Film Festivals, Energy Drinks and Playing the Odds

Attending a film festival is exhausting. You race around town to screenings and stand in lines throughout the day. Then at night you run around town to parties, sometimes several of them. I’m not about to complain. Leading a life in film is an immense privilege and I try to remind myself of it all the time. But there’s no question that festival-going can take its toll on your body. On more than one occasion at SXSW, I thought that there should be festival volunteers on 6th Street handing off Gatorade to badge holders. Kinda like a marathon, only minus the running.

Instead, in reality, the sponsors of film festivals are always trying to ply you with massive amounts of incredibly unhealthy stuff. Among the free “refreshments” offered at SXSW this year were cigarettes, fried fish, inordinate amounts of beer, whiskey and tequila, and an “energy” drink with so much caffeine that its container cautions to “limit intake to maximum one bottle per 4 hours.”

I’m not saying I didn’t partake of some of this stuff. I’m just… well, I’m the son of a nutritionist. I think about these things.

I also think about the health of film festivals and the filmmakers that they host. Seeing the long lines and sitting in (or being shut out of) the many sell-out screenings in Austin certainly confirmed that SXSW has a healthy prognosis.

For filmmakers, though, I’m less certain.

As the barriers to making a film continue to be lowered, I fully expect submissions to SXSW to double within three or four years. Assuming the number of films being programmed remains the same, the acceptance rate will drop to something like .5% or even lower. That’s not a typo. That’s half of one percent. SXSW is not alone in this; other, similarly prestigious festivals will have roughly the same odds of acceptance.

I grant you, the odds of getting your film into SXSW (1% this year) are better than, say, the odds of winning the Powerball Jackpot (1 in 195,249,054). But, then again, the cost to play is higher for festivals. I’m not just talking about festival entry fees. First you’ve got to make your film.

Similarly, the payout ratio for the Powerball ($1 for a chance at +/- $350,000,000) is far better than that of making a movie. Most filmmakers and their investors would love to just double their money. As we all know, many films don’t make their money back at all.

This isn’t an argument for quitting film and instead playing Powerball. Most people making films at this level aren't solely in it for the money -- they're in it because they have stories to tell. At least, that's why I'm in it.

But considering financial sustainability has to be part of the equation too. If it's not, well... it's not sustainable.

And part of that means that filmmakers these days need to ask tough questions both of themselves and of film festivals:

    When you consider the costs of festival entry fees, festival travel and lodging (if not provided), food, and promotion (posters, etc), how much are you paying, per head, for each audience member that saw your film?

    How much are you paying for each review or blog post that fest screenings generate about your film?

    If your film sells out a screening, where does that money go? Will you see a penny of it?

    Are you comfortable paying for people to pay others to see your film?

    In the final cost-benefit analysis, are festivals worth it?

    What do you get out of the deal?

I mean, of course, in addition to the free cigarettes, beer, and energy drinks.

We’ve known this for a while, of course, but it bears repeating: For the independent filmmaker, festivals used to be the answer. Now they’re the question.

SXSW Observations, Pt 1

The Year SXSW Got Big. While I don’t agree with David Lowery that it’s (yet) in danger of becoming Sundance, attendance swelled this year. The growing pains were sometimes apparent, especially with sell-outs and long lines. From my perspective, I think sell out screenings are good, both for the fest and for the filmmakers. But more than a few noteworthy films were only programmed once during the main festival (Fri - Tues) and others were booked at venues that were far too small for the demand. In previous years, these issues wouldn’t have been a problem. This year, though, even with a Gold Badge, if one hoped to attend a screening it meant standing in line for more than an hour. Needless to say, all that time spent in line cut down on the films one could see. I took it in stride, in part because my badge was complimentary for moderating the Cinematography for Improv panel. It wasn’t hard, however, to hear the grumbling of others standing in line. As long as I’ve been attending, SXSW has been well-run, so I’m hoping that this is just a hiccup and I'm optimistic that festival organizers are looking for solutions for next year.

