P.O.V. Blog

Run For — Not From — "The Hills"!

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:40:10 -0500

Every week, independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

In honor of this week's premiere of season four of MTV's "The Hills," I'd like to ruminate a bit on the end of the world. Not really, but you'll get what I mean.

The show, in case you're over 25 and/or don't subscribe to a magazine other than The Nation, is a reality (I use that word liberally) TV series about a group of young women in Los Angeles, their friendships, their love lives and their incipient careers.

It is probably the last thing you'd expect to hear discussed by fans of P.O.V. docs, but I'd like to change that. I think there's gold in them hills. The format of the show is such an effective manipulation of real life through filmmaking techniques, that I think documentary lovers ought to take note.

Lauren Conrad from MTV's "The Hills"

Whether it's in writing or not, it's patently obvious that the creators and the so-called real-life subjects of the show are in a pact to produce a successful money-making enterprise. If we accept that fundamental fact, then the allegation that the subjects stage events isn't so scandalous. I don't even want to suggest you should become enmeshed in the drama of the show or the characters. All I care about is how watching "The Hills" is such an incredibly unusual viewing experience.

You'll be inside an apartment with two people talking, and then there's a cut to outside the building, where you see the same people in a wide shot inside the building. Seems like ordinary filmmaking, but, wait, have you ever seen that in a documentary? Or there's the lighting — it's beautiful; every scene is perfectly lit. And then there's the constantly seamless camera angles — you'll see two people sitting in the front seat of a car, and they are each shown in a standard shot-reverse-shot format. How did they do it? They mount two small cameras right in the front of the passengers, just out of view of each other. That way, the audience observe the dialogue without noticing them, and it must allow the subjects to also be unaware (and I use the word very, very liberally) of the cameras as well. Other shots are clearly carried out with cameras on tripods or stedicams ... it's really quite incredible to watch.

Ok, sure, so it takes tons of money to achieve such feats. And the content is hardly the sort to elicit the interest of serious-minded documentarians. All I'm saying is check it out.

It's the future of cinema verité — as most people will know it.

What's Your P.O.V. about The Judge and the General?

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:14:00 -0500

The Judge and the General explores the criminal investigation of General Augusto Pinochet, who led a military regime in Chile for nearly 20 years. In 1973, Pinochet led a military coup that ousted the democratically elected president Salvador Allende. In the service of his anti-Communist crusade and with U.S. help, Pinochet's military and intelligence community consolidated power with a campaign of violence that included secret prisons, torture and murder. Hundreds of Chileans "disappeared" — never to be seen again.

In 1998, relatives of victims filed suit against the former dictator and a judicial lottery assigned the case to a conservative judge, Juan Guzmán, who was known to be a longtime Pinochet supporter. The filmmakers, who were granted unique access to Judge Guzmán's criminal investigation, might have expected to document a cover-up. Instead, they witnessed a profound personal transformation as Guzmán descends into what he calls the "abyss," and uncovers a past that includes his own role in the tragedy.

For Judge Juan Guzmán, a man who says that his investigations "opened the eyes of my soul," there is one clear choice: "A wounded country needs to know the truth."

For filmmakers Elizabeth Farnsworth and Patricio Lanfranco, The Judge and the General was an opportunity to explore the aftermath of the 1973 coup. Patricio is Chilean and lived through it all. Elizabeth helped make a film in Chile in the early 1970s and has been haunted by what happened there ever since.

Patricio Lanfranco says: "One of the hopes I had for the film was to encourage the same kind of transformation in Chilean society. The Pinochet regime was a huge mistake that we committed as a society, and it is important for Chileans to see the truth and make sure this situation could never happen again."

Elizabeth Farnsworth says: "I was interested in understanding the phenomenon of 'the Good German,' the conscientious person of high ideals who goes along with state terror because it offers safety and order in a time of chaos."

Juan Guzmán was such a person. As a young man, he closed his eyes to the terrible things that were happening in his country. But as we see in The Judge and the General, Guzmán had the courage to face his mistake and expose the truth.

What do you think of Judge Guzmán, his support of Pinochet as a young man and his change of mind? Why do millions of people stand by and allow injustice to happen? Have you ever been in a situation where you kept quiet instead of standing up for what's right? What can be done to encourage citizens to fight against injustice?

Ask the Filmmakers: The Judge and the General's Elizabeth Farnsworth and Patricio Lanfranco

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:47:44 -0500

The Judge and the General filmmaker Patricio Lanfranco was 19 years old when General Augusto Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected Chilean president Salvadore Allende in 1973. His co-director, Elizabeth Farnsworth, had spent time filming in Chile in 1970, and some of the people she had met there were killed in the coup. Elizabeth and Patricio met in 2000 when Elizabeth went to Chile again to work as a journalist for The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. They realized they were both very interested in human rights cases, and decided to make a film about Chile together.

After they met Juan Guzmán, a conservative judge who had been assigned to a criminal case against Pinochet, the two filmmakers knew that his was the story they had been waiting to tell. His extraordinary transformation — from youthful Pinochet supporter who believed the tales of mass murder and human rights violations to be mostly Communist propaganda, to a skeptical man with the courage to undertake a thorough and personally dangerous investigation — shows not only how people can be bystanders while acts of cruelty and repression are carried out by their government, but also how those same people can make the decision to face the truth about their own complicity and help to bring justice to the victims' families.

Patricio Lanfranco says, "Guzmán shows that it is never too late to be a good human being, to recognize one's own mistakes and one's own blindness and take responsibility for it." Read more from Elizabeth and Patricio's interview.

Do you have a question for Elizabeth and Patricio? Your question might be chosen for inclusion in a special Online NewsHour Insider interview with the filmmakers being taped Wednesday, August 20 at 11:30 AM ET. Enter your question below or on the NewsHour website. If you submit your question before Wednesday morning, Elizabeth and Patricio may answer your question as part of this special podcast.

The 10 Most Lugubrious Documentaries of All Time

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:13:10 -0500

Every week, independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

Because my previous doc list — the ten sexiest documentaries — garnered a good amount of interest (and a healthy dose of nastiness), I'll return to the well for another top ten. Of course, I was tempted to call this my 10 Funniest Documentaries of All Time. But that just struck me as slightly inaccurate. In truth, the best documentaries that are funny are also seering portraits of humanity. And since real life isn't brought to us by Pixar, it's often replete with complexity and sadness. (And since there is at least some truth the notion that all happy families are alike, documentary filmmakers don't make films about them.) And for that reason, the best docs are both sad and funny, so here is my 10 Most Lugubrious Documentaries of All Time. Before we get started, I will note that about a month ago, my old Premiere pal Glenn Kenny went on a screed against lists. If you agree with him, please read no more and instead bask in the buzzkill at his blog. If you do get a kick out of lists, let me know your thoughts on docs that make you giggle.

And let me just say one other thing about what you won't find here — The Aristocrats. In my humble opinion, The Aristocrats is not funny, it's not interesting, it's not anything. Other than dull and repetitive.

Here's what I do find funny:

10. Fast Cheap and Out of Control

9. My Best Fiend

8. American Movie

7. Roger & Me

6. Grey Gardens

5. Crumb

4. Anvil! The Story of Anvil*

3. Supersize Me

2. Fahrenheit 9/11

1. Grizzly Man

* If you haven't caught this yet on the film festival circuit, look for it this fall in theaters.

Looking for a Few Good Interns

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:58:46 -0500

Want to intern for P.O.V. this fall and get an inside look at the world of independent documentaries? We're looking for people with excellent communication and writing skills and who pay keen attention to detail to assist in the areas of production/programming, research and development, community engagement and education, Web, and communications and marketing. Interested candidates are strongly encouraged to visit the P.O.V. website to learn more about us.

