LEF continues the New England Legacy Screenings series, highlighting early documentary film work being made in Boston in the 1970-80s. The third program in the series takes place this upcoming Wednesday, May 14th, at the Coolidge Corner Theatre, showing seminal work made by women filmmakers.

The screening includes short works by Liane Brandon, Joyce Chopra, and Miriam Weinstein. They were in their 20s and 30s at the time of making their films, coming into their own at the height of the feminist movement. They believed that the “personal is political”, and that the challenges they faced as women were a result of larger forces at play within a patriarchal culture. For them, film seemed to be a way to validate and share this truth, particularly with other women, as the creation of a shared reality was at the heart and soul of the women’s movement.

Technological innovations were also happening during this time that led to “sync-sound”— shorthand for being able to capture picture and sound simultaneously— and led to portable rigs that allowed for a more intimate method to filmmaking. These advances resulted in a new and radical approach to documentary filmmaking.

As it happened, women filmmakers adopted these tools early on and used them to facilitate making personal essay films. In their early films, Chopra and Weinstein each unapologetically explored the conflict between becoming mothers and continuing to be filmmakers. Their films bravely explore the ambivalence they felt as new mothers— something their own mothers would not have felt free to voice—and the myriad adjustments they had to make; changes that impacted them more than the men in their respective lives. 

Brandon, in turn, was an influential figure in the emerging women’s movement of the 1960s, and she first came to film as an activist. Her two films from the early ’70s are precursors to the work made by Weinstein and Chopra, and are groundbreaking and radical films for the taboo issues they brought to light. Like Weinstein and Chopra, Brandon’s films stemmed from a passionate desire to illuminate the brave socio-political work that still needs to be done in order for women to not have to conform. 

Both Liane Brandon and Miriam Weinstein will be in-person. 

Lyda Kuth

Executive Director

LEF Foundation

Wednesday, May 14, 7pm, Coolidge Corner Theatre

Sometimes I Wonder Who I Am

dir. Liane Brandon 1970, 5min

Betty Tells Her Story

dir. Liane Brandon 1972, 20min

Call Me Mama

dir. Miriam Weinstein 1977, 14min

Clorae and Albie

dir. Joyce Chopra 1976, 36min

Joyce at 34

dir. Joyce Chopra 1972, 20min

Discussion to follow screenings: Two of the filmmakers, Liane Brandon and Miriam Weinstein, will be in-person. 

Liane Brandon is a filmmaker, photographer, and Professor Emeritus, UMass/Amherst. Brandon is considered an influential figure in the Women’s Movement of the 1970s. She is a co-founder of New Day Films, a filmmakers’ distribution cooperative. She has also been an advocate for media artists and won a 1977 landmark case securing copyright protection for filmmakers. The screening showcases two of her films, Sometimes I Wonder Who I Am, and Betty Tells Her Story, each groundbreaking in form and the taboo issues for women they bring to light.

Miriam Weinstein is a filmmaker,painter, and author of numerous books. Her work in film from the 1970s includes My Father the Doctor, Living With Peter, and We Get Married Twice. The screening showcases her 4th film, Call Me Mama, which follows her previous films chronologically and thematically. The film, which chronicles Weinstein having her first child, bravely explores the ambivalence she felt as a new mother and the adjustments she was required to make along the way.

Joyce Chopra is a producer and director of documentary and narrative film, as well as work for television. Her breakout fictional film, Smooth Talk, won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance for Best Dramatic Feature (1985). She is also an early member of New Day Films, a filmmakers’ distribution cooperative. The screening showcases Joyce at 34, her early autobiographical film, known for being the first portrayal of a live birth on television. The film was also radical for its unapologetic take on the conflict between becoming a mother and continuing to be a filmmaker. The other film, Chlorae and Albi, is a portrait of the friendship between two young black women in Boston who have known each other since childhood, and whose lives are taking different paths. 

New England Legacy Screenings Program Notes

New England has a rich history in documentary filmmaking that continues today. Beginning in the 1960s–’80s, filmmakers in the Boston area were pioneering technical innovations that allowed for radical new approaches to documentary that influenced the genre’s directions. Their early cinema vérité work set the trajectory of documentary filmmaking in the US and created landmark works posing questions of politics, gender, and social norms and rituals.

These screenings will highlight the variety of styles developed amidst this ever-evolving cinematic legacy, from the journalistic to first-person autobiographical storytelling. Each evening we will examine multiple artists whose stories created impact and whose artistic lens sparks dialogue to the present day.

The post New England Legacy Screenings Continue May 14 – Program 3 appeared first on LEF Foundation.

LEF continues the New England Legacy Screenings with a second program coming up this Wednesday, March 19, at the Coolidge Corner Theatre.

This screening will be comprised of two films, Primary by Robert Drew, and The Collective: Fifteen Years Later, by Richard Broadman. Drew’s groundbreaking 1960 film, Primary, introduced a whole new approach to journalism, which is the world Drew came from. He collaborated with others to develop innovative light-weight equipment that allowed for a more intimate, observational kind of filmmaking. It involved synchronized sound and image via a cassette tape recorder and camera (an over-simplified description that involved some physics!) that came to be known as “sync-sound”. This new equipment led to a blossoming of independent work originating in New England and to filmmakers here continuing to innovate the documentary form.

Richard Broadman is one of these makers, whose films sought to capture contemporary sociological issues locally that include Mission Hill and the Miracle of Boston (1978) and Down the Project: The Crisis of Public Housing (1982). The Collective: Fifteen Years Later (1985), was a departure from his other films in that it looks back to an earlier time. The impetus for the film was Susi Walsh and the late Fred Simon, who launched Center for Independent Documentary in 1981. They approached Richard and his filmmaking colleague John Grady with a question about what had become of the political activism of the late 1960-70s. John Grady himself was an activist and reached out to those he knew, including a fellow activist, Michael Ansara, who appears in the film. A candid conversation between the participants captures parts of their experience back then and their current perspective on where things stood 15 years later in the mid-1980s.

Both John Grady and Michael Ansara will be joining us for a discussion, and no doubt have thoughts to share on where things stand today.

Stay tuned for more screenings to come.

Lyda Kuth

Executive Director

LEF Foundation

Wednesday, March 19, 7pm, Coolidge Corner Theatre

Primary (dir. Robert Drew, 1960, 53 min)

Robert Drew’s groundbreaking 1960 film Primary is one of the most important and influential documentaries in the history of the medium. A pioneering work in the documentary movement that came to be known as cinéma vérité, Primary follows the young charismatic senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, as he goes head-to-head with established Minnesota senator Hubert Humphrey to win the Wisconsin presidential primary in April 1960.

