var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-1427886-1']); _gaq.push(['_setDomainName', 'documentarychannel.com']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Documentary Channel's Official Blog Meet the Author Contact Me View the Archive DOC Links About.com - Documentaries Chicken and Egg Pictures Cinema Eye Honors Days of Docs Decatur Docs DocGeeks DOC NYC Film Festival The DocYard The Documentary Blog Documentary Film Online Documentary Site DocumentaryTech First Run Features 4th Row Films Full Frame Film Festival Hot Docs Film Festival Indiewire International Documentary Association Kartemquin Films Movies.com MusicFilmWeb National Film Board of Canada Blog POV Blog Realscreen Silverdocs Film Festival Stranger Than Fiction Sundance Documentary Fund TribecaFilm Blog True/False Film Festival What (Not) to Doc Zeitgeist Films
The Doc Blog Has Moved! Join Us at DocumentaryChannel.com
Hello, faithful followers and readers and fans of all things documentary. I want to thank you for all visits and likes and reblogs and such over the past year and change. But while this Tumblr isn't going anywhere and might have some other function in the future, the Documentary Channel's blog (aka the DocBlog) has moved to another location, embedded directly on the Documentary Channel website.
Over there you'll find the same content I've posted here. News, discussions, recommendations and especially interviews will continue. And I urge you to head over there as soon as you can to read my latest conversation with Jay Bulger, director of the must-see music doc Beware of Mr. Baker. And interviews with the filmmakers behind Only the Young, Tchoupitoulas and West of Memphis should be coming in the next couple weeks.
Also join me over at the DOC website to find out what kind of great programming they've got on the channel (ask your cable provider to carry us if you don't have DiSH or DirecTV). And if you don't get DOC, you can still watch tons of full-length docs streaming via the DOC site and YouTube channel. They've just uploaded The Agronomist, which you should definitely check out.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
"The Waiting Room" Leads Documentary Nominees for 2013 Independent Spirit Awards
The day after winning the Gotham Award for Best Documentary, How to Survive a Plague has just received a nomination for the equivalent honor at the 2013 Independent Spirit Awards. Interestingly enough, it's joined by a near identical pack of films as those it competed against at the Gothams (last year saw a similar overlap). The two repeat contenders include Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present and The Waiting Room. New opposition, however, comes from The Invisible War and The Central Park Five. Overall, it seems a big year for issue-oriented docs.
The Waiting Room has the additional honor of being nominated in another category, for the Truer Than Fiction Award. There it goes up against Only the Young and Leviathan, which is the only nonfiction Spirit nominee I haven't yet seen (I hear it's incredible). It's not rare for such double-playing. Past docs to be nominated in both categories include Chisholm '72, Promises, My Architect, The Order of Myths, Sweetgrass, Marwencol and Anvil! The Story of Anvil (this last one in separate years).
The Independent Spirit Awards will be given out in February.
With a Gotham Award Win, Jared Leto's "Artifact" Rises to the Top of Our Must-See Docs List
Last night's Gotham Independent Film Awards got off to a surprising start when actor-turned-filmmaker Jared Leto won the Audience Choice Award for his documentary Artifact. Beating the expected winner Beasts of the Southern Wild in the category, which was voted for online by moviegoers, Leto (whose directorial credit is under his pseudonym Bartholomew Cubbins) told the NYC crowd, "Don't hate me because I won, I love that other film too."
The reason the win was such an upset is not only because of the popularity of Beasts but also because Artifact hasn't officially been released theatrically yet. However, it did previously win the Blackberry People's Choice Award for Best Documentary at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it premiered. It also recently screened at the DOC NYC documentary festival, and now it's sure to find non-fest distribution thanks to its confirmation as a crowd-pleasing film.
The other nonfiction films to win last night are An Oversimplification of Her Beauty, which was named Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You, and How to Survive a Plague, which picked up the Gotham for Best Documentary. The former film, which is also now high on my list, is a hybrid sort of essay, but I'm told I would or could count it as a doc. As for the latter, well, I've been writing about my love for the AIDS treatment chronicle for a while.
Sadly, if things continue the way they have with Gotham doc winners in recent years, Plague won't even be shortlisted for the Academy Award let alone be nominated (in years past, the shortlist was announced before the Gotham Awards were held). I highly doubt this will be the case, though. I predict a return to pre-2010 tradition, when Gotham honorees were recognized as Oscar contenders between 2005 and 2009. We'll at least see if the doc -- one of my top picks of the year -- is at least on the shortlist in a few weeks.
"Sound of Mumbai" Director Turns to the Science of Adoption With "The Dark Matter of Love"
There have been a ton of documentaries made about adoption, but a new film won't just be following a family with a new addition, it will also be about the scientific study of love. Titled The Dark Matter of Love, it's the latest from Sarah McCarthy, director of The Sound of Mumbai: A Musical and one of Realscreen's recently named "Doc Hot Shots" of 2012.
The main subjects are a family in Wisconsin, which includes a teenage biological daughter, that has just adopted an 11-year-old girl and five-year-old twin boys from Russia. They've also hired the world's greatest developmental psychologist to assist with a program of study and therapy and the creation of an environment that's best for the three newcomers to form relationships with their new father, mother and sister.
McCarthy told Indiewire, where the film was voted "project of the week" earlier this month, "The film wrestles with the questions; what difference does love make to a child's personality, what are the biological and evolutionary functions of love? Why do we need it so desperately, how do our relationships with our mothers and father influence the way we build friendships and negotiate our love lives?"
The scientific experiment aspect sounds ethically challenging and also rather intriguing. I'm not sure exactly what to expect, only that it will have some comparative link to experiments done in the past with monkeys, birds and other children, footage of which will be included through the doc. Partly because I'm a new father, I'm very much interested in films tackling the scientific address of children's behavior.
In addition to a fascinating report recently on 60 Minutes on babies' morals, I've seen features involving the uncertainty of how technology will affect (and is affecting) the children of the future. There was Welcome to the Machine at SXSW and the recently released short film (and accompanying TED book) Brain Power by Tiffany Shlain -- watch it here.
The Dark Matter of Love looks to be a more human story than those films, though, sure to appropriately trigger and touch the emotions of the audience, and I hope that it reaches its financial needs and finds its way to us soon.
If you live in the UK, the doc appears to be screening at London's Soho House this Friday, though it's not clear if this is open to the public.
Over at Indiewire's Criticwire blog, I participated in another survey this week, the latest asking, "If someone's looking to buy a film-related book for the cinephile in their life this holiday season, what would you recommend?" As I'm known there for running this outlet and being "the doc guy" to my peers, I felt the need to include a book for the documentary fan specifically. I went with the old standby:
While 20 years behind the times now, the best read on the history of docs is still Eric Barnouwās 'Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film' (if youāre fine with something more textbook-ish, you can later go with Betsy McClaneās recently updated 'A New History of Documentary').
The Barnouw was my "textbook" for classes on documentary in both my undergrad and grad programs, and as I say it's still the most enjoyable read if you're looking for an introduction. Of course, even more academically minded fans can also go with Introduction to Documentary by Bill Nichols, and anyone looking for something much lighter and certainly more modern than Barnouw might be interested in Marsha McCreadie's Documentary Superstars.
Otherwise, there's not a whole lot for the doc dorks that isn't focused on documentary filmmaking or really heavy discourse on documentary ethics. Some that I've liked and mainly picked up as assigned or recommended by professors include Michael Chanan's The Politics of Documentary and the compiled New Challenges for Documentary. A necessary book on a specific section of docs, I also recommend Chris Berry's The New Chinese Documentary Film Movement: For the Record.
