Q. You’re known for making films about a wide range of different social causes, such as climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, migration, what inspired you to focus on the Austin federal class action lawsuit in the first place?
 

I think from all my previous work too, it's always been impact-driven. The reason I started making films in the first place was not because I wanted to make films. I don't have a film background, but I have more of an academic background, I would say. I care a lot about different issues. I saw film, specifically documentary, to be one of the most powerful tools to share knowledge, to make people understand complex issues, issues you might read about in the report or in the news but you don't feel them. But if you watch a film you can actually feel the issues, right? So that's why I started making films and that's the type of films I look for.

My husband is American, and I moved to Austin because he was living there. So I lived there for a year, and then I learned about the lawsuit. When I heard about it, I was both shocked because I didn't know how bad the system was. When I learned that that the majority of sexual assault cases were just dismissed, I was like, how come no one I know is talking about this? None of my friends or family were discussing this issue and so I thought maybe I can do something about it, with my tool which is documentary film to create more awareness around this. I was really curious to see whether they would succeed because I learned that it was a very difficult case, that they were unlikely to win, it was a David and Goliath kind of case. When I met the women, I could see that there was some sort of fire within them and this will be a powerful film, no matter the outcome, because they're really fighting for something important and they're not gonna give up. I can tell that they were not gonna give up. That's how I decided to make the film.

At the end of the film, it was mentioned that some of the changes. For example, Hannah is working now with the Austin Police Department. She's actually like the project leader to reform how they handle sex crimes. So Hannah's had a really amazing journey, from suing the police to now working with the police, but she's so good at it. She's really important in leading the change that's happening in Austin. So it's been to me maybe the most inspirational thing about this project was to see where they all started; because I filmed for many years,  so I could see where they started and then how far they came at the end of the film, and also what it meant for them that their case succeeded. It really transformed many of them.

Q.At the end of the film, it was mentioned that some of the women are still working with the Austin Police Department?
 

Yeah, Hannah is working now with the Austin Police Department. She's actually like the project leader to reform how they handle sex crimes. So Hannah's had a really amazing journey, from suing the police to now working with the police, but she's so good at it. She's really important in leading the change that's happening in Austin. So it's been to me maybe the most inspirational thing about this project was to see where they all started; because I filmed for many years,  so I could see where they started and then how far they came at the end of the film, and also what it meant for them that their case succeeded. It really transformed many of them.

Q.About raising awareness, what are some changes you're hoping to see, maybe some of the works that the police department and DA's office is doing?
 

For me the film is part of raising awareness, but I also wanted to be a tool for the women in the film to use to further their work, because they're already doing so much work. Knowing how powerful documentary film can be, I thought that this film, once it's done, they can use it. They can use it to show it to people who need to see it. Because they're really the experts on the issue, not me. They're the ones who know exactly what changes are needed.

I know what they're hoping for is more cases being prosecuted and for that to happen we need more detectives and the police. We need better investigation, and we need more money for this type of crime because it's not really prioritized. So that's a big thing, making sure there's enough funding for the police and the staff in this unit to be trained.

Another thing that’s important to them is to have a district attorney who will meet with them, meet with the survivors and hear their story, because what happened before was that all cases were just dismissed without ever meeting. There was never any meeting between the DA and the survivors. It was only just dismissed. So it’s really important to have a DA who will actually take the time to listen to the survivors. 

We are using the film now for training police. It's now used in Austin and in Texas as part of training police officers in sexual assault. And I think that's been really amazing to see the film used as like a training tool, where police officers who are learning about sexual assault can understand what happens if they don't do things right. 

Finally, because the lawsuit was not so well known across the US even though it was big, but a lot of people never heard about it, and so I hope the film can help police and DA of cities in other parts of the country see that this happened in Austin, they didn't take this seriously, they dismissed all the cases, then they were sued and they had to pay a lot of money, so we should just change on our own, before someone sues us. I hope this film can help push for that change, without another group of survivors having to spend five years of their lives asking for that change.

Q. In the film, we saw the first DA said, “we do have a responsibility towards the victims, but we also have to watch out for the accused.”Has there been any similar backlash since they started? Are people still holding on to that notion that women are just going to falsely accuse them?
 

It’s true as a DA you have responsibility for all. That is part of her role as DA. But what happened was that it didn't really seem like they felt a responsibility for the victims or the survivors. It seemed like by default the accused were always believed over women. I think the new DA has a different perspective. He was someone the women had already talked to and met, so he understands the issue differently.

I feel it’s like a societal way of thinking. In our patriarchal society, there's this thought that women are doing this just to get money, fame, whatever. I don't understand why they think women are doing it because reporting a rape to the police is really difficult and it's a very long and hard process. For the fact that people say that it's false, that many of them are false, it's not true. But I think it's just part of how society unfortunately views women versus men. 

Q. In the film we can see that this woman comes forward and their case gets mishandled, eventually they start to internalize the doubting from the police officers. During the filmmaking process, how did you feel listening to them saying all this?
 

