One-on-One Q&A with Kimberly Reed, Director - "Prodigal Sons"

One-on-One Q and A with Kimberly Reed – Director, “Prodigal Sons"

Opens February 26 at Cinema Village in New York via First Run Features

“Prodigal Sons” is a compelling family portrait and personal documentary told from the point of view of its director, Kimberly Reed, a transgendered woman who works as magazine editor in New York and goes back to her hometown in Montana for her 20^th high school reunion. While on her trip, she is reunited with her estranged older adopted brother Marc, who at the age of 21 suffered a brain injury after a car accident. Kimberly is the middle child of three, the oldest being Marc, and her youngest gay brother, Todd. Kimberly grew up as Paul and was the captain of the high school football team and was voted most likely to succeed. In the film, Kimberly tries to mend her relationship with brother Marc, who seems to come to accept her, but a breakdown with Marc ensues, and it gets harder and harder for them to reconcile, that is until a whopper of a revelation occurs as to whom Marc’s true grandparents were (I don’t want to give it away). Reed does an incredible job showing the complex dynamic between her and Marc and their family, which goes through several more ups and downs throughout the rest of the film. I sat down with Kimberly for the following One-on-One Q&A, where we talked about everything from her filmmaking choices, the emotional impact of the film on her, Marc and her family, to the reaction of others who have seen it in the LGBT community…and Kim also let me indulge my daytime television bug by asking her about the transgendered character of Zarf on "All My Children" a few years ago. What I learned from watching the film and talking with Kim was that the issue of being transgendered recedes from the identity one has within his or her own family, no matter what the genetic makeup.

TFPN: In "Prodigal Sons," you infuse your family’s super 8mm home movies of when you were young children, and then later when you and your brothers made your own films. Who shot the earlier footage when you were younger? Did that prompt your interest in making movies later on in life?

Reed: My dad shot the earlier home movies. He was always an early adopter. He was always the guy who had the super 8MM camera. Then he transitioned to video and was first on the block to have this two-piece video deck with a massive camera on his shoulder tethered to a VCR on his hip.

TFPN: What was your father’s profession?

Reed: He was an ophthalmologist. I often wonder if my fascination with understanding the world through vision, if you define being an ophthalmologist roughly enough, it kind of started to sound like being a filmmaker. I was fascinated with my dad’s job and how the eye works, but what really made me a filmmaker was experiencing films by being totally transported to a different place emotionally and sometimes even physically. Fairly early on, I was gathering all the kids in the neighborhood and coming up with these scripts and telling everybody what to do. The reason you didn’t see me in any of those later films was because I was behind the camera.

TFPN: So it was your brothers you directed in those films?

Reed: Yes. You can also see me trying to work out some gender issues pretty early on by forcing my younger brother to play the part of the girl. I knew that stuff was going on with me. There’s a reason I chose him and not Marc. I was in such denial of it at that age that I was so afraid of it that it would somehow magically transport me or I'd grow out of it. That’s what I wanted. I was afraid of the power it had and I knew from society that you’re not supposed to do that. I think a lot of people can relate to that. I did it vicariously through my younger brother.

TFPN: Did Marc know you were going to be filming him for your documentary before you both came back to Montana for the reunion? What was his initial reaction? Was he hesitant or cooperative?

Reed: Yes, he knew. I think you can tell from the early films he always wanted to be in the limelight. Sometimes that was him just being a troublemaker, doing crazy stuff that nobody else would do. I’ve kind of wondered if he had a limelight gene, and if he did, I think he got it [from the surprise relationship that Marc discovers that is revealed in “Prodigal Sons.”]

TFPN: By turning the camera on Marc and going down this path, do you think it in any way might have provoked him to have his outbursts, or would that have happened anyway?

Reed: Marc has explosive anger. It’s really interesting, because some people think the camera would make it worse, and some people think the camera would lessen the impact of it. I actually think in almost all cases where you see that, the camera didn’t matter because nobody knew it was on. There’s a scene on Christmas that nobody knew the camera was on, for instance. In that respect, I think the camera really did disappear. I think that it would be naïve to assume that the camera would ever disappear totally. I think if you’re ever going to be close to having a camera disappear, I can’t imagine getting closer than a really intimate family environment where everybody supports the making of the film. They’re used to me and others shooting and everybody’s on board. You’ve got a very open family that’s willing to share their story, warts and all. I think it’s my sense of Marc and almost all people that if the camera is on, it would lesson your anger not increase it. The decision to use (the footage) is also interesting. To that, I would say nobody wanted this film made more than Marc. Nobody. There were times when I was really questioning whether or not I should include some really rough footage. I took Marc as my guide. I took his advice. I followed his lead as to whether or not to show that. There’s a line in the film I really love when Marc says simply, “I don’t know about you, but the truth is the truth.” I learned a lot from Marc from that line, because I was in a situation where I was really hiding from my past in a lot of ways. His advice to me in that situation was “get over it!” It’s just the truth. It happened, deal with it. That’s how Marc feels in some of these explosive moments where we’re seeing warts and all. His response is bracingly honest and really refreshing. His actions may be hard for some people to interpret, because he has different principles, but I think some of those principles are bracingly honest.

TFPN: You seemed to have learned more because of that than you expected when you were going into making the film.

Reed: Absolutely. I had no idea we were going to get into all these family issues, and issues of sibling rivalry. It had always been there, but I had no idea it was really going to take over as much as it did. But probably a good portion of that was wishful thinking that it wouldn’t. You follow it where it goes. You follow your life where it goes, kind of in the same way you follow film where it goes.

TFPN: What has the reaction been by the LGBT community, in particular by those who are transgendered? Has anyone been impacted by the film?

Reed: I love the answer to that question because we’ve had almost completely uniform, positive reaction. We just had a story in Details Magazine, which is really getting the word out, and also recently in Jezebel. I hear from trans people whom I think were empowered and reassured by my story because they think, “Wow, I can do this!” I hear from the families of trans people. Before we even started editing I told somebody at Sundance the story of this and she said, “I’m so glad you told me that, because I’ve been freaking out because the day before I came to Sundance, I found out that my brother is going to be my sister. And my head has been spinning the whole time. I’ve spent the last three days with you and had no idea this was going on with you and it’s really reassuring that you can just share your story.” Even before you make your film, talking about it can reassure people, because a lot of people don’t quite know how to talk about it and hopefully our film will open up that discussion. I think an important element that I hear again and again from people is that, and this is always what I had in mind for the film, the way that the film confronts transgendered issues is important perhaps more because of how little it says about being transgendered, but about how willing the film is to let other things take over. I hear from people time and time again, “thank you for not letting that be the only issue.”

TFPN: I found the main through line of the film to be more about your relationship with Marc than your coming out to your family and friends.

