The documentary community was out in full force at last night’s Cinema Eye Honors for Nonfiction Filmmaking : from rising stars like Kristi Jacobson, who is heading to Sundance with her film Finding North next week; to household names like Michael Moore; to doc pioneers who’ve inspired us all like Al Maysles and Fred Wiseman.

And what a community it is! The spirit of camaraderie in the room was palpable, and was commented upon by several presenters.  The evening was hosted by charismatic Cinema Eye Honors co-chairs AJ Schnack and Esther Robinson. They fostered this sense of community by sharing personal anecdotes throughout the evening and reminding the audience why the awards were founded in the first place: to honor the countless hours spent by often unsung documentary producers, directors, shooters, and editors in the name of helping us better understand our world.

The crowd shared appreciative laughter when one presenter commented on the difference between doc-makers and Hollywood producers: “We fly Greyhound.”  There were also some surprisingly touching moments, like when Tim Hetherington’s mother accepted his award for the short film Diary.  Tim, a photojournalist who was killed while covering the Libyan conflict last year, was beloved by many in the room. Danfung Dennis, director of Hell and Back Again, addressed Mrs. Hetherington in his acceptance speech for the Cinematography prize, sharing that “Tim was our Prince.”

Another emotional highlight was the appearance of Jason Baldwin at the podium. Baldwin is one protagonist of the Paradise Lost documentary trilogy, which covered his wrongful imprisonment as a teenager. Baldwin and the other two men featured in the films were finally released last year after 18 years in prison, a testament to the power of documentary films for advocacy and awareness. Filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky joined Baldwin on stage to receive the “Hell Yeah!” Award, created specifically to honor their films’ achievements.

Esther Robinson summed up the crowd’s feelings as she wiped away tears after Mrs. Hetherington and the Paradise Lost crew’s appearances: “This is not abstract. This is about real people I respect, making work that moves me, and I am humbled.”

Many excellent films were recognized, but the top prize of the night went to Steve James and his team for The Interrupters. Check out the trailer here:

P.S. A big congratulations to our very own Chief Notetaker, Brian Geldin, who served as press liaison for the event and did us all proud!

While I did have the opportunity to post some of my own notes this year, I personally  had to take a back seat from posting due to my very fortunate almost non-stop work on many incredible film publicity projects. I want to thank the people who’ve been very generous to me giving me these amazing opportunities.

First and foremost, Thessa Mooij of Silversalt PR. Thessa is such a warm and kind person, and extremely  hard working. She’s also a busy jet setter having traveled all over the world this past year from her home country of The Netherlands to the far reaches of Kazakhstan where she’s been doing unit publicity on the largest film to come out of that country ever, Myn Bala. We all need to look out for that film next year!

Big thank you’s to AJ Schnack, Esther Robinson and Nathan Truesdell for having me on their team at the Cinema Eye Honors for Nonfiction Filmmaking! We’re doing it again on January 11, 2012 at the Museum of the Moving Image. Some more thanks and praise to Thom Powers and Raphaela Neihausen for putting on another incredible DOC NYC and having me back as publicity liaison. And to all of the filmmakers and press who attended, as well as to the staff of DOC NYC including John Vanco, Harris Dew, Dana Krieger and Denise Hughes, publicist Susan Norget, photographer Simon Luethi, and all of our volunteers!

I also worked with some terrific filmmakers this year who I must also thank. Thank you Deborah Kaufman and Alan Snitow with whom I worked during their Stranger Than Fiction screening of Between Two Worlds. Thank you to Alexandra Roxo, director of Mary Marie, which premiered at the Brooklyn Film Festival where it won Best Cinematography for DP Magela Crosignani, and later screened at NewFest. It was great to work with Alexandra, as well as producer Rachel Earnest, and co-writer/co-star Alana Kearns-Green. I had such a wonderful time seeing Rachel, Alana, and Magela in Los Angeles during the time another film I repped, Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer was making its L.A. debut. Speaking of which, huge thanks to Honest Man director James Dirschberger and to the Dwyer family. We had an incredible and emotional sold-out screening of Honest Man in Meadville, Pennsylvania, and of course again in L.A.

I’ve also had the good fortune to work with Alma Har’el on social media during her film Bombay Beach’s Tribeca Film Festival premiere, where it won Best Documentary! Thanks, Alma!  Shout outs also go out to Alex Cirillo and Dani Faith Leonard of Big Vision Empty Wallet and David Teague of Flicker NYC!

And something a little different this year for which I had the great honor of working was Canadian artist John Coburn’s Healing Hearts art exhibition, a tribute to the families, first responders, and recovery workers of 9/11, at Sciame Construction. Thank you to everyone at Sciame, as well as Healing Hearts artist John Coburn, curator Thomas Beckett, producers Tom Powers & Gordon Smeaton, Toronto publicist Ingrid Hamilton, and gallery coordinator Melissa Silvestri.

Instead of our normal Top 10 Panels of the Year, I’ve set aside some highlights below from our notetakers who contributed in 2011.

Happy upcoming holidays and new year to all!

2011 Highlights

Sex It Up! Keepin’ It Kinky @ SXSW

Austin, TX – March 14, 2011

Notes by Erin Scherer

Summary:

The line between art and porn are becoming increasingly blurred. Independent filmmakers are gravitating toward graphic sex with films like 9 Songs and Shortbus, with both featuring unsimulated sex. Porn Directors like Vivian Darkbloom (featured in the panel) are doing more to incorporate edgy narrative into their work.

Discussion with Director Julie Taymor from 360/365

Rochester, NY – April 30, 2011

Notes by Rebecca Banach

Summary:

Director Julie Taymor has never followed the rules. In a discussion held at Rochester’s annual 360/365 film festival moderated by local film critic Jack Garner, Taymor said she “always jumped off the cliff instead of just standing on the cliff.” Her latest film, William Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’, is a perfect example of this. Taymor casts Helen Mirren as ‘Prospera,’ a female rework of the original male character.

Fins Encounter Landscape of Documentary Distribution in New York

New York, NY – June 9, 2011

Notes by Brian Geldin

Summary:

As part of its 10th anniversary, the Helsinki-based DocPoint festival celebrates Finnish documentaries with DocPoint NYC – a program of 47 films hosted by its New York partners: The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), Scandinavia House, 92YTribeca, UnionDocs and the Tribeca Film Institute. DocPoint is the largest documentary festival in the Nordic region. Finnish documentaries are enjoying an international boom, picking up awards, sales agents and distribution deals.

Grady and Ewing “Master” Silverdocs

Silver Spring, MD – June 25, 2011

Notes by Erin Essenmacher

Summary:

Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady are fierce. As Loki Films they have produced countless works for television and four feature length documentaries, with a fifth currently in production.  Their work has taken them from inner city Baltimore to East Africa, from the jungles of Sri Lanka to a non-descript looking corner in Florida that is actually ground zero for the fierce debate around abortion rights. They have snuck into abandoned buildings and the country of Cuba, fearlessly following where the story takes them.  Their work has premiered at Sundance, appeared on networks like HBO A&E and Al Jazeera and been nominated for an Academy Award.

Telling Global Stories at DOC NYC

New York, NY – November 5, 2011

Notes by Liz Nord

Summary:

“Does humanity have the possibility of doing better than this?” That question is posed as a guiding principal of the International Criminal Court in the captivating trailer for Pamela Yates’s recent film, The Reckoning. I would argue that the same question motivates many documentary filmmakers, particularly those represented on DOCNYC’s Telling Global Stories panel.

Telling Global Stories at DOC NYC
November 5, 2011
New York, NY

PANELISTS:

Andrew Berends (Director: The Blood of My Brother. Upcoming film: Delta Boys)
Ross Kauffman (Director: Born Into Brothels. Upcoming film: The E-Team)
Pamela Yates (Director: Granito, When the Mountains Tremble)
Elizabeth Cantrell & Mara Tshibaka (NYU Master’s students, co-directors of a yet-unnamed film shooting in the Congo)

“Does humanity have the possibility of doing better than this?”

That question is posed as a guiding principal of the International Criminal Court in the captivating trailer for Pamela Yates’s recent film, The Reckoning. I would argue that the same question motivates many documentary filmmakers, particularly those represented on DOCNYC’s Telling Global Stories panel.

