Free distribution. Nina Paley has been pleased with the results of doing free distribution for her film Sita Sings the Blues, she has managed to generate revenue from the sale of DVDs, T-shirts, and donations. She writes on her web site, “My personal experience confirms audiences are generous and want to support artists. Surely there’s a way for this to happen without centrally controlling every transaction.” Why not? In the old days many filmmakers supplemented their income with grants from Arts organizations, why not go directly to your audience for support? Paley said that “Copyleft was the best decision, the audience is distributing [my film].” Thomas Woodrow (Producer, Bass Ackwards) suggests that even if you do free distribution, you should not offer it free forever, think of it more like a traditional release window, rather than perpetually giving something away. In the end, it’s not simply a choice of one technique over another, it’s about coming up with a portfolio of techniques that makes sense for your project.

DVD and what works. Steve Savage (CEO, New Video) suggested that “DVD is not yet dead” and remains as a robust revenue streams for filmmakers. And while digital revenues might be about 10% on the average of independent filmmaker revenues (compared to 90% for DVDs), this will most likely flip just as it’s going to do in music. 2010 is the year that digital downloads will overtake CD sales in the music business, so it’s only a matter of years before the same thing will happen with films. It’s easy to predict what could happen, it’s hard to predict when, and exactly how things will happen. Richard Lorber (CEO, Kino Lorber) said “we’ve entered the postmodern era of film distribution [in which] everything is possible and nothing is working.” Ira Deutchman quoted an article (don’t recall the titled or reference) that with unusual candor summed things up, “the film business has always been hobby” challenging the “content is king” mantra. Robert Bahar (Producer, Made in LA) said of indie distribution, “This is not easy, this is like being in a rock band…”

New models are emerging. Arin Crumley talked about his new project, OpenIndie, a “”Niche social network” with the goal of connecting independent filmmakers directly with their audiences, filmmakers make their films available, Open Indie helps potential viewers request screenings and entrepreneurs to host screenings, linking potential audiences with films, much in the same way he did with Four Eyed Monsters. Related discussion included the use of Gowalla and Foursquare to help drive audience to screening locations. While digital distribution was the Tsunami in the room, there ramains strong desire among independent filmmaker, and a culultral need, to screen films for an audience.

Using social media. There was a great deal of discussion the use of social media platforms (especially Twitter and Facebook) for promoting your film, but given the panel structure of the conference, there was not a lot of time for tactical nuts and bolts, the level of the discussion remained, for the most part, strategic, but the strategic insights were valuable nuggets:

• Focus on aggregating passionate followers and don’t worry about those who hate your film.
• Online communities moderate themselves and take on a life of their own.
• Participate online speaking in your own human voice (the advice of Seth Godin and The Cluetrain Manifesto comes to mind), authenticity is currency. And modulate the frequency of your interactions with the characteristics of the community you build, we don’t want to replace the old push advertising model with the same beast in new clothing.
• Nina Paley suggested that attention is scarce, while information is plentiful.
• If you make a film for a niche audience, it’s quality, not quanitity that counts. Angel Aviles-Clinton mentioned the film, At Home By Myself With You as an example of successfully raising $46,000 using Facebook and Twitter with a modest number of followers.
• Thomas Woodrow suggests that for content creators to stand out they need to create stories around their stories.
• And many others (search on the #convonyc hashtag for more insights).

New forms? Davin Hutchins of ITVS IndiesLab and I combined our lunchtime discussions, “MicroDocs: What They Are and Why You Might Want to Make One” and “20 is the New 90: The Future of Not-So-Long Form Content on the Web,” respectively, which led to a lively conversation. I’ll write about the discussion in a future blog post, after some synthesis and post-conference discussion with the participants. Stay tuned…

It’s an exciting time to be a storyteller. Lance Weiler’s words during the closing session wrapped things up, suggesting these are “exciting times to be a storyteller” and in spite of the internet being a disruptive force, “a creative class is going to emerge.” He added that “we’re all trying to figure out how to fund, create, distribute, and exchange.” I hope Lance’s optimism wins out over the concerns over free culture and Web 2.0 voiced by Jaron Lanier in his new book, You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, a very thoughtful critique that can’t be dismissed lightly, written from an informed perspective.

It’s up to us to create the new landscape. One thing is for sure reading between the lines at this conference: nothing is predetermined at this point and collaboration among independent filmmakers is crucial if we’re going to develop an alternative way to build and connect with audiences and develop a healthy distribution ecosystem, the mainstream mechanisms are breaking apart and we have an opportunity to fill the cracks with a vibrant alternative way to fund our films, find an audience, make our films, find collaborators, deliver media, and engage in a two-way conversation, but we have to do it, we being independent filmmakers. The media technology is in our hands. What will we build with it? How will we build it? In the process of distributing our films, we also have to reinvent the ecosystem in which we distribute our films. A good place to start thinking about this is with the resources gathered in The Workbook Project, started by Lance Weiler.

Shout-out. Kudos to the organizers for assembling a wonderful group of people to discuss, in a productive and meaningful way, the tectonic shifts in communications technology and social media that are rapidly redefining the independent film marketing and distribution landscape. The conference was organized by Scott Kirsner (CinemaTech; author of Fans, Friends And Followers: Building An Audience And A Creative Career In The Digital Age), Tiffany Shlain (Filmmaker; Founder, The Webby Awards), and Lance Weiler (Filmmaker; Editor of The Workbook Project) and hosted by Ira Deutchman (Managing Partner, Emerging Pictures; Professor of Professional Practice, Graduate Film Division, Columbia University School of the Arts).

After doing some shopping around, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Sennheiser Evolution Series provides a nice middle ground between the less expensive systems (e.g. Azden) popular among wedding videographers and the more expensive wireless systems used by location sound professionals (e.g. Lectrosonics). I’ve used the Lectrosonics on a number of professional shoots and the performance of their “Digital Hybrid” system is spectacular, but it’s a little more than I have budget for, so the Sennheiser Evolution G3 it will be it.

There are two configurations of the Sennheiser Evolution G3 100 Series to consider for documentary work:

Camera Mount Wireless Microphone System, kit number EW 112P G3-{A/B/G}, estimated price: $600 (US), this kit includes:

• SK100 G3 Bodypack Transmitter
• ME2 Lavalier Mic
• EK100 G3 Portable Receiver
• Cold-shoe adapter for Receiver
• Interconnection cables (1/8″ and XLR) for connecting Receiver to camera
• Excellent, clearly written owners manual

Wireless Microphone ENG Combo, kit number EW 100 ENG G3-{A/B/G}, estimated price: $800 (US), this kit includes all of the items in the Camera Mount Wireless Microphone System, plus:

• SKP100 G3 Plug-In Transmitter

Compared to less expensive VHF wireless systems, a UHF system provides longer range and you’ll experience fewer drop-outs and interference during use. I’ve had really good luck using the Sennheiser Evolution wireless system over the past year, and have been very pleased with its performance both in terms of sound quality and overall robustness and have not run into too many interference issues. Being able to tune the devices to one of 1,680 tunable frequencies makes it easy to find quiet spots in a electromagnetically noisy area like the Boston metropolitan area in which I live.

