Upstream - The Divide with Katharine Round

Episode Date: May 27, 2016

Katharine Round is the director of the documentary film The Divide, which is based off of the book The Spirit Level. The Divide tells the story of 7 individuals striving for a better life in the modern day US and UK - where the top 0.1% owns as much wealth as the bottom 90%. We spoke with her about making the film, how inequality makes everyone less better off, and what we can do about it. This episode of Upstream was made possible with support from listeners like you. Upstream is a labor of love — we couldn't keep this project going without the generosity of our listeners and fans. Please consider chipping in a one-time or recurring donation at www.upstreampodcast.org/support If your organization wants to sponsor one of our upcoming documentaries, we have a number of sponsorship packages available. Find out more at upstreampodcast.org/sponsorship For more from Upstream, visit www.upstreampodcast.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Bluesky. You can also subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.

Welcome to Upstream. Welcome to Upstream. I'm Della Duncan, and today we're speaking with Catherine Round, the director of The Divide, a film which is in select theaters now and on nationwide release on May 31st. To learn more, please visit www.thedividedocumentary.com forward slash screenings. Welcome Catherine. Thank you very much for having me. Catherine let's just start with can you describe the movie The Divide what it's about? Sure. I suppose in a nutshell, The Divide tells the story of the social outcomes of increasing inequality in two of the biggest economies of the developed world, the US and the UK. In a way, I felt that there's a lot of rhetoric around this subject. There's a lot of discussion about the theories, the data, but sometimes we almost forget the meaning of what those theories and that data is. So the story is actually told through the eyes of seven people at different points in the income scale, from a zero hours care worker in Newcastle in the UK, to a Wall Street psychologist working in New York, a gated community resident, a Walmart

worker, and a man in prison on the three strikes in your outlaw in Texas. And they're sort of a charismatic, compelling, wonderful group of people. And it's through their eyes that we really explore the social consequences, we explore outcomes in health, crime, our behaviours, our attitudes, how we see our communities, and all of those things that we do see happening around us in more unequal societies. And what was the connection between the film and the book, The Spirit Level, by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson? So The Spirit Level essentially was the inspiration for the film. I was given a copy of the book in probably about 2010 when the book came out and it had an extraordinary amount of acclaim and coverage,

certainly in this country and I know worldwide as well. And it was suggested to me that I should make a film about the spirit level. And I read it and I thought it was an incredible analysis. Many people listening to this will know The Spirit Level is a book which essentially plots together a series of graphical representations which show the correlation between the level of income inequality and various different social outcomes in society. So it looks at these issues around community, health outcomes, anxiety and mental health, our attitudes towards incarceration, a lot of the things that obviously are in the film.

And the relationships are fascinating. I thought the analysis was fascinating. I had no idea how you'd ever make something that was an academic piece of work into a filmic narrative. I thought it was incredibly urgent story and that if it was possible to do it, then it might reach those people who would never be likely to pick up a book which looked at inequality and equality issues. So that was the genesis of it and,

you know, has been obviously a sort of grounding force throughout the making of the film. But in a way, what I've done with the film is to use the form of film to tell the story that is told in the book through characters and through stories and in a way bring those relationships to life was the aim. And like you said, it's the stories of seven different people. So how did you find these seven different people from the US and the UK and very different stories, each of them? So how did you connect with them? There's no shortcut, really, in a way, I spoke to 1000s of people. And at the beginning

of working on, you know, what we call the in film, the casting process, I was looking at all, I mean, at the time, I didn't know I was going to look focused solely on the US and the UK. I was also looking at people in Scandinavia and looking at how people in different economic circumstances were affected by their circumstances. because it became very clear it would be very unwieldy to try and tell the story of multiple economies and multiple characters in a way that was going to actually cohere and enable us to really get the depth of understanding about the social outcomes that were happening. In a way, I looked at the major trends that have influenced the income distribution since the early 80s, late 70s, early 80s, to sort of around 2013, 2014. And just looking at people in those sectors that have been affected, you know, looking at, I mean, the care sector in this country is a sector that's been hugely affected. And the zero hours contract is a big

issue that we talk about a lot. And what does that mean zero hours contract? So zero hours contracts is is basically when you are contracted to work for a company, but they are not obliged to give you a certain number of hours. So you could be employed to work for a certain company. And they will say this week, we have got one hour for you the next week, they've got 30 hours for you. And so you really do not know from week to week even day to day what your income is going to be it makes it incredibly difficult for people to plan it makes it very difficult for people to provide for their families if they have one and it's incredibly pervasive in terms of the sectors that it's coming across in a way janice at walmart was working on a kind of zero

