Q & A with the Director

What was the inspiration for this film?

I guess I was inspired by the sheer lack of questioning of the 2004 election results.  Despite so many reports of problems, the whole country seemed in such a hurry to move on and put the massive rally against the Bush regime behind us like it was just some short-lived sitcom.

But mind you, I went to Ohio to make a documentary about systemic corruption under one-party rule, and the topic of election fraud continued to come up like the elephant in the room…so to speak.

What was your background in politics before this film?  

My political background has always been that of useful social satire, at least how I’ve seen it.  As a kid I grew up on late-night TV comedy with social commentary, like SNL, or the Tonight Show.  In Chicago, I was weaned on sketch and improv shows, which would usually have some obligatory political jabs.  

But it wasn’t until the Bush years that I became more passionate about politics.  There were so many things to be outraged and active about, and they all stemmed from this autopsy of an election in Florida.  Every day of this administration was another day of a multitude of crimes.

How did you pick what information to feature in the film?  

The details unearthed by citizen journalists which paint the real picture of what happened in the 2000 and 2004 election could fill a set of encyclopedias, or be a miniseries.  I continually opted for information that sounded outrageous no matter who you were or your party affiliation.  As convincing and irrefutable as numbers may be, I found that after you hear two or three sets of numbers, your eyes start to roll into your head.  

Each instance of dubious electoral integrity int his film can be laid out in about two minutes.  I would only use something with real evidence or sources, from first hand accounts to media reports. 

What is the "new" information presented that you feel will surprise some people?  

Honestly, all of this information is new to the audience if they haven’t been digging through buried media reports and citizen investigations.  The media has side-stepped this entire issue so strikingly, it’s a fascinating world of intrigue and insolence just waiting for a patient reader.  

But I think that once people see, for instance, how the public’s votes on machines, the computers that compile them, the servers that host that count, and the website that reports the totals are subject to complete control by Republican party operatives, they would be alarmed at the lack of transparency in our elections.

How easy was it to get Greg Palast involved?  Others that were interviewed?

Greg — if you know his reporting and persona — is a live-wire of critical thought and intensity.  He can’t sit still.  We likely never would have gotten the time with him that we did if he hadn’t known our Co-Executive Producer Rick Perez, who directed Unprecedented, about the 2000 Florida Recount, which Greg was able to contribute to significantly with his breaking of the felon purge list story.

After that, Greg, like a lot of the election investigative journalists I came across, were grateful that someone was taking the time to do justice to this under-reported issue.

Are you concerned that the film will upset some people or cause controversy?  

I am concerned that people will continue to avoid questioning how our election information is gathered without any consideration of how partisan the process is with hardly any oversight.  If people understood how hapless our process was, there would be considerable controversy, as there should be.

Can you explain the process of creating the film?  Any interesting anecdotes or obstacles along the way?  (what locations you shot, how long it took, etc.)

The process was spending a few weeks at a time in Ohio between July and November 2006 with just me, my producer Rick, and my D.P. Jonathan, driving between Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. 

We had always focused our interviews in two directions: the 2006 election horse races in light of massive Republican scandals, and the intrigue over why voting was so difficult in this swing state.  

But in retrospect, the whole experience seemed like rolling out of our minivan after long road trips, exhausted from never getting off West Coast time, stumbling unprepared into an interview with someone important, and pulling off a legitimate appearance just because I was in a suit and tie.

How did you shoot the film?  Please expand on technical information--camera equipment, editing equipment, size of team, etc.

I shot the film on a Canon XL-H1 HDV camera, and cut it on Final Cut Pro.  There were never more than one or two people around me working on this, but over two years it was non-stop.  But the real work began almost a year after I started shooting this, when my editor Vivian Umino came on.   She challenged me to elevate both my personal investment as a guide in the film, as well as to embrace the implications that I was trying to only allude to.  The film would be nowhere what it is now without her.

Are there other films in this genre that you admire?  Why?

Other docs with comedic inclinations?  I really liked Chicago 10, about the 1968 Convention in Chicago.  I have my students study Super Size Me and My Date With Drew.  As for election issue docs, I admire American Blackout.  

Why did you decide to create the Chad Rap?

While the purpose of documentary is to educate the audience, I guess I wanted them to really learn about the landscape of election fraud.  I came of age during the 70’s, which inspired a whole movement of hippie children’s programming.  The Muppets, Free To Be You And Me, Electric Company, Schoolhouse Rock, it was all after Laugh-In was the comedy mode, using repetition and crazy characters to reinforce its message.

Why did you decide to stream this for free on the Internet?  Please explain your distribution model philosophy.

A film that goes against the status quo like this one would have a hard time getting someone to put up their money for the marketing and distribution for it.  And it would take a great deal of time to find someone to do it, if at all, when we need to get this information out to people as quickly as possible before the election.

Combine that with the reality that selling your film directly without sharing proceeds with distributors gives you 100% of sales.  

Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails both made far more money off their self-released downloadable albums that got far less notice than the widely-released albums on major labels.

And ultimately, we are striving to build a new hub for information that is free from the corporate conglomerates, and we hope to use FREE FOR ALL! as a kick-off into this new domain.

What do you hope to accomplish with this film?  (You can expand on your director's statement.)

My aspiration is that this film creates a culture-wide consciousness about the need to protect our elections the way that An Inconvenient Truth sparked a transformation in how we regard our role in global warming.

What do you plan for yourself in the future?  Upcoming projects?

FREE FOR ALL! is actually only half the story of what I found in Ohio.  While that film investigates the devious tactics to swing elections and suppress voters, the companion film, PAY TO PLAY, explores the institutionalized obstacles outsider candidates face in today’s politics, running in a system where politicians are indebted to their business donors.  

That film should be out before the election, when a renewed focus on the swing state of Ohio and the significance of lobbyists and corporate influence on our government will likely be making headlines.