I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the role of the arts, and individual artists, in regards to social change. Not just any social change, but specifically in regards to political change. I’ve been thinking about it off and on all year. First, back on Jan 31, 2011, I posted some thoughts (on my old Springboard blog) in reaction to the Arab Spring protests and what they might mean globally. Not much later, I gave my DIY Days talk proposing that artists needed to get more involved and “reclaim” the political aspects of DIY. Then last week, I posted a somewhat depressing look at the global economy and what impact it might have on the arts.

I went back to that first post earlier today, and found it eerily prescient of what we’re seeing today with OWS and other global protests, and still quite relevant. Not that I predicted any future, or anything, but I do think it’s worth revisiting that post today. I’ve cut/paste the last half of that article below, and the original is still here. I’ll be posting more thoughts on the subject soon.

_____ from Jan, 2011 _____

Malcolm Gladwell and Clay Shirky can argue all day whether or not social media helps spread a revolution, but something much more fundamental is going on here. Twitter, Facebook and other social media may not have started the revolutions, but they’ve been a part of it, mainly because of the most important factor in these revolutions – a growing young population very aware of the failures of the old regimes, often well-educated but frustrated by their job and future prospects, tightly connected to one another through social networks both new and old and, quite literally, with nothing much to lose. True, there are people of all generations involved in these protests, but the influence of a hyper-connected class of youth has been a very strong component of these recent events. They may be joined by many others, but youth unemployment and disaffection are at an all-time high, and guess what, youth media engagement is also at an all-time high. Unfortunately for world leaders, you can look around the world and see this same pairing in many a country, both despotic and democratic (or somewhere in-between).

The fact of the matter is, Egypt shutting down the internet was in some ways almost pointless. Unless you completely disconnect your population entirely, all the time, people are going to be social and find others like them online. They will communicate and form new networks and common likes and grievances, and discuss them. They are going to make media and share it, and often you won’t even know who its making fun of until it is too late. By the time a protest starts, the gig is up. Sure, China does a good job of censoring all of this chatter, but that hasn’t stopped people from spreading things like the story of Li Qiming, who after being stopped for a hit and run that killed one woman taunted “Sue me if you dare. My father is Li Gang!” (a high-ranking police officer). In the past this story would have been covered up, but it spread so quickly on the internet as a satiric quote in response to all kinds of corruption that the Government had to allow the story to disseminate and just now sentenced Li Qiming to prison. This story brings up the other undercurrent to these protests – the growing divide between the rich and poor.

As many others have pointed out, there’s a new global elite that hangs out together, builds companies together and rules the world together. As reported in The Economist, some 10 percent of the people in the world control 83 percent of the world’s assets. They are connected to one another, and yes, they are different than the rest of us. As the gap between the super-rich, merely rich, the somewhat rich and the poor widens, there’s a growing sense of inequity that feeds the sense that money and power are one, and this inevitably leads to backlash. Again, the people can talk about this, make media about it and share it and the story goes viral. By the time the “elite” wake up and try to change the conversation, it will likely be too late.

Interestingly, the new global elite also happen to invest heavily in the new technology economy and thus own most of the companies that make the real and virtual newfangled toys we play with. Many of these companies derive most of their value from the input of their users – Google and Amazon get smarter as you search and rate things – and while these products can make our lives easier and more fun, most of the real monetary value accrues to the companies and their shareholders.

What they haven’t seemed to realize until now is that while they may get rich and powerful sucking the data, dollars and power from the masses into these social networks, the masses might one day use these same tools against this very system. You connect the people and they might stop playing Farmville long enough to connect the dots. It is much easier now for the rest of the world to talk to one another and realize that, hey, regardless of political party or country, they’re all getting screwed.

Sure, these same tools can be used against protesters (and have been, in Iran, for example) and yes, you can shut off the credit processing to Wikileaks and the internet to all of Egypt, but once you’ve gotten people talking they don’t stop. Especially the young people. They switch to whispers, they use dial-up modems or phone in Tweets, pass notes through cell doors, but once they’ve shared the truth about the emperor (whichever “truth” they’ve chosen to believe), they don’t shut up.

The revolutions in Tunisia and now in Egypt are responses to very real oppression. You can’t overstate how different things are there from many other places in the world. The problems of disaffected youth in Europe, or the grievances of any given social network may pale in comparison (though not always), but it would be foolish to think that this political disruption won’t spread, in different fashion and at a different pace, to other parts of the world. There are many other countries with an educated youth that can’t find jobs, and that feel the older generations have squandered their future. There are many of different ages who agree with them. Even the magazines of the elite (it’s called The Economist for a reason) recognize that there’s been a growing gulf between the haves and the have nots and that historically, this has led to some bad things. Mix in the speed of communication and ease of connecting disparate groups that the internet offers and you’ve put an interesting spin on this old tale.