hour system because she didn't know what her shift patterns would be and how many she would get. The care sector seemed incredibly pertinent because I think it's a sector of the economy that it's very difficult to dispute is necessary for a civilised society. You know, none of us say that we shouldn't be caring for our, well, I hope that none of us would say that we shouldn't be caring for our elderly and our disabled members of our communities but yet it's increasingly being put out to providers who because of the funding available are having people working on zero hours contracts and Rochelle's story is very powerful in that sense because you know she is someone who sees this as her vocation she's not just doing it as a job. And the fact that she wants to deliver quality care, she cares about the people that she's working with. She can't always necessarily guarantee

that she is going to be the person seeing them every day. And she's delivering very intimate care for them. You know, she's often helping them use the bathroom. She's washing them in their homes. And if you don't know who that person is going to be from one day to the next and whether they're going to have 10 minutes with you you know 20 minutes with you and that might be your only contact with the outside world I think it's a very sad state of affairs that a system has developed in a way that this is how

we are treating the most vulnerable people in our society. So that story was very pertinent. And likewise, with the growth of some of the big multinational corporations, and Walmart is in essence the sort of picture postcard, the big corporation that has kind of accumulated a huge amount of power. So when I met Janet, who is the lady who works in Walmart in the film, what was very pertinent, I think, about her situation was that she used to be a small business owner. And because of the accumulating power in big companies like Walmart, they were undercutting these small independent providers. And therefore she was driven, essentially driven out of business. And then her only option was to

work for Walmart. And now because there's no one else in the market to provide that countervailing balance, they're able to treat their staff in essence in this way and get away with it. And I suppose, you know, we're looking really at an instance of what economists call market failure, which is, you know, we assume in a free market, if it's going to work effectively, that you have a number of actors, for want of a, to use a sort of technical term, who are able to make free choices, who are able to buy and sell and choose who they buy from and who they sell from. And they come to a mutually agreed decision over price because of the supply and the demand. And actually, what happens in the real world is that when you have an accumulating amount of power in the hands of certain people within that system, it's not a free choice for the others within that market mechanism. And, you know, this is not the

invisible hand of Adam Smith operating anymore. This is actually a system whereby a lot of people really don't have a choice. You know, it just gives a huge amount of power and voice to those people that do have the economic resources, and they accumulate them at an ever greater pace, because they have that power. So you mentioned that somebody came to you and said, you should make a film about this book. So I'm curious about your background, and what made this type of book, especially, you know, there's not a lot of, you know, movies about economics in general, or trying to explain economics in an understandable way to folks. So I'm wondering, what is it about your background that made you drawn to this type of film in particular? I suppose there's several things

that in a way drew me to it. Firstly, from a personal perspective, we all live in the world, you know, so in a way, we've all got a position and a level of experience about what's happening in our economy. You know, I don't come from a particularly privileged background. I wouldn't say I come from a particularly, completely unprivileged background. But I've certainly seen how the economy has led to an increasing amount of insecurity, certainly within my, even my own sector, which it's the media. So people don't necessarily realise how insecure it might be. But it's exactly the same trends that we're seeing across lots of other economic sectors. And I've become aware that the property prices, certainly in London, you know, we see this extreme divide between whether you have money to begin

with, will determine whether you can actually buy the flat, take the unpaid internship at whatever company, and you can see it happening repeatedly. And actually, it's probably the generation below me that are much more affected than I am. But certainly, it's something that has affected my own life. And so from a personal perspective, I've been aware of this issue. I've certainly been quite angry about some of the developments that I've seen over recent years and how it's affected people who really are just trying to do the best they can and work hard and succeed. And I suppose from a more of a theoretical sense, I was drawn to the work because in some ways it synthesized a lot of disciplines that I have worked on throughout my life.

I studied economics. I studied mathematics and statistics. In my film work, I'm quite interested in exploring and understanding the human condition. A lot of it's quite psychological. And here was a piece of work which essentially synthesized the big picture of economics with statistics and how that has a sort of psychosocial effect on us and I thought it was obviously a fascinating thesis but you know an incredibly important story it's not just something that I wasn't aware of I felt like it was touching on everybody that I knew including myself and everybody that I came into contact with

and if you could ever condense all of these themes into something and actually put a human face on it, that I thought you might be able to tell the story differently to how I felt it had been told before. So let's talk about that how. So, so yeah, one thing that surprised me, right, that I thought was interesting was that in the film, I don't think we saw you in any of the shots. We did hear you ask some follow up questions, but really the stars of the show were the seven people and their stories. And then, of course, there were a few people brought in who were, you know, maybe who had written or researched about the topic of inequality. So can you talk about the way that you chose to make the film?

