Documentary Filmmaker As Project Manager

Docs In Progress' newest partner Sam Hampton has many years of experience as a consultant to organizations looking to manage their projects better. He sees definite parallels between the work of these organizations and that of independent documentary filmmakers, especially when it comes to managing the documentary project. Sam tells us more.

For many first-time filmmakers in the world of documentary storytelling, the excitement of being out in the field, conducting interviews and the like sometimes overshadows the importance of developing a comprehensive plan to help facilitate the documentary process. While some might shiver at the thought of treating the documentary process as project management, the making of a documentary can be enhanced as a project that is properly managed from conception to completion.

Managing your documentary project should not be difficult; it also gives a sense of comfort and calm when the going gets tough. Think about it: how can you feel at ease with your documentary if you have only a vague idea of whether anyone is interested in your story, you are not sure of the amount of time it takes to make your story, or if you question whether you have the proper resources to finish and distribute your story?

Perhaps the single most important factor in managing the documentary is to develop a plan and put that plan on paper. The plan you create should be treated as your guiding light, your best friend, your trusty road map. The quality of your plan will determine the effectiveness that you, the filmmaker, will have in navigating through the documentary process. It will also form the basis for other elements which need to be conveyed through text – grant applications, press outreach, websites, and so on.

A good plan enables filmmakers to work better, and for that reason, I use the term “work plan” to describe the details of the participants, resources, actions and goals of the documentary project. There are established rules for developing a good work plan, and most plans include the same basic elements:

Project Mission
The first element of the work plan is a mission statement that includes the background, purpose, benefits and objectives of the documentary project. A mission statement is more than a summary of your project. The mission statement should declare the purpose of your efforts, and clearly define the project in order to keep everyone in the project team in necessary agreement. To use examples from well-known documentaries, the mission statement for HOOP DREAMS might have been something like “The film will follow the lives of two Chicago teenagers as they reach for their professional and personal dreams through basketball. By following the teenagers and their families over the course of several years, our hope is to tell the story of families seeking to overcome obstacles and rising above media stereotypes people may have about life in the inner city.” Or the mission statement for SICKO might have read “This film will look at the failures of the U.S. health care system through interviews with ordinary citizens faced with extraordinary and bizarre challenges in their quest for basic health coverage and through comparing the U.S. health care system with that of other countries. The goal of the film is to draw public attention to the health care crisis and be a catalyst to bring political change to the health care system by calling for a replacement of private, for-profit health insurance with a universal health care program.”

Scope of the Project
This part of the work plan demonstrates your understanding of the scope of the documentary project in terms of the resources needed to achieve your objectives. For example, who are the personnel involved in the project, what are the facilities, equipment, and budget? In addition, there should be a clear purpose to the project: advocacy, case study, historic preservation or other such intent. Also, who is the desired audience for your project? Most importantly, this part of the work plan should predict the benefits to the targeted viewer in watching your documentary. These benefits may involve changes in knowledge, attitude, values, behavior, condition or status.

Project Approach
As an independent filmmaker, it is important to establish a method of doing things for your project. While many different approaches may be considered for implementing a project, you will have to decide the best approach given the scope of the project and commit to it. Decide how you are going to communicate with others, how you will solve problems, and how you will effectively use your resources.

Project Time Frame
To the best of your abilities, the work plan should have a comprehensive and realistic timeline with milestones included to help stay on target as you move through the project. In this section of the work plan, it is important to list the events and locations, from beginning to end that are necessary to complete your project. For example, knowing when production ends and post-production begins has a direct impact on the scope of the project and how you utilize your valuable resources. In the real world of independent documentary filmmaker, your project time frame may change depending on many factors beyond your control – needed funding takes longer than expected, the life of a character you are following takes a dramatic turn, your dream editor can’t fit you in for another month, etc. But having a plan written down – even in pencil – will help you reach your goals faster.

Risk
Understanding risk is critical and should be reflected in the work plan. Risk is the cumulative effect of the chances of uncertain occurrences, which may adversely affect your project objectives. In other words, it is the possibility of exposure to negative events and their probable consequences. To realistically measure the risk in your documentary project, think about what events could prevent the established outcome of your project. Also think about the likelihood of a negative event occurring. What is out there that could jeopardize the success of your project? Remember, risk is the opposite of opportunity. Build in your work plan a mitigation strategy to lessen risk by lowering its chances of occurring or by reducing its effect if it does occur. Have an alternative for action if things don't go as planned or if an expected result fails to materialize.

The documentary project can be viewed as a system, with elements such as mission, approach, scope, time and risk that operate together for the common goal of producing and distributing a quality work. As an independent documentary director, or project manager, you have the sole responsibility for ensuring that all the elements work together as best as possible for your project, and we all know that no one will care about your project as much as you will. So, well before turning on the camera, have a complete work plan in place to ensure the success of your documentary.

