Docs Interactive

Blog Has Moved - Update Your Subscription, Feeds, and Blogrolls

2009-01-04T23:13:00.003-05:00

Docs Interactive, the blog of Docs In Progress co-founder Erica Ginsberg, has moved. It is now located within the Docs In Progress website at http://www.docsinprogress.org/blog/. Please update your subscription, feeds, and blogrolls accordingly.

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).

In Memory of Brent Hurd

2008-12-06T21:17:00.006-05:00

In 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.

A Facebook Memorial page 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 Brent's website.

A sad time not only for the DC documentary community, but for many around the world whose lives Brent touched.

An update from Paul Devlin on ArtistShare

2008-11-28T12:37:00.002-05:00

In January we featured an interview with Paul Devlin, the director of BLAST! The article focused on Devlin's experience using ArtistShare as a form of alternative financing for the film.

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 DOX Magazine about his experience with ArtistShare and some of the lessons he's learned about this approach to grassroots funding.

Docs In Progress returns to Baltimore this Thursday

2008-10-18T23:12:00.002-04:00

This 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:

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.

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.

More information on the program and tickets here.

Review: Religulous

2008-10-18T23:06:00.004-04:00

Another reprint from the Docs In Progress website...

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.

RELIGULOUS by Larry Charles
(Reviewed by Erica Ginsberg)

As this goes to print, the film Religulous 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 Borat), 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.

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 Religulous should be seen as an example of an ineffective documentary.

I say this without prejudice against the film’s message or its messenger. I watch Maher’s HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher, 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.

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.

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 Bowling for Columbine, 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 Sicko, 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.

Religulous, 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.

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 Religulous 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).

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.

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 Religulous 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.

The irony of Religulous 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.

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

The Art of the Elevator Pitch

2008-10-18T22:55:00.006-04:00

Soon 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.

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...

Getting in On the Ground Floor: the Art of the Elevator Pitch
(Interview by Erica Ginsberg, Fall 2008)

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?

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.

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.

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.

Doug Block is an award-winning New York-based documentary director, cameraman, and producer whose most recent film 51 Birch Street 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 Home Page and has produced, co-produced some of the most acclaimed films of the past two decades, including A Walk Into the Sea: Danny Williams and the Warhol Factory (2007), Jupiter’s Wife (1995), and Silverlake Life (1993). Block is also the founder and co-host of The D-Word, a worldwide online community of documentary professionals.

Aviva Kempner 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 The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg, 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 Partisans of Vilna and wrote the narration for the Academy Award-nominated documentary Promises to Keep. She is currently at work on Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg, a feature-length documentary about television sitcom pioneer Gertrude Berg (segments shown at Docs In Progress in 2005).

Q: What are the elements of an effective elevator pitch?

Doug Block: 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.

Aviva Kempner: Seizing the moment, talking fast and with a concise purpose and having the chutzpah to do it. Then getting contact information to follow up.

Q: What do you need to know about the person to whom you are pitching?

Doug Block: 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.

Aviva Kempner: 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.

Q: What's a big no-no when you make the pitch?

Aviva Kempner: You get their prior work or their name wrong or mention their enemies to them.

Doug Block: 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.

Q: How important is it to know what it is you want from the pitch?

Doug Block: 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."

Aviva Kempner: Since I always need funding, that is what want from a pitch.

Q: Tell us about an experience you had with a successful elevator pitch. (It doesn't necessarily have to have been in an elevator).

Doug Block: 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.

Aviva Kempner: 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.

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?

Aviva Kempner: 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.

Doug Block: 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.

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?

Aviva Kempner: 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.

Doug Block: 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.

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

Docs In Progress Trailer Night in DC September 26

2008-09-19T10:46:00.009-04:00

It 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.

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.

WHEN?
Friday, September 26, 2008 from 7:00-10:00 pm

WHERE?
Jack Morton Auditorium
(on the campus of George Washington University)
805 21st Street, NW (21st and H Streets)
Washington DC
Close to Foggy Bottom Metro and garage parking. Limited street parking free after 6:30.

HOW MUCH?
$5 suggested donation to cover overhead expenses (cash only, at the door)

WHAT'S SHOWING?
We'll be screening the following trailers (not necessarily in this order):

Murphy's Gambit: A Chess Hustler's Story
by Andre Dahlman
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.

SPONG: Life and Times of a Radical Bishop
by Hugh Drescher
An Episcopal Bishop takes on old beliefs in fighting for the church's inclusion of minorities, women, and homosexuals.

Imani: a Story of Faith
by Taylor Baxter
Passing away before her time, the spirit of a 12-year old girl continues to leave an indelible impression on her family.

Nuclear Bonds
by Beth Humpert
Former enemies in Russia and the United States are living with the legacy of the nuclear arms race.

Go-Go: the Music of a City
by K. Dene Mitchell
What is Go-Go music and why has its popularity been confined largely to the DC area?

My Mother's Journey
by Sam Hampton
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.

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).

A big shout out to The Documentary Center at the George Washington University for being the location sponsor for this event.

For more information, visit the Docs In Progress website at www.docsinprogress.org

Executive Positions at Silverdocs and the International Documentary Association

2008-09-19T10:46:00.004-04:00

While 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:

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 here.

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 here.

Distribution Seminar in DC Area

2008-09-06T12:38:00.006-04:00

Summer 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.

*******************************************************************

THE SECRETS TO DISTRIBUTION: Get Your Movie Distributed Now!

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??

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.

Where can you learn this? At producer Jerome Courshon’s groundbreaking 1-Day seminar,
“The Secrets to Distribution: Get Your Movie Distributed Now!”
http://www.Distribution.LA

Who should attend this seminar:
- Those with a completed movie
- Those in production or post-production
- Those who intend to make a movie -- Get a head start on what you need to know

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.

“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.”
-- Vince Rocca, Producer, “Kisses & Caroms” (Released by Warner Bros.)

“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.”
-- Jeff Rector, Writer/Director/Producer, “Revamped”

DATE: Saturday, September 20, 2008
TIME: 10am - 6pm
LOCATION: NRECA, 4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203

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: http://www.Distribution.LA/dip.html

For more info, visit: http://www.Distribution.LA
Or call: (323) 662-8877

Grassroots Online Fundraising: the case of THE DELEGATES

2008-08-06T13:54:00.008-04:00

We 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.

We promise to report back once we hear more on how this approach works for them.

Here's their e-mail:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To learn more about the film, visit our website at:
http://www.thedelegates.net

To donate right now, click here:
(http://www.chipin.com/contribute/id/7a7c2418fb332bf9)

Thanks so much!

Cameron

Top Ten Online Resources for Doc Filmmakers

2008-07-20T18:39:00.008-04:00

While 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.

(1) How to Increase Your Chances of Getting a Grant
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.

(2) ITVS: Meet the Execs
The D-Word 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 Independent Television Service (ITVS) who explain the ins and outs of applying for funding from ITVS. Note: You will have to sign up for the D-Word to read the forum, but it's free and easy.

(3) Ask the Documentary Doctor
You remember Fernanda Rossi’s column from the print version of The Independent. 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 Documentary Educational Resources and the new online version of The Independent.

(4) The Ten Rules of Personal Documentary Filmmaking
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 Doug Block (51 Birch Street and Home Page) is one of them.

(5) and (6) Fair Use Resources
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? The Center for Social Media at American University is perhaps best known for their Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use, but their website has many more resources and examples which help define what can be considered Fair Use. And for filmmakers considering taking the Fair Use route, Stanford University’s Law School has launched a Documentary Film Program, 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.

(7) Archive.org
A wealth of moving images are available for download, the majority of which are free and have unrestricted access. Includes the Prelinger Archives of more than 60,000 ephemeral films, many of which are in the public domain.

(8) 25 Best Festivals for Documentary Films
AJ Schnack’s All These Wonderful Things 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.

(9) True Fans and True Films
Kevin Kelly's 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.

(10) Peter Broderick’s Distribution Bulletins
And in the same vein, Peter Broderick 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.

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.

Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part III (the Conference)

2008-06-27T17:41:00.015-04:00

This is the last installment of my trilogy of dispatches from the SILVERDOCS Film Festival. I already gave my general impressions of the festival and some of the films I saw at the festival. Now I conclude with some tidbits I took away from the International Documentary Conference which is a sidebar to the festival.

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:

DocuClub Screening of work-in-progress STAGES: I'll refrain from commenting on this session too much since I was the moderator, but I will give a shout-out to Felix Endara at DocuClub and the filmmakers of the Meerkat Media Arts Collective. Felix wrote a nice wrap-up of the session on the DocuClub website. 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.

The first few panels I went to were underwhelming. Does Public TV Have a Future? 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 The Documentary In Action: Civically Engaged Media: A Look at Next Generation Marketing, Funding, Outreach and Distribution 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 Skoll Foundation 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 new initiative funded by Skoll. The panel went on to feature some interesting (if somewhat depressing) statistics from Rick Allen, the Executive Producer of KICKING IT. 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.

Thankfully the last few panels I went to all proved to be useful -- indeed, even inspirational -- for indies.

There was a great session on pitching with Cynthia Lopez from POV, Josh Green from Emerging Pictures, and Mark Rabinowitz from Cinelan. The information they offered was not news to most doc filmmakers...

* 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.)

* Know what other films have been done on your topic and be ready to answer questions of how yours is unique? Anticipate difficult questions.

* 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.

* 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.

"Be positive throughout a pitch. Never say anything like 'I don't know if there's an audience for...'"

...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 Sara Bernstein attended and Victoria Bruce made a passionate pitch for her work in progress THE KIDNAPPING OF INGRID BETANCOURT; the film ultimately screened on HBO. I'll be curious to see if any of the films pitched at SILVERDOCS find equal success.

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 MADE IN L.A. with filmmakers Almudena Carracedo and Robert Bahar (who we featured in our Docs In Progress Spring 2008 feature on houseparties). 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:

* Don't be dissuaded by grant rejections. 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.

* Clarify who your core audiences are and don't presume there may just be one. 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.

* Keep a good database. 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.

* Don't put all your eggs in one basket. 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.

* Don't think of production as being separate from distribution. 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.

* Once the film is done, if possible, always have DVDs with you to sell -- whether at festivals or outreach screenings. People are more likely to buy the film onsite rather than going to order from the website.

Distribution expert Peter Broderick moderated this panel and later made his own presentation on the Cutting Edge of Distribution, 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:

FASTER, 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.

HELVETICA. 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.

THE SECRET. 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.

Though some of us may cringe at using THE SECRET as a model of marketing, Broderick went on to cite and detail many other examples, including 1:6 RIGHT, THE FUTURE OF FOOD, IRAQ FOR SALE, NOTE BY NOTE, and KING CORN. His key points:

* Most successful films start off with an idea of their audience and then build and add audiences as they go.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* Sometimes you have to unlearn the rules of distribution and work backwards. Think of Four-Eyed Monsters 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.

