A last- minute script change like no other
The doc ‘ Totally Under Control’ was set for a pre- election release, then news hit.
Alex Gibney was asleep when his phone rang at 2 a. m. last Friday. The filmmaker answered the call to learn that President Trump had tested positive for the novel coronavirus. The news was so important that Tom Quinn, the founder of Neon — the production and distribution company about to release Gibney’s next documentary — felt he needed to reach out to the director in the middle of the night.
After spending a frantic five months pulling together a secret project focused on the United States’ response to the pandemic, Gibney thought he’d reached the finish line. That very morning, in fact, the trailer for the movie — titled “Totally Under Control” — was set to debut online. Now, Quinn wanted to discuss whether to move ahead with the plan.
“I think a lot of people reckon with this issue, in terms of: How do you express a sense of compassion for somebody who has caught a disease that could be fatal, but at the same time, consider issues of public interest?” recalled Gibney.
After a virtual meeting with his fellow directors, Suzanne Hillinger and Ophelia Harutyunyan, the team decided to proceed with the trailer launch. But they also had to reckon with how to handle Trump’s illness in the movie, which was set to open just two weeks later in drive- ins — the only theatrical format the filmmakers feel is safe for audiences. ( After its premiere on Friday, the film will be available via video- on- demand starting Tuesday and then to Hulu viewers Oct. 20.)
Ultimately, no major changes were made to “Totally Under Control”: The filmmakers added an end card to the movie clarifying that one day after they’d finalized it for release, Trump tested positive for coronavirus. “It seemed like perfectly sardonic poetry that harmonized what we were saying in the film,” explained Gibney.
Gibney — no stranger to tales of manipulation (“Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief ”), corruption (“Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room”) and dishonesty (“The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley) — decided to make a coronavirus film in April. The idea was born out of his anger at “how badly the pandemic seemed to be bungled” in the U. S. He was feeling helpless, and wanted to channel that emotion into an investigation — one that could be seen by Americans before the presidential election.
But to complete a documentary in such a short time frame, Gibney knew he’d need help. So he reached out to Hillinger, an Emmy winner who’d worked on the New York Times docuseries “The Weekly,” and Harutyunyan, who had recently produced his Venice Film Festival selection “Crazy, Not Insane” ( which HBO will release next month). With Gibney in Maine and the two women in disparate parts of New York City, the trio worked together using a virtual system called Collaborate that allowed them to make notes on emerging cuts of the project.
Because of the pandemic, the filmmakers had to come up with various options for safely capturing interview footage. Some subjects were sent a camera rig that allowed them to communicate with the team over Zoom. Those who were comfortable meeting in person were protected from the directors with the aid of a shower curtain that had a hole cut in it. And in South Korea, the team was able to hire a 10person crew because the infection rates had fallen so greatly. ( Victoria Kim, The Times’ Seoul correspondent, was interviewed for the movie this way.)
This week, Gibney, Hillinger and Harutyunyan convened for a video chat to discuss the movie’s challenges and Trump’s recent diagnosis.
Why did you feel it was vital for this film to be released before the Nov. 3 election?
Gibney: You want to have some way of holding officials to account and some information with which to do that. So here was a report card on the handling of the pandemic that people could reflect on prior to casting their vote. This was a film that was really about competence, number one. None of us wanted this to be seen as political, in terms of Democrat versus Republican. Also, in my own experience, I felt like it was a crime film. It was a crime of negligence and a crime of fraud.
Did anyone express concern about the rapid timeline?
Gibney: There was some pushback from funders, like, “Why don’t you just wait? Relax? Tell it over the course of time when history will carefully reveal itself. You can tell a more textured version of this story.” I was like, “No. I want to tell this story now, when it matters. When you can look at what happened early on and render some kind of judgment. That should go into the calculus about how you cast your vote.”
How did you settle on whom you wanted to interview?
Hillinger: There were a lot of experts being interviewed on various news outlets and for various newspapers that did not have skin in the game — they were outside epidemiologists, some former public health officials. It was really important to try to get people on the inside who were in the room where decisions are made. Initially, I did the usual thing of sending out email proposals to the White House, to the task force, [ the Department of Health and Human Services], [ the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. I had several conversations with communication directors and press people and talked a lot about what our intentions were — how important it was that we hear what decisions were made and
what information they knew. In the beginning, they obviously seemed very open, and it seemed like maybe there was a chance.
But as it went along, more toward the end of the spring into the summer, there became a real sense that the CDC was being censored by the administration. I had sources close to the CDC who were telling me, like, “People aren’t going to return your calls because they believe their phones are being tapped. They aren’t going to respond to your emails because they believe their emails are being watched.” It was scary.
If you had been able to interview President Trump, would you have taken that opportunity?
Gibney: You always want it. And frankly, I encourage people to try to tell their stories the way they want to tell them. Once you get in the cutting room, you check the facts and see whether they’re lying to you or how often or whether there’s any moment when they’re not lying to you.
Some people told you that they’d sit for interviews with you, but only after the election?
Hillinger: A lot of the conversations I had were: “We are not telling a political story. We are just telling the facts. And you have firsthand knowledge of the facts, and we just want you to share that with us. What did you bear witness to? Just give us your testimony, and that’s it.” And that was a really scary ask for a lot of people who are either career politicians or career public health folk who get government funding.
So how do you push back? Do you urge them to be on the right side of history?
Gibney: We tried to make that claim to Michael Caputo when he got on the phone with us representing HHS [ as the assistant secretary of public affairs]. “You’ve gotta tell the story, and you’ve gotta tell the story so that the voters can decide.” But it won’t surprise you to learn that political figures don’t see it that way. They’re not thinking about history. They’re just thinking about the political utility of messaging in the moment because all they want to do is win. They’re not thinking about an obligation that they have to voters to tell the truth so that voters can decide.
Have you been surprised by how Trump dealt with his COVID- 19 diagnosis?
Harutyunyan: Honestly, I was surprised early on that Trump hadn’t gotten COVID. I was like, “He’s not wearing a mask. He’s not socially distancing. How is he not getting this virus?” And then when we found that everyone around him is getting tested every day, and anyone who goes to meet him is getting tested — you realize the privilege that he had. A lot of people couldn’t even get a test, and here was the president of the United States making everyone get a test before meeting him because he didn’t want to wear a mask and he didn’t want to socially distance.
Hillinger: More shocking than him getting the virus, to me, is that he hasn’t changed his messaging that it’s not serious. I think there is utter disregard for his privilege. The fact that he was able to get admitted to Walter Reed. He got several rounds of remdesivir, which is extremely expensive. He got put on steroids that most people don’t receive until they’re very sick. Him downplaying the severity of this virus that he now has is also downplaying the access that most Americans have to public health. Most Americans got sick with this and were told to not even go get tested. Most Americans were told to stay home until they had trouble breathing. It’s just shocking that there continue to be no lessons learned here.
Gibney: But it’s such a powerful metaphor for how he’s handled the virus from the very beginning. The primacy of political messaging over everything. That Evita- like moment where he pulls the mask off but you can see he’s barely able to breathe because his lungs are so compromised.
Do you believe this film has the power to convince a Trump supporter that Trump badly handled the pandemic response?
Gibney: There are people who will believe in Trump and follow Trump wherever he goes, no matter what is said. But I think there are people for whom this can and will make a difference. And there are people on the sidelines who are disgusted with the government and wonder if it matters. There’s an obligation that we have to try to tell the truth on an important story, and I hope that people will look at a story carefully put together based on facts and render a judgment based on that. You’ve gotta hope and believe in that.