Youth Media News

"Using the urban landscape of buildings, tunnels, and bridges, the Salvadori Center introduces teachers to the wonder, beauty, and logic of architecture and engineering, who then share it with their students....

"Over the span of its thirty-year history, the Center's educators have generated many lesson plans for classrooms, workshops, professional development Institutes, charrettes, after-school programs, demonstrations, and site-specific events."

Lesson Plans available for free download in these subjects:

read more

The Shortlist article series is your opportunity to learn about the films that inspire intellectual, artistic and activist leaders—leaders like Josh Tickell.  We asked Josh to share his favorite films and his thoughts on the power of documentary to change the world. So what films make Josh’s Shortlist? Keep reading to find out. Josh Tickell Photo by A. Karno Photography Who is Josh Tickell? The author of two books on alternative energy, Josh Tickell has worked on environmental issues for over twenty years.  His career spans a unique mixture of science, political activism, investigative journalism and filmmaking.  Having grown up amongst the oil refineries in Louisiana, Tickell experienced the impacts of dirty oil processing at a young age.  After watching his mother suffer from pollution related sickness, Tickell began to search for sustainable, clean energy sources.  His directorial debut film, FUEL, is the 2008 Sundance Audience Award-winning documentary that investigates the possible replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy.  For his rescue mission in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Tickell’s nonprofit organization was selected by President Bill Clinton as an inaugural part of his Global Initiative on Climate Change.  As a film director he has worked with actors such as Woody Harrelson, Amy Smart, Michelle Rodriguez and Peter Fonda.  Tickell and his wife, Rebecca Harrell Tickell (a producer of ‘FUEL’) live in Venice Beach, California. Josh Tickell on the Power of Film For me, film is the medium through which we in the West have learned to dream.  Our hopes, fears, joys, universal stories and collective visions are expressed through our movies.  If you sit back and think about it clinically, from the perspective of an alien witnessing human beings for the first time, it would be strange to watch a group of humans pile into a room to watch a two dimensional facsimile of life.  Yet, for us, film is simply a new incarnation of the process of establishing identity and group.  We are driven to find our place in the world, our stories give meaning and context to that place, and film is the medium in which our stories now live.  Thus, the film has the power to react to, inform, question, and even dictate the path of a society.  Ever watch an old episode of Star Trek? Notice the Tricorder is now an everyday device – an iPhone or Android.  Ever see Blade Runner?  Billboards that light up and change are now part of our landscape.  Film has the power to shape our collective vision, to focus our human ingenuity, and to bring amorphous dreams to life.  As the men and women on Madison Avenue have known for decades, we are impressionable beings.  Brain scientists now tell us that our memories do not distinguish between what we have watched on a screen and what we have experienced.  To then hold a theater of people’s consciousness and sub-consciousness in their most malleable state is incredibly powerful.  Until recently, and with some exception, this power has largely been misused, discarded and not utilized to its highest potential.  I believe that is changing, however, as filmmakers realize their power to shape and shift society toward higher orders of consciousness and patterns of partnership-based behavior rather than the behavior of competition and domination. Josh Tickell’s Shortlist An Unreasonable Man Ralph Nader is perhaps one of the greatest unsung heroes of the post-WWII, pro-capitalist era.  He is an example of radical adherence to his own principles.  He is uncompromising.  His integrity is at times shocking and at times inspirational.  A true David against Goliath, in whose eyes you can see the knowledge that to fight for what you believe in is to live, and to abstain from resilience because of circumstances is to wither and die.  This film is courageous. Koyaanisqatsi We live in a cultural trance.  But sometimes to understand the trance is to step outside – way out – and look into our world from a large lens.  This film radically shapes our worldview.  For me, this film is the closest I’ve been to seeing our world from the perspective of an ant – and another planet.  To open your mind, you’ve got to open your eyes.  Shift your perspective and you shift your reality. Roger & Me This is still my favorite Michael Moore movie (sometimes I think perhaps Sicko vies for first place, but then I see this film and every time it blows me away).  What I like about this film is how genuinely angry and down to earth it is.  It’s so connectible, so real, so visceral.  If you don’t think you can make a difference but you want to as a filmmaker, watch this film again.  Remember, this was made on a VHS – yes, a VHS video camera.  Content is what drives great films and this is a quintessential movie that proves that point. Other picks: Harry Potter (the entire series) Yes.  I am a convert.  Young people today deal with myriad complex issues from sexuality to family structures that look like DNA molecules to moral issues that don’t fit neatly into a religious or fairy tale context.  Mr. Potter deals with these issues in a way that is often relevant and empowering.  Know your own power and respect authority, but know when your morals and your heart take precedence over rules.  Listen to your heart and your intuition; you are magical no matter what people or circumstances say.  Always love your friends and family and keep that love sacred; stand strong against your enemies but do not let them compromise your principles - and so on. I knew few other modern myths so powerful and with such vast reach in their messaging. WALL-E This movie is a brilliant social treatment on how fat, lazy, lethargic, disconnected and completely insane modern consumer culture has become.  If you don’t cry at the end of the movie, you need to seriously do some soul searching.  This movie is so reaffirming of humanity’s potential to rise above its hubris.  