© April 2008, Docs In Progress
This article may not be reprinted without permission.

Erica's Report from Full Frame

In an occasional series of reports from documentary-laden film festivals, Docs In Progress co-founder Erica Ginsberg recently attended the Full Frame Film Festival in Durham, North Carolina from April 3-6, 2008.

This was my third time at Full Frame and I must say this year it felt a bit subdued. It may have been the grey and gloomy weather (which, though it was a mild annoyance, was a welcome sight in drought-stricken North Carolina). Or it may be that the festival itself is in a bit of a transition with Nancy Buirski stepping down as festival director to take on a more advisory role. Or maybe it was just me getting older and more critical about the films I see.

What I have always loved about this festival is that it is an all-documentary festival which is both close enough to the major east coast documentary film cities to make it easily accessible and yet is far enough away that folks from those places can actually converse and connect in a relaxed environment. Part of this is due to the nature of Durham itself. With due respect to the locals, downtown Durham is dead on weekends and evenings, so there really is nothing to distract you from the festival itself. And yet, while the fest draws a mix of filmmakers and industry, the locals also come out in droves for the films, indicating a clear starvation for good documentaries outside of the coastal culture capitals. Amazingly enough, Saturday night screenings were packed in spite of the competition with basketball (UNC had made it to the Final Four). According to the Festival itself, ticket sales were up from last year and I can attest to the fact that most theaters were packed. Despite this, I faced no closeouts from screenings, a problem which has plagued other growing festivals (and certainly some of the bigger festivals like Sundance).

In terms of the films, more than 100 were screened and it was sometimes difficult to choose among them. Films which were all the buzz from Sundance and South by Southwest were often pitted against each other and you pretty much had to make difficult choices since no films were screened more than once (if you weren't able to stay to watch the award winners on the final Sunday afternoon). The scheduling in blocks rather than overlaps sometimes made it difficult to pop out of one film and into another and I would find myself with large blocks of free time between screenings. Great for networking. Not so great if you wanted to see lots of films.

So I tried to choose wisely, based partially on the buzz and more often than not, just on my own interests.

The opening night film was TRUMBO, a doc about the blacklisted screenwriter which had premiered last year at the Toronto International Film Festival. Much of the film was told through the writings of Dalton Trumbo, as interpreted by a number of film actors, including Joan Allen, Liam Neeson, Donald Sutherland, David Strathairn, and an unforgettably hilarious Nathan Lane. Allen joined director Peter Askin and Trumbo's son Christopher for a Q&A following the screening, marred by microphone difficulties.

Technical problems were few and far between, but the other most unfortunate one was at the screening of the new Werner Herzog film, ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD, another alum of Toronto. The festival had been given a bad tape so there were digital artifacts through the entire film which could not be remedied. Annoying with any film, it was downright tragic with a film enhanced by its cinematography. Still it was possible to appreciate Herzog's latest opus which takes us into the world of Antarctica and the scientists and wanderlusters who work there.

While mild complaints about the constant drizzle of Durham were overheard, it all fell into perspective after seeing two different films about Hurricane Katrina. I had originally intended only to see one because I didn't think I could emotionally bear to relive the horror of witnessing your country let its own citizens down in the face of death and destruction. But I changed my mind afer seeing the first film, THE AXE IN THE ATTIC. This film looks at the diaspora created by the hurricane by taking us on a road trip with filmmakers Lucia Small and Ed Pincus who are very much outsiders and reflect often on this along the way. Ultimately Small and Pincus become the most interesting characters in the film since the others are people they spend only a few days with to capture their stories. I found myself intrigued by the filmmakers since they, in many ways, represent the white middle class liberal northerner feelings of anger and powerlessness over a preventable disaster which underscored the race and class divides in our country. So, in a sense, they are stand-ins for me. But at the same time, I found the filmmakers annoying for many of the same reasons, because ultimately the film becomes not about Katrina or the people directly affected by Katrina, but about white guilt and ambivalence towards African-Americans, poor people, and the South. I felt too much time was spent focused on issues of documentary ethics (i.e., of giving money to film subjects) and not enough on the people they met. Small, in particular, worried aloud so much about giving money. And yet the filmmakers also reflected that in one scene (where they filmed Katrina survivors going to a FEMA office to deal with some ongoing bureaucratic hurdles which have prevented them from getting benefits) that the subjects themselves were hoping the presence of the cameras would help move things along faster. So the issue of money became almost irrelevant because this reflected on a larger issue of the relationship between filmmaker and subject. Interesting, but still made me feel at arm's length from the people who the film was purportedly about.

