ripping reality

(Sundance 2009 Grand Jury Prize winner WE LIVE IN PUBLIC will be under surveillance by fests everywhere this year…but being in Sundance isn’t  necessarily a free pass onto the fest circuit)

Its the beginning of the end of the Hot Docs selection process. We will have a locked programme and schedule in the next two weeks. Good news everybody: its been a very strong season for world documentary. Better than last year, me thinks. However, there is no MAN ON WIRE…yet. Next year’s Oscar race for best doc, still wide-open (early money: THE COVE).

And, thanks to those who’ve sent notes re: the jottings here, and especially to the generous public displays of affection. Everybody’s so nice in blogland.

Apparently my posts are too long for the average attention span (I’ve been told), so I’m going to offer some quick thoughts this week. That, and my own attention span is very, umm, kitten-like, after watching 10 docs a day (11 yesterday) for the past week. It was the most intense screening week yet, and last night I had strange dreams.

So, randomly, and very generally and broadly and top of head…

American filmmakers know how to make me cry, and laugh; European filmmakers give me time to think;  Japanese filmmakers have been influenced, significantly, by classic verite; Mexican filmmakers are impressionists; Korean filmmakers are focused on social activism; Chinese filmmakers spend alot of time in the countryside; Canadian filmmakers, and Dutch filmmakers, think other countries are more interesting than Canada and the Netherlands;) Brit filmmakers frequently find the best characters and stories; German filmmakers are almost always very German; French filmmakers are truly French, with wispy smart tender films (including my personal fave so far).

Also, here’s a thought…..

There was a new wave of American documentary. Currently I locate its dates as January, 1999 (ie. the year AMERICAN MOVIE premiered at Sundance) to January, 2007 (ie. when MY KID COULD PAINT THAT and CRAZY LOVE premiered at Sundance;  not to mention dramatic features by Chris Smith, Jeff Blitz and George Ratliff). Yes, that’s right, its over. The primary characteristics of this new wave were: 1) compelling changes in the way filmmakers represented real events and people; 2) a dramatic increase in the quantity and quality of production, especially from young filmmakers; 3) socio-political engagement and opposition; 4) populism; 5) a glut of new festivals, 6) an interested, engaged, curious audience; 7) new distribution opportunities. There’s more, and this is really a first draft list…but I’ve been considering this for the past several months: something started, and something has ended. What’s left is vibrant, and rich and still fresh…but the paradigm has stopped shifting re: The New Documentary. Now is a time to assess what’s happened, and what’s next. Stay tuned.

Now, common subjects this year….
- child poverty, everywhere (Mexico, India, Mongolia, America…Finland…okay, busted, not Finland)
- its the environment, stupid.
- a critical awareness among filmmakers of the issues/complexities re: representing Africa (finally)
- fucked-up families (as always)
- favelas
- transgendered people and communities (interesting to me that many of these films, which we see alot of every year, are made by “straight” filmmakers. Anyway, I’m an expert on transexuality after years of watching these films)
- bad mothers (finally usurping bad fathers)
- Anna Politkovskaya (there have now been at least 6 docs about her in the past three years, if anybody’s counting)

hmmm, this post is getting a tad verbose…..

So, finally, one “David H” wrote this on AJ Schnack’s blog:

However, it seems like several festivals heavily curate their line-up with films fresh from Sundance. Are the cold submissions sent in by filmmakers really poor? Should festivals that curate their program inform filmmakers that there are only so many spots open from the larger pool? If these films are making the festival rounds based on their success at some of the top festivals…perhaps these festivals should consider a traveling festival that showcases a selection of films. In short what is the purpose of having an open call if the majority of films are culled or invited to apply form other festivals?

