Film Courage: Steve, before you set out to
make a film do you ask yourself what will
the audience for this movie want? Or is this
not a filmmaker’s job to ask such a question?
 
Stephen Maing, filmmaker of CRIME + PUNISHMENT:
It all depends on the story. In the case of CRIME
+ PUNISHMENT this was a story I felt begged
of this idea of bearing witness because I
felt early on that if we couldn’t bring
the viewer as close to these moments that
the officers (NYPD 12) were living through
and talking about and try to shed light on,
that people might not believe these claims.
That’s where this great gift of observational
filmmaking can unlock storytelling because
of this idea that if you stick around long
enough you gain access to very unexpected
kinds of moments and also the layers of truth
start to reveal themselves. Whereas in the
beginning you may be seeing moments that speak
on an issue level that might have interested
you early on. By the end of filming it, the
process, the relationship with the subjects
that you’re filming, all of that gets so
intimate that inadvertently you are over a
series of years presented with a very human,
character driven kind of access. And that’s
where I think the kernel of storytelling happens,
where you get to truly know people on a very
intimate level.
Film Courage: Looking at your IMDB, your first
directing credit was in 2003 and then you
didn’t have another directing credit until
2012. What challenges were you facing that
kept you from creating anything during that
time?
Steve: That’s a really good question. I
think one of the biggest challenges in filmmaking
is just simply having the confidence to continue
pushing forward when you have an idea or a
project. I had a lot of false starts during
that span of time. But what really was important
to me during those years was actually having
the opportunity to work on other people’s
films. I always felt like it was important
if I was going to direct my own work to understand
(kind of like mastering my own practice) how
to shoot for people, how to edit for people
and by way of that be able to inform my own
directing one day with these not just technical
skills but with very different kinds of language
when deeply engaged in the filmmaking process.
I always think back to what Al Maysles used
to say which is half of directing is the cinematography
and half of directing is editing. For that
reason he would give Charlotte Zwerin co-directing
credit when she would edit their films just
because of the multitude of infinite decisions
that go into crafting a film on the editorial
side.
I’m glad that I had this opportunity to
work on other people’s films and at the
same time it motivated me to feel like after
a certain amount of years I was ready to dig
in on my own work.
Film Courage: You did an interview about your
2012 documentary HIGH TECH,  LOW LIFE and
you said that [for that film] you did not
want to overdramatize the stories of these
citizen journalists. I’m wondering what
is this over dramatization and how did you
do the same with the NYPD 12 officers for
CRIME + PUNISHMENT?
Steve: When you think linguistically about
storytelling there’s this idea that we have
these tools of empathy building and rhetoric
that are at our disposal. It’s easy to get
carried away or find that the narrative you
construct is rooted in this kind of rhetorical
argument built around character development
or this idea of the creation of empathy in
people’s stories and their experiences.
And I think that we have to be very careful
about how we use those tools because they
are simply just tools. We have to have a more
thoughtful endgame in mind.
In the case of HIGH TECH, LOW LIFE I didn’t
want to overdramatize this inherently dramatic
story because of the political conditions
within which they were doing their work. These
are citizens journalists that are traveling
across mainland China reporting on uncensored
news and also trying to disseminate this idea
that individuals all carry or possess a kind
of social capital that if activated collectively
there could be a very powerful sea-change
in the culture around what can and can’t
be said in the media and in social media and
that there was more room for freedom of speech
than people realized.
In that idea was for me if we dramatized the
notion of a Western view of China and the
kind of draconian political landscape that
everybody likes to portray China with, it
would be in service of a more riveting film.
But I think it would not be faithful to the
reality on the ground which is these guys
were representing a real expansive gray area
of political and free speech. That was an
important lesson to me. I wanted to make sure
that the tone and use of dramatic cinematic
language was always thoughtful and commensurate
to the real, truly honest political kind of
condition at hand.
In the case of CRIME + PUNISHMENT, I think
this idea of building character right from
a story perspective, these are obviously real
people so to call them characters and subjects
is always a little discomforting but for the
sake of the conversation, but building character
was very important. If you can’t have a
connection to these whistleblower officers
in the film, then you would never release
yourself to kind of imagine the high-stakes
nature of what they’re doing and the real
social and political impact of everything
that they’re putting on the line to try
and expose.
That being said, this couldn’t be rooted
in simply any character’s dramatic story
arc because the larger goal for me in this
film was to create something that had a systemic
view that incorporated many officers that
we were meeting and not just that but had
a story structure that would lead from one
person to the next to the next so that there
was a kind of corroborating effect in the
storytelling.
In a sense for me that was perhaps a less
dramatic kind of strategy to take as far as
what would have been so potent to just tell
Edwin Raymond’s story or just Sandy Gonzalez’s
story. But ultimately I think it was in service
of this more important goal that I recognized.
We need to insulate the project with this
different kind of story structure that was
moving back between sort of a macro, systemic
view and then the micro human view on the
ground literally suggested through these arial
drone shots of the precincts if you see the
film.
We could get at something both structural
in terms of the policy which was having a
discriminatory impact in minority communities
and also make sure that the viewer was grounded,
like the real human stakes of people living
through these systemic issues and then also
additionally insulate the film so it’s much
harder for The Department dismantle any singular
narrative or say you know this was kind of
like…this is the claims of a disgruntled
cop or every precinct has its bad apples will
have something negative to say about The Department,
so I don’t if that answers your question?
