A little while ago I got to participate in a great discussion at Google, centered around Frank Rose’s must-read book The Art Of Immersion. Joining Frank and I were Chris Di Cesare, Director of Creative Programming at Google Creative Lab, i Paul Woolmington, Founding Partner of Naked Communications, and Susan Bonds of 42 Entertainment. If you want to know where it is all headed, I suggest you read Frank’s book and listen to our talk, posted below.
Month: August 2011
It is hard to find a better example of corporate sponsorship than the PUMA Creative Impact Awards. Not only does it publicize and support an important group of films, but helps support outreach and social change. With the right support, not only can we make better films, but we can change the world. I can hope that more corporations learn from PUMA’s example and develop such opportunities; I certainly have a few ideas if they want some help.
I asked Elise McCave who helped put together this important partnership to tell you a bit more about it.
Last week, Channel 4 BRITDOC Foundation Director Beadie Finzi and I travelled from Soho – the London one – way past the equator, beyond even the Tropic of Capricorn to Durban for their International Film Festival. This huge and high-spirited festival is definitely a product of Africa; the film programme featured films and filmmakers from the continent, the panels began in their own sweet time, and the parties saw us dancing together in circles under tents by the beach. Now that’s a festival!
Whilst there, along with marveling at how a South African winter can still be warmer than an English summer, we announced the 5 films selected as Finalists for the first annual PUMA.Creative Impact Award.
The Impact Award is just one part of our partnership with PUMA.Creative (part of PUMA’s CSR division PUMAVision). This long term partnership, which will celebrate its first birthday in October, has seen the establishment of a series of exciting awards providing financial support, creative counsel and industry recognition to international documentary filmmakers, whose creative storytelling highlights social justice, peace or environmental issues.
By the time we trade our babygrows for dungarees and the partnership graduates from infant to toddler we’ll have given away 40 PUMA Creative Catalyst Awards, early-stage development grants, to filmmakers from across the world. We are already beginning to see the fruits of our labour: Dragonslayer, one of the first Catalyst Awardees, is winning award after award in its festival run, having already picked up the best documentary feature and best cinematography gongs at SXSW and best international feature award at Hot Docs.
The most high profile of the awards, however, is the PUMA Creative Impact Award, which has been designed to honour the burgeoning work being done at the intersection of documentary filmmaking and social change. The Award shines a light on the work of all filmmakers slugging it out in this field, but in particular on the remarkable group of 5 filmmaker-turned-campaigners who have been selected to be finalists. And from this group one will ultimately be rewarded with a €50k prize, to be split between the filmmaking and outreach & engagement teams, so that their work can be continued.
So, who is in this impressive group? Well, we really are very proud to announce the 5 Finalists for the Award are…
The Age of Stupid directed by Franny Armstrong and produced by Lizzie Gillett
Burma VJ directed by Anders Østergaard and produced by Lise Lense-Møller
The End of The Line directed by Rupert Murray and produced by Claire Lewis and George Duffield
The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court directed by Pamela Yates and produced by Paco de Onís
Trouble The Water directed and produced by Tia Lessin & Carl Deal
These five titles are remarkable, in the first instance, because they are exemplary pieces of filmmaking. Thrilling, engaging and moving works of independent nonfiction filmmaking, they share between them Oscar nominations, awards from a slew of major film festivals – Sundance, IDFA, Mumbai, Berlinale, CPH:DOX, Silverdocs and scores of others – not to mention millions of viewers and plaudits from the critics.
That the filmmakers have, on top of that, not only managed to cover some of the most urgent issues of our times, but then committed themselves and years of their lives to somehow changing the current world order is actually a little overwhelming.
These are visionary filmmakers who have managed, frankly, to pull off the audacious…
The team behind The Age of Stupid launched a global carbon-cutting campaign in 46 countries, with over 100,000 individuals signing up alongside corporations and government departments. They also coordinated over 7,000 local carbon-cutting events in 188 countries for their “Global Day of Doing”.
Burma VJ reached an estimated 30 million viewers, inspiring a new generation of Video Journalists and independent journalists within Burma at the same time.
Meanwhile, The End of the Line team raised £6m to launch a Foundation dedicated to creating a global network of marine reserves, and had a significant impact on the buying policies of supermarket and consumer brands.
