What Just Happened to Documentary? The Subtle Art of Not Giving a #*%
Introducing Our Guest Writer
Tony ForsterTony was a student then tutor in Psychology at the University of Auckland in his early years. A sabbatical touring schools as an actor led him to a new passion, directing plays at Theatre Corporate, Mercury and Downstage theatres, plus staging independent productions.
A decade of full-time professional theatrical poverty led to Assistant Director work in screen production, mostly drama. Intended as an apprenticeship towards transferring his theatre directing skills to camera, this work also became a useful source of funds for years of extended overseas travel. These journeys of fun and adventure have provided ideas for future writing/directing projects for the screen – culminating so far in the featurelength documentaries ‘An Accidental Berliner’ (2016 **) and ‘Anke Abducted’ (in temporary limbo, thanks to Covid), plus other smaller video works.
His live theatre work has continued in recent years, focusing on dramaturgy with new Kiwi scripts, and mentorship roles with emerging theatre practitioners.
Sidelines include tutoring screen part-time at Unitec over the last few years; writing for various industry magazines, some still photography, and acting/voice work – including recording about 25 books onto tape for the Blind.
Tony has contributed voluntarily to Doc Edge for nearly 15 years, including conducting post-screening Q&A sessions with visiting filmmakers – something he really enjoys.
** An Accidental Berliner was given the “Best Emerging NZ Filmmaker” award when it premiered in the Doc Edge Festival.
Kim Hegan & Leo Koziol present the opening karakia.
Alex Lee welcomes guests to the 17th Edition of the Doc Edge Forum.
Opening Address
The Doc Edge Forum for 2023 opened on June 2nd with an address by Mladen Ivancic, the Film Commission’s Acting CEO – for another two weeks only. Ever tactful and polite, Mladen was not about to spring any advance surprises or leaks as to any new FC policy or what we might be encountering now that the new CEO Annie Murray is finally occupying the hot seat (from June 19).
As is typical of NZFC presentations to industry groups, much of Mladen’s focus was on Data from recent years – this time on the proportions of documentary vs drama in terms of funding, income, related rankings, and suchlike. It would be fair to say that quite a few of the audience were surprised to see just how great a proportion of FC resources now go into documentary – between 8% and 15% over the last five years, 11% in 2022. To some this may be higher than expected – and to some, not high enough! But it is significant when we remember something Mladen did not mention – that it is only just over a decade since the NZFC began funding documentary projects at all.
A few other interesting pieces of data:
1. We are all familiar with the big drop in box office returns in 2020–21, thanks to Covid. It’s great to know that box office in Aotearoa is now almost back to normal. Significantly for us, documentary box office amounts to 50% of the total for all Kiwi Films!
2. In the list of 20 top-earning Kiwi films of all time, “Chasing Great” sits at number 12, and “Topp Twins – Untouchable Girls” at number 14. In the period 2018–22, there were six documentaries in the top 20.
3. Over the last six years, documentary funding has comprised 36% of the projects and 20% of the dollars.
4. When it comes to diversity and inclusion, looking at the period 2015 to 2022, a power point projection showed us that while the FC has exceeded its target in terms of increasing the proportion of female/gender-diverse directors funded (target 50%, actual 53%), it has not quite made it yet with regard to projects with two-plus Māori key creatives – target 20%, achieved 13%. This in the context of a June 2022 estimate that Māori make up 17.1% of the Kiwi population. Progress, but still a little way to go.
Analysing the box office success of New Zealand documentaries, when it comes to popularity three themes emerge:
1. True crime;
2. Big name(s) or IP as the subject matter;
3. A clear authorial voice, such as in films like “Merata” and “Mothers of the Revolution”.
Development, Production and Post-production Funding:
In his power-point projections, Mladen showed us a couple listing the variety of paths for the types of funding available – the detail can be found on the FC website. But of particular interest perhaps was the data relating to the Feature Film Finishing Grant (FFFG): some would have been surprised that the 31 docos which received a FFFG over the last 5 years make up 82% of the total of projects supported that way; and in the last financial year, the 9 docos made up 90% of the successful applications.
Mladen was clearly happy to point out that a film’s acceptance for screening in the Doc Edge Festival (or the NZIFF) was enough to qualify for this grant. He noted too that from next year, acceptance into the Architecture and Design Festival, an almost entirely documentary event, would also lead to qualification.
He concluded on a note of optimism about the future of documentary, pointing to the number of successes at recent international festivals. Meanwhile, Alex Lee, co-founder and co-director of Doc Edge, suggested that there is still a big challenge for us in making our docos more successful overseas.
Mladen began working at the FC in 1989, and is now ready for a well-earned retirement. Not only is he widely respected throughout the Kiwi screen world (and beyond) as a loyal and faithful servant, both to the commission and to the industry as a whole, he has been found to be someone easy to approach and to talk to – and easy to like. He will be missed.
As he’s walking out the FC door for the last time, we all wish him the very best in his new phase of life.
Mladen Ivancic discusses the performance of NZFC Funded Documentaries.Session 1 – ‘ANZ Co-Production Workshop – A Case Study’
Panelists:
Fergus Grady – Co-producer/co-director, “Gloriavale”
Noel Smyth – Co-producer/co-director, Cinematographer, Editor, “Gloriavale”
Leanne Saunders – Representing NZ Film Commisson, Te Tumu Whakaata Taonga
Cieran Cody – Representing Screen Australia
Glenn Usmar – Representing NZ on Air
When I first read the title for this ‘workshop’, my immediate thought was that the ANZ bank was sponsoring the session. (To my chagrin often, almost everything that has a name has a sponsor name in front of it these days...) Then it dawned on me that here, “ANZ” stood for “Australia/New Zealand”.
But what is a co-pro, anyway?
The NZFC provides a simple description:
“Official co-productions are film and television projects made in accordance with treaties or other formal agreements between New Zealand and other countries.”
Official and unofficial? Again, from the NZFC:
“In New Zealand, a feature film certified as an official co-production is deemed to have significant New Zealand content, making it eligible to apply to us for production financing.”
Which appears to imply that if you are lucky enough (or skilled enough) to be able to organise a co-pro without involving the FC, you’re ‘unofficial’ – at least as far as the NZFC is concerned.
But Leanne Saunders also mentioned that the NZFC has the International Co-Development Fund (ICF), which supports New Zealand producers who are working with an overseas partner on developing feature films and series drama. Which could lead you from unofficial into being official.
On their co-pro guidelines page, Screen Australia makes clear that the treaties are created at governmental level:
“Agreements between Governments specify how projects can be ‘co-produced’ between partner countries.”
A little further down their front page:
“A project made under a co-production Arrangement between two countries is treated as a national project of those countries and can access all relevant benefits attached to being a ‘national film’ (see Why would you make a co-production? ).”
The Screen Australia page also succinctly conveys the international focus of the co-pro system, not just on production but on what comes later:
“In allowing two or more international producers to come together to make a screen project, it provides them with the opportunities to access the resources required to produce projects that will be internationally competitive. The objective of the program is to foster projects that will be truly international in terms of storytelling, budget ranges and the audiences to which they appeal.”
See below for links to the NZFC and Screen Australia.
With Fergus Grady and Noel Smyth as the filmmakers on the panel, it was no surprise that their recent doco “Gloriavale” would be the case study scheduled for this session.
The two gentlemen began by outlining their history together – they have known each other for 10 years. Their one previous collaboration is the commercially successful “Camino Skies” – winner of the Best Director award in the Doc Edge Festival 2019 – a production history that would prove to be a significant factor in their success with achieving a co-pro deal for “Gloriavale”.