Interns must commit to a minimum of 10 hours per week. Internships are unpaid; college credit can be arranged. Travel stipend available. All interns are required to attend a one-hour orientation session, date TBD.

To apply, please submit the following materials to internships[at]pov.org:
- resume
- writing sample
- cover letter detailing your availability and your interest in P.O.V.

Good luck!

What's Your P.O.V. about Belarusian Waltz?

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:29:44 -0500

Belarus, one of the nations formed in 1991 from the breakup of the Soviet Union, is a strange and little-known country in a region of growing strategic importance, a country that's been called "Europe's last dictatorship." In filmmaker Andrezj Fidyk's Belarusian Waltz, one man — post-modern performance artist Alexander Pushkin — is determined to challenge dictator Alexander Lukashenko's power through wheelbarrows of dung, mock patriotic displays and portraits of condemned Nazi collaborators.

Pushkin is determined to get Belarusians to talk about what is happening in their country. But if there's one thing Belarusians seem to agree on, it's that they should keep quiet about history, politics and culture — which makes Pushkin's avant-garde street theater perhaps less of a challenge to the regime than a continuing irritant to Pushkin's family, neighbors, old girlfriend (and mother of his child) and a series of nonplussed policemen and passersby.

While we see Pushkin fighting against the totalitarian system in Belarusian Waltz, we also seehis cruelty to his ex-girlfriend, and his abandonment of his daughter. Is it possible to reconcile the brave artist with the man who seems indifferent to the hurt he has caused to his ex-girlfriend and daughter?

Filmmaker Fidyk says "Pushkin is a complicated man. On the one hand, he is a hero, fighting for freedom in Belarus. On the other hand, he is not as good a person as everyone wants him to be...He has destroyed his former lover, and he doesn't feel sorry for her at all. He never wanted to meet his daughter and acts like his daughter doesn't exist. That scene reveals that as a man, he turned out to be a different person than he was as a political hero."

Is Alexander Pushkin a hero or a cad? Were you surprised by this glimpse of contemporary Belarus? Do you think that performance art is an effective way to fight totalitarianism?

9 Star Hotel's Ido Haar Answers Viewer Questions

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:45:54 -0500

Ido Haar is the director of 9 Star Hotel. After the film aired on P.O.V., viewers wrote in with questions for Ido. Read on for his responses.

Allen asks: Thanks for the film. I found similarities between the Palestinian men and Mexican migrant workers in America. Is this something you thought about as you were making the film? Do you think your portrait of Palestinian workers has other echoes around the world?

Ido Haar: I didn't think about the similarities between the Palestinian men and Mexican migrant workers in America, but I did try to find a way to show a universal story, a human story. Almost every place I've visited and shown the film, people find similarities between the situation of the Palestinian men and things in their communities; many people told me about the exploitation of illegal workers in Europe.

Nicholas asks: What is the status of the security barrier? Are there still places where Palestinian workers can sneak past the police and the army to work? Or is this no longer possible?

Haar: The status of the security barrier has changed since I shot the film. There are a lot less places where Palestinian workers can sneak into Israel. The separation fence is already closed in most areas. Getting in to Israel for a Palestinian worked is now much more expensive, dangerous and complicated.

Joe asks: While 9 Star Hotel is described as an "essentially non-political film", I believe it is nonetheless pro-Palestinian. Why did you not portray the Israeli families who have been victimized by Palestinian acts of terror?

Haar: In Israel and abroad, a lot of people are exposed to the stories of the Israeli families who have been victimized by Palestinian acts of terror. In this film I tried to bring a different point of view about the situation in Israel, I tried to show the story from the point of view of young Palestinians who are trying to survive and support their families in the complicated conflict.

Carly asks: How can people from the U.S. help these young Palestinian men?

Haar: It's hard for me to answer the question of how people from the U.S. can help these young Palestinian men. I hope that by knowing more aspects of the conflict, people may help pressure Israel and Palestine to work towards a peace solution.

Magalee asks: How did you find your subjects?

Haar: I grew up in a village near the city of Modi'in and I know that area very well. During my research I walked around the forests and the hills nearby and tried to talk with the workers. When I met Muhammad, he took me to the hideouts in the hills, and when I saw the place and met the workers there, I knew that I wanted to make the film there.

Doc Soup: Johnny Cash, 40 Years Later

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:50:46 -0500

Every Monday, independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

This week, P.O.V. is airing 1969's Johnny Cash: The Man, His World, His Music, a real time capsule of a documentary about the legendary country musician. I am particularly struck by how director Robert Elstrom creates a portrait of Cash without needing any big, dramatic, gotcha' moments or weepy-eyed confessions. The film feels content to show Cash on the road, singing, with his family, and out hunting, without digging any deeper than the music star would let it, which, for me, was far enough. So when I call it a time capsule, I say it in terms of its subject as well as its filmmaking technique. (I kept thinking how the film would have been different if Elstrom had shot it on video.)

What stands out in Johnny Cash, for me, more than Cash playing with a gum-chewing Bob Dylan (ok, still, that was pretty cool), are the rhythms of Cash's conversations with friends and family, his sweating brow, the sometimes difficult-to-understand southern accents and even the too-dark scenes where images aren't totally clear. But, in the end, it is Cash's clear, beautiful singing voice that stands out most in the film. Which, of course, is as it should be.

If there is any true standard of what makes a great film, then longevity must be one of the greatest of arbiters. But how does Elstrom, who is still working as a cinematographer, feel about how the film was received at the time? Did he have the same aspirations of, say, an Alex Gibney, who wants to get his films distributed properly to as many people as possible? I know that the Maysles brothers, at the time, were disappointed by how the now much vaunted Grey Gardens was received at the time of its initial release. Looking back now, does Elstrom feel he got his due?

What's Your P.O.V. about Campaign?

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:00:44 -0500

Campaign is a whimsical look at Japanese electoral politics from filmmaker Kazuhiro Soda, whose friend Yamauchi "Yama-San" Kazuhiko is plucked from obscurity by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to run for a critical seat on the Kawasaki city council. Soda films his friend, and along the way, manages to provide a startling insider's view of Japanese electoral politics.

Yamauchi Kazuhiko seems an unlikely choice to run for office. A newcomer to the city, he has zero political experience, no charisma, no supporters and no time to prepare. According to the candidate, he has never even owner a suit before. What he does have is the institutional power of Japan's modern version of Tammany Hall pushing him forward. Yamauchi allows his life to be turned upside down by party bosses as he pursues the rituals of Japanese electioneering.

Watching Campaign from an American perspective is fascinating. The similarities and differences between the democratic process in the U.S. and Japan reveal themselves in a myriad of ways. For example, Yama-San calls himself a "parachute" candidate because he moved from Tokyo to Kawasaki to run for the open city council seat. This kind of term exists in American politics as well — in the form of the "carpetbagger" candidate. On the other hand, American candidates are encouraged to always be confident while Yama-San showed a lot of deference to the party elders during the campaign.

Yama-San's wife, Sayuri, objects to the role that she has to take in the campaign. She is told that she must refer to herself as a "housewife" instead of a "wife" to appeal to the conservative supporters of the LDP. Do you think Sayuri was right to be upset? What roles do candidates' spouses play in the American political process?

Filmmaker Kazuhiro Soda is also mystified by parts of the American political process. He says that in Japan, "election law prohibits candidates from spending too much money," and he feels uneasy because in America, "only people who are rich can be elected." Do you agree with him? Should American politics have more restrictive laws on how much money candidates can spend on their campaigns?