 I think all of them felt some sort of doubt or shame of “was it that bad? Have I done something wrong? Should I have somehow prevented this?” And I think it is because as a society we somehow place the shame on the survivor rather than on the perpetrator and one thing I'm seeing more and more is that people are trying to shift this shame, so the shame is not on the woman but rather on the rapist or the perpetrator.
 

But I think it is a very internalized way of thinking that I'm sure many of us would feel because there's something about rape being a crime that's so closely associated to to consensual sex. Often it could be someone you know who assaulted you. I know Hannah, for instance, talked about her assault and was like, “was that rape? I don't know.” And that's something I heard from many people, that they doubt their own experience. And I really think that since this is how society is, it's also reflected in the police, in the judges, in the DA. So there really needs to be a real shift in society in how we think about women and sexuality and what a rape is. But I think more and more now I'm hearing that it's at least going in a better direction with this particular issue.

Also, I think the whole good, bad victim thing is so important to include in the film. And that's why, for instance, Marina is a really wonderful protagonist in the film because she was like, I know that I would be seen as a bad victim, because I was drinking, I was out late at night, I was gonna buy drugs. But she's very firm in her belief: even though all those things happen, it doesn't mean someone can rape me. That's not okay. 

So I felt like she was very unapologetic about who she is and what she experienced and she's demanding justice from the beginning. And then there's a contrast between her and Hannah. Hannah was much more uncertain, “okay, maybe my case wasn't so bad.” It's also reflected in the different types of assaults. Hannah’s perpetrator being someone she knew in her personal relationship, whereas Marina’s was a stranger.

I felt one thing that was really clear to me from the case was that even if you're a “good victim” or “bad victim” in Austin it didn't matter, because no cases were taken. That was part of that philosophy behind the case that they put together a group of women who are so different. They have different age, class, race, occupations, abilities, and very different types of assaults and none of them were taken. The point of the case is to show that it doesn't matter what kind of woman you are, what kind of assault it is, as long as you're a woman, they don't care.

Q. How do you think about the lawyers’ attitudes make Hannah and other women more assured of what happened and willing to take that stand that they want their voices to be heard?

I think Jenny and Elizabeth played a really important role for all of these women. There was something about them saying, we believe you and what happened to you was not right. Hearing those words for a lot of the plaintiffs in the case was very powerful because none of them had said that. I'm sure some of them have people who believe them, or family members who supported them, but I think there's something different about a lawyer saying, “look, there's something wrong here. Like, it shouldn't be like this. You shouldn't have to experience this.” I think most of us who are not lawyers might just say, okay, I guess that's how the system is. I guess we can't change it, but Jenny and Elizabeth really thought they could change it.

I know that for Hannah, she was not sure if she wanted to join, because she felt like her case was not so bad and she thought, “since my case was not so bad, maybe it would water down the lawsuit. It’d be negative for me to join the other women, because my case was not as strong as theirs.” In fact, her case was really something they wanted because it shows a very typical scenario result and so it took her a long time to see that. But when she did, she really joined and became a really important person in the case and in the movement.  During the time they decided to start the second case, Hannah was supposed to be the front of the new case. You know, Hannah is a very private person. I don't think she wanted to be in this situation. She's told me many times, “I don't know if I want to be on film.” She doesn't want people to know personal details about her. But I think she saw it as necessary in a way. It was not where she thought she would see herself, but she really did become a spokesperson for the case and still is. I think out of all of them, she's now the one who's the most involved in creating these changes.

In fact, the case was not only about these women's experiences, but it was a class action lawsuit. So it was about everyone. It was about systemic change. I really think for all of them that was the main motivation: it was for what happened to them to not only be a terrible thing but also be turned into something good for someone else.

Q. What kind of role does such solidarity and this community of women play in this story you're telling? 

I thought it was important to show them coming together because it was really the whole reason why it worked out. It's not a single person suing, it's a group, it's an army. I wanted to show that they were growing and I wanted to show Marina and Hannah, because they didn't know each other, and then they met and became friends, like an unlikely duo in a way. They had different ages and different backgrounds. They would not have been friends if it wasn't for this case, but they became really good friends and work together. I wanted to show the power of women coming together to fight for something they believed in. And I also saw that the fact that they were a group meant a lot for them to succeed because it's mentally hard to be a part of. They have to tell their stories over and over and over again.

I think the fact that there were just a group of women who, when one person couldn't do it anymore, someone else took over, that really made it possible to do this marathon of a case.

Q. What inspires the choice to include Jenny and Elizabeth’s wedding in the film and show friendship between these women?
 

I was talking with my two editors and one of them was like, I remember the wedding. We were like, you're probably not going to include it because it's a bit on the side. It's not directly related to the case, but I really wanted it to be a part of the film because I thought it encapsulated so much of what the case was about.

Jenny and Elizabeth ended up becoming important characters in the film, and it was because no other lawyer wanted to take the case. Mary Ruth, or Amy Smith, she tried for a long time to find a lawyer and couldn't find anyone who would take it. And Jenny was her last attempt, so the case was very much dependent on Jenny's willingness to take on.