Yeah, of course. I didn't want to be in the film at all. I mean, in a way, you hear me because I think you have to reflect that I've asked that specific question. That's what they're responding to. I didn't particularly want to have a presence in the film because I didn't think my voice as a filmmaker was the one that needed to be highlighted in this story. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it can feel like it's a sort of egotistical kind of exercise that the filmmaker's authorial voice. Whereas actually with this film, I was interested in the idea of handing over the rightful platform to the people that should be given a voice in this issue, which is the seven people in the film. These are the voices of the people who are, in a way, most affected. You know, obviously, they're representing a sway the people who are most

affected, but they are representing people who are most affected by these economic forces. And yet, these are the people we almost don't hear from when we talk about it. And it's easy to forget the structural inequalities that are around us and who shapes the narrative in the lens through which we perceive the world. And that that can be very, very sort of unconsciously important in how we perceive the world and who we perceive that we want to listen to and who we perceive has the right to have decision-making power. So in a way, for me, those seven people in the film deserve to be listened to and deserve to be the authors of their own stories.

And so they're not spoken over with a voiceover telling us what we think. We are allowed to listen to them and experience what they think in their own words, through their own eyes. We're not sort of told that they're right or wrong. We are invited as a viewer to connect with those people as human beings. And I felt that was very important that it wasn't a top-down narrative that was saying, this is what this person is representing. And here we're going to have a little clip of them showing it. That's incredibly disempowering. And I wanted it to feel like it's empowering for people in the film. And also that it's representative, because one of the things about marginalization is that you do, by its very nature, the voices that we hear are from

a very narrow demographic. Because it's overwhelmingly from this demographic, it can have a problem in how we perceive those that don't fit in, those that aren't male voices, those that aren't white voices, those that aren't from a more economically privileged background, can sometimes not be seen as experts in things which actually they have the most expertise in, which is things like how economic insecurity affects you psychologically. What could be the most expert voice in that than the person who is directly experiencing it? I wanted them to be seen as experts. I wanted them to be listened to. And I wanted to represent the fact that economic disadvantage is affecting certain demographics more than others, women,

people of colour. But, you know, we don't have to make a big point about that. But in listening to those voices and recognizing them as the eloquent people that they are, we almost unconsciously fight back against the media representation that sees people either as victims or as people who are to blame. It aims to build understanding. And one of the things looking at each person, they weren't all of the same background or of the same class at all. And yet they all seem to be struggling with economic issues. So I'm wondering, for me in watching it, one of the big insights was that inequality affects the well-being of all members of a society, not just the working class. Is that kind of one of the main?

Absolutely. That is one of the main, certainly it's one of the main thrusts of the book, The Spirit Level. And in making this film, I was interested to explore that sometimes inequality is seen as an issue about poverty. And there is an issue about poverty, of course. And because the two issues intersect hugely, if you are absolutely poor, you are obviously going to have the material disadvantage, which leads to a lot of these issues. But it's not just an issue around whether you're absolutely poor. It's an issue on how you change the whole nature of a society and social distances between people. And therefore, certainly everybody in this film, even though some of them are relatively well off, I that you should, wherever you are, you should be moving up is incredibly damaging and that you can be seen as poor within your social circle just because you don't have the right car or the right shoes or, you know, all of these pressures that we are under are affecting our quality of life and they are

affecting how we see other people, whether we're likely to see people as like us, whether we're likely to have strong community ties. You know, we see the fact that there's a rising gated communities and how that affects the people that live within them and the very very damaging effects that can have on all of us even those that are actually sort of comfortable or should feel comfortable but don't yeah i remember there was a quote about the poorest people in mumbai and the poorest people in glasgow yeah being relatively of the same level of happiness and so even though the actual money per day is very different, that it was more the inequality in Glasgow that made life so challenging. Am I quoting that right? Yeah, it's a quote from Michael Marmot, who's featured in the film, and he did the Whitehall studies, which were essentially looking at health outcomes at different points in the income ladder. And it's something that Richard Wilkinson, who is one of the authors of The Spirit Level,

did a huge amount of work on before Michael Marmot as well. And looking at essentially that health outcomes are, yes, they're worse at the bottom, which was a surprise for some people because for a long time, people thought it was more stressful to be at the top than to be at the bottom. And this is why you would see

what they call businessman stress, business person stress you know the heart attacks um but actually these things are happening at the bottom but that in in a way the great insight from these studies was that it wasn't just that it was worse at the bottom it was graded socially and so at all points going up the income ladder going up you see a progressive improving of health conditions, but it was on a gradient. So the person directly above with slightly higher status will of course, the greater the difference between the top and the bottom, the more of a gradient you would see in those health outcomes. And the paradox that, of course, we live in the UK and the US are rich countries, they are not poor countries like India, where you might think, well, they're poor, therefore they would have poor health outcomes. And of course, there will be poor health outcomes linked to absolute poverty in those areas.

