Do or Don't: A Documentarian Dissents

Earlier today, indieWIRE featured an article by former NewFest Artistic Director Basil Tsiokos headlined "Good Advice! 8 Documentary Dos and Don'ts from a Vet Programmer".  The text of the item itself was culled from a series of tweets that Tsiokos had posted over the past several weeks to his twitter account, most of which began "Dear documentary filmmakers".

The tweets were responses to films that Tsiokos had been watching for an unnamed purpose (festival? grant program? broadcaster?) and varied between sound advice ("Dear filmmakers: when submitting your DVD for festival/broadcast consideration, do not affix labels. They affect playability. Negatively.") and bemused criticism ("Dear documentary filmmakers: your incessant narration is driving me to drink. Shut up already and let the images tell the story.").

Over the past week or so, several tweets lost their humor and began targeting the anonymous films & filmmakers whose screeners happened to land in Basil's lap:

"Dear Documentary Filmmaker Whose Short I Just Watched: watching your 20 minute "art" film = watching paint dry. at least it wasn't longer."

"Dear Documentary Filmmakers: Next time, please try to have a point before making your film. Filming your search for one is not new or fun."

"Dear Documentary Filmmakers: Next time, hire a good sound person so that I won't have to hear background noise or dead air in every scene."

This string of tweets resulted in a mea culpa that Basil posted last Saturday morning:

"Dear Documentary Filmmakers: My comments seem to be coming off less instructive/funny and more asshole-ish. Not my intent. Will watch that."

All of this came together in Tsiokos' post for indieWIRE this morning - wherein he attempted to explain the genesis of the series:

"(It was a) way to both gripe about (and occasionally even celebrate) things doc makers do in their films and how film programmers react to them. I meant these notes to be funny, in a curmudgeonly way, but also instructive, born out of 13 years of watching thousands of film festival submissions of all types and of all lengths. I purposely omitted any information that could be used to identify either the films or filmmakers, or even for what entity I was screening these docs for.

Most people (often fellow programmers, but also many filmmakers and non-film people) responded to the notes favorably, more often on Facebook than on Twitter, but I also received some feedback indicating that I was coming off as obnoxious or uncaring about the time, money, and efforts filmmakers put into their work. This was the furthest thing from my intent...

...(T)he following notes (each 140 characters or less, per Twitter) are not presented with malice, and are, of course, entirely subjective. There will be exceptions to virtually everything I say. Some things will seem incredibly obvious or basic, but if I’ve included them below, it’s because a lot of filmmakers (often new filmmakers, but it’s not exclusive to them) continue to fall into these traps year after year, film after film."

After recapping and expanding upon some of his tweets (although not the one about the "art film"), Tsiokos leaves us with this:

"I want these notes to help filmmakers. I love documentaries. I love that documentaries can offer new perspectives on the world. I love that, usually, even a “bad” doc can still teach me something. But wouldn’t it be preferable to make a more engaging, more watchable doc instead – and one that documentary film programmers feel that their audiences should see?"

Now, I know and like Basil and I'm sure that he means exactly what he says here.  And I probably wouldn't have drawn myself into this conversation at all, save for that last sentence.

But first some background.  In the 18 months since we launched the Cinema Eye Honors for Nonfiction Filmmaking, one of the things that we have been criticized for has been our reliance on an all-star squad of film festival programmers to vote for our nominees.  The argument goes, "Why should these gatekeepers  - the same folks who decide which films get in to the top festivals (and thus immediately get some cachet amongst distributors, broadcasters, sales agents, critics, etc.) - also get to decide which films are award-worthy?"

I bring this up because my counter to this argument is always that - both in knowing programmers, talking about films with them and, quite candidly, tallying their votes - I know that their views on film and filmmaking are diverse, educated and impassioned.  And I know that what appeals to Thom Powers (Toronto) may not appeal to Heather Croall (Sheffield), David Wilson (True/False) may love a film that Janet Pierson (SXSW) can't stand, David Kwok (Tribeca) may thank heavens that David Courier (Sundance) inexplicably passed on a great film, and so on.  The strength of their individual opinions has meant a strong cross-section of films gets votes.

