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).
Showing posts with label Docs Interactive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Docs Interactive. Show all posts
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Monday, January 21, 2008
A Polar Opposite Approach to Fundraising: Paul Devlin and BLAST
For regular readers of the Docs In Progress website and the Docs Interactive blog, you know we are as obsessed as you are with the state of funding for documentaries. One of our very first blog entries focused on some resources for fundraising and we've also shared the wisdom of Robert Greenwald in connecting funding and outreach strategies, and provided the perspective of Trinh Duong of the Funding Exchange on raising funds from foundations. As a continuation of that theme, we wanted to talk to another independent filmmaker about strategies for fundraising success.
That took us to Paul Devlin. He is an Emmy-winning editor whose first documentary SlamNation on the cuthroat world of spoken poetry competitions premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival and was ultimately screened on HBO/Cinemax and Encore/Starz. His second film, Power Trip, looked at how former communist states were undergoing difficult transitions to democracy and market economies, by using the former State of Georgia and its electricity crisis as a case study. It screened at more than 60 festivals worldwide (including winning prizes at the Berlin Film Festival, Hot Docs, and the Florida Film Festival), was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award, and was screened on the PBS series Independent Lens. With a track record like this, Devlin would seemingly be the poster child for an easy road to funding.
But the reality is far different. Contrary to popular myth, a track record does not ensure automatic fundraising success for independent filmmakers. But the same wiles and passion which serve the indie filmmaker in finding and telling a story can be put to use on the trail of money. Let's see what Devlin had to say about his own journey to success.
Q: First of all, tell us a little bit about you and your background as a documentary filmmaker.
I started making Super 8 films in junior high school. My first documentary I made while a student at the University of Michigan. Rockin’ Brunswick was all about the thriving music scene in New Brunswick, New Jersey where I grew up. I distributed it on public access cable TV up and down the East Coast.
So I learned how to video edit and found that skill was more useful getting work than my English Lit degree. I traveled in Europe and Asia for a year and a half and found my first editing job in Hong Kong. Later I was a runner at the Seoul Olympics. I can trace back to there, all my network sports jobs, which include NBC Olympics, CBS Tour de France, and ABC World Cup Soccer. I’ve won five Emmys doing this work.
When I moved to New York, I started doing independent projects again. The first was a short fiction feature called The Eyes of St. Anthony. That didn’t generate another fiction project, so I gravitated back to documentary because they were not so labor- and money-intensive up front. I could work on documentaries gradually, do them myself and keep making movies.
My documentaries SlamNation and Power Trip were made on very small budgets because I did much of the work myself. They were self-financed, so in essence, they were funded by my network sports editing work. I tried to get outside funding, - writing grants, pitching commissioning editors at the IFP Market, etc, but got nowhere. Maybe I’m not good at that. Or maybe my topics were just too difficult and had to be executed to be believed.
In any case, I had to make my money on the backend, which is a big gamble, of course. But once you get committed, the project has been started, and the money is not coming, you have this terrible choice: Drop it, or keep going by yourself. Even when the movie is successfully distributed, it’s hard to break even.
Q: And now you are working on a film called BLAST. We want to talk about how you're approaching the funding based on the lessons you learned from before. But first of all, tell us a little more about the project.
BLAST follows the story of my brother, Mark Devlin, PhD. as he leads an international team of astrophysicists on a risky scientific adventure. Journeying from the Arctic to the Antarctic to launch a revolutionary new telescope on a NASA high altitude balloon, Mark and his team seek to unlock the mysteries of the origins of our Universe and answer humankind’s most basic question, How did we get here? BLAST reveals the human side of scientific pursuit – the daily frustrations, the enormous sacrifices, the catastrophic failures and the transcendent triumphs.
Mark casually invited me to document the launch of his new telescope, BLAST, in Arctic Sweden. It was very short notice, so I agreed only if he could find a way to fund my travel and expenses. The Swedish Space Corporation flew me over so they could use the footage for promotional purposes. When I got there, the project was plagued by all sorts of technical and weather delays, creating lots of tension and drama. After the launch of the telescope, the scientists discovered that it was out of focus and they would have to do it all over again in Antarctica. I realized I had the story for a bigger project.
BLAST is in post-production. We’ve got a pretty strong cut that we’ve been submitting to festivals. The schedule for the final online edit will be determined by festival acceptances and how effectively we can raise additional revenue to cover those finishing costs.
The goal of BLAST is to tell a great story and reveal, from the inside, the fascinating lives of scientists. BLAST focuses primarily on drama and character and avoids the voice-of-god narrator, which is very rare with science-based material. The story is paramount, but we’re also very excited by the science as well and hope that this approach makes it more accessible to a wide audience.