In America, the first of the groups to wake up to this reality were the youth who came out in droves for Obama. It’s hard to remember now, but he was a long-shot that only became the great hope after a lot of young, tech savvy people with time on their hands started pushing for him. Ironically, however, many of them now feel disillusioned and the torch has been passed to (grabbed back by?) the largely white, conservative, older, middle and lower class who form the Tea Party (the upper class just funds them). You couldn’t get a much different group than the protesters in the Middle East, but strange things happen in America. Many years ago, they would have been dismissed as just another John Birch Society, but through a mix of social media connection and activism, mixed with some old-fashioned (and borrowed) organizing, they’ve got their agenda on, well, ours. Back in the day, Rick Santelli’s rant from the Chicago trading floor would have inspired a small portion of the viewers of CNBC and perhaps some back-room discussions at think-tanks. Its impact would have only come after years or talking and organizing, but it formed an entirely new political party in the span of just a few weeks (a dire economy, Black president, Hispanic justice and openly gay senator helped fan the fire). Like them or loathe them, the Tea Party is just one harbinger of more to come.

The Tea Party is, to many onlookers, a strange, convoluted backlash to the changing face of America (I know that’s not how they see it, but that’s not the point). Look around America though, and there are a lot of other disaffected, upset people who aren’t represented in our political class or conversation at all (most of whom also raise the blood pressure of those in the Tea Party). They are talking, and while they may be stupefied and coddled by their American Idol and easy, consumerist access to anything they want, anytime they want, they are also starting to talk to one another much more often and that can only lead in one direction – more self- and group-awareness, and that usually leads to change.

In some cases, this will just mean little protests, as we see now with the LGBT community, and their supporters, fighting back against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Soon, however, things could get interesting. What happens when the young wives of incarcerated men, usually flung around the country and very unimportant politically, can connect to one another online and form a voting block? What happens when Latinos, African-Americans, Asians and other people of diverse backgrounds (who also trend young) realize that not only are they now the majority in 10 of our major cities, but that their needs and desires aren’t being addressed by those gathered in Washington (or in Davos). Not all of this will lead to uprisings, or even slight protests, in every case, but it is going to make for something interesting.

The problems in the US are nothing compared to those suffered by people in the Global South, for just one example, but they also pale in comparison to even those in European countries with much less openness, or who have suffered worse through the recent economic crisis. There are legions of well-educated, under-employed people in these countries, and they’re all connected now. While some form of localized political unrest is highly likely in many places, it will be more interesting to see how people combine their common goals, grievances and wills across borders. We’re already seeing evidence of China, Iran and other countries blocking internet reports of the protests in Egypt, and this will likely spread as other regimes get scared. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg compared to more widespread coordination, which we’re only now seeing amongst those bent on global terrorism (or amongst those playing MMORPG, interestingly). What happens when more peaceful (or not), but better organized players connect, communicate and coordinate efforts? Who knows, but it’s something you can bet many government (and business) leaders will be thinking about for quite some time.

In fact, they already have begun thinking about this and planning. Lieberman’s internet kill switch is only a more obvious and public response to fears of people connecting and doing something (good or bad). You don’t have to think about this much to realize that if governments and corporations are meeting in secret to pass things like ACTA, to stop people connecting and sharing (pirated) music and films, they’re definitely having a few such meetings about what happens as this political disruption continues. The high-level interconnectedness of the political, military and corporate spheres was lain bare by the response to the WikiLeaks cables, and you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to play all of this out a bit further in your head. Every new technology that has held the potential to bring more power to the people has been inverted and changed to reassert the control of the powers that be. This won’t be any different, though for at least a few more years it may appear that way, and that’s mainly just because the kids are moving faster with this stuff than the adults can process it all.

For now, however, we’re in a time of massive change to the political process and the people’s involvement with it. It’s too early to tell whether this will lead to something better or worse in Egypt, or even Tunisia, but it is clear that for a short window of time, the possibilities for changing the status quo are better than ever. It will be messy, loud and sometimes violent, but more often just pretty damn interesting. There’s a lot of young people connected and talking, and they want to be heard. They are fed up with the status quo and they can see through all that was once made to be misunderstood. They’re talking to one another and they’re getting louder. Cacophony is noisy stuff, but some of those in power better hope these voices don’t get more harmonious.

A long story for a short post. Don’t ask me why, but I’ve been meeting with hedge fund managers a lot lately, as well as other smart investment banker types who are all smarter than me or anyone I know, especially (if only?) when it comes to economic issues. They are all apoplectic about the future. Not a little worried, I’m talking buy a home in the middle of nowhere, buy a gun and fend off the mutinying hordes kind of shit. Raise a billion dollars to capitalize on the possible future failure of the EU, the Euro and then probably everyone on earth except China and Brazil (who might just slow down, if we’re lucky). The conversations are pretty open, and if there’s more than one “money guy” in the room, they’re not arguing over the disaster to come, just how to profit from it, or avoid some pain.Let me be clear – NO ONE debates this potential reality, just how to profit from it.

I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that hanging out with them can cause pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth. You literally leave the “party” worrying about your future; but having none, you just give up and settle into a despair some might call existential if anyone existed anymore who said anything interesting like that.

Then I meet with people in the film, music and arts worlds. None of this is mentioned. If I bring this up, they laugh nervously and say something like “Oh, things are still bad, and that’s why we’re seeing things like OWS, but I think it will all work out. My donations are up this year.”