Reed: Absolutely. That understatement, number one, represents my life.  It’s very important, but is it the only thing? No. It’s an aspect of who I am. To replicate that standing in the film, I think it’s important to let the topic recede in importance. As a storyteller, too, once you take it off the table, it’s also a lot of fun to put it back on the table. If you ask me, that’s the best way to affect social change is to put people in the shoes of somebody else and then let them forget that they’re in their shoes. Hopefully that happens with my character in the film. Hopefully it happens with Marc’s character in the film. I think he goes through a lot of issues with having a head injury and mental illness that people find very hard to imagine. If people can watch this film and feel like they really feel Marc, they know what makes him happy and what he’s frustrated by. I would be really happy to hear people have that response. I could have started with this side of the equation about people who have these kinds of head injuries and mental illness or with gender issues. This film is really just about family. It’s about siblings and family relationships and we’re all looking for love and want to be loved. In families, that’s such a big part of that currency that everybody is trading and it’s hard because there’s a lot of old pain and even hate sometimes. I think at the end of the day (these issues) operate metaphorically in the film…that thing that creates sibling rivalry. Sometimes I hear, “I was that sister who was envied by the other one.” I think if you have a sibling, you can understand sibling rivalry. In the end, it’s a film about family and love and how as we grow older, our identities change, not often as starkly as Marc’s or mine, but our identities change. We always have to renegotiate who we are within our families.

TFPN: Do you think that LGBT people, particularly those who are transgendered, are properly represented in the media such as film and television? Are they being represented as stereotypes? Can you think of any examples of transgendered people who are being properly represented?

Reed: A big motivation for me making this film was to give a real representation of someone who is trans and to go back to reactions we heard from people. That’s what people appreciate, whether you’re trans or a family member or a friend of a person who is trans, I think it’s really important to show everything else but that issue. That’s where the humanity lies. A lot of times I feel the transgendered issue is where gay issues were in the 1960s and earlier. I didn’t want to make the transgendered version of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” In LGB cinema and media in general, the “T” has yet to really undergo that. I hope that our film takes a step toward that.

TFPN: Were you ever aware that there was a transgendered character on the daytime serial drama “All My Children” a few years ago?

Reed: Was the character’s name Cricket?

TFPN: No, actually the character was Zarf/Zoe (Jeffrey Carlson), a male to female transgendered rock star who was in love with Erica Kane’s (Susan Lucci) lesbian daughter Bianca (Eden Regal).

Reed: No, I didn’t. When was it?

TFPN: I think it was in 2007. I watched it and was blown away by it, but I can’t say 100% how realistic it was or not, but I was moved by it. So I was wondering if you had ever seen any of it.

Reed: No, but I ought to now. I thought you were going to tell me that people tell me I look like one of the characters on the show.

TFPN: People used to tell you that?

Reed: Yeah, it was Cricket, but I don’t think it was "All My Children." [Editor’s Note: If anyone does know what show Cricket was on, please leave it in the Comments.]

TFPN: I don’t remember a Cricket.

Reed: It was probably in the mid-1990s. You would know.

TFPN: Well, that’s not even really my show. My show’s "One Life to Live," which is on after AMC, but I occasionally watch it and when they had that storyline on, I found it fascinating. I don’t think it had ever been done before where they had a contract character that was transgendered in a major plotline.

Reed: The more stories like that, the better. One of the best reactions I ever had to the film that just floored me was when someone came up to me after a screening and said, “I think I fell in love with your brother Marc.” I love that, because Marc does some pretty intense things, which are hard to digest. The fact that you can go through that and experience it in the film, which is arguably more intense than in real life…and the fact that you can go through that and still see this other side of Marc that’s really sensitive and sentimental that’s terribly connected to our family and our past. I’m almost more proud of the fact that people can affiliate themselves more with Marc than they can with me. The thing about head injuries, the number of people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with head injuries…there are going to be so many people dealing with this, questioning where this explosive anger comes from? This is not the person who went off to war. At the end of the day, it’s just about humanity, whether we’re L or G or B or T or this or that. To hear Albert Maysles talk [at Stranger Than Fiction’s presentation of “Running Fence” on January 19] about the humanity in which he approaches his filmmaking and the compassion that he feels for his film subjects, which so comes through in his films, that is what I’m interested in.

"Off and Running" Opening Weekend Q&A - Jan. 30, 2010

“Off and Running”

Opening Weekend Theatrical Release

Q&A after 4:05pm screening with Director Nicole Opper and others

January 30, 2010

IFC Center

New York, NY

(L to R: Rita Taddonio, Nicole Opper & Sharese Bullock. Photo by Brian Geldin.)

It has been over a year since Nicole Opper’s documentary “Off and Running" was brought to my attention. I had first learned of it through DocuClub, where Opper screened a work-in-progress version, but I couldn’t make it to that screening. A few months later, I was excited to learn that it would premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival, but because of my own publicist duties on another film, Danae Elon’s “Partly Private” (which also coincidentally showed a work-in-progress at DocuClub) that was premiering there, my schedule was full, and therefore I missed “Off and Running” again. Now with the theatrical release of the film at IFC Center this week, I finally got my chance to watch this wonderful film. I asked Opper after the screening how much her film had changed since she screened her rough cut at DocuClub. She told me that the changes were pretty radical. “Being there that evening felt a little messy, loud and complicated,” she said. Fernanda Rossi was the moderator asking a lot of questions asking for their vote, which was split 50/50.  Where it became really useful for Opper was when people would call or write to her independently with notes and feedback, which was worked into future cuts. There were entire scenes that were cut and the chronology changed quite a bit, focusing it more with Avery’s voiceover. And by the way, Opper's new fantastic boots she wore to the screening yesterday only cost $50, marked down from $165. I love it when filmmakers reveal these things, ie. “Burma VJ” co-editor Thomas Papapetros’ reason for the film’s lucky winning streak as revealed to me after this year’s Cinema Eye Honors…Keep’em coming :)

In "Off and Running," Opper shows a complex and layered story of Avery, an African-American high school student and track & field champion in Brooklyn, adopted by two white Jewish lesbian moms with two other adopted multi-ethnic brothers. Avery seems to have a very happy life, but wants to meet her biological mother. When she finally discovers her roots, her attempts to reach out to her birth mother don't go as planned, and Opper sensitively shows Avery's heartbreak and struggle as she comes of age.

