(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:
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”)