tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-335392052024-03-07T06:40:55.094-05:00Docs InteractiveQuestions, answers, and perspectives on various issues for the working documentary filmmaker.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-13751121128190288672009-01-04T23:13:00.003-05:002009-01-04T23:17:00.792-05:00Blog Has Moved - Update Your Subscription, Feeds, and BlogrollsDocs Interactive, the blog of Docs In Progress co-founder Erica Ginsberg, has moved. It is now located within the Docs In Progress website at <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org/blog/">http://www.docsinprogress.org/blog/</a>. Please update your subscription, feeds, and blogrolls accordingly.<br /><br />While this Blogger site will continue to be online, there will not be any new posts here and comments will only be approved on the new site (which contains all the old posts as well as the new ones).Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-43206981118994616142008-12-06T21:17:00.006-05:002008-12-06T21:38:30.297-05:00In Memory of Brent HurdIn a season where there is so much good news to report about Docs In Progress and our alumni, we also wanted to share some sad news. Some of you may already know about the untimely death of Brent Hurd, a 38-year-old documentary filmmaker who called Washington DC home for a time, but was really a citizen of the world. Brent was killed the evening of November 22 in Bangalore, India when his bicycle was hit by a city bus. He was in India working as a media trainer. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40582071425">A Facebook Memorial page</a> has already attracted more than 300 members and many fond memories and dedications. And a memorial service has now been scheduled in Washington DC where Brent was well known by the local documentary film community. It will take place next Saturday, December 13 at 3 pm at All Souls Unitarian Church at 1500 Harvard Street, NW (16th and Harvard). For more information, visit <a href="http://www.brenthurd.com/">Brent's website.</a><br /><br />A sad time not only for the DC documentary community, but for many around the world whose lives Brent touched.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-16711773163009628662008-11-28T12:37:00.002-05:002008-11-28T12:44:56.599-05:00An update from Paul Devlin on ArtistShareIn January we featured an <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/01/polar-opposite-approach-to-fundraising.html">interview</a> with <strong>Paul Devlin</strong>, the director of <a href="http://www.blastthemovie.com/">BLAST!</a> The article focused on Devlin's experience using <strong>ArtistShare</strong> as a form of alternative financing for the film.<br /><br />Well, the film has had a bit of success as it continues to play film festivals and events around the world. And Paul has recently written an update in the European Documentary Network's <a href="http://www.blastthemovie.com/BLAST_Archives/Press/DOX/Dox79.pdf">DOX Magazine</a> about his experience with ArtistShare and some of the lessons he's learned about this approach to grassroots funding.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-65554880385525710692008-10-18T23:12:00.002-04:002008-10-18T23:16:12.223-04:00Docs In Progress returns to Baltimore this ThursdayThis Thursday (October 23, 2008), Docs In Progress returns to Baltimore, Maryland for a screening of works in progress by local filmmakers. This will take place at 7:30 pm at The Creative Alliance's Patterson Theatre (3134 Eastern Avenue near Patterson Park). We'll be featuring:<br /><br />A segment from Charles Cohen's FINDING THE DROVE about master fiddler Dave Bing's quest to teach a new generation of fiddlers the "Old Timey" sound of rural America.<br /><br />A rough cut of Bernard Threatt's BALTIMORE CITY HAKS, a gritty street documentary which exposes the truths and myths about "hak-ing," a parallel system of transportation for Baltimore's disenfranchised.<br /><br />More information on the program and tickets <a href="http://www.creativealliance.org/events/eventItem1588.html">here.</a>Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-2727834311933972062008-10-18T23:06:00.004-04:002008-10-18T23:11:03.335-04:00Review: ReligulousAnother reprint from the <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">Docs In Progress</a> website...<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">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 in theaters, through Netflix, Amazon, or the local video store. With this in mind, we occasionally offer reviews of documentary films which reflect a wide variety of styles, but offer something to be learned from a storytelling perspective.</span><br /><br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">RELIGULOUS by Larry Charles<br />(Reviewed by Erica Ginsberg)</span><br /><br />As this goes to print, the film <span style="font-style:italic;">Religulous</span> has spent two consecutive weeks as the #1 documentary in theaters and will likely be one of the highest-grossing theatrically-released documentaries of the year. It is surely one of the most talked-about films of 2008 because it highlights a hot topic (religion), is directed by an acclaimed director (Larry Charles, probably best known for <span style="font-style:italic;">Borat</span>), and stars a successful TV political comedian (Bill Maher). With this resume, the film seems ready-made for success at the box office and in the blogosphere. <br /><br />But does that mean it is successful as a documentary? While we have spent past reviews discussing films which should be seen as showcasing elements of an effective documentary, I would argue that <span style="font-style:italic;">Religulous</span> should be seen as an example of an ineffective documentary. <br /><br />I say this without prejudice against the film’s message or its messenger. I watch Maher’s HBO show <span style="font-style:italic;">Real Time with Bill Maher</span>, er, religiously because it allows me to see viewpoints expressed that are often not expressed elsewhere…at a least not on television. Going into the film, I knew a bit about Maher’s skepticism about religion which he expresses frequently on his show and in his comedy act. But I was also aware of his ability to re-evaluate his own opinions over time as a thinking person rather than an ideologue. And I expected to see some aspect of this intellectual exploration conveyed in this film, much as it has been explored by Maher’s counterpart religious skeptics in the print world, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. But this was not successfully achieved. <br /><br />While addressing such a lofty topic as religion can create an enormous structural challenge, I had high hopes that Charles and Maher could pull it off. We would follow them on an intercontinental journey as Maher talks to and challenges different people of faith. As could be expected from a comedian and a comedic director, hi-jinks would ensue. But, between the laughs, we would also discover something new, something which allows us to think more deeply about religious faith and whether it is really necessary in contemporary society. <br /><br />My concerns about the film have little to do with my own beliefs about religion or concerns with how the film treats such a delicate topic. Some documentary purists believe that a film addressing such a controversial theme should present all sides of a story. But I disagree. Documentary film includes as many sub-genres as fiction films and there is a definite place for point-of-view documentaries and indeed for what could perhaps be categorized as provocateur-documentaries. With an unapologetic POV and an engaging host who takes us on a journey into the absurdities and exasperations of society, provocateur documentaries create an opportunity for an audience to engage, whether or not they agree with the point of view presented. Love or hate Michael Moore, there is no question that he is the master of the genre. But what makes Moore so masterful is that he finds ways through his films to use a surface topic to explore a deeper theme about society. In <span style="font-style:italic;">Bowling for Columbine</span>, for example, a film about America’s love affair with guns ultimately becomes a film about the manipulation of fear and the violence with permeates so many aspects of American society. In <span style="font-style:italic;">Sicko</span>, a film about health care becomes a film about how societies view the individual vs. the group and whether a society should consider human health a basic human right.<br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />Religulous</span>, on the other hand, only skims the surface. The film veers between personal film, road movie, and essay. But none of these structural elements is developed enough for it to ever come across as more than a scattershot approach to documentary storytelling. The film starts promisingly with Maher talking to his mother and sister to help explain his own familial religious roots and how religious observance within his own family changed over time. During several different driving sequences (somewhat reminiscent in style of reality television confessionals), Maher offers to the camera additional glimpses into how he has come over time to reject of blind faith. But these moments are few and far between. Most of the car commentary gets us no deeper than a comedy bit. <br /><br />The road movie takes us from the holy sites to the holy smokes sites, hitting everything from the Vatican to a truckstop chapel, from Salt Lake City to a Florida religious theme park, from Jerusalem to an Amsterdam coffeeshop. We meet a cast of characters who could have come out of central casting for their bizarre religious beliefs. But does so much focus on extremists build Maher's premise that ALL religion is suspect? Much has been written about how <span style="font-style:italic;">Religulous</span> focuses predominantly on adherents of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and pays scant attention to eastern or western indigenous religions. Even within the faith traditions the film does portray, the filmmakers are remarkably selective in the believers they spotlight. Nowhere to be found are Unitarians, Reform Jews, or people whose religious faith has been at the core of their involvement with civil rights, environmentalism, the anti-war movement, or other forms of activism (Maher may be capable of making a valid case against the religious necessity for activism, but it is not reflected in the film). <br /><br />Even the interviewees who are somewhat sane are digitally enhanced with unfavorable reaction-shot editing, snarky subtitles, and cutaways to contextually humorous stock film clips which underscore Maher’s point that religious faith is the province of the crazy. We touch on religion’s impact on politics, on war, on science, on sexuality, and on history. And yet we do little more than touch, only to be swooped off quickly to the next site where Maher can continue to drive home his point. <br /><br />And that may be the point. This film is like the point of a pencil which has run out of lead. My Docs In Progress colleague Adele Schmidt refers to documentaries as being a use of visual storytelling to explore a hypothesis; a documentary which enters production with the answer already in mind is not a documentary. It is an advocacy film. And this, in my mind, is what diminishes the potential of <span style="font-style:italic;">Religulous</span> to either bring in new "believers" in disbelief or "preach to the converted" because we already know where the film will take us. There are no surprises. <br /><br />The irony of <span style="font-style:italic;">Religulous</span> is that, for a film seeking to critique the simplistic aspects of religious belief, it suffers from its own simplistic storytelling. And yet plods on for nearly two hours without really building the story beyond a one-trick pony of showcasing the extremes of religion. By not exploring faith in any thoughtful way but that which supports a pre-conceived notion, the film becomes a lost opportunity. A documentary which may do well short-term at the box-office, but will not have the shelf life of a deeper provocateur-documentary which resonates for years to come.<br /><br />© October 2008, Docs In Progress, Inc.<br />This article may not be reprinted without permission.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-58812670495539293112008-10-18T22:55:00.006-04:002008-10-18T23:12:30.680-04:00The Art of the Elevator PitchSoon the Docs Interactive blog should be totally integrated into the Docs In Progress website so folks can actually realize we're one and the same and every article can have a way for you to talk-back with comments.<br /><br />Until then, we've been reposting articles here in the blog. Here's our latest "Voices of Experience" feature on the art of the elevator pitch...<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Getting in On the Ground Floor: the Art of the Elevator Pitch <br />(Interview by Erica Ginsberg, Fall 2008)</span><br /><br />You get in the elevator on the 20th floor of a hotel. It stops at the 19th floor and in walks a TV executive who you just know would be thrilled to support your latest documentary idea. You have until the elevator stops at the lobby to pique her interest in your film. What do you do? <br /><br />While it may not be on an elevator, chances are you will run into someone sometime somewhere who could be a crucial part of moving your film forward. It could be at a party, on an airplane, or at a bar or café. And you need to be prepared. Even at places where you might expect such an encounter, it can sometimes sneak up on you. <br /><br />At an overseas film festival a few years back, I was sitting in a theater waiting for a film to start when I noticed a man next to me looking at an English-language guidebook to the city where we were. I struck up a conversation with him about sights to see in the city and it didn’t take long to learn he was the chief documentary programmer for a major U.S. cable network. Only problem was I was shy and unable to articulate much about my film. While I got some great tips on sightseeing, it was a lost opportunity for making an important connection professionally. The elevator door had closed on me. <br /><br />To help others avoid the same experience, I thought we would devote this issue’s Voices of Experience article to the elevator pitch by talking to two filmmakers who have mastered it. <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Doug Block</span> is an award-winning New York-based documentary director, cameraman, and producer whose most recent film <span style="font-style:italic;">51 Birch Street</span> was named one of the top ten films of 2006 by the New York Times and Ebert & Roeper, and one of the outstanding documentaries of the year by the National Board of Review. Block was nominated for an Emmy for his 1999 film <span style="font-style:italic;">Home Page</span> and has produced, co-produced some of the most acclaimed films of the past two decades, including <span style="font-style:italic;">A Walk Into the Sea: Danny Williams and the Warhol Factory</span> (2007), <span style="font-style:italic;">Jupiter’s Wife</span> (1995), and <span style="font-style:italic;">Silverlake Life</span> (1993). Block is also the founder and co-host of The D-Word, a worldwide online community of documentary professionals.