The film team behind The Reckoning distributed, for free, screening kits to over 600 NGOs in 78 countries, to raise awareness of the International Criminal Court. The film was also used extensively in education programmes, including a workshop which brought together 700 educators from 70 countries representing a network of over 25,000 high school teachers.
Trouble the Water has been used repeatedly in strategic political campaigning; including raising a 20,000-strong letter campaign to the speaker of the House of Representatives. It also triggered a major lobbying effort by 400 campaigners who travelled to Washington DC for training, advocacy and action.
And these are tip-of-the-iceberg highlights. Phewf.
The arrival of the PUMA Creative Impact Award is well-timed. With social change work around documentary film on the increase, and yet with the medium’s full potential still largely untapped, an award such as this – which calls attention to the most ambitious and successful projects in the field – acts as a very public benchmark for what can be achieved. These projects have raised the bar for the better and are the very best advert for the power of film to inspire people to act.
From our patch of London, we’re committed not just to applauding the films and filmmakers — we also want to evaluate and measure the effect they have. We’ve now produced two full evaluation reports on The End of the Line and An Inconvenient Truth, with the pitter-patter of mini-case studies on the way. The report on An Inconvenient Truth set out to measure the social return on investment created in the UK by the blockbuster climate change film as an example of an important social justice film whose true value has never been measured. If you’d like to know more head to britdoc.org/evaluation.
For the coming few months, however, we will have to eschew the temptation to dance in circles at tropical film festivals and publish groundbreaking evaluation reports – for we have a winner to find, and a spangly Gala to throw…
The winner of the inaugural PUMA.Creative Impact Award will be announced at our Gala on October 11th in Mayfair, London, but we salute them all for the impact they have already had.
The Age of Stupid (2009)
Director: Franny Armstrong
Producer: Lizzie Gillett
The Age of Stupid stars Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, watching “archive” footage of our time now and asking… Why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?
Burma VJ (2008)
Director: Anders Østergaard
Producer: Lise Lense-Møller
Armed with small handycams, undercover video journalists in Burma keep up the flow of news from their closed country despite risking torture and life in jail. Their material is smuggled out of Burma and broadcast back via satellite.
The End of the Line (2009)
Director: Rupert Murray
Producers: Claire Lewis & George Duffield
The End of the Line, is the world’s first major feature documentary about the devastating impact that overfishing has had – and is having – on our oceans. The film provides a dramatic expose of those in power who are taking advantage of the seas with catastrophic consequences on the world’s fish supply.
The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court (2009)
Director: Pamela Yates
Producer: Paco de Onís
A David and Goliath battle of titanic proportions unfolds as International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo faces down warlords, genocidal dictators, and world superpowers in his struggle to tame the Wild West of global conflict zones and bring perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice.
Trouble the Water (2008)
Director-Producers: Tia Lessin & Carl Deal
An aspiring rap artist, trapped in New Orleans by deadly floodwaters, survives the disaster and seizes a chance for a new beginning. Celebrating community resilience in the face of massive government failures, Trouble the Water raises searing questions about race and class in America.
Related Links
BRITDOC — britdoc.org
PUMA.Creative Impact Award — britdoc.org/impactaward
Evaluation pages — britdoc.org/evaluation
The Age of Stupid — www.spannerfilms.net/films/ageofstupid
Burma VJ — burmavjmovie.com
The End of The Line — endoftheline.com
The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court — skylightpictures.com/films/the_reckoning
Trouble The Water — www.troublethewaterfilm.com
Monica Rorvick (DIFF), Isabel Arrate (IDFA), Owen Martin (PUMA.Creative) and Elise McCave (C4 BRITDOC Foundation)
Categories
Become A COLLABORATOR With Us
Did you know I Executive Produced this years Best Actor & Critic Prize Winning Film at the world’s oldest film festival? Martin Donovan’s COLLABORATOR is that film. My guess is you did not get over to the Czech Republic last month to see it. But you know what?
It will be playing around the USA this fall. Soon we should be announcing those next steps, and then the ones that follow. But if you need a fix, perhaps this will do.
I am very proud of this film. It was one of those great experiences where you get to help a friend realize their dream, and you (i.e. me) benefit from it too. I think anyone desiring ambitious cinema of quality, ideas, and humor will dig it. I hope that is you!
