ripping reality

We’re overwhelmed with DVDs, emails, phone calls….the “to do” list is an epic scroll. But I’m not complaining. The work is invigorating, mental calisthenics. Its keeping me up at night, hyper with ideas and information. The discussions we’re having at our programming meetings are vigorous, rigorous, and often hilarious. Following a screening this afternoon I had a great meeting with our Canadian programmers, Lynne Fernie and Gisèle Gordon. We believe its going to be a benchmark year for Canadian filmmakers at Hot Docs. Its also going to be tough to make final decisions in a few weeks. We have a great team of Programmers, with amazing support from the Hot Docs “Prog Admin” posse. I’m very pleased with the position where in at the midway point, almost, of programming the Festival. (did I write “benchmark”?…eek, its official, I’ve become a cultural bureaucrat. send help.)

A confession: it wasn’t going as well this time last year. It was all a bit murky, stressful, and I had a moment of crisis where I wondered WTF I was doing. So, I did a “Jerry Maguire” and drafted a quick missiony statement re: Hot Docs’ programming goals. Well, it wasn’t really a statement, more like some questions to guide us through the thick of cutting a list of some 300+ titles we liked, to half that. We broke it all down to four categories of consideration. Here’s the gyst:

First, it all starts with one person’s gut reaction to a work they see alone, at a festival or at home. Once we have a big list of work to which we responded positively, the following questions inform our decisions…

RIGOUR: Does the programme have curatorial rigour, creativity, and innovation? Or, are a we lazily picking the low hanging fruit? Are we taking risks, championing the margins, pushing boundaries and sensibilities…or are we simply drinking from the same tastemaker cup as everybody else?

Note: Hot Docs occurs at the end of a very busy festival season. In a way, I see our Festival as bookending and summarizing a season that starts, not coincidentally, in Toronto, in September, with TIFF. As such, naturally Hot Docs draws heavily from those festivals which proceed us, especially IDFA, Sundance and Berlin (but obviously not TIFF). As well, we do not, as I’m very much on record about, have a preoccupation with securing premieres of one sort or another. Our goal is one-fold…..to show everything documentary is doing, right now. Hot Docs, we hope, is a judicious survey of what’s most interesting, to us and our audience, in nonfiction cinema. “So, if you’re drawing from other events, Sean, how do you avoid drinking the sweet nectar from the same tastemaker cup as your predecessors?” Okay, we do and we don’t. Obviously there’s a consensus that forms around a number of films that we, too, consent to. We want to show the big hits. We like standing ovations and group hugs, we really do. But, we also want to turn our audience onto a selection of the amazing variety of works we see, and also to push some buttons. What is “good taste,” anyway? I learned much of what I know about programming from being a DJ…….at a roadhouse club in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. My hard rock hometown. The goal: to get them dancing to the stuff they like, and to keep them dancing to the stuff I like.

Recap: First thing to think about is RIGOUR. Second thing…

DIVERSITY: Does the programme reflect the diversity of the work that has been submitted? Formally? Culturally? Regionally? Gender? Subject Matter? Identity? Age?

Note: Obvious, right? This isn’t some PC thing, by the way. It’s our mission….to show everything that documentary is doing…in one of the world’s most culturally diverse cities, Toronto.

Next…

GROWTH: Does the programme expand our audience and allow us to reach and develop new audiences for documentary? Do we have enough films that draw well in our large venues? Are we reaching beyond the limits of our own tastes and biases?

Note: Its not (always) about us.

And, finally…

STRATEGY: Is the programme strategic in terms of our competitiveness amongst other festivals. Do our key suppliers feel included? Are we developing relationships with established AND emerging filmmakers?

Note: At this point its important to remind you that IT ALL STARTS WITH ONE PERSON’S GUT REACTION TO A FILM THEY SEE, ALONE. After that, there’s business to be done. We want to support independent filmmakers, AND we want to support the infrastructure which in turn supports independent filmmakers. We want to see directors who we know and respect in the programme, and we like to help bring some new talent into the scene. And we want to be relevant to the Industry. That doesn’t mean that its carte blanche for broadcasters and distributors. We decline as much of their work as we do the independents. “I deal in dreamers and telephone screamers,” said the free dude in Paris in that Joni Mitchell song.