Jenny and Elizabeth met through the case and fell in love, and I felt this was a moment of joy. In a film about sexual assault and rape, there's not so many moments of joy. I wanted to show them all having a good time, being happy, not thinking about rape or sexual assault or the lawsuit, but justcelebrating something wonderful. I'm really glad we can fit it in there.

Q. There was a powerful scene where Amy eventually reclaimed her name at the end of the film, and then all these women move on with their lives. So we can see that they're not just growing as a group but they're also moving forward with their life individually. 
 

One thing I saw quickly when I started working on the film is, maybe in particular Marina, she was like, “my life was on hold until this is over. I feel like I can’t decide what I want to do, I can’t move on with my life before this case is done.” It’s hard to explain how tense it was to just wait for years and years and years. It was really hard for a lot of them to not know when they would be done. I saw that many of them put what they would have liked to do with their lives on hold for the case, so I really wanted to show not just the case, but also how it affected their personal lives and the choices they could or couldn't make.

Like Marina, she was 19 when she was raped and the case ended when she was 26 or 27. In her early 20s, she saw all of her friends move to different cities, get different jobs, go to grad school, but she couldn't. She was just a bit stuck. I thought an important part of the case is also how their personal lives were affected and that's also part of the joy of being able to follow someone over a long time to see how their lives change. So Marina getting a boyfriend, and moving was just really wonderful to see, after the case was over, how happy she was. She was like, finally, I can do what I want, I can have fun, I don't need to always worry about the case.

It was a very long journey to make this film. I would say it did affect my personal life too, because every day I wouldn't know if I would get a call and I need to film. I was filming and doing sounds and directing alone. I didn’t have anyone to talk to or discuss things with, so I felt that it was a little bit of a lonely process. Of course I became friends with Marina and Hannah and Mary and Jenny and Elizabeth, so it wasn't lonely in that way.
 

My husband is American and we decided to move back to Norway. We had planned it, but I need to finish my film. So we planned everything around the case, so that it would be after the hearing, and then suddenly it was delayed, so it couldn't move for a while. It did affect my life too. I did feel a big relief like the women when the case was over, because then I didn't have to always be on alert waiting for something to happen.

Q. Telling a story about criminal justice system involves certain level of prior knowledge about American law, how do you make it more accessible for the audience to understand what's happening?
 

I wanted to make sure it was understandable for an international audience who don't know the US system, both with the DA election and the legal system. But then I also didn't want it to be so simplified that an American viewer would think it was too simple. I needed to have enough detail so that also it would be interesting for someone who did know the system. It was a bit challenging. There was so much more that I filmed and so much more that happened in the case that didn't make it into the final film. We had to cut a lot of ups and downs and this and that so the case itself is really complicated. It was a hard editing process.
 

Q. What are some of those moments that you couldn’t include in the film but you felt was important to you?
 

The judge dismissed the case and invoked the immunity of the DA and that then it should be filed in state court. A state judge should deal with this, not only a federal judge, so he said, go file it in state court. And then they did. But then the DA and the police came and said, “you have to be in federal court.” So I really saw that the legal team of the police and DA kept just trying to mess with them in a way, like they kept sending these briefs just to drag it out. Essentially, I felt like they were trying to drag out the process so much that the women would give up. It made me really mad, like they're really messing with people's lives. These women are not doing this just for fun. They're doing it because of other women, for their own sake to find some closure, and you just keep sending these bad legal arguments to kind of make the case fizzle out. We weren't able to include all of that, but that was one thing that made me really frustrated while making it. It was just like legal maneuvering to get the case to disappear.

Q. The English title of the film is “An Army of Women.” The symbol “army” is traditionally associated with men or more masculine elements. Why did you choose this title for a story of women fighting the broken criminal justice system?
 

The title was actually from the very first conversation I had with Jenny. We talked on the phone and I asked her something about what is it about this case? Why did you decide to take it? And she said, “ for me, the most powerful thing about this case is that there is an army of women who are working behind the scenes to change things.” She used the term to describe not just the women plaintiffs but also a lot of people like their mothers, their sisters and all of these advocates or activists that were working in Austin to support this change. There were just so many women using their skills and different experiences to push for this change. So she was saying, “the one thing that inspires me and makes me hopeful that we can succeed is that this army of women is not gonna give up. They're just here fighting to change the system.”

So that's where it came from and I remember noting it down as the working title of the film. For a long time we had cuts of the film that I felt the title doesn't really match, because I felt like we didn't feel the army. This is before I did interviews with all the women, so I only had Marina and Hannah and Jenny and Elizabeth. I was like, is that an army? I don't know, just four people. But then I did the interviews, we incorporated them. And suddenly I got this feeling that it was bigger than just four people. It was a bigger group. It was not just them, not just Austin, it was everyone. And I was like, okay, it's not just a working title, it is the main title. 

I have to say, this film has been the most difficult film I've done, but also the most inspirational one, where I see people fight for something and do it for years and years and years. It's a testament to all of their strength that they were able to get those changes. It's really difficult, but they did. I feel very fortunate that I got to see it and witness it and bring this story to Taiwan and other parts of the world.