You can watch the press conference right here. I think it demonstrates well what a producer does at such a press conference. Producers don’t get asked questions — but it doesn’t mean you can’t answer them. A Producer still has to make sure that the right messages get out there.
And if you have a moment, please check out COLLABORATOR’s Facebook page. I know most of you have not yet seen it, but if you “like” it, you will be privy to early news on where it is screening and other such stuff.
And if you aren’t already, you can follow our writer, director and star, Martin Donovan on Twitter @breakneckfilms.
There are few fighters for Indie Film as ferocious as Orly Ravid. In addition to co-founding the only non-profit film distributor, The Film Collaborative, she speaks up and out about the state of things. Today she looks at a recent panel on “15 Years Of Film Distribution” and addresses a lot of what went unsaid.
On July 16, 2011 at the Elinor Bunin Munroe Film Center on indieWIRE Editor in Chief Dana Harris moderated a discussion about the past 15 years of film distribution with (left to right): Richard Abramowitz, Amy Heller, Bingham Ray, Bob Berney, Ira Deutchman, Mark Urman, Arianna Bocco and Jeanne Berney. It can be found here. The Sundance distribution announcement was made last week.
So glad to know, as Mark Urman noted, that even big A-list cast films have a hard time getting listed properly on Cable VOD in terms of cast. We know that Sundance indie Adventures of Power also was not always listed properly in terms of noting its full cast (namely Jane Lynch & Adrien Grenier who both have massive fan bases were sometimes left off the film’s VOD description). What will it take the MSOs to get it together? Please let’s not all name or rename our films with numbers or start with the letters A,B,C,D, or E. If Comcast can insert ads into programming surely they and all the other dozens of MSOs (Multi System Operators) can find a way to help attract an audience for films on their system by categorizing them and filling in complete descriptions even on mammoth platforms.
The glut of content was discussed and the marketing challenges all distributors of cinema face. We all know it’s cheaper to make films now, there are more of them, they don’t die or go away, they just multiply annually and even some of the panelists spoke to younger generations not even committed to being filmmakers, but just making films because they can and it’s made to seem so cool. Indeed. And what I want someone to say, well ok I will just say it, is when the real numbers behind film distribution are revealed across the board perhaps we’ll see a trim in supply. The best, most creative and most committed will survive and thrive. Investors will be choosier because they’ll have all of the REAL information they need to make educated decisions. As for how to clear through the clutter, well, that goes back to the basics of know-your-audience, down to the “T” and don’t pretend it’s everyone. I look forward to even more lifestyle and interest oriented programming and content servicing and all the more reason for filmmakers to cultivate audiences directly, where there is no room for glut or confusion.
They joked about no one knowing VOD numbers, except for Arianna of IFC of course and Mark sometimes when his VOD client (Tribeca Films I presume) fills him in. Well, we have some from our forthcoming case study book Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul and I want to challenge ALL FILMMAKERS to share your numbers and stop the madness of mystery! And I agree, it’s time that these numbers start getting tracked and reported in a more automated fashion as theatrical box office and DVD sales are now. Still those number only show gross, and not the spend needed to achieve those numbers.
Melanie of Milestone noted younger people have different habits in terms of what they want to view and how they view. So maybe we need younger folks running distribution companies now. TFC is hiring.
Arianna of IFC notes that piracy is a huge issue and that young people do not want to pay for content. So we can either be disturbed by that, or we can work with that knowledge and release in a way that will maximize revenues, instead of forcing audience into outdated window methods. One film we recently observed tried to monetize its distribution via sponsorship, but waited way too long to get started, tried to do so without a distribution plan in place, is having its theatrical launch 6 months after its festival premiere and cannot seem to make a decision on the rest of its distribution whilst it awaits fat-enough-offers that are not coming. That sort of paradigm is a set up for failure and leaves the film open to piracy when a clear plan from the start and an immediate release after festival premiere could have led to quicker monetization (sponsored, DIY and/or via a donation campaign on VODO). We caution against proceeding with filmmaking when there is no viable plan in place.