The EK100 receiver is designed to be attached to a camera via a cold-shoe adapter, it has a 1/8″ unbalanced TRS mini out which can be connection to camcorders with either a 1/8″ or XLR input (Sennheiser provides both 1/8″ or XLR interconnect cables in their kits). The receiver has 4 preset memory locations that can be reassigned to any of the 1,680 available frequencies, within the 42 MHz tuning range. This is handy because you can determine the frequencies least likely to have interference in your area and program these into the four presents, making it easier to pull these out and get them working quickly in documentary situations. The G3 features a new “adaptive diversity” design, it’s not “true diversity” but it does offer slightly better performance compared to the previous G2 series. There are also adjustments for audio level output and a squelch adjustment. It’s critical to set the audio level output to match your camera, otherwise you’ll get some over-modulation, which is sometimes hard to detect in the field unless you’re listening really carefully with good headphones (which you should always be doing, right?).

The system is available in two transmitter configurations: the SK100 body pack transmitter and the SKP100 plug-on transmitter, which attaches to any self-powered metal body microphone with an XLR connector (e.g. Electro-Voice RE50 reporters microphone) to be used wirelessly. The SK100 G3 body-pack transmitter has a 1/8″ locking-mini input for compatible lavalier microphones and it comes with an ME2 omnidirectional lavalier microphone. The transmitters support adjustments for audio input gain, and it’s important to adjust this properly. You want to avoid peaks (there’s an LED peak indicator in addition to an audio level on the LCD) but also not set the levels too low so you’re lost in the noise floor. In terms of functionality, the plug-in transmitter is very similar to the body-pack transmitter.

The EK100 receiver, SK100 G3 body-pack transmitter, and SKP100 G3 plug-in transmitter are each powered by two AA batteries and each sports an LCD display which makes it easy to configure and make adjustments via a logically organized menu system. When not in menu mode the LCD shows you channels and frequency information, battery status, audio level, and signal status. All three devices have metal bodies, which allegedly makes them more robust that cheaper plastic units, but I’ve never dropped any of these devices in order to find out how rugged they really are. I’m not tempted to try.

In the United States, the Evolution G3 is a UHF wireless microphone system available in three frequency ranges, A: 516 – 558MHz, B: 626 – 668MHz, or G: 566 – 608MHz, providing 1680 tunable frequencies and 12 frequency presets. Which range to get? The idea is to find a range that has the largest number of “dead spots” which all depends on your region. Sennheiser has a great calculator on their web site in which you can see all the licensed transmitters in your area in order to determine where the open slots are in the spectrum. You can use this to decide whether A, B, or G frequency ranges are best for you. It’s also handy for setting up presets that are likely to be free and clear, so there’s less fussing around in the field. The B frequency group seems to be the best option for the Boston area based on conversations with some sound people I know.

In some situations I like using the plug-in transmitter with my Electro-Voice RE-50 reporters microphone, I like having the mobility without the wire, therefore the EW 100 ENG G3-B kit is my preference. If you never see yourself using the plug-on transmitter with a hand-held or boom microphone (by the way, it has to be a metal body mic and self powered, since the SKP100 G3 Plug-In Transmitter does not provide phantom power), you can save money and get the EW 122P G3-B kit instead of the EW 100 ENG G3-B kit. Basically you’re paying an additional $200. (US) for the plug-on transmitter.

A future option to consider is upgrading the Sennheiser ME2 to a TRAM-50 (my favorite lavalier, available cabled for the EW transmitters for about $220 (US)). You many also consider adding a Sennheiser ME4 cardioid mic to your kit for use in high-noise environments (but I would not go with this as your only mic due to more critical placement issues).

You will also want to add a Rycote Lavaliere Windjammer (or equivalent) if you’re going to be working outdoors, these are available in white, grey, or black for about $25. (US) each. A windjammer is essential when using a lavalier mic outdoors when there is wind. Here’s an important pointer: use the windjammer over a foam windscreen on the lavalier, since the windjammer needs air space around the mic itself to work properly. I keep several of them in my sound kit at all times.

There is really only one down-side I’ve experienced using the Sennheiser Evolution G2 wireless microphone system (and this goes for the new G3 as well): since the receiver is designed to mount on a camera, it’s really awkward to use in a situation where you have a couple of receivers and a mixer in a shoulder-mounted pouch. The LCD display is simply in the wrong place. I really wish Sennheiser would have placed the LCD display on the top of the device (like the Lectrosonics receivers), but for mounting on a camera, I can see why the designers placed the LCD on top, and given that Sennheiser has brought these units into the marketplace at such an attractive price-point, this is but a minor inconvenience.

In the Boston area you can purchase these kits from Talamas Broadcast Systems, Rule Broadcast Systems, or The Camera Company. Online you can purchase them from B&H Photo-Video.

This post was inspired by Monika Fimpel, thanks for asking the question, and thanks to Bill Shamlian for his insights on wireless systems and frequency selections.

Note: This post was revised on February 22, 2010 to reflect that Rule Broadcast Systems is also a Sennheiser dealer. I also fixed an error in which I specified the EW 122P G3 kit (which includes ME4 microphone (cardioid) mic) instead of the EW 112P G3 kit that I intended to list that comes with the more versatile ME2 (omnidirectional) microphone. While the ME4 is better in high-noise environments, its added directionality and proximity effect make it less versatile for general use. If you’re only going to have one microphone for your wireless system, the ME2 is a more versatile choice, and if you find you need the more directional ME4 in some situations, it (or another cardioid lav) can be purchased separately.

Update:I actually went ahead and purchased two kits, one w/ an additional plug-on transmitter. I’ve been using these since April of 2010 and I’m very pleased with the kit (April 19, 2010).

I’m often asked by students, “what’s a good light kit for starting out” and I find it a very hard question to answer, because it really depends on what you want to do. There really is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all one case light kit. I find that most of the commercially available light kits I’ve seen offer too many watts and not enough versatility. After years of creating a variety of make-shift kits from my lighting collection for particular shoots, I’ve settled on one configuration when I’m “traveling light,” and I think the best approach is to put together a custom kit that meets your personal lighting needs.