Each of the panelists has traveled to multiple foreign destinations to bring us up close and personal with globally important, and often extremely grizzly topics from intimate, personal perspectives. From Ross Kauffman’s new film about the members of Human Rights Watch who document almost unspeakable war crimes; to NYU students Elizabeth Cantrell & Mara Tshibaka whose work attempts to shed light on the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo; to Berends’ new film about militant rebels in the Niger Delta, the filmmakers put themselves in debt and danger in the name of truth.

Moderator Mary Domowicz, head of NYU’s Department of Design, Digital Arts and Film, brilliantly set up the panel as a discussion between the filmmakers, resulting in a very candid peek into the stories behind their productions and useful advice for aspiring documentarians. Highlights below:

Q: How do you tackle the logistics of your international shoots?

Yates: When I started Reckoning, I had never been to Africa. I used all of my contacts and sources in the human rights world to find local people who could help. I hate the term “fixer.” I call them “local producers” because they really make the films happen.

Berends: I’m now on my fourth film, and my approach has been more about picking one place and going there for a long time. It’s immersion: go there and learn about the big story by hanging out with people who are impacted by it. Nigeria was difficult in terms of people being reliable so it took a long time to get the access I wanted, but I spent 8 months there total. Unfortunately, I got kicked out before I could finish filming. [Note: read about Berends’ arrest while filming in Nigeria and eventual release here.] When I was in Nigeria, I worked by myself, but halfway through I found a translator. You have to work with who you can find, and sometimes you have to deal with shady hustlers.

Kauffman: For Born into Brothels, I spent 2.5 years on and off in Calcutta. We had no budget and therefore no fixer, only a drunken translator—the only person we could find who would be willing to work with us in the red light district because of all the stigmas. For the new film, I was in Libya with the Human Rights Watch team so they have their own local contacts and fixers. My job was showing that I wasn’t going to be too much hassle for them and wouldn’t be in the way, but we all got along well. It happens in a variety of ways for each film.

Cantrell: As grad students, we had a very limited timeframe to film. Vital to us was cultivating relationships with the right people before ever getting on the ground, and it was very effective. We only shot for 3 weeks on our first trip, but we interviewed vulnerable populations and having the support of locals helped us get over trust barrier.

Tshibaka: People in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and in many of these places have media fatigue: reporters show up, get the story, and the locals never hear from them again, so we exchanged information with everyone we interviewed. There’s an importance in letting them know you care.

Q: What about preparing for technical limitations?

Cantrell: Electricity and internet are not guaranteed, so you just adapt and make sure you’re prepared. Find solutions to problems as they arise.

Berends: There’s more electricity than you expect. Once we arrived at a rebel base in the middle of the jungle and were offered cold beer. My local guide said, “You know what this means? They have generators.” It hadn’t even occurred to me.

Yates: One practical hint is to get a car, and fill it with gas all the way. Cars can generate electricity and I’ve used it to plug in computers, download memory cards, recharge batteries, etc.

Kauffman: I learned from working with human rights workers. Act like you are camping out. It’s all about preparation! Bring extra batteries, backups of equipment, backups of everything. These days, you can even bring backup cameras.

Q (posed by Yates): Often the story we’re telling has already been told a lot by mainstream media. How do you make sure you’re telling a different story?

Tshibaka: We are trying to look for solutions. DRC has been covered a lot, but the international community is not fixing the problems, so we want to promote building local capacity.  We want to show the problems, but for us it’s about solutions and hope.

Kauffman: I get tired of depressing docs. With Born Into Brothels, I wasn’t even interested in making the film until I realized that it’s about joy and hope. So then what attracted me to the new film? I met some of the Human Rights Watch investigators and they are cool people–people I wanted to get to know better. We can see these terrible war crimes through them. They deal with it in a human way. The idea is exposing these issues by trying to create a connection between the audience and characters.

Berends: I’m making a film about Africa and I had a European distributor blatantly tell me that there is “Africa fatigue” in Europe. I thought, ” OK. I better make a really good film.”  This type of negative feedback can be painful and frustrating but it makes me want to do a better job.

Yates: I often think of the quote by Gabriel Garcia Marquez: “It’s not who tells the story first, it’s who tells it best.”

Q: How do you deal with filming against a heavy police and military presence?

Kauffman: You are always thinking on your feet.  My 20 years living in NY prepared me to look out in a weird way. I always try to keep my camera rolling no matter what because that can be useful material. I got taken by police in Kashmir but kept filming until I finished a tape. On the walk to the police station, I somehow managed to change the tape and put the first one in my underwear, but I forgot I was wearing boxers and it slipped down my leg! You have to be prepared for that kind of thing.

Berends: There are obviously challenges and there’s no formula. You have to adapt. Interact with people as human beings and you will gain trust and respect. If you’re filming people who are fighting for something, they’re thrilled to have you there. One big thing I’ve learned is that so many boundaries and obstacles are imagined by us, and when you get into reality it is not as complicated as you expect.

Yates: I never go with security, and I never go armed. I feel like it’s safer that way because it makes you less threatening. In my first film about civil war in Guatemala, I went on a Guatemalan gunship with a top military general, but we almost got shot by snipers and it became a bonding experience, so when we got to the base, he let us wander freely and film whatever we wanted. It was an opportunity, and we took it.

Tshibaka: When we were with locals, people left us alone. Make sure you’re with your local contacts as much as possible. We had a run in with local police officers during one of the few times we were alone, and he wanted us to go with him to the police station. We gauged situation and argued with him, and ended up not going.

Kauffman: I’m not just there to make a film. I want to enjoy it and get to know people. Sometimes that can also help you out of a tight situation. As an example, I became friendly by chance with a local mafia leader in red light district. We were filming one night and I felt something was wrong and that we had somehow overstepped our boundaries. My mafia friend showed up and led us out of the alley, and no one bothered us because we were with him. My advice is to be open and be yourself and don’t be too focused on filming.

“What the f*ck is up with Netflix?”

DOC NYC’s State of Digital panel started out with a bang as moderator Brian Newman of Sub-Genre Media bluntly asked his esteemed panelists about Netflix’s fate. Though panelist Matt Dentler of FilmBuff assured him that “Netflix will be fine,” the inquiry set the tone for the whole day, wherein panel after panel raised almost as many questions about the state of the industry as they were able to answer.

The jury still seems out as to whether the film industry as a whole is in a period of great crisis or great opportunity, but one thing that’s clear is that this tumult levels the playing field in certain ways, and savvy indie producers have the potential to capitalize on many new outlets for their work.

STATE OF TV

The day opened with the State of Television panel, whose moderator Peter Hamilton of DocumentaryTelevision.com cut right to the chase by asking panelists to address the basic issues: Who is commissioning docs for TV? What are you looking for?  How many do you acquire? And–of top interest to the mostly filmmaker crowd–how much do you pay?

Sara Bernstein of the venerable HBO Documentary Films said that they are looking for unique access. This doesn’t necessarily mean celebrity access, as she pointed out with their of acquisition How to Die in Oregon, where the intimate access is to a dying patient. “HBO is pay TV,” Bernstein explained, “so we think about subscribers. Our documentaries should feel like paid, theatrical experiences that break through to zeitgeist of America. The press needs to be paying attention.” HBO is generally not interested in “arthouse” films or broad overviews of general topics.

HBO’s funding ranges; Of their 30-50 releases per year, about half are commissioned films with experienced makers and significant budgets while the other half are acquisitions where HBO comes in at the finishing stage. They do work with first-time filmmakers, but if you pitch to them, make sure to show them real selects, rather than just a trailer or an idea.

(L-R: Hamilton, Bernstein, Kilmurry and Thompson)

Representing the opposite side of the commercial spectrum was Simon Kilmurry of POV, a PBS series that releases 17 or 18 docs a year through acquisition & co-production. POV looks at  around 1,000 projects a year to find films that are cinematic, new in form, bring a new perspective on social issues, and can sustain broad national outreach campaign. They never fully commission projects, but do provide an average of $80-90K and often help productions secure additional funds. In exchange, they take limited rights: US TV, some digital & some educational.