But you could see worse life expectancy in somewhere like Glasgow because of the extremes of inequality that's happening in that city. And no one's living in poverty. And that was such a paradox. But this was the conclusions that Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot were coming to, paradox, but this was the conclusions that Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot were coming to, was that actually inequality can be so powerful that it can affect health above and beyond absolute poverty. So that was one of the big insights and one of the big themes. What were some of your big insights or themes around inequality as you were preparing and researching

and then also making the film? I suppose in some ways inequality intersects with a lot of other issues and sometimes it's quite hard to unpick. But to see how something which is quite abstract as a concept, I mean, inequality, we talk about it and we talk about it as a system. It's a distribution. It's something which just sounds like a theory. And whether you could actually link economics to the individual on that level, you know, the idea that there would be a psychological mechanism that you could see an individual because of how the economic system was affecting them. was affecting them. That to me was a challenging thought, even though I liked the thought and I thought it made sense. Whether you could actually see that in reality, I was unsure of. And it was really only going through the process of talking to thousands of people that I got a handle on how those mechanisms were working and how economic insecurities are feeding a huge number of attitudes and behaviors, some of which are quite negative for the people that are affected by them, but that isn't an individual failing. That's, in essence, what the system is gearing towards. You shouldn't really

expect anything else. In a way, if you're creating a hugely unequal society, of course, you're going to be driving people further apart from each other. You're going to be feeding into these ideas about some people as being other to you. You're going to be feeding this idea of worthlessness. And through that, you're going to see outbreaks of frustration, violent behavior, an attitude of whether we owe these people. behavior and attitude of of whether we owe these people we need to lock more people away because this you know we're scared of other people alongside the huge rise in anxieties and not just at the bottom I mean we certainly saw in the film the amount of anxiety that was being felt by those who were relatively better off in the film and you know it's a tragedy in a way it's a tragedy

that the people that you would think should have it all are also you know if you're aspiring to that next level then you get there and you're aspiring to that next level and you'll never make it and it's a very sobering realization actually that you're creating a system where nobody can ever feel like they've they've kind of achieved true happiness and I suppose in a way that was the insight of the film. But I should say, because this sounds very depressing, I don't think I'd want to go and see this film after listening to me talk, that the other great insight was just how wonderful human beings are and how resilient and how full of spirit. And, you know, it's one thing that you can't get across in a data analysis

is just the beauty of the human spirit. And like all of the people that I worked with and filmed with in making this film, I thought they were fantastic. They were strong human beings who were doing what they could in their circumstances. They weren't really moaning about their lot. They were actually doing the absolute best that they could. And through them being incredibly honest about how it affected them we do get a great insight but also we see that you know actually it's not the individual that's necessarily to blame for this this is what's put out again and again and again

we really do need to look bigger than just individual failings we need to look at how the system is really pushing people into very, very difficult situations and that you cannot really expect anything else than some incredibly difficult outcomes, be those on health and anxiety levels or even attitudes to other people and crime and incarceration. I mean, you know, we see in the film a very powerful scene

about a man who's been put in the film a very powerful scene about a man who's been put in prison for a very small drugs offense, and his incredible honesty about how that's affected him. And I almost can't watch that scene because he's so insightful about what has happened to him. But you know, you do feel that it's an impossible situation, but it isn't an impossible situation, of course. So when you were talking to both the the seven people and the thousands of people before that yeah and and you were realizing these things about you know the economics is not personal it's political or it's you know in this way it's systemic you know were you in the conversations with folks were you also

talking to them about what you were learning and maybe even sharing some of these insights about the systemic? Like, were there times when they were saying something like, yeah, it's my fault that I'm this way? Like, were you, you know, because I can see there'd be a tension between everything that you're knowing and then hearing from them. Well, I suppose it's interesting that because I didn't see my role as to engage in me putting forward my opinions to those people in the film I saw my role as understanding their position and it was an incredibly intense process I actually spent about a week with everybody which isn't a very long period of time it was partly due to budget constraints and the sheer number of people that had to get around. So it wasn't a case of it being a conversation in that sense. It was more a sense of me really trying to

dig into what was happening with each of the people I was working with and understanding and allowing the expression of that understanding. what was the effect um i mean we don't know what they were thinking or feeling but how did you feel like they responded to you know someone listening to them someone recording them someone asking them these questions i think it's quite i mean it's quite an intense process even being on the other side of it i mean you know it has been gone the approach is quite therapeutic. It's a bit like going into a long sort of psychoanalysis session. And in a way that's intentional, because I suppose if you're trying to understand someone and trying to get to the roots of