Okay, back to the screening pod.

Oh, one more note: Herein I’ll be using “nonfiction” rather than “non-fiction.” There seems to be no consensus on this, Usage and Style wise. However, graphically I prefer the former to the later. Like you care.

( I love this still from Alanis Obomsawin’s WABAN-AKI…her most recent film, and one of my faves. Alanis will receive the Outstanding Achievement Award at Hot Docs 2009)

As mentioned below, Sundance was quite nice. I think I even got a bit of a tan in the pleasant walks between Main St. and the Yarrow. They gave out some awards, yesterday, apparently.

Though, browsing through my index cards, on screen it all boils down to a rather bleak, apocalyptic stew: dolphins are being brutally slaughtered in Japan (THE COVE); big corporations continue to disown their eco-terrorism in developing nations (Chevron in Ecuador (CRUDE); and Union Carbide/Dow Chemical in Bhopal (THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLD); there may be environmental factors behind autism (OVER THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY); the world’s most powerful nations are not buying into international justice (THE RECKONING); we have about forty years of food remaining in our oceans (THE END OF THE LINE); torture in North Korea (KIMJONGILIA); honour killings in Kurdish Iraq (QUEST FOR HONOUR); all this, and MORE, much more, while  journalism is in crisis (REPORTER).

And L’il Wayne is addicted to cough syrup (THE CARTER)! And Anna Wintour (THE SEPTEMBER ISSUE) is even more steely, stony and spiky souled – there were gasps at the screening I attended – than Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA! And yet she despises black. Really hates it. As much as I love Meryl Streep, Anna Wintour plays Anna Wintour much better than Meryl Streep plays Anna Wintour. Yeah, I know, Streep’s character was only referencing Wintour, a composite based on a legend. Yet, she, Anna Wintour, should get an Oscar nom in 2010. It had to be the most compelling performance at Sundance this year.  (However, I can vouch, second hand, for Wintour’s overall niceness and human-like compassion….in Park City our Senior Int. Programmer, Shannon Abel, somehow found herself petting a black and white puppy with, yes, Anna Wintour….then she, Wintour, scolded it for wearing black, crushing the puppy’s zest for life with her dismissal of its genetic frock….though she liked that it was wearing real fur.

At dinner one night a few programmers and I briefly chatted about compassion fatigue, an occupational hazard for those who watch alot of documentaries. Then we cheered ourselves up by talking about how over-worked we are. Nibbling on the last of the world’s seafood.

Related, we are now deep into the sea of submissions at Hot Docs, and at last count there are 225 films on the Short List (also called, internally, “The Prog List”…as it is at TIFF, from where the term migrated). It will get longer before it gets shorter. We have two weeks of HEAVY screening, then Berlin, then we shape this big mound of documentary clay into a semi-coherent film festival.

Also, last week Hot Docs made our first programme announcement. We will honour Alanis Obomsawin with the annual Outstanding Achievement Award; the work of Ron Mann will be featured in the Focus On programme; we will do one national cinema programme this Fest, Made In South Korea; and will present a Spotlight on the National Film Board of Canada, in celebration of their 70th.

(a still from the very still, slow, stunning LUNCH BREAK)

This is the most of the important week in the Hot Docs programming season. Sundance. Many of the programming decisions we make in the next weeks will be informed by our response to the work seen here, its availability for Hot Docs, and/or our desire for its inclusion.

Best thing overheard at Sundance this year, which frequently yields juicy bounty for eavesdroppers: “It’s like the Sundance of 15 years ago….but without the optimism.” While this year’s festival trailer evokes nostalgia for the “Sundance Fever” of yore, the noticeably sharp decline in Industry attendance, and fair weather, has made this a quite enjoyable, non-fever inducing event. “That’s what happens when you take a dozen alpha males out of the mix,” jabbed a doc fest friend. He was referring to the collapse of the mini-major distribution biz, and, well, the not so great recession. Much of the frenzy, and the capitalism, has been missing – or not missing, depending your point of view – from this year’s festival.