* 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.

* 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.

This last point was also covered in a panel about online presence, called MARKETING BRAND YOU, which I referenced in an earlier blog entry since the panelists and audience members actually gave some very cogent feedback on the Docs In Progress website. Some of the more general points the panelists made:

* Your website is your brand. It is your promise and your premise.

* 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.

* 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 Epicfu.com.

* 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.

* Make content travel with videos, PDFs, etc.

* 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)

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.

Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part II (The Films)

2008-06-25T22:10:00.038-04:00

Well, now that I've given you my general impressions of the festival, here's a little bit more on what I thought of the film program.

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 MAN ON A WIRE, UP THE YANGTZE, or GONZO: THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON. Nor will I write about ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD or TROUBLE THE WATER (though you can read my thoughts on them from my Full Frame coverage)

Instead let me start with three smaller films which are still resonating with me nearly a week later:

LOST HOLIDAY 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.

Another film which fit in with this theme of post-modern (dis)connection was Danish filmmaker Phie Ambo's MECHANICAL LOVE. 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.

The third film which really drew me in was SEAVIEW, 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.

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 ALL TOGETHER NOW about the creative collaboration between the Beatles and Cirque du Soleil to the all-over-the place REVOLUTION '68 to Charles Guggenheim and the Maysles' brothers respective classics ROBERT KENNEDY REMEMBERED and GIMME SHELTER, and an outdoor screening of another Maysles' film about the Beatles, it was Sixties Redux all week long. Yet, with the exception of Spike Lee's short about the 2000 election, WE WUZ ROBBED, 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.

Come to think of it, I probably should mention something more about Spike Lee 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.J. Schnack has already done so so much more eloquently than I ever could.

Other films I saw came back to that same theme again and again: who are we and can we connect to others? CORRIDOR 8 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). HEADWIND 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).

THE ENGLISH SURGEON 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.

And finally, I should say something about AMERICAN TEEN. 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 BREAKFAST CLUB," 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 THE BREAKFAST CLUB. 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 Ethan Lincoln (who is neither a filmmaker nor someone who spent his teen years in the U.S.) probably summed up the film best in his blog.

AWARD WINNERS

Audience Award: HERB AND DOROTHY (Feature), THE TAILOR (Short)
Sterling US Feature Award: THE GARDEN (Special Jury Mention: TROUBLE THE WATER)
Sterling World Feature Award: THE ENGLISH SURGEON (Special Jury Mention: THE RED RACE )
Sterling Short Award: WHAT WOULD THE DROP KNOW ABOUT THAT? (Honorable Mention: GROUND FLOOR RIGHT and ONE DAY)
Music Documentary Award: THROW DOWN YOUR HEART
Cinematic Vision Award: THE ORDER OF MYTHS
WITNESS Award: PRAY THE DEVIL BACK TO HELL
American Film Market/SILVERDOCS Award: KASSIM THE DREAM
Writers Guild of America Documentary Screenplay Award: FORBIDDEN LIE$
ACE Grant Winner: THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM

Coming next: the final installment of my Silverdocs trilogy: a Conference Wrap-Up.

Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part I (Overall Impressions)

2008-06-22T20:56:00.017-04:00

Another year, another Silverdocs. 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 I wrote about a few months ago).

Now in its sixth year, Silverdocs 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 (Discovery Networks, National Geographic, PBS, and CPB) 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).

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 Sundance, IDFA, and Tribeca, 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 Landmark) 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.

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.

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.

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 Sandi Dubowski -- 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.

Gosh, I haven't even begun to collect my thoughts on the films and conference. But I have a lot to say. Next up, my thoughts on the films...

Shoe On the Other Foot

2008-06-21T19:16:00.011-04:00

From Docs In Progress co-founder Erica Ginsberg who has been attending the SILVERDOCS Film Festival and Conference all week (and promises a full dispatch will be posted soon)...

I attended an early morning panel session today focused on building an online presence. The panelists were John Bell, the Managing Director/Executive Creative Director of the Creative Studio at the Ogilvy Public Relations firm and two professors from American University (Amy Eisman who is the School of Communication's Director of Writing Programs, and David Johnson who is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication.

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 Docs In Progress (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!

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.

What do you like about it?

What do you think could be improved?

What comments do you have in terms of content? Design? Navigatability (if that's a word)?

How did you find out about the site in the first place?

What do you go to it for?

What would drive you to return to it or recommend it to your friends?

I suppose I should start this discussion with the two questions we always ask of our filmmakers, slightly altered for our website:

Why do we have this website? 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.

Who do we see as our core audience? 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.

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.

Please check out our website at http://www.docsinprogress.org and feel free to post your thoughts publicly in the comments section here or send an e-mail directly to contact@docsinprogress.org with any constructive thoughts you have on the website. It will be much appreciated.

More on grassroots fundraising at Silverdocs

2008-06-19T16:08:00.008-04:00

If you enjoyed our recent article about houseparty fundraising, 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.

More on the session at http://www.silverdocs.com/idc/events/made-l-funding-case-study/

Docs In Progress Alums Rock!

2008-06-15T19:21:00.009-04:00

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 Docs In Progress 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...

BALLOU (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. Washington Post critic Ann Hornaday has called the film "lively and affecting." 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 Adele Schmidt and Sam Hampton introducing the film and leading a Q&A with filmmakers Michael Patrei and Casey Callister. More on the film here.

THE MATADOR (rough cut screened in June 2007) by Stephen Higgins and Nina Seavey continues to dazzle critics through its festival screenings. The film, about legendary Spanish bullfighter "El Fandi," premiered in competition at the South by Southwest Film Festival in Austin in March 2008 and screened at FilmFest DC a month later. National film critic Jeffrey Lyons called the film "a thrilling look at Spain's most passionate art." Jaman.com called it "fabulous." And noted film blogger AJ Schnack 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 here.

BLACK DIAMONDS (rough cut screened in July 2006) by Catherine Pancake was featured in the 2008 Documentary Fortnight at the Museum of Modern Art 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 Paul Robeson Fund and the Spadaro Documentary Award, and is available for purchase from Bullfrog Films. More on the film here.

THE FIXER (rough cut screened in October 2007) by Aaron Rockett premiered at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival and has gone on to play the Newport International Film Festival in Rhode Island. This short film looks at the life of a journalist fixer in post-9/11 Afghanistan. More on the filmmaker here.

UNRAVELING MICHELLE (rough cut screened in October 2007) by Dan Shaffer and Michelle Farrell won Best Local Film in Shaffer's hometown of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania at the Artsfest Film Festival where Farrell had a chance to receive praise from fellow Baltimore-native John Waters. 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 DC Independent Film Festival and has also screened at the Rosebud Film Festival, one of the best established independent film festivals in the Mid-Atlantic. More on the film here.

REDEMPTION STONE: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF TOM LEWIS (rough cut screened in January 2007) by Tom Dziedzic won Best Documentary at the Cape Fear Independent Film Festival in Wilmington, North Carolina. The film about the life and legacy of an African-American policeman, has also screened at the Atlanta Film Festival and was one of the few short documentaries chosen for the 2007 IFP Market in New York. More on the film here.

BEAUTY: IN THE EYES OF THE BEHELD (rough cut screened in January 2008) by Liza Figueroa was screened at the Indie Spirit Film Festival 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 here.

Congratulations to these and our many other Docs In Progress alumni. May all your films continue to thrive!

Documentary Filmmaker As Project Manager

2008-04-20T13:53:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erica's Report from Full Frame

2008-04-08T08:09:00.025-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IFP Documentary Rough Cut Lab

2008-03-05T09:18:00.003-05:00

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

IFP INDEPENDENT FILM LABS – Call for Entries

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

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

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

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

A Polar Opposite Approach to Fundraising: Paul Devlin and BLAST

2008-01-21T11:45:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Year, a New Organization

2007-12-30T13:40:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading and stay tuned...

Happy New Year!

Doc Happenings

2007-12-19T11:52:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

Documentaries to Revisit: Iraq in Fragments

2007-11-02T10:27:00.000-04:00

Marketing Mastery

2007-10-13T11:44:00.000-04:00

One 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.

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.

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.

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.

How to study good synopses? Take a look at the online catalogues of film festivals you admire or peruse a site like Mediarights 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 Who? What? Where? and When? Then branch out to the Who Cares? 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.

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. Withoutabox, 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.

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 reviewed in our latest newsletter, Iraq in Fragments. And here’s a run-down of some of the things you should include:

Stills
You’d be amazed how many times we request a still from filmmakers for a Docs in Progress 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.

Production Photos
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.

Credits/Bios
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.

Director’s Statement
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.

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’ POV series films.

Other Items to Include, if Applicable

• List of festivals and other venues screened, including notations of any awards.
• Press reviews and/or quotes from well-known or well-regarded people or publications.
• Posters: 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.
• Postcards: 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.
• Press Outreach Materials: 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.
• Script of Your Film: Foreign film festivals or broadcasters may request this if they are going to provide subtitles, simultaneous interpretation, or dubbing.

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.

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.

© 2007, Docs in Progress (authored by Erica Ginsberg)

Going to the IFP Market?

2007-09-07T12:23:00.000-04:00

Are you headed to New York from September 16-19 for the annual Independent Film Project (IFP) Market? This has become one of the key events for American documentary filmmakers to get a foothold with festivals, distributors, and other industry folks by having a place to screen and promote their works in progress. Many of the docs first spotlighted at IFP have gone on to bigger and better things.

We'll be featuring a story on the IFP Market from the perspective of two Docs in Progress alums in our October online newsletter, but, in the meantime we'd also recommend you take a look at two recent articles from Agnes Varnum, one which appeared in indieWIRE and the other on RenewMedia.

Funding Alert: Southern Humanities Media Fund

2007-08-27T11:57:00.000-04:00

The Southern Humanities Media Fund is accepting preliminary applications for media projects that focus on the “new face” of the South. Nonprofit organizations and eligible government agencies in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, are encouraged to apply for support for the
shooting/production, editing, and/or finishing of film, video, and audio programs for a general public audience. Projects that offer insights into the region's changing social, economic, and political conditions will be favored. Preliminary applications are due October 19, 2007.

Southern Humanities Media Fund
c/o Virginia Foundation for the Humanities
145 Ednam Drive
Charlottesville, VA
22903 -4629

Phone: 434-924-6895
Fax: 434-296-4714
Email: shmf@virginia.edu
Url: http://www.southernmediafund.org

Geographic Scope:
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia

Total Annual Giving: $100,000

Eligibility Requirements: Nonprofit organizations

Application Deadlines:
Preliminary applications: third Friday of October, annually
Final applications: third Friday of March, annually

Areas of Interest:
The Southern Humanities Media Fund (SHMF) supports inventive film, television, and radio programs and is particularly interested in media productions that focus on the “new face” of the South, offering insights into the region’s changing social, economic, and political conditions.