The Q&A with Opper along with producer Sharese Bullock was moderated by Rita Taddonio, Director of Spence-Chapin's Adoption Resource Center, one of the many organizations that "Off and Running" has teamed up with to bring awareness of adoption.  Avery, who was at a track meet that day, couldn’t make it to the Q&A, but was there at the sold-out Opening Night screening the night before. Before asking questions, Taddanio said the reason she loved the film is that it shows how a group of people who aren’t biologically related can be a family, being bonded by love and commitment, growing pains, laughter and sadness and have that intimate relationship that makes a family. It was also realistic to her in its portrayal of struggle for identity and showing other people’s stories, not just Avery’s, but her brother and her friends, too. She added that those who are adopted cannot be classified, as some people search for their biological families, and some do not.  Some who search have a great reunion, and some are disappointed. Some relationships are rocky, and others are great. Every adoptee she knows wants to know information on where they came from.

Taddonio’s first question to Opper was, what made her choose this topic and what challenges, if any, were there in making the film? Opper said she didn’t begin with the topic of adoption. When she met Avery a few years earlier, she was teaching a class in filmmaking that Avery was in. They had talked a lot, and she was struck by Avery’s charisma and willingness to open up. Bullock answered, saying that working around a 16-year-old’s schedule that every parent of a teenager can understand is keeping up with the changes. One of the incidental changes was how Avery’s hair kept changing, which was a challenge in the editing process, but more seriously, a bigger challenge as a producer was sticking to the collaboration in the toughest times listening to some really painful moments for everybody involved, sitting inside and outside of that experience.  “We think it’s challenging, but it’s her (Avery’s) life,” Bullock said.

From the audience, the questions of what the timeframe of shooting was, and what exactly did Opper envision the story would become, were asked. Opper said she filmed Avery from the ages of 16 through 19, and she was surprised at every turn. When she began filming, she saw that things weren’t all peachy and they talked a lot. At the same time, she was just getting to know about Avery’s family background. In the beginning, she saw a portrait of a multi-ethnic family and didn’t quite know what the conflict would be, but she imagined that it would be about the discrimination they would face as a family, but that didn’t become the focus.  It turned into something more complicated.

In the film, there’s a long stretch of time between filming where we don’t see some of Avery's personal struggles and isolation, so a question posed by someone in the audience was, what happened to Avery during that time? Bullock said they relied on their practice as media educators, and not just filmmakers, to tell Avery’s story and to be aware of all boundaries and sensitivities. While Avery wasn’t there at this screening to speak for herself, Bullock said that Avery has said in many screenings before that her involvement in the project is part of her development. This journey of telling her story is part of getting through those tougher times. The question for any teenager coming of age is, how does the filmmaker play the support role, but also respect the journey? Opper added that while they didn’t film during that break, she had been in touch with Avery by phone every once in a while, and Avery also had a huge support network from her friends to her track team members and others.

Taddanio asked if they could elaborate on what some of things that might have got Avery through her journey? Bullock said it was due in fact to Opper’s existing relationship with Avery, because she was her teacher first before she documented her life, and there was a trust. Avery’s vulnerability and sense of self unfolded for all of them.

The final question that was more of a comment and opinion rather than a question raised by a man in the audience that caused a bit of a stir from the rest of the audience. He said he was troubled with the issue of privacy, and how could Avery who was only a teenager at the time, give her consent to allow them to intrude on her intimate family life? Doesn’t this present an ethical question, he asked. Opper said it was a conversation she had with Avery all the time, because it mattered deeply to her. Bullock said she appreciated this man’s comments and his point of view, but from their perspective as filmmakers as well as Avery and her family, this film was made to help other families like their own.  The audience clapped. “That’s the greater value of this opportunity,” Bullock said. Taddanio added that this is a very thoughtful film and there are a lot of courageous people out there who are willing to tell their stories so younger adopted people who are going through this search for identity will be able to discuss it. “We’re grateful to you and to the family and their courage,” Taddonio said.

“Off & Running” continues to play at IFC Center throughout the rest of this week, and is slated to air on the PBS Series, “POV” later this year.

Stranger Than Fiction - "Snowblind" - January 12, 2010

“Snowblind”

Stranger Than Fiction

January 12, 2010

IFC Center

New York, NY

Stranger Than Fiction's Thom Powers and "Snowblind" Director Vikram Jayanti. Photo by Brian Geldin.

 Tuesday saw the official opening of the new season of Stranger Than Fiction with an appropriately snowy-titled screening of Vikram Jayanti’s ("Game Over - Kasparov and the Machine") “Snowblind,” which Thom Powers noted during the post-screening Q&A was their most controversial film yet. Reason being, he received protests via email from animal rights advocates about the content of the film, that being the racing of dogs in Alaska’s famous 1,000-mile-plus dog sledding race, the Iditarod. But the protests didn’t stop Powers from showing the film on Tuesday. In fact, he told me when the film premiered at the Toronto Film Festival last year, he received no protests at all. In “Snowblind,” Jayanti takes us on the incredible journey of 23-year-old Rachel Scdoris of Oregon, who is legally blind, and is preparing to go on her third Itidarod. When she finally embarks on her sled with her dogs across the bleak Alaskan wilderness, what ensues is a remarkable and dramatic narrative. We see Rachel as a perky young woman with spirit and determination, despite her disability, which never seems to hinder her. She does get help along the way with another “musher” named Joe, who according to the race’s rules, must go with her just to lead her, but can never physically help her, and she doesn’t ever really seem to need it, except perhaps when her dogs get stuck. With not only patience, but also love, Rachel gets through any obstacle, but it gets harder and harder along the way, and the film successfully ensnares us in its suspense. There are so many twists and turns and highs and lows in the film, none of which I will reveal here, because you will just have to discover them on your own when and if you get a chance to see it yourself. Therefore, any discussion of these particular plateaus in the film that were discussed during the Q&A have been purposely left out of my notes below, which highlight more of the inner workings of the production and psychology behind the characters and director’s choices.

Powers began by asking Jayanti what got him involved with wanting to make this film, and what was it like working in these extreme conditions? Jokingly, Jayanti replied that he’d seen "March of the Penguins" and "Grizzly Man" and “if crazy Werner could do it, I could add to my muster if I do it in mid-winter.” He said the amazing thing about shooting in the cold weather, the camera’s batteries would drain in about three minutes, so they all had to carry spare batteries inside their clothing. They had enough money to do a rehearsal trip the year before the actual shoot. He wanted to find out what it would be like. Walking around in the snow in  minus 45-degree weather, they would get really tired, really quickly, and thought to lie down for a minute…“and that’s how you die.”  They worked out really quickly that they should always stand at the side of each other, never being out of site. The whole experience to him seemed sort of spiritual, and they always felt the claw of death coming up from underneath the snow.