It’s a common misconception that the 1969 Stonewall riots, one of the first instances in which the gay community fought back against discrimination, ignited a surge of homosexuality in America.  As the 1984 documentary Before Stonewall shows, this is far from the truth.  Before Stonewall uses a mixture of individual interviews and archival footage to highlight a community that was forced to hide their true identity for years.  The Stonewall riots were the final straw that inspired a swell of closeted gay individuals to come forward in order to advance their rights. Through reflective and often humorous personal accounts of the years before Stonewall, stretching back to the 1920’s and World War II, we learn about a community that suffered in silence until little by little, they began to come together.  As soldiers returned as heroes and settled in the port cities, they began to realize they were not “geographically isolated,” as former Army Chaplain George Buse says.  But through archival footage of the McCarthy hearings, we see how quickly these feelings evaporated. Directors Greta Schiller and Robert Rosenberg use archival footage of one McCarthy hearing, used to uncover Communists and spies in the United States, in order to shed light on how these baseless accusations affected the homosexual community, an aspect of McCarthyism that is rarely discussed. This clip comes right after a discussion of books and studies released in the 1940s and 1950s that spoke openly about homosexuality, including Gore Vidal’s The City and the Pillar and the introduction of the Kinsey reports.  “It really shook people up…it made it impossible for them to think about homosexuality in the old ways,” says activist Barbara Gittings. But then, punctuated by a storm siren, we learn about the growing number of investigations into the military and the state department, designed to weed out anyone suspected of being gay.  Later, we learn that once one investigation was complete, the next was spawned by pressure on the fired employee to out any other employees they know are also gay. Legions of soldiers and state department workers lost their jobs under accusations of “deviancy” – back then, a way of getting around using the word “gay.”  Schiller and Rosenberg chose this historical footage carefully; McCarthy uses purposely threatening rhetoric against someone sitting at his own table.  Interestingly enough, this clip features no overt mention of homosexuality, but if we feel anxious for this dissident’s future, we certainly feel the same uneasiness for the gay community that this administration was determined to eliminate. by Mary Iannone

After fantasizing during my teen years about visiting Mexico—an idealized country that originated several of my favorite TV shows growing up in South America—I visited for the first time in 2008.  After roughly a week in Mexico City, I didn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what this marvelous land encompasses. Years of watching “El Chavo del Ocho” and countless telenovelas, and reading a range of guidebooks could not prepare me to face the overwhelming scale of the D.F.  But Mexico is a lot more than its cosmopolitan metropolis. To get a sense of a bit more, I would have done well to watch two new documentaries, Circo by Aaron Schock, and El Velador by Natalia Almada. The former follows a family circus in which a clan rears future generations of acrobats and beast tamers amidst the larger background of a way of life that cannot sustain itself for much longer. In the latter, Almada adds camera and sound duties to her directorial ones, acting as a one-person crew to capture a community in which mass death is a daily occurrence. Punctuated simply by news broadcasts spilling out of roaming truck radios, Almada’s observational style is reminiscent of Frederick Wiseman’s, with long static takes that follow action beyond what is expected. Because of this, the film can feel monotonous; at the same time, during the filmmaker Q&A following her New Directors/New Series screening, Almada explained her aim to have the film be open-ended and not prescriptive. Schock’s film, using stunning cinematography that is simultaneously lush and earthy, is also mourning. In this case, it grieves for the imminent demise of a family tradition in order to allow that same family’s new generations to thrive. Circo is currently playing theaters nationwide. El Velador is scheduled for release later this year, and will also be broadcast on P.O.V. in 2012.

In a hushed panicked voice, I closed my eyes, and whispered quickly, “Please give them peace.  Let them understand each other.  Please give them peace.  Let them understand each other.  Please give them peace…”  At the U.N.‘s 55th Commission on the Status of Women, multilingual malice shot through the room.  I could not understand anything.  My head was spinning.  Rose was crying. The directors had stiff shoulders.  Women against woman.  One shouted in the microphone letting spit shower the metal piece.  On March 1st, 2011, the Permanent Mission of Hungary to the U. N. and U.N. Women in New York City co-hosted the screening of the documentary, Pushing The Elephant in honor of the occasion of the annual U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, followed by a Q. and A. with the directors, Beth Davenport and Elizabeth Mandel, and the film’s protagonist, Rose Mapendo.  Mapendo, an Banyamulenge Tutsi human rights activist from DR Congo, sat under the watchful fiery eyes of fuming Congolese women spiteful of her self-proclaimed identity.  The rivalry spat fire and I sat in the middle…  I am just an intern.  This is what I saw, but there was so much I did not understand. Formerly Rwandan, the Banyamulenge Tutsi have been living in Congo for over a hundred years, and most consider themselves Congolese, yet many Congolese fail to see them as their own.  While the roots of violence in Congo are too complex to address here, identity issues are among those roots, and have led to discrimination, war, genocide, and death camps… Enemies.  Let’s just say, when the Q and A opened up between the Congolese women and Mapendo… things got heated. The Congolese women arrived at the screening expecting to see a woman they considered to be one of their own with a story they could relate to and were instead greeted with a documentary on the trials and deprivation of a woman on the other side of the battlefield.  The Banyamulenge have recently broken out in violent rebellion and have created horror stories as well.  Feeling vilified, these women waited through the hour-long screening marinating in anger before opening their mouths to speak. Verbal abuse flew through the air.  With tissues in hand, Mapendo tried to drive the conversation toward all Congolese women’s empowerment and away from her ethnicity, where her people were from, the length of her nose (often used to determine who is Tutsi)... or in American terms, ironically, “the color of [her] skin.” A woman retorted shouting, “You’re supposed to be a strong woman, why are you crying then? Stop crying!” Another asked, “Of all the stories you could tell, why did you choose hers?”  This seemed like a fair question to ask the filmmakers, but it was said in fury.  With the trials that non-Banyamulenge Congolese women have experienced from the rebellion, she meant, “Why did you tell hers, and not mine? Why not ours?”  The wall between Congolese women based on their ancestral background has gotten so tall, they can hardly see each other. A woman yelled at Mapendo, “Why don’t you speak a language we can understand?”  Being ignorant of the current dynamics of Congolese people, I thought she was only expressing the frustration of not being able to understand fully what was going on during the discussion.  What she was really saying with hostility, “Why don’t you speak our language?  Oh right, you can’t, because you’re not Congolese.  I’m leaving!” Mapendo snapped, “I can speak five languages, including all the ones you can understand!  Sit back down!”  Amazingly enough they did. Despite the event being associated with the United Nations, we had not considered hiring translators, obviously a mistake.  The only person who understood all the languages being spoken—French, English, and an array of Congolese languages, was Mapendo.  Luckily, a gracious woman, Morag Hill, volunteered to translate English and French. Mean while, Mapendo attempted to answer questions and translate from the Congolese languages at the same time, which were often insults.  It took us a while to get a hang of a system, translating after paragraphs of often, rants, or entire questions and then summarizing.  Some of the English speakers became frustrated as well.  Not being part of the rivalry, one reporter actually suggested more frequent translations deeming it, otherwise, a waste of time.  With the languages and incomprehensible words, characters, and sounds being pitched from one end of the room to the other over our heads, like a relentless game of monkey in the middle, the tension only grew.  I didn’t know what else I could do.  I began to pray under my breath requesting for our peace and understanding.  It felt as if a higher power was driving my wispy words, but assuming that any civility, which later occurred, was still surrounded by resentment, I thought it was nothing. It was not until after the event that it was explained to me what had happened.  It did not end in bitterness, but resolution. An eloquent French-speaking woman, a high-ranking diplomat from the DR Congo’s Mission to the U.N., requested Hill to translate after every sentence, instead of after she’d said her piece.  She patiently paused between phrases allowing her whole idea to come across to the French and English speakers smoothly. She first thanked “Mama Mapendo,” which is what Rose had become referred to throughout the afternoon. She appreciated her story and was thankful of her survival through the turmoil and her works as an activist, but she really wanted to take the mic to clear the air and explain the tension in the room.  This was for all to hear.  She said that the anger was caused by Mama Rose bringing up the Congolese-Banyamulenge topic, a delicate issue, and was not personal.  Even Mama Rose began laughing and nodding her head in acknowledgment of having incited the tension.  With this in mind we were able to discuss the real problem. Banyamulenge or not, the Congo is not a safe place to be a woman. This is what Mapendo wanted to discuss: not their differences, but their commonalities, and what they could do to make a difference. The event ended with smiling, laughter, embraces, exchanging of phone numbers, and even pictures taken between all the Congolese women, including Mama Mapendo.  She said it was one of the most important days of her life.  The March 1st, 2011 screening and Q and A of Pushing The Elephant was one of the rare occasions where Congolese women of different ancestral backgrounds participated in an open discussion and united.  This is the first step on the road to peace and reconciliation.  Rose Mapendo said, “One person alone cannot push an elephant, but many people together can…” - Audrey Chow, Arts Engine The national broadcast of Pushing The Elephant will air Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 10pm PBS: Independent Lens Check your local listings here: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/broadcast.html

