'm glad God hasn't brought Emma back to you, because with that kind of a reaction, true hatred, God did not conquer the world. You know what I'm saying? That's just an area you're going to have to work on. Because Christ mastered the world by, when you spit in his face, he blessed them. He says, Bless them that curse you. Bless and curse not. He said, rejoice when they persecute you for my namesake. Now, you're doing what's right. She thinks you're a holy roller and a screwball. 

You're getting the persecution from that area. If you think the devil is going to loosen up his hold without some kind of a fight, you're crazy. We've done what we can do. We've done everything you can do. There's nothing more we can do. So now let's just not get aggravated. Let's not get cutsey-pie. Let's not get, you know, don't get angry. It isn't going to do you a bit of good to get angry. All it's going to do is cause your blood pressure to go up. 

>> How long? How long? >> You don't have to wait any longer as far as I'm concerned. >> I don't have to wait any longer for what? >> To try and work on getting her back. >> What am I going to do? >> Just wait until she gets a divorce. >> Wait?! >> She'll get one. I think she's already got a lawyer. When I talked to her on the phone, I think she had taken steps to get a lawyer. Just let her go ahead and get the divorce. Contest the divorce. >> Okay, by my hands or somebody else's hands, she's going to pay for this. >> That's-- >> No, John, no. 

The four of us haven't suffered like we've suffered, okay, for nothing. For nothing. >> All right. I don't see as you've been suffering, other than emotional strain and drain. >> Oh, well-- You know, I'll tell you something. I'd rather have somebody punch me in the mouth every day than wake up every morning feeling the way I do. >> I agree. I would, too. >> And I'm sure the kids would rather have that, too. All right, I'd rather have somebody beat on me all day with a whip, 'cause that I can get over. 

>> What's up, Chuck? (inaudible) We'll be out in a minute. Go back down. You know, when you start talking like an idiot, you know, you have to calm yourself down. 'Cause you're not going to lay a hand on her-- >> No, I ain't gonna hit her. I'm not going to hit her. I don't want to even see her. I don't even want to see her. >> I wish you could've said that with a little less hate in your face. >> Yeah? >> You know what I'm saying? Though it may be true, when you say it with hate in your face, it's bad. Now, just forget about it. 

God is going to change her however he sees fit. And if that's the way God wants it, then let's not worry about it. Let's let him do that. >> I know that. I'll tell you something, okay? All right? I would stake my life on it that that's not the way God wants it. >> No, I know it. >> And I will never ever-- >> Well, put the words down there like this then, the way God will permit. >> Till the day I die, okay, till the day I die, till the day I die, I will never allow her to see the kids if she marries him. Never. >> Well, there you don't have that privilege. 

>> Yes, I do. I most certainly do. I'll tell you what. I'll take-- When she's supposed to come down, I'll take the kids out. I'll force them to go out. >> Now, you're talking like an idiot again. >> John, I don't them around-- I don't want them around-- I don't them around him, and I don't want them around her when she's with him. >> I would prefer you to calm down. Just get back on track. I sympathize with you. 

It's a hard-- >> I just can't handle this thing anymore, okay? I just cannot handle this thing anymore. >> All right. What's Philippians 4:13 say? I can do all things through Christ. So, it's not a question of whether you can or not. Yes, you can. It's a question of whether you're willing or not. So don't say "I can't handle this anymore." Say "I won't handle it," so at least you're thinking square. Whether you do or you don't, don't say "can't," say you won't.  >> I'll be interested if we get to Q&A, what you thought about this in relationship to the whole world of reality television that followed after we made this. This was probably the most positive film about fundamentalist Christians ever on Public Television at that point. 

It's a portrait of this church and the various things that happened to a range of people. So, then we met. >> Right. Michael was pretty famous at this point, particularly because of "Born Again." But also because of some of the India films. They were used on college campuses. And "Dadi's Family" had been broadcast in the States. And all my work had been, you know, for shows in Europe. So, we met at a film market, where his film, "Born Again," was up, and one of my Cambodia films was there. And from that point on, I desperately hoped I could get him to shoot a film for me, because I thought his cinemaphotography was wonderful. And finally, about three years later, that worked out. 

He finished off a film that we were doing in Peru about the drug war. And we, at that point, thought okay, let's try to do another film together the way, you know, film companies fissure and new ones form, we both were getting rid of our old partners. And we decided we'd start a company together. And about that time, a call came from the Rockefeller Foundation, who, on the basis of previous films, thought that maybe Michael would be a good person to do a film about a subject they were spending a lot of money on. They were giving a lot of grants to promote girls' education in Africa. And they thought that maybe a discussion starter kind of film, to be used in Subsaharan Africa, would be a good thing. So, they sent us on a long scout. We went to, I think, eight countries in three weeks, or something like that. And ended up deciding that we would film one story in East Africa, and one story in West. The East African story was Malawi. 