I don’t know. Maybe I’m crazy. Maybe I’m pessimistic (lets not get me started on how pessimists are always optimistic, it’s a phrase…), maybe I’m like a blogging version of Michael Fucking Shannon in Take Shelter and am having a nervous goddamn meltdown. That is a reasonable assumption actually, but no…I’m thinking that wishful thinking comes from us here in the arts, not from those more ensconced in the business side of things. Also known as reality.

There’s a big disconnect between those of us in this world and that one. I’d love to think that this one will win. I’m more sure that one will prove true, and while that in and of itself may make a better world, history is against us on all counts. If you aren’t thinking about how this might, and let’s just pretend it’s a big “might” for now, impact your future, then let’s just agree that you are potentially ignoring a very big, uncomfortable, very possible truth. Those of us in “this” world (the arts) should be thinking about this possible future and what it might mean. Best case, we have fun running apocalyptic scenarios on our future; worst case, we’ve wrestled with gun-ownership issues we thought were worth leaving to right-wing-nuts. Either way, we’ll all be in a better place tomorrow, and perhaps we can build a better system for that future regardless of what it might bring. Doing the usual thing, which is ignoring this disconnect (as we seemed to be doing in the run up to September, 2008), doesn’t seem to be the most prudent action.

Which would you buy?

Georgia State University (GSU) in Downtown, Atlanta has sent out this call for submissions. I don’t usually post these, but this is a really cool opportunity for media artists, and you can’t believe the foot traffic that goes by here in what is otherwise a car-town. Check out the info below and submit something cool:

Now accepting submissions for The Window Project.

See a previous installation of this unique space in this short video:

http://vimeo.com/28944126

The submission process is on-going. Each installation will be screened nightly from dusk until dawn for one month. We have current openings in 2012 for:

April, 2012               Submission Deadline is Feb. 1, 2012
May, 2012                Submission Deadline is Mar 1, 2012
June, 2012               Submission Deadline is Apr. 1, 2012
July, 2012                Submission Deadline is May. 1, 2012
August, 2012           Submission Deadline is Jun. 1, 2012
September, 2012    Submission Deadline is July. 1, 2012
October, 2012         Submission Deadline is Aug. 1, 2012
November, 2012     Submission Deadline is Sep. 1, 2012

The Window Project is a curated outdoor, new media installation space facing the southern end of Woodruff Park from the windows of the Digital Arts Entertainment Laboratory (DAEL). The infrastructure consists of six high definition projectors synchronized to create a rear-projection screen that stands over six feet high and spans over 80 feet in width and can be seen from any vantage point in Atlanta’s central park and from the main pedestrian path of students of Georgia State University. The mission of The Window Project is to create a public art space that engages the community and enhances the Georgia State University campus and downtown Atlanta.

We invite the participation of local, national and international emerging and established moving image artists to submit current work reconfigured for six projectors around a curved surface or new work specifically created to take advantage of the multi-projector format. This space and format allows artists to break from the constraints of a single screen on a flat surface with a prescribed viewing point. We do not seek a specific theme for the content, but expect that it should be of high visual, technical and conceptual quality and well suited for this unique public space, which is large, but subtle due to the curved glass and location on a downtown building window.

This project is sponsored by the Digital Arts Entertainment Lab. DAEL is a multimillion-dollar entertainment research and production facility located in the heart of downtown Atlanta on the campus of Georgia State University. Through industry and university partnerships, DAEL facilitates the creation and testing of digital media content. DAEL incubates emerging media arts businesses, trains graduate students and engages in user-centered media research.

How to Apply:  Please email a brief artist statement, a link to artist website and up to 5 images or videos to: eli@gsu.edu with “The Window Project” and your name in the subject line. If an emailed/internet submission is not possible, a CD or DVD can be sent in the mail. Feel free to email questions to eli@gsu.edu as well.

Live in New York City? Well if you do, and probably even if you don’t, you probably know that Rooftop Films is one of the best film organizations around town. They not only present hundreds of films on Rooftops (and beaches, and…) all year round, they also give grant money to filmmakers, rent equipment and teach filmmaking. And they’re a heckuvalotta fun. I joined their board of directors this year, and that gives me the honor of shamelessly plugging them here – which I’d do even if I wasn’t on the board.

Let’s face it, what other film organization does all of this and then holds its annual fundraiser for just $50 bucks? That’s right, for just $50 you can hang out with some awesome filmmakers, meet cool people, listen to music, learn about what’s next for Rooftop Films and…network with potential donors. That’s right, they’ll be there too, but don’t tell anyone I told you that. This kind of action would set you back $500 to $1000 + at other organization’s benefits, but Rooftop Films is cool like that. Trust me, the evening will be fun enough to warrant the $50, with booze, food and entertainment. AT&T is helping sponsor the event, and I personally guarantee that anyone who buys a ticket will have a good time while supporting a great organization.

Full details are below and here. Can’t make it, but still want to support the organization (for less or more than $50)? Click here and make a donation.