A question via TWITTER that came in was: Where do you want to be 15 years from now? Richard Abramowitz is amazed he’s still in the biz now… and that’s honest in that it speaks to deep concerns about the changes in the business and the truth is, the more transparent service providers are about their numbers, the more likely they will survive. Those less transparent are not likely to sustain themselves. What I object to is the mythology in this industry and the mask of success that hides the real story of spending more than you made back because there are too many expensive services or middlemen. Who can tell me about their PROFIT? Not just for themselves, but for the filmmakers and investors they represent? Who will publicly admit the numbers on how much was spent for each service even on services they did not really need if they were better educated, and each middleman and what that yielded? When people do not, it’s largely because they want to get the next project funded and, to me, this is no better than a pyramid scheme. You know what eventually happens with those, right? See 2008 for an indication. Anyone who wants to challenge TFC on its transparency please do, I am ready.
‘Theatre going experience is in our DNA (like gazing at a fire)’, says Bingham Ray. The communal experience is what it’s all about. Amen. I say let’s bring back the drive-in. I especially want it for Sundance film Co-dependent Lesbian Space Alien Seeks Same.
Ira speaks to the Opera audience. He noted, as audiences get older they crave that experience (communal screening) more. I love that Ira Deutchman grew a business out of this niche. Niche is golden. A lesson for us all.
Ira spoke to “eventizing” theatrical– several noted about adding Q&As, live music, director attendance, panel discussions– to enhance theatrical and all of those screenings do well. Indeed. We have observed the same and that speaks even more to filmmakers knowing their audience and being more engaged in their own releases. There is nothing of this that one cannot do.
Ira ends quoting Richard Lorber “everything is possible and nothing works” harking back to 25 years ago when distribs celebrated small victories and spent little – before the rise and fall of indie bubble and the studios dressing big releases in indie clothes. My comment is regarding the “professional” the middle man, the lack of transparency even still is a burden, the fees paid excessive if one analyzes from the point of view of sustainability and healthy business. Service deals are announced like acquisitions. That’s why they say “film business” is an oxymoron but it need not be. And that’s why TFC’s resolve now is to not work with unsustainable filmmakers. We do not want to feed the habit, enable unrealistic expectations. If you spent too much on making your film, if your expectations are unreasonable, if you are not committed to being educated about both film and engaging audiences, and most of all, if you are just a money bag and not a creator but rather buying into the dream that your film (which you did not even create) is going to make you rich or richer, please go home.
And now, on a less cranky and more joyous note: What I love about the Sundance distribution initiative:
11. It’s offering filmmakers a truly filmmaker friendly set up by having a good partner and fair contract terms.
12. The terms offered by a truly excellent partner like New Video were already good in general, but are now even slightly advantaged.
13. That the deal is non-exclusive and allows filmmakers proper agency and control.
14. That I partly inspired it starting in 2009 and that the folks at Sundance listened, discussed, and worked it out slowly but surely and that there is more to come.
15. The Sundance brand connected with its alumni of filmmaker’s brands and on key platforms that function as the key portals to film lovers (and yet not at the exclusion of other viable modes of DIY and traditional distribution) is the model I have always championed even before TFC launched, because it makes sense. It’s good for filmmakers; it’s good for audiences and back to # 1 and #2, initiatives like this are the way to help clear a path through the content of clutter to the curious eyes of cinema loving consumers.
This post originally ran on The FIlm Collaborative.
Orly Ravid has worked in film acquisitions / sales / direct distribution and festival programming for the last twelve years since moving to Los Angeles from home town Manhattan. In January 2010, Orly founded The Film Collaborative (TFC), the first non-profit devoted to film distribution of independent cinema. Orly runs TFC w/ her business partner, co-exec director Jeffrey Winter.
Categories
Our Obligation To Share
There are so many things that we need to do in order to make independent film a sustainable and vibrant culture and industry. That said, we are in a better place to do that than ever before. For the first time in our culture, we can say that that vision is dependent on no one else other than those who participate in it. The question is whether we are up for the challenge.
This post was originally conceived for and posted — in a slightly different form — on Sundance‘s new filmmaker-to-filmmaker site Artist Services.
There is no denying that the Indie Film World has changed. In many ways, “independence” is a true option now – in every step of the
process. Yet, we certainly have a long way to go in achieving that
dream.
We all strive for quality, funding, access, distribution, marketing in
creating our films and reaching audiences with them. These aspects all keep
getting better. We have been finding answers – incredibly great
solutions – regularly as of late. But let’s be honest here: we want
more and we need it fast. Despite the improvements, the increase in
participants and the fracturing of the marketplace (two great
occurrences, in my opinion) unfortunately also make it harder to earn
a living or sustain a community than ever before. We have to do
something about it.