It was about a village near one of the few girls boarding schools. And in West Africa, it was just a much more remote farming village. The clip we've chosen is about the girls boarding school. >> The thing about girls' education is, it's a bomb. It really changes things very profoundly. Girls who go to school feed their children better. Their children are more likely to be educated. Their children are more likely to be healthy. They figured out that for a whole bunch of indicators, if you wanted to make positive social change in African societies, this was the one thing that really made a huge difference. And yet-- >> It totally disrupts the order. 

And men, in particular. But both men and women adults find it very, very hard to adjust to. So although many of them can  tell you what the Ministry of Education says about why sending girls to school is such a great idea, they've got their reasons not to do it. >> We'll tell you a little bit more after this clip.  >> What did I say the hormone was, which is produced by this follicle? Estrogen.  This estrogen has got two functions. What are the functions? >> It makes the inner lining of the uterus to thicken. >> Mm-hmm. >> And it is enriched with blood cells. >> Mm-hmm. 

(indistinct talking) That is one function. Another one? >> It produces... (inaudible) >> Yes. When the level of progesterone and estrogen is low in the blood stream, two things happen. One of the things is the breaking hour of the inner lining if the uterus. And because of that breaking hour, there is discharge of mucus, blood and cellular particles. And that's what we call menstruation. >> Oh! (laughter) (all talking)  >> When they just come in, first year, they come in with all the vigor, all the eagerness to learn. But by the time that they get into third term of form one, then you see the relaxation mode coming in. In the central region, we mention rivers like what, Victoria? Are you on four and five? Hmm? (inaudible) Where would you say is is the source of --? (inaudible) Rivers and lakes. We have talked of four of those rivers... 

We have to work hard with them, to try and make them understand that if they fail, they won't come back. Just a very little number fails to complete. And the common blunder, the common mistake which they make, which takes them out of school is pregnancy. >> There is a law in Malawi. If you're found to be pregnant, you must leave school. Nowadays, girls are permitted to reapply after one year.  >> Patricia was only one year away from graduation when she realized that she was going to have a baby. She was a good student. And if things had gone another way, she would be with her friends now, preparing for final exams.  >> In her case, she was very quiet. 

One wonders how she opened up like that. (chuckes) Ah, it happens, though. Hmm.  >> That film premiered at the Beijing Conference of Women in 1995. And for a lot of audiences, it was a pretty big hit. It did really well in the villages in an awful lot of countries in Subsaharan Africa. But it was a complete disaster for particularly the European and American funding agencies, who had been putting money into girls' education. They were shocked by the explicitness with which people talked about the link between going to school and getting pregnant, and that that was the reason they didn't want to send girls to school. So, it was our first experience together in making a film that really caused waves. >> It was also, we figured out something about something that interested us as filmmakers, which is the counter intuitive film. 

If you go to a village, the elders know the speeches of the Minister of Education. They all say girls' education is a wonderful thing. We're all in favor of girls' education, we just need more money for our schools. They won't say, look, here are the reasons why it's a bad idea to send your daughter to school. And we made a film that put that out there, because in fact, we spent enough time in the village so that people would say those things to us. So that thing where you let the film say the hard, negative stuff, and now the conversation can begin, clicked as a kind of category. If your goal is to make films that start conversations and that produce change in people, the polite film that is "rah-rah, girls' education is so great," doesn't do the same thing as the film that says here are the perfectly good reasons why a good parent would say no, let's talk about that. So, and that helped us in, I think in later projects. You can also sort of see, we like watching people. We think you learn something by looking at their faces and how they talk to each other. 

And even though there was a kind of progress in this, many filmmakers would've moved faster through this stuff. You wouldn't have had as much of the class, as much of the girls' exchange. We start to think about, how do you give an audience some stuff for them to think about that isn't the through line, isn't the message of the film. >> It's much closer to the ethnographic film style that I studied, and Michael sort of naturally gravitated toward. At the same time, it started to give us an idea that how you talk to an audience as a filmmaker. The particular power that you have to get people to think about stuff, if you can involve them in the narrative. >> The foundation called us up. That usually doesn't happen. You usually get an idea and you figure out who is going to be foolish enough to give me money to make a movie that I want to make. That's your, as an entrepreneur, that's what you do. 

We sat on a stony beach in Greece, in Epidavros, that's the name of our company, and tried to think about well, I had made a lot of films on womens issues in India by this point, Shari had done a lot of things in Thailand and Cambodia. The Cold War was over. There were refugees all over the world. We were trying to think of what we had in common in our, sort of film histories, and what interested us for the next few years. We had this idea to do a series called "Tempest Tossed" from the poem about the Statue of Liberty, about migration worldwide, and why people were moving, and what had happened to refugee status. And we hit our heads against a brick wall trying to find funding. >> Which is a little bit ironic, because we had chosen the topic precisely because we thougth there would be funding for it. It was such a big issue and it covered so many issues, that surely, you know, the big foundations would be devoting programs to this. >> But even PBS said look, you know, we have Frontline, and our audience isn't all that interested in the rest of the world beyond that. This is pre-9/11. 

