‘American Voices 2024’ Filmmakers Hope to Expose Audiences to Differing Perspectives and ‘Bridge Silos’
Some of the participants of the FRONTLINE documentary "American Voices 2024."
Four years ago, America went through a turbulent year, from the COVID-19 pandemic to the protests that followed George Floyd’s murder to a polarizing presidential election. As Americans dealt with all of these events, a dozen people gave FRONTLINE and its viewers a window into their lives in the documentary American Voices: A Nation in Turmoil.
American Voices 2024, FRONTLINE’s latest addition to election-related programming, follows many of the same people to see how their lives, hopes and fears have changed since 2020.
In a conversation with FRONTLINE, director Mike Shum and producers Qinling Li and Arthur Nazaryan spoke about the challenge of weaving stories from several people across multiple states into one cohesive narrative and shared how so many people who appeared in the 2020 version of the documentary were “excited” to participate again. They also talked about how they hoped the documentary would allow viewers to “step inside someone else’s living room and listen to what they have to say.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
In 2020, the pandemic sparked the idea for the film. Was there a specific moment when you decided that you want to go back and make an updated version in 2024?
Mike Shum: It was a conversation between Raney Aronson-Rath and Andrew Metz about what if we revisited each of the people we had been following in 2020 for this coming election? And, for me at least, it was a natural “yes.” There was a natural curiosity about where everyone was at. To be able to engage with them in this capacity was something that I was very much interested in doing. It just flows with the mission and the mandate that we started with of creating this wider tapestry of individuals across the country facing a collective unknown.
Arthur Nazaryan: With long-term, somewhat character-driven filmmaking, when you build those connections and the opportunity to keep going back and digging deeper and finding out more about their lives exists — that to me is also kind of natural. Especially with the national context of the election coming up.
Qinling Li: This idea of following up with a subject — that’s a very important part of not just a verité documentary, but also journalism. I think that’s a pretty powerful part of this journey and of the storytelling, where we are keeping in contact with them and we are showing how they grow and progress.
What was the participants’ reaction when you asked them to resume filming for 2024? And how long did it take to re-establish rapport and trust?
Li: I was a little bit worried about what if some may not like the idea of us going back and filming. You never know before you actually talk to them. What I’m really amazed about is that everybody was excited, and everyone loved to be part of the film. They wanted the change in their lives to be shared with others. And they also love that they get to see the different perspectives from other people that the documentary follows.
Nazaryan: I was surprised when Qinling called me. My first thought was, “What about the people in the film?” Pretty much everyone — even the people who I thought might have had a contentious reaction — all of them were on board. I think that’s a very strong sign that Mike in the 2020 film really tried to thread the needle to make the film quite balanced in its sensibility. Clearly, the rapport that we built in 2020 lasted. So the only other thing with everyone, at least in my experience, is when we filmed them in 2020, the pandemic was still happening. It’s kind of interesting to look back together — like a bizarre fever-dream memory.
Can you take me through the writing process: how did you weave all the different stories together?
Li: Senior producer Callie Wiser established an almost flawless workflow between scriptwriting and post-production. Every time when we had footage come back, the editors Robert Kirwan, Brian Truglio, Mark Dugas would do a selects reel for me. And I would decide what’s the most important message from this participant. I would do individual scripts for each person. So we would have what I call a library of puzzle pieces representing different scenes to pick from, which you could categorize according to a theme, for example, “debating.” That becomes easy and fun and also engaging. It’s a creative process that everyone in the team can be part of, to try and see what’s the best way to tell the story.
Shum: The challenge was we’re not going to film them voting and we’re not going to film them after the vote. So what will make this strong? And there are two areas at play. Arthur was very insistent, and I’m glad, that we need unifying moments. We all agreed that the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would be that unifying measure across the country. And it’s a powerful scene because I think it’s a way for the film to hold a mirror up to the public to say, “We were all part of that. We share that together, in a sense.”
But, Qinling, you know what I loved about the direction was, “Well, what does the future look like when we think about our participants?” It was a very inspiring conversation where you, Qinling, said that many of the participants talk about the next generation; they talk about what it will be like for their children and their grandchildren. What is it like for them to think about the future as it pertains to their generational continuance or legacy? And I thought that was brilliant. And that was such a beautiful, elegant way to talk about the fears and hopes of each person, because it’s not necessarily about them so much as, “What am I going to pass on to my children, my grandchildren?” So that was a huge angle that I feel really brought that heart and soul to this iteration of the film.
Can you tell me a bit more about the debate scene? How did that come together?
Nazaryan: The thought was, “What can we do that everyone is participating in to some extent?” I think it’s safe to say that since 40 years ago, debates have become more theatrical. There’s a very high chance that you’re going to get natural reactions from people — whether there’s a camera in the room or not — but just like viscerally react to what’s happening on screen. So I thought, okay, you got two birds with one stone there. You get a unifying moment and you get a very natural, almost subconscious reaction coming out in front of the camera.
You worked with the participants in 2020 and now in 2024, and probably got to know them really well. How do you think their sentiments about politics and the government have changed over the last four years, if at all?
Nazaryan: For the most part, the only change I would say is some people became more disengaged. So they have even less faith in the ability of things to change, kind of like, “I don’t like either candidate and I might vote for A or B, but I’m not thrilled about it.” But I don’t think very many people have a full-on tectonic shift of opinion, which again, I think in real life most people, by the time they are 40 years old, tend to have crystallized in their politics.
Shum: I do think I saw more of a distrust in the establishment, in structures and systems and institutions. I saw a lot of, “What do I do with the pieces left from the pandemic?” I do think there is a sense of “we’re on our own” kind of feeling. So in a sense, I see more of — not really a transformation — but an intensification of perspectives. I felt like I learned a little bit more about the country through that intensification, through these interviews. And maybe they were just more forthright this time.
Mike, in 2020, you described how this project was an attempt to document how ordinary Americans were responding to a “collective unknown.” Is there a similar overarching theme or commonality in what these same people are confronting in 2024?
Shum: Something that I think Qinling caught on to as a thread, is this care for the future generations. I don’t know that they care that much about this election, so much as they care about what’s going to happen in the future. And this election is a part of that. So I would say future generations is, for me, a central theme for this particular iteration. Not to say that wasn’t the case for 2020, but it felt more tangible, tactile in this round of filming.
Li: I think for 2024, the main theme is really the election. That’s the overall thing that brings everyone together to share their perspective about where this country’s going. “Is that aligned with my values and my hope for my life?”
What do you hope people take away from watching this film?
Nazaryan: What I would hope is at a minimum, you get some sympathetic exposure to other people’s perspectives and lives. It’s not my job to steer those opinions, people’s thoughts in one direction or the other. It’s my job to provide, to some extent, a truthful accounting of these people’s lives.
Li: It’s really just to break the bubbles that you stay in with the people you agree with. This film gives each character a chance to show their perspective, but also introduces them to other perspectives. A lot of the characters in the film also said that they’re looking forward to seeing this — not just to see themselves, but also to see what all the people think about what their experience of the past four years was and going forward into this election.
Shum: I think the message for all of my work is inviting audiences to see different perspectives. Here, we are giving people the chance to bridge silos so that people are able to see different sides of the country that they normally wouldn’t get to see. I want people to expose themselves to the diversity that this country actually has. The message I would impart on an audience is, “Step inside someone else’s living room and listen to what they have to say.”