The Collective (dir. Richard Broadman, 1985, 60 min)

In 1970, thousands of young people thought of themselves as agents of change. They wanted to restore America’s democratic vision; they wanted to end the war in Vietnam. This is the story of one collective—their successes and failures, and what they do and think fifteen years later. 

The Collective: Fifteen Years Later, released in 1985, is a portrayal of political activism, “reflecting on both the excitement and the disappointment of their political engagement, informants are, by turns, candid, rueful, and idealistic; they’re unsparing in acknowledging their own mistakes both in analyzing and in organizing against a structure of oppression centering on, but extending beyond, militarism and neocolonialism.” – Chris Wellin, “Documentary Film, Teaching, and the Accumulation of Sociological Insight: The Work of Richard Broadman”, Teaching Sociology (2013)

New England Legacy Screenings Program Notes

New England has a rich history in documentary filmmaking that continues today. Beginning in the 1960s–’80s, filmmakers in the Boston area were pioneering technical innovations that allowed for radical new approaches to documentary that influenced the genre’s directions. Their early cinema vérité work set the trajectory of documentary filmmaking in the US and created landmark works posing questions of politics, gender, and social norms and rituals.

These screenings will highlight the variety of styles developed amidst this ever-evolving cinematic legacy, from the journalistic to first-person autobiographical storytelling. Each evening we will examine multiple artists whose stories created impact and whose artistic lens sparks dialogue to the present day.

The post New England Legacy Screenings Continue March 19 – Program 2 appeared first on LEF Foundation.

Dear Filmmakers and Friends,

LEF is excited to announce a screening series that introduces audiences to New England’s unique history of documentary filmmaking. 

The spring 2025 screening series will include works by early documentary filmmakers whose names might be familiar to some, and others whose work is not as widely known. These were women and men in their mid-twenties. Many were graduate students at the former MIT Film Section, some were students and faculty at Harvard University, while others worked outside of traditional educational institutions.

In sharing these groundbreaking films, we aim to deepen our appreciation for this innovative body of work, whose legacy continues to inform today’s documentary filmmaking in countless ways. 

Each program will be comprised of 2 to 3 films, as most works are under an hour, connected loosely by a general theme. Two programs are scheduled for this March, with more to be announced for April and May. 

The series is inspired by Scott MacDonald’s 2013 book, The Cambridge Turn: American Ethnographic Film and Personal Documentary, which focuses on work generated at Harvard and the MIT Film Section and the cross-pollination that evolved between their faculty and students. Their filmmaking was aided in no small part by their own technological innovations that allowed for radical new approaches to the form. After reading MacDonald’s book, we imagined a series that would begin to “bring long overdue attention” to those who made seminal contributions to the documentary field.

Lyda Kuth

Executive Director

LEF Foundation

New England Legacy Screenings Program Notes

New England has a rich history in documentary filmmaking that continues today. Beginning in the 1960s–’80s, filmmakers in the Boston area were pioneering technical innovations that allowed for radical new approaches to documentary that influenced the genre’s directions. Their early cinema vérité work set the trajectory of documentary filmmaking in the US and created landmark works posing questions of politics, gender, and social norms and rituals.

These screenings will highlight the variety of styles developed amidst this ever-evolving cinematic legacy, from the journalistic to first-person autobiographical storytelling. Each evening we will examine multiple artists whose stories created impact and whose artistic lens sparks dialogue to the present day.

Wednesday, March 5, 7pm, Coolidge Corner Theatre

David Holzman’s Diary (dir. Jim McBride, 1967, 74 min)

David Holzman’s Diary is a signature film in the history of documentary filmmaking that isn’t a documentary. It’s a fictional narrative that satirizes the supposedly “unmediated reality” that cinema vérité, or observational cinema, was seen to be. David Holzman (played by actor L.M. Kit Carson) unloads comic-neurotic monologues to his 16mm camera, with humor and pathos, reminiscent of the “personally expressive cinema” emerging out of Boston at this time.

Riverdogs (dir. Robb Moss, 1978, 32 min)

A lyrical chronicle of a thirty-five day river trip along the Colorado River and through the Grand Canyon. His thesis film as a graduate student at the MIT Film Section, Moss’ inspired photography shapes what becomes a meditation on youth, nature, and an idyllic, fleeting moment in time.

Backyard (dir. Ross McElwee, 1984, 40 min)

Backyard was McElwee’s breakthrough autobiographical film and thesis work as a graduate student at the MIT Film Section. He portrays his southern roots through a portrayal of family members—his brother, an aspiring medical student; his father, a surgeon—as well as depicting the nuances of race and relationships.

The post Announcing New England Legacy Screenings – Program 1 appeared first on LEF Foundation.

Cameron Bargerstock’s LEF-funded film EXIT MUSIC was selected for Spotlight on Documentaries at IFP’s Independent Film Week, which took place September 20-25. Cameron shares her experience in the LEF Blog this week.

My film Exit Music was selected by IFP for Spotlight on Documentaries, a collection of 50 work in progress films that participate in the Project Forum during Independent Film Week. This was my big chance to escape my little grant-writing cave and make power moves in the big city, face to face with industry players. As a new filmmaker representing my first feature film, this opportunity was a solid immersion into the complex world of producing, financing, finishing, and distributing a film. The Project Forum provides a rare opportunity for independent filmmakers to sit down one on one with industry professionals and discuss a work-in-progress film and strategy for finishing it. It’s not set up like a formal pitch because the industry chooses which projects/filmmakers they want to meet with.

After getting accepted to the event, I provided IFP with succinct written materials about my film, a 20-minute preview, and a 5-minute teaser. Industry representatives can access these materials online and then decide who they want a meeting with. One week before the event, I was sent a final itinerary of my meetings. Over the course of 4 days I had 25 meetings with financers, broadcasters, sales agents, distributors, and programmers like ITVS, POV, Al Jazeera, Chicken and Egg, Cinereach, HBO, BRIT DOCS, Tugg, Gathr, Sundance, South by Southwest, Conde Naste, Preferred Content, and New York Times OpDocs, to name a few.

All the meetings took place in a huge room, speed-dating style. It was an exhilarating chance to practice pitching and get valuable feedback. Each conversation brought forth creative new ideas and important questions that helped hone in my pitch. I came into the event with the intention to make progress toward financing post-production. Overall enthusiasm for Exit Music was strong. But this is what I heard a lot. “When you have a rough cut please send it to me.” This is great news and I’m eager to share it with these inspiring, influential people, but after one year financing the film on my own, money to carry the project through a rough cut is crucial. This is the wild goose chase we independent filmmakers get to solve in unique ways on our own. Regardless, I was forming relationships with people that I can call upon in the future.

