Jason Tippet and Elizabeth Mims’ Only the Young has its national broadcast premiere on PBS on July 15, 2013 (check local listings). The film will be available for streaming on the POV website starting July 16, 2013.

Only the Young follows three unconventional Christian teenagers coming of age in a small Southern California town. Skateboarders Garrison and Kevin, and Garrison’s on-and-off girlfriend, Skye, wrestle with the eternal questions of youth: friendship, true love and the promise of the future. Yet their lives are also touched by the distress signals of contemporary America — foreclosed homes, abandoned businesses and adults in financial trouble. As graduation approaches, these issues become shocking realities. With sun-drenched visuals, lyrical storytelling and a soul-music soundtrack, Only the Young embodies the innocence and candor of its youthful subjects — and of adolescence itself.

After the broadcast, you can visit the Only the Young companion site to join the conversation about the film, get an update on the subjects, watch interviews with the filmmakers and read more background information.

For updates on the 2013 season of POV, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Visit our local events calendar for a full listing and join our Community Network to host a screening of your own! And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter @POVengage to stay connected to the latest news and screening information from Community Engagement and Education.

Chattanooga, TN
Neurotypical
Monday, June 17, 2013, 6:30PM
Join the Chattanooga Film Society and the Mise En Scensters Film Club for a free screening and discussion of Neurotypical, the second film in a Summer 2013 POV-themed series. For more information, call 423-266-3766.

Cambridge, MA
Herman’s House
Monday, June 17, 2013, 7:00PM
Join the The DocYard for a free screening of Herman’s House followed by a Q&A with the filmmaker, Angad Singh Bhalla. For more information, call (617) 876-6837.

Portland, ME
Herman’s House
Thursday, June 20, 2013, 7:00PM
Join the Portland Public Library for a free screening of Herman’s House. There will be a facilitated discussion and refreshments to follow. For more information, call (207)-871-1700.

New York, NY
Homegoings
Friday, June 21, 2013, 7:30PM
Firelight Media, POV and the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone (UMEZ) present the Harlem premiere of New York filmmaker Christine Turner’s debut feature documentary, Homegoings, at the historic Apollo Theater. The screening will be followed by a Q&A with the film subjects and director Christine Turner. Visit homegoingsharlem.eventbrite.com to register online. First come, first served. Registration does not guarantee admission.

Herman’s House premieres July 8, 2013 at 10 PM on PBS stations. (Check local listings.) The film will be available for streaming on the POV website from July 8, 2013 to August 6, 2013.

Herman Wallace may be the longest-serving prisoner in solitary confinement in the United States—he’s spent more than 40 years in a 6-by-9-foot cell in Louisiana. Imprisoned in 1967 for a robbery he admits, he was subsequently sentenced to life for a killing he vehemently denies. Herman’s House is a moving account of the remarkable expression his struggle found in an unusual project proposed by artist Jackie Sumell. Imagining Wallace’s “dream home” began as a game and became an interrogation of justice and punishment in America. The film takes us inside the duo’s unlikely 12-year friendship, revealing the transformative power of art. A co-presentation with the Center for Asian American Media (CAAM).

After the national broadcast premiere, visit the Herman’s House companion site. Learn facts and analysis about solitary confinement in America, watch prison architects explain their craft and challenges, read experts’ take on the film, and understand more about Herman’s cell. You will also be able to join the conversation about the film with other POV viewers, update on the subjects, download a discussion guide, and view a lesson plan for educators.

For updates on the 2013 season of POV, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Visit our local events calendar for a full listing and join our Community Network to host a screening of your own! And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter @POVengage to stay connected to the latest news and screening information from Community Engagement and Education.

Pasadena, CA
Homegoings
Tuesday, June 09, 2013, 2:00PM
Join Death Cafe Los Angeles for a free screening and discussion of Homegoings. For more information on Death Cafes and the screening, visit betsytrapasso.com/deathcafelosangeles.

Monroe Township, NJ
High Tech, Low Life
Wednesday, June 11, 2013, 1:pmAM
Join the Monroe Township Public Library for a free screening and discussion of High Tech, Low Life. To find out more, call 732-521-5000.

Chicago, IL
Homegoings
Thursday, June 11, 2013, 2:00PM
Join the Austin Branch of the Chicago Public Library for a free sneak-preview screening of Homegoings. For more information, call (312) 746-5038.

Columbia, SC
Homegoings
Thursday, June 13, 2013, 5:00PM
Join the South Carolina African American Heritage Foundation for a free sneak-preview screening of Homegoings at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. The screening will be followed by a panel discussion. The panel will include: Dr. Christopher Leevy (panelist) who has a Masters Degree in American History as well as a Ph.D. in American History with a concentration in African-American Religion from the University of South Carolina, James T. Flemming (panelist), founder and president of Flemming’s Funeral Home, Inc., and Beryl Dakers (moderator) who has been in broadcasting for 30 years. For more information, call (803) 896-6100.

Special Flight is a dramatic account of the plight of undocumented foreigners at the Frambois detention center in Geneva, Switzerland, and of the wardens who struggle to reconcile humane values with the harsh realities of a strict deportation system. The 25 Frambois inmates featured are among the thousands of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants imprisoned without charge or trial and facing deportation to their native countries, where they fear repression or even death. The film, made in Switzerland, is a heart-wrenching exposé of the contradictions between the country’s compassionate social policies and the intractability of its immigration laws.

Special Flight premieres July 1, 2013 at 10 PM on PBS stations. (Check your local listings). The film will be available for streaming on the POV website starting July 2, 2013 through August 1, 2013.

After the national broadcast premiere, visit the Special Flight site to watch excerpts from The World Is Like That, filmmaker Fernand Melgar’s short documentary which follows up with some of the detainees in Special Flight, and learn more about the plight of asylum seekers by exploring an interactive map tracking the origins and destinations of asylum seekers across the world. You will also be able to join the conversation about the film with other POV viewers, get background information on detention centers and Switzerland’s asylum policy, download a discussion guide, and view a lesson plan for educators.

For updates on the 2013 season of POV, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Visit our local events calendar for a full listing and join our Community Network to host a screening of your own! And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter @POVengage to stay connected to the latest news and screening information from Community Engagement and Education.

Ketchum, ID
High Tech, Low Life
Tuesday, June 04, 2013, 6:00PM
Join The Community Library as they continue their POV screening series with a screening of High Tech, Low Life. For more information, call (208) 726-7355.

New Holland, PA
Guilty Pleasures
Wednesday, June 05, 2013, 10:00AM
Join the Eastern Lancaster County Library and Garden Spot Village for a free screening of Guilty Pleasures. To find out more, call 717-354-0525.

Auburn, AL
Homegoings
Thursday, June 06, 2013, 6:30PM
The Caroline Marshall Draughon Center for Arts & Humanities in the College of Liberal Arts at Auburn University will screen a special sneak-preview of Homegoings (60 mins) at the Auburn Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (450 East Thach Avenue). The screening is free and open to the public. Patience Essah, associate professor of History and Africana Studies, will lead a discussion following the film. Refreshments will be served. For more information, call (334) 844-4903.

Chicago, IL
If a Tree Falls
Thursday, June 06, 2013, 6:00PM
Join the Chicago Public Library’s West Town Branch for a screening of If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front. For more information, please call 312-743-0450.

Great Falls, MT
Ella Es el Matador
Thursday, June 06, 2013, 7:00PM
Join the Great Falls Public Library for a screening of Ella Es el Matador as part of a socially conscious film series offering food for thought. For more information, call (406) 453-0349.

Homegoings premieres June 24, 2013 at 10 PM on PBS stations. (Check local listings.)

Through the eyes of funeral director Isaiah Owens, the beauty and grace of African-American funerals are brought to life. Filmed at Owens Funeral Home in New York City’s historic Harlem neighborhood, Homegoings takes an up-close look at the rarely seen world of undertaking in the black community, where funeral rites draw on a rich palette of tradition, history and celebration. Combining cinéma vérité with intimate interviews and archival photographs, the film paints a portrait of the dearly departed, their grieving families and a man who sends loved ones “home.” A co-production of ITVS and POV’s Diverse Voices Project, with funding provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A co-presentation with the National Black Programming Consortium.

Homegoings premieres June 24, 2013 at 10 PM on PBS stations. (Check local listings.) The film will be available for streaming on the POV website starting June 25, 2013 through July 24, 2013.

In tandem with the national broadcast premiere, POV is building an online resource, created by submissions from the PBS audience, of American funeral traditions, and hosting open discussions about the American ways of death and the funeral industry. Visit the Homegoings site to submit your story or share your funeral practices as part of this interactive feature, and check back in the future to see what topics viewers are discussing and debating.

And as a reminder, after the broadcast, you can visit the Homegoings companion site to join the conversation about the film, get an update on the subjects, watch deleted scenes and read background information on the funeral industry and the rich tradition of African-American funeral directors.

For updates on the 2013 season of POV, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Grab a sneak peek at the films in the POV lineup for summer 2013! POV’s 26th season on PBS premieres June 24, 2013 at 10PM with Homegoings.

Click here to view the full 2013 schedule »

For updates on the 2013 season of POV, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Visit our local events calendar for a full listing and join our Community Network to host a screening of your own! And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter @POVengage to stay connected to the latest news and screening information from Community Engagement and Education.

Chicago, IL
Last Train Home
Tuesday, May 28, 2013, 6:00PM
In celebration of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, the Chicago Public Library Lincoln Belmont Branch will present a screening of Last Train Home. For more information, call (312) 744-0166.

Chicago, IL
My Reincarnation
Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 6:00PM
In celebration of Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, the Chicago Public Library Avalon Branch will present a screening of My Reincarnation. For more information, call (312) 747-5234.

Massapequa Park, NY
Kings of Pastry
Thursday, May 30, 2013, 2:00PM
Don’t miss Massapequa Public Library’s screening of POV’s Season 24 film, Kings of Pastry. For more information, call (516) 799-0770.

Brookings, SD
The Law in These Parts
Friday, May 31, 2013, 7:00PM
Brookings United Church of Christ continues their monthly program on matters of faith and society, with a screening and discussion of The Law in These Parts. For more information, call (541) 525-1819.

San Jose, CA
The Betrayal
Friday, May 31, 2013, 7:00PM
Join the San Jose Peace and Justice Center for a screening of The Betrayal as part of their film series for Asian Pacific Heritage Month. For more information, call (408) 297-2299.

Visit our local events calendar for a full listing and join our Community Network to host a screening of your own! And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter @POVengage to stay connected to the latest news and screening information from Community Engagement and Education.

San Francisco, CA
Herman’s House
Sunday, May 19, 2013, 5:00PM
Join We Players for a screening of the new documentary film Herman’s House on Alcatraz Island followed by a panel discussion with director (and former WE Player!) Angad Singh Bhalla. For more information, call 415-547-0189.

Chattanooga, TN
Only the Young
Monday, May 20, 2013, 6:30PM
Join the Chattanooga Film Society for a free screening of Only the Young, the first film in a Summer 2013 POV-themed series. For more information, call 423-266-3766.

Chicago, IL
The Learning
Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 11:30AM
In celebration of Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, the Chicago Public Library’s Greater Grand Crossing Branch is pleased to present the film screening of The Learning. For more information, call (312) 745-1608.

Alexandria, VA
Up Heartbreak Hill
Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 7:00PM
This year, as part of All Alexandria Reads, Alexandria Public Library chose “Listening is an Act of Love: A Celebration of American Life from the Storycorps Project.” Tying in with spirit of this book, the library will show a five-part screening series, including Up Heartbreak Hill. For more information, call (703)746-1728.

Irvine, CA
Señorita Extraviada
Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 7:00PM
Phi Lambda Rho is happy to be hosting our very first annual Semana De La Mujer event on the University of California, Irvine campus. We aim to hold this event in hopes of celebrating the complex and unique identity of Latinas through a week long celebration on campus. Through a series of events, including a screening of Señorita Extraviada, we hope to inform students about the issues affecting Latina students on campus as well as issues, affecting the Latina/o community as a whole. For more information, call (323) 246-8437.

Robert Stone’s pro-nuclear-energy documentary Pandora’s Promise shows one side of the debate. Doc Soup Man Tom Roston talks with author-journalist Mark Hertsgaard for some context.

Boy, did I step into it this time.

Over the weekend, The New York Times published my article on Pandora’s Promise, a documentary that advocates for nuclear energy as a valid way to combat climate change and the seemingly inevitable destruction of our planet. My story focused on how the documentary is unusual in that it doesn’t preach to the choir, as most documentaries do.

I didn’t have a bone to pick, and I reported the facts. But just by bringing Pandora’s Promise more attention, I was helping to support it, in a way. That’s fine by me. But, whether right or wrong, Pandora’s Promise offers just one side of the story. Director Robert Stone told me that that was entirely intentional. He didn’t want to present a Crossfire-like debate. He wanted to give the pro-nukes side in his film, and to provoke a discussion.

So, for those who have seen the film, where’s the other side of the debate? And that’s when it hit me. Well, actually, it was sent to me — in the form of an email about articles in The Nation that refutes many of the major claims in Pandora’s Promise. And here they are: a discussion between environmental writers Mark Hertsgaard and Terry Tempest Williams and a list of five myths vs. facts.

There’s more debate on the film and the subject to be found on The New York Times environmental blog Dot Earth — make sure to check out the comments thread.

I emailed some questions to the Nation writer, Mark Hertsgaard, just to get the balance right.

Doc Soup Man: I saw in your articles what you thought of its arguments, but can you tell me a little about your personal reaction to Pandora’s Promise?

Mark Hertsgaard: My overriding personal reaction to Pandora’s Promise was, pardon the cliche, “I’ve seen this movie before.”  The arguments were virtually indistinguishable from what I was told by nuclear industry executives in the interviews I did 30 years ago for my book, Nuclear Inc.: The Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy.  As I mentioned in my Nation piece, the very first time I heard the term “global warming” was from a nuclear industry executive, who assured me that sometime around the turn of the 21st century “global warming” would help politicians and the public alike to understand that the world faced what this executive and many of his colleagues liked to call “a nuclear imperative.”  That climate-nuclear link wasn’t the only cause of the deja vu I felt while watching Pandora’s Promise; most of the documentary’s arguments for why nuclear is a superior option I had heard in greater detail from the scores of executives I interviewed for Nuclear Inc.

I hasten to add that this regurgitation of nuclear industry talking points is by no means ipso facto proof that the documentary is wrong.  I don’t believe in arguing guilt by association or asserting that someone’s economic interests or ideological perspective automatically disqualifies them from being correct.  I further believe that any filmmaker, or writer, has the right to portray his or her vision of the truth, and as passionately as desired.  I also believe, however, in examining the factual basis for whatever argument is being advanced.  I wish the documentary had shown the same intellectual honesty, instead of presenting such a one-sided picture, especially of environmentalists and other critics of nuclear power — not one of whom is portrayed as anything less than a hysterical nutcase.

Personally, I am a critic of nuclear power, but by no means a reflexive one, and I came to my position through years of independent investigation and diligent study, not because I was somehow brainwashed by the tribal identity of 1960′s environmentalists.  (For one thing, I’m too young to belong to the Sixties generation.  For another — and this is but one of many logical mis-fires in Pandora’s Promise — Stewart Brand is undoubtedly a 1960s’ environmentalist, thanks to his role in the iconic Whole Earth Catalogue, and yet he is now the loudest voice calling for all-out pursuit of nuclear power.  Kinda undercuts the film’s assertion, as voiced by Michael Shellenberger in the closing frames and, more recently, in a front page San Francisco Chronicle story this week, that Sixties generation environmentalists are beyond persuasion about nuclear power, doesn’t it?)

In terms of filmmaking, I thought Pandora’s Promise was okay, not great.  Certainly it was more viewer-friendly than Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but at the end of the day Pandora’s Promise is a movie of talking heads making an intellectual argument.  That is a difficult thing to bring to life on the screen, and I thought Stone did a resourceful job of tackling the challenge.  He owes a great debt to Mark Lynas, apparently the only one of the five converts willing to venture forth from a darkened interview studio and be filmed exploring the situation on the ground, for example at Fukushima.

Doc Soup Man: Stone says that most people go in to seeing his film feeling anti-nuclear, and come out, feeling pro-nuclear. Do you believe this? If so, why do you think this is happening?

Mark Hertsgaard: To my skeptical journalist’s ears, this sounds like decidedly wishful thinking, spun for the benefit of a NYT interview.  I note your NYT story says that Stone did “polling” of his audiences.  Maybe.  But I’d like to see the methodology and practices employed in said “polling” before I would give Mr. Stone’s characterization of the results much credence.

