Taking a closer look at the outer layer of modern filmmaking
MediaRights executive director Katy Sevigny wrote a lengthy piece on the current state of American documentaries in the January/February issue of Film Arts magazine. Now that the article is available online, I've had the chance to take a good look at some of points she rises, and wanted to elaborate on a few of them here. Sevigny notes a recent trend from the past decade where the film community heralds "the Year of the Doc" in response to the increase of nonfiction filmmaking, a reflection of a change in both the industry (as technology gets cheaper) and the art form (which larger audiences are beginning to notice). "Perhaps it's time to label this the Decade of the Documentary and get it over with," she writes. "However, some types of documentaries are basking in the glow of this twenty-first century zeitgeist more than others." The types she chooses to discuss--in addition to her definition of this so-called zeitgeist--take the conversation in a unique direction.
Sevigny discusses the drive by mass market developers (read: studios) to create genres out of successful anomalies, a mindset that leads people to ask, "Where art thou, next An Inconvenient Truth?" This tendency has lead to a flurry of entertainment and political documentaries emphasizing the same basic story tropes,like eccentric sports competitions or the activist causes of bleeding heart liberals. Although much of the stuff getting wide releases don't deserve it as much as overlooked fare(the Brad Pitt-produced Darfur Now wasn't nearly as good as The Devil Came on Horseback, which dealt with the same issue), any random doc available to a wide audience reminds people of the vitality of the form, and that can lead to broadening the niche market as interested parties seek out more of it.
Which is obvious, right? But it's when Sevigny brings up the double-edged sword of the ever-expanding marketplace that the situation gets more complicated. Not every theater shows a ton of documentaries, but you can still find them on any number of on-demand cable networks, not to mention the infinite room for DVD and online distribution. Yet this bigger playspace makes it harder for filmmakers to make money. As Sevigny explains: "Back-end revenue is declining as DVD profits are shrinking, broadcast fees are lowering, marketing costs are up and a theatrical release is more commonly a money-losing proposition than not. In part, these difficulties with film financing have gotten worse because the field is crowded like never before."
I'm of the opinion that too much of a good thing is still a good thing. We're seeing more and more filmmakers turning to the Internet to promote, fund and in many cases distribute their movies. The field has grown too competitive in its conventional arena, so artists are forced to discover new channels and reach audiences in greater ways than ever before. The doc has surely fought an uphill battle to gain acceptance by the larger moviegoing community, but these days that's a moot point, because the larger moviegoing community doesn't dominate the way it once did. While I appreciate his good intentions, I'm bothered by Michael Moore's recent proposal for large theaters to devote one screen a week to documentaries. Rather than trying to get the average moviegoer to check out docs in theaters, supporters of the form should be finding audiences at home, in front of their computer screens, where they're more likely to pay attention. HBO recently announced a summer program that includes documentaries shown every Monday--a good idea, considering how many people are likely to watch during this convenient time slot.
Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of the kind of movies that are getting made and noticed. "This idea that people on the marginalized fringes of society now have access to these technologies – it's just not true," Manda Bala director Jason Kohn told Cinematical in a recent interview. "It's still the same middle-class white people making movies; it's not poor people making films. Only now with digital equipment, more of them can make movies, but is that a good thing?"
For the time being, however, I would say yes, it definitely is. The documentary form needs to be incessantly available in order for certain standards to be maintained, so it doesn't make much sense to complain about the gentrification of it--especially now that it really is cheaper to make movies than ever before, and audiences are watching them in new and interesting ways as technology fosters a fresh generation of cinephilia.
--Eric Kohn