I admit I over-analyzed what clothing I would don on this very important threshold into adulthood as a filmmaker and printed way too many postcards I was often too shy to give out, because who actually saves them, but here are my takeaways:

Don’t over-prepare
Performing a canned pitch will cause people to lose focus. They are seeing countless projects and you have to stand out. As #1 expert in my story, I was confident in my ability to present it off the cuff. I approached it less as a formal pitch and more of an opportunity to have a meaningful conversation. I didn’t actually practice a pitch. I had talking points that I could improvise on depending on who I was meeting with and from what point of view they were seeing my film (i.e. distributor, sales agent, programmer, funder). Asking what sparked their interest in my film was often a good starting point. I think my conversational approach made more of an impression in the 30 minutes we had together. You’re not just selling your film. You’re selling yourself.

Passion is infectious
Everyone I spoke with remarked on my passion for the film. They wanted to know why I was the best person to make the film. My film is about one family’s encounter with terminal illness. Many people I met with commented on their own complicated experience with the death of a loved one. I wasn’t shy about my enthusiasm for the project and

Be clear and specific
Have a strong sense of your narrative arc and how the story will unfold on screen. Also, be clear about your timeline and budget. I actually printed a couple copies of my budget and it came in handy a time or two. I actually surprised some with how organized I was.

What are your outreach goals
Be a visionary. What is the best-case scenario. Really think about the impact of the film. Who is the audience? How will they be reached? Who could be partners to spread the message? How will you build a “movement” around the film? These are important questions to answer way before you’re done with the film.

Know what you’re asking for
I was there to find funding, an editor, and to establish relationships for future festival and distribution partners. Be clear on what you need to succeed.

Know who you’re talking to
I researched every person and company I was meeting with.

Everyone asked why I am making the film
Across the board, I was asked why I made this film and my personal connection to the story. It was an opportunity to speak a little about my journey as a filmmaker and how I was led into telling this story.

Ask for feedback
I had nothing to lose. Sometimes I asked at the end of the conversation for critical feedback or aspects of the project that gave them hesitation. This led to interesting conversations about how to set my film apart from others.

Ask for other connections
Many of my meetings led to other recommendations.  I came away with a list of organizations to research, movies to watch, and people to meet. And I made sure to follow through with everyone.

What to bring that’s actually useful
Business cards with your film’s title on it, nicely designed postcards, ipad with trailer ready to watch, and over the ear headphones.

Follow up
I reached back out to everyone that I met with. You never know how they can be useful contacts in the future or who they know.

I didn’t walk away with a fat check in hand to finish my film. But I made incredible connections with people that I hope will lead to collaborations in the near future. My favorite moments were bringing a major programmer to tears (in a positive heartfelt way), getting a second meeting with a potential financer, almost winning at bowling during an afterparty, and making friends with other filmmakers devoted to the craft of storytelling.

—
Cameron Bargerstock is the Director/Producer of EXIT MUSIC.
She can be reached at cbargerstock@gmail.com.
Learn more about EXIT MUSIC here.

EXIT MUSIC Synopsis:

Terminally ill at twenty-seven, offbeat artist Ethan Rice leads his family and doctor through the surreal and stirring decision to die on his own terms. Equal parts comedy and darkness, Exit Music is the last year, last breath, and a letter to the world as a curious young spirit awaits the inevitable and reflects changing perceptions of dying in America.

Photos courtesy Cameron Bargerstock.

Captions (top to bottom): (1) A still image of EXIT MUSIC. (2) The Project Forum meeting room at Lincoln Center. (3) Chatting with my Executive Producer between meetings. (4) New York City skyline. (5) My film postcard (artwork by Mia Nolting). (6) Me with old friends Brian Morrow and Jonathan Lynch, the producers of Once I Was: The Hal Ashby Story.

The post Spotlight on Documentaries 2015 appeared first on LEF Foundation.

Massachusetts-based filmmaker Margo Guernsey’s LEF-funded project COUNCILWOMAN was one of five feature documentaries to participate in the inaugural Camden/TFI Retreat presented by CNN Films. The retreat, which took place from June 21-26 in Camden, Maine, also included the participation of Pacho Velez and Sierra Pettengill’s LEF-funded film THE REAGAN YEARS and three other works-in-progress from emerging US-based filmmakers.

COUNCILWOMAN follows the first term of Rhode Island politician Carmen Castillo as she balances her new role in public office with her day job as a hotel housekeeper, inspiring questions about democracy and its conditions.  

In the LEF blog this week, Margo shares some of her reflections on the retreat.

It is another day at the computer in my home office, which doubles as my two year old daughter’s bedroom. Left-brain me is arguing with right-brain me about next steps for my film, COUNCILWOMAN. I have been working on this film for four years and it feels like I am running a marathon I did not sign up for. I was expecting more of a sprint. No new funding is coming in with little chances of getting anything any time soon, and there are no obvious ways to reach people who might help. We will need at least $200,000 to finish. It feels like I have stopped at mile 17 to vomit, and I’m not sure I’ll make it to the end.

Then in comes the email. “On behalf of the Camden International Film Festival and Tribeca Film Institute, we would like to invite Councilwoman to participate in our inaugural retreat, presented by CNN Films…” My eyesight goes blurry. I feel dizzy. I am not making that up. It was a little too good to be true.

Many independent filmmakers, particularly early career filmmakers like myself, work on projects that extend for years and years very isolated from anyone. It is the unfortunate reality of unfunded or barely funded projects, and it is not good for creative work. Creative work requires collaboration on many levels. We crave it and the projects need it, but it can be hard to find.

The retreat took place the last week of June, and it was exactly what the film, and I as its Director, needed. Imagine the creative chemistry of ten early career directors and producers, and roughly ten late career filmmakers, in a rural setting focusing only on five films in progress, for an entire week. Mentors share their experiences, challenges, and ideas for tackling difficult situations. Workshop after workshop, and meal after meal, we, the early career filmmakers are engaged in tough open-ended questions: What is the central struggle of the main character? What is the fundamental nature of the film? Are you as close to the truth as you can get? Watch a scene independently and ask: what does this scene accomplish? Needless to say, each of us came out with a more meaningful and deeper approach to the stories we are already telling.

It is heartening that many successful filmmakers and industry professionals are committed to supporting emerging filmmakers. That does not mean it is an easy path. The documentary landscape is saturated with content, making it very hard to break through. If you have your own passion project, don’t worry about when your email may or may not come. It is your job to focus on your work, where it is at the present moment. Passionately film your story, be honest in all that you do, find collaborators who are at a similar career stage, and share your work often. For now, I am back to that game plan, just a little bit closer to the finish line. Thanks to the people at CIFF, TFI and CNN Films for bringing this together.

—

For more details about the film, check out the COUNCILWOMAN website here. 

To learn more about the Retreat, head on over to its website here.

Photos by Spencer Worthley / Courtesy of the Camden International Film Festival

The post LEF Grantee Margo Guernsey on the First Camden/TFI Retreat appeared first on LEF Foundation.

