Boston based filmmaker, Alice Bouvrie (PRISON PUPS) has announced the premiere of her latest film THY WILL BE DONE which follows Sara Herwig, a Male-to-Female transsexual and her dream of becoming an ordained Minister in the Presbyterian Church. In Sept. 2002 Sara was accepted as a candidate for ordination. She is now on the path to becoming a Minister with a church of her own, but her openness about her personal history has made the road to completion difficult. Sara’s sexual transition goes against many members’ understanding of biblical guidance and has become a divisive issue in the Church.

Boston Premiere: Friday evening, Sept 10th, 7:30pm
9/11 - 1:10pm
9/12 - 11:30am
9/17 - 5:30pm
9/18 - 11:30am

Boston Museum of Fine Arts
Remis Auditorium

for directions: www.mfa.org

Hello from San Francisco,

We hope this finds you well; we’re contacting you to announce our new
International Call deadline: December 10, 2010 for International Call 2011.

This funding is for production and post-production funding only, for
international producers and filmmakers making documentaries with
international content.

Even if you¹ve previously applied for funding, you are welcome to apply
again with the same project or an entirely new one.

Please read our submission guidelines that describes and explains what kinds
of documentaries we are looking for and what working with us entails.

Please note: we do not provide research and development funding in this Call.

You can find the submission guidelines and at http:
//www.itvs.org/funding/international-call . You can also check out what we
have funded through the International Initiative :
http://www.itvs.org/series/global-perspectives-collection.

If you have questions, please feel free to email us and we will get back to
you as soon as we can.

Very best regards,
Cynthia & the ITVS International Team

Myth #6 “No worries about light or sound, we fix it in post”. Or “All it matters is the story!” Which one is it?
By Story Consultant Fernanda Rossi, The Documentary Doctor

Doctor coming to town: Fernanda Rossi will be teaching her story structure and trailer workshop in St. Paul, MN in July. All info at www.documentarydoctor.com.

Click here to download a printable PDF of this issue.

Missed the last issue? print version

The myth in all its glory
Two opposing myths: the first one the self-assured cry of the virtuoso or technophile, the second one the sneer remark of the dilettante or technophobe. Surprisingly both utter the same opening statements but with a different ending. “Burn out images? Deafening background noise? Oh, details, details!” they may say in unison, while the first group responds to the challenge with a confident, “We’ll fix it in post”, the second group will retort with disdain, “All it matters is the story, anyway”.

Can it be really fixed in post? And if not caring to fix it or can’t be fixed, can a story be appreciated and understood through the technical mishaps? Stories may be king, but kings rule with their imposing presence.

The wave of post-production gadgets, which promise to fix it all, has reached such heights that many live under the illusion that mastering the tools for storytelling is a nuisance that can be dealt with later –much later. “We fix it in post” or not caring to fix it all because “All it matters is the story” are dangerous myths that reveals its truth when balancing the budget or having the audience walk out. Let these myths be unmasked so the story will come out loud and clear and without the extra charge.

Possible origin of the myth
The dilemma of content and form, the message and the technology that carries it, and the even more insidious sheer creativity vs. sheer craft, is not new. Each era has gone through its stage of alternatively glorifying one and the other in an unfounded mutually exclusive opposition. After all, the story shapes the medium as well as the delivery technology and the medium with its delivery technology shapes the story, more famously said in the words of McLuhan, The medium is the message.

Still from the moment the caveman (or maybe it was a cavewoman) grabbed a stone to draw on the walls of the cave the beast he or she wanted to hunt, some other cave dweller questioned everything from the genius or virtuosity of that first proto-artist to the meaning and quality of the drawing. And so on throughout history. It’s probably human nature to question and create dualities.

Today, the argument might be old but the amount of technology available and our fascination with it renews the discussion with fierce intensity.

Some truth to it
In documentaries, it used to be that the truthful depiction of reality superseded technological perfection. Those days might be over. Since in post many things can be fixed, from color to sound, from erasing undesirable logos to enhancing almost inaudible dialogue, viewers are more demanding than they used to –so are distributors and everybody else in the industry.

At the same time, there is a limit to what can be done in post and more importantly there is both a material and a creative cost to the storyteller.

