The American Ruling Class
May 19th, 2008 • Related Posts • Tags
I am putting together a list of hybrid documentaries for the Reframe blog, and I remembered a film that I didn’t actually get to see. The filmmakers presented clips and information about the project at the Virginia Film Festival several years ago, but I never caught the finished film, The American Ruling Class. Seeing the YouTube clip below, I guess it doesn’t surprise me that the film didn’t make a big splash. The “acting” is awkward and the transitions are clumsy, but it’s got heart. Thoughts? Other hybrid docs you like?
UPDATE: A review of the film from Chuck Tryon>>
Unfortunately I still haven't had a chance to see The Killer Within, but hopefully I can find time soon, especially ...
Thanks, Agnes. Without smart friends like you getting the word out, our films would go nowhere. Such a blessing when ...
Definitely a good meme.
I'm going to weigh in with Lifeguard. This is a low-budget feature from the 70s. Beach movie/B ...
I went to a small liberal arts school in New Jersey, Fairleigh Dickinson. What did you read? 
hey Agnes, where did you go to school? I also took a course called Creative Non-Fiction (though we never read ...
Comment by John Kirby on 20 May 2008:
On the contrary, the film IS making a big splash, just in slo motion. we didn’t elect to go with the distributors who offered after Tribeca, because their offers ammounted to stealing the film. Right now we are selling exclusively on the educational market and doing limited theatrical openings. We are on the verge of breaking all sales records in the educational market and we have already been a huge hit on the BBC oversseas and in Canada. The whole film is available on our website http://www.theamericanrulingclass.org– check out what everyone from Studs Terkel to New York magazine said there… its still has not even been releaseed widely for review.. again, mostly to educators and overseas.
In regards the hybrid nature, there is a comment on IMDB by someone from “Finland” who gets it just right… we have done something totally new here. I’ll let him (or her?) explain it. I hope you get a chance to watch the whole flow of the thing to better appreciate what we were up to… we make clear up fron that these are the “real” kids, and not actors… it doesn;t bother anyone who watches it from the beginning.
Cheers, and I hope you get a chance to see it!
Best,
John Kirby
Director, The American Ruling Class
Comment by Agnes Varnum on 20 May 2008:
I’d be curious to know how you measure “breaking all sales records in the educational market”? I’m unaware of any publically available statistics on those numbers.
Comment by David on 21 May 2008:
I saw this film at IDFA a few years ago. Honestly, it’s a bit of a trainwreck. Some great ideas, but, as you suss out Agnes, it’s really clunky. And, for those who don’t know me, I’m as big a fan of experimentation with documentary form as anyone I know. I applaud these filmmakers for taking some risks, but, well, like all risks, they sometimes end in failure. And while I’m glad to hear that the director is happy with how it’s fared abroad and in the educational market, it’s not a film that I can recommend as among the best of the new wave of nontraditional docs.
Comment by John Kirby on 21 May 2008:
We used the festival circuit as a way to workshop the film– this was tremendously helpful to us (after all, we were doing something that no one else had done before in quite the same way) but we knew we would take hits along the way– few people can watch an (unmixed, no less) rough cut.
The final version of the film, released a few months ago (and not nearly finished doing so) has become a critical and commercial success. We will be opening in limited theatrical markets, and we have signed a deal with a major commercial DVD distributor. You can look on Bullfrog films.com for more reviews, mainly from the educational market, or our website. Admittedly, the film is not for those without a sense of humor (or for whom english is a second language, as is the case with the Dutch). I include this post from IMDB, by someone “from finalnd” to prove the exception to the rule, however– whoever this person is, they truly understood what we accomplished:
deadly accurate and tactfully subversive, 20 March 2008
9/10
Author: K2nsl3r from Finland
In this smoothly flowing semi-documentary, John Kirby and Lewis Lapham guide us through a believable but dramatized set of circumstances in the would-be lives of two well educated young men ready to embark on their promising careers in business, politics and whatever else.
Dreamlike, we are driven across landscapes and cityscapes, from the rectangular office spaces of Wall Street to the comfortably luxurious houses of the well-off. During the process, we are haunted, as the life-like main characters are, by the seductive promise of life on the leading edge of American power and money.