Over the past month, filmmaker Beth Murphy has been leading an impact campaign for her LEF-funded film WHAT TOMORROW BRINGS. Recently, LEF invited Beth to write about how she has paired her filmmaking with impact. This week, Beth shares her thoughts in the LEF blog.

Since 2009 I’ve had a front-row seat to one of the best stories in the world.  What has unfolded in front of my eyes at the first girls’ school in one small Afghan village has made me laugh, cry…get angry… feel so much pride and hope.

The truth is, I never want this film to end.  And although the film must, the story can’t.  And thanks to the Impact Campaign we launched last month, it won’t.

I think of myself as my film’s first audience member. Don’t we all want to catch that lightning-in-a-bottle moment when the audience sees our film and is inspired to act? But if I—audience member #1—am not moved to action, how can I expect others to be? You might be thinking: Making the film is enough!  Maybe in some cases it is.  But not this one.

Build A School Today Dot Com. That’s the Impact Campaign we launched last month during post-production on What Tomorrow Brings.  Typically, I’d want to wait until a film is released – or at the very least fully funded!– before launching. But we don’t have the luxury of time. The first senior class is about to graduate from high school in November, and there’s nowhere for them to go to college. Razia Jan – founder of the K-12 school—wants to build them a college, and I want to help her.  That’s what this campaign is all about.  I’m excited that the Zabuli Technical College will make history as the first women’s college in any Afghan village, but am even more in awe of these girls and their families, who are so committed to the life-changing power that education brings.

I’ve seen how education can drive change. Girls are learning what it means to become a woman in Afghanistan, how they can use their voice. Illiterate fathers who were wary about sending their daughters to school now express pride that their little girls can help them read letters. Afghanistan desperately needs female teachers and healthcare workers to serve women’s needs. But for me, there’s more to it than that; it’s about having a living demonstration of the power of education to change everything.

The post We Are Our Own First Audience appeared first on LEF Foundation.

Four filmmakers were selected to attend the 61st Robert Flaherty Film Seminar as LEF New England Fellows, including (pictured, L-R) Josh Weissbach, Eric Gulliver, Amahl Bishara, and Colin Brant. The seminar took place from June 13-19, 2015 at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York. This week, Eric Gulliver and Josh Weissbach share reflections on their experience.

Eric Gulliver writes:

It had just stormed when I arrived in Hamilton, NY and it smelled of recent rain at The Scent of Places. I’d heard warnings from friends and colleagues to “remember to rest,” and “always sit with somebody new when you eat.” There are so many people to meet, films to see, and discussion to finish, that halfway through the week you realize the impossible task that is the Flaherty Seminar. It is meant to be start of something, a catalyst, and not necessarily conclusive in any way. Here is where Rilke’s dictum to love the questions of your heart, and not just the answers, would be tested. It is then that the “ONWARD!” motto of Flaherty rings true. Just keep watching. Keep talking. And take it with you from there.

The typical day was overflowing, consisting of waking up at 7am, watching approximately 6-8 hours of films, three plus hours of group discussion in some capacity, eating three collective meals, and then continuing conversations over drinks and ultimately dancing until the sun comes up. Flaherty literature describes those who engage in all of this as “die-hards,” a title I was glad to glean in my time as a fellow. I had to carry the torch! The words intense and exhausting are apt when describing the experience, even for a person who functions well on little sleep. Somehow all of it seems needed though; the grueling screening schedule leading to discussion/confusion and releasing it through forged connections and fraternal convivialities. Here is where liking and disliking are fruitful. It’s targeting pressure points and not relenting from them.

To be there among newcomers, Flaherty veterans, and dedicated staff creates a welcoming yet challenging atmosphere. We don’t all use the same terms or know what to expect, and this posed particular difficulties in communication. Then again, Frances Flaherty stressed the goodness in this, that of ‘non-preconception’, which I came to appreciate as the week wore on. You bring your own terms that are redefined. Board Member and former Flaherty programmer Chi-hui Yang described the process of curating as having an ‘architecture,’ which was a perfect descriptor for the endeavor. What helpful contributions the various disciplines can reflect on each other. There is something productive about having 150+ people watch the same films, with all the filmmakers present, and championing each comment from the audience. It is empowering while being slightly off putting (I’m recalling the first time an attendee let the filmmaker on stage know they HATED their film, to which the filmmaker replied “And that is fine”). During the week there is opportunity to make oneself heard both publicly or privately, and this creates a spirited atmosphere.

There was notable absence of documentaries at The Scent of Places, whereas the program was full of experimental/installation art and narrative features. A mystery attendee scrawled “Narrative is safer,” on the screening room chalkboard sometime during the week. Each film in the program spoke to the theme’s implicit suggestion; that films can include subtleties in their minutia. In this sense it doesn’t matter what vehicle we choose to analyze be it conventional, experimental, or otherwise. Indeed, the ‘aren’t we all just representing performances’ debate was settled in one of the first day’s discussions. After multiple conversations, we all realized the vocabulary that included ‘ideological,’ ‘representation,’ and ‘absence,’ was an imperfect syllabus. Therein lies the mission of Laura U. Marks while putting together The Scent of Places. We were all going to have to find other words more suitable, and another path more productive. The we-are-all-in-this-together(ness) of the thesis was problematic in some instances, especially in regards to questions of filmmaker intent and supposed audience. The lack of conversation between installation artists and ‘conventional’ documentarians was remarkable both on the stage and off the stage. Perhaps some are concerned with form more than others. Or some want to see past the frame and not concern themselves with the merits of deconstruction per se. The inclusion of both persuasions though was in perfect Flaherty fashion (as I have come to understand it). Maybe the conversations that happened were because of this –  a guided experiment in detecting unrepresentable potions that manifest themselves somehow on screen.

–

Josh Weissbach writes:

First of all, I just want to say thanks to LEF for this experience at
the 61st Robert Flaherty Film Seminar. I would like to attach an
adjective to the word experience in the previous sentence, but which one
do I choose? The possibilities feel and seem endless. Lovely,
wonderful, fantastic, grueling, tedious, exhausting, alien, incoherent,
restorative, extraterrestrial, indescribable, emotional, puzzling,
challenging, searching.

Throughout my week at The Flaherty, I experienced all of these
sentiments and more. And on some level, I think The Flaherty is a game,
or at least it has the feel of being that type of paradigm. What was
Laura U. Marks trying to do with her programming? As the week went on, I
began to settle into the rhythm of her choices when I thought that the
films and videos that were being screened all converged within the
thought that this seminar was about the inability to comprehend. This
conclusion was initially reached while watching Zanj Revolution by Tariq
Teguia. As a singular movie, it felt like it was attempting to map a
cultural landscape that was unable to be mapped. This feeling was
augmented while juxtaposing it to Inland, another one of Tariq Tequia’s
films shown earlier in the week, which partially focused on the physical
mapping of landscapes in Algeria. In this film as well, the act of
mapping failed.