Ask the Filmmaker: Campaign's Kazuhiro Soda

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:56:29 -0500

Filmmaker Kazuhiro Soda was born and raised in Japan. While attending the University of Tokyo, he met and befriended Yamauchi Kazuhiko, or "Yama-san." Almost twenty years later, Kazuhiro was surprised to find out that his old friend was running for a critical city council seat in the city of Kawasaki as part of the Liberal Democratic Party. Sensing that Yama-san's campaign might prove interesting, Kazuhiro asked him if he could shoot a film about the process. Five days later, Kazuhiro was in Kawasaki and rolling.

Parts of the Japanese political process in Campaign might seem quite strange and unfamiliar to the American viewer. Yama-san has to repeat his name as often as possible while he goes around the city district, and his wife, Sayuri, has to refer to herself as a "housewife" instead of a "wife" even though she is an independent career woman. Kazuhiro spoke about some of the differences between American and Japanese elections in his filmmaker interview:

In Japanese culture people should not look too proud or confident; if you look too confident people may think that you are arrogant and cannot be trusted. In American culture, on the other hand, political candidates have to look like they know what they're doing, and they have to act like they are the best. So those differences go a long way to explain why the Japanese election looks so different from an American campaign.

Read more from Kazuhiro Soda's interview and find out what Yama-san was like in college, and what aspects of the American political process Kauzhiro feels uneasy with.

Do you want to ask Kazuhiro Soda a question? Enter them in the comment field below, and he will select a few and answer them the week of July 28, 2008.

Doc Soup: Major Marketing for American Teen

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:41:46 -0500

Every Monday, independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

This past weekend, American Teen hit theaters. I'd put it up there with about five other docs (Standard Operating Procedure, Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?, Young@Heart, Man on Wire and Religulous) as the most anticipated of 2008. The film won raves and a raging bidding war at Sundance. And although I've been told that it was bought for a lot less — about $1 million — than its producers were asking for (I've heard from $2 million to $4 million), it was clearly a vote of confidence by distributor Paramount Vantage. And the purchase makes sense. The company is an arm of the same beast, Viacom, that owns MTV — and the film has all the hopeful hooks of a summer box office winner.

The film follows the lives of five teenagers in Warsaw, Indiana, through basketball games, heartbreak and graduation. It's really not a world apart from a lot of the reality television you can catch at home. In fact, one of the stars of the show, Megan, the "princess" in the group, told me that director Nannette Burstein told her it "would be a lot like Laguna Beach." What does set it apart is the fact that Burstein gets closer to these kids, in a more honest and unexploitative way. She shot a thousand hours of footage and really won the trust of these kids. And I have to say that the film does indeed feel different than a Laguna Beach or The Hills show because of its sincerity — but also for some cinematic tricks that Burstein implements, some to great effect (visually tracing a series of text messages that the kids send during filming) and others less so (using computer animation to visualize the subjects' fantasies).

But how American Teen might most set itself apart is in how it's being marketed —to the hilt. The real life subjects of the doc have been brazenly positioned as archetypes (the geek, the rebel, the jock, etc.), and reduced to catchphrases. You can catch their Breakfast Club-like poster at the biggest multiplexes. Check it out at http://www.americanteenthemovie.com/. I don't know the P & A budget, but it's got to be high, in the millions. My impression is that the kids are willing participants in all this, and that in fact they're lapping it all up (you can see/read/hear it all on their Facebook pages). And Burstein told me that she wanted to make a non-fiction film that felt like a John Hughes picture, so she clearly was not going for a Frederick Wiseman High School vibe.

What the marketing reminds me more of is... Reality Bites. Remember how Ben Stiller's twit character re-edited Winona Ryder's authentic, earnest videos of her friends? Paramount Vantage's marketing push reminds me of that. I'm not saying it's all evil or that Burstein and the kids are being taken for a ride. But it does strike me as a little desperate.

And it seems too early to judge the impact of the marketing blitz from this weekend's box office — Teen made a respectable $8,600 per screen, totaling an estimated $43,000, according to Indiewire. But a far cry from Man on Wire, about Phillippe Petit, the 1970s World Trade Center wire walker, which made $24,000 per screen.

The Last Conquistador's John Valadez Answers Viewer Questions

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:05:28 -0500

John Valadez, along with Cristina Ibarra, is the co-director of The Last Conquistador. After the film aired on July 15, viewers wrote in with questions for John and Cristina on the P.O.V. Blog. Read on as John answers questions about John Houser, handling angry reactions from viewers and what's happening in El Paso now.

Anne Linn asks: Thank you for a thoughtful and relevant program. How did you maintain your equanimity in light of the reactions of the rich white folks to the people protesting the sculpture? How did you get such an intimidate portrait of Houser? Did you have lengthy discussions with him off-camera? I admire your professionalism and artistry. Thank you for a fine show.

John Valadez: Hi Anne Linn. Thanks for your kind words. I think we were able to "maintain our equanimity" because fundamentally, we respected the perspectives of everyone we filmed. I don't think there is anything wrong with being either rich or white (in fact I wouldn't mind being a bit more prosperous myself!) and I really think it is important to acknowledge, listen to and try to appreciate the perspectives of folks who we may not necessarily agree with. We came with the approach that our job is to help folks express their perspectives regardless of whether or not we may have agreed with what they were saying. I tend to think that if we spend more time listening to one another we might glean some pretty important insights.

How did we get such an intimate portrait of Houser? We spent a lot of time with him. We really like him, appreciate his talent and intellect and greatly enjoyed his company. He is a wonderful person. In fact that is what is so interesting about the statue. Houser is a really wonderful person who had the best of intentions who built a monument that is so deeply offensive to so many people. To me that was really interesting. Showing that was far more complicated and real than it would have been to demonize him.

Adele asks: This was obviously a sculpture project and a film that stirred up a lot of passions. What's your response to people who are angry at you for having made this film? Is there anything you'd like to tell them?

Valadez: Well Adele, a lot of people are angry with us for making this film. Many Hispanic folks, who look at Oñate as a hero, feel that we maligned his good name. Some Native folks felt we "let Houser off the hook and did not hold him fully accountable for his monument." Some folks who funded the monument felt that they were misrepresented, that they come off looking like insensitive rich people. Some folks from El Paso felt we spent too much time with the Native Americans and Hispanics and not enough time exploring the perspective of folks who live there. In spite of all this I think we did our job. We gave everyone a fair chance to express themselves and we did so without malice. With as little bias as possible, we tried to portray events in a fair and even-handed way.

If I could tell folks anything it would be that we are all brothers and sisters. We are all neighbors. We all share this terrible and painful and divisive history. It is our common legacy and it binds us in grief. And while we have inherited it, we should not be bound by it. We should rise above it. After all we are all children of god and we should all reflect upon how we can span divides of difference to find new connections for change and understanding. This means that we need to have far more compassion. In many ways the statue has become a very selfish monument. I would ask everyone to think not of themselves but of the community. How can we re-imagine the monument so that it includes everyone? Until we embrace our Indian brothers and sisters with respect and humanity we will all be diminished, living under the shadow of Oñate.

Tom asks: Was there ever a discussion about creating a sculpture that honors Native Americans and placing it close to the sculpture of Oñate as a counterpoint?

Valadez: Oñate is only one of twelve proposed statues, but I doubt that any of the other monuments will ever have the grandeur or power that the Oñate memorial possesses. I really hope that El Paso can summon the moral leadership to lend some kind of balance, wisdom and humanity to the Oñate site. But to date there seems to be little if no political will to do so. In my view all El Paso residents should be deeply embarrassed and humiliated by this lack of moral conscience.