Here’s more info from Rooftop Films:

If you were to sit down and try really hard to make the worst user interface on the planet, I bet you couldn’t do a better (worse) job than Time Warner has done with it’s On Demand system. This holds true across all cable companies, but Time Warner is reputed to be the worst one, according to all my friends who broker with these clowns.

When I bother to turn on my cable and search for something to watch On Demand, it is a painful experience. Nine times out of ten, the system won’t start, leading me to NY1 no matter what I do. Want to watch a preview? Oops, that will get you stuck again. Want to get out of one of their ingenious channels, like “In Theaters,” good luck.

The system is so bad that the aggregators who put films in the system literally tell you that your film title should be low in the alphabet (or start with a number) so that you end up earlier in the A-Z list because most consumers don’t make it past the C’s. Really.

This would all be cute, except I’m willing to bet that it’s costing the film industry millions. Billions maybe. Lots of recent reports, like this one from The Wrap, point out how much money indies and Hollywood are making from VOD. It is the future, and I’m not arguing against it. But the fact that consumers will put up with this much crap to watch their movie at home, on demand, tells me that there’s a staggering amount of value being left on the table. If these interfaces worked at all, I’m willing to bet that VOD revenues would skyrocket – not double, but increase by a magnitude of 300% or greater. It’s likely the top reason that people turn to pirate sites – they’re that much easier to use.

Why do cable companies use such shitty technology today? Why do film companies allow this travesty to continue?

My only guess is that cable companies can’t compete with Silicon Valley. All the good engineers go to tech start-ups and cable companies (and their device makers) are left with the bozos who can’t compete. Either that or cable company executives are the bozos left behind… but that can’t be right, could it?

Nope. My real guess is that it’s just another case of the industry collectively sitting on it’s ass accepting the status-quo. This makes for a nice space for disruption, but it makes for a crappy consumer experience, which come to think about it is the new mantra for all things in film consumerism – crappy consumer experience.

It’s time I come out – and admit that I no longer care about seeing films on the big screen at the movie theater. Horrible of me to suggest. No serious film lover could say this. Blasphemy. On and on.

Yeah, whatever.

I used to simply argue that of course, I love seeing films on the big screen like everyone else. I’d argue for anyone’s right to watch it when, where and how they want to see a film, but would always push for them to see it the “way it was meant to be seen” which was on the big screen. But I can’t anymore. The experience sucks. Staying at home and watching it is the better option.

I bring this up today because Anthony Kaufman, a critic whom I deeply respect, has a post on IndieWire about why viewers should only watch great arthouse films like Melancholia on the big screen.As he says: “Waiting to see a film in your living room is hurting that film, insulting it; it’s like saying to a good friend, “You’re not good enough to meet me for dinner; how about we just catch up on the phone, or via computer screen, instead?… Of course, there are plenty of films that should be relegated to such a space. Just not the good ones.” His is not the only article on this I’ve read lately – there’s been a spate of such articles lately, driven by (I assume) the huge shift from the importance of box office to the rise of VOD.

But here’s the problem I’m having: Film critics, film industry and almost every single person I know who is apoplectic about people watching films outside of the theater are missing a key point – that they don’t (usually) watch such films the same way that others do. Nope. They watch them in private screening rooms rented by distributors and publicists. Or they watch them at film festivals. A lucky few get to watch them on their own home/company theater screen. Many actually just watch screeners at home or in a festival/market room with banks of monitors, but that’s another story. This is not going to the movies.

Going to the movies is getting a crap, broken seat because you didn’t show up 20 minutes early. Or it is getting there 20 minutes early and watching crappy advertisements while waiting for the Regal train to start the show (why, oh why must all theaters show a train riding through popcorn on a film strip track??). It is watching an interminable amount of bad trailers for films I don’t want to see. It is sitting next to not one, but two crying babies, in the 10pm showing of Drive for chrissakes. It is watching the film projected through the wrong lens, too darkly, or the wrong aspect ratio, or with the curtains improperly adjusted. It is watching it in spite of the irritant of an usher watching me with a device to ensure I’m not pirating the film. It’s not having the heat, or the AC, properly adjusted. It’s not having my favorite adult beverage with me. It’s waiting in line for an half an hour because the theater is too fucking cheap to pay more than one kid the minimum wage to make me my popcorn (or even sell me my ticket). It’s hearing a subway train rumble through my film – in both the Angelika and MoMA. It’s sitting with my knees cramped like I’m in an airline seat while at Film Forum. It is getting to the theater and finding out that the film is playing on the smallest screen that theater has. It is all of this and so much more. The list of problems is not small.

None of these problems are encountered by those film-goers who get to watch most of their movies away from the masses in the fancy screening room or the film festival. Heck, you didn’t even have to pay for the show.

I used to put up with it, because you know, I am a cinephile and all that. But I’m a convert. I’ll sit at home and watch my films. I’ll try to catch the cinematic masterpieces at film festivals and private screenings when I can. But while I understand the argument for the big screen, I’m not necessarily sure I buy it even for the best of cinema.