So, with this as a backdrop, I saw a second Katrina film,TROUBLE THE WATER . This film was a bit of a 180 from AXE IN THE ATTIC since it focused on one set of characters who were very much insiders – an aspiring female rap artist and her family and friends who could not afford to leave the Lower Ninth Ward and stayed put in their home to brave the storm. The film was propelled by the "money shot" of having first-person home movie footage from the main character in the days leading up to and during the hurricane which really made me feel the experience more than any news footage. But, while this insider footage is what has given the film so much attention, it was the story the filmmakers captured which really gave life to the characters and the world from which they came. For them, Katrina was a disaster, but far from the first or last of a long history of struggles and heartaches. The filmmakers did not impose their vision of the characters upon them, but instead showed them for who they are, warts and all. I have to say that, of the Katrina films I've seen, none has done a better job of personalizing the story and making me feel less of an outsider looking in on an event than a human being sharing in an experience with other human beings. Apparently others agreed, since the film won three awards at the festival, including the Grand Jury Award, a human rights award, and an award from film outreach pioneers Working Films.

Always interested in international issues, I switched gears a bit and saw two films which gave unique insights into life in Iran, one by an Iranian filmmaker and one by an Iranian-American. TEHRAN HAS NO MORE POMEGRANATES! was a refreshing look at Iran's capital city and more importantly into Iran's unique Iranian culture which is full of humor and pathos. As U.S. relations with Iran have continued to sour, the country is a question mark for many Americans and this film gives us a better sense of urban Iran which faces many of the same challenges and class divisions as American metopolises. Beautiful cinematography, archival clips, and a deadpan narration buoy a film which is part city symphony, part reflection on the urban divide between the haves and have nots, and part an hommage to a place and people who manage to have both a proud and rich history and what appears to be a constant sense of self-deprecation as a form of free expression.

In a very different vein, BE LIKE OTHERS looks at the phenomenon of sex change operations in Iran. A more common practice than many of us might assume, gender change is acceptable under Iran's interpretation of Islamic law since it is seen as a medical-psychological condition whereas homosexual practice is outlawed. So the result is that many who may be homosexual undergo the operation, whether they are transgendered or not. The film follows the story of two such men and the challenges this brings to their relationships with their families, societal expectations, and their own sense of being. Along with A JIHAD FOR LOVE (which has been playing the international festival circuit, but, as far as I know, has yet to premiere in the United States), BE LIKE OTHERS will surely create discussion and controversy around the topic of gender and sexuality in the Islamic world.

BE LIKE OTHERS was paired with FLYING ON ONE ENGINE, a film about an Indian-American doctor who travels to India for months at a time to perform hundreds of free surgeries for children with cleft lip and other facial deformities. What could have been a sentimental feel-good story is balanced by the quirky character of the surgeon himself. Though beset by his own physical limitations, he is only too happy to revel in the god-like status his patients' families bestow upon him. He spares no-one -- neither the women he believes chase him down nor Mother Teresa who he notes won a Nobel Prize even though she left all the dirtywork to others while he has never won the prize (in spite of numerous nominations) even though he conducts the surgeries himself. The film provides a good balance of exposing his character and yet leaving us with a sense of mystery as to his motivations.

Being from Washington DC, U.S. politics is always of interest and the festival marked the premiere of BOOGIE MAN, a film about a unique character in recent American politics, Lee Atwater. While some have wondered why this film would premiere at a festival like Full Frame rather than a larger film festival, I think it was a very appropriate setting to screen the film because of the film's underlying theme -- the impact of the North/South divide on American politics at its very core. Political junkies of all partisan stripes will be drawn to the film because it not only characterizes a legend among political operatives, but also returns to this theme. In an election year where the Southern vote may be crucial (in spite of the fact there are no real Southerners on the ballot), this film will be sure to inspire debate. If it had a major weakness (aside from being in a technically unfinished state), BOOGIE MAN's main drawback is that it presumes a certain pre-existing level of knowledge of the American political system and U.S. history. I tried to watch the film from the perspective of an international who understands the big picture of the U.S. political system as it impacts foreign policy, but may not understand the nuances or the context of why we vote the way we do and who "we" are anyway. I think it would be difficult for a film like this to bring much more understanding since it jumps headfirst into the Reagan Revolution without helping us understand the politics and history which led up to it and why someone like Atwater was so crucial to this shift in political focus and to honing the skills of his successor, Karl Rove.

It remains to be seen how the festival will continue to develop. Though its local audiences are growing and it is still a great place to mix and mingle with industry in a relaxed environment, Full Frame still faces the challenge of being positioned between other, more prestigious festivals which may make it difficult for it to boast many premieres. However, it is definitely one which I would recommend all filmmakers attend -- whether you have a film in the festival or not -- to get a good sense of what's garnering buzz in the world of documentary.