Drawing from my collection of lighting instruments, I put together a subset for doing interviews on my current documentary project, which has involved air travel to do interviews, so I’ve thought about a bare essentials kit that will fit into a single, manageable case on wheels that’s not too big, but offers enough versatility for doing nicely (albeit simply) lit interviews. This kit is an attempt to balance capability, cost, weight, and size with the requirement that the case could also fit in the hatchback of my car along with tripod, sound kit, and camera gear so I can park the car without any visible evidence of gear in the hatch.All together the kit draws 1,300 Watts, which in most cases works fine on a single household circuit without tripping a breaker (unless there’s already other high-current devices in use). Here are the components in the kit:

• Kata OC-88 GDC Lighting Case with Insertrolley
• Lowel LC-55 Rifa-EX soft light (lightweight and compact, most often used as a key light, sometimes used as fill with 1/2 CTB or CTB when using window light as key)
• Lowel 40 degree Egg Crate for Rifa (reduces spill)
• Lowel Rifa Balance Bar (helps to center the weight of the Rifa light on the stand, increasing stability)



• Arri 300W Fresnel with barn doors and scrim set (Fresnels offer crisp, easy to control light with the quality of sunlight, used as a back light or kicker)
• One or two Lowel Tota-Light(s) with umbrella (often used as a background light, for overall fill, or as a fill light if needed)
• Flexfill 38″ Silver/White reflector (often used as a fill light bounce attached to a microphone stand)
• Three or four Avenger A625B Light Stands, these extend to 7.8′ but are a compact 26″ when closed (depending on the number of Totas in tow)
• Hypoallergenic transparent powder base and make-up pads (for reducing shine on the subject’s face)
• Spare lamps in plastic foam-lined case for all units
• Two or three extension cords and cube taps
• Electric circuit tester
• Gloves
• Small tool kit including a Leatherman
• Flashlight
• Expendables (gaffer tape, C-47s, black wrap, trick line, and assorted gels and diffusion including half CTB and CTB sized with holes to fit the Rifa light).

This kit has worked out well over the course of over a dozen interviews since I put it together. It originally started out in a larger Pelican rolling case with additional instruments, but that quickly got the nickname “the beast” and I eventually trimmed down to the configuration above.
The Rifa LC-55 (500W) produces just enough light for most situations, and it’s the right choice for a lightweight and compact kit, however, if I could spare the space and weight, I’d rather be using a Kino Flo Diva-Lite. I’m considering adding to the kit (I still have a little room left in the case) one or two LED lights. These offer the advantage of small size and practical battery operation. I’m considering the Zylight Z90 (total creative control in terms of color and wireless control, however, a tad pricy) and the Lowel Blender (more affordable than the Z90, however, not as versatile as the Zylight). Back in July, I posted a comparison of four LED lights summarizing the results of my research.

Special thanks to Joseph Ingoldsby for asking the question that resulted in this post.

Update, July 15, 2010: The Avenger A625B Light Stands are no longer available, a reasonable replacement with a new stacking feature would be the Manfrotto 1051BAC Light Stand, Black – 6.75′ extended and 26″ when closed, not quite as tall as the older stands but for a portable kit, the stacking feature means they will nest more snugly in the case. — David.

Update, December 29, 2011: If I had to do it all over again, I’d get the Lowel V-Lights instead of the Totas, but I purchased the Totas long before the V-Light existed. I’m also thinking of adding one or two 150 W Arri Fresnels to the kit as accent lights along with replacing the cords on all the Arri’s with smaller cords that will fit better in the case. Some LED lighting is also on the horizon as costs come down. — David.

• The Gleaners and I (Agnès Varda, 2000, French title: Les glaneurs et la glaneuse)
• Dogtown and Z-Boys (Stacy Peralta, 2001)
• In the Mirror of Maya Deren (Martina Kudlácek, 2002)
• A Kalahari Family (John Marshall, 2002)
• Spellbound (Jeffrey Blitz, 2002)
• The Kid Stays in the Picture (Nanette Burstein and Brett Morgen, 2002)
• Winged Migration (Jacques Perrin, 2002, French title: Le peuple migrateur)
• The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (Errol Morris, 2003)
• My Architect (Nathaniel Kahn and Susan R. Behr, 2003)
• Tarnation (Jonathan Caouette, 2003)
• The Corporation (Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, 2003)
• The Weather Underground (Sam Green and Bill Siegel, 2003)
• Super Size Me (Morgan Spurlock, 2004)
• Darwin’s Nightmare (Hubert Sauper, 2004)
• March of the Penguins (Luc Jacquet, 2005, French title: La marche de l’empereur)
• Grizzly Man (Wener Herzog, 2005)
• Al otro lado (Natalia Almada, 2005)
• The Cats of Mirikitani (Linda Hattendorf, 2006)
• Mirror Dance (Frances McElroy and Maria T. Rodriguez, 2005)
• Favela Rising (Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary, 2005)
• Havana — The New Art of Making Ruins (Florian Borchmeyer and Matthias Hentschler, 2006, German title: Havana – Die Neue Kunst Ruinen Zu Bauen)
• An Inconvenient Truth (Davis Guggenheim, 2006)
• Flying: Confessions of a Free Woman (Jennifer Fox, 2006)
• When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (Spike Lee, 2006)
• Shadow of the House (Allie Humenuk, 2007)
• Helvetica (Gary Hustwit, 2007)
• Iraq in Fragments (James Longley, 2007)
• Made in L.A. (Almudena Carracedo, 2007)
• Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman, 2008)
• Man on Wire (James Marsh, 2008)
• The Garden (Scott Hamilton Kennedy, 2008)
• Intimidad (David Redmon and Ashley Sabin, 2008)
• King Corn (Aaron Woolf, Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney, 2009)
• Herskovits at the Heart of Blackness (Llewellyn Smith, 2009)
• Shooting Beauty (Courtney Bent and George Kachadorian, 2009)

It was tough reducing the list down to thirty five, there are some really good films that fell off the list simply because I made an arbitrary decision to limit myself to thirty five. And so it goes.

Minor revision 12/27/2010 to correct typo.

1. Get your own web site with integrated blogging functionality if you don’t already have one. If your current site does not have a blog, add one. The easy way to get started is to get a blog on WordPress.com (it’s free) and you can get your own domain name for the site so your web site will be yoursitename.com rather than yoursitename.wordpress.com. The book WordPress for Dummies provides a good guide if you want to get hands on with the experience of creating your own site, or find a recent design school graduate who knows WordPress to build the site for you on a unix hosting provider like pair networks. And by all means have a trailer and sample clips of your documentary available on your web site. blip.tv or Vimeo are good places to host high-quality video, while YouTube provides the largest potential audience.

2. Start Twittering, you will find that The Twitter Book by Tim O’Reilly and Sarah Milstein is a good introduction if you need one.