behavioral and attitudinal issues, it is by its very nature going to be fairly therapeutic and sort of psychoanalytic conversation and certainly more than one person that I worked with felt that was quite beneficial but there's also a process whereby having a voice and being treated as if you deserve to have a voice is is something that I believe in wholly and I think everyone should believe in wholly I don't I don't believe that people don't believe in that but I think everyone should believe in wholly. I don't believe that people don't believe in that, but sometimes we're very quick to try and put each other in boxes. And certainly when you're making a film,

it's a huge temptation to kind of go, oh, this is the person that's going to tell us about this and this is the person that's going to... In a way, I always try to tell the story of these wonderful human beings and through them and through their own eyes we were going to get insights into these other big themes but that ultimately this was about a collection of seven other human beings that you were invited to care about and to get

to know in the course of the film and I suppose it's a subtle shift butally, I didn't want to place any judge. I'm not here to judge. I'm not here to say they're doing something right or wrong. I'm here to understand what's happening to them in a bigger sense and what is happening to them and how it's shaping everything about their perceptions of the world, their behaviors, even small things like your food choices. I mean, these are things that are in the book and you sort of can't quite believe that it would bear out in reality but

you know i would be filming with people you know these are not nothing in this film is you know set up by me you know but yet you know things would happen for instance i was filming leah who's a lady that works at kfc in richmond virginia And she was waiting to have her friend pick her up to take her to work. And she was just sat on her porch and she just picked up the paper next to her. And it was basically a paper called Gotcha, which detailed all of the people in the last two weeks in her neighbourhood that had been arrested. And of course, one of the big themes that we explore in the last two weeks in her neighbourhood that had been arrested. And, of course, one of the big themes that we explore in the film

and that the spirit level explores is rising violent crime. And I couldn't believe it, you know. And I was like, what are you reading? And she just basically came out and explained, you know, that all, you know, because of frustration, because of the lack of jobs, because of the damages to self-worth and so you know in a way you would hear these things and it would be very powerful for me to hear these things because it felt really really pertinent from the you know I'm not telling her that oh is this because of this

you know she she was telling me that information and so it really is in a way first-hand evidence from people who are affected as to what's actually going on in all of those areas, whilst treating them as human beings, as they should be. You are listening to Upstream, and we're in conversation with Catherine Round, the director of The Divide. She'll be back in the second half of our program. Thank you. Terima kasih telah menonton! KAMU MENGALA Instrumental by The Microphones. Welcome back to Upstream. We're in conversation with Catherine Round, the director of The Divide. One of the things I noticed were that there were gated communities represented, and there were more working class communities.

And coming from San Francisco, one of the ways I see inequality is in the same neighborhood, kind of gentrification. And we're in Easton now doing the interview and so i'm wondering about gentrification and and also london wasn't in the film and is this where you live or yeah so you know what was what was kind of your relationship with where where you live and how you started to see inequality or how you see inequality you know in london or the process of how gentrification connects with what you were seeing? I think gentrification connects in a huge way with inequality and geographical inequalities exacerbate all of the other inequalities, including income inequality that we see in the film. It's almost in some senses, it's a second round effect, as they sort of put it in,

in economic terms, that it's almost a cycle that feeds into it's like a feedback loop so you know you might see certainly with gated communities that only certain people can afford properties and they want to make sure that they have a good quality of life but by doing so they're geographically segregating people with more money further those property prices are becoming increasingly out of reach. And then of course, where are those properties? Are they near good schools? You know, you can see the intersection. And then of course, the formation of how we perceive people who come from those areas and how, you know, we perceive people who can't afford to get to those areas and how that increasingly divides and separates society, both economically and on social terms. and I think it's how all of these factors intersect

so the geography of opportunity as it's sometimes said can then feed into all of those income inequality trends and I saw that incredibly profoundly in California and it was in Sacramento that I filmed in a gated community not hugely hugely far away from, you know, the whole Silicon Valley and all of those things. And so you could see people moving to those areas and almost separating themselves off. But that was feeding into a whole host of other behaviours and thoughts and economic opportunities or disadvantages, depending on where people were. So certainly saw that in the States and in London, where we are now, I think it's incredibly pertinent. I mean, certainly it has become increasingly so as the film has been made. But the property ladder. And, you know, how does that affect not only who has access to certain jobs, who has access just to live in this city? You know, do you have to come from a wealthy background in order to be able to actually get a foot on the property ladder and to get into a certain industry? And what that does for those people who are excluded from that and certainly those professions that are excluded from that

some of which are vital professions like you know health care teaching and I think these are big questions that should be asked and measures that should be taken to to ensure that we do have affordable housing for people in this city yeah so one of the things that you do at the end of the film, as you say, if people are interested to learn more about inequality or get involved in some way, you direct them to the website. So I'm wondering, what are some of the ways you would say people can get involved? So inequality is a big issue. And it's obviously affected by a huge number of things. And sometimes that can feel quite overwhelming. And it's one of the reasons I don't have a set of policy prescriptions at the end of the film, because ultimately you could have a huge number and everyone would disagree. But that doesn't

mean to say that there aren't things that everybody can do. And there aren't places that you can go to find out more information about ways that you might want to support reducing inequality. There is an organisation called the Equality equality trust which was set up by the authors of the spirit level which has quite an extensive amount of information about different areas different factors that are increasing inequality and what you can do about them i mean certainly you could approach it from a number of different ways assuming that we're not overthrowing the system because um you know that is obviously one way that you could do it. Simple things that any individual could do would be things like looking at what the companies that you buy from, what their business practices are. Do they pay a living wage?

