While Docs Interactive is not and never aspires to be a job posting board, we did want to share two rather high-profile job openings in the documentary world:
The International Documentary Association, based in Los Angeles, is now advertising for a new Executive Director to replace Sandra Ruch who left IDA in July to pursue private consulting work. You can find out more about the position here.
And right here in Silver Spring, Maryland, the SILVERDOCS International Film Festival is looking for a new Festival Director to replace Patricia Finneran who is moving on to become a Senior Consultant with the Sundance Institute's Documentary Film Program. You can find out more about the position here.
Showing posts with label Silverdocs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Silverdocs. Show all posts
Friday, September 19, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part III (the Conference)
This is the last installment of my trilogy of dispatches from the SILVERDOCS Film Festival. I already gave my general impressions of the festival and some of the films I saw at the festival. Now I conclude with some tidbits I took away from the International Documentary Conference which is a sidebar to the festival.
As noted previously, I split my time between the festival, the conference, and some private meetings, so this is hardly a comprehensive guide to the conference. I was able to attend only five conference sessions:
DocuClub Screening of work-in-progress STAGES: I'll refrain from commenting on this session too much since I was the moderator, but I will give a shout-out to Felix Endara at DocuClub and the filmmakers of the Meerkat Media Arts Collective. Felix wrote a nice wrap-up of the session on the DocuClub website. Though the audience was relatively small (hey, it was a Tuesday afternoon), the people who made it to the screening gave excellent feedback and I too am curious to see what the Meerkats do with it.
The first few panels I went to were underwhelming. Does Public TV Have a Future? dealt with the issue of public media at a very macro level, but really didn't shed new light on how this will impact independent documentary filmmakers. Similarly The Documentary In Action: Civically Engaged Media: A Look at Next Generation Marketing, Funding, Outreach and Distribution panel sounded more promising than it actually turned out to be -- at least if you were hoping to learn some new tips on how to get their films funded and distributed. I missed the first part of the session because the handy brochure-size schedule of the festival and conference did not have the correct start time (and I didn't think to look in the clunkier conference notebook). But I did get there in time to hear Sandy Herz from the Skoll Foundation talking about how Skoll's emphasis has been on supporting social entrepreneurs to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots. But, in case you're a filmmaker thinking you are a have-not, you may need to look elsewhere since Skoll's focus is not on funding individual film projects, but on supporting large organizations (like the Sundance Institute and public television and radio entities). Given the audience for this panel, it seems like it might have made more sense to have someone from ITVS or another direct filmmaker-funding entity which wants a heavy outreach component; maybe even someone from Sundance to explain their new initiative funded by Skoll. The panel went on to feature some interesting (if somewhat depressing) statistics from Rick Allen, the Executive Producer of KICKING IT. He cited the statistics that, out of 9000 films submitted to the most recent Sundance Film Festival, only 118 were accepted. Less than 40 of those were documentaries -- of which only seven were bought for distribution. He also noted that, in 2007, only three documentaries grossed more than $1 million. But lest you think he was trying to be a downer to prospective doc-makers, his point really was that the system is broken. His point of view is that forcing the consumer to pay for a film upfront ultimately hurts creativity and experimentation and that he sees Web 3.0 as a way to blend the social networking tools of Web 2.0 with professional content. The next phase of online video will feature more curated programming than the chaos of YouTube. But what he didn't fully explain was how this can be economically viable for the filmmaker himself. Or at least he didn't explain it while I was there. The challenge of the conference schedule was that panels on mutually-themed topics often coincided or overlapped, so I had to skip the last part of this panel to head to another one.
Thankfully the last few panels I went to all proved to be useful -- indeed, even inspirational -- for indies.
There was a great session on pitching with Cynthia Lopez from POV, Josh Green from Emerging Pictures, and Mark Rabinowitz from Cinelan. The information they offered was not news to most doc filmmakers...
* Know who you're pitching, including what kind of content they generally pick up (e.g., POV is for social issue documentaries, Cinelan only takes three minute shorts, etc.), any little tidbits about them personally which may help build a connection (without coming across as creepy), and how they prefer to be pitched (in person? by phone? e-mail? etc.)
* Know what other films have been done on your topic and be ready to answer questions of how yours is unique? Anticipate difficult questions.
* Know how to contain your pitch into a short package so you can "contaminate" others with your film's topic. Be clear on the perspective of the story.
* Know that distributors view films as "one big bundle of risk," so be ready to answer questions which may show you already have a built-in audience or have done some test marketing.
"Be positive throughout a pitch. Never say anything like 'I don't know if there's an audience for...'"
...but they spent the bulk of the time actually taking pitches from audience members, asking good questions, and providing useful feedback. This was a breath of fresh air after years of attending other DC panels where programmers from Discovery and National Geographic basically say they can't take any pitches because of their requirement for filmmakers to sign legal forms basically giving away their right to complain if their pitch is not picked up but the network produces something similar. The only panel I ever went to where an exception was made was one where HBO's Sara Bernstein attended and Victoria Bruce made a passionate pitch for her work in progress THE KIDNAPPING OF INGRID BETANCOURT; the film ultimately screened on HBO. I'll be curious to see if any of the films pitched at SILVERDOCS find equal success.
Though, of course, "success" is in the eyes of the beholder and is often very much in the control of the filmmakers themselves, albeit with a lot of time and effort. Nowhere was this more clear than at a case study session on MADE IN L.A. with filmmakers Almudena Carracedo and Robert Bahar (who we featured in our Docs In Progress Spring 2008 feature on houseparties). Finally some down-to-earth advice on how independent filmmakers can effectively bring civic engagement into their plans for fundraising, marketing and distribution. Some of their tips:
* Don't be dissuaded by grant rejections. They were initially rejected by some of the larger foundations. While it was frustrating, it also helped them look at other, more grassroots means of fundraising. By focusing on grassroots fundraising in the early years, they ultimately built their core audience and paved the way for the outreach once the film was complete.
* Clarify who your core audiences are and don't presume there may just be one. In the case of MADE IN L.A., their core audiences included labor activists, Latino organizations, and women's organizations. By establishing connections with these organizations, they were able to hook in to smaller grants from foundations focused on shared issues. They were especially interested in looking at organizations which had good networks and were well organized.
* Keep a good database. At every event, they had sign-up sheets not only to add people to their mailing list, but also to keep track of different levels of donors, who was interested in eventually purchasing the film, etc.
* Don't put all your eggs in one basket. They went to the IFP Market and left with great spirits but empty pockets. Similarly, it took them three tries before they got money from ITVS.