The choice of fictionalizing a documentary is, by itself, nothing new, but the WAY this has been done here is quite unique. It seems that all the fictive elements only serve the purpose of truth and accuracy, instead of obfuscating the realities involved. Even the graphical and musical interludes serve as surprisingly sympathetic material for further reflection. Unfortunately this strategy subjects the film to criticism from those who find such content offensive or unnecessary. This film is too “artsy” for some; others may find it “preachy”, for much the same reasons. For me, the true achievement of the film is precisely its ability to toe that fine line between realism and idealism without ever falling overboard.
Thanks largely to Lewis Lapham and a wonderful “cast” of what in a lesser documentary would be called talking heads (including such giants as Kurt Vonnegut, Robert Altman, Howard Zinn and Walter Cronkite), the film delivers a cinematic equivalent of a journalistic exposition, both laid back and straight to the point. Indeed, this is Lapham’s film as much as Kirby’s, and for those who find his presence overbearing, this film might prove to be too much. But its subjectivity is perfectly honest and sincere, and should be applauded as such.
While this is clearly not a “pure” documentary in the traditional sense, I wouldn’t call it either fiction or mockumentary - it’s really one of a kind. For anybody with an interest in the way academicians, aspiring college graduates, business people and powerful politicians see the world and how they reflect on their own role in the functioning of the system, this film is a must see. Whether or not it is useful to talk of a “Ruling Class”, the jarringly disparate perspectives of the very rich and powerful in contrast to the way more modestly earning wage workers see the world raises many questions - and, probably, the hair on your neck! It is not without its problems; the last half could probably have used re-editing. Still, it is a unique look - and certainly just one possible look - at the way power, money and ideology operate in today’s society.
It is deadly accurate, mainly because it lets people speak for themselves. For this same reason, and underneath its cool and tact, it is surprisingly subversive and charming. Despite Lapham’s grayer-than-gray attire, the film is anything but.
Comment by John Kirby on 21 May 2008:
PS- Last night Larry Daivd approached Lewis at a party, having seen the film on Sundance, is a huge fan, wants copies, etc., etc. Add him to a list that includes Jerry Stiller, Bill Moyers (the staff at the Journal gave the film a standing ovation while watching in their edit rooms, without the filmmakers there), Studs Terkel, the producer of the great Chomsky doc, Manufacturing Consent, and dozens of papers and magazines including Vanity Fair, etc etc… And we haven’t even made a REAL splash yet! Maybe you guys ought to give it another look…(I hated “Breaking the Waves” and “The Matrix” when i first saw them… I was just in a bad mood, I guess…)
Comment by David on 21 May 2008:
All good points John. And, fwiw, I really respect that you have continued to tune the film after its festival debut. I will certainly take a look at the new version and hope to like what I see.
Thanks also for the measured tone of your response. I know it’s hard to hear criticism of something you’ve invested so much of yourself into and many filmmakers get really defensive about stuff like this. I appreciate your willingness to defend your film without feeling personally attacked.
best and good luck with the release,
David
Comment by Lisa Wilson on 21 May 2008:
The American Ruling Class is one of the best films that I ever seen. Agnes Varnum should have more sense than to critique a film of which she has seen only clips, posted on You Tube. The problem with this site and all the other sites out there is that allows uneducated people to comment as though they know something when they don’t.
Reading the comments above I concur with David in congragulating Mr. Kirby for not feeling personally attacked. I, however, do not agree with his comments about the film. I too saw it at IDFA, and I thought the film was an extraordinary piece of film making. It is nuanced, and beautifully written and edited. Congratulations!
Comment by David Wilson on 22 May 2008:
While I’m happy to agree to disagree with you, Lisa, about our response to the film at IDFA, I have to take issue with your comments about Agnes and her site.
First off, when it comes to thinking and writing about documentaries, Agnes is about as educated a person as you’ll find. She’s wicked smart and has spent a great deal of time watching, thinking and writing about documentary form. I would actually say that the GREAT thing about this site is that educated people comment on the state of the art of nonfiction filmmaking and help shape the discourse that surrounds it.
Secondly, if you read what Agnes actually wrote, it’s not really that critical. She responds to the Youtube clip (which she obviously has seen) and calls the acting “awkward” and the transitions “clumsy”, both of which I would have to agree with and both of which are apparent in that clip (as well as in the rest of the cut that I saw). She goes on to give the film credit for having “heart” and asks for thoughts from those who have seen the finished film.