Two Highlights. Of the films I did get to see, the highlights were Justin Molotnikov's Crying With Laughter and Jukka Karkkainen's The Living Room of the Nation, both of which stand a good chance of making my Top 20 list at year’s end. The former is a Scottish thriller set against the backdrop of stand-up comedy. The centerpiece of the film is a tour-de-force performance by Stephen McCole. Living Room, on the other hand, is a deadpan chronicle of the lives of ordinary Finnish citizens in their homes. Shot with an almost entirely static camera, the film has a mix of comedy and desperation that is hard to shake.

A Few Disappointments. When I come to SXSW I especially seek out the regionally-produced independent narrative films. In the past this has been, for me at least, one of SXSW’s most distinctive areas. This year the handful I caught were somewhat disappointing. My policy on this blog is not to write negative reviews -- particularly for small movies that need all the help they can get just to be noticed by audiences -- so I won’t name names. That said, I was surprised that the low points of the festival were all centered in this area. Perhaps it was just an off year, or maybe I just saw the wrong films?

Did I mention I missed a lot of films? With a fest this big, it’s easy to miss movies you really want to see and this year I missed more movies than I saw. I missed some, as previously mentioned, because of sell-outs. Others I missed because of time conflicts with other movies, or conflicts with my panel. Regardless of the reason, here are some films I’ll be eager to see in the coming year: Audrey the Trainwreck,Cold Weather, And Everything is Going Fine, Myth of the American Sleepover, Lovers of Hate, Tiny Furniture, and World Peace and Other 4th Grade Achievements. That’s a lot to look forward to.

Cinematography for Improvisation: Post-Panel Links

The Cinematography for Improvisation panel that I moderated was a blast -- and, while I felt like it was a success, the one hour we had to dig in flew by. I personally could have listened to Andrew Reed, Allison Bohl, and Justin Molotnikov talk shop for another couple of hours. There were easily 100 people in the crowd on a Monday afternoon and the feedback after the panel was very positive. Here are the links, as promised:

Justin Molotnikov

 

Crying With Laughter -- Justin showed clips from this film, which had its North American Premiere at SXSW.

Synchronicity Films is Claire Mundell and Justin Molotnikov's production company. For those of you that attended the panel, Claire sat near the front of the room and shared some thoughts from the audience.

Finally, the improv film webisodes from the Wickerman Music festival that Justin briefly mentioned can be found at www.wickerman.tv.

Allison Bohl

"Blessed Be, Honey Bee" -- This is the music video that we saw behind-the-scenes stills for, but which we didn't have a chance to screen during the panel. Allison directed and shot this video.

Allison's reel is also on Vimeo. The reel features, among other things, selected shots/scenes from "People of Earth" the feature that Allison showed a clip from on the panel.

I Always Do My Collars First - website for Allison's first documentary

Andrew Reed

Quiet City -- Andrew showed a clip from this film, which had its World Premiere at SXSW in 2007.

Cold Weather is the new film by Aaron Katz, shot by Andrew Reed. The trailer can be found here.

Paul Harrill (moderator)

Obviously, if you are here, you have found my blog. Information about my own work as a filmmaker can be found here.

Cinematography for Improvisation - SXSW 2010 Panel

If you've not heard already, I'm happy to announce that the panel that I proposed for South by Southwest 2010, Cinematography for Improvisation -- Lighting the Unknown, was selected. Thanks to everyone who voted in support of the idea via SXSW's PanelPicker!

Though this will be my third SXSW as a panelist/moderator, this was the first time that I've ever proposed a panel. Selecting the panelists was a collaboration between me and the SXSW organizers, especially Jarod Neece. I'm very excited about the people we've got on board to tackle the subject. If you're at SXSW, check out the panel on Monday, March 15 @ 2pm.

Panelists/bios:

Allison Bohl Allison Bohl makes movies with a natural look and creative touch. With experience in documentaries, experimental films, and features, she has become known for capturing beautiful images with minimal equipment. She is based in South Louisiana, but has worked internationally.

Andrew Reed Andrew Reed is the cinematographer of the feature films Cold Water (SXSW '10) and Quiet City (SXSW '07), both written and directed by Aaron Katz.

