On July 15, we hosted a film screening of “Promises of the Revolution” at GBH Studios in Boston. This producer’s commentary has been compiled and edited from a panel conversation held that day. Trajan Warren, who moderated the panel discussion, is a reporter with GBH’s Equity & Justice Unit. Raeshma Razvi is the producer of the film series.
Trajan Warren (TW): What inspired these films?
Raeshma Razvi (RR): At our organization we had a grant line called Promises of the Revolution. The year before, we had sent this out into the world and received proposals and reviewed those. As a program officer, that’s the first level of storytelling that comes across our desks—reading proposals on paper and seeing what these projects are.
The organizations in these stories all had received grants from us, along with some 30 others. We were really curious, how were people in Massachusetts interpreting this 250th year? In what ways ?
It’s also really exciting, as somebody who’s been a filmmaker myself, to then look at that potential that we saw in these proposals, and, knowing some of our grantees, then thinking about the visual storytelling possibilities, and then work with three great filmmakers.
I also want to shout out our friends and everyone who worked at GBH. It’s like-minded people working together with similar values and wanting to convey these deeper stories and what people are doing. It’s a real testament to all of the films.
TW: Why was it important to tell these stories about the American Revolution?
RR: For me, as someone who did not grow up in New England, I really didn’t know much about the Mashpee Wampanoag and that history.
So, learning through our relationships with them, but then also just the numbers of people who served in the war. And I think that’s something that not a lot of people knew, or know. I think things like that, that are more than just information or facts, they say a lot about: what narratives are we going to uphold? I think the time we live in right now, these stories, of course, are threatened. And the erasure of these stories and peoples is very much real.
I give a lot of credit to our Executive Director and our organization, even despite having our federal funding cut. CPB [Corporation for Public Broadcasting] and others suffered similar fates. It’s like we wanted to continue to really lean into this kind of inclusive storytelling.
TW: What were some ideas or scenes you couldn’t include in the final edits?
RR: Working with Deborah and the great editors here, when we’d have these discussions around the material, they’re like, oh, that’s great, that sounds good, that sounds good, but it can’t fit. But we can make a digital piece live along next to it, you know? So I love the fact that they were all always thinking about making sure that the filmmakers knew that these elements are all important. If they can’t make it in the full thing, how can we place them in other places so that those messages can get out, too?
TW: What do you hope the audience takes away from the film series?
RR: One thing that occurred to me, watching it over and over, is how much groups of people are involved in this work—whether it’s public humanities, whatever you want to call it.
Each of the films features groups of people really working intently together and being really engaged. I think that piece of it is very important to know and feel right now, especially as people feel more isolated, and that [isolation] is talked about more.
But I think that engagement is really promising. It continues to be the thing that keeps the revolutionary spirit going.