During the last group discussion on the final day of The Flaherty, one
of the other participants spoke to the group about how she saw the week
coalesce into the theme of incoherence. The symmetry that was occurring
between my own thoughts and this other participant’s thoughts made me
feel like there was an unknown and silent acceptance that was
simultaneously happening in our personal reading of the week’s
programming. But how does one work with the inability to comprehend?

When thinking about my own film and video work in the aftermath of The
Robert Flaherty Film Seminar, I do not know yet how the new thoughts and
considerations I both witnessed and individually produced apply to my
own sensibilities. But I can say that it was without a doubt a
generative process for me. For a number of years now I have been working
on a on-going film series entitled The Addresses. This project focuses
on and proposes ways in which to understand the domestic across a
spectrum that includes the intimate at one end and the uncanny at the
other. While at The Flaherty and since my departure, a new set of ideas
and structures have interested me that are now allowing me to consider
both old and new material for The Addresses, whether that material is
appropriated or created on my own.

Lately I have been considering one-point perspective grids, the textual
representation of sound within subtitled movies, small quadrants of the
frame that enhance an image’s “domesticity,” the combination of
geographic and cyborg forms to create a cyborg-ography, and the role of
verisimilitude to mask fiction as fact. These ideas somehow relate to
the failure of the whole and the success of the fragment, which maybe
resides somewhere within the inability to cohere.

–

All images courtesy of Eric Gulliver and Josh Weissbach.

The post Reflections on the 61st Robert Flaherty Film Seminar appeared first on LEF Foundation.

“Who’s involved, what’s the conflict, and what’s the transformation?” Cut to the chase! That was the candid advice we were given by a major funder during a meeting for IFP’s Spotlight on Documentaries program at Independent Film Week. We spent five days pitching our LEF-funded documentary THREE DAYS TO SEE throughout New York City, in focused 30-minute industry meetings at beautiful Lincoln Center, at the HBO offices during brunch with their top executives, over loud music at a Chelsea dive bar party hosted by SXSW. We learned that the biggest challenge is communicating simply and powerfully about the story we aim to tell.

We quickly realized that everyone at Independent Film Week had a fascinating story. Building friendships with other filmmakers was one of the best perks of being in such great company. We’d simply reach out our hand and say: “Do you have a film here?” With so many films being made these days (over 400 were submitted to Independent Film Week), IFP selection gave us a new stamp of validation and confidence when we sat down with Sundance, Tribeca, HBO, PBS, and other great distributors, programmers, agents, and funders.

It was thrilling to engage with so many industry players for the first time about our little story of a young woman’s journey to adulthood. Often they would start off a bit removed, but then our excitement would catch on, especially if they watched our trailer. The best meetings transformed from a pitch into a genuine back-and-forth conversation about our characters, themes, and surprising twists. On the first day I spent too much time telling people what I thought they wanted to hear. By the second day I had shortened my pitch, leaving room to read their body language and allow for their own curiosity and insights.

Here are a few hints from our team for your next pitching experience:

• Nail down a solid one minute pitch
• Practice your pitch with other people, but also say it out loud to yourself (that’s normal in NYC!) so it flows and feels natural
• Prepare two or three additional points to elaborate as needed, or to work into the conversation that you feel are important to selling your story
• Don’t try to fit it all in during that initial pitch, wait to gauge their reaction and be prepared to respond, be provocative and incite questions
• LISTEN
• Know your true budget
• Know when you’ll be in picture lock
• Dress to be comfortable and confident, not to impress
• Research their bio, ask questions, and find a common subject to break the ice
• Oh, fight your shyness (easy for me to say), smile a lot, and have fun!

We also got the chance to hear leaders in the film world deliver invaluable keynotes and panels, and rub elbows with them all at the networking after-parties. Every single bit of IFP’s Project Forum is designed to make you a more fully-realized filmmaker. Documentary work can sometimes feel like a lonely, thankless endeavor. After our time at IFP, I know for certain that THREE DAYS TO SEE will reach eager audiences, and I feel a renewed personal mandate to effect change in the world with the power of visual storytelling.

Hope to see you there in future years!

The post LEF Grantees at IFP’s Spotlight on Documentaries! appeared first on LEF Foundation.

 ^{(L-R) Beyza Boyacioglu, Warren Cockerham,} Amy Jenkins and Brynmore Williams. Photo Credit: The Flaherty

Four New England filmmakers were selected to attend the 60th Robert Flaherty Film Seminar from June 14-20, 2014 as LEF Fellows. These filmmakers are Beyza Boyacioglu, Warren Cockerham, Amy Jenkins, and Brynmore Williams. The following are reflections from the fellows about their Flaherty Seminar experience: 

^{Photo Credit: Brynmore Williams}

LEF Fellow Brynmore Williams writes: 

Disruption! That about sums up my experience at the Flaherty Seminar.  Disruption of style, disruption of form, disruption of expectations.  Nothing could have prepared me for what I discovered at the Flaherty.  The range of people I met, films we saw and discussions we had left me spellbound and inspired.  But most of all it left me with the burning desire to do it all again.  I realized that one cannot truly judge the experience without a few seminars under your belt, for the experience is not only about what appears on screen but also about the programmers and participants.  Parts of the program this year were really difficult for me.  They challenged my expectations of storytelling and documentary film but it was also amazing how much these dense films became fodder for stirring debate and intellectual rigor.  This experience wasn’t about loving every film or being always entertained, it was about the dialogue that was generated. This dialogue is what kept us all engaged and conscious of our humanity.

Brynmore Williams
http://brynmore.com

^{Photo Credit: Brynmore Williams}

LEF Fellow Amy Jenkins writes: 

Upon hearing of this year’s Flaherty Seminar topic “Turning the Inside Out” I was truly excited.  A Flaherty Fellowship sponsored by LEF enabled me to attend, and it came at a pivotal moment in my work.  After twenty years as a video installation artist, I am actively pursuing a new direction—the experimental documentary.  This year’s topic was precisely the question I, too, have been pondering:  How does the form of presentation affect the notion of “documentary?”  With help from the Film-Summer-Camp called The Flaherty, my seed of curiosity has now exploded into a full garden of possibilities, with enough bounty to carry me fully into Winter.