Although A&E is known primarily as a TV network, Molly Thompson explained that A&E IndieFilms has been making docs specifically targeted to theatrical distribution, as it “allows films to have a vibrant life.” For their 2 or 3 fully funded releases per year, they seek stories that are “splashy.” In Molly’s words, “Most important to us is CHARACTER , CHARACTER , CHARACTER: it needs to be someone who is complex and can carry a whole film.” Recent Acquisitions include Page One and Corman’s World.

As far as other parties in their space, the panelists had a hard time forming a list, conceding that for one-off docs, it’s hard to get on American TV. Names mentioned were PBS independent Lens, the Oprah Winfrey Network and NatGeo. One panelist mentioned that the supply of films is increasing but demand is decreasing. Molly Thompson disagreed: “People keep saying things like that, but I don’t know when the WHEN was that things were so much better.”

STATE OF DIGITAL

Perhaps one of the reasons Molly Thompson argued that things are looking up is the state of digital distribution and the panoply of options it offers to filmmakers for getting their work seen. Whether or not digital distribution gets filmmakers paid is another question, but the State of Digital panelists seemed confident and had some positive examples to share.

Lisa Schwartz of IFC Films and Sundance Selects explained, “A few years ago there was more experimentation, but markets correct. It’s not like TV with a small selection of Nielsen homes determining viewership for the whole country. With digital, there is granular visibility about viewership of your film, and we’re learning what works.”

Matt Dentler of FilmBuff, the consumer-facing label of Cinetic Rights Management, concurred. “We won’t throw down on a doc unless we think it will make at least $50K for the filmmaker, preferably $100k.” Referring to his company as a “digital distributor married with sales agent,” he said that they don’t acquire films, but release them across many platforms and split rights with the filmmaker. One of their success stories is Exit Through the Gift Shop, which made $700K in the first year across all digital deals.

One platform where films are finding an audience is Snagfilms, whose principal Andrew Mer stated that their core business is a free streaming platform supported by ads and sponsors, but they are rapidly branching out to all platforms. Their library of over 2,500 docs and indie films can already be viewed on the Snagfilms iPad app, which is the 7th most downloaded entertainment app, and the films will be available on 40 other mobile devices by end of month.

But can a fimmaker get paid for films that are streaming to audiences for free? Matt Dentler explained that FilmBuff prefers to do “transactional models” such as one-to-one purchases on VOD first before the film is released for free or on subscription services, but, “We’ve seen huge returns off ‘free.’ Netflix has given us big fees for films that aren’t available anywhere else but work for the Netflix audience.”

New Video/Docurama is widely known as a worldwide home entertainment distributor for high-quality docs and they, too, have entered the digital space. New Video’s Susan Margolin described their role as a “digital-aggregator,” distributing films TO Snagfilms, iTunes, Netflix, and other digital platforms worldwide. She explained that each film has its own formula for what works, and it can be unpredictable. Certain films catch fire on iTunes but don’t do as well on SVOD, such as Helvetica, which became the #1 movie on iTunes thanks to a dedicated community of graphic designer fans.

Lisa Schwartz told the audience that IFC Films also employs a hybrid model, wherein the as many as 100 films they release each year all get some sort of theatrical play prior to going digital on one of their Sundance Now properties. Soon, Sundance Now will launch a digital documentary club-a curated subscription service where viewers can see the best docs from IFC Entertainment and other distributors.

All of the panelists agreed that making a good film is paramount to getting an audience, but that having an active social media presence is the best way to engage and grow that audience. Matt Dentler suggested using the social media that’s best for each platform. For Amazon VOD, it’s Twitter, whereas for Hulu, Facebook is best because you can embed the Hulu player on Facebook pages. Susan Margolin also recommended some small but emerging media apps that incorporate social media, such as Prescreen (Like Groupon for ticket-buying) and Constellation (Crowdsourcing an audience to watch and discuss films online together) to help you “hone your marketing roadmap.”

The digital opportunities for filmmakers and content creators are only growing, particularly with Hulu and Netflix beginning to produce original content in what  Dentler called “the next interation of cable.”

Andrew Mer aptly described films as “a labyrinth of rights,” but if filmmakers can figure out how to navigate that labyrinth and properly promote their work, they have the potential to profit from their creative dreams.

Master class presentation at IFP’s Independent Film Week on 9/21/11

Notes by Erin Essenmacher

“Get Over Yourself.”

That’s how Paola Freccero from Crowdstarter opened her Master Class presentation on how to build an audience at this year’s IFP Independent Film Week filmmaker conference.

“I’m going to be coming back to that a lot over the next hour, so I want all of you to say it with me.”

“Get over yourself” the crowd said in unison.

Freccero and her Crowdstarter co-founder Liz Ogilvie collectively have almost 40 years experience in the independent film world and have worked in every aspect of the film industry including PR, marketing, home entertainment, television, theatrical and digital distribution.

Given that pedigree, it’s no surprise that Crowdstarter has become a powerhouse.  But it’s also clear that the organization’s success is due in no small part because Freccero is such a dynamo.  She exudes confidence with a down-to-earth style and no bullsh*t approach to addressing her audience. Which is why, even when it feels like she might be insulting you, some innate wisdom deep down tells you right off the bat  it’s for your own good. In fact Frecerro could have easily called her presentation “Everything (And I Mean *Everything*) You Ever Needed to Know About DIY Outreach for Film But Were Afraid to Ask”

“Good, now that we have that out of the way,” Freccero continued, “I’m just gonna launch right in. Let’s start with what I like to call, the Audience Manifesto.”

The main tenets of said Manifesto and the key points of Freccero’s thorough presentation are outlined below.

The Audience Manifesto:

1. The biggest problem is not piracy; it’s obscurity.  “I can’t tell you how many times filmmakers tell me they don’t want to put their film out there, because they’re worried someone might steal it,” Freccero remarked,  “my response: ‘you should be so lucky.’  That means people actually want to see it.”

2. There are only two ways to get people to pay for a movie: advertising (crazy expensive) and word-of-mouth (basically free). “If you’re a filmmaker on a tight to non-existent budget – and let’s face it, that’s most of you – you need to rely on word of mouth. The only way to generate that buzz is to show people your film,” Freccero said.

3. An audience that cares is an audience that shares…you’ve gotta make them care and make it easy to share. The only way to spread word of mouth is to screen.

4. You to have to preach to the choir (aka “core”) before you can reach the masses. Determine your core audience and reach out to them.

5. The most powerful review of movie is the one you get from your friends.

6. A dark room with a crowd is still the best way to see (and love) a movie.

7. Having a distributor is nice; having marketing money is nice; but even if you have neither you still can (and should!) generate word of mouth.

Who is Your Audience?

The Core: your main audience is the choir, aka the core, which means your friends, family, cast/crew/subjects, people who live in places where you shot the film, everyone you met in process of making the film.

Outer Ring: The next level of potential audience members are those folks who belong to organizations, clubs or groups that relate directly to your film (“This includes people who are fans of actors or characters in your film or the musicians on your soundtrack.”)

Next Outer Ring: Fans of the genre

How Do You Reach Your Audience?

1. It’s not about you… You have to ask what is going to bring your audience in? You’re generally not the best judge of audience – way too close. Doesn’t matter what you think of artwork/trailer/synopsis, it matters what your AUDIENCE thinks.  Lose your own personal tastes; develop materials that speak to the choir.  “You may think those Jackson Pollack-esque postcards with the paint splatters are the most inspired thing ever,” Freccero advised, “but if it doesn’t resonate with your core audience, it doesn’t matter.”

2. Are you not sure you’re right about who is your choir? Try a test screening. It can be as simple as asking 10 of your friends to each bring at least one guest to your living room (office, edit suite, etc…) Afterwards asks them to fill out a questionnaire.

3. If you have resources, post your film online on a secure screening platform – ask random groups to watch and use Survey Monkey or another similar tool to test response and gather reactions to the film.

4. If you’re going to whip out your credit card, ask if what you’re paying for directly impacts awareness of your film.  “I know it’s tempting to spend money on those beautiful t-shirts you designed, but you need to create demand for your film first,” Freccero advised.

Screen, Screen, Screen

1. Screening is NOT a revenue stream — it’s marketing. “Distributors make this mistake all the time,” Freccero warned, “they see screening as a way to make money. And it can be. Eventually.  When you’re first starting out, it’s hard to charge for something that isn’t yet in demand.” Most organizations and clubs will play a rental fee, but even if they won’t pay, you should screen anyway.