* Don't think of production as being separate from distribution. It is all towards the same goal. Too many filmmakers lose energy after the film is done, but outreach is where the real work begins (though of course it began long before the film was completed). In the year since MADE IN L.A. premiered at SILVERDOCS 2007, the filmmakers have been on a strenuous grassroots outreach campaign which has taken them around the country and around the world. They expect this campaign to continue for another year.
* Once the film is done, if possible, always have DVDs with you to sell -- whether at festivals or outreach screenings. People are more likely to buy the film onsite rather than going to order from the website.
Distribution expert Peter Broderick moderated this panel and later made his own presentation on the Cutting Edge of Distribution, based on the experiences he has had working with more than 100 filmmakers on hybrid models of distribution. His presentation was a great addition to the information because he cited many examples of films which would not easily fit into the social-issue category that MADE IN L.A. does. Among them:
FASTER, about Motocross racing. Though the film had a limited theatrical release, it saved money on an expensive advertising campaign by only using online outreach. It managed to sell $13,000 in tickets for the first few days by reaching out to the core audience of Motocross fanatics who spread the word virally. Online DVD sales were even more amazing with the filmmaker doing his own fulfillment for a preview DVD which sold 13,000 DVDs within two months of release. New Video eventually sold 52,000 more DVDs of a 2 disc set collector's edition of the DVD.
HELVETICA. Who could imagine that a film about typeface would be a sleeper success story? But there are a lot of typeface fanatics in this world and they helped the film make $60,000 in poster and T-shirt sales before the film was even released. The film premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival, played a number of other fests, and had a semi-theatrical run internationally. Like FASTER, it made money from two DVD editions.
THE SECRET. Gosh, I never even knew that there was a movie before there was a book to make Oprah wide-eyed about the power of positive thinking. But, according to Broderick, I must be in the minority because the documentary pre-dated the book, involved some very slick online trailers which made their way around the Internet virally and drove people to the website where they could watch the film for $4.95 online or buy the DVD for $24.95. Interestingly, 90% of those who watched the film online also bought the DVD. It has sold more than 250,000 copies.
Though some of us may cringe at using THE SECRET as a model of marketing, Broderick went on to cite and detail many other examples, including 1:6 RIGHT, THE FUTURE OF FOOD, IRAQ FOR SALE, NOTE BY NOTE, and KING CORN. His key points:
* Most successful films start off with an idea of their audience and then build and add audiences as they go.
* Retain as much control over your film as possible. This does not necessarily mean that you need to self-distribute, but many filmmakers have found success with a hybrid model of distribution which allows them to split up the rights and retain as much of a revenue stream as possible.
* Even for films which have traditional distributors, smart distributors should want filmmakers to sell films from their own website because more online activity can benefit sales all around. Broderick believes no filmmaker should have to pay more than $5 wholesale to their distributor to sell on their own website.
* Be creative with ancillary materials. Signed posters. Soundtracks. T-Shirts. All these can boost sales on their own to build buzz ahead of a DVD release or as added bonuses for special edition DVDs at a higher price.
* If you have a partnership with a community organization interested in the topic of your film, you can make a deal to sell them copies of the film at a lower cost which they can then in turn sell to their audience at a higher cost to make money for their cause.
* Sometimes you have to unlearn the rules of distribution and work backwards. Think of Four-Eyed Monsters which got its start on the Internet through video podcasts of six-minute episodes; created a theatrical market by promising to "four-wall" a screening in any city where more than 150 people said they would attend; eventually put the whole movie online for free on YouTube in exchange for some advertising revenue; eventually expanded to MySpace; and ended with a retail video and TV distribution deal.
* Partnerships come in multiple forms. They can include everything from simple link exchanges to affiliate marketing to sponsoring houseparties to on-site screenings at conventions or meetings.
* Websites need to be more than just a press kit. They need to have an idea bigger than just the film. There needs to be a clear persona. The content should be dynamic to keep people coming back. Blogs should focus on the issues and incorporate experts, characters, and/or user contributions. And, most of all, the online presence needs to be fun for the filmmaker.
This last point was also covered in a panel about online presence, called MARKETING BRAND YOU, which I referenced in an earlier blog entry since the panelists and audience members actually gave some very cogent feedback on the Docs In Progress website. Some of the more general points the panelists made:
* Your website is your brand. It is your promise and your premise.
* It should be a positive user-experience so it is key to think of who your users are and make the site as easy to navigate as possible for them.
* Aim for social media optimization by linking to all your online presence spots and increasing your linkability. Make tagging and bookmarking easy, as exemplified by clicking the "share" button on Epicfu.com.
* Be transparent, honest, and helpful. Thank people who link to you with a message or a counter-link. Don't be afraid to link off your site for fear of losing readers. Search engines like Google actually reward sites with lots of links with higher ratings on the search engine list.
* Make content travel with videos, PDFs, etc.
* Why have your blog in a separate place from your website? Keep them together. (Yup, that's something which will definitely be changed in the revamp of Docs In Progress/Docs Interactive)
All in all, the SILVERDOCS Conference offered plenty of food for thought and a welcome reality check to accompany the films in the festival. There are always critiques which could be made. For example, I do wish the education sidebar to the conference could have preceded or followed the conference itself, so I could have made time to go to some of those sessions on a topic about which I would like to know more. Time simply didn't permit it for me. And I do realize that it is difficult to put together sessions which are aimed at multiple audiences (my critique is coming from the perspective of an independent documentary filmmaker, but there are also programmers, funders, distributors, educators, academics, and others to please). But I would have to say that, while I would not say this year held the most energized festival program of the six SILVERDOCS I have attended, the conference continues to get stronger and stronger every year.
As noted previously, I split my time between the festival, the conference, and some private meetings, so this is hardly a comprehensive guide to the conference. I was able to attend only five conference sessions:
DocuClub Screening of work-in-progress STAGES: I'll refrain from commenting on this session too much since I was the moderator, but I will give a shout-out to Felix Endara at DocuClub and the filmmakers of the Meerkat Media Arts Collective. Felix wrote a nice wrap-up of the session on the DocuClub website. Though the audience was relatively small (hey, it was a Tuesday afternoon), the people who made it to the screening gave excellent feedback and I too am curious to see what the Meerkats do with it.