AWARD WINNERS
Anne Dellinger Grand Jury Award — "Trouble the Water"
Special Jury Award — "Man on Wire"
Full Frame Jury Award for Best Short — "City of Cranes"
Full Frame Audience Award — "Man on Wire"
Center for Documentary Studies Filmmaker Award — "Lioness"
The Charles E. Guggenheim Emerging Artist Award — "In A Dream"
Honorable Mention — "Up the Yangtze"
Full Frame Inspiration Award — "At the Death House Door"
Full Frame President's Award — "Summerchild"
Full Frame Spectrum Award — "The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)"
Honorable Mention — "Up the Yangtze"
Full Frame Women In Leadership Award — "Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai"
Full Frame/Working Films Award — "Please Vote for Me" and "Trouble the Water"
The Kathleen Bryan Edwards Award for Human Rights — "Trouble the Water"

IFP Documentary Rough Cut Lab

While Docs In Progress can provide a great forum to screen your documentaries to the public or get one-on-one advice from a private consultation, filmmakers can often benefit by feedback from multiple sources. One great place to get additional feedback is through the IFP Documentary Rough Cut Labs which pair first-time documentary feature filmmakers with seasoned mentors. The submission deadline is this Friday, March 7. More info below:

IFP INDEPENDENT FILM LABS – Call for Entries

Given the pivotal role that festivals play in launching emerging filmmakers, IFP's Rough Cut Labs are designed to assist in tackling the creative and technical challenges of completing projects before they are submitted to festivals.

Led by seasoned independent producers, the Labs help independent filmmakers achieve the full potential of their material prior to industry exposure by providing four days of feedback and advice on the specific technical, creative and post-production issues such as editing, music selection and scoring, festival and press strategy, sales, marketing and distribution.

The program is open to all first-time documentary feature filmmakers who have completed the majority of principal photography. As a commitment to diversity, IFP seeks to ensure that at least 50% of participating projects have an inclusive range of races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnicities and physical abilities in key creative positions.

The Documentary Rough Cut Lab (May 6 – 9, 2008) is held in New York City. Full criteria and on-line application available at http://www.ifp.org/labs

A Polar Opposite Approach to Fundraising: Paul Devlin and BLAST

For regular readers of the Docs In Progress website and the Docs Interactive blog, you know we are as obsessed as you are with the state of funding for documentaries. One of our very first blog entries focused on some resources for fundraising and we've also shared the wisdom of Robert Greenwald in connecting funding and outreach strategies, and provided the perspective of Trinh Duong of the Funding Exchange on raising funds from foundations. As a continuation of that theme, we wanted to talk to another independent filmmaker about strategies for fundraising success.

That took us to Paul Devlin. He is an Emmy-winning editor whose first documentary SlamNation on the cuthroat world of spoken poetry competitions premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival and was ultimately screened on HBO/Cinemax and Encore/Starz. His second film, Power Trip, looked at how former communist states were undergoing difficult transitions to democracy and market economies, by using the former State of Georgia and its electricity crisis as a case study. It screened at more than 60 festivals worldwide (including winning prizes at the Berlin Film Festival, Hot Docs, and the Florida Film Festival), was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award, and was screened on the PBS series Independent Lens. With a track record like this, Devlin would seemingly be the poster child for an easy road to funding.

But the reality is far different. Contrary to popular myth, a track record does not ensure automatic fundraising success for independent filmmakers. But the same wiles and passion which serve the indie filmmaker in finding and telling a story can be put to use on the trail of money. Let's see what Devlin had to say about his own journey to success.

Q: First of all, tell us a little bit about you and your background as a documentary filmmaker.

I started making Super 8 films in junior high school. My first documentary I made while a student at the University of Michigan. Rockin’ Brunswick was all about the thriving music scene in New Brunswick, New Jersey where I grew up. I distributed it on public access cable TV up and down the East Coast.

So I learned how to video edit and found that skill was more useful getting work than my English Lit degree. I traveled in Europe and Asia for a year and a half and found my first editing job in Hong Kong. Later I was a runner at the Seoul Olympics. I can trace back to there, all my network sports jobs, which include NBC Olympics, CBS Tour de France, and ABC World Cup Soccer. I’ve won five Emmys doing this work.

When I moved to New York, I started doing independent projects again. The first was a short fiction feature called The Eyes of St. Anthony. That didn’t generate another fiction project, so I gravitated back to documentary because they were not so labor- and money-intensive up front. I could work on documentaries gradually, do them myself and keep making movies.

My documentaries SlamNation and Power Trip were made on very small budgets because I did much of the work myself. They were self-financed, so in essence, they were funded by my network sports editing work. I tried to get outside funding, - writing grants, pitching commissioning editors at the IFP Market, etc, but got nowhere. Maybe I’m not good at that. Or maybe my topics were just too difficult and had to be executed to be believed.