2. Exhibition is critical – but it doesn’t always have to in a theater. Anywhere that has a screen and a media player of some kind can be exhibition space

(Editor’s note: when my 2^nd PBS doc, “Rediscovering Dave Brubeck” aired on TV, we found a local bar with a big screen TV who let us have the upstairs in exchange for guaranteeing that we would have at least 50 people there buying drinks.  We bought a few appetizers trays so our friends wouldn’t get wasted and voila! – instant screening party for the cost of food (about $200).

3. Create an experience around your film wherever you can.  “Maybe it’s that the audience met you or met your character. Maybe it’s that you fed them or liquored them up,” Freccero explained, “maybe it’s that a cool musician affiliated with your film played live before or after. The key is to make it memorable.  You want people to be talking about it the next day and to tell their friends.”

CONNECT AND SHARE

1. You have to have a website. It does not have to be fancy. It can be as simple as a blog site, but you have to have a destination where you can “collect” your fans.

2. Every touch point for the film should be shareable, embeddable, emailable, postable, tweetable, re- tweetable – this includes links to your trailers, exclusive clips, photos and text or video from filmmaker or character Q & As

3. No event should go unnoticed. The more people can see evidence of “experiences” around your film (photos from screenings, clips of Q & As, crazy quotes from characters or audience), the most likely they will be to want to experience the film.

-Find a way to capture the names and email addresses of your fans. Get over the fear of SPAM.

Enlist Help

1. Turn to the tastemakers.   “You know who I’m talking about,” Freccero said, “Everyone has at least one friend like this. The person who always wants to be in the know, who wants to be the first to hear about the latest restaurant, club, band, film, whatever, the person who’s the first one to get the coolest new gadget. Find that person and ask for their help. Tell them they can be a part of an audience-powered release. Appeal to their egos, they love that!”

2. If you reach out to a potential source for support and they can’t help financially, make sure you ask for SOMETHING, a button on the website, an email blast, inclusion in a newsletter, or all of the above, blog post, ad. “Ask, can I come back to you when the film is finished or when we organize our next screening?” Freccero suggested, “You have to learn to get assertive. If you don’t want to ask enlist a producer or ballsy friend to help”

3. Is there a website where your core audience hangs out? Offer the site exclusive content in exchange for promotional consideration. Give them a clip that no one else has, they give you a blast, give them another clip, they give you a banner. Almost everything on the web is done by barter these days. Be bold.

Affinity Groups

1. The definition of an affinity group:  people having a common interest or goal acting together for a specific purpose. “This applies to narratives too!” Freccero explained, “It might not be as obvious who those people are as it is with docs, but they’re there.”

2. Almost every exhibitor (traditional or non) will offer group discounts, so enlist affinity groups appropriate for your film; encourage them to make it a night out.

“Everybody is struggling to fill seats,” Freccero explained.  “If you ask for a Friday night at 9pm, they might balk, but Tuesday at 5pm? I’ll bet they’d be willing to work with you.  Even better if it’s Monday at noon. Most theaters would be thrilled to have 50 people show up.”

3. Get creative with the value added you can provide to get people out to your screening. “Tell your mother if she brings her book club to a screening, you’ll offer a private Q&A after the film at local café,” Freccero suggested.  “It may sound dumb, but it’s special. Once they’ve had the experience, they’ll talk about it.”

4. If the group is big enough, get them to “buy out” the theater for an afternoon or evening; work with your exhibition partner to negotiate discounted tickets for the group – they would prefer to have a full house at a discount than an empty house at full price. “Don’t just say support my film, say here’s 5 ways you can support my film. Number one, come to a special screening…”

5. Ask your exhibitor to a create a special code for members of particular affinity groups; when they buy a ticket, get your exhibitor to donate $1 or $2 to the local affinity group. They will be willing talk to you – maybe not the big chains, but the local theater will. Get creative.”

Q/A & Special Performance

1. Audiences love to get more for their money so even scheduling a Q&A with someone in a field related to the film is value-added.  Theaters love to advertise speakers.

2. Consider enlisting musicians from the soundtrack or a local cool artist to perform at your screening or to entertain people waiting in line.  Freccero described how she and her team helped generate publicity for a film they’re working on about magicians.  “These guys love to perform. We got all them to go to Union Square and perform tricks while we stood around and handed out postcards. It’s old-fashioned huckster stuff, but it works.”

3. If your budget is tight and you can’t travel to your screenings consider Skype if you can. “Not all theaters are wired for the 21^st century, but many are,” Frecerro explained.  “Turns out audiences don’t really care if you’re there in person or not, they only care that they can ask you direct question and get a direct answer.”

Advertising

1. Facebook advertising can be wildly successful for not a lot of money.  $500 will get you a decent, targeted campaign for a week before your film opens.

2. Consider ads on Craigslist or in your local newspaper.  They actually work, especially if you have a Q&A, performance, or other added value element. If your film is about soccer, maybe you get a soccer star to teach a clinic and create an online listing advertising to promote it.”

3. Most local fests will let you buy very cheap banners on their website or newsletter. Ditto for nonprofits.

4. Barter for advertising if you can. Offer to give a local radio station tickets to a screening in exchange for an ad or banner, or offer exclusive clips or merchandise in exchange for a newsletter ad. “This can be harder in large markets like NYC or LA, easier in smaller markets, but it can work.”

5. Don’t be afraid to start small. “Exhibitors talk to each other,” Frecerro explained.  “They know what’s going at each other’s venues, whose screenings are hot. If you screen in Richmond, Virginia to a sellout crowd and then call the theater manager in Ann Arbor, Michigan, chances are he’s now heard of your film. You do 5 sell out screenings in a C market and all of a sudden a B market is interested.”

Publicity

1. If you’re going to spend money, spend it on a PR rep or publicist, but NOT at a festival.  Too much going on at fests, things are totally crazy and your film can get lost there. “I know people that paid a publicist $500 to put out press kits and they never even made it out of the box,” Freccero warned.  “Save your PR dollars and invest when you have a theatrical run or multiple screenings at a particular non-traditional venue.”  If you don’t know or can’t afford big shot publicist, ask around for local names.  Your local theater will know.  “Wait until you have a moment to promote. And even then, you don’t need to spend tens of thousands of dollars.”

2. Ask your local theater or venue if they have a PR dept – many have materials and resources for you. Research local journalists who cover film or the arts and reach out to them.

3. The biggest myth is that size matters. A mention in Entertainment Weekly is great for awareness, but not butts in seats. Think locally. Folks in Cincinnati might read EW but they’re not consulting it when they’re trying to figure out what to do on a Friday night,” Freccero explained,  “Even in New York, you know what the best driver is to get folks out to events? – New York One (A local 24-hour news channel)

Stuff No One Wants To Talk About

1. If no one in your family, good friends, people you’re sleeping with, people who own you money — i.e. those outside your inner circle – if none of them love your film, you might need to rework it. Ask people what they like most, what was most memorable.

2. Ask friends for help in concrete ways. “Take cues from those Kickstarter campaigns where you offer a DVD or poster with a donation, but get creative,” Freccero suggested. I’ll clean the house of everyone who brings 5 friends to screening. Tweet about it and I’ll walk your dog.  “You’re not going to do every screening like this, but that’s how you get started.”

3. Ask for help from the audience. “Tell them if they liked your film, to tell other people. Ask them to take photos at the after party or suggest the movie to friends to help build your Facebook page.

4. Even if you don’t make a ton of money, showing your film is good for your career.

5. No one is brilliant at it all — ask for help.

6. Go to film festivals and industry events. Ask industry experts. If you want to know how to work with Hulu, ask Hulu. “They’re here. Not all are friendly but most are.”

After Frecerro finished her presentation, there was time for a few questions from the audience:

Q. If you’re still in the middle of filming, when is the best time to reach out to your audience?

A: If you need help in a particular location, or if you’re following – and reporting – breaking events, unfolding action. Talk to them regularly but make sure there’s an end in site and you’re not asking them to get excited about film that’s going to hit theaters 10 year from now.