Q: You are also taking a different approach to fundraising, combining traditional methods with online outreach. Could you talk a little bit more about why you are doing this?
It’s very rare to fund an independent film from just one source, so the more sources you can identify, the better. Traditional funding is becoming more difficult to attract. There are so many more filmmakers out there competing for diminishing resources.
Meanwhile, online outreach is creating exciting, unexplored new opportunities. Filmmakers are realizing they can reach core audiences themselves through the Internet more effectively than through traditional distribution. This takes more work but allows us to keep significantly more of the revenue we generate.
Q: More specifically, you are working with a website called ArtistShare which has traditionally been used by musicians to connect their fans to the creative process. What is ArtistShare exactly and how did you get involved with them as their first film project?
The ultimate goal of the ArtistShare model is to create a community of fans through online outreach. The successful development of this community eventually sustains the artist directly, from project to project, without intermediaries. This is an exciting possibility. Musicians have begun to execute the ArtistShare model successfully. It’s time for filmmakers to follow their lead.
I was working on a short film about a musician. She was exploring the ArtistShare model for her next project and asked me to attend a meeting with ArtistShare to see how the film might enhance this project. That eventually inspired the idea that the ArtistShare model for music could also work for independent film.
My producer Claire Missanelli and I approached ArtistShare with BLAST and our proposal to partner with ArtistShare on it. There was a lot of back and forth with them to develop and personalize the project, and to adapt the ArtistShare model for a film. We ultimately created a website through them. They have been great to work with, very supportive.
It's a big experiment both for them and for us. It works for music; can it work for film? Let’s hope so, because we’ve seen how the music industry has been basically devastated as new technology transformed it from a retail business into a service business. The movie industry will go through a similar transformation, which we should all be prepared for.
ArtistShare does not get involved in the content or distribution of the film. In return for a set up fee and a percentage of the funds raised, they provides a template and the structure for artists to do this kind of project. They provide the website, but it is up to the individual artist to generate the content for the participant offers.
Q: We'd like to explore these participant offers a bit more. One of the key components of the ArtistShare model is involving funders as "participants." What's in it for the participants?
The process of making a movie is very different from making a music CD, so it took a long time and some imagination to adapt the participant offers for a film.
Participants get to experience the process of creating the film through behind-the-scenes video production updates. These include inside views of pitching a project at the Toronto Documentary Forum, and meetings with BBC’s Nick Fraser and independent consultant Robert Hawk. We just finished a fun one about our “Sundance Fever.”
We have offers that focus on the science behind the movie and we have other offers that are tailored to budding filmmakers. Our participants are encouraged to interact with us through Q&A sessions and personal email. Depending on the level of participation, there are opportunities to contribute to the editing of the film, to be our VIP guest at the premiere of BLAST, to appear in the credits of the film, and even to be the Executive Producer of the film. We are trying to create a valuable experience that inspires participants to join us on future projects.
Q: So who are the typical participants and how have they come upon the project?
Our list of participants started out just being friends and family. But as we generated more publicity through the Internet, participants we didn’t know personally started joining. When this happened we felt the concept could work. Now, it’s just a matter of getting the word out to the right audience.
So far generating publicity has been a challenge, even after hiring a publicist. Traditional media outlets are less interested when they realize the film is not yet complete. So to drive traffic to the site, we have been trying many different online approaches including interviews on blogs and podcasts, emails and newsletters, and even outreach on MySpace and Facebook.
Developing an effective message has also been a challenge. The response from our newsletter list, which includes several thousand addresses, was often, “Wow what a cool innovative idea. Let us know if it works and maybe we’ll try it.” When we ask if they signed up, we get a confused look: “I didn’t realize I was supposed to sign up.” We have to explain that in order for it to work, you have to sign up.
So we’re interested in ideas about how better to convey the ArtistShare message in a way that motivates participation. We’re hoping the filmmaking community will become enthusiastic participants as well, because it’s important for all of us to demonstrate the viability of these alternative funding models.
Q: It's interesting that you mention alternative funding models. While ArtistShare seems like an interesting model, what are they able to offer you that you would not have been able to do on your own from your own website, especially given the fact that you already have a track record and presumably loyal fans?
ArtistShare provides everything needed to host the project – from the media player, to the website layout, to working out the legal issues of the participant model. Not having to build this from scratch allows us to focus on creating a good experience for our participants rather than worrying about the technical issues.
The subjects of my films are so diverse – ranging from slam poetry to the energy crisis in Tbilisi, Georgia and now astrophysics – fans of one of my films may not necessarily be interested in the others. So although we have gotten a lot of support from loyal fans, we have had to reach out in new ways to develop an audience base that is interested in my work as a filmmaker generally, rather than just in a specific project. ArtistShare provides a structure in which to do that.