The first few panels I went to were underwhelming. Does Public TV Have a Future? dealt with the issue of public media at a very macro level, but really didn't shed new light on how this will impact independent documentary filmmakers. Similarly The Documentary In Action: Civically Engaged Media: A Look at Next Generation Marketing, Funding, Outreach and Distribution panel sounded more promising than it actually turned out to be -- at least if you were hoping to learn some new tips on how to get their films funded and distributed. I missed the first part of the session because the handy brochure-size schedule of the festival and conference did not have the correct start time (and I didn't think to look in the clunkier conference notebook). But I did get there in time to hear Sandy Herz from the Skoll Foundation talking about how Skoll's emphasis has been on supporting social entrepreneurs to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots. But, in case you're a filmmaker thinking you are a have-not, you may need to look elsewhere since Skoll's focus is not on funding individual film projects, but on supporting large organizations (like the Sundance Institute and public television and radio entities). Given the audience for this panel, it seems like it might have made more sense to have someone from ITVS or another direct filmmaker-funding entity which wants a heavy outreach component; maybe even someone from Sundance to explain their new initiative funded by Skoll. The panel went on to feature some interesting (if somewhat depressing) statistics from Rick Allen, the Executive Producer of KICKING IT. He cited the statistics that, out of 9000 films submitted to the most recent Sundance Film Festival, only 118 were accepted. Less than 40 of those were documentaries -- of which only seven were bought for distribution. He also noted that, in 2007, only three documentaries grossed more than $1 million. But lest you think he was trying to be a downer to prospective doc-makers, his point really was that the system is broken. His point of view is that forcing the consumer to pay for a film upfront ultimately hurts creativity and experimentation and that he sees Web 3.0 as a way to blend the social networking tools of Web 2.0 with professional content. The next phase of online video will feature more curated programming than the chaos of YouTube. But what he didn't fully explain was how this can be economically viable for the filmmaker himself. Or at least he didn't explain it while I was there. The challenge of the conference schedule was that panels on mutually-themed topics often coincided or overlapped, so I had to skip the last part of this panel to head to another one.
Thankfully the last few panels I went to all proved to be useful -- indeed, even inspirational -- for indies.
There was a great session on pitching with Cynthia Lopez from POV, Josh Green from Emerging Pictures, and Mark Rabinowitz from Cinelan. The information they offered was not news to most doc filmmakers...
* Know who you're pitching, including what kind of content they generally pick up (e.g., POV is for social issue documentaries, Cinelan only takes three minute shorts, etc.), any little tidbits about them personally which may help build a connection (without coming across as creepy), and how they prefer to be pitched (in person? by phone? e-mail? etc.)
* Know what other films have been done on your topic and be ready to answer questions of how yours is unique? Anticipate difficult questions.
* Know how to contain your pitch into a short package so you can "contaminate" others with your film's topic. Be clear on the perspective of the story.
* Know that distributors view films as "one big bundle of risk," so be ready to answer questions which may show you already have a built-in audience or have done some test marketing.
"Be positive throughout a pitch. Never say anything like 'I don't know if there's an audience for...'"
...but they spent the bulk of the time actually taking pitches from audience members, asking good questions, and providing useful feedback. This was a breath of fresh air after years of attending other DC panels where programmers from Discovery and National Geographic basically say they can't take any pitches because of their requirement for filmmakers to sign legal forms basically giving away their right to complain if their pitch is not picked up but the network produces something similar. The only panel I ever went to where an exception was made was one where HBO's Sara Bernstein attended and Victoria Bruce made a passionate pitch for her work in progress THE KIDNAPPING OF INGRID BETANCOURT; the film ultimately screened on HBO. I'll be curious to see if any of the films pitched at SILVERDOCS find equal success.
Though, of course, "success" is in the eyes of the beholder and is often very much in the control of the filmmakers themselves, albeit with a lot of time and effort. Nowhere was this more clear than at a case study session on MADE IN L.A. with filmmakers Almudena Carracedo and Robert Bahar (who we featured in our Docs In Progress Spring 2008 feature on houseparties). Finally some down-to-earth advice on how independent filmmakers can effectively bring civic engagement into their plans for fundraising, marketing and distribution. Some of their tips:
* Don't be dissuaded by grant rejections. They were initially rejected by some of the larger foundations. While it was frustrating, it also helped them look at other, more grassroots means of fundraising. By focusing on grassroots fundraising in the early years, they ultimately built their core audience and paved the way for the outreach once the film was complete.
* Clarify who your core audiences are and don't presume there may just be one. In the case of MADE IN L.A., their core audiences included labor activists, Latino organizations, and women's organizations. By establishing connections with these organizations, they were able to hook in to smaller grants from foundations focused on shared issues. They were especially interested in looking at organizations which had good networks and were well organized.
* Keep a good database. At every event, they had sign-up sheets not only to add people to their mailing list, but also to keep track of different levels of donors, who was interested in eventually purchasing the film, etc.
* Don't put all your eggs in one basket. They went to the IFP Market and left with great spirits but empty pockets. Similarly, it took them three tries before they got money from ITVS.
* Don't think of production as being separate from distribution. It is all towards the same goal. Too many filmmakers lose energy after the film is done, but outreach is where the real work begins (though of course it began long before the film was completed). In the year since MADE IN L.A. premiered at SILVERDOCS 2007, the filmmakers have been on a strenuous grassroots outreach campaign which has taken them around the country and around the world. They expect this campaign to continue for another year.
* Once the film is done, if possible, always have DVDs with you to sell -- whether at festivals or outreach screenings. People are more likely to buy the film onsite rather than going to order from the website.
Distribution expert Peter Broderick moderated this panel and later made his own presentation on the Cutting Edge of Distribution, based on the experiences he has had working with more than 100 filmmakers on hybrid models of distribution. His presentation was a great addition to the information because he cited many examples of films which would not easily fit into the social-issue category that MADE IN L.A. does. Among them:
FASTER, about Motocross racing. Though the film had a limited theatrical release, it saved money on an expensive advertising campaign by only using online outreach. It managed to sell $13,000 in tickets for the first few days by reaching out to the core audience of Motocross fanatics who spread the word virally. Online DVD sales were even more amazing with the filmmaker doing his own fulfillment for a preview DVD which sold 13,000 DVDs within two months of release. New Video eventually sold 52,000 more DVDs of a 2 disc set collector's edition of the DVD.
HELVETICA. Who could imagine that a film about typeface would be a sleeper success story? But there are a lot of typeface fanatics in this world and they helped the film make $60,000 in poster and T-shirt sales before the film was even released. The film premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival, played a number of other fests, and had a semi-theatrical run internationally. Like FASTER, it made money from two DVD editions.