The SHMF encourages ambitious and well-conceived media projects, with an emphasis on analytical and interpretive documentaries. The SHMF seeks projects that affirm the value of the humanities, including the study of literature, history, folklore, jurisprudence, philosophy, comparative religion, archaeology, and the theory, history, and criticism of the arts.

The SHMF only considers projects developed or sponsored by nonprofit organizations or governmental agencies (e.g., a state-funded television station). Grants are awarded only in support of the shooting/production, editing, and finishing of films, video, and audio programs created for a general public audience.

The SHMF does not provide supplementary support for projects that have already received their primary or major support from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Application Procedures:
Application guidelines are available on the SHMF website
or may be requested from the address listed above.

Documentaries to Revisit: Darwin's Nightmare

2007-07-31T10:04:00.000-04:00

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 variety of styles, but all share the power of effective story structure and character development. We decided this time to focus on DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE by Hubert Sauper. This 2005 film is now available on DVD and has been reviewed by Docs in Progress co-founder Adele Schmidt.

In 2006, Austrian filmmaker Hubert Sauper was nominated for an Academy Award for his documentary DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE. Though the film lost out to another European production, MARCH OF THE PENGUINS, it is worth a look back at this film as an example of a multi-layered look at globalization. Sauper's vision is dark, his pictures are disturbing and the realities he uncovers are uncomfortable. But, through his films, it is clear that Sauper is an highly intelligent filmmaker who has a deep understanding of the political, social and economical complexities of the realities he is filming. As I was watching this film, I was grateful for it, because so many western films dealing with Africa are made by filmmakers who do not take the time to to get involved with the situation and do not spend enough time the with characters to gain their trust. The results are superficial films where the filmmaker is speaking for the people and over-relying on narration to explain everything which is not delivered from the film itself.

Sauper's approach is different. I still remember scenes of his 1998 documentary KISANGANI DIARY: FAR FROM RWANDA, in which he follows Hutu refugees after an attack against their camp in what was then Zaire (now The Democratic Republic of Congo). There is always a strong commitment of Sauper to his topic and his characters and that is what makes his films so remarkable. In DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE, Saupert transports us to Tanzania, to the small town of Mwanza on the shores of Africa's biggest lake Victoria. We learn that the town sees a lot of business because of the massive exports of a fish called the Nile Perch. This species of fish was not known in that lake before the 1960s when it was introduced to the lake. A predatory species, the fish multiplied, but also caused the extinction of other species to the point that the lake could be considered a mono culture.

And here starts the complexity of the problem: We are at a lake which is ecologically out of balance waiting for a disaster. The export of the fish is seemingly good for the development of Mwanza because it gives jobs to tousands of people who work in a processing plant. Two airplanes come every day from Russia to this little town to load in 500 tons of frozen, packaged fish fillets and fly them back to the restaurants and dining rooms of Europe. The daily cargo could feed the little town for a long time, but the villagers don't get to see the fish fillets because after the fish has gone through he modern processing plant, they cannot afford the fish. The only thing the locals get to see and eat are the leftovers of the factory: the carcass head of the fish. Thousands of these rotting fish heads are piled up on a beach nearby Mwanza. As the camera pans across all these fish heads and the people who carry them away in buckets, one can just say that all this is not fair. That we are one more time before an example of crude exploitation by Northern countries, in this case Europe, towards the South. The fact that the film was shot during a time when Tanzania was hard hit by famine makes this situation even more unbearable.

But Saupert does not want us to focus too much on the fish. For him, the fish business is a by-product of the bigger story which he wants to unfold to the public. There is a rumor that the transport airplanes don't just depart with fish, but also bring weapons and munitions to conflicts in other African countries. The story was on the news and a local journalist claims to have evidence. Of course, we never see weapons unload from the planes in Mwanza. People asked on the streets are convinced that the planes are empty when they come. Though Sauper asks the Russian pilots again and again, they won't tell and simply lower their heads in silence. But once the thought is introduced by the film, we can not get rid of it. Tanzania is bordered by countries with a very recent history of war: Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda and it is not much further a plane ride to other hotspots. As one of the pilots cynically says, "The children of Europe receive grapes for Christmas, the children of Angola receive guns." You would have to be naive to believe that airplanes come empty from Russia just to load fish. What a lost opportunity that would be for the international weapon smuggling networks! As we watch the locals of Mwanza tilt their heads to see another airplane crossing above them in the sky, we draw our own conclusions.

It is this lack of proof which some may find troubling, especially those who are accustomed to seeing journalistic-style documentaries where proof is so key to storytelling. But Sauper makes clear in the film that he has his own point of view and that he is not hesitating to impose his own truth. It is now up to the viewer if he or she wants to share that view. I can say that my colleague, Erica Ginsberg, has had challenges with the film for this reason and also because she believes that the film is ultimately so dark and hopeless that it leaves the audience with little reaction but to feel despair and maybe give up eating Nile Perch.

Indeed you could argue that Sauper focuses too much on the dark side, on the side of African despair. Through his eyes it seems that the village of Mwanza is populated by a collection of glue-sniffing kids living on the streets, prostitutes plying their trade to the Russian pilots and occasionally to the migrant workers, families reduced to half of their size because of the effects of AIDS, and the assorted foreigners involved in the processing and export of the fish. He takes us inside the lives of these characters. We meet them in close conversations and engage with them because the filmmaker captures them as they laugh, sing, and share their dreams. The camera is always very close to the subjects. Sauper has obviously spent a lot of time with them to get them to feel comfortable opening up, as though in a conversation. The moments breathe. When we hear a prostitute sing a song “Tanzania, Tanzania” with a big smile on her face, we understand how proud she is of her country in spite of its dire circumstances. She says she dreams of getting a better education. A street kid aspires to become an engineer. These dreams are authentic and valuable but we are already so drawn into the hopelessness of their lives, that we know full well these dreams cannot be fulfilled. Not in the world Sauper portrays.

And here Sauper leaves us alone with a situation which seems not to have a solution. Yes, the dark side is a truth in Africa but it is far from the only one. It is hard to believe that there are not other normal people in this town with a positive take on the situation. People for example who work in the factory and have benefited from the fish business, even if it is on the sacrifice of the lake. People who are working their way out the circle of poverty because they have a job and they now can improve their living condition and send their kids to school. But Sauper does not enter that terrain.

Maybe Sauper thought by bringing in more diverse voices, the message of the film would be in jeopardy, but here he is mistaken. Bringing in positive voices would have made the situation more complete and would have given the people from Tanzania respect. Now we just feel miserable for them.

DARWIN’S NIGHTMARE feels like a “film noir.” It is not an activist film which presents a problem and suggests a solution. Instead it helps shed light on a place that few of us would have the likelihood to visit and yet which is impacted by our actions or lack of action.

© July 2007, Docs In Progress. Blogs and articles may not be reprinted without permission.

Erica's Report from Silverdocs

2007-06-17T11:57:00.000-04:00

I feel lucky not to have to travel far to go to what has arguably become one of the best festivals for documentaries in the United States. Every June, SILVERDOCS comes to Silver Spring, Maryland for six days of films, panel discussions, and industry networking opportunities. I make a point of going every year, not only to check out the latest and greatest in the world of documentary, but also because I feel a special pride in seeing movies in the AFI/Silver Theatre. I went often to that theater as a child, growing up in Silver Spring when its downtown was home to no less than five single-screen movie theaters -- the Silver being the most magnificent of them all. Seeing E.T. in the Silver made me want to be a filmmaker in the first place.

This year I think was one of the strongest years for SILVERDOCS in terms of the quality of the films. It was also apparently one of their strongest years ever for ticket sales, resulting in lots of sold-out screenings and the resulting scramble to add screenings and do their best to ensure that filmmakers and other industry passholders could make it to the head of standby lines for the numerous sold out films. They also added some industry-only screenings at Discovery headquarters this year which made a big difference in appeasing those who shelled out a few hundred bucks to ensure they did not get shut out of films.

The festival opened Tuesday night with PETE SEEGER: THE POWER OF SONG, an American Experience-style biopic on the life of the folk singer. I took my mother, a long-time folk fan who has caught Seeger's performances since the 1950s, and she sang-along to the whole film. Following the screening, we were all treated to post-show musical performances by Tom Paxton, Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon of Sweet Honey in the Rock, and Odetta who, while frail and preferring to sing from the audience, was unfazed by the sound of a cell phone going off during her performance. Also featured on stage and at the post-film Gala were the Mammals, a band including Seeger's grandson, Tao Rodriguez-Seeger.

I spent the next few days, balancing my time between films, conference sessions, one-on-one networking, and trying to catch a few Zs between it all. While scheduled meetings meant I didn't have a chance to attend as much of the conference as in the past, I did make it to a few sessions from the Future of Real 2.0 series. One session on Cutting Edge Technology Issues featured a panelist in avatar form from Second Life. Another interesting session focused on the impact of digital downloads on distribution, with updates from JAMAN, DER, and New Video. One of the most interesting exchanges of this session related to rights for Internet distribution, with Debra Zimmerman from Women Make Movies suggesting from the audience that, if filmmakers cannot convince a broadcaster who is not offering digital downloads or streaming rentals as an option (but still wants to retain those media distribution rights) to let the filmmaker retain the Internet rights entirely, they should at least try to negotiate a time limit on those rights, perhaps having the Internet rights revert back to the filmmaker in six months or a year.

I also had a chance to drop in on a bit of DocAgora, a relatively new initiative which has been traversing major film festivals worldwide to provide a platform for interchange between the documentary film community about socially-engaged documentary content. At SILVERDOCS, one of the main features of DocAgora was a debate around the proposition "New Media has re-defined the meaning of Public: the wall between public and commercial media no longer exists." The discussion, while somewhat academic, was intriguing and I wish I could have stayed beyond the panelist debate to see how the audience took on the proposition. But unfortunately, I had to run to catch another panel -- one of the biggest challenges of SILVERDOCS is deciding which panels to attend. There were more than a few that I wanted to see which were all scheduled simultaneously. Some of them were recorded so I will post an update if SILVERDOCS uploads any podcasts.

Speaking of podcasts, Joel Heller of Docs That Inspire (one of the best documentary resources in the blogosphere) recorded one of the most poorly attended panels on one of the most important advocacy issues for documentary filmmakers today -- a special session on the controversial Academy Award qualifying rules. Moderated by Sandra Ruch from the International Documentary Association, the panel featured different points of view from outspoken filmmakers A.J. Schnack and Marco Williams and producer/distributor Julie Goldman on the topic of what it takes to qualify for an Oscar. Frieda Lee Mock, Governor of the Documentary Branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, was also invited to participate, but was unable to do so. However, IDA distributed a handout which included contact information for her (am.film@verizon.net), as well as for questions related to the ever-changing Oscar qualification rules (Torene Svitil - Awards Office, Department Head of AMPAS, tsvitil@oscars.org or 310-247-3000) and for questions related to technical formats (Andy Maltz, Director of the Science and Technology Council, amaltz@oscars.org or same phone number as Svitil). To listen to the panel discussion, click here to download an unedited MP3.