3. If you’re not already on D-Word, you should join the community now. Get involved in discussion with your peers. Another good community is doculink. For technically minded folks, you’ll find DVinfo.net quite useful.

4. Get involved with a regional media arts organization. For example, Boston has the
Center for Independent Documentary and Filmmakers Collaborative, which provide networking opportunities and wonderful events, for example, on Saturday, November 7, 2009, Filmmakers Collaborative will be presenting Social Media Boot Camp for Film Professionals at MassArt, an excellent way to jump start your involvement in social media.

5. Read Fans, Friends & Followers: Building an Audience and a Creative Career in the Digital Age by Scott Kirsner, a timely book that’s chock full of case studies.

6. Read Trust Agents by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith, it’s not exactly about self-distribution but provides some valuable insights into how to best go about developing your online persona. On a related topic, there is also Chris Brogan’s Personal Branding for the Business Professional (PDF download), a free e-book on building your personal brand.

7. Some documentary filmmakers have found Facebook a very effective place to communicate with their fans.

There are many more things you can do, but this quick list constitutes a good start in adding a social media component to your self-distribution efforts. A related post on this blog, Distribution in the Digital Age might also be of interest. The DIYDays conferences and the Workbook Project are excellent resources for more information.

Photo credit: “Twitter” by respres (Flickr)

1. Tell an engaging story. It all begins with story. And whether your goal is to entertain or persuade, you need first and foremost to tell a story. Telling a good story is why (regardless of what you think of them) a film like Super Size Me (Morgan Spurlock, 2004) did spectacularly at the box office while Earthlings (Shaun Monson, 2003), in spite of its important, earnest message, struggled to find an wide, general, audience. The difference boils down not to right and wrong, or the facts, or even the message (both films are highly critical of Meat, Inc.), but storytelling. If you think documentaries don’t have to entertain, you’re sadly mistaken. Message is important, but without story, nobody will want to see it. Films, are, after all, entertainment, but it can be entertainment that inspires or persuades, if you tell a good story.

2. Do your homework. Research is critical for good documentary. Know your issue backwards and forwards, and try to understand to the best of your ability opposing positions if you’re doing an issue oriented film. Especially when you’re doing interviews, people will relate to you better if you converse with them from a position of understanding, they get it they have to explain things to the audience, but they should not be exasperated with having to explain the most basic things to you. The more of the territory you know, the better you can discover the special gems of knowledge along the way.

2. Give good pitch. When your fundraising, or seeking assistance, or promoting your film, be prepared to hook listeners with a short description of your film. Save the long proposal for funders that ask for it. If you can’t explain enough of what your film is about in thirty to sixty seconds to engage the listener’s interest, you’re never going to get an audience to take an hour or more of their lives to watch your film. Think ahead, know what you are going to say, rather than speak extemporaneously about your project.

3. Develop negotiation skills. In the course of making a film there is a long of negotiation along the way. Don’t believe what you see on television shows and in the movies. Good negotiation requires six components (five of which I’ve borrowed from Guy Kawasaki): (1) Prepare for the negotiation by knowing the facts of the situation; (2) always be forthright and honest in your dealings; (3) Figure out what you really want; (4) Figure out what you don’t care about; (5) Figure out what the other person or organization really wants; and (6) Create a win-win outcome to ensure that everyone is happy. This is the simple path to good negotiation. I and many of my students have gotten permission to shoot in places and situations other people have been told they can’t shoot and I would say negotiation skills played a part. It’s simple, but it requires doing your homework.

4. Run short, effective meetings (whether you’re in preproduction, production, post-production or in the distribution phase). The purpose of any meeting, wether it’s with a funder, crew, collaborators, distributor, etc. is to communicate outcomes and/or to make decisions. Meetings are not about sharing experiences, save that for a gathering at the bar or cafe. Always start on time, have the fewest number of people involved that’s possible (anything more than seven makes it impossible to have an efficient meeting). Set an agenda and stick with it. Maintain a parking lot for important issues that need to be addressed but are out of scope for a given meeting. Always document action items and follow up to make sure they are complete. Look into scrum techniques which are good for running short, efficient meetings to keep your production moving along with the least amount of overhead. Use an online collaboration tool like Google Docs to document agendas, action items, outcomes, and parking lot issues.

5. Be a good conversationalist. As a documentary filmmaker you are always interviewing in one form or another. A key component of good interviewing is active listening, which is critical to a two-way conversation. If you listen more than you talk, you will be a better conversationalist and you will also learn more. This applies to all situations. Active listening means you are really listening to what the person is saying, rather than thinking about what you are going to say next. Your participation in the conversation should be part of a communication process, and you learn more when you’re listening. Ask questions that will elicit responses. It’s a key component of observation, listening to what people say and how they say it. Practice getting people to talk with you and share their stories. You’ll have your moment when hundreds (maybe even thousands or millions) of people will listen to you when you screen your film.

6. Get along with almost anyone. Success in some industries is determined by individual knowledge and skill, however, filmmaking (even in today’s world where it’s easy to do many tasks yourself) is a collaborative art form. You may often find yourself talking with subjects you don’t agree with, but you have to get along with them in order to observe and learn. Your ability to work with others, through others, and sometimes even in spite of others, is among the most important skills of a documentary filmmaker. Share credit with others, and don’t give yourself too many credits, allow other people to share in the glow of your film. A rising tide floats all boats, as many people say. If you ever get stuck working with people who are a pain in the ass, tolerate them, move away from then as gracefully as you can, it’s a small world and it’s best to maintain good, professional relationships with everyone.

7. Be clear and concise in all communications, whether it’s e-mail, voicemail, or slides. But being concise does not mean to over-simplify, Ed Tufte’s classic essay, “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within” is required reading for anyone who uses PowerPoint (or the nicer and more elegant Keynote). When it comes to voicemail, don’t make people work to get your number message, slowly say your telephone number once at the beginning of the message and a second time again at the end of the message.Don’t leave voicemail like, “Call me back, and I’ll tell you what time the preview screening is,” Just say, “Preview screening is on Tuesday, 7:00 p.m., at the Brattle.” Document important information using an online collaboration tool like Google Docs. This can help you keep emails short, while important details are kept in one place that’s easy to get to, and people can read and collaborate at their leisure.

So there you have it, seven of the most important habits of successful documentary filmmakers as I see it. Are there others that are absolutely essential? Please comment.

Flying investigates these conversations, in a manner that is, in Fox’s words, “intensely interested in the two-way conversation women have and the horizontal nature of it. I had decide that I couldn’t ask other women to be intimate if I was willing to share and put myself on the line equally.” And thus she began to experiment with “passing the camera” back and forth with her friends, “almost like a traditional talk stick, except the person talking didn’t have the camera, the person being the witness held the camera [...] we just ‘passed the camera’ back and forth in conversation.”