Q: When should you four-wall? (Editor’s note: Four-walling refers to when the filmmaker pays to rent out an entire theater, sells tickets him or herself and then tries to make the money back – and hopefully turn a profit — from individual ticket sales.)

A. Try not to four-wall, but if you have to, when negotiating with theater, do some math. Some are more reasonable then others. If they’re charging $5,000 to rent the theater and you’ve done math and realized there’s not earthly way you can make that, tell them. They might be waiting for you call their bluff. Don’t make mistake of thinking you’ll sell out – assumed you’ll sell 20% of seats during day, and 50% of seats for a nighttime screening. And if it gets too expensive, walk away. It’s not worth going broker just to screen in a theater. Go to a café or restaurant and screen there.

Photo courtesy of http://simplyarlie.tumblr.com/.

WIFV DC Presents: Thelma and Louise 20th Anniversary Screening

and

Q and A with Geena Davis

by Erin Essenmacher

This year marks the 20^th birthday of some of America’s greatest exports: The World Wide Web.  Pearl Jam. Thelma and Louise.  While I missed Eddie Veder and the guys at Destination Weekend festival in Wisconsin, I was able to hit up Women in Film and Video’s special 20^th anniversary screening of Thelma Louise at the National Women’s Democratic Club in Washington, DC  last  Wednesday night. My sister and I have watched the movie no fewer than 50 times and can pretty much recite it from memory, so when I heard that WIFV was hosting the screening complete with Q and A with Geena Davis, I couldn’t resist.

The event also served as a benefit for the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, which works to change female portrayals and gender stereotypes in film and television.

WIFV president Sandy Cannon-Brown kicked off the program with a brief intro and then handed it over to NPR’s Neda Ulaby for the question and answer.

According to Davis, the inspiration for the Institute came from raising her daughter, Alizeh. “When my daughter was two, I started watching little innocent cartoons with her. I immediately noticed that girls weren’t really represented and boys were doing all the interesting things,” Davis said. The more she started paying attention, the more she noticed the skewed ratio of men to women in TV and movies.

“Like the Bechdel test,” Ulaby commented, referring to a way to measure how well a film represents female characters, made popular by comic Alison Bechdel. The test uses three criteria: (1) does the film in question feature at least two women, (2) who talk to each other, (3) about something besides a man?  “There’s a great YouTube video about this,” Davis remarked, “they start going through a list of all of the movies that don’t pass the test and it’s like every major movie from the past twenty years.”

Davis wondered how many other people had noticed the disparity.  She started bringing it up at Hollywood parties and at meetings with studio executives.  “Whenever I would say, ‘Hey, have you noticed that women aren’t really represented equally in a lot of films or TV?’ they would bring up a movie that had like, one female lead.”

The more Davis started digging, the more she realized the problem was entrenched and systemic. “It’s really pervasive,” she said “one statistic I like to quote is that in family films there is one girl represented for every three boys, and those numbers have been the same since 1947.” She also cited research that shows more TV girls watch, the fewer options they think they have available to them, and the more TV boys watch, the more sexist their attitudes become.

Davis realized it would take a focused effort to change the landscape for women in the media and the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media was born.  Seven years later it has become a leader in the effort to foster positive images of girls and women in media. “I never intended for it to take over my life,” Davis said with a laugh, “but we’re proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish so far.”

Using a mix of original research, media literacy campaigns, strategic partnerships and educational outreach, the Institute is working to bring more attention to the issue, and hopefully, reverse the trend.

After the film screened (and yes my sister and I totally held hands during the end scene), Ulaby and Davis returned to stage for more Q and A.  The questions turned toward Davis’ experiences making Thelma and Louise

As soon as Davis read the script, she knew she wanted in, but the role she had her eye on, was not the one that would make her famous.  She wanted to play Louise. “Ridley Scott was set to produce, so I had my agent call his office once a week for months” Davis explained.  At that point, Davis was told the cast had been set, but then fate intervened. The director they had set to make the film quit. They found a new director and a new cast – that still didn’t include a role for Davis. And then that director quit and the cast fell apart yet again. At that point, Ridley Scott decided he would direct the film.  He agreed to meet with Davis.

“I showed the script to my acting coach, who thought I should play Louise because she was more mature and could establish me as a more mature actress,” Davis explained, “I spent hours making all of these notes for Ridley about why I should play Louise.”  She met with Scott and made her case. “He listened carefully and then said, ‘So you’re saying you wouldn’t play Thelma?’” Davis recalled laughing, “I then vamped for the next hour about how I would be perfect for Thelma.”

Even Scott was on the fence about the ideal role for Davis “They wouldn’t cast me until they found the actress for the other role,” she explained, “I think I’m the only person in Hollywood to ever sign a contract saying I would play either.”  Davis still had her heart set on playing Louise – until she met Susan Sarandon.   “Susan walked in and I was like ‘I could play Louise?’” Davis recalled laughing, “Susan was so poised and centered and had her life together. I turned into Thelma around her. I was a puppy around her.”

Ulaby asked Davis to talk about the reaction to the film when it first came out. “I remember the press saying it encouraged everything from man hating to drunk driving and feminists hated the ending.”  Davis responded that the entire cast was shocked by the response. “We thought it would be  this small movie that a few people would see,” she explained, “then the next week we hit the cover of Time magazine and then it just blew up. I started to get recognized in grocery store.”  While the film was heralded as ushering in a new era of women-centered films, the phenomena didn’t last. “They said the same thing when a League of Their Own and the First Wives Club” came out.  Davis observed “about how this showed that there are roles for women and for older actresses, but we haven’t seen much since then…There’s a belief among Hollywood executives that women will watch men but men won’t watch women so we need to make movies to appeal to men.”

Ulaby noted that ending was controversial and asked if there was ever any discussion amongst the cast and crew about doing it differently.  “There was never any other ending,” Davis explained, “Ridley was clear and firm from the beginning that he didn’t want another ending. And to his credit, the studio didn’t make him shoot an alternate ending.”  Davis also remarked on the idea that film shows men in a less than favorable light.  “I don’t think the film bashes men. There are seven male characters in the movie and they run the full spectrum.” As for those feminists who believe the film’s ending sends the wrong message, Davis would say this: “the ending is actually very empowering. It’s a metaphor for them getting away and taking control of their fate.” And then she paused with a slight wink in her eye and added “despite main characters killing themselves, it’s very uplifting.”

One-On-One Q&A: Kris Swanberg,
Filmmaker/Entrepreneur, Nice Cream

Interview by Erin Scherer

When I last interviewed Kris in 2009, her company Nice Cream was in its infancy. Later that year, I traveled to Chicago and sampled Nice Cream’s Chocolate Basil flavor at the Swim Cafe.

Since then, Nice Cream has developed into a thriving business in the Chicago Area. In addition to Nice Cream’s success, Kris and her husband Joe welcomed a baby boy, Jude. Earlier this year, I managed to talk to Kris for a couple of minutes at SXSW Film’s closing night party. She told me that she was finally making enough with Nice Cream to pay herself. Over the summer, though, she was approached by officials from the State of Illinois that she would have to cease business due to the lack of a dairy license. Right now, Kris and other Ice Cream Makers are working with the Illinois State Legislature to amend state law to accomodate artisanal ice cream makers.

Good news for the rest of us! Kris is working on a new movie in Montana as this interview is posted. In the meantime, though, you can help Kris and Nice Cream by donating money to Nice Cream’s Kickstarter Campaign.

This interview was conducted by e-mail two weeks ago.

Q: Tell us, in brief, what has happened with Nice Cream.

A: Last month a inspector from the Illinois Department of Health came to Nice Cream and said that someone had “brought up our name” with the department in regards to a dairy license. I was unaware that such a license existed. The inspector told me that until we had this license we were to stop producing our product. Getting the license would require several things, the two most cost prohibitive would be to build out our own “dairy certified” kitchen (right now we work out of a shared kitchen space in Chicago). And the most mind boggling is that we would be required to purchase a pasteurizer, which the state quoted me as costing $40,000.

Q: Nice Cream was the first to be shut down due to a lack of a Dairy License. Have other companies in the Chicago Area been shut down as well? Have any voluntarily stopped?

A: This does and will affect other small artisan ice cream makers in Illinois. Right now the other ice cream makers are trying to stay as under the radar as possible so that they don’t get shut down as well. This is totally understandable and although most are supportive of Nice Cream, for the sake of their own businesses they are trying to stay out of the spotlight.

