Redemption Or Retribution: Director Smriti Mundhra On Oscar-Shortlisted Death Row Doc ‘I Am Ready, Warden’

“I am ready to go. I am ready, Warden.” These were the last words of death row inmate John Henry Ramirez shortly before his execution in the Polunsky Unit of the Department of Criminal Justice in Livingston, Texas. This final statement became the foundation for filmmaker Smriti Mundhra’s documentary — and the title of the film — I Am Ready, Warden.

The short, from MTV Documentary Films, recounts the emotionally charged story of Ramirez, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 2008. His victim was Pablo Castro, a convenience store employee in Corpus Christi, Texas. After stabbing Castro almost three dozen times in a botched robbery, Ramirez fled to Mexico; it took four years before he was apprehended and extradited. On death row, Ramirez sought to turn his life around; he studied the Bible and expressed deep remorse for his crime. Jan Trujillo, a devout Bible teacher – and strong supporter of the death penalty – got to know Ramirez during his incarceration and ultimately became his godmother. She wrote a letter to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott urging him to commute Ramirez’s sentence to life without parole so that the condemned man could teach the Bible to other inmates, but Abbott ignored the request.

Aaron Castro, the victim’s son, consistently expressed the wish to see Ramirez executed for his crime yet seemed to harbor ambivalence about the death penalty. In the film, Mundhra speaks with Aaron Castro, as well as Ramirez’s son Israel, and Ramirez himself in the days before Texas put an end to his life. Mundhra earned an Oscar nomination for her 2020 short documentary St. Louis Superman, co-directed by Sami Khan.

DEADLINE: Congratulations on I Am Ready, Warden being shortlisted for the 97th Academy Awards. How did you learn about this story and when did you realize you wanted to document it on film?

Smriti Mundhra: First of all, thank you! Very exciting couple of weeks over here. This project originated because I was actually working on another project that involved another death row prisoner on Texas death row which was a streamer feature documentary that had a bit more of a true crime-social justice angle to it. That project actually ended up falling apart because the prisoner – the protagonist of that project – ended up getting a new trial, and then his lawyers shut down our access to him. But I was still engaged in this community. I’d been doing a lot of research of the different angles of Texas death row, so I was in a lot of Facebook groups. One day I came across this article by journalist Keri Blakinger, who at the time was a writer for the Marshall Project, (right now she’s with the L.A. Times), and who covered Texas prisons and specifically, Texas death row.

She had written about an inmate-run radio station in Texas, and I found her writing to be really beautiful and soulful about crime and punishment, specifically death row. I still really wanted to explore this topic — not an innocence case, [and] not necessarily a more traditional did-he-or- didn’t-he do it narrative — but I wanted to examine the story of somebody who admitted to committing a heinous crime, and use that as a lens to explore our justice system’s capacity for forgiveness and redemption, and of course, our capacity for forgiveness and redemption as a society. So I reached out to Keri and said, “…I’m still interested in making something in this space. Would you be open to a conversation? Maybe we can collaborate.” She had written in one of her articles about John Henry Ramirez, and we talked about John as an example of what I was talking about – somebody who had committed a crime admittedly, and had not only a compelling narrative in terms of the 20 years that had transpired, and how he had changed as a person since the night that he killed a man, but also John had an execution date coming up.

DEADLINE: We see a parallel between John Henry Ramirez and his victim Pablo Castro in the film — they both have sons who were processing grief in different ways which forms a major part of the emotional core of the film. How did you convince their sons, Aaron Castro and Israel Ramirez, to participate in the film?

SM: Aaron’s participation took months of trust building to secure. When I first started this film… I knew I wanted to paint as comprehensive of a picture as I could, not only of John, but of his victim and the family of his victim. So, I reached out to everybody in the Castro family through whatever means I could find — lawyers, victim services, etc. The prison has a victim services division, so I sent letters and emails, [but] didn’t get a response, which wasn’t surprising. Finally, I got a response from Aaron, and when he first reached out to me, he said, “I don’t want to participate in your film, but I want you to know our perspective. You should know that, going into making this film.” So, we talked on the phone that first time for four hours. From that first conversation, I could sense so much pain, but also so much internal struggle within him because this is a man whose father was killed when he was 14 years old, who’s lived with the trauma his entire life, and is a wound that is continually torn open for him every time John is in the news. There was a lot of pain and a real drive and desire for justice and closure, but I could sense that Aaron is a deeply empathetic person. He didn’t want another life taken on his account, [and] even though he wasn’t articulating it that way, it was subliminal in the way he was talking that he wasn’t a blood thirsty, eye-for-an-eye type of person. For months, he kept maintaining that he didn’t want to be on camera and participate in the film, but he and I, after that first phone call, had really connected. So, we talked every other week for a few months after that. And then finally a week before John’s execution, he said, “okay, you can come. We can film if you want. I want everything that I’ve shared with you to be a part of this story.”