Two weeks ago, Governor Quinn made history when he put his signature to the bill that eliminated capital punishment from the state of Illinois. Eight years ago, Kirsten Johnson and I were still in production on our documentary DEADLINE as we filmed then-Governor Ryan taking an interim step to eliminate the death penalty when he commuted the sentences of 167 people on Illinois’ Death Row from death to life. Both Governors Quinn and Ryan, one Democrat, one Republican, have demonstrated ambivalent attitudes about the death penalty throughout their political careers, neither wholeheartedly against or for it. They have both spent many months deliberating the right course of action on the issue. Together, they, along with their colleagues in the legislature, represent the complex relationship that Americans have today towards the death penalty. Currently, it seems that the tide is shifting against it. What was most remarkable about the news this month is that both houses of the Illinois legislature passed bills to take capital punishment off the books. In the early 2000’s, Illinois’ state legislators were paralyzed on this most critical of issues, unwilling or unable to even bring any bill for reform to the floor, let alone consider eliminating it entirely. Ryan’s frustration with their inaction was the main reason that he got involved and exerted his executive authority in a manner so sweeping and unexpected. The sea shift that has occurred on this issue among state lawmakers in Illinois says a lot about how the political climate on capital punishment has changed; it is no longer political suicide for a representative from Springfield to defend his anti-death penalty vote to his or her constituents. The news also makes me reflect on how social change is nothing if not incremental. The new law is the result of countless different events, individuals and social shifts which have painstakingly contributed to this outcome. Many would say that it all started in Illinois over a decade ago when Anthony Porter was proven to be innocent a few days before his scheduled execution. This shocking turn of events was uncovered by a student investigation working on a class project, no less, which started a ripple that eventually drew the attention of thousands and finally millions of people to look critically at the capital punishment system in Illinois.