I went to film school at Emory. While the professors did their best to get us film prints for most of our classes, the simple fact was that to watch the majority of film history, I had to watch it at home – off crappy VHS, Laserdisc and DVD. I watched Rules of the Game, Ikiru and Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors over twenty times each this way. It didn’t diminish my awe. Nope. I watched them again and again, and I’ve now watched each of them multiple times on the big screen. Did I love it when I got to see them on the big screen – sure, but I can’t honestly say I didn’t love them just as much before.

Most consumers today have pretty good home theater systems, and I’m willing to bet that the percentage of cinephiles, who would even care about this problem, with good set-ups is even stronger. Most of them are adults. You know, capable of making a decision as to whether or not they want/need to see something on the big screen. Trying to stop this trend is impossible and crying about it won’t stem the tide of change. Especially not when most (not all) theater owners are content to keep offering the same dismal experience over and over again. Kudos to places like Alamo, the Enzian and Night Hawk who are trying something different and make it worth my dollar – I’ll spend my money and watch a film on the big screen at their locations whenever I can. But for the most part, I’ll watch my cinema in my home, comfortable and with my cinema-conscience clear. It’s better that way.

I’m a frequent speaker on panels at film festivals and conferences. I just spoke on one at IndieMemphis and I’m about to speak on two more at the IFFS Film Festival Summit. I’ve run festivals with panels, and I’ve produced a conference of panels. So it is with full cognizance of my hypocrisy that I state – they are worthless and it’s time to kill all panels.

They are the zero-sum game of every festival and conference. Why? Because the only knowledge that can be gained from them is accidental, as in when someone accidentally says something they shouldn’t say, self-aggrandizing, as in learning that yes, indeed you are smarter than all the experts they’ve assembled on-stage, or misanthropic, as in when you lose all faith in humanity when the moderator democratically opens the mic to questions from the audience and the first question isn’t a question but rather a pitch for the film the questioner just made or some product they’re trying to sell. The best you can hope for is getting all three in one panel.

Most panels seem put together for one obvious reason – to make the festival look better. Bring in a few key industry players, put them on a panel and take photos for the catalogue and tout the educational benefits in your next grant application. Step back for one second though and ask yourself how educational these panels are? How different are these panels/conferences than the ones held at a Ramada every weekend “teaching” you how to make millions from flipping real estate? How much can I learn from a panel of five “experts” who each spend most of their time trying to talk about how great their company is at doing X thing? Especially when each “expert” has about five total minutes to say anything of value.

Okay, I’m being overly harsh here to get this started, but seriously: We need to rethink the purpose of and usefulness of these panels.I’ve met many festival staff and none that I’ve met are hucksters trying to steal your cash – really, most of them truly want to help filmmakers learn more about the business, or help audiences to learn more about the subject of the film or about the people behind or on the screens. They work hard to put these panels together, but let’s face it – most of these panels don’t work.

Ostensibly, we hold these panels to teach some audience members something they might not know. In a good panel, this remains true, and what makes a good panel is probably a sliding scale dependent upon things such as how knowledgeable is the audience in attendance. Not that I know everything, but when I went to my first film festival panel I knew a lot less about the film business than I know now, and I learned a lot more.

But, when I think back to the earliest panels I attended, I find that most of what I learned came from just one panelist – there’s usually one person telling it like it is and sharing the real knowledge that most people just gloss over. I’ve learned a lot from one on one sessions as well, where a well informed interviewer speaks with some person from the biz (though I learn less when this person is a famous actor/director…hmmm). I’ve learned a lot when the panel isn’t about film, but what’s covered in the film – where the speakers were experts on the topic and we could delve deeper. Again, however, I find that because of politics, these panels tend to have the director, two producers and one expert and I’d learn more from a good moderator and the expert alone.

You may see a theme emerging here, and it’s because I do as well: less is more. I think what we need are less panels with 4, 5 or even 15 panelists (yes, at Sundance two years ago they had that many people on stage!). We need more one on ones, more panels where two people debate (or agree) on a topic. Let’s hear just from the expert. Let’s talk just with the director. Let’s hear what the entertainment attorney thinks for one solid hour. Let’s hear what the DP learned on set for one hour. Let’s hear a talk between just two festival programmers. Sure, we might not get “well rounded” discussions, but we’ll get more in depth discussion.

I’ve participated in a couple of such panels lately, and they worked much better than the usual system. I know this is nothing new – I’ve gone to such panels at SXSW for years, for instance, but I am saying they remain the rare exception to the usual boring panel where the only value is often putting a face with a name to meet them later at the bar.

So, we need to shake up the format a bit. We also need to change how we integrate the audience. I don’t have an easy answer here, but what should be the most democratic, interesting part of the panel usually becomes the most unbearable. It’s not that the audience is dumb, but somehow, we tend to get the worst questions from the floor. I’ve attended a few panels where questions are submitted to the moderator via slips of paper, email and even Twitter and the moderator picks the best ones. This seems to work better, but while the anonymity helps some people ask better questions, I’m sure it upsets others who want their voice to be heard. Some of my favorite panel moments have been when an audience member (usually well informed) attacks a speaker and they engage in a debate, and who would want to stop that? I’m not sure how to make this part better, but if you have ideas, please suggest them in the comments.

