Independent's Day

The D-Word's life is one of glamour and riches, as only a documentary filmmaker can live it

Independent's Day
April 3,
1:10am

As I suspect, all is not what meets the eye.

I finally call up Andy and Susan last night to get their reaction to the New York Times Sunday Magazine piece. Their power is off from the snowstorm. I can hear the pain in Andy's voice.

"First of all, so much of it was just a total fabrication. I mean, the guy followed us for months. Where did he get that stuff?"

"You mean..."

"I mean we were very open with him and he knows we didn't lead those kids on. From the beginning we told them our films have been on network tv and that we had every intention of this doing the same. So for him to say they had no idea..."

"Hmmm..."

"I guess it was the cover blurb that got us the most. 'Truth and Betrayal...' What betrayal?!? He made it seem like we coerced Brian into doing something he never wanted to do, but we made it clear to all of them that if anyone had second thoughts about something we'd filmed with them they could make their case and we'd take it out. And later we showed them a rough cut and they all gave their go ahead. The writer was there."

I can picture Andy sitting there in the cold, the darkness broken by candlelight.

"It's not as if Brian was the main character, either," he continues. "He was just one of six. We felt the reenactment was important but never crucial."

Andy and Susan are considering holding a screening of the film here in NY and inviting the press so they can see for themselves how fair the film is to these kids. He wants my opinion.

I try to gently convey that the world just doesn't really give two shits about two documentary filmmakers making a film about a social cause. The details of the piece, particularly the hints of ethical gray, will be quickly forgotten, and all that will last is the notion that Andy and Susan are important enough filmmakers to warrant a Sunday Times cover story.

"If you gripe people are just gonna say, 'What's your problem, Dude?' And the fact is the article was 95% positive."

Of course, I say this to Andy having just read the Independent article on Home Page and Yours Truly. It was a wonderful article that makes the film seem really fun and accessible, and yet I already have a small bug up my ass about it.

The very first sentence calls Home Page a "video-in-progress." Not a film-in-progress, mind you, or a documentary-in-progress. No, it's worse than the d-word, folks. It's the v-word! Video.

So, what's wrong with that, you say? I mean, it is video, right? That's what you shot in on, eh Bucko?

Well, sure, that's what it originated on. That's the format it will stay on thru editing, too (most films these days are
edited on video). But, like all of the docs I've had a hand in, it will be transferred to film and be released as a film. It will have a theatrical life.

If it's perceived as a video, particularly within this very small industry, then it could threaten the film's already thin chance of getting out reasonably widely (after all, it is a d-word).

Automatically it's an, ughh, tv program! Send thee to the PBS ghetto!!!

So I'm pondering whether or not to write a letter to the editor of the Independent. Kind of tongue-in-cheek, but trying to make the point at the same time.

All the while advising Andy that crying to the press would be absolutely pointless and sagely noting he should take the long view.

Another irony, particularly given the article's doc vs. web focus, is that it points out the cavernous gap between distribution of the two mediums. I have to worry about perception problems like being called a video rather than a film. Webhead Justin don't have to worry about nothin' (except, maybe, the use of his arms).

The long view for me is that another article is out about Home Page and it feels good -- mostly because it's not as big a deal as it used to be. It's nice but I don't need it anymore, now that I'm a grizzled veteran.

Hey, I've got a web site now. My very own platform. Here me roar! Agggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

But now that the article is out, and the D-Word url is listed, presumably a few people will come visit here. And, of course, the site is in chaos today.

Brian has, without warning, left for L.A., and the old diary entries haven't been sent over to the new site, which still contains mostly crack programmer Andy's navigational test doodles.

I follow Brian's dictum to have El Net point to the Radzone IP address (is this fascinating, or what)?, but when I try to access The D-Word later it goes to Radzone's site. So, for a bunch of hours, neither the old or new site is up .

I manage to stay calm, though. The fact is that I still don't really believe anyone reads this here navel-gazing, web-wanking existential exercise. The illusion of a world-wired following of devoted readers is awfully amusing, but there's nobody out there, really.

Right?