Fox found that the technique created some powerful effects in the people involved in the process, “it seemed to immediately make people relax because they were not put on the spot alone, but also the technique is so simple and the camera so small [that the] camera actually becomes part of the conversation.” Flying is highly personal, however, it did not start out that way. Through the process of making the film, Fox realized she has to put more of herself into the film, “as filmmakers, we cut interesting stories that occur between the filmmaker and the subjects out, or we don’t film those moments.” But she could not do that in this film, knowing that, “in order to make a film about women’s intimate lives, I couldn’t pretend that I was not in the picture, I couldn’t pretend that I knew nothing about the subject, how could I ask women to tell me about their intimate life if I wasn’t willing to put my own private life on the line?”

Fox began shooting Flying in 2002 and ended up with 1,600 hours of video, which took an additional year and a half to edit. The result is a personal journey to discover what it means to be a woman today. It’s nice to watch a documentary that is as long as it needs to be, rather than shoehorned into a standard broadcast slot of 60, 90, or 120 minutes. Flying provides a depth of experience that is very rare in documentary cinema. I watched the film when it first came out and recently recommended it to my documentary students (since I only had time to show a short clip in class). The response of those who watched it was resoundingly positive. I hope more documentary filmmakers will consider breaking the boundaries of traditional broadcast time slots and make documentaries as long as they need to be. Flying proves that there’s a place for long form documentary in our increasingly diverse media ecology.

Note: The quotes in this post are from an interview with Jennifer Fox by Alice Apley and I conducted at MassArt in Boston on April 18, 2008 when Fox was in town for a screening of Flying at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Image Credits: 1. Photo by David Tames, 2. Photo courtesy of Zohe Film Productions.

Cecy and Camilo Ramirez

David Redmon and Ashley Sabin made the film over the course of 5 years and tells the story using a mix of cinéma-vérité digital video, Super 8 and 16mm film, and home movie footage shot by Cecy and Camilo. After watching the film, in addition to being moved by the story itself, I also found myself reflecting how this film could not have been made in the era of 16mm documentary from the 1960s through the 1980s, it would have simply been impossible in terms of shooting logistics and cost. The availability of small inexpensive digital video cameras made it possible for the filmmakers to give cameras to their subjects to expand the points of view of the film. Intimidad is currently playing in film festivals around the country and recently won the Best Documentary award at the Sidewalk Film Festival in Birmingham, Alabama. What follows is a transcript of my conversation with the filmmakers with some light editing for readability.

David Tamés: We’re here at the Independent Film Festival of Boston where I just attended a screening of David Redmon and Ashley Sabin’s Intimidad which was followed by a lively question and answer session. David and Ashley, thanks for talking with me again.

David Redmon: This is really exciting, we were here last time talking with you about Mardi Gras: Made in China, right?

Tamés: Yes, that was it. So I wanted to ask you both a few questions, about the film, and top of my mind, is your relationship with the subject, this is not your typical cinéma-vérité film where a filmmaker observes a subject and it’s not your typical home movie where people are making films about themselves, it seems to be a fascinating hybrid of home movie and cinéma-vérité, could you say a little bit about that?

Ashley Sabin: It’s kind of interesting, because especially, I mean, each film the production is different and the relationships that you develop are different because it’s based on personalities and how people feel open to the camera and what the camera does to their everyday life. With Cecy and Camilo, it was this sort of immediate connection that I feel that we all felt, and they got really comfortable in front of the camera very early on, to the point where they didn’t even notice that the camera would be on or off and we would were learning Spanish with them, so there were funny, awkward moments of trying to pronounce something incorrectly that was an ice breaker and we stayed in Rinosa we would spend time with them and time is very different for Cecy and Camilo, it’s much slower, the sort of time that ticks by and what they do during the course of the day, people can view very simple things, washing their own clothing, or cooking, but it’s in those small moments that to me were you could see the film as a home video, but then you look at the cinéma-vérité side and it’s really telling, these patterns that would develop over days and days, and you look at our footage and we would like have days of Cecy washing her clothing on the ribbed tub and that was part of their lifestyle so it was really important to convey that and to convey that warmth, and the feeling that we had when we were around them, but also at the same time which is the home video side, but at the same time having a cinéma-vérité where we would have these scenes and it’s building towards something, but we’re observing with this camera sort of in a hands-off way, so it’s this tricky tango that goes on with those two elements of the film.

Tamés: How did you meet Cecy and Camilo in the first place?

Redmon: I grew up in north Texas, and then went to school in Texas, and several times I went to Reinosa and meet with people who work in the factories with different organizations and I met a woman who made Victoria’s Secret bags, the pink bags, and she made them inside her house, with her children, and I did an interview with her much like you’re doing now, and I wrote an article about it and promised her I’d come back some day and she said, “wonderful,” and for years later we went back, and when we went back she wasn’t there, so Ashley and I ended up renting a house just down the street from Cecy and Camilo. When I say street, it’s a dirt roads and if it rains it’s very muddy, and that’s how we met Cecy and Camilo, they were thousands of pallets out of which people would build their homes, their outhouses, and their fences, so we knocked on Cecy and Camilo’s door one day, and Cecy came and said, “hi” and we started talking with her about the pallets and I think we were filming ten minutes later in a very conversational way and she was incredibly comfortable, she said she’s never been to a movie theater, there was much more to the conversation, but that’s basically how we met them.

Tamés: So what kept you filming, what got you engaged with their particular story and with their daughter Loida, what kept you going back and shooting over the course of five years?

Redmon: We became intrigued with the idea that they were making fire hydrants and Victortia’s Secret bras, [it started out as a] thesis film [...] but once we found out they had a daughter in southern Mexico, then we thought we were going to make a short film where we simply go to southern Mexico and reunite with the daughter, and be a happy ending, and the film would be over, but in fact, that’s where the film really begins, and the other idea was the thesis film, which is not the film at all.

Sabin: It’s interesting with documentary films today there’s a pretty rigid form of telling the story in which there’s a thesis, in a way, I find it uncomfortable, because directors use their subjects to tell the story the director wants to tell, as opposed to seeing what’s inherent in the actual story and in the footage, and with Intimidad we decided, we wanted to make a thesis film we went in and [thought that] Victortia’s Secret is really interesting contrasting the sexy images of the models and the advertising campaign vs. the intimacy that the family is experiencing, so it’s like these two kinds of intimacy, and so we wanted to tell that story and actually at one point had Victortia’s Secret models and all sorts of montages in the film, but it didn’t work so we slowly had to take it out of the film and realized this is a slower film, this is a film about family, and hope, and the desire to want to be together, and struggle together, and it’s not really about what we want it to be about, it’s about about what Cecy and Camilo’s lives are, so, it was kind of interesting to go through that process and realize, you know, we’re wrong and we have to figure out, like, we have to stick to their story because that’s what the story that really rings true in the end.

