The Orbis

Media Credit: Photo courtesy of Minority Films [Click to enlarge]

Allured by the dramatic potential of Michael Moore's planned visit to Utah Valley State College, Brigham Young student Steven Greenstreet embarked on a three-month mission to capture the controversy on film. The result was This Divided State, a documentary that focuses on the polemic that erupted in Orem, Utah, one of the most conservative counties in the nation, when enraged community members and students visciously attacked the college's decision to invite Moore to speak. The film soon transcends the spacial boundaries of Orem, as the town becomes a microcosm for the free speech debate and the political divisions of the entire nation.

This Divided State will screen at Vanderbilt on April 19 at 7:30 p.m. in Furman 114, with Greenstreet present to answer questions. More information about the film can be found at www.thisdividedstate.com. In preparation for the screening, Orbis interviewed Greenstreet:

Orbis: What about Michael Moore's impending visit to UVSC initially motivated you to go and film it, and what about it made you stay for three months and leave BYU?

Steven Greenstreet: I basically had a filmmaker's intuition that Moore's visit would cause a disruption in the community of Orem, Utah. And, boy, was I right. The debates and protests were electric and the people I met provided great insight into the current divide between liberal and conservative. I dropped out of school to dedicate all my time to filming the events unfold. I didn't want to miss a thing.

O: What was the most challenging aspect of making this documentary?

SG: Honestly, the most challenging part of making the film was keeping up with everything. Arguments would break out spontaneously, meetings were held with little or no notice, and many times it was about having the luck to be in the right place at the right time. A few UVSC students volunteered their time to help out with filming around campus and that helped alleviate the stress a bit. By the end of the project, we had 9 cameras rolling.

O: What person or event surprised you the most during the filming?

SG: Kay Anderson, the leader of the community's Anti-Moore movement, became the most surprising character early on. I met Kay Anderson at an open-mic forum on campus as he was saying things like "Michael Moore hates us and he would like to destroy us!" He wasn't a student at UVSC, but he spent nearly every day, during the 3 months, on campus. He helped organize an Anti-Moore petition table with a sign that read "In memory of our wives, our children, and our God... Prevent Michael Moore from coming to UVSC!" Later, we filmed him trying to bribe the school administration with $25,000 in order to cancel the Moore event. Obviously, the administration didn't react too well to this offer. One professor shouted, "That's not acceptable! That's not acceptable!" So, there you have Kay Anderson, quite possibly the most interesting person I've captured on camera.

O: What do you hope to achieve through this documentary?

SG: I hope to help improve the ways we can get along with opposing views. People in America are inundated with cable news punditry. Shouting, name-calling, censorship, and arrogance lay the foundation for what has become modern political discourse. The act of simply LISTENING to each other has become both nonexistent and unpopular. As I continue to screen This Divided State across the nation, I want it to serve as a lesson of history. And while I don't think that compromise is necessary for either Republicans or Democrats, I think maybe we can learn to listen better to the opposing view. And listening will create better understanding. And better understanding will hopefully create a more civil society.

O: Have you encountered any problems or protests in making and promoting this documentary?

SG: Kay Anderson threatened what's called a TRO, Temporary Restraining Order, in order to prevent the film from being shown in public. He didn't want people to see everything we had filmed him doing and saying. He also threatened a civil lawsuit against me personally and wanted his signed video agreement revoked. I had to get legal counsel of my own in order to keep Mr. Anderson at bay. He actually attended the premiere screening of This Divided State in Utah a couple months ago and the local media asked him what he thought of the film. He said, "I think Steve Greenstreet did a good job at making everyone look stupid." To which I responded, "If I did anything to make anyone look stupid, it was hitting the 'record' button."

O: Do you consider UVSC to be a microcosm for the entire nation with regards to the extreme divisiveness among different political beliefs?

SG: I do. Obviously, UVSC has a large Mormon population and Mormonism played a large part in the Utah Anti-Moore movement. So that aspect was unique to only Utah, but I think the roots of the debate are ones that also divide the nation.

O: What steps could be taken to alleviate this divisiveness and polarity?

SG: I think the main reason that politics have become so divisive is because people have stopped listening to each other. Listening to someone with opposing views nowadays is almost considered a surrender to their ideology. "I'm right. You're wrong." is the attitude a lot of people carry with them. Seriously, just sit a liberal and a conservative down and have them ask each other, "What makes you liberal? What makes you conservative?" and then have them ask, "What do I do or say as a liberal/conservative that makes you angry?" I believe people would discover that they have so much in common with those from opposing sides of politics. This concept of listening to each other needs to improve.

O: Ann Coulter recently spoke to the Vanderbilt community. Do you consider Michael Moore to be a left-wing version of an Ann Coulter type? Do you consider him to be an asset or a bane to the liberal movement?

SG: Michael Moore's ideology is an obvious polarization to that of Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter has become a poster child enemy of the left and Moore to the those of the right. But I think if both Moore and Coulter had the humility and maturity to sit down, have a coffee, and talk like two adults to each other, they'd find that they aren't cartoon characters. They aren't action movie stars. They're just two people who might have a lot in common.

Michael Moore is only a detriment to the liberal movement because the right seems to have painted him that way. Moore is strongly anti-war, anti-corporate corruption, pro-gay rights, pro-universal health care, etc. These are all agendas of the liberal movement. So obviously Michael Moore doesn't conflict with liberalism. Why is he, then, considered to have hurt the liberals? Because the right labeled him as "anti-American, evil, and godless". Anyone associated with him, or his views, is equally as such. Hence, the divide of "Good vs. Evil."

O: The characterization of Farenheit 9/11 as a documentary has been assailed by some as inaccurate due to its unabashed partiality. Do you feel that documentaries should make an attempt to be unbiased?

SG: That's like saying all comedies should be slap-stick comedies or that all dramas should be cop-dramas. No, of course not. There are many types of documentary. The Maysles brothers developed a "direct cinema" documentary by just following people around without narration. Errol Morris specializes in sit-down interviews to tell a story. Michael Moore's documentaries are a "call to arms" type of film. Documentaries have become a soap box for our generation. A way for a filmmaker to say "This is what I believe." "This is what I think." So, no I don't think, nor would encourage, documentaries to be unbiased. Not even This Divided State is unbiased. There is no such thing objectivity. As human beings, we just can't do it.

Article Tools