Gary asks: Are the two opposing groups reaching out to each other now? Or are they still in a stalemate?

Valadez: It is very sad, but there seems to be very little humanity or understanding of the painful legacy that Oñate represents in El Paso these days. The American Southwest is a broken land. I guess what El Paso needs is a prince of peace. Someone with the courage to take on an indifferent city hall and fight for El Paso's redemption. Who among us will arise to heal a divided people?

Doc Soup: 9 Star Hotel: A Modern-Day Bicycle Thief?

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:05:33 -0500

Independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup. Today, he muses on the most recent P.O.V. film.

As I watched 9 Star Hotel, I was overcome by this strange feeling of déjà vu. I was captivated by the slice-of-sad-life story about the young Palestinian men who live in a shack and work construction illegally in Israel. The measured, reserved tone of the film impressed me. The high-rise grandeur of the buildings in the backdrop while these guys live in squalor moved me. The dusty, desolation of where they work, the running and hustling of their lives, the sad, intelligent looks in their eyes... And then I remembered: The Bicycle Thief.

Now, I know the subjects are quite different, and some might consider comparing a fictional film to a non-fiction film blasphemous, but I think that 9 Star Hotel director Ido Haar has managed to recreate the feeling, the mood and even the characters of Vittorio De Sica's brilliant neorealist film from 1948. De Sica's movie is a work of fiction, yes, but it did use "real" people for the crowd scenes. The film feels real, as it tells the story of a man whose bicycle is stolen as he is looking for work. He then goes out to search for the bike with his son. Not much of a plot, right? But neither is there much of a storyline in the life of the boys of 9 Star Hotel. But what both films do is depict a time and a place with what feels like seamless authenticity. And I think both films tell the same tale: ordinary men desperately trying to eke out a living. And between the soulful, hungry looks of the young men, the stark settings and the bleak final notes, I just have to see the two films in the same light. And so, maybe I should tweak what I wrote earlier: it is De Sica who who recreated a reality that has changed little in the past sixty years. And it is Haar who has managed to capture it.

What's Your P.O.V. about 9 Star Hotel?

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:16:29 -0500

9 Star Hotel is the facetious name that Palestinian construction workers give to the pile of rocks that marks their clandestine nightly abode — a group of cardboard enclosures and tin-covered huts hidden in the brush-covered hills above the Israeli town of Modi'in. It is also the name of this week's P.O.V. film about the daily travails of these "illegals" as they hide from police at night so that they can work in Modi'in during the day.

The Palestinian men are neither militants nor activists, but ordinary youths placed by history in extraordinary circumstances who emerge as fully human — flawed and sympathetic. Caught in a strange and dangerous no-man's land between an Israel that must enforce laws to protect its citizens and a Palestinian Authority that can't or won't help them, they must risk capture and live in makeshift shelters simply to survive.

As a film made by an Israeli that takes the point of view of its young Palestinian subjects, 9 Star Hotel holds out a model for understanding, even across significant divides. The vérité-style documentary reminds viewers that behind all the political contention that so often defines regions like the West Bank, there are human stories. The film's subjects face universal struggles to make a living, care for family and prove their manhood. Individual tragedy is counterbalanced by resilience as the young men dream of a brighter future, despite the uncertainties that define their current situation.

Ahmed has no hope of fulfilling his dream of becoming police officer because he can't read and write. How is the experience of the men in the film like or unlike the experiences of day laborers or undocumented workers in other places? How is their situation like or unlike other places where borders divide areas of wealth and poverty?

Reflecting on Israel's treatment of Palestinians, Muhammad says, "If you shut a cat in a room, won't it jump at you?" If you could recommend to the Israeli government one policy change that would improve the lives of the men in the film, what would you recommend and why? Assume that the Palestinian Authority was not constrained politically. Similarly, what one policy change would you recommend to the Palestinian Authority?

Ask the Filmmaker: 9 Star Hotel's Ido Haar

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:34:42 -0500

Israeli director Ido Haar grew up in a village on the edge of a pine forest halfway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. When he went home to visit his parents, he often saw men running frantically across the highway. He says "the fear in their eyes haunted me, and I wanted to find out where they were running to and whom they were running from."

In our interview with Haar, he tells us that he went into the forest and started talking with the men.

I discovered that the forest — my own backyard — serves as a hideout for thousands of Palestinians looking for work in Israel. I found a secret camp on the other side of the forest, but didn't find any people. Whenever I came around, they would flee. My persistence made them curious, and eventually they stayed put. Since then, I have been documenting a vibrant community of young men and the impossibly hard and strangely vital lives they live. My camera follows two best friends. Muhammad is the charismatic leader, the one who always has the answers. Ahmad is the sole provider for his mother and seven siblings. I spent nights and days with them, experiencing, as much as an outsider can, a life of fear, uncertainty, madness and grace and trying to understand how they live despite their circumstances, which to me seem unlivable — in the open, in the dark, exploited, away from home and family — indeed, how they simply survive.

In the beginning, when I started trying to shoot the film, there was a lot of suspicion; the workers were sure that I was involved with the Israeli Army or the Israeli police. But after awhile, they understood that I'm interested in their story. Still, it took me months to find the two main characters in the film: Ahmad and Muhammad. There was something in their faces that caught me before I understood their stories. I felt as though the camera chose those two as my characters.

Read more from Haar's interview, find out more about the making of 9 Star Hotel and learn about the challenges and the surprising benefits of filming characters who speak a language you don't understand in Haar's Production Journal.

Do you want to leave a comment for Ido Haar or ask him a question? Enter them here, and he will select a few and answer them the week of July 21, 2008.

Six P.O.V. Films Nominated for News & Documentary Emmy Awards

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:50:29 -0500

Last week, P.O.V. received six nominations in the 29th Annual News and Documentary Emmy® Awards. The nominees were announced by the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS). Michael Apted's 49 Up was nominated for Outstanding Interview; Ralph Arlyck's Following Sean received two nominations, for Best Documentary and for Outstanding Individual Achievement in a Craft: Writing; and three P.O.V. films were nominated for Outstanding Continuing Coverage of a News Story — Long Form: Libby, Montana; Made in L.A.; and Rain in a Dry Land.

PBS led the pack this year with 38 nominations, more than any other broadcast or cable network. The News and Documentary Emmy Awards will be presented on Monday, Sept. 22.

"P.O.V. celebrated its 20th season on PBS last year with a diverse slate of films by established and emerging filmmakers," said Simon Kilmurry, P.O.V.'s Executive Director. "From the struggles of refugees, immigrants and working Americans to stories of personal transformations, the nominated films introduce us to people whose lives, we hope, will enrich our own."

Read more about the nominated films after the jump.

Doc Soup: What Does SnagFilms Mean for the Future of Documentary Distribution?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:23:14 -0500

Every Monday, independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

Last week, there was a big splash in the small pool that is the Internet documentary film community. A new site called Snagfilms was launched by former AOL vice chairman Ted Leonsis, ex-AOL chief Steve Case and venture capitalist Miles Gilburne. Heavy hitters, indeed. The site allows people like you and me to watch docs online, and to use widget technology to link other folks to docs on our myspace pages and the like. And here's the kicker: the docs are free. Snagfilms currently has 250 documentaries on the site (with another 150 soon to be added), including Super Size Me, Dig! and Kicking It, with plans to expand to much, much more.