THE SECRET. Gosh, I never even knew that there was a movie before there was a book to make Oprah wide-eyed about the power of positive thinking. But, according to Broderick, I must be in the minority because the documentary pre-dated the book, involved some very slick online trailers which made their way around the Internet virally and drove people to the website where they could watch the film for $4.95 online or buy the DVD for $24.95. Interestingly, 90% of those who watched the film online also bought the DVD. It has sold more than 250,000 copies.
Though some of us may cringe at using THE SECRET as a model of marketing, Broderick went on to cite and detail many other examples, including 1:6 RIGHT, THE FUTURE OF FOOD, IRAQ FOR SALE, NOTE BY NOTE, and KING CORN. His key points:
* Most successful films start off with an idea of their audience and then build and add audiences as they go.
* Retain as much control over your film as possible. This does not necessarily mean that you need to self-distribute, but many filmmakers have found success with a hybrid model of distribution which allows them to split up the rights and retain as much of a revenue stream as possible.
* Even for films which have traditional distributors, smart distributors should want filmmakers to sell films from their own website because more online activity can benefit sales all around. Broderick believes no filmmaker should have to pay more than $5 wholesale to their distributor to sell on their own website.
* Be creative with ancillary materials. Signed posters. Soundtracks. T-Shirts. All these can boost sales on their own to build buzz ahead of a DVD release or as added bonuses for special edition DVDs at a higher price.
* If you have a partnership with a community organization interested in the topic of your film, you can make a deal to sell them copies of the film at a lower cost which they can then in turn sell to their audience at a higher cost to make money for their cause.
* Sometimes you have to unlearn the rules of distribution and work backwards. Think of Four-Eyed Monsters which got its start on the Internet through video podcasts of six-minute episodes; created a theatrical market by promising to "four-wall" a screening in any city where more than 150 people said they would attend; eventually put the whole movie online for free on YouTube in exchange for some advertising revenue; eventually expanded to MySpace; and ended with a retail video and TV distribution deal.
* Partnerships come in multiple forms. They can include everything from simple link exchanges to affiliate marketing to sponsoring houseparties to on-site screenings at conventions or meetings.
* Websites need to be more than just a press kit. They need to have an idea bigger than just the film. There needs to be a clear persona. The content should be dynamic to keep people coming back. Blogs should focus on the issues and incorporate experts, characters, and/or user contributions. And, most of all, the online presence needs to be fun for the filmmaker.
This last point was also covered in a panel about online presence, called MARKETING BRAND YOU, which I referenced in an earlier blog entry since the panelists and audience members actually gave some very cogent feedback on the Docs In Progress website. Some of the more general points the panelists made:
* Your website is your brand. It is your promise and your premise.
* It should be a positive user-experience so it is key to think of who your users are and make the site as easy to navigate as possible for them.
* Aim for social media optimization by linking to all your online presence spots and increasing your linkability. Make tagging and bookmarking easy, as exemplified by clicking the "share" button on Epicfu.com.
* Be transparent, honest, and helpful. Thank people who link to you with a message or a counter-link. Don't be afraid to link off your site for fear of losing readers. Search engines like Google actually reward sites with lots of links with higher ratings on the search engine list.
* Make content travel with videos, PDFs, etc.
* Why have your blog in a separate place from your website? Keep them together. (Yup, that's something which will definitely be changed in the revamp of Docs In Progress/Docs Interactive)
All in all, the SILVERDOCS Conference offered plenty of food for thought and a welcome reality check to accompany the films in the festival. There are always critiques which could be made. For example, I do wish the education sidebar to the conference could have preceded or followed the conference itself, so I could have made time to go to some of those sessions on a topic about which I would like to know more. Time simply didn't permit it for me. And I do realize that it is difficult to put together sessions which are aimed at multiple audiences (my critique is coming from the perspective of an independent documentary filmmaker, but there are also programmers, funders, distributors, educators, academics, and others to please). But I would have to say that, while I would not say this year held the most energized festival program of the six SILVERDOCS I have attended, the conference continues to get stronger and stronger every year.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part II (The Films)
Well, now that I've given you my general impressions of the festival, here's a little bit more on what I thought of the film program.
While SILVERDOCS never fails to impress with a combination of local and world premieres of buzz-worthy films, I actually try to make a point of seeing films which just look interesting and less likely to make it into theaters or television. So you won't find me writing about festival faves MAN ON A WIRE, UP THE YANGTZE, or GONZO: THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON. Nor will I write about ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD or TROUBLE THE WATER (though you can read my thoughts on them from my Full Frame coverage)
Instead let me start with three smaller films which are still resonating with me nearly a week later:
LOST HOLIDAY was definitely my favorite of the festival. I was intrigued by the premise: a Czech tourist finds a suitcase in Sweden with 22 rolls of undeveloped film. He goes home, develops the film, and discovers snapshots of a group of Asian men posing in front of various idyllic scenes of Europe. He then works with filmmaker Lucie Kralova to track down the men to return the photos to them. Part detective story, part roadtrip, and part a reflection on how far global media has brought us together and yet left us disconnected, LOST HOLIDAY is probably one of the few films I saw which justified being more than 70 minutes long. It also reminds us that a documentary can be a mystery, a comedy, and a social commentary all in one.
Another film which fit in with this theme of post-modern (dis)connection was Danish filmmaker Phie Ambo's MECHANICAL LOVE. I had not intended to see this film when I first went through the program, but was persuaded by a friend I hadn't seen in a while to join him for it. Expecting either a dull film about the latest scientific advances in robotics or a sleazy film about new Japanese sex toys, I was pleasantly surprised when the film focused instead on two very different personal stories which make us question whether technology is bringing us closer together or tearing us further apart. On the one hand, we have a scientist in Japan, building a "geminoid," a robot version of himself, complete with the same build, clothing, and facial expressions and movements. On the other, we have a woman in a nursing home in Germany who finds comfort in "Paro," a therapeutic robot which looks and sounds like a white, furry baby seal. She treats him like a pet, talking to him, stroking him, and even bringing him with her to group activities where his constant squealing annoys the other residents. While the filmmaker unfortunately was not able to attend the screening to discuss the important issues the film raises, the Japan Information Center did send Paro. While I am still dubious about the uses of such a technology beyond therapeutic use with those who are no longer lucid, I did find it strangely intriguing that "he" reacted to an ear scratching touch I use with my dog with the same type of pleasure. At $3,000 a pop, I am not sure Paro will be on the must-have list for Christmas this year, but I suspect some kind of cheap knockoff soon will be.