Tamés: That’s one way this film really differs from Mardi Gras: Made in China, that you had the opportunity to spend five years with your subjects and get very close to them.

Redmon: Intimidad is different than Mardi Gras: Made in China in that Mardi Gras: Made in China follows a commodity chain [...] that brings us into contact with different people, whereas Intimidad we spend five years with one family to find out where they go geographically and where they end up, so it’s there are similarities but Intimidad could have been a story about the commodity chain of a bra, the manufacturing in a Mexican plant, the selling in a United States Victortia’s Secret shop, and then a woman buys the bra, she throws the bra away a year later, and that bra gets recycled and goes down to Mexico, where people sell it as second hand clothing, and then Cecy comes and buys that bra, when in fact she probably made that same bra, she’s buying second hand bras, and there is a story there to be told, but, that’s the story we had to set aside because we really listened to the footage and listened to what their story was about and set aside that thesis film.

Loida Ramirez

Tamés: So as a filmmaker, what was it like giving Cecy and Camilo cameras and having them shoot part of the film, and what was most surprising about that experience?

Sabin: I think what was most surprising about giving Cecy and Camilo a camera and leaving it with them is how they were watching how we were composing shots and how we were holding the camera steady and learning in that hands-on way to the point where you can clearly see the footage, we’d go down there and look at this footage and look at that footage it’s not only just a way of communicating and saying look at what’s happened in the past couple of months but when you haven’t been down here, but also, they were proud of how they were fiming it, it sort of nurtured a desire to film and document and tell a story in a way that it’s their own life story and what’s also interesting is we showed them footage all along, but then we showed them a rough cut of the film and it was about seventy minutes long, and because we asked for advice, and what they thought about it, first of all, [they said] “it’s way too short, it needs to be longer, it needs to be like four hours,” and “your missing this scene,” “there’s not enough Loida,” “you need to put that in that scene,” it was this interactive dialog that was really interesting, because they just don’t have the access to a camera, so if we hadn’t come upon them and in this haphazard kind of way, they would not have had the same form of communication, and to me that’s really interesting, and with Loida being two years old when we started filming, it’s really interesting watching her first of all grow up in the film, but then also how she’s responding to the camera now is very different than how she responded to it when she was younger, and I’m equally interested five years from now, how she’s going to respond because she’s also a child and her parents are giving us consent to film her, but is she going to reject us, is she going to say, why have you been filming me all these years, I really don’t understand this, and it actually makes me film uncomfortable, maybe when she gets to be a teenager, or something, so it’s a dialog: them having a camera, us having a camera, and being able to communicate through the cameras.

Tamés: So they’ve seen the completed film, what was that experience like, showing them a film in which they were both subjects in and co-authors of?

Redmon: We showed them the finished film [in February], and they loved the film, and it meant a lot to us for them to love the film, but at the same time, like Asley said during the Q & A after the screening, if they would have had conflict, and arguments, we definitely would have showed that, but the way in which they resolve their conflicts was through conversations, and there’s a little bit of that in the film as well, but Cecy said, as Ashley said, “why don’t you have Loida’s birthday in there,” “why don’t you have this in the film,” but in a very charming way, and so she is now is requesting that we give her all of the footage that we shot of Loida so they they can put together a home video about Loida, and this is something we have absolutely no hesitancy in doing, in fact there was one time when the electricity went out, and we were in the middle of editing a little short story about Cecy’s dad (you know what happened in the film) and the electricity went out, so we carried our little computer over with their hard drive and hooked it up to their neighbors wall and we’re sitting here on the ground in the middle of the yard editing on Final Cut and they are doing it as well, they are learning to use Final Cut, and it was just this remarkable way of us telling the story but at the same time they are using Final Cut to tell a home video story, but what they cut never made it into the final version, but that’s not to say it won’t make it into the next film.

Tamés: So are you going to continue following them?

Redmon: Yes, we’re going to continue following them, I have some ideas on a hybrid, and I’ve already shot some footage of Camilo selling piñatas, human looking piñatas and animals, gigantic piñatas, but at the same time Ashely came up with the idea of filming Loida, but we don’t know how, she’s seven years old, how can a seven year old give consent? It’s easy when a mother and a father give us consent to film their two year old daughter, their three year old daughter, their four year old daughter, but what happens when she turns fourteen or fifteen? And we’re just outsiders coming in filming her life, for why? Observational purposes? What’s the real reason going on here of why are we filming her? In addition, Cecy and Camilo want to continue filming, but they want to film not only because they love her, we love her too, but also they just want to look back at these memories and see what Loida how she grew up, who she is, and I’m sure they want Loida to see this footage fifteen years from now as well, and we have common interests, but we also want to impose a story on it somehow, it’s jumbled right now because we don’t know what to do, the only reference we have is Seven Up, but I think we’re going to do it in a much different way than Seven Up, if we decide to do it.

Tamés: Clearly when you started making the film Cecy and Camilo had no idea what your financial arrangement with them might be, but now it’s probably pretty clear, what is your arrangement with them, and how do you think that might influence your relationship and subsequent films?

Redmon: It’s funny, at one time Camilo asked us, “hey, if you give me a camera can you pay me to be a cinematographer,” and that was interesting, they still are filming, so I think it’s only wise and fair that we pay them for the footage that they shoot.

Sabin: I don’t think it’s even us paying them for the footage, we’re filming together, so I think it’s very much them earning it as much as we have, because they are capturing moments that I don’t think we could even capture, they are really comfortable with each other, and there’s some footage of them in the shower that they shot of each other, and moments that are really sort of dark, where the top of the house is caving in on itself because of the wind and Camilo has to sort of jam it out, and if you looked at that it would be disturbing, why aren’t we trying to help them to prepare them for this oncoming storm, but they filmed it of each other so it has a different kind of context, but I think it’s really important to have the film be a tool to provide [for their] needs that they want because Loida has this high aspiration of becoming a doctor, and if Cecy and Camilo continue to do the same work they are doing, though it provides for everyday needs, [however, in the] long term [for what] Loida [wants it] will not provide that. If the film could do that, then it would make me think how films makes change in a different way.

Redmon: At the same time I don’t want them, or us, to think about the footage as just a commodity, “oh I’m going to go film this now and that’s a way for me to make money,” once we introduce the concept of money, then it introduces another variable, it becomes much more difficult, now we’re talking about commodification, of people, of footage, of lives, and are they filming now because it’s money? Are we filming now because we’re thinking of money? But of course we never ever make money from our films, we always pay ourselves back, but if we sell this film, we’re splitting the money with Cecy and Camilo, but we only told them after we sold the film. The issue [of money brings about all] kinds of problems, there’s no handbook on how to to address it, on how to do it, but it’s good that we’re conscious of it, but none of that has happened yet, they are filming because they love their daughter, and filming each other.

