Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Mitch Anderson, a Romanian-born documentary filmmaker living in the U.S. He was among the last few refugees from Communism during the late eighties. An electrical engineer by trade, Anderson turned to documentary filmmaking in 2004. His new film is The World Without US, a journalistic investigation filmed on four continents. Visit his site at TheWorldWithoutUs.com.
FP: Mitch Anderson, welcome to Fronbtpage Interview.
Anderson: Thank you.
FP: What inspired you to make The World Without US?
Anderson: Sorry to say, but Michael Moore inspired me. Especially "Bowling for Columbine." At one point, his narration goes: "It was a peaceful morning and our president decided again to bomb a country that most of us could not pronounce." He was referring to Yugoslavia that was bombed in 1999 to stop the genocide in Kosovo.
His entire film portrayed the US leadership as a bunch of savage genocidal maniacs out to bomb people at random throughout the world. More than that, after seeing his film, I joined discussion groups in the lobby just to find out that most of the young people in the audience took the movie seriously and were forming opinions on international events based on such garbage. I couldn't blame them, I couldn't point them to another movie across the hall that would teach them something real. So I decided to make that movie myself.
The next step was to find a dramatic structure that would support my point. I didn’t want to make a 90 minute patriotic ode that would put everyone to sleep, so I decided to make create my thesis out of a hypothesis: "So if we are so bad, what would happen if the US was not to ever intervene again?" So "The World Without US" idea was born.
FP: What went into making the documentary? Tell us about the tasks at hand.
Anderson: First, I took a number of film classes about film making. The best thing that came out of that is that I partnered up with one of my teachers. Jason Tomaric got so excited when I told him the TWWUS idea that he quit his teaching job and joined me in making the film.
First, we did a lot of thinking and planning of how to tell this story. We watched numerous successful documentaries and looked at different visual styles and dramatizations. Then came the travel and the interviews. We started with Central America. Then we went to Western Europe. A month later to former Yugoslavia, then the Middle East and finally Asia.
We would take about 6 weeks between trips, and in that time I would do a lot of reading and research for the region, find guides and translators and write the potential interview targets. During the summer of 2006, we filmed the dramatic re-enactments in Ohio. Jason has been instrumental in those, since he coordinated and directed the whole thing.
Once the production was done, we started the editing process. This turned out to be a lot harder than everything before. The main challenge was that the story of the film was too rich. The risk was that the film would end up un-focused and too broad. The other challenge was that we had to deliver a lot of information to the public in a short time, risking to fatigue them with facts and figures.
The editing process took about 7 months of back breaking work. I would lock myself in the editing suite for 8 hours a day and wouldn’t come out till something good came on the screen. It was also one of the most fulfilling times of my life.
FP: What do you think explains so much anti-Americanism around the world?
Anderson: I have a number of theories on that. One issue I think is "the burden of gratitude" that the world is feeling but refuses to acknowledge. This is especially true in Western Europe. Deep inside they know that the US has been and will remain indispensable to the EU security. But voicing it is very painful for them. In Europe you are raised with a strong sense of nationalism and admitting that without the US the whole continent would have succumbed to Hitler or Stalin is hard for them.
Also the EU press, especially the French, never misses any opportunity to ridicule and humiliate the US in the news. Young people that don’t remember the Marshall Plan are susceptible to that. And people like Michael Moore help the anti-American feeing also. A young Frenchman asked if it is true that in the US you get a gun when you go to the bank to open an account. He saw that in "Bowling for Columbine."
The other reason for anti-Americanism comes from some of our misguided policies and also our failure to communicate clearly our intentions. Statements such as "If you are not with us you are with the terrorists" are highly intimidating and offensive to the world at large. We are just too big to afford such mistakes. As the only superpower, the world feels intimidated. Before 1990, if a leadership of a country hated the US, it could become a Moscow client. Despite the fact that that didn’t go well for any country, there was a comfort in finding a place to hide from the US might a country really want to. I think today we have to wield the tremendous power we have more carefully than ever.
FP: Your thoughts on the Left?