Q: Do you see something like ArtistShare as a replacement for traditional methods of fundraising (getting a fiscal sponsor, trying for grants, government funding, foreign television, commissions, etc.) or an enhancement?
It has worked for music artists. ArtistShare has developed many music CD projects, completely funded by participants. Some of these have gone on to win Grammys!
But films are much harder to make and are more costly. It remains to be seen if this model will work at all for film, let alone finance the entire project.
With BLAST, we have still had to use traditional methods of funding. Nick Fraser, commissioning editor of BBC’s Storyville liked my film Power Trip so much that he funded BLAST early. This eventually attracted commissions from Discovery Canada, Swedish TV and Finnish TV. BLAST also received my first grant ever, from the New York State Council of the Arts.
Will any of these be in a position to fund my next film or the film after that? Who knows? BBC, for example, has experienced drastic cuts and Storyville may no longer be commissioning films. Developing a loyal fan base through direct outreach may eventually prove to be the most secure way for artists to fund their projects.
ArtistShare still has to prove that it can work for film. If we can use this model to develop an ever-growing consistent fan-base willing to fund projects they like, then I think we will have demonstrated that the model can be adapted effectively for anyone willing to devote the time and energy to make it happen.
Q: Many first time filmmakers worry that it is difficult to break in to the funding circuit because there is a limited amount of funding out there and will usually go to more established filmmakers. Some more established filmmakers say this is a myth and it is not much easier for them to raise funds when funding sources are drying up. What do you think of each of these statements?
All filmmakers are “first-time” at some point. Funding is hard for everyone, even the most established filmmakers. Eventually first-timers who stick with it will have track records as well, but tenacity and hard work will still be required to raise funds, no matter what the source.
The Internet provides many opportunities for people who may not have exposure or experience through traditional outlets. The only real requirement is that you be creative enough to come up with a new approach, and dedicated enough to see it through.
Q: Do you have any additional advice for first-time filmmakers seeking funding, especially seed funding? How can filmmakers think outside the box to get their films made?
Shamelessness helps - a willingness to ask for money. Museums do it, politicians do it, why shouldn’t we? Developing good sales skills helps as well. There’s so much shameless private wealth out there waiting for the right project. I’m still working on how to tap into that myself. I’m not sure that I have to personality to organize fundraising events and parties as I’ve seen other filmmakers do. ArtistShare is my first serious effort to tap private financing.
But if you have that personality, I recommend Morrie Warshawski’s books, Shaking the Money Tree and The Fundraising Houseparty.
There’s not much that substitutes for a great idea, great access, or a great film. If you have these and refuse to give up, then you’ll find a way to get your project done and get it out there.
Q: What do you see as the future outlook for documentary?
I see the further blurring of the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction in “documentaries,” as filmmakers broaden the boundaries of storytelling using nonfictional material.
Editing a documentary is similar in many ways to writing a screenplay. For both, drama, character and story are paramount and must always take a back seat to accuracy. Filmmaking is art, not journalism. Films that place accuracy over story are much less likely to find an audience, especially in this outrageously competitive environment. Eventually audiences and critics will have to accept this and realize what we filmmakers already know: documentaries are essentially fictional.
But that does not mean they are not truthful. Werner Herzog has coined the phrase “ecstatic truth” to describe the fundamental truth that the filmmaker discovers beyond facts or chronology.
Because of this, documentaries are becoming The News of the World, despite the fact that they are not journalism. In a media environment where journalism has become so utterly compromised, a documentary that confesses its fictional elements can still provide enormously more in-depth coverage and insightful consideration of the complex issues that we’re facing all over the planet.
So it’s important to keep fighting to get our work made and seen. As veteran documentarian Robert Richter told me recently, documentary filmmaking is not a profession, nor a hobby; it’s a calling.
To learn more about BLAST, including an update on screenings of the finished film, visit its website at www.blastthemovie.com. Its ArtistShare site is at www.blastshare.com
© January 2008, Docs In Progress
This article may not be reprinted without permission.
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.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Marketing Mastery
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)
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)
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Documentaries to Revisit: Darwin's Nightmare
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.
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.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Erica's Report from Silverdocs
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
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
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Our Picks for Silverdocs
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...
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...
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Fair Use Demystified
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.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Documentaries to Revisit: Jesus Camp
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.
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.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Getting Busy with Docs in Progress...
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
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
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Have ideas about alternative distribution? Sound off on The D-Word Forum from Feb. 19-23
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
