This past week brought another case of whiplash, as the entire US (and world) began to re-open, in spite of alarming spikes in cases in multiple states and countries. It’s as-if a large part of the world thinks back to the time when, just weeks ago, hospitals were reporting they had to stack up bodies in trailers because of the rapid death spiral, and thinks, “bored with that, time to move on.” I’m not talking about the protesters either – the reasons to protest are clear – but the rush to open everything else – especially to hang outside in NYC and drink in crowds of a size we didn’t see outside of Mardi Gras pre-virus – are nothing less than jaw-dropping. And my jaw can drop because I’m wearing my mask instead of using it as a double-chin holder.
In the film world, we are already seeing theaters open; the release of guidelines for productions to launch; a move by many festivals to an online, drive-in and hybrid models; and a general sense from many that we’re moving into some new normal. I have many worries about how successful this might all be, but you can’t fault people for trying to survive.
But the most important discussions in film these past weeks have been around diversity. We’re finally having the discussion a little bit louder, and there seems to be some genuine movement around changing the status quo. But while we’re seeing a lot of discussion, I wonder how we’re getting to action, fast enough in some of our most important spaces – not just the who is making the content, and who is on screen, and what stories are being told, but in the leadership and staffing at distributors, exhibitors and especially film festivals.
I was on the phone last night with someone who works in both distribution and exhibition. He and his business partner (white) had just tried to count the number of distribution executives – at the mid-high level – who were Black and could only come up with a couple of names. Me too, and I bet that holds for most of my readers. This is especially true if you look at the founders, owners and importantly, acquisitions executives. I remember being on a panel about this topic at SXSW around 2001 (I’ve been going since about 1996 to place my age), a famous distributor argued that we didn’t need to worry about this, because he had plenty of diverse staff coming up through the ranks. It’s 19 years later, and I don’t see much change.
Everyone likes to talk down about distributors – especially Netflix (I was gonna say, the Netflixes of the world, but who are they?) – as the big bad gate-keepers. Ok, sure. But I’d argue Netflix has done more to increase diversity than film festivals in terms of programming, funding and they're working hard on who makes decisions too (quick aside, they have also recently put money behind the cause, and Reed Hastings just made a major HBCU donation). And there are no bigger gate-keepers in our field than film festivals – whether you are an emerging Black filmmaker or an established white one. Think about it - We wait for our films to premiere based on which ones accept us. Or we desperately apply to tons of little ones hoping someone discovers us. Release schedules, careers, who meets whom at the bar – these and more are all decided by festivals, their programming, and who they invite to attend.
 Sure, we have some great diversity focused film festivals – American Black Film Festival, CAAMFest, BlackStar and more – and for a long time now, people have put together important programs like the BlackHouse Foundation, but while these exceptions are super-important (and should be supported), they prove the rule. Attend any Film Festival Alliance event or panel, and you’ll find there may be no greater collection of white folks than the FFA, except perhaps the Arthouse Convergence folks. Now these are two groups I know and love, but we can’t talk about the need for diversity in this field without recognizing that the people who decide what gets programmed by the first-level and most active gate-keepers of this field are mainly white. Especially when it comes to the artistic staff. While the Arthouse Convergence even has a panel on this topic coming up, the endless conversations about it have not changed the actual numbers. And with so many festivals, and arthouses, run by small staffs and founders, who are chronically underfunded, I don’t see an easy solution here. In my experience, these folks aren’t completely clueless, and many are allies, but still too few (beyond the largest folks like Sundance, Toronto and NYFF) have been able to make systemic change.
And while we’re here, let’s also discuss the fact that with most festivals existing on underpaid, over-worked staff and volunteers – and with many so strapped for cash that they consider it offensive to suggest they might pay filmmakers to screen their films (even when they can’t bring them in to visit), that perhaps this isn’t the most equitable system we could devise. And it doesn’t lead to diversity in employment either – many talented, diverse people are going to look elsewhere for jobs, even in this economy, when the ones that exist are not equitable. Acknowledging this doesn’t constitute and attack – but it does mean we need to accept these realities and try to use this time to build something better (and yes, I know some are working on this).
Equally bad is the situation with audiences. How many times have you gone to a great film fest with diverse programming, only to sit in a theater full of older, white folks? Even in “majority minority” towns? No one ever wants to talk about this, but the situation here is just as bad as it is in Opera, and probably worse than it is in other performing arts and museums. Diverse audiences aren’t showing up because they don’t feel welcome, they aren’t marketed to unless it’s for a “niche” film, and they aren’t truly made part of the process, which has to be participatory, not just one way. This is also true of the majority of arthouse audiences (but not true of Hollywood audiences) and tireless work needs to be done.