Powers then explained that “Snowblind” turned out to be the most controversial film that Stranger Than Fiction has ever shown, because he’d been receiving emails everyday from people who are against the Iditarod. Had Jayanti and Rachel also experienced some of this? Jayanti said he remembered that someone in Oregon came over to check all 105 of Rachel’s dogs and told him that it’s amazing that these dogs could live to be about 19 and 20 years old, where most people’s pet dogs only till about eight. Jayanti said he doesn’t have a particular opinion about the rights and wrongs of mushing, but he said the dogs do seem to live longer and love running. “I don’t know whether to judge it or not,” he said.

Jayanti said Rachel is a very private person and he had less luck getting inside of her than the other people who work with her. He began thinking the reason she did the Iditarod was so she can get as far away from people as she possibly can.

Powers asked Jayanti about his thoughts on Rachel’s relationship in the film with her father. “I get sued a lot when I make a film,” Jayanti replied, so he confined himself to saying that in a universal position, all adolescents at the cusp in believing that their father is a “g-d and a dick,” he thinks it was very difficult for her to become fully independent. He said she’s 23 and he really shouldn’t call her an adolescent, but in many ways because of her disability, has kept her adolescent, therefore it was a difficult relationship. He does know for a fact that the minute she made enough money from endorsements after her first Iditarod, she built a house on the huge lot that they live on in a trailer and put her father in the house and she stayed in the trailer.

A question from the audience was if Rachel has any relationships outside of her own family, to which Jayanti said that she has a bunch of friends in Oregon, but he doesn’t know if she has a romantic relationship. He doesn’t really go too deeply into people’s personal lives. He’s more interested in their public lives. She attracts a lot of attention, so she meets a lot of people and is really charming and lovely, and you also get to see her at her worst during certain moments [which I won’t reveal] during the race.

Given her privacy, what has been Rachel’s reaction to the film, Powers asked. Jayanti said he thinks she is too professional to tell him what she really thinks. He suspects that she may think that he was unfair about the dogs. It was her father’s idea that maybe she should mix English Pointers with Huskies, which she kind of sticks with, but almost no one else in mushing does that anymore. He thinks she feels he was unfair about the role that the dog breeding played.

Powers said it was an interesting dynamic in the film the interviews Jayanti ask Rachel along the race. Was that something he imagined from the beginning would be a component or did it just come out that way? Jayanti said he went into doing this film with the fantasy that she had this tremendous darkness inside of her that she could only exorcize in the great wilds of Alaska, and when you bring in any pre-conceived fantasy in the making of a film, you’re always going to be wrong. For a long time, he was always sort of trying to crack her open to admit that it was hell being blindish and being caught between her father and hell by being hated by so many people in the mushing community because they feel she’s a danger to other mushers. He thought she would give it up. He thought this would be a very interesting dog film to make. She resisted that for a long time, so he kept pushing. He realized that she was not going to give it up, and he was chasing the wrong story. He’d completely forgotten that she was doing the most incredible things. A lot of the stuff he pushed, he regrets. He cut a first version of the film, which was much darker and realized that the film didn’t like her at all, so he took a couple of months off and he came back to re-cut it to get back in some sense of admiration and affection for her. He did want her to step outside the zone of denial and admit that this fantasy she had of winning the race was not a real fantasy and unrealistic.

From the audience, someone asked Jayanti if he’s given much thought to using the film as a teaching tool and to raise awareness of disabilities. He said that Rachel herself does a lot of work and speaks to high schools, and he hopes his film can become a part of that. He said this is the first time in a long time that he doesn’t own the film, Discovery owns it. He suspects that they will be far more reticent about distributing it, because he imagines they’ll be far more pressured then Powers was from the animal rights community.

"Waiting For Armageddon" Interfaith Roundtable

"Waiting For Armageddon" Interfaith Roundtable

Berman Jewish Policy Archives at NYU, New York, NY
January 7, 2010

On Thursday, I attended a panel in anticipation of First Run Features’ theatrical release this weekend of “Waiting for Armageddon,” a documentary by award-winning filmmakers, David Heilbroner, Kate Davis and Franco Sacchi. For a little background, Brian described the panel’s premise here, and the New York Times just posted a great review of the film.

The discussion provided an eye-opening, fascinating glimpse into a very powerful, popular and potentially dangerous Evangelical belief system, and the political and social implications it might have for people of other faiths. I have been thinking of the subjects raised that evening, and have found myself wanting to discuss them with everyone that I come across. I am certainly enticed to see the whole film and learn more.

I am glad to note that the discussion was surprisingly civil considering the broad spectrum of panelists from across the theological world and the controversial topics that were addressed. The participants were as follows:

Kate Davis, filmmaker
Rabbi Justus Baird, Director of the Center for Multifaith Education, Auburn Theological Seminary
David Elcott, Taub Professor at NYU and Interreligious Affairs Director of the American Jewish Committee
Galen Guengerich, Senior Minister of All Souls Unitarian Church
Paul de Vries, President of the New York Divinity School and Evangelical Christian
Franco Sacchi, filmmaker
David Heilbroner, filmmaker

And the moderator was Michelle Goldberg, journalist and author, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (MOD)

I have to admit that I was unfamiliar with many of the theology-related terms brought up that evening but I tried my best to document the gist of the discussion below. I thought you might need to be helped along a little too, so I’ve put a couple definitions of terms from the evening at the very end of this write-up.

The panel was organized around four short clips and began with filmmaker Kate Davis remarking that it was an exciting night for her because the roundtable proved that there can be intelligent, interfaith discussions about the issues raised in the film. There was also a brief explanation that the theology guiding the people in Waiting for Armageddon, which is Premillennial Dispensationalism* is only practiced by about ¼ of Evangelicals.

MOD: What role does Israel play in this theology?

Guengerich: The people featured in the film believe in the literal interpretation and absolute inerror of the Bible, but if you try to interpret it without any historical metaphor it can be highly problematic, especially for Israel. (Editor’s note: Evangelicals believe that all Jews must return to Israel as a precondition for Christ’s Second Coming.)

MOD: To put it another way, is this alliance beneficial for the Jews?

Baird: It’s good and really bad at the same time. In my understanding, dispensationalism leaves room for G-d’s covenant with the Jews. There is a respect for the historical relationship between G-d and the Jews and that Jews may be able to be resurrected without conversion. On the other hand, as a Rabbi, I think that good theology doesn’t instrumentalize other people.

Sacchi: The people we met during the filming believed that Jews had to convert or they will die.

Elcott: This is not a strictly Evangelical belief. I think that all three monotheistic religions instrumentalize other people so I’d frame it differently. All of these religions were obsessed with Messianism at various points, so it’s not surprising that it’s coming up for Christians now. The rise of Shi’ite Islam is also related to string Messianic fervor. Each religion uses others toward their own Messianic redemption. The interesting thing is that it’s all focused on the same place: Israel.

MOD: The Tribulation* entails great horrors for much of humankind, so why do the people in the film look forward to it?

