INBOUND 2016: Laura Ricciardi & Moira Demos Spotlight

So welcome. It's nice to have you all with.

Us.

On this momentous day. And it's great to see you both.

Great to be here.

So, Making a Murderer, for those of you who don't know, has been an international sensation, a cultural phenomenon unlike anything we've seen in a long time. Each episode of Making a Millionaire in the first season averaged more than 19 million viewers on Netflix. Television Critics association awarded it Outstanding Achievement in Reality Programming. At the Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards. You received four Emmy Awards, including outstanding documentary or nonfiction series, just to name a few. Tell me your reaction to this incredible success of this series.

Well, it was all part of the plan. I mean, we're thrilled. Our primary concern really was viewership. We wanted to reach as wide an audience as possible. And we knew once we realized we'd be fortunate enough to partner with Netflix, we thought we could reach, you know, a very wide audience.

Yeah, I mean, I think we were so focused on the work. I mean, honestly, I feel like the primary feeling of success is that we finished and it was what we had wanted to make all those years, and there it was. And then everything that happened after that was bonus, you know, not necessarily anticipated, but fantastic.

So take me back. You were both graduate students at Columbia in the film program back in 2005 when you read a story about the Steven Avery case in the New York Times and you headed off to Wisconsin, pretty much. Tell me about that decision.

Stephen. What we read in the New York Times was that he was one of which Wisconsin's first DNA exonerees, and he was charged in a new crime. And we learned that he had an upcoming court date. He was going to have his preliminary hearing in just a few weeks. And we contacted the clerk of court's office to find out if we could go out and film. And we learned that there was going to be a television camera pool and provided there was enough room for us, we could plug in and start working with the local media. So that's pretty much how it started.

Yeah. I mean, we were graduate film students, as you say, but we were sort of. We had finished our full time coursework and we're sort of in that uncertain time as you're working on your thesis film, wondering how you're going to break in to the industry. And, you know, we had both had prior careers and so, you know, we were older than the average student and knew that nobody was going to swing a door open as we entered and so sort of looking for a project to create our own opportunities. And, you know, as it was actually Laura who was reading the article. We were sitting next to each other on the train, and she kept elbowing me and telling me more details of the story. And the more we talked about it, it was, you know, this was something we had never heard of. A DNA exoneree charged in a new crime. And it just seemed like an incredible window into the system, an opportunity to look at, you know, in the 20 years since he was wrongly convicted, what had advanced, what hadn't advanced? Would it be a fair process this time? Because it certainly wasn't before. So.

So there's so many detours and a wide range of characters in this miniseries, but at the heart of it, let me put this in a nutshell.

Okay, good luck.

Steven Avery was falsely imprisoned for 18 years from 1985 to 2003, wrongly convicted of rape and attempted murder. Ten years into Steven Avery's sentence, a neighboring sheriff calls to say, you got the wrong guy. Avery is exonerated when DNA evidence proves somebody else committed the crime. He is freed. After his release, he sues the local police for $36 million. In the middle of that case, he is accused of murdering a local photographer. And the same local police are heavily involved in gathering evidence against him. Steven Avery is subsequently convicted and is now serving a life sentence. Did I leave anything out?

Well, there's Brendan Dassey, of course, but yeah, I mean, that was quite accurate. I mean, little things could be tweaked about it, but that's fine. It's a very complex story, so.

It is a complex story. So what did you want the message of the documentary to be?

Well, you know, honestly, we. Our process was very organic and the themes were emerging for us. You know, it wasn't as though we went in and we said, this is the message that we want to deliver to people. We really wanted to follow the story in the most organic way and see what we could learn from it and then try to deliver an experience for viewers akin to what we ourselves had experienced. But there were several themes that emerged. You know, one is just about the power of accusation. And, you know, one of the things that we realized we were doing actually was documenting the experience of the accused in the American criminal justice system. What is it like to be accused of a crime? What is it like to be accused of a serious crime? What is it like to be accused where, in a high profile case, you know, where your reputation is, you know, something that's. That's discussed, you know, nightly on the news and compared to that of the victim. So that was one of the things we were thinking quite a bit about.

It was an incredible window into the criminal justice system.