Whatever. I like the new old Sundance. As usual the documentary programme is very impressive, if not yet life changing. Its also HUGE, at some 45 features, including the experimental stuff. This must be the largest selection of non-fiction ever presented at Sundance. At this point in the Hot Docs production cycle, the politics of programme acquisition precludes me from public displays of emotion and opinion with regards to  the works that Senior Programmer Shannon Abel and I have screened this week.  However, I’m quite pleased that by the time we leave Thursday we will have seen EVERY doc at Sundance (okay, except TYSON, didn’t fit our skeds). Even the experimental stuff. So, just  a coupla of disparate thoughts to share, sparked by two films screened over the weekend:

PASSING STRANGE (Spike Lee)
In his programme note for this totally engaging record of the acclaimed Broadway show, Shannon Kelley calls Spike Lee’s  new joint a “documentary.” Now, Shannon is way smarter and informed than I on practically everything. For instance, I recall him once illuminating me on the architecture of Leipzig. He even knew the proper names for the pretty thingy things on the buildings. Hence, one of my new year’s resolutions is to get better at knowing the names of things.  And Shannon is spot-on when he writes that PASSING STRANGE is “a tour-de-force of creative collaboration and inspiration.”

But, is a filmed performance a “documentary,” formally speaking? While certainly a document, or record of the performance, and skillfully photographed and edited, there is no non-fiction in the content of PASSING STRANGE. Okay, a dash, in the intermission sequence. But wouldn’t a documentary about the Broadway show Passing Strange feature comment on the performance, perhaps some “making-of” footage, a sense of its reception? Not that I wanted any of this in the film. I loved it for what it was, wished I had seen the show live, and was thankful it had been preserved. Yet, is a “document” the same as a “documentary” film? I’m not being rhetorical here. I’m really not sure, and have been thinking about it. Something to explore further.

LUNCH BREAK (Sharon Lockhart)
I hope this doesn’t come off as  annoyingly righteous, but I do wonder why I see so few of my documentary programming colleagues at screenings for non-fiction based work in the Frontiers programme at Sundance. Meanwhile, we consistently discuss our desire for more attention to form in the conventional docs we screen here and elsewhere. Having few opportunities to see films like LUNCH BREAK, I found it like yoga for my cinema senses. Not that I’ve ever done yoga. But I did feel limber, mindful, and ready for my programming day after the early morning screening.

Its a kind of camera performance film, an uninterrupted tracking shot through the interminable corridor of a metal works plant. The workers are on lunch. The image is slowed down to (I’m guessing) 1/100th speed, maybe even slower. Yes, an 83 minute super duper slow-mo long take….Eureka, I’ve found Opening Night! … The sound design consists of real-time ambient  industrial sounds, workers talking and, at one point, the background ramble of a Led Zeppelin song from  (we are to assume) the plant. The effect is the sense of watching something highly constructed and formal, yet with a hyper-observational realism. Everything is in sharp focus and we have plenty of time to explore the cluttered detail in the crammed corridor. Simple human movements, taking a sip from a pop can for instance, become epic gestures. And, fragments of narrative emerge and nudge our attention along as the camera crawls forward. Well into it, there’s  a long moment that involves a worker and popcorn that’s both kind of funny, and somehow reflexive re: movie watching.

I confess to lapses of attention that had absolutely nothing to do with the form of the film, or its diegetic space. Yet, the contemplative space Lockhart creates also allows for reflection on the nature of capturing,  re-constructing and representing reality. But this isn’t simply a formal exercise. I also thought about how rarely we see such spaces represented on our screens, and wondered if Lockhart chose lunch time as a sort of metaphor about the state of contemporary labour. There is something melancholy about labour at rest, and quite sad about it halted. Having worked in a factory myself, I recalled the persistent industrial hum, thick combustible smells, boot worn shiny cement floors with faded demarkings. And, indeed, lunch breaks certainly induced a desire to slow time down to the max. My father worked in these spaces all his life, in part so I could work watching films about them. I thought about that, too, and what it means.