For the past month, I have been watching with growing concern at the deteriorating situation in Wisconsin.  It’s a strange kind of concern, a mixture of uneasiness and relief that I am no longer there, the latter of which immediately generates guilt.  That’s because for 16 years, Wisconsin was my home, and my home is quickly turning into a place I no longer recognize. In November of last year, I shook my head in disbelief when Republican Scott Walker was elected as the state’s new governor.  What a sudden switch for a typically blue state, I thought.  Then I found out that wasn’t exactly true.  My ignorance of the politics of my state only continued when I assumed nothing much would change under this new leadership. Walker’s proposed Senate Bill 11 abolishes collective bargaining rights for any public employees other than firefighters and police officers.  It requires state employees to contribute 5.8% of their salaries to pension funds, as well as 12.6% towards health care premiums.  Bargaining for wages would be limited to no more than the current inflation rate.  One proposal could limit Medicaid regulations.  Another proposes removing nearly $900 million worth of funding from Wisconsin schools.   In mid-February, all 14 Democrats in the state Senate left Wisconsin, and have been in Illinois ever since.  Their retreat left the Senate with only 19 members, one shy of the required 20 to vote on a fiscal bill.  However, yesterday the 19 remaining Republicans voted only on the collective bargaining rights, a move that passed 18-1.  The Assembly just passed the bill moments ago, a move that was delayed as police forcibly removed thousands of demonstrators from the Capitol building in Madison.  The legality of these votes, with the absence of the Democrats and the short notice for voting, is still under consideration. However, I find myself making a face with every quote that compares Wisconsin to Libya or Walker to Hitler.  Walker is wrong for refusing to compromise, even when Democrats and union leaders offered to accept the benefit cost increases if Walker were to drop the changes to bargaining rights.  Walker ironically said that if this were accepted, schools would not be able to balance their budgets (budgets that will soon be cut by $900 million).  But the Democrats are not helping the situation; in this issue of fight vs. flight, the citizens should not be the ones fighting while their leaders flee.   This issue has been at a stalemate for weeks.  The 14 Democrats who fled will eventually return to find that their weeks-long absence had no effect but to further rile protesters anxious for a conclusion.  Walker will find that even with the inevitable passage of this despised bill, his $3.6 billion budget (his reason for the entire situation) will never be fixed to anyone’s satisfaction.   The passage of this bill also opens up the possibility of passage in other states; the possibility has already been raised in Ohio and Michigan.  Two polls done by the USA Today and the New York Times show that 60% of United States citizens disapprove of the bill, while a majority also disapproves of the Democrats’ avoidance of the vote.  In my research about the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, I have become accustomed to hearing of violence against protesters.  I turn to the news expecting the worst, and I am relieved with each day that my protesting friends and former teachers have not yet had this happen to them. 