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Aviva Kempner</span> is an award-winning Washington DC-based filmmaker who has specialized in investigating non-stereotypical images of Jews in history and the untold stories of Jewish heroes. She wrote, directed, and produced T<span style="font-style:italic;">he Life and Times of Hank Greenberg</span>, an Emmy-nominated film about the Jewish baseball player who fought anti-Semitism in the 1930’s and 40’s. The film won a George Peabody Award and received top honors from the National Society of Film Critics, the National Board of Review, the New York Film Critics Circle, and the Broadcast Film Critics Association. Kempner also produced and co-wrote <span style="font-style:italic;">Partisans of Vilna<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span> and wrote the narration for the Academy Award-nominated documentary <span style="font-style:italic;">Promises to Keep</span>. She is currently at work on <span style="font-style:italic;">Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg</span>, a feature-length documentary about television sitcom pioneer Gertrude Berg (segments shown at Docs In Progress in 2005). <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q: What are the elements of an effective elevator pitch? </span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Doug Block:</span> It's pretty simple - being able to distill what your film is about in a sentence or two in a way that makes it clearly compelling. Being able to tell potential funders or supporters enough about your film in about 30 seconds or less to get them to want to hear more. At any time and place, and at a moment's notice. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Aviva Kempner:</span> Seizing the moment, talking fast and with a concise purpose and having the chutzpah to do it. Then getting contact information to follow up. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: What do you need to know about the person to whom you are pitching? </span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Doug Block: </span>I don't think you need to know a thing about the other person. The elevator pitch is only about you and your ability to summarize your film quickly and effectively. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Aviva Kempner:</span> It's about being in the right place at the right time and encountering someone who you want to be involved in your film. Often times, it happens at a film festival party, but it can happen anywhere. At a restaurant on vacation, I once ran into Harvey Weinstein. Told him about the film I wanted him to distribute and it helped when I later went to him. Even though he did not wind up being the distributor, my project was on his radar screen thanks to Martha’s Vineyard. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: What's a big no-no when you make the pitch?</span> <br /> <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Aviva Kempner:</span> You get their prior work or their name wrong or mention their enemies to them. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Doug Block:</span> Taking too long. Giving too much backstory. Explaining more than needs to be explained. It's about being quick and to the point. And leaving them wanting more.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: How important is it to know what it is you want from the pitch? </span><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Doug Block:</span> It's always important to know what you want. I think mainly what you want from the elevator pitch is to buy the time to give a longer explanation. That may mean giving out a business card, sending a sample reel, asking for a meeting, or just continuing the conversation beyond the "elevator."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Aviva Kempner: </span>Since I always need funding, that is what want from a pitch. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: Tell us about an experience you had with a successful elevator pitch. (It doesn't necessarily have to have been in an elevator).</span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Doug Block:</span> It would have to be when I pitched 51 Birch Street to two HBO executives at a Sundance pitching round-table about five years ago. The film is a personal documentary about what happens when every assumption you've made about your parents 54-year marriage is called into question. I introduced it by saying it was the film I was born to make, and probably the best film I'd ever make. That certainly got their attention. Of course, I said the same thing to them recently about my current doc. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Aviva Kempner:</span> I saw someone recently at a film festival who I almost worked with but did not because he is on the west coast. We have always maintained a good relationship and I pitched him now getting involved in a new project I am working on because of its parallels with another film he was involved in. I guessed correctly as he said to send the script to him. <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q: Let's say you have what you would consider a good elevator pitch. How do you ensure there is follow-up? Is the ball in their court or yours?</span> <br /> <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Aviva Kempner:</span> Most importantly, get their phone number, address or email address. I pitched a doc project to Brad Pitt at a film party and he seemed interested since I had read he was interested in the topic. I knew going to the party he would be there, and practiced in my mind what I would say. I followed up by sending him a proposal to his office. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Doug Block:</span> It's always in your court. Never go anywhere without a business card, at the least. And if you pitch to someone who could be a potential supporter of your film in any way, try to get their name and contact info. Put them on your email list and keep in touch with them all along the way. <br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: Do elevator pitches get easier once you get more of a track record? Is there anything extra someone who doesn't have a track record should keep in mind?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Aviva Kempner:</span> I always mention up front the movies I have done before and of course a track record helps. Unless of course they did not like your films. On the other hand, it’s the subject of your film that is the real selling point and make sure to talk about it in concise terms and with much enthusiasm. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Doug Block:</span> Elevator pitches are the great equalizer because they have nothing to do with track records. It's all about distilling your film down to its essence, which is extremely hard to do. If you can do it really well, and it takes up less than 30 seconds of their time, then no one will mind. It's only those who drone on and on that get people annoyed. The only way it becomes easier is to keep practicing it. Practice your pitch at every opportunity.<br /><br />© 2008, Docs In Progress, Inc.<br />This article may not be reprinted without permission.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-79580302729586428312008-09-19T10:46:00.009-04:002008-09-19T14:21:43.378-04:00Docs In Progress Trailer Night in DC September 26It may be the night of the first Presidential Debate, but Docs In Progress will be sponsoring its own version of the democratic process on Friday, September 26. So program your DVRs and head to the Jack Morton Auditorium for our first-ever Trailer Night.<br /><br />The DC-area film community and the general public are welcome to join us and the filmmakers as we screen six trailers (from 2-10 minutes each) for documentary works-in-progress. Following each screening, we'll ask for your feedback on the trailers and advice for the filmmakers as they continue to work on the broader films. <br /> <br /><strong>WHEN? </strong><br />Friday, September 26, 2008 from 7:00-10:00 pm<br /> <br /><strong>WHERE?</strong><br />Jack Morton Auditorium<br />(on the campus of George Washington University)<br />805 21st Street, NW (21st and H Streets)<br />Washington DC<br />Close to Foggy Bottom Metro and garage parking. Limited street parking free after 6:30.<br /> <br /><strong>HOW MUCH?</strong><br />$5 suggested donation to cover overhead expenses (cash only, at the door)<br /> <br /><strong>WHAT'S SHOWING?</strong><br />We'll be screening the following trailers (not necessarily in this order):<br /> <br /><strong>Murphy's Gambit: A Chess Hustler's Story<br />by Andre Dahlman</strong><br />A DC chess savant must decide between living on the fringes as a chess hustler in the parks of the city or taking on the orderly world of tournament chess.<br /> <br /><strong>SPONG: Life and Times of a Radical Bishop<br />by Hugh Drescher</strong><br />An Episcopal Bishop takes on old beliefs in fighting for the church's inclusion of minorities, women, and homosexuals.<br /> <br /><strong>Imani: a Story of Faith<br />by Taylor Baxter</strong><br />Passing away before her time, the spirit of a 12-year old girl continues to leave an indelible impression on her family.<br /> <br /><strong>Nuclear Bonds<br />by Beth Humpert</strong><br />Former enemies in Russia and the United States are living with the legacy of the nuclear arms race.<br /> <br /><strong>Go-Go: the Music of a City<br />by K. Dene Mitchell</strong><br />What is Go-Go music and why has its popularity been confined largely to the DC area?<br /> <br /><strong>My Mother's Journey<br />by Sam Hampton</strong><br />In the midst of the civil rights struggle, a woman moves from Alabama to Upstate New York only to experience a different kind of racism and her own awakening as a civic leader.<br /> <br />Audience members will not only have the opportunity to watch and provide feedback to the filmmakers onsite, but will also be able to show their support at the ballot box. We'll be sponsoring an audience ballot to select the film and filmmaker which is most deserving of a one-hour free consultation from the Docs In Progress team (excluding Sam Hampton from the ballot since he is part of our team).<br /> <br />A big shout out to The Documentary Center at the George Washington University for being the location sponsor for this event.<br /><br />For more information, visit the Docs In Progress website at <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">www.docsinprogress.org</a>Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-36458829521078665512008-09-19T10:46:00.004-04:002008-09-19T10:56:02.343-04:00Executive Positions at Silverdocs and the International Documentary AssociationWhile Docs Interactive is not and never aspires to be a job posting board, we did want to share two rather high-profile job openings in the documentary world:<br /><br />The International Documentary Association, based in Los Angeles, is now advertising for a new Executive Director to replace Sandra Ruch who left IDA in July to pursue private consulting work. You can find out more about the position <a href="http://www.documentary.org/content/job-posting-ida-executive-director">here</a>.<br /><br />And right here in Silver Spring, Maryland, the SILVERDOCS International Film Festival is looking for a new Festival Director to replace Patricia Finneran who is moving on to become a Senior Consultant with the Sundance Institute's Documentary Film Program. You can find out more about the position <a href="http://www.afi.com/Docs/about/jobs/FestDir_SilverDocs.pdf">here</a>.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-32855199340021080702008-09-06T12:38:00.006-04:002008-09-08T15:24:39.284-04:00Distribution Seminar in DC AreaSummer is over and Docs In Progress will be back in action with some brand new programs in the coming months. More on that soon, but first we wanted to share some information on an upcoming distribution film seminar taking place in the Washington DC area for both fiction and documentary filmmakers. While this one's not sponsored by us, Jerome Courshon has graciously extended a discount for Friends of Docs In Progress. Read more below.<br /><br />*******************************************************************<br /><br />THE SECRETS TO DISTRIBUTION: Get Your Movie Distributed Now!<br /><br />So you’ve made your movie. Congratulations! Or you’re going to make your movie. Excellent! What do you do to ensure the final step of your filmmaking journey, getting distribution? How do you play ‘the game’? Is there even a game??<br /><br />The answer is YES. There is a game. A strategy. Whether you’re about to start shooting, have finished your final cut, are on the film festival circuit -- or even if you’ve been turned down by distributors already -- you CAN get distribution. It is not impossible, but there is a strategy that MOST producers & directors do not know or understand.<br /><br />Where can you learn this? At producer Jerome Courshon’s groundbreaking 1-Day seminar, <br />“The Secrets to Distribution: Get Your Movie Distributed Now!”