Meanwhile, the public as a whole appears to be voting with its feet, and the results so far are underwhelming, to say the least.  On this, its opening weekend, Pandora’s Promise has reportedly grossed a mere $20,421 in ticket sales.  Averaged across the 16 theaters where it has been shown and assuming a ticket price of $10 a seat with ten showings over the course of Friday and Saturday, these numbers suggest that most showings are attracting about a dozen viewers.  A groundswell, this is not.

Doc Soup Man: Is your anti-Pandora’s Promise attack getting traction?

Mark Hertsgaard: First of all, I don’t accept that what Terry and I wrote was an “attack.”  It was a critique of the film’s claims, in which I in particular compared its assertions with the established record of evidence.  I came to the conclusion that the film cherry-picked its evidence and presented a woefully one-sided perspective, and that’s what I wrote. Had the film dealt differently with evidence and argument, I would have written a different critique.  I make this point because to say that our article was an “attack” is to accept the narrative frame that Stone and the film wrongly insist upon: that everyone else’s minds are irretrievably made up and if one disagrees with the brave converts in the film, then it must be because of an ideological rejection of nuclear power.

As for whether the Nation piece is “getting traction,” I confess that I always find it hard to answer this type of question; the necessary data are elusive and the phenomenon itself can’t be linearly measured anyway. For example, it’s a rule of thumb in most newsrooms that only the people who DON’T like a given story write a letter to the editor about it; you never hear from the many folks who do like that story. (Books, I’ve found, are somewhat different; I’ve gotten many appreciative letters from readers over the years — far more than the letters accusing me of being a communist, idiot or pick your insult.)  Anyway, I know our exchange was highlighted in Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog and I expect it will continue to generate interest as it spreads to other venues over time.

Pandora’s Promise is now screening in a handful of cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia. For a full list and show times, visit pandoraspromise.com.

Let’s give that a think.

Most people I know use an iPhone. Many listen to music through Spotify. But it’s gotten to a point where I assume everyone I know has Netflix. Although Netflix has 36 million subscribers, that number seems to encompass all the folks in my orbit. (That’s sort of a remarkable feat, considering some of the bad press that the DVD and streaming company has received.)

And that number includes a lot of documentary lovers. I’ve always appreciated how I can use Netflix to watch a doc I might be writing about. Sure, it doesn’t have every documentary, but I’d say a quarter of the time they’ve got the film I want to see.

But when they have it streaming I’m ecstatic! That happens to me about one out of eight times, but my needs can be very particular — You’ll probably have a better success rate. Just take a look at the docs that are available right now to stream. I can easily put together a great list of 10 recent must-sees: Bully, Pina, The Imposter, Undefeated, The Invisible War, Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, The Island President, Last Days Here, 5 Broken Cameras, The Black Power Mixtape: 1967-1975.

From a viewer’s perspective, there’s a lot of reason to love Netflix. I appreciate how Netflix serves me, but do the doc filmmakers feel the love and get a fair shake in their deals with the company?

I asked documentary directors about their dealings with the company, and they seemed by and large not miffed, as I’d assumed they would be. If anything, they were mostly resigned. For some, there was a vagueness about the deals they got, and one told me of getting the “runaround” in doing business with them. There was also a sense that Netflix, as one director said, sometimes leaves “the little guys behind.”

But I was mostly interested in the money. This is what I got, in my unscientific survey:

Filmmakers, through an intermediary, might sell 500 to 1,000 DVDs to Netflix, for a rate of $10 to $13 per DVD. For streaming, the deals are generally flat fees for a set number of years (say, three to five), generally in the low-five figures, but they can get as high as six-figures. Most don’t have the leverage to do that, but some do. That’s quite a range, I know. In fact, one director was incredulous about the high end. “Not in a million years,” he said. I’m just reporting what I’ve been told. (I contacted Netflix, which declined a request for information.)

So do my findings constitute a “fair shake?” First, for most films, Netflix is an ancillary market, so, hopefully, the filmmakers have made some bread during a theatrical or video-on-demand release. But with Netflix, considering the wide range, it appears that if a filmmaker can structure the right deal, he or she can do alright. Of course, $30,000 (or even $10,000), for a film that took years to make, isn’t adequate compensation for the blood, sweat and tears, but this is what the marketplace seems to bare today.

Care to share your streaming deals with the documentary community? Share your experience in the comments, or message me directly on Twitter at @docsoupman.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

An image from the documentary Menstrual Man, which premiered at Full Frame Documentary Film Festival in April 2013. Will its title prevent it from reaching a mainstream audience?

You might not get to see two of the best documentaries I’ve seen on the film festival circuit so far. Why? For the same reason: Because their titles could inhibit their distribution, but their directors insist on keeping them anyway.

Drum roll please. Here are the titles… F— for Forest and Menstrual Man.

This is ever more maddening to me because, on principle, I totally agree them.

F— for Forest, directed by young Polish filmmaker Michal Marczak, is about an environmental group in Berlin that promotes and finances its eco-friendly beliefs through pornography. The film is a rollicking ride, and the group’s unique methods and mandate are intriguing. Marczak shoots it with a vivid vérité style, but as things get weirder and more epic, it starts feeling like a Werner Herzog film. One of Herzog’s fiction features, that is. The group is indeed called F— for Forest so the title of the film not only makes total sense, it represents the sort of in-your-face ethos of the filmmaking. Marczak told me he had no intention of changing the title.

Menstrual Man is more serious, but it’s not dry (see, I’m already getting into trouble here). The film is a fascinating telling of a seeming shlump of a man in India, Arunachalam Muruganantham, who makes it his life’s mission to develop safe and cheap sanitary pads for poor women in his country. It’s funny and sad and essential. I spoke briefly with its Singaporean director, Amit Virmani, whom I complimented, referencing how the film recalled the brilliant The Corporation in the way it refreshes how we think about our economic models. I questioned the title in person as well as on Twitter and this was Virmani’s Twitter response: “If I ditched it only cos audiences might be turned off… then I had no right to comment on how it’s a needless taboo among indians,” he wrote.

Two films with two perfectly correct titles, right?

And yet, in the U.S. of A. (and I do think it’s relevant that both filmmakers are from foreign shores), there are still plenty of mainstream newspapers and other outlets that do not publish the word “f—,” or even the approximation that my minders at POV prefer. I’m not commenting on the free speech or civility issues here; what I care about is how the market will receive that title. How will theaters? (The film is going to be shown in the dregs of the Gowanus during the Rooftop Films series on August 16, 2013 in New York City.) Does it matter when docs like F— for Forest end up getting most of their play through online streaming? I know I, as a freelance journalist, have felt handicapped in discussing this film with editors, so it’s happening right here and now at my desk.

The last time I checked, neither film had U.S. distribution. Sure, anything with the word “f—” in it will bring in a prurient crowd, and anyone can download the film in the privacy of their own home, but explain that to your wife. And I don’t see it getting played on mainstream TV. Menstrual Man isn’t going anywhere near Walmart shelves, and even the enlightened minds who watch TED videos would be more apt to download a film called, say, The $ilent Wonder of Women.

One person connected to Menstrual Man told me there was an “ick” factor that some people in the marketplace expressed concerns about. Sorry, as a guy, I can’t help having a moment (or half a moment) of pause when I say that title to someone. Is that the intended effect of the title? To break down the inhibition we, as a culture, have of speaking of women’s bodies honestly? Yes! But will that principle make people in power jump at the chance of showing this film at a festival or on a TV channel near you? I doubt it. More likely: The opposite.

So, is it the right thing to do what’s right, even if it means fewer people will see your film? That’s a question for the ethics professors out there, or for anyone who cares to comment below.

For me, I loved both movies so much that I want others to see them. So I have to respectfully disagree with the directors and say this: Change audiences with your films, not with your titles.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

The Stuck documentary tour bus at a stop in New York City. The film is also available to watch on-demand at stuckdocumentary.com.

There’s a world of documentary that most who observe or take part in the documentary industry never see. They’re like two ships in the night passing by. Or, rather, two buses.

I came to this thinking when I was walking down 23rd street in Manhattan and stumbled on a giant tour bus that had been decorated with images of children and the phrase, “More than a movie. It’s a movement,” and “Stuck documentary.”

When was the last time a documentary was promoted by a rock-’n'-roll tour bus? I so often talk with filmmakers who can barely rent a room in Bushwick, so clearly this is a different animal.

And it appears to be. Stuck is a documentary commissioned by Craig Juntunen, an entrepreneur who became a child welfare advocate. He adopted three kids and came up with the idea to make a documentary to spread the word about the appalling neglect of unwanted children and the injustice caused by the breaking down of international adoptions. In the past six years, largely because of bureaucratic red tape and government inertia, adoptions in the United States of foreign children have dropped 60 percent. And so millions of kids are withering away even though there are families who want provide for them desperately.

A totally worthy cause, right? And that’s what strikes me as particularly interesting about it. It’s one screaming for attention, but to make a documentary as a tool is exactly what the likes of Nick Fraser, of the BBC’s Storyville, is always railing against. Documentary should be about storytelling, he says! They should be like cinema! I tend to agree with him.

Here, the documentary is a stepping stone. You won’t see the Stuck guys at Sundance, or hear about them at the next Cinema Eye Honors.

In fact, they almost reveal a disdain for the documentary form in that slogan, “More than a movie. It’s a movement.” Sounds like a dis, right?

And yet, I’m sure that the director of the film, Thaddaeus Scheel, would disagree. “As a filmmaker, my goal was to present Craig’s point of view within a well researched and non-biased film, that hopefully entertained and engaged the audience with the profoundly moving experience of inter-country adoption,” says Scheel, who comes from “the world of short form docs,” and had once been a Hollywood prop master. “The only agenda I had was to make a compelling film that would illustrate the joys and heartbreaks that we had seen over and over in our research.”

Stuck is indeed a well put-together relaying of information with a strong dose of emotion. It shows how governments are crossing their arms while children are suffering. It tells of several couples struggling to adopt, and it visits the children in their dilapidated orphanages in countries like Vietnam and Ethopia.

It’s sometimes painful to watch. But when actor Mariska Hargitay’s somber narration overlaps images of despondent children kicking around in the dirt, the film watching veers toward the experience of seeing those charity informercials you catch on the nether regions of cable. And how can it not? This is what it is.

There’s no sense of brilliant creativity or revealing discovery in the filmmaking, which are the most precious elements of a documentary. There’s never a sense that the filmmaker is creating or discovering the truth. It’s not even a hardscrabble investigative report. It’s more like connecting the dots.

That might matter to some of us, but I bet it didn’t for Stuck audiences, which is fine by me. (I encourage you to watch the film here, and judge for yourself: http://buy.stuckdocumentary.com/)

“Making the film was a bet that new information would collide with common sense and change will occur,” says Juntunen, who took his tour bus and film on a 78-day tour to 60 cities, where he estimates more than 10,000 people (including three U.S. Congressmen) saw it. Stuck has also received plenty of mainstream press attention, on television and newspapers like USA Today.

Am I knocking Stuck? I don’t want to be. I applaud Juntunen and Scheel for doing incredible work to raise awareness about a terrible wrong. What I want to do is to shine a light on the straw man that Mr. Fraser (and others, including myself) sometimes attack. Stuck is the sort of film we keep slinging arrows at.

But when you actually look at the film, it’s a little like comparing apples and oranges. It doesn’t try to be vérité. And how could one compare it with a cinematic investigation like what we see coming from Alex Gibney, or like one of Michael Moore’s satires?

And yet, I’d have to contend that the film is at least a cousin of the very preachy An Inconvenient Truth.

So, maybe Stuck is not so, so different after all. But you’ll rarely see it in the same room with the other docs.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

All eyes are on the documentary Stories We Tell, released in two theaters in New York City this past weekend. The film, directed by actor-director Sarah Polley, centers on the mysteries surrounding her mother, who passed away when Polley was 11. Though the film examines her family’s past, calling it a family album would be like calling Citizen Kane a movie about sledding. Polley unravels the story of her mother, and her own parentage, like the layers of an onion. Yes, it’ll make you cry, as it’s masterful work, using interviews with family and recreations like we’ve rarely seen. Its greatest genius, though, is in the editing; audiences are carried through the film’s many twists and turns effortlessly.

And it’s not just me saying this. Stories We Tell has as much buzz as any documentary in the past few years. All weekend, my Twitter feed had a consistent deluge of supportive tweets, enjoining people to see it. The film was featured in weekend editions of newspapers and the critics almost universally raved. Rotten Tomatoes gave Stories We Tell a 94% approval rating.

Documentary critics, myself included, go on and on about this Golden Age of documentaries we live in, remarking how docs are taking cinematic storytelling to a whole new level. Stories We Tell is a prime example of that trend. The film distinguishes itself from documentary hits that can draw audiences who want to watch cute kids, fuzzy animals, Justin Bieber or other clever gimmicks. But the question remains: Will audiences show up?

This weekend was promising. Stories We Tell opened with $31,000 in two theaters. There was a bump of 172% from Friday to Saturday, largely considered an indication of strong word-of-mouth. To give you some sense of the numbers, a $10,000 per screen average for an independent film can be considered a success, while $20,000 is a true winner. Beating its chest, Roadside Attractions, the film’s distributor, pointed out to Indiewire that last year’s big hit, Searching for Sugar Man, opened with about $9,000 per screen.

But if they’re chasing Sugar Man, they might be in for a headache. Sugar Man is a different animal; it’s a feel-good doc with a very conventional beat. Stories We Tell is a cerebral art film. It makes you feel, but more than that, it makes you think. I don’t see it ever catching up with Sugar Man, which ended up with a $3.6 million.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be a box office success. Stories We Tell is expanding to 20 screens in seven markets around the country next weekend. It has all of the wind behind its sails. And then, if the stars are aligned, it should get a second wind from an Oscar race.

The little I know of Polley, I doubt she could care less about chasing the almighty dollar with this movie. She made a great film which will touch audiences in ways few docs (and even fewer home movies) could ever hope to.

My concern is how Stories We Tell might be an industry example of how even when everything goes right, you’re still not going to make a significant amount of money on a documentary. Alas, they probably already know that. It’s just those of us who want to see docs cross over to the mainstream—even the art house mainstream— that need to come back down to earth.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

A.J. Schnack with directors Chris Hegedus and D.A. Pennebaker at the special 20th Anniversary screening of The War Room at Hot Docs in Toronto, Canada. (Credit: Adriano Trapani/ Hot Docs)

Call it, “film festival high;” that early morning sense of excitement when you wake and not know what the day will bring, while attending a festival. Toronto’s Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival, which just concluded this weekend had so many films, so many intriguing people (be they filmmakers or subjects of the films), and so much to do, that I was high as a kite, as they say, each morning. I had it good at Hot Docs, and here are seven reasons why:

World Premieres
The docs that first showed at this year’s festival were an eclectic, admirable mix: steeped in doc history (Caucus; on the GOP campaign trail, was a love letter to 1960′s Primary), cerebral yet compelling (The Unbelievers; about evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss) or highly provocative (Unclaimed; about a man in Vietnam who claims to be a POW. See my story about it in The New York Times).

The International Flavor
I met a woman who claimed to “run documentaries” in her small European country. And I actually believe her. You can’t turn without meeting someone who runs a festival or a grant-giving entity from some overseas nation. And they’re all state-funded so there’s no stress or desperation in their eyes as they sip wine, toss bocce balls and discourse on documentaries. The films themselves are equally sourced from disparate places around the world. Accents run thick during Q & A’s, and as we Americans lean in to hear better, we get a well-needed reality check that there’s so much more in the doc world than what’s in our backyard.

It’s the Curation, Stupid
Each film festival is only as good as its films. I’ve already indicated how many great films were showing at Hot Docs this year, among them; 12 O’Clock Boys, Big Men, Kill Team, These Birds Walk, The Machine Which Makes Everything Disappear, and on and on. But there’s more than just cherry picking great films; you have to get the right balance. For example, pairing screenings of Caucus with a special showing of 1993’s Clinton campaign doc, The War Room (with directors D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus in attendance), was particularly brilliant.

Toronto in the Spring Time
I used to say, “nothing is better than Toronto in the late summer,” but it turns out this town is pretty special in the early spring as well. I was totally enthralled by the new TIFF Bell Lightbox theater, with five state-of-the-art screening rooms that provide what’s probably the most comfortable seating with the best sight lines in the western world, and the new jagged, modern addition to the Royal Ontario Museum, which also hosted Hot Docs screenings. It’s been seven years since I’ve been to Toronto, so to see both of these architectural triumphs, both of which help serve the filmmaking community was very exciting. I’ve always loved the food, the night life, and the people of this town, but I was especially happy to meet the proprietor of Dumpling Queen, an awesome hole-in-the-wall Chinese restaurant on Yonge street. They’ve got the best veggie dumplings this side of Mott Street.