What are the differences between the top earner and the bottom earner in that company? Are you buying from a big corporation or a small independent shop? As consumers, even though we may not necessarily like to think of ourselves as consumers, we do have a huge amount of power. And actually, we can in a way because companies work on that kind of financial power, you can vote with your feet, as someone once said, in who you support and really thinking about supporting those smaller operators, those with ethical practices, those that can really stand up to the people that are actually exploiting people in the economy is one very simple thing that everyone can do without overthrowing capitalism,

or, you know, engaging in any big structural change. You know, there's also other business reform in terms of increasing amounts of workers on boards of companies that has been shown to be successful in other countries like Germany. Looking at reforming business in this way is something that can be done. There's obviously elements around tax avoidance. I mean, these are political choices, but certainly being aware of where these kinds of loopholes exist and actually supporting those policies and even politicians although I try to keep myself politically neutral I mean you know be aware of what the trends are in terms of who's going to enable us to clamp down on on this kind of behavior because I think we've seen obviously in recent weeks tax avoidance we've known it's

been a big issue for a long time. But certainly the revelations with Panama have shown that it's probably even bigger than many of us imagined. And this is not the tax avoidance of a relatively well-off person. We're talking about the fact this is the 0.1%. These are the people that have such a disproportionate amount of the resources that they are able to, in essence, bypass the law. And it's being aware of that and supporting policies that can reduce things like that, that help. And, you know, other smaller things, living wages, I mean, that sort of goes in with business practices as well. Somehow, we're all complicit in it, because we all, in our own way,

are cogs in that bigger machine and we think that we can't change it but I think fighting you know being aware that actually it can change that every individual step every individual sharing of this knowledge and getting behavior change from another person is all part of the process. I mean, one of the reasons that I made the film was, of course, to enable more people to engage with these issues, more of these debates to be had. I mean, I would love to see, obviously, more screenings of the film so that more people can start talking about what can be done and what measures they're going to support in their local area. And I would obviously encourage anybody who wants to do that to get in touch via the website that you you mentioned, and talk to us about it.

And you you are right now going to select theaters right now and going to screenings and having and hosting conversations and talkbacks afterwards. So how have those been? How have those experiences of bringing this film to a community and then allowing the people to talk about it? It's wonderful. It's fascinating. I am always blown away by the amount of insight that the audience brings to the conversation after the film, and how much the film is touching on their own lives and the communities that they see around them. And, you know, obviously, the proposals and the thoughts that people have about how we can improve this and how we can get this message out wider it's always very very encouraging to see how insightful engaged the audiences have been in those conversations and how I like I like to think

the film will spur people to keep their efforts going you know a lot of people coming to see this film are campaigning in this area or or they're obviously interested in the subject. But you know, the enthusiasm, which we can bring this movement together, because you know, it is social movements that create change, we have to keep building the social movement and keep bringing more people into a growing awareness of the damaging effects of inequality. And I've just been thrilled to hear a positive response and also to hear people conveying their own experiences in their own lives and asking incredibly insightful questions about some of the people in the film

and even perhaps having an understanding about people that they didn't think they would necessarily relate to. And I think that's also an important part of a film like this is, you know, ultimately the film is saying that we're all on the same boat. Ultimately, some of us have obviously been dealt a slightly better set of cards, but we're all struggling because of how this system is affecting all of us. And so actually, instead of being divided, actually, we've got much more in common than we think. And actually, if we work together and realize that we're all on the same side, then we can have change. So this show is called Upstream because it's about going upstream to what is the root of the issue. So what you just said about not seeing ourselves as divided and uniting, I'm wondering if we go really upstream to the root of the issue, why are we divided in the first place? What is kind of the root of inequality? Because I can see

that blaming each other, you know, us versus them is not helpful. So what is the root of the problem that you see? Well, inequality is an incredibly entrenched systemic issue. And it's in essence, the corruption of our economic system by various factors, and some of which, well, most of which have been determined by choices that have been made by those who are able to make those choices. Certainly, we see the shift in ideology that occurred in the early 80s. There was a shift towards more deregulation of the market, fewer regulations and a decline of labour rights for reasons that are explained in the film, which we don't know, obviously, because we weren't there in those rooms when they were being discussed that they felt that this would bring in greater wealth. So that was a political