Interesting questions. Let’s call it the Sundance shadow, and it casts a double-edged dilemma. First, every festival programmer I know prays to the submissions gods that they find an amazing, undiscovered gem in their stack of unsolicited submissions. I recall, fresh from film school, pre-screening for TIFF in 1998. I slid a VHS (PAL, at that) of a film labeled -  masking tape with black sharpie printing on the spine – FOLLOWING into my multi-standard VCR. This filmmaker is very good, thought I. Amazing, even. Maybe I should recommend this film to the TIFF Programmers, and if I do that maybe one day this filmmaker will revive the Batman franchise (okay, I didn’t think that last part until just now).  I had just seen Christopher Nolan’s terrific first film. This is the experience that programmers hope for every time we press play.

If anything, then, Sundance premiered films come with the baggage of having been discovered by somebody else. For the U.S. festivals, most of which covet, at least, U.S. premieres, many films launched at Sundance are actually penalized….except those which these festivals need because they’re the best films available, because they sell tickets, because they sell sponsorships, because they are directed by important filmmakers, or distributed by key suppliers, etc…In other words, there are five or so documentaries from Sundance each year that everybody wants (this year among those are WE LIVE IN PUBLIC, THE SEPTEMBER ISSUE, THE COVE, GOOD HAIR, BIG RIVER MAN). Following that, there’s a tier of very good Sundance premiered films that will struggle to get slots at festivals like sxsw, Tribeca, LAFF, and Silverdocs simply because they premiered at Sundance and are no longer available as a U.S. premiere.

So, my answer to David H’s question would be four-fold: 1) the fact is that the Sundance Film Festival has “first dibs” on the best new American documentaries; 2) we all go to Sundance to see these films; 3) then we all go home to frantically forage for films they missed or that weren’t ready; 4) then we judiciously pick some of the top docs, or personal preferences from Sundance, and some discoveries from our submissions.

Okay, that settles it, I’m incapable of blog brevity.

Next time, the agony of declination (ie. its the time of year when I’m saying “no, thanks” much more than “yes, please”)

(THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLD scooped the Panorama Audience Award at the 59th Berlinale)

I was in Berlin, for the film festival, last week. Its the first time I’ve attended Berlinale, though for years have followed the programming, voraciously reading the coverage of this prestigious event, one of the “big four” (along with Sundance, Cannes and Toronto). The media coverage of the Berlinale this year has been typical of the vast majority of film festival journalism, at least for these major events. You can find the same articles for the most recent Cannes, Toronto, and Sundance festivals.The template being:

1) The Opening Night film is covered as an event, with obligatory photos of, usually, B-list  stars. The film itself is generally reported to be underwhelming (at best) or just plain awful.

2) After a few days, the programme as a whole is also reported to be underwhelming, lacking in discoveries, or just plain awful.

 3) Given the apparently paucity of life changing films, it is also reported that other scribblers, and the industry at large, is in foul temper.

 4) The Market is always slow, except when its truly, apocalyptically, slow….like this year. (This was actually true, by the way. Many booths at the EFM seemed to be deserted early).

 5) Yet, despite the overall wretchedness of the programme, and the dismal business being done, a film or two is deemed worthy of being personally championed.

 6) The parties are fan-fucking-tastic, though, keeping film festival journalists up late on satays and pilsner, upping each other’s ante re: how much the festival truly does suck this year.

And everybody shows up for the next one on the circuit.

I jest a bit, of course (these are friends, afterall), but not entirely. While this is a broad generalization, it generally holds true that this story is repurposed in one way or another for a big chunk of coverage in the trades and consumer media. IndieWire, and blogs like GreenCine and others are the exceptions, usually (but not always) taking a broader approach to their festival coverage. Smaller events are covered much more generously, typically, than the majors.

For a sample of the Berlinale 2009 versions, read here and here  and here. Oh, and here’s a doozy, by festival misanthrope Shane Danielsen in IndieWire. I like reading Shane, he (can be) fiercely intelligent and is a deliciously frequent purveyer of that lost art, evisceration by word processor. Here, though, it might have occurred to Danielsen that Andrew Bujaski and the whole nouveau slacker crowd are producing work off the critical grid. They’re not making films for auteurist critics, but for other people who want to make films just like they do. These days, that’s a whole mess of people wanting to make messy films. A movement, even.

But I digress.

