Exclusive Interview: Scott Hamilton Kennedy and Neil deGrasse Tyson Talk Shot in the Arm Documentary

Academy Award® nominee Scott Hamilton Kennedy and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson are the creative geniuses behind Shot in the Arm, a powerful documentary about how disinformation is its own plague.

Before anyone had heard of COVID-19, filmmaker Scott Hamilton Kennedy began investigating the global measles epidemic. Filming with top public health officials–including Tony Fauci–as well as rare interviews with anti-vaccine activists who were persuading parents by the millions to refuse vaccines for their children. Then COVID-19 happened.

Acting quickly, Kennedy shifted his directorial eye to this once-in-a-century tragedy. Both skeptical and hopeful, Shot in the Arm explores vaccine hesitancy historically and in the context of our modern pandemic. Can we replace cynicism with healthy curiosity and bridge the political divides that make us sick?

Pop Culturalist was lucky enough to speak with Scott and Neil about Shot in the Arm, the power of storytelling, and how the film promotes replacing cynicism with healthy curiosity.

PC: Shot in the Arm addresses vaccine hesitancy and misinformation by combining storytelling and science. How did this partnership initially come about?
Scott: I was fortunate to discover Neil during my previous film, Food Evolution, which aimed to reset the conversation about GMOs. There’s significant overlap between anti-GMO disinformation and anti-vaccine disinformation. Neil did an excellent job narrating under my direction, of course. That’s a joke. [laughs] He did a brilliant job narrating it, and we collaborated to release the film.

When working on A Shot in the Arm, which I jokingly referred to as Food Evolution boot camp, it was more challenging and contentious. I shared a rough cut with Neil to get his input and asked if he would consider joining the project again. He said, “No, this movie is terrible.” [laughs] No, he provided valuable notes to refine the science and suggested places where a graph could enhance understanding. I persuaded him to come on board as an executive producer to advance our mission, including engaging in media opportunities like this. Neil, what motivated you to join?

Neil: I regret it every day. [laughs] I was like, “What did I agree to?” [laughs] When artists and creative types seek my expertise, I’m there for them. In this case, Scott sought guidance, not on storytelling, where he excels, but on ensuring the accurate portrayal of science without compromising its integrity. I assisted in determining where to incorporate supporting information to strengthen the narrative. I agreed to become an executive producer to support this mission further. Why did I join? Well, I’m reminded of it every day. [laughs]

PC: There seems to be reluctance in media and the public to acknowledge the nuances of science and its ever-evolving nature. Why do you believe this is the perfect medium to present this information and initiate conversations?
Scott: That’s an excellent question. It’s the power of storytelling, and I’m honored to have built a career around it. Storytelling is humanity’s greatest tool for persuading one another. While it can be manipulated by propaganda, at its best, it engages, earns trust, surprises, and evokes emotions that memes, gifs, or short news pieces cannot. One of the greatest compliments came from the esteemed communicator and scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who noted that our film does more to combat disinformation than two decades of papers. She appreciates the value of those papers, and it was an honor to hear that. The film has proven to be a powerful tool in reminding people of the importance of science, combating disinformation, promoting humility, supporting our social contract, and defending democracy.

Neil: On the point about democracy, it’s not merely defending democracy; it’s implicitly declaring, as Paul Offit bluntly puts it, that without an understanding of truth, an informed democracy is impossible. We collectively vote on outcomes, and without an understanding of objective reality, votes lose their significance.

Scott: Similarly, without a foundation in common decency and a love of humanity, a functioning democracy is also unattainable.

PC: Neil, you touched upon this already, but you were there to guide the script points to ensure information was conveyed compellingly. What was that collaboration process like working with Scott and the medical experts to achieve that?
Neil: I’d say Scott agrees with about two-thirds of what I tell him. We fight about half of the remaining portion. [laughs] I use some persuasion, and he eventually concedes.

Scott: He’s larger than me. He’s a bully. [laughs]

Neil: [laughs] For the remaining bit, I recognize that Scott is the filmmaker with a vision. I don’t interfere with camera moves or lighting. I focus on commenting on how the science flows in the film, suggesting the need for graphs or additional content in certain areas to avoid relying solely on verbal statements. There were instances where Scott incorporated content that had initially been cut, enriching the science for the viewer.

PC: Scott, documentary filmmaking is an under-appreciated art form. While classified as a documentary, this film feels like a political thriller approached with empathy. Was that something you were mindful of during the project?
Neil: I was trying to pinpoint why it didn’t feel like a documentary, and you just articulated it. Thank you. Documentaries often feel obligatory, but this film carries us emotionally.

Scott: Thank you both. It resulted from hard work and determination. Early on, we drew inspiration from detective and murder-mystery films, framing it as a reverse murder mystery where the virus and disinformation are the culprits. Films like Traffic served as inspiration for creating a layered documentary experience. We aimed to make it feel like any other movie, utilizing various storytelling elements, such as interviews and handheld camera work. It required considerable effort to keep the audience engaged while maintaining truthfulness.

PC: One goal of this film was to replace cynicism with healthy curiosity. As you’ve taken this film around the festival circuit, what has it meant to both of you as filmmakers to see the impact you’ve created firsthand?
Scott: It’s been wonderful to witness people experiencing the film with hope. Despite the cynicism, disinformation, and lies portrayed, the overarching message is that science improves our lives. Those who follow science and embrace humility, using the scientific method, emerge from the film not cynical but understanding the importance of verifiable truth, decency, and our social contract. Skepticism is beautiful, forming the foundation of science and our instincts. Cynicism, however, is poison, arising when presented with information that challenges skepticism. This film counters that, emphasizing the reasons to trust in verifiable truth, decency, and our social contract.Neil: I’m new to film festivals, but I was delighted to observe the reactions in the crowd and experience the same emotions. It wasn’t solely because of my proximity to the project; the film is effective in all the right ways.

Neil: I’m new to film festivals, but I was delighted to observe the reactions in the crowd and experience the same emotions. It wasn’t solely because of my proximity to the project; the film is effective in all the right ways.

Make sure to follow Scott (Instagram) and Neil (Instagram). Learn more about Shot in the Arm today.