Guengerich: Have you been to the movies lately? The human fascination with violence is pervasive and in this case, it’s violence sanctioned by G-d. It will be the ultimate battle between good and evil, and it’s fundamentally human. In the film, some people take a perverse delight in specific aspects of this, like the “bridles of horses.” (Note: a belief that battles of the Tribulation will cause blood to cover the earth as high as a horse’s bridle.) What gives them permission is that G-d gave this revelation that must be followed.

MOD: Is there any part of the Evangelical community that is trying to actively bring this period on?

de Vries: There is a small minority who are but we try to civilize them. I encourage everyone to read the Book of Revelation and get a real sense of it. Someone like Ahmadinejad is dangerous because he is a Muslim Messianic and he wants to bring on the end of days. But there is NO HINT in Jesus’s teachings that we need to immanentize the eschaton.*

Elcott: But that goes against the trend of Western society, which is to make things happen through action and activism. In Michael Chabon’s new book he talks about a 10,000 year clock and then realizes that his children can’t even imagine 30 years down the road. When you look at the disaster films, they aren’t about something that’s going to happen off in the distant future—its 2012. There is something in our culture that’s saying the world is going to change dramatically soon or something’s got to happen.

MOD: Isn’t there something fatalistic about all of this?

Baird: As an antidote to this kind of extreme theology, we recently brought theology students to Israel to Har Megiddo where Armageddon is supposed to occur, to show that in order to lead people into the future they must talk to those on the other side. Jewish students need to understand the rapture from a Christian perspective. The Jewish Talmud* is full of disagreements. The scholar Hillel often came out on top of those debates because he was kind and thoughtful and listened to the other side first. It is our responsibility as religious leaders to respectfully listen to each other and not wish for each other’s destruction.

de Vries: 72% of Evangelicals say that we must do more to help the environment. Every Evangelical believes that the world will be over, but we have to be faithful now so we need to take care of G-d’s earth.

Heilbroner: I just want to give a little context of the clips we’re showing tonight. These give you a sense of some of the issues in the film, but it’s really the story of the Evangelicals we met and their trip to Israel. However, the clip we’ve been discussing really underlines one issue: Demanding that your version of your religion is absolutely right has very dangerous political implications.

Guengerich: The U.S. and Israel are secular states. In the U.S., twice as many people believe in the Virgin birth as believe in evolution, and these ideas are diametrically opposed. People and countries have a choice about which philosophy to employ, and the U.S. and Israel go by a secular agenda rather than a religious one.

Elcott: That is technically true but in my opinion it a realistic appraisal. The U.S. went to war with Iraq against Islam. There are definite policy implications of Christianity. Israel is not secular—it is confessional. I am Jewish and I recite a prayer three times a day that basically says “I’m right, and you’re wrong” and in Islam they believe people must submit themselves to their god. It’s not that Americans want another world war, but there is a cost to fighting evil. In World War 2 it cost 50 million lives. My point is that it’s dangerous to say “It’s not us, it’s them.”

Sacchi: It’s important to look at where religious and “modern” intersect. They can co-exist within boundaries. This way of reading the Bible is actually modern—to interpret the Bible so literally—like a manual to be read in a rational way. This is not a traditionally religious approach.

de Vries: Modernism has definitely affected Fundamentalists to approach the Bible like a chemistry textbook. I don’t think G-d interrupts the flow of nature—He made it. He made the Virgin birth as part of it. We use the term “natural causes” to leave the big questions outside of the lab. I invented the term “methodological naturalism.” Once we take our lab coats off, then we can ponder the things we studied as part of a bigger picture.

Baird: It’s dangerous territory when we tell people how to read their own religious texts. It’s our job as human beings to make sense of our own experiences through our religious inheritance. It’s not just Evangelicals who have been affected by modernity.

Elcott: I became involved in civil rights because I felt G-d commanded me to do so. I’m not prepared to allow people to hurt others in the name of G-d. I’m willing to say that as a human, there’s a huge chasm between me and G-d. I, too, have fundamental beliefs and I’ve fought others over them. I’m not distant from someone who is fighting on faith-based beliefs. As I said before, it’s dangerous to say “It’s not us, it’s them.”

Davis: That’s why we made the film. The intersection of religion and politics is at the core of the way people spoke to us—whether small-town, Midwestern families or educated theologians. We act out of our spiritual selves in the decisions we make. It’s not a clean line. In the film, someone says, “The separation of church and state is a joke.” We really need to understand that worldview.

MOD: The fictional Left Behind series about the end of days has sold 70 million copies. In the video game based on the novels, you form Christian militias to kill global peacekeepers and the Secretary General of the U.N. is the Antichrist. (Editor’s note: SERIOUSLY?!) What are the implications of this theology for a 2-state solution in Israel?

Sacchi: That’s one of the things I took away from making this film. Whenever I hear the Secretary General of the UN on TV now, I wonder if millions of Americans think that the Antichrist is on TV. The people we featured see everything through this lens.

Elcott: In 1917, the British Cabinet approved a Jewish state in the Balfour Declaration because they were Evangelical Christians. But they’re not alone—it’s not just Evangelicals preventing peace in the Middle East. It’s Muslims and Jews, too, each for their own reasons.

Baird: David earlier highlighted the question: How do people who believe different things differently duke it out in the public square without killing each other?

Guengerich: In a modern constitutional democracy, you can form your convictions based on religious views, but arguing public policy must be done on terms that are fair and understandable to everyone. In this country, the Constitution trumps religious texts. We need to demand that religious people make arguments other than “My G-d told me so.”

de Vries: The Constitution is wonderful, but it doesn’t trump scripture. There are Evangelicals who respect human rights and the Palestinian people as equal players in the Middle East. Although 100 million believe that the Rapture and Tribulation will happen, only a tiny minority wants to force it. (Editor’s note: The moderator attempted to press Mr. de Vries by asking how Evangelicals can coexist with the Constitution as American citizens, but he evaded the answer.)

Audience question: Where do we draw the line between tolerance of other religions and intolerance of certain religious behaviors?

Elcott: Anything that kills, destroys, or dehumanizes in the name of religion is intolerable. I’ll never give up on G-d, but I’ll give up on that religion. I’ll fight it tooth and nail. Back to the idea of religious beliefs dictating policy, Sarah Palin was recently explaining her support of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank because, she said that more Jews will be coming to Israel and they’ll need a place to go. This is not actually consistent with immigration numbers. She is referring to the Evangelical belief that Jews must return to Israel to hasten Jesus Christ’s return to earth. It’s faith-based policy.

Audience question (to de Vries): I am a gay Jew. How can you use religion as a discriminatory tool?

de Vries: Evangelical means “good news.” The scriptures that we accept as authority provide instructions for how to live a godly life. But no one has the right to judge or condemn you. You won’t hear that from most Evangelicals.

