Entries tagged with “Rooftop Staff” from Rooftop Films Blog

I've been asked by IndieWire, the Tribeca Film Festival and the SoHo Apple Store to moderate a discussion with actor-turned-short filmmaker Matthew Modine. Along with his successful acting career, Matthew has now moved behind the lens and directed four very different short films. We'll be screening his latest film, I Think I Thought, a 2008 Tribeca selection, as well as clips from his other films, and discussing his work as a director-writer-actor, his experience as a festival juror, the art of the short film, and more. Come join us.

Sun., May 4, 5:30 - 6:30pm
Matthew Modine in conversation with
Mark Elijah Rosenberg (RF Artistic Director)
@ Apple Store SoHo
103 Prince St., NYC
FREE

Late last night, after jumping from IFC's My Morning Jacket / Yo La Tengo concert to the wide-open SXSW Closing Night party and finally onto Joel Heller's birthday, I wound up at the Magnolia diner, eating scrambled eggs and discussing scrambled documentaries. I was there with Dan Nuxoll from Rooftop, Joel, and Alex Karpovsky and Eric Bruggermann, the director and editor, respectively, of "The Hole Story" and 2008 SXSW selection "Woodpecker."

I brought up the fascinating dialogue about the distinctions of fiction and non-fiction filmmaking that I had heard surrounding some of the films here at SXSW, including Alex's film(s), Daniel Stamm's "A Necessary Death," and even films as different as Nanette Burstein's "American Teen," Morgan Spurlock's "Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?" and Josh Safdie's "The Pleasure of Being Robbed," where categorical definitions would appear pretty straightforward. We'd heard a rumor that when "A Necessary Death" played one European festival, it was in the documentary section, and the crowd was incensed.

Why is it that people get so mad about films that blur these distinctions or even deliberately mislead the audience? Do these distinctions matter? And if so, how should we be defining these films?

[To read this entire article, please click here.]

A few days ago, I posted below about "Glory at Sea!" a short film directed by Benh Zeitlin of Court 13 Productions. It's a movie that Rooftop Films partially funded, and which is an amazing, uplifting, collaborative project, a mythical narrative about a community (set in post-Katrina New Orleans) coming together to build a raft to join their loved ones after a fatal flood.  

Please take a moment to read what I wrote when I attended the cast and crew screening in New Orleans last week:

www.rooftopfilms.com/blog/2008/03/bleeding-rust-glory-at-sea-in.html

On the way to his SXSW premiere, Benh's car was rear-ended at a stoplight. Benh has shattered his hip and broken his pelvis. Three other people in the car with him also had minor injuries. Benh was in surgery all day, and it appears that he will recover. I visited him in the hospital and his spirits are remarkably high, but he's facing a long, painful, expensive recovery process. And he could use your help.

There are a few things you could do, if you're a friend, a supporter, a SXSW filmmaker.

+ SEE THE FILM!
+ SIGN THE FILM GUESTBOOK
+ SEND A DVD OF YOUR FILM
+ DONATE TO HELP COVER HIS MEDICAL EXPENSES


SEE THE FILM
I was hyping this film long before Benh's accident, but now more than ever go see his truly inspiring and uplifting film. Michael Tully, who writes for IndieWire and Hammer to Nail, saw the film and said he wanted to stand up and shout hallelujah. You'll feel the same, and the rest of the cast and crew will really appreciate your support. "Glory at Sea!" screens:

Shorts Program 3
Tuesday, March 11, 12pm, Alamo Lamar 2
& Friday, March 14, 2:30pm, Alamo Lamar 2  

There are so many amazing, inspiring films here at SXSW, and this is such a supportive community, I have no doubt that the outpouring of kindness will be tremendous.  


SIGN THE GUESTBOOK
We'll have a guest book at the screening so that Benh can receive some of the feedback he'll be missing by not being there. Please take a moment to tell him your thoughts about the film.

If you already saw the film, or can't make a screening, you can also send an email to Benh at <benh AT court13 DOT com>.


SEND YOUR FILM
One of the unfortunate results of this accident is that Benh, who has made such a beautifully collaborative project, is sadly missing the festival experience here at SXSW. (The SXSW staff has been very supportive, but of course there's nothing to be done to get him out of the hospital right now.) He would love to see films and meet people. On top of that, he's going to be laid up in a hospital bed with no entertainment for some time.