The Doc Shop
This might be becoming the new standard at festivals, but it’s the first time I’ve been able to appreciate it. Two dark rooms filled with 40 or so computer screens might seem like anathema to the festival-going experience, so let me explain myself. Hot Docs set up a library of most of the 205 films that showed at the festival so that industry and press people could watch what ever they wanted on the computer screens equipped with headphones. Festival schedules are so difficult to maintain, that it’s essential to give viewers a way to make up what we miss. And, the truth is, so many documentaries are now seen by audiences (and critics) on small screens, that it’s not exactly a disservice to the experience of watching the film.

Sheer number of films
This may be a backhanded compliment, but I was terrorized a number of times by what I was not doing at the festival. Which is why the above-mentioned Doc Shop was so invaluable. No one could watch all 205 films during the festival, but not getting to see it all is a great problem to have. Of the ten films I said I most wanted to see at the festival, I literally saw just two. Two! But I was still so impressed with what I did end up seeing, which brings me to…

Surprises
I had more happy accidents in a four-day period than I thought possible. The first night, I stumbled into a party for The Unbelievers at my hotel, where I met Richard Dawkins whose awesome intellect almost blew me into a corner. But, fueled by beer and olives, I was able to have a conversation with the man. Another day, I stumbled into an early morning panel where I heard Lucky Director Laura Checkoway reveal the gem that Albert Maysles once told her, “All you need to do is love,” which I found quite stirring. The next day, with a hole in my schedule, I stumbled into Menstrual Man, a film title I can’t entirely say with a straight face which is the very reason I should have been seeing it (as the director told me, afterwards). This film is about a man in India who makes it his mission to get poor, rural Indian women to use sanitary pads. It was my greatest discovery at the festival; it sounds small, but it’s really quite miraculous. Shot on site with incredibly compelling characters including the main subject, Arunachalam Muruganantham, and some of the women he works with, Menstrual Man is an engaging, funny, heart-breaking story of the power of what one ordinary man can achieve. It’s an attack on those of us who worship sophistication and intellect (see me fawning over Dawkins, above), as well as a concise appreciation of a micro-economic model. With slick insight and analysis, and well-produced graphics, the film recalls The Corporation. But, at the same time, it’s a gritty, third world verite doc. In other words, it’s a hybrid unlike any other, and it should not be missed.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

In the thick of the Hot Docs film festival in Toronto, I’m just coming off a panel on documentary criticism in which we discussed the need to forward documentary literacy, meaning more considered, critical and nuanced writing and understanding of documentary film.

I can’t promise all that but it only makes sense for me to try to do so with the first documentary I saw after the panel. My unfortunate test case: Caucus, which had its world premiere last night.

When I first heard about Caucus, about the Republican campaign trail in Iowa way, way back in 2012, I wasn’t interested. Isn’t this movie coming too soon? Don’t we need more time before we can look back at the Republican primary in Iowa? How is it at all relevant to today?

But, as I was watching the film, I realized my hesitation was itself a good reason to see it. Caucus is a huge jolt to the senses as it forces us to be in neither smack in the middle of the 24-hour daily news cycle nor in the sobering-it’s-been-a-long-time-now-let’s-look-back frame of mind.

Caucus dares us to care about what happened just a year or so ago. In a way, it feels like that election thing never happened; as if we all knew all along that Obama would defeat Romney to become our president.

But that’s just not the case. The film shows, what feels like, every corn dog, speech and verbal joust that the Republican candidates experience. We catch all the behind the scenes banter in what must be an homage to Primary, the classic first step in Direct Cinema filmmaking, in which doc titans D.A. Pennebaker, Richard Drew, Richard Leacock and Albert Maysles followed the Wisconsin primary back in 1960. That was the launch of the fly-on-the-wall filmmaking, and it must have felt radical back then.

There’ve been other films in the campaign trail genre, like A Perfect Candidate, and War Room, but Caucus has less allegiance to them than Primary because, well, its approach to the subject is basically, let it roll.

What I’m saying is that the movie is nearly two hours long and I think it’s about a half an hour too long. The film is relentless in its coverage of moment after moment. It keeps showing what it’s been showing—candidates engaged in uncomfortable chatter, hustling here and hustling there, intercut with dreamy music. Is director A.J. Schnack trying to simulate the tedium of being on the campaign trail?

No, in addition to playing the Primary card too hard, I think he expects more from his audience. The genius is supposed to be in the details. He wants us to be patient, to not look at our watches, and to feel the pace of what really happened, and to appreciate how human these people are. At a film festival, where everything is happening at once, that was too much to expect of this viewer.

Now, if you have the patience, there’s much to be appreciated and learned from Caucus. You see all the little steps, like Michelle Bachmann showing up 3 and a half minutes late to a function, that inched the electorate from one candidate to another. You see these people as more than puppets.

And, on a very different note, and revealing my personal political inclinations, you hear what these candidates and their followers said, and you realize America didn’t vote for them. These are the ideas and candidates that America rejected, and these deeply passionate people in Iowa and other parts of the country are still dealing with the wounds of their defeat. God knows what would happen if they have to go up against Hillary in the next election.

And that’s the greatest virtue of Caucus: it makes us aware of the reality we live in right now. It’s easy to ignore what lies beneath the surface, but Caucus shows the true present by revealing our recent past.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Programs from the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival in Toronto, Canada.

It’s not just a coincidence that the decline of the film critic happened at the same time as the rise of the documentary. I bring this up as I prepare for a trip to the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival in Toronto, where I’ll be taking part in a panel on film criticism tomorrow (Tuesday at 1:30; come on down!).

I’ve mulled the issue of documentary criticism and how reviewers are too nice to them before. Frankly, the issue doesn’t get old for me, nor it seems for many of those of us who care about such things. There have been similar panels at True/False and the Tribeca Film Festival this year. I’ll admit, we who write and think about documentaries constantly may be small in number, but we don’t lack for passion.

And this is what’s bothering some of us: if documentaries are such a brilliantly evocative way to tell the truth through cinematic storytelling, then all documentaries should not be treated the same. There should be a hierarchy. Some are better than others. Nor should they be judged on a curve, given a pass, as it were, that fiction narratives don’t get.

But there’s another problem that’s been less considered: I think we’re beginning to suffer from an overload of documentaries. Call it, doc glut. And someone’s got to help separate the wheat from the chaff.

So, let’s loop back to that first proposition: that film criticism has imploded at the same time that documentaries have exploded. Pauline Kael and other such critics no longer rule the day. A film’s life can no longer be determined by the strike of a typewriter key. Of course, this notion has always been exaggerated, but the question is that as more credence is given to a Tweet by a 16-year-old fanboy than a well-considered review by an old guy sitting behind a desk, do the documentaries stand to lose or gain?

Honestly, it’s difficult to say. But it’s clear to me that the rise of the documentary is very much a part of the same technological-cultural phenomenon as the decline of the all-powerful critic. It’s all part of the digital age we live in.

It’s worth mentioning, I think, that no one better personifies these shifting plates than the recently passed Roger Ebert. As a critic, one who held as much power as anyone, spanning from the old world of criticism to the current one, Ebert also just so happened to be one of the great documentary advocates of our time.

He’s the guy who picked Errol Morris out of crowd, showering praise on his oddity, Gates of Heaven. He also helped put Hoop Dreams on the map, pumping it up with praise, and heralding what became the dawn of the current age of great documentaries. He called Hoop Dreams the best film of the 1990s.

Ebert was seeing things that other critics weren’t.

While he called the 1976 Maysles film, Grey Gardens, “haunting,” “fascinating,” and “mysterious,” giving it four stars, Vincent Canby, of The New York Times, called it “impassive. Also a little cruel.”

The film, which many of us now consider one of the greatest documentaries of all time, was a bomb when it was released. Chad Curtis, of Vogue, called it “exploitative, tasteless and frankly reprehensible.”

So much for the heyday of film criticism. I’d contend that many critics, Kael included, didn’t know what they were looking at.

Ebert did, because he had more of a populist (which is not to be confused with stupid or simple) point of view.

What this all suggests to me is that we need more doc literate film critics, who can recognize what’s great in a documentary, and to call them out. For my money, A.O. Scott, of The New York Times, does a pretty good job at that.

But, just as much, we also need more critics to call out the bad ones. It’s not as easy as it sounds, however. I’m no critic, but even I have difficulty. In fact, I recently saw two films that I really didn’t care for but I just can’t put my money where my mouth is: I’m scared to pan them here.

The old reasons come up: who gains from a negative review? Would my little negative critique really help forward the form?

This is my preamble to what may come tomorrow in Toronto: I hope to spill the beans on a couple of documentaries that I’d will criticize. I want to see what it sounds like coming out of my mouth in a public forum.

If you’re there, you can take me to task for it.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Despite still being in the thick of the Tribeca Film Festival, it’s time to look northward to Hot Docs, the biggest documentary film festival in North America, which takes place in Toronto, and begins Thursday, April 25. I mean, this festival is big: they’ve got 160 directors coming and 205 films being shown.

They also have an industry conference with a bunch of panels, including one that I’ll be on about documentary criticism. Documentary Channel’s Christopher Campbell, filmmaker Robert Greene, and DOC NYC’s Basil Tsiokos and I will be breaking down whether docs should be reviewed on a curve because they mean well, and whether or not there’s a responsibility to shape “doc literacy.” I’m hoping that there will be blood. I’m not sure who’s, but there’s plenty to sink our teeth into here.

So if you are going to be attending, please come to that, on Tuesday, April 30th, at 1:30.

But more so, what should you see?

Luckily, the Hot Docs organizers divide the films into programs which provide us with direction: there’s Special Presentations, World Showcase, Rule Breakers and Innovators, among others. Better still, there is the assist provided by the Hot Docs website http://www.hotdocs.ca/schedule/, which has a “browse by subject” menu, showing it knows doc audiences do just that, so that you can find what interests you, whether it’s poverty, performance, love & relationships, death & mortality, and so on.

Here’s what I can tell you to see, and why, in two minutes or less: Unclaimed, about what appears to be a once-missing POW will blow your mind — it’s even better than Imposter because it’s actually about something; artist profile, Cutie and the Boxer, is this year’s must-see festival darling; F— For Forest will make your jaw drop over pornographers who want to save the rain forest through fornication; Kill Team and Blackfish will enrage you, over the war in Afghanistan and the treatment of orcas, respectively; I Am Breathing will bring tears and respect for a man dying with dignity; Big Men is as much a well-crafted political exposé of oil interests in Africa as it is a meditation on (in)humanity; Anyone interested in how the 24-7 news cycle coverage we saw in Boston got started, should check out Let The Fire Burn, about the 1980s fiasco between Philadelphia police and radical members of Move; The Machine Which Makes Everything Disappear is beautifully and disturbingly raw and revealing in its simple questioning of the citizens of the country of Georgia; Maidentrip is a boat ride around the world and a bildungsroman of a young girl, which gives you two good reasons to see it; and I’ve written that These Birds Walk, about an orphanage in Pakistan, recalls Truffaut’s 400 Blows, and I meant it — the cinema vérité of the film is deep poetry in its depiction of street urchins.

If I saw all these films at one festival, I think it would blow my mind. But here they are, all at Hot Docs. I envy the people who’ll be discovering these docs for the first time in the next two weeks, but I’m not complaining; I’ve got it pretty good as I enter the unknown. Here’s what I’m putting at the top of my list of must-see films.

The Great North Korean Picture Show: I put this first because it’s first on my list. North Korea is such a confounding, depressing place, and this film approaches the subject through access, somehow, to the state’s film school. I have been interested in how the country’s leaders are obsessed with movies, so I’m curious how this will play out.

12 O’Clock Boys: It’s about tough Baltimore youth in an urban dirt bike gang. I asked someone who’s seen the film what it was like, expecting it to be bad-ass, cool or the like, but he said it was “beautiful.” I’m there.

American Commune: This is the story of a commune created in 1970 in Tennessee. I’ve always been fascinated by the subject, and the directors have MTV backgrounds, which I don’t consider a negative. I’m looking forward to a film with polish.

Blood Brother: This Sundance hit has been on my radar because it’s about one man’s journey into India, doing good for kids who are HIV-positive, but it’s also about his search for self. When a doc can cover an important issue but also tell a narrative I can identify with, I’m interested.

The Human Scale: I like docs about design and this one is about how screwed up our urban landscape is. Give me Koyaanisqati-like images and insight, and I’m yours.

Sick Birds Dies Easy: Four men go to Africa in search of existential answers, as well as a cure to their addictions. The festival calls it a cross between Heart of Darkness and Fear and Loathing, which is all I needed to hear.

Our Nixon: Long-forgotten Super-8 footage of Richard Nixon could be a total bore or a supreme revelation in the right hands. Can first-time filmmaker Penny Lane make archival magic? I’d like to find out.

God Loves Uganda: This look at Uganda, where human rights groups and the evangelical movement battle over homosexuality, is directed by Roger Ross Williams, the guy whose Oscar win for Music by Prudence, was marred by the interruption of his former producer. Hey, I’ve always been tickled by that moment.

Naked Opera: What is this weird movie? A portrait of a critically ill European man who takes decadent trips to see Don Giovanni. Sounds peculiar, but potentially fascinating, if the subject is.

Just the Right Amount of Violence: This one could be a bust. It’s a depiction of families with children who are so troubled that the parents enlist interventionists who bring them to a reform school. There’s vérité and dramatizations which can be a slippery slope, but if done right, could be great.

And special mention goes to two of the most provocatively titled docs of the fest; I Will Be Murdered, about a man who publicly predicts his murder, and Menstrual Man, about an Indian man who wants to do good with sanitary pads for women. I hope to see both.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Big Men, directed by Rachel Boynton, screened at the Tribeca Film Festival (April 17-28, 2013).

My Tribeca Film Festival is off to a great start. I started my Friday with a screening of Big Men, followed by Flex is Kings. Luckily I was sitting, because both films would have knocked me off my feet.

There’s this overwhelming feeling one gets, the kind that puts your hair on end and tears welling in your eyes, when watching a documentary that puts you into another world, and screams, there’s something truly incredible happening here!

And to think that, while Big Men is set (mostly) in Africa, Flex plays out in my backyard, Brooklyn, NY.

Big Men is directed by Rachel Boynton, who managed to get incredible access to a small Texas oil company, Kosmos, just as it was discovering a muilt-billion dollar oil reserve off the coast of Ghana. Boynton traces the development of this discovery from the money guys in New York to the oil guys in Dallas, and through many of the players–from politicians to rebel fighters–in Africa.

What unfolds in Big Men is more than the discovery of oil, but a thorough examination of humanity and what motivates men who want to be big men. Who doesn’t act in their self interest? Who doesn’t try to do what’s best for their own? Those questions are asked equally of all the men in this documentary.

In other words, this hard-hitting political expose is filled with soul-searching metaphors. No wonder it sets the tone with opening quotes about selfish acts and gold-digging from economist Milton Friedman and from the Humphrey Bogart film, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. It’s a film the puts up a big target. And, yes, it hits it.

Finding oil proves to be both a blessing and a curse for many of the people involved, and Boynton manages to trace them from the jungle where we empathize for a gun-toting rebel to the New York stock exchange floor, where you can’t help love an oil tycoon who grunts, “this kind of sucks,” between glad-handing.

As good as Big Men is, Flex is Kings, directed by Deidre Schoo and Michael Beach Nichols, is more visceral, and therefore even more impactful. It follows the lives of several people involved in extreme street dancing; think break dancing, but on a whole new, athletic, level. I’ve seen flex dancing on the streets, in the subways, but never really got it. Flex is Kings gets it, and it effectively demonstrates that it is an art form, a cultural mode of expression that is as beautiful and honorable as any other. The difference is that it is very raw, and it’s blowing up right now.

We follow two flex dancers, Flizzo and Jay Donn, who are vivid subjects. When Jay gets picked to join a dance troupe, the meshing of the two dance forms, probably for the first time, turns this documentary into more than just discovery, it becomes a type of artistic creation.

I should note that neither film is perfect. Both would benefit from tightening and stronger editing (and Flex sounded like it was in mono–as moved as I was, with better sound, it would have been even more affecting).

As far as I’m concerned, Tribeca is firing on all cylinders.

For updates on the documentaries and interactive works at the 2013 Tribeca Film Festival, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

The MacArthur Foundation will be accepting proposals for documentary film production funding ONLINE for the first time. Submissions will be open from July 15 – 31, 2013. Submissions close on July 31, 2013 at 3 PM CDT.

