Emphasizing how new life can spring forth from hidden stories of suffering is a powerful driving force of the most harrowing but equally necessary documentaries. That’s certainly the case with the new film, ‘Dog War.’ The movie doesn’t just focus on the importance of protecting the titular pet, but also the clash of perspectives about what is ethical in every culture.

Andrew Abraham directed, produced and served as the cinematographer on the independent documentary. The filmmaker shot the feature without the help of a studio or corporate funding.

‘Dog War’ had its U.S. Premiere during this year’s Chelsea Film Festival on Saturday, October 19 at New York City’s Regal 14th St. theater. The New York City screening was held after the movie had its World Premiere at this past June’s Raindance Film Festival in London, where it won the Spirit of Raindance Award.

In ‘Dog War,’ a duo of war-hardened, canine-loving combat veterans are fighting to stop the dog meat trade in South Korea. Surveilling and infiltrating hidden meat farms and markets, they risk it all to save as many dogs as possible.

At the same time, the documentary spotlights a country at war with itself over the issue. The issue ignites questions about cultural difference, as well as social and generational change. ‘Dog War’ probes these inquiries about animal rights vs. human livelihood, heroism vs. vigilantism, respect for another culture and how far people can justly go to save man’s best friend.

Abraham generously took the time recently to talk about helming and producing ‘Dog War’ during an exclusive interview over Zoom. Among other things, the filmmaker discussed that he was in part interested in directing the movie in order to bring information about the Asian dog meat trade to the entire world. He also shared that he hopes by screening the documentary at such festivals as Chelsea and Raindance, that information about the dog meat trade can be seen by audiences around the world.

Film Factual (FF): You directed the new documentary, ‘Dog War.’ What was your inspiration in making the film? How did you approach helming the movie?

Andrew Abraham (AA): My inspiration in making films is to talk about topics that I’m interested in and aren’t widely known about around the world. So when I’m surprised, and my interest is peaked in a subject, I want to make a film about it.

I think of myself as a proxy for other people. If I’m fascinated in something, then other people will be, as well. So filmmaking is about opening up to the unknown.

So that certainly was the case here with ‘Dog War.’ Someone came to me with the idea for the film. They also gave me information about the dog meat trade in all of Asia. At the time, it wasn’t just South Korea that was the focus.

But I needed some kind of angle and entry into the issue. I don’t just take on an issue, per se; there has to be something about it that has to be particularly interesting.

In this case, there was a team of American combat vets who were trained to kill. Here they were, hears of gold, trying to save animals. I found that position to be really interesting. They were both macho and really soft at the same time.

I also found the intension between west and east to be really interesting. Some people might condemn the people who participate in the trade. Others may condemn us filmmakers, in a way, for showing what they call Western imperialism. I found that to be an interesting tension and question – to what extent is that true and untrue?

They might say, with this case, there are no boundaries for dogs. There isn’t a Korean or American dog, so their mission is to save all dogs all over the world. So that’s what was interesting for me.

Of course, the dog war also exists within Korean itself. There are people who are against it and for it. It’s been a very tumultuous issue that insists passion on both sides. Often times it’s the older vs. younger generation, or countryside vs. suburban life, older tradition vs. new, modern tradition.

So the contrast is really interesting. Within this project, there are a lot of those types of contrasts, which made directing the film really appealing to me. I hope there’s a wider audience who can look at these issues and question their own assumptions, and come to another place of understanding.

FF: In addition to helming the film, you also served as a producer. Why did you decide to also produce the movie?

AA: I’m an independent filmmaker, so often times that means I wear a lot of hats. In this case, I was the director and a producer, as well as the cinematographer. I really like doing that, as it makes it more of an auteur film.

It’s an independent film, which is why I think it won the Spirit of Raindance Award at this year’s Raindance Film Festival. It was recognized for its independence.

As an independent film, it’s also outside of the industry standards, in a way. The way we made this documentary isn’t usually the way films are made or funded.

But that’s the way that I’ve always been doing it, and I like doing it that way. By doing it this way, I think the film is less sanitized and rawer, and, in some ways, more controversial. But I wouldn’t have it any other way.

FF: What was your experience like of working with ‘Dog War’s subject, Jon Barocas, throughout the feature’s production?

AA: Throughout the process of working with him, I came to respect Jon. We developed a really nice friendship. But I’m glad you asked this question because it was a process to get to that stage with him. The whole filmmaking process is a process, and our relationship is a story in-and-of itself. I think to some degree, it’s reflected in the film.

By the end of the film, I think you see Jon’s humanity. Again, coming back to my experience as a filmmaker, I want to be a proxy for the viewers. I think in this case, that comes through.

FF: What was your experience in working with the documentary’s editor Aaron Mathes, to put the final version of the project together?

AA: Well, I think Aaron did a wonderful job editing the film. A lot of the story arc came through the editing. There were times in the midst of this project where I questioned, what is the story here? (Abrahams laughs.)

We were just following these guys as they were doing their thing. So it was hard to find the beginning, middle and end.

Luckily, with the help of Aaron, who’s a really great editor, and my involvement as the director, I think the film came together in a really beautiful way.

Attention will be brought to the film, as well as pets being eaten, here in the U.S. partially because of Donald Trump’s statements during the presidential debate. That was looked at as a joke at the time, but there is truth to his statements – people do eat pets. But did those people eat pets that Trump mentioned? We don’t know.

But I think the whole discussion about that whole thing is interesting. I don’t know if that gives an opening to our film and say, “This does exist in some places, so let’s pay attention to it.” But I hope it does.

FF: ‘Dog War’ (had) its U.S. Premiere on Saturday, October 19 at the Chelsea Film Festival. What does it mean to you that the movie screened at the New York City-based festival? How have people responded to the documentary since it had its World Premiere at Raindance?

AA: Some people look at this film as hard to watch. I think we’re in a cultural periodwhere we’re not pushing the boundaries so much. We’re afraid of what we call trauma more and more, and what we might perceive as being traumatic. We’re interested in what we consider safe spaces.

So I think film festivals, and to a larger degree, what’s being released into cinemas by Hollywood these days, is more or less safe because we want to sell tickets. We’re afraid that the films that are more controversial are harder to sell tickets for. I think that’s part of the equation right now, and I don’t think that was true 10 or 15 years ago.

But we’re in a cultural shift right now, and it’s expressing itself in this domain. I think ‘Dog War’ is suffering in some ways from that.

There’s a real reluctance from audiences to see the film, as they say, “Oh, we can’t watch that.” People love their dogs so much that they can’t watch the film. I have people in my own family who live in New York who (didn’t) go to the screening because of that. They said, “Oh, I can’t watch that; it’s too traumatic for me.”

So I think that’s part of the response to the film – there’s a reluctance to watch it. I like to call it the must-see film you thought you couldn’t watch. The people who do watch it realize that it’s not as bad as they thought and that they got a lot out of watching it.