 Let’s also take a moment to acknowledge the greatest loss of the in-person festival – the in-person part. This is not an attack on attempting new formats, and yes, in theory new audiences can now discover work without attending (especially people not able to get to the fest location), and we have built and will perfect new market and industry meeting formats. But even pre-covid, I always argued to people that the greatest part about SXSW, or any other festival, were the informal meetings. It’s the fact that you could attend a panel and put a name with a face, and then bump into them at a party later and strike up a conversation with almost anyone. Or you’d meet that future producer or new business partner, or creative partner or mentor. This even happened at small festivals. These can’t be duplicated in Zoom (I could see a solution in some new version of LunchClub, where filmmakers could be paired more randomly with connections). There was always a bias on who got to attend and sometimes who got to go to a party, but there was much greater chance for this serendipity, and it’s going to disproportionately impact diverse and emerging filmmakers and industry. I’m worried about how we possibly replicate this online, and also how many chance encounters will be lost as we inevitably lose a mix of both large and small festivals (trust me, we’ll see major attrition).
The situation with the other gatekeepers – the press and critics – isn’t spectacular, but we have seen some improvement in recent years. More needs to be done, and there have been some missteps, but some of the larger festivals are working to make their fests more accessible to diverse journalists, and there are some fellowship and mentorship programs that have been launched. Still, what’s left of the major critics at the supposedly major outlets, remain a pretty homogenous bunch. Re-reading Elizabeth Méndez Berry and Chi-hui Yang’s The Dominance of the White Male Critic piece in the NYT from last year, you can see how much work remains to be done.
And then we get to the making of the movies and shows. Plenty of people have already written about the myriad issues – who gets access to funding, who gets hired to tell the stories, who has the networks and privilege to be able to work in this field? Why do so few Black filmmakers make second films, especially Black women filmmakers? Or Transgender? Why haven’t we seen any funders rushing in to address these gaps, especially when we just lost one of the longest running support structures with Tribeca All Access? You can read just a few good takes on this from Stanley Nelson, Roger Ross Williams, Sonya Childress, or Iyabo Boyd, among many others (and see Iyabo’s solutions linked below). This group letter from over 125 Black and Brown Indie Producers is also a good one to read and work to implement.
But I’m also concerned about how this is going to be impacted specifically by c-19 and the economy. For example, according to the WSJ, Discovery, “which spent $3.26 billion on content last year, is saving $300,000 on average for every hour of content shot from home, said Gunnar Wiedenfels, the company’s chief financial officer.” They are now reviewing all production budgets, and I bet you’ll see many others follow suit – and this will slowly trickle down to all levels of production and all types (because only bad stuff trickles down). Sure, Discovery wasn’t exactly hiring the most diverse crews or telling the most diverse stories. But as others follow their lead, and as advertisers and brands cut their budgets as well, the entire field will feel the pain. And that means even fewer dollars will go to increasing diversity – heck, even if people shift budgets to diverse programming, the overall amounts will go down, and we’ll still probably see a contraction. And I fear it doesn’t stop with the big guns – foundations and donors will be shifting priorities to “crisis funding” and supporting the re-granting organizations will fall down the list in importance. Crowd-funding helps, but it can’t replace the varieties of support we will probably lose due to the crisis.
Now, I’m not claiming to be better than anyone at any of this – but I have worked on these issues at each of my jobs, running grant programs, mentorships, trainings, awards programs, hiring staff, and pushing brands in areas of diversity. I need to do more, and will, but I am also often surprised that I get a sigh when I ask a panel programmer whether we’ll be adding any diverse voices, or get funny looks when I point out to a brand that all of their recent films – even about Black stories – were made by white, male producers. Maybe that’s gonna start changing soon; I sure hope so, but it will take a collective effort that is pushed not just by Firelight Media, but also by the largely white community who remain in power at so many levels. It may well be, as Sonya Childress put so well in her recent piece, A Reckoning, that “One can argue that models of filmmaking, curation, funding and distribution are so fundamentally broken, so entrenched in inequity, that incremental reform is no longer adequate.”
We may be talking, and we may be re-opening, but we are still in crisis, and there’s a lot of work to be done. So, lift that mask up over your chin, continue to protest and be an ally, but if we want to really make change happen in film, we need to move from acknowledging the problems to action steps on what we’ll all do next. I’m excited and enthused that the conversation is being had more openly – that’s step one. But this conversation, and these ideas, have all been circulating for quite some time. Let’s not take another 20 years to take step two. 400+ years have been long enough.
|
|
Film
BGDM To Hire List: Brown Girls Doc Mafia has put together a list of 232+ women/non-binary members of Brown Girls Doc Mafia who are ready, willing, and able to join productions right now! Info from founder Iyabo Boyd: "These listed members are directors, producers, cinematographers, editors, PAs, colorists, composers, and more. They live all over the US and throughout the world, they speak a multitude of languages, and work at a variety of skill levels. Please take a look through, and just note the first two columns: the first denotes whether a member has opted to work on just BGDM led projects vs any project, and the second denotes whether they have opted to work in Covid-19 environments, protest environments, or neither. Please respect these two elements.