The MacArthur Foundation’s Media Program provides support for the production of documentary films that highlight human stories within complex social issues. The Foundation believes that these issues are under-reported in other media and seeks to fund projects that will reach a broad audience through public television broadcast, community and policymaker screenings, and online.

The grants are made to production companies and non-profit organizations based in the United States, with the typical grant amount ranging between $50,000 and $200,000.

For additional information, visit the media page at The MacArthur Foundation or view the Frequently Asked Questions.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• LEF Foundation Moving Image Fund Deadline This Friday 1/25
• Documentary Year in Review Countdown #12: Ford Foundation Funds Webified Documentaries
• Watching: WGBH Lab Open Call

View POV’s resources for filmmakers »

POV is excited to announce a new addition to our Resources for Filmmakers section of the site!

Whether you are new to Twitter or a veteran, “who should I follow” is always a burning question. Based on metrics such as number of Twitter followers, Klout, Kred, and PeerIndex, as well as our own knowledge of the Twitter docusphere, we’ve compiled a current list of the 25 docutweeters that you should be sure to follow. They keep people abreast of festival lineups, premieres and reviews, funding and submission opportunities, and relevant news for documentary filmmakers.

View the list of the Top 25 Docutweeters you should be following »

We will be updating the list periodically, as we know social media statistics and relevance can change quickly, so be sure to check back every once and while to see if there are some new names on the list!

To get the latest updates on new resources, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

If you have a suggestion for a resource list, let us know at filmmakers[at]pov.org!

Read more posts like this one...

• For Filmmakers: Documentary Filmmaking Resources from POV
• Recommended Reading: Top 10 Twitter Tips for Filmmakers
• 6 Golden Rules for Filmmakers on Social Media

Panelists Barak Goodman, Shola Lynch and Ingrid Kopp (seen above), along with Adnaan Wasey and June Cross, participated in a “Future of Documentary Storytelling” discussion at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism in New York City on May 30, 2013. (Credit: Turner Cowles)

Abi Wright, director of the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Awards, shares her notes from a discussion about the future of documentary storytelling hosted by ONA-NYC (the New York City meetup chapter of the Online News Association) and the duPont Awards.

The future of documentaries is less about finding new ways to tell the story but using the tools that exist to tell great stories. That’s the conclusion of the Future of Documentary Storytelling panel that was hosted by ONA-NYC and the duPont Awards May 30, 2013 at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism in New York City. The event featured filmmakers June Cross (Columbia University), Barak Goodman (Ark Media), Shola Lynch (Chisholm ’72: Unbought & Unbossed – POV 2005, Free Angela), the Tribeca Film Institute’s Ingrid Kopp and POV’s own Adnaan Wasey. They advised storytellers to understand audience engagement, the range of digital technologies that can be adapted to tell non-fiction stories and the importance of a narrative regardless of its platform. Here are five main takeaways:

1. Good Storytelling Is Your Guide

Directors Shola Lynch and Barak Goodman emphasized the importance of a strong narrative structure in a documentary project. Good storytelling is key regardless of a documentary’s platform, Shola Lynch stressed. Non-curated content uploaded to the web won’t carry the same weight as a well-crafted story.

2. Publish!

POV Digital Director Adnaan Wasey laid out the four steps of innovative non-fiction storytelling he oversees at POV Hackathon: envision, prioritize, prototype, publish. Publishing is important, according to Wasey, because ideas need to be tested in the real world.

3. Use Digital Tools Sensibly

Digital tools are powerful resources and they can enhance your interactive storytelling, Wasey shared. Engaging with audiences can be a critical part of storytelling, but don’t think crowdsourcing is going to fix a story’s fundamental problems. Wasey divulged that too often, filmmakers try to reinvent the wheel rather than use great tools that already exist — This is not the best use of resources.

4. Use the Web for Its Strengths

The Internet isn’t just another pipeline for dumping footage, advised Ingrid Kopp, Director of Digital Initiatives at the Tribeca Film Institute. Shorter interactive documentary on the web can have their own unique structures.

Documentary filmmaking is a “broad church” where many styles, narratives and platforms co-exist, said Kopp. The BlabDroid, a project that utilizes documentary robots, blends engineering with storytelling. It was featured at Tribeca Film Festival’s 2013 Storyscapes, the festival’s first multi-platform exhibition, curated by Kopp. Watch the robots in action:

5. Know the Fundamentals, Know Your Niche

Filmmakers with shooting, editing and writing skills have an advantage, Barak Goodman told the audience. Goodman, the award-winning producer of Ark Media who was part of the MAKERS team, talked about the challenges of producing simultaneously for the web and for broadcast. Goodman, who is currently working on a six-hour series and interactive web site about cancer for PBS based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Emperor of All Maladies, says that now more than ever it’s important to understand the fundamentals of journalism.

Lynch agreed. Her documentary, Free Angela and All Political Prisoners (trailer below), had an international theatrical release using Tugg, an online service that enables audiences to bring films to local theaters on-demand. She shared how new funding models are providing filmmakers with different opportunities for development and distribution, but advised aspiring filmmakers to gain a skill that’s in demand in the business to maintain a long and marketable career.

The duPont-Columbia Awards honor outstanding broadcast, documentary and digital reporting at Columbia University. Enter online for the duPont Awards, see past winners and learn about upcoming events at dupontawards.org. The upcoming deadline is July 1, 2013.

Listen to audio from the panel »
Find out more about ONA-NYC »
Follow @duPontAwards on Twitter »
Follow @abiwrightny on Twitter »

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• How Prosumer Cameras, Apple and YouTube Have Changed Documentary Storytelling in the 10 Years Since 9/11
• Five Top Takeaways from Tribeca Film Institute’s Interactive Day
• ‘The English Surgeon’ Wins duPont-Columbia Award

Robert West’s room (Photo by Judith Helfand)

Dear Friends & much beloved Doc Community

Please send your love, your kindest thoughts and what ever else you have in your heart to our dear friend, my comrade of many years, Robert West.

I had the great joy (really) of being with him this past weekend. He could talk – we could laugh – I got to say Thank You.

But in the last 24 hours, Robert has moved into what the hospice nurse is calling the ‘zone’ or “the transition” [like "going through the mouth of the tunnel"].

He has told us over and over that he is at peace with this and ready. I am told that he is not able to talk anymore, but very peaceful, without pain, and showing no signs of discomfort.

He has shown us how to live your death, build community every step of the way, be awake, loving and present and maintain dignity (along with esthetics, cut flowers and cookies for guests, wonderful sheets and attention to every detail).

Please hold Robert in love and light. He is in the comfort of a home he curated and loved, that is still warm from dinner parties and scrabble nights – where you can still hear his laughter and still taste his excellent cooking.

I took this picture on Sunday – when in fact the light was wonderful and he was asleep, beloved friends were in and out, the peonies were fragrant and all words on all hearts were shared.

Robert West you will always be one of my greatest teachers and beloved comrades! Presente, Bravo, go gently we love you.

Read more posts like this one...

• Film and Environmental Activism: Catching up with Everything’s Cool’s Judith Helfand and Daniel B. Gold
• 2013 Robert Flaherty Film Seminar Fellowship Program – Deadline to Apply 3/1
• Documentary Year in Review Countdown #1: The West Memphis 3, Subjects of the ‘Paradise Lost’ Documentary Series, Are Set Free

An image from the interactive documentary Bear 71 (Photo: © National Film Board of Canada)

About Bear 71

Budget: $350,000 (Canadian Dollars)
Metrics: 238,000 unique visitors
Awards: “FWA Site Of The Year 2012″ (Favorite Website Awards, 2012), “NetArt” winner (Webby Awards, 2013), “Best Web Series: Non-Fiction” (Digi Awards, 2012)

Creators: Jeremy Mendes and Leanne Allison
Producers: National Film Board of Canada, Jam3, Aubyn Freybe-Smith
Executive Producers: David Christensen, Loc Dao, Rob McLaughlin
Writer: JB MacKinnon
The Voice of Bear 71: Mia Kirshner

Interactive documentaries, i-docs, web documentaries, multimedia projects — call them what you may, but they are likely to be the future of factual programming. Some interactive documentaries are difficult to navigate. Often there is lots of technology and Flash, leaving one to wonder about the point of the entire exercise. Bear 71 though stands out in this crowd. The technological sophistication of this multimedia project is impressive. But the documentary stands more on the fundamental principle of filmmaking — which is great storytelling. It’s the combination of technology-meeting-story that makes Bear 71 a must watch for everyone.

Produced by the National Film Board of Canada and created by Leanne Allison and Jeremy Mendes, Bear 71 is about a grizzly bear in the Canadian Rockies who was tracked by trail cameras. It’s a haunting story about the ways in which humans, technology and animals interact.

The National Film Board of Canada produces some of the most cutting edge interactive projects in the world today. I had a conversation with Loc Dao, executive producer of Bear 71 at the NFB on how the project was put together.

Pre-Development

The film director Leanne Allison had access to thousands of hours of wildlife footage captured on remote trail cameras in the Banff National Park in Canada, which is one of the most visited national parks in the world. Allison originally pitched the idea as a traditional documentary to the NFB, but after months of discussion, the team decided that the low-resolution pictures wouldn’t make a good theatrical documentary. However, they determined that the subject matter had all the elements for a great interactive web-based experience. Leanne had sieved through 11 years of footage, from when the three-year-old bear (“Bear 71″) was collared until her death. Almost all of Bear 71′s movements had been tracked, supposedly to protect her.

“We introduced Leanne to Jeremy Mendes, a creative technologist, who recommended that the story could be based on all the data that had been collected,” Loc explained.

Where the Wired World Ends and the Wild One Begins

“The birth of the digital idea took place when we decided to use all the data that we had for this project as a commentary on it.”

National parks are created to protect animals from humans. But as we see in the film, humans are everywhere. Animals have to adapt to new challenges posed by man-made railway tracks and highways. What is the toll of this constant surveillance on the animals living in so-called wilderness?

Wildlife and humans are under surveillance in the National Film Board of Canada’s 2012 interactive documentary Bear 71 (Photo: © National Film Board of Canada)

“The project is based on the fact that everything is under surveillance today. Humans are under constant surveillance and so are animals. The way we look at wildlife and nature is through all this data and this film in a way is a commentary on our modern day society and the way we look at science and the wild.”

Loc mentioned that the team decided early on that they wanted a first-person narrative for the script. “We wanted to tell the story from Bear 71′s point of view. We managed to get James McKinnon, who has previously authored The 100-Mile Diet. McKinnon’s knowledge and his sensitivity for this issue made all the difference to the script.”

JB MacKinnon is a Canadian independent journalist and author, and his book The 100-Mile Diet promotes local food. The book was converted into a series for Food Channel Canada. I haven’t read the book, but his script for Bear 71 is one of the most powerful narratives I have ever heard. The script manages to weave hard facts into an emotive and thought-provoking story:

I want you understand this I was a good bear. One beautiful morning when I was exploring dandelions with the cubs these two people appeared. I reared up on my hind legs and was about to charge when I realized that they were just two little girls. They were crouched down like they were praying. So I chased away the cubs and everyone walked away from that. I take a certain amount of pride in that.

The voiceover for the 20-minute narrative is provided by Mia Kirshner, a Canadian actress and social activist. “I don’t call her a voiceover, but an actor, for the voice was acted on, and her acting was just so all knowing, so powerful, so in touch with who Bear 71 was,” says Loc.

Once the elements of the script and the voice over were decided on, the interactive experience was fine tuned.

The Interactive Experience

Unlike a normal documentary, an interactive documentary has a different production process.

It starts with the story. The story and the script have to be firmed up before the interactive part gets started.

The story leads to the information architecture (IA) which involves making “wireframes,” the blueprints of a digital design. An IA tells how content and different elements on a site should be classified and is created after all the research is completed. This then leads to the development of a prototype and the actual design, which includes elements like typography and colors. And then the development and quality assurance process takes place, where programmers code the different information to ensure that everything works. User testing is the final stage, leading to the end product which is then marketed and released.

One of the most dramatic aspects of Bear 71 is the fact that it is a linear story, with non-linear elements. You listen to this amazing narrative, but the browsing and viewing experience is in your control. Like a video game, you can decide which way you want to go. If this is your first time with an interactive documentary, or you are tech-phobic, you are still on safe ground. The gripping narrative will keep you hooked. You do have a choice, though, of exploring different aspects of the Banff National Park, just as Bear 71 used to. You can choose to navigate in any direction you want, and you can see the surveillance footage of the different animals in the wild.

“We were on version 14 of the interactive plan, and no one but Jeremy and I understood it. It was a real challenge in terms of wireframes. We had to define the world that represented the national park and we had to put it in one screen, so that users could navigate it easily. The programmers at Jam3 (a Canadian digital design agency) created the tool that would populate the code … what happened in the wild world, what animals.” Loc also mentioned they strategically used a linear audio experience to make it more accessible to a larger audience.

The entire project from start to finish took 18 months to complete. Funded at $350,000 (Canadian dollars), it is one of the most expensive interactive projects made so far. It has so far received 238,000 unique visitors.

Multimedia documentaries are still a nascent field and many new experiments are being done. There are large media organizations like The New York Times and Arte that are also at the forefront, and there is a lot of smaller independent work that is receiving attention. I haven’t come across too many Asian multimedia films so far, but it’s something that all of us have to keep in mind. The future of factual programming lies in interactive documentaries. I am waiting for the day when Asian multimedia documentaries can also be a subject of review and debate.

This post originally appeared on Jaya Mahajan’s blog, Factual for Asia.

Jaya Mahajan has created content for some of the biggest brands in the Asian media industry over the last 15 years. She has made compelling and award-winning documentaries and factual series for channels such as CNBC, the National Geographic channel, CNN and BBC World. Mahajan is currently an independent consultant for factual programming production companies in Asia. She is the author of Factual for Asia, a blog that shares the journeys taken by documentary filmmakers towards completing their films. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• Ten Questions for Loc Dao and Hugues Sweeney of the NFB
• Choose Your Own Documentary
• Lucy Winer (“Kings Park”) on Making a Career in Documentary Filmmaking

Filmmaker Lucy Winer (Kings Park, Golden Threads, Rate It X) outside Kings Park State Hospital, where she was a patient in the 1960′s. (Photo by Jason D. Brown)

Fans of POV will recognize Lucy Winer as one of the directors of Rate It X (POV 1988, with Paula de Koenigsberg) and Golden Threads (POV 1999, with Karen Eaton). For more than 30 years, Winer has been making acclaimed documentaries about social issues spanning sexism, gay rights and HIV/AIDS. For her latest film, Kings Park, she’s decided to tell her own story, about being committed to Kings Park State Hospital in Long Island as a teen and what she discovered when she returned to the shuttered institution 40 years later.

As Winer tells us in this interview, she’s wiser after releasing many documentaries the “traditional way” and is turning to a new model for making a living as an independent filmmaker.

POV: How did the experience of making your previous films influence your distribution choices for Kings Park?

Lucy Winer: Our previous documentaries have been successful, but in each case, once we were done with the upfront work of launching the film, we had little involvement with distribution and outreach. In the case of Kings Park, we discovered that we wanted to stay involved. For me personally, the bringing of Kings Park into the world has been as rewarding as the making of the film.

I’ve been at this – making documentaries – for over 30 years. Back when I started in the early 80s, very few films could be made, let alone reach the public, because the requirements for production and distribution were so stern. You had to have a television broadcast, you had to have some kind of theatrical distribution, and you certainly had to be very present in festivals in order to reach the public.

We were lucky. Our first documentary feature, Rate It X (a bitingly satirical look at sexism in America), was released theatrically in this country and overseas, and broadcast on the first season of POV. We were invited to most of the “important” festivals and we got amazing reviews in the national press. The film went on to become a classic in women’s studies. We achieved our primary goal, in that we made a real impact with humor, and got people to look at the insidious effects of sexism. But sadly, financially, we never managed to break even.

POV: Did you go into your latest film with an idea of making money? Which is another way of asking, how can you make a living making documentaries?

Winer: The motivation behind Kings Park was definitely not to make money. Having said that, we certainly did think about how to recoup our investment and pay for all the time it took to make it, and the efforts of the team who made it happen. When we first completed the film, our assumption was that we would try our best to maximize our initial impact through festivals, get as much press attention as possible, and then go on to distribution and broadcast. That isn’t what happened at all.

Although we did appear in festivals, and we did get some wonderful reviews, it right away became apparent that the biggest demand for the film was going to come from the world of mental health. This is a huge world and incorporates many different audiences, including consumers, advocacy groups, mental health professionals at every level, policy makers, universities and colleges, hospitals and clinics, government agencies and the criminal justice system.