On February 10, 2011, Arts Engine Co-Founder and Senior Director Katy Chevigny was the Keynote Speaker at the Media That Matters™ Conference which we co-sponsored with American University’s Center for Social Media. Below is a transcript of Katy’s remarks for those of you who missed the conference. The Genius of Collaboration Good afternoon, everyone. I’m delighted to see you all here. Thanks for coming out this afternoon for this great conference. I hope many of you had the opportunity to attend the Fair Use Workshop that preceded this – if you didn’t, it was really fascinating, I’m sorry you missed it! I am a proud born-again devotee of the Fair Use movement, as Pat and Peter and some of you know. Before the folks here at American University’s Center for Social Media did all this work to help create the Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use, I, like many filmmakers, wallowed in ignorance and just squirmed and suffered and caved and censored myself in the face of the high costs associated with licensing copyrighted footage for our films. It was a misery, not to mention painfully expensive. But now, fueled by my zeal to practice fair use – I really ascribe to the “use it or lose it” school of exercising this right – I now practically look forward to opportunities to make a fair use claim. As I always tell filmmakers who are wary of exercising their right to fair use of material in their film: It’s not every day that you get to invoke the Bill of Rights in your work. To stand on the ideals of free speech and free expression. So when you get to do it, it’s pretty invigorating. So, kudos to all of the folks here who continue to champion fair use and educate all of us about it. This effort is a real slam dunk in the field. And hats off too to all of you who are using fair use in your work, or are challenging the legal counsel at your network to be more open to it. I know you’re out there – you don’t have to identify yourself – but please keep up the good work. The theme of the Media That Matters conference this year is storytelling across platforms. There’s going to be a lot of incredible examples of using media in interesting ways, from radio, to web-based media efforts, to old-fashioned documentary film, and I have no doubt that we’ll hear a wide array of successes and challenges associated with multi-platform approaches, which really is the new world order. I know that’s why most of you are here. At Arts Engine, a multi-platform model is something we’ve promoted for years, and modeled through our Media that Matters film collection, which is released annually online, on DVD, through broadcast and offline screenings. The shift from the “less is more” theory of distribution – where you sharply control the distribution of your film and ancillary projects in order to keep the price point up and possibly the prestige, is officially over, in my opinion. The “more is more” approach of releasing your film and getting your work out there in multiple and overlapping ways is increasingly the only way to survive financially, as well as the most effective way of making an impact with your work, whatever platform you are on. One more comment about platform and then I want to talk about collaboration in mediamaking. At the beginning of your project when it’s just an idea you’re kicking around, thinking of turning into a radio piece or a documentary film, it’s important to really think about choice of platform. There’s something you want to get out there. Is it best suited to radio? Perhaps if you have a scoop that involves an anonymous source who can’t reveal their face, but you can use their voice. That would be a good one for radio, not so much for film. Is it a timely project that draws upon existing electronic information and is extremely fact-heavy and action-based? Maybe this is best-served by a initial launch from a multi-media web-based platform. Is the story incredibly visual and lends itself best to sync sound and image to make an emotional impact? One compelling example that comes to mind for me is the documentary Prodigal Son, by Kimberley Reed, which we featured at a Docuclub screening. This film tells the story of Kimberley’s transition from a man to a woman and includes footage from her high school football games when she was a boy and a quarterback, no less, and also includes footage of herself now, as this blond bombshell of a female. The contrast between the masculine nature of the visuals of her as a quarterback with her now as this feminine woman? This is for television, ladies and gentlemen, not radio. Before we at Arts Engine set out to make a film, we ask ourselves, what makes this a movie? And not a radio piece, or blog entry, or maybe, really this material lends itself to a op-ed. Or maybe this story is none of those things – it’s the story you will tell to explain why you started this advocacy organization. Stories can be used for all these things. At Arts Engine, we work across many platforms, increasingly including podcasts in our e-newsletters, we were one of the first organizations to show a film festival exclusively online ten years ago and we’ve been documentary filmmakers before that. So I’m going to focus on filmmaking but I hope my comments apply to other disciplines, platforms, forms of storytelling. Today I’d like to talk about how we work when we make media that matters to us: our methodology in storytelling, in production and in getting the media out into the world. My operating assumption is this kind of work is deeply collaborative, at its best and most effective. I know collaboration is a buzzword at conferences, but I want to get really granular about it, and talk about how it plays out on more levels than first meets the eye. I should point out that my preference for collaboration is part of the reason I’m a filmmaker – if I didn’t enjoy collaboration, I’d be a poet or maybe a painter. So, it’s a personal preference and one you may want to consider as you choose your platform or your discipline – they’re not all equally collaborative. My bias towards collaboration is I think influenced by the fact that I’m a humongous basketball fan. Since I was a teenager my favorite physical activity has been basketball – not that I was ever very good at it, but I loved playing it and watching it more than anything else, except for maybe movies. And one of the things I love about it is the way that teamwork is an integral component of what makes the sport graceful and magical, the prowess of individual achievement notwithstanding. What do I mean by collaboration in documentary? For the purposes of our conversation here today, I am taking this term broadly, and I’m essentially referring to teamwork in all its manifestations. I am talking about every time that multiple people are involved in making things happen, either on the screen, in the story depicted, or off the screen, working to get it on the screen and out in the world. I see links between the kinds of stories we choose to tell, and way in which we work with others to tell those stories. We live in a society where individual success is celebrated in artistic endeavor as well as social advancement, and I am going to attempt to counterbalance that with a perspective that could be summarized as: it takes a village to tell a story about a village. And most stories are deep down about villages, metaphorically speaking, about collective behavior, action and reaction, not about individual heroic actions alone. These are my opinions based on working in documentary for the past fifteen years, but I hope they will help you to consciously frame your method of making media as you move forward with your projects. Let’s start with common examples of collaboration in filmmaking. To do this, I’m going to go backwards in the lifecycle of filmmaking, and start with the film’s release into the world. This may be your theatrical release, or you selling the DVD off your website, or launching your civic engagement campaign via social networking tools, or your broadcast on television. Ideally, all of the above at once, right? A robust outreach campaign. This part of the process is the one where there is no argument about whether or not to collaborate; you must if you are to have success. It’s collaborative by its very definition. Once you are engaging with your audiences using the finished film, in any way that’s interactive, you’re exposing your film to the oxygen of the outside world, and this changes your relationship to your film. This can be challenging if you have felt like your film was “yours” until now – more on that later—because there’s a relinquishing of control as others see your film and use it. If you are very, very lucky and successful, the film will have a life of its own, having been taken up by the audience, by the distributor, and ideally by several partners who care about this film or this cause as much as you do and they are getting the film out into the world in meaningful ways. Any of you who have been had the opportunity to participate in the BAVC Producers Institute or other workshops like that know what I’m talking about. So it’s definitely involves teamwork to bring a film to audiences and leverage your well-told story to bring about public awareness and possibly social change.  I’m not going to get any argument about that, right? Going back one step earlier in the film’s lifecycle, to its production, I would argue (and likely not get a lot of opposition) that teamwork is an essential component of the film’s success. This can be a big team of fifty people working on various aspects of the project, or a team of three, but either way, a functioning collaboration is at the heart of the effort. And a strong collaboration is what makes film as a medium so powerful. And it’s one of the reasons that film has the power to reach such wide audiences. It is tapping into the vision of a group, albeit sometimes a small group. Documentary is sharing the perspectives of several if not dozens of individuals – the “real” people whose voices we’re hearing in the film as well the vision of the director, the choices made by the editor in shot and scene selection, which are already informed by the cinematographer’s choices in what to shoot. Often the producer helped shape the direction prior to shooting. Even in the cases where one person shoots, directs and edits, as I’m sure many of us have done in school and perhaps beyond, you need help from someone at some stage of the process. As you grow as a filmmaker, you will expand into more collaborative filmmaking. This is inevitable. And even though we know all this is true, we as filmmakers can be blinded by a fantasy of ourselves as individual artists working on our own, independently of others. Our entertainment culture revels in the triumph of the individual will, and that bias causes many of us to tweak the storylines of our own careers to fit it. The classic example of this is the notorious Question & Answer session where the filmmaker takes sole credit for the film, as if they had made it entirely on their own. Occasionally, I will hear a filmmaker speak after a screening and say something like: “This was a film I made entirely on my own for the last seven years…” and sure, there are some exceptional cases where that filmmaker did do it all their own, but it’s rare. And we feel that way some of the time, like we’re all alone. Taking creative and financial risks is hard, and can give you feelings of isolation, if not sheer panic. Most often when a filmmaker says that they made a film on their own, they are playing into some vague but persistent notion of the rugged individualist as filmmaker. This is a uniquely American spin on the French notion of the auteur, the artistic genius who brings something into the world out of thin air. The first films I worked on was as a producer and then I made a film as a director, DEADLINE, which was a hit on the festival circuit and got a lot of media attention. I was struck by the contrast in the attention Kirsten Johnson and I got as co-directors compared to when I was a producer. As a producer on the road with the film, you are pretty much operating under the constant odd fog of “What am I? Chopped liver?” whereas the reality was that I put my heart and soul into those films I produced. But our system of credit sharing and acknowledgment of film roles didn’t accommodate the reality of the teamwork behind how we make films at Arts Engine. I used to watch DEADLINE and think: “that shot is there because our editor Kate insisted on it, that scene is there because Angela loves it, Kirsten stayed late to get that shot, and that whole section of the film is only there because one of our advisors told us to film it when we didn’t really know what story we wanted to tell….” And it’s the directors who did all that? No. We do a lot, as directors, it’s a heavy lift and creatively challenging, but it’s not that simple. So even though teamwork is at the very core of how films are made, this myth of the genius author in filmmaking persists. It is up to all of us working in film to remind ourselves, each other, the public, how creativity is truly a social product. It’s an amazing mix of ideas, the origins of which we can rarely if ever clearly identify. In my mind, this is what makes art magical, and when originality is lodged in an individual I find it less amazing. In thinking about collaboration, I noticed something interesting. This attachment we have to the idea that films are a product of brilliant individuals manifesting their vision on screen, is paralleled by the stories we see and tell – frequently about individuals who triumph over adversity. Don’t get me wrong, I love these stories, they are inspiring and uplifting and have happy endings. They are fun to watch. Often I feel a wave of relief that all is right in the world when I see one. And certainly, individuals can make a difference in our society. To say otherwise would be ridiculous. What I am noting here is a preference on the part of gatekeepers and leaders and teachers, a leaning towards stories that fit into the celebration of the individual. And the reason it’s important to be aware of this, is because we as filmmakers are living in a world in which these kinds of stories are expected of us. This pull towards this kind of storytelling is hard to withstand, for those of us making the films, as well as those of us granting entry to those films to festivals, broadcasters, etcetera. I can give an example from a recent film that we produced at Arts Engine. PUSHING THE ELEPHANT is the title, and the title itself embodies the story of this tension. The film is right in the crosshairs of a story of individual triumph and a call for collective action. In brief, the story is about a Congolese refugee named Rose Mapendo, who was separated from her daughter for 13 years. We started filming when Rose was re-united in the United States with her daughter Nangabire. So the film is a mother-daughter story and also a story of Rose’s increasing role as a spokesperson on behalf of women in Congo and refugees more generally. The title sheds light on the problem. The film is called PUSHING THE ELEPHANT, because at one point in the film, Rose says, “One person cannot push an elephant. But many people together can push an elephant.” So it’s a metaphor for collective action. Which was all fine and well until we had the very good luck to have the film be acquired for broadcast by the public television series, Independent Lens. We heard that PBS wasn’t crazy about the title; they were concerned that viewers would think it was a nature documentary and then be disappointed when there weren’t any actual elephants in the film. And we kind of got on our artist high-horse and started grumbling, “Well, you know, it’s a metaphor.” And PBS came back and said, “Yes, we know it’s a metaphor. We would rather have a title that really tells viewers what the film is about.” They wanted a title that described our protagonist, because that’s a familiar draw and it’s how we “read” the idea of the film we are seeing. And as a team, we were conflicted about how to proceed. On the one hand, we liked a title that referred to the spirit of collective action which is so much at the core of Rose’s work, and on the other hand, we also wanted people to watch it. We didn’t want to make it so difficult to approach that no one would tune in. The folks at PBS had a point. Without the strong protagonist to hang our hat in, to pull viewers in, it would have been more difficult to make a film about collective action, about the complications in Congo today. We ended up keeping the original title, but my point here is that it was, and is, a balancing act. (Showed a clip of the women’s meeting in Burundi here.) Frankly, we would have had an even harder time raising money without a strong protagonist who had an extraordinary personal story and whose story was characterized by uplift, redemption, salvation. These are the same values that drive Oscar nominations, and whether or not projects in Hollywood are greenlighted. Oddly, these values were determining the survival of our fledgling project three and four years ago when we were getting started. Just the way there are many people who helped bring this film to fruition, there are dozens of people who have helped Rose survive the trauma in Congo and make her life meaningful today. And one of the purposes of this ensemble scene in the movie to suggest the power of the group in creating social change. We are told the public doesn’t connect with issues, groups or institutions, but that they connect with people. This is a fair statement. But it is also an artificial constraint, and if you let it become a doctrine then it will limit your imagination and hinder your storytelling. In real life, individual moxie and grit doesn’t always triumph over adversity, right? Sometimes there’s a group that achieves something and the relationship of how the group comes about is complicated, and no one individual stands out. But these kinds of stories are worthy of being told. And you should tell them, if those are the stories you want to tell. But it’s going to be a tough sell in the so-called marketplace of ideas, not to mention the marketplace of film distribution. So you need to be aware of that reality and think about how you position the film when you speak about to different audiences. I believe that PUSHING THE ELEPHANT is a call for collective action, but I don’t say that to everyone. Some people wrinkle their nose a little bit when they hear “Congolese refugee mother and daughter story” – ugh, depressing – and truly I don’t blame them. To those folks, I tell them it’s a uplifting story that will leave them feeling inspired by Rose Mapendo’s deep faith and big heart. Because that is also true, and I’m speaking their language. Now let’s go back to the very beginning, when you are pondering an idea which is in its infancy. I think there are some very interesting decision-making processes going on at this early phase. Let’s look at it closely for a minute. I want you to go back to the stage that is pre-pitch. Can you imagine it? If there’s no pitch, is there a project? Why, yes. We are in the Petri dish of creative inspiration. This is a weird place that we don’t understand very well and don’t talk about much. Many people assume that here is where the individual genius is at work; I would argue that there are many voices and influences at work in this stage, as there are in the later stages we’ve already talked about. At this point of shaping the story, we are making choices all the time, some of them unconscious, about how we want to represent the reality that we have chosen to document. In my experience, these choices almost always reflect your own philosophy, your own attitudes about society, about people, broadly, and about your subject more specifically. But most of the time, we’re stumbling around unconsciously, unaware that our own bias and subjectivity is at work in the choices we’re making. There’s nothing wrong with that stumbling around, it’s an essential step in the process. However, often when we haven’t consciously formed an intentional approach to our subject, and we’re feeling a little bit at sea, our unconscious approach will reflect the typical mores of society, and the conventions of films that have influenced us. And this might not be the best approach, or the one we are most interested in. Some of these unconscious influences are the clichés of storytelling. Things like the “narrative arc” and “where’s the conflict?” and “balancing views” and “three-act structure”. We bandy about these terms without giving much thought to their inherent value. I am calling them clichés, but we are taught them as if they are fundamentals, like how you need to square up in the front of the basket before taking a shot. They are more conventional wisdom than actually fundamentals, but they can have pernicious effects on our thinking. I don’t know about you, but a lot of these clichés have colonized my unconscious. When I make a film I walk around wringing my hands in worry about the lack of arc, conflict and three distinct acts. Do I have a third act? I think I have four. Which one will I take out so that I can have three? Now, just because these are clichés, doesn’t mean they are all meaningless or ineffective devices. But it’s important to know that they are just rules, just conventions, and there are countless effective documentary stories that abandon these rules completely and the viewer doesn’t even notice because it’s just a damn good film. So if you can listen to these other voices, and identify them as rules that can be broken once acknowledged, you’ve maybe opened yourself up to a different way of approaching your subject right at the very beginning. And then you are in a position to ask yourself, what is the story I’m seeing before me? Am I asking myself the hard questions and not just the conventional questions? What do I really believe about this story? What’s my bias? What’s my philosophy of how the world works? How does that jibe with the story I’m trying to document? A final example that encapsulates many of the ideas I’ve talked about today is HOOP DREAMS, one of the films that inspired me before I was a filmmaker. How many of you are familiar with HOOP DREAMS? Gordon Quinn is one of my heroes, but I swear, I was going to talk about this film before I knew he was speaking today. OK, HOOP DREAMS is a film that is driven by the high stakes of two individuals, two teenage boys who are competing in a contest, called basketball. They are also competing in a larger meta-field, called “making it” in basketball – and boys competing in contests makes for watchable, sellable movies. The contest doc has exploded in the years since HOOP DREAMS, as I think you all know. In HOOP DREAMS, these kids’ individual journeys through basketball were compelling enough that lots of people went to see it. I for one saw it in a crowded movie theater with about ten of my friends who all played basketball and we were riveted. We all went to see a basketball movie, and we got what we paid for. But we also saw a film about the starkly limited choices faced by kids raised in the public housing projects in Chicago. But it wasn’t a film “about the public housing projects in Chicago.” That film would be hard to get made and get seen. The brilliance of the filmmaking is that it had both the addictive plot of a game with win/lose stakes, and a deep understanding of the context in which that game was taking place.  However, if the filmmakers at Kartemquin were not governed by their own personal philosophy, then the film might not have had that depth. The team at Kartemquin was operating with the conviction that the world in which these talented basketball players live is as much the true story of HOOP DREAMS as the games themselves – who wins the game, who makes it to college ball and beyond. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this multi-layered film was made by one of the most famous documentary film collaborations in history, which is the forty years of filmmaking efforts at Kartemquin.  So why does all this matter? Because it can be a long arduous process to tell a story well, and there are ways we can tell better stories from a less isolated perspective and with more thoughtful attention to what really does matter to us. We can tell stories that have more variety and surprise if we can tear ourselves away from certain storytelling formulas. We can make a film that may resonate more strongly with the public if we embrace collaboration from the very outset. And lastly I would challenge all of you to consider that our desire as individual artists for expression can often be more profoundly fulfilled if we can channel it into a project that has the investment and dedication of a team. We will thrive as creators and our projects will go deeper and further into the world.