<br /><a href="http://www.Distribution.LA">http://www.Distribution.LA</a><br /><br />Who should attend this seminar:<br />- Those with a completed movie<br />- Those in production or post-production<br />- Those who intend to make a movie -- Get a head start on what you need to know<br /><br />Bottom line? This seminar is about getting results and getting the deal, with key resources provided. If you are serious about getting your movie into the marketplace, then you should not miss this day. This is NOT about self-distribution and making DVDs to sell them out of the trunk of your car or on the internet. This is about securing a viable distributor, whether you have a low budget / no budget movie OR a movie with names. Don’t spend years spinning your wheels, only to end with your movie collecting dust on your living room shelf.<br /><br />“Without Jerome’s information and help, I’d never have gotten a studio distribution deal for my ‘no name’ feature. Not in a million years.”<br />-- Vince Rocca, Producer, “Kisses & Caroms” (Released by Warner Bros.)<br /><br />“I’ve been a working actor for over 25 years and have relationships with many mainstream Distributors. When it was time to distribute my first feature film, I thought I knew it all. Jerome not only opened my eyes, but opened doors and on February 19th, 2008, my movie “Revamped” got released on DVD nationwide. Is Jerome’s Seminar worth it? You can’t even put a price tag on the knowledge and connections that you’ll get from his Seminar.”<br />-- Jeff Rector, Writer/Director/Producer, “Revamped”<br /><br />DATE: Saturday, September 20, 2008<br />TIME: 10am - 6pm<br />LOCATION: NRECA, 4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203<br /><br />DOCS IN PROGRESS Friends -- SPECIAL DISCOUNT TUITION: Register before seminar date for $155, and includes all handout material. (Regular tuition is $175 in advance or $190 at the door.) Use this special link to register and get the discount: <a href="http://www.Distribution.LA/dip.html">http://www.Distribution.LA/dip.html </a><br /><br />For more info, visit: <a href="http://www.Distribution.LA">http://www.Distribution.LA</a><br />Or call: (323) 662-8877Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-83091949336302992152008-08-06T13:54:00.008-04:002008-08-06T14:08:00.427-04:00Grassroots Online Fundraising: the case of THE DELEGATESWe don't normally shill for filmmakers who are raising funds for their films (so please please don't ask us to). But we are very intrigued by the approach of some filmmaker colleagues who are trying to adopt Obama-style small-donor online fundraising techniques to their film (which appropriately enough will be filmed at the Democratic National Convention at the end of the month). Whether you choose to support their project or not, take a look at the e-mail they sent us today. They offer what could be a good model for other filmmakers who don't have the name recognition of Robert Greenwald, but are interested in a grassroots approach to fundraising. <br /><br />We promise to report back once we hear more on how this approach works for them.<br /><br />Here's their e-mail:<br /><br /><em>At the end of August, Lauren and I are flying to Denver to film the Democratic National Convention, an event that will surely be a significant moment in American history. We're going there to make a new documentary about the people chosen to represent the Democratic voters, THE DELEGATES.<br /><br />Our film will accompany four delegates, with diverse hometowns, backgrounds, and interests, as they take part in the hype and hope of the Convention. Along the way, the delegates will illustrate the personal side of the democratic process, and share what it is like for ordinary Americans to take part in this extraordinary event. The film will follow the delegates from the moment they arrive at the airport, to the hectic scene on the convention floor, around Denver and finally to Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium.<br /><br />We're working on this film with our friends from DoubleSpeak Media who took me to New Hampshire to cover the primary for The Huffington Post. Now, we're putting together a bigger team so that we can cover as much as we can at this historic event.<br /><br />Most documentaries are kick-started with money collected through donations from family and friends. So far, we've never wanted to go that route. But our next film is about a subject that matters to all of you, and we need your help.<br /><br />The Obama campaign has taken traditional fundraising strategies and turned them upside-down: building momentum by bringing their appeal directly to small donors. Following in those footsteps, we're asking for your contribution to help make THE DELEGATES a worthy document of a pivotal moment in American history.<br /><br />Give as much or as little as you can--every little bit helps and will be appreciated. If you donate $25 or more, your name will appear in the credits. Donate $100 or more and you'll also receive an advance copy of THE DELEGATES on DVD.<br /><br />To learn more about the film, visit our website at:<br /><a href="http://www.thedelegates.net">http://www.thedelegates.net</a><br /><br />To donate right now, click <a href="http://www.chipin.com/contribute/id/7a7c2418fb332bf9">here</a>:<br />(http://www.chipin.com/contribute/id/7a7c2418fb332bf9)<br /><br />Thanks so much!<br /><br />Cameron<br /></em>Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-33459471479336516392008-07-20T18:39:00.008-04:002008-07-20T19:01:00.254-04:00Top Ten Online Resources for Doc FilmmakersWhile there are plenty of other websites and blogs out there which have resources for independent documentary filmmakers, there are a few we've come across in the past year which we think are especially useful. They are listed in no particular order. <br /><br /><strong>(1) <a href="http://www.wildsound-filmmaking-feedback-events.com/writing-a-grant.html">How to Increase Your Chances of Getting a Grant</a></strong> <br />From Wildsound’s website. While this advice is fairly generic and you should always look at the specific requirements for any grant, this is probably one of the most succinct descriptions of the elements which belong in most grant proposals.<br /><br /><strong>(2) <a href="http://www.d-word.com/topics/show/141?pos=1">ITVS: Meet the Execs</a></strong><br /><strong>The D-Word</strong> has been putting together useful online forums on various topics of interest to doc-makers for years. One of the most beneficial in recent months was this Q&A with four leading executives from the <strong>Independent Television Service (ITVS)</strong> who explain the ins and outs of applying for funding from ITVS. <em>Note: You will have to sign up for the D-Word to read the forum, but it's free and easy.</em><br /><br /><strong>(3) Ask the Documentary Doctor</strong><br />You remember <strong>Fernanda Rossi’s </strong>column from the print version of <em><strong>The Independent.</strong></em> She always seemed to know exactly what challenge you were having with your film at just the right moment. Her sage advice can continue to be found online through <a href="www.der.org/community/doc-doctor.php">Documentary Educational Resources</a> and the new online version of <a href="http://www.independent-magazine.org/taxonomy/term/6"><em>The Independent</em></a>.<br /><br /><strong>(4) <a href="http://dbblock.typepad.com/around_the_block_doug_blo/2007/10/the-ten-rules-o.html">The Ten Rules of Personal Documentary Filmmaking</a></strong><br />We’ve screened and worked with so many films which have a personal element and found that these can be some of the most challenging to make - either because the filmmaker is ambivalent about putting himself/herself in front of the camera or goes to the other extreme and dominates the film at the expense of the greater story. There are a handful of filmmakers who have made a successful career out of telling personal stories and <strong>Doug Block</strong> (<em>51 Birch Street </em>and <em>Home Page</em>) is one of them.<br /><br /><strong>(5) and (6) Fair Use Resources</strong><br />Rights clearances and costs can often be the biggest nightmare for doc filmmakers, but perhaps nothing is more confusing than the issue of fair use. When and how can it be used? <strong>The Center for Social Media at American University </strong>is perhaps best known for their Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use, but their <a href="http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/fair_use/">website </a>has many more resources and examples which help define what can be considered Fair Use. And for filmmakers considering taking the Fair Use route, <strong>Stanford University’s Law School</strong> has launched a <a href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/projects/documentary-film-program">Documentary Film Program</a>, providing filmmakers with information about fair use, access to insurance for liability arising out of copyright litigation, and access to lawyers who will defend copyright claims pro bono or at reduced rates.<br /><br /><strong>(7) <a href="http://www.archive.org">Archive.org</a></strong><br />A wealth of moving images are available for download, the majority of which are free and have unrestricted access. Includes the <strong>Prelinger Archives </strong>of more than 60,000 ephemeral films, many of which are in the public domain.<br /><br /><strong>(8) <a href="http://edendale.typepad.com/weblog/2008/02/in-depth-the-25.html">25 Best Festivals for Documentary Films</a></strong><br /><strong>AJ Schnack’s</strong> <em>All These Wonderful Things </em>is one of about half a dozen must-read documentary blogs out there. We picked this entry from earlier this year because knowing which festivals are consider the A-list for documentaries is essential to helping to map out a festival strategy.<br /><br /><strong>(9) <a href="http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php">True Fans and True Films</a></strong><br /><strong>Kevin Kelly's</strong> must-read for those who want to go the self-distribution route or even those who plan to combine a more traditional path with grassroots outreach. An excellent primer on finding your audience.<br /><br /><strong>(10) <a href="http://www.peterbroderick.com/distributionbulletins/distributionbulletins.html">Peter Broderick’s Distribution Bulletins</a></strong><br />And in the same vein, <strong>Peter Broderick </strong>has some of the best advice out there for those who are navigating the wilds of distribution. While others are often pessimistic about the future of documentary as being a viable career for true independents, Broderick’s wealth of knowledge about independent success stories offers a bit of hope.<br /><br /><em>Know of other online resources you've found useful to making your film? Post them here. We only ask that you post websites or blogs that you've discovered rather than just promoting your own sites.</em>Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-62811998881563785042008-06-27T17:41:00.015-04:002008-06-29T17:00:05.442-04:00Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part III (the Conference)This is the last installment of my trilogy of dispatches from the SILVERDOCS Film Festival. I already gave my <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/06/ericas-dispatch-from-silverdocs-part-i.html">general impressions of the festival</a> and some of the <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/06/ericas-dispatch-from-silverdocs-part-ii.html">films I saw at the festival</a>. Now I conclude with some tidbits I took away from the International Documentary Conference which is a sidebar to the festival.<br /><br />As noted previously, I split my time between the festival, the conference, and some private meetings, so this is hardly a comprehensive guide to the conference. I was able to attend only five conference sessions: <br /><br /><strong>DocuClub Screening</strong> of work-in-progress <a href="http://silverdocs.com/festival/films/2008/docuclub-works-presents-stages/"><strong>STAGES</strong></a>: I'll refrain from commenting on this session too much since I was the moderator, but I will give a shout-out to <strong>Felix Endara</strong> at <a href="http://www.mediarights.org/docuclub/">DocuClub</a> and the filmmakers of the <a href="http://meerkatmedia.org/index.php?page_id=98">Meerkat Media Arts Collective</a>. Felix wrote a nice wrap-up of the session on the <a href="http://www.mediarights.org/docuclub/talk_back/talk_back_3_stages.php">DocuClub website</a>. Though the audience was relatively small (hey, it was a Tuesday afternoon), the people who made it to the screening gave excellent feedback and I too am curious to see what the Meerkats do with it. <br /><br />The first few panels I went to were underwhelming. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Does Public TV Have a Future?