Conversation with Werner Herzog & Jonathan Demme - June 5, 2008

Here I write my first contribution to The Film Panel Notetaker, that is from the point of view of a very very independent filmmaker. So it might not be very traditional notetaking, rather this spot will be a collage of impressions, a recollection of images (mostly moving) and candid writing.
Rolling.....Action:

On Werner Herzog in conversation with Jonathan Demme celebrating the launch of Moving Image Source

The conversation started with the reading of Roger Ebert's "secret" letter to Werner Herzog by Jonathan Demme. The "secret letter" was published by Ebert in his website, something Herzog "would have never" done because "those things should stay amongst two men." Herzog dedicated his latest film Encounters at the End of the World to Ebert. " I salute him, a soldier of cinema," he said.

Then Demme asked his long awaited question to Herzog. " I always wanted to ask you about the long water shot in Aguirre." (See Minute 5:04 of this clip) If you do the math Aguirre came out in 1972, that was a very particular flashback of a question. In any case what started out as a WTF is that question? ( internal narrator) actually became a very interesting answer .

The highlights deal with the topics of having subtle ideas in images and dialogue, and doing what your gut feeling tells you to do, period. Ignore the Naysayers like Herzog, "no I do it as it is and that is how it is." It is that perseverance to have your own voice what makes authentic, and inspiring work. Take it from the man, it is good advice.

Trailer of Encounters at the end of the World




The song used in the trailer is Basso Profundo Ukrainian Russian Orthodox church chant style. This song names the glories of saint after saint. Herzog had this song selected before shooting started. And he wanted to name the glory of Antarctic, and the glory of people in this film. As for his music and images selection to the dismay of the editors, he always knows where to place songs in his films, leaving them with little play time to try different spots or different songs.

Growing up in the Bavarian Alps he "only knew about the world through fairy tales," [and by the way he "doesn't like the Germans" and the German's don't like him nor Bavaria. This always amazes me, but I haven't met the first German who loves Herzog as we outsiders do.]

This knowing of the world through fairy tales makes total sense. If one knows more than seven of his films, one knows he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest story/fairy tellers alive. He has made it clear not only through his films, but in several interviews, that he stages a lot of the action in his documentaries, is no secret really, that the thin line between reality and the invented reality have a great play in his films.

I have the feeling this Volcano Etiquette was a scripted reality. Herzog insisted on how he staged all the positions of all people throughout the film, including interviews. This is of course fantastic, this is a master revealing his tricks, and jokes. But how does he make common ground between reality and scripted reality (fiction) : Not only do particular men "fall like gold on his lap," but "he knows the heart of men, and understands situations...if you don't you are not a filmmaker."

It is the opportunity to create his own reality, which I suspect has Herzog very much involved in filmmaking over the decades.

To have Werner Herzog endorsing the Moving Image Source (updated every Thursday) "a site celebrating film history," is like having the Pope of living cinema's blessings.

"Although it is a wonderful instrument, the web is so shallow....is just totally wild, all of a sudden you can go into deep bottoms of the unknown in cinema."




See also LA SOUFRIÈRE by Werner Herzog.

Werner Herzog: I Can Live With Death Threats

Werner Herzog on Abel Ferrara: ‘Who Is He?’

Moving Image Source Offers Comprehensive Resource For Cinephiles

The Museum of the Moving Image (MMI) that recently broke ground for its $65 million renovation-expansion in Astoria, announced today Moving Image Source, a new website devoted to the history of film, television, and digital media. Supported by the Hazen Polsky Foundation, Moving Image Source features original articles by leading critics, authors, and scholars; a calendar that highlights major retrospectives, festivals, and gallery exhibitions at venues around the world; and a regularly updated guide to online research resources.

The launch of Moving Image Source will be marked by a special program at The Times Center in Manhattan at 6:30 p.m. on June 5, featuring a conversation between directors Werner Herzog and Jonathan Demme. MMI Director Rochelle Slovin and Moving Image Source editor-in-chief Dennis Lim will introduce the program with an illustrated overview of the new site.

I just took a gander at the site, and it's quite comprehensive and informative. This is a must bookmark for any cinephile. And while the Research Guide offers many links to external resources, I didn't see anything for film blogs, which are becoming an important staple of film criticism, news and information. I also would like to see some kind of a customizable "search" bar so you can type in whatever you're looking for and find it easier, but I'm sure the site will be continually updated. I highly suggest you check out the website, and if you'd like to see some of the same things I would or have any other questions or comments, they're welcoming that at source (at) movingimage (dot) us.

Museum of the Moving Image Breaks Ground for $65M Renovation

Tonight at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, honored guests broke virtual ground for the Museum's previously announced $65 million renovation-construction. Among the notable groundbreakers were Museum Director Rochelle Slovin, renovation architect Thomas Leeser, the current and former Queens Borough Presidents Helen M. Marshall and Claire Shulman respectively, New York City Councilman Peter F. Vallone, Jr., John McGuire, and many others.