So, at a sort of rocky point, which comes often in making documentary films. One of our advisors, who had been a refugee re-settlement person, went to the other side and became a U.S. Asylum Officer, and went inside this relatively secret world, where people go for an asylum interview. You sit across a desk. You tell them your story. And they decide your fate. And no one had ever been inside this process with a camera. >> But because of the board of advisors that we had sort of been corraled into putting together by the process of seeking grant money, we happened to know somebody who took our little letter to the Commissioner of the INS and we were granted access, this other unique access. And from there, we started observing, as we tried to raise the money for the show. And because of the access, we were able to raise the money and start shooting what eventually became the film called "Well-Founded Fear." >> There's a subjective view of this process if you're an advocate for immigrants and asylum seekers, that people deserve asylum. The system is rotten. 

The officers are not very good. And that's the nature of this process. There is a subjective perspective from the point of view of some people, particularly people who feel like the country has too many immigrants, that most of these people are liars, and the United States is too generous. And this was our first entry, really, into a film where that kind of simple polarity exists. And they're both simple. They're both-- We have another perspective. You don't make objective films. There aren't any such things. But our subjective rejects both of those in the end, in this film. And we'll talk more about that. 

 >> Can you tell me when it all began? Can you just go back to the beginning?  Do you remember what you were doing in 1975? How old were you in 1975?  >> How do you think they found out about you?  >> Did he use his own passport? How did he get to Paris? >> When was the last time you saw your wife? >> Where were you, and what were you doing when you were arrested, sir?  >> You said you were tortured. What do you mean by tortured?  >> Tell me once again, sir, what you're afraid of.  >> A supervisor came up to me. After I discussed the case with him, I told him what my decision was. And he said, "How are you going to feel if this guy goes back and somebody puts a bullet in his head?" And I said, "I'm going to feel terrible about it," obviously. But I have to make a decision and I have to live with it. That's what this job is about. You make a decision about people's futures.  >> After his work, he entered the cafe where the youngters from one of this nationalistic groups were having their meeting. From his appearance, they immediately recognized him as a Jew. 

So they followed him and they beated him. Basically, the beating occurred in the lobby without any witnesses. >> Mm-hmm.  >> Yeah, he really feared at that point for his life. But it was at that point too late. And he did manage to escape from them. >> And so, you got up and you walked away? (translating)  >> Yeah, it was October, and it was pretty cold. So he left, you know, to the hall, to the vestibule. And he wanted to check his coat, because he left his coat in the coatroom. And at that point, they approached him. 

>> Was somebody in the coatroom? >> There was an old lady. He told me already. (translating) Yes, yes, it was-- Yeah. >> Now, you tell me that there are no witnesses. I mean, the attack occurred-- >> Except for her. >> Okay.  >> Yeah, it was the only, old lady. It was a working day, and it was night, so there was no one there.  >> My difficulties start after they officially knew that I'm a member of the Anglican church. After that, my house was searched. 

And also, they wrote on my walls, "Out, you Anglican." >> Okay. And at what point did you inform them that you were Anglican? >> I didn't show them any paper. I was not supposed to do that, to show them papers that I'm Anglican, that I was received, or that-- >> It was in casual conversation? >> Yes, it was-- You asked me when it was the first time. They have found exactly and officially that I'm Anglican. >> How did they find that out? >> We'll get to that point. After my bags were-- (both talking at once) After my bags were-- >> But this is my interview, not yours, okay? >> Yes. >> How did you--? Don't worry about it. I just want to backtrack a little bit. One thing I wanted to ask you before, and I forgot. What are the sacrements that the Anglican church recognizes? >> It's Holy Communion, and it's Holy Trinity. 

>> In what language was the Anglican service--? >> In English. >> Conducted in Romania? >> In English. >> Who's the head of the Anglican church? >> The head of the Anglican church in Romania? >> Overall? >> Overall, it's a Bishop. Bishop of Gibralter, he is called. It's Bishop John of Gibralter.  (indistinct talking)  >> How do you say this name? >> Okay. (pronounces syllables) "senn-shee-yau." Say, "shee-yau chang." (repeating prononciation) >> Shau-shee-yehn chen. Window Two, please. (indistinct talking) That was hard. At least I got them up... 

>> If you're an asylum applicant, two weeks after you see an asylum officer, you come back in the afternoon for the decision.  Congratulations on a recommended approval means you're on the road to a Green Card, the right to apply for citizenship, the chance to become an American. >> Hi, sir, do you have ID? >> Yeah, licence-- >> That's good. A license is good. You speak English, right?  Okay, sir. The office has been unable to come to a decision on your case. The case has been referred to the immigration judge. This is not a denial of your case... >> If the answer is no, if the asylum officer has decided to deny your request for asylum, you'll be told that the office has been unable to come to a decision, and that your case has been referred. >> You're going to have to sign for your ticket, sir. 