I have tremendous faith that both our indie film culture and community
will continue to get better – but that faith is conditional. My faith is in people, and by that, my faith is in
the extension from the individual to the general: community. My
delight and frustration come from the same source, these people, for
it is inherent for such a great and diverse group to have
disagreements: We don’t all want and need the same thing (thankfully,
again).
What I want — and what we need — from everyone is both action and a change in behavior. I love to do things, to get things done, to generate even more – we can make this world a better
place. We can improve our films. We can build our audiences and
strengthen our community.
The challenge is whether it matters enough to us, that we can invest the time to
create something truly free — beyond which we call “independent”. Sometimes I fear it doesn’t matter enough to us because we have not yet embraced the simple concepts that can get us there. Maybe we don’t want the responsibility that is required to truly own our work (figuratively and literally). Maybe it feels better to blame others (aka The System) for our inability to do better and really reach people with our work. But if it does matter and we accept the responsibility, we must embrace transparency.
Transparency does not end with data. It doesn’t even start there. Transparency begins with us. Transparency is a process, a behavior. By definition, it is an openness to share – share not only our successes,
but also our process and all it entails. It seems we have had a lot
of trouble committing to this openness.
Sharing our failures is perhaps both the greatest need and greatest
challenge. We learn more from our mistakes
than anything else. Yet throughout the two decades of this rise of
indie film that we have all enjoyed, we have allowed our failures to
vanish uncharted and unanalyzed. We have the tools to record our
failures, to share them, and to learn from them. We cannot continue
to allow this opportunity to grow to escape us. The sustainability of
our community and careers depends on it.
Transparency also requires us to share both our process and our
feelings about that process. We are not alone. As much as creativity
is often a solitary process – at least in the early stages – the
ability to get it done, discovered, appreciated and presented, is
anything but. As we have not yet mastered the art (and never will,
thankfully) of the form that represents all the Pillars Of Cinema, we
will always be frustrated — but that frustration need not stall us. If we can learn to share that frustration,
to utilize that to build hope that these challenges can be met, we
will not be demoralized. We will not feel alienated. We will
recognize and learn how to depend on our community. We have to do it.
A Truly Free Film Movement requires “direct to fan” and “direct to
artist” engagement. Communication is not a one-way flow. Nor is
communication a flow brought about via a tube from artist to fan or
vice versa. It is a flow that loops in the community, embraces it for
all it is, warts and all. It cannot, nor should it be, an echo
chamber of agreement. It is a river made up of many individuals and
many communities, full of disagreements and opposing needs. Most of
all, though, it must be characterized by this willingness to share.
Think about the world you want. Think about how you can now actually
earn a living doing what you love. Think about how you get there and
how you can sustain it. It is all more possible than ever before. I
cannot imagine that such thoughts could lead you to any other process
than one of sharing. Sharing leads to engagement – which then prompts
action. Wonder why you aren’t getting more done? Perhaps because you
aren’t sharing. Let’s make this blog benefit us all. Let’s allow it
to truly build something. It all begins with your sharing:
Contribute. Comment. Spread. Be part of something great.
I keep To Do Lists. Many of them. I will never complete them all. I
try to develop good habits that become something close to rituals. I
try to introduce the people I know to each other. I try to give new
voices the platform to inform others, and join with them in community
endeavors. I try to take the conversation further. I don’t think my
way is the only way or even the best way for others. I make it a
point to read what others write, and try to join the conversation. I
make it a point to watch new work, and have a screening series to
share it with others. To me, each of these activities is part of what
it means to be an independent filmmaker vested in his community.
Until this week, none of the independent support organizations
functioned as a true community – with a flow of communication between
all participants. These organizations, as helpful as they are,
function mostly as service and access providers, without doing all
that is necessary to foster communication. With the launch of the
Sundance Community blog we have the opportunity to truly share — or at least those that are alumni of the festival do. I have done my best to make this blog a community hub for all indie filmmakers, offering it up as a soap box for many. I am sure there are many other similar sites (and I wish I could learn of them. Please let me know if you know of them) where creators and their facilitators share common concerns and search for solutions. The question still is what are we going to do with this opportunity to communicate?