NZ has co-production treaties with 18 countries – there is lots of co-production in Europe, and Canada is prolific with co-production.
Australia has 13 such treaties so far; NZ has deals with every country that Australia does except Malaysia, while Australia is negotiating with two countries NZ already has deals with. NZ is negotiating with Brazil at present.
Nevertheless, one can’t help the feeling that NZ is more keen on international co-production than Australia is. Possibly it’s a matter of size, of population, resources and economy; or perhaps more simply, as Cieran Cody said, “Our priority is Australian culture, and the Australian audience.”
For NZ on Air, Glenn Usmar told us that co-pros are not a major thing for them. “Our cultural mandate works against that”.
‘Splits’ were discussed: for example, 75/25, which means 75% of funding and expenditure on post, crew, etc, occurs in one country, while the other is the “minority” partner.
The budget threshold for co-production involving the NZFC is $2.8 million. If under co-production, then what is spent overseas counts in NZ, but the threshold in Australia is much lower.
It’s worth remembering that Australia has regional (state) funding as well as federal (through Screen Australia).
There is a high level of Australia/New Zealand co-production in Drama, but not so much in Documentary.
Documentary is often time-urgent to shoot, which makes it both harder to finance generally and to set up co-production. Hence Leanne Saunders suggests talking to a variety of people at the Film Commission about the different strands of finance possible; but her most urgent advice is to start trying to set up a co-production early – a sentiment echoed strongly by everyone else!
There are significant advantages in co-production – but also disadvantages.
Benefits include
International Credits, distribution in another territory, more possibilities for finance, a much greater ability to create projects of scale.
Easier access to government rebates.
Networking opportunities.
Access to a wider pool of creatives. (In a co-production arrangement, key creative roles must be shared between the people of both/all countries involved.)
The extra finance available can lead to the filmmakers being more ambitious.
Funnily enough, there seemed to be very little comment about the disadvantages…
Comments / Advice from the Filmmakers
The organisations were very helpful. But all the information is online, “even if a it’s a bit dry and hard to get through” – Noel Smyth.
“Gloriavale” is an observational style of documentary, the kind which needs time to shoot. This works against co-production. But nevertheless, this was a New Zealand story with production based in Australia. So a co-pro arrangement made sense.
Australian links that helped:
Hopeful Christian, the founder of the Gloriavale community is Australian, as is Noel – while Fergus is a citizen of both countries. Fergus grew up in Wellington, has lived in Australia and is now based in Auckland. Noel grew up in Bundaberg (home of rum and ginger beer); he moved to Melbourne and the two met there.
Their previous experience as co-directors on “Camino Skies”, plus the Kiwi/Oz connections, helped significantly in getting a co-production arrangement off the ground. Cieran Cody commented that Fergus and Noel’s experience was a big factor in successfully establishing a co-production deal. At this point, Leanne added that, Yes, that would be indeed be a Film Commission requirement: at least one feature credit with the application.
Noel: “Do your research on co-productions before you try to set one up!”
For them, time pressure meant bypassing development funding, going straight into production financing. For example, chasing the producer offset in Australia.
Noel and Fergus used their royalties from “Camino Skies” to fund the first blocks of filming, while chasing co-production status, amongst everything else involved in financing.
Specific pieces of advice about co-production from Noel: Start early!
Double your estimates regarding legal and accounting costs. Double your producer team, because of the amount of legwork involved. Have an experience producer and an executive producer attached. Ideally the EP will have experience with both official and unofficial co-productions.
The last word belongs to Screen Australia’s Cieran Cody:
“A big positive is the links between our countries, our similarities – our economic and political systems, for example. Auckland is closer to Sydney than Perth is. And of course, we claim your celebrities as ours!”
Footnotes
“Camino Skies” is available on DVD and on many streaming platforms, including with NZFC On Demand. For other options, go to https://www.caminoskies.com/watch
“Gloriavale” is available to stream in New Zealand now on Google Play, Apple TV, Three Now and AroVision.
NZFC
https://www.nzfilm.co.nz/incentives-co-productions/co-productions
Questions: email <co-productions@nzfilm.co.nz>
Screen Australia
https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/funding-and-support/co-production-program/guidelines
We can’t help noticing what a busy fellow Fergus Grady appears to be. As well as producing and directing films, Fergus is the Director of not one, but two film festivals in Aotearoa – the French Film Festival and the Scandi Film Festival – all this while being the Acquisition Manager at Limelight Distribution.
A question in my mind from the beginning was whether to spell the session’s key word with or without a hyphen? Before consulting a dictionary, I checked the websites of the two funding bodies most pertinent to this discussion – and both use a hyphen in the word ‘co-production’. That would do for us then.
I also note the use by the Australians of the American spelling, ‘program’, rather than the traditional British spelling, ‘programme’. The Americanisation of English is a trend increasingly common in Aotearoa, it seems – or should that be ‘Americanization’? Perhaps not quite yet, given that the USA is not one of the 18 countries with whom NZ has a co-production treaty. Nor does Australia. I imagine the Americans don’t feel the need…
The next question: AI or A.I. ?
Session 2 - ‘The Dark Side of Documentary’
Panelists
Prof Annie Goldson – Doc Edge Superhero 2023
Meg Smaker – Director, “The UnRedacted”
Austen McCowan – Director, “Long Live My Happy Head” – a Scot, now living in NZ
Janice Englehart – Producer, “All Static and Noise”
Kat Lintott – Creative Lead “Evoke” (VR/AR Exhibition)
Moderator
Alex Lee – Doc Edge Co-founder, Co-director
When I first saw the subject title for this session, I began to wonder if we would be exploring a dark underworld of doco filming, exposing nefarious subterfuges used to gain footage, illicitly or even illegally. Instead, it turned out, we were treated to a discussion about the duty of care that filmmakers have towards their subject(s), including the methods used to win their trust; then moving onto the issue of informed consent.
Trust and Risk
Alex Lee began the session by asking Annie Goldson about the film she made in Aotearoa in 2021 about cancer. It features a chap named David and the people that he was helping. At the beginning David was fine with the filmmaking, but the others held back. The trust David already had in Annie helped her to win the trust of other three. Annie had meetings with them beforehand, without the camera – a regular part of the doco-making process that is regarded as essential by many filmmakers, endorsed later in the session by Meg Smaker
Austen spoke of how “Long Live My Happy Head” was also about someone suffering from cancer, with a brain tumour that sufferer Gordon called Rick. Austen described how, as filmmakers, we do become entwined in our subjects’ lives – and for him, that is our biggest challenge. The importance of negotiating and then navigating a safe route, not only for the cast but also for the crew, was a common thread in this session’s discussion.
“The UnRedacted”, for those who haven’t seen it – and I’m tempted to say you must! – is a film about the attempt to rehabilitate Yemeni ‘graduates’ of Guantánamo Bay prison, over a period of 12 months in a purpose-built facility in Saudi Arabia. Although American firefighter-turned-filmmaker Meg Smaker had spent the five years prior living in Yemen, and had learnt the Yemeni dialect of Arabic while teaching local people how to fight fires, nevertheless winning the trust of self-confessed terrorists attempting to reform their lives was clearly going to be a big issue. The history and politics around the topics of Guantánamo Bay in particular and terrorism in general can be learned elsewhere, but what Meg found was missing in the catalogue was these men’s own voices. Hence the film.
Meg’s most salient points
“Do a shitload of research first!”
Find locals to fill your gaps in understanding. There’s a very different set of obstacles with independent film in places like the Middle East or Korea. She had a Saudi producer to help with local knowledge, in particular how not to put her subjects at future risk. No one can predict the ripple effect of a film.
