Egalitarian Production

A new film tells a story about people who are incarcerated and uses a novel production model.

INTERVIEW BY ZOE SHERMAN AND CHRIS STURR
WITH MONIQUE WALTON | July/August 2024

In May, D&S collective member Zoe Sherman had a chance to see the new film “Sing Sing” at the Independent Film Festival of Boston. It’s kind of a backstage drama, except that it takes place inside the Sing Sing prison, so it isn’t quite like other backstage dramas you’ve seen. It’s kind of a prison movie, except that the main story line is the production of a madcap comedy by the participants in the Rehabilitation Through the Arts theater program. The stage production really happened, many of the players play themselves in the film, and archival video footage is included at a key moment, so it blurs some of the usual distinctions between documentary, reenactment, and narrative film. After some film festival showings, “Sing Sing,” from A24 Films, is in general release this summer. We here at D&S wholly recommend that you check your local film listings and see this movie! We also wanted to ask a few questions about the film, and in early June, Zoe and D&S co-editor Chris Sturr were happy to have the chance to talk with producer Monique Walton about the film’s unique financial model, representing prison life in films, and more. —Eds.

Dollars & Sense: Monique, thank you for joining us. Can you introduce yourself and tell our readers a little about your role in the making of this movie and how you got involved?

Monique Walton: My name is Monique Walton, and I am an independent producer. I became involved in this film when I met [director] Greg [Kwedar] and [writer] Clint [Bentley] ... Greg is based in Austin, Texas, and we had never crossed paths but when we finally did, we realized that we were on similar paths, and that we were really interested in telling stories that involved the community in some way and interested in working in collaboration with the community to tell stories. And so, when he pitched me this film, “Sing Sing,” he told me about the story first, which was really unique. And then he told me about how he had Colman Domingo attached to play a lead role , and that he wanted to cast the ensemble with alumni of this theater program Rehabilitation Through the Arts. I just thought it was a really powerful way to tell this story, and so I was really excited to become involved.

The Economic Model

D&S: The focus of our magazine is economic justice, so my ears perked up when I heard director Greg Kwedar say during the filmmaker Q&A after the screening at the Independent Film Festival of Boston that it was important to him that the compensation and ownership structure of “Sing Sing” is more egalitarian than the film industry norm. Can you describe for us the economic model used in the making of this film? How does this differ from the norm in the industry?

MW: This model is built on pay parity and transparency. So, the idea is that everyone in the film gets paid the same rate and everyone participates in the profits of the film. The norm of the industry, of the film industry, anyway, is hierarchical. It’s even built into how we [typically] structure our budgets, right? We have the terms, literally, actors, writers, directors, and producers] that sit “above the line” and other members of the filmmaking crew “below the line.” And Greg always talked about wanting to erase that line. Everyone would participate in the profits based on the phase of the film that they worked on. The only real variable is time. So what we’re saying is that everyone has the same intrinsic value. It’s not the norm in the film industry and in many other industries. But we felt like that was the right way to set a tone and make everyone feel like they were a partner and not an employee. And the idea is that becoming a stakeholder would create more of the collective collaboration that we were looking for on set.

D&S: What were the inspirations for choosing this business model? Were there organizations in film or elsewhere that you modeled your practice on? Or did you develop the business model based on first principles?

MW: Greg actually developed this model on their prior film, which is called “Jockey.” When they approached me after they’d been in development on “Sing Sing” for about six years, they already had this model in mind, and so we thought about, how do we scale this up? “Jockey” was made on a micro budget and “Sing Sing” was made still on a low budget, but bigger than “Jockey,” so we were always thinking, can we scale this up to this level and keep the model as it is?

D&S: I was curious about how early in the process of making the movie you decided on this economic model. Did you assemble a group of people and then negotiate what your economic relations to one another would be? Or decide on the model early on and then invite people into that existing structure? It sounds like the commitment to this model came from the beginning.

MW: Yeah, we really were committed from the beginning. And there are a couple of things that are nice about the model. One of them, on the producing side, is that you’re no longer having to negotiate with everyone you bring on board, and instead, it attracts the people who are interested in working differently. For example, our director of photography was Pat Scola. He was very excited about the model, and then he invited his team that he knew would be really open to this idea as well, to be on the crew. So, everyone was coming in already open to doing things differently. And that’s because we started with the model. It really was the foundation for how we built the cast and crew.

D&S: Did it work out the way you had foreseen? Were there unexpected pitfalls or additional, unexpected benefits?

MW: I think the benefits far exceeded what I even could imagine. You know, when you’re starting off making an independent film, there’s always a lot of uncertainty, and the uncertainty is really exciting. But it can be scary, right? And I think that with the model, what we were hoping would happen, did happen. Which is that we created a culture and an environment in which everyone felt empowered in ways that they normally don’t. Everyone felt like their voice mattered on the set. Everyone felt seen, and that was really crucial for us in telling the story.