Every SILVERDOCS features numerous films related to war and post-conflict. This year, one of the best panels took on the topic of how documentaries cover war -- or, more specifically, the war in Iraq. Among the panelists were Alex Gibney (TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE), Charles Ferguson (NO END IN SIGHT), and David Modell (WAR TORN: STORIES OF SEPARATION). Almost stealing the show from the filmmakers were Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff (who is featured in both Gibney and Ferguson's films) and Paul Hughes, who served on the Iraq Study Group’s Military and Security Expert Working Group (and is also featured in Ferguson's film). While Hughes (who currently works for the U.S. Institute of Peace) maintained the normal Washington diplo-speak, Wilkerson pulled no punches in his outspoken criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

I did not have a chance to see NO END IN SIGHT (I can only take so many war films and thankfully this one will start its theatrical run at Washington DC's Landmark E Street theater next month). But I did see a sold-out screening of TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE, a powerful follow-up to Gibney's previous film ENRON: THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM. The access he was able to get (particularly to U.S. soldiers who had been convicted of abuses at Bagram prison in Afghanistan) was incredible. More importantly, he builds an effective case that torture has essentially become an accepted part of U.S. doctrine in a post 9/11 world. His film is free of the partisan polemics that mar so many documentaries related to the War on Terror.

I also saw WAR TORN, part of a shorts series titled Embattled. It was impossible to keep a dry eye during Modell's film, which focuses on the impact of the war in Iraq on the home front from the perspective of the families of British soldiers who have died or been damaged as a result of the war. The film is told as four vignettes, with voiceover of wives or mothers on top of still images of the soldiers, their families, and their lives in both Iraq and England. Originally conceived as an Internet project for Channel Four, the WAR TORN series received such an overwhelming response that it was ultimately aired on television over consecutive nights. Even Modell was surprised by the emotional impact on the festival audience, watching the four vignettes back to back. The Embattled series was probably one of the strongest collection of shorts I have ever seen in a festival. It also included SARI'S MOTHER, James Longley's film about the relationship between an Iraqi woman and her son who has AIDS. Shot at the same time Longley was making his Oscar-nominated feature IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS, SARI'S MOTHER retains much of the same style of beautiful cinematography and visceral storytelling, letting the story unfold not through dialogue or any form of narration, but through careful observation of human interaction and moments of facial expression which speak volumes about the characters. A third short about Iraq, Ed Kashi's IRAQI KURDISTAN, looks at the relatively peaceful Kurdish region of Iraq through images of various people engaged in everyday activities. Like Longley, the film eschews dialogue in favor of slice-of-life closeups of Iraqi people. But, unlike SARI'S MOTHER which has a languorous pace, IRAQI KURDISTAN uses an experimental style, reminiscent of animated flip-books, setting a rhythm which stops at moments to reflect on a particular human expression. Another film in this shorts series was BULLET PROOF VEST, a film about children living in a tent city as part of a protest against neighborhoods which provide no safe havens for children to play. The film was impressive, especially since it was a student work and was created with only a small amount of 16 mm film available to the students. The final film, LOT 63: GRAVE C, looked at life, death, and obscurity from the perspective of Meredith Hunter whose murder at the 1969 Altamont rock concert was captured in the Maysles classic GIMME SHELTER, but who remains a mystery and is buried in an unmarked grave.

Perhaps the flip side of LOT 63: GRAVE C was to be seen in FOREVER, the latest work from one of my favorite directors Heddy Honnigman. Festival programmer Sky Sitney confessed to the audience that, while she loves all her "children," this was one of her favorite films in the festival. I would have to agree. Once again, Honnigman finds a way to take a topic on the surface and delve deeper so that it becomes something else entirely. We enter Paris' Pere Lachaise Cemetery purportedly to tour the graves of some of France's most famous writers, artists, and composers. Ultimately though the film becomes about the legacy these dead artists have left for the contemporary living, as each "guide" relates the visit to the grave to something in their own life. The film leaves us with the notion that, as Egon Schiele once famously wrote, "art is eternal" because it lives on in all of us and how we react to it.

Life, death, art, and fame were recurring themes throughout the festival...or at least in the films I chose (hmmmmm). One of the biggest surprises to me was KURT COBAIN: ABOUT A SON. Neither a fan of music documentaries nor of Nirvana in particular, I added this film to my list because I know of its filmmaker, A.J. Schnack through his popular (and sometimes controversial) blog on documentaries, All These Wonderful Things. I was blown away by the film which ultimately is not as much about Cobain or Nirvana, as it is about the relationship between man and place. The film employs the sound of a long conversation that music writer Michael Azerrad had with Cobain about his childhood, upbringing, and obscure path which led him to fame. Almost all of the visuals are landscapes, streetscapes, and humanscapes which evoke the three Washington cities which formed his life's arc. The visuals were story boarded and edited to work side by side with the sound of the interview and a music soundtrack which includes nothing by Cobain or Nirvana, but a wide variety of his musical influences. This film renews my strong belief that documentary is not a genre in and of itself. Instead documentary has its own sub-genres which can employ visuals as effectively as any fiction film, even when those visuals are very carefully constructed and controlled.

With so many serious and (at the risk of sounding like Jerry Seinfeld at the Oscars) frankly depressing films on my plate, I was glad to break it up a little bit with some more humorous documentaries. Interestingly the two funniest documentaries I saw were actually part of very serious funding initiatives. STAND UP: MUSLIM AMERICAN COMICS COME OF AGE was partially funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's America at a Crossroads grant initiative. While the film did not air with many of the other funded films as part of the PBS series earlier this year, it was in many ways a more interesting look at the impact of post 9/11 America on our popular culture and social commentary. Two of the comedians featured in the film -- Ahmed Ahmed and Dean Obeidallah joined filmmaker Glenn Baker at the Q&A.

The other film which had plenty of laugh-out-loud moments was PLEASE VOTE FOR ME, which, along with TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE, was one of the 10 documentaries funded by the Why Democracy? initiative, an international effort of nearly 40 broadcasters and institutional funders to support projects which address the various meanings of the word "democracy." PLEASE VOTE FOR ME looks at democracy from the perspective of Chinese third graders running to be elected by the peers for the office of Class Monitor. Hijinks ensue, with the candidates (and their "campaign manager" parents) taking on every politician dirty trick stereotype -- bullying each other in debates, looking for their opponents' weaknesses, and even trading favors for votes. Though the film looks at a microcosm of democracy, it has a larger reflection on a changing Chinese society, where the One Child Policy has left a generation of children (especially boys) spoiled by parents and grandparents in their efforts to achieve at all costs.

Other films I had a chance to see included:

Maria Yatskova's MISS GULAG, which takes us into the world of a Russian prison beauty competition and, by extension, into the psyche of the post-Soviet Generation Y. The film premiered at the Berlin Film Festival and Silverdocs was its North American premiere (soon to be followed by screenings at the Seattle International Film Festival).

Esther Robinson's A WALK INTO THE SEA: DANNY WILLIAMS & THE WARHOL FACTORY, which also addresses the flip-sided themes of life and death, fame and obscurity through the lens of the filmmaker's uncle who was part of the Factory scene until his untimely disappearance.

Marco Williams' BANISHED, which looks at the legacy of ethnic cleansing in United States when, especially in the Reconstruction era and early 20th century, a number of communities forced African-Americans to move out.

And, of course, WAR/DANCE and MADE IN L.A. which we plugged as our picks in our most recent blog posting. The former was made especially poignant by the fact that the filmmakers were local and had a loyal crowd at their screening. The latter was emotional because several of the garment workers featured in the film joined the filmmakers for an English/Spanish bilingual Q&A.

If there are criticisms that can be lodged this year, the two biggest ones were beyond SILVERDOCS' control: the weather and the location of the Cinema Lounge. The first few afternoons of the festival were marred by monsoon-like downpours which made even a one or two block walk between locations the equivalent of a moonlight swim under a waterfall. While SILVERDOCS is trying to do its part against global warming by becoming the first carbon-neutral film festival in the country, maybe next year some enterprising sponsor will include as swag in the welcome bags an umbrella or recyclable rain poncho.

As for the Cinema Lounge, regular SILVERDOCS-goers were dismayed to learn that last year's location for the lounge on the second floor of one of the stores in the shopping strip behind the Silver Theater had become a dance studio. The new Cinema Lounge was now located three blocks from the venues where most of the screenings and conference sessions were taking place. While three blocks may not seem a long distance, it was far too far to become a place to drop by for a quick 15-20 minutes between sessions or films as it had been in the past. As a result, the Cinema Lounge did not have the same feel of a thriving, energetic networking place as it had in past years, although it did liven up a bit around lunch and in the evenings when it hosted some of the parties. With Silver Spring hopping with new restaurants, stores, and businesses, it is probably becoming more difficult for SILVERDOCS to rely on a close-by space that is between renters to turn into the Cinema Lounge. But to keep the importance of the Cinema Lounge as a place to meet, it is essential to have something for industry. Especially given the vagaries of June weather and the very full festival and conference schedule, it would be great to have something within a block of the main festival venues. But if these are the two worst things to complain about, then I'd say it was a pretty successful year.

Awards
Sterling Award: Feature - Please Vote for Me
Sterling Award: Short - Lot 63, Grave C
Special Jury Mention - Enemies of Happiness
Honorable Mention: Short - I Want to Be a Pilot
Cinematic Vision: Feature - Kurt Cobain, About a Son
Cinematic Vision: Short - My Eyes
WITNESS Award - The Devil Came on Horseback
WITNESS Award Honorable Mention - The Price of Sugar
American Film Market Award - Big Rig
Beyond Belief Award - Audience of One
Music Award - Nomadik TX
ACE Documentary Development Grant - The Concrete Jungle
Audience Award: Feature - Souvenirs
Audience Award: Short - A Son's Sacrifice

Erica Ginsberg, Co-Founder of Docs in Progress

Our Picks for Silverdocs

2007-06-10T19:14:00.000-04:00

The AFI/Discovery Channel SILVERDOCS Documentary Film Festival starts this Tuesday, June 12 and continues through Sunday, June 17 at the AFI Silver Theatre and other venues in Silver Spring, Maryland. With only six days to pick from nearly 100 documentary films to see, we wanted to offer two suggestions:

Adele's Pick: War Dance

I saw WAR DANCE at the Sundance Film Festival in January where it won the Documentary Directing Award. The film follows the journey of several war refugee children competing in a national dance and music festival in Uganda. I was blown away by the beauty of the images, the depth of the story, and the outstanding multiple character development. Considering that the film was shot in a refugee camp in war-torn northern Uganda under very difficult production circumstances makes the result even more astonishing. It is a must for every filmmaker to see an example of outstanding storytelling and editing.
War Dance screens Thursday, June 14 at 8:30 pm. Click here for more info.