As for books and essays about specific films, which might be the best for the casual but very interested doc fan, there's William Rothman's Documentary Film Classics, which features chapters on Nanook of the North, Land Without Bread, Night and Fog, Chronicle of a Summer, A Happy Mother's Day and Don't Look Back. There's the BFI Film Classics books on the Maysles brothers' Salesman and Grey Gardens, Claude Lanzmann's Shoah, Harry Watt and Basil Wright's Night Mail and Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia.
And there's the compiled Documenting the Documentary, which includes close readings of many works, including Nanook, The Man with a Movie Camera, Triumph of the Will, The Plow That Broke the Plains, Titicut Follies, Sherman's March, The Thin Blue Line, Roger & Me, Paris is Burning and many others. There's even an essay on the mockumentary This is Spinal Tap.
For profiles on specific filmmakers, you can go with Megan Cunningham's interview compilation The Art of the Documentary, in which you'll find conversations with such leading directors as Errol Morris, Ken Burns, D.A. Pennebaker, Albert Maysles and Chris Hegedus, along with editors and cinematographers. There's also Rothman's Three Documentarians: Errol Morris, Ross McElwee, Jean Rouch. And a number of whole books on the lives and work of the likes ofRiefenstahl, Robert Flaherty, John Grierson, Joris Ivens, Werner Herzog, the Maysles brothers and more.
The aforementioned Documentary Superstars concentrates on Herzog, Morris, Albert Maysles, Morgan Spurlock, Michael Moore, Frederick Wiseman, Peter Davis, Alan Berliner, Peter Davis, Kevin Macdonald, Davis Guggenheim, Amir Bar-Lev, Sacha Baron Cohen, Spike Lee and others.
Of course, I assume a lot of people who are into documentary films are more likely to simply read nonfiction books of any number of subjects that interest them. I tend to enjoy nonfiction literature to fiction in the same manner that I prefer documentary to fiction films most of the time. I've just been turned onto the work of Erik Larson (I'm currently reading In the Garden of the Beasts: Love, Terror and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin), whose writing I consider to be more of a literary equivalent to documentary cinema than the majority of nonfiction authors.
This post is intended to be as much of a call for suggestions I'm unaware of or missed as it is a series of picks recommended by myself. It's also the start of a discussion on books and films to get your favorite doc dork or documentary lover this holiday season. Wink, wink...
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Directed by: Ken Burns (The Civil War), Sarah Burns and David McMahon (co-producer of Ken Burns's The War)
How it's about it: The elder Burns takes a bit of a departure here, though not as much as it might seem. It's still a historical account with first-hand and expert witness interviews, the five now-grown men among them. It's not too different from the numerous wrong-man docs and coerced-testimony exposes we see on a regular basis, but it is a story of current concern because these wrong men are suing the City, which declined to participate in the doc and is now trying to get its hands on the filmmakers' footage in hopes that it will help them with theirdefense against the lawsuit.
Here is part of my response to the film from a Toronto Film Festival dispatch at Movies.com:
What I found more interesting than the coerced testimonies and other familiar flaws of our judicial system is where this is a civil rights doc with its racial components compared to Southern Jim Crow-era stories such as Emmett Tillās, and where itās like an appendix to Ric Burnsās New York doc series (complete with historian Craig Steven Wilder on screen), and where it turns attention on the issue with mainstream media narratives and public prejudices of alleged criminals, even when theyāre acquitted or later absolved. The real story is about how terrible our society is in relation to the terrible problems of the judicial system, not the latter in and of itself.
Recommended if you like: Paradise Lost trilogy; New York; Murder on a Sunday Morning
Also recommended: This is a great week for Ken Burns, who also just debuted his latest PBS doc, The Dust Bowl, which is a more typical film from him and yet also one of his best. It's an important, currently relevant history of the long Great Plains disaster of the 1930s. And it's also now on DVD/Blu-ray. Additionally, while I haven't yet seen the film, West of Memphis, which covers the same story as the Paradise Lostfilms, is obviously focused on similar subject matter. That comes out next month.
Awards: Winner of the Audience Choice Award at the 2012 Chicago International Film Festival. Nominated for a 2012 Grierson Award.
In theaters: Now playing in NYC at IFC Center, Lincoln Plaza Cinemas and the Maysles Cinema. Opens November 30 in L.A., Chicago and New Jersey. Expands on December 14 to St. Louis, Boston, San Francisco, Berkeley, Philadelphia, Concord (NH), Detroit, Denver, Portland (OR) and Washington, DC.Ā
Trailer: "56 Up" is Treated Like the Momentous Film Event It Is
If you've never seen the famous Up documentary series, this trailer will probably entice you to get into it before the latest installment arrives in theaters next year (they're all streaming on Netflix for your convenience). The whole thing is properly treated in this trailer like the monumental classic that it is, and the release of the new film, 56 Up, therefore is set up as an important event. And it is.
If this is truly the last Up film, as has been presumed likely, it will be a satisfying conclusion. Not that I want it to be the end.
56 Up will be released in the U.S. by First Run Features on January 4, 2013, first in NYC then expanding to other cities through February.
"Being Elmo" Subject Kevin Clash Has Resigned From "Sesame Street"
Here is a short, upsetting follow-up to a story from last week. Kevin Clash, subject of the documentary Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey and voice/performer of the Muppet Elmo on Sesame Street and elsewhere, has resigned from the gig.
As you surely know, a man whom Clash had a relationship with came out alleging that their sexual affair began when the accuser was still a minor. Then, as I noted in an update of last week's post, the man recanted his original statement.
Now, another man has made similar allegations about an experience he had with Clash when he was only 15. As a result, the puppeteer has quit Sesame Workshop, because "the controversy surrounding Kevinās personal life has become a distraction that none of us want, and he has concluded that he can no longer be effective in his job."
Oscar Nominee Brett Morgen to Direct a Kurt Cobain Documentary
Filmmaker Brett Morgen, who is receiving a lot of acclaim right now for his new Rolling Stones doc, Crossfire Hurricane, is working on a feature documentary about Kurt Cobain, according to Entertainment Weekly. Actually, it was the New York Post that first reported the news last week, but EW has found out additional and more correct information about the biographical film.
Here is a quote the magazine got from Morgen clarifying that he is not in fact collaborating with Courtney Love on the project:
"Back in 2007, I had a meeting in L.A. with Courtney Love to discuss my possible involvement in a Kurt Cobain documentary,ā he told EW in a statement. āShe had seen my film, The Kid Stays in the Picture, and thought that I had the right vision and passion to bring Kurtās story to life. Since that time, I have been speaking exclusively with Kurt Cobainās estate, who have given me their full cooperation in order to make the film. Courtney isnāt currently involved with the project in any capacity. The estate and I will be releasing more information about our plans in the coming weeks. Production on the film will begin in the coming months and we are aiming for a 2014 release.ā
This won't be the first documentary on Cobain, as we know very well. There's already Documentary Channel favorite About a Son as well as Nick Broomfield's sensational, conspiracy theory-fueled Kurt & Courtney. This sounds like a more traditional profile than those films, yet not necessarily all that conventional. Morgen told the Post:
"We are going to do the movie sort of like a third-person autobiography ā [as] if Kurt was around and making a film about his life."
That makes is seem more like a faux first-person doc for which we'll be made to think Cobain is behind the camera the whole time, Ross McElwee-style. That could be interesting but also distractingly gimmicky. I look forward to seeing what Morgen does with this, when it arrives in over a year's time.
DOC NYC 2012 Grand Jury Prizes Go to "Informant" and "Radioman"
The third annual DOC NYC documentary festival has come to a close, and last night awards were announced for the three competitions, including two feature categories and one for short films.
First, let me congratulate Radioman, the Grand Jury Prize winner in the New York-themed Metropolis program. It's the only winner I've seen, and I am a fan. Directed by Mary Kerr, the film follows a formerly homeless man who has become a major film extra and familiar to numerous celebrities, many of whom appear in the doc. I wrote about it in a recent Movies.com column, noting its cult potential particularly for movie geeks, likening it to both Bill Cunningham New York and Exit Through the Gift Shop.