Here is a video clip from tonight's ceremony:

"The Axe in the Attic" Q&A with Lucia Small at Museum of the Moving Image - Feb. 23, 2008

The Axe in the Attic
Q&A with Co-Director Lucia Small
The Museum of the Moving Image
Astoria, NY
February 23, 2008

(Livia Bloom and Lucia Small)

Saturday night, the Museum of the Moving Image presented the documentary The Axe in the Attic by filmmakers Ed Pincus and Lucia Small about their personal journey to chronicle the people who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina and how their lives were affected by its aftermath. Lucia appeared after the screening for a Q&A with the audience moderated by the Museum’s Livia Bloom. I recently interviewed Ed and Lucia about the making of their film. The Q&A offered further insights into the filmmakers’ process and the people whose lives they documented.

Livia: How did you meet Ed and how did you both develop The Axe in the Attic?

Lucia: We met in 2002 as jurors at the New England Film & Video Festival in Boston. He had a name I knew of and I had read his Filmmakers Handbook. We watched films together for four days with other jurors. We talked about many ideas for making a film together over the course of the next few years, and when Katrina happened, I called him up.

Livia: What was the division of labor between you and Ed?

Lucia: Ed is a great cinematographer. I had done some cinematography. I ended up doing the sound, but also filmed a lot of tracking shots. Our deal was if he shot it, I got to edit it.

Livia: What was the process like?

Lucia: This was the first film I ever edited. We had 187 hours of footage. It took three months to log and digitize. I felt it was such a collaboration of views and point of views. We needed to be side by side.

Livia: How did you select your subjects for the interviews?

Lucia: Sometimes we would stay at locations for two days or a week. When we were in Alabama, we made a whole film of the Cross family. We went to their house a lot. There’s footage of their uncle that didn’t make it into the final film. We filmed over 150 people. We wanted to cast a large sweep that showed a diversity of the problems. It was important to show a diverse class and cover the basis.

Livia: How did you get them all to open up and participate?

Lucia: Most of them were excited to talk with us. They were frustrated with talking about their cases to FEMA over and over again, and not getting it documented.

Livia: Why did you and Ed include the footage of yourselves in the film?

Lucia: It was a big debate of how much we should film ourselves. Ed is the grandfather of autobiographical filmmaking. For Diaries, he filmed himself and his family for five years. My first film, My Father the Genius, was also autobiographical. The access issue is simple, but it became more complicated, for instance, when I had to show myself crying. We kept asking ourselves, what’s the honesty in the film?

Livia: How did you approach the score for the film?

Lucia: Todd Horton, our composer, was great. Some people wanted there to be a New Orleans sound. I wanted hints of it, but have it be more obtuse. Todd worked endlessly to get the melancholy. I didn’t want the music to tell you how to feel.

Livia: There wasn't really any “talking heads” type interviews in the film? Why was that?

Lucia: Ed is from a cinema verité style of filmmaking. We wanted to be more in the trenches. We incorporated ourselves because we wanted the viewer to be with us on our journey.

Livia: How can people get a copy of the film?

Lucia: On the donation page on our website.

Livia: What other projects are you working on?

Lucia: Since February 2003, I’ve been working on a film about post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s a hybrid documentary/narrative focusing on soldiers returning from Iraq.

Audience Q&A

Question: Does The Axe in the Attic have distribution? Have you shown it anywhere else?

Lucia: We were fortunate to have our world premier at the New York Film Festival. There is no distribution currently. The difficulty is people have a hard time figuring out how to sell it. There are about six other Katrina films out there. I think they should be packaged together.

Question: Has distribution been difficult because this is a story that’s real and of a political nature?

Lucia: I think there is some of that. It’s about responsibility as a whole citizenship. It’s really complicated, I don’t understand. These are critical stories.

Question: Have you been back to New Orleans recently?

Lucia: We’re trying to organize a reunion and screening there. We were in touch with some of the people during the making of the epilogue.

Question: Are there any ways people all over the U.S. can help?

Lucia: We’re trying to align our film with foundations and developing supplemental materials and links on our website.

Question: Did you encounter any wildlife while shooting your film?

Lucia: We had a bird section. There was very little wildlife. Mostly just black crows. Brandon, one of the volunteers interviewed in the film, was very excited when he saw a roach.

Question: Did you think about interviewing people who were less affected by Katrina?

Lucia: We did, but this was a story of a homeland that was forgotten and shaken. The balance came with the stories of the people who were displaced.

Question: What was your time frame?

Lucia: We stopped filming in February of 2006, and started cutting in August of 2006. We finished editing at the end of September 2007, which is when we talked with people for the epilogue.