Justin Molotnikov Justin Molotnikov is the writer/director of the feature film Crying With Laughter (SXSW '10).

Here are some clips of their work:

Vote for my panel at SXSW...

As you may have heard, South by Southwest is crowdsourcing their panel ideas (at least in part) for 2010. I've proposed a panel and I'd love to have your vote of support to make the panel happen. Click HERE, create an account (takes just a sec), and vote thumbs up.

The panel I've proposed is called Cinematography for Improvised Films: Lighting the Unknown.

Here's a description:

This workshop focuses on the unique challenges of shooting improvised cinema. How can a cinematographer approach working with little or no script, actors that need to be able to move freely without worrying about "hitting their light", and live locations that can't be controlled? The cinematographers of a few distinguished, beautifully shot micro-budget indies discuss clips and share their secrets for creating a distinctive look on the fly.

I would be the panel's moderator (organizing it and asking the questions). I've got some great ideas for who would be on the panel, but I have to stay mum on that for now.

You don't have to be planning to attend SXSW to support the panel since panels are recorded and blogged about. If the topic is interesting, vote for it.

Second Skin online for free thru 8/13

I saw Pure West's Second Skin at SXSW 2008. It's now being made available by Snag Films for free through August 13. Here's what I thought when I first saw it:

Second Skin digs into the world of MMORPGs, and how these online games create new lives and identities — on both sides of the computer screen — for the people playing them. Not being a gamer, I wondered how much I would care about the film’s subject, especially in light of the fact that 90% of the audience I viewed it with seemed to be there to see a film about their lives. Happily, the film finds some dynamic people to follow and it does superb job of chronicling their lives, both on- and off-line. I suspect this will have a healthy life on DVD, and perhaps theatrically.

Watch Second Skin on Snag Films.

SXSW: Wrap-up

Last year I think I spent as much time posting thoughts on films I was seeing at South by Southwest as I did actually attending films and panels. This year I chose to err in the other direction. There were simply too many movies to see, panels to attend, people to meet, and parties to drop by. Highlights (in the order I saw them):

Nights and Weekends by Joe Swanberg & Greta Gerwig Wellness by Jake Mahaffy Paper Covers Rock by Joe Maggio The New Year Parade by Tom Quinn Present Company by Frank V. Ross

All make use of handheld digital video, feature naturalistic performances, and were made with small (or no) crews and budgets. Despite the superficial sharing of neo-neo-realistic qualities, it would be tough to compare them. Suffice to say that all are worth seeing.

As good as those films were, perhaps my two favorites of SXSW were two very polished documentaries, Second Skin and At the Death House Door.

Second Skin digs into the world of MMORPGs, and how these online games create new lives and identities -- on both sides of the computer screen -- for the people playing them. Not being a gamer, I wondered how much I would care about the film's subject, especially in light of the fact that 90% of the audience I viewed it with seemed to be there to see a film about their lives. Happily, the film finds some dynamic people to follow and it does superb job of chronicling their lives, both on- and off-line. I suspect this will have a healthy life on DVD, and perhaps theatrically.

At the Death House Door was the most emotionally gripping film I saw at SXSW. A somewhat conventionally shot documentary featuring lots of interviews, it reminded me that no single documentary style has a monopoly on greatness. The film follows Carroll Pickett who, during his 15 years as the house chaplain to a Texas prison, presided over 95 executions, including the very first lethal injection done anywhere in the world. The film also tells the story of Carlos De Luna, one of those 95 prisoners executed, and one that Pickett believed to be innocent. This is a movie that had me in tears -- both at horrific things, and also in admiration at the remarkable heroism of ordinary individuals. Emotions aside, it did bring some nuance to arguments for and (especially) against the death penalty. The fact that it was premiering in Austin -- that is, in the capital of the state where these executions took place -- made the screening experience all the more poignant. At the Death House Door was co-produced by IFC, so look for it there (and, perhaps, theatrically).

As for panels, not all of the ones I attended have been posted (nor do I know if they will) but here are the festival's recordings of some for those of you that couldn't be there.