As for the other feature competition, the winner of the Grand Jury Prize for the Viewfinders program, which highlights "distinct directorial vision," is Jamie Meltzer's Informant. The film deals with a subject tied to the story of the acclaimed 2011 doc Better This World, and I've been eager to check it out. With the jury honoring the film in part for "its Rashomon-like investigation of a terrorist crime that did or didn't happen," I'm now even more interested.
And for the Viewfinders competition, the jury picked Rafea: Solar Mama, which also won the fest's SundanceNOW Audience Award, calling it "a story whose genuine hope and uplift, whose urgency of matter, are only a coda to its deeply intimate, novelistic portrayal of a fractured marriage and the complex dynamic between men and women in a faraway but important culture frequently closed to outsiders."
From the shorts competition, the Grand Jury Prize winner is Riley Hooper's Flo, which that jury said "captures the spirit of Flo Fox and of a rough and tumble New York downtown art scene that hopefully will continue to subvert our expectations.ā They also named two films for Special Jury Prize mention, each "powerful and intimate short films that capture the struggles of a pair of families as they battle through emotional confusion following devastating and violent tragedies." They are Doug Block's The Children Next Door and Bao Nguyen's Julian.
For more on the festival, the award winners, the jury members and any other information, visit the DOC NYC webpage and press release here.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Interview: Jeff Orlowski and James Balog on "Chasing Ice," Hurricane Sandy and Experiential Learning
We've seen many climate change documentaries in the past few years, some receiving more notice than others. It would be a lie to say at least one hasn't made a difference, but there's always room for more, especially when cataclysmic events like Hurricane Sandy are contributing to the need for conversation and action on the issue. Rather coincidentally, Chasing Ice, a film that has garnered acclaim since debuting at Sundance in January, was already set to release this month, unintentionally arriving on the heels of the massive storm with great relevance.
On Friday, as the film was opening in New York City, I talked with director Jeff Orlowski and subject James Balog, a photographer who founded the Extreme Ice Survey to record time-lapse footage of glacier recession and disappearance as proof of climate change. Obviously, we discussed Sandy. We also addressed the experiential nature of the film, how it compares to An Inconvenient Truth, and why Orlowski doesn't actually see Chasing Ice as "a climate change film."
Doc Channel Blog: Let's start by talking about Sandy. You address the effect of climate change on natural disasters in the film, how it's not exactly direct but is likely related. Understandably the timing of the film's release is worth addressing, and I'd love to hear your response to the storm.
Jeff Orlowski: The consequence of climate change is extreme weather. It was something we were really conscious of as we were making the film, and we incorporated that footage into the movie itself. It's rather poignant from a time perspective that the film is being released on the tails of Sandy. It's a horrific event that's happened. And ironic that it's brought climate change back to a national conversation.
James Balog: We can't attribute any one storm to climate change, but there's no question that there's a pattern that has been predicted for many decades by specialists in this field. They've been pointing out the high probability of volatile, violent extreme weather events during an era of changing climate. We think that there's a pretty good chance that the pattern of extreme events we've been seeing in recent years in North America, Europe and Asia are pointing towards the fact that we're already in the middle of a period of changing climate. So, I think it's interesting and certainly curious and ironic that the events in our film and what we're seeing in the Arctic are all lining up.
JO: I think the steroid analogy that's in the film is a really appropriate one. People ask, "Is Sandy the result of climate change?" That's the wrong question. If you ask that question, you're going to get a bad answer. It's like asking, "Is one specific home run the result of steroid usage?" There's no way to track it. It's scientifically so difficult to prove that.
So, one of the statistics that's in the film is that there has been a five-fold increase in natural disasters in North America in the last 30 years. That is completely in harmony and in unison with what the scientists have been predicting is the consequence of climate change. That's the reality we're entering. And these "once-in-a-lifetime" events -- they're calling Sandy "once in a lifetime" -- we're seeing them happening more and more frequently. That is the consequence of climate change.
JB: Final point on that: even Governor Cuomo pointed out that events that were thought to be once-in-a-hundred-year events are now happening every few years. That's not just in this part of the world. It's in other parts of the world, as well, including where we live in the Rocky Mountain West.
Right. It's obviously not once in a lifetime, and that shows through your film. I watched it after Sandy, and a lot of the images of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath and what not, they just looked the same as what I was seeing on the news.
JO: When we put that footage in the film, we were trying to demonstrate what those consequences are and what they would be. I'm from Staten Island. I grew up there. And my grandmother's home was devastated by Sandy. The flood water was three feet high inside the first floor of the house, and it's completely ruined. These are real consequences. The estimate I just heard is that Sandy has caused New York alone $33 billion. Just for New York. That right there is a direct dollar amount that you can link to the consequences.
So, is this a good time for Chasing Ice to come out, or will people not need the extra argument? It makes me think of, say, a gun control documentary opening on the heels of a school shooting. People always say, "This isn't the time to talk about it." Especially in a political sense.
JO: We have a very short attention span in this society. And typically in the media. So, it unfortunately takes a wake up call for people to recognize the concerns. But this is an issue that's a very, very long-term issue. It's going to be effecting human civilization for centuries. If we don't do anything about it now, the consequences will just be that much worse in the future.
JB: The other thing that can't be overlooked here is that the source of big catastrophic events, of whatever type they are, get addressed if there is a financial, institutional constituency that is focused on altering behavior going forward. So, if you have airplanes flying into major buildings, and you happen to have a national defense establishment, then by all means you're going to have the national defense establishment working very hard to make sure that airplanes don't fly into big buildings again.
As it happens, we don't have a national defense establishment that is concerned with climate change. We have a scientific establishment that is extremely and deeply aware of what's going on with the effects of the environment, but those organizations, like NASA and NOAA, they're not charged with being advocates for dealing with this. That's not their job. Their job is to collect basic research.
So, when you have this thing floating past the public consciousness for days, weeks or months, there is nobody who's there to pick up the baton and say, "Dammit all, we're going to fix this right now." I think -- knock on wood -- we're going to see the Obama administration in the second term handling this with much more vigor and energy than they have previously.
But it also has to be said that in changing the automotive fuel standards, which are expected for cars sold in this country over the next 13 years, they have done the world a major, major service. And it's under-appreciated by most Americans.
JO: Yeah, most people don't even know about that.
Let's go back to the film itself. How did you guys come together to make it?
JO: We met through a mutual friend. When James was getting the project started, I was just offering to shoot on the very first trip to Iceland. That's where it all began. And James invited me to Greenland and then to Alaska. I kept following him and shooting video footage of everything that was going on with the project.
We weren't planning on making a film at the beginning. The intention of the video that we were shooting was for archive purposes, for posterity and for promotional videos, things like that. It evolved over the course of a couple years into us realizing that we had the footage and the images to make a feature film out of it.
Was there a thought of this being a hands-on improvement over An Inconvenient Truth? That film mainly presents visualized data. You're showing the real evidence. And I think it's important to see people actually going out and doing this sort of adventurous investigating. We're at a point where we all just find out stuff from our computers while sitting in our bedrooms. Doesn't that hurt our ability to understand what's going on with the world, our not really experiencing it?
JB: The experiential point is astute. Back in my teens, I started to realize that I was much more interested in experiential learning than I was in desk learning, book learning. I learned plenty from books, but it was the experience that really burned the understandings of lessons, methods, feeling for things into my brain and my body.
We didn't necessarily think that in going out and engaging with climate change experientially that it would someday have this amazing result in terms of a film, edited from our experiential process. We just went out and did what we had to do, and the cameras were there and recording these remarkable events.So, it's certainly true that for the audiences, for them to see that there's actually people who've lived through these things, it is much more powerful than charts and graphs. There's no question about it. And that seems to be what really captivates people about this film.