Erica's Pick: Made in L.A.

If you want to see a great example of combining activist filmmaking with pure documentary storytelling, look no further than MADE IN L.A. Beyond the headlines of the current immigration debate, we go inside the lives of three women as they struggle to survive the sweatshops in Los Angeles' garment industry and become empowered to fight for fair labor conditions. A good example of patient, observational documentary filmmaking, as the story and characters developed over the course of several years. While the film will be screened in September on PBS' POV series, this is your opportunity to see it in its World Premiere with the filmmakers and several of the main characters in attendance.

Made in L.A. screens Friday, June 15 at 7:30 pm and Saturday, June 16 at 12:45 pm. Click here for more info.

Have your own must-sees at Silverdocs? Post them here. In the meantime, look forward to seeing you in Silver Spring...

Fair Use Demystified

2007-06-05T05:05:00.000-04:00

Confused about Fair Use? Head over to the D-Word for a week-long online conference on Fair Use issues with Center for Social Media at American University. Got a question? Ask Pat.

Documentaries to Revisit: Jesus Camp

2007-04-09T21:24:00.000-04:00

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 variety of styles, but all share the power of effective story structure and character development. We decided this time to focus on JESUS CAMP by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady. This 2006 film is now available on DVD and has been reviewed by Docs in Progress co-founder Erica Ginsberg.

At Docs in Progress workshops, one of the questions we ask every presenting filmmaker is “why did you make the film?” It is important that documentarians think about what their intentions are with a documentary. Especially when treating a controversial subject, it is essential for the filmmaker to know his or her own point of view even if he or she has no intention of being a character in the film.

In the 2006 film JESUS CAMP, filmmakers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady enter a world quite unlike the one they know firsthand. With both filmmakers hailing from “Blue States” (New York by way of Detroit and Washington DC respectively) and neither actively religious, they chose to enter the world of the Evangelical Christian movement and explore the relationship between religion and politics and the national debate over values.

That values debate forms a narrative device in the film. We open to the scenery of middle America (highways, fast food joints, gas stations, and motel signs reading “God Bless USA). A car radio blares the news that Sandra Day O’Connor has just announced her resignation from the Supreme Court. Talk radio goes wild with speculation about whom President Bush will nominate as her replacement and how much impact Christians can have on the nomination process. The camera takes us inside a radio station where extreme close-ups of the technical equipment underscore how media – especially talk radio – plays an integral part of that values debate. However, this radio host, Mike Papantonio, provides a dissenting voice to what we heard on the car radios. He is openly critical of what he calls the “religious right” because he believes they are entangling politics and religion. “What kind of lesson is that for our children?” Papantonio asks. Less than four minutes into the film, the main conflict of the film is established, even though we have not yet met any of the main characters.

This war of words acts as a backdrop for the main story, which looks at how the next generation of Evangelical Christians is being raised in their faith. Children with camouflage warpaint and carrying stick swords dance at the front of a church, speak in tongues (in keeping with their Pentecostal beliefs), and talk of being soldiers in the Army of God. They are led by an unlikely general, Becky Fischer. A children’s minister who challenges kids to be the part of this movement, Fischer has a down-to-earth style and disarming sense of humor which engages the viewer as much as it does the children to whom she preaches. In one scene she compares, almost enviously, her children’s ministry to that of radical Islamic madrassas. In another, she is teasing her hair in front of a mirror, betraying the more routine concerns of a middle-aged woman.

In fact, it is the juxtaposition of the humanity – and indeed the mundanity – of the characters with the idiosyncrasies of their religious beliefs that really gives depth to the film. On the surface, we are in the landscape of Anywhere Suburbia. But there is always a twist. A mom helps her children with their homework; they read from creationist textbooks which are central to their home-schooling. Children play videogames and read stories, but they are all Christian-themed; their homes are free of Pokemon and Harry Potter, both of which are seen as anti-Christian endorsements of witchcraft.

As the film progresses, we gain a deeper understanding of the characters, even if we do not share their beliefs. In addition to Fischer, the film focuses on three children. Levi has aspirations to be a preacher at a mega-church, seeing himself as part of a key generation to bring Jesus back to America. Rachael takes pride in her efforts to evangelize non-believers, whether it’s her next-door neighbor or a stranger at the bowling alley. Tory loves to dance, though she prefers Christian heavy metal to Britney Spears because she says it is for God and not for the flesh. The film masterfully reveals each of the kids through a combination of observational footage and interviews done in the mise-en-scene of the characters, often while they are engaged in their everyday activities.

While the first act of the film introduces us to the values debate and the main characters, the second act takes those characters and us to the Families on Fire Summer Camp, run in North Dakota by Becky Fischer. Again, we see the contrast of the normal rites of passage of a children’s summer camp with the deeper reasons why these children are there. In one scene, a group of boys stays up late for the familiar ritual of telling ghost stories, only to have the party broken up by one of the parental chaperones who reminds them that such stories are not honoring God. In the daytime, the kids have some time to be kids: play on swings, skip stones in the lake, laugh with friends in the cafeteria, or go exploring in a nearby cave. But they spend good portions of their days participating in the intense fervor of sermons that focus on washing away their sins of hypocrisy or breaking the reins of secularism over government. Fischer and the other pastors challenge the kids about whether they are ready to be a part of the Army of God.

This brings us to the third act which shows how the children are becoming part of this movement to use their religious values to influence politics. Whether it is blessing a cardboard cutout of President Bush or going on a field trip to Washington DC to protest against abortion in front of the Supreme Court, the children are ready to fight for what they perceive to be “one nation under God.” Levi even pays a visit to one of the largest megachurches in the country, the New Life Church in Colorado Springs which was at the time led by Pastor Ted Haggard (filmed before the sex scandal which forced him to resign). Haggard makes an appearance in the film and drives home the message that it is churches like his which have the power to influence the national political agenda. As he says in the film, “If the Evangelicals vote, they determine the election.”

JESUS CAMP met with praise and controversy when it was released in 2006. Some felt that it treated the topic in a sinister manner through its reliance on a spooky-sounding score and editing of sound bites that emphasize militancy and political activism espoused at the camp. Pastor Haggard spoke out against the film as not representing the full spectrum of evangelical Christians and encouraged members of his church to stay away from the film when it previewed in Colorado Springs. Although Becky Fischer has indicated on her Kids in Ministry website that the film is not a totally accurate representation of her ministry (especially the theatrical trailer which she felt portrayed her ministry as “cult-like”), she also believes the success of the film has given her a unique opportunity to convey her mission. She and several of the kids have attended various film festival screenings with the filmmakers and her ministry’s website contains many comments from viewers who felt the film actually encouraged them to become more fervent in their faith and eager to attend the camp. Similarly on the film’s MySpace page, the comments reflect a diversity of opinion – from those who have been inspired by the film to others who have found it deeply disturbing.

In my own opinion, if a film can take a controversial issue and be equally upsetting to both sides of a debate, then it is as close to balanced as it can ever be. But the one truth about non-fiction work, it is that it can never be truly balanced. Even John Grierson’s definition of documentary – “the creative treatment of actuality” – indicates that there is no way to portray truth, but only to creatively interpret it. Selecting the characters, deciding when to turn the camera on and off and where to focus its attention, choosing clips and contextual information and the order of how they are edited, and deciding on the music and where to place it in the film all reflect a point of view.

Even the presence of the filmmakers can impact the reality they document. While this was certainly noticeable in JESUS CAMP in the Ted Haggard sequence where the film includes shots of him teasing the cameraman, there is another sequence which many viewers may not even realize was impacted by the filmmakers. At one point, Becky Fischer calls in to Mike Papantonio’s radio show for a debate on whether her ministry is indoctrinating children in its religious and political beliefs. This is a key scene in the film because it returns us to the film’s major theme of the values debate by actually including a direct debate over values. However, according to the directors’ commentary on the DVD, Fischer’s call-in came about as a result of the filmmakers’ intervention, not as a chance happening in an unfolding documentary reality. While the call-in itself was not scripted, this sequence does present an ethical issue to the documentary filmmaker. What is his or her role in impacting a storyline in order to craft a more dramatic narrative arc?

I should add here that it was a controversial decision for Docs in Progress to feature this film among our reviews because my colleague, Adele Schmidt, and I have very divergent views on this film. We both agree that there is merit to seeing the film because it covers an issue about which almost every viewer may have a strong opinion. Additionally, it is a case study of how to tell a big-issue story through the more accessible lens of a character-driven narrative. However, we disagree vehemently on the issue of the film’s point of view. Every directorial decision ultimately reflects the point of view of the filmmaker(s). Filmmakers should never shy away from having a point of view, even when trying to present as balanced a story as possible. In my view, this film seems to have helped Ewing and Grady – and, by extension, viewers who come from similar secular backgrounds – to step outside of their own environment and discover more about people with whom they may never agree, but who they can now better understand. In Adele’s view, the filmmakers bent over too far backwards to please their subjects and betrayed their own point of view in the process. She does not equate discovering a reality with having a point of view.

We’ll leave it to you to see the film for yourself and decide. We invite you to add your own comments to the discussion.

© April 2007, Docs In Progress. Blogs and articles may not be reprinted without permission.

Getting Busy with Docs in Progress...

2007-03-31T11:37:00.000-04:00

If you're clicking here from the recent indieWIRE article on Documentary Blogs or just found us on an online search for documentary film resources, you may be surprised to see that the Docs Interactive blogs are updated less frequently than many other blogs. It's not out of laziness as much out of busyness. In addition to running our bi-monthly workshops , we are also preparing for a new edition of our quarterly online newsletter. It includes interviews with doc professionals, reviews of documentaries, a calendar of upcoming events and deadlines, and more. It's free to subscribe to the newsletter by joining our mailing list through our website. On top of that, we are also partnering with Fernanda Rossi, a.k.a., the Documentary Doctor, on an all-day workshop on trailer mechanics in Washington DC on May 12. Did we mention we also both work fulltime, Erica's curating the 2008 Council on Foundations Film Festival, Adele has a film coming soon to PBS, Erica's got a dog to walk, Adele's got two kids at home, and it's tax season?

Not that we're trying to excuse ourselves.

But take a look through our back pages, feel free to comment on anything, bear with us for our shameless self-promotion, and stay tuned for more resources intended to aid the independent documentary filmmaker.