Being the responsible steward of their stories: Meg’s primary priority was (and still is) keeping people safe – you need to mitigate the risks to your crew, as well as the risks to your subjects.
She started with a list of 50 people from Guantánamo. 20 were interested in taking part initially, but only 12 were prepared to do it without blurred faces or some other form of disguise.
“Always meet with your subjects first without a camera.”
Explain the mechanics of filmimg, the time needed, etc, so that they are able to give properly informed consent. She estimates that 80% of her time in Saudi Arabia with the men and their families was without a camera.
Know what is important to you – in her case, Final Cut was an absolute.
Janice Englehart, producer of “All Static and Noise”, a film about the oppression of Uyghur and Kazakh minorities in China, also emphasised the usefulness of having spent time in the country or area where you are planning to film – she had already lived in China for five years. In selecting subjects, people who are willing to talk is obviously essential; people who are already talking, to the media or elsewhere, make a good place to start. But again, critical to her was not putting families, as well as the people arrested themselves, into further risk of any kind.
Authenticity
At this point Alex Lee pointed out that the filmmaker has the power to shape the narrative; he asked how we are to deal with choices that confront us, not only to protect the subjects but also to preserve authenticity?
Meg Smaker explained how she tried to make clear in the film her relationship with the subjects, to be transparent. Indeed, the question was not just how to portray authenticity over a period of three years, but how to do so safely. How one goes about representing subjects truthfully but safely is different for each documentary maker, she maintains, different for each project. For her and this project, one important aspect was keeping her own politics out of it.
For Meg, it helps to edit your film as well as to shoot, so that you know the context – but you do need an outside perspective through the post-production process. Keep asking yourself – what is the essence, the heart of the story, and build your edit around that.
Annie Goldson reinforced the advantages of editing your own film, while pointing out that audiences are extremely sensitive to authenticity.
In regard to editing your own film, I am intrigued by the perspective of one of New Zealand’s top editors, Annie Collins (who does not direct), who has similarly strong principles regarding the kaupapa of a film. Annie believes that in post you can only construct the film from the footage you actually have. Knowing what the director and/or camera just missed, what accidents happened during the filming that prevented you getting what you might have wanted, can distract you, sidetrack you during the edit process, potentially distort your perspective – and so she never attends a film set to observe the shooting.
Consent
The legal requirement of written consent given by a film’s subject was raised by an audience member. People can give consent initially, perhaps signing a consent form, and then change their minds. Or they may not realise what the consent entails, what ramifications it might have for them in the future.
Alex Lee (a lawyer, as well as a filmmaker and festival director) pointed out that a consent form does not take into account subjects who are working in their second language; nor things like dyslexia, the level of education and experience of the subject, and so on. Also, a consent form is signed only at one particular point in time.
Janice Englehart’s team were editing four years after the shoot, so she went back to see if the people were still consenting. Annie and Austen are in the habit of not producing the consent paper until near the end of the shoot. Annie brings her subject in to look at the final cut, to discuss possible changes if there is anything they are unhappy with – but there’s a limit there – essentially, Annie insists absolutely on retaining editorial control for herself.
Meg summarised her consent form to only four lines, and put those four lines at the head of the consent document. The document was translated into Arabic. One guy refused to have anything to do with any paper of any kind, but was happy to give consent on camera. One of her investors objected to this – it took some long explaining, said Meg, wryly.
Alex pointed out that, legally, it is essential that every page of a consent document is signed, not just the first or last page. Ditto in regard to any translations. Finally he told us that we should include in the consent document a statement that the consenting person is free to seek independent legal advice.
Ultimately, it is clear that all consent must be genuinely INFORMED consent. Consent, after all, is an integral part of the whole process of trust between the filmmaker and the people whose stories they wish to tell.
Footnotes
For those interested in exploring further the issues around consenting to appear in a documentary and the possible consequences, there are screenings of a documentary in the 2023 NZIFF this year called “Subject”.
“Did the release that you signed explain that your life might never be the same again?” – Andrew Langridge, NZIFF.
Austen McCowan speaks about trust and risk, regarding his film ‘Long Live My Happy Head’
Session 3 - ‘Disrupting Doc’
Panelists
Carol Dysinger (Professor, NYU) – Oscar & Emmy winner, Director “One Bullet” (Doc Edge 2023)
Fanni Fazakas (Victoria University) – Director, “Missing 10 Hours” (Doc Edge Exhibition 2023)
J P Marin (Sydney) – Co-founder of Distil Australia
Jason Loftus (Canada) – Oscar nominated director, “Eternal Spring” (Animated film, on Vice next summer)
While some forum sessions tend to fall into a process of panellists taking turns to speak at length about their own personal project or some particular aspect of the headline topic, this session felt like much more of a conversation. It seems simplest in this instance to summarise it as a selection of statements from these individuals – please note, these are NOT necessarily verbatim!
Carol Dysinger: We used to promise people a film never before seen in their country – we cannot do that now with the Internet. But new technologies enable us to put into visual form stuff that couldn’t be previously.
J P Marin: But that new technology must still be in service to the story!
Carol Dysinger: The need comes first, the technology second. The task is to find the technology that will break down the traditional linear structure (and so forth). The need is for lateral communication, to build community.
Fanni Fazakas: “Stop thinking sequentially, start to think spacially.”
Carol Dysinger: “The audience chooses their experience.”
J P Marin: How does new technology and experimentation affect the audience’s expectations?
Jason Loftus: With interactive form, there needs to be more flexibility in the edit, to see what actually works. Just as the script changes when editing a traditional linear story.
Carol Dysinger: Interactivity – how are we to free ourselves up from the old linear structure? We have always been messing with linear story – breaking time with flashbacks, for example, even though the structure is still linear in totality. To break time altogether, we must go into space.
Fanni Fazakas: But we still need a sense of direction, some kind of narrative structure.
Carol Dysinger: We brought someone in to teach us how to play video games! We need to find different ways to collaborate – not to get everyone to agree, but rather to work out how to get a group with different skills and experience to alternate, to share responsibility for different parts of the process. But then comes the big question – how does power shift? Who becomes The Decider? The provider of the project’s direction?
Jason Loftus: We need a change in the notion of what a director is! Something more co-operative…
Carol Dysinger: No-one has more effect on a film than the person you train your camera onto –never forget that! As in the old-school tradition, we show the subject the film during the edit process – but only to give them the opportunity to influence the cut, definitely not to cede control.
Carol Dysinger then went on to warn against so-called ‘citizen journalism’. “We must ask ourselves, who shot the footage, why, for what purpose – how was it edited, and again, to what purpose?” So often citizen journalism is used to spread misinformation, disinformation…
Finally, a reference to Brian Eno ‘Technology leads to ‘perfection’. Once perfection is achieved, we start to need to see Evidence of the Hand. TikTok is the new perfection!’
Footnotes
Links to articles in which Brian Eno poses questions regarding the potential loss of humanity consequent in the production of technically “perfect” music:
https://www.openculture.com/2016/07/brian-eno-explains-the-loss-of-humanity-in-modernmusic.html
https://thevinylfactory.com/features/the-dangers-of-digital-brian-eno-on-technology-and-modernmusic/
Session 4 - ‘What Just Happened to Documentary? The Subtle Art of Not Giving a #*%’
Presenter Matthew Metcalfe – Born in Christchurch 50 years ago, 27 of those years as a producer.
When approached with an invitation to do this session, Matthew asked the Doc Edge people, “Can I be provocative?” It was our good fortune that the answer was apparently an unqualified, enthusiastic “Yes!”.
