Short Films go a long way...

When you hear talk about the Oscars, it's easy to hear debate Best Feature, actors, or even sound or art. But when it comes to the short films, this category is somewhat a mystery. After all, how often does the average moviegoer have a chance to see the films?

The majority of the short films that were nominated for the Oscars have been favorites on the festival circuit. If you're in Miami, you can check out The Danish Poet, winner of Best Animated Short Film, at the Miami Film Festival on March 8th or got on iFilm.

If you're in the Midwest, head over to the True/False Festival in Columbia, MO, which screens documentary shorts and feature films. On Thursday, March 1st, you'll be about see Ruby Yang's award-winning short doc, The Blood of Yingzhou District, along with nominees, Recycled Life (directed by Leslie Iwerks, who will be in attendance), Rehearsing a Dream by Karen Goodman & Kirk Simon, and Susan Rose Behr's Two Hands, the story of pianist Leon Fleisher, who lost his ability to play with his right hand at the height of his career.

If you can't make it to a festival, check out iFilm.com or youtube.com. They are playing many of the shorts so if you put Oscar shorts into the keywords, you should get some hits. Some of the shorts are also playing at art-house theaters, so keep an eye out in your city for the chance to see some great little films.

Long live indie film,
Michelle

Unless you have been living under the proverbial rock, you know that video downloading is king in the world of growing technology. YouTube, before Google swallowed it up in one huge multimillion dollar gulp, was the place where you could share videos of your family vacation, your geeky proposal to your high school sweetheart and your baby's first steps to not only relatives living far away but the entire planet. It was an amateur video smorgasbord of stuff - often hilariously bad - that was, in my opinion, very no harm no foul and it was logged on to by millions on the hour on the hour every day of the year. Then the tech geeks got involved and figured out they could share their library of clips of archive television programming with someone other than their other geek friends. You could watch a clip of that famous touchdown by that famous football player at that famous super bowl. You could watch rare footage of Kate Bush singing on live television and you could watch that seminal moment when Diane and Sam or Addie and David or Mulder and Scully got together. All free anytime you would like.

The problem is that those geeks - bless their little cotton socks -DO NOT OWN that material. It belongs to the copyright owner - in most cases, the network where the show first aired. For a good long while, because it seemed all of the stuff was often decades old and was in clip form as opposed to the entire program, the networks seemed to ignore the infringement - possibly hoping that people would get bored of community building and sharing videos with millions of others! With the sale of YouTube to Google - a major player in the media world who needs the cooperation of those content owners to survive - comes a whole set of issues over copyrighht infringement. It's cool for a studio to release footage of BORAT before the film hits theaters because they own it. It is not okay for someone who works at Fox to smuggle out a copy of the film and upload it to YouTube so that everyone and their mother can watch it for free.

I am not one to always agree with "the man" as a dear friend would call the networks and studios BUT there is something to be said for standing up for what is yours and that is exactly what they are doing. I think, unlike most things that come out of the studios, this will be an excellent thing for indie filmmakers. Cracking down on YouTube for copyright infringement would make sure that films were not on the site illegally - uploaded by someone who does have ownership. Too often indie filmmakers get screwed out of profits from exhibition and move to make sure that everything that is uploaded on the free site is uploaded by the owner can only be good. In my mind, it indicates respect for the creator of that work no matter how good or bad it is and it makes the end user more aware of the actual work it takes to make the video they are enjoying instead of working.

More and more, short film distributors tell me that they have had to call YouTube out for having films on the site that they in fact have ownership or licensing rights to. Over the past few weeks, as more and more of the major players get a little mad, they are having to call them out less and less. The trickle down theory working at its very best,

Keeping it indie,

Julie

Today, without thinking, I turned to my friend and asked a simple question: "When is the Academy Awards?"
Before she answered me, I was struck by what I had just asked. The words hung above me like a cartoon bubble. How could I, the movie freak, the self-proclaimed cinephile, the indie queen, not have on the tip of my tongue the date of what used to be one of the premier events of my year. Perhaps, I'm being a bit dramatic, but part of me is wondering, "what happened to me?"