Please also plan to PAY them well (and be open to negotiations for hazard pay/overtime), to CARE about their safety and health within pandemic production protocols, and to PROVIDE them the resources (and team) they need to be set up for success on your project. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!
PLEASE SHARE!! Post in your film groups/collectives/listservs, share with your colleagues and supervisors, and send it to producers, agencies, commissioners, etc. so that it can reach as many folks as possible. Your allyship is much appreciated!" See the full list here.
Why it's imperative to hire Black and POC Filmmakers within the Doc Community: BGDM founder Iyabo Boyd (who put together the database mentioned above) speaks with Filmmaker Magazine about this important topic, as well as how to do it right, how to be a good ally, and the problems with how many news outlets are approaching the protests. See also - the first comment - about how funders still aren't supporting this sector well enough, either.
We'll need to empower New Leaders to Make Bold Steps for Change - As mentioned in the piece above, Sonya Childress just wrote an amazing piece on what's been going on for so long with calls for diversity, the lack of action, and the need for bold ideas and new leaders to build the future we want and need. Read it, twice. And while she's mainly talking about the doc film industry, a lot/most of it applies to fiction and brand storytelling as well.
Censoring old films and TV shows misses the point, say BAME leaders - AKA censorship is the easy short term fix that really only helps your brand/platform, not the actual people being oppressed by white supremacy in the industry; and actually having real diversity both in front of and behind the camera is what needs to be done. The Guardian Covers.
The Shortcomings of the Netflix House Style for Docs - Hyperallergic takes a fascinating look at how Netflix is settling in to a couple of house styles for docs, with few exceptions, and how the explainer/History doc is leaning towards history without actual perspective. An important read.
Jeffery Katzenberg Blames Pandemic for Quibi's Rough Start - The NYT Does and In-Depth Piece on Quibi and it ain't pretty - infighting; poor planning; blame-shifting and more - all the things you'd expect. Quibi is just changing the old Warren Buffet quote about airlines. Now it's - how do you become a millionaire? Start with more than a billion dollars and invest it in Quibi.
|
|
Branded Content
 Shouldn't We Expect More From Corporate America? Adam Fetcher, who I worked with when I consulted with Patagonia, and who now runs Big Future penned this great article on LinkedIn about "why corporate America is failing to lead the change our country so desperately needs – and how we can transform our capitalist maxim from "winners-take-all" to "winners-take-plenty"...with far fewer losers." Adam takes a hard look at what has failed in the past, and how so much that should have been done earlier, was really just lip service. And he worries that we'll see more of the same, so he proposes concrete action steps that corporations can and should be taking, and proposes that we hold them accountable - not just as consumers, but through laws and policy - if we want to see real change. It's a great read that proposes some real action.
Fashion Flips Focus From Runway to Film - Yet another facet of an industry accelerated through death and rebirth, as Fashion week (in New York at least) had long been dead prior to the Pandemic. WWD covers (Paywall) takes a look at the movement towards film in the fashion world - and not just regular films, but specifically fashion films, and who is doing it well.
Scotiabank Made a Full-Length Hockey Documentary that Could be Canada's Answer to the Last Dance - Some innovative content being created despite the limitations of current events. Ad week covers this super successful brand-film campaign, which should give you a lot of ideas for how to do these things right.
And in case you missed it above...here's a list for brands looking to hire BIPOC filmmakers and crew.
|
|
Miscellany:
Boredom Can Be Good For You: according to the new book Out of My Skull: The Psychology of Boredom by James Danckert and John Eastwood. Ok, I haven't read the book yet, but the book review ran in the WSJ this past week, and keeping with my theories for going off of social media to increase my creativity, the book suggests that technology transforms us from "creators of meaning to passive consumers of experience - as containers to be filled rather than agentic sources of meaning." My experience jibes with that. Check out the review here, or the book here.
How virtual takes the 'work' out of workouts - VR is helping take out the cognitive strain that comes with workouts...making them much more enjoyable and, it seems, they work better, with less perceived effort (i.e., you don't notice how far you've run, because you've enjoyed it more than staring at a TV screen).
Coronavirus Makes ARs potentially a Reality for Chip Makers - and not just chip makers, but the technology could be used for any kind of manufacturing. WSJ Covers.
An understanding of AI's limitations is starting to sink-in - (Paywall) The Economist covers the limitations of AI.
The next Big Indie Filmmaker may be a TikToker - Through sophisticated editing tools and the ability to go viral without any real following, TikTok removes a lot of the hurdles when a young person decides to get into filmmaking.
|
|
|
Like This Newsletter? Subscribe & Past Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