Although born a Kiwi, Matthew grew up in Canberra. The family were dirt poor, a solo mother living in a state house. Mother and kids all slept in one bedroom to save on the cost of electricity.
The house was often violent, so Matthew spent a lot of time in the nearby library, where he read many stories of people overcoming disastrous circumstances and trauma. Thus he developed an intense interest in people, particularly in the triumph of the human spirit. Films he has produced about the first climbing of Everest in 1953 and the Kiwi racing driver Bruce McLaren – these are a direct link back to the books he read as a kid.
A conversation with an American friend led to the understanding that in order to do the kind of work we do as filmmakers, “You’ve gotta be a little bit broken”. Being a little broken develops in you a need to talk, to communicate to the world. It also means that you develop an empathy, and an understanding, of the people whose stories you are telling.
Documentary is not journalism!
Documentary is not objective truth – it’s your version of the truth. Documentary is a window into the soul of its subject(s).
Documentary has to be sincere.
If you don’t believe in the work, it won’t work.
Documentary is not about denigrating people. If it does do that, it is morally degenerate! There is an obligation to treat people decently.
Documentary is 100% written!
A treatment for a doco project should be about two thirds the length of a drama script. Matthew quoted an example of one of his recent projects which had a treatment that was 53 pages long (12,000 words).
The rising cost of making documentaries
There is a false narrative that one can make a documentary for pennies. But such films are becoming more expensive to make; costs are exploding.
We became so good with our film-making that the audiences came. Then the audiences demanded more, and so we became more sophisticated in our craft. Costs went up – a vicious circle developed. If you want to reach the world, then there is now an absolute need to be polished – “Everything is so slick today” – but increasingly, that costs.
The edit time for a high-end doco used to be 26 weeks – now it is up to 52. (And, by the way, editing is as much about what you leave out, as it is about what you keep in.)
Archival footage for Leanne Pooley’s film about the ascent of Everest in 1953 cost $70,000 – now it would be a quarter of a million.
It’s easy to spend $100,000 just on music rights alone.
In the past, an interviewee would not expect to receive any money for their contribution. But now, especially if a person is famous, then yes, they expect to be paid.
Our best documentaries have allowed us to tell New Zealand stories to the world, in a way that for drama is simply too expensive. “McLaren” had a $1 million budget – as a drama, it would’ve cost $80 million.
“There is a perfect correlation between cost and performance at the box office.”
The flipside of this is POVERTY.
A friend of Matthew’s made a brilliantly important doco in New Zealand. It took him two years, and he made $30,000 from it – that’s $15,000 per year of work. Matthew: “Unacceptable. Just wrong!”
Many doco-makers don’t make a cent out of their work. Their other work subsidises their docos.
However, “while making heaps of money might make you feel good for a while, it won’t make your kids love you”.
Doco versus Drama
Aotearoa/NZ has successfully told stories of so many Kiwi heroes. Documentary has done so much more (and way better) to relate New Zealand history, to show ourselves in the best light, than drama has. That’s why it is valuable – and why we must continue to value it!
Every country wants to have its own national cinema – so we have to be the best in order to get our stories to the world.
We start by bringing value, by understanding the value of Documentary to our society.
Documentary-making gives us immense privilege, not least in the people we get to meet.
The Number One Rule
All documentaries exist within a genre, just like drama. Know what your genre is! When you find a story, figure out what genre structure would help you tell the story best, in a way that the audience would love.
‘Derivative’ – derivative is easy, familiar – but it is useless, goes nowhere. ”Stay away from derivative!”
“Try to expand what documentary is.”
How do you find stories? Matthew pours through the media to find them – it’s a habit, a passion, of his.
‘The Subtle Art of Not Giving a #@%’ https://www.subtleartmovie.com/home/
One of Matthew’s latest projects as a producer is a cinematic adaptation of the bestselling self-help book by Mark Manson. The film had 2.1 million downloads in the first week. It was the fourth-ranked film on Netflix – and not just in the documentary list; it was the fourth most popular of all Netflix films.
A side-note: Documentary and Entertainment are becoming intertwined. Netflix is responsible for this, largely.
When pitching the project to Manson, Matthew told the author that the book was not ‘self-help’, it was autobiography. “It’s your story.” Fortunately, Manson agreed. From that developed a 51-page treatment…
The film is genre bending; it was extremely hard to make.
From the film’s homepage, we can see how this project fits Matthew’s film-making beliefs and attitudes:
“… a cinematic documentary designed to help us become less awful people. The author himself, Mark Manson, cuts through the crap to offer his not-giving-a-#@% philosophy: a dose of raw, refreshing, honesty that shows us how to live more contented lives.”
So…
WHAT JUST HAPPENED TO DOCUMENTARY?
Documentary just grew up! It matured, along with television, and other media. It exploded in popularity.
The audiences are there – not in the cinema, but elsewhere.
Documentary has found a home on streaming platforms.
Documentary is hard.
We still underestimate that. We self-delude, because it is so hard!
So many days in a week, it’s disheartening.
So many great ideas don’t ever get made.
There is no silver bullet, no formula – except knowing where, and how, to finance.
Matthew touted his latest project to us: Lucy Lawless’s debut feature as a director. “Never Look Away” is a biopic of the “swashbuckling CNN combat camerawoman, (Kiwi) Margaret Moth, risks it all to put the viewer inside the conflict” (IMDb). He describes the film as “Visionary. Amazing”.
But, he says, there will always be a place for the small and quirky, as exemplified by (an interesting example to choose) the Turkish film “Kedi”, about cats in Istanbul.
Most of us like to believe that not only is there still a place for such passion and commitment in documentary-making, but that it is an utterly essential ingredient to any form of successful filmmaking. Matthew’s monologue was as good a validation of this notion as it gets.
The energy, the excitement, the passion, and most importantly, the almost brutal honesty that Matthew brought to us that afternoon, were, quite simply, exhilarating.
Footnote
Metcalfe’s film “Billion Dollar Heist”, about the Lazarus Group’s cyber raid on the Bangla Desh Central Bank, is screening at the NZIFF this year.
Matthew Metcalfe speaks about the current state of documentary.Session 5 - ‘Enter the Dreamworld’
Panelists
Joseph Michael – AUT Artist-in-Residence, Filmmaker, Edmund Hillary Fellow Bruktawit Tigabu – Award-winning Ethiopian educational children’s TV show producer, film director, animator and school teacher.
Allyn Robins – Brainbox Institute (NZ), a public interest think tank and consultancy sitting at the intersection of technology, law, and public policy.
Alex Lee – Doc Edge Co-founder, Co-director [ Basil Shadid was at the last minute unavailable, due to family illness ]
Alex Lee: Deep fake technology is incredibly exciting – and absolutely terrifying! It is moving so fast – can we keep up?
Bruktawit Tigabu: How do we catch up before it is too late? Frightening!
Joseph Michael: We’re merging ourselves with VR.
Allyn Robins: It seems sudden… But there has been a huge amount of behind-the-scenes development over the last 10 or 15 years. What we are seeing now is the culmination of that. The kind of story portrayed in “Another Body” (Doc Edge 2023) has been happening since 2017/2018. What is changing is how people are accessing and using deep fake technology.
Alex Lee: Is technology reflecting a white male viewpoint, that of the privileged? There is a need to decolonise, to make it available to all. Some people are being left behind. We need to democratise the development process. What kind of world do we want? And how do we nurture the maturity and emotional intelligence sufficient to deal with all this?
Joseph Michael: A.I. has been developed within a western perspective and framework. How are indigenous peoples to adapt to it, and how should it be adapted for indigenous peoples?
Bruktawit Tigabu and Joseph Michael discuss a ‘dreaming tree’ AI prompt.