-------
*DEFINITIONS:

Premillennial Dispensationalism: One form of Evangelical belief about the end of days that teaches that second coming of Christ will take place in two phases. In the first phase, Jesus will bring both dead and living believers to heaven to save them from the coming 7 years of tribulation, or basically mass death and destruction of earth and all of the nonbelievers on it. After the tribulation, they believe that Jesus will again return to Earth (phase 2) to set up his kingdom. At this time, he will reign from as king from earthly Jerusalem for 1000 years, after which he will resurrect and judge “unbelievers.” According to many Christians, this version of events refutes the Biblical teaching on the resurrection in which they believe that all of the believers and non-believers will be resurrected and judged at the same time.

Tribulation: A period of 7 years referred to in the Bible where massively destructive war and suffering will occur on earth before Jesus Christ returns to rule. Different Christians believe that the Tribulation will occur at different times, either before or after Christ saves all of the true believers from earth.

Immanentize the Eschaton: To trigger the apocalypse or end of the world by creating mass chaos and; destruction on earth

Talmud: The Talmud is a central text of mainstream Judaism, in the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history. (Wikipedia)

Stranger Than Fiction - "Which Way Home" - January 5, 2010

Stranger Than Fiction

“Which Way Home”

IFC Center

New York, NY

January 5, 2010

Stranger Than Fiction's Thom Powers and "Which Way Home Director" Rebecca Cammisa. Photo by Brian Geldin.

***FEBRUARY 2, 2010 UPDATE: As of this morning, "Which Way Home" received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature. Congratulations, Rebecca!

For its Winter 2010 pre-season, Stranger Than Fiction presented the Academy Award ® shortlisted documentary feature “Which Way Home.” Director Rebecca Cammisa (“Sister Helen”) spoke after the screening for a Q&A, led by Stranger Than Fiction’s Thom Powers.  “Which Way Home” shows the harrowing stories of migrant children taking treacherous journeys on top of freight trains through Mexico in hopes of entering the United States for a better life. Cammisa’s fly-on-the-wall approach is both captivating and heartbreaking, and brings to light a most serious issue. The Q&A after the screening was very captivating as well, because it brought out answers as to how she and her crew were able to capture these images under dangerous circumstances, and also raised ethical issues as documentary filmmakers, such as where do you draw the line when it comes to helping these children?

Powers began by asking Cammisa what made her choose the subject matter for the film, to which she replied that a friend of hers from acting school called her to tell her about an article about the issue of children trying to find their parents in the U.S. She had no idea this even existed, so she started researching it, because she thought it would make for an incredible film.

Powers pointed out that much of the film take place on the edge of the law, where these kids are already at risk, and now she was putting both herself and her crew at crew at risk…were they doing this as an official capacity or were they flying under the radar, and did they ever run into problems with the authorities? She said because the story is about kids jumping onto trains to get into the U.S., it was hers and her crew’s job to show that.  They would get permission, and it would fall through, but they had to proceed anyway. They had support, but when support was withdrawn, the job was to continue anyway.

To be a 14-year-old kid going on these trains is one thing, but to be an adult carrying a camera and gear must have made them feel even more vulnerable…what did that feel like, Powers asked. She said it wasn’t fun. It’s wasn’t as if they had a ticket and a seat or that someone would watch their stuff when they got off. For example, if the two boys Kevin and Fito had decided to get off the train to get something to eat, it meant they had to jump off with them and take their gear and film the action, and as soon as they wanted to get back on a train, they had to get back on with them. They didn’t have much time to eat or drink themselves, so once they got back onto the trains, so sometime the kids would share their food.

Powers then opened the questions up to the audience. The first question was, who amongst the crew would conduct the interviews? She said there were four people in the crew including a driver, herself, a cameraman, and sound person. She also shot. They would discuss what she wanted to know and what the interviews would be. Her Spanish wasn’t as intricate as some of the others. Sometimes the cameraman would function as a field producer. They had to keep it to such a small crew, because of the budget.

Recalling a scene in the film where two small children, a boy and a girl named Freddy and Olga are introduced, Cammisa’s photojournalist friend Alan in the audience asked if it ever crossed her mind if she would or could help them? She said that the first thing that kept them safe while making this film was understanding their role and not stepping beyond it, because the situation of smuggling children down there is a criminal network. Everyone’s part of making money off of it. She and crew wanted to spend more time with Olga and Freddy, but they were in the company of smugglers, therefore they had to be extremely careful about how they behaved. If Olga and Freddy had said to them, “Please help us,” that would be one thing. But they weren’t. But if you start stepping in, you them become a smuggler, and if something happens to these children on the road, you are at fault. On the issue of giving the children money, Cammisa said that if people had seen them giving out money, they could have taken the kids for hostage. You really have to know your place and be extremely careful, especially because these were children, not adults. They did their best to be ethical.

The next question from the audience was if by them having cameras, did it alter their relationship with the children at all, making them show off to the camera or alter their behavior? Cammisa said they constantly made the children aware how dangerous this was. When you show up with your camera, it could be an added incentive, but these children started on their trips days before they arrived and in different countries than in Mexico where they met them. The children’s need to come really had nothing to do them being there. They were going to go anyway, and asked then to stop scaring them, because they were going to go, and were not going back from where they came from. She doesn’t think that the camera propelled them forward. They were very clear to the children, telling them they were there to observe them, not to feed them, pay for them, or transport them. They understood that they were there just to go for the ride.

The final question was, how many days did she and crew spend with the children? She said they ended up with 240 hours of footage. The film took six and a half years to make, of which they only filmed for five and a half months, within which there were never two months in a row. There was a lot of starting and stopping. And her three-month editing window once the film was shot was very problematic, but she said her editors did an amazing job.

Cammisa concluded by saying that people can go onto the film’s website to make donations to shelters that comfort and aid immigrants at http://www.whichwayhome.net/takeaction.

Roundtable to Discuss Interfaith Issues in Documentary, "Waiting For Armageddon"

Documentaries: Then & Now @ The Woodstock Film Festival, October 4, 2009

Documentaries: Then and Now
October 4th, 2009, @ 10am
Utopia Studios, Bearsville, New York

L-R: Rachel Grady, Molly Thompson, Barbara Kopple, Leon Gast, and Emily Kunstler
Not Pictured: AJ Schnack

Moderator:
Molly Thompson, VP, A&E IndieFilms

Panelists:
AJ Schnack, Director, Convention
Rachel Grady, Director, Jesus Camp
Barbara Kopple, Director, Woodstock: Now and Then
Leon Gast, Director, When We Were Kings
Emily Kunstler, Director, William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe

When Molly Thompson asked what this panel was supposed to be about, she was told that the panel was to discuss how documentaries have evolved over the last decade: the length of time that the Woodstock Film Festival has been in existence.