Hopefully we will have leaders, voices of authority, that can help
launch and direct conversations. Hopefully, we will have participants
that make it part of their practice to join conversations and take
them further. Someone always needs to step forward. And someone else
needs to suggest a new path. Everyone needs to find the courage to shoulder the responsibility that is
community building, for it is from that vantage point that we can see
the mountaintop that is sustainability.
I get discouraged sometimes by the time it takes to manage this blog. I get discouraged by how slow people are to participate in change, to take risks, to participate in community endeavors — even sometimes at the temporary delay of their personal goals, but I WILL MAKE THE COMMITMENT TO BE A REGULAR PARTICPANT IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT I NEED YOU TO DO THE SAME. WILL YOU PLEASE JOIN ME? Or at least continue to participate?
It seems that most Indie Film Makers & Lovers think Indie began in the late 80’s or early 90’s. There is a lot to be gained from the study and appreciation of those that came first though, and looking at the roots might point us to a better future. I was pleased to see one of those films, David Holtzman’s Diary, recently get new attention, and pleased again when Kit Carson’s post on it, brought some comments that opened my eyes to other work from the period. Wanda Bershon, guests today, to share some of her knowledge of the initial — and essential — Indies.
“Not only was DIARY a pioneering film, there were quite a number of other people making “indie” films at the time. Check out ICE (Robert Kramer, 1969), LIVES OF PERFORMERS,(Y Rainier, 1972), WINTERSOLDIER (1969), CHELSEA GIRLS (Warhol, 1966) BRANDY IN THE WILDERNESS (Stanton Kaye, 1969), and that is only the beginning. American Indies was a 50s-60s-70s phenonmenon—too little known and screened today.”
Posted by by Wanda Bershen on June 9, 2011 on Hope for Film Blog
Having posted the above comment in June re: Kit Carson’s remarks on this blog about DAVID HOLZMANS DIARY (1969) – pointing out the many other interesting films of that period which rarely get screened – Ted Hope suggested doing a guest turn on HOPE FOR FILM. So here goes.
For whatever reasons the history of American “indie” film is often told as if it started in the early 1980s with work by Hal Hartley, Jim Jarmusch, Lizzie Borden, Claudia Weill, et al. That term refers to feature length films for the most part. Meanwhile there is a large body of work (also feature length) made in the 1960s and 70s which does not get much attention these days, and does not often get screened. Much of it is highly innovative and constitutes the earliest exploration on this side of the Atlantic both of definitions of documentary styles, of drama styles and includes some impressive hybrid combinations.
Indie film history really started in the late 50s and 60s with a number of pioneering films mixing documentary and drama elements, of which the DIARY is an enduring example. Jim McBride followed up with MY GIRLFRIENDS WEDDING (1969) – a very funny film about her getting a green card, and PICTURES FROM LIFES OTHER SIDE (1971) about their cross country trip through 1970s America. Both would today fall into the category of “personal” films. This early work is rarely seen and to its credit UNION DOCS recently screened both.
Another film in this vein is BRANDY IN THE WILDERNESS (Stanton Kaye, 1969), – a partly actual and partly fictionalized portrait of the world’s most dysfunctional relationship, told by each in turn. Cast as film within a film, Kaye and girlfriend Brandy travel cross country, visit friends, fight and end up in California with dog, cat and baby. Shown at the Cannes festival and at MOMA, the film was a kind of counterculture hit.
Then there is Robert Kramer whose film ICE (1969) was a B&W feature drama with himself as protagonist about a group of Weatherpeople types living in NYC and planning a major protest action (as the term was then). Subsequently Kramer made the 3 plus hr long MILESTONES (1975) about a bunch of former war protesters in the post-Vietnam era trying to put their shattered lives back together. It was shown at both the Cannes and NY film festivals. Both films were shot and edited with a cinema verite look, and a strongly ironic tone which underlines the social critique they embody.
Recently restored by Milestone Films, WINTERSOLDIER (1969) is a searing doc of a staged War Crimes Tribunal organized by VVAW in Chicago in 1969. Made by a collective, it is a kind of cinema verite account of a live event. Young vets back from Vietnam talk in very graphic terms about what they saw and did (and are horrified by) – a very different view of the war than that reported in any media.