Q: What kind of legislation are you hoping to push through for ice cream makers? Are you working with anyone right now to create legislation? Do you have any support in the Illinois State Legislature?

A: We are working with Representative Berrios and Senator Martinez to hopefully introduce some legislation into the next session of congress which would put small batch ice cream makers in a different category than huge factory based dairies.

Q: Last month, you held a fundraiser to help maintain your business. In addition, you have also raised $6500 (as of right now) on Kickstarter, surpassing your goal of $5000. Are you planning on doing any more fundraisers?

A: We were very lucky to receive so much support and we are going to continue raising money through our Kickstarter campaign. Our Kickstarter project goes until October so we still have another month of fundraising.
Nice Cream on Redefining Roots.

AFI/Discovery Channel Silverdocs

Silver Spring, Maryland

June 25, 2011

Notes by Erin Essenmacher

*Read also on Christian Science Monitor’s Culture Cafe.

Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady are fierce. As Loki Films they have produced countless works for television and four feature length documentaries, with a fifth currently in production.  Their work has taken them from inner city Baltimore to East Africa, from the jungles of Sri Lanka to a non-descript looking corner in Florida that is actually ground zero for the fierce debate around abortion rights. They have snuck into abandoned buildings and the country of Cuba, fearlessly following where the story takes them.  Their work has premiered at Sundance, appeared on networks like HBO A&E and Al Jazeera and been nominated for an Academy Award.

That’s all to say that when I heard they were coming to Silverdocs to spill all of their secrets on the craft and process of directing, I was more than a little excited to go hear them speak.   Let’s just say the discussion lived up to the hype.  Read on for some of the highlights.

Grady and Ewing opened the “Master Class: Directing” by showing a scene from their film “12^th and Delaware” about an anti-choice “family counseling” clinic that opened up across the street from the area’s only abortion clinic.  The scene gave a great feel for their special brand of verite filmmaking – where the audience feels like a fly on the wall of the action that’s unfolding in front of the camera.

That sense of being in the moment with their characters is a hallmark of Grady and Ewing’s films.   Ewing explained it this way “There are lots of different ways to approach making a documentary…for us, if action has happened in the past or we’ve missed the action, we probably won’t do it, because it doesn’t suit our style. The action or the drama needs to unfold on camera for us to consider it.”

She went on to say that one of the biggest mistakes that filmmakers can make is letting their passion for a subject blind themselves to the fact that the story may not actually make a good doc.   “They don’t ask themselves ‘is this visual?’  We’re not doing radio here, “ Ewing said,  “You have to be able to show the action. You have to ask yourself would this be better as an article in The New Yorker?”

Before they take on a new project, Ewing and Grady also have to agree they are both passionate — and curious — about the subject matter. “If we have all the answers or a strong opinion we won’t make that film,” Ewing explained,  “If we feel like there’s nothing to learn, we don’t’ make that film.”

Grady explained that six months into the edit on their latest project, “Detroit Hustles Harder” they’re just now starting to figure out what the film is really about. “Hopefully your assumptions are going to turn out wrong because that’s where the magic happens,” she explained, “It’s exciting. We just watched the first act and it’s starting to work and the themes are starting to emerge.”

Grady went on to site their Oscar-nominated film “Jesus Camp” as an example:

“That film is really about the next generation of the Christian Right.  Going in, we thought it was film about religious children, and that’s certainly there, but it’s also about forming a child and is it brainwashing? And don’t we all brainwash our children? And isn’t that what raising a child is?”

Ewing explained that they want to make sure whatever film they’re making is not just a niche story, but that national, international or universal themes emerge.  She cited their film ‘Boys of Baraka’ and explained while it is about two boys from the inner city that go off on a crazy adventure; it’s also about so much more.   “It’s a commentary on our educational system and about the potential of the human being, and the luck of family you’re born into. We hope that happens in all of our films.”

The women switched gears from overall story to talking more specifically about the technique and craft of filming interviews and creating a story arc.   Grady explained that they never want to go for the stiff, sit-down interview.  “Our interviews are meant to feel organic and in the element.”  Grady also stressed the need for a three-act structure – at least to start out.  “You need an organizing principle, some way to structure the narrative,” she explained, “If you give something away too soon, you can ruin the story.”

The women then showed a clip of scene from “Boys of Baraka” where one of the main characters goes to visit his father in prison.  “We were in the world’s ugliest room,” Ewing recalled, “but we had no choice. Lots of times life is not cinematic.  We like to go for the emotion rather than a perfectly composed shot.  A lot of times the most interesting thing in the room is not always the person talking.”  Ewing underscored the importance of making a solid choice about where to place the camera and then having the courage to go for it with as few moves or takes as possible.  “Too much direction can remind subjects that they’re part of a movie,” she explained, “and it gets in the way of capturing the intimacy of the moment.”

Both women stressed their need for interviews have to both form and function.  They showed clips from their work that illustrated alternatives to the formal sit down interview: an elderly Cuban dissident discussing free speech while gutting a fish in her kitchen, two boys talking on a burned down playground, a woman speaking as she paced in front an abortion clinic holding a protest sign.  “Try to think of things your character can do while you’re talking to them, “ Grady suggested, “it makes them more comfortable, it gives you something to cut away to, and you might discover something about your character in the process.”

Grady went on to say that when it comes to developing a story, casting is key. “You want someone who is consistent, who is the same off camera as they are on camera, that they’re genuine and true to themselves,” she explained,  “Audiences are sophisticated. You can’t trick them. They don’t miss a beat. If character isn’t genuine, it won’t ring true.”

In terms of getting a subject on board, Grady suggested leveraging a character’s own agenda, or figuring out what it’s in it for them to participate in the film.  She referenced one of the main characters in “Jesus Camp” as a prime example.   “She felt like she had something to gain and a message to get out there,” Grady explained,  “it helps if subject has an agenda but only if you realize that your subject has an agenda and don’t get caught up in it and give the film over to them.”

Ewing then introduced the topic of story structure, specifically the ever-vexing question of how to create a compelling story arc out of dozens – and sometimes hundreds — of hours of footage. She pointed out that most documentary filmmakers struggle with this issue, because “unless you follow someone everyday for 6 years, you’re going to have arc problems. There are going to be holes in the story.”

The story arc for “Jesus Camp” presented the filmmakers with a particular challenge.  “We watched an early cut together and said ‘we have kids speaking in tongues, and flailing around on the floor. Why is this boring?” Ewing recalls. The women showed it to editor they respect who pinpointed the problem immediately: no conflict.

Grady explained it this way “We realized that watching it you felt like you were going crazy, because no one [in the film] was saying what the audience was thinking which was ‘this is crazy’ and ‘are these kids being brainwashed?’”

Ewing and Grady realized they needed another perspective to counterbalance the strong voice of the ultra religious characters in the film.  They found their solution on the airwaves. “There was this Christian radio host on the local radio station, and even though he was Christian, he spoke really passionately about how the eroding wall between church and state was dangerous,” Ewing explained, “he was the perfect voice because he had credibility in that world but he was a voice of dissent.”

The filmmakers were already nine months into their edit, but they knew they needed to restructure “Jesus Camp” to include the radio host.  The question then became how to incorporate him into the storyline. Grady and Ewing decided to include a clip from his broadcast under their opening credits.  Since the audio from the broadcasts would become a through line in the film, they wanted to establish the device at the outset. “The audience will go wherever you want for the first five to ten minutes,” Ewing explained,  “They’ll accept what you do, but if you throw something new in the second or third act, they’ll reject it.”

An audience member asked the women to talk about their unique collaboration, how they decide who does what when two people are steering the ship.  Grady explained that they decide on the topic and characters and determine a visual look and feel together, but then take turns in the field once production starts.  Whenever whoever is directing in the field gets back, the other will watch the footage and comment. “It really works well because you get fresh eyes on your footage and whoever was not in the field doesn’t have as much emotional attachment to the material.”

Grady explained that sometimes the person filming will feel like they got nothing, but back in the edit room, the other partner will see a great moment that really serves the story.  Or on the flip side, the person in the field may think a scene totally reads, but then get it back home and discover through the eyes of the other that it’s just not there.  Ewing explained it this way. “Sometimes when you’re in the moment or in the room, that it all went great, but after you get it home, you realize the camera was in the wrong place.  A lot has to come together to make a scene work.”