Yeah, I mean, obviously, I agree with Laura, but, you know, our experience was this article raised so many questions for us, and we went to Wisconsin with questions, seeking answers. But over and over and over again, you don't get an answer. What you get, you know, is another question or a more refined question or an expanded question. And, you know, that experience is something that's very important to share with people. The idea that there aren't easy answers, that asking questions is important, that there is ambiguity, and we need to be comfortable with ambiguity. So really trying to tease that out.

You've said that you wanted to see whether the system was living up to its founding principles of trying to deliver truth and justice. Speak more to that.

Well, one of the things we learned through the experience of making this is that justice is a process. And if the people who are investigating these types of crimes or prosecuting them are starting from a place of being certain, or starting at the end, essentially with a conclusion, then, you know, there really is no process. So that was part of what we were trying to unpack, part of what we were exploring. And in many ways, this is a cautionary tale about being certain. Even now, as Moira said, there are so many lingering questions, so many unanswered questions, that we do not believe we know what happened to Theresa Halbach. We were not investigating the crime. We were not in a position to investigate the crime. What we were focused on doing was documenting the process of the accused in the system and trying to explore to what extent the system was working towards delivering truth and justice.

Do you think the system is more reliable, was more reliable in 2005 than it was in 1985?

I think it'd be hard to say that with any confidence. You know, there's so many things that, you know, cause you to pause. There's so many things to be suspicious of. You know, as Laura said, we don't. I don't know what happened on October 31, 2005. There's two men that have been convicted of a murder. They were convicted actually of different details of the crime, despite there being one victim. So how is that a satisfying resolution?

Take me through the process. You spent 10 years working on this process. How was it that you were able to keep going, not knowing if you'd ever get paid, let alone your work would ever be shown or seen?

Well, I would say the thing that really kept us going was we felt like this story needed to reach viewers. You know, we never doubted the importance of sharing this story. You know, we at times we struggled with how will we get it out there, that's for sure. But we also, because we understood what this story could offer, we really sort of risked all in a sense to ensure that it would be released with the proper format. I think quite early on we realized that we had more than a feature film and you know, to tell the most complete story, it needed to be longer than a feature. So we, we moved to Wisconsin just, I guess within two months of having first read about Steven Avery and remained in production for about 18 months and we were working on it exclusively. And then after that we needed to go back to day jobs, finish our graduate program, you know, address other responsibilities we had and try to figure out how to keep the project moving forward while, I don't know, while keeping other things afloat.

You didn't have a lot of money, but you had a lot of time.

It's true. And in life in general, but in creative work too, I mean, time is really sort of the most valuable asset you could ever have. But I do think it's important to point out, as Laura said, for the first 18 months or so we were in production. And what that means is that we had experienced and witnessed and documented basically episodes one through nine. So we knew that's what the story was. We knew that's what we had to share with people. So that was quite, quite a burden and quite an inspiring thing to know that that's what we were sitting on. We needed time to go through post production, we needed money to hire people, all of those things, but that's what it could be.

And did you go to Netflix first? Were you turned away from others?

I mean, it was quite a process because, you know, this is 2007 when we're done with our primary production period. And you know, there's feature film markets you can take it to. You can take it to PBS, who has 60 minute and some two hour slots, HBO, two hour slots. So, you know, we were trying to take it out to market, trying to have trailers, applying for grants for feature documentaries, trying to pretend, oh, this sample, that's two hours that's missing, most of the story could be a feature. It was really trying to, you know, fit something into a box that it didn't fit into. And there was a moment where we decided we were going to stop wasting our time and energy applying for these grants or going to these markets and just keep making what we know it is. So by the time we went to Netflix, we were over eight years into the process. They had started doing scripted originals, they had not yet started doing documentary originals. But we thought this is a place that, you know, could give us the footprint we need. And we brought them rough cuts of three episodes so that they could see what we were asking them to be a part of.

And they said yes.

They did, yes, yes, yes. Right away. In the first meeting. In the first meeting, yeah.

Wow.

So how would this series have been different if you had been forced to squeeze in all of that content into a two hour documentary format rather than that wonderful series length format.

Primarily the language would have been different. We often talk about how because we were given such a large footprint, we were able to show rather than tell. And that was really important to us because we always had the viewers in mind and we wanted viewers to have an experience. We wanted them to feel like they were in the room, for instance, with Brendan Dassey when he's being interrogated multiple times, or with Dolores Avery when, you know, she's struggling with going through this, you know, from her perspective a second time. So it was really important to us to be able to sit in scenes and let them play out and, you know, to include the voices of people who had firsthand experience and really could take us there in a sense. And we, if we had to cut it down to even a two hour long feature, the language of the project would have been very different.

