FAQ with the Filmmakers

How did this filmmaking team come together to make the film?

Robert May (Producer): I met Deborah and Chuck Lacy at the Sundance Producers Conference, where I told them I wasn't looking to produce another documentary as we had a number of narrative projects in development. Then I heard the concept and saw some initial footage. I was impressed and excited by Deborah's idea to give cameras to the soldiers. She had met Chuck in a writing class at Dartmouth, and they knew they had something potentially remarkable on their hands. Our first big challenge was securing the best editor possible for such a massive project. That's when I called Steve James. I couldn't imagine a better character-based narrative documentary director/editor. We'd worked together on STEVIE, and although Steve initially told us he didn't want to edit a project he wasn't directing, when he saw the footage, he was sucked in as well. What resulted was an amazing collaboration with a wonderful team of loggers, editors and producers all totally committed to taking these soldiers' 800 hours of tape and turning them into the film we have today.

Given how controlled journalists' access to the war is, why did the military allow this film?

Deborah Scranton (Director): It has been my experience that, despite preconceptions to the contrary, many in the military want their stories told. Public Affairs Officer MAJ Greg Heilshorn of the New Hampshire National Guard contacted me with the invitation to embed. When I came back with the idea to give the soldiers cameras instead, he responded immediately. Of course, we had to ensure that cameras would not interfere or endanger soldiers during missions, but the New Hampshire National Guard was supportive throughout our process. On our blog, MAJ Heilshorn describes his job as "to tell the story of our citizen-soldiers." About the project, he writes, "Charlie Company took a monstrous leap of faith by committing to the project. We had no idea how it would turn out. The soldiers who stuck with it demonstrated the same unflinching approach to their filming as they showed in their daily infantry missions. As the public affairs officer, I could not ask for anything more than that. They gave us an honest portrayal of the citizen-soldier through his own eyes."

Was any footage censored or denied to the filmmakers?

Steve James (Producer & Editor): The only footage denied us was the footage that Steve Pink tells us about in the film—the video he shot of the dead insurgents after the firefight was kept by their commander in Iraq. That's pretty amazing when you think about all that got into this film. We knew this scene would raise other questions about censorship and the film, but felt it was important to include it for several reasons: First, Steve's account reveals some of the contradictions soldiers experience in war, where they are asked to be a "killing machine" in battle and sensitive and humane afterwards. Secondly, Steve courageously reveals how profoundly he's been impacted by the horrors he has witnessed and experienced during the deployment. It's why we decided to put in digital photos of dead insurgents. We debated among ourselves about how little or much viewers should see, but firmly believe that we needed to stand by Steve's intention of showing the horrors of war.

Were there other soldiers in the footage whose stories you had but left out?

Robert May: There were absolutely other soldiers and stories that don't appear in the finished film. We wanted to tell a compelling, cohesive story—to focus on just a few soldiers so that, most importantly, audiences will truly get to know the soldiers seen in the film. After watching this film, we want people who don't know soldiers in their personal lives to feel as if they know Zack, Mike, and Steve. And to accomplish that, we all had to cut scenes and soldiers that we loved.

Chuck Lacy (Executive Producer): On our Web site, we now have the opportunity to showcase great footage that didn't make it to the final cut. We have Mike's visit to a storeroom full of Saddam's treasures, soldiers burning a dead cow on the side of the road, a hilarious definition of a "REMF." We also plan on releasing a companion DVD that will feature more with Zack, Steve, and Mike, along with other soldiers who have their own fascinating stories.

How did you distill 1,000 hours of footage into a 97 minute film?

Steve James: It's never easy, especially with such provocative and compelling footage. For me, the subjects of your film are always the most important. The film needs to tell their personal stories set against the larger backdrop, not the other way around. Deborah was on the "front lines" with the guys, so she would often alert us to compelling material headed our way. Our loggers, co-producer Adam Singer, and associate editor Aaron Wickenden also made great discoveries in the footage, alerting me and fellow editor, Leslie Simmer.

We spent an entire year editing this film—challenging each other's assumptions, arguing passionately, rearranging sequences, trying different openings and endings. Late in the process Chuck Lacy and especially Robert May and co-producer Lauren Timmons played key roles in helping us to get the film down to 97 minutes. If the story we ended up with works, it should seem obvious and self-evident. But, believe me, it was anything but.

What's the point of view of the film? Are the filmmakers for or against the war?

Deborah Scranton: The film has always been about the soldiers' point of view. From the beginning, I promised them that we would tell the story, their story, wherever it took us, no matter what. And I promised them we would not twist their words. What I was interested in was their interpretive framework, to get as close to the experience of war as possible, to climb inside and feel it all around. By giving the soldiers the power to press record on those cameras in Iraq, we were able to move one degree closer to the essence of what it is like. They did an amazing job.

Finally, as for the politics of the film, our film is passionately political in that soldiers think. They're in Iraq to carry out a mission, but they have political beliefs just like the rest of us, and they were constantly processing, questioning and debating.

Robert May: For me, it was extremely important that this film not make one political argument. The power of our footage was the personal stories, the chance to experience three men's very personal footage of their year in Iraq. To interject the political views of the filmmakers would have destroyed this unique opportunity to see what these soldiers saw, and to hear what they think. However, I do think that the film is organically political.

Steve James: In many ways, Mike, Zack, and Steve each embody a lot of the contradictions and conflicts that America struggles with about this war, with one important difference: they're fighting it too. Similarly, the filmmakers had differing feelings about the war and we struggled to make sure that the film remained true to the tensions we felt as well. This film is political in the fullest sense, not polemical. We do not avoid or soft pedal our subjects' feelings and differences. We embrace them. There's a lot to learn from this film, whatever your political orientation.