</span> dealt with the issue of public media at a very macro level, but really didn't shed new light on how this will impact independent documentary filmmakers. Similarly <strong>The Documentary In Action: Civically Engaged Media: A Look at Next Generation Marketing, Funding, Outreach and Distribution</strong> panel sounded more promising than it actually turned out to be -- at least if you were hoping to learn some new tips on how to get their films funded and distributed. I missed the first part of the session because the handy brochure-size schedule of the festival and conference did not have the correct start time (and I didn't think to look in the clunkier conference notebook). But I did get there in time to hear Sandy Herz from the <a href="http://www.skollfoundation.org/aboutskoll/index.asp"><strong>Skoll Foundation</strong></a> talking about how Skoll's emphasis has been on supporting social entrepreneurs to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots. But, in case you're a filmmaker thinking you are a have-not, you may need to look elsewhere since Skoll's focus is not on funding individual film projects, but on supporting large organizations (like the Sundance Institute and public television and radio entities). Given the audience for this panel, it seems like it might have made more sense to have someone from ITVS or another direct filmmaker-funding entity which wants a heavy outreach component; maybe even someone from Sundance to explain their <a href="http://docsource.sundance.org/dfp-blog/2008/06/20/stories-of-change-social-entrepreneurship-in-focus-through-documentary/">new initiative</a> funded by Skoll. The panel went on to feature some interesting (if somewhat depressing) statistics from Rick Allen, the Executive Producer of <strong>KICKING IT</strong>. He cited the statistics that, out of 9000 films submitted to the most recent Sundance Film Festival, only 118 were accepted. Less than 40 of those were documentaries -- of which only seven were bought for distribution. He also noted that, in 2007, only three documentaries grossed more than $1 million. But lest you think he was trying to be a downer to prospective doc-makers, his point really was that the system is broken. His point of view is that forcing the consumer to pay for a film upfront ultimately hurts creativity and experimentation and that he sees Web 3.0 as a way to blend the social networking tools of Web 2.0 with professional content. The next phase of online video will feature more curated programming than the chaos of YouTube. But what he didn't fully explain was how this can be economically viable for the filmmaker himself. Or at least he didn't explain it while I was there. The challenge of the conference schedule was that panels on mutually-themed topics often coincided or overlapped, so I had to skip the last part of this panel to head to another one.<br /><br />Thankfully the last few panels I went to all proved to be useful -- indeed, even inspirational -- for indies. <br /><br />There was a great session on pitching with <span style="font-weight:bold;">Cynthia Lopez</span> from <a href="www.pbs.org/pov/">POV, </a><span style="font-weight:bold;">Josh Green</span> from <a href="www.emergingpictures.com/ ">Emerging Pictures</a>, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mark Rabinowitz</span> from <a href="http://cinelan.com/ ">Cinelan</a>. The information they offered was not news to most doc filmmakers...<br /><br />* Know who you're pitching, including what kind of content they generally pick up (e.g., POV is for social issue documentaries, Cinelan only takes three minute shorts, etc.), any little tidbits about them personally which may help build a connection (without coming across as creepy), and how they prefer to be pitched (in person? by phone? e-mail? etc.)<br /><br />* Know what other films have been done on your topic and be ready to answer questions of how yours is unique? Anticipate difficult questions.<br /><br />* Know how to contain your pitch into a short package so you can "contaminate" others with your film's topic. Be clear on the perspective of the story.<br /><br />* Know that distributors view films as "one big bundle of risk," so be ready to answer questions which may show you already have a built-in audience or have done some test marketing. <br /><br />"Be positive throughout a pitch. Never say anything like 'I don't know if there's an audience for...'"<br /><br />...but they spent the bulk of the time actually taking pitches from audience members, asking good questions, and providing useful feedback. This was a breath of fresh air after years of attending other DC panels where programmers from Discovery and National Geographic basically say they can't take any pitches because of their requirement for filmmakers to sign legal forms basically giving away their right to complain if their pitch is not picked up but the network produces something similar. The only panel I ever went to where an exception was made was one where HBO's <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sara Bernstein</span> attended and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Victoria Bruce</span> made a passionate pitch for her work in progress <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.thekidnappingofingridbetancourt.com/">THE KIDNAPPING OF INGRID BETANCOURT</a></span>; the film ultimately screened on HBO. I'll be curious to see if any of the films pitched at SILVERDOCS find equal success.<br /><br />Though, of course, "success" is in the eyes of the beholder and is often very much in the control of the filmmakers themselves, albeit with a lot of time and effort. Nowhere was this more clear than at a case study session on <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.madeinla.com/">MADE IN L.A.</a></span> with filmmakers <span style="font-weight:bold;">Almudena Carracedo</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Robert Bahar</span> (who we featured in our <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org/interviews.htm#Houseparties">Docs In Progress Spring 2008 feature on houseparties</a>). Finally some down-to-earth advice on how independent filmmakers can effectively bring civic engagement into their plans for fundraising, marketing and distribution. Some of their tips:<br /><br />* <span style="font-weight:bold;">Don't be dissuaded by grant rejections. </span> They were initially rejected by some of the larger foundations. While it was frustrating, it also helped them look at other, more grassroots means of fundraising. By focusing on grassroots fundraising in the early years, they ultimately built their core audience and paved the way for the outreach once the film was complete.<br /><br />* <span style="font-weight:bold;">Clarify who your core audiences are and don't presume there may just be one.</span> In the case of MADE IN L.A., their core audiences included labor activists, Latino organizations, and women's organizations. By establishing connections with these organizations, they were able to hook in to smaller grants from foundations focused on shared issues. They were especially interested in looking at organizations which had good networks and were well organized.<br /><br />* <span style="font-weight:bold;">Keep a good database.</span> At every event, they had sign-up sheets not only to add people to their mailing list, but also to keep track of different levels of donors, who was interested in eventually purchasing the film, etc.<br /><br />* <span style="font-weight:bold;">Don't put all your eggs in one basket.</span> They went to the IFP Market and left with great spirits but empty pockets. Similarly, it took them three tries before they got money from ITVS.<br /><br />* <span style="font-weight:bold;">Don't think of production as being separate from distribution.</span> It is all towards the same goal. Too many filmmakers lose energy after the film is done, but outreach is where the real work begins (though of course it began long before the film was completed). In the year since MADE IN L.A. premiered at SILVERDOCS 2007, the filmmakers have been on a strenuous grassroots outreach campaign which has taken them around the country and around the world. They expect this campaign to continue for another year.<br /><br />* <span style="font-weight:bold;">Once the film is done, if possible, always have DVDs with you to sell</span> -- whether at festivals or outreach screenings. People are more likely to buy the film onsite rather than going to order from the website.<br /><br />Distribution expert <a href="http://www.peterbroderick.com/">Peter Broderick</a> moderated this panel and later made his own presentation on the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Cutting Edge of Distribution</span>, based on the experiences he has had working with more than 100 filmmakers on hybrid models of distribution. His presentation was a great addition to the information because he cited many examples of films which would not easily fit into the social-issue category that MADE IN L.A. does. Among them:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fastermovie.com/">FASTER</a>, about Motocross racing. Though the film had a limited theatrical release, it saved money on an expensive advertising campaign by only using online outreach. It managed to sell $13,000 in tickets for the first few days by reaching out to the core audience of Motocross fanatics who spread the word virally. Online DVD sales were even more amazing with the filmmaker doing his own fulfillment for a preview DVD which sold 13,000 DVDs within two months of release. New Video eventually sold 52,000 more DVDs of a 2 disc set collector's edition of the DVD.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.helveticafilm.com">HELVETICA</a></span>. Who could imagine that a film about typeface would be a sleeper success story? But there are a lot of typeface fanatics in this world and they helped the film make $60,000 in poster and T-shirt sales before the film was even released. The film premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival, played a number of other fests, and had a semi-theatrical run internationally. Like FASTER, it made money from two DVD editions.<br /><br /><a href="www.thesecret.tv/ ">THE SECRET</a>. Gosh, I never even knew that there was a movie before there was a book to make Oprah wide-eyed about the power of positive thinking. But, according to Broderick, I must be in the minority because the documentary pre-dated the book, involved some very slick online trailers which made their way around the Internet virally and drove people to the website where they could watch the film for $4.95 online or buy the DVD for $24.95. Interestingly, 90% of those who watched the film online also bought the DVD. It has sold more than 250,000 copies.<br /><br />Though some of us may cringe at using <span style="font-weight:bold;">THE SECRET</span> as a model of marketing, Broderick went on to cite and detail many other examples, including <span style="font-weight:bold;">1:6 RIGHT</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">THE FUTURE OF FOOD</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">IRAQ FOR SALE</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">NOTE BY NOTE</span>, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">KING CORN</span>. His key points:<br /><br />* Most successful films start off with an idea of their audience and then build and add audiences as they go. <br /><br />* Retain as much control over your film as possible. This does not necessarily mean that you need to self-distribute, but many filmmakers have found success with a hybrid model of distribution which allows them to split up the rights and retain as much of a revenue stream as possible.<br /><br />* Even for films which have traditional distributors, smart distributors should want filmmakers to sell films from their own website because more online activity can benefit sales all around. Broderick believes no filmmaker should have to pay more than $5 wholesale to their distributor to sell on their own website.<br /><br />* Be creative with ancillary materials. Signed posters. Soundtracks. T-Shirts. All these can boost sales on their own to build buzz ahead of a DVD release or as added bonuses for special edition DVDs at a higher price.<br /><br />* If you have a partnership with a community organization interested in the topic of your film, you can make a deal to sell them copies of the film at a lower cost which they can then in turn sell to their audience at a higher cost to make money for their cause.<br /><br />* Sometimes you have to unlearn the rules of distribution and work backwards. Think of <a href="www.foureyedmonsters.com/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Four-Eyed Monsters</span></a> which got its start on the Internet through video podcasts of six-minute episodes; created a theatrical market by promising to "four-wall" a screening in any city where more than 150 people said they would attend; eventually put the whole movie online for free on YouTube in exchange for some advertising revenue; eventually expanded to MySpace; and ended with a retail video and TV distribution deal.<br /><br />* Partnerships come in multiple forms. They can include everything from simple link exchanges to affiliate marketing to sponsoring houseparties to on-site screenings at conventions or meetings.<br /><br />* Websites need to be more than just a press kit. They need to have an idea bigger than just the film. There needs to be a clear persona. The content should be dynamic to keep people coming back. Blogs should focus on the issues and incorporate experts, characters, and/or user contributions. And, most of all, the online presence needs to be fun for the filmmaker.<br /><br />This last point was also covered in a panel about online presence, called <span style="font-weight:bold;">MARKETING BRAND YOU</span>, which I referenced in an <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/06/shoe-on-other-foot.html">earlier blog entry</a> since the panelists and audience members actually gave some very cogent feedback on the <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">Docs In Progress website</a>. Some of the more general points the panelists made:<br /><br />* Your website is your brand. It is your promise and your premise.<br /><br />* It should be a positive user-experience so it is key to think of who your users are and make the site as easy to navigate as possible for them.<br /><br />* Aim for social media optimization by linking to all your online presence spots and increasing your linkability. Make tagging and bookmarking easy, as exemplified by clicking the "share" button on <a href="http://beta1.epicfu.com/">Epicfu.com</a>.<br /><br />* Be transparent, honest, and helpful. Thank people who link to you with a message or a counter-link. Don't be afraid to link off your site for fear of losing readers. Search engines like Google actually reward sites with lots of links with higher ratings on the search engine list.<br /><br />* Make content travel with videos, PDFs, etc.<br /><br />* Why have your blog in a separate place from your website? Keep them together. (Yup, that's something which will definitely be changed in the revamp of Docs In Progress/Docs Interactive)<br /><br />All in all, the SILVERDOCS Conference offered plenty of food for thought and a welcome reality check to accompany the films in the festival. There are always critiques which could be made. For example, I do wish the education sidebar to the conference could have preceded or followed the conference itself, so I could have made time to go to some of those sessions on a topic about which I would like to know more. Time simply didn't permit it for me. And I do realize that it is difficult to put together sessions which are aimed at multiple audiences (my critique is coming from the perspective of an independent documentary filmmaker, but there are also programmers, funders, distributors, educators, academics, and others to please). But I would have to say that, while I would not say this year held the most energized festival program of the six SILVERDOCS I have attended, the conference continues to get stronger and stronger every year.