I think disagreements about films, especially on the cutting-edge of doc/fiction hybrids is not only natural, but healthy. And, given that, I can’t think of a better place to have these discussions than Agnes’ site.
Comment by john kirby on 22 May 2008:
Check out the film now. It’s defintely “the state of the art”– was at IDFA, too, but no one can watch a rough cut (especially laypeople–no offense).
It was often tough to watch it among the dour Dutch. I reccomend watching it with an American, British or Canadian audience. They tend to laugh a lot. And it has only become more prescient and relevant, as we watch a primary process that is so obviously a dramatic-documentary (or rather a faux reality show, if that isn’t redundant)– scipted by the ruling class. (For more on this, see http://collusiveharmony.blogspot.com/ my oped pieces for the Providence Journal transferred to my new blog).
Making the American Ruilng Class was really, really hard… stretching the documentary limits as we did took a tremendous amount of thought. I refer you to the post “from Finland” again for a more intelligent appraisal of what we accomplished than any of us might be capable of. Even in it’s nascent form, it was never a “trainwreck” to the thousands of very bright people who understood what we were doing… and appreciated subtle satire, even when the cuts WERE off. We have made considerable progress since then in making it more accessible to a wider audience… (a mix does help).
The Nickel and Dimed material was among the first stuff we shot… and for all of the young man’s admitted stiltedness, it still often stops the show, often with a round of applause. Agnes, as I have suggested before, please watch it in context if, perhaps, whatever critical baggage you may carry is standing in the way of appreciating it on its own terms.
Where it concerns transitions, as I wrote to Agnes privately, it is not at all appropriate to make judgements about those based on a YouTube viewing. Even on the fastest connections, the audio and video cuts are regularly at LEAST a few frames off. It’s like trying to judge a stereo mix through a single earwig. No one with any experience making films (or indeed any real expertise as a critic) would make the attempt.
Lisa, did we meet at IDFA? Thanks for your spirited defense of our efforts against the hottentots!
As for Agnes and David; I reiterate… as to sales, wait and see, ditto on cultural impact and critical reception (indications are good).. as for your own personal appreciation, I recommend loosening up a little and …. watching the film! (It’s okay if you enjoy yourself and even laugh a little.. tons of the smartest people in the anglophone world have!)
And I extend my offer beyond Agnes to any readers of this post (within broad limits); Send me the postage or a FedEx number (johnapkirby@gmail.com) and we will send you a film… And always keep in mind the worst insult Estragon calls Vladimir, the one that ends the fight: “Critic!”
Comment by AJ on 22 May 2008:
I agree with John. It’s time that all you vain fat cats who run the independent film scene throw off the yoke of the government-corporate alliance that threatens our liberties. Smart people in the anglophone world are doing it and you should too. I don’t know that I’d go so far to call you “hottentots”, a loaded word with known racist connotations (and I’m just hoping that John as a right-thinking non-layperson who is both prescient and relevant used it in a purely ironic, satirical sense). However, I’d be curious to hear more of this “stretching the documentary limits” that you speak of. Where do I find more of this and how will I know if it is somehow the product of the aforementioned vain fat cats and corporate conglomerates. Please tell me how I can know. Thank you.
Comment by David on 22 May 2008:
Hmm, not sure how (or, honestly, if) I should respond to John’s volley. After some pretty thoughtful discussion, all of a sudden there are a handful of not-so-veiled suggestions that maybe I didn’t like the movie because I wasn’t smart enough?
I don’t really have the energy for that sort of discussion, and it’s hard to argue quality when the discussion starts with ‘you saw a rough cut and now the film is very different’. So I’ll just reiterate what I said in an earlier post, which is that I applaud any and all efforts to bring humor and subversive narrative elements to nonfiction filmmaking. For me, TARC failed in these efforts more often than it succeeded. For others, that may not have been the case. I’ll try to loosen up, maybe that will help.
Finally, John, you don’t know me. So I won’t take your use of the horribly racist word “hottentots” as a direct insult. I imagine you just had a vague idea of it connoting ignorance and weren’t aware of its racist past (coined, oddly enough, by the Dutch, who you seem so down on). But I’d strike that one from your vocabulary pretty quickly if you want to separate yourself from ruling classes anywhere.