This year’s topic questioned documentary film’s claim to “truthful” representation, and examined the re-invention and expansion of the documentary form in a number of aspects, including its presentation beyond the single screen and into multiple screens, as well as outside of the theater and into three-dimensionality, along with documentary’s inclusion of staged scenes and theatrical reenactments, anonymous footage mined from the internet, surveillance feeds, and the creation of collective source material by giving laypersons cameras.  There were also moments of non-narrative disruptions of story, fictive stories parading as fact, and open-ended narratives that offered no conclusion.  Many of the films seemed to strive for what Samuel Beckett terms ‘a form that accommodates the mess.’

^{Photo Credit: Amy Jenkins}

Film themes early in the week included socialist idealism, cycles of capitalism, political corruption, and structures of oppression.  The catch-word I heard a number of times was “solidarity.”  Parallels were drawn between cinematic shooting and military warfare.  As my depth of despair for humanity began to overtake me, I was saved by a shift in the final days of the seminar to films that focused on the relationship between humans and nature. Whew, a close call!  While I say this in jest, I acknowledge that it is not the programmer’s aim to please, but rather to incite us to discuss, to argue, and to challenge our experience of the cinematic. And this was the most rewarding part of my Flaherty Fellowship–the interaction with the artists and the participants was truly inspiring and unique.  To spend eight days with over one-hundred film-lovers, twenty hours a day (yes, there was very little sleep, but with assistance from caffeine and alcohol,) while passionately serving, ingesting and digesting the art of documentary film, is the consummate experience called The Flaherty, (aka Summer Camp for Film Lovers.)  I gained enough inspiration to carry me through Winter, but next summer I might just have to return for another film-feast!

Amy Jenkins
July 15, 2014

^{Photo Credit: Amy Jenkins}

LEF Fellow Beyza Boyacioglu writes: 

In her article ‘What’s Wrong with the Liberal Documentary’, renowned filmmaker Jill Godmilow coins the term ‘post-realist documentary’, a form that refrains from pure description, truth claims and satisfying tools but rather “disengages the spectacle from the real in order to produce knowledge.” Reading this article followed by a masterclass with Jill Godmilow was a perfect introduction to the intense 7-day experience at Flaherty Film Seminar. Her ideas hinted us that at Flaherty, we will not enjoy the usual documentary experience where we learn about the lives of “those distressed social actors” and feel satisfied with our passive emotional participation. The program ahead of us required full engagement throughout the week, not one idea was served on a plate and the level of satisfaction was proportionate to one’s willingness to dig deeper and farther in order to make connections within and between the films.

Curated by Gabriela Monroy and Caspar Stracke, this year’s Flaherty Seminar was named ‘Turning The Inside Out’, with a special emphasis on form. The films we saw throughout the week were all quite challenging and required active participation from the audience in the movie theatre while igniting intense discussions at the Q&A’s. The nonhierarchical form of the seminar was also far from the traditional festival/screening environment where audience and filmmakers interact in a formal fashion. The filmmakers blended in the crowd of 170 participants, creating a sense of suspense by keeping us wondering who we are sitting next to. The seminar’s ‘no preconception’ rule restrained us from getting any information on films and googling filmmakers. As the week progressed, curatorial vision of Monroy and Stracke unfolded elegantly, revealing the connections between films they had chosen. My personal favorites were Hito Steyerl, CAMP, Johan Grimonprez and Jill Godmilow. CAMP’s ‘The Neighbor Before The House’ depicts Palestinian families peeping into their invaded homes in Jerusalem, examining the fine line between private and public, personal and political. I drew a connection between the Israeli settlers seeking to create a homogeneous thus ‘safe’ society for themselves and Hito Steyerl’s film ‘How Not To Be Seen. A Fucking Didactic Educational .Mov File’ in which people choose to live in gated communities hoping to blend in enough to disappear completely. Johan Grimonprez’s ‘Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y‘, a hijacking documentary that investigates the depiction of ‘terrorists’ on media 60s onwards was the star of the first night. However it became more precious for me after seeing Steyerl’s ‘November’, a film about her childhood best friend Andrea, who joins Kurdish guerilla in Turkey and becomes a symbol on Kurdish flags after being killed as a terrorist by the Turkish army. Sprinkled evenly throughout the week, Jill Godmilow’s work was a masterclass on documentary filmmaking, advising the filmmakers not to underestimate their audience and reminding the audience that the filmmakers are not obliged to spoonfeed them knowledge. Her question lingered with me: Who am I next to this film? She said, “if this question is not asked, it’s entertainment.” Godmilow’s work refreshed my tired eyes every time, no wonder she was the toast of the seminar this year.

Flaherty Seminar was a truly unique experience. It will take me at least a couple of months to digest the works I saw and to decipher the network of meanings woven by the curators. It was a privilege to take part in such an enriching journey and I will hopefully be back for the 61st Flaherty Film Seminar next year that will be curated by Laura U. Marks and will look closely at Middle Eastern cinema.

^{Photo credit: Brynmore Williams}

LEF Fellow Warren Cockerham writes: 

The Flaherty didn’t disappoint. I’ve known about the Flaherty Film Seminars for about ten years. Two of my undergrad professors at The University of Florida (Roger Beebe and Nora Alter) were the first to tell me about it. Since then, I’ve had many friends and colleagues attend. It’s always been discussed as one of those rites of passage for filmmakers, curators, writers and teachers:  a unique, full-immersion screening and seminar experience that leads to intense group discussions about the cultural function, politics, and aesthetics of “non-fiction” filmmaking.

The theme of this year’s seminar was “Turning the Inside Out,” curated by Gabriela Monroy and Caspar Stracke. In many ways, it was exactly the kind of work that one would expect to encounter at a Flaherty: essay films that border on, blur, and employ fiction filmmaking. The seminar opened with a familiar found-footage 1997 essay classic, Dial H-i-s-t-o-r-y by Johan Grimonprez and was followed by Hito Steyerl’s 2010, In Free Fall. Both pieces explore histories of the commercial airline industry and both are contemporary examples of a free-form non-fiction approach. This initial screening stirred up some critical conversation about the similar subjects of both pieces (commercial airlines) as being a far too didactic approach to the programming.  Although there was a similar sentiment surrounding the “remake” motif in both the pairing of Marker’s and Resnais’ classic, Les statues meurant aussi (1953) in Session 2 with a film inspired by it, Duncan Cambell’s It for Others (2013) in Session 3 and later in the programming the remake classic, Jill Godmilow’s What Farocki Taught (1997), it became clear that the curation was more about form and the evolution of cinematic language and style via modes of mediation.