Sabin: It’s also this awkwardness when we go down there, people tonight donated $40.00 so that Loida could get a month’s worth of taking a bus to her school, it’s really this awkward feeling of OK, going down there and giving them that money, it’s this awkward moment, but I never feel that they expect it, they are much more excited to see that we’re down there and to talk, and cook food, and spend time with each other, it’s an afterthought, so I think that’s really important too.

Redmon: We’re selling their Jewelry for them, so I mean, they are making the Jewelry and we’re selling it and people want it, and it’s fair trade at it’s maximum effect,

Tamés: Your film is a beautiful and interesting hybrid of cinéma vérité observation and intimate home movie footage, how do you think documentaries are going to change over the next ten years, I think your film represents two dimension of change, first, an evolution of the relationship between filmmaker and subject, and second, a change in how you find your audience, from what I know from Mardis Gras: Made in China, you’ve done the film festival and college circuit promoting and distributing the film on your own rather than depending on a traditional distributor, so it seems to me with Intimidad that it points in two directions that documentary filmmaking is moving.

Redmon: I don’t think we did it out of a conscious choice to make our film different from other people’s films, but it’s just something that occurred by accident, knowing that we couldn’t financially live in Mexico the entire time, so we bought cameras for Cecy and Camilo, and it turned out the footage they shot was absolutely warm and intimate, even though it was shaky, who cares, and so I don’t know, it’s a really interesting question, I don’t know, I love the question more than the response.

David Redmon and Ashley Sabin
(view full-size on Flickr)

Sabin: As being an audience member that goes and watches documentary films, I’m getting tired with thesis driven films that seem far removed from their subjects and seem more like this sort of soap box that the director can get up and say that “this is my point, I’m going to make my point and then I’m going to make a conclusion,” I’m talking about films like Michael Moore’s films, or these political diatribes that go on, I like Michael Moore’s films, but to me it’s becoming too popular of a style, and it’s like speaking to the masses, it’s trying to get people to become converted but in reality it’s not even doing that, it’s just speaking to an audience that already is going to go see Michael Moore’s films, so they can walk away and be patted on the back and say “I believe the same thing,” and for me what’s more interesting is having these screenings that are about people, so that other people can connect to them, this may sound vague, but it’s about people that other people can connect to that doesn’t overtly have a traditional sense of politics, it has everyday sense of politics: water, electricity, these things you want everyday, it allows the audience to experience that and then in the end I feel that’s more moving and that’s going to stay with an audience member, cause I know it stays with me longer, when it’s a much more personal film, so you feel that you’re there, so that these these people in the film carry over into days, weeks, months later, where you’re thinking about that person.

Tamés: The title of your film is the Spanish word “intimidad,” which translates to english as intimacy, and in some ways it’s a love story, and the two of you met here in Boston, why don’t you tell me a little bit about that?

Redmon: Well even though the title of our film is translated to “intimacy”, there’s no way we captured every intimate moment between the family, nor would we want to, and therefore I’m going to say, the same thing about us, we’ll leave it up to mystery.

Sabin: I think that’s a good position, I think it’s much more interesting that way.

Redmon: Absolutely, we met in Boston, the idea of going to Mexico was created in Boston, our collaboration, love interest, professional interest, business interest, began in Boston, the first film festival we ever attended was this film festival, the Independent Film Festival of Boston, the first time we showed any of our films in this region was at this festival, everything just keeps returning to this festival and this region, the only exception was Kamp Katrina, but even Miss Pearl we met in Mardi Gras: Made in China, so it keeps coming to Boston, who knows what is going to happen next.

Sabin: We’re pretty big on those sort of connections and how all things are connected like putting one foot in front of the other and moving forward and that last step connects to the first step.

Redmon: It’s like the end of Intimidad, when you see Camilo walking, he’s going for a walk, and he’s putting one foot in front of the other, and that’s what they do and it continues throughout the film.

Tamés: Ashley and David, thanks for talking with me again, it’s a really beautiful film and thanks for sharing it with the audience and the world.

Redmon: Thanks for making time again, we hope our film will open up space for conversation.

###

The film is currently screening in festivals and is available for purchase online. Visit the Intimidad web page for purchase information and upcoming screening information which includes: University of Southern California, LA (October 28-29, 2008), Leeds International Film Festival, Leeds, UK (November 4-16, 2008), Museum of Modern Art, NY (November 14 & 19, 2008), East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee (November 18-19, 2008), International Latino Film Festival, San Francisco Bay Area (November 7-23, 2008), Cinema Latino, (Fort Worth, TX), (Aurora, CO), (Pasadena, TX), (Phoenix, AZ) Dates TBA, Skyland Arts Center, Hendersonville, NC (TBA) and Mobile, AL (TBA).

One of the films is a short to make up for the epic length of another one of the selections. Ask me tomorrow and my answer will be a different, ask me next year and it will be really different. So here’s the list in chronological order:

• Man with the Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
• Don’t Look Back (D.A. Pennebaker, 1967)
• Titicut Follies (Frederick Wiseman, 1967)
• Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe (Les Blank, 1979)
• Notebook on Cities and Clothes (Wim Wenders, 1989)
• Dialogues with Madwomen (Allie Light, 1993)
• When We Were Kings (Leon Gast, 1996)
• Buena Vista Social Club (Wim Wenders, 1999)
• A Kalahari Family (John Marshall, 2002)
• Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore, 2002)

There are so many amazing documentary films, choosing ten is impossible. Here are some notes on each of the films:
 

Man with a Movie Camera
Dziga Vertov, 1929, Russian title, Chelovek s kino-apparatom
 
This classic avant-garde documentary shows a camera person traveling through post-revolution Russia capturing images of everyday life. The protagonist of the film is the collective Russian people in an attempt to show the new socialist society. The film is loosely organized around the cycle of a day with music and editing moving the story along. The film makes explicit the kinds of cinematic manipulation and serves as an encyclopedia of all the techniques Dziga Vertov and his fellow filmmakers had access to at the time including time-lapse, superimposition, cross-fade, etc. The film was way ahead of its time and films like Koyaanisqatsi (Godfrey Reggio, 1982) are very evocative of The Man with a Movie Camera in terms of the techniques used. I was very much inspired by this film in graduate school and fascinated with the parallels between the way the film was assembled and the research I was doing around multiple point-of-view documentary, it was as if Vertov was telegraphing the future of documentary as well as reflecting the state of cinematic art of his time.