SXSW 08: Blogs, Buzz, and Buddylists

This afternoon I'll be moderating the Blogs, Buzz, and Buddy Lists panel at South by Southwest. If you're in Austin for SXSW, stop by. You'll see: Karina Longworth: film blogger, Spout.com

Victor Pineiro: Writer-Producer, "Second Skin" - premiering at SXSW

Ian Schafer: CEO, Deep Focus

Alison Willmore: Film blogger, IFC.com

... along with yours truly.

And if you don't catch the panel, I'll be in town through Wed blogging about the screenings and panels I attend. Drop me a comment or email and we can connect.

UPDATED: Two more sites that we discussed on the panel today:

All These Wonderful Things

The Workbook Project

SXSW: Features Line-up

SXSW announced its line-up of features for 2008. IndieWire has the story. The full slate is listed here. Suffice to say there are a lot promising titles in the premieres. Among the competition features are new works by Jake Mahaffy, Mary Bronstein, and Joe Maggio. Among the non-competition films are new works by Frank Ross, Joe SXSWanberg & Greta Gerwig, as well as Tom Quinn's Slamdance-winning film, The New Year Parade. Congrats to all!

Frownland

In March I caught the premiere of Ronald Bronstein's Frownland at SXSW. Soon after seeing it, I wrote:

Frownland is clearly designed as an audience endurance test, a kind of cinematic middle-finger. Though not enjoyable in any conventional sense, it's an unusual and original film that succeeds on its own uncompromising terms. Recommended viewing for brave lovers of cult films; others will probably want to skip it.

I would only slightly modify this statement to say, as we enter month nine of 2007, that Frownland ranks as one of my favorite films of the year. I was reminded of this by reading David Lowery's Filmmaker Magazine interview with Bronstein, which has just been posted online.

Not everyone shares David's or my admiration for the movie. Here's an interview highlight from Bronstein that illustrates what a polarizing movie this is:

[A] fight nearly broke out after this one screening in Las Vegas. Some guy in the back of the theatre was booing throughout the closing credits. When they ended, this other guy stood up, turned to face the booer, and screamed, "You! You're a fucking asshole!" I mean he really screamed. He was absolutely enraged. Red as a beet. Shaking. That's when a third guy stood up and started defending the booer. The second guy turned on the third. Everyone was arguing. It was sort of a melee. Turns out that last guy was the attending critic for Variety and he wound up writing us a killer review.

Click here to read the whole thing.

DENTLER TAKES THE STAIRS: Kevin Bewersdorf Interview

In anticipation of the release of Joe Swanberg's Hannah Takes the Stairs, South by Southwest Producer Matt Dentler interviewed the film's major contributors then asked several film bloggers (myself included) if they would be interested in posting one of the interviews online. I warmly reviewed Hannah back in March, immediately after its premiere at SXSW, so I happily agreed. I find it impressive to see a festival director support the work he programs well beyond the festival itself. Dentler's vision has made SXSW one of the finest film festivals in America and his support of truly independent fare has helped make it so.

Enjoy the interview. And see the movie. Hannah opens in NYC on August 22. (Showtimes are here.) Rollout for the rest of the country is here.

***

On the eve of the theatrical debut of Joe Swanberg's SXSW 2007 hit, "Hannah Takes the Stairs," I wanted to check in with each of the film's principal collaborators. The film has been documented as a successful collaboration between acclaimed film artists from around the nation, each one offering their own trademark influence on the final film. "Hannah Takes the Stairs" will open at the IFC Center in New York, on August 22, as well as be available on IFC VOD the same day. As part of an ongoing series you can find throughout the film blogosphere, here is an interview with "Hannah" composer and frequent Swanberg collaborator Kevin Bewersdorf:

Dentler: How did you first get connected to "Hannah Takes the Stairs?"