Because the history of mental health care has been so ignored, there’s a real passion among all these groups to learn about the past and see how this history has impacted the crisis in mental health care that we face today. So what happened with our film was that we went very quickly from festivals to national conferences, from national conferences to more regional organizations, institutions and centers. Also, there wasn’t only a demand to screen the film, there’s also been a demand for me to come and speak with the film.

Given this turn of events, we made the decision early on to self-distribute, and I think for us, it’s been the right decision. In time, we may change our minds, but there are huge benefits in going your own way, if you’re able. For us, the learning curve has been huge, and we are still figuring it all out, but it’s been enormously rewarding.

Because the film is an outgrowth of my own recovery process, I often tell audiences when I go out to speak that meeting with them and sharing the film is, in fact, the last phase of the healing process that the making of the film has afforded me.

POV: So finding a niche and educational sales played a bigger role upfront?

Winer: Yes and it’s all been fairly counterintuitive for us as filmmakers. With previous films, we waited to begin educational distribution until the end of the process. Our first aim was to reach a general audience. Time will tell if I’m right, but in this instance I feel we will be better able to reach a general audience out of the partnerships and community building that’s happening right now with the educational outreach. Some would say that we should have been doing this kind of networking from Day One. To some extent we did, we formed relationships in the community from the start of research. But for the most part, it was all we could do to simply make the film.

POV: Have you found an industry in speaking? With selling DVDs as a product of speaking?

Winer: The fees from speaking do allow us to meet the overhead for outreach and slowly pay off our production debt.

To say a bit more about the possibilities of speaking with the film, a lot of people I’m asked to address — people, for instance, who work in hospitals, or in government — don’t have the luxury of watching a film that runs an hour and 48 minutes, as is the case with Kings Park. In one instance, for example, I was invited to address the annual meeting of State Mental Health Commissioners from across the country. In terms of affecting policy, this was an incredibly important opportunity, but the sponsors of the meeting could only allow 75 minutes for my presentation. The solution – which we arrived at together – was to have me screen highlights from the film and speak between the segments. It was a huge hit!

I started the talk by saying, “If you had told me, when I was a girl of 17, sitting on the floor of the dayroom of Ward 210, that I would be here today, addressing all of you, I would have thought you were messing with me, and not in a good way!” Immediately that remark created a bond, which is incredibly important when you’re asking people to examine their assumptions and attitudes. It also creates interest in the movie, so people want to purchase the film.

As a footnote to this story, this approach — speaking and sharing segments from the film — has become the basis for a series of trainings we’re developing that will ultimately be turned into a stand-alone video and facilitator’s guide. This will allow us reach viewers whom we’d be unable to reach with the feature film.

POV: At what point should a filmmaker realize that festivals have served their purpose, or that traditional distribution won’t be there, and now its time to go bundle yourself as a speaker?

Winer: I would say, don’t try to hammer your film into any pre-fabricated idea of what its life should be. Sure you need to plan and be pro-active. But leave room for the adventure to happen.

POV: What’s your guidance to another filmmaker who might similarly be seeking out policymakers who can influence the issue of their film?

Winer: I ask myself, “What’s the best set of actions I can take today?” This film has a mission to affect change in the world of mental health care, so I feel like I’m in service to that mission. I need to go where we think I can be most effective, and where we can reach the widest groups of people. The joy I feel when I’m out there is a real marker to me that I’m on the right path.

Overall, I think it’s important to ask yourself, “Why did I do this? And what is it that I’m hoping to achieve?” In 1985, as a young filmmaker, I thought that if we could ever get a great review in The New York Times, I would be satisfied for the rest of my life. Sad but true. Well, we got two great reviews in the Times, and the very next day my only thought was, “Now what?” It’s not that it didn’t make a difference to get this kind of positive feedback – it did, of course. But on the level that sustains you, it really didn’t. So what are you really after? What’s really going to carry you through?

POV: Are there any ways in which technology or social media is helping to create relationships or engage audiences?

Winer: One thing that may be heartening for digitally incompetent and/or shy people like me to hear is that we began distribution without knowing these tools. Of course we learned the basics as fast as we could, but always remember that the tools need to be appropriate to the people you’re trying to reach. We’re using email, and that has been successful for communicating with our audience and supporters.

POV: Your thinking around this film is for it to have a long life, which is to say this is your job right now and will be for a while?

Winer: I think that’s a fair assessment. This is my job right now, so I’m not in the mindset, as I have been in the past, of getting Kings Park out there so I can move on to the next project. That’s not where I’m coming from. I’m getting to do what I want to do, and what I love to do. I never imagined that I could love doing distribution and outreach so much.

Lucy Winer’s Kings Park continues to screen at festivals and special events across the country. Paradigm Shift NYC is hosting a screening and discussion on Thursday, May 23, 2013, in New York City. Check kingsparkmovie.com for information about future screenings.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• For Filmmakers: Documentary Filmmaking Resources from POV
• BizVizz: The Making of a Documentary App
• “Documentary Style” Shot-making

POV will co-host the first event with IFP and Dumbo Improvement District and then pass it along to other DUMBO-based organizations to host at different locations each month. This is going to be a great opportunity to build community among the DUMBO and Brooklyn Navy Yard filmmaking populations.

Visit our Meetup group page for more details and to RSVP for the event: www.meetup.com/DUMBO-Filmmaker-Meetup/.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• Revolution ’67 Screenings in Milwaukee This Week
• Rooftop Films Kicks Off!
• BAMcinemaFEST Kicks Off Third Season Bringing Blue Chip Docs to Brooklyn

View POV’s resources for filmmakers »

We recently launched a new section of our website aimed at helping independent documentary filmmakers accomplish critical tasks such as finding funding, the right online distribution tools and “engagement” strategists. So now you can stop Googling for hours and just bookmark our Resources for Filmmakers page instead!

Expect more lists in the near future, but as of now our Resources for Filmmakers section features six essential resource lists and is already a one-stop shop for documentary filmmakers on the web. Three of these lists are devoted to funding opportunities. We have compiled lists of grants, awards and broadcast opportunities and separated them into three categories: documentary funding, transmedia funding for new media and web documentaries, and public media funding to find out how to get funding from us and our colleagues.

Underneath the umbrella of distribution and marketing resources, we’ve provided filmmakers with a sortable chart of 200 domestic and international film festivals where you might submit your documentary or watch new documentaries before anyone else. We’ve listed top-tier festivals you might want to aim for first, such as Sundance, IDFA, Tribeca and Hot Docs, but in the documentary world, there are plenty of other smaller festivals and local festivals that might be right for your film.

We’ve also pulled together contact information and work examples for “engagement” strategists, who can help you take the issue at the center of your film and turn it into a full-fledged action campaign. With a strategic campaign and community engagement program, documentaries can become much more than a just a film and can start to affect social change.

And last but not least is a chart interactive video-making tools for those filmmakers that want to begin adventuring into the world of new media storytelling. This is rapidly changing list — we’ll keep adding tools as more software becomes available to tell stories using the web.

To get the latest updates on new resources, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

If you have a suggestion for a resource list, let us know at filmmakers[at]pov.org!

Read more posts like this one...

• 2012: What’s In Store for The Filmmaking 99 Percent
• Could a $79 iPhone Attachment Revolutionize Documentary Filmmaking?
• Vimeo Is All About Filmmakers With Its New Self-Distribution Service

Marc Schiller of BOND360 explains his company’s approach to independent distributing. We recommend this article to filmmakers interested in direct and alternative distribution methods.

Jump over to IndieWire to get a breakdown of the “360 approach.” »

Read more posts like this one...

• Recommended Reading: Top 10 Twitter Tips for Filmmakers
• Recommended Reading: The 6 Stages of Editing As A Film Director
• Recommended Reading: Eight Fundamental Concepts of Sound for Documentary

Hugues Sweeney, Executive Producer at NFB Digital Studio Montreal, and Loc Dao, Executive Producer & Creative Technologist at NFB Digital Studio Vancouver (Left photo credit: Simon Duhamel/National Film Board of Canada).

The National Film Board of Canada is one of world’s the leading producers of immersive and cross-media documentaries. Hal Seigel of Murmur interviews Hugues Sweeney, Executive Producer at NFB Digital Studio Montreal, and Loc Dao, Executive Producer & Creative Technologist at NFB Digital Studio Vancouver, who give an in-depth look into the process behind their award-winning projects A Journal of Insomnia and Bear 71, and discuss the past and future of the NFB as well as its role in the global media ecosystem.

Images from A Journal of Insomnia and Bear 71.

Let’s start with two of your recent projects: Bear 71 and A Journal of Insomnia. In each case, is it possible to separate the story from the technology?

Dao: Not in our work. The technology is part of the work. It’s interesting in that Bear and Insomnia share certain technological characteristics: multi-user audiences, web-cams, installations that interact with the content, but ultimately each is a very different way of telling a story.

Sweeney: Each project is a blank canvas. This has been the NFB’s DNA for almost 75 years: there is no format, there is no series or recipe, there is no repetition. If you go back to the birth of cinéma vérité — direct cinema — it’s about syncing sound to film. And when you read the discussions around the first direct cinema films, they are talking about the camera and the sound as “reality sensors” and “reality captors.” That was in 1959. So what does a web-cam mean today? What does a GPS mean today? What does a brain sensor mean today?

It’s in pure continuity with how technology has been formed, reformed and hijacked through the years, and more specifically, at certain points of revolution in the genre. I’m curious to see how one technology can tell a story and fit with a subject. It’s really about fitting form and content together — for example, with Insomnia, you received a phone call in the middle of the night, and you need to give away part of your night to experience it. That’s part of it, and you don’t do that with film, you don’t receive a phone call to go into the movie theater.

Dao: I think technology has been a hindrance, and as it improves, our ability to tell stories improves. Our goal is always to be transparent, but telling a story with a keyboard and a mouse — that era is coming to an end soon. I don’t know how long telling stories with touch will last either. As we enter an era of more natural computing, I hope that storytelling becomes as natural as us having a conversation without worrying about what’s inbetween.

Do your projects ever start with a technology? Do you ever say, “Oh, this would be a fascinating technology to explore?” Or does it always start with a story first, and then figuring out what technology fits?

Sweeney: I don’t know. For instance, the Barcode project asks the question “What do objects say about us?” So you scan the barcode and the object tells you a story through a one minute video. In the genesis of the project, I’m not sure which came first — was it about the fascination of “What can a barcode say?” – because that is pure technology . It’s a camera and access to a database. Or was it a more anthropological look at what objects say about us? Did it come from the object or the technology? I think it depends on the project.

Dao: It does. It depends on the project and the form. We have a form that we are comfortable with — we come from documentary, from a narrative background. Therefore, interactive documentaries started from stories, from strong writing. But as we explore Barcode, as we explore Insomnia, as we explore [the upcoming project] Circa 1948, it’s no longer the backbone anymore. There is no backbone script on Barcode or on Circa 1948.

Sweeney: For instance, the Insomnia project really came from me staring at the ceiling in the middle of the night, being awake, and thinking: “How many people in my time-zone right now are also doing this?” At the same time, because my job is digital production, I thought that the internet could be the best media to tell that story because the internet is like insomnia – it never sleeps, and it can interconnect solitude. So, which came first? I don’t know. But it’s finding that matching point between content and its shape in terms of technology: That’s the privilege of working at the NFB. It’s the NFB standard to rethink the form for every project.

As part of your process at the NFB, you’ve said that you do week-long prototyping, instead of stretching things out over longer periods. Tell me more about that.

Dao: The process that we use is the combination of a film process plus a web development process with the editorial filter of a journalistic approach. Films can take a long time to make — sometimes painfully long, especially for those who come from the web or the media, and who are used to one day turn-arounds. So one thing that we brought over from the web/gaming world is this week long prototyping that we call “digi-labing.” It’s like taking that sprint process from agile software development and putting it in one week, and defining our goals and milestones for that one week. By the end of it, we actually end up with a prototype, user scenarios and documents. Now, they don’t always hit the mark, but we are able to compress probably three to six months of production into a compressed work week.

And you will do a digi-lab for each project?

Dao: Not always, but when there is something new. The forms that we are already comfortable with are part of everyday production. For instance, we are doing a few labs around the big data project that we are working on, because for that we are bringing together the Film 4 people from the U.K., partners from the U.S. and our team. And the project itself, the whole storyworld, is quite complicated with emerging narrative for VOD and broadcast, an interactive documentary, an installation and a real-world game. So we need a lab to bring that all together.

Once you have the prototype, how is it evaluated? Do you do user testing against it?

Dao: It’s group evaluated. We’ll bring in a larger group of people and do some user testing and feedback. Hugues and I and some of the other people on our team are industry veterans, so I consider us “uber-testers”: We have our ways of gauging and measuring, and we need to see certain things that are pretty standard in the web industry. But because our projects experiment, we’ve added the prototype in to the traditional wireframes and designs so we can answer whether this application of technology will really help the story or will it just blow up when you try it.

Sweeney: For the Insomnia project, we launched phase one, which was collecting confessions from the insomniacs. So on the one hand, the public started to be part of the process as creators but also as an audience with the artists — it was live in some ways, but we were also still creating it. The four artists were looking at the content and reactions that were coming in everyday, and it changed their point of view of the project.

So now I’m trying to think more and more about what participatory media can really mean in the process of creating an interactive documentary, and how we involve the public. Very often with participatory media, there is a cold, arms-length kind of relationship between the creator and the audience. So, in the production process, how do we go live and have people create all along?

We are doing this with a skateboard project right now. We are remaking a classic 1965 skateboard film, and we are having skateboard communities from all over the world create their own versions. But the project is not out yet. We are going to collect all of this and make an interactive interface for it. So, is this prototyping? Yes and no.

For us it’s a real challenge as an institution, because for 75 years we have been doing a master tape and handing it out to a festival, and then it would go to TV or DVD. But now, while we are still in the production process, we go live.

Dao: That’s one of the shifts that we are working to change in the film industry, starting with our own organization. Now, a project is live from nearly when we conceive it. It’s no longer make it and then launch it.

This new idea that a project is live almost from its conception — is that driven because it’s now participatory? Or does it extend beyond?

Dao: It’s both, because of the nature of the internet and the nature of the ongoing relationship we need to have with our audience. I think it has to be an ongoing relationship, building around each of the categories by which we program our content, and by having those audiences interested in what we do on the environment, on technology, or on healthcare. They come to know us as a brand around those subjects, as opposed to, “Oh, it’s that same company that launched that film two years ago.”

Sweeney: From the filmmaking point of view, that industry never went “live.” We come from a radio and an internet background, so the “live” aspect is very interesting — how do you inject a live aspect into documentary? Documentary has never been live, except maybe for performance, or happenings, or installations. But with these interactive things, we are live all the time, we are connected, so what does it mean for documentary to do that? I think we are just starting to scratch the surface.

In terms of participatory media, a year or two ago it was all very novel. Now, it is becoming a very common “ask” — a lot of projects are asking for people’s stories, and as a result it seems like it will be even harder to get people to do it. Have you encountered this yet?

Sweeney: For me, the big takeaways from Insomnia are first: Be relevant. It is a very basic value, but if you want people to have a feeling of engagement, then be relevant about something. The second thing is: Be specific about what you ask them to do. Almost like a how a director would conduct his actors. You need to understand the role they are playing in the overall piece — it’s not just an open box.

The third thing I started to realize with the Insomnia installation is — because it’s like a black box (you go inside and you answer Insomnia’s questions, and your answers are projected on the outside for others to see), a public gathers — it’s not an installation, it’s a performance, and the performer is the public.

Dao: That’s right. I think Insomnia’s extension of user-generated content (UGC) into the installation space hasn’t been done that much and I think that interconnecting an installation with an internet project and working on that two way communication is an area that has a lot to be explored.

I’ve worked on a lot of UGC projects over the years and I would say that most of them are failures. And that’s ok — we like to experiment and fail. But the reason that they fail is that they are not relevant to your day, your time, your life. But for instance, with our project The Test Tube of David Suzuki, we started by saying “We know you are busy, but if you had an extra minute, what would you do?” A very simple, pointed question. And we had over one hundred twenty thousand submissions. It was a simple ask, a sharp ask, and we did user test the hell out of it. We have enough experience to know immediately what’s going to fail and then after that we are still very, very critical because you know that you only have one shot. You have that first fifteen seconds when the site loads, and then you have that question, and if it’s not there, then they are gone.