 >> You do get a second chance to tell your story, at what used to be called a Deportation Hearing. And if your case is turned down there, the judge declares immediately when and how you must leave the country. >> This is for the judge. Here you go, sir. >> Only one in five cases are reversed in court. So, in practical terms, the decision is made here. (indistinct talking) >> Anna Marie --, Window #6, please. (indistinct talking) Hi, you have ID? >> Yes. (indistinct talking)  >> Boris --, Window Two, please. (indistinct talking)  Hi, good afternoon, sir. 

Are you Boris? >> Yeah. >> The service has not made a decision on her case. So, her case is still pending with the service. But she has been referred to an immigration judge for further consideration of her case. The judge will also make the final determination on the application. (indistinct talking) Any questions? >> Um... >> I don't think we have. >> I don't think I have any questions. >> Okay, that's it. >> Okay. 

>> Good luck with the judge. >> Thank you. >> I can understand her desire to stay here. She could make a much better life for herself here, but that's not grounds for asylum. A lot of people would like to come here and better their lives. But it's not grounds for asylum. >> What did this officer want? Did he want somebody to cry, to beg him? >> No, no, no. >> How many Anglicans do you know who don't know that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Anglican church? And how many Anglicans do you know that don't know the sacrements in the Anglican church, but she claims that she went there every week and took communion. >> Do you have ID, sir? (indistinct talking)  Here you go. Thank you. 

It's okay. These services are recommending that your case be approved. So congratulations to you. This is recommended approval, which means sir, that at this point, you're background is being checked. So, once we get your fingerprints back, then the case will be granted, and you'll be notified. We'll send you a letter in the mail. Okay? Okay, I just need for you to sign the letter, sir. >> Well, I granted him. It's not like anybody with that claim is going to get granted asylum. There are a lot of people who come in here who allege that they've been beaten and targeted, or whatever, because they're Jewish, and they're living in the former Soviet Union. 

There are a lot of those cases that are fabricated. That's my opinion. >> Congratulations. >> There were inconsistencies in his claim. So in his case, I overlooked some of them. And it's funny, sometimes the cases that are real, that aren't fabricated, um, often have more inconsistencies. You know, usually, sometimes a story that's fabricated, and it's rehearsed, is going to be tighter. So, that's kind of the irony of all of this, you know? So, um, I don't know.  >> I meant to say earlier that this is a two-hour film with about 90 seconds of narration. So that little bit that you heard is probably half of the narration that we put into that film. 

>> It was a film that did pretty well. It went to Sundance, and then it went to a lot of other festivals, besides the broadcast. It gave us a chance to talk to audiences, a lot of audiences, which was, for me, kind of a first. I don't know if you'd done it that much, either. It was a film that caused controversy in the asylum field, certainly. Many lawyers were very, very nervous about how explicitly it indicates that some people who are not really appropriate for asylum do apply. Asylum is a narrow, narrow kind of relief. It's in the Geneva Conventions. It's defined as having a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of five very particular grounds: race, ethnicity, religion, political opinion, membership in a particular social group. So, a lot of people who are coming from civil war situations, or tremendous situations of danger, who we would think of sort of colloquially as refugees, don't really fit the definition of asylum. 

So it's obviously one of those very, very messy subjects. And it made people, you know, in the field, pretty nervous. The film itself is also, it's not the standard documentary, even ten years ago, when it was made. It's hard. One of the reviews in the New York Times, they wrote three, but one of them said this is not a film you'll be able to balance your checkbook while you're watching. It's demanding. But on the other hand, you know, it did introduce a world that a lot of Americans didn't know about. And it's become a kind of a standard in the repertoire now. For us, it was the first chance to think about, you know, maybe using the work that we do as a way to influence society. >> You know, it's a nuanced film. 

It starts conversations. But it was a film that we felt would be useful, if you wanted to be an advocate. And it was a film that would be useful if you wanted to be a better asylum officer. We made it for that. We didn't see the role that way, but we didn't want to beat up on one side or the other, or confirm, you know, the officers are often thought-- As a small example, that the translators often cheated and lied. And what they discovered when they saw the film was that very often, translation is difficult and they as officers got lost in that, and didn't see what was really going on. So, you know, we take a look back at this film and okay, it taught us that. It gave us a kind of calling card. These guys don't like "gotcha" television. It taught us something about fundraising, because we had to raise a fair bit of money to get this thing made. 

And it sort of prepared us for a thing we should never have started that has consumed us for close to ten years at this point. We had done this U.S. film. We love filming outside the United States. We had some interesting ideas for films outside the United States. We were getting ready to leave the country. And a friend who had seen this film and really admired it, a guy who worked in immigration policy in Washington said, oh, it's great you're doing that. It's too bad really, too bad, because George Bush is new in office, the labor unions have decided that they want to help fix immigration. The business community is behind it. There's going to be a big movement to reform America's immigration policy and deal with the people who are here without papers. And Kennedy is going to be part of it, and labor and business, republicans. 