Bewersdorf: Joe and I had just been touring the festival circuit with our film "LOL" (set to come out on DVD August 28). During the festivals Joe kept talking about wanting to shoot a new movie in the summer, and I guess we both just sort of assumed I would be working on it. A month later I was somehow sleeping on the floor of an apartment in Chicago and hanging out with a bunch of great people. Like all the projects I've made with Joe, "Hannah" just sort of fell in to place.

Dentler: What do you remember most about the shoot in Chicago?

Bewersdorf: The whole thing was a gift from God. Every moment was happy. I do want to bring up one particular incident however: the moment that the Bujalski vs. Rohal feud began. This mock-feud has been mock-annoying everyone for a while now, and it is time for me to mock-bring-it-out-into-the-open. One day, when we were sitting around at the office location, Bujalski told Rohal that he looked like an actor that he couldn't place of the name of. Everyone tried to guess the name of the actor as Andrew listed his filmography. Finally, Kent correctly guessed that the actor was Vincent Schiavelli ("One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Amadeus"). Rohal was extremely insulted. We consulted a picture of Schiavelli on imdb, and he looked like an gaunt and droopy troll, may he rest in peace. To counter the attack, Todd claimed that Andrew had a particularity to his countenance which made him appear as though he had Down's Syndrome. Andrew was outrageously insulted. For the rest of the shoot the two maintained a mock rivalry over the incident. The rivalry has continued in public statements made by Rohal on various blogs (such as the "Bujalski Sex Tape" jab on Matt Dentler's blog) although to this day Bujalski denies that the feud exists. I want to bring this out in the open so these two can finally make up, and put the feud behind them.

Dentler: How did the production process differ from your own other projects, or projects you've acted in before or since?

Bewersdorf: I've primarily worked with Joe in the past, so for me it was totally natural. None of the projects I've worked on since have been as stress-free as "Hannah." There was no producer present in Chicago, so that removed any notion of authority or hierarchy in the production. There was extremely minimal equipment, basically no lights or gear, no schedule, no script, and no typical movie pageantry (Joe rarely says "action," for example). It was just like hanging out, we were a perfectly balanced family unit from the start. Working on an indy film is almost always hell. Everyone is concerned with their own agenda, or worried about making their own reel look good, or restricted by an impossible schedule, or moaning about money problems. But, if everyone is willing to just let the movie happen, to enjoy the accidents and rock with the waves (while making sure to keep anyone with bad vibes away from the production) it can be so much fun. Usually people are a too concerned with their own success to have a good time.

Dentler: What are your thoughts on the issues of sex and relationships that come to the forefront of the film?

Bewersdorf: Many girls I've spoken with have despised the Hannah character. Usually it's either because they resent that they are so much like her, frequently leaving trails of destroyed guys in their wakes, or because they have been pissed off by girls like Hannah in the past. Girls like Hannah are so awful and unhealthy to be around, and I've encountered them often. But I've never been able to hold their sporadic heartbreaking actions against them -- they are young and confused and don't know what they want, which everyone knows the feeling of.

Dentler: Ever been in a love triangle?

Bewersdorf: Yes. I was unknowingly involved a love triangle for months. The last side of the triangle wasn't apparent until much later though, when someone else revealed their feelings. At that point it sort of dissolved in to a "love obtuse angle." "Hannah" doesn't technically involve a full love triangle though, unless the character Matt is secretly in love with the character Paul (Ed. Note: they're co-workers and best friends, so it counts).

Dentler: Did you ever work with "the stairs?" Any thoughts on why they didn't make the cut?

Bewersdorf: There was one scene with the stairs, a nude scene, but Kent was worried that his balls looked too fat so Joe cut that out.

SXSW: The Whole Shootin' Match, indeed

After a hellish 13 hour trip from Austin to Knoxville (don't get me started about the airline industry) I'm in Knoxville scouting locations for a film. Before I get completely absorbed with that work, here are some final notes on my last day or so at SXSW. Tuesday was my panel, Blogging about Film. Alison did a nice job moderating the conversation, and I really enjoyed sharing the microphone with Joel, Agnes, Mark, and Lance. All had very smart things to say, and we had different perspectives on the issues raised by Alison and the audience.