Comment by John Kirby on 23 May 2008:
David,
Think hard…You started it. If you call my film a “trainwreck”, I’m going to come out swinging.
You should have “gotten it” at IDFA. Yes, the failing was in you. However, it will be much easier for a non-professional now that the film is fine-cut and mixed.
Thanks for the lesson in PC… it figures you would give it so earnestly, since you missed the satire in our film.
AJ,
You’re funny! You can find more “stretching the documentary limits”, unmediated by fat-cats, in our film, available on the same website which you so cutely parodied. I assume you’re just kidding me, having a poke at some of my (intentionally) over-heated rhetoric. But it’s actually true, you know… vain fat cats ARE a major source of private funding in the independent film scene… in fact, they are one of the few alternatives to conglomerates, and just as hard to swallow. And while not even the most onerous techno-fascism will ever take notice of the sort of conversations one suspects go on ’round these here parts, our liberties are in fact in peril…though not in the way a standard-issue milque-toast pc liberal might imagine…
I’m going to make a wild stab here and guess that David and AJ don’t work in the business (being a critic doesn’t count), or the one would never have made so bold as to post, on a thread that the director was ON, for chrissake, that their film was a “trainwreck” (and then imply later that that’s “constructive criticism”) and the other would be more appreciative of our efforts to raise money outside of the commissioning editor/rich guy system.
Luckily, the proceeds on that old trainwreck look like they’re going to pay off our debts and go a long way to funding the next one. And we’re just getting out of the station! Anyway, thanks for all your supportive comments– you guys are really a boon to independent filmmakers everywhere!
Comment by Chuck on 23 May 2008:
Wow, this is pretty much a lesson in How Not to Promote a Film 101. First, you disparage *anyone* who says your film isn’t perfect, even when Agnes was saying something vaguely positive (”it’s got heart”). Then you call one of your critics a “hottentot.” Even if you were unaware of the term’s racist origins, what an odd term to use. Then you guess wildly about whether A.J. and David work in the “industry” (I have a feeling you’re wrong about at least one of them). Then you miss the point of A.J.’s comment about “stretching documentary’s limits.” Many of us who read this blog are acutely aware of the difficulties documentary and independent filmmakers have in raising money to support their vital, important films.
Comment by Sujewa Ekanayake on 23 May 2008:
Saw the trailer above for TARC, looks good, looks like an interesting doc or a hydrid doc.
John Kirby, re: ” I’m going to make a wild stab here and guess that David and AJ don’t work in the business (being a critic doesn’t count), ” both David Wilson (True/False film festival programmer & founder), & AJ (if the AJ above is AJ Schnack; director of Kurt Cobain About A Son most recently & founder of the new non-fiction filmmaking awards that were recently held at the IFC Center in NYC) and also Agnes work in the “industry” (i assume by “industry” you mean doing work related to making or distributing movies). Also, critics & bloggers are very important to some films & the industry, as is anyone who takes the time out to think about & discuss a movie.
If you are going to make an unusual movie, some people are not going to like it. Even if you make a very not-so-unsual movie, some people are not gonna like it. However, no need to get too worked up about it & start blog comment battles; everyone’s opinion is valid, whether they work in the industry or not.
Agnes, David, & AJ have all been passionate advocates for non-fiction filmmaking in the last few years (and quite possibly a lot longer, but I only got to know their writing & work w/ in the last 3 or so years). As an audience member I’ve learned about the existence of many docs & other films - including TARC - through their work.
- Sujewa
http://www.diyfilmmaker.blogspot.com/
Comment by John Kirby on 23 May 2008:
Sigh… I think, Chuck and Sujewa, that if you review the thread, you will see that I actually did not start this ‘blog comment battle’. As a matter of fact, as david acknowledged, my responses to what any film maker would consdider pretty rough commentary (”awkward acting”, “clumsy transistions”, “pretty much a trainwreck”) were pretty restrained. I think if you look at the thread, you can see pretty clearly how this developed.. there is only so much a guy can take.
The use of “hottentot” was a substitution for “philistine”, which is also arguably a “racist” useage. I made it with full awareness of its history. No self respecting bushman would take any offense… that requires self-righteousness of a distinctly Western variety.