It's too bad you're leaving, it would be interesting. Well, obviously, we were seduced. And so we, I think because of what we had done previously, had the foolishness or the courage to say wow, if you made a film that was inside all of these places at the same time, and you watched an idea become a bill, become a law, you'd have an amazing document about the American political system and how it actually works. So, we started on a series, now called "How Democracy Works Now." Twelve stories. >> Which means 12 feature-length films. Each one of them can stand alone, we believe. And in fact, a couple of them have been on HBO this year. The last one, show 12, which was called "The Senator's Bargain," in the HBO broadcast. In the series, it's really called "Last Best Chance." Kind of a depressing title for a stand alone, but it's a good title for the last film in the series. And a couple of others were on HBO. 

So we think they work on their own. And we know that not that many people will see all of them. But when you do see all of them, we believe, when you're finished, there's a very big story that's kind of invisible until all the pieces are there that's kind of the key to the workings of this political system, democratic as it is. It's all the things really, though, that happen between elections more than, you know, just what we normally think of as democracy. >> We'll show you just a four-minute trailer of this thing. And then after questions, if there's time, we have kind of a sneak preview of a show that hasn't been released that we'll show anybody who wants to stay after we're done in the class. You know, I think looking back at all these films in order to talk to you today made us see the ways in which everything we had done prepared us for this idiotically big project, both in terms of how do you talk to funders, how do you persuade people who are not supposed to be filmed to be filmed, and to believe in your project. How to be in space. "Well Founded Fear," I had an assistant camera person. We had a great, great sound recordist. 

We had an associate producer in the waiting room talking to people. We had a guy who drove the van. And Shari directed. We had a very complicated mic system, because the rooms were very small. The sound recordist and I were alone in the room. And Shari would be outside schmoozing with somebody, but wearing a microphone. She would be talking to them. Talking, but listening to what was going on in the room where I was shooting. And she would just be in a conversation, then she would say, "You should be rolling now," and I would hear that. And hopefully, I had already been rolling. 

>> We were shooting film, so it was sort parsimonious. You don't just keep the camera running when you're shooting film. >> But for this period, we shot this series, which we'll show you four minutes of, we shot for six years. And in kind of situations that were so private that we couldn't have outsiders; we couldn't have a crew. So, Shari became director/sound recordist. It was just the two of us. We figured out how have phone taps that people let us have on their phones, since that's how stuff happens, is by telephone. >> Even a senator, and lots and lots of staffers, and lobbyists. >> To try to figure out, you know, the interesting this is, how do you, if there's a process that interests you, that isn't just a story, but it's a process. And it's a process around ideas. 

It's kind of the biggest challenge. It's the biggest challenge we've tried, actually, to make a film that's really about an idea, about solving something very complicated, and what happens as it goes through the human machine that is the democratic process. So, this is four minutes. >> And afterwards, if you'd like, we can have Q&A. We can tell you a little bit about running a film company, the business side, the more specifically entrepreneurial side, which it amused us a lot to try to think of what to say about that. But anyway, after the clip.  >> This is an administration that is reaching out to Hispanic voters throughout the country. And this relationship with Mexico is a key part of that. >> We must reach an agreement before the end of this very year. >> Every generation of immigrants has reaffirmed our ability to assimilate newcomers. 

>> If Bush pulls this off, this could signal an historic re-alignment of voters that could really reposition the republican party. >> The President's statement suggested that the door to legalization is open. He said the word "green card" at the end. And he talked to me about-- >> Didn't he use "undocumented" as a term? >> He did. (laughs) >> Sam Brownback, a conservative working with Ted Kennedy on a joint bill. >> Okay, we'll get started. >> I'm ready. >> Good to see you. >> Good seeing you. >> We got a game on. 

 >> Our fire department and our police department had many, many heroes that day. >> We're now in a war on terror here. >> People will say you cannot connect immigration to terrorism. And I keep asking them, why not? >> How will we know when we have enough illegal aliens in our nation? And how will we stop them then?  >> It has nothing to do with race, with country of origin, with ethnicity. Nothing. It's an American issue. Because it is citizenship that is under attack. >> What he means by that, is we represent a threat to the country. And he's right, because we are changing. We're going to do what every major immigrant wave has done. 

We're going to make it dynamic. We're going to create a whole new America. >> I think there's a tremendous danger in giving the appearance in immigrant communities that the President's doing something good. We know he's not doing something good. >> I've heard that the republicans have a copy, but they're not giving it to us. >> Wow. >> Be careful who you talk to. >> You're not violating a confidence. >> Okay, good. >> It's news to me, John. 