Many of the people in the audience -- a crowd of about 75 -- were bloggers themselves. At least some of them (Anthony Kaufman, Mike Tully, and AJ Schnack, to name just a few) could have just as easily been on the panel.

One of the more interesting discussions that arose concerned the question of whether bloggers are journalists or not. We also addressed some of the ethical issues that can arise when blogging about film, like whether you should review films by your friends.

After the panel, a few of the people mentioned above went to the Iron Works BBQ to continue talking film. I then caught 638 Ways to Kill Castro. I wasn't planning on seeing it, but it was a good way to stay out of the torrential rain. Castro is a fairly typical leftist documentary (e.g., interviews and archival footage, romantic longing for the revolutionary spirit of the 60s, damning evidence of US government's covert activities, etc.). It's all very upsetting, but the film offers little in the way of suggestions about what the audience should do with its anger. Even more troubling is the fact that the film also asks very few questions about Casto's own record on human rights. Of course, the question of whether such abuses make one worthy of assassination are never asked, in part, because the parties that want Castro dead don't care about his human rights abuses -- they simply want to exploit Cuba for their own ends. Still, in a film that takes as its subject the covert use of power and violence, it seems odd to neglect discussing Castro's own abuses in this regard. Despite these misgivings, I was, in the moment, oddly entertained by the film -- a combination of wry commentary and ironic archival footage give it a sense of humor (as well as a sense of the absurd), which is lacking in so many other earnest, liberal documentaries. My questions linger, though.

After the movie, I hung out with James Johnston and Amy McNutt. We talked politics, movies, and sugar substitutes over at a restaurant with some fine vegan deserts. Yum.

Finally, I made it over to Eagle Pennell's The Whole Shootin' Match. With all due respect to Frownland, Hannah Takes the Stairs, Quiet City, and the Zellner / Duplass shorts program, this was my favorite film of the festival. Shot in the late '70s, the film has been credited with inspiring Robert Redford to start the Sundance Institute. The film follows two blue collar Texas guys that can't seem to get their act together. One's single and an inventor, of sorts; the other is a married man who has trouble staying faithful to his spunky wife. It's more than just a very real, funny, sweet, and unsentimental masterpiece -- it ranks alongside Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep as one of the most vivid pieces of celluloid Americana I've ever seen.

The Whole Shootin' Match was a perfect last film to see, a reminder that the strong currents of do-it-yourself American independent filmmaking that were on display at SXSW flow from tributaries that go way back and have, for many of us, long since been lost or forgotten.

After I walked out of the theater, I ran back to the hotel in the rain, changed into dry clothes, and headed over to the closing night party, thanks to a ride from David Lowery.

I stayed for a while at the party, long enough to offer one more set of congratulations and compliments to the makers of all the films that I had liked, and long enough to talk face to face one more time with friends, many of whom I had met face to face for the first time in Austin.

The last conversation I had was with a very talented new friend in which we discussed collaborating on a project together. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can touch the promise and anticipation of making new work with people you respect. There are things that can't be put into a swag bag, listed in a festival catalog, or even projected on a screen -- and yet these intangibles of festival-going are why we attend in the first place.

As much as I was enjoying the party, it was time to call it a night. As if on cue, the rain had let up. So I walked back to my hotel in the dark with my mind buzzing, not with alcohol, but with something far better -- ideas for a new film.

An Articulate Movement (of Inarticulateness) Articulated?

Following up on Anthony Kaufman's post of a couple days ago, Eugene Hernandez writes about what's in the air in Austin this year -- you can call them DIY, no-budget, or self-reliant filmmakers. This year, with Hannah Takes the Stairs, Quiet City, Frownland, Orphans these films are the toast of the town. I've been traveling for the last 24 hours (in Knoxville to scout locations for a film I'm shooting), but I have more thoughts on this which I'll try to articulate later.

Then again, I feel like I've been articulating thoughts about this stuff for the last year and a half. It's nice to see indieWire discussing it, even if they do refer to these films as "mumblecore." I believe it goes broader and deeper than that limiting name.

Anyway, here's the article.