Keri, having written about John before, was very close with and trusted by the people in John’s life, specifically John, of course. Jan [Trujillo], John’s godmother — who is in the film — connected us with Israel’s mother and Israel, and so when we went to go meet Israel and his mother, I went with my whole team. I wanted them to know all of us and to feel that if they agreed to film with us, that they would know everyone that was going to be in the room with them for those sensitive moments and conversations. So, before even asking to roll cameras, we wanted to make sure they knew us and knew our intentions that we were there not to exploit them. And I think that was successful also because Israel really wanted someone to share the things that he was feeling. By the time we came to that scene where we filmed his last phone call with his father — an agonizing scene to film — he had really bonded with us and wanted us and my team in the room with him because he trusted us. It was a big responsibility, but also the result of not just mine, but our whole team’s efforts to really make him feel protected and safe.

DEADLINE: You have created a fine balance in the film on the pro and anti-death penalty discussion in Texas. Tell us about the construct of your narrative in maintaining a neutral tone but still showing enough to question the death penalty in certain cases, like John Henry Ramirez’s.

SM: When I make films or do anything, I always try to think about what is the question I’m asking of the audience? How am I drawing the audience into this as opposed to just presenting one side of an argument? The question of our capacity to believe in forgiveness and redemption really was the center of this. I knew that the best way to pose that question to an audience in a way that would invite their engagement and have viewers questioning and analyzing their own beliefs was to present both sides, [which] has sort of become a nasty phrase these days. But I actually think it was effective in this case because you get to see, if not both sides, at least both perspectives. There are two people [Ramirez and Castro] whose lives have been forever changed by this one event – by this one fateful night – and we equally see both of their perspectives and the ripple effect of that traumatic event on both of their lives.

It invites the audience to really question whether or not they feel that John deserves to die for his crime. And I think the best way to think about that deeply is to lean into the consequences of his actions – not just the things that would make him sympathetic to a viewer. In fact, it was a very deliberate effort. The story is so rich, and there’s so much more to John’s story, that it was a back and forth in the edit of what to include and what not to include. He became a deeply religious man in his time in prison, and I decided to not over index into his religious transformation in this short film because I wanted to just strip away all of the typical tropes that help people empathize with another person, and just to see him as a person, not as a symbol of either faith or justice or what have you. Similarly, for those who would feel inclined to empathize with John, which are a lot of people, [and] which was me when I first started this film, I felt it was really important to make sure that we were confronted by the violent nature of his crime and the consequence of that crime on the loved ones of his victim.

DEADLINE: How long did you take to make the film and what were some of the challenges you faced?

SM: It took a little over a two-year process between securing access, filming and editing. There were a lot of the events in the film that we didn’t know when we started filming, and I credit [executive producer] Sheila Nevins and MTV Documentary Films. Sheila supported this project from the very beginning, when I didn’t know where it was going. I just wanted to make something in the space and was really captivated by John and was pursuing Aaron. At that point, I didn’t know whether John’s execution was going to actually happen, and I didn’t know the district attorney, Mark Gonzalez [featured in the film], was going to make an effort to stop the execution. I didn’t even know John had a son. So, all of those big, dramatic turns in the film, I didn’t know. When I first started, it was just instinct, and Sheila really encouraged me to keep going and keep pursuing it. And then little by little, all of these developments started unfolding, and we kept trying to capture all of these different threads.

The editing was the hardest part. This was an 18 month edit, which is insane for a short. The story is such a delicate balance. Every decision mattered — every bite, every line of audio, every cut, the pacing, the music, the balance between the way that these two men and their stories speak to each other or don’t speak to each other. It’s also a lot of characters for a short documentary. To find that balance, so it doesn’t feel overwhelming for the audience – you want to hold the audience and guide them through this narrative — but you also want to let it unfold and let them have that feeling of discovery as well. So it was a really challenging edit, and that took a long time because every frame was very carefully deliberated.

DEADLINE: Can you share something that impacted you from the experience of making I Am Ready, Warden?

SM: I first screened the film for Aaron shortly before its premiere. It’s the scariest thing I’ve ever done in my life because the last thing as a filmmaker you want to do is re-traumatize someone for the sake of your film or for your art. He knew I was very transparent with him about the narrative and that I was going to be filming with John and his family, but I didn’t know how he was going to react to seeing all that, and also seeing on camera all the vulnerable moments of that period of his life that he shared with me. We watched the film together, and he was really silent for a while. And then he told me that it was really difficult for him to watch, but he felt that it was completely honest and authentic to what he was going through at that time in his life. Since then, he has told me that he’s found a lot of healing, having been able to tell his story. It has helped him get the closure and understand the value of forgiveness and how that was more important to him than the retribution. It was really beautiful, and the thing I’m most proud of in my career.