Jeff, was your intention with the film to carry the message on the issue, or was it first and foremost the story of a man who is working for a cause?
JO: I describe the film as being about James. I don't refer to it as a climate change film. In fact, when we first started working on the film, I didn't want it to be about climate change. We called it "The Photographer." We made it much more about James's past projects and on his family life and personal life. Because we wanted to stay away from An Inconvenient Truth and other climate change films that had just come out recently. It was really through feedback and through lots of test screenings that we had done and talking with the audiences, hearing that they were very curious about the ice and what was going on with the ice and more about the issue.
So, we ultimately shifted in the editing and framed it as being about -- I really look at the film as being the story of the Extreme Ice Survey and everything it took to make this project happen and James's history in working with the subject matter and how he got the idea for this project. That's how I describe it.
JB: I also see it as very much an adventure film. And obviously about the artistic process, as well. There are a lot of different layers to it.
JO: About the artistic process, it was a real joy and pleasure when editing the film, having so much powerful photography available to us all the time. When we were calling it "The Photographer," we were wanting to make it more about the insight into how James worked as a photographer and how he thinks about taking a picture or what goes into making a really powerful image. Even though we shifted away in the title, we tried to keep a lot of that content in there, the process that it takes to make something like this.
The Extreme Ice Survey is continuing. Has it grown since what we see in the film? Do you have cameras in the Southern hemisphere now?
JB: As we sit here today -- we just counted this the other day --- we've got 34 cameras out at this moment at 16 different glaciers. Then we have repeat photography sites, which are places where we know exactly where we shot pictures in years past, and we revisit those sites every so often. Those sites are in France, Switzerland, British Columbia, Canada, and Bolivia. For the moment. We're almost certainly going to be branching out into South America over the next 12 months. And quite possibly into Antarctica.
I've been to one glacier in Argentina, the Perito Moreno. Will you set up there? And has anyone attempted to do long time-lapses of the normal calving cycle before?
JB: There's a South American glaciologist that has been doing that to some degree, I guess. We keep seeing little fragments of time-lapse on that glacier particularly popping up on YouTube. But we haven't had the financial resources to really build a proper liaison with those glaciologists from Chile and Argentina. That's one of the things I intend to be doing over the next few months. My first task is to find out what they've done already, and then we'll carry on from that point forward.
And what's next for you, Jeff?
JO: My team and I have a couple of films in the pipeline that we've started to develop, but really all the effort and all the energy has been going into promoting Chasing Ice and getting it out there as much as possible. Our whole team will be full time on this for another few months at least.
JB: And the Extreme Ice Survey will go on basically indefinitely at this point. When we started, we thought it would be a three-year project. At three years, we thought, okay, five years would be pretty good. And once we got to five years we couldn't stop. The historical record was too important, too substantial, and our obligation to record these landscapes so that people of the future could remember what they look like, was too great.
Chasing Ice is now playing at Cinema Village in New York City. It will open this Friday in Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Washington, DC, Sag Harbor, NY and in Canada with more cities to follow through the month. Check the film's schedule for more info.
Here's a mid-week theatrical release that is highly regarded, well-awarded and personally recommended. It's also not very accessible, I'll admit, but that's because it's very complicated subject approached in a very intelligent, innovative and self-reflexive way that makes it very much a one of a kind film.
The Law in These Parts
What it's about: Director Raāanan Alexandrowicz looks at the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the two intricate and disconnected legal systems that contribute to the conflicts in that region. But unlike many docs on this topic, this one is concentrated on the lawmakers rather than the law-breakers.
How it's about it: It's been 10 months since I saw the film, so I'd like to share some parts of my review from Sundance at Movies.com:
Alexandrowicz, in shadowed but audible appearance, interviews -- or interrogates -- numerous retired Israeli military men, all former judges, prosecutors or legal advisors, in order to better grasp the framework and 45-year execution of the law. In a way itās to simplify some of the documents the filmmaker has come to be familiar with in his own research. As he reads some of these materials to his cooperative subjects, in voice-over he summarizes for us in laymanās terms. And he requests for the interviewees to speak in easily comprehensible terms as well.[...]
it so perfectly comes together in the end as a rare human rights issue film thatās cerebral rather than emotional in its approach. Alexandrowicz acknowledges and admits to the usual faults of cinema, that heāll end this film and go on to another, that weāll go back to everyday life when the credits are over, but that the true person of interest in this cause doc will remain unjustly imprisoned. The film is quite direct in the end, and [...] we feel like weāve been on a long yet necessary road to get to the real point. [...] At times I wanted to laugh at the abstract absurdity of what the film was unraveling before me, but itās not really a humorous matter at all.
Recommended if you like: The Fog of War; Occupation 101; Six Days in June
Also recommended: I still have yet to see this, but all year I've noted that Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi's 5 Broken Cameras, which was in the same program at Sundance as Law in These Parts, seems to be a great companion film. It's very different, a more personal and individual account of the occupation, from the perspective of a Palestinian villager (Burnat) documenting a five-year physical and legal struggle with Israeli forces.
Awards: Winner of the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary World Cinema at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. Winner of a Special Jury Award at the 2012 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival. Winner of a Special Jury Prize at the 2012 Hot Docs Documentary Festival. Winner of the Best Documentary award at the 2011 Jerusalem Film Festival.
One Direction Gets a 3D Concert Film Directed by Morgan Spurlock
You're just not a big pop music act until you've gotten a 3D concert film. We've seen them in the past from Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana, the Jonas Brothers, Justin Bieber and most recently Katy Perry (not to mention bands U2 and Phish), and earlier this year Jennifer Lopez announced one. Now, UK boy band One Direction is getting their due with an as-yet-untitled documentary from Sony's TriStar Pictures. This one has an Oscar-nominated director at the helm, too: Super Size-Me's Morgan Spurlock.
"This is an incredible opportunity and an amazing moment in time for the band," he said in a statement. "To capture this journey and share it with audiences around the world will be an epic undertaking that I am proud to be a part of."
I personally wouldn't otherwise be interested in a One Direction concert film, but after seeing Spurlock's Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope, which I feel put me right into the event, I think he'd do a good job of showing me what it's like to be at their show, for better or worse. Regardless, it will no doubt be his most successful documentary yet, as most of these 3D concert films end up making tons of money.
You'll be able to see One Direction in 3D on the big screen next Labor Day weekend, with a release date already set for August 30, 2013.
Ridley Scott Looks to Fans for Collaborative Film on Bruce Springsteen
Still interested in the crowdsourcing collaborative documentary trend he contributed to last year with Life in a Day, producer Ridley Scott is now working on a project with a slightly narrower scope. He is calling out to fans of Bruce Springsteen for submissions for a film "about Bruce and what he means to you." Titled Springsteen & I, the feature is expected to hit theaters in 2013, but first they need to get the content. Beginning this Thursday, anyone interested can upload a clip no longer than five minutes to the film's website here.
"We are searching for a wide variety of creative interpretations, captured in the most visually exciting way you can think of," says the submission invite, "whether you've been a hardcore Tramp since '73 or have heard one of his songs for the first time today!"
While Life in a Day had the added prestige of being directed by Oscar-winning documentarian Kevin Macdonald, Springsteen & I has the less-known Baillie Walsh at the helm curating the footage. He's mainly known for directing music videos (Kylie Minogue's "Slow," for one) and the Oasis film Lord Don't Slow Me Down. His last film was the drama Flashbacks of a Fool, which stars Daniel Craig.
As many will note, this is not the first music doc to go with the collaborative crowdsourcing approach. There's the Beastie Boys concert film, Awesome; I... Shot That, which is obviously different since it was all shot at the same place during the same time. Part of Justin Bieber: Never Say Never sounds more similar to Springsteen & I, the montage of YouTube clips from fans showing love for the pop star.