SXSW: Hannah Take the Stairs

Joe Swanberg's Hannah Takes the Stairs had its World Premiere at SXSW last night. There was a lot of anticipation about the movie -- it was billed as one of the must-see films of the festival, and when I arrived at the Paramount Theatre it's clear that people took that buzz seriously. Two different lines -- one for the festival passholders, one for the general public -- stretched around the block. By the time that Matt Dentler, SXSW's Director, was on stage introducing the film, I think every last of the Paramount's 1200 seats was filled.

And the movie? It does not disappoint. It's a wholly successful romantic comedy, and it's Swanberg's most technically accomplished feature.

The plot is admittedly slight: A woman looks for love and satisfaction from three different suitors, two of whom are co-workers. On one level, that's "all." But, as with so much, it's all in the telling.

Last year, I remarked that Swanberg's LOL suggested hints of Renoir, and I'll reiterate that here. Like Renoir, one of Swanberg's primary talents is his ability to fill his films with immensely likable actors, and this film, which is almost completely comprised of other independent filmmakers, has an ensemble that's as warm and generous as any I've seen in a long, long time. Greta Gerwig, in particular, is a knockout.

Most of the time the humor is not "funny ha ha" (to quote the title of a film made by Andrew Bujalski, one Hannah's stars). The "comedy" is really an orientation, an optimism and humility, that one senses in the person behind the camera. But, yes, at times, the movie is (with a nod to Swanberg's last film) laugh out-loud funny.

The film is romantic, too, but not in the conventional sense of that word. It's romantic not because it dramatizes the coming together of two passionate, fated lovers, but because it documents the hard-won moments of real closeness that young lovers can share and then, so quickly, lose.

Reflecting on it this morning, I thought of Dave Hickey's introduction to Air Guitar. Hickey suggests that love songs matter because they play a social function: They help lovers find each other. With all the love songs in the world, you begin to search for your soul mate by finding the person that likes the same love song as you.

Hannah Takes the Stairs isn't plotty enough to be a movie for the masses. Still, it will find its audience -- at lots of festivals and on DVD. Among those audiences, I imagine that more than a few young couples will see this together and, in both liking it, they will learn something about themselves and each other in the process. How many films can you say that about?

SXSW: Big Rig

Doug Pray's Big Rig follows several (maybe 10 or 12) truck drivers back and forth across the America. The film resists giving the audience a single overarching narrative thread and instead chooses to show most of his subjects in discrete vignettes. The approach has mixed success. The downside is simple, but important: Some of the truckers are more interesting subjects than others, so my interest in the movie waxed and waned with each featured trucker. Happily, the last two individuals (an outspoken Native American and a Polish emigree) were among the most interesting so, in the end, the picture did send me out on a high note.

The positive angle to Pray's strategy is that, by meeting so many truckers in the film, the film encourages us to make some generalizations about what might be termed "trucker values."

Those values amount to a mess of contradictions. Many of the truckers are simultaneously patriotic and anti-government; outspoken and, yet, against voting; and they hold traditional "family values", yet they're rarely at home. (Whether being on the road alone is the source or the result of these values is, sadly, left unexplored.)

Let me quickly add that I'm not condemning these contradictions. Quite the contrary: To me, one of Big Rig's strengths is that Pray exposes one subculture's contradictions in a way that is non-judgmental, even warm.

Big Rig has other things going for it (like Pray's gorgeous digital cinematography, which was shot on a Varicam), and against it (it had a couple too many landscape montages), but it has ultimately stayed with me because it features articulate, conservative, blue-collar Americans as its heroes. In this era of the "liberal documentary", it's worth remembering that if cinema is going to play a role in social change, first it must help bridge the divide that "red state vs. blue state" simplifications have created. This kind of respectful, human documentary investigation helps build that bridge.

SXSW: 2

Quick summary of things seen and done at SXSW: Screenings attended: Fish Kill Flea Big Rig "Zellner Vs. Duplass" Shorts Program

I also attended one narrative feature that I walked out of after the first reel, which shall remain nameless.