Yeah, I mean, but even beyond the language, I mean, even if we changed the language to quickly trying to tell you everything, it would have never fit in two hours. And we were surprised, taken aback when Brendan became part of the story. That was actually sort of the moment when we realized this was not a feature, this was a series.

So quickly, for those who don't know, how did he become part of the story?

So about four months after Stephen was arrested and charged with the murder of Teresa Halbach, the police went to his nephew Brendan Dassey's high school and pulled him out and started questioning him. And it turned into an interrogation. And they sort of, a few days later have a confession that he was involved with his uncle. So he becomes a co defendant and, you know, the story, the legal story, becomes much more complicated. Three charges are added against Stephen. The family story becomes incredibly more complicated now that there's, you know, it's very interesting to us that we have Dolores, Steven's mother, and then her daughter, Barbara Stevens, sister, who now has her own son charged, and this sort of parallel mother story going on so, you know, that would all sort of have to be left out or just a footnote. Oh, by the way, this nephew confessed when that wouldn't tell you anything about what that meant or what was actually going on.

Talk about the production a little bit and specifically the technology, the evolution of technology. While you were actually working on this over the course of 10 years, the streaming model then emerged. That allowed you. It allowed you a whole new vista.

I mean, it's definitely interesting to think back to 2005 and the equipment that was available to us at the time. We feel very lucky that there were prosumer cameras out there. We shot most of the footage on MiniDV actually. And you know, we. I don't know that there would be a series if there weren't cameras like that, like the DVX100.

We're taping cameras to the courtroom wall.

Yeah, Brendan.

Brendan's trial. Yes, we did.

They were on a box of tapes, little angled. I'd go up and rearrange them between. So we'd get a different angle and then re tape it. Yeah, no, I mean it was. We often talk about how the series is put together with a little spit and some rubber bands and we hope it sticks.

But yeah, the benefit of being able to use the prosumer cameras, to be able to use Final Cut Pro for editing purposes, it just, it made us mobile. The cameras were quite small, so it allowed us to have intimate access to our, to our subjects. I mean, the Avery's were incredibly gracious because they allowed us into their homes after they had already, again, from their perspective, endured a tragedy like this once before. And I think a big reason that was made possible was the type of cameras we were using. And at that time we were shooting mainly Moira was shooting with one camera. And it allowed us to just sort of be in their space and not take up too much room or draw too much attention to ourselves.

Sarah Koenig, the host and executive producer of the podcast Serial, a very popular podcast, said that her project was a beneficiary of technology. Do you feel the same way?

Absolutely, definitely. I mean, at the different stages, the fact that it was 2005, not 1995, and then because it took us 10 years, then we got the other benefit of a streaming delivery system, which is revolutionary in terms of content. The story can drive the form for the first time, which is incredible for storytellers. But then on top of that, once it's released into a world with social media, there's a whole nother. It takes On a life of its own, which is a whole nother organic thing.

Yeah. And streaming obviously allows people to program for themselves. So I mean, we still think it was genius for Netflix to release the series. When they did December 18th, it was amazing timing because one of the concerns we had was, you know, would people make time for a ten hour story, essentially?

And that was very demanding.

Yeah, I mean, we knew we were asking a major commitment of our viewers, so we were really shocked actually to realize that people had binged the series in record numbers. Yeah, yeah. I mean, but binged at all. We didn't know it was binge worthy. So we were. And then I think I was even hoping that people who'd binged it would go back and watch it a second time in case they missed anything. So. But yeah, it was really, we were begging Netflix at that time. When they told us that they wanted to launch on December 18th, we were like, no, we want like 12 more weeks to edit.

And they were like, this was like August.

Yeah, no, so technology is one thing. I mean, how did social media play into this? How did it impact the project? How did it amplify the project?

I mean, it certainly didn't impact the project until it was out there in the world. You know, it wasn't part of the creation in any way. And perhaps we were naive that it wasn't part of what we anticipated happening, but certainly the fact that.

There could.