The third film which really drew me in was SEAVIEW, a meditation on the changing face of Europe, as told through the story of a former holiday resort in Ireland which has become an asylum camp where Nigerians, Congolese, Kurds, and many others are required to stay as they wait to find out if they can stay in Ireland. Having lived in Ireland at a time when it was still a predominantly homogeneous (and innocently racist) society, I was naturally interested in the theme of the film. But it was the style which made the film memorable. Filmmakers Nicky Gogan and Paul Rowley come from a background of doing films for museum installations and SEAVIEW definitely reflects that in its lyrical style. While the film's pace could be off-putting to some, I found the beautiful images of the place all the more powerful set against the voiceover of asylum-seekers, some of whom did not want to be shown on camera.
What puzzled me about this year's SILVERDOCS program is that the programmers opted to celebrate an important anniversary (40 years after 1968) rather than an important moment in time (2008, a year which promises to have one of the most talked-about election seasons since 1968). From the Opening Night film ALL TOGETHER NOW about the creative collaboration between the Beatles and Cirque du Soleil to the all-over-the place REVOLUTION '68 to Charles Guggenheim and the Maysles' brothers respective classics ROBERT KENNEDY REMEMBERED and GIMME SHELTER, and an outdoor screening of another Maysles' film about the Beatles, it was Sixties Redux all week long. Yet, with the exception of Spike Lee's short about the 2000 election, WE WUZ ROBBED, there seemed to be a marked absence of films which directly addressed the U.S. political scene today. A very odd omission in an election year in the most political of cities.
Come to think of it, I probably should mention something more about Spike Lee who was honored by the festival at their Guggenheim Symposium. Usually I love his fiction and non-fiction films, even when they aim beyond what is capable of being contained in a single film. Usually I love him, even when his schtick has him bordering on a caricature of himself. But he was a man of few words that night -- frustratingly so, and not effectively moderated -- so I don't see the point in wasting too many words of my own on a summary of his disengagement from the audience. Besides, A.J. Schnack has already done so so much more eloquently than I ever could.
Other films I saw came back to that same theme again and again: who are we and can we connect to others? CORRIDOR 8 took us on a roadtrip down the Balkan version of Route 66, a failed promise to connect Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania (Good luck with that). HEADWIND was about the spread of satellite dishes across Iran, holding the promise of news, culture, and maybe just a little titillation from the West. I saw an amazing shorts program which addressed everything from the shared joy of two Irish smokers to aging Hungarian sisters whose bond could not be broken by time or men to the close relationship between two outsiders, albeit one a man, the other a sheep. I wish I had more time to go to the other Shorts Programs since SILVERDOCS has traditionally excelled at the genre (and I am also losing my patience for features which have extended themselves to be that ideal {"festival," "theatrical" or "TV" length when they are not necessarily best served by being so long).
THE ENGLISH SURGEON was the film everybody was buzzing about the whole week. Though the film also addresses issues of globalization and human connection as it follows a British brain surgeon on a mission to perform surgery in Ukraine, I simply never warmed up to the main character or understood why he does what he does. That said, the film does offer a unique window into the doctor-patient relationship and how that transcends borders. While the scene in the film everyone will likely remember involved a brain surgery done with the patient awake, the one which I will most remember is when the surgeon's Ukrainian counterpart struggles to tell one young and vibrant patient that she has an inoperable condition which she is unlikely to survive more than five years. Though it was not my personal favorite, I cannot fault the jury for giving the film the festival's Sterling World Feature Award.
And finally, I should say something about AMERICAN TEEN. Although I selected most of my films as ones which I thought might be unlikely to be seen again anywhere near me, I simply had to see AMERICAN TEEN with an audience and filmmaker Q&A so that I could better understand all the fuss over it. It has gotten kudos from many as a "modern-day BREAKFAST CLUB," an inside look at 21st century teen angst, and the likely breakout non-fiction hit of the summer. From others, especially some documentary filmmakers, the film raises ethical questions into how certain scenes were edited and directed and how much the presence of the cameras impacted the characters' actions. It has been decried in some circles as being no better than the SoCal docu-soap-reality shows of MTV. But you know what? I don't understand the fuss. The film was neither here nor there for me. The post-screening discussion with the film's producer and one of its "stars" (Hannah, who is probably the character in the film who is the least stereotyped) was probably more interesting than the film itself, if only to dispel the myth about scenes being recreated. But the film is ultimately forgettable. Then again, maybe that's what my generation's parents said about THE BREAKFAST CLUB. It remains to be seen if the film will resonate with teens when it gets its theatrical release in the coming weeks. Actually my friend Ethan Lincoln (who is neither a filmmaker nor someone who spent his teen years in the U.S.) probably summed up the film best in his blog.
AWARD WINNERS
Audience Award: HERB AND DOROTHY (Feature), THE TAILOR (Short)
Sterling US Feature Award: THE GARDEN (Special Jury Mention: TROUBLE THE WATER)
Sterling World Feature Award: THE ENGLISH SURGEON (Special Jury Mention: THE RED RACE )
Sterling Short Award: WHAT WOULD THE DROP KNOW ABOUT THAT? (Honorable Mention: GROUND FLOOR RIGHT and ONE DAY)
Music Documentary Award: THROW DOWN YOUR HEART
Cinematic Vision Award: THE ORDER OF MYTHS
WITNESS Award: PRAY THE DEVIL BACK TO HELL
American Film Market/SILVERDOCS Award: KASSIM THE DREAM
Writers Guild of America Documentary Screenplay Award: FORBIDDEN LIE$
ACE Grant Winner: THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM
Coming next: the final installment of my Silverdocs trilogy: a Conference Wrap-Up.
While SILVERDOCS never fails to impress with a combination of local and world premieres of buzz-worthy films, I actually try to make a point of seeing films which just look interesting and less likely to make it into theaters or television. So you won't find me writing about festival faves MAN ON A WIRE, UP THE YANGTZE, or GONZO: THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON. Nor will I write about ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD or TROUBLE THE WATER (though you can read my thoughts on them from my Full Frame coverage)
Instead let me start with three smaller films which are still resonating with me nearly a week later:
LOST HOLIDAY was definitely my favorite of the festival. I was intrigued by the premise: a Czech tourist finds a suitcase in Sweden with 22 rolls of undeveloped film. He goes home, develops the film, and discovers snapshots of a group of Asian men posing in front of various idyllic scenes of Europe. He then works with filmmaker Lucie Kralova to track down the men to return the photos to them. Part detective story, part roadtrip, and part a reflection on how far global media has brought us together and yet left us disconnected, LOST HOLIDAY is probably one of the few films I saw which justified being more than 70 minutes long. It also reminds us that a documentary can be a mystery, a comedy, and a social commentary all in one.