The real deal
Underneath the many real and apparent benefits of taking care of things in post, there is the issue of whether ultimately a story is well served with the many layers of postproduction intervention.

In art there is a distance between the hand of the artist and the object of art. A painter may have just a brush between her hand and the canvas. A writer, has a mere keyboard between the ten fingers (or two indexes) and the white screen.

Documentarians have a huge distance between themselves and the film on the finished film on the screen, the process in itself may be as long as writing a novel, yet the amount of tools needed and people involved even when minimal most often outnumbers the needs of tools and people for other artistic expressions. This thick separation has been made thicker with the advent of gadgets and like all tools they can be used for good or sheer evil.

The consequences of this wide separation for the storyteller is that some filmmakers fear the vast distance ahead of them and dismiss it altogether, hurting the chances for the story to be as enthralling as it could be. Or such gap –we fix it later- becomes an excuse to relinquish control and ease creative anxiety.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending where each filmmaker stands, the story is of utter importance and the quality of the media used to tell it is not a far second concern but an equally important one.

What to do
While some filmmakers prefer to care about the character or interviewee leaving them in half-light and un-miked, others may adjust that corner light obsessively forgetting that an incredible moment is just passing by unrecorded. As often it’s the case, the solution is not in the extremes but in a healthy middle path.

In practical terms turning off the fan that creates background noise takes one minute and cost nothing. Dimming that same sound in post, if doable at all, can take several hours and the fee of the person doing such task. So why not make a checklist for image and sound with minimum requirements. Room tone, anybody?

As per helping the technophobes bridge the gap, why not a chat with some postproduction people to learn the basics of what can be done just in case? Preparation is key on both sides of the myths.

The ultimate task of the storyteller is to… well, tell a story. In documentaries, the events unfolds uncontrolled by the filmmakers, capturing them is their most important task. Doing it well is part of the job. Imagine Van Gogh not caring about the tone of yellow he’s is using? Would it be a Van Gogh even if they’re still sunflowers?

Postproduction magic is a safety net not the destination. And a safety net is a welcoming place for both geeks and technophobes.

To think further
In a calendar where there are as many holidays as release dates for software, may filmmakers choose to put the tools at the service of their story and may they upgrade their post toys as often as they question the stories they’re telling.

Story Strategies • Debunking the Myths of Storytelling
Myth #6: “No worries about light or sound, we fix it in post”. Or “All it matters is the story!” Which one is it?
Article by Fernanda Rossi | edited by Marcia Scott | photo by James Carman
published by Documentary Educational Resources

Fernanda Rossi, 2006-2010. All rights reserved. This article can be reprinted in its entirety for educational purposes only, as long as no charges of any kind are made. Partial reproductions or modifications to the original format are strictly prohibited.

Odyssey Series color, 767 minutes
Now available for the first time on DVD! A ground-breaking twelve-part series of anthropological documentaries with subject matter ranging from archeology studies of the Americas to following the inspirational lives of women in a North Indian Village. Originally aired on PBS in 1980, with a second season in 1981.

The Stitches Speak (Tanko Bole Chhe) color, 12 minutes
An animated documentary that celebrates the art and passion of the Kutch artisans who retrace their journeys in forming the Kala Raksha Trust and the School for Design in India.

Drums on the Red River color, 73 minutes
Capturing an important example of the widespread revival of traditional folk festivals that has followed political and economic reform, Drums on the Red River documents the 2007 Chu Dong Tu Festival in Yen Vinh, China.

Myth #5 “Narration in a documentary is bad storytelling.” Says who?
By Story Consultant Fernanda Rossi, The Documentary Doctor

Doctor coming to town: Fernanda Rossi will be teaching her story structure and trailer workshop in St. Paul, MN in July. All info at www.documentarydoctor.com.

Click here to download a printable PDF of this issue.

Missed the last issue? print version

The myth in all its glory
Narration, a.k.a voiceover, is as vilified by the filmmakers of the vérité persuasion as it is glorified by their counterparts, the lovers of the investigative genre. For those in the middle, however, the question of whether to add as little as a single line of the spoken word often creates anguish comparable only to the one we had in school when we had to choose between two friends. The choice made us a traitor to the other side, no matter what the justification.