Be this word of mouth to get people to it. There was not a tremendous marketing campaign. I mean, there was some, but it was really about people talking to other people about it. And you know, we knew from rough cut screenings we would have people to our house to watch the first two episodes and then we'd be there till 2am People wanting to talk about it. And so we knew that it stirred up questions and emotions and that that was a necessary part of the. Part of watching. So, you know, I think social media really offered that to people. It offered forums and communities and the diversity of what people engaged with. I mean, there are, there's a Reddit crowd who are investigating the crime itself. There's people really invested in reform Global, in a global sense in this specific case. So it really offers a diverse way of engaging.

And I'm curious what struck those people that were in your house till two in the morning. What was it about this series that they just couldn't get enough of that was so compelling?

Yeah, I think for the most part people were watching the first two episodes. So I think because by the end of the first episode. I mean, the first episode is quite demanding. It's an epic story in and of itself. And by the end, you know, we flash forward and there is an indication that Stephen's life is going to take a serious turn for the worse. And I think people were just, you know, it does sort of, by the end there, sort of hook the action and spin it around, and people just wanted to know more. And then, of course, once we got to the announcement that, you know, a woman had gone missing and the authorities were suspecting Stephen, I think people were just totally engaged. And that's actually when the story catches up to the present. So it turns into verite style there. And I think people are just sort of left on the edge of their seats by the end of the second episode. And, you know, did want to see more, but also wanted to talk about what they had, you know, just learned in the first two episodes, which is really neat.

Did your opinion of Steven Avery change over the course of the 10 years you were shooting this?

No.

I mean, it was really just a matter of getting to know him. But he was incredibly consistent throughout. I mean, there weren't. I mean, when Brendan Dassey entered the story, that was shocking for us. We did not know what to make of it. We were like everyone else. It sort of. We felt blindsided by it. And not because we had any judgments at that point about whether or not Stephen was involved, but to have someone come forward. And at least if you took Ken Kratz, you know, what he was saying at face value on his March 2 press conference, you're thinking, in the moment, this person has come forward with a narrative of what happened on October 31st. And, you know, we just. We were sort of reeling from that, at least initially. And it came at a very strange time because we were packing up and planning to move back to New York the very next day, and we got a phone call. Someone called us and said, you know, drop whatever you're doing. There's going to be a press conference tonight. And we went and we. Yeah, I mean, it changed everything. Yeah.

I mean, Stephen's trial was scheduled for later that spring. We were going to go back to New York, go to work, make some money and come back. And, you know, then we didn't come back for about a year.

Yeah, you said something interesting, that it's in our country, in the criminal justice system, it's guilty or not guilty, not innocent.

Right, right. Can you touch down on that? You know, those are the verdicts. You know, as a juror, you're being asked to decide, is this person guilty or not guilty? You know, in other words, the prosecution did not prove their case. But we talk anecdotally a lot about innocence and is the person innocent? And, you know, I think that is all is sort of a byproduct, a terrible byproduct of, you know, the fact that we now have DNA. There's an exoneration movement that is about proving innocence. And so we set up this standard that you need to prove your innocence rather than that the state needs to prove your guilt. And if they can't prove it, you know, we err on the side of you don't go to prison for life if it hasn't been proven.

So this story continues to live on. A petition calling for Steven Avery's release has garnered more than 500,000 signatures. A petition on the White House website has gathered more than 100,000 signatures. Does that surprise you? I mean, what is it about this case that has been so compelling to so many?

I think in a way, the series offered viewers a window into a system that, you know, that they didn't necessarily know. Well, I mean, we didn't. I had gone to law school. I practiced law. I thought I knew something about the criminal justice system. And I learned so much from all of this. I didn't know when we were filming that the authorities could pick up a teenager, a minor, and just start questioning him without. Not even. Just without parental consent, without notifying the parent before speaking to the minor. So there. There was a lot to learn. And people, after they saw the series, they would approach us and ask, you know, well, first they would say, I didn't know this sort of thing could happen. And then they would say, but now I see how it could happen, and it terrifies me. And they talk about the visceral response they had when watching the series, moments that really outraged them. And I think the petitions really were about that. I think people were trying to find some sort of mechanism to speak about the system and to voice their concerns about it. And to say this is, you know, intolerable.

But at the same time, you know, they're another indication of sort of how little we do understand our criminal justice system. And, you know, the petitions went to the president, and it's not. He's not in a position that he can do anything. That's not actually something we can do. So just also just not even knowing how to engage in the system, how to make it better. So, you know, trying to promote a dialogue about that and to Encourage people to get more involved locally. Because the other thing we try to encourage people to understand is we told you this one story in this one place about this one person or a group of people, but there's no reason that that's not happening in your county, in your state. So get involved locally.