Still, there is something novel about this film in that, unlike most docs like Life in a Day, it seems to have more of an allowance for old material. If someone made a tribute to The Boss on YouTube years ago, apparently that could qualify, as could something filmed 30 years back. There is a lot of room here for different ideas, and I look forward to seeing what Walsh and Scott take in and dish back.
Submissions will be accepted through November 29, 2012.
Interview: Jon Shenk on the Continued Life of Doc Subjects, the Benefit of Op-Docs and Documenting "The Phantom Menace"
This interview was originally published on March 28, 2012. It is being re-run today, because The Island President is now available on DVD from First Run Features.
And now here's the second part of my interview with Jon Shenk, director of the must-see documentary The Island President, which follows the former Maldivian President Mohammed Nasheed (he was just recently deposed in a coup) in a fight to save his people in more ways than one. I would call this post the second half (as I did yesterday), but it's actually much, much longer than the first part (read that here).
In this segment, which is less directly tied to his new film, Shenk I talk about containing documentary narratives versus (or in addition to) addressing their real life continuation on or off screen, how the New York Times' Op-Doc feature now substitutes for DVD extras, what it was like being the in-house documentarian for Lucasfilm and finally his take on where documentary filmmaking is at today.
The conversation is long but I assure you it's very interesting stuff.
Adding an update on Nasheed and the Maldives at the end of the film works for the story, but what is your usual view on that kind of thing? Personally, I get annoyed with Q&As where people just want to know the latest on a subject, because film narratives should be somewhat contained, even with documentary. What are your thoughts on viewersā desire for the continued story?
Iām in your camp. I think of documentaries as films. Theyāre movies, and they have stories. And in the shooting and the editing, thereās a structure to that. Itās not an accident that they turn out how they turn out. Good documentary filmmakers think about it that way. Like anybody who makes a film about a current event, when things change [afterward] youāre going to be asked, āWell, do you want to change the ending? Are you bummed that you didnāt film long enough?ā Itās kind of absurd. The film is what it is.
I think documentaries can be special because if you add the element of time and give a sense of the trajectory in that thereās a real story here, it can get under your skin even more. Iāve always liked that idea, to encourage people to think about time and what happens to people, how they evolve and how characters can change over time.
So I donāt have a problem adding little updates, but in terms of the film itself, I totally agree with you. Itās like, look, a lot of energy went into this, I hope you can appreciate it, I think itās really satisfying, and I hope you can see what I saw.
And things happen so quickly these days. The Island President only premiered last fall and then a big turn of events happened shortly after in February. Combine the speed of developments with the fact that documentaries take a long time to be finished and then, unfortunately, often a long time to be released. By the time the DVD comes out, there seems a need for an update, especially if it involves current events like this does.
Unfortunately even distributors and sales agents and people who know documentaries often get confused between a documentary film and news. In a lot of ways there are some similarities -- we use the same equipment and in some ways thereās the same visual language -- but it kinda ends there. When youāre making a documentary youāre really thinking about a story and an evolution of character. In some ways itās like a Shakespearean character outline more than it is a news story. Not to be too highfalutin about it. Youāre really in that space more than youāre in the space of thinking about current events -- when Iām working.
So when people say, āHey, do you want to go shoot an addendum or change the ending?ā I would not consider that. What I would consider is, maybe there could be a little short made or a clip, outside of the film, that allows people if theyāre interested to go to a website. Or when it plays on TV, another thing. But the film is the film.
Oh right. I almost forgot about the whole New York Times Op-Doc thing. You had the opportunity to provide an update that was separate from the film through that outlet. And a lot of filmmakers are getting to do that now, which I think is a really great idea.
I love that idea. Itās a nice little niche to fill. Weāre living in funny period where DVDs are kinda dead now, but one nice thing about them was that you could put other stuff on them. Like for Lost Boys of Sudan we were able to put some deleted scenes and update stuff and a Q&A. With web distribution, or video on demand, thereās not really a mechanism for that yet. I think there will be soon.
Thereās access to some of that stuff, but thereās not a lot and I donāt think many people know about them.
Itās not organized yet. You could put stuff on YouTube or on websites, but I think Op-Docs is a nice thing because itās starting to organize it. I think itās an organizing principle. I could see at some point maybe every film will have an Op-Doc kinda thing. You could show it in class if you watch the film and it could be a point of discussion.
I love that kind of stuff, educator editions and additional material. Theyāre wonderful. Thatās part of the beauty of the special role that documentaries play in our culture, the ability to engage people and have the conversation spin out, have it just be the beginning of a conversation. I think itās a peculiar technical moment where we are right now.
So would you consider a sequel if Nasheedās story called for one?
Iām so not in that space right now. But I never say āneverā to anything. Nasheed is a relatively young guy, and Iāve always wondered in the back of my head, āWho knows? This guy could go on to have an amazing life.ā Heās clearly a unique individual in the world, and I canāt imagine him giving up. I will definitely keep up with him and track him, because I like him and think heās a fascinating guy. If that leads to another documentary some day, thatād be great.
The circumstances of him winning the presidency in 2008 and going on to have his first year in office and leading up to Cophenhagen was to me a magical combination of a lot of things. So that led to the film. But you never know, maybe something could happen again where enough circumstances come together.
It just seems to be something that more and more filmmakers are doing. But are you typically the kind of documentarian who can let go of subjects easily and move on to the next thing? Youāve worked on a lot of films, including stuff youāve only been a cinematographer or cameraman on. Aside from Nasheed, do you like to stay in touch with characters?
It depends on a lot of things. Generally with independent docs that we ourselves control and fundraise for and stuff, itās usually a long enough relationship that it doesnāt go away quickly. For example, with Lost Boys of Sudan Iām in touch with those guys. And The Rape of Europa, unfortunately many of the main characters have passed away, but weāre still in touch with some of them.
One of the crazy, cool things about documentary filmmaking is it gives you the license to go into these peopleās lives and see it from such an intimate point of view. So itās intense, and often you have a relationship afterwards. That part of it I actually really like, because when you get to the end of the film you can have a real relationship. You donāt have to hold back, and both sides can breathe a sigh of relief and be a little looser in the relationship. I like to maintain relationships with people I have gone through something with. I donāt know where it leads. Itās always different.
What is the biggest difference, besides the obvious with time and focus, between directing your own doc and shooting someone elseās?
For me, with some directors who I really know well and who trust me, I can get a similar kind of feel in the field when Iām shooting and following characters and get a vibe for the story. But thereās nothing like knowing that youāre making your own film. When you know youāre the one going to be dealing with it in the editing room and crafting the story, and you know what you have and what you hope to get, the more time and energy you can spend on a project, just by nature, is going to be that much deeper and more meaningful to you -- to me, as a filmmaker.
Itās hard to place that when Iām just working as a DP. There are a lot of things as a DP that I can do and concentrate on thatās maybe hard for me when Iām directing as well. When Iām just a DP Iām more focused on making the picture all it can be and that it tells the story. Whereas when Iām directing and shooting, I might actually give a little bit up on my artistry of photography and give priority to the story, which is ultimately more important. Thatās not to say I donāt love that photographic aspect of doing my own thing, but ultimately when Iām directing it has to be about the story.
Fortunately for verite filmmaking the story and the camera are kinda one. When youāre shooting a scene thereās no difference between the coverage of it and how youāre telling the story. Itās one and the same. Thatās the pinnacle of documentary filmmaking for me, being in a scene, shooting it myself, covering it and knowing itās important to the story. Thatās a thrill and itās exciting and itās photographically really satisfying.
Iām curious about your involvement on The Phantom Menace. I see a credit here for you listed as ādocumentary cinematographer.ā What did that entail?