Allyn Robins: Questions regarding inclusion, diversity, equality of opportunity, are not new – they’re just being exposed to more strongly by the development of A.I. There is lots of activity in open-source A.I. around the world. It’s leaving us in the dust right now, it’s moving so fast.
Joseph showed us photos of trees in the Amazon. He programmed a computer to express ideas of a tree thinking or dreaming, and out of those photos it produced images such as the ones on the previous page.
Vicky Yiannoutsos: If a writer uses A.I. and “they” win an award, then who receives the award?
Allyn Robins: Perhaps they should be given an author credit, or write the credit as only the “Editor” of an A.I. script? The answer answer perhaps lies between the two. Recently, some literary publishers have shut down unsolicited submissions, because they have received thousands of identical submissions written by A.I.
Alex asked ChatPT to write a story about his father. It produced nine pages that he found quite moving.
Joseph Michael: A.I. is so efficient at teaching, and at the dissemination of information, compared with human-to-human teaching.
Alex Lee: There is a danger that anything done by A.I. is easily spread throughout the world. Confidentiality is already out the window.
Bruktawit Tigabu: Too late! We are past the point of controlling it.
Leanne Pooley: Are platforms responsible for the content on them?
Allyn Robins: Yes, they are. There is a need for them to adapt to the incoming flood of information, disinformation, misinformation. Frontiers are always moving forward. The Generators always have an advantage over The Detectors playing catch-up. We are more resilient to these technologies than we think we are – but we still need new markers of authenticity.
Alex Lee: Some of us prefer the term “Content Creator” now…
Allyn Robins: These are incredible tools, but they are still not the same as what Humans can do. A.I. doesn’t think, doesn’t understand, as humans do. The markers of authenticity will shift… And in the future, this will lead to greater emphasis on what only humans can do, in regard to creativity, and in how to recognise authenticity. Are we the last generation of documentary makers?
Joseph Michael: “As an artist, it expands my mind.”
Session 6 - ‘At the Crossroads of Authenticity, Story Sovereignty and Collaboration’
Panelists
Lin Alluna – (Denmark) Director of “Twice Colonised” (Doc Edge Fest 2023)
Aaju Peter – (Greenland, Inuit) Lawyer, Storyteller, subject of “Twice Colonised”
Emile Hertling Péronard – (Greenland, Denmark) Producer of “Twice Colonised”
Stephen Gerard Kelly – (Ireland) Director and Cinematographer of “In the Shadow of Beirut” (Doc Edge Fest 2023, World Premiere)
Moderator
Nathan Hoturoa Gray – (Aotearoa) Lawyer/Academic/Journalist, Doc Edge Board Member
Aaju Peter is an Inuit woman, one of the indigenous people of the Arctic region who range from Alaska across Canada to Greenland, and into Russia. In their own languages (grouped under the name Inuktut), the word Inuit means “the people”. When referring to an individual Inuit person, the word “Inuk” is used.
“Twice Colonised” – The film(ing)
The film’s logline: “A film made by Lin Alluna, lived by Aaju Peter.”
Director Lin: “No-one knows more what it is like to be Aaju than Aaju does.”
The project was shot over 7 years – both time and a place to listen, to watch.
Emile Hertling Péronard: Aaju had agency over her own story, which is quite unusual in a documentary. She was not just the subject, but also a writer and executive producer. This was unique, but none of them would have it any other way. At one point Emile said to Lin: “You’re the director, but nothing happens unless Aaju is on board.”
Lin Alluna describes herself as “a tall white person”, but with the (fortunate) ability to shrink into herself, to hide, to let the subject forget she’s even there. “You can control your own energy to benefit the film.”
Aaju wanted Lin to catch all the good and all the bad in her life. For Aaju it was okay to film everything, because she was well aware that they could always cut stuff out later!
Lin Alluna: “In the first rough cut, there was too much Danish, not enough Inuit – my fault.” So, there were re-shoots, pick-ups, even new scenes.
Emile Hertling Péronard: At the first screening in Greenland there was lots of laughter – but not so in Denmark – the Danes don’t know that they’re allowed to laugh! Foreign storytellers and filmmakers are focussed on the serious issues – Emile loves that now people do laugh more.
Aaju Peter – and her background
Aaju was sent from Greenland to Denmark for schooling – she lived there from age 11 till she was 18. Greenland had been colonised not once but twice – first by the Danes in 1721, then by the Canadians in the 1800s. Aaju says she learnt so much from both colonising cultures.
But on a personal level, she not only feels colonised by the invaders, but that she experienced another kind of colonisation when in Denmark as a teenager, having no option but to learn Danish.
Aaju is angry that Europeans make it so hard to be a community. That was not so 500 years ago –“But we are still here, laughing and sharing with the community.”
In a speech to a European Union event, she asked, “Do you want us to be traditional, or be part of the modern economy? Well, guess what – it’s our choice!”
Nathan Gray asked Aaju about indigenous rights in general, in a broader context.
Traditional, indigenous knowledge is just as important as scientific research, she states.
“We are the people of the ice – and the ice is melting.”
Nathan Hoturoa Gray: “Are you optimistic?”
Aaju Peter: “We wouldn’t have survived 10,000 years if we weren’t optimistic!”
Emile Hertling Péronard: “Aaju has been on magazine covers, in all the newspapers, because of this documentary. I’m also optimistic.”
Aaju Peter: “It’s incredble what a difference a documentary makes. Previously we could talk to only one person at a time.”
Nathan Hoturoa Gray: “(In Aotearoa) the language was literally beaten out of our older generation. In past years the fight to retrieve the language has at times been fought by a small but extremely vocal pocket of resistance. Though I too am optimistic, we must still keep fighting, fighting, fighting.”
At this point in the session the focus shifted to Stephen Gerard Kelly’s film, “In the Shadow of Beirut”.
In 2015, Stephen Kelly’s partner told him she was moving to Beirut for a job – “Either you come too, or we’re done”. He went.
He didn’t start out intending to make a film. The 90 minutes is culled from hundreds of hours of footage – a microcosm of what he saw – and lived – during a period of 5 years, as a local family drew him in, teaching him their language, their culture and history. Palestinian culture is culture of welcome, of drawing people in.
Nathan asked Aaju if the same was true of the Inuit people? She responded that it is very important to the Inuit that people leave a house, a place, with a good feeling, with fond memories.
Stephen then explained that the Irish are sympathetic to the Palestinians, because they were colonised by the same people who set up the Palestinian/Israeli situation.
History is written by the victors. For Stephen, it’s important to tell the stories of the colonised, to present to the world their point of view. He emphasised how helpful it is to use the modern tools (e.g. cameras) of the colonisers to convey minorities’ points of view; to complement, or even replace, the colonisers’ elitist views with those of others.
“The time is now for these conversations.”
Final word for this session to Aaju Peter:
“It only takes one generation to lose a language – or to regain it. Language is so much a part of one’s identity – that’s why it is SO important to retain it.”
In many of these sessions of the Doc Edge 2023 Forum, the content of films under discussion is of not just equal importance but inseparable from both the methods of filmmaking and the attitudes the filmmakers and their subjects bring to their work. In “Twice Colonised”, there’s a scene that encapsulates the impact of colonisation for indigenous people in today’s modern world with a directness and clarity that is unusual, it seems to me.
In the scene, Aaju Peter is meeting a Danish colleague in a café.
Danish Guy: “It’s the second time I meet you, and it’s with a Starbucks cup in your hand. You’re pretty Western – open, in many ways, to me.”
Aaju Peter: “So, already your opinion, and your image of what it should be to be Inuit, is from a colonial perspective.”
