Most of us remember the horror of the 2017 violence in Charlottesville, Va.
But in the aftermath of that deadly standoff between white supremacists and counter-protestors, a fascinating civil legal battle ensued — in which the plaintiffs’ attorneys tried to put hate on trial.
The compelling new documentary “No Accident” takes us into the conference rooms as some of America’s top attorneys take on some of America’s top racists.
The film is being screened at the Woodstock Film Festival on Sept. 29 at 3:30 at Tinker Street Cinema and Oct. 1 at 6:45 at the Rosendale Theatre.
Director Kristi Jacobson spoke with WAMC's Ian Pickus.
To begin with, how did you get interested in the story of this particular lawsuit?
Well, I learned about the lawsuit through one of our producers Ally Moss, and I was immediately drawn to the bravery of these plaintiffs of these citizens of Charlottesville, who were named plaintiffs on a lawsuit against some of the most violent and hate-filled racists and white supremacists at the time. And I was just drawn to that. And then I started to learn about the lawsuit itself, and I've been involved in films around criminal justice and criminal justice reform. And it was a really interesting way that the law is being used to hold these people accountable, when the criminal justice system, i.e. the Department of Justice at the time under Donald Trump was not taking any action.
So tell us about who the attorneys were. There were pretty high-profile people who came together, in many cases for the first time to work on this.
Yeah. So there were, as you see in the film, and (it) was really incredible to see a lot of attorneys working kind of round the clock for years on this case, and the two lead attorneys are two women, Robbie Kaplan and Karen Dunn, both of whom have taken on some really big defendants and/or cases, and really were at the top of their game. And then there was also a really awesome lawyer named Michael Block who came from being a public defender into this space, and it was really fascinating to watch how they all work together.
Can you say a bit about how they went about questioning and gathering evidence from the group of white supremacists and agitators who had made Charlottesville this kind of flashpoint? Many of them seemed to treat the legal procedures as either a joke or just a platform for their message.
Yeah, so when I set out to direct the film and make this film, many documentary filmmakers said, ‘Making a film about a lawsuit or a legal case is really the hardest thing to do.’ So that's true, even when you're working within the criminal justice system, wherein people are obligated to participate or be jailed, and ultimately could face prison time if found guilty. In the civil lawsuit space, that that's not a part of it, and as somebody smarter than me once said, ‘The wheels of justice move slow, and they move even slower in civil cases.’ But on top of this, you have a range of individuals who are extremely uncooperative (which) is an understatement. So it really took a lot of time, effort and persistence for the legal team to ultimately get evidence that they needed and also to depose the individual defendants.
Let me ask you an ethical question, because it's one that we think about here at the radio station and I'm sure that you had to think about too; and that is when you're dealing with these extremists and their quotes and their statements and their videos, how do you go about deciding what to include in your film, at the risk of kind of propagating a hateful message versus showing the truth of what happened?
Yeah, I'm so glad you're asking that. I'd say the nights that I sleep well have been very few since I took on making this film. And it's something that we grappled with as a team a lot, and immediately, one of the things we decided is, we're not interested in seeking interviews with these defendants. We are not interested in being a part of their game of platforming their message. That said, we have to balance that with trying to expose the truth. The truth of a conspiracy that involved a lot of evidence that showed the racist intentions and the planning to use violence, which includes upsetting text messages and language and court testimony. So what we tried to do as the filmmaking team, is to only use evidence or material that was supporting the conspiracy in the context of either depositions or evidence, or understanding the basics of who this person is and then courtroom testimony.
I was really feeling for you as a filmmaker, because you mentioned earlier that the wheels of justice kind of grind slowly, but on top of that, you had the pandemic, which delayed things and then limits on how many people could be in the courtroom. So I imagine that posed a lot of challenges for just getting the footage you needed.
Yes. I would say every film that I've ever been a part of or made has its own set of challenges, and you feel like they're insurmountable. This one, I mean, they just kept coming. And the world shutting down, and the challenges of filming, you know, before there was a vaccine, were really felt limiting. At the same time, I think as documentary filmmakers, you use the limits to be creative. And one of the things that was really fortunate, I used to watch “Michael Clayton,” the Tony Gilroy movie, which was our inspiration creatively, and we started filming at the Empire State Building in those law offices. And so we tried to just hold that in our minds and in our hearts and ultimately, thankfully the world did open back up a bit more and enable us to kind of hopefully realize that vision.
And then there was not being in the courtroom of a film about a court case, it is also not what you dream about. At the same time, we knew we could do it, and we were really fortunate to work with an incredible team at a graphics company called Milkhaus. And we just kind of came together, and also our editor, Chris Hurd, we came together and we were like, ‘How can we do this?’ What I didn't want to do was invent a new genre. I wanted to as efficiently and effectively capture some of the key moments that happened in that courtroom, and we, during the trial, were listening on the phone. So we kind of experienced it in real time, and where I was able to kind of tap into those feelings that we had then and tried to bring it to the audience in a way that felt like they were there.
Yeah, it's done very artfully, and as a viewer, you don't feel like you're missing anything. But you do tap into that tension and the drama. We don't really have time to talk about the entire case, but ultimately, the plaintiffs were able to get on the stand. As you look back now, in a different presidential administration, and with some distance, what do you think the legacy of this case was? Did the lawyers you profiled and the plaintiffs kind of achieved what they set out to do?
Yeah. I think it is both a different time, and also the same and troubling in a lot of ways. And I think that one of the things the plaintiffs and the lawyers and the lawsuits set out to do is to expose the truth of what happened. And I think they did that, and I hope that our film contributes to that legacy. The lawyers could speak to this perhaps better than I, but the way they used the law, both federal and state law, to find liable all of these individuals and groups with the goal towards bankrupting them and really hurting them financially, they did hurt them, and I think that's one of the things they wanted to do. And I can't speak for the plaintiffs sharing their stories, again, in a courtroom, and looking at the some of the men who actually caused them incredible pain and suffering that they will carry throughout their lives, it took a lot of bravery. And I have a feeling that having that moment, and having that verdict had some impact hopefully on them and their healing.
So just one more thing, and I wonder if you had the same experience I did watching the film; it's pretty interesting to note that the people in the film as time is going on don't know that January 6 is on the horizon. So you watch this film with the benefit of having gone through that, and a lot of the types of groups, if not the exact people who are on the stand in your trial, show up again on January 6. Seeing where things went after this particular case, knowing what we know now, is a pretty interesting exercise, I thought.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, I remember we were locked down and making this film about this conspiracy, and about how all the planning took place, and about how there was intent to commit violence. And then I’m sitting here locked down and watching this happen. It felt surreal, I guess, being a part of understanding this lawsuit and what happened when that happened. I hope that for audiences who watch the film now after January 6 has happened, and many prosecutions have taken place, they can see the similarities and also understand that we have to use every means we can, whether that's criminal justice, civil law, protesting how we how we make changes in our own lives to be a part of dismantling white supremacy and not being silent as it continues.