Sweeney: UGC needs to bring something to the subject. Or else just do a really good navigation, and it will work. For Insomnia I wanted it to be told by the insomniacs, not by the experts, so ok, we need UGC. But for some other subjects we don’t need UGC. Right now it’s almost dogma, an ephemeral dogma. Because people can contribute, it’s like you have to contribute. We are having a lot of discussions internally about, “Oh, this is very interactive,” because people created the videos. But why? Maybe you should just move the mouse and it’s very interactive because it means something.

Your projects cover such a wide range of stories and topics. What kind of impact or resonance do you want them to have?

Dao: For each project we define goals — some projects have a goal of social impact, some have goals of awareness and some have goals of reaching a wider audience. But it also depends on geography. We have primary and secondary audiences: For Bear 71 we wanted the larger audience to be international, worldwide. But equally important was reaching environmentalists, the filmmaking community, artists and people who love the outdoors. For social impact, the goal was to influence the thinking and the policy around the management of animals in that area.

Sweeney: I see our projects as conversation starters. We did one on sound pollution called Sound Ecology. It was covered on a science radio show, and on the show they mentioned that the NFB had just launched this project, they gave a quick summary of it and then asked to their audience, “What is sound pollution today? What is sound ecology?” and from a science point of view, they attacked that issue. So how can these project be put in the center of the table, and the discussion and debate starts around the table, made by media or conferences ?

For instance, the Insomnia project is about the frontier between the natural, the human, the virtual, the fact that we are invaded by technology and that we are located everywhere we go.

Interactive projects present a new set of issues in regards to their lifecycles — they are potentially online forever. How do you plan on handling this challenge?

Sweeney: I think technology shifts will kill them. If you look at the stuff we did with Shockwave at the end of the 1990′s — they don’t work anymore. Everything I did with CD-Roms, if I don’t have my Mac G3 — and I don’t have it anymore — I can’t play these things. So that’s problematic. We are already talking about the death of the cursor, and that means the death of almost all my projects. So what are we going to do about that? And that’s another issue we are tackling at the NFB: “How do we archive these things?” It’s not just screengrabs and video grabs. Should we archive the internet and one user or something? It’s a real issue, and we have to archive everything.

Dao: It becomes a funny joke: “We’ll just grab the servers and throw them in the vault.” But what happens if Twitter goes down? Which projects die? What happens if Facebook goes down, or Google? We don’t have the answer yet. But until the technology shifts, I don’t think the projects do have a lifecycle. All our projects still have lots of traffic and because the issues are still relevant, they are not going to lose that traffic.

Douglas Rushkoff’s new book “Present Shock” is about our incapacity to handle all this “nowness” — all of these feeds of information from things like Facebook and Twitter. As your roles as producers, is it possible to react against this with digital storytelling? Or is digital media by its nature just this onslaught of information?

Dao: I think there are a couple of answers to that. The NFB is about socially relevant audio-visual storytelling. But we are also about this rich heritage of documentary and animation that is not the mainstream — that really is a counter to the mainstream. Our films are not anything that Hollywood ever did or would ever do. And in that same way there is a parallel to our interactive works. Bear 71 is a criticism of our digital age, a cry for us to self-examine our use of technology. But we use the technology to criticize itself. We are all in this digital age and we use the technology heavily, but we should all stop and question what we are doing.

Sweeney: Maybe the answer is in the frenzy, the sense that information gets shorter and shorter and gets repeated more and more. The same sentences, the same information. It just closes the place for perspective and reflection. But people want to take some time, have perspective, take a step back and understand what is going on. I am seeing this as a real opportunity to be a place or a presence where this happens. And I think there is a large audience for this. People want to find meaningfulness in media. We are giving the artist the context to explore within this frenzy environment. We add another layer on top of it.

When you look at the demographics of media, people in their twenties are connected over 95%. That’s where their entertainment and culture happens, so we need to be there, we need to go there and address this.

Dao: (Laughing) Yeah, if you can’t reach the audience on the platforms they are on, then you are talking to no one.

NFB Projects:
A Journal of Insomnia
Bear 71
Barcode
The Test Tube of David Suzuki
Sound Ecology

Hal Siegel is a partner at Murmur, a hybrid studio/technology company that pioneers new forms of immersive, cinematic experiences.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• Five Questions with Hugues Sweeney of The National Film Board of Canada
• Three Things to Know About Yourself Before Hiring a Transmedia Designer
• The Last Conquistador’s John Valadez Answers Viewer Questions

Filmmaker and innovator Lance Weiler presents “A Wish for the Future” at Tribeca Film Institute’s Interactive Day in NYC (Credit: Sasithon Pooviriyakul/ Tribeca Film Institute).

Taking place on Saturday, April 20th in NYC, Tribeca Film Institute’s 2013 Interactive Day was chock-full of insights for filmmakers who are exploring the digital space for storytelling. POV was representing on the ground, in the Twitterverse, and even on stage with Director of POV Digital, Adnaan Wasey, as a member of the panel “Glue it, Code it, Tweak it, Play it” about the relationship between computer programming and storytelling.

Here are five top takeaways from the day:

1. Make meaningful connections

Almost every project featured throughout the day had significant collaborative components, and creating authentic audience connections was a shared primary goal. By letting the internet do what it does best, we can generate and include dialogue within our stories that makes them even more powerful.

Deanna Zandt, co-founder and partner of Lux Digital, focused on the power of social media tools as “relationship management” devices. She provided examples of data points to prove that audience engagement in stories deepens with authentic connections. In her 2012 project Planned Parenthood Saved Me, women’s stories were collected on a very basic Tumblr site. The site features no bells and whistles, but the voices represented are sharing stories that other women can connect to–so much so that it turns out the unique visits on pages two and three were almost as high as those on page one.

These same concepts drove keynote speaker Tiffany Shlain’s Cloud Filmmaking Manifesto, which focuses on using the cloud collaboratively and highlighting humanity’s universal connectedness. Branching out from Shlain’s 2012 feature documentary Connected, the ongoing series of cloud films created by her team have been comprised of internet submissions from all over the world.

2. Don’t throw out what works just because it’s old

New whiz-bang tools are being launched every day to enhance our storytelling and distribution capabilities, but that doesn’t mean that we need to use them all, or that we should never use more traditional or out-of-fashion platforms. Each story delivery method – from oral tradition to TV to Google glasses – does what it does best in a way that can’t be replicated by the others.

[An image shared during Tiffany Shlain's keynote address]

If anyone would evangelize digital storytelling movements, it would be Caspar Sonnen, curator of the IDFA DocLab. However, in his TFI Interactive presentation he cautioned, “The paradigm of new replacing old is not always appropriate. The evolution of technology is not always in sync with the language we have to utilize it. It’s messier than that.” Sonnen wistfully expressed that, “I think its easier to define what an interactive documentary is today than what a newspaper is.” He suggests checking out MIT and IDFA’s Moments of Innovation to remind us of how past technological developments have informed the interactive documentary movement of today.

A good example of a contemporary project using slightly older technology is New Day, New Standard, by Marisa Jahn, a 2013 TFI New Media Fund grantee who presented her project. New Day, New Standard is a series of narrative audio plays intended to inform immigrant women of privileges granted to them under 2010′s Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights. Because her target audience generally has greater access to land lines than computers, Jahn and her collaborators decided to design the project’s main component as an interactive call-in hotline, rather than, say, an iPad app.

3. Become code literate

The panel discussion “Glue it, Code it, Tweak it, Play it” extolled the virtues of programming languages as storytelling tools, even delving into emerging genres such as “coding-driven film.” Featuring such coding gurus as Reshma Saujani who founded Girls Who Code to encourage high school girls to get techie, the panel urged all the filmmakers in the room to at least begin to understand the coding process. It’s not that we all need to become experts in computer programming, but basic coding literacy is becoming more and more relevant, especially if we are considering working with programmers to create interactive components or extensions for our films. As POV’s Adnaan Wasey pointed out, “Understanding how each other thinks is the basis for collaboration. Coders think in terms of rules; filmmakers think in terms of exceptions. Once you get that, communication becomes easier.”

The panel discussion “Glue it, Code it, Tweak it, Play it,” including Adnaan Wasey, Director of POV Digital, speaking at far left (Credit: Sasithon Pooviriyakul/ Tribeca Film Institute).

4. Interface is everything

IDFA’s Caspar Sonnen expressed that interface design in interactive projects is at least as important as camera and editing, and boldly claimed on Saturday that, “The age of the interface has only just begun.”

Filmmaker Jessica Oreck and Murmur’s Mike Knowlton were first paired up at POV’s first Hackathon in August 2012, and their ensuing collaboration took the main stage at TFI Interactive. Oreck’s film Aatsinki: The Story Of Arctic Cowboys premiered at this year’s Tribeca Film Festival, and she and Knowlton discussed the evolution of its interactive component The Aatsinki Season. For them, interface design was the key to keeping the quiet and contemplative nature of the film in tact, while incorporating participatory elements.

Knowlton shared some words of wisdom that could apply to any interactive project. “Keep it simple. User interface should be transparent. The best UI is one you’re not aware of.” His final piece of advice was also universal to filmmakers: “Now is an amazing time to be a storyteller, so cowboy up, stop talking and start making!”

5. Give back to the cloud

Another principle of Tiffany Shlain’s Cloud Filmmaking Manifesto was that we should be contributing as much to the cloud as we are taking from it, to keep the cycle of giving in motion, and to stay connected to each other in real ways. To achieve this, Shlain and her team have offered to customize their short, inspirational films with the “ask” and logos of non-profit organizations to help further their causes. So far, over 100 groups have taken her up on it.

Several of these themes resonated in filmmaker and futurist Jason Silva’s enthusiastic presentation “Story + Wonder.” In his video on the concept of “radical openness,” he celebrates the best potential of the cloud, which parallels the best potential of storytelling: open exchange of ideas to inspire awe and create meaning in the world.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• Weekly Roundup: PBS Interactive, Human Rights Watch Film Festival and More
• A Teen Filmmaker’s Diary from the Tribeca Film Festival
• Tribeca Storyscapes Is A Must-Experience Exhibition

“The 20 Essential Documentaries of the Century” was published on Vulture and in New York Magazine this past week.

Yet another “best of” list of documentaries made the rounds this week. This one appeared on Vulture and in New York Magazine, and it was titled, “The 20 Essential Documentaries of the Century.” Never mind that the century is less than 13 years in, but hey, why not go for the grand title, right?

The list should not surprise anyone familiar with documentary. The titles are exclusively ones that got some mainstream attention, and the list overall is very male in directors and subjects. It is also heavy with American titles. For example, An Inconvenient Truth, The Fog of War, Super Size Me, and Fahrenheit 9/11 are on the list.

These lists seem more about their writers and their publications. Out of curiosity, I checked out the media kit for Vulture. According to its mission statement,

Vulture is the go-to site for everyone who lives, breathes, and consumes entertainment. [...] And Vulture is enthusiastic about the highbrow and the lowbrow, because you never know where brilliance will come from next.

With that entertainment focus, it almost becomes no surprise that the list contains what it does. What did come as a surprise: no sports docs. Nothing from 30 for 30. Not even Murderball, which is, well, entertaining.

I have to agree with Roger Ebert (R.I.P.) on these lists. I know they draw in readers and get people to leave comments (credit to the article’s authors for responding to the comments), but the discussion around documentary doesn’t really get too far.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Journal of Insomnia is one of the most buzzed-about installations at Storyscapes, Tribeca Film Festival’s inaugural showcase of multi-platform projects that is on view to the public from April 18-21. The National Film Board of Canada, which is behind the project, has a reputation for engaging, cutting edge transmedia work and Insomnia is no exception.

The project lends itself to the interactive nature of transmedia for many reasons, not the least of which is that a traditional documentary about insomnia might, quite frankly, cure your insomnia. The Insomnia installation at Storyscapes, which extends from an existing web documentary, invites visitors into an askew cube that isolates them from their surroundings and mimics the experience of being an insomniac. While inside, the participant answers questions about their own experiences with sleeplessness via an interactive display, the answers to which could become part of the collective and ongoing “journal” that is being built.

Hugues Sweeney conceived of and produced the project, and invited filmmakers Bruno Choiniere, Philippe Lambert, Thibaut Duverneix and Guillaume Braun to create it. Sweeney shares with POV his approach to Insomnia.

How did you conceive of this project?

Hugues Sweeney: Mental health is an issue that we deal with at the NFB. Insomnia is one of those conditions that is talked about from a clinical point of view, but rarely talked about from human point of view. Dealing with insomnia is inherently solitary, but the internet allows it to be about connection.

Once I knew that this was the issue I wanted to tackle, the concept developed with three considerations in mind: 1) using all the attributes of the internet to tell a story; 2) making insomniacs themselves a part of the process; 3) moving a personal experience into a collective experience.

Why did you decide to do this as a transmedia project rather than a traditional film?

HS: It was a natural fit. The Internet is insomnia. It never sleeps. You’re always at different places at the same time. It’s purely solitairy and purely collective at the same time.

Why is it important to you that the project be presented to a live audience rather than just existing online?

HS: More and more we will see media leaving screens and reinvesting in physical space. The mechanisms are more light and transportable to make that possible. In the case of Journal of Insomnia, we’re a public production about a social issue, so people physically getting involved is totally relevant and intrinsic to what we want to do.

On that note, what do you hope people walk away with after interacting with your installation?

HS: All of our projects are conversation starters, not necessarily pieces of journalism or educational media. I want people to talk about insomnia. It can be seen as a sign of weakness. There is definitely a taboo around it. One of every two people we tried to shoot with retracted at the last minute. I want people to use this project as a pretext to discuss insomnia from an anthropological, historical, and human perspective.

The NFB consistently turns out amazing projects. What do you think has been the secret to repeated success?

HS: NFB has always been innovative. Direct cinema and IMAX were created here. One of first computer animated films was produced here. It’s our legacy. The standard is creativity and excellence, and we’re inspired by the evolution of technology. We create the context and possibility for creators and we push them as far as possible.

For updates on the documentaries and interactive works at the 2013 Tribeca Film Festival, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• Suggest Your Favorite Documentary for Preservation in the National Film Registry
• Last Chance to Register for the 2009 National Film Challenge
• 5 Reasons Why My Next Film Is Coming to the Web First

Robots in Residence at Tribeca Storyscapes.
Credit: Richard Patterson for Bombay Sapphire

On entering the Storyscapes exhibit at the Bombay Sapphire House of Imagination, I expected to encounter some flat screen monitors, headphones, and keyboards for modest project interactions. What I got was so much more. If you don’t have time to read the rest of this post, here’s your takeaway: Go there now! Storyscapes curator Ingrid Kopp and her team have created a sexy space and true audience experience with engaging installations that match the immersive nature of the projects they represent.

Each of the five featured projects is already available online in some form, so the event producers were challenged to create ways to make the live experience stand out. As Kopp points out, there were numerous possibilities for presenting each project, but the ultimate goal was to tell stories in a space. She recalls, “We built the space around the projects. It’s important that audiences are transported, like when they’re entering a dark cinema. When you’re on the web that doesn’t happen as much. It’s too distracting. Here, we tried to create magic storytelling space.”

The overall “magic storytelling space” is achieved with dim lights, music, and a nightclub vibe. More importantly, each project has its own unique area, installation style, and possibilities for audience interaction and participation. In fact, a running theme among the projects is audience collaboration in the actual creation of the work, or what Kopp calls, “the tension between authorship and openness.”

This Exquisite Forest at Tribeca Storyscapes.
Credit: Richard Patterson for Bombay Sapphire

For example, at the Robots in Residence station, visitors reveal their innermost thoughts to intentionally adorable, camera-equipped robots, the results of which will be woven into a documentary film. At the Journal of Insomnia installation, audiences are invited to enter into a cocoon-like space and live the experience of an insomniac in the middle of the afternoon, all while answering questions about the meaning of insomnia. Meanwhile, at the This Exquisite Forest station, one can add frames to collaborative animated stories, some of which were initiated by renowned artists such as Olafur Eliasson.

Kudos to the Tribeca team for setting a new standard for live, interactive storytelling. The Storyscapes presentation makes me even more excited for the festival’s official Interactive Day, which we will be live tweeting at @povdocs all day on Saturday.

Get your free tickets to Storyscapes here.

For updates on the documentaries and interactive works at the 2013 Tribeca Film Festival, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• Tribeca Film Institute Joins Forces With Renew Media
• A Teen Filmmaker’s Diary from the Tribeca Film Festival
• Tribeca 2012: Documentaries to Watch

MediaStorm’s standard interview setup is meant to provide a clean, focused environment for the viewer. It can be used both in a studio or in the field. We typically use at least two cameras, usually three, both for visual variety and for editing on-camera sequences. This is by no means the only way to conduct an interview and you should consider the role and look of the interview before beginning a project.