Danish Guy: “Sure.”
Aaju Peter : “Because you want to see me as a pure Inuk 300 years ago, without a Starbucks – that’s so – so colonial!”
(Silence)
Aaju Peter : “Yeah – and that’s the biggest hurdle as Inuit and as Greenlanders, the biggest hurdle we always have to battle.
“People say: You call yourself Inuit and you’re smoking and you’re drinking and you’re having a coffee and you’re speaking English and you’re travelling to all these western countries – that is a so 400-years-ago way of thinking.
“The rest of the world is allowed to continue in a modern life and the indigenous people should remain indigenous in the way that the colonisers think of indigenous people?
“No – fuck you – we want to be part of this industrialised modern world – but we want it from our perspective, and we want it from the way we see things, not the way that is imposed on us.”
Footnotes
‘Twice Colonised’ – The Film
https://www.anorakfilm.gl/twice-colonized
A renowned Inuit lawyer, Aaju Peter has led a lifelong fight for the rights of her people. When her son suddenly dies, Aaju embarks on a journey to reclaim her language and culture after a lifetime of whitewashing and forced assimilation. But is it possible to change the world and mend your own wounds at the same time?
Aaju Peter – Subject Of The Film
Born 1960, Arkisserniaq, Greenland, as well as a lawyer, she is an activist and sealskin clothes designer. In 2012, she received the Order of Canada. She has travelled across Greenland, Europe, and Canada, performing modern drum dance and traditional singing and displaying sealskin fashions. She graduated from Akitsiraq Law School in 2005 and was called to the bar in 2007. She has appeared in the documentary films “Angry Inuk” (2016) and “Arctic Defenders” (2013).
In the 1980s Peter married a Canadian and moved to Frobisher Bay, now Iqaluit. She raised five children on her own and still resides in Iqaluit.
Lin Alluna – Directorhttp://www.pondusfilm.com
From her website:
“I primarily express myself through international, character-driven documentaries. With my films I aim to portray brave women who want to change the world, while cinematically exploring how to amplify their stories to an audience.
I specialised as a documentary director at the National Film School of Denmark 2013-2017 as one of six directors. It was during my four years in this intense programme I got to develop my personal cinematic style that dissolves the limits of reality. My debut feature “Twice Colonized” premiered at Sundance Film Festival 2023 and was the opening film at CPH:DOX 2023.”
Emile Hertling Péronard – Producer
Emile Hertling Péronard is an Oscar-nominated Greenlandic film producer based in Denmark and coowner (with director Inuk Silis Høegh) of the production company Ánorâk Film, operating out of both Nuuk and Copenhagen.
Born in Copenhagen in 1979, but he grew up in Nuuk, Greenland, with his Greenlandic mother and Danish father. Péronard aims at building a bridge between Europe and the Arctic, producing authentic stories in a Greenlandic context for international audiences.
Through his involvment in the Greenlandic filmmakers organization, FILM.GL, Péronard has also been highly active in promoting Greenlandic film content internationally, setting up talent initiatives for Greenlandic filmmakers, as well as improving the general conditions for film production in Greenland.
Founded in 2011, Ánorâk Film focusses on telling authentic stories in a Greenlandic context. The first film from Ánorâk Film was the feature documentary “SUMÉ – The Sound of a Revolution” which was selected as the first ever film from Greenland to screen at the Berlinale (Panorama 2015). It has screened at more than 70 international film festivals, and won several awards. Ánorâk Film also produces programming and information campaigns for TV and the web, but always with a focus on authenticity and through a set of ethical values put forward by owners Inuk Silis Høegh and Emile Hertling Péronard. Building a bridge between Europe and the Arctic, Ánorâk Film also engages as coproducer on international film productions and other works within both documentary and fiction.
‘In The Shadow Of Beirut’ – The Film https://www.stephengerardkelly.com/in-the-shadow-of-beirut
“The film captures the stark realities of poverty faced by families every day, highlighting the humanity and kindness and how people continue to live, love and hope in the face of overwhelming adversity. The filmmakers’ dedication to immersing themselves in the community is evident throughout the film, and the deep connection to the families shines through in every frame. This film is a must watch for anyone who wants to gain a deeper understanding of the human cost of the ongoing multifaceted crisis, and a powerful window in a rarely seen world, even by Lebanese people living in Lebanon.” – Co-producer Myriam Sassine
“This is no normal documentary where people parachute into a foreign land to film an unknown people. It's impossible to capture the footage Stephen filmed without investing significant time and developing real friendships, particularly in this part of Beirut. Stephen takes time to get to know people first and understand who they are before ever filming. This shows in the footage. There is a fantastic, passionate and experienced team behind this project, and I, as a Lebanese woman, feel privileged to have been part of it.” – Editor Zeina Aboul-Hosn
Stephen Gerard Kelly: https://www.stephengerardkelly.com
Ireland-raised Stephen is a director and cinematographer who has lived in the Congo, Sudan, Haiti, Lebanon, Laos, Australia and New York City. Stephen’s reputable clients span across the filmmaking, corporate and non-profit worlds.
An education in photography coupled with an MSc in Development Management and Emergency Response, while also having worked for years in the world's most difficult conflict zones, has developed excellent narrative storytelling skills. Previous field based research into Sudan’s lengthy Civil War has positively influenced government foreign policy and humanitarian aid delivery at the highest levels internationally, including the UK and US governments.
Stephen's documentary projects range from working with minority groups including Irish Travelling People (or Travellers/Travelers) to filming human migration and its related challenges, to urban child labor in the Middle East, to documenting the effects of conflict both locally and internationally. Some of his best known work focuses on post-nomadic communities in urban environments, people displaced by conflict and people experiencing statelessness.
Stephen now lives in the Dominican Republic with his Bronx-raised, Latina partner and their two children. His work takes him all around the world. Including to Aotearoa and Doc Edge 2023, where he was a very popular guest.
Session 7 - ‘Fake It Till You Make It’
Panelists
Leanne Pooley (NZ) Doc Edge Superhero 2017 Director, “We Need to Talk about A.I.” (& other films…)
Sophie Compton (UK) Co-Director, “Another Body” (Doc Edge 2023)
Reuben Hamlyn (USA) Co-Director, “Another Body” (Doc Edge 2023)
Tom Barraclough (NZ) Director, Brainbox Institute (Akld) (see Footnotes)
As Leanne Pooley said to open the session, the film “Another Body” is a truly fascinating portrait of what we now know as ‘Deep Fake’ technology.
An American college student, named Taylor in the documentary, was alerted by her friends to a pile of pornographic videos circulating on the internet that, they said, featured her in starring roles. But was it her? Or more accurately – it was her face, but was it her body?
In its journey towards detecting and unmasking the vengeful creator of the videos in question, the film not only exposes the deep fake technology used by the pornographer, but it (ironically) uses another, more sophisticated, form of deep fake technology to protect the real person whose story the filmmakers wish to tell.
‘Taylor’ is not played by an actor, does not have her face pixelated, is not placed behind a curtain; nor are any of the other older techniques of disguise that we are familiar with used here. Instead, what has been labelled an “AI Veil” has been employed – in which another face is artificially created and this ‘fake’ face is superimposed over, or perhaps better, substituted for, the real person’s face. In a way that is not unlike (or is an improvement on?) motion capture, the real person’s head/face is filmed from many different angles for each line of dialogue, in preparation for the substitution.
The ultimate effect is astoundingly convincing.
So convincing in fact, that Tom Barraclough admitted that he had to go back and have another look at the segment where the film reveals the Veil technique, just to be sure! He was not alone in finding it almost impossible to detect the technique even after having it explained and demonstrated.