In any case, I had to make my money on the backend, which is a big gamble, of course. But once you get committed, the project has been started, and the money is not coming, you have this terrible choice: Drop it, or keep going by yourself. Even when the movie is successfully distributed, it’s hard to break even.


Q: And now you are working on a film called BLAST. We want to talk about how you're approaching the funding based on the lessons you learned from before. But first of all, tell us a little more about the project.

BLAST follows the story of my brother, Mark Devlin, PhD. as he leads an international team of astrophysicists on a risky scientific adventure. Journeying from the Arctic to the Antarctic to launch a revolutionary new telescope on a NASA high altitude balloon, Mark and his team seek to unlock the mysteries of the origins of our Universe and answer humankind’s most basic question, How did we get here? BLAST reveals the human side of scientific pursuit – the daily frustrations, the enormous sacrifices, the catastrophic failures and the transcendent triumphs.

Mark casually invited me to document the launch of his new telescope, BLAST, in Arctic Sweden. It was very short notice, so I agreed only if he could find a way to fund my travel and expenses. The Swedish Space Corporation flew me over so they could use the footage for promotional purposes. When I got there, the project was plagued by all sorts of technical and weather delays, creating lots of tension and drama. After the launch of the telescope, the scientists discovered that it was out of focus and they would have to do it all over again in Antarctica. I realized I had the story for a bigger project.

BLAST is in post-production. We’ve got a pretty strong cut that we’ve been submitting to festivals. The schedule for the final online edit will be determined by festival acceptances and how effectively we can raise additional revenue to cover those finishing costs.

The goal of BLAST is to tell a great story and reveal, from the inside, the fascinating lives of scientists. BLAST focuses primarily on drama and character and avoids the voice-of-god narrator, which is very rare with science-based material. The story is paramount, but we’re also very excited by the science as well and hope that this approach makes it more accessible to a wide audience.


Q: You are also taking a different approach to fundraising, combining traditional methods with online outreach. Could you talk a little bit more about why you are doing this?

It’s very rare to fund an independent film from just one source, so the more sources you can identify, the better. Traditional funding is becoming more difficult to attract. There are so many more filmmakers out there competing for diminishing resources.

Meanwhile, online outreach is creating exciting, unexplored new opportunities. Filmmakers are realizing they can reach core audiences themselves through the Internet more effectively than through traditional distribution. This takes more work but allows us to keep significantly more of the revenue we generate.


Q: More specifically, you are working with a website called ArtistShare which has traditionally been used by musicians to connect their fans to the creative process. What is ArtistShare exactly and how did you get involved with them as their first film project?

The ultimate goal of the ArtistShare model is to create a community of fans through online outreach. The successful development of this community eventually sustains the artist directly, from project to project, without intermediaries. This is an exciting possibility. Musicians have begun to execute the ArtistShare model successfully. It’s time for filmmakers to follow their lead.

I was working on a short film about a musician. She was exploring the ArtistShare model for her next project and asked me to attend a meeting with ArtistShare to see how the film might enhance this project. That eventually inspired the idea that the ArtistShare model for music could also work for independent film.

My producer Claire Missanelli and I approached ArtistShare with BLAST and our proposal to partner with ArtistShare on it. There was a lot of back and forth with them to develop and personalize the project, and to adapt the ArtistShare model for a film. We ultimately created a website through them. They have been great to work with, very supportive.

It's a big experiment both for them and for us. It works for music; can it work for film? Let’s hope so, because we’ve seen how the music industry has been basically devastated as new technology transformed it from a retail business into a service business. The movie industry will go through a similar transformation, which we should all be prepared for.

ArtistShare does not get involved in the content or distribution of the film. In return for a set up fee and a percentage of the funds raised, they provides a template and the structure for artists to do this kind of project. They provide the website, but it is up to the individual artist to generate the content for the participant offers.


Q: We'd like to explore these participant offers a bit more. One of the key components of the ArtistShare model is involving funders as "participants." What's in it for the participants?

The process of making a movie is very different from making a music CD, so it took a long time and some imagination to adapt the participant offers for a film.

Participants get to experience the process of creating the film through behind-the-scenes video production updates. These include inside views of pitching a project at the Toronto Documentary Forum, and meetings with BBC’s Nick Fraser and independent consultant Robert Hawk. We just finished a fun one about our “Sundance Fever.”

We have offers that focus on the science behind the movie and we have other offers that are tailored to budding filmmakers. Our participants are encouraged to interact with us through Q&A sessions and personal email. Depending on the level of participation, there are opportunities to contribute to the editing of the film, to be our VIP guest at the premiere of BLAST, to appear in the credits of the film, and even to be the Executive Producer of the film. We are trying to create a valuable experience that inspires participants to join us on future projects.