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-50387863544495402162008-06-25T22:10:00.038-04:002008-06-29T17:01:42.170-04:00Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part II (The Films)Well, now that I've given you my <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/06/ericas-dispatch-from-silverdocs-part-i.html">general impressions of the festival</a>, here's a little bit more on what I thought of the film program. <br /><br />While SILVERDOCS never fails to impress with a combination of local and world premieres of buzz-worthy films, I actually try to make a point of seeing films which just look interesting and less likely to make it into theaters or television. So you won't find me writing about festival faves <span style="font-weight:bold;">MAN ON A WIRE</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">UP THE YANGTZE</span>, or <span style="font-weight:bold;">GONZO: THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON</span>. Nor will I write about <span style="font-weight:bold;">ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD</span> or <span style="font-weight:bold;">TROUBLE THE WATER</span> (though you can read my thoughts on them from my <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/04/ericas-report-from-full-frame.html">Full Frame</a> coverage) <br /><br />Instead let me start with three smaller films which are still resonating with me nearly a week later:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.en.lostholiday.com/film"><span style="font-weight:bold;">LOST HOLIDAY</span></a> was definitely my favorite of the festival. I was intrigued by the premise: a Czech tourist finds a suitcase in Sweden with 22 rolls of undeveloped film. He goes home, develops the film, and discovers snapshots of a group of Asian men posing in front of various idyllic scenes of Europe. He then works with filmmaker Lucie Kralova to track down the men to return the photos to them. Part detective story, part roadtrip, and part a reflection on how far global media has brought us together and yet left us disconnected, LOST HOLIDAY is probably one of the few films I saw which justified being more than 70 minutes long. It also reminds us that a documentary can be a mystery, a comedy, and a social commentary all in one.<br /><br />Another film which fit in with this theme of post-modern (dis)connection was Danish filmmaker Phie Ambo's <a href="http://www.dfi.dk/tidsskriftetfilm/60/mechanical.htm"><span style="font-weight:bold;">MECHANICAL LOVE</span></a>. I had not intended to see this film when I first went through the program, but was persuaded by a friend I hadn't seen in a while to join him for it. Expecting either a dull film about the latest scientific advances in robotics or a sleazy film about new Japanese sex toys, I was pleasantly surprised when the film focused instead on two very different personal stories which make us question whether technology is bringing us closer together or tearing us further apart. On the one hand, we have a scientist in Japan, building a "geminoid," a robot version of himself, complete with the same build, clothing, and facial expressions and movements. On the other, we have a woman in a nursing home in Germany who finds comfort in "Paro," a therapeutic robot which looks and sounds like a white, furry baby seal. She treats him like a pet, talking to him, stroking him, and even bringing him with her to group activities where his constant squealing annoys the other residents. While the filmmaker unfortunately was not able to attend the screening to discuss the important issues the film raises, the Japan Information Center did send Paro. While I am still dubious about the uses of such a technology beyond therapeutic use with those who are no longer lucid, I did find it strangely intriguing that "he" reacted to an ear scratching touch I use with my dog with the same type of pleasure. At $3,000 a pop, I am not sure Paro will be on the must-have list for Christmas this year, but I suspect some kind of cheap knockoff soon will be.<br /><br />The third film which really drew me in was <a href="http://www.stillfilms.org/pages/ff_seaview.html"><span style="font-weight:bold;">SEAVIEW</span></a>, a meditation on the changing face of Europe, as told through the story of a former holiday resort in Ireland which has become an asylum camp where Nigerians, Congolese, Kurds, and many others are required to stay as they wait to find out if they can stay in Ireland. Having lived in Ireland at a time when it was still a predominantly homogeneous (and innocently racist) society, I was naturally interested in the theme of the film. But it was the style which made the film memorable. Filmmakers Nicky Gogan and Paul Rowley come from a background of doing films for museum installations and SEAVIEW definitely reflects that in its lyrical style. While the film's pace could be off-putting to some, I found the beautiful images of the place all the more powerful set against the voiceover of asylum-seekers, some of whom did not want to be shown on camera.<br /><br />What puzzled me about this year's SILVERDOCS program is that the programmers opted to celebrate an important anniversary (40 years after 1968) rather than an important moment in time (2008, a year which promises to have one of the most talked-about election seasons since 1968). From the Opening Night film <span style="font-weight:bold;">ALL TOGETHER NOW</span> about the creative collaboration between the Beatles and Cirque du Soleil to the all-over-the place <span style="font-weight:bold;">REVOLUTION '68</span> to Charles Guggenheim and the Maysles' brothers respective classics <span style="font-weight:bold;">ROBERT KENNEDY REMEMBERED</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">GIMME SHELTER</span>, and an outdoor screening of another Maysles' film about the Beatles, it was Sixties Redux all week long. Yet, with the exception of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Spike Lee's</span> short about the 2000 election, <span style="font-weight:bold;">WE WUZ ROBBED</span>, there seemed to be a marked absence of films which directly addressed the U.S. political scene today. A very odd omission in an election year in the most political of cities.<br /><br />Come to think of it, I probably should mention something more about <span style="font-weight:bold;">Spike Lee</span> who was honored by the festival at their Guggenheim Symposium. Usually I love his fiction and non-fiction films, even when they aim beyond what is capable of being contained in a single film. Usually I love him, even when his schtick has him bordering on a caricature of himself. But he was a man of few words that night -- frustratingly so, and not effectively moderated -- so I don't see the point in wasting too many words of my own on a summary of his disengagement from the audience. Besides, <a href="http://edendale.typepad.com/weblog/2008/06/silverdocs-2008.html"><span style="font-weight:bold;">A.J. Schnack</span></a> has already done so so much more eloquently than I ever could. <br /><br />Other films I saw came back to that same theme again and again: who are we and can we connect to others? <span style="font-weight:bold;">CORRIDOR 8</span> took us on a roadtrip down the Balkan version of Route 66, a failed promise to connect Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania (Good luck with that). <span style="font-weight:bold;">HEADWIND</span> was about the spread of satellite dishes across Iran, holding the promise of news, culture, and maybe just a little titillation from the West. I saw an amazing shorts program which addressed everything from the shared joy of two Irish smokers to aging Hungarian sisters whose bond could not be broken by time or men to the close relationship between two outsiders, albeit one a man, the other a sheep. I wish I had more time to go to the other Shorts Programs since SILVERDOCS has traditionally excelled at the genre (and I am also losing my patience for features which have extended themselves to be that ideal {"festival," "theatrical" or "TV" length when they are not necessarily best served by being so long).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theenglishsurgeon.com/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">THE ENGLISH SURGEON</span></a> was the film everybody was buzzing about the whole week. Though the film also addresses issues of globalization and human connection as it follows a British brain surgeon on a mission to perform surgery in Ukraine, I simply never warmed up to the main character or understood why he does what he does. That said, the film does offer a unique window into the doctor-patient relationship and how that transcends borders. While the scene in the film everyone will likely remember involved a brain surgery done with the patient awake, the one which I will most remember is when the surgeon's Ukrainian counterpart struggles to tell one young and vibrant patient that she has an inoperable condition which she is unlikely to survive more than five years. Though it was not my personal favorite, I cannot fault the jury for giving the film the festival's Sterling World Feature Award.<br /><br />And finally, I should say something about <a href="http://www.americanteenthemovie.com/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">AMERICAN TEEN</span></a>. Although I selected most of my films as ones which I thought might be unlikely to be seen again anywhere near me, I simply had to see AMERICAN TEEN with an audience and filmmaker Q&A so that I could better understand all the fuss over it. It has gotten kudos from many as a "modern-day <span style="font-weight:bold;">BREAKFAST CLUB</span>," an inside look at 21st century teen angst, and the likely breakout non-fiction hit of the summer. From others, especially some documentary filmmakers, the film raises ethical questions into how certain scenes were edited and directed and how much the presence of the cameras impacted the characters' actions. It has been decried in some circles as being no better than the SoCal docu-soap-reality shows of MTV. But you know what? I don't understand the fuss. The film was neither here nor there for me. The post-screening discussion with the film's producer and one of its "stars" (Hannah, who is probably the character in the film who is the least stereotyped) was probably more interesting than the film itself, if only to dispel the myth about scenes being recreated. But the film is ultimately forgettable. Then again, maybe that's what my generation's parents said about <span style="font-weight:bold;">THE BREAKFAST CLUB</span>. It remains to be seen if the film will resonate with teens when it gets its theatrical release in the coming weeks. Actually my friend <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ethan Lincoln</span> (who is neither a filmmaker nor someone who spent his teen years in the U.S.) probably summed up the film best in his <a href="http://hardcoremovienut.blogspot.com/2008/06/screening-of-american-teen-at.html"> blog.</a> <br /><br /><br />AWARD WINNERS<br /> <br />Audience Award: HERB AND DOROTHY (Feature), THE TAILOR (Short)<br />Sterling US Feature Award: THE GARDEN (Special Jury Mention: TROUBLE THE WATER)<br />Sterling World Feature Award: THE ENGLISH SURGEON (Special Jury Mention: THE RED RACE )<br />Sterling Short Award: WHAT WOULD THE DROP KNOW ABOUT THAT? (Honorable Mention: GROUND FLOOR RIGHT and ONE DAY)<br />Music Documentary Award: THROW DOWN YOUR HEART <br />Cinematic Vision Award: THE ORDER OF MYTHS <br />WITNESS Award: PRAY THE DEVIL BACK TO HELL <br />American Film Market/SILVERDOCS Award: KASSIM THE DREAM <br />Writers Guild of America Documentary Screenplay Award: FORBIDDEN LIE$ <br />ACE Grant Winner: THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM<br /><br />Coming next: the final installment of my Silverdocs trilogy: <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/06/ericas-dispatch-from-silverdocs-part.html">a Conference Wrap-Up</a>.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-25127602036802214442008-06-22T20:56:00.017-04:002008-06-26T00:17:34.098-04:00Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part I (Overall Impressions)Another year, another <a href="http://www.silverdocs.com">Silverdocs</a>. For me, a non-prolific blogger and an even less prolific film fest traveler, it was one of two major doc festivals I'll get to this year (the other one being Full Frame, which <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/04/ericas-report-from-full-frame.html">I wrote about a few months ago</a>).<br /><br />Now in its sixth year, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Silverdocs </span>has been the DC-area festival which has refused to be relegated to a status of regional or local festival. In fact, it has aspired from the start to have a broader impact as one of the A-List festivals (or at least A-List for documentaries). In this, it has succeeded, drawing thousands of submissions from around the world and putting together a sidebar conference which draws industry from both the local suspects (<span style="font-weight:bold;">Discovery Networks</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">National Geographic</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">PBS</span>, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">CPB</span>) and the key players in New York, Los Angeles, and worldwide (though this year, the conference had far less representation from overseas than in past years, choosing instead to focus on a new strand for educators).