The example below is for an interview with the subject sitting screen-right. If you want the subject to be sitting screen-left, camera and lighting placement should be reversed.

Visual Look

Background – We often use a black background behind our subjects to focus attention on what the subject says and how he or she says it. A large felt cloth works nicely.

Cameras – We currently use the Canon 5D Mark III for our interviews.

Camera Settings – It’s important to standardize settings on all cameras. Make sure each camera has the same frame size, frame rate, aperture, ISO and white balance. Below are the settings we generally use on interviews in our studio. Note that your aperture, ISO and white balance will be different based on your lighting setting up.

Frame size – 1920×1080
Frame rate – 24 frames per second
Shutter speed – 1/50
Aperture – 4.5
ISO – 500
Kelvin – 4500

Camera Position – The wide shot (Camera A), is positioned on the right. The tight shot (Camera B) is positioned on the left. They are as close to each other as possible and should be near the same height. The cameras are both positioned nearly over the shoulder of the person conducting the interview. Make sure the interviewer’s shoulder is not in the shot.

Example – Camera A and B are placed almost directly above the interviewer’s shoulder.

Camera A (Wide, On-Tripod) – The subject is sitting screen-right, looking into the frame screen-left. The subject is composed so that his or her hands are visible laying on their lap. This allows the wide angle to capture any hand gestures or body movement that might be storytelling body language.

Example – The look of Camera A.

Camera B (Tight, On-Tripod) – This shot is also composed with the subject sitting screen-right, looking into the frame screen-left. Composition of the subject should mimic that of the wide shot.

Example – The look of Camera B.

Camera C (Tight, Off-Tripod) – This camera is optional and requires an additional photographer for an interview. We use this camera to show the subject in profile on screen-right looking screen-left. We vary composition with this camera, sometimes focusing on details like the subject’s hands, as well as wider shots of the subject in profile.

Example – The look of Camera C.

Audio

Microphone Position – MediaStorm uses a Sennheiser ME66 shotgun mic supported directly over the subject’s forehead. The mic should be as close to the subject’s forehead without being in the wide shot. As you can see in the image below, the shotgun mic is supported by a boom on a lightstand, pointing down toward the location of the subject’s forehead.

Example – The shotgun mic is above the subject, pointing directly at his or her forehead. It should be as close to the subject as possible, without being in the shot.

Audio Setup – The shotgun mic is connected to a camera mounted juicedLink via an XLR cord. The juicedLink is a preamp that records higher-quality sound directly to the camera’s audio track, has XLR inputs and allows headphone monitoring. We place the juicedLink on Camera A. This will be the main audio source for the interview.

Cameras B and C have mics mounted on their hot shoes, plugged directly into the DSLR’s mic mount. The audio for these cameras must be clean, but they will be used primarily for syncing in post-production. If you’re using the stabilizer function on Camera C’s lens (the stabilizer should be off for Camera A and B when on tripod), it’s imperative that you use a separate mic. The sound of the stabilizer will ruin the audio of the onboard mic making the camera difficult to sync in post.

Levels for all cameras should be recorded at the industry standard of between -12 and -6db.

Lighting

Key Light – The main light source, or key light, should be on the subject’s screen-left portion of his or her face. See the example below.

Example – In our setup, the key light should be on the subject’s screen-left portion of his or her face.

Example – The key light should provide an even amount of light over the majority of the subject’s face, falling off slightly on the screen-right portion of his or her face.

Fill/Hair Light – The fill/hair light provides additional light on the screen-right portion of the subject’s face, while separating the subject’s shoulders from the background. We place this light on a boom pole that is above and to the right of the subject, pointing down at the subject’s shoulder and face.

Example – The fill/hair light is placed on a boom pole above and to the right of the subject.

Equipment List

Lights

• Lowell Rifa EX 55
• Lowell Rifa Lite EX 44
• Avenger A635B Stand

Audio

• juicedLink RA222
• Sennheisser ME 66
• Rode Video Mic Pro
• K-Tek KE-89CC Avalon Series Aluminum Boompole with Internal Coiled XLR Cable
• Manfrotto Boom Assembly, Black – 6.5′ (2m)
• XLR Cord

Tripod

• Sachtler 0750

Camera Equipment

• Canon 5D Mark III
• Canon 24-70mm f/2.8
• Canon 70-200mm f/2.8

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• Blackmagic’s Cinema Camera: The Trusty Capture-Card Maker Introduces a Film-Look Video Camera
• Considering Upgrading? Is It Four Times Better?
• An Interview with Janet Pierson of SXSW

According to the Twitter account, Kartemquin was denied because of its “making and selling of propaganda DVDs.” While the announcement was followed with some good old-fashioned sarcasm, many reacted with disbelief at the state’s reasoning.

“Propaganda” is a dirty word. It evokes the work of Leni Riefenstahl and her Triumph of the Will and the works of Frank Capra and the Why We Fight series. Michael Moore frequently gets filed under this term by his detractors. Still others might cite Waiting for “Superman.”

The term often is used to describe any documentary that presents a strong argument viewers don’t agree with. Josh Fox’s Gasland has been called “propaganda” by natural gas industry supporters. An Inconvenient Truth draws the same label from climate change questioners. Like calling a documentary “fiction” because it fails to tell the viewers’ expected “truth,” the term “propaganda” is meant as a deep insult, a means of denigrating the credibility of the work without necessarily qualifying why.

Some believe propaganda has no place within documentary. Part of that perception, I believe, comes from the dominance and prestige associated with the “news documentary” type. The news-driven documentary connects with the journalistic ideas of objectivity and attempts a balanced representation of issues while maintaining some critical distance from them.

But why the resistance? In general, propaganda makes us uneasy. We don’t want to be persuaded, or at least not persuaded overtly. Just think how quickly people hang up the phone on telemarketers, change the channel during live network television when the commercials come on, or the desperate panic to shut down those stupid pop-up windows online. We want our media to reinforce our values, not challenge them, as an entire body of scholarship centering on media uses and gratifications tell us.

Further, the historical connections between documentary and propaganda also might be part of this resistance, particularly in that the enemy’s leaflets and posters are considered propaganda while the hero’s materials are considered part of the spirit of patriotism. Leni Riefenstahl did consider patriotism when she made Triumph of the Will, after all. It just depends on which side you’re on, really.

Either way, calling Kartemquin’s documentaries “propaganda” is definitely meant as an insult, but it is an insult that misses the point of the organization’s work. Kartemquin’s documentaries tell issue-centered stories without the issues overtaking the stories. The people in their documentaries are key — who can forget William Gates and Arthur Agee of Hoop Dreams or Ameena Matthews of The Interrupters? We learn about the realities of Chicago and the issues through the people living them, not the other way around.

Propaganda starts from a position of power and imposes it. Kartemquin’s body of work empowers people and shares it.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• A Visit to Kartemquin Films: Uncovering a Documentary Technology Trove
• A Visit to Kartemquin Films: An Inside Look at a Corner Documentary Production Studio
• POV Alum Adele Horne on Essay Films — or “Films That Try”

The preferred video format for HTML5 is now MP4 (the MPEG-4 container format) using the H.264 codec with the “baseline” profile. This will work across a majority of the most popular operating systems and browsers, such as Chrome and Safari, but not Firefox, which is compatible with the WebM format. Exporting to WebM requires additional software, such as a WebM QuickTime component or Sorenson Squeeze, which is one reason you haven’t heard as much about it. But if you want a wider reach for your HTML5 video, check out this list of WebM export tools at The WebM Project’s tools page.

For a majority of browsers, the preferred audio format within the MP4 video container is AAC or MP3 — again excluding Firefox, which uses the open-source Vorbis codec to go along with WebM. Choose the “low-complexity” setting for AAC to maximize compatibility with mobile browsers.

HTML5 video tags allow you to include multiple versions of a video, so you can export videos as MP4, WebM and Theora formats and let the browser choose which one it can play.

Here’s a quick reference for HTML 5 video compression settings:

• HTML5 Video #1: MP4 container / H.264 video (baseline) / AAC audio (low-complexity)
• HTML5 Video #2: WebM / Vorbis

For more detailed information on the ever-changing browser compatibility, check out this great rundown, The State of HTML5 Video, from Long Tail Video, and for more about specific browser compatibility and history (as of mid-2010), read the chapter Video on the Web from the online book Dive Into HTML5.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs!

Read more posts like this one...

• Documentary Year in Review Countdown #4: Popcorn.js Brings HTML5 and Interactivity to Documentaries
• Game On: Zach Wise on How Video Games Are Influencing Documentaries
• RED is Shipping Scarlet-X Digital Video Cameras (Three Years Too Late)

Adnaan Wasey, Director of POV Digital, speaking at the POV Hackathon 2, that took place January 12-13, 2013.

Back in August 2012, POV hosted its first Hackathon as part of an effort to get filmmakers and coders in the same room to “re-invent the documentary for the web.” Soon after the first Hackathon concluded I spoke with Adnaan Wasey, the Director of POV Digital. He told me about the impetus behind the POV Hackathon, how documentary can be conceptualized on the web and why filmmakers should be thinking about new ways of monetizing their content.

The following has been edited down from a longer conversation.

Rahul Chadha: First, tell me about what the inspiration behind the Hackathon.

Adnaan Wasey, POV: There are a few inspirations. From one perspective, it’s a continuation of the work that POV’s been doing essentially from its start to engage and interact with viewers — participating in chat rooms, creating multimedia, online-only documentaries — one of those projects won a Webby Award a few years ago. It’s just always been in POV’s purview — how do we create “high-impact television?”

This is what is happening today: The web is a major part of how people interact with content. If you think about what the web is, it’s nonfiction. There’s video, audio, tweets, Facebook posts — this is all nonfiction. Nonfiction is powering the web, why can’t the web power nonfiction?

The other perspective is thinking about how work gets done. Hackathons are common in software development. It’s also becoming a more in vogue now since people have seen Google and Facebook and how they’ve been doing it. The Facebook newsfeed actually came out of an internal hackathon. Every company with an API says let’s have a hackathon, come hack our obscure technology to see if something comes out of it. They’re doing it to propel their technology, or for marketing purposes, essentially.

Chadha: Was there a particular hackathon model that you used in designing the POV Hackathon?

Wasey: A hackathon is usually 100 developers getting together with a standard API, or a standard data set, and saying, figure out what to do with this. We’re saying, you’ve got 30 hours: here’s a project, here are some potential technologies, do what you can with it! It was a little less structured, and there was no competition aspect to it. We said early on that there would be no prize and no winner. So I’m taking inspiration from everything. But I’m also drawing on my personal experience in developing and working on teams and seeing how work gets done, and how it doesn’t get done. I don’t know the stuff that works, but I know the stuff that doesn’t work [laughing].

Chadha: Can you take me through the thought process in selecting the teams? They all came from a variety of backgrounds and disciplines, and I think the Aatsinki team was the only one I considered to come from a more traditional, linear documentary film background. I am wondering what you were looking for in prospective teams.

Wasey: I think it just goes to show the range of — and a cross-section of — the “documentary” content that’s out there. The most interesting projects that have the most potential online are the ones where people are not thinking in terms of a 90-minute documentary. Aatsinki was the rare case where there was a documentary that was more or less completed. But filmmaker Jessica Oreck came with the film and said, “I’ve got some other ideas about what I want to do with it.” A lot of people did apply [saying], “I’ve got a completed documentary and I want to make a website that markets it.” That’s the wrong kind of mindset.

I think the most interesting projects are the ones where people don’t exactly know what they’re doing, but they have a really clear vision of what they want it to be. That’s where the opportunity comes in to play matchmaker.

Chadha: My impression was that it was really hard to find developers and coders, but it seems like you didn’t really have that experience. Is that true? And if so, why do you think that was?

Wasey: Can any filmmaker find a developer? The answer is that it’s still hard. You’ve got to work your network, you’ve got to ask around, you’ve got to cold call the people you know have done it in the past. It’s tricky because web development is not monolithic. There are people who have specific skills within that field — just asking anybody who’s a graphic designer to make your website is not going to work. Some people are starting to understand the sub-discipline of video connected with the web — there are very few. Those groups of developers may not be affordable.

Maybe there’s some cachet or something fun about participating in a hackathon, knowing that you’re not going to be dealing with a client for months and months — all of the non-fun things that happen when you enter into a contract or long-term relationship. The response from developers was surprising. I thought I would have to reach out to them a lot more. But they really understood what we were doing, and the ones who were interested in it really gravitated to it.

Chadha: You said that sometimes filmmakers are not going to be able to afford the hiring of developers and designers. It seems like there’s a handful of funding or support for these kind of projects such as Sundance Institute and Tribeca Film Institute. Will funding sources for this kind of work grow over time?

Wasey: The number of people with the skills and interest is going to grow naturally. We can lament the lack of infrastructure surrounding new media or we can try and inspire people. Tribeca is getting into exhibition [of new media projects] with its festival next year. Work is going to gravitate to the web and funding will come with it. It seems like it’s building, so I’m optimistic.

Chadha: What did you think was the biggest obstacle the Hackathon teams faced?

Wasey: All of the filmmakers came in without a clear idea of how the developers worked. Some filmmakers may have come in with wireframes, they may have come in with documents about what they thought the thing would be, but as soon as they met with developers and understood the process of how they work and how things get done they realized, “My vision still makes sense, but these micro-details are wrong!”

Chadha: What do you think the first step is for a filmmaker who’s interested in this stuff but doesn’t really have any concept of coding or programming?

Wasey: I think what [filmmakers] should be doing is focusing on their art and their creativity. It’s a question of, how do you be more creative? There are many answers to that. I think the wrong answer is to learn how to code. The right answer is — to use a little bit of a hackneyed phrase — think outside the box. What would suit the content of your project best?

Chadha: You had an impromptu discussion with one team member about potentially monetizing their project. How important do you think that is for filmmakers to keep in mind as they’re developing these projects?

Wasey: In the field of new media and documentary I see a huge potential for creativity. At the same time I’m really curious about the commercial potential. Art and entertainment aren’t separable in a marketplace. I think it’s really interesting to talk about not just the intensely creative work that can come out of filmmakers working with developers but also the potential to make a little money off of it. People do pay for content… I think it’s just a matter of somebody inventing something that a lot of people would be interested in using.

Chadha: What was the thing that surprised you the most about the Hackathon?

Wasey: The way the Hackathon was structured, it was filmmakers first, story first. I was afraid going in that the ball would be too much in the filmmakers’ court and they would be driving all of the conversations. But it did surprise me that it became a collaboration almost instantly with all of the teams. It wasn’t that the filmmakers were telling the developers what they wanted, but that they were listening to the developers and going along with the developers’ ideas.

Chadha: One of the things that intrigued me was how fundamentally different the projects were. It seemed like the Living Los Sures team was more interested in producing a tool, which is something I hadn’t seen or considered. Jessica [The Aatsinki Season] was repurposing her material — she was recutting her footage and substantially changing it by adding narration, which is very different from the aesthetic of her film. StoryCorps was interesting because the heart of their content was audio, and Feed Me a Story was talking about potential revenue streams. Data Docs re-conceptualized the static news story by pulling in dynamic data. Everybody was having really interesting, but fundamentally different, conversations.

Wasey: That was partially by design, of course. To find interesting people that crossed over [into] different areas that could still be considered “documentary.” And then in terms of technology as well. One was an app, one was audio, one used motion graphics and one was a completed documentary.

Chadha: From my perspective it seemed really important to hammer home the idea of the “minimum viable product,” and that the timeframe was constrained. That seemed to keep people on track and sheer away potential feature creep.

Wasey: A software developer knows the idea of feature creep — “Here’s a new idea, let’s put it in!” [A minimum viable product] is a minimum feature set that shows off the things you intended to do. There’s no reason to add to it. If you add a feature on top of it, you’re just spending time on something that isn’t core to what your product is supposed to be. The filmmakers embraced that idea and started to recognize, “Oh, this is outside of our original feature set. Let’s put that on the back burner while we do the more important things.” It’s something that requires a lot of discipline to be able to do. Even professional developers have this problem, where they love working on something so much they want to put a bunch of stuff into it, which is the wrong instinct.

One of the other things that was interesting was that people essentially showed up for nothing. I mean, there’s no conference, there’s no workshop. They’re just coming to work. And theoretically they could have done that at home, but they chose to do it in the office. There was nothing that we were doing that people couldn’t do at home. We just gave them a deadline. I just think that people learn the most by doing. I also feel like you don’t learn from something until it’s done. So that was the structure: learn by doing, have something done by 6 p.m. on Sunday.

To learn more about the upcoming POV Hackathon 3 (April 13-14, 2013) and updates on submitting to POV Hackathon 4, subscribe to POV’s documentary blog or follow us on Twitter @povdocs!