Anderson: The Left has become incomprehensible to me these days. Traditionally, they were the ones that wanted to create a "free the world". Let’s have a look. FDR got us in WW2, Truman in Korea, Kennedy in Vietnam. Clinton in Yugoslavia. All Democrats. And as an exception, Bush senior got us in the first Gulf war.
Today's Left seems to want an unconditional capitulation in Iraq. I wish I could get the spirit of FDR and J F Kennedy to come out of the grave and explain to Nancy Pelosi and others why we need to follow through and finish the job in Iraq. I think she's oblivious to any other argument. I don’t know what happened to the Democratic Party. Is it turning into a Euro-pacifist movement? Possibly so. However there is a problem. The Europeans can afford pacifism because we are there to assure their defense and occasionally take care of small problems that could become big problems, such as Saddam. Who's going to take care of us if we turn to Euro-pacifism? Canada or Mexico?
FP: What are your own thoughts and feelings about the U.S.? Why?
Anderson: I love the US for being my adoptive home for almost twenty years now. Whether it is the best, I don’t know. Hong Kong has more millionaires per capita than any other place. Italy has the best classic art in the world. Japan the lowest crime and virtually no poverty or homelessness. There are many places that surpass the US in many ways; it all depends on what one cares for.
However, I couldn’t find a country (and I have seen 75 of them) that has the dynamic open society that we enjoy here. And that’s what I like the most. The flow of ideas and information is amazing and un-paralleled in the world. The cult of merit, where one’s deeds mean more than one’s skin color, or one’s accent, is what I love the most, and that’s why this country is right for me.
FP: What are the major challenges facing the U.S. in the near future?
Anderson: I see the destruction of the dollar as the biggest challenge of our time. The huge treasury deficit and the trade deficit are quickly turning our currency to something to avoid.
The dollar was the symbol of American strength and stability. Once the world loses that perception of us, it will be very hard to get it back. Even the most anti-American dictators and ideologues were caught at times with bags full of dollars.
I also believe that US unpopularity around the world is a major challenge, not so much for us, but for humanity. With the rejection of the US comes the rejection of American values. Tolerance for minorities, freedom of press, freedom of enterprise and prosperity were all American values that the world embraced -- specially after the WW2.
They didn’t love so much America but they loved what America stood for. At this time about 60% of humanity is looking to get out of dire misery, ignorance and poverty. Whose model will they embrace if not ours? Will it be the Chinese state run “quick growth at any price model”? Russia’s kleptocracy based on sale of resources? Saudi Arabia’s monarchy? Iran’s theocracy?
I am not saying that the US has figured it all, but I just have not seen a better system yet.
FP: Your future plans?
Anderson: I am making another film called "China's Amazing Rise." It has to do with China's rise to a superpower and what it means for the rest of us. Here is more: From a quiet agricultural society, China has risen in the last twenty years to be the fourth largest world economy. During this time, the Chinese Communist Party has raised out of poverty 450 million people, roughly the equivalent of the entire population of South America.
No government has accomplished such a feat in such a short time and what makes it "amazing" is the fact that China has accomplished all this development without the institutions that the West holds dear and sacrosanct. The right to property is still not recognized in today's China, there is no freedom of speech, the judicial system is corrupt and inefficient and there is no Government accountability to the voters.
Are we witnessing a new political system that will parallel and possibly surpass the western type "Liberal Democracy"? Or is China's growth just a temporary fluke based on the huge supply of cheap labor? "China's Amazing Rise" will debate these questions by juxtaposing China's rise to America's shrinking in terms of GDP and population in relation to the rest of the world.
The film will consist out of four chapters: "The Factories," "The Trade," "The Money," and "The People." Each chapter will be an in-depth investigation in the policies and techniques China has used to obtain its miraculous growth. The film will also explore the longer term implications that China's success will have on the rest of the developed world and mainly the U.S.
The film is scheduled for completion in January 2010. Due to the timeliness of the subject matter, a number of Television Networks have shown an interest already, assuring the film a worldwide distribution.
FP: Mitch Anderson, thank you for joining us.
Anderson: Thank you Jamie.