<br /><br />The film festival continues to draw audiences in droves through a combination of film premieres, films which have gotten buzz from earlier plays at key festivals like <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sundance</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">IDFA</span>, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tribeca</span>, creative programs (like outdoor screenings), and doing an amazing job of having most of the filmmakers (and indeed, many of the main characters in the films) available for Q&A. It is this last point which is so key, especially for those of us who lead busy lives and need as much incentive as possible to head to a theater for a screening. The opportunity to interact with the creative minds and subjects of the films is what makes festivals stand out from regular theatrical screenings. Some in the film community are mourning the loss of theatrical release as a viable distribution method for many documentary films and the fact that film festivals are often serving as a substitute for theatrical release. While I understand the concerns over lost revenue to filmmakers, it is the interactivity which is only possible at a film festival which will drive more viewers to the theater. Indeed, there are some films which are best appreciated on a large screen. But when they are relegated to the smallest theater of the corporate art houses (like <span style="font-weight:bold;">Landmark</span>) or must be seen in a dilapidated repertory theater with maybe 10 people in the audience, I wonder sometimes if I'd have a better experience at home. Thankfully seeing a film in AFI's Silver Theatre with a full house abuzzing with excitement and the promise of a good Q&A is what makes Silverdocs worth taking a week's vacation in my hometown to attend every year.<br /><br />I found a lot of things were much improved this year. The decision by the programmers to hold passholder-only screenings (to ensure passholders do not get shut out of films) was a great idea. Not requiring passholders to get tickets for screenings was, on the one hand, a great thing to reduce inconvenience, but made it impossible for the passholder to decide how to split up the screenings (for example, inviting a spouse or friend to attend a screening now meant they had to buy a separate ticket rather than take one of the 10 passholders had been given in past years). But, all in all, a great system where I didn't get shut out of a single film. <br /><br />And yippeee, the Cinema Lounge was back in its rightful place just around the corner from the theaters, allowing for ease of access and a much more hub-bubby atmosphere. With the exception of a downpour on Opening Night, the weather cooperated too -- though out-of-towners could have done with warnings about DC summer dress necessities of layers -- since theaters often felt a 30-50 degrees cooler than the air on the street.<br /><br />And I always find Silverdocs an opportunity to see the ever-changing face of Silver Spring. Those who have read my comments from past years know that I am a big booster for the place since I grew up there, lived most of my 20s there, and have my own mixed feelings about its development now that I could never even hope to afford living there. Hearing visiting film folks referring to the streets in the immediate vicinity of the theater as reminding them of the Grove in Los Angeles (the open-air shopping center which has dwarfed the historic Farmer's Market) would surely make my late father -- a long-time Silver Spring anti-development advocate and former Los Angeleno, roll in his grave. But I was proud of a few filmmakers -- led by the Energy King <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sandi Dubowski</span> -- who ventured further afield in search of downtown Silver Spring's amazingly diverse dining options. And, even in the Grove-like fake mainstreet of former real street Ellsworth Avenue, it was a joy to see the life of what is still one of the most diverse communities in the DC area: kids playing in the fountain, teenagers hanging out at night, and humans of all colors, classes, and backgrounds sharing a space in real life, real time, not just on the screen.<br /><br />Gosh, I haven't even begun to collect my thoughts on the films and conference. But I have a lot to say. Next up, <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2008/06/ericas-dispatch-from-silverdocs-part-ii.html">my thoughts on the films...</a>Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-88671238917869472852008-06-21T19:16:00.011-04:002008-06-21T19:53:34.169-04:00Shoe On the Other Foot<span style="font-style:italic;">From <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">Docs In Progress</a> co-founder Erica Ginsberg who has been attending the <a href="http://www.silverdocs.com">SILVERDOCS Film Festival and Conference</a> all week (and promises a full dispatch will be posted soon)...</span><br /><br />I attended an early morning panel session today focused on building an online presence. The panelists were <a href="http://www.johnbell.typepad.com/">John Bell</a>, the Managing Director/Executive Creative Director of the Creative Studio at the Ogilvy Public Relations firm and two professors from American University (<a href="http://www.soc.american.edu/content.cfm?id=274">Amy Eisman </a>who is the School of Communication's Director of Writing Programs, and <a href="http://www.davidandrewjohnson.com/">David Johnson</a> who is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication. <br /><br />After sharing some excellent ideas (which I will detail more in my full dispatch later this week), the panelists asked the audience to shout out any film-related websites that they visit regularly. Much to my surprise, someone shouted out <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">Docs In Progress</a></span> (and though it was someone known to me, she definitely wasn't a ringer). Well, lo and behold, the panelists brought up the website on the screen and proceeded to offer some constructive criticism, buoyed by additional comments from the audience. So useful!<br /><br />This got me to thinking: Here we are, a film organization whose most visible program is putting on work in progress film screenings, encouraging documentary filmmakers to look outside themselves and their inner circle for a reality check on their almost-completed films. And yet we are about to revamp our website and we have been brainstorming new ideas without any input from the outside. So maybe it is time for the shoe to go on the other foot and us to look to you -- our audience, in all its incarnations -- to let us know what you would like to see on our website. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">What do you like about it?<br /> <br />What do you think could be improved? <br /><br />What comments do you have in terms of content? Design? Navigatability (if that's a word)?<br /><br />How did you find out about the site in the first place?<br /><br />What do you go to it for?<br /><br />What would drive you to return to it or recommend it to your friends?</span><br /><br />I suppose I should start this discussion with the two questions we always ask of our filmmakers, slightly altered for our website:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Why do we have this website?</span> To raise awareness of our public programs, be a calling card for all our services (the public workshops, private consultations, etc.), and to be an information resource. Since the website houses our newsletter and a link to this blog, we see it as a program in and of itself and something which we would like folks to visit on a regular basis.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Who do we see as our core audience? </span> We have several audiences who use the Docs In Progress website. They include emerging documentary filmmakers, film students, more experienced documentary filmmakers, and documentary film aficionados. We also know that our site is perused by distributors, film festivals, academics, and NGOs in search of relevant content because we will get e-mails from them, asking to be put in touch with our alumni filmmakers. <br /><br />We have lots of thoughts in mind for the "new and improved" Docs In Progress website, but I'll stop right here because I want to know if we are on the right track or if there may be some other ideas out there that we hadn't even considered.<br /><br />Please check out our website at <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">http://www.docsinprogress.org</a> and feel free to post your thoughts publicly in the comments section here or send an e-mail directly to <a href="mailto:contact@docsinprogress.org">contact@docsinprogress.org</a> with any constructive thoughts you have on the website. It will be much appreciated.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-71358539501371314222008-06-19T16:08:00.008-04:002008-06-19T16:18:56.717-04:00More on grassroots fundraising at SilverdocsIf you enjoyed our recent <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org/interviews.htm">article about houseparty fundraising</a>, you may have an opportunity to meet two of the filmmakers featured in the article. Almudena Carracedo and Robert Bahar will be presenting a case study on the fundraising strategy for MADE IN L.A. at the SILVERDOCS International Film Conference this Friday, June 20 at 3:45 pm. Open to conference passholders.<br /><br />More on the session at <a href="http://www.silverdocs.com/idc/events/made-l-funding-case-study/">http://www.silverdocs.com/idc/events/made-l-funding-case-study/</a>Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-34728796757989733622008-06-15T19:21:00.009-04:002008-06-15T20:13:38.758-04:00Docs In Progress Alums Rock!While this blog has been set up primarily to provide commentary on the world of documentary, we can't help but take a moment to provide some shameless promotion for a number of alums of the <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">Docs In Progress</a> programs. As many of you already know, we screen documentary works in progress in Washington DC six times a year and in Baltimore, MD once a year and also provide one-on-one customized story consultations to indie doc-makers. Ever wonder what's become of some of those films? Well's here's a sample...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">BALLOU</span> (an alum of our one-on-one story advising services) is making its theatrical debut in Washington DC in June 2008 with an exclusive run at Landmark's E Street Theatre. <span style="font-style:italic;">Washington Post</span> critic <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ann Hornaday</span> has called the film "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=cityguide/profile&id=1150221&categories=Movies&nm=1#editorialReview">lively and affecting</a>." The film looks at a year in the life of Washington DC's Ballou High School's famed marching band and how students and teachers use the power of music to deal with the challenges of coming of age in an at-risk neighborhood. Docs In Progress will be sponsoring one of the screenings for BALLOU's premiere week with team-members <span style="font-weight:bold;">Adele Schmidt</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sam Hampton</span> introducing the film and leading a Q&A with filmmakers <span style="font-weight:bold;">Michael Patrei</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Casey Callister</span>. More on the film <a href="http://www.balloumovie.com/">here.</a> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">THE MATADOR</span> (rough cut screened in June 2007) by <span style="font-weight:bold;">Stephen Higgins</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Nina Seavey</span> continues to dazzle critics through its festival screenings. The film, about legendary Spanish bullfighter "El Fandi," premiered in competition at the <span style="font-weight:bold;">South by Southwest Film Festival</span> in Austin in March 2008 and screened at <span style="font-weight:bold;">FilmFest DC</span> a month later. National film critic <span style="font-weight:bold;">Jeffrey Lyons</span> called the film "a thrilling look at Spain's most passionate art." <span style="font-weight:bold;">Jaman.com </span>called it "fabulous." And noted film blogger <span style="font-weight:bold;">AJ Schnack</span> pegged it as one of the best films of the year so far, calling it "gorgeously photographed, tightly edited and featuring an impressive score." More on the film <a href="http://www.elfandifilm.com/">here</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">BLACK DIAMONDS</span> (rough cut screened in July 2006) by <span style="font-weight:bold;">Catherine Pancake </span>was featured in the <span style="font-weight:bold;">2008 Documentary Fortnight at the Museum of Modern Art</span> in New York. The film, about the impact of mountaintop removal on people and the environment in Appalachian West Virginia, has played dozens of festivals across the country, won awards from the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Paul Robeson Fund </span>and the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Spadaro Documentary Award</span>, and is available for purchase from <span style="font-weight:bold;">Bullfrog Films</span>. More on the film <a href="http://www.blackdiamondsmovie.com">here</a>.