Q: So who are the typical participants and how have they come upon the project?

Our list of participants started out just being friends and family. But as we generated more publicity through the Internet, participants we didn’t know personally started joining. When this happened we felt the concept could work. Now, it’s just a matter of getting the word out to the right audience.

So far generating publicity has been a challenge, even after hiring a publicist. Traditional media outlets are less interested when they realize the film is not yet complete. So to drive traffic to the site, we have been trying many different online approaches including interviews on blogs and podcasts, emails and newsletters, and even outreach on MySpace and Facebook.

Developing an effective message has also been a challenge. The response from our newsletter list, which includes several thousand addresses, was often, “Wow what a cool innovative idea. Let us know if it works and maybe we’ll try it.” When we ask if they signed up, we get a confused look: “I didn’t realize I was supposed to sign up.” We have to explain that in order for it to work, you have to sign up.

So we’re interested in ideas about how better to convey the ArtistShare message in a way that motivates participation. We’re hoping the filmmaking community will become enthusiastic participants as well, because it’s important for all of us to demonstrate the viability of these alternative funding models.


Q: It's interesting that you mention alternative funding models. While ArtistShare seems like an interesting model, what are they able to offer you that you would not have been able to do on your own from your own website, especially given the fact that you already have a track record and presumably loyal fans?

ArtistShare provides everything needed to host the project – from the media player, to the website layout, to working out the legal issues of the participant model. Not having to build this from scratch allows us to focus on creating a good experience for our participants rather than worrying about the technical issues.

The subjects of my films are so diverse – ranging from slam poetry to the energy crisis in Tbilisi, Georgia and now astrophysics – fans of one of my films may not necessarily be interested in the others. So although we have gotten a lot of support from loyal fans, we have had to reach out in new ways to develop an audience base that is interested in my work as a filmmaker generally, rather than just in a specific project. ArtistShare provides a structure in which to do that.


Q: Do you see something like ArtistShare as a replacement for traditional methods of fundraising (getting a fiscal sponsor, trying for grants, government funding, foreign television, commissions, etc.) or an enhancement?

It has worked for music artists. ArtistShare has developed many music CD projects, completely funded by participants. Some of these have gone on to win Grammys!

But films are much harder to make and are more costly. It remains to be seen if this model will work at all for film, let alone finance the entire project.

With BLAST, we have still had to use traditional methods of funding. Nick Fraser, commissioning editor of BBC’s Storyville liked my film Power Trip so much that he funded BLAST early. This eventually attracted commissions from Discovery Canada, Swedish TV and Finnish TV. BLAST also received my first grant ever, from the New York State Council of the Arts.

Will any of these be in a position to fund my next film or the film after that? Who knows? BBC, for example, has experienced drastic cuts and Storyville may no longer be commissioning films. Developing a loyal fan base through direct outreach may eventually prove to be the most secure way for artists to fund their projects.

ArtistShare still has to prove that it can work for film. If we can use this model to develop an ever-growing consistent fan-base willing to fund projects they like, then I think we will have demonstrated that the model can be adapted effectively for anyone willing to devote the time and energy to make it happen.


Q: Many first time filmmakers worry that it is difficult to break in to the funding circuit because there is a limited amount of funding out there and will usually go to more established filmmakers. Some more established filmmakers say this is a myth and it is not much easier for them to raise funds when funding sources are drying up. What do you think of each of these statements?

All filmmakers are “first-time” at some point. Funding is hard for everyone, even the most established filmmakers. Eventually first-timers who stick with it will have track records as well, but tenacity and hard work will still be required to raise funds, no matter what the source.

The Internet provides many opportunities for people who may not have exposure or experience through traditional outlets. The only real requirement is that you be creative enough to come up with a new approach, and dedicated enough to see it through.


Q: Do you have any additional advice for first-time filmmakers seeking funding, especially seed funding? How can filmmakers think outside the box to get their films made?

Shamelessness helps - a willingness to ask for money. Museums do it, politicians do it, why shouldn’t we? Developing good sales skills helps as well. There’s so much shameless private wealth out there waiting for the right project. I’m still working on how to tap into that myself. I’m not sure that I have to personality to organize fundraising events and parties as I’ve seen other filmmakers do. ArtistShare is my first serious effort to tap private financing.

But if you have that personality, I recommend Morrie Warshawski’s books, Shaking the Money Tree and The Fundraising Houseparty.

There’s not much that substitutes for a great idea, great access, or a great film. If you have these and refuse to give up, then you’ll find a way to get your project done and get it out there.


Q: What do you see as the future outlook for documentary?

I see the further blurring of the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction in “documentaries,” as filmmakers broaden the boundaries of storytelling using nonfictional material.