Comment by Agnes Varnum on 23 May 2008:
I’ve been blogging for over 2 years now, and I’m completely surprised about how this thread has unfolded. If I thought I made a mistake, I’d apologize, but I stand by my post and my subsequent actions. Whether I watch the film or not, don’t expect a post about it because I can’t endure the browbeating should it not turn out to be The Greatest Movie Ever Made.
I’d like to thank those of you who take time to read my writing and have expressed support of my overall approach even when we disagree. If anyone cares to re-focus on the initial issue of fairness in commenting on a trailer, I’d still be curious to hear thoughts.
As for the rest, let’s move on. There is a lot going on in the world that deserves our energy, including filmmakers that welcome bloggers efforts on behalf of their work. Best of luck to John Kirby and his film. He’s making money hand over fist and achieving great heights, according to his initial comments, and that is my wish for all indie filmmakers.
Comment by Lisa Wilson on 23 May 2008:
Yes, Agnes I would like to take you up on your invitation to comment on the fairness of commenting on a trailer, but particularly a trailer on You Tube. As Mr. Kirby pointed out earlier in this thread so much of what we see on the web is off. The video stutters, there is an audio delay, all manner of anomalies. It is a function of the compression programs that make it possible to post on the web. Sure it is a great way to promote a film and start luring an audience, but one should not judge a work critically, i.e…judging the editing etc…from a web viewing. I believe it is not fair.
And, if you are going to comment on a trailer…comment on the trailer not the film! And make it clear it is the trailer that you are reviewing. We all know trailers are often not even done by the team making the film,
Comment by john kirby on 23 May 2008:
Sigh again. You shouldn’t be surprised, Agnes. You started it by saying, of a youtube clip: “I guess it doesn’t surprise me that the film didn’t make a big splash. The “acting” is awkward and the transitions are clumsy, but it’s got heart”. While of course I appreciate the sentiment “it has heart”, I think you understand why I said it was unfair to comment on the transitions, for instance, on Youtube. I stand by what I said on that score: no one with editorial chops would have made such a comment.
I responded to you, I think rather nicely, and your only response was a derisive: “I am not aware of any publicly available data on educational sales” , Instead of (as you might have were you actually interested in some of the topics you have listed elsewhere). “Oh , isn’t that great; sorry if I jumped the gun there… what do you mean by ‘breaking records?’ Any advice for other filmmakers? Where can I see it?”
That would have been a polite response to a post of that kind by the filmmaker. I responded to you privately after your curt inquiry, and would have been happy to leave it there.
But then David decided he had to put his oar in, with that oh-so-constructive bit of criticism, “a bit of a trainwreck”. He did so with full knowledge that the filmmaker was a part of the thread. I can’t hold you responsible for his decision to use such deeply insulting language, but I hope it helps you understand how a bad seed grew ugly fruit.
Even then, I restrained my response. David even deigned to applaud me for doing so. And then a gracious lady by the name of Lisa Wilson (any relation?) stood up for the Ruling Class, and expressed the opinion, which I share, that it was wrong to critique the film on the basis of only a youtube clip.
At this point David felt the need to come to your defense, which was very chivalrous of him, but along the way he needed to rub more salt in the initial wounds. Most actual filmmakers would not have chosen this path to take with a colleague, which is why I assumed neither you, nor he, nor AJ, were. My apologies if I was mistaken.
After having to read David again (curse Google Alerts in the first place!) “…She responds to the Youtube clip (which she obviously has seen) and calls the acting “awkward” and the transitions “clumsy”, both of which I would have to agree with and both of which are apparent in that clip (as well as in the rest of the cut that I saw)….” my patience wore a bit thin.
Agnes, if you hadn’t started all this on a negative note, we might have all elevated ourselves and the state of the art a bit further. As I wrote to you privately, we have learned a lot since our “premiere” at Tribeca (where Jane Rosenthal, in the New York Times, called it her favorite film of the festival… and that about a much earlier cut than the one at IDFA!) We learned a lot about finance and all areas of distribution.