So Tsiokos' final question, that "wouldn't it be preferable" strikes this documentary filmmaker as a false choice.  How, exactly, can you make a film that "documentary film programmers feel that their audiences should see", particularly when said audience may be retirees on the Florida gulf coast or they may be documentary lovers in Durham (not to mention the very different industry audiences of Park City, Toronto,  Amsterdam and Silver Spring).

You can't.

And you shouldn't try.

What you should do, may I humbly suggest, is make the film you want to make, the film you have to make.  And do the best you can to make it great.  Ask for help, get feedback, get help, and when its ready, submit it to a festival - if that's what you see as the best path for your film - and then get ready to submit to another and another and another...

And if along the way Tsiokos' tweets help you avoid some pitfalls - particularly about stickers on DVDs (or my favorite piece of advice from A&E IndieFilm's Molly Thompson: put your name and phone number on the DVD because the DVD always gets separated from the package), then mazel tov.

But make your art film.  Use narration if you think that's what your project needs.  And don't forget to put "rough sound mix" on your film, because no matter how many times someone - often a festival programmer - tells you that they know how to watch a rough cut, you should realize that they're possibly full of shit.

Most of all, know this: not every single documentary film programmer will want to screen your film, nor will every single documentary film programmer love your film.  And thank God.  Trying to please them all - or even attempting to please just one of them - seems to be a recipe for disaster. 

Dear documentary filmmaker: You're an artist.  People have divergent views about art.  You're not doing this to be universally loved.  Good luck.

Comments

[scott]

Great words, AJ. Thanks for saying it so succinctly.

[James McNally]

I got a crash course in screening festival submissions myself this past February and put together a similar post, although I have nowhere near the experience of Basil or the rest of you. The thing that stood out for me is that if you're submitting a rough cut that is so rough that the film is essentially not ready to submit, why not wait and polish it for another festival a few weeks/months later? You can make a bad impression on a programmer at a good festival that might be hard to erase.

[Chris]

I'm not a documentary filmmaker (just a fan), but I think I can safely say I'd much rather see a film like the one AJ describes than one that is trying to somehow conform just to get into film festivals.

[Tom Murray]

I've been following these comments made by Basil so was interested in your perspective. I've made a number of feature length documentary film. (Basil was responsible for premiering my first effort) I've been fortunate to win a number of awards for my efforts, yet some of the same films that won awards were not even selected at other festivals. It's such a subjective issue. As much as I love documentaries, in defense of programmers, I think it would be pretty grueling to sit and watch them for 8 hours a day with out getting a bit cynical. I think you're right. My mantra is "it's all about the story". I think you have to do something that interests you, try to make it technically good and go from there. Some great documentaries I've seen have been technically pretty crummy, yet amazing films. Some visually incredible films have been pretty boring. Tell a story because it interests YOU! Not everyone paints a portrait the same way, yet each is an artist.
Tom Murray

[Stephen Hyde]

The Basil tweets are a gift. Right on.

[Mike Ambs]

I'm glad to see your take on this - when I first opened up your post, I skipped ahead and looked at the 8 tips.

I was expecting something a bit more constructive I guess... I didn't take anything away from it. Then I ran out of the house for several hours and came back to finish reading *your* post, which was much more insightful... something I would actually recommend to other filmmakers.

Your last line is perfect: "People have divergent views about art. Goodluck."

I know the film I've been pouring my heart and soul into the last 5 years won't sit well with everyone. Maybe it won't even sit well with most people. But being that's built off something I experienced personally - I know that there will be *some* people who it hits very hard. I hope it registers something very deep in them... I guess that's all I'm hoping for as a story-teller.