We also need to rethink panels in light of technology. No, not just “hey, we can put these up on the web,” but how does this fundamentally change things? Like showing a film in a movie theater, panels have existed because they are the most economical way to get a lot of butts in the seats to see what has been assembled. Like watching a movie in a theater, panel attendance won’t go away entirely, but it might be time we consider whether pulling together 10-100 speakers to speak to an audience of hundreds to low thousands still makes sense?

I don’t want the monotony of presentation styles it represents, but I’d love to see a TED-like phenomenon for film. Sure, the attendees get to network (and pay a lot to do so), but the rest of us can learn a heck of a lot, from some of the smartest folks not-really-in-the-room, for free. You could duplicate this year round pretty easily and have something pretty interesting for the field. This doesn’t make sense for the small, regional fest, but it would for some others.

I would be missing one of the biggest festival problems if I didn’t also bring up – they are usually very white and very male. This one seems obvious – we need more diverse speakers up there. I don’t know what will finally change this, perhaps all white men must refuse to speak on panels unless they are more diverse. I’ve written about this before, and it’s brought up over and over, but I bring it up again here because it can’t be said enough!

I definitely don’t have all the answers here. I’m attending the IFFS Film Festival Summit next week…to speak on two panels…and I’m hoping this might spark some conversation with other attendees there. I’m hoping to hear some ideas from my (small) audience here in the comments and elsewhere. What would make a better panel? How can we better include audiences? What would a fest panel look like if we started over today?

In the middle of writing this post, I saw a tweet from Matt Dentler saying “Fact: 85% of film festival panels around the globe are a waste of time.” I retweeted that and so did a few others – it’s obviously on many people’s minds. I got one interesting response from Randy Finch: “Paradox? I know (+ respect) u from film fest panels. #wearethe15%”

I agree with Randy – I’ve met many great people as a result of these panels. So, perhaps we shouldn’t kill them. Instead the question is: How do we re-imagine them in a way that keeps the good (networking, education) and gets rid of all the bad?

I was on a phone call today with a well-known and liked film industry person who remarked to me “You know we thought that the digital world was going to cut out the middle man, but it’s actually created more than ever.” Worse still, we decided that not only are their more middle men, but they’re doing less actual good for the creators than the previous middle men – at least the old middle men knew how to market your film, for example.

Sad, but true, state of affairs in the film industry. Creative people are creating more brilliant stuff than ever before. The profits accrue to a handful of aggregators in the middle who aren’t adding much value, and the consumer still has a heck of a time getting what they want (when they want it) either.

The more things change…

If all goes as planned, I’ll be joining many others on Wednesday November 16th for Internet Censorship Day. That is, if I can figure out how to paste code correctly to this site…UPDATE: I couldn’t get the code to work. I stink, but I still support this cause!

What is it? Well, it’s a protest against a bill being considered in the US Congress that would be very detrimental to the future of the web. It’s an attempt to curb piracy, but it could have a much bigger impact, and it could be bad. I could explain it all here, but the campaign site does a good job, and the video below does it even better.

What this video and join the cause:

I’ve been helping filmmaker Jane Weiner launch a Kickstarter campaign for her new film, a work-in-progress called RICKY on LEACOCK on the legendary documentary filmmaker. I’ll be posting a lot of updates here on the campaign – how it’s going, what we’re learning about raising money this way, other ways you can help. I’ve helped many filmmakers with Kickstarter campaigns, but this one is a bit different to me – I’m supporting her with my work and my donation to the campaign, not just because I like Jane and her films, but because I want to be a part of honoring his legacy – to documentary films, but also to the field more broadly and even to the “amateur” filmmakers posting videos online today. I’ll be writing more about this soon, but if you too are a fan of Ricky Leacock, please consider supporting this campaign, by making a donation on Kickstarter or by simply helping us to spread the word. Thanks!

I’m really excited that this week is the launch of the second annual DocNYC Film Festival. I imagine most of my NYC based readers know about this fest already, but if not, check out their website for the complete line-up. They’ve got some amazing docs this year, and I really commend them for putting together such a spectacular festival.

I’ll be moderating a couple of interesting panels at the festival. On Wed, Nov 2nd, I’ll be moderating “State of Theatrical” at 12:45pm. Panel description from the site: What do recent hits and misses tell us about the theatrical marketplace for docs? Panelists include Matt Cowal of Magnolia Pictures (Page One: A Year Inside the New York Times); Ryan Krivoshey of Cinema Guild (The Interrupters); Emily Russo of Zeitgeist Films (Bill Cunningham New York); and a representative of IFC Films/Sundance Selects (Cave of Forgotten Dreams) discussing their strategies for success.

Then at 2:30pm, I’ll be discussing the “State of Digital” From the fest description: In the rapidly changing world of digital distribution what are the options, opportunities and cautions for independent filmmakers? What’s the difference between transactional, subscription and ad-supported models? Representatives from key players and close watchers of this sector share their insights. Panelists include: Matt Dentler (Cinetic Film Buff); Susan Margolin (New Video/Docurama); Andrew Mer (SnagFilms); Lisa Schwartz (SundanceNOW).