Last week was the Superbowl. Living in Chicago, it was the talk of the town. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing about the Superbowl. Who would win? The game. The parties. Every single sign said, "Go Bears." There was no way to NOT know and be excited about the game. I could name you players and plays and stats... but a year ago I barely knew what a field goal was. But when talking to friends outside of Chicago, it was a minor event. I realized, part of the fun, was being in town and feeling the fever of the event.

So now, as I have my amnesia about the awards, it makes me wonder, was living in Los Angeles part of the fun of awards season? Working in the film industry, you see the ads in Variety and Reporter everyday. Billboards litter the town. Nominees pop up EVERYWHERE. In addition to the Academy Awards, there's a party or award show pretty much every other weekend for two months. You can't help but feel the caught up in the fervor. But, in addition to getting votes and awards, the award shows can act as free publicity for the winning films. As Elizabeth mentioned just last week in the INsider, nominations play a major role in the amount of screens an indie film plays. But, if a film has a small marketing budget to begin with, do they get additional dollars to take advantage of an extended run?

I don't have the answers but it has peaked my interest. I guess I just have to go back to my indie roots and help spread the word on these films the only way I know how--here!

Long live indie film,

Michelle

Controversy is a very funny thing. In the independent film world, with its limited marketing budgets and sometimes complete ignorance from the mainstream press, controversy is often the thing that will bring you a significant audience. I will not be so cynical to believe that every single controversy about a film that hits before anyone has even seen the film is cooked up be savvy publicity and marketing people, but I will not be naive in thinking that PR people have nothing to do with the controversy stirring that goes on in the media - again often for months before anyone (critics included) have seen the film. What is interesting to me is that sometimes films with really controversial subject matter don't even get a whisper (especially if they are docs) and others with hardly any true controversial material are in the media and public eye all the time. A case in point was at this year's Sundance Film Festival where two films - HOUND DOG and ZOO - stood at these opposites sides of the spectrum.

HOUND DOG, a film by Deborah Kampmeier and starring Dakota Fanning as a precocious 12 year old living with her hard done by grandmother and abusive father. She is obsessed with Elvis Presley. It is a film that is the epitome of the southern Gothic tale of sorrow, regret and violence. But this is not the controversy. as you may have heard, the film contains a rape scene in which Dakota's CHARACTER (caps for emphasis) is violated by an older boy. There is much to be said about the film as a whole -though Dakota Fanning gives a very real and poignant performance, the film is not only flawed but racist- but what was blown up about in the press was this rape scene. The Catholic League were up in arms about the "irresponsibility" of the filmmakers in showing things of such a graphic nature on screen. This, by the way, having not actually seen the film but upon hearing about its content. major national publications such as The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and Entertainment Weekly to name but a few, all covered the controversy. Was Dakota ruining her career? her image? What does the film say about the status and protection of children in America when a filmmaker is allowed to show something like this? Again, the film had not been seen by anyone. So afraid of the media backlash, Sundance scheduled, instead of the regular filmmaker Q&A, a panel with the filmmakers, Dakota and representatives from rape awareness groups. For all of you who are wondering, the rape scene lasts perhaps 30 seconds. You see a leg, an arm and Dakota's face. The scene is done with grace and professionalism given the context. Rape happens to everyone - men, women and sadly, children. There is nothing gratuitous about the scene and in my opinion was actually the most honest part of the film. Controversy sold out screenings and led to much buzz before and after. But was the controversy justified?

Another film at Sundance, that I expected to court much controversy and protest was ZOO. ZOO is a documentary by Robinson Devor about the people and events surrounding the "mysterious" death of a man in Washington state some years ago. What is controversial about the film is not that the man died, but how he died - he bled internally as a result of injuries sustained by sexual penetration by a horse. Yes, a horse. The man was part of a group of men who regularly had sexual relations with horses at a nearby farm. The group - zoophiles- had been around for a while and included members of the local community. The film is fascinating and beautifully shot but is at its core a film about bestiality - an act most people find abhorrent. Yet, barely a whisper of controversy.

Is it because one of these films is a narrative/fictional story starring one of America's darlings and the other is a true story about people no one knows or cares about? Has controversy become about status? Is it only controversial if we know (or think that we know) the people involved? Either way, one of these films people are still talking about but to date does not have a theatrical distributor (HOUND DOG) the other will be released by Think Film in the coming year.

Keeping it indie,

Julie