Four years ago, America endured a tumultuous year, from the COVID-19 pandemic to the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd and a polarizing presidential election. As Americans deal 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 2024FRONTLINE’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 talked about the challenge of combining stories from many people across multiple states into one coherent narrative, saying that with so many people involved in the 2020 version of the documentary, “I’m excited to participate again. I’m also excited to see the audience of the documentary.” They also said they hoped it would allow someone else to “go into the living room and listen to what they have to say.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

in 2020 the epidemic flared up the idea of ​​the movie. Was there a specific moment when you decided to go back and create 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 followed in 2020 for the upcoming election. And for me at least, it was a natural “yes.” There was a natural curiosity about where everyone was. Being able to interact with them in that capacity was something I would love to do. It flows with the mission and mandate that we have begun to create this broader fabric of individuals across the country facing a collective unknown.

Arthur Nazaryan: In long-term, somewhat character-driven filmmaking, when you make those connections and the opportunity arises to go back and dig deeper and learn more about their lives, that’s pretty natural for me, too. Especially as the national context of the election approaches.

Qinling Li: The idea of ​​following a subject is a very important part of not only a true documentary, but also journalism. I think that’s a pretty powerful part of this journey and storytelling, where we’re engaging with them and showing them how they’re growing and progressing.

What was the reaction of the participants when you asked them to continue filming for 2024? So how long did it take to rebuild harmony and trust?

Li: I was a little worried if some people wouldn’t like the idea of ​​us going back and shooting. You never know until you actually talk to them. What surprised me was that everyone was excited and everyone loved being a part of the movie. They wanted the change in their lives to be shared with others. They also like that the documentary allows them to see different perspectives from other people.

Nazarian: I was surprised when Qinling called me. My first thought was: “What about the people in the movie?” Almost everyone – even people who I thought might have a controversial reaction – all agreed. I think that’s a very strong sign that Mike in the 2020 movie is really trying to thread the needle to make the movie pretty balanced in terms of sensibility. Frankly, the harmony we established in 2020 continued. So, the only other thing for everyone, at least in my experience, was that when we shot them in 2020, the pandemic was still going on. It’s kind of interesting to look back on, like a weird fever dream memory.

Read more: Behind ‘American Voices’: How 2 Dozen Cinematographers Tracked People Across the Country for FRONTLINE’s 2020 Final Film Documentation

Can you walk me through your writing process: How did you put all the different stories together?

Li: Senior producer Callie Wiser created a nearly seamless workflow between script writing and post-production. Every time the footage came back, editors Robert Kirwan, Brian Truglio, and Mark Dugas were setting up an audition for me. And I would decide what the most important message this participant would give was. I prepare separate scenarios for each person. This way, we have a library of puzzle pieces representing different scenes to choose from; you can categorize them by a theme, for example “discussion”. This becomes easy, fun and also interesting. This is a creative process that everyone on the team can be a part of to see what is the best way to tell the story.

Shum: The challenge was that we didn’t film them voting and after they voted. So what makes this powerful? And there are two areas in play. Arthur was very insistent that we needed unifying moments, and I’m glad he did. We all agreed that the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would be a unifying measure across the country. And it’s such a powerful scene because I think it’s a way for the film to hold up a mirror to the public and say, “We were all a part of this. “In a sense, we share this together.”

But Qinling, you know what I loved about directing 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 most of the participants talked about the next generation; They talk about what the situation will be like for their children and grandchildren. What is it like for them to think about the future in relation to their generational continuity or legacy? And I thought it was great. And it was such a beautiful, elegant way to talk about each person’s fears and hopes, because it’s not necessarily about them, but “What will I pass on to my children, my grandchildren?” This was a huge angle that I felt really brought that heart and soul to this iteration of the film.

Can you tell us more about the debate scene? How did these come together?

Nazarian: The thought was: “What can we do where everyone participates to some degree?” I think it would not be wrong to say that discussions have become more theatrical since 40 years ago. You’re likely to get natural reactions from people whether there’s a camera in the room or not, but just like reacting viscerally to what’s happening on screen. So I thought, okay, two birds with one stone there. You experience a bonding moment and a very natural, almost subconscious reaction occurs in front of the camera.

You worked with participants in 2020 and now in 2024, and you probably know them really well. How do you think their views on politics and government have changed in the last four years?

Nazarian: For the most part, the only change I can say is that some people have become more disinterested. So they have even less faith that things can change, sort of like, “I don’t like either candidate and I might vote for A or B, but that doesn’t excite me.” But I don’t think many people have had a complete tectonic change of heart; Again, I think in real life most people, by the time they hit 40, tend to crystallize in their politics.

Shum: I think I’ve seen more distrust in the organization, in structures, systems, and institutions. “What do I do with the pieces left over from the pandemic?” I’ve seen that a lot. I think there’s a sense of ‘we’re on our own’. So in a way I see more – not really a transformation – but an intensification of perspectives. Thanks to this immersion, I felt like I learned a little more about the country thanks to these interviews. And maybe they were more forthright this time.

Mike, you described in 2020 how this project was an attempt to document how ordinary Americans respond to the “collective unknown.” Is there a similar overarching theme or commonality in what the same people face in 2024?

Shum: What I think Qinling understands as a theme is concern for future generations. I don’t know if they care that much about this election or what happens in the future. This election is part of that. So I would say that future generations are the central theme of this particular iteration for me. I’m not saying that wasn’t the case for 2020, but it felt more tangible and tactile in this round of shooting.

Li: I think the main theme of 2024 is actually election. It’s the overall thing that brings everyone together to share their perspectives on where this country is heading. “Is this consistent with my values ​​and hope for my life?”

What do you hope people take away from watching this movie?

Nazarian: I hope you will at least be sympathetic to other people’s perspectives and lives. It’s not my job to direct these ideas, people’s thoughts, in one direction or another. It’s my job to provide a somewhat accurate accounting of these people’s lives.

Li: It’s really just about breaking the bubbles you stay in with like-minded people. While this film gives each character the chance to show their own perspective, it also introduces them to other perspectives. Many characters in the film also said they were looking forward to seeing it; not just to see themselves, but also to see what all people think of their experiences over the last four years and moving forward along the way. vote.

Shum: I think the message of all my work invites viewers to see different perspectives. Here we give people the chance to bridge silos so they can see different sides of the country that they wouldn’t normally get to see. I want people to expose themselves to the diversity that this country truly has. My message to the audience was: “Go into someone else’s living room and listen to what they have to say.”

Kristina Abovyan, Murray Journalism Fellow, FRONTLINE/Missouri School of Journalism Fellow