My experience at film festivals, both at those I’ve worked, and those I attend, is seldom reflected in festival reportage I read.  For instance, rarely, if ever, does one read of the frequently amazing ways films connect with the public audiences at these events. Even, more often than is realized, the “bad” films, like BEESWAX (which I didn’t see, but a friend of mine loved). Why isn’t the public reception factored into reports of how a film is received at a festival? Q&A’s are a big part of the festival experience too.  Sometimes they’re mundane, but often Q&A’s can be entertaining and enlightening, even newsworthy. They’re never mentioned in reports about festivals.

Also, seldom do I get a sense, in reading about film festivals, of the eclectic culture that coalesces around these events. The infamous dust-up between Jeff Dowd and John Anderson at Sundance was so delightfully reported because it represented something both out of the norm, yet so very much a part of festival culture. Two contentious fest stalwarts clashing. There’s some incredible characters in this very unique vagabond culture of ours. I’d like to see more of them documented in festival coverage.

Finally (these are just a few top of head things), rarely do I see an article, critical or otherwise, on the actual programming. Maybe this is a tad narcissistic, but as a curator I’m waiting for the day somebody questions why we programmed so many docs about such and such, or too little of this or that. Or, why was that pretentious first-person doc in the Competition, and not that amazingly poetic essay film? Good curators put a fair amount of thought behind the combination of a selection of films in a given programme, or the way the varying programmes are structured within the broader scope of the event, or our special and thematic programmes. The festival passes, and nary a word, negative or positive. Though, just today I see that Danielsen has some sharp thoughts on the Berlinale programmes in IndieWire.

Anyway, more editorializing than I intended here…but  flush with my Berlinale virginity being so satisfyingly taken, having seen some quite incredible work (on which I’ll write soon) – even more good work than I needed to see at this point, actually – I’m feeling a little protective towards my festival colleagues in Berlin.

And, one more thing, why was there so little coverage of  the docs!  There was over forty of them in the festival, afterall.

Pushing off for the Berlinale tomorrow, then back home to complete our selections for Hot Docs 2009. We have over half of the programme in place, and we’re quite pleased with it. An interesting thing starts to happen now, in that our remaining selections will be very much informed by the films to which we’ve already committed. This means that some strong work will be excluded simply because it doesn’t fit the programming puzzle.

I really don’t know if its better to submit a film early, or late. I do know that, given the range of choice, sometimes a decision to select one work over another is simply a matter of timing, of when we see it. Festival selections can sometimes baffle those not familiar with the process, and we all scratch our heads at certain choices festivals make. Its an intense, fast, and imperfect process….but the good work always finds its way.

As is always the case, I assume that some of the docs we really like have been submitted, and declined, elsewhere. Just as some that we decline will find love from other festivals. Of course, programmers get a little defensive about these instances (especially when a declined film becomes a hit or award winner elsewhere), but its just a part of the process.

Now, to give you, dear blog reader, a sense of how I’m responding to work, I offer a few snippets from my now burgeoning index card box. Those in quotes are direct quotations from characters or voice-over in the film, the others are my reactions as I screen:

- terrific access, good, natural ‘performances’

- re: gentrification: “How come there’s room for the rich, but not the poor?”

- “an ‘ars poetica’ told, not through theory, but through stories.”

- fairly mundane opening, what’s this going to tell me?

- heroin, sex, pixelated night shots, s&m > very transgressive

- a relationship therapy film

- little/no critical analysis…but do we need that in this instance?

- reading images and making connections > ie. classical montage

- quiet, impressionistic, textured…but still about a junkie thief > what sets this apart?

- strangely structured, but a kind of surrealism emerges

- “If you learn to get men to like you, you won’t need to work a day in your life.”

- “Have I ever had counseling? I’ve had many a counseling. Many a times. I’ve been diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder with an impulse control problem. Which means I don’t like people and I’m a little bit of a psychopath.” …other guy : “A little bit?”

- sort of interesting, but just misses…doesn’t elevate the source material

- another first-person therapy film…but a really good one