DEADLINE: In your previous documentary, St. Louis Superman and now in I Am Ready, Warden, you have addressed the issue of different forms of violence in America. What was your decision in choosing these stories?

SM: I would say even Shelter, my documentary film [after St. Louis Superman] also deals with – maybe not a violent crime per se — trauma and systemic violence against the unhoused population. So, I think with all three of these films it gives me a chance to explore and question our values as a society and systems that are designed to protect me — and from which I’m very inoculated — whether it’s gun violence like in St. Louis, Superman, or the housing crisis in Shelter or capital punishment [in I Am Ready Warden]. These are big fundamental American values that are reflected through these systems. It gives me a chance to hold a mirror up – through telling the stories of the protagonist of each of these films — to ask the question of the audience, “Are we okay with this? Can we live with this on our conscience? What is our role in the complicity that perpetuates these things?” My goal is always to do it not in a preachy, pedantic way [but] just to explore these topics through personal stories and journeys by the people who are the most deeply impacted by them. And then let the audience hopefully activate those feelings of empathy — beyond just people questioning policy or driving people towards a specific action or activism — to shake people at their core and have us question the values that we perpetuate with our dollars, with our votes, and with our rhetoric.

DEADLINE: You are also known for creating the Netflix documentary series Indian Matchmaking andJewish Matchmaking. And you now have a spinoff, Muslim Matchmaker, for Hulu. Tell us more about the show, and can you give us a peek into future projects you’re working on?

SM: Muslim Matchmaker will be coming out on Hulu in early 2025. It’s the next iteration in the matchmaking multiverse. It’s a really fun, joyful, heartfelt series that I think will be relatable to everybody who has been through the foibles of dating and the earnest search for a life partner.  I’m pleased to say it’s an incredibly diverse representation of what it means to be Muslim in America – Muslims of many different backgrounds — South Asian, Arab, Black, White, European,  Asian, etc. And showing the breadth and scope of the Muslim diaspora, not only in terms of geographic background, but also each person’s relationship to their faith. It’s absolutely fun and hilarious – the cringy drama, awkward dates and heartfelt love stories, as the previous versions of Indian matchmaking and Jewish matchmaking. What’s unique about Muslim Matchmaker is that there are two matchmakers and they’re both young Muslim women in their early 30s. They are millennials and of similar age as most of their clients, and have a very groundbreaking, unique methodology of matchmaking that you’ve never seen before on camera. It’s a very contemporary show — very American — but there are these beautiful pearls of Islamic wisdom that are very germane to the matchmakers that are applicable to anybody from any walk of life. I’m really proud of this show.

Dawn Porter executive produced and show-ran the third iteration of Eyes on the Prize, a historic civil rights documentary series — which is a follow-up to Henry Hampton’s legendary series by the same name — and examines America’s recent history since the election of Barack Obama. Each iteration was made by a collective of filmmakers, and I’m a part of the third season and directed an episode, so I’m excited about that. It will be out at the end of February on HBO. And then I have a feature documentary coming out on Netflix India. It’s under wraps but I’ll say it’s a fun, light look at one of the biggest and most prolific legacy film families in India. We don’t have an exact [release] date yet, but it’ll be out in the near future.

DEADLINE: With I Am Ready, Warden, this is your second time on the Oscar journey after St. Louis Superman. What are you feeling right now about it?

SM: I won’t lie that it’s not an incredibly exciting jolt to the system to see your film on an Oscar shortlist. It’s such a pinnacle to any career, and especially for a film that was so challenging to make. And it’s thrilling to be in that conversation, and I hope that the film continues to advance. Though the thing that’s been great for me personally – both when I went through this in 2019-2020 with St. Louis Superman, and again now almost five years later – is being in that conversation, doing the rounds, going to film festivals and being at all these awards events. It’s a wonderful way for me to reconnect with the documentary community because in between these films I do Indian Matchmaking, Muslim Matchmaker, and other content that are more unscripted. I don’t get many opportunities to be in community with the documentary world. I love documentaries, it’s my passion. I deliberately make an effort to make these short documentaries between the series and the more commercial projects because I love the craft. I love seeing films. I love being in community with other filmmakers. Honestly, whatever happens in this next phase, I feel like I’ve had the time in my life being at [film festivals] like DOC NYC and being able to see my film in the theater with an audience and talk about it. It’s just been wonderful.