Perhaps a little surprisingly, the decision was made to not alter Taylor’s voice in the documentary –she herself wanted to preserve the genuineness of the emotion in her voice as she was telling her story. But the filmmakers did change the voice for a secondary character, to create additional protection for that person’s privacy.
Once the Veil is created, it is quite possible to “edit” within the Veil – for example, to change a spoken name. But this is very tricky, and it is the part of the process easiest to detect.
Co-director Sophie Compton related how another film project used a fake voice, because the character they were depicting was in fact deceased. But the filmmakers didn’t tell the audience until the end of the film. Feeling duped, the audience was angry – there was a very public backlash.
Consequently, Sophie and her co-director Reuben Hamlyn felt it was extremely important to win the trust of the audience by not just revealing the use of their Veil technique, but by doing so very early in the film. Certainly, even after the technique is exposed, the 99.9% of us who had not twigged to it still found it difficult to detect. And as we see in the way Taylor’s foe had been able to exploit her image (followed by the way this film is made), this technology is advancing at an extraordinary rate –and obviously, the possibilities of it being used for either good or ill are immense.
Most of us recall how New Zealand’s National Party got themselves into hot water not so long ago by breaching copyright in some of their advertising. In a new version, they have created not just faces, but complete images. Some journalistic commentary has asserted that this is crossing the threshold of acceptability, chiefly because correcting misapprehension (or any other form of attempting to dupe an audience) is much harder to do than creating the problem in the first place.
Leanne Pooley asked, is there a difference between using an actor on the one hand, or an AIgenerated face? Should it be a crime to fake a face in this way, when done without consent?
Tom Barraclough had no doubt – “Absolutely!”
Tom went on to point out that the New Zealand parliament recently had an opportunity to make such unconsented fakery a crime, but has not done so. We do have what’s known as “Harmful Communication” legislation, where posting any kind of communication that could be harmful to someone else is a crime.
So, is doing deep fake work for oneself okay? Tom’s gut feeling was, Yes – but he insists, it’s a subject that we need to discuss!
But some people, it seems, are not as worried about the issues raised by the development of deep fakes, nor about how to deal with the issues round them.
An historical parallel: horses in New York. In the days before cars, the amount of horse droppings in the city streets became so great that the stench and the spread of disease became almost impossible to manage. Nobody realised that the solution was the motor vehicle – they couldn’t imagine it until it happened. From this perspective, there is optimism that there will soon come a way of dealing with all this effectively. Tom concurs that he is one of the optimists – but he still asserts very strongly the need for discussion.
Tom concurs that he is one of the optimists, as does Reuben Hamlyn. Reuben is confident that in three years or thereabouts, there will be ways of dealing with issues surrounding deep fakery.
For all the panellists, transparency is the biggest issue. The story of “Another Body” couldn’t have been told anywhere as effectively or with such impact without using deep fake technology – but the reveal was utterly essential for credibility with the audience.
Of course, this kind of problem is not new to us. As Leanne pointed out, situations like this have been present right since the beginning of filmmaking – when, for example, for the first time a filmmaker shot two people in separate places, then in the edit suite they cut the shots together to make it look as though the two people were in the same room.
Four years ago, Leanne made a film about AI – before the appearance of ChatGPT. Her advice now would be not to make a film about AI – things are developing so fast in this arena that any such film would be out-of-date within two weeks!
The question still remains: What is legitimate, and what is not?
Therefore, as Tom Barraclough insists, the discussion must continue.
Footnotes
ChatGPT
https://openai.com › chatgpt
“ChatGPT is an AI chatbot that uses natural language processing to create humanlike conversational dialogue. The language model can respond to questions and compose various written content, including articles, social media posts, essays, code and emails. You can use ChatGPT for free – for now. Since the natural language processing model is still in its research and "learning" preview phase, people can use it for free; you only need to register for a free OpenAI account, though there is an option to upgrade to a paid membership.”
Brainbox: From Tom Barraclough’s Linkedin Page:
“I’m the Strategic Director and Co-Founder of Brainbox Ltd, an organisation researching emerging technology and corresponding policy and legal issues. I am a passionate and highly-experienced consultant, project manager, and analyst with a proven track record of influencing policy from outside government, building relationships, and solving complex tasks within limited budgets.
“I have worked on projects pertaining to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Corporation, the AI Forum of New Zealand, OpenLaw NZ, and more. I have also run a forum that included organisations such as the Electoral Commission, the Human Rights Commission, Department of Internal Affairs, the police, intelligence agency representatives, the Ministry of Justice, and others.
“I hold experience analysing complex ideas in public-facing projects, producing meaningful and relevant reports, presenting to high-level officials, including Ministers and senior executives, communicating with the public and media, and always delivering durable and optimal conclusions on difficult areas.
“I establish key relationships quickly and find opportunities to generate mutual advantage and promote understanding. As a leader, I aim to create an environment of honesty and respect, while listening to and remaining curious about everyone’s perspectives.”
Session 8 - ‘Hasta La Vista, Baby – How Cancel Culture Affects the Arts’
Panelists
Michael Goldwater – Podcast Director, “The Shape of Dialogue”
David Novack – Director, “All Static and Noise” (World Premiere, Doc Edge 2023)
Stephen Gerard Kelly – Director, “In the Shadow of Beirut” (World Premiere, Doc Edge 2023)
Brannavan Gnanalingam – Author of 7 novels, Lawyer
Alex Lee – Co-founder & co-director of Doc Edge, also a Lawyer
At the Venice Biennale one year, there was an installation that the Chinese government did not like. So they pulled out all 200 of their delegates. There was a financial effect – the Chinese audiences didn’t come – and a reputational effect – they didn’t come back in subsequent years.
In Germany, an award was won by a film/filmmaker that the Chinese government did not like. On the night of the presentation the Chinese government crashed the Internet over the whole of the city of Weimar.
Michael Goldwater: Cancel culture is nothing new. So why this topic today? It’s a fascinating one, as it’s so grey!
Alex Lee: Cancel culture is a group attempt to stifle opposing views. As in, for example: “I disagree with / don’t like that film / person / idea, so you shouldn’t screen it!”
Usually these people have never seen the film in question.
Later in the session, Alex went on to amplify his earlier comment about these threats made in the past against Doc Edge – which often were aimed directly at staff members.
A few years ago, the Doc Edge festival selected a film about David Ben-Gurion, the primary founder of the state of Israel, and its first prime minister. The film was actually made by people critical of the Israeli government, but the objectors were apparently unaware of that.
Protesters were lying on the footpath outside the theatre, and more were inside. Somewhere there was a fake bomb ‘ticking’ – the bomb makers were taken away by the police. But other protesters who were inside the Q Theatre stayed, and watched the film. Then they came over, and apologised
Alex Lee: “It was the worst night, and the best night, of my life.”
Michael Goldwater: “I applaud Doc Edge’s resistance.”
Brannavan Gnanalingam: New Zealand has a Bill of Rights, but no Constitution. If another law conflicts with the Bill of Rights, the latter overrides the former.
From the NZ Government’s Justice Department’s website:
“Under New Zealand law, section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
And:
“Section 16 of the Act protects freedom of expression. Expression includes words and other expressive activities. The right also protects ideas that will offend or disturb people and therefore includes a duty to be tolerant of others.” (My emphasis – TF)
Brannavan Gnanalingam: It’s significant that freedom of speech is not unlimited – it’s bounded by the need for us to co-exist in our society.
(I’m reminded here of Maggie Thatcher’s dictum that there is “no such thing as society” – but then, she was not exactly a champion of peaceful co-existence! – TF.)