>> I'm now involved in so many discussions I'm not supposed to be having that I can't even see straight. >> I don't believe what just happened. There is exactly maybe three people who know that. And a couple hundred who are going to be leaping to conclusions. >> You want to conduct yourself at all times in all ways-- Your job is not to answer the press' questions. The press is a vehicle through which you communicate your message. You are not a student or a teacher in a seminar. This is not an objective search for truth.  >> You have to re-fight the big battles of democracy again, and again, and again.  >> The stakes are high. 

Time is short. Polls look bad. All we have to do is figure out how to win. (applause and cheers)  >> Are you ready to take questions? >> Yes. >> Hi, guys. I just want to say thank you for coming all the way from New York. That's awesome. We want to say thank you. Also, I was wondering, the media has always been a major factor in determining what information the public sees. How do you guys consider yourself a vehicle for media change? >> For changing the media? >> The gatekeepers are the enemy. 

And there are gatekeepers in every, you know. The media is a very big and very complex machine. And if you're an independent filmmaker, and there are many of us, you need to get past the gatekeepers to get to an audience. And get past the gatekeepers in spite of what they think is what their audience needs. Obviously, as a filmmaker, you know better. >> You do! We think audiences are a lot smarter than they're often given credit for by programmers. >> But you know, that's kind of a bigger question. Part of the message of "How Democracy Works Now" is the system works perfectly. The democratic process isn't broken. The Senate isn't broken. 

It's you guys. It's us. It's the audience. It's citizens who aren't participating or who think that if I vote every two years, or every four years, I've done my job. And the same is true about the media. I mean, if citizens were informed, there would be no political commercials. But they all exist because we're lazy. So I don't know that that answers your question at all. >> Hi, I'm Marne. I'm an artist. 

And I consider film, obviously, an art form as well as a media form. I wanted to know, I don't know, for me, I've been thinking a lot about how I can use art in an entrepreneur way. I just wanted to know, when you initially think of an idea for a film, what is the first step that you take? I'm an artist, and I get excited with the new projects that I want to start. But how do you, do you first, like, contact a foundation to get grants, or are you first going off of a lot of your own money, your own time, and putting in effort and then you have to show them that? What is the process with that? >> I think that's probably the number one question that anybody who does this, or is thinking of doing this, you know, spends time on. It's so interesting to think of the work we do, which we more often think of as art than as an entrepreneurial exercise. But to think of it in a way that an entrepreneur would, because honestly, the financial returns are mighty sketchy. When people say they want to become documentary filmmakers, the first thing I want to do is say, "Are you sure? That's just a horrible way to make a living." The kind that we do. We do, we are making a living. But an awful lot of people don't stay in this business as long as we have, because it's very, very hard. But it is possible. 

And I think the fact that we're still around is a sign of that. At this point, when we get a new idea that we kick around between ourselves, yeah, one of the first questions we ask is who on earth would pay for this. >> You isolated the balance, right? If you have something that you want to do, you also need to think about well, what's my pathway to get it done. And you know, we love the process enormously. And we love the making of them enormously. There are things that are in our films we know are for one-tenth of one percent of our audience. And you know, we're trying to make the best films we can make that interest us. So that's, I'm sure, the same for you. But there's, for us, we do think about both of them at once. Okay, we're really interested in this. 

How do we climb the mountain to the people who have money, who might also be interested in this? You know, there are a bunch of things I learned very early as a filmmaker trying to make films for the University of Wisconsin. Look for foundations that say they never fund films. Those are perfect, because no other filmmaker is going there. But everything-- We know a filmmaker who goes to witch doctors and dentists and gets them excited about social issue campaigns. And she's very talented at those kinds of conversations. We've never gotten a dollar of private money that way in our lives. So some of it is really being honest about are your business talents on the side of your artistic talents. That's-- Documentary filmmaking is wonderful because you're all these different people. You need to be the person who can raise the money. You need to be the person who is modest enough that you're willing to sit at people's feet and learn from them, and not the person who comes in, "I already know your topic." There's another personality that's the personality of the eidt, you know? So, that's what's fun about this particular art. 

The business side of it is, think about what you're good at, who are you good at persuading, and who's going to be in love with your idea. >> Whose interests are  basically, in some way, parallel with what you want to do. Or at least something that you could justifiably will say will come out of what you want to do. There's sort of the art side, and then there's the effect on society side. They're not necessarily the same thing at all. I think, when I started, I was very, very engaged by the idea of this process. But I didn't imagine that I would be able to change anybody's mind about anything, or you know, even get a conversation started, necessarily. It's only now, after making films for 25 years, that I feel like it's the conversation potential that maybe interests me as much or more than the art side. It's been a really slow evolution, because, you know, making films has been pleasurable, if you can get all the conditions together. The truth is, you can't get all the conditions together unless there's going to be some kind of an outcome that somebody else wants to fund. 

