Inaction

Still digesting the roundtable discussion I went to at the Lincoln Center last Sunday, which was part of the the New Directors series being screened there this month. It's not so much what was said, because there wasn't a whole lot of new information. I was struck by the general lack of energy from the panel. The panelists were all filmmakers who had screened during previous New Director series, and the discussion was in part to illuminate how being included in that program had facilitated their careers as marginal, independent filmmakers.

Basically, it didn't. Oops.

I think that's where the lack of energy came from - the misconception of the panel discussion in the first place, and the awkward position that put the panelists in. Tamara Jenkins, for example, director of last year's acclaimed "The Savages," was animated when she spoke about her filmmaking experiences, but had little to add to the Q & A discussion about technology and distribution, about funding and the fight to get films made period. Likewise Michael Almereyda, Lodge Kerrigan, and the particularly bitter sounding Jim McKay.

The conversation was also mired by some indie posturing about how hateful it is to be casting for cash, the necessity to please funders in order to make movies, and lamentation of the lack of the state funding that is enjoyed overseas. The most positive and useful comments came from Su Friedrich and Tom Kalin, who at least appeared to grasp and engage the process of indie filmmaking. Both, interestingly, are prolific directors of short films, and coincidentally don't have the economic handicap of trying to raise families while working in the film industry. McKay's unhappy remarks about his needing to work on the TV show Law & Order for the money brought home the latter consideration.

It was also interesting to see how few people on stage wanted to take the reins of their own careers. The whole online distribution discussion, for example, was largely sidestepped, because none of the panellists have engaged that medium at all. Which surprised me. I don't think there was anybody talking who was that much older than me, but there was an uncomfortable reluctance to do more than speculate about what is involved. Kerrigan was clearly appalled at the idea of self-promotion, framing it with the word 'branding' and letting the post-Naomi Klien angst association envelope the room. 'Brand,' in the context of market awareness, is just another word for 'identity', and few at the table were able to articulate their filmmaking goals in those terms. I certainly didn't hear anybody mention David Lynch's nominal success in that department.

Perhaps the suggestion that the internet is somehow a panacea for independent filmmakers' distribution woes is just too naive for them to contemplate. The whole thing had the air of people too long stuck in the trenches, unable to see beyond the lip of their own foxhole. I hadn't really expected to see a bunch of people old before their time feel kind of helpless and sorry for themselves, but there was more than a little of that.

As was pointed out by the more than slightly jaded McKay, it's a young person's industry (apparently).