Interview: "The Axe in the Attic" Filmmakers Ed Pincus & Lucia Small

Interview:
The Axe in the Attic Filmmakers

Ed Pincus & Lucia Small

Photo credit: Henry Morgan

On Saturday, filmmakers Ed Pincus and Lucia Small will present their documentary The Axe in the Attic at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria at 6:30pm. I highly encourage anyone who will be in the area to attend this film about their personal journey to chronicle the people who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina and how their lives were affected by its aftermath. I had a chance to interview Ed and Lucia about the making of their film. What follows is a transcript of that interview. You will have a chance to ask your own questions after the screening this Saturday, as Ed and Lucia will be available then for a Q&A moderated by the Museum’s Livia Bloom, where I will of course be taking notes.

TFPN: Ed, after running your farm in Vermont for 25 years, how did you get in touch with Lucia, or how did she get in touch with you, to make this film?

Ed: In 2002, I got invited to speak at a panel discussion at the New England Film & Video Festival in Boston and said, I’ve been out of filmmaking for 25 years, what could I possibly do? They encouraged me to come. I met Lucia there. Our responses to films were amazingly similar. We had very similar sensibilities, so she was more accepting of stuff than I was in general. We said when the right circumstances happen, we’ll try to make a film together. From a personal point of view, when I was looking at what filmmakers were doing and I thought I was out of it, I felt in fact that I understood that the problems were still there. They hadn’t changed that much in 25 years. It all seemed like an exciting possibility.

Lucia: It was interesting. Whenever you sit on those panels, you’re with someone for four days to think about the possibility of collaborating with them. The reason why I was at the panel was because my film My Father the Genius had won an award the year before and I hadn’t really realized how Ed’s autobiographical filmmaking diaries sort of influenced me. It was sort of a generation of filmmakers who started making autobiographical films, Ed being the teacher [at MIT’s Film Section] of Ross McElwee and Rob Moss. Ross is a big inspiration of mine. It was very interesting for me to sort of find that similarity and approach as well. It was challenging, too, to bring Ed back to film because the one thing that’s so different from film is that formats are constantly changing. I hadn’t even realized to what extent that impacted the filmmaking process because there’s a lot of liberation that comes with a format that stays stable for a long time and you can focus more on the story and the filmmaking itself versus figuring out the technology.

TFPN: When you started on your two-month trip from New England to New Orleans three months after the storms, did you have in mind the current title of the film, or when did you determine the title?

Ed: An interesting anecdote is we were filming our reactions, and we do have a scene in the car where one of us says, “did you hear what he said about the axe in the attic?” And the other said, “yeah that’s really interesting,” or something like that. So it was arresting to us at the time. Maybe Lucia remembers if that was the time we decided we’d use that title. We had different working titles.

Lucia: That’s a pretty good story. It happened really early on with the pastor in Pittsburgh, and he told us that story that you see in the film and we were struck by that. And it wasn’t the first time people told us that same story. It was repeated in different ways and we just thought it resonated with us as a perfect metaphor for what we felt was the issue and problem. Sort of the notion of being left alone in your attic to chop through it with rising waters.

TFPN: Did you have any other titles in mind before choosing The Axe in the Attic?

Ed: We had different working titles. Lucia, do you remember it?

Lucia: I remember the working title. Part of it is sort of the filmmaking process. We called it After the Storm, because we didn’t want a controversial title while we were out in the field, because everyone always asks you what’s the name of your film, and so we felt that was a general enough title. We didn’t want to use it ultimately, but that’s what we called it for a long time.

TFPN: Did you feel like you were taking a risk turning the cameras onto yourselves to become a part of the story, or did you feel it was organically already a part of the story?

Lucia: I found it very risky. In fact, I was talking with another autobiographical filmmaker in town today and saying it’s so interesting because it appears to be so easy, because the access is easy. You are filming your life. There’s an ease to that. This film, we knew would post huge challenges. How do you approach such a large topic that’s so politically layered? So many people have seen it through the news and other storytelling forms that it’s a huge risk to insert yourself. That was one of the biggest challenges of this film. So on the one hand, it comes naturally, but it’s much more challenging than it appears.

Ed: I made a bunch of movies and one was interpreting what the diaries form would be. I decided that I was going to film for five years (1971-76). I was going to let it sit in the can for five years. I naively assumed…partially the arithmetic was faulty and everything would be 10 years old, or some of it was five years old, so when I started off, I thought time would insulate me from risk taking so to speak, beyond the normal risk taking in the film. In some sense, you’re trying to experiment with the forms. That gave me the freedom to film anything I wanted for five years without having to worry about it. In fact, I would say if anything, it’s more organic for Lucia to do it, but she had more struggle with it. Does that sound fair?

Lucia: Yes, I’m not shy about it. It’s a very complicated thing to try to insert yourself into this grandiose story, but on the other hand, it sort of felt more honest to us. We wanted to tackle the notion of who tells the story, who is behind the camera. You can hide behind the camera in these social documentary films. That’s an easier thing for some viewers to digest and accept, because in a way, many of us want to hide behind the camera. We want to hide behind the screen. This was a way to sort of break that and sort of mix it up. I guess it’s a long answer to me finding it more organic, but more difficult. I think Ed shares a lot of these concerns, too.