Thompson asked Barbara Kopple how she thought documentaries had evolved the past ten years. Kopple responded that she thought that documentaries had started to evolve well before then. For Kopple, the beginning of the evolution of the documentary dated back to the advent of Cinema Verite, and filmmakers like D.A. Pennebaker and the Maysles Brothers, whom she considers to be a primary influence.

Leon Gast took it a step further back to Robert Flaherty, and his films like Nanook of the North. Gast first saw Flaherty's films as a student at Columbia University, where he studied film.

Barbara Kopple

Barbara Kopple posed an interesting hypothesis: maybe it isn't so much that documentaries have evolved the past ten years so much as the audiences have. "Documentaries are hot now, and people want to see them. We just spent the last eight years under the cobweb of the Bush Administration. We're just trying to break clear, and I know that Obama has his job set out for him. It's even more important for us at this point to keep on making films about the things we're passionate about, whether it's health care, Afghanistan, Iraq, hunger, or just subjects that we can shed a light on."

In spite of audiences having evolved, however, AJ Schnack mentioned that people often complain about how much staging goes on in documentaries, but pointed out that "People have an idea of what documentaries are supposed to be. Some people believe there are rules, or a rulebook, or a guidebook that you're supposed to follow. I don't think they understand the history of documentaries from Flaherty all the way to where we are today. There's a belief that there must be some method, some agenda, or that you have to have an exact document. Documentaries are an art form."

Kopple cited Tom DiCillo's When You're Strange as an example of how documentaries continue to evolve: "Everyone from The Doors thought, 'Okay, we should be interviewed, or this should happen.' But he was like, 'No. No interviews. We're just going to let you play. We'll have a wonderful narration behind it, and the images are what will mezmerize you, and take you into it, and I think it works."

Gast and Kopple, the veterans of the panel, discussed the complications of having worked on documentaries in the past. Kopple mentioned that when her movie American Dream was in its theatrical run, her mother had no idea where it was playing.

"When I was doing Harlan County and American Dream, no one wanted to fund me. 'Who wants to make a film about Coal Miners or Meatpackers?' At the time, I found this incredible place called 'The Foundation'. You had to be non-profit, tax exempt, and you could write to different foundations, different individuals, who would send money. You didn't have to pay it back, because it was a donation."

Kopple continued. "Now I think it's much easier because distributors like A&E and HBO are always looking for films. Other times, people will call you up and just ask, 'How would like to make a film on Woodstock '69?' They'll give you a budget that's not quite enough, and you'll argue. But I think there's just a real opportunity out there for people who want to make really interesting documentaries."

One of Leon Gast's early films was about Salsa music and culture. At the very most, Gast expected his movie would play the barrios, then maybe play parts of Mexico and South America.

They also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of video v. film:

Said Kopple, "I think with film, you are more diciplined because it costs more. With video, you can just go for it. I don't know that many people that are still shooting documentaries on film."

Leon Gast

Gast believes that technology has made shooting much easier: "One of the benefits of shooting today vs. the benefits of shooting then was when you were shooting on film, you had 10-11 minute rolls, and today, you have one hour rolls."

Many of the documentarians had interesting stories about their experiences making their movies. Rachel Grady recalled an event during the making of The Boys of Baraka that while, heartbreaking, felt it changed the course of the movie's story for the better.

Rachel Grady

"We were following this group of kids as part of a program, which was discontinued. We were so sad, so heartbroken that this happened, but it was really interesting, because a lot of things happened because of that. First of all, it made the movie more relevant because I couldn't think of a better metaphor of what happens to kids like this, who are really disenfranchised, and don't get a lot of opportunities."

"They get disappointed a lot because opportunities dry up and die away. For them, this is par the course, but because this happened, it made it a bigger story. But on a personal level it was also significant because Heidi (Ewing, Grady's collaborator) and I were devastated--the children ended up trying to comfort us. Which is why the amazing thing about filmmaking is that your subjects are constantly teaching you about yourself."

"It changed the whole film. It made it a bigger film. All the kids survived it, and created something that was more interesting."

During the making of Harlan County, USA, Kopple found herself as part of the coal miner's picket line: "The women were having a meeting, and they were saying, 'So who's going to be on the picket line tomorrow?' and everyone had to say their names. This woman named Lois turned around to me and said, 'Barbara, are you going to be on the picket line?'"

Kopple responded, "'Lois, of course, but I'm not supposed to be here. I'm invisible.' And she said, 'I have to write your name down. I need to know that you're going to be there.' Sometimes when you have a camera, it makes people more focused as to the kinds of ideas and what they want to do because somebody cared about what was happening."

Leon Gast had a story about Kopple. "Barbara had a Nagra she called 'The People's Nagra'. She had two Nagras. One that she used for her films, and then she had a 'People's Nagra' that she lent to filmmakers who didn't have the money to rent one."

The filmmakers gave a lot of valuable advice for aspiring filmmakers.

AJ Schnack, Rachel Grady, and Molly Thompson

Barbara Kopple advised one filmmaker to write a treatment: "Of course, you got to know that this is a documentary, real life, and things are subject to change, but you make so that it's one of two pages of your basic idea. It doesn't mean you have to deliver that."

When it comes to the editing room, Kopple encouraged filmmakers to put effort into displaying their progress: "For Harlan County and American Dream, I put together little scenes, and different people would come in and look at it. Always bring people into your editing suite. Don't ever send a DVD to them. Make them come in so they have the power of you being in an editing room, looking at material."

Emily Kunstler

Kunstler talked about the obstacles posed to novice filmmakers. "It's harder for a first-time filmmaker. I think that in addition to a treatment, they also want to see something, because it's hard for them to believe that you could actually pull it off if you don't have a track record. So actually, starting to shoot, and showing them what your vision is can be very helpful. That's how we persuaded people to believe in us from the beginning."

William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe began as a personal archival project for future generations of her family, and was funded through ITVS. "They never accept your funding the first time you apply. You sort of have to knock on the door three times. For someone in my group of ITVS films, it was the fifth time they applied for funding. But what they do do is when they deny funding, they have a one-on-one consulting with the jury. They tell you what they loved about your film, and why they ultimately denied it. They encourage you to re-submit the next year, and that process really forces you to hone your ideas."

Thompson chimed in. "I heard a guy say to me, 'What about Flip cameras? Everyone can use a flip camera now and shoot your subject!' It's like, 'Yeah, you can get an image and footage of a person, but can you really sell your film with it?' I think you should be really careful and not show something that's not good enough."