I spoke with Snagfilms CEO Rick Allen (previously of the National Geographic Society and Discovery Communications), who walked me through the site."What's making this possible are two things: One, a group of investors who care about independent films and in social change, and who are willing to underwrite a big, professional expensive effort," he said. "And, two: Filmmakers who are trying to figure out the best way to use the opportunities to use digital platforms to reach an audience and to monetize their content." (In addition to watching the film online, viewers are given the opportunity to buy the dvd.)

The whole venture might be lost amongst the many recent websites trying to get a foothold in the indie online film world (filmcatcher comes to mind), but these guys went a large step further when they also bought out indiewire.com. "It's like doubling down," Allen says. "At a time when a lot of folks are saying the sky is falling in the film world, some very smart, deep pocketed folks like Ted are saying we believe in this sector."

I couldn't help noting a couple of ironies while talking with Allen. First, I noticed that there was a McDonald's ad on the same page that Supersize Me could be downloaded. And then there's the strange coincidence that Albert Maysles just recently announced the creation of his own theater in Harlem that is totally dedicated to documentaries. Talk about old world and new world ventures. While Maysles' theater seems quaint and admirable, it's clearly in Snagfilms that doc filmmakers could find hope for a better future. I wish them the best. I, for one, plan on watching Kicking It this weekend.

How big can Snagfilms get? I asked Allen for some projections. "You think I'm going to put a target on my chest?" He said, laughing. "I don't know. It's a brave new world. And it's going to take a bunch of money and a whole lot of effort."

To a Successful News Hunt

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:31:42 -0500

The results of our News Hunt for good journalism on the 2008 elections are in! From July 1 - 14, P.O.V. and PBS Engage joined forces with NewsTrust.net, a nonprofit social news site devoted to finding good journalism, to review current news stories about the 2008 elections with a focus on the voting process from the perspective of the American man and woman on the street. Over this two week period, reviewers examined articles on election reform coverage from a wide range of sources, from The New Yorker and The New York Times to The Nation and The Huffington Post. See the top stories and a summary of what reviewers found over on the NewsTrust.net blog.

The News Hunt was one of the special features for the Election Day website, and while it's now closed, the hunt for good journalism never ends. Check out NewsTrust.net for more opportunities to review news stories and to participate in the effort to highlight quality journalism.

The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández's Kieran Fitzgerald Answers Viewer Questions

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:23:24 -0500

Kieran Fitzgerald is the director of The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández. After the film aired on July 8, viewers wrote in with questions for Kieran on the P.O.V. Blog. Read on as he answers questions about the equipment used in making the film, the decision to include President George W. Bush in the story and more.

Robert asks: Hi. What equipment did you use to shoot and edit your documentary?

Kieran Fitzgerald: We used a Canon XL2 for all of the interviews. The recreation still photos were taken from 16mm footage. We edited on Final Cut Pro.

Rob asks: In 1997 Bill Clinton was president. Why did you feel like Bush should play such a prominent role in your show?

Fitzgerald: Until the end of the film, Bush Sr. and Clinton have equal screen time. The narration explains that the Clinton administration increased the military's participation in the 'War on Drugs' and there is a clip of Clinton declaring that he will fight the drug trade more rigorously than Bush. The film is highly critical, I believe, of the way both the Pentagon and the Department of Justice under Clinton handled the Hernández case.

Bush Sr. reappears at the end of the film for two reasons: I felt it was important for people to know about the posse comitatus law that prohibits military from acting as law enforcement on domestic soil (Bush Sr. was in charge of bypassing this law during the Reagan administration); and I wanted to tell the story of the Madrid family's connection with George H.W. and Barbara Bush.

For me, the ending of the film is not an attack on the Bush family at all — it is an anecdote that demonstrates how the top of our government can be closely related to families in the most remote parts of our country. As Enrique Madrid says, it shows 'how small the United States is.' I believe it is important for any president, Republican or Democrat, to remember that border communities are also a part of the greater American community.

Justin asks: Hernández mistook the marines as a dog, the marines mistook Hernández as a combatant drug dealer. BOTH were wrong. Who shot first? Would you have done a 2.5 hr. film on the marine, (his family and any other person you could find) who may have died because of a gun shot inflicted from Hernández? Doubtly.

Fitzgerald: You may be right that had Hernández accidentally shot one of the Marines I wouldn't have made a film about it. Part of what attracted me to this story was its dramatic detail — the way misinformation and poor decisions kept escalating toward the tragic conclusion. I was drawn first to the nature of the story, not to its political implications.

That said, I believe that the political implications had a Marine been shot instead would be no different. In both cases, we do a disservice to our own troops by expecting them to act as law enforcement within the United States after training them to fight wars. Whether a soldier gets shot at, or shoots an innocent American and has to live with the consequences, they are victims of the same misguided policy.

Josiah says: This documentary's fact checking is very questionable... 1970 at Kent State was not the last time the military killed American civilians, 1992 during the L.A. riots three were killed by the Army National Guard, all three were fully justified. It seems like you wanted to make the inference that whenever the military is involved in stateside action, only innocent people are killed. That is absolutely wrong and I hope you and your staff makes the appropriate corrections.

I know about those three because my dad was in the California National Guard (185th Armor) and was one of the first 2,000 Guardsmen sent to the riots. I'm also sure that if some real research is done more examples could be found between 1970 and 1997, most likely fully justified.

I do agree with you that the military should never be involved with non-emergency law enforcement activities. Only in riots or natural disasters were the existing law enforcement is disabled is the only time they should be called in.

Fitzgerald: You are right about the L.A. riots, but I am not aware of any other instances in which [the] National Guard killed American civilians between Kent State and Esequiel's death. As far as the active duty military goes, it's my understanding that the last civilian death, prior to Hernández in 1997, occurred during the 1967 Detroit riots. (We have consulted with a number of academics on this subject).

In neglecting to mention the L.A. riots it was not at all my intention to imply that [the] military are exclusively involved in unjustified killings at home. What I did want to imply, and perhaps I should have been more explicit in this regard, is that Esequiel was the first 'innocent' civilian to be killed by active duty military or National Guard since Kent State — that is, his was the first unjustified killing.

Doc Soup: Questions on The Last Conquistador

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:01:19 -0500

Independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup. Today, he raises some questions that came to mind as he watched the most recent P.O.V. film.

So, I'll repeat what I said in my Monday post that I think The Last Conquistador is a really good film, but, starting here, I want to position myself as a gadfly to the P.O.V. filmmakers. I'm partly inspired by Lars Von Trier's Five Obstructions, a documentary about how he has a fellow filmmaker make the same film over and over, but having to overcome new obstacles each time. To Von Trier, discord and disruption lead to greater creativity.

So, in that spirit, and in the general spirit of constructive critcism and open dialogue, I want to push the P.O.V. filmmakers a little. I've got a feeling they'll push right back.

And so here are two questions I'd like to pose about the film:

1) Was I alone in thinking from about the mid-point of the doc that there was a really obvious solution to the impasse? Just build another statue that honors the Native Americans, one that can be placed close to the one of Oñate, without marring that statue's place, but serving as a counterpoint? Would that have cost too much money? If so, I'd still have liked to have heard this discussed. By showing Houser during the credits, discussing a similar idea with a new statue on the Mexican-U.S. border, I suppose this issue is addressed, but it feels like an after thought. Was this never really part of the discussion during the building of the original statue?

2) By using a voice-over that articulates the Native Americans' position, while showing images of the white people at a fundraiser, wasn't that pushing the filmmaker's editorial voice too far? I felt that this was the one instance when the filmmakers went over the line, and turned what's a pretty balanced narrative into a piece of advocacy. It's ironic that this also happens to be one of the more enjoyably comical moments in the doc, but perhaps at too much of a cost? I wonder if other P.O.V.-viewers shared the same questions, and if the filmmakers would mind chiming in on the matter.