We have learned how to keep the rights to our film, build an audience, and have an impact on the world… even if it doesn’t come out like a well financed “Farenheight 9-11″ freight train and make a “splash”. I wrote you as much privately. I would have been only too pleased to share these thoughts with you and your obviously very loyal readers, and indeed I tried. I reiterate my offer to send you the film; you can post on it or not, as you choose… I just ask you to give the actual film a fair viewing.
I know you feel you are blameless for the tone of this thread, and while I won’t remind you of the adage that says “the fish stinks from the head”, I will quote the learned rabbi who said: “What is hateful to you, don’t do to your neighbor. That is the whole of the Torah; the rest is commentary –- go and learn it.”
Comment by David on 24 May 2008:
ok . . .
John, I’m sorry I called your film a trainwreck. It’s an ugly word and not really part of a productive discourse.
However, I wasn’t a fan of your movie and I remain unafraid to say so in a public forum, whether you, or anyone else, is reading said forum.
I think you’ve been pretty disrespectful, but I’ll chalk that up to whatever hackles were raised by people criticizing your film.
But, as Sujewa says, get used to it. Or don’t read the critics. Those are your options. As long as you make movies, and especially if you make good movies, there will be people who don’t like them.
good luck,
David
Comment by Jay C. on 25 May 2008:
I remember having a similar situation over at The Documentary Blog when I posted about the trailer for Steve Anderson’s documentary ‘FUCK’. He wasn’t thrilled with what I had to say (actually, looking back on it, I was unfairly projecting my distaste for ‘The Aristocrats’ onto his film) and what started as some nasty email exchanges turned into a chance to see his film (he insisted I request a screener from THINKFilm), followed by a couple of extremely pleasant phone conversations. He turned out to be a great guy and I ended up liking the film. Lesson Learned.
Having said that, as hypocritical as this may sound, I really don’t see anything wrong with being judgemental or critical towards a film based off of a trailer or a clip, YouTube or no YouTube. Sure, there’s certain things to take into consideration; you certainly can’t judge a sound mix or cinematography from a YouTube clip. However, to release a trailer or a clip on YouTube only to use the fact that it’s on YouTube as a defense towards the criticism of that clip seems a bit sneaky to me. Afterall, aren’t these clips and trailers released as tools for people to decide if they want to see a film or not?
It’s this idea that these clips exist in some sort of critical phantom zone that bothers me. If the response is positive, perfect! If it’s negative, well you can’t judge something based on a YouTube clip! You have to see the entire film! The clip is both finished and unfinished. It represents the film, yet it doesn’t. It’s untouchable! To this, I ask one simple question: If I can’t judge whether or not I want to watch this film based on a trailer or clip, then what is the purpose of the clip?
Comment by Chuck on 25 May 2008:
I think Agnes’s attempt to redirect this conversation is a useful one. Those of us who are invested in documentary, whether as scholars, filmmakers, or industry insiders, are certainly interested in these questions about the role of blogs and other public forums in promoting and/or discussing documentary.
To answer Agnes’s follow-up question about the “fairness” of commenting on trailers: I think Lisa may be right that compression issues on YouTube make it a little difficult to make full aesthetic judgments, and YouTube clips often have a context problem, in that we see the clip without any context or with the context provided by the person who is linking it.
But as Jay points out (and I’m essentially in agreement with him), it’s also not fair to use that as a means of cloaking the film/video from all criticism. Putting the clip on YouTube is putting it out in public and opening up the film to criticism, whatever form that might take. And in this specific case, when I first saw Agnes’s post and the clip from the film, I read her gesture as an expression of interest and curiosity, and it made me want to see the film, despite her comments about the aesthetics. So, even with the negative comment about the transitions and acting, her pointer to the film made me aware of what looks like a valuable critique of exploitations of workers in the US.
Comment by john kirby on 25 May 2008:
Trailers/scenes posted on youtube are good for judging whether one is interested in pursuing a film further; most technical parameters cannot be judged fairly on youtube.
Comment by Brit on 27 May 2008:
I agree with John. There is no way that anybody named “AJ” could work in the industry, and as far as I’m concerned that ends the discussion here.
Comment by Dentler on 28 May 2008:
What kinda mileage does a hybrid doc get?