Read more posts like this one...

• POV Hackathon: A Video Recap
• Apply to POV Hackathon 3 by March 12!
• The POV Hackathon 2 Award Winners

Jump over to the Stranger than Fiction blog to get his Top 10 Twitter Tips for Filmmakers »

Read more posts like this one...

• Facebook? Twitter? Help! – Tips and Tricks for Filmmakers on Social Media
• 6 Golden Rules for Filmmakers on Social Media
• Recommended Reading: The 6 Stages of Editing As A Film Director

1. In the Blink of an Eye — Walter Murch
Renowned editor Walter Murch, whose resume includes Apocalypse Now, The English Patient and The Talented Mr. Ripley, lays a foundation for any aspiring editor in this seminal essay — the theory being that a cut should happen every time you blink. Inferring that there are times when you cannot blink or look away from a film, and that there are times when an audience needs a moment to process what they’ve seen. His editing style is focused on capturing emotion and paying homage to other mediums. In the Blink of the Eye is a quick read at 146 pages that summarizes the editing philosophy of one the craft’s greats.


2. How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way — Stan Lee & John Buscema
Editing film and drawing comics share more in common then you may think. Things like pacing, highlighting action and telling a story efficiently, just for starters. Also, there is no better tutorial for framing, jump cuts and transitions then a comic panel layout.


3. Cutting Rhythms: Shaping the Film Edit  — Karen Pearlman
Pearlman’s theory on editing equates it with dance. Based in rhythm, choreography and movement this book is a wonderful meditation on the role space and time play in the editing process. Divided into twelve chapters, covering intuitive thinking and synchronization, the book acts as a guide for filmmakers  wanting to apply the principles of rhythm to their editing practice. Theories that may seem confusing to those not schooled in dance are made accessible and easy to implement.


4. Grammar of the Edit — Christopher J. Bowen, Roy Thompson
This book for the novice filmmaker acts as a reference guide detailing the very basics of editing, such as understanding footage and ways to use different shots, basic knowledge of how to match shots, make cuts and create continuity of movement and sound. The end of the book also explores things like work flow, multi-camera editing and montage. The only drawback to this book is that it is a very traditional take on editing that doesn’t leave a lot of room for artistic expression. However, it’s important to know and understand the basic rules of editing which this book delineates, so that you can break them when appropriate.


5.  Fine Cuts: The Art of European Film Editing — Roger Crittenden
Fine Cuts offers interviews with some of Europe’s best editors, including documentarians Agnès Varda (The Gleaners and I), Bela Tarr (City Life), and Sabine Mamou (Mur, Murs). Fine Cuts is an engaging read and offers insight into the art of editing from many perspectives. For instance, Agnes Guillemot equates editing with conducting music “The material is given by someone else, but I listen to it afresh. I do not try to make it mine, I make it produce what it can do.”  The interviews offer an expansive look at the art of editing juxtaposed with critical essays and reactions from the directors who worked with them.

What other reads would you recommend for people who want to start editing?

Read more posts like this one...

• Recommended Reading: The 6 Stages of Editing As A Film Director
• Lightworks Looks to Grab a Tier of New Editors With Its PC-Based NLE
• Recommended Reading: Eight Fundamental Concepts of Sound for Documentary

Raindance Film Festival posted an abridged extract from Elliot Grove’s book, Raindance Lo-To-No Budget Filmmaking. We recommend this overview for beginning filmmakers.

Jump over to their website to learn about the six stages of classical film editing »

Read more posts like this one...

• Recommended Reading: Eight Fundamental Concepts of Sound for Documentary
• ‘Senna’ Director Asif Kapadia
• An Interview with John Biaggi, Director of the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival

Jump over to his blog and learn his eight fundamental concepts of sound for documentary »

Read more posts like this one...

• A Visit to Kartemquin Films: Uncovering a Documentary Technology Trove
• From the Archives: The Sweetest Sound
• Watch ‘The Sweetest Sound’ in Duluth, Minnesota

On Tuesday, Vimeo announced Vimeo On Demand, its new self-distribution service, once again proving that Vimeo is a place that is keenly in tune to the filmmaking world. From this initial launch, the service is already pretty impressive: it is available on all Vimeo Pro accounts, allows users to watch films on almost any device, including tablets and TVs connected through products like Apple TV, Roku and Xbox, etc. More importantly, the new service lets creators distribute a series of videos at one total price as well as individual episode prices, and gives creators 90% of the revenue from sales. Yes, that is not a typo — 90% of the cut goes into the filmmaker’s pocket.

On Wednesday, I talked with Blake Whitman, VP of Creative Development at Vimeo, and asked him what would bring filmmakers to this self-distribution service over others. What does Vimeo have that others don’t, besides the very impressive payout deal? His answer can be summed up in two words: flexibility and ease.

Vimeo On Demand lets the filmmaker take the helm of their distribution, rather than limiting who can use the service and what they can do once they’re in. Again, anyone with a Pro account can self-distribute, no questions asked. Secondly, the only requirements for creating your VOD page are that you have a trailer and a poster — which you should already have if you are planning to make a film that you want people to see. Vimeo On Demand also lets the filmmaker, who has now become the distributor, set the rental and download prices, choose the length of the rental period, set geofilters so that you can offer it in only the parts of the world you wish to. You can create a custom VOD page which then can be used free of any Vimeo branding at your own URL, if you so wish to make it seem separate. And just to tack on more, self-distributors can also feature extra content on their landing pages, such as short clips, deleted scenes, and director commentary, if they already have those uploaded to Vimeo.

The flexibility that Vimeo On Demand offers the creators plays into how easy it is to use. Since its inception, Vimeo has catered to filmmakers, providing a clean interface, quality playback, and an easy upload process that even the most technologically challenged can take advantage of. Vimeo has also boasted having a support team that is more than willing to help answer questions or troubleshoot with users. More importantly, and as Whitman stressed, filmmakers already use Vimeo to power video on their sites, store trailers and clips for promotion, and share videos with each other. If you can keep all your video in one place, including your self-distributed final product, why wouldn’t you?

From the filmmaker’s side, Vimeo On Demand seems like a great self-distribution tool, that really has a chance to keep fueling creative work. But what about the audience? The online world has always known Vimeo as a place for free content, so what will draw them into this new paid-content world? When asked about this, Whitman responded, “From the success of crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, we have seen that there is an audience out there that wants to feel involved in supporting creative work, and supporting the creators themselves. Vimeo on Demand plays into that, letting viewers directly support the filmmakers on VOD, while also giving them a chance to connect with filmmakers. Audience members could even directly message the filmmakers and start a conversation through Vimeo if they connect with the creators story… This is not for the audience that wants a passive viewing experience.” What struck me was the emphasis on the “engaged” audience here, which is something all independent documentaries try to cultivate. If all goes according to plan, this could become a self-distribution service that truly plays into the engagement factor, and lets filmmakers and viewers connect around issues in a much more streamlined manner.

It will be fun to watch how Vimeo on Demand unfolds over the next few months, and see what changes and new features are added as more filmmakers jump into using it. It makes me also wonder what self-distribution services it will start to displace. What about you? What is your take on Vimeo on Demand? Are any of you already using it? Let us know in the comments below!

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• Dynamo, Distrify & Distribber: Documentarians Test New Tools for Direct Distribution Online
• 6 Golden Rules for Filmmakers on Social Media
• Facebook? Twitter? Help! – Tips and Tricks for Filmmakers on Social Media

Reinvention Stories is a Localore project powered by Zeega, an interactive storytelling platform launched in 2010 that allows users to “easily mix media from anywhere.”

Zeega is an interactive storytelling platform founded in 2010 by James Burns, Kara Oehler and Jesse Shapins (the name is a play on the name of the early documentary filmmaker Dziga Vertov). In 2012, Zeega began working with public radio stations via the Association of Independent Radio’s Localore initiative to create participatory location-based projects. A year later, we’re starting to see the results of those collaborations online. The Zeega team shared with POV their philosophy for interactivity and how they’ve worked with producers from across the country.

What was the inspiration for the Zeega platform?

The original inspiration was seeing so many colleagues in media that had great ideas for immersive stories, but were unable to create them because of the barriers of technology, design and cost. The web itself is a distinct medium that is fundamentally interactive and audiovisual. Our mission from the beginning has been to make the creation of this new medium accessible to everyone… We’ve aimed for Zeega to radically democratize interactive storytelling.

Can you talk about your collaboration with the Tribeca Film Institute in December 2012?

Tribeca Hacks Cambridge was an incredible day. We had 18 artists of all different backgrounds — filmmakers, radio producers, photographers, graphic designers, writers, theatre directors, etc. Everybody had already familiarized themselves with Zeega and begun their projects a month in advance. Everyone had also already met via Google Hangouts. At the end, everybody had completed a prototype and we transformed our storefront into a micro-cinema where everyone then navigated their projects live to the audience.

Many of the projects have continued to evolve since the day. This project from the theatre company FIXTPOINT was started during Tribeca Hacks Cambridge, and has since evolved into fully-fledged urban interactive tour doc. The project explores the four corners of Queen and Bathurst, a traditionally working-class intersection of Toronto hit by hard times during the global financial crisis. Along the way, you meet the endearing denizens of the intersection, from down-and-out buskers to a starving-artist Starbucks barista who just wants you to try some of his samples.

Black Gold Boom, a collaboration between independent producer Todd Melby, Prairie Public, Zeega and AIR, was built in part using the Zeega editor.

How did you approach working with the media producers on the Localore projects?

Last year, AIR put out a call for public media stations to put their hats in the ring as incubators for these innovative works. And then there was an open application process for producers to submit proposals. We joined some of the winning teams as interactive storytelling partners and co-producers.

We started working with teams last March, and the first phase of collaboration was really focused on joining producers and stations in developing interactive concepts that fit with the narrative of each project and building teams, including the task of finding a local designer for each project. In the early months, it was a constant back-and-forth between the producers on the ground, who were starting to engage the community and gather stories, and ourselves, who were focused on developing design strategies and narrative frameworks to structure the overall projects.

Since we approached all of the collaborations as experiments, we didn’t impose intense constraints on the thinking. The regular process was at times very basic: sometimes it was simply a matter of drawing interfaces on paper during video meetings that we’d then show to one another over the screen. We would edit interface ideas in the same way one might edit a story.

But even though we worked on Localore projects in a very experimental fashion unconstrained by what was possible using Zeega, the projects still used Zeega as major parts of their projects. For example, all of Black Gold Boom’s “Rough Ride” was created using the Zeega editor. Reinvention Stories used the Zeega editor to create Act 1. But for each of these, we slightly customized the Zeega player to test new forms of navigation. On a technical level, what we did was create a web application framework that runs on the Zeega API. All of the code developed for the Localore projects is on Github, so anyone that would like to experiment with a custom Zeega player can easily do so.

Read an interview with Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert, the producers of Reinvention Stories »

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s documentary blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs.

Read more posts like this one...

• ‘The Oath’ Streams Online, Director Laura Poitras Joins Live Chat with PBS NewsHour for 9/11 Anniversary
• Outside the Frame: Talking with the Producers of the NYTimes.com Web Series “One in 8 Million”
• Outside the Frame: MediaStorm and Online Storytelling

Spring 2013 Flaherty NYC: EPIC ENCOUNTERS, programmed by Jeronimo Rodriguez, on Wednesdays from March 6 – April 10, 7pm at 92YTribeca.

Flaherty NYC, an offshoot of The Robert Flaherty Film Seminar, is a screening series that prides itself with rich discussions about work by groundbreaking documentary filmmakers. This season was programmed by guest curator Jeronimo Rodriguez, a writer and critic who has worked as the host of the film review and interview program Toma 1 on NY1 Noticias in New York City for eight years, championing contemporary and foreign film.

Starting this Wednesday, Rodriguez will be bringing rarely-seen films to New York audiences that explore the discovery of unknown pasts, forgotten events, and lost memories. This series reveals the ability of film to shed light on imperfect histories that might otherwise be lost forever.

If you’re in New York, join the conversation Wednesday nights into mid-April at the 92YTribeca. Rodriguez explains to us what went into the undertaking.

What excites you about the films this season in Epic Encounters?

Since most of the selected films come from all across the Latin experience, from Latin America, Spain to the US, we have many great filmmakers from abroad attending the series this year. We are going to have intense and rich discussions after every screening, which is an important part of the spirit behind the Flaherty. In the same spirit, this Spring Flaherty NYC is a celebration of diversity. Diversity not only in terms of the filmmakers’ background, but in terms of the wide array of visual forms that you will see: documentaries, film essays, non-fiction films and experimental films.

I am not particularly crazy about premieres — it’s not something that I am looking for in a film series — but in this case I am delighted that most of the films are new for the New York audience. We will have the New York premiere of Vikingland, The Other Day, Tudo É Brasil, In Ancon, January, 2012 and Image Not Found. There’s also a screening of a film that should have way more exposure, The Life, Death and Assumption of Lupe Velez, by José Rodríguez Soltero. It’s one of the few existing records of Puerto Rican involvement in the New York underground of the 60′s, a beautifully shot film that oozes urgency, love and youth. This hidden gem, with legendary Mario Montez playing the female lead, can be enjoyed on March 27.

Tell us about your approach to curating this season.

The series Epic Encounters has to do with a spontaneous discovery through film. It all started with my fixation on one film and one filmmaker. Last year, I saw Vikingland, by Galician director Xurxo Chirro. My mind was blown by his clever use of found footage, memory and the craft of filmmaking itself. Meanwhile, I’ve always had a crush on Rogério Sganzerla’s work in the Brazilian underground. For years now, I’ve wanted to spread the word on this amazing director, woefully unknown in the US. Sganzerla did fiction, documentaries and film essays. One of his more remarkable films, a brilliant freeform essay about Brazil’s identity through the eyes of Orson Welles called Tudo É Brasil will be the closing night film. I’d always thought of Tudo É Brasil as a letter written by Sganzerla to Welles, but then it occurred to me that, as a simple spectator or film buff, maybe his film was a letter sent to me that arrived later than expected. Both films, Vikingland and Tudo É Brasil, produced that rare effect on me: one in which I found something fabulous in them that nobody ever heard of. For me, like the title of the series, this was an epic encounter.

Then I thought, what about the filmmakers? They probably had an epic encounter with the subjects of their films, as well. In the case of Vikingland it was marvelous randomness around some VHS tapes. With Tudo É Brasil, it was Sganzerla’s obsession with Welles’ period in Brazil — Sganzerla did three more films on the subject. So that was the starting point of Epic Encounters. At the beginning it was an epic encounter with an unknown past, forgotten events, lost memories but then evolved to activities or places that are not usually represented in film. I wanted a program that deals with those discoveries, like the remarkable and captivating rehearsals that Argentine filmmaker Marcelo Piñeiro portraits in Rosalinda, or maybe those unsettled spaces in Peru, Haiti, Spain or New York that are part of the fifth screening, Fractured Spaces. Now, I finally hope that New Yorkers get the chance to have an epic encounter with all those films.

What was the biggest challenge you faced in putting this series together?

Time, logistics, getting films from different countries and bringing the filmmakers to New York City. It was made possible because of the hard work of many people at the Flaherty, 92YTribeca, filmmakers and institutions abroad. For example, there is only one 35mm print with English subtitles of Tudo É Brasil, that is being preserved at the Cinemateca Brasileira in Sao Paulo. It has been a great collaborative effort to make it possible for it screen here as our closing night film. It is an operation that involved people in New York, Brasilia, and Sao Paulo, with the kind help of the Brazilian Consulate in New York and many others.

What kind of viewing experience should we expect?

The Flaherty is a space for discussion, not only for the documentary form, but the forefront of film. This is a series that reflects that approach. These are films that delve into the visual essay, the documentary, the experimental and non-fiction, but in a very particular way. The stars of this show can be a Hi-8 home video, an underground scream, a fading memory or a rarely seen film. As per narratives, it all can go from the observational and leisurely tone of Vikingland, The Other Day, In Ancon or Ivory Tower to more playful territories like in Rosalinda or to the hypnotic horizons of Peril of the Antilles and Image Not Found. It’s going to be both fun and challenging.

The series runs Wednesday evenings at 7pm March 6 through April 10. For more information about tickets, visit the 92YTribeca. Find out more about the series at flahertyseminar.org.

Get more documentary film news and features: Subscribe to POV’s blog, like POV on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @povdocs!

Read more posts like this one...

• Flaherty NYC’s Spring 2012 Series Reveals ‘The Lives of Animals’
• Flaherty NYC’s Fall 2012 Series Takes an Irreverent View on the Political Documentary
• November at Flaherty NYC