Previous: Cinema Fabrique
Next: If Lucy Fell...
Newest: Generations
Archives

Copyright © 1997 D.B. Block. All Rights Reserved

	The D-Word's life is one of glamour and riches, as only a documentary filmmaker can live it Independent's Day April 3, 1:10am As I suspect, all is not what meets the eye. I finally call up Andy and Susan last night to get their reaction to the New York Times Sunday Magazine piece. Their power is off from the snowstorm. I can hear the pain in Andy's voice. "First of all, so much of it was just a total fabrication. I mean, the guy followed us for months. Where did he get that stuff?" "You mean..." "I mean we were very open with him and he knows we didn't lead those kids on. From the beginning we told them our films have been on network tv and that we had every intention of this doing the same. So for him to say they had no idea..." "Hmmm..." "I guess it was the cover blurb that got us the most. 'Truth and Betrayal...' What betrayal?!? He made it seem like we coerced Brian into doing something he never wanted to do, but we made it clear to all of them that if anyone had second thoughts about something we'd filmed with them they could make their case and we'd take it out. And later we showed them a rough cut and they all gave their go ahead. The writer was there." I can picture Andy sitting there in the cold, the darkness broken by candlelight. "It's not as if Brian was the main character, either," he continues. "He was just one of six. We felt the reenactment was important but never crucial." Andy and Susan are considering holding a screening of the film here in NY and inviting the press so they can see for themselves how fair the film is to these kids. He wants my opinion. I try to gently convey that the world just doesn't really give two shits about two documentary filmmakers making a film about a social cause. The details of the piece, particularly the hints of ethical gray, will be quickly forgotten, and all that will last is the notion that Andy and Susan are important enough filmmakers to warrant a Sunday Times cover story. "If you gripe people are just gonna say, 'What's your problem, Dude?' And the fact is the article was 95% positive." Of course, I say this to Andy having just read the Independent article on Home Page and Yours Truly. It was a wonderful article that makes the film seem really fun and accessible, and yet I already have a small bug up my ass about it. The very first sentence calls Home Page a "video-in-progress." Not a film-in-progress, mind you, or a documentary-in-progress. No, it's worse than the d-word, folks. It's the v-word! Video. So, what's wrong with that, you say? I mean, it is video, right? That's what you shot in on, eh Bucko? Well, sure, that's what it originated on. That's the format it will stay on thru editing, too (most films these days are edited on video). But, like all of the docs I've had a hand in, it will be transferred to film and be released as a film. It will have a theatrical life. If it's perceived as a video, particularly within this very small industry, then it could threaten the film's already thin chance of getting out reasonably widely (after all, it is a d-word). Automatically it's an, ughh, tv program! Send thee to the PBS ghetto!!! So I'm pondering whether or not to write a letter to the editor of the Independent. Kind of tongue-in-cheek, but trying to make the point at the same time. All the while advising Andy that crying to the press would be absolutely pointless and sagely noting he should take the long view. Another irony, particularly given the article's doc vs. web focus, is that it points out the cavernous gap between distribution of the two mediums. I have to worry about perception problems like being called a video rather than a film. Webhead Justin don't have to worry about nothin' (except, maybe, the use of his arms). The long view for me is that another article is out about Home Page and it feels good -- mostly because it's not as big a deal as it used to be. It's nice but I don't need it anymore, now that I'm a grizzled veteran. Hey, I've got a web site now. My very own platform. Here me roar! Agggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! But now that the article is out, and the D-Word url is listed, presumably a few people will come visit here. And, of course, the site is in chaos today. Brian has, without warning, left for L.A., and the old diary entries haven't been sent over to the new site, which still contains mostly crack programmer Andy's navigational test doodles. I follow Brian's dictum to have El Net point to the Radzone IP address (is this fascinating, or what)?, but when I try to access The D-Word later it goes to Radzone's site. So, for a bunch of hours, neither the old or new site is up . I manage to stay calm, though. The fact is that I still don't really believe anyone reads this here navel-gazing, web-wanking existential exercise. The illusion of a world-wired following of devoted readers is awfully amusing, but there's nobody out there, really. Right?
	Previous: Cinema Fabrique Next: If Lucy Fell... Newest: Generations Archives Copyright © 1997 D.B. Block. All Rights Reserved