What's Your P.O.V. about The Last Conquistador?

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:41:23 -0500

It sounded like a perfect partnership. Renowned sculptor John Houser dreamed of building the world's tallest bronze equestrian statue, a stunning monument to the Spanish conquistador Juan de Oñate that would pay tribute to the contributions Hispanic people made to building the American West. The city of El Paso, Texas, was looking to improve its economic fortunes and thought Houser's statue would increase revenues by creating a significant tourist attraction that would celebrate the city's Hispanic heritage. What both partners failed to consider was that different segments of the community remembered Juan de Oñate in very different ways.The Last Conquistador documents the conflict that resulted when Native Americans and members of the Acoma Indian community brought to attention the fact that Juan de Oñate nearly wiped out their ancestors and sold them into slavery. Though violence was associated with nearly all conquistadors, Oñate was so brutal that he was actually recalled to Mexico City, put on trial and convicted for the acts he committed.

El Paso quickly divided along lines of race and class, forcing the artist to face the unanticipated moral implications of his work and city leaders to wrestle with a decision to spend public money on a tribute to such a controversial man. After completion of the statue, everyone was forced to come to terms with a landmark that is viewed by some as a monument to culture and others as a glorification of genocide.

Houser says about Oñate, "It's not up to me to defend him or accuse him." What is the role and responsibility of the artist to the community when creating public art?

Maurus Chino says, "Violence is violence; genocide is genocide, and there has to be recognition about what really happened." In response to suggestions that it is time for the Acoma to "let go" of the past or "get over it," a Native American man says, "Our city is thinking about putting up a statue of an individual that massacred or tried to wipe us off the face of the eart... You're going to tell your grandchildren, 'I remember 9/11.' Well, we remember Juan de Oñate."

In response to criticism of the monument's subject, Conchita Lucero asks, "Which one of us hasn't had a benefit of the things that the Spanish brought?"

Ask the Filmmakers: The Last Conquistador's John J. Valadez and Cristina Ibarra

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:08:18 -0500

When John J. Valadez and Cristina Ibarra, learned that the city of El Paso had commissioned a sculptor to create a statue of Juan de Oñate, they knew they wanted to document the controversial public arts project that had come to be seen as a monument to culture by some, and as a glorification of genocide by others.

Why our community can't respectfully acknowledge the dark edifice of our past and extend a somber embrace to our Indian brothers and sisters is perplexing to us. After all, as Mexican-Americans we do share in their history, their culture; and it is their blood that runs through our veins.

The Last Conquistador follows the heated debates between the city council that had commissioned the work and the divided reactions from the city's residents — and John Houser, the artist who had never anticipated that his work would create such a firestorm of controversy.

Do you think the opposing communities around the monument can make peace with each other? Do you have any questions for the filmmakers? Enter them here, and the filmmakers will answer them the week of July 14, 2008

Doc Soup: Docs as Art or Activism?

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:19:30 -0500

Every Monday, independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

On Tuesday night, you're going to get to see a very compelling doc called The Last Conquistador, about sculptor John Houser's building of the largest bronze equestrian statue in El Paso. The good people at POV gave me a DVD screener of the film, so I got to see it and I have a lot to say about it, but I don't want to influence your experience too much. So I'm going to follow up this entry on Wednesday with a couple of thoughts/questions. But I don't think I'm going too far now by introducing a question that is relevant to The Last Conquistador, as it is with pretty much all documentaries: when is a doc art and when is it activism? Of course, that's a trick question, because those descriptions are not necessarily exclusive, as I believe is very evident in The Last Conquistador. In fact, I think the film shines a light directly on the issue.

When I think of my favorite docs, I have to say, I like the ones that lean toward the artistic, or maybe the better word for it is "cinematic" experience, rather than one that is a piece of activism or advocacy. Movies like Grizzly Man, Spellbound, In the Realms of the Unreal, Capturing the Friedmans, or an oldie like Salesman just move me more.

Ah, but then what about a film like Hoop Dreams? It is such a masterpiece in storytelling, and it also happens to be one of the most insightful portraits of the young African-American male experience. It's one of the best that bridges both the cinematic and issue-related aspects of documentary. Of more recent films, albeit on a lesser level, there have also been Errol Morris' Standard Operating Procedure and The Unforeseen, both of which I've already written about here.

In The Last Conquistador, John Houser suggests it's not the artist's role to engage in politics, but to create something that transcends them, and creates something that touches the human heart. Well, maybe that's why documentaries are so great at their best: they manage to achieve both. I really did enjoy The Last Conquistador — it's very well told, and it exposed me to a subject I knew nothing about. I do have some questions, however, that I'll bring up on Wednesday.

Election Day's Katy Chevigny Answers Viewer Questions

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:06:06 -0500

Katy Chevigny is the director of Election Day. After the film aired on P.O.V., viewers wrote in with questions for Katy on the P.O.V. Blog. Read on as she answers questions about Nader and Gore in 2000, Ohio in 2004 and more.

Mit asks: In the 2000 election, a lot of people blamed Nader for causing Gore to lose. However, Nader defenders blame the election process, particularly noting the thousands of uncounted votes due to errors in polling — illegal, non-handicapped-accessible booths, or absurdly long lines in poor neighborhoods. Based on what this film is about, does the Nader defense hold water that he wasn't responsible for Gore losing? Was it more likely the lack of proper election facilities?

Katy Chevigny: The ultimate findings in the poll count for Florida in the 2000 election, as summarized in the Election FAQ on the P.O.V. website for Election Day, shows that even with Nader in the race, Gore won the popular vote in the state of Florida. If those ballots had been counted properly and in a timely fashion, Gore would have won the election despite Nader being in the race.

David asks: In Election Day you combine 11 different stories of citizens determined to vote in the November 2004 election. Four years later, we are in the midst of another election season. That being said, I was wondering if you have kept in touch and kept up with the stories of the individuals from Election Day. If so, do you plan to do any follow-up filming this coming November?

Katy: I don't have any plans on filming this November, but my guess is that many, many other people will, and I look forward to seeing what they discover! We have kept up with many of the characters and you can see what they are up to here on the Film Update page.

Jacquinette asks: I am still enjoying this wonderful film; it gives a varied perspective on the election experience in America. I was captivated by your focus on ex-felon voting rights.
I would like to know if you are working on a film that focuses more closely with this particular issue. Furthermore, how can I get involved with this issue and help? I'm also wondering if you will be touring with this film in the near future.

Katy: I'm glad you took special note of the issue of felon disenfranchisement. This was an issue that we were particularly interested in highlighting in the film, in part because we think it is very important, and I have the sense that the public does not have great awareness of the issue.

That's great that you'd like to do more! The experts on the P.O.V. website have many great suggestions for getting more involved. One of the key ways is to volunteer to be a pollworker. Rosemary Rodriquez at the Election Assistance Commission explains a bit more about it.

We are touring with the film this fall. You can learn more about the schedule at electiondaythemovie.com.

John asks: Why doesn't your film mention the horrible disenfranchisment that took place in Ohio in 2004? Hundreds of thousands of voters were knocked off of the voter registration rolls in Ohio, and there were major problems that occured with electronic voting machines and vote flipping.

Katy: In response to viewers' concerns that Election Day did not cover the controversy in Ohio regarding the election in 2004, that is due in part to the fact that we had the made the decision before Election Day to film the events that were happening to these particular people we were following. So therefore, any events in the aftermath of the election were not covered. We were also aware that there were several other films also being filmed about the 2004 election, and we assumed that many of them would cover the details in Ohio.