D&S: It seems to me (tell me if this makes sense to you) that both in business and in the arts, we often tend to believe in the existence of an individual genius. There is an analogy in my mind between the leeway we often give to business leaders to be autocratic in the service of their business vision and the leeway we sometimes give to artists to be autocratic (and even abusive) in the service of their artistic vision. In a collaborative, commercial art such as film, maybe, then, there is a connection between the structure of the business and the artistic process followed in the project. As you see it, how did the way that the creators of this film related to one another economically link to the way that all of you related to one another artistically? (e.g., How were artistic decisions made? How about business decisions?) Do you see those things as linked at a deep level?

MW: Such a great question. I really love this question. Thank you. I think that’s so insightful! Yeah, we often give our business leaders free rein to do whatever they have to do. And in film, and especially in independent film, the auteur theory typically presumes that there’s one filmmaker’s vision and everyone’s serving that vision. Greg’s [the director] ideas and leadership were very much about involving everyone’s input equally. But crew members are used to the hierarchy as an organizing principle. So, I think that having parity in the foundation, in the DNA of the way the film is made, and having everyone feel a sense of true partnership, affected how we told the story. It shows up in the success of the way this story was told, foregrounding the authenticity of folks with lived experience, and fostering a creative process of exchange with the crew. We wanted to set a tone that made people feel safe to share their ideas. We have these seasoned actors that we are bringing together with Rehabilitation Through the Arts alumni, and we want to create this beautiful alchemy, but in order to do that we have to create pathways for everyone to be able to freely exchange ideas and contribute to the story in ways that they wouldn’t normally do on a traditional set. And I think that it was important to think from end to end: How are we building this team? How are we building this family? How are we telling this story? And then how are we all earning and participating in the profits? Because we are making something that will earn money, hopefully. The model facilitated a way for that to happen, and for us to feel true integrity with the story that we were telling.

D&S: It would be amazing if it could become a model for more productions!

MW: Yeah, it’s very exciting! And I think a lot of people are excited about it in the film industry, in this independent film industry. You know, our industry is always shifting, and it always feels uncertain. But people are always looking for new ways and I think that this is a true invitation to think about things differently. Even if you’re not doing the model exactly in this way, it’s an invitation: Can we imagine how to structure things differently? Because it contributes to sustainability as well, and it helps bring people up in their careers. For example, the production assistants on our set felt more empowered than they normally would, because they felt that they had the same value as everyone else on the set. So, I think that that also helps with the ecosystem of making sure that people can continue to stay in this industry and evolve their careers.

Representing Prisons and People Who Are Imprisoned on Film

D&S: In recent months, we have run a series of articles by writer Tyler Bowman on topics having to do with the economic lives of prisoners during their incarceration and their efforts (often thwarted) to prepare for re-entry after they serve their time. Tyler is currently incarcerated and has not yet been able to see the film, but we shared information about the film and our plans to reach out for an interview, and he had some questions about the representation of prison life in the film and about the Rehabilitation Through the Arts program.

In the course of preparing for and working on this movie, what common myths about prisons and prisoners were dispelled for you? (Or, if you already had prior experiences that had dispelled those myths for you, what common myths did you hope this film could dispel for audiences?)

MW: It’s a great question. I think that for me this might not be a myth, but kind of an observation, which is this idea, something that we’re we’ve talked a lot about, of shifting our language to people first language. Saying, for example, “a person who is incarcerated” instead of “a prisoner.” I think that something as simple as shifting a term shifts the way you think about someone. What it made me realize was that folks who are incarcerated are invisible in our society. So, something as simple as shifting to saying this is a person who’s incarcerated reminds you that there are all these people that we’ve incarcerated in our country, and the number is growing. I think that working on this project and learning more about these programs just helped me realize how much work has to be done to make sure that these folks aren’t invisible. And that it’s okay to imagine a future where we don’t have as many people behind bars as we do today.

D&S: If Rehabilitation Through the Arts boasts a 3% recidivism rate (much lower than the general prison population), do you think that such a program would be beneficial to other prisons in other states? Why?

MW: For sure, 100%! You know, the national recidivism rate is about 60%, which is incredibly high. And I think, Rehabilitation Through the Arts and other programs that are in prisons, not just arts programs, are very successful in lowering that rate. I think it comes from the idea that’s in the name, right? Rehabilitation. What is prison for, and can folks be served by having these programs? I would say 100% that is part of what should be present in prisons across the country.

D&S: What inspired you most about this unique project to want to get involved and share this side of the criminal justice system?

MW: I think the story at its core is very inspiring, because it’s about connection, and it’s about healing, and it’s about transformation. And I always think that it’s inspiring to see transformation. Something that I learned early on when I met the alumni from Rehabilitation Through the Arts was that, in my very first conversations with them, I could tell that this was a sacred kind of experience for them and that they had been profoundly transformed by it. That’s just very healing for me to know. But also, I think that it’s a story that I really wanted to share, because we have very specific images of folks behind bars, especially in our film history and television history. And there are not as many stories like this, about folks helping other people heal, about finding friendship, finding connection. So that’s what was really inspiring to me. Ultimately, I think this is a story of connection, hope, perseverance. And it’s something that is best experienced in a dark room with other people, when you can let your emotions come to the surface. I feel like we—I, at least, especially since the pandemic—have felt more isolated from other people, and so I think any opportunity to be in community with other people and have a shared experience is something worth doing.

Please consider supporting our work by donating or subscribing.