Our country is divided politically. This is no new news. I live in Chicago, which is predominately on the liberal side of politics, but when you drive into the farm areas of Illinois, out in Woodstock where my husband’s parents live, you see the Trump signs everywhere. Same with where my parents live in Michigan. When I see those signs, my automatic internal feeling is one of repulsion. Even though my parents are not on the extreme right, they do not share some of my views in politics. I love them so much, so I focus on our commonalities, and that brings us closer together. But I do know families that are divided because of their different views in politics.
It is a scary time. But there are some glimmers of hope that we see in our media, nowhere more so than in Amanda McBaine and Jesse Moss’ “Girls State,” a film that follows young female leaders in a reimagining of our political climate that demonstrates its potential when we come together on a basic human level. It shows what progress can be made when we are able to have a discourse on our political differences, without ignoring others who don’t share our political views.
Through the film “Girls State,” we as viewers are challenged to get out of our comfort zones by immersing ourselves in a world that could be. The directors, married partners in real life with two teenage daughters, see the inequalities in our political landscape. And as we approach our next presidential election, this film shows the importance of getting people to come together to see not only our divisions but our commonalities. I had the opportunity to speak with McBaine and Moss about all of these things in our interview. “Girls State” debuts today on Apple TV +, and premiered at Sundance this year. I’m so happy I was able to finally see it. I encourage people to watch this film, ideally with their family members.
Did you know you were going to make this film when you were filming “Boys State”?
Jesse Moss (JM): We came to the project as storytellers wanting to confront the divisions in our country, and hopefully find a creative way to think about them, while being attracted to how young people are coming of age politically. There was a playfulness but also a seriousness when we went to Texas in 2018 to make “Boys State.” But I will say, to answer the other part of your question, we were immediately talking to Texas Girls State, and we didn’t know where we would end up. And Texas Girls State wasn’t really receptive, whereas Boys State.
From the beginning, it wasn’t just a conversation about boys and boyhood, which that film very much is, but a conversation about young people, and that there was unfinished business for us. We are also raising two teenage girls, we’re married, and we think about that every day. “Boys State” was really resonant, it worked on so many levels and the kids were incredible. We love the film. But we were daunted by that prospect of trying to equal it, surpass it, and we engaged in all kinds of personal negotiations about how to give ourselves permission to make it, to try to make it, to fail in making it. But we needed to try.
Amanda McBaine (AM): We knew we couldn’t not make it, as Jesse said. I think it’s terrifying to make a film that is compared to other films, and that is why we call it “a sibling.” It is sort of embedded in that idea that you know it’s going to be compared to it, but you are going to love it just the same. There was some stuff that was new to the Girls State program, girlhood being the biggest one. And the third branch of government was really a special opportunity to see an all-girls Supreme Court. Actually “Barbie” the movie weirdly scooped us on that. But it was just a glimpse of an image as we really sat there with them, heard their discussions and watched them deliberate. To me, it was an interesting dream space to enter, but also really revealing of a lot of things that were just so emotionally satisfying to watch.
With the leak of the overturn of Roe v. Wade from the Supreme Court, did that really happen simultaneously and did that effect the direction of this documentary?
JM: I don’t think it effected the direction, but it concentrated the forces we and they were feeling. We knew that it would be powerful and I think a lot of unscripted filmmaking relies on fate and fortune. “Boys State” had the subject of gun violence, and there actually was a shooting in Texas right before that happened. In some ways, it’s a reminder that if there hadn’t been the leak, it would have been something else. The fact is that Missouri had asked for a trigger law. The case had been argued earlier that year, and we knew the decision was coming. The leak just put it front and center.
It was a question for us, first of all, of how forthcoming the girls would be in putting these issues on the table. We knew that they would be bringing it up. We learned this in the casting when we asked them about the issue. Of course, it was on their minds, but I could see the frustration of the girls in the program. They’re being inhibited. We also didn’t know what case that the Girls State supreme court would hear. We knew that it could only be about one case, but it could be about speeding limits or something less consequential.
So I think that the promise of the program, as filmmakers, is that it really does put these issues out there for these kids to try to deliberate. There is this fault line in this country, and these programs sit across this fault line. They are interesting because they do.
AM: But it made the first part of the week very tense, because the program by its nature is a little like politics light. By having the training wheels on the bike for those first couple days right after this very consequential law had been overturned, we knew there were going to be consequences because of that. That combo was extremely frustrating. You see it within the main characters in our film who were ready to talk about that. And I’m not saying that all the kids were necessarily on one side or the other, but it was top of mind. It was really like there were drips of dye in the water, and to not acknowledge it seemed inauthentic to the experience of not just being in a politics camp but also being a girl. That was a real squeeze that first couple days.
There were two subjects that I fell in love with, one of them was Nisha Murali. I love that she was always about being true to herself, and not afraid to express that. Can you talk about working with her in this film, and touch on following her transformation?
AM: Nisha is, to me, the most relatable character on some level, because she is a little shyer, but very smart and funny. I think in a lot of ways what she’s experiencing at this camp is what I’d imagine I would have experienced at this camp. Not that I’m as smart as she is, but I’m definitely not the kid who is going to stand up on the chair in the middle of the cafeteria and make an announcement the way that Cecilia Bartin does. There is only a small percentage of people who can do that authentically. They have that superpower, but I do not. So to watch her sort of enter that space confident in her smarts, her political savviness and in her intellect, but also be a little nervous about the social piece of it, I think everybody can relate to that. At least a lot of people I know.