^{Photo Credit: Brynmore Williams}

This direction became most evident in the inclusion of Jesse McLean’s work. Jesse’s work employs the codes and aesthetics of experimental and avant-garde histories, pop art, experimental ethnography, and the syntax of user-made online selfies.  This hybrid aesthetic approach to moving-image making signifies a shift away from objective Othering that so often happens when filmmakers attempt to create ethnographic films about foreign people, specifically the third world. Instead, Jesse’s work is ethnography of the first world – a world that the maker herself is very familiar with – a world of mediation and fascination with consumerism, material fetishism, fame, and information. The work treats these fascinations not necessarily as evil but as seductive, magical, and even religious fixations. One can certainly see an evolution of early Flaherty artists, Jean Rouch and Bruce Connor as well as more recent Flaherty artists Ben Russell and Deborah Stratman in McLean’s attempt at aesthetisizing American fascination with media as a kind of secular religion via cine-trance and flicker.

I’m not sure what the future holds for the Flaherty or “non-fiction” filmmaking. This year’s programming was complex enough to make me contemplate this future. Is the future of non-fiction filmmaking a series of collected or crowd-sourced recordings of world events? Is it similar to the crowd-sourced, super-cut text on The Arab Spring, The Uprising (2013) made by Peter Snowdon, a fellow at Flaherty this year? Whatever this future is, I’m sure the Flaherty Film Seminars will be a part of it.

^{Photo Credit: The Flaherty}

The post LEF Fellows attend the 60th Robert Flaherty Film Seminar! appeared first on LEF Foundation.

^{Participants at the Massachusetts Media Expo. Photo courtesy of Massachusetts Production Coalition}

A few weeks ago, LEF Program Assistant Gen Carmel sat down with David Hartman, Program Director of the Massachusetts Production Coalition (MPC), who shared details on the unique opportunities for Bay State filmmakers that have appeared since the MPC was created in 2005. The coalition works as an advocate to promote film and media production in the state, and as a platform for professional development.

How did the Massachusetts Production Coalition come about?

The MPC was formed in 2005 as a convergence of a couple groups that organized within different sectors of the industry.  MPC became the place where those groups came together to create a broad representation from pretty much every aspect of film and media production.  As far as I am aware, it is unique among other states for the level of collaboration that exists here.

Who does the MPC serve?

We are a really big tent, and serve everyone working in or touched by film, television, or commercial production in all of its forms.  In terms of our programming we strive to create opportunities and do things that appeal to the greater ecology of film and media enterprise. That’s definitely a challenge sometimes. We produce quarterly industry meetings, six seminars or workshop events, an annual expo, and some other one-off kinds of events within a single year. Between all of that you work to find places to be relevant to the interests of everyone.

What’s been the MPC’s greatest accomplishment to date?

Functioning as an industry representative to have the state’s film tax incentive legislation passed and remain effective is an achievement a lot of people associate the organization with. It was a cause that everyone in the field was able to get behind and unify to work towards. That program is in many ways the most essential piece of what has really made Massachusetts a competitive place to do business and sustain a career in the industry.

How does the MPC advocate for the film and media industry in Massachusetts? 

Over the years, MPC has worked with numerous industry groups and institutions to produce reports and consistent communications that describe the kind of economic activity film and media production contributes to the state, and where it can grow. Informing our representatives of our industry’s impact and the unique qualities it offers is an ongoing process.  So there’s a constant regeneration of data and information that we need to synthesize to create a snapshot of how things are working, and where they can grow.  Also promoting Massachusetts as a place to do business and where our industry thrives enriches the cultural life of the state.

How do filmmakers benefit from the tax incentive?

For filmmakers and producers, one of the strongest qualities of our state’s program is that is has a very accessible threshold for a project to become eligible for an incentive, so the entry point based a project’s budget or spending is very reasonable.  This makes it much more feasible to consider producing here as an independent filmmaker.

What do the MPC meetings attempt to do?

Our quarterly meetings create opportunities for members of the industry to connect and be informed. About 200 individuals attend each meeting. Networking is in many ways a function that MPC meetings serve best, and creating a place for the kind of interaction that happens at our events is really unique. We do four member meetings per year at different venues, whether it’s a location in town that’s supporting the film industry, a theatre or hotel; or company headquarters or studio.

The format is pretty consistent: we’ll have an hour and a half cocktail reception, so as people are leaving work they can filter in, then we do an hour and a half of presentations, which are diverse – it could be a topic that relates to a trend in the industry, locally produced projects, or a business or new product that we want to feature. We try doing themes from time to time, but it seems to attract a more diverse audience and the kind of interaction we hope to facilitate if we are open-minded and flexible.

The MPC also organizes the Massachusetts Media Expo. Could you tell me more?

The Media Expo is a really unique program, and last year’s event at WGBH was the first year we produced this. The Expo, like many of our programs, is supported by the Massachusetts Cultural Council, and that support has helped make the level of programming we are doing truly possible.

The Expo started out as an idea for creating a really large annual event that brought everyone together into the same space for a day – and the first year was kind of an experiment. There wasn’t really a precedent for having a large-scale trade show here of any kind for our industry, but thankfully everyone participated and we were fortunate to have over 50 film and media entities get involved as exhibitors. It was pretty remarkable. We had numerous programs throughout the day – a keynote panel of renowned producers, a couple of panels on different topics; one with a terrific independent filmmaker, another with local casting agencies, and then we had a really unique film premiere and panel at night. It was attended by over 600 individuals over the course of the entire day.

What does the MPC seminar series offer for participants?

The seminar series is a strong professional development series and is evolving – the first year we tackled production from beginning to end, so we had six throughout the year, and each one guided people through a different phase of production with a panel of creators from different genres of film and media making.

Last year we made it more topical to address themes that people wanted to explore further. From a distribution angle for example, people really wanted to talk about social media and how to self-market their work and themselves, so we focused solely on that for one seminar, and branded entertainment for another. We did a seminar on composition, because people were really interested in exploring audio further – so we had a panel of really great composers, like John Kusiak for example, who does terrific work in both documentary and commercial productions.

This year we’re broadening the scope of what we do with the seminars and some are more workforce development focused. We did one in April on camera dynamics and expanded it into a half-day event with both aesthetic and technical components. For that seminar, there was a really good panel of cinematographers and DPs that explored camera movement in their work and the kinds of tools that they use to create a shot through movement, and we were fortunate to have a lot of gear and equipment for hands-on demonstrations with the experts from High Output and Rule Boston Camera.

We’re also beginning a program that hasn’t been done here in a while which is a Production Assistant (PA) training program, so it will be a real primer on how to begin working on feature film and commercial productions.

How can local freelancers tap into new Hollywood opportunities in the state?

In many respects it really is still a word of mouth industry – you find the people who are working in the areas you want to be involved in and you just keep talking to them until you find a place in it. There is a service called Central Booking that books for crews, but generally speaking its still very much a person to person field, and you have to be very proactive – you have to find the people you want to work with, and that’s one of the things MPC does really well – we’re inclusive, so if people are starting out, coming to our events is a great way to make connections with the people you want to reach.

Do you have any thoughts for documentary filmmakers in particular?