>> We should not keep rattling on, but there's this whole moral philosophical question that comes with this. We got large grants from the Ford Foundation to make "How Democracy Works Now." The Ford Foundation is spending a lot of money on the pro-immigration pro-reform side. We went to everybody and said, look, we're making a movie. We'd like to film you. We're not making a film that takes sides. But people who-- But it's a very polarized issue and people on the strongly anti-immigrant side were very suspicious of us, because we had Ford Foundation money. They made assumptions, because in fact, we took huge sums of money from the Ford Foundation, and we never talked to them again. And Ford knew that, that we were going to make the films we were going to make, and trusted us that we weren't going to make a film they would be horrified by. So you need to find your relationship with whoever supports you, that let's you stay honest to whatever it is you want to stay honest to. >> Hi, thanks again so much for coming all the way over here. 

I was just thinking that, especially in different cultures, and with such sensitive political and personal issues, you've probably come across a lot of resistance and reluctance for subjects that you're filming. I was just wondering how you dealt with those, both on a personal level and like, if administrations and bureaucracy didn't want you to film, and everything like that. >> I think you've just asked the question that's usually the first question we get in a standard Q&A, which is, how did you get that access? Because that is what an awful lot of people wonder about. And you know, we always duck the question. It's just too long and hard to give the real answer, which I'd love to give you right now. But in a normal theater situation, it's just too long. Yeah, we run into lots of resistance, and for very good reasons. I sometimes feel like I wish I could make sure that the person who's just about to let us film really knows what they're getting into, because being in a movie could sort of change your life, particularly if it's a movie that's going to be shown in the society you live in. And we ran into that a lot in "How Democracy Works Now." There is no place on earth, I'm pretty sure, that is as camera conscious in as paranoid a way as Capitol Hill. The tiniest, you know, a single frame of footage can be used to wreck a career there. 

And staffers are never supposed to be in the limelight, and a lot of the films are about staffers. So, we had to do a very slow and careful job. And really, if you were going to say we had a single secret, it's that we're pretty honest. We tell people why we want to do what we want to do. And enough of them also want to do the same thing. It's a little bit of a parallel to how you eventually find your funding. >> You know, all the reality shows and all of the 20/20s, kind of the news magazine shows, they all have really brilliant young people on their staff whose job it is to go to the person in crisis and persuade them to say yes to be filmed. So, persuading people is, you know, a certain kind of talent. We tend to make longer relationships. We always come back with a film. 

We say we're willing to face you with it when we're done. We can give you a lot of details. But "Well Founded Fear" is very complicated, because it was, you know, the most critical moment of somebody's life. And the INS very properly refused to give us anybody in advance of that day. So we had to figure out how to find people. >> To even talk to. >> And how to get them to trust us, sometimes with very little notice. Honestly, a lot of it is be trustworthy. You know. Be trustworthy and tell the person why is it that this thing you're making is worth doing, worth believing in. 

That's what you do. In a way, filmmaking of our kind in the end, it turns out the technical side was really a trivial part of it. It's really all this sort of human stuff that you have in you anyhow. >> But it's also kind of a side effect of the kind of, you know, we're pretty good at observing situations by now. And you learn how to phrase what you want from somebody in terms that sound right to them. That's important. You can be just as honest and say it ten different ways. Say it the way they're going to hear, and you're more likely to have a good result. We're not really that corny and wonderful. It's just that being honest with people starts a relationship off in the right way. 

Filming the people is a real pain for them, you know? They don't always want the way they look or the thing they just said to be on camera. And if you don't have a relationship, you know, it's going to be very, very hard to be able to stick around. >> Lots of films are shot over a relatively short period of time. You kind of make a social bubble, and then you film, and then before the bubble breaks, you leave. So we have this amazing experience of sticking around for six years with people. If they had hurried up and gotten the bill passed, it would've been shorter. But they didn't, so you know, there's a person on Kennedy's staff, and I sort of sat at her feet for six years in making this. >> We probably shot 2,000 phone calls of hers, you know, with a tap on her phone, we got an awful lot of it. But it's a place where-- A lot of filmmakers these days buy access. People get paid to be in films. 

And Capitol Hill is a place you really can't do that. It would just really cause a lot of trouble. So, it was the old-fashioned way. >> Hi, my name is Monique. I just wondered going off the question that she was just asking. You said to gain access, you were being trustworthy. But in your documentaries, how do you appropriately represent the trust that you got from these people? How do you represent a race, ethnicity or religion that you're probably not that informed on? >> When you pick up the camera, you're an outsider. A film about your grandmother, you've changed everything with a camera. What I learned in India was-- It was a great learning experience for that category, right? I didn't-- There are a lot of languages in India, and I spoke a few hundred words of a couple. I'll try and make this short. 

The film called "Dadi's Family," which is about women in an Indian village, we had a crew that was half American and half Indian. And the Indians included middle class people very alienated from village life, middle class Indians very alienated from middle class alienation from village life, a young woman whose parents were still in a nearby village. Among the Americans, a missionary kid who spoke Hindi beautifully and had lived half her life in India, and a graduate of the University of Wisconsin on her first real long trip to India. So, we had this little conclave of people who could talk about, everybody was an insider, everybody was an outsider. Nobody was from this village. Ethnicity, skin color, don't make you one. Honestly, I think you recognize what your limits. You know, what you don't know is what allows you to make a film. And hopefully, you get to a place where the camera is smarter than you are. People have decided, Michael's not so bright, but I trust him, and they reveal. 