Another film which fit in with this theme of post-modern (dis)connection was Danish filmmaker Phie Ambo's MECHANICAL LOVE. I had not intended to see this film when I first went through the program, but was persuaded by a friend I hadn't seen in a while to join him for it. Expecting either a dull film about the latest scientific advances in robotics or a sleazy film about new Japanese sex toys, I was pleasantly surprised when the film focused instead on two very different personal stories which make us question whether technology is bringing us closer together or tearing us further apart. On the one hand, we have a scientist in Japan, building a "geminoid," a robot version of himself, complete with the same build, clothing, and facial expressions and movements. On the other, we have a woman in a nursing home in Germany who finds comfort in "Paro," a therapeutic robot which looks and sounds like a white, furry baby seal. She treats him like a pet, talking to him, stroking him, and even bringing him with her to group activities where his constant squealing annoys the other residents. While the filmmaker unfortunately was not able to attend the screening to discuss the important issues the film raises, the Japan Information Center did send Paro. While I am still dubious about the uses of such a technology beyond therapeutic use with those who are no longer lucid, I did find it strangely intriguing that "he" reacted to an ear scratching touch I use with my dog with the same type of pleasure. At $3,000 a pop, I am not sure Paro will be on the must-have list for Christmas this year, but I suspect some kind of cheap knockoff soon will be.
The third film which really drew me in was SEAVIEW, a meditation on the changing face of Europe, as told through the story of a former holiday resort in Ireland which has become an asylum camp where Nigerians, Congolese, Kurds, and many others are required to stay as they wait to find out if they can stay in Ireland. Having lived in Ireland at a time when it was still a predominantly homogeneous (and innocently racist) society, I was naturally interested in the theme of the film. But it was the style which made the film memorable. Filmmakers Nicky Gogan and Paul Rowley come from a background of doing films for museum installations and SEAVIEW definitely reflects that in its lyrical style. While the film's pace could be off-putting to some, I found the beautiful images of the place all the more powerful set against the voiceover of asylum-seekers, some of whom did not want to be shown on camera.
What puzzled me about this year's SILVERDOCS program is that the programmers opted to celebrate an important anniversary (40 years after 1968) rather than an important moment in time (2008, a year which promises to have one of the most talked-about election seasons since 1968). From the Opening Night film ALL TOGETHER NOW about the creative collaboration between the Beatles and Cirque du Soleil to the all-over-the place REVOLUTION '68 to Charles Guggenheim and the Maysles' brothers respective classics ROBERT KENNEDY REMEMBERED and GIMME SHELTER, and an outdoor screening of another Maysles' film about the Beatles, it was Sixties Redux all week long. Yet, with the exception of Spike Lee's short about the 2000 election, WE WUZ ROBBED, there seemed to be a marked absence of films which directly addressed the U.S. political scene today. A very odd omission in an election year in the most political of cities.
Come to think of it, I probably should mention something more about Spike Lee who was honored by the festival at their Guggenheim Symposium. Usually I love his fiction and non-fiction films, even when they aim beyond what is capable of being contained in a single film. Usually I love him, even when his schtick has him bordering on a caricature of himself. But he was a man of few words that night -- frustratingly so, and not effectively moderated -- so I don't see the point in wasting too many words of my own on a summary of his disengagement from the audience. Besides, A.J. Schnack has already done so so much more eloquently than I ever could.
Other films I saw came back to that same theme again and again: who are we and can we connect to others? CORRIDOR 8 took us on a roadtrip down the Balkan version of Route 66, a failed promise to connect Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania (Good luck with that). HEADWIND was about the spread of satellite dishes across Iran, holding the promise of news, culture, and maybe just a little titillation from the West. I saw an amazing shorts program which addressed everything from the shared joy of two Irish smokers to aging Hungarian sisters whose bond could not be broken by time or men to the close relationship between two outsiders, albeit one a man, the other a sheep. I wish I had more time to go to the other Shorts Programs since SILVERDOCS has traditionally excelled at the genre (and I am also losing my patience for features which have extended themselves to be that ideal {"festival," "theatrical" or "TV" length when they are not necessarily best served by being so long).
THE ENGLISH SURGEON was the film everybody was buzzing about the whole week. Though the film also addresses issues of globalization and human connection as it follows a British brain surgeon on a mission to perform surgery in Ukraine, I simply never warmed up to the main character or understood why he does what he does. That said, the film does offer a unique window into the doctor-patient relationship and how that transcends borders. While the scene in the film everyone will likely remember involved a brain surgery done with the patient awake, the one which I will most remember is when the surgeon's Ukrainian counterpart struggles to tell one young and vibrant patient that she has an inoperable condition which she is unlikely to survive more than five years. Though it was not my personal favorite, I cannot fault the jury for giving the film the festival's Sterling World Feature Award.
And finally, I should say something about AMERICAN TEEN. Although I selected most of my films as ones which I thought might be unlikely to be seen again anywhere near me, I simply had to see AMERICAN TEEN with an audience and filmmaker Q&A so that I could better understand all the fuss over it. It has gotten kudos from many as a "modern-day BREAKFAST CLUB," an inside look at 21st century teen angst, and the likely breakout non-fiction hit of the summer. From others, especially some documentary filmmakers, the film raises ethical questions into how certain scenes were edited and directed and how much the presence of the cameras impacted the characters' actions. It has been decried in some circles as being no better than the SoCal docu-soap-reality shows of MTV. But you know what? I don't understand the fuss. The film was neither here nor there for me. The post-screening discussion with the film's producer and one of its "stars" (Hannah, who is probably the character in the film who is the least stereotyped) was probably more interesting than the film itself, if only to dispel the myth about scenes being recreated. But the film is ultimately forgettable. Then again, maybe that's what my generation's parents said about THE BREAKFAST CLUB. It remains to be seen if the film will resonate with teens when it gets its theatrical release in the coming weeks. Actually my friend Ethan Lincoln (who is neither a filmmaker nor someone who spent his teen years in the U.S.) probably summed up the film best in his blog.
