|
On the surface, Two Towns of Jasper is an investigation into one small town's response to a modern day lynching, but at the core, the systematic nature of racism, the fleeting interaction between two seemingly separate worlds, is explored.
Each director had his own crew. Dow, who is white, interviewed the white citizens and the respective families of the accused; Williams captured the black townspeople, as well as the victim's family. Both utilized a large format DV package (Dow also used a wireless boom). Shooting lasted for nine months, in order to cover the three trials of the accused murderers. The timeline serves as the documentary's framework.
Before production began, Dow and Williams created a manifesto, a guide to shooting and interviews. Because of the intense media coverage, townspeople were not aware that the two crews (staying in different hotels) were working on the same project. Dow told participants after shooting; Williams advised his subjects who thought it made perfect sense. "They couldn't imagine going across the proverbial railroad tracks and having a candid discussion about race, so for them, I provided an opportunity to empower them," says Williams.
When production began, funding was not in place. Dow compares the experience to "going from rock to rock across a stream." As the directors shot, their proposal and show reel were further refined. ITVS initially turned them down, but came on board after the crews had been in Jasper for three months, and the team had narrowed down and defined key characters. Because funds were limited, editing did not begin until after production, with the initial phase lasting six months. Each director edited independently, creating scenes, storylines and a rough assembly.
Dow's initial reaction to both cuts was subdued: "There was clearly good material on both sides, but some material was not really going to work together." To integrate the two edits-essentially two movies-the directors started at the beginning with the first day of the first trial. They created an editorial language. "If one of us would have real vision for a scene, we would work with the editor," explains Dow. "And the other person would walk in, watch it, talk about it and either pass the baton or go back to work." Editing became akin to running a relay, each tossing the cut back to the other.
From the initial three-hour assembly, both made a cut, and the finished product is the amalgamation of those versions. It was a complex, two-and-a-half-year editing process. "With two directors, two agendas, two points of views, who has the last word?" asks Dow. Even simple cutaways within scenes were analyzed. "If we were talking about culpability in the section, who's going to define it?" adds Dow. "Which community? White? Black?"
While filmmaking is known as a collaborative medium, typically there's a singular vision-that of a director. As the two directors assembled the documentary, each not only had a different creative approach, but within the paradigm of race, each had a very different life experience. Williams elaborates: "The process of creating [the film] is a constant interaction between two people, discussing race. In the course of the film-even in scenes talking about Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday or the death penalty or the cemetary fence-at its base, characters in our film are talking about race, and at its widest, directors in the room are talking about race."
Throughout the film's festival run, beginning with a Sundance 2002 premiere, the directors often accompanied the film, to participate not only in Q&As, but to facilitate dialogue between audience members. Most who see the film immediately want to discuss it.
"The value of our presence is that we are a reminder that when you're dealing with race, racial division, you're dealing with things that have vying perspectives," Williams maintains. "What we mediate by our presence-in terms of context-is a reminder that this has to be mediated across race. To me, that is what the film ultimately needs to do," declares Williams.
|