Yesterday, in preparation for next weekend’s Academy Awards, we reminded you of the five excellent nominees for Best Documentary Short Subject.  Today, we bring you the five nominees for Best Documentary Feature. Exit Through the Gift Shop: With such characters as Zeus, Space Invader, Swoon, Borf, and Buffmonster, filmmaker Thierry Guetta already had a great setup for a documentary following the world of street art.  Guetta spent months traveling with Shepard Fairey, who became famous for his altered photo of President Obama.  But when Guetta met the ever elusive Banksy, the infamous artist turned the camera around on the director.  Few street artists agreed to be identified on camera; Banksy takes it a step further, always appearing in various disguises.  The film has already caused controversy before the awards ceremony, with more and more Banksy creations popping up around Los Angeles.  The Academy has stated that if the film wins, Banksy is not allowed to attend in a disguise. Gasland: When Josh Fox is asked to lease his land for “fracking”, a kind of drilling called hydraulic fracturing, he embarks on a cross-country trip to see what other areas of the country are employing this method.  The method, which involves pouring millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals into a freshly drilled natural gas well, was found in states from Montana, New York, and Texas, among others.  One shocking story included Pennsylvania residents who were able to light their drinking water on fire as a result of chemicals seeping from the ground.  On the film’s official website, a map slowly covers with red, signifying where in the United States drilling areas exist. Inside Job: Known as “the film that cost over $20 trillion to make”, Inside Job was one of the first documentaries to delve into the economic crisis of 2008.  Filmmaker Charles Ferguson was able to land interviews with major financial insiders; he also is sure to specifically mention which moguls declined to speak with him.  The film travels all the way back to the 1930s, highlighting how the Great Depression mirrored the crisis of 2008.  Restrepo  In Afghanistan’s Korengal Valley, 15 men are stationed at an outpost nicknamed “Restrepo” after a fallen comrade.  The film follows these men, stationed at one of the most dangerous postings in U.S. military, as they experience combat, boredom, fear, and loss.  Filmmakers Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington wanted to make the audience feel as if they had just been through a 90-minute deployment of their own.  Check out Arts Engine’s exclusive interview with Hetherington here. Waste Land: In the midst of the world’s largest garbage dump, located in Brazil, filmmaker Vik Muniz encounters a group of “catadores”, people who enter the dump in search of recyclable materials.  The scavengers turn into artists as they recreate their own images in the garbage.  Muniz films not only the art they create but the personal transformations they undergo due to the power of their own creativity. The 83rd annual Academy Awards air February 27th!