And then to watch her navigate and make a connection with someone like Brooke Taylor, who has had a very different life experience, was one of the great experiences for me. It’s almost like I was watching a teen movie happening right in front of me. I was thinking, ‘This is amazing, you are making a connection.’ That is one of the joys of non-fiction filmmaking. Suddenly you’re like, ‘Wow, this is really happening.’ This coming of age story is really happening in front of us, and we are fortunately here with cameras to capture it.
Nisha was really generous with us. You know some kids are more extroverted, so maybe it’s an easier ask to be in a documentary film. But the joy of Nisha is that she is so confident and knows exactly who she is as a person. She maybe is a little bit more nervous socially, but I wouldn’t say that she is self-conscious. She presents like she is sometimes, but she’s not. She really speaks her mind in ways that are beautiful and grounded, and she always makes me laugh.
You always hope you find someone who transforms. The promise of the program is that it is a crucible, and for some of the kids, it definitely is. And spoiler alert, to watch her pivot after her mid-week bad news is one of the great things to see. To have her come around and to embrace who she is, and doubling down on who she is, and respecting who she is, is one of the great wins of what you’d hope if you were a parent sending your kid to any kind of educational program. You hope they come back loving themselves even more.
The other subject that I fell in love with, and I can throw this to Jesse, was Emily Worthmore. She reminded me the most of myself as a teenage girl, even though she is on the other side of politics that I am now. But I was like her in the way that I was really receptive to listening to the opinions of others, while being strong in my convictions. Can you talk about working with her?
JM: I’d love to. I mean, she was so immediately interesting and impressive, and says she wants to run for president in 2040. Who says that? It’s breathtaking. But she is really bright and so ambitious. But also, her superpower is listening. I love that about her, and she is open. She wants to make connections. Amanda talked about Nisha being a surrogate for us, but I think Emily is too. I think that what we do as filmmakers is so much about listening, which is really a path to understanding, connection and self-discovery. We’re asking an audience that may be predominately left of center to identify with a protagonist who has politics we don’t share. And that’s us too. I think her journey rewards that faith in how we see her complexity of being a human being.
We also see her reward our faith by being the subject in the film that ferrets out the disparities in funding, and calls them out. It’s kind of remarkable that it’s not Cecilia or Nisha or Faith Glasgow or Brooke, it’s not any of the other girls. Not that they couldn’t do it, but she does it, that’s her journey. She starts the week in a very different place, and that promise of transformation through self-knowledge is what you hope to discover in any film and that the program offers for some kids. I think it is a privilege that we could be on that journey with her. She had the confidence and vulnerability to invite us into that experience.
I’ve learned a lot by getting to know her. I so don’t agree with her about a lot of her politics and views. But I think that’s what challenges our audience. It’s kind of our challenge collectively as a country in finding points of commonality, and not just the seeds of division. I think these girls show us a model of that. Emily shows us that too.
What do you hope people see in your film?
AM: One of the great takeaways for me was watching Emily’s journey. It was, for me, the deepest experience partly because I had to check myself, like, ‘I really like this kid,’ and every time she would talk about politics, I’d be like, ‘whoa.’ But I still really like her. How is that possible? And then I recognized that is probably going to be true for a lot of people. There are certain “no go” zones that we shared. Like for instance, she is not an election denier. I think where civil discourse still exists is a big wide world, but there were some spaces I wasn’t really challenged to go to, so that’s good. There are probably some kids at that camp who hold those views, but we didn’t end up featuring any of them.
But for me to make a human connection with this wonderful kid who is now basically a family member, that is kind of the great work of what we do. And I think part of it is that awakening to something her and I have in common. We both want a world where female representation in politics is more equitable. We both want a world where opportunities are equal. We share those goals. And also, she is a really good person and she is, in fact, quite a good listener, which is why she is a good journalist. So that’s also stuff we have in common. She has a huge heart. I like to think that I have a big heart, but she has a huge one. That’s something we share on a basic human level, and it holds a high value to me.
So what do we have in common? I feel that we don’t talk about that enough, and that is one of the virtues of these camps. We talk a lot about our differences, which is also another very important conversation, but we’re getting to the point in our country where I think some discussion in very public and big ways needs to be had about what we have in common. If we want to have a United States of America, it is an important conversation to be had. That is one of the values of this program. It forces all of these people who are so different to come together and talk to each other in real life.
Another value of the program, I just have to say it, I think it’s important too, is how it shows that democracy is not a spectator sport. We feature all of these kids who in different ways are activated to be in different parts of politics. And that doesn’t mean you have to go into politics, you can also be an activist. For me, it’s just about being active, which on the very basic level, is about voting and knowing the issues. To me that’s the center of the red alert of where we are at now. You have to be engaged or we are really in trouble.
Anything to add Jesse?
JM: I think the movie is optimistic, but its not naive either. These girls know what they are up against. Emily knows what she is up against when her article headline gets corrected. Nisha and Brooke know what they are acting out in the supreme court is pretend. But it still has value. They are not naive, but they are still hopeful and optimistic. I think they are modeling a politics that we need. So I think that is the message of the experience shown in the film.
And I think as a man, it’s important to say that we live in a system that has a lot of built in inequality in our society. We are on this journey to call out, confront, and correct those inequalities. But I think that even despite having a strong female partner, and having these teenage daughters, I was shocked to discover that this Girls State program has less money than the Boys State. I shouldn’t be shocked, but it’s also not okay, not in 2022 when we shot the film and in our present day in 2024. I think this film is powerful in calling out an invisible system that partly is internalized, but partly is very much externalized by the society that girls are moving into. So for me, that is an important takeaway.