Perhaps better known but rarely seen is Shirley Clarke’s PORTRAIT OF JASON (1969), a diary of the amazingly articulate street hustler, representing the class tensions at home during that era. Jonas Mekas’ film THE BRIG (1964) is another fake documentary portraying soldiers confined in a U.S. Navy ship and the three guards who beat and humiliate them. An interesting example of mixing documentary and drama is Haskell Wexler’s drama, MEDIUM COOL (1969), which incorporated actual footage of the riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968 into its narrative.
At the same time Emile de Antonio was turning out hard-hitting documentaries. De Antonio’s specialty was his amazing use of archival footage with no narration to create powerful social critiques, another relatively new approach to documentary. Several from that period are IN THE YEAR OF THE PIG (1968), CHARGE AND COUNTERCHARGE (1969) and his inimitable portrait of Nixon, MILLHOUSE; A WHITE COMEDY (1971). Does anyone remember NO VIETNAMESE EVER CALLDED ME NIGGER (1968) by David Weissman filmed at an anti-war march from Harlem to the United Nations in 1967? The title is a quote from Mohammed Ali on why he refused to serve in the war. The 60s also saw the rise of the “cinema verite approach” in films by Robert Drew, the Maysles brothers, Don Pennebaker and the recently departed Richard Leacock. Those films have managed to stay in distribution and garner considerable visibility on the festival and museum circuit.
Simultaneously (early 70s) the Women’s Movement was taking off and women began to direct in a variety of styles: Barbara Kopples’ powerful HARLAN COUNTY USA (1976) belongs to this period. Another first was Barbara Loden’s drama about a working class woman, WANDA (1970), set in the eastern Pennsylvania coal region, with Loden’s powerful performance in the title role. Elaine Mays’ MIKEY AND NICKY (1976), about a couple of small time gangsters played by actors John Cassavetes and Peter Falk, was shot with 3 cameras to allow substantial improvisation by the actors. WOMANHOUSE (1974) by Johanna Demetrakas chronicled Judy Chicago’s now famous feminist art project – taking over an old house in Hollywood and with her students turning it into multiple installations portraying women’s lives. And there was Yvonne Rainier’s groundbreaking LIVES OF PERFORMERS (1972) using a combination of experimental form and documentary to tell a personal story.
Also adding to the lively film culture of that time were a number of filmmakers who tend to be called “experimental” and whose work bridges documentary and re-enactment. Ron Rice’s wacky road movie THE FLOWER THIEF (1962), featuring infamous Warhol actor Taylor Mead, is another trip through dystopian America with a distinctly “beat” aesthetic. And throughout the 60s and 70s Warhol was making films in the Factory (also usually tagged as experimental). His famous and innovative feature CHELSEA GIRLS was made in 1966 consisting of two 16 mm-films being projected simultaneously, with two different stories being shown in tandem.
It is worth pointing out that all this work was made on film – 16mm, sometimes 8mm, sometimes in combinations – an entirely different process than working with digital tools. Editing was laborious, done by hand, cut by cut. All effects had to be done either in the camera while shooting or at a film lab equipped for things like optical printing.
Looking back at all this “independent” film in the 60s and 70s I am struck by how much experimentation was done in terms of mixing documentary stylistics with fiction and/or re-enactment. Notions of “truth” in terms of photographic representation were a major concern. TV went through a rapid development and a major expansion in the 60s and 70s and famously brought home the “living room war”. Perhaps that growth combined with the volatile politics of those times also contributed to the pervasive suspicion of media and to the innovative approaches to independently made films.
Wanda Bershen is a consultant on Fundraising, Marketing and Distribution for Documentary projects and arts organizations. Her company, RED DIAPER PRODUCTIONS, has organized film programs, festivals and travelling series with The Brooklyn Museum, MOMA, BAM Rose cinemas, and Walter Reade theater. She has written for American Quarterly, Film Quarterly and Documentary magazine and currently teaches a graduate seminar at CUNY/Baruch. www.reddiaper.com
Christine Vachon recently had a talk with Anthony Kaufman at the NewFest Visionary Award presentation and had many interesting things to say about her career, producing, and indie film — all that plus a lovely impression of yours truly.
The interview is a wealth of good advice. Add this video to your film school curriculum. Scott Macauley has selected some of his favorite quotes for you. And IW’s own, Anthony Kaufman — who moderated the event, gave a nice brief of the discussion, here.