I was kind of an in-house documentary filmmaker at Lucasfilm from ā96 to ā99. I ended up making all the documentary materials that were connected to Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace. If you get the DVD, on the second disc thereās a feature-length verite film called The Beginning, which I made. And thereās dozens and dozens of short docs that we put out on the Internet that were updates from the set and little stories. If youāre a Star Wars fan, itās really interesting because a lot of the style with The Island President is similar to The Beginning. Itās a lot of scenes of following George [Lucas] around as he was writing, designing and ultimately shooting and editing Star Wars.
Thatās what I thought it was. The way IMDb lists it, it looks like you shot footage thatās in the actual movie. Like there was documentary footage in The Phantom Menace or something, which would be wild.
Yeah, I have a credit on the film itself as "documentarian." But really I was kind of an in-house filmmaker. I had a team and shot literally thousands of hours of footage. It was just awesome, because I was pretty young, right out of film school, and it was a great way to get my chops shooting tons of verite footage. There was total access. Obviously I didnāt have 100% creative control but at least I had the access.
At the beginning, in ā96, when I started there, I felt like the luckiest guy in the world. George was about to start writing the next chapter of āthe Bible.ā It felt like a total honor to be included in that. It was an exciting time to be there. Of course Star Wars [Episode 1] came out and a lot of original fans were disappointed in the movie, but at the time, before the movie came out, that anticipation was so intense and palpable. It was just cool to be inside of that.
If youāre a Star Wars fan and interested in that scene, or even if youāre not, as a film fan itās interesting to see Lucas and the actors. Itās very real. Even though there are a few things I would do differently in a directorās cut, the vibe of the film is pretty authentic. You really get to feel what it was like.
I like to ask filmmakers for some other doc recommendations, either some favorite classics or something youāve recently seen or maybe something that had an influence on you or your new film.
Films that were influential on me, obviously from The Island President you can tell Iām a big verite fan. Early Wiseman and Maysles and Drew and Leacock and all that stuff I fell in love with early on. Iām a disciple of Jon Else, who now directs the documentary program at Berkeley. Heās an incredible director, if you know The Day After Trinity, about Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb. Then in college films like The Thin Blue Line and Roger & Me really got me excited about being a documentary filmmaker. One of my favorite documentaries of all time is Crumb, because I feel that film gets so authentically inside someoneās life, in such an incredible way.
Recent films, I loved Valentino, which was a couple years ago. I thought that was a wonderful portrait. To Hell and Back Again is amazing. I was actually a big fan of Restrepo too. It blew me away. Some documentaries are great because theyāre great storytelling, and other documentaries are great because theyāre so brave. They show you something that youāve never seen before. I felt like Restrepo was like that, like, āOh my god, I canāt believe Iām looking at this! This camera is in a firefight!ā To Hell and Back Again might have had more of an impression if I hadnāt seen Restrepo.
I thought it was a shame Restrepo didnāt win the year it was nominated because I really felt that was the kind of film that could potentially be remembered years and years from now. It was so brave, and so unlike anything that had been done and really took advantage of new technology in a really cool way.
I actually think weāre living in a time when thereās so much cool opportunities for documentary filmmakers. We can make images like weāve never made before, in terms of the technology. Thereās no excuse why your film canāt look fabulous. That doesnāt mean that theyāll all be great, but I think weāre finally at a point where the technology has really popularized it. We told ourselves that back in the ā90s, but now itās really true with these latest cameras and editing software.
So I think weāre at a very exciting time for documentary filmmaking. And the other thing thatās happened, with the downfall of the press and international budgets for investigative reporting gone away, documentaries take up some of the slack. What better way is there these days to find out about an issue in depth than to watch a really well-made documentary on the subject. Like Detropia. I havenāt seen it yet but Iāve heard people raving about it, and it just seems like a really thoughtful approach to whatās going on with the economy and the U.S. and the auto industry and all that. Itās exciting.
I felt that way with No End in Sight, which Iām thinking about because Iām staring at your IMDb page. I hadnāt followed the whole story about the Iraq War so that was a useful film for me to get caught up.
Exactly. And thatās a film that I would have a really hard time visualizing, because itās not my penchant. But you have to hand it to Charles Ferguson. He has that kind of mind and an almost academic approach, and he just goes for it. He doesnāt let up. Heās like a bulldog when it comes to getting his teeth into a story. Now the world has a really excellent document that tells that story in a way that hadnāt been told before. Anyway, I obviously feel passionate that documentaries play such an important role in our society.
So do I. And I wish more people felt the way we do.
Before we end, is there anything youāre working on now, or do you have a next directorial project in mind yet?
Weāre not currently working on an indie doc. I have a company that mixes it up. Obviously I shoot for other people and we make commercials. Weāre constantly working to make a living, but right now weāre not pursuing an indie doc. Hopefully we will soon. I donāt know how other directors do it, but in our little world weāve found that unless youāre 100% focused on every aspect including distribution it just doesnāt happen right. So weāre working on The Island President harder than weāve ever worked on it. 100% focused on launching it and having it find an audience. Thatās what our job is right now.
And that means it's our job to go see The Island President, which is now playing in NYC and will expand to San Francisco this Friday with other cities to follow.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Interview: Jon Shenk on "The Island President," the Appeal of Mohammed Nasheed and Why the Recent Turn of Events in the Maldives Can't Last
This interview was originally published on March 27, 2012. It is being re-run today, because The Island President is now available on DVD from First Run Features.
Jon Shenk's exceptional new documentary, The Island President, is a special work of nonfiction and character-driven storytelling. It follows Mohammed Nasheed, then the president of the Maldives and the first democratically elected leader of the country in more than 30 years (he's sadly since been deposed in a coup), as he adapts his people to freedom and embarks on a crusade to save their land by fighting to curb global warming (if the sea level rises, it will submerge the island nation). He's the most captivating political documentary subject since Street Fight's Cory Booker.
This week I chatted with Shenk, a filmmaker who got his start as an in-house documentarian at Lucasfilm leading up to the release of Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace (his early work can be found among the prequel's DVD extras) and who has directed such major works as Lost Boys of Sudan and The Rape of Europa and contributed to others like No End in Sight and the recent Eames: The Architect & The Painter.
Because we talked for a bit, I've divided the interview up into two parts. This first half of the conversation is more of an introductory discussion of what drew Shenk to Nasheed, why this is the most exciting address of climate change yet and how the recent developments fit into the story. I hope that it all will entice you to see the film. And return for part two, which involves less direct talk of this film and docs in general.Ā
Thereās also the issue that you mentioned before regarding dictators being toppled and democracy being brought to so many countries in recent years. Or attempted anyways. The Island President is such a celebration of that change. So what effect does the news about last monthās coup in the Maldives and Nasheedās resignation have on the filmās story now?
One thing you should know since you saw the film in Toronto is we did add a card at the end that tells you what happened. In very simple terms. We felt the need to update people. The events of the coup make the story that much more poignant and precious. Hereās a guy who, really once you see the film you canāt argue, is so committed to transparency and honesty in government and really trying to fight for the cause of people, of human rights. I think he is fairly pure in his goals in those ways.
So having been deposed, in a way, makes the current events a little more sticky. But I think in the long run the film is the same. Itās about a guy who, against all odds, is trying to fight for right. And he occasionally succeeds and is able to push the ball forward, and then there are setbacks as well. At the end of the day, who knows whatās going to happen in the Maldives? My personal feeling is that itās going to be very difficult for the autocratic forces to maintain control of a population that has now tasted freedom and transparency and freedom of the press and all that.
Theyāve actually seen it. The Island President was released in theaters there, and people were blown away that a president can be that open. Under the dictator there was one state-run television station. Now there are seven independent stations -- well that is until the dictator took power again. So I think itās hard to put that genie back in the bottle. I really do believe that somehow this is going to come to a head. I canāt tell the future, but I know that Nasheed hasnāt given up hope.