Cheers,
Adele Schmidt and Erica Ginsberg
Co-Founders, Docs in Progress

Have ideas about alternative distribution? Sound off on The D-Word Forum from Feb. 19-23

2007-02-15T22:27:00.000-05:00

Our pals at The D-Word (http://www.d-word.com) are sponsoring a free online forum the week of February 19 on the topic of Alternative Distribution Models for Documentary Films.

This is a continuation of a lively discussion that began at the Docagora Conference at IDFA in December 2006. Joining the discussion will be international representatives from many of the organizations that took part there, including:

- http://www.docagora.org/: Fleur Knopperts, Amit Breur, Peter Wintonick- http://www.docsite.org/ Cameron Hickey- http://www.onlinefilm.org/: Cay Wesnigk- http://www.joiningthedots.tv/: Ben Ross- http://www.docutube.com/: Peter de Kock- http://www.docsonline.tv/: Vernon Gielen
- http://www.nomadsland.com/: Davin Hutchins- http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/: Pat Aufderheide

To take part in the discussion, go to the d-word forum at http://www.d-word.com/ (you will need to register for a free sign-in through NewCafe - the instructions are on the site)

It's all part of The D-Word's recent series of conferences devoted to reaching a wider audience online.

Robert Greenwald's Approach to Outreach

2007-02-03T09:46:00.000-05:00

In our previous post on finding funding, we referenced Robert Greenwald as a prime example of finding creative ways to raise money for your films. While the idea of being able to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars through small personal donations or building audiences simply by word-of-mouth appeals to many filmmakers, it is not something you can simply quickly or randomly. It takes a long time to build trust and accountability with funders and Greenwald did not accomplish this simply by sending an e-blast and then seeing the money roll in or the audiences build. His approach has been much more nuanced and purposeful, requiring time, and sacrifice.

This past week, Greenwald was the keynote speaker at the Center for Social Media's "Making Documentary Matter" conference. Docs in Progress co-founder Erica Ginsberg was also there and made some notes on Greenwald's key points. These were originally posted on The D-Word Community and have been reposted here and on other blogs to share Greenwald's approach to outreach. Whatever you may think of his films, we felt he made some some important points, especially regarding outreach for social issue documentaries.

Keynote Highlights

Film, in and of itself, does not create social change. Partnerships do.
The alternate distribution model is more effective in bringing change than TV or theatrical releases. If your goal with your film is social change, you may need to forego the Oscar, the theatrical release, or the TV broadcast to partner instead with grassroots organizations which can get your film out to the broadest audience possible and, most importantly, reach audiences who will take action and not just watch a film passively.
You cannot look to these partners as distributors or buzz-makers for your film. Instead, your responsibility is to figure out how to connect to them and make the film useful for THEM.
With UNCOVERED, Greenwald and his production company, Brave New Films partnered with the Center for AmericanProgress, Move-On and other online groups and chose to do a single-day e-mail promotion for the DVDs on the same day they held the first screening of the film in Washington DC. They thought they'd sell 2,000-3,000 DVDs and were shocked when they made $10,000 in the first day and $25,000 within three days. Ultimately, they raised $1 million for MoveOn.
The challenge with working with partners is that each has their own way of working, some can be bureaucratic, and many of them so narrowly define their issues that it can be a challenge to bring multiple partners to the table in a broader coalition. WALMART: THE HIGH COST OF LOW PRICE, for example, brought together very strange bedfellows. IRAQ FOR SALE was the most challenging one to gain partners because some organizations were concerned that they could lose their non-profit status if they were seen as taking a side in the political debate during the election season (although the film purposely does not advocate for one candidate over another).
With the WALMART film, Greenwald made a strategic decision to stick to a specific date to roll-out screenings (most of them free to the public) and made a very broad coalition, including 1000 churches, student groups, unions, and women's groups. They were especially glad that churches formed part of the coalition because it was a means to recapture moral ground after being accused of being too lefty.
With funding, doc filmmakers need to accept that we are beggars. The irony is that Greenwald, who had years of experience inHollywood, found it easier and more dignified to get money from the Hollywood studios for all his feature films and TV movies than he does now to ask foundations and NGOs to support his documentaries.
As has been widely reported (including in this blog), with IRAQ FOR SALE, Greenwald was able to fund much of the film by getting small donations from enormous mailing list. More than 3,000 people got producer credit even though they contributed only about $25-50. Greenwald was astonished by the response and admits that he felt more accountable to these 3,000 people to make a worthwhile film than he ever had to a studio.
Brave New Films have tried to take advantage of the technologies available not only for fundraising and outreach, but for production itself. Very often, they didn't have resources to send someone out to conduct an interview in person so they would do it by phone or even by an Internet hookup. They created their own Wikis to conduct research. People across the country could access and enter information so they could narrow down their interviews without having to do pre-production trips to see if someone would be a good interview. They also created a secure website so they could view all of the dailies online.
Similarly, they enlisted their audience to become part of the production team. They had researchers around the country who they never met. Greenwald cited 10 people they recruited for OUTFOXED. These volunteers were tasked with watching Fox broadcasts all day and were given keywords to look for. They would note them down and the time of day the broadcast took place and send in daily reports so that the Brave New Films team could find the specific material from Tivo. The volunteers loved the work so much that they ended up founding a site called The Newshounds with the motto "We watch Fox so you don't have to." Similarly for WALMART, they recruited 1500 volunteer field producers who filmed empty Walmarts across the country. They now have more than 6,000 people willing to be screening hosts for their upcoming films.
Greenwald believes, in spite of the success of theatrically-released documentaries, that is not the future for most documentaries. In the near future, he is not even focusing on any long-form docs, but is instead taking on short 2 or 3 minute pieces which can stand alone or be "webisodes" which can be easily shared virally. The first one, recently released, focuses on likely presidential candidate John McCain. They will also be launching an online memorial for all those killed in Iraq on the March 19 anniversary of the start of the war. Modeled on the AIDS quilt and the New York Times spread on 9/11 victims, it will feature people who had a loved one killed in the war talking for one minute about that person. They already have the commitment of more than 350 blogs to carry the piece. And they are working to draw on their success to help other documentary filmmakers reach wide audiences. Brave New Theaters provides a space for social issue filmmakers to offer their films for online "Meet-Up" type screenings of their films.

These are just the highlights of Greenwald's speech and the other presentations made at the "Making Documentary Matter" conference on January 31-February 1, 2007. The podcast of Greenwald's keynote address is available on the Center for Social Media website.

What do you think of Greenwald's ideas? Can they work for you? What has he missed? Tell us what you think by posting a comment here.

How to Find Funding for Your Documentary?

2007-01-07T22:10:00.000-05:00

From time to time, we at Docs in Progress get e-mails from filmmakers seeking our advice on fundraising. Some filmmakers who submit their films for consideration for Docs in Progress workshops tell us they are looking to the workshop to help them raise funds. We used to explain to filmmakers that the purpose of the workshops is really to get feedback on the story of the film, not to seek funds. But in reality, fundraising is a vital part of the story of every documentary and the two go hand in hand. Filmmakers screening their rough cuts at Docs in Progress are screening to an audience. Raising funds for a film is another form of screening to an audience – even if you have no footage yet to screen. So we thought we’d devote this entry to some advice about fundraising. It is by no means comprehensive, but will help give those who are lost some potential direction. We welcome additional suggestions and comments.

The first question you need to ask of yourself before you start fundraising is pretty much the same one we use to get the discussion rolling at our workshops “Who is the target audience?” Once you can identify who this audience is, you can target your fundraising more effectively.

The second question you should think about is whether your project is being produced non-profit or for-profit. This brings us to a reality check about documentary; in spite of the recent success of theatrical documentaries, the majority of independently-made documentaries do not turn a profit. In fact, many documentarians find it difficult to make a reasonable income from their films and often work on their projects as an adjunct to freelance gigs, commercial work, or day jobs. While there are niche documentaries which can turn a profit (say one which involves Paris Hilton in a compromising position), there are very few which will be credible for an investor to see a return. So our focus here is more on the non-profit model.

Does this mean you need to be a non-profit organization? Nope, but you will need to know one who is willing to serve as your proxy for fundraising. Having what is known as a “fiscal sponsor” will open up the kinds of grants you can apply for. It also means that you can receive private donations and the donors can get a write-off on their taxes because they will be making a charitable donation. Fiscal sponsors vary. There are film organizations which specialize in being fiscal sponsors – International Documentary Association (IDA), Independent Film Project (IFP), Film/Video Arts, Film Arts Foundation, IMAGE Film and Video Center, Women Make Movies, Film Forum, Documentary Educational Resources to name a few.

Or perhaps the topic of your film lends itself to partnering with a non-profit advocacy organization working on the same topic. Many film fiscal sponsors are content to simply be a “pass through” where they take the 5% sponsorship fee (to cover their accounting expenses) and do not get involved in your fundraising or editorial content. Advocacy organizations may want some editorial involvement in the project (not necessarily a bad thing if you can be mutually beneficial to each other in building an audience and doing outreach).

So now where to look?

Friends and family
Funny we should mention this first, but sometimes people forget the resources which are the easiest at hand. Tell your friends and family what you are doing. When you are starting out, even a little bit of support can be a big help. And remember the six degrees of separation. Get your friends and family to be your biggest advocates, both for moral support and financial support. Keep them informed on developments with your film through a blog, mailing list, or fundraising parties to showcase the trailer from your film. And remember that financial support can include in-kind donations, not just hard cash. Countless documentary filmmakers have relied on the old-fashioned barter systems to trade services, share equipment, and so on.

Grants
Ah, yes, the time-tested method for most documentary filmmakers. Some say grants have dried up. Others say they are as vital as ever. The key, as with everything else, is to target them strategically. As an independent filmmaker, your time is extremely valuable and you do not want to spend most of it writing grant applications. Do your research and apply for funds that are within the realms of possibility, not every grant that’s out there.

Many filmmakers know of the major sources of funding: National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation. And that’s just the problem. Everyone knows them, so lots of people apply. While these grants can sometimes fund the bulk of a documentary budget, they are extremely difficult grants to get without a track record and, in the case of some of them, require the equivalent of a graduate dissertation to fill out the grant materials. Especially if you are a first time filmmaker, it may be a better use of your time and energy to focus first on fundraising for smaller amounts.

Foundations are the tried and true method of major fundraising, but this is where you need to pay special attention to who your audience is for your film and know who you are targeting for funds. Start out by visiting in person or online The Foundation Center and researching which foundations (a) fund film and/or (b) fund topics such as the one you are trying to present. Next, look at other documentaries. Lots of them. Especially ones on similar topics to yours. Pay special attention to the credits. Note down the sources and research them. Look at films which have been screened through the Council on Foundations. Look at your network: who do you know who has been funded or knows a funder?

