Monica Long Ross is a filmmaker and playwright, and a co-founder of 137 Films, a Chicago-based documentary production company. Ross co-directed and co-produced the award-winning documentaries “The Atom Smashers” and “The Believers.” Her plays have been produced nationally.

“We Believe In Dinosaurs” will premiere at the 2019 DOC NYC film festival on November 13. The film is co-directed by Clayton Brown.

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

MLR: The film tells the story of a Kentucky creationist group setting out to build a $2 million “life-sized” Noah’s Ark to prove that the Bible story is both historically and scientifically accurate. While the creationists creatively and joyfully plan, design, and build, some fellow Kentuckians work to expose the hiring discrimination, tax malpractice, and troubling anti/pseudoscience behind the Ark project.

The story of one American community’s fight over one scientific fact exposes the fault lines in American scientific leadership and competence. The film echoes the question asked in the film by Vice President Mike Pence, himself a creationist: “Where are we going with this?”

W&H: What drew you to this story?

MLR: In 2005, my co-director and I were working on the film “The Atom Smashers,” about the search for the Higgs boson, when the Dover court case hit the news. In Dover, Pennsylvania, the school board was requiring creationism, in the form of Intelligent Design, to be taught as part of the science curriculum in their district. The court case was the first direct challenge in the U.S. federal courts contesting the right of a public school to require this policy.

We were interviewing physicists from all over the world about the Higgs, and though it was off topic I couldn’t resist asking them about the problems that arise between faith and fact, science and religion. They all discussed the problem as being peculiarly American. That piqued our interest because the two of us were really into pitching stories about America’s conflicted relationship with science to each other.

The federal court ruled in favor of science, so like science educators all over the country, we thought that would be the end of that debate. While we were working on other films through the years we followed the disturbing growth of conflict between religion and science.

When we heard that the same creationist group that was behind the sophisticated “natural history” Creation Museum in Kentucky was planning on building a life-size Noah’s Ark to prove that the Bible story is scientifically accurate, we knew this was a story we were interested in telling. When it comes to America’s complicated, and troubled love/hate relationship with science, this was a perfect example.

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

MLR: I want people to think about the risks of science denial, for all of us. Without rancor or mockery, we all need to think about the purpose of our country’s founding ideal of separation of church and state, and how all of us — the faithful of all kinds, and the faithless — can agree to live together. Because living rather than dying together is the point.

I’ve taken to saying to viewers: global warming doesn’t care whether we believe in it or not. It’s happening. The question is how are we going to deal with the vast changes to come if we can’t even accept the theory of evolution, or the necessity of vaccines?

I want people to think about science: why we need the discipline of the scientific method, why we need the scientists and their careful research, and why we need facts along with faith. Do they have to be incompatible? Who “wins” in a war on science?

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

MLR: Our biggest challenge was a surprise to us. We learned that religion is tricky terrain for scientists to negotiate. They fear sounding intolerant and judgmental while museum administrators worry about offending patrons and donors. We were prepared for the the creationists to be a challenge, but they were open and willing to tell us what they believed.

The science community turned out to be the opposite, guarded and reluctant, and a challenge to deal with. Off camera, local scientists expressed concern, frustration, even alarm at the growing problem of science denial, and the number of Americans who refused to accept the bedrock of the biological sciences: the theory of evolution.

But, except for Dan Phelps, who appears in the film, none of these scientists were willing, or they were forbidden, to express these thoughts on camera. We did several interviews with local scientists but those interviews veered too far from the story to use.

Ultimately it was for the good of the film to concentrate on the three main subjects and their stories while diving deep into creationism. But it’s always a challenge to abandon expensive and time-consuming work.

W&H: How did you get your film funded? Share some insights into how you got the film made.

MLR: Our funding model is somewhat different than most production companies in that our company, 137 Films, is incorporated as a 501(c)3 not-for-profit. We are a small company made up of staff and talented volunteers. Funds come from individual donors, family foundations, board members, grants, crowdsourcing, and gala-type fundraisers. Our board, families, fans, and angel donors gave generously to support “We Believe In Dinosaurs,” coming through with much-needed funds at critical moments.

One supporter supplied a no interest loan for post-production when we were forced to walk away from both a collaborating production company caught up in a MeToo moment and an investment deal that would have required the film to be in debt for a long, long time. It was a rough ride, but funding is always a challenge!

W&H: What inspired you to become a filmmaker?