There was a lot that kind of went into the
story.
I heard you say in another interview or I
read something that you did not want the weight
of the film to rest on just one story. I’m
wondering how did you make sure that divided
the time so that it’s not so-and-so’s
sort of fault. Or that it’s not just a film
about one story with a few minor ones interwoven?
Steve: Right, I was really sensitive to the
idea that when you push back against an institution
as these officers in the film are doing often
is the case that people will say that “Oh
this is one disgruntled cop” or “This
is one bad apple. Every department has a bad
apple.” And this kind of like bad apples
idea was something I was sensitive to and
I wanted to make sure that we created a story
structure that was rooted in a kind of non-linear,
multi-character mosaic which we could create
a corroborating effect. That one officer’s
story would dovetail into another, would lead
us to another, would then be introducing us
to lawyers who were working with a private
investigator, would lead us to a community
with young people who have been arrested multiple
times for falsified charges and so on and
so forth so that there was this true kind
of ecosystem of criminal justice or a systemic
view of what was happening in New York City
that would be much harder to refute or dismiss
than it was a single character narrative and
we were putting a lot of pressure on to it.
So I think in a lot of ways the burden of
the film’s message could be spread out by
many and shared by all.
Film Courage: You said to for an interview
you did with the Sundance Institute you believe
there is no financial incentive to draw the
documentary process out past a year but obviously
this took four years to make. I’m wondering
how are you able to put in four years of time
and not run out or did you run out of money
several times and have to apply for grants?
Steve: Yeah, I think most people working in
non-fiction are finding themselves in situations
that are shooting for years in order to prove
to funders that they have a credible story
or kind of like a proof of concept on hand,
you hear it many times, you submit grant applications
or to funders and they’ll say “Well, come
back when you have more, this looks really
interesting.” To the point where people
want rough cuts of work. So it’s really
a difficult path to finish an independent
documentary because you are expending all
of your personal savings or resources, everybody
is accruing or most people are accruing massive
amounts of personal debt on credit cards and
what not. And so it’s very hard to justify
but yet when you feel like you are finding
yourself in the crux of a very kind of, perhaps
never before seen story or access to individuals
who have not had their stories told that’s
a very kind of compelling reason to find any
reason to continue shooting. So luckily to
be able to freelance in film for other projects
was thankfully a way to sustain myself when
times were tight and then ultimately I was
able to get funding thankfully from these
really amazing organizations and individuals.
Film Courage: I think many documentary filmmakers
deal with a reluctant subject, you said earlier
that this was a chance for them to tell their
story. Were there times when it was too much
to too fast because they were so relieved
that you were here ready to listen, they were
ready and were at a time in their lives where
they knew they were going to do this and you
had to slow them down?
Steve: Yes, I mean it was really overwhelming
moment once the class-action was formed, there
were in essence 12 cops who were part of this
class. All 12 of them did not want to be filmed
but a majority of them did and so that was
about 10 officers including individuals who
were sort of on the receiving end of certain
discriminatory policing claims and the lawyers
and the private investigator and community
members and there was definitely a span of
a couple years that felt like I was constantly
on call and always overwhelmed with wanting
to follow a multi-faceted narrative that had
a kind of non-linear structure to it but feeling
like it was nearly impossible to be everywhere
at once. What wound up happening that was
really kind of helpful for me was I realized
I could only dig into what I could dig into
at one given time so if I spent a week of
time with one individual it was actually a
good thing to have time away for somebody
else. It would allow the story to advance
and a renewed vigor and excitement to film
and I think it was a good think to not always
be in everybody’s face. But that said it
was a tremendous amount of filming because
I was very interested in wanting to find the
story organically and find the structure organically
and be responsive to what was unfolding over
the years.
Film Courage: And so I’m sure there were
times of those 12 [individuals] they weren’t
sure they wanted to go through with it (maybe
not)? But were there ever times where you
questioned your motives or your ability to
withstand taking on this giant?
Steve: Yeah, I think your not making a film
if you don’t at a certain point feel a tremendous
amount of uncertainty and self-doubt and question
the very motivation of what you’re doing,
right? You can’t fully know that you’re
taking all of these people who have put their
story and trust and faith in you that you’re
actually going to have something to show for
that. So it’s an incredibly stressful burden
of responsibility that you know at certain
points that line is blurry, like are you doing
this for yourself, are you doing this to ultimately
make sure that you can deliver on a promise
and that’s a tricky situation because we
can’t be making films for our subjects but
yet we certainly don’t want to let them
down because they’ve instilled so much faith
in us.
And so I think ultimately you go through so
many different kinds of emotions and all of
that service of kind of like making a more
rigorously vetted project, one that if you
know that you’re not struggling with a whole
multitude of personal and ethical questions
in the process then you’re not fully embracing
what is most important about the process because
every filmmaker does have to come terms with
very complex ideas, not just can I finish
the film but what does this film need to be
and what is the most truthful representation
of this story and how is the mere act to document
in real-time certain kind of events, altering
the reality of what would have happened and
how do I tap into something innate about my
motivations and beliefs in order to create
the most faithful representation of what would
have happened if I did not insert myself into
this situation.
That’s just the beginning, that’s just
the tip of the iceberg as far as the kinds
of really complex and overwhelming questions
I think we tussle with.