Editing a documentary is similar in many ways to writing a screenplay. For both, drama, character and story are paramount and must always take a back seat to accuracy. Filmmaking is art, not journalism. Films that place accuracy over story are much less likely to find an audience, especially in this outrageously competitive environment. Eventually audiences and critics will have to accept this and realize what we filmmakers already know: documentaries are essentially fictional.

But that does not mean they are not truthful. Werner Herzog has coined the phrase “ecstatic truth” to describe the fundamental truth that the filmmaker discovers beyond facts or chronology.

Because of this, documentaries are becoming The News of the World, despite the fact that they are not journalism. In a media environment where journalism has become so utterly compromised, a documentary that confesses its fictional elements can still provide enormously more in-depth coverage and insightful consideration of the complex issues that we’re facing all over the planet.

So it’s important to keep fighting to get our work made and seen. As veteran documentarian Robert Richter told me recently, documentary filmmaking is not a profession, nor a hobby; it’s a calling.


To learn more about BLAST, including an update on screenings of the finished film, visit its website at www.blastthemovie.com. Its ArtistShare site is at www.blastshare.com


© January 2008, Docs In Progress
This article may not be reprinted without permission.

A New Year, a New Organization

Those of you who are regular readers of this blog may know that Docs Interactive is a program of Docs in Progress, an organization based in Greater Washington DC which focuses on empowering independent documentary filmmakers to create and cultivate their projects.

2007 was a whirlwind year for Docs in Progress. We organized and moderated nine work-in-progress screening workshops in Washington DC and Maryland, sponsored two all-day seminars with "Documentary Doctor" Fernanda Rossi, provided private consultations to numerous film projects, and maintained our quarterly e-newsletter and this blog. Alumni of our programs have gone on to have their films screened on television; at film festivals around the world; at museums, universities, and schools; and even at the White House (whatever you may think of the current inhabitants, that's a pretty cool achievement).

In 2008, we will continue to hold our public screening workshops in Washington DC and Baltimore. In fact, we've got one coming up in just a few weeks at the Jack Morton Auditorium in Washington DC, on Tuesday, January 8. Come join us to see BEAUTY: IN THE EYES OF THE BEHELD and LEARNING FROM JAMES.

We will also be partnering with Nomadsland.com on a special edition of Docs in Progress where we are soliciting documentary work-in-progress submissions from filmmakers based anywhere in the world (the filmmaker can participate in the discussion via Skype).

We recently set down roots in documentary capital Silver Spring, Maryland. Our new address is 8607 Second Avenue, Suite 402-E, Silver Spring, MD 20910. We are just a few blocks from the Silver Spring Metro Station, the American Film Institute, and Discovery Communications. This office will be used for administrative functions and the growing demand for private consultations. Our public workshops will continue to take place at the Jack Morton Auditorium in Washington DC six times a year and other venues for special events.

We are also thrilled to welcome Sam Hampton to the Docs in Progress team. Sam is a documentary filmmaker who has nearly 20 years of professional and academic experience in research and documentation of social justice activities. He is also an experienced grantwriter and consultant for non-profit organizations who will be focusing on developing our strategic plan as an organization and also supplementing our consulting services to filmmakers needing advice on fundraising strategies.

And last, but far from least...Docs in Progress is now officially incorporated and will soon be a 501c3 non-profit organization. In the coming months, we will be developing our board and building a strategic plan for future programs to benefit the independent documentary community in the Mid-Atlantic region and beyond.

Though we are growing as an organization, we will never lose our commitment to independent documentary. Whether you are a documentary filmmaker or a film fan, we look forward to having you grow with us in 2008.

Thanks for reading and stay tuned...

Happy New Year!

Doc Happenings

Yes, it's winter when things are supposed to slow down. But there's actually quite a few educational things happening for documentary filmmakers, including one this week. So take a break from shopping or editing or whatever it is you are doing and check these out...

First up, everything you've ever wanted to know about ITVS funding for both U.S. and international filmmakers can be found on a special online conference this week on the D-Word Community. ITVS executives Joy-Marie Scott, Cynthia Kane, Karim Ahmad and Kathryn Washington are participating in a virtual Q&A and being very candid with their information and answers. The conference continues through December 22 and will be archived for future reference.

Working Films, which has worked to advance social justice by linking independent non-fiction media to activism, is accepting applications for its five-day residency for documentary filmmakers at MASS MoCA in Western Massachusetts. The residency, which is called the Content + Intent Documentary Institute, will take place March 12-16, 2008 in North Adams, MA. The application deadline is January 25, 2008. For more information, visit the website of Working Films.