David Novack: We don’t yet know how much ‘cancellation’ has been involved with our film about the Uighur people in China. But in West Virginia (USA) we were unable to fundraise, because we’d previously spoken out against the state government and about mining in that state.
In the USA, one can make a film that is critical of the government (as David has) and not be prevented from doing so. It can screen on public television, and elsewhere – yet still there is pressure. The danger is that this pressure can lead to self-censorship.
“We have to question all the time the visual images we find, or that are leaked to us. This is a form of self-censorship.”
“We’ve been keeping very quiet about our new film until now.” (‘Now’ being the occasion of its world premiere at Doc Edge.)
David and his team are not especially concerned about their crew – but are very concerned about their subjects (and their families) – about their mental health and trauma. Just speaking in a film is to be labelled ‘activist’.
Social media can disproportionately magnify responses. Already there have been accusations on Twitter, such as “Liars!”
David’s response: “Cool. Come and see the film, and then let’s talk!”
Alex Lee: We want films that stimulate discussion, that move the dial, that stick in the mind. The question should be – does this film need to be seen? Not – what will the reaction be.
We want people to be respectful in their response. If you don’t like a film, by all means disagree with it, but respectfully.
“If you don’t agree with it, then don’t go to see it.”
(Equally: do not prevent people watching it – allow them the right to make up their own minds. – TF)
“A film is about its subject, not about the filmmaker. To deny a film is to deny the subject’s right to speak.
The mindset of objectors isn’t about conversation and discussion – it’s ‘Seek and Destroy’!”
The fact that the NZ government’s Ministry of Culture and Heritage has recently denied Doc Edge’s latest application for continued funding led Alex to comment that “Inequality of opportunity is also a form of cancel culture.”
A number of contributions to the discussion were made by people in the audience.
Kay Ellmers spoke of the ‘Beauty of the Marketplace’: that there is no beauty in the marketplace if you’re not part of the majority! Certainly, in regard to equity of funding, there has been progress in our country recently, but there is still a way to go.
Another contributor suggested that there are some people who should be cancelled, but never will be – because they already have a big audience. Their example was Mike Hosking – “Are his ravings (considered) opinion? No, he’s just opinionated.”
Izzy from Seattle pointed out that we have lost the ability to reflect upon our own unconscious bias(es). She asks, how can we help deal with cancel culture?
David Novack watches Fox News even though he detests it, because , he says, we need to know what is being said, in order to be prepared, to be able, to counter it.
As a screenwriter friend once said to me: “If you want to know what and how the average person thinks in today’s world (as opposed to those belonging to the cliques of society that artists and creatives tend to live within), then listen to talkback radio. You might not what like what you hear, but you need to know what is being thought, said and believed out there. That is, if in your work you want to truly reflect real life in our society.” – TF
Alex Lee: Documentary makers are mostly not in it for the money, but rather because they believe their story is important, and must be told.
“Festivals should be the home for such films. If festivals start censoring, then we are headed for disaster. Documentarys need a home, and festivals are that home.”
“And, by the way, Self-Distribution is so tough, it will kill you!”
David Novack: Knowledge is power. And ‘Power’ tries to instill ignorance, because that way ‘Power’ can retain its influence and control.
For there to be no conversation means there is no chance to change opinion.
Footnotes
David Novack
Director, “All Static and Noise” (Doc Edge Festival 2023)
As well as writing, directing and producing activist documentaries that have won awards in places as varied as Moscow, Brussels and Sundance, David teaches film, formerly at the University of Pennsylvania and presently at the Universidade Lusófona in Lisbon, Portugal.
With him in Aotearoa was his co-producer and co-writer with “All Static and Noise”, Janice Englehart:
Janice Englehart
From their Odessa Films website:
Her interest in documentary filmmaking began with her work on Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Project in the 1990s. Through her interviews with Holocaust survivors, she saw the cathartic and therapeutic value of video documentation with traumatized people, and believed that a documentary film could be beneficial to the Uyghur community subject to human rights abuse in western China. She has long known the power of documentary film to shine a light on issues that demand global response.
As producer of “All Static & Noise”, she brings together her nine years of collaboration with Chinese and American visual and performing artists in Mainland China, her experience as a social worker in Taipei (Taiwan) using creative tools for recovery from trauma, and rights activism with environmental issues in the United States. Janice carries this history, her unyielding desire to bring people together, and her belief that creative work is the best antidote for addressing any problem, into the production of “All Static & Noise”.
Brannavan GnanalingamBorn in 1983 in Sri Lanka, Brannavan grew up in Lower Hutt. He is an author and practicing lawyer with the firm Buddle Findlay at its Wellington office. He has published at least 7 novels, two of which have been shortlisted for the Ockham NZ Book Award. One of those, the 2020 novel, Sprigs, won the 2021 Best Novel prize at the Ngaio Marsh Awards. The Guardian described Sprigs as "an incendiary novel" and "an important examination of racism, violence and toxic masculinity that everyone should read".
Michael Goldwaterhttps://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/the-shape-of-dialogue/id1530320341
“The Shape of Dialogue” podcast focuses on the foundational principles that make societies function at their best. It initially started with an investigation into free speech; it continues to discuss relevant and interesting topics about our world and how best to navigate through it.
“All Static & Noise” – Genocide in China – The Shape of Dialogue Podcast # 20 David Novack talks about “All Static & Noise”, his documentary on the Uyghur genocide in western China.
www.allstaticandnoise.com
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100088787521406
Doc Edge & “The UnRedacted with Alex Lee” – The Shape of Dialogue Podcast # 18 Alex Lee talks about the worldwide banning of Meg Smaker's feature-length documentary, "The Unredacted (Jihad Rehab)". The film follows a group of men trained by al-Qaeda who are transferred from Guantanamo and sent to the world's first rehabilitation centre for ‘terrorists’ in Saudi Arabia. Alex talks about why New Zealand's Doc Edge was the only film festival in the world to show “The UnRedacted”, after the Sundance Film Festival removed the film from its lineup and apologised for showing it because a small group of activists campaigned against the film. Please help Meg to get her film shown by donating here: gofundme.com/f/the-unredacted-jihad-rehab
Sam Harris Podcast – A Tale of Cancellation: A Conversation with Meg Smaker https://youtu.be/rec9wVWa1IA
Stephen Gerard Kelly
Director, “In the Shadow of Beirut” (Doc Edge Festival 2023) https://www.stephengerardkelly.com
Ireland-raised Stephen is a director and cinematographer who has lived in the Congo, Sudan, Haiti, Lebanon, Laos, Australia and New York City. Stephen’s reputable clients span the filmmaking, corporate and non-profit worlds.
An education in photography coupled with an MSc in Development Management and Emergency Response, while also having worked for years in the world's most difficult conflict zones, has developed excellent narrative storytelling skills. Previous field based research into Sudan’s lengthy Civil War has positively influenced government foreign policy and humanitarian aid delivery at the highest levels internationally, including the UK and US governments.
Stephen's documentary projects range from working with minority groups, including Irish Travelling People, to filming human migration and its related challenges, to urban child labor in the Middle East, to documenting the effects of conflict both locally and internationally. Some of his best known work focuses on post-nomadic communities in urban environments, people displaced by conflict and people experiencing statelessness.
Stephen now lives in the Dominican Republic with his Bronx-raised, Latina partner and their two children. His work takes him all around the world – Including to Aotearoa and Doc Edge 2023, where he was a very popular guest.
Terminology
The term "Hasta la vista" (literally "Until the view") is a Spanish farewell that can generally be understood as meaning "Until the (next) time we see each other", or "See you later", or "Goodbye".
© Doc Edge and Tony Forster 2023