Ed: Yes, that was a mutually agreed upon reason for doing this. In general in social documentaries, people always know what’s right or wrong. There’s a shared pact that the filmmakers will protect themselves from ambiguity. In some sense, I think we wanted to question that because we thought that would just get to another level. It’s easy to look at the TV and hate Bush, and it’s not like we don’t do that, too, but in part that’s what the film is about.

Lucia: Here’s what’s hard: when someone doesn’t see the layers and complexities of this film and basically thinks we’re comparing our problems to Katrina. It’s just the total opposite. We’re using juxtapositions in the film. We’re a device for that. So when that’s misinterpreted, it’s hurtful and it makes me question the approach sometimes, but I still stand by the approach. It’s sometimes difficult for the filmmaker.

TFPN: Lucia, is this a style you have employed in your other documentaries?

Lucia: Yes. My first film My Father the Genius is about my father. It was in festivals all across the country and in Europe.

Ed: It’s a wonderful film. It was a great part of how I thought we could work great together.

Lucia: And then I watched some of Ed’s early work and was really interested by the rawness of some of it, which was some of the stuff I was trying to do with My Father the Genius, because there’s always a delicate line when you’re doing autobiographical films. When you’re doing any film, how much do you reveal? How much do you show of your vulnerability? So it made sense, our collaboration.

TFPN: Many of the people you interviewed seemed very embittered and impassioned about the aftermath of Katrina and the lack of response by FEMA. Have you gotten back in touch with any of them since completing the film? Do you know what they’re doing now and how they feel two years later? Have you shown the film to any of them, or are you aware if they have seen it yet? What have their responses been?

Ed: The coda was done about a half year ago and we were in touch with everybody we could get in touch with. So in the subsequent four or five months, we’ve been in touch I think about half the people, but not all of them. And essentially some things really didn’t change very much. As far as we know, only two have seen the film recently, so we haven’t gotten any feedback. I think in a month, if we haven’t heard back from them, we’ll call them or they’ll call us.

Lucia: I think one of the big problems with all this displacement is a lot of their cell phones expired because they were New Orleans numbers and now they’re relocated to different areas and their cell phones went down. They had those three- or six-month cell phone plans, so a lot of those ran out, and they didn’t have a way to re-new it. In fact, some of them got sacked with huge bills that were shocking to them. One of our characters, Ray Cross, when we were leaving New Orleans, was going to try to fight a $2,000 bill that he had because he was living in Alabama and didn’t realize he was getting roaming charges. We have tried to stay in touch with people. I was hoping that with some of the screenings, we could even bring them to the screenings and we would get a screening in New Orleans where we could probably have a reunion. It was one of the big challenges of filming, trying to approach the whole notion of diaspora and displacement. It’s hard to find some of these people.

Ed: We did that in the coda because of the inability to get in touch with somebody that even if it was a short period of time, you had an intimate relationship with.

TFPN: In the coda, it says FEMA made it difficult for you to film in the FEMA trailer parks. What were some of their reasons or excuses they gave you?

Ed: Privacy. They were protecting privacy, but it was bullshit, because when it came down to them looking good, they even illegally revealed secret things about people that they had no business doing.

Lucia: It was huge media management. We got a friendly person who got us approval to go to the parks. It was a two-hour drive from New Orleans and we traveled back and forth to the park. After a week of going back and forth, when we tried to come back again, there was a FEMA entourage managing the media there and they prohibited us from filming without them being next to us.

Ed: They had to be next to us, and we had to make an appointment.

Lucia: And they wouldn’t let us film Christmas or New Year’s, because those were private days. They started to have all these rules and regulations. And even after we left the park in Alabama, we tried to get into another park in that state, and we were told flatly that we weren’t allowed.

TFPN: Lucia, to the man in the film who asked you to send him money from the earnings of the film when you had asked them to sign the releases, did you ever send him anything?

Lucia: What happened was he and his wife were signing the release form and a volunteer asked to see it. We wrote into the clause that if there’s a profit made on the film, he would be compensated. It was very general that line he had asked for. And the whole notion of $5 came up when the volunteer said, why don’t you give him $5 or at least mention that you’re going to give him some money for filming, so that got into the scene. My dream as a filmmaker is still there to align this film with a foundation that could help use it. I think the thing we both left that scene saying to each other, as you see in the car, that it was very disturbing for me on an emotional level mainly because I think we were both on the same side of the volunteer and Ed and I were trying to help in different ways. I think what we realized is what we could do was we could try to make the best film possible and give that to the people we were filming so that there stories would be told and remembered. And so that was the mantra we kept reminding ourselves about. I was more ambivalent about it. I still am, but it is an important story to be told.