And it's not too early to register for Making Your Media Matter, the annual conference sponsored by the Center for Social Media at American University. This is the must-attend event to network and gain new insights into the latest tools and trends in creating and distributing social issue media. It will take place February 7-8, 2008 in Washington DC. More information on this website.

Documentaries to Revisit: Iraq in Fragments

While every documentary should be unique, it is important for documentary filmmakers to be well-read when it comes to documentaries to see different ways that those who have come before them have dealt with the joys and challenges of non-fiction storytelling. Until recently, it has been difficult to see documentaries on demand. But now many documentaries are easily available through Netflix, Amazon, or the local video store. With this in mind, we wanted to revisit a few documentaries which reflect a wide variety of styles, but all share the power of effective story structure and character development. Docs in Progress co-founder Adele Schmidt recently took a look at IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS, James Longley's 2006 Oscar-nominated film.

When I was watching the film IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS, I was asking myself what is it a documentary filmmaker can learn from this film. I would like to focus on three points which this film is mastering at a high level.

1. Even if we are confronted with a situation of chaos, it is important to find order in the chaos and give a precise structure to the film.

2. Access to the characters is key to tell a compelling story.

3. The early determination of the stylistic approach (how to tell the story) helps to set the path for the whole film.

Order in the chaos

The chaotic situation of an ongoing war is not the easiest place for a filmmaker to organize production and find a structure for telling the story in a meaningful and comprehensive way. James Longley's approach to divide the film into three parts makes complete sense. Each part spotlights a different side of Iraq: The Sunni, Shiite and the Kurd perspectives.

The division in the film reflects the fragmentation of the social and political landscape of Iraq, a fragmentation which has deepened over the years of war and which presents one of the greatest challenges to initiate a process of reconciliation and peace. By presenting each side, the filmmaker is not trying to give a broad perspective; instead he concentrates in each part on one personal story, the story of ordinary people. The director uses no voiceover or narration to move the story along. He just holds the camera close to the characters and events we see unfolding. If we get to listen to a voice, it is the voice of each character who comments on situations and reflect about their lives.

In the Sunni side, we get to know Mohamed, an 11-year old boy who lives in a working class neighborhood in Baghdad and who works in a mechanic shop. The Shiite section is narrated by young cleric, Sheik Aws al-Khafaji and with him, the camera leads us into different situations with militant Shiite followers of Moktada al-Sadr in Nasiriya and Najaf. The third story is filmed in a pastoral Kurdish region, in a small village outside of Erbil. Each story is filmed with immense closeness to the characters and it is the payoff of Longley spending almost two years in Iraq to film this documentary.

Access to characters

Getting close to the characters allows James Longley to access the chaotic situation and through their eyes and voice we have a deeper look into war torn Iraq. It seems contradictory but the closeness opens us up a wider picture of each section.

Mohamed has lost his father to the regime of Saddam Hussein. His boss, owner of the mechanic shop, is like a father for him. Or at least that is what Mohamed says at the beginning. But the camera tells another story. The boss mistreats him and humiliates him on a regular basis. Mohamed cries and the boss laughs in satisfaction. In the relationship between boss and Mohamed, we observe the components of living under a dictatorship: the abuse of power and irrational violence of the oppressor and the fear, confusion and frustration of the oppressed.

If the first story is concentrated on the inside of the mechanic shop and the tense relationship between Mohamed and his boss, the second story happens mostly on the streets. Young men scream in a religious procession and hit themselves with chains. We are now on the fanatic side. In another moment, young men organized in their own sectarian group decide to execute their view of law and order a market turned upside down in search of vendors of alcohol. Covered with masks, they beat their victims and detain them randomly. It seems that the reality is dominated by young men. If women appear at all, we see them crossing the street in the background of the frame or kneeling before men in power, begging to free their husbands.

It is the setting of a little village and the landscape which makes the third story quieter. An aging Kurdish father and his son are the main characters. They express they desire for normality and peace, but again, as soon as politics gets involved, chaos breaks out. On voting-day, the Kurds get into a fight with the police.

All three stories give an unknown look into the life in Iraq today and each story makes clear that the human sacrifice paid in this war has huge dimensions.

Stylistic Approach

In this film it is clear how important it is to define a style before even setting up the camera. The close and immediate camerawork makes this film authentic and compelling. The camera is on a constant move and is followed by a fast and extremely nervous editing. James Longley is the director, photographer and co-editor of the film. It is the same hand which executes all three departments with restlessness and precision.

This stylistic approach is appropriate for a situation of chaos and uncertainty. In a certain way, we feel thrown into that dangerous and complex reality out of which it is difficult to make sense.

Conclusions about the war in Iraq will be drawn in years to come. IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS does not pretend to have conclusions, but it tells an internationally relevant story on a human scale.

© 2007, Docs in Progress
This article may not be reprinted without permission.