That’s a great line-up of fantastic panelists, and I’m looking forward to learning a bit about the current health of the industry from them. While I’m not moderating the panel, I’m excited to also hear the panel on Branded Content. Given the fact that Thom Powers just announced a new partnership, Launch Pad, with Grey Global and Morgan Spurlock to connect doc makers and brands, that should be a great discussion. I think this is one of the most exciting new developments in the industry. Everyone with an interest in how brands and filmmakers might work together should attend. I’ve written before that we need a lot more conversation about this, as it’s a growing area. I think the team here will do it the right way, and I congratulate them on pulling this together. You can find all the panels at DocNYC here.

I’ve also been lucky enough to see a few of the films in advance, and of those I’ve seen I can highly recommend three. Okay, I could recommend more, but these three are my favorite, plus one retrospective that no one should miss. No lengthy reviews here, but I highly recommend checking out the following three titles:

Lemon – following the story of Lemon Andersen, as he attempts to make a come-back, from three time felon to one man poetry theater phenomenon.

Kumare – Kumare follows a man with followers – but he’s not the shaman they think he is. This one was a huge hit at SXSW, and while it does ride a fine line between ridiculing its subjects and having compassion for them, I think it comes down on the right (latter) side of that line.

Calvet – Another story of an artist breaking through, but this one is much different. Calvet is now an internationally renowned artist, but he led a tough life including everything from mob bodyguard to heroin and crack addicted nightclub owner. Calvet has now cleaned up his life, but has one task left – to re-connect with his estranged son. While most people will like this for the more sensational parts of the story, I found it fascinating to hear how he discovered his artistic talent and how his art continues to help him move forward.

Last, I highly recommend checking out the Ricky Leacock retrospective and the work in progress screening of Jane Weiner’s “On Being There.” Full disclosure, I’m helping Jane with her soon-to-launch Kickstarter campaign (more on that soon), but I’d recommend this regardless of that connection. Ricky Leacock was a legendary figure in documentary films, and we lost a mentor to many when he passed away last year. Jane’s film is an excellent tribute to him, and while it is a work in progress, it’s worth catching as it’s the last time you’ll ever see the film like this (a completely new version of the film is being completed now). You can also catch a few greats in the Leacock retrospective the fest has put together.

All in all, this is a great week to catch some amazing docs in NYC. The organizers have put together a great event, and it’s still growing and coming into its own, so we can only expect greater things in the future.

There’s often a lot of debate in the world over whether or not film can have an impact in the world. Well, today’s NYT shows the unexpected impact of the film Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi) on the upcoming elections in Tunisia.

Screenings of the film on a Tunisian television station have fueled a debate over religion vs freedom of speech, and many people expect it will lead to a victory for the more mainstream, but still conservative, Islamist party in the country. As the NYT puts it today:

“The episode began when a relatively small group of ultraconservative Islamists attacked the television station that had broadcast the 2007 film, about a Muslim girl growing up in post-revolutionary Iran, because of a scene in which she rails at God. He is depicted as she imagines him, violating an Islamic injunction against personifying him”

Public disapproval of the film has been strong enough to shape the debate over where the country is headed. As the article goes on to explain, it’s not that the film discusses other liberal values – people didn’t feel offended by shows depicting “racy scenes from French films or of couples kissing in public that might not fit with traditional Islam.” They were specifically offended by what they considered the blasphemous act of depicting visions of God. 

There seems to be much debate over whether the broadcaster purposefully showed the film to ignite tensions and stir debate over religious vs secular values, but according to the article, this has become a lightning rod issue in Tunisia.

Some consider the debate to be quite telling: “Some individual liberals observed with wry satisfaction that the film told the story of a supposedly liberal revolution that turned oppressive after Islamists took power in Tehran — bolstering the liberal argument that Tunisia’s moderate Islamists should not be trusted, either.”

I don’t know enough about politics in the region – or even religion in the region – to have much say in this debate, but I’m fascinated with how this little film can still have so much impact globally. Shows the power of the moving image – even if its not always in ways we expect.

Over at IndieWire, Ted Hope and Christine Vachon have been asking some questions about indie film leading up to their Masterclass. One of them is “if you could change one truly changeable thing about the film industry, what would that be?” I can’t wait to see all of the ideas, there’s already a few good ones in the comments, and they’ll be announcing the winner soon.

These are a few of my ideas for changing the film industry. I don’t submit them to actually win a trip to VacHope land (you can win a free ticket to their masterclass), but just to join/add to the conversation. Sure, they might not be truly changeable things, and I don’t have the money to make them happen, but they should be done:

1. I’d take 1/3 of all grant funding in indie film and re-designate it as funds for creative producers taking creative risks, to develop their next film. No proposal would be required, all nominations would be made by the crowd and grants would be decided by a panel of writers and/or directors.

2. I’d start a large fund for the support of artistically interesting narrative films that don’t fit any particular agenda. It’s too hard to get funding for a non-social-issue-doc right now.

