Years ago in the independent film world, the documentary, though great admired for the "truth" that it brought to audiences was seen as the smart but not that pretty middle child. With few exceptions - the Mayles brothers and Errol Morris, there were few documentary filmmakers or documentaries for that matter that the average moviegoer could name. In recent years, with films like BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, FARENHEIT 9/11, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and MARCH OF THE PENQUINS, audiences have become more and more familiar with the "stars" of the documentary film world - Michael Moore - as well as the films and their subject matter. There are probably a number of reasons for this - and I am not saying this as though I think that docs dng better at the box office or more being made is a bad thing - historical timing, mass media, Harvey Weinstein's PR genius, and celebrity endorsement.

September 11th, unlike any other event in US history, was a tragedy that we watched unfold as it happened. It was not like Vietnam where a) it was thousands of miles away and b) it was footage shot already. It was not a live television event. September 11th put us in the story as it unfolded. It was not only a document of the world's history but of our own. It is this connection that laid the groundwork for the success of a film like Farenheit 9/11 and others like it. Those films whether well made or not put us back to a place that we remember. Though I was not alive at the time, I would think it is the same phenomenon that occurs when people see footage of JFK being assassinated - the footage brings back time and space and places us the audience in it. If you take a look at the stats of the box office success of docs since 2001 - the numbers back this up.

Mass media, Harvey Weinstein and celebrity endorsement can not really be separated as they in effect are part and parcel of the same phenomenon. As the numbers of people who do everything online - shop, date, get news, watch - the connection between reality and fiction or the acceptance of reality as fiction increases. We are so used to seeing everything, knowing everything about everyone - those we think we know and those we don't. The acceptance of knowledge through a documentary film form is just another way to know. A PR genius like Harvey Weinstein understands this and uses it to his and his films' advantage. Whether it is about making Michael Moore a celebrity rather than a filmmaker starting from his campaign for Bowling... up to the recent contention that the US government was investigating Moore in connection with his new film SICKO all before anyone has even seen the film. The other genius thing is that Moore's film NEVER premiere in the US and mostly always at Cannes. That would be France - a country notorious for hating Americans and specifically the US government.

Finally, our good old trusty celebrity endorsement for a doc. Whether it is Al Gore, George Clooney, Ben Affleck, or Leonardo DiCaprio - a celeb saying that a doc is good is a surefire way to get butts in seats. Again, I am not knocking the films or the celebs for that matter. I am just pointing out the facts with the hope that it pushes audiences to think for themselves a bit more, to want to know because we should all know as human beings about each other - even those we do not see or understand. Knowing in a thoughtul manner through the art of cinema as opposed to via television shows like Big Brother, Tori and Dean: The Inn, The Real World or Newlyweds. Reality is only too much when it is meaningless and ruled by advertising dollars.

Keeping it indie,

Julie

If you see something, say something...

Ever since I was young, I've wanted to open up a movie theater. My dream theater. This is how I imagined it. It'd be a huge warehouse with a screen from ceiling to floor. The floor itself would be slanted and moviegoers would be able to choose seats, moving recliners, and put them anywhere they wanted to sit. The recliners would be equipped with cupholders on one side and food trays if you wanted a meal. But most of all, there would be a bouncer, a lifeguard of sorts. If people talked too much or acted obnoxious. They were out. If the sound or picture went out, they were on it.

Well, I still have yet to open my theater, but Regal Cinemas have taken strides of making their own patrons "bouncers" in their theaters. This new device is called Regal Response and was introduced in their 114 theaters across the United States. There are four call buttons on the device: sound, picture, piracy, and "other disturbances," which is meant for their noisy guests. Instead of turning around and hushing the rude guest, moviegoers with this device simply push a button and a manager will come to remedy the situation.

Because so many moviegoers are so many options to watch films in the comfort of their own homes, this is exhibitors way of trying to make the in theater movie experience better for patrons. I have to admit, it drives me nuts when someone talks in the theater. But I couldn't help but notice that it is usually in the box office studio films. When I am watching indie films, the audience is quiet (except for maybe someone catching up after a bathroom break), and I can't help but wonder why. Is it respect for the artistry and craft of the film? Could it be that the stories "pull in" their viewers more than the car chases and explosions? Or maybe they are so depressed they can't bring themselves to talk? I guess there's no real way to know but I'll be curious to see if these devices also make their way into the smaller theater houses. What do you think?

Long live indie film,

Michelle