TFPN: I’m sorry I missed The Axe in the Attic at the New York Film Festival. When it played there, did you both do a Q&A with the audience? What was the audience’s reaction? What were some of the questions they asked you, and what were some of your answers?

Ed: Yes. When it got exciting, we got cut off. Correct me if I’m wrong Lucia, I think the thing that set people off was the notion that you couldn’t just blame the Bush Administration. There’s a sense of shared responsibility because of the kind of history of inequality. And then somebody said that nobody in this room is responsible. And then somebody said, “Oh yes, we are!” It started a shouting match. Is that pretty accurate Lucia?

Lucia: Right. We had two Q&As. One was for the press and we had one for the audience. They were both intense. They both triggered things in people, and I think the one in the public audience was good because people responded with their gut, and I think that was what was exciting for us because those two points of view are exactly what we wanted to try to open up for discussion. I think even at the Q&A at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival in Boston, it went on and on there were lots of people who could have talked forever about the topic. It was just very rewarding to see that the complexities of the story were resonating. People get really upset about it, they don’t know what to do. There’s still big questions about what to do about this issue. The same thing about this film. There’s no resolution right now. It’s the law of historical struggle.

TFPN: On The Axe in the Attic website, it says “Coming Soon” for Axe Facts and Outreach. What do you plan to have on those pages?

Ed: Let me tell you what I hope to be putting there. I hope to put everything that’s implied in the film and said. Almost everything that people say in the film is contradicted somewhere else, so I want this to basically have everything outlined as best as is known and discuss some of the issues the film raises that really are unresolved. How many people died to what FEMA actually did. It turned out to be a very difficult task. We barely made it over the finish line and we were both exhausted and totally depleted and ran out of money to have somebody do research and we did try to get some volunteers to research it. To them, if they found it on the Internet, that was good enough, and I really wanted to have it incredibly accurate. I wanted everything that’s ambiguous in the film to be backed up with well corroborated and acceptable sources. It was the combination of no money and the volunteer research was not up to snuff to do it.

Lucia: We are spending a lot of effort trying to figure out who can help us with outreach, getting the screeners to everybody, trying to come up with a plan. We had grand ambitions for the supplemental materials for the website. We haven’t given up on it yet, but it’s still coming soon.

A Tribute to St. Clair Bourne - February 10, 2008

A Tribute to St. Clair Bourne
Museum of the Moving Image – Astoria, NY
February 10, 2008

(L to R: Armond White, Esther Iverem, Warrington Hudlin, George Alexander, Clyde Taylor and David Schwartz)

(Filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles in the audience)

At the Museum of the Moving Image on Sunday, critics and scholars were in person to discuss the career of and show clips from documentary filmmaker St. Clair Bourne, who died in December 2007, and made more than 40 films, mainly about African-American culture and politics. His subjects included Paul Robeson, John Henrik Clarke, Gordon Parks, Langston Hughes, and Making of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. The discussion was organized and moderated by Warrington Hudlin producer of such films as House Party and Boomerang, and the founder of DV Republic.

The panelists included Clyde Taylor, professor at the Gallatin School and writer for the PBS documentary, Midnight Ramble: The Life and Legacy of Oscar Micheaux; George Alexander - business entertainment columnist at Black Enterprise magazine and author of Why We Make Movies; Esther Iverem, journalist, poet and author of The Time: Portrait of a Journey Home; Armond White , film critic at New York Press and author of The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook the World and Rebel for the Hell of It: The Art-Life of Tupac Shakur.

The Museum’s David Schwartz opened the presentation by remarking that Hudlin had the idea to do this tribute to Bourne, who was a prolific filmmaker. Schwartz thanked Hudlin for arranging the tribute and said that Hudlin would someday get a tribute of his own. Hudlin joked, “When I’m alive!” Schwartz continued by saying that this would be one of the last programs at the Museum before it undergoes construction at the end of the month.

He then introduced Nonso Christian Ugbode of the Black Documentary Collective, who presented a short clip montage that he cut himself of Bourne’s work. Afterwards, the panelists each presented clips from a selection of Bourne’s films.


Clips Presentation:

Clyde Taylor (CT) - Clip from Let the Church Say Amen (1974)
Taylor said he chose this clip because it was a breakthrough film for Bourne and was made at the point when they got to know one another. Bourne had created his own production company at the time. This film became his ID or calling card. Taylor initiated an African-American film society in San Francisco and invited Bourne to show his film there. They became close friends. This clip is one that reflects a cinema verité style of filmmaking that follows a young seminary student, showing the connection between religion and the black experience.

George Alexander (GA) – Clip from Langston Hughes: The Dreamkeeper (1988)
Alexander said that Bourne was a generous and giving soul. He got to know him during the centennial birthday celebration of Langston Hughes at the Museum of Natural History. Alexander didn’t know Bourne too well at the time, but knew his work. Alexander worked on Bourne’s book and viewed all his films, and got to know him very well and they became good friends. This clip shows the idea of cultural authenticity, which is the notion that the subject of the documentary was talked about. If you do work about a community, you also have to show the social context.