So the lead prosecuting attorney in the case accused you of leaving out some important evidence in your story. And there's been a backlash from those who say you didn't fully present the picture of Steven Avery in this case. What's your response to that?

I think anyone who's making that argument is missing the point of the series. I mean, I disagree with what they said. You know, we worked on this for 10 years. We were very thorough. And to the extent anything was edited out, I mean, of course things were edited out. We had just in terms of what we shot, we had over 1,000 hours of footage. It's a 10 hour long series, but it misses the point. We were never making an argument about guilt or innocence. We were documenting again the experience of the accused and how this played out. So it wasn't as though we thought, well, if we, you know, include this type of evidence, but not this, you know, we'll be able to manipulate the viewers. And I mean, that is just insane. You know, we were, we wanted this project to be as authentic as possible and we, you know, did the research and presented the most thorough and accurate story we could. And I think, in fact some of the, what was said about, some of the allegations made about us will probably be addressed in season two through Kathleen Zellner's work itself. I mean, it's just. But you know, it's interesting in a way. I'm glad that that happened because just the idea that Ken Kratz could come out post launch and lodge accusations against us. And the thing that was upsetting about it wasn't the fact that Ken Kratz was lodging those accusations, it's that the media were reporting on them without fact checking. I mean, he talks about sweat DNA. You will hear from experts in season two that there is no such thing as sweat DNA, but yet it gets amplified and repeated and repeated until it becomes truth. But you know, that's what we witnessed happened in 1985, we witnessed it in 2005, we're witnessing it now in 2016. So the question is, will we learn from history? Will we identify what we're doing wrong and change our behavior, change our thought process, ask questions? You know, I don't know.

So Netflix has had many Successful shows, as, you know, House of Cards, Orange Is the New Black Master of None. But Forbes magazine said Making a Murderer is different. It is the first Netflix show that seems to have completely consumed its viewer base. From top to bottom. The story of Steven Avery has seemed to hook pretty much everyone who has laid eyes on it. I'm just curious, what part of the Steven Avery story is most disturbing to you?

It's hard to choose just one thing. I mean, I think what terrifies me, just as a person, is this action of somebody else saying who you are and what that does to you and your identity and the inability to be heard or believed and just how terrifying that is. I mean, it's its own sort of horror story of if you couldn't be yourself and people could make you into something else, even that possibility is a very scary thing.

What about you, Laura?

Well, one of the themes that emerged for us, we talk about it as narrative disguised as truth. And, you know, someone was saying to us recently that Brendan Dassey seemed to be just what the state needed because he essentially gave the state a story that they could tell the jury in both cases about what happened to Teresa Halbach, something to tie the physical evidence together. And, you know, we were interested in both the evidence that the state was presenting and the way in which the defense was testing that evidence. We were interested in the state's theory of the case, and we were equally interested in the defense theories of the case. So. But it is very important, I think, for us to understand that much of what goes on in a trial like that is storytelling. And, you know, jurors are told opening statements are not evidence, closing arguments are not evidence. Everything in between should be evidence. But they are certainly impacted by what they hear in openings, they're impacted by what they hear in closings. They're certainly impacted by what they hear pre trial. And I really wish that the media were more respectful of this process and took it more seriously, because I think there are plenty of examples in the series itself of reporters, local reporters, national reporters, especially the local ones, though, who were there to cover sort of every beat of the story, who say things in their standups that are very prejudicial. And I know if I were accused of a crime, if I were going to stand trial for murder, something that could put me away mandatory life, I would hope that reporters would not be running out and standing in front of the jail saying the types of things they were saying.

So I'm interested from a personal perspective. You are partners professionally, you're partners Personally. And what do you each bring to the filmmaking process and what has that been like working so closely together?

Well, we often talk about, you know, just taking us back to 2005. Here we were, these two women in their 30s thinking, oh, we'll just go out to Wisconsin and make this thing. Sort of a crazy thought. But at the same time, you know, maybe if there were any two people that could pull that off, like we were a perfect pair. You know, I had before going to film school, I had a background both in film production, working in lighting and camera, but also as a documentary editor. And Laura, before film school, as she mentioned, had gone to law school and had practiced law and then was studying writing in school. So, you know, we could go out there with our small camera and some sound equipment and, you know, pull this off. You knew how to talk to lawyers. I knew how to say, the average person won't understand that we should do it a little differently. So, you know, Laura was conducting the interviews, I was lighting and shooting and doing sound. And you know, then in post, we were just working together.