Comment by Bob Ray on 28 May 2008:
I was hoping to discover more hybrid docs through this post, but got dragged into a sh!t storm of nit-pickery… anyway, I enjoyed the hybrid doc I Am a Sex Addict. Any other recommendations? Where’s this list of yours Agnes? thanks,
-bob
Comment by Brit on 28 May 2008:
Bob…check out:
John Maringouin’s RUNNING STUMBLED; Montieth McCullum and Ariana Gerstein’s HYBRID and most of Jay Rosenblatt’s 16mm work (who has worked with Caveh a fair amount as well.)
Comment by Agnes Varnum on 28 May 2008:
Hi Bob! I put together the list for Tribeca Film Institute’s Reframe project. It is a nascent website that will be a portal for purchasing independent films. They have a relationship with Amazon, so early films will be ones that are available on Amazon but sorted into curated lists like mine. Later, TFI will be restoring and digitizing works that have been unavailable. I’ll post on this blog when the lists go up, and in the meantime, you can check Reframe blog as well: http://reframecollection.com/
Comment by Chad on 29 May 2008:
From my understanding, filmmakers put clips of their films on youtube to represent the product to an audience that otherwise would have no concept of what to expect from it. There’s nothing wrong with watching them and concluding either “This LOOKS good or bad as a film” or “This IS good or bad as a clip”.
Comment by John Kirby on 30 May 2008:
That is correct: one can decide whether a film SEEMS good based on Youtube. But image quality, for instance, and editing cannot be judged at the level of the professional critic on YouTube, obviously.
The art of judging things on Youtube AS “Youtube Clips” is a new one, and more properly belongs to a species of mediated video-art archeology. Since so many of the technical parameters of the underlying film or video are changed,(not to mention lifted out of context), in an important sense the underlying strata is transformed into something new.
This will be the case until the day, in the not-too-distant future, when compression at fullscreen is 1:1. Then films will have worked themselves back up to the image quality of television…
Comment by Jay C. on 31 May 2008:
Regarding hybrid docs,
I’m not sure if this really counts as anything anyone might be interested in, but I’ve recently been working on a series of developer diaries for a yet-to-be-released video game for the XBox 360. The interesting part is I’ve been shooting a faux documentary as a sort of viral marketing campaign for the game, and the approach as been very grounded in actual documentary film making.
We’ve set up a website (www.norwegianfilmcommittee.org) and the film claims to be a documentary about the discovery of a mechanical being in ice. It’s called ‘The Goblin Man of Norway’, and it features interviews with people who are essentially playing themselve, but adjusting their line of expertise to fit the story. It’s been an interesting experiment in manipulating both the interviews and the audience. (All with consent of course!) All inspired by Werner Herzog’s ‘Wild Blue Yonder’.
Anyways, here’s the links to the first two videos if you’re interested in checking them out. If you do, let me know what you think at jcheel@cogeco.ca.
First video: http://www.norwegianfilmcommittee.org/en/media.html
Second video (first five minutes advertises the game): http://www.gametrailers.com/player/34594.html?type=
Comment by David R on 4 June 2008:
Wow. What a thread. How’d I miss this one? Low and Behold is a hybrid, though it leans more toward narrative fiction than doc fiction. I’m curious what kind of sales, John, your film is breaking in the educational venues. I’ve been traveling with Mardi Gras: Made in China for a few years, and though I don’t keep up with records (nor am I intent on “breaking” them), I’m wondering if you and I share a similar approach? We’ve managed to sell our film to more than 500 colleges (not including non-profits, etc or speaking fees). Email if you have time: mgmadeinchina@yahoo.com and maybe we can share ideas. Also, I’ve seen part of your film, but I’m a bit ashamed to say that I didn’t finish it. It reminded me of a book I once read about social class in America (a sociology book, that is) and it seemed to directly insert itself into a form of rational discourse that lectured and imitated a thread of liberal ideology that, if you agree with and passionately cling to it, then the film carries you. Or maybe not. Interesting idea, but it became redundant and prefer films to step away from ideology. Perhaps I watched a rough cut??? However, I’ll accept the above invitation to watch it again if you’ll send a dvd to David Redmon, 810 Edgewood Ave, Columbia, MO 65203. Looking forward to hearing from you!
Pingback by The Chutry Experiment » The American Ruling Class on 5 June 2008:
[...] the brief blog dust-up a few days ago at Agnes’s place, I decided to check out John Kirby’s The American [...]