All eyes are on the last remaining awards ceremony of the season, the godfather of them all - the Academy Awards.  The 83rd installment of the Oscars will take place in just over a week, on Sunday, February 27th.  While many people make it their goal to view all ten Best Picture nominees, why limit yourself?  The Oscars have ten great documentaries, both short and long subject, that one should also strive to see before or after the winner is announced.  This week, we offer you a crash course in the films and filmmakers nominated in the documentary categories.  First up, the Short Subject nominees. Killing in the Name: In 2005, Ashraf Al-Khaled was celebrating his wedding day when a suicide bomber entered the ceremony and set off a bomb, instantly killing 27 members of Al-Khaled’s family.  In the years since losing these loved ones (including his father and new father-in-law) Al-Khaled has been determined to turn this horrific event and countless others like it into awareness.  Killing in the Name follows Al-Khaled as he speaks to both victims of bombs and accused bombers, including representatives from Al-Qaeda, the group responsible for his wedding day tragedy. Poster Girl: For two years, cameras followed Robynn Murray, a former high school cheerleader turned Army machine gunner, as she returned home from Iraq.  Murray had been featured on the cover of Army Magazine in full combat gear, gun at the ready.  Powerful and articulate, Murray doesn’t hide from the truth that she is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.  Instead of turning to Veteran’s Affairs for treatment, Murray immerses herself in art, primarily destructive art, in order to heal. Strangers No More: Shot on location at the Bialik-Rogozin School in Tel Aviv, Israel, Strangers No More follows three students struggling to adjust to life in Israel and in a school with children from 48 different countries.  The school primarily serves refugees from other nations.  The three students, 16-year-old Mohammed, 12-year-old Johannes, and 9-year-old Esther, are no different.  The teacher-student and student-student bonds that form slowly serve to help these children recover from the injustices they are so used to experiencing. Sun Come Up: This film also follows refugees, but of the environment.  Displaced by rising sea levels, the inhabitants of the Carteret Islands in the South Pacific must decide whether to wait out the rising tides or flee for dry land.  Islander Nick Hakata leads a young group to Bougainville, where they search for available land in which to make a temporary (or possibly permanent) home.  Sun Come Up is the completed version of The Next Wave, which was featured in Arts Engine’s Ninth Annual Media That Matters Film Festival! The Warriors of Qiugang: In 2004, private chemical companies in Qiugang, China began producing more and more pesticides and dyes, until the chemicals eventually flooded into the fields of local farmers.  At first, the dying fish and crops were bad enough - until the number of human cancer cases skyrocketed.  Zhang Gongli, a farmer, lost a lawsuit against a neighboring factory that killed his business.  For the next five years, Gongli and his neighbors fought back, drafting a petition to bring to Beijing officials, recruit local media support, and bring together environmental activists from around the country.  Check back tomorrow when we’ll bring you the nominees for Best Documentary Feature!