Esther Iverem (EI)– Clip from Making ‘Do the Right Thing' (1989)
Iverem said as a young journalist, she was very impressed by the use of journalism on screen in Bourne’s films. She respects real stories a lot more than most narrative films she has to review. She had corresponded with Bourne through email. He was very active with the online community. When he was going through issues with his health, he was still interested in helping other people with their careers. This clip combines so many of his interests and emphases like social activism. It captures so much of what was happening in New York City in the 1980s.

Armond White (AW)– Clip from John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk (1996)
White said he met Bourne in the 1980s when he was an editor for the New York City Sun. He went to Bourne’s Upper West Side apartment for an interview. Bourne was a very principled and humane person. He didn’t talk like other filmmakers. He came from a family of journalists. It was the journalism aspect Bourne brought to filmmaking that made him special. White showed two clips. The first was the opening sequence of the film. He said this clip helps to show that movies don’t fall out of the sky. People collaborate with one another. The montage gives a sense of Bourne’s style. This is a film of self-identification. Bourne reflected on his own life as a filmmaker and as a n African-American. The second clip is of John Henrik Clarke sitting in a leather chair in a room with books and African sculptures. It evokes a professor’s office or a middle-class family’s den, like that of on TV’s “Father Knows Best.” This documentary has a rich, story-like quality. One of the only Bourne films that is in distribution.


Panel Discussion and Audience Q&A

Hudlin then opened the panel discussion, a mix between his own questions to the panelists and also comments and questions from the audience. [FYI, among those in the audience was filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles, whose Sweet Sweetback’s Badasssss Song was a pioneering African-American independent film of the early 1970s.]

(WH) How long had you known Bourne?

(CT) Since 1976. It was an important moment for black independent cinema, but documentaries were happening as well from such people as William Greaves. Bourne kept that leadership with the Black Documentary Collective.

(WH) What were some of the choices he made with his documentaries?

(CT) He was committed to handheld cinema verité. No narrator. More personal and intimate. In later years, he got better funded. Archival footage is very expensive. In the later years, he made films of people with profiles of greatness such as Paul Robeson, but he was not the ‘PBSification’ mode.

(WH) When you interviewed Bourne for your book, did he talk about any challenges?

(GA) He talked about how independent film was about to change. Up until Spike Lee, documentary filmmakers were making films about real life. The Spike Lee made narrative films that were entertaining in a realistic way. For John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk, he employed an MTV editor using quick cuts. In terms of getting funding, frequently people who controlled the money had little experience with African-American stories. Filmmaker Julie Dash talked about the same struggle to incorporate realistic elements. It was always challenging.

(WH) In your book We Got to Have It, you talk about the consumer’s appetite. How are African Americans responding to documentaries?

(EI) Can’t say that there has been an explosion in our documentaries and African Americans responding to them. What audiences are going to see versus quality of the films is a different thing. In recent years, filmmakers like Michael Moore get a lot of credit for documentaries being played in theaters. A lot of times, these films aren’t made by black filmmakers.

(WH) Are there any advantages or disadvantages to fiction vs. non-fiction films?

(AW) It’s a choice. You take a risk of not interesting an audience. Most movie goers aren’t interested in documentaries. Bourne took a risk because documentaries tell things to audiences that fiction cannot. I wouldn’t put him in the same sentence as Michael Moore. Moore degraded documentary filmmaking. Bourne believed in the truth of history.

(WH) Will anyone defend Michael Moore? He and I are personal friends. When he sold Roger & Me for $4 million, he called me and asked if I needed some money. Fahrenheit 9/11 is the only documentary that has reached blockbuster status.

(GA) Moore is aware that audiences evolve. People want to see something that entices them.

(AW) Moore has changed the form. Popular films aim to entertain more than to inform. His films are aimed toward a particular political mindset. Bourne didn’t play around with the truth or history.

(EI) Bourne had integrity, but we don’t have to honor that by throwing someone else under the bus. It doesn’t mean that Moore isn’t sticking to the facts. Just because he uses those techniques, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have integrity.

(Audience Comment) I worked with Bourne and he wouldn’t want us knocking down filmmakers like Moore.

(Audience Question) I am amazed and appalled that only one of Bourne’s movies is in distribution. What can we do about it? How do we get his films into circulation so future generations can see his work?

(CT) There’s a movement out there to get his films in a box set. Something is in the works.

(Audience Question) Was Bourne working on anything up to his death?

(CT) A project about the Black Panthers. He got some extraordinary interviews. He also wanted to have a book done on his photos.

(EI) He was also developing some fiction narratives. Might depend on who owns the actual rights to his work.

(Audience Comment) The Black Documentary Collective will catalog his work.

