Rolling Roadshow Presents: CRAWFORD in Crawford

In light of recent political happenings (the primaries, etc.), do you think the message of the movie has changed from the first day you started editing to now?

I think the biggest change in message occurred before editing began. I think David (Modigliani, the director) originally set out to indict President Bush, not for his policies, but for his use of Crawford as a set piece for political stagecraft. What he found upon entering Crawford, however, was actually far more interesting: the people who'd lived there for years. As is always the case, the footage is going to dictate your story whether you like it or not. Because the people of Crawford were by far our most interesting storytellers, from the start our goal in editing was to let them tell their story (an opportunity that the mass media had not yet allowed them) and get out of the way. That meant creating an equal opportunity for Crawfordites from both sides of the political aisle (and yes, the full spectrum of political belief is represented in Crawford) to express their beliefs without a judgmental editorial hand. That was our goal all along, and it was a difficult one given that David and I are far from politically neutral. I think what came out of that effort is a discussion instead of a polemic. Crawford is so small that its residents really have no choice but to find a way to coexist, so complete political disagreement does not lead to interpersonal alienation within this community. They don't treat those who disagree with them as "other", which is a message many of us could afford to hear (especially in such a heated election season).

Have the people of Crawford seen the movie, and if so, what was the general reaction to it (specifically the Pro-Bush subjects, such as the shop owners)?

We sent a copy of the film to everyone who was in it....which was pretty scary. Perhaps our chief goal (besides making an entertaining film) had been to give everyone in the film a fair platform to express their views, so the Crawfordites truly were our most important critics. As we put the DVDs in the mail, I was thankful for the fact that no one even knows what the editor looks like. If anybody, they'd go after David. The response we got, however, was incredibly gratifying. The reviews were unanimously positive, ranging from liberal school teacher Misti Turbeville to conservative horse breaker Ricky Smith. I think Ricky's exact words were, "Ya'll did a little bit of Bush bashin', but generally I thought it was pretty fair all the way through."

We had six of the characters from the film in attendance at the SXSW premier. They ran the political gambit from W. Leon Smith (editor the Crawford Iconoclast, which endorsed Kerry in '04) to Pastor Mike Murphy (who, in an on-camera interview, lamented the fact that Bush could not run for a third term).

This weekend, we'll be lucky to have Misti Turbeville, Ricky Smith, Warren Johnson, Bill Holmes, and W. Leon Smith all in attendance (Pastor Murphy had a wedding to attend and said he was sorry to miss it). That group truly represents the range of belief that exists in Crawford, and we're honored to have each of them there. The group should also make for an interesting question and answer session.

Why do you think this film matters now, in the twilight of the Bush presidency?

The film isn't essentially about Bush, which I think will keep CRAWFORD relevant. Political stagecraft isn't going away, nor is the dehumanization of manipulative politics. Crawford saw plenty of both when Bush, then the national media, then 20,000 protesters and counter-protesters rolled through town, and I'd venture to guess that we're going to see quite a bit more over next five months. The film is about what happened to the 705 residents of Crawford when these outside forces were imposed upon them, and their experience in many ways mirrors our own. The film is a look back at the course our country has taken over the last seven years as seen through the microcosm of a small town with a unique perspective, but the themes with which the film deals are as old as politics.

Also, and I may be biased on this one, I find the people in the film to be engaging, intelligent, compassionate, and hilarious. I'd like to think that their stories and the incredible changes that occur in their lives during the course of the film have a relevance all their own. I'm fascinated by watching people change, and I think film is at its best when it can show the progression of a life in an engaging and truthful way. I hope that, to some extent, we are able to do that in CRAWFORD. These people's stories deserve such a telling.

Were there any stories that you wanted to tell in the editing that had to be removed due to time or continuity restraints?

Our first cut of the film was 96 minutes long, and the film that will show this weekend is 74 minutes long. There were many stories that we would have liked to tell, or perhaps tell more fully. What we found, through test screenings and our own experience watching the film as it was developing, is that audiences demanded that a story be ruthlessly efficient in its telling. I think people have an internal barometer for when a film strays from the story it has set out to tell, and they have a very low tolerance.

W. Leon Smith is an avid Disney enthusiast. Pug Meyers had over five heart attacks. Ricky Smith wrestles down wild mules with his bare hands. Tom Warlick was not allowed to attend senior prom until he cut his hair. All of these are completely entertaining stories, expertly told by the people who have lived them. They are also great bits of character development. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with the changes that the town underwent after Bush moved in, and that was our story.

Personally, how has this film affected your view of the media portrayal of politics and politicians?

I think I was still holding onto some quixotic notion that the media existed to keep politicians in check. Making CRAWFORD really disabused me of the part of that illusion I still maintained. Bush (the son of a senator, born in Connecticut, and Yale educated) moved to Crawford in order to create an image that would help him win the presidency. The media was completely complicit in the whole act, painting Crawford (and all of Texas) as a down-home red state and George W. Bush as its golden child. That obfuscation lead quite a few people to misread the man they were voting for. It also contributed to the "Red State" "Blue State" mentality that makes genuine discussion so difficult in this country right now.

What do you think will be different about this screening from any others that you have participated in (beyond the fact that it is actually in the town where the film was shot)?

The audience reaction is going to be pretty interesting. It has certainly varied from place to place thus far. People in Dallas laugh at different times than people in Boston, and are aghast at different times as well. One response that we've gotten at times, and that always bothers me quite a bit, is that part of the audience will laugh at someone in the film who is genuinely expressing their views. It's a kind of dismissal that I feel none of the characters in the film deserves, no matter how vehemently I disagree with what they're saying. I don't think we'll get much of that in Crawford, especially given that so many of the people in the film will be there. It will also probably be our most conservative audience to date, given that we're expecting much of the crowd to come from Waco and the many smaller counties surrounding Crawford. These people have skin in the game. Even if the film isn't about them specifically, it's about their part of the country. I imagine they'll hold CRAWFORD to a pretty high standard, and I hope we measure up. If not, I'm back to being thankful that nobody knows what the editor looks like.