Of the three named above, all were interesting in their own ways. Fish Kill Flea is a rough-hewn chronicle of a pretty rough-hewn community -- flea market vendors. The filmmakers managed to capture some compelling moments, though I was disappointed that the movie ended soon after the story began to take off. Still, its better to leave me wanting more than less.

Billed as a kind of wrasslin' match of short films, the Duplass and Zellner Brothers movies program was terrific. If you are a film festival programmer, please take note: THIS IS THE WAY TO DO SHORTS PROGRAMMING. By watching a number of shorts by the same filmmaking team(s), you get to see the voices and vision that, in a single short, can seem like a one-off. Instead, here we had two teams of filmmaking brothers show their stuff. I had seen the Duplass movies on DVD and was already a fan. Seeing them on a big screen, and on film (transferred from DV), they carried even more of a punch. Scrabble, in particular, benefitted from the big screen. What had, in previous screenings on my television, seemed like a scene in search of a longer movie now seemed complete: awkward, human, funny, pathetic.

Flotsam/Jetsam and Aftermath on Meadowlark Lane, two of the Zellner Brothers movies, were especially good. Both start off in seemingly conventional fictional directions, then stop on a dime to introduce documentary elements, which radically changes our perception of everything we've seen.

The absurd, live action wrestling match/sing-along finale that ended the screening on an note that was appropriately hilarious and absurd.

A longer review of Big Rig will be posted at some point soon.

***

I've also made it to a couple of panels, both of which were good: The Future of Non-Profit Film, headed up by Brian Newman of Re:New Media, and Shooting Docs, which featured Doug Pray ("Big Rig") and Mike Mills ("Does Your Soul Have a Cold?"), among others. No time to summarize those, however, as I'm running off to see another movie.

SXSW: Day 1

This is my first time at SXSW, so I spent my first day largely getting my bearings. Upon arriving at my hotel, I headed down to the conference center to get my badge, info, and shwag (more on the shwag in a later post). Upon entering the conference center, I immediately ran into Joe Swanberg and Kevin Bewersdorf, who introduced me to Aaron Katz. It's appropriate that these would be the first faces I'd see -- two of my favorite movies from last year (LOL and Dance Party USA) were made by these guys, and last year this was the fest where they premiered those works. Joe and Aaron have movies here that I'm eagerly anticipating; I'll be giving full reports of Swanberg's Hannah Takes the Stairs (Sunday) and Katz's Quiet City (Monday) after their premieres.

Registration was fairly quick, considering how many people were trying to get badges. Festival organizers, no doubt, understand that this is a person's first impression of the festival. Mine was positive. Fest staff was everywhere -- and all I interacted with were friendly and helpful.

One thing that's immediately clear to anyone who has been here before (or is here for the first time) is that in addition to the movies and panels, there are dozens of parties. (I've got invites to five or six parties a day and, remember folks, these are just the ones to which I've been invited.) I stopped by one late yesterday, and did the requisite mingling. I talked with DP Andy Reed for a while. A year ago, Reed was a utility crew guy on Dance Party USA; this year he's here as the DP of Katz's latest.

I skipped last night's movies. A couple of the Opening Night films have distribution, and I figure a festival is an opportunity to see films I might not have a chance to otherwise. Plus, I wanted to get my bearings by digging through the treasure trove of movies and events that is the festival guide. At first browse, it seems to be a particularly strong year for documentaries.

No human being could possibly cover even half of the films in this festival. If you can't be here -- heck, even if you ARE here -- you should be checking the daily (hourly?) posts by these fine bloggers:

Matt Dentler - Producer of SXSW David Hudson - GreenCine AJ Schnack - Filmmaker, Kurt Cobain: About A Son Mike Curtis - HDforIndies (SXSW panelist) Scott Kirsner - CinemaTech (SXSW panelist) David Lowery - SXSWClick! finalist from 2006 and blogger

IndieWire, of course, will be doing a lot of coverage as well, as will the bloggers that I mentioned in my last post.

Ok. That's all for now. My morning coffee is cold, and I've got a panel to catch.