(Audience Question) Why wasn’t a clip from Half-Past Autumn: The Life and Works of Gordon Parks shown?

(EI) I would have chosen that clip to screen, but Bourne was the producer, and not the director of that and the Museum chose to screen just clips from films he directed. Half-Past Autumn was on HBO. It was one of his films where he was able to break through the ceiling.

(GA) It still fits his desire to chronicle important black people in history who made enormous contributions to African-American culture.

(WH) Bourne created the Black Documentary Collective. He created an infrastructure that survives him. The institution he left behind didn’t die away. What is the Collective doing these days?

(BCD Representative) We meet the first Monday of every month. We have rough-cut screenings and panel discussions.

Towards the end of the discussion, Melvin Van Peebles stood up and said, “I’m clairvoyant!” Bourne knew the problems that he wanted the public to understand. He would have wanted filmmakers to continue to educate the audience. To push forward. Keep on fighting. Hudlin reminded Van Peebles of a button he once gave him that’s a circle with a line through it that means, “No Whining, Keep Working.” Van Peebles said he just made a new feature. At the end of the shoot, he was on his knees scrubbing the floor. “You got to do the whole thing,” he said. “I do any G-d damn thing necessary!”

- Notes by The Film Panel Notetaker

Plenty of Programming Planned Outside of Astoria During Museum of the Moving Image's $65M Renovation-Expansion

The Museum of the Moving Image (MMI) in The Film Panel Notetaker's neighborhood of Astoria, Queens, has announced that it will hold a groundbreaking celebration for its $65 million expansion and renovation project on February 27. Anticipated for completion in late 2009, the "project will double the current size of the Museum, transforming the entire first floor and creating a strikingly contemporary new three-story addition," according to the MMI.

But don't fret, the MMI has assured that "during the construction period, when its on-site activities will be curtailed, the Museum will continue to provide the public with a diverse and exciting array of off-site screenings, discussions, and family and community programs in all five boroughs."

The activities that will remain during the renovation include:

• The Museum's monthly series of talks, panels, and special programs at The Times Center in Manhattan.
• Scholars and researchers will still have access to the Museum's collection of 130,000+ objects.
• The Museum will also expand its presence on the Web with such programs as The Living Room Candidate (2008 edition) and Moving Image Source, a new international site for serious movie goers.

In advance of the groundbreaking, the Museum will close its Riklis Theater. The final screening there will be John Ford's How Green Was My Valley at 6:30pm on February 24.

The list of closings includes:

• The Digital Play exhibition will close immediately after groundbreaking.
• The Museum's core exhibition, Behind the Screen, will close to the public as of March 23, though school groups will still be scheduled through June. Behind the Screen is expected to re-open to the public in early 2009.

Though there's less than a month before the Museum undergoes its renovation-expansion, there's plenty of great events programmed there that The Film Panel Notetaker will attend including:

• A Tribute to St. Clair Bourne this Sunday, February 10 at 2pm
• The Axe in the Attic preview screening with Lucia Small in person, February 23 at 6:30pm

This past year, I attended such events as Marylou Tibaldo-Bongiorno's and Jerome Bongiorno's Revolution '67 and Ramin Bahrani's Chop Shop previews and discussions. I will surely miss attending events in Astoria, but look forward to going to as many of the great programs planned throughout the city as I can. I eagerly await the Museum's re-opening at the end of 2009. It will certainly be a great destination for cinephiles throughout New York City and beyond.

Ramin Bahrani's "Chop Shop" Preview at Museum of the Moving Image - Jan. 26, 2008

Chop Shop Preview and Q&A
Museum of the Moving Image – Astoria, NY
January 26, 2008

(Left to Right: Livia Bloom, Alejandro Polanco & Ramin Bahrani)

At the Museum of the Moving Image on Saturday, Ramin Bahrani (RB), director and writer of Chop Shop, and the film’s young star Alejandro Polanco (AP) answered questions during a Q&A, moderated by Assistant Curator Livia Bloom (LB), after a preview of the film. Chop Shop had its world premiere at the 2007 Cannes International Film Festival. Also starring in Chop Shop is Ahmad Razvi, who played the lead in Bahrani’s previous feature Man Push Cart, which I saw last year during a Film Independent’s Spirit Awards screening. Last night’s screening was not only the first New York preview, but more fittingly, the first preview in Queens, the film’s setting. And I just couldn’t help myself from walking over to the MMI, just a short distance from my own Queens neighborhood of Astoria. Others in the audience who I saw at the screening included New York City cinema swami S.T. VanAirsdale of The Reeler, and actor Adrian Martinez (Mail Order Wife). I found Chop Shop to be very affective, showing us a world we rarely get to see or understand, practically in our own back yard.