AJ Schnack

At the end, AJ Schnack touched upon the proliferation of activist documentaries, such as movies by Michael Moore and Robert Greenwald, and suggested that documentarians needed to move away from that. "These films seem to wear you down with scolding about whatever they believe is the end of the world, and giving us a ten point plan as to what we're supposed to go out and do. There are tons of those films, and a lot of people are making them, and they can go make them. But I'd like to see movies where filmmakers find out why some parents want their kids indoctrinated into this Christian ideology. That's filming."

NewFest "Pop Star On Ice" James Pellerito Interview

NewFest
Interview with James Pellerito

Co-Writer/Director/DP/Editor/Producer of the documentary Pop Star on Ice
June 11, 2009

By Kelly Deegan

Kelly Deegan interviews James Pellerito. Photo by Brian Geldin.

We had a few more questions after NewFest’s closing night Q&A with the cast and crew of the very entertaining documentary Pop Star on Ice. Luckily, filmmaker James Pellerito was kind enough to talk to us as we walked to the super fun NewFest closing night party.

Deegan: You originally were making a documentary on Figure Skating. Was there anyone who was upset about the focus being switched to Johnny(Weir)? Did you have any contacts that this became a problem with?

Pellerito: Not really. This was an unusual experience, because everyone who spoke to us was happy to speak to us. There are a lot of people we interviewed who weren’t in the film because the material wasn’t related to Johnny specifically. Who knows, maybe we’ll do something with that. It won’t be in the documentary but we can do something with it.

Deegan: How is filming going on the new series (Be Good Johnny Weir for Sundance Channel)?

Pellerito: We have all the footage that exists from the Worlds (World Figure Skating Championships) in March 2008 forward. So we continued filming with him, and all of that footage will probably go into the first two episodes of this eight part series with the focus of it being this coming (figure skating) season, which starts in October. So it’s really about whether he makes it to the Olympics or not.

Deegan: How did you approach the editing? Being that you did it on the fly, you must have had tons of footage, and then at the end there’s the “What do I do with everything?”

Pellerito: Absolutely.

Deegan: Where did you even begin to make a structure or outline?

Pellerito: It was really, really hard to be honest. We had between 100 and 110 hours of footage and we cut it down to 85 minutes. We knew what the highlights were. So we really just tried to use the highlights and structure the film around them. We had already started following him without knowing it. (We filmed) the national championships, when he made all those comments about drugs, and when he was in the swan costume, so we already had that footage and we knew that was going to be a highlight. So we chose our highlights and worked around them.

Deegan: Working with Johnny and Paris, please tell me about it.

Pellerito: Paris and Johnny were great to work with. So when we felt “we need something here” we sort of came up with it, like the bathtub scene. It was collaborative. We thought it would be funny to have him interview Paris as a Russian journalist, and then it just evolved into why don’t we do it in a strange place, like a bathtub? They were totally comfortable in it.

Deegan: I love Paris’ lines that really sum things up, like about the skaters wearing makeup. And really, why is it such a scandal that a figure skater is “gay?!” To me its mind boggling that it would be such an issue. You remained unbiased when showing the clearly bigoted people in the film.

Pellerito: A lot of that footage is not edited. They just said it themselves and we let the camera roll.

Deegan: It’s so offensive. Anyway, so you used the highlights as the skeleton of your film.

Pellerito: Yes, Then we knew that we needed to explain what the skating season was like to people who don’t follow figure skating. (Referring to the timeline visual used in the film)

Geldin: The music was great in the film how did you find the composer?

Pellerito: I worked with him before and I knew he could do a lot of different things. We wanted to have someone who could do classical music but also poppy music.

Geldin: I loved the techno version of the Canadian national anthem you use.

Pellerito: You should have heard what we didn’t use. We had about 25 versions of Oh Canada. It’s techno, it’s classical, its marching band! It was really fun to work with him because he’s so talented. You give him a task - he does it, and gives you many, many versions. Working with the graphics guy Greg was also amazing; he really took our info and ran with it.

Deegan: Who did the editing?

Pellerito: We did. It wasn’t by choice, we didn’t have enough money. It was basically just the two of us doing everything other than that so we got very lucky with the people we worked with.

Deegan: Well you did a damn good job.

2009 Tribeca Film Festival - Documentary Press Meet & Greet - April 26, 2009

Documentary Filmmaker Press Meet & Greet
2009 Tribeca Film Festival
April 26, 2009

When I arrived at the Doc Press Meet & Greet, I was scanning the room for documentary filmmakers, but seemed to keep bumping into a couple of the narrative filmmakers I met at the Narrative Press Meet & Greet two days earlier, so I enlisted the help of some of the trusty press folks in the lounge to use their ‘Doc-dar’ and reel me in some nonfiction notables. I got some pretty good catches. Sadly, I dropped and broke my digital camera, so I was unable to get any snapshots, but here’s a list of all the documentary filmmakers I saw with their screening dates and times, so please make plans to go see these great films at the festival.

Borderline
(Part of Tribeca All Access)
Shirli Michalevicz – Director
Claudia Levin – Producer

Team Qatar
(Feature)
Liz Mermin – Director
Mon, Apr 27, 7:15PM , AMC Village VII 7
Thu, Apr 30, 5:00PM, AMC Village VII 6
Sat, May 02, 11:00AM, Tribeca Cinemas Theater 1

Partly Private
(Feature)
Danae Elon – Director
Mon, Apr 27, 10:15PM, AMC Village VII 7
Wed, Apr 29, 4:30PM, AMC Village VII 5
Fri, May 01, 8:30PM, AMC Village VII 2

First Steps
(Short)
Jason DaSilva – Director
Mon, Apr 27, 6:45PM, AMC Village VII 4
Thu, Apr 30, 1:15PM, AMC Village VII 7
Fri, May 01, 8:45PM, AMC Village VII 5
Sun, May 03, 3:30PM, Tribeca Cinemas

Mustang - Journey of Transformation
(Short)
Will Parrinello - Director
Mon, Apr 27, 6:45PM, AMC Village VII 4
Thu, Apr 30, 1:15PM AMC Village VII 7
Fri, May 01, 8:45PM AMC Village VII 5
Sun, May 03, 3:30PM, Tribeca Cinemas Theater 2

Antoine

(Feature)

Laura Bari - Director

Mon, Apr 27, 8:00PM, AMC Village VII 6
Tue, Apr 28, 6:45PM, AMC Village VII 4

Fri, May 01, 11:00AM, AMC Village VII 6

Con Artist
(Feature)
Michael Sladek – Director
Tue, Apr 28, 4:45PM, AMC Village VII 1
Sat, May 02, 9:00PM AMC Village VII 1

Defamation
(Feature)
Yoav Shamir – Director
Mon, Apr 27, 10:00PM, AMC Village VII 2
Fri, May 01, 11:30AM, AMC Village VII 2