I think the interests of independent filmmakers align really well with the greater business community we see growing here because independent filmmakers are essentially entrepreneurs – they have to be. Whether you look at each film that they do as a business in itself or the collective production that they do, they have every reason to be involved with a creative and business community that supports it.  Through MPC we’ve seen a number of independent documentary filmmakers connect with different resources and businesses, whether it’s for feedback on something or connecting with people about getting involved in a project. A lot of businesses will make their services as accessible as possible for producers to get their projects made – they want to see good work happen, and they want to see it come from here.

What are the benefits of MPC membership?

It’s two things essentially – it’s an opportunity to be part of the community by having a point of contact with people and a place to connect with people from every aspect of the industry, and it’s supporting the initiatives that MPC develops to keep the industry growing here.

What’s in store for this year at the MPC?

Our seminars started up recently – we have a PA Workshop on May 10th, and then another seminar in June on the business of freelancing as a career. For that one, we’ll bring a lot of terrific people together to discuss how they navigate in a freelance workforce. Then we’ll have the Expo and more seminars in the fall. Our next MPC Meeting is on May 19th at Red Sky Studios in Boston.  We have two more of those to look forward to this year, so I think I’ve got my work cut out for me. Connecting people – and helping them find opportunities, that’s really half of the job.

For more information about MPC programming and membership levels, please visit massprodcoalition.org.

The post In Discussion with the Massachusetts Production Coalition appeared first on LEF Foundation.

Lyda Kuth, the Executive Director of LEF New England, attended on Saturday and Sunday, and we were both excited to participate in this festival just a stone’s throw from Boston, which engages a stellar base of Salem festival-goers in addition to filmmakers from across the country in special screenings, premieres, and a variety of filmmaker discussion forums. The festival will run until Thursday March 13, so if you haven’t had a chance to attend yet, don’t miss the last few days! An added plus is that all of the festival venues are walking distance from the Salem commuter rail station.

A free filmmaker forum led by moderator Jennifer Merin, with visiting filmmakers (L-R) Tracy Droz Tragos, Michael Kleiman, Suzan Beraza, and Lukas Korver.

LEF-funded filmmakers have been out in full force at this year’s festival. Most notably, LEF grantee Cozette Carroll Russell will attend the East Coast premiere of her film BROOKFORD ALMANAC on Thursday, March 13 at 5:15PM. The film captures a year in the lives of two young, first-generation organic dairy farmers. Details about the event can be found here.

LEF filmmakers also made an appearance at a filmmaker forum called “Coming Soon… DOC-A-CHUSETTS”, a sneak peek at a selection of works by Massachusetts filmmakers, with brief filmmaker Q&A moderated by Loren King from the Boston Globe. Samples of a number of LEF-funded works were screened, including BLACK MEMORABILIA (Chico Colvard), FARM AND RED MOON (Audrey Kali and David Tamés), THE GUYS NEXT DOOR (Allie Humenuk), JOURNEY TO ARMENIA/SCARS OF SILENCE (Nubar and Abby Alexanian), WANDER WONDER WILDERNESS (Paul Turano), and WHAT TOMORROW BRINGS (Kevin Belli and Beth Murphy). The full list of new works can be found here.

Live music before the start of URANIUM DRIVE-IN

Finally, one unique aspect of the festival was Salem Sketches, a program of short films (made by local filmmakers) selected to show individually before each feature. Each short offers a glimpse of life in the town of Salem, from a buzzing local diner with devoted clientele, to a busy shoe repair shop that doubles as a play-land for the owner’s cat, to the inner workings of the nearest sewage treatment facility. This is the second year of the Salem Sketches program, after it was premiered by SFF co-founder Joe Cultrera and SFF organizer Perry Hallinan in 2013. I only saw three of this year’s sixteen sketches, which I’m hoping might be available to watch in full online later (please clue me in if they are). You can read more about Salem Sketches and see the trailer on the SFF blog, and see a few more at the festival while it’s still on.

For full festival details, visit salemfilmfest.com

-Gen

The post LEF at Salem Film Fest appeared first on LEF Foundation.

_{The Lincoln Center (Photo Credit: Marie-Emmanuelle Hartness)}

IFP Independent Film Week – What a positive experience! Michel [Negroponte] and I were thrilled to attend 2013’s session with our production THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MICHELLE MAREN.

There were really three major steps leading to the market: 1) apply, 2) get selected, 3) prepare! And there was a lot of preparation! We had a new deadline every other week over the summer: filling out files, uploading cuts, setting up our schedule, and  the most difficult of all – creating a twenty-minute cut of THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MICHELLE MAREN.

Upon arrival at the Lincoln Center subway stop, the first persons I luckily ran into were Michel Negroponte (my collaborator) and LEF’s Lyda Kuth (and her heartwarming smile).  It was a very good sign; the upcoming week was promising already!

Meetings with Industry people went smoothly, Michel and I had a set schedule and documents to support our pitch. I had my computer, the trailer of the film available and—very important—comfortable headphones. All meetings were held in a tight room, tables very close to each other so; no –one could hear the sound of the trailer without headphones. We also had a one-sheet presentation of the film as well as postcards, including photo, film title, contact info and micro screening date.

The micro screening was a presentation of our twenty-minute cut in a room with a large flat screen. There were thirty seats and we were pleased to fill out twenty-five of them. We were at IFP to find funding and distribution possibilities, so I would not say that the micro screening had as an important impact as the industry and distributor meetings on the tenth floor!  But it was nice to have Lyda Kuth, filmmaker Lucia Small and friends discover a cut of our film. Michelle Maren herself came to the screening, it was the first time she was able to watch part of the film with an audience. She was thrilled.

The following two days were all about meeting with broadcasters, more producers, and foundations. We had interesting meetings with places like Al Jazeera America, HBO, POV, Women Makes Movies (women are the majority on our team!), Chicken and Egg, and many more.  After this full roster of meetings, I felt privileged. IFP was making my life much easier: it would be very complicated to meet all these influential people separately (if ever!) and thanks to IFP and Milton Tabbot, we were all here to meet and discuss possible collaborations.

The last day—Thursday—was what we Filmmakers, called “Speed-dating with programmers”. Again, we had a set schedule (IFP did a great job and the volunteers were extremely helpful, bravo and thank you to them!) but meeting time was reduced to ten minutes! In ten-minute meetings, programmers had to present their festivals and filmmakers pitch their films.  Volunteers were walking around the tables lifting their hand; five, four, three, two, one, switch tables! Michel and I teamed well together, it was good to have an accomplice to pitch the project with!

It was fantastic to be part of a selected portion of the most influential parties in today’s Documentary creation. The next step is to follow up with our contacts and see where our film travels next!

The post Marie-Emmanuelle Hartness on Independent Film Week 2013 appeared first on LEF Foundation.