Another attendee wanted to know at what point in the process do Grady and Ewing decide to start working with an editor.  “There are advantages to shooting and editing at the same time,” Ewing explained “you should have most of the material in the can before you bring in an editor, but early enough that you can still rectify problems and film more if need be.”

As for when a film is considered “done” and ready for prime time, they both agree that having a satisfying third act with a solid ending is the best indicator.  “Also when new material feels like repeat of what you’re already gotten, what’s already clear in the film,” Grady said.  She also reminded that at the end of the day, it’s also driven by the budget. “You can’t edit forever.  You have to set deadlines for yourself, even if you don’t always meet them.”

AFI/Discovery Channel Silverdocs

Silver Spring, Marlyand

June 21, 2011

Notes by Erin Essenmacher

Also appearing on Christian Science Monitor’s Culture Cafe on June 30, 2011.

UK-based Met Film’s enchanting documentary “Men Who Swim” — about a group of Swedish guys who face down a mid-life crisis by forming a synchronizing swimming team — made a splash at last year’s Silverdocs (pun intended.) They’re back again for this year’s fest, this time with a film that somehow manages to tackle a slightly more serious topic with the same level of compassion and laugh-out-loud humor.

“Donor Unknown” is a poignant, thoughtful and hilarious look at what happens when Jeffrey, a beach bum from Venice, California suddenly finds out that in the course of donating sperm as a means to pay the rent, he has fathered dozens of children. What’s more, thanks to the exploding reach of the Internet, those children now know how to find each other.

Twenty year-old JoEllen was born via sperm donor to a loving mother who has always been open with JoEllen about how she got here. She seems happy, healthy, well adjusted — and naturally curious about her genealogy. She stumbles upon the Donor Sibling Registry and decides to take a chance. Thanks to a one-page form that her mother was given when she selected her donor, JoEllen knows basic things about her dad including his eye color, hair color and height. Most importantly, she knows his donor number. She types all of this into the registry and within a matter of months she discovers she has half siblings all over the country. JoEllen begins corresponding with them and they form strong connections. They make trips from places like Pennsylvania and New York andColorado to visit each other.

The kids  see evidence of their shared lineage: the same forehead, the same big toes, the same penchant for brushing the hair out of their eyes just so.  They clearly all have the same father, but they don’t know his identity.

Eventually The New York Times picks up the story, Jeffrey happens to read it and decides to reach out. The film culminates in a touching and funny reunion between JoEllen, Jeffrey and two of the other donor siblings. A pet pigeon plays a cameo to hilarious effect. Trust me when I say you just have to go see it.

UK-based Director Jerry Rothwell was on hand after the screening for a brief post-screening Q and A:

Q: Is the Donor Sibling Registry controversial? How does the industry feel about it?

JR: It’s complicated because donors decide to participate anonymously and in good faith. The registry picks away at the anonymity. The thing with sperm banks is that they’ve put a lot of thought into getting people pregnant but not about the children who are born after. This links them up.

Q: The sperm bank system in the U.S. is largely unregulated. What’s the view of the US system from abroad?

JR: I was struck by huge, huge difference between here and the UK. You cannot donate in UK without being willing to be contacted. Women who use sperm donors in the UK report pregnancies so they can limit the number of children born to each donor. But there’s a downside to the UK system. It’s very paternalistic. For example, they have destroyed records from 20 years ago and things like that.

Q: Is Jeffrey’s life lonely?

JR: In the film you can see my point of view, which is that he is. He’s run as far away from family as possible. Being confronted with these children reminds him of life didn’t have.

Q: How did you come up with idea?

JR: Jeffrey contacted producers because he heard they wanted to do a film on sperm donors and were looking for subjects. It’s a complex question – whose story is it?

Q: How many of the families have seen the film? What’s the general reaction?

JR: There are 15 children total that we know of and of those six families have seen the film. I usually show my subjects a rough cut of the film before it goes public. Some were happy for the film to be made but didn’t want to be named or identified. That’s why you see some of the blacked out photos [in the graphics of the film].

Q: How did you get the subjects to agree to be interviewed? Were there ethical concerns about getting consent from or talking to children?

JR: We didn’t approach kids under 16. We knew that would be difficult ethically and not necessary to make the film, because many of these stories are so similar. When we did approach our subjects, it was a matter of talking people through what they’re getting into. Danielle was the only one who was ambivalent but came on board at end.

Q: Jo Ellen is a great character – how did you find her?

JR: Jo Ellen was the first to initiate the search for Jeffrey and her siblings. I talked to her for six months before we started filming. She hadn’t met Jeffrey and wanted to – it became a way to structure the film.

Q: What was Jeffrey’s reaction to the film?

JR: Happy. He says good things. We changed a few things based on his feedback. We had a long discussion about discussion about the bong scene [showing Jeffrey taking a hit of marijuana]. I didn’t want to use it but Jeffrey insisted that we use. Then he wasn’t sure, but ultimately we both agreed it should be in there.

Q: I thought it was interesting that the children wanted to meet the father even though he didn’t raise them. And I was struck by how the women in the film picked their donors based on complex set of characteristics.

JR: – Father is such an inadequate term here. Jeffrey calls himself a “fun uncle”. I think for the moms, they were looking for something familiar.

Q: How did you do sound. Did you use a boom or lav?

JR: We used both a boom and a radio mic for of our shoots. We shot for 30 days over two and a half years. But the boom is intrusive so we didn’t use it for the meeting [reunion] scene.

Postscript: “Donor Unknown“ won the Audience Award at Silverdocs.  The film is scheduled to air on PBS’ Independent Lens in October.

AFI/Discovery Channel Silverdocs

Silver Spring, Maryland

June 21, 2011

Notes by Erin Essenmacher

Filmmaker Joe Berlinger spent three years travelling between the US and Ecuador following a lawsuit between Chevron and a group of 30,000 indigenous and colonial rainforest dwellers that claim the oil giant poisoned their land and ruined their way of life.  The resulting documentary film, “Crude: The Real Price of Oil”, debuted in 2009, screened at The Sundance Film Festival and went on critical acclaim. A year later Berlinger was hit with a subpoena, demanding that he turn over all 600 hours of his raw footage to Chevron for review and possible use as evidence in their defense.

Berlinger chose to fight the case in court, invoking his journalistic privilege.  IDA and a mix of media heavyweights including ABC, The Associated Press and HBO filed amicus briefs on his behalf. Friends and colleagues started a legal defense fund. Even Robert Redford got in on the act, writing an article in support of Berlinger for the Huffington Post. Ultimately the court ruled that journalistic privilege didn’t apply to Berlinger and ordered him to turn over most of his footage to the oil giant. His story sent a chill through the entire documentary filmmaking community and the case has far reaching implications for the future of documentary and the role of the documentary filmmaker as journalist.

Berlinger came to Silverdocs to share his experiences.  He was joined his attorney Seth Berlin (Managing Partner, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP) and Michael Winship from the Writer’s Guild. Andrea Meditch, President of Back Allie Films moderated the discussion.

Berlinger opened the discussion by giving the audience background on how he got involved with Crude. When he was approached with the idea for the film he wasn’t really sure he wanted to take it on.  It seemed like a difficult story to tell, one that involved filming for months in a foreign country. And since the main characters did not speak English, it meant creating a film that would be told mostly in subtitles.  Still Berlinger was intrigued enough that he agreed to travel to Ecuador on a research trip.  “When I went there and saw the devastation, I knew I had to find a way to make this happen.”

Three years later he finished Crude, which by all accounts seemed to accurately represent both sides in the dispute.  “I sat down with Chevron’s Crisis Manager in a conference room and watched it with him,” Berlinger recalled, “and he said ‘it’s fair and balanced.’”

The litigation that serves as the basis for the documentary actually began more than a decade before Berlinger ever got involved. In 1993 when the plaintiffs sued Texaco, alleging that 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater were dumped into the Amazon between 1972 and 1990, poisoning the land and water and sickening inhabitants.