Bloom started the evening by saying when she first Chop Shop it in Cannes last year, it made her see the world around her anew. She also mentioned that film critic Roger Ebert called it “Miraculous!” Bahrani then introduced the film, mentioning that it was primarily shot near Shea Stadium in the Willets Point section of Queens (aka The Iron Triangle with 20 blocks of junk yards and auto chop shops), which he said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has referred to as being bleak. Bahrani said he didn’t see it that way. He focused the story on one of the boys that lived and worked there. By the stadium, there’s a billboard that says, “Make Dreams Happen.” Bahrani concluded by saying he hopes Alejandro’s dreams come true.

Chop Shop opens at Film Forum in New York on February 27.

LB: How did you develop Chop Shop?

RB: I was editing my first film. The cameraman had to get his car fixed and I went with him to Willets Point. This was in the winter of 2004. The story grew out of going there. I started noticing young kids who worked and lived there.

LB: How did you hear about this film? What was the experience like?

AP: Ramin came to my school. At lunch, he asked the staff which kids spoke Spanish. Ramin spoke with me and pointed to a packet of ketchup that was on the floor before I stepped on it.

RB: He was sitting at a table chillin' with some ladies. I thought if he had stepped on the ketchup, it would have been humiliating. He took non-verbal direction really well.

AP: When shooting, Ramin wanted every scene to be perfect. We spent all day on one scene, or basically two scenes a day.

LB: In one scene, how did you get all the pigeons to come into the shot?

RB: The pigeons belonged to a guy down the street. They usually showed up at 8:30am. I showed up at 8am to start feeding them. The more time I had before the sun came up, the better. I scheduled that scene at the end of our shoot. It took about 50 takes, before getting the one shot used in the film.

LB: Chop Shop presents an original portrait of work in America. Had you done that sort of work before?

AP: I never worked before. It was a challenge for me. Before shooting the movie, I spent six months there. I used to get $5 dollars for pulling in each car.

RB: Some of those were shot like a documentary. After the camera stopped rolling, he wanted to keep calling in the cars to make more money.

LB: Why did most of the characters use their actual real names?

RB: It helps to eliminate the wall between fiction and documentary. I’m not sure there should be such a division.

LB: Who are some of your influences in film?

RB: Lots. Even ones that don’t resemble my films. Probably Robert Flaherty. The Italian neo-realists.

AP: I didn’t really know about independent films. I thought it would be a Hollywood film.

LB: What were some of the techniques used for the cinematography?

RB: Michael Simmonds shot the film. We met at the Tribeca Film Festival. All my films have been shot high definition. Michael is quite skilled with the camera. We have a lengthy color correction process. We avoid wide lenses. They’re disrespectful to the people in front of the camera.

Audience Q&A

Q: Did you get permission to shoot the scene in the subway where the kids were selling candy? Did you get the people to sign release forms? What was it like?

RB: We did somehow. The Film Office was really nice. Somebody was always trailing behind us after each shot getting people to sign releases.

AP: In the first car I was scared, because we had a camera, but people bought the candy, and I made money. In the second car, I was more comfortable.

Q: How did the dialogue seem so natural. Was the script improvised. Were real actors used?

RB: The only actor in the film was Ahmad, who was in Man Push Cart, and the guy who played the John toward the end of film, because that was a more complicated scene to shoot. All of the other people in the film had never been in front of a camera before. I never showed them the script. I told them what scene we were about to do and what to say in it. Some of what they said was their own words.

AP: I was ready to memorize what to say, but words just came out of nowhere sometimes. We were really talking. Ramin didn’t yell “action” or “cut.”

Q: Have you shown the movie in your school yet?

AP: My principal will take the film to school and show it grade by grade.

RB: We’re reaching out to schools to encourage kids to see it when it opens at Film Forum on February 27. Last year in Cannes, filmmakers Abbas Kiarostami and Atom Egoyan saw the film and said I should definitely show it to kids.

Q: In a lot of Iranian films, there are kids who face adult situations. Where does this come from?

AP: Not to simplify, but children’s stories are easier to avoid censorship issues there. Kiarostami is one of the forerunners of introducing kids in cinema.

Q: Explain the relationship between kids and adults.

RB: It shifts so many different ways. Alejandro negotiated with the adults really well in one scene, then acted like a kid in another.

AP: At some points, I was acting like a kid, then all of a sudden, I have a job and have to fix cars. As an adult, I had to talk more sophisticated, but when I was playing, I acted kind of childish.

Q: Did you shoot the film sequentially?

RB: My dream is to do that, but it’s financially challenging to stay on schedule.

Q: How did you work with your editor?

RB: I edited myself. I had an editor for Man Push Cart for one day who said it wasn’t going to be a good film. Filmmaker Lodge Kerrigan was one mentor who helped explain the philosophy of editing. Whatever’s not good, throw it away.

Q: Do you want to continue acting?

AP: Before doing the movie, I wanted to be a baseball player. But the movie inspired me to continue acting.

Q: What’s your next film?

RB: Solo, shot in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, about a taxi driver.