If you are frustrated by foundations which want you to have more of a track record of other films, consider creating a track record by bringing on a more experienced filmmaker who has successfully fundraised from foundations as an executive producer. This will give you the added benefits of that person’s knowledge and the potential funder the reassurance that the film really can be made.

While there are many foundations out there, some of the foundations which are known to be friendly to documentary projects are the Sundance Documentary Fund, the Paul Robeson Fund for Independent Media, The Jerome Foundation, the Playboy Foundation, and the Pacific Pioneer Fund. Pay special attention to geographic residency requirements and the kinds of films these foundations fund. Don’t overlook family foundations if they fund topics similar to yours. Again – and we sound like a scratchy record here – know the audience for your film and the audience to whom you are pitching.

If you aren’t ready to try for NEA or NEH, think about your state or local humanities and arts councils or ones which relate to the topic of your film. These grants are often relatively small ($1,000-10,000) but are often easier to get, especially if your project relates to the locality in some way. Don’t overlook small grants. They help establish your fundraising credibility. Note that humanities councils will usually require scholarly involvement with the project and some of these organizations may also require that the filmmaker or fiscal sponsor be resident or that the topic of the project relate to the locality in some way. Filmmakers in the Washington area may wish to look into these local organizations:

In Washington DC: Humanities Council of Washington DC and DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities
In Maryland: Maryland Humanities Council and Maryland State Arts Council
In Virginia: Virginia Commission for the Arts and Virginia Foundation for the Humanities.

One very important note when you are writing grant proposals: Despite what we said about documentarians finding it hard to make a living, you should not compound this problem by thinking funders expect you to work for free. While you may think that a potential funder will look at a grant application where you have donated your services as being an indication of your passion for the project and budget-conscious nature, most funders will question why you have not set aside income for yourself. From their perspective, they want to fund films which will get made and finished as soon as possible. From a funder’s perspective, films made by people who obviously need to focus part of their time and attention on making a living from other means are not films which will be finished quickly, if at all. Communicate your passion through your treatment or trailer, not your budget.

Television Pre-Sales
This could be the topic of a whole book, so we won’t go into great detail here except to say that, unless you are Ken Burns or already have an existing relationship with PBS or HBO, you should not hold your breath to fund your project through an advance sale to American television (though a letter of interest from a broadcaster can be valuable in seeking other funds).

You may also want to look at the different programs of the Independent Television Service (ITVS). Funding from ITVS is technically not a pre-sale since ITVS funds do not guarantee broadcast on PBS. But ITVS funding is unlike a grant in that you actually are giving ITVS a Production License for the rights for domestic public broadcasting and direct broadcast rights.

Some films lend themselves to seeking funding from broadcasters in other countries, such as much of Europe and Canada. While commissions and pre-sales are more common outside of the United States, you should not approach this blindly. Very often, you will need an in-country co-producer or spend many years building relationships with European commissioning editors. The key to starting this process is to attend events where these individuals will be – generally international film festivals which have pitching forums attached to them such as the Toronto Documentary Forum at Hotdocs or The Forum at IDFA in Amsterdam. If you are serious about networking in Europe, you may also want to join an organization such as the European Documentary Network which provides members a directory of contacts at all the European television networks and also organizes smaller pitching sessions held throughout the year in various places in Europe.

Creative Fundraising
What we’ve described above are the traditional methods of fundraising. They can also be the most challenging and frustrating for independent filmmakers because there are many hoops to jump through and there is so much competition for relatively limited funds. The good news is that most documentary filmmakers are scrappy types who are capable of coming up with creative ways to fulfill your filmic dream. Before you start to consider the worst-case scenarios of maxing out your credit cards, drawing on your 401K, or doing anything illegal, you may want to look at some other ways to raise funds.

One of the easiest is to organize a fundraising party. This could be a one or two-time event where you invite your biggest supporters to a party where they will make a donation to your project. This can be held in a private home or a public place such as a restaurant or organization with similar goals to your project. Beg, barter, and borrow as much as possible so the costs of putting on the party do not exceed the funds you raise. Important elements are inviting people who will invite other people who will likely be sympathetic to your project and either establishing a fixed entrance fee or saving the call for funds for the mid-point of your party (when, if alcohol is being served, some guests may be even more generous than expected with their checkbooks). For much more on fundraising houseparties and fundraising in general, check out the website of Morrie Warshawski, long considered one of the top experts on film fundraising.

The recent proliferation of Meet-Ups has provided a variation on the Fundraising Party. The most noted success was that of Robert Greenwald. While he had previously used Meet-Ups to successfully distribute his political documentaries and engage viewers in discussions with like-minded activists, he took a new approach with his film IRAQ FOR SALE by actually using the online-organized houseparties to solicit funding in exchange for giving everyone who contributed a producer credit at the end of the film. While most of the donations were less than $100, Greenwald managed to raise more than $200,000. While not everyone has the name-recognition of Greenwald, viral Internet marketing is an area where many emerging filmmakers have the edge over more-established filmmakers who may be less web-literate. Heck, Docs in Progress even has a MySpace page now and a lot more people know about us as a result. Spreading knowledge about you and your film is the first step towards engaging potential funders and future audiences.

You don’t need to limit yourself to fundraising parties or online fundraising either. Think creatively. When DC-area filmmakers Gillian Klempner and Meghan Shea wanted to raise some funds for their documentary, THE NEW WOMAN: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ANNIE “LONDONDERRY” KOPCHOVSKY, about the first woman to traverse the globe on a bicycle, they took a lesson from their main character. In the summer of 2006, Klempner and Shea donned bloomers, got sponsors, and bicycled their way to various fundraising events between Boston and New York. They raised $10,000, enough to make headway on the film and get some buzz going in the process.

Final Thoughts
Don’t give up. Fundraising is not easy and, for many filmmakers, it is the last thing you envisioned yourself doing when you got into film in the first place. Through all the work and frustrations with raising money to you’re your film, don’t ever lose your greatest resource – your passion. It will often take you much further than you think.

If you have some additional thoughts and suggestions on fundraising, please feel free to comment.

Documentaries to Revisit: Lost in La Mancha

2007-01-06T21:34:00.000-05:00

Filmmaking can be a very torturing process. Nowhere can this be seen more easily than in documentaries about the making of a film. Some documentaries have provided deep insights into how difficult it is to get a script onto a screen. Just remember the insightful documentary BURDEN OF DREAMS by Les Blank who follows German filmmaker Werner Herzog into the Peruvian jungle where he was filming FITZCARRALDO. As the documentary unfolds, Herzog encounters enormous problems during the shooting in the Amazons. Even after three years of stop-and-go, FITZCARRALDO was completed and Werner Herzog's dream fulfilled. But what happens if the fight to realize a dream ends in a fiasco? How does this affect the “Making Of” story?

Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe, the makers of the documentary LOST IN LA MANCHA, lead us through that worst case scenario by documenting the making of the movie THE MAN WHO KILLED DON QUIXOTE, an ambitious film adaptation of Don Quixote by charismatic filmmaker Terry Gilliam. Sure, this documentary was planned with a different outcome, the “happy ending” of a finished film, but the reality unfolded itself in a different way and filmmakers Fulton and Pepe had no choice than adapt to that change. The film production of THE MAN WHO KILLED DON QUIXOTE failed after only one week on location. The documentary which intended to document the making of a $32 million movie turned into a film about the downfall of a production. Out of that production experience came not a feature film, but a documentary which every filmmaker should see to learn how to handle a story which goes off course from the one you expected -- and perhaps even find a more interesting story in the process.

In spite of the fact that Fulton and Pepe had just six days of shooting on location, they managed to document the passion which stands behind Terry Gilliam’s creation. At the same time, the documentary is constantly reminding us of one crude reality which waves behind every mayor film production: That next to talent, enormous management skills are needed to complete a movie and sometimes luck is not on your side.

The passion of filmmaking

Terry Gilliam is known for his eccentric futuristic fantasy films, such as Brazil and 12 Monkeys. This time, Gilliam is not projecting his imaginations into future but into the past, into the mindset of Spanish novelist Miguel de Cervantes who wrote Don Quixote in 1605. The plot is well known: An old man who has read so many stories about knights believes in a confused state that he himself is a knight and sets out with his horse to fight injustice. In one of his most famous adventures, he fights against windmills, believing that they are giants.

Unfortunately we never get to see the unfolding of the fight against windmills before the camera. The only thing we get to see from that scene is the casting of the three giants. Gilliam selects three big and comical looking Spanish men and does some camera rehearsals with them. What we see through the camera lens in that rehearsal makes us want to see more. Fulton and Pepe make it clear throughout their documentary that quite an outstanding film is on the way.

A look at the storyboard alone, illustrated in animated drawings, helps us to understand that. These drawings, a mix of surreal cartoons traced with extraordinary detail, are an art work unto themselves. Fulton and Pepe choose to start their documentary with these drawings to set up the high stylistic level of Gilliam’s film. These animations also give us a hint on how complicated this production will be, with huge set constructions and extravagant costumes. Gilliam, the fantasy auteur, envisions a film where magic dissolves into reality, where giants appear, and where gigantic handmade marionettes dance on enormous strings.

Most of all, we see an enthusiastic director who is in love with his project. The camera follows Gilliam as he interacts with his crew in preproduction. He macro-manages the overall look of the film, giving instructions to the set designer and at the same time micromanages details when we see him in discussion about Don Quixote’s armor. We get to know other crew members as they are all working full speed in each department to be ready for the first day of shooting.

Fulton and Pepe made important choices in editing in order to create the drama. By giving us from the start a good taste of the high production value of THE MAN WHO KILLED DON QUIXOTE, we fall in love with the project. We want to see the film happen. We want Gilliam to succeed with his dream.

Fighting the odds

The documentation of the downfall condenses weeks of pre-production and les than a week of production into 90 minutes. It points out the risk factors which can make any film production fall apart, especially one which aspires to Hollywood production values without being produced by Hollywood.

We are told from the beginning that the real cost of this film is $80 million. Gilliam was not able to convince any Hollywood studio to produce the film. He raises half of the money from European investors and sets out to Spain to shoot the film for $32 million. Filming at a less than an ideal budget is a scenario familiar to most documentary filmmakers. Gilliam faces similar tradeoffs and compromises that many low-budget doc-makers face.

Filming under budget means a director has less time or no time for rehearsal. Less rehearsal means more time on the set to get the acting and dialogue right. Selecting French actor Jean Rochefort to play Don Quixote makes sense for the European investors who need a hook to get the film into French cinemas, but Rochefort speaks shaky English. We are told that he started to learn English just to perform his part. All this contributes to problems on the set from the start.

Filming under budget also means crew and actors get paid less. Less payment means less commitment. Johnny Depp, who will play Sancho Panza, makes clear from the beginning that he has an extremely tight timeframe for the shoot between other film commitments and cannot extend under any circumstances.