And that’s because voiceover is not just a matter of writing or recording lines of text; it can imply a whole ideology. Narration, however, is just one story element among many. Everything depends on its appropriate use, rather than on some imagined intrinsic value. And, as has happened with many myths, its proliferation gave the spoken word such a bad rap that its good got lost in the shuffle. Let the voice(over) of those who have not been heard speak up.

Possible origin of the myth
A long, long time ago, “God” used to record narration for documentaries…and “God” was a white male in his fifties. Shooting was limited, and information was very much needed; so “God,” with His thunderous voice, told us how to understand and interpret the story as it unfolded. In fact, narration was the story.

The next generation of filmmakers rebelled. Smaller cameras in hand, they made themselves invisible, becoming privy to gems of truth. The following generation not only used even smaller cameras, they also found cheaper stock. They shot so much that the story told itself, with no narration needed. And after all, who was the filmmaker, that silent witness, to tell the audience what to make of things? Cameras captured reality in an objective way—or at least so they said —and narration was neither objective nor real. Besides, true auteurs didn’t want to be confused with TV producers who continued to use voiceovers. And so the myth was born.

Some truth to it
The abuse of voiceover as a Band-Aid for defective story structure always deserves to be condemned, and that voice of God can be irritating and ideologically suspect; but narration is not intrinsically bad, whatever prejudices we might have against it. There is more to voiceover than meets the ear.

The reel deal
Narration today can be as creative and varied as the filmmaker behind it. Sometimes, when recorded by the filmmaker or by a character in the film, it can become intimate and endearing, as in many personal docs. Other times, when recorded by an actor, the audience can be lulled into the film as if it were a night-time story, as with the trance-inducing voice of Morgan Freeman in March of the Penguins.

Voiceover is the most malleable, flexible, and creative element a filmmaker can use in the otherwise outwardly regulated world of doc filmmaking. Why not put it to good use when it’s called for?

What to do
Before any decision is made, clear your mind of prejudices regarding narration. Forget what people (read: your judgmental colleagues) will say. People rarely condemn a film well done or a story well told—no matter what device gets used.

If thinking of narration brings images of opinionated writers, endless castings, and expensive recording studios to mind, put those thoughts aside, too. For each apparent obstacle, there is a creative solution. Think of the character in the film as a narrator, record in the down time of a studio, and remember that writing voiceover isn’t only for writers.

Consider fixing structure on its own before using narration as a fix-it-all. Then try to define the function the narration will have in the film. Will the voiceover complement what’s being seen, enhancing the scene? Will it contradict the imagery, making the audience think twice about what’s true? Will it stir curiosity by planting questions that will be answered by the following scenes, creating a chain of interconnected thoughts? Regardless of the combination, try to stay away from being too literal with the words and images—i.e., what we hear we see. Simply because documentaries are a form of audiovisual expression doesn’t mean that the visuals must follow the audio to a tee. Those two words (audio/visual) are next to each other because they’re supposed to work together, in harmony, not in lockstep.

To think further
In this democratized Internet world, “God” may not be recording voiceover any more, but the filmmaker remains a sort of deity in the making of a film, simply by choosing where to point the camera or to how to voice or not voice a story.

May filmmakers value their vision more than a single voice—or voiceover.

Story Strategies • Debunking the Myths of Storytelling
Myth #5 “Narration in a documentary is bad storytelling.” Says who?
Article by Fernanda Rossi | edited by Marcia Scott | photo by James Carman
published by Documentary Educational Resources

Fernanda Rossi, 2006-2010. All rights reserved. This article can be reprinted in its entirety for educational purposes only, as long as no charges of any kind are made. Partial reproductions or modifications to the original format are strictly prohibited.

SEVEN PROJECTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD HIGHLIGHTING SOCIAL ISSUES WITH GREAT GLOBAL IMPACT

* * *

[New York, NY – June 2, 2010] – The Tribeca Film Institute and Gucci have announced the recipients selected for the 2010 Gucci Tribeca Documentary Fund which provides finishing finances to domestic and international documentary filmmakers with feature-length films that document pressing social issues of immediate and historical significance. In the third year of the fund, seven projects have been selected from 390 submissions from 23 countries to receive a total of $100,000, to be administered by the Tribeca Film Institute (TFI).