Yep.

Anything you'd add about the process?

Well, I could not have chosen a better partner for the project. I mean, Moira is. She could be a one woman production crew, which I don't want to mislead anyone because this is a very, you know, it's a very collaborative endeavor. But if I had to have one person, which I sort of did, you know, I'm happy it was Moira. And again, I mean, I'm really grateful to our subjects because we would not have a series without the people who not only cooperated with us, but were incredibly gracious. I mean, they opened their homes to us, they devoted time. Attorneys who didn't necessarily have a lot of time or who were in the middle of dealing with this made time for us. And I think it was because they believed the story was important to share and you know, that it wasn't necessarily being covered in the most in a way that would provide the most social value, I think. So, you know, it really helped that we were able ultimately to use this format to tell it because I think it does allow for an immersive experience. And if people feel like on some level that they've gone through it, then I think that, you know, it will feel more impactful. And people might think, you know, the next time they get, you know, a summons for jury duty or step into a polling booth or whatever they might, they might want to look up, you know, people running for, you know, a judicial seat. Or whatever. So.

So given your experience, you in law and you in film and many other things, and the process of this series and everything you've learned over the last 10 years, what is your message to this group today of, you know, marketing, sales, service professionals about what you've done and about sort of the process for you?

I mean, definitely a couple things. I mean, certainly, you know, don't be deterred by obstacles or whatever it is, whether it's a technical thing, whether it's a financial thing or what's being offered, you know, where you work that, you know, if there's something that you want to do, it is possible, you know, you don't have to work with inside, inside the box. If you don't see it out there, doesn't mean there isn't an audience for it. I mean, we didn't see 10 part documentaries. In fact, you know, who would want to watch a 10 part documentary? It was the world we were making our series in. You know, that sort of message was all around us. Can't you just make it two hours? But having confidence in what it is you think the world needs and doing that.

Mm.

What would be your message to the group, Laura?

To believe in yourself and if you've committed yourself to something you believe is important, you know, to do your best to follow through, to find the people, you know who can help you in whatever way, whether it's just encouragement or funding or, you know, a certain type of expertise, it's, you know, reach out and, you know, if people do say no, to try to find another way to follow through. I mean, we certainly had our share of rejection, you know, and I think it was because we were trying to do something that didn't really exist. And so we had to get to a point where we could demonstrate what it was that we were interested in delivering and say, look, this is our vision and we would love it if you could get on board with this and help provide the infrastructure we need and the platform we need to get it out there.

So what's next? The second series is forthcoming.

Yes, we're in production and post production at the same time this time. So we're working on additional episodes following the same story. And we're also in development on a scripted project.

So after this heavy, heavy material. You want to work on a documentary on figure skating or cuckoo clock making or something?

Yeah, that would be nice. I mean, I don't know, I think we're sort of drawn to, you know, stories that matter, stories that what you're being told all the time is maybe not the whole story, that there's something else going on.

Last question. We just have a couple of minutes here. When you were little, you were kids, teenagers, in another life, what did you want to do?

Hmm.

I mean, I knew I wanted to be in film for a long time. I was very interested in photography. I sort of came to film through images, through honestly sort of hating words and wanting to use images to communicate. So that was sort of my path in various ways from fairly early, certainly from teenage years. I took a Super 8 filmmaking class at MassArt. I grew up in Massachusetts, so, you know, was dabbling in it in different ways, trying to find the way in.

And you, Laura?

I think in the broadest sense, I just. I wanted to help people. I wanted to give back to society. When I graduated law school, I went into the public sector. Actually, I was working for the government, but I was always interested in the arts as well. And I think at some point I had moved into the private sector and was feeling like I could have a broader reach if I went into the arts and possibly use art for good. And so it's not surprising to me at all that this was the first project I chose to do out of law school. And even the next project we're working.

On.

It'S based on a docuserial that was published in the Huffington Post last fall. And there are some similar themes. So it's. Yeah.

Slightly ironic that all your legal training I know, you know, didn't really pay off in a law firm. It paid off in a miniseries on Netflix.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

Well, thank you.

Thank you for what you've done.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's great.

Thank you.