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />THE FIXER</span> (rough cut screened in October 2007) by <span style="font-weight:bold;">Aaron Rockett</span> premiered at the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Santa Barbara International Film Festival</span> and has gone on to play the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Newport International Film Festival</span> in Rhode Island. This short film looks at the life of a journalist fixer in post-9/11 Afghanistan. More on the filmmaker <a href="http://www.thefullmonte.com/">here</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">UNRAVELING MICHELLE</span> (rough cut screened in October 2007) by <span style="font-weight:bold;">Dan Shaffer</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Michelle Farrell</span> won Best Local Film in Shaffer's hometown of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania at the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Artsfest Film Festival</span> where Farrell had a chance to receive praise from fellow Baltimore-native <span style="font-weight:bold;">John Waters</span>. The film, a personal story about Farrell's journey from man to woman and how this impacts her friends, family, and place in the indie film world, premiered at the <span style="font-weight:bold;">DC Independent Film Festival</span> and has also screened at the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Rosebud Film Festival</span>, one of the best established independent film festivals in the Mid-Atlantic. More on the film <a href="http://www.unravelingmichelle.com/">here</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">REDEMPTION STONE: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF TOM LEWIS</span> (rough cut screened in January 2007) by <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tom Dziedzic</span> won Best Documentary at the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Cape Fear Independent Film Festival</span> in Wilmington, North Carolina. The film about the life and legacy of an African-American policeman, has also screened at the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Atlanta Film Festival</span> and was one of the few short documentaries chosen for the 2007 <span style="font-weight:bold;">IFP Market</span> in New York. More on the film <a href="http://www.redemptionstone.net/">here</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">BEAUTY: IN THE EYES OF THE BEHELD</span> (rough cut screened in January 2008) by <span style="font-weight:bold;">Liza Figueroa</span> was screened at the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Indie Spirit Film Festival</span> in Colorado Springs. The film looks at society's vision of female beauty by talking to ordinary women who have been called beautiful. A trailer for the film can be seen <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=NxVqF8Ub0kQ">here.</a><br /><br />Congratulations to these and our many other Docs In Progress alumni. May all your films continue to thrive!Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-36267451136068209312008-04-20T13:53:00.003-04:002008-04-20T14:00:48.149-04:00Documentary Filmmaker As Project Manager<span style="font-style:italic;">Docs In Progress' newest partner <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sam Hampton</span> 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. </span><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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: <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Project Mission</span><br />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 <span style="font-weight:bold;">HOOP DREAMS</span> 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 <span style="font-weight:bold;">SICKO</span> 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.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Scope of the Project</span><br />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. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Project Approach</span><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Project Time Frame</span><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Risk</span><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />© April 2008, Docs In Progress<br />This article may not be reprinted without permission.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-71827400574565943492008-04-08T08:09:00.025-04:002008-04-08T11:42:41.691-04:00Erica's Report from Full Frame<em>In an occasional series of reports from documentary-laden film festivals, <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org"><strong>Docs In Progress </strong></a>co-founder <strong>Erica Ginsberg </strong>recently attended the <a href="http://www.fullframefest.org/"><strong>Full Frame Film Festival</strong> </a>in Durham, North Carolina from April 3-6, 2008.</em><br /><br />This was my third time at <strong>Full Frame </strong>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 <strong>Nancy Buirski</strong> 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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So I tried to choose wisely, based partially on the buzz and more often than not, just on my own interests.<br /><br />The opening night film was <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889671/"><strong>TRUMBO</strong></a>, 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 <strong>Joan Allen</strong>, <strong>Liam Neeson</strong>, <strong>Donald Sutherland</strong>, <strong>David Strathairn</strong>, and an unforgettably hilarious <strong>Nathan Lane</strong>. Allen joined director <strong>Peter Askin</strong> and Trumbo's son <strong>Christopher </strong>for a Q&A following the screening, marred by microphone difficulties.<br /><br />Technical problems were few and far between, but the other most unfortunate one was at the screening of the new Werner Herzog film, <a href="http://encountersfilm.com/"><strong>ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD</strong></a>, 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.<br /><br />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, <strong><a href="http://www.theaxeintheattic.com/">THE AXE IN THE ATTIC</a></strong>. This film looks at the diaspora created by the hurricane by taking us on a road trip with filmmakers <strong>Lucia Small</strong> and <strong>Ed Pincus</strong> 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.<br /><br />So, with this as a backdrop, I saw a second Katrina film,<strong><a href="http://elsewherefilms.org/">TROUBLE THE WATER</a></strong> . This film was a bit of a 180 from <strong>AXE IN THE ATTIC </strong>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.<br /><br />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. <strong><a href="http://bakhshim.com/films.html">TEHRAN HAS NO MORE POMEGRANATES!</a> </strong> 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. <br /><br />In a very different vein, <strong><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1157609/">BE LIKE OTHERS</a> </strong>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 <strong>A JIHAD FOR LOVE</strong> (which has been playing the international festival circuit, but, as far as I know, has yet to premiere in the United States), <strong>BE LIKE OTHERS</strong> will surely create discussion and controversy around the topic of gender and sexuality in the Islamic world.<br /><br /><strong>BE LIKE OTHERS</strong> was paired with <strong><a href="http://www.joshfilm.com/fooe/">FLYING ON ONE ENGINE</a></strong>, 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 <strong>Mother Teresa </strong>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.<br /><br />Being from Washington DC, U.S. politics is always of interest and the festival marked the premiere of <strong><a href="http://www.boogiemanfilm.com/">BOOGIE MAN</a></strong>, a film about a unique character in recent American politics, <strong>Lee Atwater</strong>. While some have wondered why this film would premiere at a festival like <strong>Full Frame </strong>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), <strong>BOOGIE MAN's </strong>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, <strong>Karl Rove.</strong><br /><br />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, <strong>Full Frame </strong>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.<br /><br /><strong>AWARD WINNERS</strong><br />Anne Dellinger Grand Jury Award — "Trouble the Water" <br />Special Jury Award — "Man on Wire" <br />Full Frame Jury Award for Best Short — "City of Cranes" <br />Full Frame Audience Award — "Man on Wire" <br />Center for Documentary Studies Filmmaker Award — "Lioness" <br />The Charles E. Guggenheim Emerging Artist Award — "In A Dream" <br />Honorable Mention — "Up the Yangtze" <br />Full Frame Inspiration Award — "At the Death House Door" <br />Full Frame President's Award — "Summerchild" <br />Full Frame Spectrum Award — "The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)" <br />Honorable Mention — "Up the Yangtze" <br />Full Frame Women In Leadership Award — "Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai" <br />Full Frame/Working Films Award — "Please Vote for Me" and "Trouble the Water" <br />The Kathleen Bryan Edwards Award for Human Rights — "Trouble the Water"Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-18354067146282745522008-03-05T09:18:00.003-05:002008-03-05T09:24:11.134-05:00IFP Documentary Rough Cut LabWhile 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:<br /><br />IFP INDEPENDENT FILM LABS – Call for Entries<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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/labsDocs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-57020158229045202482008-01-21T11:45:00.000-05:002008-01-21T13:53:16.097-05:00A Polar Opposite Approach to Fundraising: Paul Devlin and BLASTFor regular readers of the <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">Docs In Progress website</a> and the <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/">Docs Interactive blog</a>, 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 <a href="docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-find-funding-for-your.html">resources for fundraising</a> and we've also shared the wisdom of <a href="http://docsinprogress.blogspot.com/2007/02/robert-greenwalds-approach-to-outreach.html">Robert Greenwald</a> in connecting funding and outreach strategies, and provided the perspective of <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org/interviews.htm">Trinh Duong</a> 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.<br /><br />That took us to <span style="font-weight:bold;">Paul Devlin</span>. He is an Emmy-winning editor whose first documentary <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.slamnation.com/">SlamNation</a></span> 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, <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.powertripthemovie.com/index2.html">Power Trip</a></span>, 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 <span style="font-style:italic;">Independent Lens</span>. With a track record like this, Devlin would seemingly be the poster child for an easy road to funding.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: First of all, tell us a little bit about you and your background as a documentary filmmaker. </span> <br /><br />I started making Super 8 films in junior high school. My first documentary I made while a student at the University of Michigan. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Rockin’ Brunswick </span>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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />When I moved to New York, I started doing independent projects again. The first was a short fiction feature called <span style="font-weight:bold;">The Eyes of St. Anthony</span>. 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. <br /><br />My documentaries <span style="font-weight:bold;">SlamNation</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Power Trip</span> 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: And now you are working on a film called <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.blastthemovie.com">BLAST</a></span>. 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.</span> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST </span>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? <span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST </span>reveals the human side of scientific pursuit – the daily frustrations, the enormous sacrifices, the catastrophic failures and the transcendent triumphs. <br /><br />Mark casually invited me to document the launch of his new telescope, <span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST</span>, 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. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST </span>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. <br /><br />The goal of <span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST </span>is to tell a great story and reveal, from the inside, the fascinating lives of scientists. <span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST </span>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. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">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? </span><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: More specifically, you are working with a website called <a href="http://www.artistshare.com"><span style="font-weight:bold;">ArtistShare</span></a> 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?</span><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />My producer Claire Missanelli and I approached ArtistShare with <span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST </span>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 <a href="www.blastshare.com">website </a>through them. They have been great to work with, very supportive. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">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?</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: So who are the typical participants and how have they come upon the project?</span><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">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? </span><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">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? </span><br /><br />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! <br /><br />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. <br /><br />With <span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST</span>, we have still had to use traditional methods of funding. Nick Fraser, commissioning editor of BBC’s <span style="font-style:italic;">Storyville </span>liked my film <span style="font-weight:bold;">Power Trip</span> so much that he funded <span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST </span>early. This eventually attracted commissions from Discovery Canada, Swedish TV and Finnish TV. <span style="font-weight:bold;">BLAST </span>also received my first grant ever, from the New York State Council of the Arts. <br /><br />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 <span style="font-style:italic;">Storyville</span> 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">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? <br /></span><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">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? </span><br /><br />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. <br /><br />But if you have that personality, I recommend <a href="http://www.warshawski.com/books.html">Morrie Warshawski’s books</a>, <span style="font-style:italic;">Shaking the Money Tree</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">The Fundraising Houseparty. <br /></span><br />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. <br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Q: What do you see as the future outlook for documentary? </span><br /><br />I see the further blurring of the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction in “documentaries,” as filmmakers broaden the boundaries of storytelling using nonfictional material. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">To learn more about BLAST, including an update on screenings of the finished film, visit its website at <a href="http://www.blastthemovie.com">www.blastthemovie.com</a>. Its ArtistShare site is at <a href="http://www.blastshare.com ">www.blastshare.com </a><br /></span><br /><br />© January 2008, Docs In Progress<br />This article may not be reprinted without permission.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-77306489937480103192007-12-30T13:40:00.000-05:002007-12-30T13:55:30.177-05:00A New Year, a New OrganizationThose of you who are regular readers of this blog may know that Docs Interactive is a program of <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">Docs in Progress</a>, an organization based in Greater Washington DC which focuses on empowering independent documentary filmmakers to create and cultivate their projects.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org/upcoming_programs.htm">join us</a> to see BEAUTY: IN THE EYES OF THE BEHELD and LEARNING FROM JAMES. <br /><br />We will also be partnering with Nomadsland.com on a <a href="http://nomadsland.com/content/view/60/158/">special edition of Docs in Progress</a> 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).<br /><br />We recently set down roots in documentary capital Silver Spring, Maryland. Our new address is <span style="font-weight:bold;">8607 Second Avenue, Suite 402-E, Silver Spring, MD 20910</span>. 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.<br /><br />We are also thrilled to welcome <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sam Hampton</span> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Thanks for reading and stay tuned...<br /><br />Happy New Year!Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-4229416147274312812007-12-19T11:52:00.000-05:002007-12-19T12:14:23.365-05:00Doc HappeningsYes, 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...<br /><br />First up, everything you've ever wanted to know about <strong>ITVS funding </strong> for both U.S. and international filmmakers can be found on a <a href="http://www.d-word.com/topics/show/141?read=new">special online conference </a>this week on the <strong>D-Word Community</strong>. 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.<br /><br /><strong>Working Films</strong>, 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 <a href="http://www.workingfilms.org/index2.html">website of Working Films</a>.<br /><br />And it's not too early to register for <strong>Making Your Media Matter</strong>, the annual conference sponsored by the <strong>Center for Social Media </strong>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 <a href="http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/mymm/">this website</a>.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-81526940698214604222007-11-02T10:27:00.000-04:002007-11-02T10:33:57.714-04:00Documentaries to Revisit: Iraq in Fragments<em>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.</em><br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />2. Access to the characters is key to tell a compelling story. <br /><br />3. The early determination of the stylistic approach (how to tell the story) helps to set the path for the whole film. <br /><br /><strong>Order in the chaos</strong><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><strong>Access to characters</strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><strong>Stylistic Approach</strong><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />© 2007, Docs in Progress<br />This article may not be reprinted without permission.Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33539205.post-81694762315164698582007-10-13T11:44:00.000-04:002007-10-15T08:46:06.276-04:00Marketing MasteryOne of our first blog entries here on Docs Interactive was all about documentary websites being a vital tool in helping to get the word out about your film even long before it is complete. But let’s say your film is done and you are ready to start applying to festivals and create some buzz about your film.<br /><br />First, a very important point: No film is ever accepted to a festival or by a distributor or broadcaster simply because it came in gorgeously-presented packaging. If the story of the film isn’t there, no amount of perfect press kits, lovely loglines, or stunning stills are going to make up for that fact. So this is not a recipe for getting a press kit to make up for a less than well-executed film.<br /><br />But if you have an amazing documentary that is likely to have a healthy run on the festival circuit or is a serious contender for television or a theatrical release, you cannot live by the film alone. Your job is to help make the life of the programmers, broadcasters, and distributors as easy as possible. You may want them to do the work for you, but ultimately you are your best advocate and need to showcase your film in its best light possible.<br /><br />Here’s a dirty little secret: Festival programmers have very short memories (having just finished up programming more than 60 films for a small festival, I have discovered new limits to the synapses in my brain just to keep the titles straight). A festival programmer may be working solo or with a large team of paid staff or volunteer screeners. Even if your film is selected, it has likely been chosen from at least a few hundred entries (or a few thousand if you are talking top-tier festivals). By the time the programmer is tasked with writing up the films for the catalogue, she will not retain every detail about what was viewed. So she will return to your materials to refresh her memories. In some cases, she may crib directly from the synopsis you have sent. So you had better make that synopsis count because it may very well be the text you see word-for-word in a festival catalogue or a TV program website. You want it to capture what your film is about without giving the story away. <br /><br />How to study good synopses? Take a look at the online catalogues of film festivals you admire or peruse a site like <a href="http://www.mediarights.org/film/">Mediarights </a>and see which film descriptions jump out at you and make you want to see THAT film. Then look at YOUR film. Start with the journalistic <strong>Who?</strong> <strong>What?</strong> <strong>Where?</strong> and <strong>When?</strong> Then branch out to the <strong>Who Cares?</strong> What’s the story? Where and when is it happening? Who’s the character(s)? What is at stake for him/her/them/it? You may think your film is the best thing since sliced bread, but what is that makes it stand apart? Why would I choose to spend time/money/brainpower on watching your film? How can you get me to see it without giving away the ending? Convince me. <br /><br />So how long should a synopsis be? While I would love to say, “As long as it takes to grab me,” you do have to take into consideration limited print space. <a href="http://www.withoutabox.com/">Withoutabox</a>, the online film festival submission program, got it right when they created a means to offer different lengths of the synopsis. Even if you don’t use Withoutabox, give programmers the maximum flexibility by offering different variations on the synopsis. A one sentence logline could make it into a press release on the festival or a TV guide blurb while a 30-word version might make it into a small printed program and a 60-word version on to a website or into a festival catalogue. <br /><br />While a synopsis is invaluable in representing your film, there are a lot of other materials which can be invaluable in a press kit or other marketing materials. To see an example of a standout presskit, take a look at the film which is <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org/reviews.htm#IIF">reviewed </a>in our latest newsletter, <em><a href="http://www.iraqinfragments.com/press/IraqInFragments_Presskit.pdf">Iraq in Fragments</a></em>. And here’s a run-down of some of the things you should include:<br /><br /><strong>Stills</strong><br />You’d be amazed how many times we request a still from filmmakers for a <a href="http://www.docsinprogress.org">Docs in Progress</a> workshop and we get sent a postcard or a poster or a posed image of the characters from the film. A “still” refers to a high quality still image from the film which represents that film and can be used in press articles and on websites. No text. No titles. Just an image which speaks a thousand words. While I’ve just spent a few paragraphs saying it is the synopsis or logline that must capture attention, let’s remember that film is about visuals. The festivalgoer’s eye is going to go straight to the image, so pick one wisely. Although screen captures are becoming more and more professional-looking with advances in digital technology, we’d recommend making the investment to have a professional photographer snapping a few shots at the same time you are filming. Some filmmakers choose to have stills downloadable on their website. Others put them on a CD or even print copies for a festival.<br /><br /><strong>Production Photos</strong><br />While stills sell the film, production photos of the director at work on the set or the characters clearly being filmed can sometimes be useful supplement to scenes from the film.<br /><br /><strong>Credits/Bios</strong><br />Credits can consist of a single sheet or webpage with the principal credits for the film. You should also include a bio of the director and, where requested or helpful, of other principal contributors (producer, editor, cinematographer, star narrator or music, etc.). While filmography lists are sometimes useful (and some festivals may actually request this format), I’m partial to a bio of 2-3 paragraphs because it can more easily be cribbed for a festival catalogue of they are include filmmaker bios. Once again, the easier you make life for the festival programmers, the better your film will look in the process. <br /><br /><br /><strong>Director’s Statement</strong><br />I have mixed feelings about Director’s Statements. At their best, they provide a window into the motivations and challenges of the filmmaker. At their worst, they are an exercise in navel-gazing or tell us what we are supposed to feel about a film instead of letting us watch it and judge it for ourselves. <br /><br />If you are planning to do a Director’s Statement, it might be helpful to have a friend or another filmmaker interview you and then transcribe the interview to help put it together into a statement. At its most basic, it should give some insight into why you made the film. What was your motivation? What was production like? How did you meet your characters? Did you have any amusing, touching, or bizarre experiences while you were making the film? For inspiration, look at the filmmaker interviews done for the films which appear in PBS’ <a href="http://www.pbs.org/pov/">POV series </a>films. <br /><br /><strong>Other Items to Include, if Applicable</strong><br /><br />• <strong>List of festivals </strong>and other venues screened, including notations of any awards.<br />• <strong>Press reviews</strong> and/or quotes from well-known or well-regarded people or publications.<br />• <strong>Posters</strong>: Festivals love posters since it helps them promote their festivals. They are well worth the investment, but only send them after you have been accepted. Don’t expect to get them back at all or in good condition.<br />• <strong>Postcards</strong>: As with posters, only send these after you are accepted. Include space on your postcards to paste stickers with your screening information. And always bring more with you if you are attending a festival, since they may all be gone by the time the festival starts.<br />• <strong>Press Outreach Materials</strong>: If you are a super control-freak like yours truly, sometimes it helps to get that energy out by sending the festival your own press release (they may either ignore it or grab a line or two to use in their own press outreach). Also, if they are a larger festival with its own press section, you should check with them about sending extra screener tapes and/or a three minute scene which can be easily used by local TV media. <br />• <strong>Script of Your Film</strong>: Foreign film festivals or broadcasters may request this if they are going to provide subtitles, simultaneous interpretation, or dubbing.<br /><br />Here’s a tip with marketing materials that is easy to overlook: identification. Make sure to put your name, your contact info, and the name of your film on EVERY page of your press kit and on the back of your photos if you are sending hard copies. Pages get easily lost or re-ordered in festival offices which are often staffed by a rotating cast of characters. Make sure a festival has all the following information for you: name, phone, e-mail, website for the film, distribution company address, and the filmmaker's home address (if different) for those rare festivals which might actually consider flying you in. <br /><br />The bottom line of press kits and marketing materials is that, while they can’t make a bad film look good, they can make a great film look like the best film out there. <br /><br />© 2007, Docs in Progress (authored by Erica Ginsberg)Docs In Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491721371586949274noreply@blogger.com0