AWARD WINNERS
Audience Award: HERB AND DOROTHY (Feature), THE TAILOR (Short)
Sterling US Feature Award: THE GARDEN (Special Jury Mention: TROUBLE THE WATER)
Sterling World Feature Award: THE ENGLISH SURGEON (Special Jury Mention: THE RED RACE )
Sterling Short Award: WHAT WOULD THE DROP KNOW ABOUT THAT? (Honorable Mention: GROUND FLOOR RIGHT and ONE DAY)
Music Documentary Award: THROW DOWN YOUR HEART
Cinematic Vision Award: THE ORDER OF MYTHS
WITNESS Award: PRAY THE DEVIL BACK TO HELL
American Film Market/SILVERDOCS Award: KASSIM THE DREAM
Writers Guild of America Documentary Screenplay Award: FORBIDDEN LIE$
ACE Grant Winner: THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM
Coming next: the final installment of my Silverdocs trilogy: a Conference Wrap-Up.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Erica's Dispatch from Silverdocs: Part I (Overall Impressions)
Another year, another Silverdocs. For me, a non-prolific blogger and an even less prolific film fest traveler, it was one of two major doc festivals I'll get to this year (the other one being Full Frame, which I wrote about a few months ago).
Now in its sixth year, Silverdocs has been the DC-area festival which has refused to be relegated to a status of regional or local festival. In fact, it has aspired from the start to have a broader impact as one of the A-List festivals (or at least A-List for documentaries). In this, it has succeeded, drawing thousands of submissions from around the world and putting together a sidebar conference which draws industry from both the local suspects (Discovery Networks, National Geographic, PBS, and CPB) and the key players in New York, Los Angeles, and worldwide (though this year, the conference had far less representation from overseas than in past years, choosing instead to focus on a new strand for educators).
The film festival continues to draw audiences in droves through a combination of film premieres, films which have gotten buzz from earlier plays at key festivals like Sundance, IDFA, and Tribeca, creative programs (like outdoor screenings), and doing an amazing job of having most of the filmmakers (and indeed, many of the main characters in the films) available for Q&A. It is this last point which is so key, especially for those of us who lead busy lives and need as much incentive as possible to head to a theater for a screening. The opportunity to interact with the creative minds and subjects of the films is what makes festivals stand out from regular theatrical screenings. Some in the film community are mourning the loss of theatrical release as a viable distribution method for many documentary films and the fact that film festivals are often serving as a substitute for theatrical release. While I understand the concerns over lost revenue to filmmakers, it is the interactivity which is only possible at a film festival which will drive more viewers to the theater. Indeed, there are some films which are best appreciated on a large screen. But when they are relegated to the smallest theater of the corporate art houses (like Landmark) or must be seen in a dilapidated repertory theater with maybe 10 people in the audience, I wonder sometimes if I'd have a better experience at home. Thankfully seeing a film in AFI's Silver Theatre with a full house abuzzing with excitement and the promise of a good Q&A is what makes Silverdocs worth taking a week's vacation in my hometown to attend every year.
I found a lot of things were much improved this year. The decision by the programmers to hold passholder-only screenings (to ensure passholders do not get shut out of films) was a great idea. Not requiring passholders to get tickets for screenings was, on the one hand, a great thing to reduce inconvenience, but made it impossible for the passholder to decide how to split up the screenings (for example, inviting a spouse or friend to attend a screening now meant they had to buy a separate ticket rather than take one of the 10 passholders had been given in past years). But, all in all, a great system where I didn't get shut out of a single film.
And yippeee, the Cinema Lounge was back in its rightful place just around the corner from the theaters, allowing for ease of access and a much more hub-bubby atmosphere. With the exception of a downpour on Opening Night, the weather cooperated too -- though out-of-towners could have done with warnings about DC summer dress necessities of layers -- since theaters often felt a 30-50 degrees cooler than the air on the street.
And I always find Silverdocs an opportunity to see the ever-changing face of Silver Spring. Those who have read my comments from past years know that I am a big booster for the place since I grew up there, lived most of my 20s there, and have my own mixed feelings about its development now that I could never even hope to afford living there. Hearing visiting film folks referring to the streets in the immediate vicinity of the theater as reminding them of the Grove in Los Angeles (the open-air shopping center which has dwarfed the historic Farmer's Market) would surely make my late father -- a long-time Silver Spring anti-development advocate and former Los Angeleno, roll in his grave. But I was proud of a few filmmakers -- led by the Energy King Sandi Dubowski -- who ventured further afield in search of downtown Silver Spring's amazingly diverse dining options. And, even in the Grove-like fake mainstreet of former real street Ellsworth Avenue, it was a joy to see the life of what is still one of the most diverse communities in the DC area: kids playing in the fountain, teenagers hanging out at night, and humans of all colors, classes, and backgrounds sharing a space in real life, real time, not just on the screen.
Gosh, I haven't even begun to collect my thoughts on the films and conference. But I have a lot to say. Next up, my thoughts on the films...
Now in its sixth year, Silverdocs has been the DC-area festival which has refused to be relegated to a status of regional or local festival. In fact, it has aspired from the start to have a broader impact as one of the A-List festivals (or at least A-List for documentaries). In this, it has succeeded, drawing thousands of submissions from around the world and putting together a sidebar conference which draws industry from both the local suspects (Discovery Networks, National Geographic, PBS, and CPB) and the key players in New York, Los Angeles, and worldwide (though this year, the conference had far less representation from overseas than in past years, choosing instead to focus on a new strand for educators).
The film festival continues to draw audiences in droves through a combination of film premieres, films which have gotten buzz from earlier plays at key festivals like Sundance, IDFA, and Tribeca, creative programs (like outdoor screenings), and doing an amazing job of having most of the filmmakers (and indeed, many of the main characters in the films) available for Q&A. It is this last point which is so key, especially for those of us who lead busy lives and need as much incentive as possible to head to a theater for a screening. The opportunity to interact with the creative minds and subjects of the films is what makes festivals stand out from regular theatrical screenings. Some in the film community are mourning the loss of theatrical release as a viable distribution method for many documentary films and the fact that film festivals are often serving as a substitute for theatrical release. While I understand the concerns over lost revenue to filmmakers, it is the interactivity which is only possible at a film festival which will drive more viewers to the theater. Indeed, there are some films which are best appreciated on a large screen. But when they are relegated to the smallest theater of the corporate art houses (like Landmark) or must be seen in a dilapidated repertory theater with maybe 10 people in the audience, I wonder sometimes if I'd have a better experience at home. Thankfully seeing a film in AFI's Silver Theatre with a full house abuzzing with excitement and the promise of a good Q&A is what makes Silverdocs worth taking a week's vacation in my hometown to attend every year.
I found a lot of things were much improved this year. The decision by the programmers to hold passholder-only screenings (to ensure passholders do not get shut out of films) was a great idea. Not requiring passholders to get tickets for screenings was, on the one hand, a great thing to reduce inconvenience, but made it impossible for the passholder to decide how to split up the screenings (for example, inviting a spouse or friend to attend a screening now meant they had to buy a separate ticket rather than take one of the 10 passholders had been given in past years). But, all in all, a great system where I didn't get shut out of a single film.