Ultimately, heās like an example of somebody who reminds us that bottom-up change is still possible. In this country we look back at the ā60s and think that was a time of protest and where things could change, but weāve kind of given up on that. Nasheed is somebody who says, āHey, wait a minute, that still works.ā When you show defiance and get in the streets and really try to show the population a better path, it can have an impact.
So the film was released there before the coup? Was that, for a lot of viewers, the first chance to see what Nasheed was like or had they been pretty familiar with him as their leader?
There are two steps to that answer. One is the Maldives had been living under a dictator for 30 years before Nasheed got there. Their idea of a president was somebody who every once in a while came out and waved to the cameras and said a couple of rehearsed things. So when Nasheed came to office, people were just stunned by his candor and his openness. But there was still a lot of skepticism about him because they had been with a president who was so rehearsed and so conniving with the press.
The thing about The Island President is that itās not just like a TV report. Itās a long film where you see extended scenes of footage that has such authenticity to it. When the Maldivian audiences saw that, they were speechless. Itās hard to describe. They couldnāt believe that (A) they had a president who would do that and (B) just how hard working he was in meetings that⦠I think if we saw a film about Obama, for example, negotiating with China or something, it would just blow us away. We donāt know what happens behind those closed doors. We donāt appreciate how hard our leaders work.
In some ways they were educated about what itās like to be in this job and to really try to fight for these things. The movie did something that a TV reporter couldnāt do, which is it allowed things to play out, and it gave the Maldivian audience an appreciation for his transparency in a way that day-to-day press coverage did not.
Yeah, I think even in America weāre drawn to photos of the President where he looks tired or thereās evidence that heās not always having a good day. The Island President shows us -- and the Maldivians of course -- that same kind of thing.
You bring up a good point, which I havenāt thought about since the editing room. Vulnerability in characters is a huge, important thing in film. People identify with characters when they see that theyāre human and they see the same vulnerabilities that they themselves have. And Nasheed allowed that to be captured about himself, which is very rare for somebody in a position of power, much less a head of state.
Check out Part 2 of this interview here. This is the part of the conversation that's more broadly about documentary storytelling, as well as a bit about Shenk's time working for George Lucas.
The Island President opens tomorrow (March 28, 2012) in NYC at Film Forum and on Friday in San Francisco. See it if you can.
Interview: Lauren Greenfield on the Bait and Switch of "The Queen of Versailles" and the Importance of Good Cinematography
This interview was originally published on July 24, 2012. It is being re-run today, because The Queen of Versailles is now available on DVD and Blu-ray from Magnolia Home Entertainment.
As I noted in last Friday's Docs in Theaters column, The Queen of Versailles is one of my favorite surprises of the year. Here is a documentary that looks like it caters to both the superficial Real Housewives audience and also the 99-percenters looking for a take down of the uber-rich, and really it is an exceptional, allegorical character study focused on the issue of Americans overreaching for the Dream through an extreme example of a family affected by the financial crisis.
Last week I talked with Versailles director Lauren Greenfield, whose photography work has once again led her to necessary documentary subjects, this time the garishly affluent Siegel family and their venture of constructing the largest home in the U.S. We discussed the tease of schadenfreude, the film's relationship to reality TV, negative responses to the real-life characters, knowing when to end a true, ongoing story and why it's important for documentaries to look good.
Out of respect, I mostly avoided addressing the lawsuit David Siegel has filed against the film, though it does naturally come up through general questions pertaining to documentary.Ā Ā
I'd like to start by talking about the audience and critical responses to the Siegels. Do you think it's wrong for people to keep talking about schadenfreude?Ā
I think thatās the journey of the film and the unexpected part of the film. When it starts, you almost expect schadenfreude. You go in expecting to critique these people who you might not identify with. The beginning is very comedic, and the characters are larger than life, and their dream is excessive and huge and fun in a kind of voyeuristic way. You get sucked in by the over-the-top Gilded Age stuff.
And what happens in the course of the movie, as it progresses, this really changes, to where I think the characters go from being the one percent to being the everyman. It goes from looking at the other to becoming a mirror.
It is about America at this time, and itās about our culture, but itās also about us as individuals. Basically, in the journey of the film, I started it as this inside view of wealth, a look at the family building the ultimate American Dream. Rags-to-riches, self-made people. The American Dream is about home ownership and theyāre building that ultimate home. The largest one ever built. It expresses every fantasy they could ever want.
After I started it became clear that David Siegel, "The Timeshare King,ā had another dream that was even bigger and even more important. That was the building of the fifty-two-story [Planet Hollywood Westgate Towers] that cost over $600 million. And that was the ultimate overreach.
So after their business is hit by the financial crisis, both buildings go into default, and when they have to look at the prospect of foreclosure on both of these buildings, at that point, the Dream becomes a nightmare. A nightmare that many people in America felt in different ways.
Iād been covering it in my photography here in America and also all around the world, foreclosures in cities in California to the crash in Dubai that left similarly fantastical structures frozen in time and in half-built form to the real estate debacle in Ireland that devastated the country economically and emotionally. It takes us into this other place that becomes tragedy, but not just tragedy for one family, and not just the rich either.
Right, and so if the film is meant to be an allegory and about all of us, the response of schadenfreude is really quite ironic.
I tried to make that point by including the stories of the minor characters, who make similar mistakes and have similar realizations. Like Cliff, the limo driver, who bought nineteen homes and then lost them all and went through bankruptcy and the trauma of foreclosure. In a way, thatās not that different from David, but of course itās on a different scale.
The power of the story and the power of the Siegels and their generously sharing their life with me in such an intimate way is that they allow us to see ourselves. Thereās something about their characters, maybe from their humble origins, where they kept a down to earth quality. I think itās also because theyāre so incredibly candid in front of the camera and open up their lives so much. Thereās something about them that allows us to see our virtues and our flaws.
Itās not really schadenfreude in the sense that suggests weāre taking pleasure in someone elseās pain, and I think thatās kind of the trick of the movie. Maybe you start out thinking that, but by the end, what audiences have told me is theyāre surprised that they have sympathy for the characters. They go in expecting not to and then go through a journey where that changes by the end.
I'll admit, in spite of your name being attached, I felt like I was going to be watching a feature-length reality show pilot with this subject matter. Do you think that could be a possible appeal to audiences? I think it's great if people will be surprised at how terrific and relevant the film is.
Thatās exactly been a technique in my photography. Iāve talked about that before, like in a project like "Girl Culture." Are you familiar with my photography at all?
Iāve seen some, and I know that this film came about through a picture you had taken of women and their Versace purses, one of which was Jackie.
Well, in my pictures there tend to be very saturated colors. At least with "Fast Forward" and "Girl Culture," my first two books, which are very much about the popular culture, there are saturated colors, and the prints are glossy surfaces. In "Girl Culture" the project is about how the body has become the primary expression of identity for girls and women and the exhibitionism of modern femininity.
It kinda seduces you with bright colors, shiny surfaces, sexy bodies and the kind of language of the popular culture. It takes you in for a much darker journey about how girls define themselves this way, and how itās become really a self-esteem crisis for girls and with emotional and physical and all kinds of very serious consequences.
I remember there was a museum show at the Center for Creative Photography in Arizona, and this docent told me that this jock came in from the University of Arizona and he saw this picture that was in the front. It was of this beautiful model at the beach in Miami, unbuttoning her bra and being photographed. You see the camera on one side and the model on the other. And he said, āOh yeah, Iām gonna like this show.ā Then he went through the expedition, and when he came out the other side, he said to the docent, āHey, man, Iām really sorry. I had no idea what this show was about.ā
So thatās kinda what I love. The reason why we have to look at these issues is because theyāre part of the popular culture that is so influential in our lives. For me, The Queen of Versailles is nothing like a reality show, and when I started, the idea was to show a cinema verite portrayal of wealth, because we never see what itās really like. We always see this fabricated, sensationalized, constructed, fictionalized, packaged portrayal, which is so influential in shaping our values and aspirations.