decision, which would trickle down, which would make everyone rich, which would ultimately benefit everybody. So I don't know whether those people who had that ideology believe that would happen or not but that was what was put forward obviously that didn't happen and there was one person you interviewed who did say that right who said that he was part of that and he did believe that it would trickle down so Alan Budd was a an economic advisor to the UK government specifically known for influencing the Thatcher administration and being a big proponent of these free market and deregulatory policies. And I interviewed him at length. And in the film, he explains that he

did feel that this would bring in the resources that would make everyone better off. I don't disbelieve him. In the end of the film, he says he thinks it's been a terrible mistake. It didn't turn out the way that he would like it to do. And the thing that he most regrets is the social consequences of it. And it's a very, very powerful statement from somebody who was very hugely involved in that ideology in the early 80s. And of course, those who are familiar with him are quite surprised to see the turnaround. But I think it goes to show that, you know, as human beings, we are flawed. And perhaps, you know, certainly if you're looking at something from a theoretical point of view, because economics is a theory, it doesn't really apply to the real world.

You can see justifications for lots of different approaches. So, I mean, obviously, there is an ideological reason why it's increased. The decline of labor power is a huge issue. is a huge issue. And certainly this is something that we see bearing out in the lives of a lot of the people in the film, the sort of smashing of the unions and the sort of growing power of the corporation. And globalisation has fed into that.

Technological change has fed into that. The financialisation of the economy, as we deregulated and freed up markets, we increasingly allowed the finance sector to be the sector that's generating wealth. And the practices that then developed in that sector, which were essentially making money off debt and credit and how that was ultimately used to the credit was used to prop up the stagnant wages, but ultimately kind of imploded in 2008. And then we all became aware of just what

had been going on in our economies and in the finance sector. So all of these things are feeding into it. And I think, you know, there's a fairly chilling statement by a former Wall Street worker about how this is perceived, almost cyclical that, you know, we will just allow it to keep going on and on. And there's an element of that, but we do have to see that our income distribution was not the same at the beginning as it is now. It's not the same 35 years ago as it is now, or even further back when it was post-war, when it was much more equal. So if it was different then, it can be different now. This is not a completely natural course of events. These are changes that have been made ideologically, on a policy level, politically. And you know, if the will is there, and if the organization is there, then it can be changed.

You mentioned that the spirit level would only reach a certain amount of people. And so that was one of the reasons why you wanted to do a film. So I'm curious, now that you've made it a film, has it has it reached people who maybe wouldn't necessarily engage with these issues and and also has of the people the seven people seen the film and maybe shared how how it was to see the film that they're in or maybe even show it in their own communities so yeah as you said I wanted the film to be able to reach more people and we're obviously in the process of release right now and what has been interesting actually has been the response i mean one of the things when it's

released is you have the wonderful joy of seeing all the newspapers review your film and what they make of it and actually there has been a broad approval thankfully from all different publications the express has given it four stars as have the guardian as have time out and all these other um regardless of of where they might you might think they would naturally stand city am which broadcasts to uh the finance professionals have not only given us a very good review although they said they didn't want to like it they do like it but you know i did a podcast for them and we've been speaking about these issues i've been going to communities i've actually been to some fee-paying private schools alongside other communities who are in more uh useful disadvantaged areas and seeing different responses to the film

all engaging with the issues not none of them saying they don't agree i mean how can you not agree with someone's life you You know, you can see there's an understanding developing about how people in different life circumstances are affected, as well as people they may relate to on a more immediate level. So it's been really, really encouraging to get that response from different types of people. And we're hoping that will continue. One of the things that we've been working on in this release alongside, because obviously cinemas are one particular way of releasing a film and it's only going to reach a sort of cinema audience. We're working with the BFI, which is the British Film Institute, on

enabling screenings to happen in any venue. Documentaries have done this before, but in a way we're trying to make this a bigger part of our release and also a recognized part of our release so people are aware that it's not just the cinemas that count it's also the fact that other people are seeing it because actually that is an important part of a release strategy for a film like this so you know people can see it in church halls town halls their own local you know community run venues art centers you know you could show it anywhere on in your community you could show outside in your community i mean all you would need would be a projector and some speakers so that's been a big way that we've been trying to engage different communities around the country

to to see the film on your second communities around the country to see the film. On your second question about the people in the film, they've all seen it. They all like it, thankfully. You always know it's a huge privilege when you make a film where you're essentially asking someone to share fairly intimate levels of their life with you, and they do. But it's also a huge responsibility. intimate levels of their life with you and they and they do but it's also a huge responsibility and I've never felt it more so actually than in this film because in a way you're putting together people who are incredibly different into one story and you know they are telling their stories in their own words and you know you're asking people to empathize with them and