3. I’d invest in IndieWire, specifically for them to reimagine what IndieWire should be today, given the state of the field and of current technology, allowing them the freedom not to worry about the current state of the market (advertising whims, Oscar campaigns, etc) and just focus on what the industry needs. Hint: We need more info that no one wants reported.

4. I’d start a large funding program for independent distributor’s marketing expenses – specifically, to increase their marketing and try some new things. All of this money might be wasted, or we might learn something about the value of good marketing.

5. I’d give grants to independent exhibitors to create a new, online social ticketing system that takes advantage of all the possibilities we see on the horizon for the next three years.

6. I’d invest in anything that the following people could agree on doing together (in alpha order): Chad Burris, Karin Chien, Mynette Louie, Scott Macaulay, Will Packer, Mike Ryan and Jess Search. They’d get $1M for two years start-up of anything that any 4 out of 7 of them agreed upon.

7. I’d offer a $5 Million dollar grant to any of the major film festivals in the world, with one condition – they get rid of their premiere policies entirely for at least three years.

8. I’d give every Black and Latin American female director who ever had a film accepted into any film festival a grant to make her second film. Too few of them get the chance, and it hasn’t been for lack of talent.

9. I’d pay a big lobbying firm to get Congress to pass three laws – 1) that the right of first sale applies to digital goods; 2) that all film companies must publicly and freely report all sales from all formats, not just box office results; and that we have real net neutrality on all devices, yep, wireless too.

10. I’d fine anyone who makes lists of things that need to be changed in indie film in order to fund all of these ideas.

Thanks to Artpapers Magazine, I’ve just discovered a new visual artist to follow – Jillian Mayer. I’m definitely a bit late to this game, but noticed that no one I follow/read has said much about her, and her work rocks.

Jillian is making some great art. It’s cool and popular too, but it still makes a statement. Check her work out. I’ll be following this artist, and am willing to bet she gets known in the film world before too long.

Three of my favorites:

I am Your Grandma:

Scenic Jogging:

Scenic Jogging by Jillian Mayer from Jillian Mayer on Vimeo.

How My Best Friend Died:

I recently discovered Google Insights for Search. You can see how search for any term, or set of terms has changed. Wow, what fun can be had. Here’s some Friday fun for you.

Here’s Google trends for search on the term Independent Film. Not looking good:

Here it is for Documentary Film:

Here’s Indie vs Documentary:

Here’s Music Documentary:

Here’s a comparison of a few, including foreign film and French Films:

Note that if you type “social issue documentary” or any close variant, there’s not enough data to pull it up at all. But here’s some interesting insight – look how the trendy word “transmedia” fares vs Indie Film. Why…it’s just about as unpopular now!

What does this all mean? I’m obviously no scientist, but I think it’s fun to play around with, and I’ll let you make your own conclusions.

I’m just back from the fantastic Karlovy Vary Film Festival. It was my first trip there, and I had a great time, saw some great films, met incredible people and learned a lot. Karlovy Vary is a beautiful spa town in the Czech Republic, about a two hour drive from Prague. The KVIFF is one of the oldest film festivals around (at 46 years), but its spirit is very young.

Literally. It was amazing to see thousands of young Czech and Eastern European film-lovers in line for each of the films. People love their cinema in the Czech Republic, and rumor has it that in addition to filling up the hotels, people fill up campgrounds all around the area, spending the week watching arthouse films. Theaters were packed for every show, no matter how obscure, and audiences were enthusiastic in their appreciation.

While the festival is not the marketplace of a Cannes or Berlin, it wasn’t short on industry attendance either. Buyers, sellers, directors, programmers and critics were in abundance, and while many would admit they weren’t swamped with business, that was the charm – having an opportunity to watch great films with great audiences, and to linger a little longer at each meeting and really get to know people better.

I was there to speak at a masterclass on “The Future of Film” with Ted Hope. We tried to change the format a bit, and make it more participatory by posting our thoughts in advance and by encouraging feedback in the comments before the panel, and to encourage more input from the audience. We didn’t fully succeed – Ted and I didn’t shut-up enough to really make it an open dialogue with the audience – but we did get great feedback and commentary from the audience.

We received one excellent email from Brendan Fletcher, the director of Mad Bastards, playing at KVIFF and in theaters and on VOD now, and we asked him to post it to the comments, which he did. I recommend reading that and the other comments, and I hope you’ll add your comments as well over at Ted’s blog. KVIFF Industry Head, Andrea Szczukova told us, and Screen International, that the panel “was such a success this year that there could be more sessions in 2012 devoted to ideas about the film industry’s changing future.” We hope so, and we hope to continue the dialogue between now and then.

I was also lucky to see some great films, especially my co-panelist’s film (Ted produced it) Collaborator, by Martin Donovan. Like most film buffs of my age, I’ve been a fan of Martin Donovan since the Hal Hartley days, and was excited to see his feature directing debut. He did an excellent job, both as a director and lead in the film. David Morse stars as well, in an outstanding role that won him best actor honors at the festival, and the film also won the Fipresci Critics award, which is quite an honor. I highly recommend the film.

I also highly recommend visiting the festival next year. The Karlovy Vary Film Fest is a blast.