Chevron later acquired Texaco—and with it the lawsuit.  Chevron was granted a request that the legal proceedings be moved to Ecuador, but soon felt that they were not getting a fair shake in the Ecuadorean court system.  Chevron wanted to prove the Ecuadoran courts were corrupt. They decided that they needed Berlinger’s footage to make their case. “I was in the Bahamas filming with Lenny Kravitz and my wife called me to tell me that two banker boxes full of documents had showed up at our front door,” he recalls.

The enclosed subpoena took Chevron and their army of attorney months to prepare.  They gave Berlinger just five days to respond.

Berlinger fought the subpoena, citing journalistic privilege. The presiding judge denied Berlinger’s claim, stating that the case met the test for whether journalistic privilege could be overcome – they said yes.  The judge singled out details of the case as the basis for stripping Berlinger of journalistic privilege: the fact that Berlinger made a change to the film after it screened at Sundance and the fact that the plaintiffs’ attorney, Steve Donziger pitched Berlinger the idea for the film.

For Berlinger, that rationale sets a dangerous precedent. “Lots of media outlets get their ideas from stories they’re pitched. [Donziger] also the pitched the story to 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair and they both covered it. If doing a story that you’re pitched makes you not independent, we’re in trouble,” Berlinger cautioned.

The first court ordered Berlinger to produce all 600 hours of footage shot during the course of production. Berlinger appealed.  The appellate court agreed with the lower court ruling that Berlinger turn over his footage, but narrowed the category down to 160 hours.  “They gave us two weeks to produce it all,” Berlinger explained. He and his Associate Producer had to drop everything and work around the clock, sifting through 600 hours of footage to pull the 160 hours of selects.  “ It was a Herculean task,” Berlinger explained, “but we did it.”

Emboldened by the legal victory, Chevron followed up with a formal request for all of Berlinger’s written materials – electronic and hard copy — for the past 5 years. The subsequent ruling gave Chevron shockingly broad access to Berlinger’s personal email accounts and computer hard drives. The Court created a list of search terms meant to narrow the scope of the emails Berlinger had to produce, but it had unintended consequences.

“One my of characters in the film is named Richard, so that became a search term. But  Richard is also the name of the attorney I’ve had for 20 years, so I had to turn over private correspondence between my lawyer and I that had nothing to do with the case,” Berlinger explained. Another search term: Charles, which meant that Berlinger was also turning over copies of personal financial statements pertaining to investments with the investment firm Charles Schwab.  “Personal emails between my wife and I about our kids.  All kinds of things you don’t think about,” Berlinger said.

While Berlinger could have likely fought the release of the more personal emails, it was all but impossible. “It was set up to crush me financially, “ Berlinger explained,  “if I decided to fight and had to run into court to oppose every email it would have crushed me financially. Chevron is something like the third largest corporation in America, seventh in the world. I’m a documentary filmmaker. It was not a level playing field.”  He had no choice but to comply.

“I think Chevron was honestly shocked about how balanced the emails were overall,” Berlinger said. There was only one email that Berlinger wished he hadn’t sent. “I was probably most guilty of being an overzealous marketer. I was speaking to Robert Kennedy Jr. – and I happened to have said ‘I look forward to talking with you so we can finally make Chevron clean up this mess.’  It was the only unbalanced statement in 50,000 emails, but that’s the one that put on the record.” That lone email became the basis of an online media campaign against Berlinger. “They put it out in the media as evidence of how ‘biased’ I was.”

In another example, Berlinger explained how his sound guy joked that they needed more emotion in an interview and that they should break out onions to make the subject cry. Berlinger joked back that he would use one of the onions he kept in his backpack. It’s the kind of playful teasing that anyone who’s ever been in the field filming knows is par for the course in documentary film production, but it would come back to haunt Berlinger. Those sympathetic to Chevron’s cause posted the clip on You Tube as further evidence of Berlinger’s deep bias.  “Anyone who knows my work knows Joe Berlinger is not going to break out onions on a set or make someone cry,” he said “but that clip gets taken out of context, makes it into court documents and that becomes the narrative. If you hand an adversary 600 hours of footage they can tell any story they want.”

Berlinger was even forced to enter into evidence conversations he had overheard during the course of the production.  “As a filmmaker there’s usually an agreement with your subjects that if any point they ask you turn the cameras off, you do it. It’s the equivalent of something being “off the record’”.  But once Berlinger was stripped of his journalist privilege, that all flew out the window. In depositions Berlinger was forced to go on record against some of his subjects, providing details of conversations that they believed were happening in confidence. “It was incredibly painful,” Berlinger said.

At one point Chevron even threatened to bring criminal charges against Berlinger, for witnessing fraud and not reporting it.   If it was a bluff meant to scare the filmmaker, it worked. It scared him enough to hire a criminal attorney to advise him on the matter.  And that was the point that Berlinger hit bottom.  “It was totally surreal. I’m a filmmaker writing checks to a criminal attorney for white-collar crime.  I’m a filmmaker and I’m writing checks to a criminal attorney for making a film.”

To make matters worse, Berlinger’s Errors & Omissions insurance company told him that his policy didn’t cover the costs associated with responding to the subpoena.  He eventually won that battle, but it meant hiring a coverage attorney to get the E & O insurance company to pay up. “It cost me $1.2 million dollars to make the film and I’ve spent $1.3 million dollars in legal fees so far,” he said.

Eventually Berlinger was able to settle with Chevron.   “I got them to sign a release that about film so it lives, it will be on TV.  It was an important victory for me,“ Berlinger said. “It was probably easier to negotiate Treaty of Versailles than this thing, but we got there.” Not long after Berlinger’s attorney brokered the agreement, Chevron filed huge racketeering lawsuit against nearly everyone else associated with issue.  “I think that by negotiating peace early on, I avoided being named in that lawsuit,” Berlinger said.

Michael Winship, head of the Writer’s Guild East, which represents 1,500 journalist screenwriters, explained why his organization took up the cause. “First Amendment rights very important to us. A footage subpoena is akin to demanding reporter’s notebooks. It’s one more thrust in allowing corporate giants to crush dissent.”

Berlinger agreed. “Documentary filmmakers are the last bastions of independent journalism – at least in the visual medium. With all due respect to [the] Discovery [Channel], a handful of corporations own the media and they decide what subjects get covered – and which don’t.”

When asked if he felt this experience might have a chilling effect on other documentarians, Berlinger said he believes it’s already happening. “I have filmmakers calling me for advice, and some are saying their subjects don’t want to make the film anymore because of this case.”

And it’s had a chilling effect on Berlinger himself.  He successfully avoided legislation while making his earlier film “Paradise Lost”.  “After than I could look my subjects in the eye and say “I have a history of protecting my footage.’” Berlinger explained, “I can’t say that anymore, and it will change the kinds of films I make.”

Berlinger cited the example of actor Mark Ruffalo who organized screenings of the documentary film “Gasland” – and wound up on the terror watch list.

When asked about any advice he had for filmmakers looking to project themselves from similar litigation, Berlinger had this to say: “I’m not going to tell anyone how to make a film, but not attempting to show balance puts you at more risk.”  He also suggested thinking long and hard about what gets put in writing.    “I was guilty of being a copious note taker. Don’t have your computer be a repository for things you don’t need. Clean files regularly.   For every email you write think to yourself  ‘what happens if this gets turned over? Will this help or hurt me?’ I now do more business over phone.”  And citing the example of the clip of Berlinger and soundman joking in the field that ended up on You Tube, Berlinger says, “I now turn the camera off [between takes.]”

His attorney Seth Berlin added “Joe and his [E & O] insurance company had a dispute about whether responding to subpoena was covered, so check your policy before you sign. And if you get even a whiff of legal trouble, let your insurance company know right away. They can deny claims for “late notice”.  The bottom line according to Berlin: approach any potential story with your eyes open. “Know the risks going in and if you can tell the same story with less risk, then do it.”

Ultimately Berlinger suggests putting some serious thought into what you do with your footage, especially if you’re dealing with a sensitive or potentially volatile subject.  Consider cutting your DVD extras early on and then destroying your extra footage.  And he urged fellow filmmakers to think long and hard about whether or not it makes more sense in some cases to just turn over the footage. “I fought because I didn’t want to them to set what I thought was a dangerous precedent, but now the precedent has been set.”