MLR: When I made my first short film I was juggling being a stay-at-home mom with teaching theater classes and writing plays on commission. I was given an opportunity to take over a class from a retiring male professor titled Women and Film, and I decided to change the class from its previous focus on glamorous actresses playing difficult women in old Hollywood films to teaching only women-directed films.

This was over 30 years ago so finding copies of these films was difficult, but for my class of 30 women and a couple of adventurous young men — and myself — these films directors such as Alice Guy-Blaché, Lois Weber, Dorothy Arzner, Maya Deren, Chantal Akerman, and Michelle Citron were a revelation. It was also a revelation for me.

Experiencing women-told stories — often rented from Woman Make Movies — was the inspiration I needed to turn one of my plays into a short film. I shot the film myself with a Super 8 camera and paid for an Elmo transfer [to transfer the film into video].

Another teaching mother who was also a filmmaker took my project seriously and helped me edit the film on a linear style editor, and to re-record the sound so I could eliminate the camera noise that a Super 8 sound camera gives you.

This new way of telling stories thrilled me. And the close-up! Taking the viewer into such an intimate relationship with an actor/character was something I couldn’t do on the stage. I continued to work with this wonderful supportive filmmaker, Penelope Price, and used the first film, “Pantyhose,” to raise money to make our next one, “Dinner,” shot on 16mm. I wanted to make work like Deren, Weber, Akerman, and Agnès Varda.

W&H: What is the best and worst advice you’ve received?

MLR: At my age I’ve heard a lot of bad advice, but my mind goes to something my dear mother said to me when I was about 10 years old, and beginning what I hoped at the time to be a long career of acting in the theater.

The night before my first opening night I experienced stage fright that involved tears, sleep deprivation, and dry heaving. After I survived opening night and fell in love with acting, my mother sat me down, and sincerely told me I should choose a different dream because doing something scary wasn’t going to make for a happy life.

And one of the best pieces of advice I received was from Michelle Citron, filmmaker and professor, who asked me, when I was contemplating pursuing a PhD in theater at the ripe age of 50: do you want to write about other people making work or do you want to make work? She had me there. But theater work made up my entire career, and becoming a filmmaker that late in the game? I told her that scared me. She said: “That’s why you should do it!” Then she helped me get into the MFA Filmmaking program at Northwestern.

Thank you, Michelle. I forgive you, Mom.

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

MLR: Take care of your selves — yoga, good food, no vaping, exercise, therapy, etc. — so you can have a long career. Then even if you — like many women including myself — take a few years to have and nurture kids, you’ll be able to make films into your old age. Like Agnès Varda. And keep talking to each other, mentoring each other, employing each other.

W&H: Name your favorite female directed film and why.

MLR: This is the favorite book/child/song type question that is impossible for me. I could choose any of a dozen films, or more. But I’ll choose one. There are so many female filmmakers working right now, making very interesting and diverse films, that I feel a little guilty not choosing a living artist but I’m going to choose Agnès Varda’s “The Gleaners & I” — even while I also long to choose her “Cleo from 5 to 7.”

As a fellow septuagenarian doc filmmaker, as she was at the time, I am completely charmed by this very personal look at scavengers. The personal approach to the documentary form that includes a sly protest of both her own aging and her own country, together with a thoughtfulness about the act of gleaning, is smart, sad, funny, and compassionate. It has so many layers — it’s a female point of view and an aging woman’s point of view. Her hand-held camera work, her thrill with the light weight digital camera, her can-do spirit that comes through in the story and the lens. It’s all very inspiring to me.

W&H: What differences have you noticed in the industry since the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements launched?

MLR: As a documentary filmmaker working with a small not-for-profit company based in Chicago, I feel I’m an outsider to the industry. But in my world I’ve noticed that young women at film festivals are asking me more questions and listening to my answers. I’ve noticed more women filmmakers and more women of color at festivals. And these women are talking to each other.

I’ve heard lots of MeToo moments from my generation, but now I’m hearing stories about similar moments in young women’s lives. They are openly discussing their challenges in making films in a world that demands them to deal with a culture that still judges how women do things, how they direct, choose to tell stories, speak their minds.

I tell them my generation prided ourselves on our ability to handle bad behavior from our male bosses. That approach may have been necessary to survive, but it didn’t change things. I’m proud of these young women who are demanding respect, and are confident to discuss their challenges with each other as they ask for support. Hearing young women expressing strong interest in working with other women on their projects is definitely encouraging to me.