The projects were selected by a committee consisting of Diana Barrett, Liz Garbus, Simon Kilmurry, Trevor Neilson, and Mariane Pearl who chose the recipients from finalists previously selected by TFI. The projects that will receive funding are:

- African Deep (Rachel Boynton)

- Donor 150 (Jerry Rothwell)

- MOVING WINDMILLS: The William Kamkwamba Story (Tom Rielly)

- The Mosou Sisters (Marlo Poras & Yu Ying Wu Chou)

- The Redemption of General Butt Naked (Daniele Anastasion & Eric Strauss)

- The Warlord’s Wife (Victoria Stevenson)

- Welcome to Shelbyville (Kim Snyder)

“The Gucci Fund is bravely supporting some of the most compelling and important documentaries being made today,” said jury member Simon Kilmurry. “These films all bear the hallmarks of excellence in storytelling and urgency of issue. Whether they are from home or from around the world, these films put a human face on the issues through the artistry of some of our finest documentary filmmakers.”

“These filmmakers passion to uncover stories that highlight global and controversial issues, is extremely inspiring,” said Jane Rosenthal, Co-Chairman of the Board, Tribeca Film Institute. “Gucci continues to recognize the importance documentary filmmaking has on society. Together we are proud to support these filmmakers and believe their films will create a global conversation about these subject matters.”

Films funded examine larger issues through intimate stories about: a small town in the South that is forced to reconcile past prejudices before it can deal with immediate immigration concerns; the first generation of donor-conceived children searching for their biological fathers; the economic struggle of two sisters in China; the controversial transformation of a British woman into a Sudanese warlord’s wife; the tumultuous search for oil off of West Africa’s coast; a self-taught Malawian teenager who builds a windmill from scrap metal that subsequently powers his village; and a man who transforms himself from a warlord into a Christian evangelist. The grantees and projects selected are:

Dear Friends,

Yesterday it was announced that 1,200 National Guard troops will be deployed to the US-Mexico border:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/us/26border.html?hp

Since its release, our documentary, THE BALLAD OF ESEQUIEL HERNÁNDEZ, has become widely used as a teaching tool with regard to the dangers of a militarized border.

We urge you all to please forward this email to friends, family members, educational institutions, and organizations who may not have seen the film, which is now available as:

“Video on Demand” at Amazon.com (Click HERE)

and as a DVD at:

http://www.der.org/films/ballad-of-esequiel-hernandez.html

Many thanks,
Kieran, Brendan & Shane
HEYOKA PICTURES

Myth #4: “If the structure doesn’t work, put yourself in the film.” And everything will magically work? Not quite.
By Story Consultant Fernanda Rossi, The Documentary Doctor

Click here to download a printable PDF of this issue.

Missed the last issue? print version

The myth in all its glory
When you’re desperate to solve some structural issues, your eager-to-help colleague blurts out, “How about YOU? Make it YOUR story!” You might cringe because you had mixed feelings about this approach. Or maybe you wanted to do this all along but felt shy or modest about it.

Granted that for scattered docs, whether due to entangled storylines or too broad a topic, a grounding element is always welcome. Yet there are many story devices that can be used to unify the structure of your film. Using YOU as a character or narrator is only one of them, and it’s not always the most suitable or efficient option from a story perspective.

The myth of you having to become the star of your film to save its structure is a much-touted magic solution that rarely lives up to its expectations.

Possible origin of the myth
The two most common ways a filmmaker can be in the film are: a) when it’s his story, the personal doc; b) when the filmmaker is the searcher/inquisitor, sometimes only as narrator but often on camera, interacting with characters, interviewees, etc. The filmmaker as searcher-after-truth is different in intention from the journalist or host in a documentary, who has no personal investment in the search except for doing a good job.

The personal documentary, where the camera turns inwards, reached its apex in the ’90s. In this American Belle Époque, with a relatively stable social climate and a generous economy, film non-profits and grants blossomed, and the artist could indulge in some self-reflection. Personal films existed before and still do, but they reached momentum at about that time.