If we're sensitive in the edit, and you're sensitive as a viewer, you'll see what they wanted to say to you, in spite of the fact that I am only who I am. I think there's a mistake in saying you have to be an ABCD in order to make an ABCD film. But you bring baggage. And part of your task is figuring out your baggage, figuring out the baggage of your baggage, and you know, at least kind of having some honesty about that. I don't mean that that's ever completely or properly done. It's like translating a poem. It's never right. But that's what you should be trying to do in those kinds of films. And it's a mistake to think you're an insider. It's disrespectful, really. 

>> Like doing ethnography. Whoever you are, whatever your life experience makes you be, you better be hyper clear on that, so that you can try to filter it out dealing with your material. But whoever you are, you are that, and you are only that. So you wouldn't be able to make very many films if you restricted yourself to just people like you. >> The girls in Africa film was really interesting for that reason. The people who gave us the most trouble were male Ministers of Education and white European funders, because we didn't have a positive message. And you know, the film is in use all over the place, and people are showing it to boys soccer clubs. >> It's going around on the back of trucks. >> So, it doesn't make it perfect, or that somebody else couldn't have done a different, or more, or equally interesting film, but you know, everybody brings-- Our line is, we'll bring the movie, you bring yourself. Neither is--- >> Hi, my name is Ben. 

I just wanted to start off and say that I got an opportunity to see the film, "Dadi's Family" in an anthropology class, and it was very helpful in trying to understand some of the cultural differences. >> Great. >> I just wanted to acknowledge that. A two-part question here. The first one is kind of a filmmaking question. The scene in Massachusetts about the Baptist church, was that one camera that shot that conversation? >> You've asked a flattering question. Yeah, that's one camera. >> Okay, it looks like there's more than one camera. >> You know, the filmmaker's answer is it's a good editor, a great editor. But also part of the thrill of making these films is the day you're so in body rhythm with a conversation, with people, that you move with it and you're always in the right place. 

And there are days where, same shoot, same location, you move and every time you finish the reaction shot and you move to the other person, the conversation switches, and you're always in the wrong place. So this was a case of being in the right place for a lot of the 20-minute conversation. >> Sure, and then on the same continuum, just another geek question. I have the pleasure of knowing a lot of filmmakers, or interviewing a lot of filmmakers. The question I always have is, is there a dream project? The project that if time and money weren't an issue, is there a story you want to tell or a film that you would want to make? >> Boy, you know, it's kind of weird, but I think we're in the middle of it right now. It's so huge and it's so hard that when we tell other filmmakers about it, honestly, I'm not even exagerating, most of the time, their jaws drop.  It's just so huge and so impossible sounding. How on earth did we shoot in 12 Senate offices, and five House offices, and in Arizona, and in Iowa, and Kansas. And it's a bunch of stories that all come together. What kind of fantastic luck would you have to have to fall into that? It's weird. 

>> And it's been great. It is great. We're out raising money again because we've run out of money. >> Yes, the third time we're going out of business. (laughs) >> Thanks again for coming, you guys. This is really wonderful. I'm not going to ask a political quesiton. I just went and saw "Waiting for Superman" last night. I don't know if you guys know what that's about, but education reform in the United States right now. I was wondering if you could speak to objectivity in documentary filmmaking, and you know, in the last ten years, we've had all these documentary films that have actually been quite popular, Michael Moore, "The Inconvient Truth." And I was wondering if you guys could speak to where you sort of fit on that continuum, you know, about having an agenda when you go out and make a film, or whether you're just sort of presenting something and trying to start a conversation, and things like that. 

>> Yeah, there are bullets and there are bombs. And there are people who, you know, the bullet that goes to your heart, that's really shaped with an immediate purpose. And then, there's stuff that is meant to blow up inside you some time down the road. So we do the second kind. There are great films-- You know, Michael Moore is a great filmmaker. There's a lot of great filmmakers that are trying to persuade or to fire up the troops. I know you believe in social justice, and you're not angry enough about a social justice issue, and here's a great film that will remind you, that will put you back in touch with those feelings. Those are important to make and worth making. >> Well, maybe because we are partly or equally motivated by the films we want to make, as much as what we want the films to do, our style is a little bit different. We often, in the case of "How Democracy Works Now," we started with really no particular agenda at all, which is not to say that we ever thought we were objective, or that we didn't end up, you know, with a pretty strong opinion about it, but the point of it for us was to find out something fairly neutral. 

How does an idea get translated into the law of the land. And we really didn't know the answer. In fact, we didn't even really remember how the government worked at all. So, ten years later, we know that very well now.