Susan asks: Great film, Katy. How did you and your team decide who to follow for all of the stories in the film?

Katy: It was a massive undertaking to find all the "characters" we followed in Election Day and to gain permissions to film with all of them. Our producers Maggie Bowman and Dallas Brennan Rexer, along with our Associate Producer Christy King, each spent many weeks researching possible storylines and locations. We reached out to several nonprofit organizations working on various election issues, and they put us in touch with groups working on felon disenfranchisement, election protection, and alerted us to the fact that there were international monitors working on the elections. In addition, we sent out email blasts to hundreds of people all over the country, seeking ideas for characters or stories that were not generally covered in the mainstream new media, and chose characters based on that research.

Ask the Filmmaker: The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández's Kieran Fitzgerald

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:25:48 -0500

Kieran Fitzgerald was only 17 years old in 1997 when a team of Marines shot and killed an innocent American citizen on the Texas-Mexico border. The film, narrated by Tommy Lee Jones, recounts the shooting and killing of a young American named Esequiel Hernández in 1997 by U.S. Marines patrolling the border as part of a counterdrug operation that had been ongoing since the late 1980s.

In our interview with Kieran, he tells us why he felt it was important to bring public attention back to this story:

I wanted to recover this story that had been lost from our recent history, and so I started interviewing people along the border, and seeking out the various parties involved in the story, including the FBI, the marines, and the family of Esequiel Hernández. I wanted to get a comprehensive account of the story.

Read more from Kieran's interview, and learn how he gained the trust of the film's subjects, or listen to our extended podcast interview.

Do you have a question for Kieran about The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández and how the war on drugs has affected life along the Texas-Mexico border? You can submit it in the comment field below. He'll choose a selection of questions to respond to, so check back here after the film airs to see what he has to say.

7/16/08 Update: Unfortunately, Kieran Fitzgerald is no longer available to answer viewer questions. Kieran chose a number of questions from the comments below and answered them on the P.O.V. Blog the week following the broadcast. See what he had to say.

What's Your P.O.V.?

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:03:54 -0500

The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández tells a frightening and cautionary tale about the dangers of using military as domestic law enforcement — a role that the military, under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, had been prohibited from taking. In 1997, U.S. Marines patrolling the Texas-Mexican border as part of the U.S. war on drugs shot and killed Esequiel Hernández Jr. Mistaken for a drug runner, the 18 year old was, in fact, a U.S. citizen tending his family's goats. The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández, a 90-minute documentary, explores this tragedy and its aftermath from multiple points of view, including Esequiel's parents, siblings, and friends, the Marines on patrol and FBI investigators.

As the story unfolds the film raises as many questions as it answers.

TV personality Bill O'Reilly dismisses the incident saying "accidents will happen in any military deployment," and challenges viewers asking, "What is the harm in giving us more protection by using the military the way they should be used? If you read the Constitution, the military's primary mandate is to protect the borders of the United States!"

Congressman Tom Tancredo says of the shooting that such accidents have to be balanced against the need for national security. In what ways does drug interdiction contribute to national security? Is there a difference between "national interest" and "national security"?

FBI Case Agent Jane Kelly says "If [the Marines] had been any domestic law enforcement personnel, sheriff's deputy, Texas Rangers, FBI, they would have gone to jail." What are the differences between law enforcement and the military? Which is better suited to patrol the border and why?

The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández raises critical public policy issues related to the militarization of the border, the human cost of the war on drugs, the blurring of lines between the military and law enforcement and finding justice for an American family who has lost a son. What lessons does the death of Esequiel Hernández offer regarding the current deployment of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border?

Doc Soup: Tipping a Hat to Full Battle Rattle and Other War Docs

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:19:53 -0500

Every Monday, journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

Ack! Not another doc about Iraq! Ah yes, this Wednesday we are being treated to Full Battle Rattle, another film related to that unfortunate war we're waging, and I'm quite sure we doc fans are soon going to be treated to more newspaper stories declaring the film DOA at the BO, relegating its fate along with Taxi to the Dark Side and Standard Operating Procedure, and fictional films such as Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs and Stop-Loss.

Trust me, I am not happy about this. Full Battle Rattle is a very good doc: directed by Tony Gerber and Jess Moss (who made Speedo: A Demolition Derby Love Story which aired on P.O.V. in 2004, and I'm told is a filmmaker to look out for), the film examines a U.S. army game-simulation exercise that is conducted in California's Mojave Desert. It's basically a really elaborate version of laser tag used to train U.S. soldiers. They have a town, real Iraqi exiles who play villagers and police, U.S. soldiers who play insurgents, and then they send in American soldiers to see if they can maintain peace in the village. The film is well-shot and interesting; it's compelling to watch the simulation and illuminating to hear about the lives of the soldiers as well as the Iraqis "living" in the village.

But what struck me most about the film is how generously it treated the soldiers. Not that that's surprising, but it got me thinking about how so many of the docs about Iraq have been respectful to our soldiers. As they should be. Even Errol Morris's SOP, Gibney's Taxi to the Darkside and last year's No End in Sight by Charles Ferguson, three films that decry the war, manage to represent American soldiers as brave men and women caught up in a situation beyond their control. And, for that, I think we should take a moment to reflect: the "liberal" doc world has managed to turn out a lot of strong films about the war while honoring the humanity and sacrifices of the soldiers. (I should note that on October 16, P.O.V. will air Soldiers of Conscience; I look forward to seeing if this film can be counted along with these others). It makes me think back to Murderball, when those injured Iraqi war vets met with the disabled wheelchair rugby players. It was such a poignant moment, one of many that docs have brought us regarding American soldiers since this Iraq war mess.

So, I'll take back that initial "Ack!" and put aside all the kicking stones that many of us (including me) do regarding the withering reception docs are getting in theaters, and instead tip my hat to filmmakers like Moss and Gerber for providing a lasting document from this era that we will all be proud of.

2008 Asian American International Film Festival

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:27:16 -0500

Sonjia Hyon is the Festival Director of the Asian American International Film Festival, the longest-running festival devoted to the works of Asian and Asian American filmmakers. This year the Festival celebrates its 31st year in New York from July 10th to July 19th.

I started working in Asian American film as an intern at the San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival in 1999. At the time, my interest in Asian American film was an extension of my interest in subculture and independent media — I was an avid reader of zines, listener of college radio, and a patron of small art house theaters. What I mostly appreciated was that I belonged to a society that advocated difference instead of conformity, and believed in unity, not uniformity. For me, this was the transformative quality of Asian American cinema: it wasn't about affirming my identity as an Asian American woman; instead, it continually unraveled what Asian American identity meant — making it more complicated, more indefinable, more ambiguous. Films by Christine Choy, Jon Moritsugu and Rea Tajiri provided a lens to challenge assumptions and question the obvious.

Almost ten years later, I've become the director of the Asian American International Film Festival in New York, and like the Festival, I've also just entered my 30s. Turning 30, you start to reprioritize, evaluate what's important and let go. Here at the Festival, it's the same. We see our 30s as a moment to break from the film festival model that embraces glamour and celebrities, and instead honor films and their filmmakers. At AAIFF, we are inspired by our founders Daryl Chin, Tom Tam and Fern Lee, all of whom believed in the importance of independent filmmakers in mobilizing different ways to imagine how to live.

In honor of officially entering our 30s, we're bringing back veteran filmmakers such Wayne Wang, director of the festival's opening night film, The Princess of Nebraska, and introducing many new vanguards such as Malaysian filmmaker Sang Tat Liew, documentary filmmakers Risa Morimoto and Derek Shimoda, and our exciting line-up of shorts directors.