Then history took a turn in three successive strikes: Bush, 9/11, Michael Moore. That is to say: the economy shrank—read, less federal funding for the arts; the social climate got troublesome; and a filmmaker succeeded (at the box office) in being personal-but-outwards, rather than -inwards.

So the filmmaker-in-film formula carries two strong decades of critical and financial validation. It’s no surprise then that when a story doesn’t work, everyone chants in a trance of unquestioned conviction, “Put yourself in the film!”

Some truth to it
There are great examples of filmmakers who embraced the personal doc. From Doug Block to Alan Berliner, they mastered the genre and we can’t imagine their films without their active presence. Can anybody picture 51 Birch Street by Doug Block as an investigative report done by somebody else? Or as a doc narrated by an actor? Certain films are meant to be personal or there is no film.

There are also great examples of filmmakers on a personal quest, diving with passion into pretty much any topic, from guns to burgers. These films are more likely than the others to have worked without the filmmakers in them, but their presence added that je ne sais quoi that makes their documentaries what they are.

However, just because it worked for them in those circumstances doesn’t mean it will work for everybody, or even for them the next time around.

The real deal
Both the personal doc and the filmmaker-in-the-doc are genres—not band-aids to apply when things don’t go as expected. As such, they present their own structural challenges. If being in the film can be a solution, or if it was always in the cards but didn’t materialize because of the filmmaker’s doubts, then much needs to be considered before taking that step.

What to do
Before considering being in the film at any stage of production, fix the structure separately from the option of adding yourself. Are all storyline arcs working like clockwork? Is there missing information? Is there repetition when there should be reinforcement? Then ask, does adding yourself enhance the film in a way that nothing else can?

After that and only after, it’s time to ask yourself, do you want to be in the film? If yes or no, why? Eagerness or reluctance speaks volumes. It might seem an obvious question, but few take the time to think about it thoroughly. And when they do, their reasons are plagued by the same misconceptions and prejudices held by those offering such advice.

No matter whether it started as a yes or was a no that became a yes, a filmmaker has to be judged for her role as character as any other character would. Can this person sustain the story? Is she engaging? What does she bring to the film?

If having the filmmaker in the film was always a no and remains a no after thoughtful consideration, there can be a compromise in having the filmmaker narrate instead of appearing in full body.

As usual, the decision has to be intrinsic to the storytelling and not an imposition from outside. For everyone who thinks that adding the filmmaker is a benefit that makes the doc more personable, there is someone in the industry rolling his eyes and approaching the film with reservations. When it comes to prejudices, there are plenty to go around in both camps.

And if fearing that not being in the film will make it less your work, remember the thoughts of French semiotician Roland Barthes, who believed all fiction is autobiographical and all autobiographies are fiction. The same can be applied, to some extent, to documentaries, as to any artistic work. When there is a person creating, her hand can be seen no matter the format. Now, does that hand need to be seen literally?

To think further
Maybe we need to expand our vocabulary to go beyond the personal doc description, like in-person doc, or point-of-view doc. And at all times we have to distinguish between the personal as a matter of genre or as a story device.

May all filmmakers be in their films; not always in the flesh, but always in spirit.

Story Strategies • Debunking the Myths of Storytelling
Myth #4: “If the structure doesn’t work, put yourself in the film.” And then everything will work magically? Not quite.
Article by Fernanda Rossi | edited by Marcia Scott | photo by James Carman
published by Documentary Educational Resources

Fernanda Rossi, 2006-2010. All rights reserved. This article can be reprinted in its entirety for educational purposes only, as long as no charges of any kind are made. Partial reproductions or modifications to the original format are strictly prohibited.

ITVS accepts proposals on an ongoing basis for documentary projects that fall outside of the standing initiatives (DDF, LINCS, Open Call). For development funding, activities may include travel, research, script development, preliminary production for fundraising/work-in-progress reels, or other early-phase activities. For production funding, all production and post-production activities are eligible. Learn more about this and other ITVS programs: http://www.itvs.org/funding

Linking Independents and Co-producing Stations (LINCS) provides matching funds of up to $100,000 to producer-station partnerships. Projects must have begun production as evidenced by a work-in-progress video. Single documentaries and innovative genre combinations will be considered. Deadline, June 28th. Visit http://www.itvs.org/funding/lincs for complete information.