As fashion week comes to a close, designers have set the trend for the upcoming Fall/Winter 2011. Though the world of fashion maybe foreign to us film goers, let us not forget that they are talented people and artists themselves. Here are a few docs worth watching to better understand the world of fashion. Valentino: The Last Emperor profiles the life and work of the famous designer Valentino as he prepares for his 45th anniversary runway show. The documentary profiles his seamstresses, his business partner, and those around him as he showcases his retrospective work. In Picture Me, the documentary follows the life of the famous model Sara Ziff and her five-year career in modeling. The film shows us the truth behind the pages and unveils the reality of typical model life through success and tears. Finally in The September Issue, filmmaker R.J. Cutler follows the unique and fascinating world of Anna Wintour, the Editor-in-Chief of Vogue Magazine. Together with Grace Coddington, the magazine’s Creative Director, we get a rare glimpse of what goes on in preparing for the awaited fall issue of the magazine. Hope you enjoy these films!

Interested in learning how nonprofits are using virtual worlds? Head over to Second Life tomorrow—Thursday, Nov. 12—for a roundtable discussion sponsored by digital youth leaders Global Kids.

---

Global Kids, the New York City-based nonprofit organization, is hosting a Roundtable on Virtual Worlds and Nonprofits on Thursday, Nov. 12, from 12-1:30 p.m. PST. The roundtable will take place on MacArthur Island in Second Life. Here’s the teleport link.

From Holy Meatballs, the Global Kids’ blog:

“Representatives of five leading nonprofit organizations will give brief presentations on their initial explorations of Second Life and other virtual worlds, and how they are thinking of integrating these virtual tools into their organizations’ respective missions. Afterward, there will be an open discussion about the applications of virtual worlds for various public good purposes. The event will close with a casual mixer / dance party!”

Who would want to miss that?

The event will feature presentations by organizations who have recently completed the Global Kids’ Virtual World Capacity Building Program, a four-week intensive exposure to virtual worlds for nonprofits.

Learn more at Holy Meatballs.

Need more evidence that playing online games is not a waste of time? An IBM VP says the time kids spend “raiding and leading guilds” in “World of Warcraft” can contribute to their professional marketability.

---

“When you think about what the teenagers are doing on ‘World of Warcraft,’ they are building worldwide virtual teams,” a vice president at IBM said in a recent “Frontline” interview. “Very sophisticated teams with very sophisticated skill levels in a very complex teaming environment. …That’s exactly what we try to do when we work with our colleagues in India and China.” 

Constance Steinkuehler, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has been making this very same argument in her work - that participating in these virtual communities can help kids learn how to collaborate, ask critical questions, make arguments, build social skills and even learn math.

The IBM interview is part of Frontline’s Digital Nation, an open-source PBS project that explores what it means to be human in a digital world. Scheduled for broadcast in winter 2010, the Digital Nation team has been posting rough cuts online. Watch great interviews with authors Henry Jenkins and James Paul Gee. In another video, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan talks about cell phones in the classroom.

Plus: More evidence kids are picking up skills online they’ll need to be competent citizens can be found in a book out this week from the Digital Youth Project. “Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out” reports on how young people are living and learning with new media and finds that through self-directed learning, young people are picking up the social and technical skills they need in the digital age. (Download the free online version [pdf].) Authors, including danah boyd and Mimi Ito, blogged about the project’s findings on Spotlight last year.

Photo by: king2009_12