Rebecca Cammisa is a director, producer, and cinematographer. Her first feature documentary film, “Sister Helen,” aired on HBO, and went on to win the 2002 Sundance Film Festival’s Documentary Directing Award. “Sister Helen” also received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Cultural and Artistic Programming. Cammisa’s other credits include Oscar-nominated and Emmy-winning “Which Way Home” and Oscar-nominated “God is the Bigger Elvis.” She founded Documentress Films in 2003.

“Atomic Homefront” will premiere at the 2017 DOC NYC film festival on November 15. The film will be broadcast on HBO in early 2018.

W&H: Describe the film for us in your own words.

RC: “Atomic Homefront” is a documentary film that chronicles the sickness, pain, and suffering that the residents of North St. Louis County are experiencing due to the outright negligence, incompetence, and duplicity that the U.S. government and its agencies of so-called “protection” have perpetrated upon innocent citizens.

The only choice for these citizens is to fight for the truth and for the cleanup of radioactive waste from their homes.

W&H: What drew you to this story?

RC: The injustice of this story at times is quite overwhelming. For many residents of North St. Louis County, World War II has not ended. When we first heard that an uncontrolled subsurface landfill fire was approaching the “original” Manhattan Project atomic bomb waste illegally dumped into a neighborhood landfill, we were shocked.

While the landfill fire crisis was occurring, residents in communities along Coldwater Creek, a radioactively-contaminated suburban waterway, were experiencing rare cancers, birth defects, and other illnesses that are historically linked to ionizing radiation poisoning. One must ask: why were these radioactive calamities unfolding in America’s heartland, yet no major news outlet was investigating it?

This small town story has huge national significance. The Wall Street Journal’s Waste Lands series has reported over 517 forgotten radioactive sites across the United States. So we ask, how are these radioactive dump sites being managed, and are residents across the U.S. being exposed and harmed by the most deadly contamination on the planet? Also, is the EPA Superfund program, which is responsible for many of these sites, properly managing them, or is the EPA bureaucracy primarily concerned with cost, thereby mishandling the way sites are managed throughout our country?

W&H: What do you want people to think about when they are leaving the theater?

RC: For those who reside in areas possibly impacted by the legacy of radioactive waste, we hope this film will give them some direction in how to self-educate, mobilize, and then demand action from the authorities that are responsible to their communities. This toxic issue is long-forgotten and still persistent — therefore very dangerous.

For people who are lucky to not live in contaminated areas of the country, I hope that they take in the sheer determination of residents who have banded together to fight for a cause.

It is clear to me that many of the institutions we believe in as Americans have been failing us for quite some time. Elected officials are navigating extreme polarization in Congress and they do not seem to come together to solve community problems on state and federal levels. It has become almost impossible to trust in the regulators assigned to tell us the truth and protect citizens’ rights.

From what I have observed in making this film, people must become their own superheroes. Therefore, the subjects of our film are great teachers on how to create change through advocacy and not taking no for an answer.

W&H: What was the biggest challenge in making the film?

RC: The biggest challenge from a narrative perspective was that elected officials, governmental agencies, and the corporations responsible for the landfill fire would not answer our questions. Their absence from our film speaks volumes about how the communities affected by the radioactive waste have also been stonewalled for years when asking for basic accountability.

Our most important activity has been witnessing and capturing citizens struggling to get straight answers from corporations, state regulators, politicians, and the Environmental Protection Agency as to what levels of radioactive contaminants they have been exposed to and what has ailed their loved ones for over 40 years. These residents have mostly relied on their own common sense and self-education in order to discover any information and also challenge the data presented to them.

W&H: How did you get your film funded.

RC: We raised money from grants, foundations, private investors, and by making a broadcast sale to HBO. We are now working to raise funds for outreach efforts. It is a miracle every time we can get a film made!

W&H: What does it mean for you to have your film play at DOC NYC?

RC: For years, DOC NYC has always been very welcoming to me, and I am very happy and honored to enjoy our “hometown” premiere at DOC NYC.

W&H: What’s the best and worst advice you have received?

RC: This is a very good question — however, my most important filmmaking lessons have not come from good or bad advice, but rather through experiences that were either extremely joyful or horribly painful.

I will say that as soon as I made decisions that went against my creative instincts, I always regretted them. If something appears to be too good, definitely read the fine print. Also, don’t rush into any major creative decisions, whether it be in the field or in the edit room.

W&H: What advice do you have for other female directors?

RC: Directors, male or female, should not compromise on their standards. Be confident in your story and vision, then fight like hell if you have to, because at the end of it all, all that anyone will remember is what is onscreen.

W&H: Name your favorite woman-directed film and why?

RC: “Cléo from 5 to 7” by Agnès Varda. This film is so beautifully shot and self-contained, yet it flows so masterfully.

The film begins with a stark moment that introduces the specter of a non-desired destiny, then goes on to explore one day of crisis for the main character, Cleo. For 90 minutes, we float through Cleo’s daily life, all the while the clock runs down to the moment she will receive the news she dreads. However, there is a sudden turn and life gives her simple gift — even though hardship will most likely arrive.

Several turns in Cleo’s day are accompanied by her performer’s façade being stripped away to the real woman she is. This film always makes me aware of the identities we create for ourselves and then hold on to, but who are we really when we face a major crisis and/or our own mortality?

W&H: There have been significant conversations over the last couple of years about increasing the amount of opportunities for women directors yet the numbers have not increased. Are you optimistic about the possibilities for change? Share any thoughts you might have on this topic.

RC: People on the fiction side of the industry love to talk about the “opportunity for woman directors” issue, yet I do not see that talk translating into any major immediate actions. Perhaps that transformation will happen eventually over time in Hollywood.

In the documentary world, many women are in positions of power and I have benefited from both men and women who took the time to work with me and teach me. I am one of the lucky ones who had a strong woman in power — Sheila Nevins, the president of HBO Documentary Films — who believed in my creative talents enough to acquire my films, and who continues to air them. I am not sure I would have been as successful early in my career without her support. Certainly, all filmmakers could use the help of creative patronage.

I have always made the films I wanted to and have never experienced obstacles due to the issue of sexism. So I stick to this thought: “The bottom line is if you have a story that you truly believe must be told, you have to work your butt off to make it happen — and never give up on it.”