Because that kind of aspirational wealth is so important in our culture, I think itās really important to examine, for a deeper investigation into why these things are important to us and why we obsess over them and what does it say about us as a culture and our values. So the reference to reality TV is important, because itās a sociological look at what is underneath that.
Without getting too much into the lawsuit if you'd rather not, what is your take on the seemingly increasing issue of subjects going public with dissatisfaction with how they're portrayed in documentaries? This also fits with audience and critical response because Tabloid and The Imposter subjects have gotten upset with laughs and personal attacks. Obviously The Queen of Versailles has been met with a lot of laughs as well.
I think thatās hard. Jackie has been to several film festivals and really loves the film. She was with me two days ago at the premiere in New York and did the Today show with me and is out promoting the film. But when she saw it -- and actually when David saw it too, he seemed quite happy with it -- whatās hard is seeing how other people see you. And thereās no way to really know what thatās going to be like. Jackie really likes the film, but sheās been hurt by some of the blogs and what people say about her online.
Thatās always kind of a risk in something that happens with -- I donāt want to say a private person in this case, because David and Jackie Siegel were public people, and this is not the first time that that experience has happened. You donāt see yourself the way other people see you, even if youāre fully aware of the whole process and what the film is about, and youāre there for all the footage.
As a filmmaker, the way I address that is by spending a lot of time, doing as much research as possible, really being careful about the storytelling process, and the integrity of that, and honoring the access that I'm given. Thatās why it was important to me, and I was really pleased, that audiences felt empathetic with the characters, especially with Jackie. And part of that is their candor in front of the camera.
Yeah, it upsets me that those who debate me on the issue, their response is that, āWell, they agreed to be on camera, so theyāre fair game.ā I donāt agree with that.
You have a lot of responsibility as a documentarian telling stories about peopleās lives. You have a responsibility to the truth. You have a responsibility to treat them with respect and honor what you saw. And I take that really seriously. And many subjects in the film, by the way, have seen the film and liked it.
In the case of David Siegel, weāre talking about very specific business interests. And I definitely feel like that is not what I can use as the guiding force in my editing. I need to be honest about what I saw and not use either concerns of vanity or concerns of business get in the way of telling the story either.
How do you know when a story of a real life concludes?
This story was amazing. It was very clear in a way I had never experienced before. With THIN, my last feature-length film, it probably could have gone on forever, although Sheila Nevins at HBO gave me really good advice to stay in the clinic and donāt go home with the girls. So when āmy girlsā left, that was the end, even though I did a tiny bit of postscript. But it was very hard to know when to end that film.
This film was very clear, because I came in on the dream of the house, that then got surpassed by the tower, and that was the most important thing to David. It was what he spent the last year and a half just fighting for his life for. And when he lost it, and the Versailles house was also in foreclosure and being put up for auction by Bank of America, that was the end for me.
I was wondering where you thought the film was headed narratively or thematically before the financial crash came and sort of helped steer the story. And itās interesting that there's the scene with David signaling that it's time to wrap. Might he have now preferred you kept documenting them until his fortune was back up?
I think he did prefer that. I kept that in about ācan we wrap it up,ā because in that moment he was impatient with talking about what was such a painful subject. So thatās why I included it, and it kind of signaled to the audience that the end of the film was coming. But actually he did want me to come back. He said he wanted me to come back in a few months.
When he first lost possession of the tower, it was too painful to talk about. And he didnāt want to talk. So I talked to Richard instead, and he laid out the whole thing that happened, and he said that it was like losing a loved one. He said that his dad said it was like he pulled the plug on a spouse when he lost Vegas. Jackie said the same thing, that it looked like he was in mourning. So he said come back in a few months.
But for David, he really would have liked me to document a victorious ending, which hasnāt happened. Whatās in the film is basically what has happened. He says in the film that heāll work ātil heās a hundred and fifty years old if thatās what it takes to make things right or get back on top. Only time will tell if that actually happens.
He says in that scene where heās in the den at night and the papers are all piled up around him and heās talking to his dog, āMaybe weāll just move into the house on our own.ā Heās so depressed. He said to me later, āIf I save Vegas, if I find an investor in Vegas, that will be my greatest achievement.ā I think he does say it on camera. But then he said later, āIf I find that investor, I will fly out to L.A. so you can interview me. Iāll save you the trip. No, we should meet in Vegas. You should do it in Vegas.ā
And he said, āIf I lose Vegas, youāll be there, and if it blows up youāll be there.ā He put all the options on the table, of what could happen. He often was great in his honesty about the options, whether it was bankruptcy or losing it to the lenders or keeping it by finding another investor. But in the end, heās a man who likes to win. He wants to win, and thatās a part of his character. So in a way, the lawsuit is also consistent with his character. But surprising, of course, given the access and the cooperation through the end of the filming.
As a photographer, is it really important forĀ you to have a good looking film? Many documentarians don't seem to put that as a priority, and in certain cases it's not even that possible.
Did you like the look of the film?
Yeah. It looks great. You obviously put thought into the cinematography and Iām guessing did some post production work to make it look like a good movie.
Well, definitely in the cinematography, and yes, it is important to me as a photographer. The aesthetic language is one of our greatest tools in filmmaking. The colors and the composition are really important in the storytelling process. At the same time, I also learned from THIN that the moment trumps everything.
I had a wonderful cinematographer, Tom Hurwitz, and then a couple other shooters who worked on it at other times -- Shana Hagan and Sarah Levy, who are all extraordinary -- but there were times when I was the only one there, and Iām not as good a shooter as they are, and if I got it on a little camera, some of thatās in there too. Because I think at the end of the day, people do forgive the image quality for the story. And I would never sacrifice the story for the image quality. I feel like I work with editors who know that and will let me do that. Even if I say, āOh no, that shot looks bad. Donāt put it in.ā
In this film, there are a lot of interviews, so in the interviews I framed those like what we call environmental portraits in photography, where the whole composition and whatās around the person tells as much story about that person, and in this case also about the narrative arc, as what the person is saying. Itās really clear in this film -- and there are five interview with Jackie, five interviews with David and multiple interviews with most of the other characters -- thereās even a physical transformation that goes on. David, in the little less than three years that I shot, looks like he ages ten years. And Victoria, the daughter, has a similar kind of transformation.
So yes, it is important to me. I guess the way I express it is I work with good cinematographers who also have a feel for my look as a photographer. Tom Hurwitz and Shana Hagan both were very knowledgeable about my photography and steeped in it, and they tried to take a point of view that was consistent or similar to my photography -- very close, wide angle, very intimate. I think itās the first film that Iāve done that actually translates the sociological and aesthetic voice of my photography into the film.
With THIN, I felt like the access and my relationship with the subjects was just like my photography. But the look of it was not. And maybe that wouldnāt have been appropriate for that film. Thereās a monotony to the imagery in THIN that was appropriate to the claustrophobic nature of that film, but thatās not how my photography is. My photography is colorful and different and brings together a lot of contrasts and has a lot of irony and social commentary in it.
Thatās one of the things that attracted me to the film, was the space, the characters, their larger-than-life quality, their big, fun, exaggerated quality. And also the space in the house. I was fascinated by the decor, what it said about them, what it said about our values. I was fascinated by the photographic representations of themselves, the way they commissioned portraiture, their choice in art. There was a lot of aesthetic components to the space and to their lives that really drew me to the subject. And in the end, I was able to make portraits of both of the houses and have them kind of become characters.
The Queen of Versailles is now playing in New York and Los Angeles and will expand to a wider release in select cities this Friday. Check the film's play dates listing for info on further openings through October.