Titicut Follies
Frederick Wiseman, 1967
 
This film provides a scathing look at the poor treatment inmates were receiving from guards, doctors, social workers, and psychiatrists at a prison hospital for the criminally insane in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. John Marshall’s handheld camerawork provides a very intimate portrayal of the events. The film brings up issues of access, privacy, the right-to-know, the role of documentary film in society, you name it. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts sued Wiseman and the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the film constituted an invasion of inmate privacy and ordered its withdrawal from circulation. Was it really about Privacy? Or was it the nature of the exposé? The ban on Titicut Follies in Massachusetts was not lifted until 1992.

Don’t Look Back
D.A. Pennebaker, 1967
 
Pennebaker’s camera follows Bob Dylan on his 1965 tour in England. One of the best examples of Direct Cinema (a.k.a. American cinéma-vérité) offering a glimpse into the private life of Dylan at a time when he is gaining popularity and transforming his style. It’s amazing that the agreement between Dylan and Pennebaker to work together to make this film was sealed with a handshake and continues to this day. These days the legal fees required for such an agreement would dwarf the production budget of most cinéma-vérité films.

Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe
Les Blank, 1979
 
A short documentary film in which Blank meets Herzog at the San Francisco airport and then follows him to Chez Panisse where Alice Waters helps Herzog cook his shoe in duck fat. The next day Blank is at the U.C. Theater in Berkeley where Herzog eats a piece of shoe in front of an audience. Why did this happen? Years before Werner Herzog had been talking to a U.C. Berkeley student and encouraged him to be a filmmaker with a unique challenge: he said that if the student ever succeeded in making a film that was shown at the Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley, he would come back and eat his shoe. The student was Errol Morris who eventually made Gates of Heaven, a documentary about the moving of a pet cemetery. True to his word, Herzog came back to Berkeley and ate his own shoe. In 1982 Blank followed Herzog again, this time to the Amazon jungle to film the making of Fitzcarraldo, which became one of Blank’s most popular films, Burden of Dreams.

Notebook on Cities and Clothes
Wim Wenders, 1989
 
An unusual documentary in which Wenders is invited by the Georges Pompidou Centre to make a film in the context of fashion and the result is a mix of 16mm and video materials exploring the work of Yohji Yamamoto, a Japanese fashion designer. Wenders follows the designer from Tokyo to Paris as the designer prepares for his latest showing. Through dialog with the designer and solo musings, the film offers a mélange of reflections on the ephemeral nature of fashion and the essential differences between shooting on film vs. video. Today this film vs. video discussion may seem tired, but it was a serious ontological concern among filmmakers in the late 80s when the film was made.

Buena Vista Social Club
Wim Wenders, 1999
 
A poetic documentary of guitarist Ry Cooder gathering together twelve legendary musicians and resurrecting the music of pre-revolutionary Cuba for a series of recording sessions and performances. A variety of performances and observational footage are inter-cut with interviews of the musicians reminiscing in a backdrop of a decaying but colorful Havana. The lush and colorful images were captured using a mix of miniDV and Digital Betacam in the PAL format, helping to de-stigmatize the use of video for films destined for theatrical release.

Dialogues with Madwomen
Allie Light, 1993
 
This highly personal documentary explores the idea that a woman who speaks her mind and acts in her own interests must be insane is a myth that goes way back in our society. Light and Saraf present seven “madwomen,” including Light herself, describing their experiences with schizophrenia, manic depression, euphoria, and recovery. Interviews, reenactments, and home movie footage combine to tell each woman’s story and reveal the abuses they experienced under the care of their doctors. The film challenges us to consider that what we sometimes perceive as “madness” is actually a women’s self-expression. Allie Light said, “A lot of people think that madness, so-called, comes out of nowhere. But the film links it up with their environment.” In the same interview she later says, “Somebody once said to me, women are in mental hospitals, and men are in prison.” (quotes from an interview by Gary Morris in Bright Lights Screen Journal, Issue 14, September, 1995).

When We Were Kings
Leon Gast, 1996
 
This film offers perspectives on the complicated story of Muhammad Ali and the 1974 “Rumble in the Jungle” fight between Ali and George Foreman in Zaire that included a concert featuring musicians like B.B King and James Brown. Fight Promoter Don King contracted the two fighters offering each five million for the fight. Zaire’s President Mobutu Sese Seko put up the prize money, hoping that hosting the event would help him create a better image of his dictatorship. Gast provides a contemporary perspective on the fighters, the dictatorship in Zaire, history, politics, Black identity, and the fight through interviews with George Plimpton, Norman Mailer, and Spike Lee. A superbly crafted documentary film.

A Kalahari Family
John Marshall, 2002
 
A five-part, six-hour series documenting fifty years in the lives of the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen of southern Africa, from 1951 to 2000. This ambitious film of epic scope presents a story of how once independent hunter-gatherers experience dispossession, confinement to a homeland, and the chaos of war. Then as hope for Namibian independence and the end of apartheid grows, Ju/’hoansi fight to establish farming communities and reclaim their traditional lands. The series challenges stereotypes of “Primitive Bushmen” with images of development projects initiated by the Ju/’hoansi. Tsamkxao, a Ju/’hoansi, states in the film, “There are two kinds of films. Films that show us in skins are lies. Films that show the truth show us with cattle, with farms, with our own water, making our own plans.”A Kalahari Family documents the Ju/’hoansi’s struggle for self-determination and access to land and water as NGOs, foundations, and aid organizations conspire against them with other ideas that would blast them back into a “plastic stone age.” The film consists of footage that Marshall shot starting in the fifties on family expeditions to the end of the millennium, and it’s interesting to see how Marshall’s camera work, style, and voice evolved as time went by, the technology changed, and his relationship was transformed over time from friend of the Ju/’hoansi in the 50s to an activist helping them fight for land and water rights in the 80s. A rich, deep, and complex story about a group of people and their struggle for self-determination and basic human rights.

Bowling for Columbine
Michael Moore, 2002
 
An exploration of the relationship between guns and violence in the United States. Moore travels around the United States and Canada talking with a variety of people including NRA president Charlton Heston, James Nichols (brother of Oklahoma bombing accomplice Terry Nichols), and members of the Michigan Militia. The film draws the connection between America’s violent society and its role in the world. But more importantly, this film provides a focal point for discussion of documentary filmmaking ethics, as the film is full of deceptive editing that twists and stretches the truth, yet through his storytelling skills, Moore, like a good magician, hides the mechanisms behind the tricks, resulting in a compelling argument that appeals to the emotions, but falls apart during the fact checking process. This film is not a documentary in most senses of the term, but it’s certainly entertaining.

This page was revised on October 18, 2008 (images and slight edits to the text were added)