And yippeee, the Cinema Lounge was back in its rightful place just around the corner from the theaters, allowing for ease of access and a much more hub-bubby atmosphere. With the exception of a downpour on Opening Night, the weather cooperated too -- though out-of-towners could have done with warnings about DC summer dress necessities of layers -- since theaters often felt a 30-50 degrees cooler than the air on the street.
And I always find Silverdocs an opportunity to see the ever-changing face of Silver Spring. Those who have read my comments from past years know that I am a big booster for the place since I grew up there, lived most of my 20s there, and have my own mixed feelings about its development now that I could never even hope to afford living there. Hearing visiting film folks referring to the streets in the immediate vicinity of the theater as reminding them of the Grove in Los Angeles (the open-air shopping center which has dwarfed the historic Farmer's Market) would surely make my late father -- a long-time Silver Spring anti-development advocate and former Los Angeleno, roll in his grave. But I was proud of a few filmmakers -- led by the Energy King Sandi Dubowski -- who ventured further afield in search of downtown Silver Spring's amazingly diverse dining options. And, even in the Grove-like fake mainstreet of former real street Ellsworth Avenue, it was a joy to see the life of what is still one of the most diverse communities in the DC area: kids playing in the fountain, teenagers hanging out at night, and humans of all colors, classes, and backgrounds sharing a space in real life, real time, not just on the screen.
Gosh, I haven't even begun to collect my thoughts on the films and conference. But I have a lot to say. Next up, my thoughts on the films...
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Shoe On the Other Foot
From Docs In Progress co-founder Erica Ginsberg who has been attending the SILVERDOCS Film Festival and Conference all week (and promises a full dispatch will be posted soon)...
I attended an early morning panel session today focused on building an online presence. The panelists were John Bell, the Managing Director/Executive Creative Director of the Creative Studio at the Ogilvy Public Relations firm and two professors from American University (Amy Eisman who is the School of Communication's Director of Writing Programs, and David Johnson who is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication.
After sharing some excellent ideas (which I will detail more in my full dispatch later this week), the panelists asked the audience to shout out any film-related websites that they visit regularly. Much to my surprise, someone shouted out Docs In Progress (and though it was someone known to me, she definitely wasn't a ringer). Well, lo and behold, the panelists brought up the website on the screen and proceeded to offer some constructive criticism, buoyed by additional comments from the audience. So useful!
This got me to thinking: Here we are, a film organization whose most visible program is putting on work in progress film screenings, encouraging documentary filmmakers to look outside themselves and their inner circle for a reality check on their almost-completed films. And yet we are about to revamp our website and we have been brainstorming new ideas without any input from the outside. So maybe it is time for the shoe to go on the other foot and us to look to you -- our audience, in all its incarnations -- to let us know what you would like to see on our website.
What do you like about it?
What do you think could be improved?
What comments do you have in terms of content? Design? Navigatability (if that's a word)?
How did you find out about the site in the first place?
What do you go to it for?
What would drive you to return to it or recommend it to your friends?
I suppose I should start this discussion with the two questions we always ask of our filmmakers, slightly altered for our website:
Why do we have this website? To raise awareness of our public programs, be a calling card for all our services (the public workshops, private consultations, etc.), and to be an information resource. Since the website houses our newsletter and a link to this blog, we see it as a program in and of itself and something which we would like folks to visit on a regular basis.
Who do we see as our core audience? We have several audiences who use the Docs In Progress website. They include emerging documentary filmmakers, film students, more experienced documentary filmmakers, and documentary film aficionados. We also know that our site is perused by distributors, film festivals, academics, and NGOs in search of relevant content because we will get e-mails from them, asking to be put in touch with our alumni filmmakers.
We have lots of thoughts in mind for the "new and improved" Docs In Progress website, but I'll stop right here because I want to know if we are on the right track or if there may be some other ideas out there that we hadn't even considered.
Please check out our website at http://www.docsinprogress.org and feel free to post your thoughts publicly in the comments section here or send an e-mail directly to contact@docsinprogress.org with any constructive thoughts you have on the website. It will be much appreciated.
I attended an early morning panel session today focused on building an online presence. The panelists were John Bell, the Managing Director/Executive Creative Director of the Creative Studio at the Ogilvy Public Relations firm and two professors from American University (Amy Eisman who is the School of Communication's Director of Writing Programs, and David Johnson who is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication.
After sharing some excellent ideas (which I will detail more in my full dispatch later this week), the panelists asked the audience to shout out any film-related websites that they visit regularly. Much to my surprise, someone shouted out Docs In Progress (and though it was someone known to me, she definitely wasn't a ringer). Well, lo and behold, the panelists brought up the website on the screen and proceeded to offer some constructive criticism, buoyed by additional comments from the audience. So useful!
This got me to thinking: Here we are, a film organization whose most visible program is putting on work in progress film screenings, encouraging documentary filmmakers to look outside themselves and their inner circle for a reality check on their almost-completed films. And yet we are about to revamp our website and we have been brainstorming new ideas without any input from the outside. So maybe it is time for the shoe to go on the other foot and us to look to you -- our audience, in all its incarnations -- to let us know what you would like to see on our website.
What do you like about it?
What do you think could be improved?
What comments do you have in terms of content? Design? Navigatability (if that's a word)?
How did you find out about the site in the first place?
What do you go to it for?
What would drive you to return to it or recommend it to your friends?
I suppose I should start this discussion with the two questions we always ask of our filmmakers, slightly altered for our website:
Why do we have this website? To raise awareness of our public programs, be a calling card for all our services (the public workshops, private consultations, etc.), and to be an information resource. Since the website houses our newsletter and a link to this blog, we see it as a program in and of itself and something which we would like folks to visit on a regular basis.
Who do we see as our core audience? We have several audiences who use the Docs In Progress website. They include emerging documentary filmmakers, film students, more experienced documentary filmmakers, and documentary film aficionados. We also know that our site is perused by distributors, film festivals, academics, and NGOs in search of relevant content because we will get e-mails from them, asking to be put in touch with our alumni filmmakers.
We have lots of thoughts in mind for the "new and improved" Docs In Progress website, but I'll stop right here because I want to know if we are on the right track or if there may be some other ideas out there that we hadn't even considered.
Please check out our website at http://www.docsinprogress.org and feel free to post your thoughts publicly in the comments section here or send an e-mail directly to contact@docsinprogress.org with any constructive thoughts you have on the website. It will be much appreciated.
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