I am also thrilled to announce our new series of conversations on culture and ideas — New Landscapes: Media and Its Adaptations. This series has become a pet project of the staff and our collaborators at Asia Society and the Asian/Pacific/Institute at NYU. Collectively, we wanted to put together a conference that encouraged interdisciplinary thinking and talking. The panels range in topic from an intimate conversation between female documentary filmmakers moderated by P.O.V.'s own Anne del Castillo, to a discussion on Asian aesthetics between some of the world's top artists such as architect Billie Tsien and playwright David Henry Hwang.

We love movies here at AAIFF, and if you do too, you should come visit us at the Asia Society from July 10 to 19 and watch some great cinema.

You can see our full schedule and programs at AAIFF.org.

Election Day: Join Our News Hunt for Quality Journalism

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:09:41 -0500

Election Day shows us that many stories about the American voting process and the need for election reform slip beneath the radar of mainstream news coverage. Now that we're just a few short months away from Election Day 2008, we want to take a close look at how these issues are being covered today.

For the next two weeks, P.O.V. and PBS Engage are partnering with NewsTrust.net, a nonprofit social news site devoted to finding good journalism, to review current news stories about the 2008 elections with a focus on the voting process from the perspective of the American man and woman on the street. We invite you to participate in this "news hunt" — think of it as a scavenger hunt for good journalism — by signing up on the NewsTrust site and evaluating the media you're already consuming every day.

To get started, simply sign up for an account on the NewsTrust.net site. Then you can rate as many articles as you like, using NewsTrust's easy-to-use online tools. From the site's homepage, click the "Politics" tab, then under "Topics>U.S. Elections," click "Presidential Election 2008." On that page, you can click any article title to go directly to the full article on the website where it was posted so you can read it thoroughly. When you're ready, go back to NewsTrust; a review form will appear in a separate window, inviting you to rate that story — you can answer as many or as few of the questions on the form as you like. For more tips on how to join this news hunt, check NewsTrust's New Member Welcome page.

Throughout the news hunt, you can see the top-rated Presidential Election 2008 stories as reviewed by NewsTrust users. You'll see where the articles were published, a brief user summary/commentary on each article and links to other reviews. You'll also see a direct link to the review page so you can contribute your own evaluation of a story's coverage — you can choose to rate a story either with an overall recommendation or according to specific criteria, such as fairness or accuracy. If you see an article online that isn't available on the NewsTrust site, you can submit it by using their bookmarklet, which makes it easy to submit news stories from your Web browser.

At the end of our two-week news hunt, we hope to have a better idea of the state of today's news coverage on the presidential election, especially coverage of election reform. We're anxious to see the results: Are the media doing a good job covering this topic? Are there areas that are not being addressed? What can we do to raise the bar for journalists covering these issues today? We want to know — so let your voice be heard and review some stories today!

Doc Soup: Following Up on the Buzz

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:23:42 -0500

Every Monday, journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

OK, call this a follow-up or time to eat crow or what you want, but I wanted to write a bit about a post I filed three weeks ago, in which I decried the buzzing blogosphere around the near-carcass that is ThinkFilm. Perhaps I overstate now, but I only do so because my estimable colleague A.J. Schnack over at All These Wonderful Things took umbrage at my post, and thought I was taking cheap shots at him. Since then, he has followed up on the troubles of ThinkFilm with some informative posts (see here, here and here), along with links to other sites. All of which are of interest to us, I might add, because ThinkFilm has been such a great champion of documentaries.

And, last week, the grey lady chimed in on director Alex Gibney's lawsuit against ThinkFilm. Two things came to mind in reading the Times piece:

One: I tend to believe that Gibney has just cause in making his complaint. He just strikes me as too much of a straight shooter to be going though the strains of a lawsuit without just cause. But, well, I have to wonder if he got everything he wanted: if Think had poured money into advertising to help his Taxi to the Darkside, would it have made a difference? That doesn't mean that he didn't deserve his fair shot and that ThinkFilm owed it to him, but I think Gibney should give Errol Morris a call to see if Morris was happy with his ad budget, because Standard Operating Procedure also sank like a stone.

Two: The Times piece indicated that what ails independent distributors like ThinkFilm is the glut of films, noting that while 450 new films hit theaters in 2002, 600 were released in 2007. That's a 33% increase. Wow. But, c'mon, Mr. New York Times man, keep your eyes on the prize: that doesn't hold a candle to the documentary boom: docs went from 17 in theaters in 2002, all the way up to 95 in 2007 (according to www.the-numbers.com). Yikes! That's a 558% increase. Now that's the story for you.

Talking Back: Election Day

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:11:11 -0500

Election Day combines eleven stories — shot simultaneously on November 2, 2004, from dawn until long past midnight — into one film that documents the street-level experience of voters in today's America. Along the way, filmmaker Katy Chevigny discovers that more and more Americans are bringing their passion for democracy to the poll. But Election Day also finds that American elections run on a surprisingly antiquated system, which often works as much to frustrate voter participation as to encourage it, and which harbors wide disparities in access between rich and poor neighborhoods.

The 2004 elections took place in the long shadow of 2000's bitterly contested presidential vote. The upcoming 2008 presidential elections will be another strenuous test on America's election system. Will the system hold up? Or will "hanging chads" and disputes be part of the conversation around the election results once again?

Filmmaker Katy Chevigny says that the American election system can often fall short and fail its voters. She says that "improving our election system is not going to happen on its own; people would need to get involved to reform the system so that everyone gets an opportunity for their vote to be counted." Do you think the American election system needs to be reformed?

In New York City, ex-felon Leon Batts has just regained the right to vote. He sees his vote as one representing all ex-convicts denied the right to vote, despite having served their time. But voting turns out to be harder than anticipated for Leon. States differ on whether ex-felons can vote. Do you think that ex-felons should be granted the right to vote across the country?

In P.O.V.'s roundtable discussion, Changing the System, we asked experts: What's the one thing you would do to improve the accuracy, access to and efficiency of the election system in America? Renée Paradis of the Brennan Center suggests a system of universal registration. What's the one thing you would suggest to improve the American election system?

Election Day skips over the partisanship to depict portraits of real people who make American democracy work. Along the way, it raises unsettling questions about the American election process. Have you ever run into problems when you were trying to vote? What do you think about America's election system?

Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments.

Got a Question About Voting in America? Ask an Expert.

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:13:10 -0500

Why are voting laws so different from state to state? What's a poll watcher, and how can you become one? Derek Cressman of Common Cause, a voting watchdog organization, answered some frequently asked questions about the U.S. election system on the P.O.V. companion website for Election Day, a film that chronicles the 2004 presidential election in 11 cities and towns across America. Election Day premieres this week on PBS (check local listings).

The good news in Election Day is that more and more Americans are bringing their passion for democracy to the polls, drawing unprecedented numbers of voters eager to make the most of their right to cast a ballot and have it counted. Taking place in the long shadow of 2000's bitterly contested presidential vote, the 2004 election also brought more scrutiny of polling-place practices from citizens as well as international observers. The bad news in Election Day is that close scrutiny of American elections finds a surprisingly antiquated system, which often works as much to frustrate voter participation as to encourage it and which harbors wide disparities in access between rich and poor neighborhoods.

If you have a question about voting, check out our FAQ, and if your question isn't there, submit it in the comments below. At the end of this week, we'll pick one (or two), Derek will answer it, and we will add it to the Election Day FAQ feature.

Added July 15, 2008: Derek has answered two of the questions posed in the comments on the Election Day FAQ. Visit the FAQ to find out why he thinks voting is a duty, and how much your vote really matters.