there's obviously no guarantee that anyone's going to empathize with them. But, you know, this is the sort of bravery of people telling the story in their own words. But you do feel a huge responsibility that they will feel that justice has been done to them and that, you know, you haven't misrepresented them in any way. So I was really thrilled that everyone's loved the film and felt that it was representative of their situation

because it would have been horrible if they hadn't. But so far've released it in the UK so it hasn't been out in the states yet but we do hope to have a release in the states later and we're doing a similar model whereby we'll release it through communities as well as some local cinemas as well so if anyone's listening in the states stay posted for more news on that so how this is kind of a two-part question how have you kind of, in what ways have you changed the most through working on this issue, which is personal, and also you've been touched by it? And also, where is it taking you? What's kind of the next questions that you're asking, or the next films you want to make, or the next steps you want to move towards?

I mean, I don't think you can underestimate how much of a intensely emotional experience making a film is especially when it involves working with other human beings that you're going to get emotionally attached and connected to and I think you'd have to have a heart of stone not to be affected by that and in some ways I think if you don't come out of making a film a changed person then you haven't really gone through the right process in making the film because you really should be putting yourself in that position you're asking someone else to make themselves vulnerable and you should be doing that and you should be pushing yourself as a filmmaker to do that and I suppose so how it's changed me is I

don't I suppose just understanding that actually fundamentally people are much more similar than you think they are and that seems like such a small thing to say, but I mean, we all know this, but people are wonderful and they're kind and warm hearted overall. And they want to do the best for the people that they care about and their families, and they want to have a decent life for themselves. And fundamentally, you know, I never expected that I'd be sat in the middle of a desert talking to someone in a Texan prison and that I would feel an intense connection and that there was a lot that we had in common. You know, there's someone who couldn't possibly be any more different for me in terms of they grew up in a different country, in a different income bracket probably. different income bracket probably. Their life course has been very different, but I completely understood every single thing that he said and every single behavior that he spoke about and fear that he had about himself. I felt those things, the fear of being, of how you're, how

you're treated and how that can affect you. And I completely understood where he was coming from, but it was sobering. It was sobering because we like to not necessarily think about each other as human beings. And sometimes we think, you know, he's locked away, but he's incredibly intelligent. You know, these are the people with whom we share the planet and we should be really listening to each other and really seeing the similarities that we have

rather than the divides would be, I suppose, my overwhelming feeling after making the film. And where am I going next? Well, the big project that I'm working on now, it's not a film at all. After saying that I'd never try and tell a big picture data story in another project, I'm trying to tell a big picture data story in another project, but this time looking at climate change, which actually intersects hugely with inequality. And at one point, I considered whether it was something that we should be including in the narrative of the divide, but ultimately we stuck to the social story. But it's essentially taking taking climate change data and transposing that data into sound and then composing a symphony from that data to try and create a new meaning and a new representation of the different outcomes that are happening because of climate change basically so we are looking at health outcomes

disease outcomes food production migration, all these things. And the aim with this project, again, is to get people thinking about the relationships between climate change and all these different other outcomes in society. And also get people interested in data and what it means and see it in a way as a language through which we express relationships rather than just a sort of abstract dot but yeah data sets basically how we relate to this vast amount of information that is being pumped out at an ever-increasing rate it seems which seems to be ever increasingly abstracted away and how we can create something tangible and emotional around that which is something I'm passionate about doing so I guess this is a different way of doing it from the divide but it's being developed at the moment and we're taking it to Sheffield DocFest in June so hopefully it will be a springboard for it there

and and we'll see some development of it later in this year yeah it sounds similar to the divide in the way that it started with data from a book and then turned into something else. Yeah, I can't get away from data. It just seems to be a thing of mine. So if people want to learn more about the film and also about the work that you do, where should they go? You can go to www.thedividedocumentary.com to see more about the film. You can see where we're screening screening you can see how you can get in touch with us to hold your own screening you can read some of the reviews you can even read a little paragraph about me and my background so yeah that would be the first port of call if you

want to find out more about the project wonderful well thank you so much again you've been listening to an interview with katherine round on upstream The Divide is showing in select theaters now and nationwide release on May 31st. And you can visit www.thedividedocumentary.com forward slash screenings. Thank you so much. Thank you. I'm Della Duncan, and you've been listening to Upstream. To hear more episodes and interviews, please visit www.economicsfortransition.org. Snow keeps rising in the hallways Flowers blooming from our boats that break

To the morning we run to shoreline Calling us to speak of serenity Waves under the earth and throbs Casting ghostly shadows Tall like giants Hold tight, my love As we set fire to the sea As we set fire to the sea