Further, filming under budget means that the shooting schedule is extremely tight and must be executed as planned. There is no room for unexpected events, accidents or emergencies.

Fulton and Pepe select the crucial moments in the six days of shooting to document the challenges facing the production. We see Don Quixote riding his horse in a desert landscape. We soon learn that this landscape is located next to a NATO airbase, something one would think could have been identified during the location scout. On almost every take, a NATO fighter jet speeds through the sky, drowning out dialogue. The film crew spends most of the day on the rocks waiting for silence.

The next day, clouds make their appearance in the sky and turn into a severe thunderstorm with such a heavy rain fall that the crew has little time to hide in cars and secure the equipment under plastic sheets. The equipment gets flooded anyway and the next two days are used to restore it. Back on the set after four days of unsuccessful shooting, Jean Rochefort screams in pain as he unmounts his horse. It turns out that he has prostrate problems. He flies out to Paris to consult his doctor. Gilliam still hopes that the production can resume to shoot scenes where Rochefort is not needed, but soon learns that Rochefort is under doctor’s orders not to get back on a horse. Without their star, the insurance and the investors close the production down.

As we see the puppets get packed back into their boxes, we ask ourselves if everything can be blamed just on unforeseen forces that brought the production down. That is the argument Gilliam uses to convince the insurance company who has to come up with the lost money. But we have to wonder whether his unrealistic planning was also a major factor in the equation. Is it possible to act like a Hollywood director without having Hollywood behind you?

Fulton and Pepe do not get into details here because they have found a new story for their documentary. Just as Gilliam’s heart breaks over the loss of his dream, so too does the heart of the audience who had invested our hopes in the film being completed. What started out as a “Making Of” documentary found a new life as an “Unmaking of” documentary. A man dreams the impossible dream and finds invisible forces – many of his own making – block his way. Only the man is not Don Quixote, but Terry Gilliam.

When all is said and done, LOST IN LA MANCHA has two lessons for documentary filmmakers:

* Pay attention to what is within your control. Plan carefully to make your production a success. A low budget is not an excuse for poor common sense.

* Pay attention to what is outside of your control. The story you want to tell may not be the one which wants to be told. As you document what unfolds, go with the flow and you may find a new, even more powerful story.

© January 2007, Docs in Progress. Blogs and articles may not be reprinted without permission.

Grant Opportunity to Attend 2007 Full Frame Film Festival

2006-12-26T20:41:00.000-05:00

While we don't generally make a point of doing cross-promotions for other documentary events and activities on our blog, we did want to share something we think is a unique and worthy opportunity for emerging documentary filmmakers...

The Garrett Scott Documentary Development Grant will fund two first time documentary makers for travel and accommodations at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival, April 12-15, 2007. For four days, grant recipients will be given access to films, participate in master
classes and be mentored by experienced filmmakers.

About the Grant: Garrett Scott made a distinctive mark in documentary films during his short career. Without any formal training in film, he directed CUL DE SAC: A SUBURBAN WAR STORY, examining the case of a methamphetamine addict who stole a tank from an armory and went on a rampage through the San Diego suburbs. The film prompted Filmmaker
Magazine to cite Scott as one of 25 New Faces of Independent Film. He went on to make OCCUPATION: DREAMLAND, co-directed with Ian Olds, about U.S. soldiers in Falluja, Iraq. It won prizes at Full Frame and the Independent Spirit Awards. Both films were broadcast by the
Sundance Channel.

In 2005, Scott died of a heart attack at age 37. His friends, family and colleagues established this development grant to help other emerging filmmakers reach their potential. The grant's
selection committee looks especially for filmmakers who somehow fulfill Scott's example, by bringing a unique vision to the content and style of contemporary documentary making.

Criteria: Applicants must be a U.S. citizen or green card holder, living in the continental United States; any age 18 or older. "First time filmmaker" means someone who is in the early stage of their documentary career and not yet received significant recognition (such as major festival play or broadcast). All applicants should anticipate finishing their first project by March 2008. You can still qualify as a "first time filmmaker," even if you've made shorts or student projects or worked professionally as a crew member on other people's films. Or if you've recently completed a documentary that hasn't been released yet. The grant is open to students and
non-students alike.

How: Applicants should send a 2 page letter addressing these areas:

1) Project summary: Describe the documentary you're working on. It doesn't matter whether the film is a short or a feature. Describe the characters, structure, visual approach and what stage you're at.

2) Director's statement: Describe how you came to filmmaking and how you've trained as a filmmaker. It doesn't matter whether you went to film school or are self-taught. Describe what you want audiences to take from your film.

In addition, if applicants have a 5-10 minute sample of their work or work-in-progress, please send that as well on DVD or VHS (NTSC format). A sample work isn't required to apply. But if the selection committee has to choose between several strong applicants, the sample work will become a factor in making the decision.

Submit two copies of both the letter and work sample along with your...
Name:
Address:
Phone:
E-mail:
Send to:
Full Frame Documentary Film Festival
324 Blackwell Street. Suite 500
Washington Building, Bay 5
Durham, NC 27701
attn: Garrett Scott Documentary Grant

Deadline: Applications must be postmarked by February 5. Applicants will be notified by email in mid-March.

More information: http://fullframefest.org/call/garrettscottgrant.php

Documentaries to Revisit: Me and Isaac Newton

2006-10-10T21:29:00.000-04:00

When Should I Have a Website for My Film?

2006-08-29T20:46:00.000-04:00

Since Docs in Progress is starting a new online presence with Docs Interactive, it seems appropriate that our first question is about websites. The question is no longer "should" you have a website, but rather when is the best time to start your website and what should be on it.

Though we may all want to believe that our brilliant documentaries will play every important festival, break all box office records, have a high profile screening on television, and be the talk of the town, there are few films which make it without advance buzz. Rather than waiting to find the world's best publicist for Sundance, filmmakers need to realize the world's best publicist is pretty close at hand: You!

Whether your film will achieve all those accolades eventually or you will be reaching out to a niche audience, you will be marketing your film all the way. A website is an essential tool to start publicizing your film. At its most basic level, a website provides basic information on a film and helps reach out to potential crew-members, funders and supporters. If you use it to start a mailing list, you can start to build your audience beyond your friends and family. By the time some films are released, they may already have several thousand interested subscribers who will start the buzz going.

Ultimately your website will also serve as a resource for journalists, film festivals, distributors, students, and the general public who will be seeking out information on your film. At a minimum, a documentary website should contain a film synopsis, information on the director, and contact information for the production company and/or distributor. You may also want to include information on specific characters, bios for the rest of the crew, a director's statement, information on fundraising, and links to further resources. Further down the road, you will certainly want to include information on screenings, press about the film, ways to buy the film. Added bonuses are trailers for the film, educational materials, and an online press kit to make it easy for film festivals and journalists to download materials and stills from the film.

For an example of a basic but effective documentary website, take a look the site for Shelter Dogs, a 2004 film by Cynthia Wade about the ethics of euthanizing domestic animals. It does not have many of the bells and whistles of other documentary sites, but clearly conveys all the information about the film.

But what on earth do you put on a website, especially if you haven't filmed anything yet? How do you protect your idea if it is still just that -- an idea? The key is to think of the website in the same way you would a proposal or query to a potential broadcaster. Once it's out there, it's out there. Yes, ideas do get swiped and sometimes there may be several people working on a similar topic at the same time. But while you cannot copyright an idea, you shouldn't hold a project so close to your chest that nobody but you and your friends know about it. If you have a treatment, characters who trust you, some other unique connection to the story, and even some footage under your belt, the fear of "losing" your story to someone else does not outweigh the publicity benefits that come with a website. Unless you have a muckraking doc with a big surprise or a human rights story where you need to think about the access to and safety of your characters, a website is a must.

What should be on a website for a doc in pre-production or early production? A little about you, the background to the story, your intentions with the project, and how those visiting the site can help you get the film made. Even if you can't yet afford a website, you can even start a site as a blog and give your newly developing audience a reason to want to revisit the site to see your progress with the film. Lebanese-American filmmaker Basil Shadid is currently doing this with his work-in-progress, Writing Home about his impending journey to his family's homeland after a summer of war. The Director's Statement on his site tells us that Shadid does not need to worry about someone stealing his idea. Sure, there are probably lots of documentaries being made in Lebanon right now, but he has a unique angle that is likely to set his apart.

Just as your film develops, so too will your website. For some filmmakers, it's not just about the pride of announcing the world premiere of your finally finished film to your loyal and new website fanbase (though that is certainly a thrill). It's also about using the website as an entity of its own and making it something that people will want to make a destination site.

This is especially true of many social issue documentaries. Some may include links to partner organizations which are working on the issues outlined in the film. Megan Mylak and Jon Shenk's Lost Boys of Sudan includes links and suggestions of NGOs combatting the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Spike Lee's latest documentary When the Levees Broke provides links for organizations helping to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Political filmmaker Robert Greenwald has harnessed the power of the web not just to get out the word about films by his production company, Brave New Films, but to build whole "meet-up" movements around them. Reportedly he has raised more than $300,000 for his latest project entirely from small (but numerous) contributions through the web and at meet-ups.

Using a website for action does not have to be limited to providing links. Many films rely on interactive elements to help viewers relate to the film. These can be as simple as post-screening discussion groups or as complex as interactive "games" which mirror the themes of the film. The website for Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini's film Well-Founded Fear, for example, gives viewers the opportunity to decide on real-world asylum cases. Interactive elements can also build new connections. Filmmaker Grace Lee examines stereotypes of Asian-American women in The Grace Lee Project by seeking out other women with the same name as hers. Even after the film was complete, she included a survey on her website which could only be taken by those named Grace Lee.

These are just a few examples of documentary film websites. We could surely list many more. In fact, if you know of some additional doc websites which stand out from the crowd, please feel free to include links to them in the comments. (You can even mention your own website, but if you're going to shamelessly self-promote, tell us what makes your film's website so exceptional).

Welcome to Docs Interactive

2006-08-29T11:13:00.000-04:00

Docs Interactive is a Blog started by the team from Docs In Progress.

The focus of our workshops, peer pitches, and other programs has been to foster documentary community and help documentary filmmakers (experienced, emerging, etc.) get feedback on their works in progress and on documentary as a whole. We also publish an online newsletter which features interviews with experienced documentary professionals on their craft, reviews of documentaries which offer examples of effective storytelling, and our new feature, Docs Interactive

While our face-to-face programs take place in Washington DC, Docs Interactive is a new means for us to think about specific questions which arise related to documentary filmmaking. Every so often, we will post a question, offer our own comments, and invite you to add your thoughts and ideas -- in keeping with the interactive nature of our other Docs in Progress programs.

We look forward to sharing with you and hearing from you. And, by all means, if you have a question you'd like an answer to, please feel free to e-mail us and we may include it in a future blog.