Question and Answer with Videographer/Coordinating Producer Laurel Jensen, May 2004

Q: Laurel, tell me when you first began videotaping protests and how you came to do that.

Laurel: I had been working as a security analyst for the U.S. Navy for nearly 12 years when, in October, 2002, the White House publicly announced its intent to preemptively invade Iraq. Professionally I couldn't support that decision and believed doing so would solidify opposition to U.S. presence in the region and increase terrorism far into the future. In the post 9-11 climate, mine was not a popular position. I started attending anti-war protests in Washington, D.C. on my personal time when the edict came down at work to "take it home," referring to dissenting viewpoints in the defense industry. I hadn't been involved in activism, but the rhetoric I heard at the rallies rang true, certainly truer than what I was hearing in the media. In fact, I was impressed by the depth and extent of the knowledge that activists had and how they were openly attempting to educate others. In the defense industry information is held very close to the chest. You simply don't talk about what you know; you keep your circle tightly controlled. But in the streets there were citizens with knowledge that was consistent with what I knew by working with classified information, and these citizens had no constraints. I started documenting rallies, demonstrations and marches in January, 2003 as the build-up to the war on Iraq took the forefront hoping I could somehow use what I was videotaping to educate others without breaching security and jeopardizing my position.

Q: At what point did you decide you should turn this into a documentary?

Laurel: At first I just wanted to raise the issue of why we went into Iraq but realized that my journey into activism had greater significance. The country had not had the kind of debate I felt we needed after 9-11 about what America's role ought to be in the world. We still haven't answered how we, as just one culture sharing the planet with so many others, can maintain our consumer way of life without encroaching further on others' resources both escalating violence and degrading the environment. The problems we face as a nation and as a community of nations are complex and interconnected. We haven't faced our responsibility and held our leaders or ourselves accountable for the choices we are making. Our post-Cold War national security strategy is based on a three-prong approach to increase and ensure our dominance politically, economically and militarily. To paraphrase the many versions of the National Security Strategy since 1996, the U.S. will "encourage democracy, globalize capital via free-trade agreements and maintain a forward military presence throughout the world". There has been and will be an inevitable blow back from those who are subject to the effects of this strategy. Outside the intelligence community, it was activists who were addressing the issues. What an odd position for me to be in. The media outlets were enthusiastically covering the war effort with little or no attention to the hundreds of thousands of dissenting voices. American activists took heart that millions were demonstrating in concert across the world, but frustration grew over not being heard here in our own country. This lack of coverage isolated a large portion of the population and rendered it voiceless in the larger sense. That's when I decided to tell the story. The best way to do that was to bring the voices and faces of dissenting Americans to the screen.

So much was happening in Washington, D.C., during the build-up to war and during the invasion, I literally couldn't get to it all. Small church-based groups held prayer circles on Federal property, students left classrooms to join ad hoc marches, national peace organizations hosted large rallies, marches and performances, activists from across the world gathered to lobby or demonstrate, organized acts of civil disobedience were sponsored by coalitions, distraught individuals showed up from all over the country, in fact the world, looking to join others in solidarity, and local citizens brought their children to the White House to vigil in opposition. I filmed everyday for 40 days covering 70 events from March 8 to April 16, 2003 and then I just kept filming. To date (November, 2005) I've documented 200 events in 3 years in several cities across the country. The log just keeps growing. I've made it a point to film the widest array of groups possible to discover what Americans are dissenting about. It's become a documentary.

Q: What is your goal for the film?

Laurel: First and foundationally, it seems to me that democracy is in jeopardy when large portions of the population have no voice either politically or in the popular cultural and dissenting viewpoints are characterized as un-American. I hope the film brings dissent to the forefront as an essential means of political participation in a functioning democracy. Secondly, dissent is not just anti-this and anti-that but it also provides alternative solutions. I hope this film touches on some of them and helps to reframe the debates of our time. And third, people who dissent are heroes. I hope the film is able to show just a glimmer of the hope these people share and inspire others to dream of a better future and take stands in their own lives.

Q: What made you decide not to edit the material yourself but rather team up with experienced filmmakers?

Laurel: This was the first time I'd filmed anything and I knew nothing about filmmaking. All I had in the beginning was a prosumer camera and a phenomenal story unfolding before my lens. I was literally shooting from the hip. I didn't have time to learn or the budget to acquire expensive equipment. Yet I couldn't miss the opportunity to share the commitment and passion of dissenting Americans with others. When other people got interested in the project it took on a life of its own. Vicky Hughes, a filmmaker friend of mine, looked at some footage and called her co-producer, Holly Stadtler and an editor she respected, Barr Weissman to pitch the idea. They were interested. Two days later, a dear woman I met while filming an act of civil disobedience offered seed money to get the film started. And that was it! It wasn't just my project anymore - there were others who felt the need to tell this story. It's my obligation to tell it with professionalism and integrity, and at the highest possible quality to reach the widest possible audience. The people and their stories deserve nothing less.

Q: What has surprised you most since you've been out on the streets filming?

Laurel: I wasn't involved in activism and protest when I started this. I was, like the majority of Americans, living my life on a personal level - going to work, living my daily life. It surprised me how many people are disenfranchised in some sense in this 21st century America! The Bush Administration's attempts to roll back the hard won rights of workers, veterans, women, minorities and the poor, the relaxing of environmental protections, the tendency to ignore scientific facts in favor of the religious dogma of the far right and a blatant disregard for international treaties in addition to unilaterally taking us to war on false pretenses and violating civil liberties, particularly of Muslim Americans, has wakened dormant traditionally dissenting stakeholders as well as adding new groups to the fray. I've been in Washington 24 years and have never seen so many people inside the establishment in such opposition to official policy or so afraid to speak out about it. And, I have never seen so many ordinary Americans connecting their hearts to their heads and their voices to their feet. There is a loud cry for peace and a steady rumble for justice that permeates our society in all walks of life, and I don't see that going away. It is a wonderful testament to the tenacity and courage of the human spirit. I was surprised and frankly encouraged by so many acting on conscience.

Q: Once the film is completed, what plans to you have?

Laurel: By mutual agreement my career as a security analyst ended in September 2003. I could no longer in good conscience produce "the product" for a military establishment controlled by a political process beholding first and foremost to corporate interests that are at best, amoral. So, there is a second film in the making. Dissent is only the first step toward a new set of possibilities. People who are dissenting have visions of a different future, and I'd like to help bring those possibilities to the national, in fact the international, dialogue. The status quo cannot be maintained forever. We are not doomed to an inevitable course of resource depletion and a competitive struggle to secure the shrinking pie for ourselves at the expense of others. There are alternatives. I'd like to do a film about that next. If not a film, I'll be working in some progressive venue helping to find solutions that enhance life for us all. As a security professional I worked to protect my country from outside threats. Now I believe my country is protected best by policies that ensure food, energy, health care, education and jobs for all people both domestically and abroad.