(the glamorous life of documentary programming. here’s my view for the next two months: a screen and several multi-region DVD players, that’s how I roll…a window onto the world, literally)

“Dad, how would you do this documentary watching job if you didn’t have a TV?” A fine question from my six-year-old son, Jimmy. Its Sunday night, and I’m just wrapping up week one of the Hot Docs programming season. Jimmy pokes his head into my home office occasionally, and usually gets waved off. Tough love. “Not appropriate?” he asks, rhetorically. Meaning, there’s something on screen that isn’t for a six-year-old’s eyes or ears. Not appropriate. By now, he knows his Dad will be doing alot of documentary watching for the next coupla months. Much of it won’t be appropriate.

We, the Hot Docs programming team and I, are looking for about 175 films which are appropriate. Not for a six-year-old, but for our smart, generous, curious Hot Docs audience, which includes the international industry that attends our event looking for “product.” More than 2000 films will be viewed, the vast majority of them at least twice. We won’t watch ALL of ALL of the films. Sorry.

But, we will cull our submission shelves as thoroughly and thoughtfully as any film festival in the world. On this point, I’m obsessive. Filmmakers pay submission fees (which only cover a portion of properly administrating an unsolicited submissions process) with the expectation that the work they’ve just went broke making is going to be considered by capable people. Here’s our process:

1) A team of 11 Programmers and Associate Programmers start screening submissions in mid-December, and screen heavily through February. We do this in our homes, sometimes in pajamas and not fully groomed, often late into the evening.

2) The International Programming team meets weekly to discuss the work we’ve seen, and begins “shortlisting” certain works. The Canadian Programming team (Lynne Fernie, Gisèle Gordon and Associate Programmer Michelle Latimer ) meet less frequently, but are in frequent contact.

3) Through January and into early February our Programming team is focused on  building up the Short List. We’ll have a few hundred titles in play at its peak. Meanwhile, the Associate Programmers are giving second and third looks to work passed on by Programmers, making sure we haven’t missed anything (though we will, there’s enough good work for two festivals). The Associate Programmers are also screening shorts, making recommendations to Programmers.

4) Getting into mid-February we will have screened every submission at least once. At this point our focus is trimming a very long Short List into what becomes the Hot Docs programme. This can be agony, and by nature is a heartless endeavour. The filmmakers on our team find it particularly tough. Meanwhile, we’re also doing diligence, making sure everything has been seen at least twice.

Most of the Hot Docs programme is invited in the middle weeks of February. We will have locked our programme by the first week of March.  We’ll announce the entire programme on March 24 (though some titles are announced earlier), and this year’s Festival is April 30 – May 10.

We don’t screen, nor make decisions, by committee. The best way I can describe our meetings is that they’re like editorial meetings at a newspaper…or, more precisely, they’re like editorial meetings  on the Eighties tv drama The Lou Grant Show. Our Programmers summarize and champion the works they’ve shortlisted. They’re, in a sense, pitching films they believe, at times passionately, should be in the Festival. My promise to them is that every film they personally feel MUST be shown at Hot Docs, is shown at Hot Docs. Even if nobody else in the room shares their love of a particular work.  I believe strongly in these personal, sometimes idiosyncratic, choices. But, the Programmer must provide a coherent, convincing argument on a film’s behalf.

Piers Handling, Director of the Toronto International Film Festival Group, gave me some great advice upon anointing me a Programmer at TIFF. He told me, essentially, that the job required that I do two things well: articulate clearly and confidently why I thought  a film should be presented at the Festival; and, articulate clearly and confidently why a film should NOT be shown at the Festival. Verbally, in writing the programme note, to the media and on stage at the film’s premiere. This is the core skill I look for in our Programmers. It definitely took me longer to learn the second part of that equation (speaking confidently to filmmakers whose work has been declined is an especially delicate task), but more on that another time.

Next post I will go into a bit more detail on my role as Director of Programming, and the overall philosophy which informs Hot Docs curation. I also want to finish the notes from my November travels, and this week its, eek, Sundance.