We're asking that SXSW filmmakers please donate a DVD of your film to Benh.

We understand of course that some of you may not be comfortable having DVDs of your film floating around at this time, so if you can't lend a DVD, that's okay. But if you don't mind passing on a copy of the film to a trusted filmmaker, it would be a sweet gesture. You can drop off your film:

Convention Center
(near the screening room)
Tuesday, March 11, 4-6pm

I along with some of the crew from the film will be hanging out at at a table, so drop by and donate a DVD to Benh. (We'll try to set up a small sign. Otherwise look for me, a guy with a shaved head. And I'll wear a colorful tie.) Other forms of entertainment, support, get well cards, etc., are also welcome. If you can't come then, drop me a line at mark AT rooftopfilms DOT com and we'll try to arrange something else.


DONATE
Benh does not have health insurance and is facing tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills and lost income while he's laid up. It may be that the car insurance will cover his expenses, but unfortunately, it's not clear if that's the case (issues surrounding the driver of the other vehicle are sketchy). I will keep you posted if and when financial support becomes necessary (and promise not to send a glut of emails). You can check www.rooftopfilms.com/blog and www.court13.com for updates.

I know that Rooftop, SXSW and others are also discussing benefit screenings, so stay tuned.  

Thank you all in advance for your support. I know that Court 13 and Rooftop Films and SXSW have a really strong community here and that we'll be able to support a filmmaker and a friend in need.

A lot has been written about the South by Southwest Film Festival and their support of the Austin film community and the "Mumblecore" movement. Personally, I love the idea of indie filmmakers bonding, working together, supporting each other. You can say that the importance of the those scenes is blown out of proportion, and that might be true--the community is a bigger and more diverse than Austin and Mumblecore.

A look below at the Rooftop alums who are screening films at SXSW this year shows filmmakers from all around the country, and filmmakers working in a variety of genres and styles. (Racial diversity is another matter, something both Rooftop and SXSW work to address in our programming. Our overlapping lists, unfortunately, don't reflect this diversity). We're proud to see so many filmmakers we like screening at this excellent fest, and we're excited to get a chance to hang out again.

From March 7-12, Rooftop's staff will be down at SXSW, scouting for new films, supporting our alumnae filmmakers, and enjoying the cheap tacos and warm weather with our friends. In town will be Artistic Director Mark Elijah Rosenberg, Program Director Dan Nuxoll and Managing Director Genevieve DeLaurier. If you're in Austin, drop us a line so we can meet up.

sxsw AT rooftopfilms DOT com -- That email will reach all three of us.

At the top of our list here is Benh Zeitlin's "Glory at Sea" (pictured left). Rooftop gave a grant to support this film, so we're particularly proud of it. "Glory at Sea" is a retelling of the classic myth of Orpheus, who descended into Hades to rescue his lover. Originally, the film was going to be made in Greece, but when the Rooftop funding came through, Benh changed his plans. "Part of what drew me toward New Orleans was the populist attitude of my backers.  Imagining being on a roof and having a film that spoke to Americans about America, was something that got my insides moving, that got me realizing that the resurrection I wanted to tell was a story I had to tell in the states, in New Orleans."

The film is stunning, and everyone should go check it out. I'm heading to New Orleans for a cast and crew screening on March 6, and then rumbling over to Texas after what is sure to be a grand night in NOLA. I'll certainly write about those adventures soon.

In the meantime, go see the latest films from these Rooftop alums:

SHORTS
Glory at Sea Director: Benjamin Zeitlin
34 x 25 x 36 Director: Jesse Epstein
Upwards March Director/Writer: Kaveh Nabatian
Fish, But No Cigar Directors: Tara White and Lyn Elliot
Shut Eye Hotel Director/Writer: Bill Plympton
The Rambler Director: Calvin Reeder
LOVEolution Director: John Bryant
Let's Get Down to Brass Tacks Director/Writer: Aaron Katz

FEATURES
Woodpecker Director: Alex Karpovsky.
The Pleasure of Being Robbed Director: Josh Safdie.
Living with the Tudors Directors: Karen Guthrie & Nina Pope.
Intimidad Directors: David Redmon & Ashley Sabin.
Goliath Director: David Zellner.
The Marconi Bros. Director/writers: Marco Ricci, Michael Canzoniero.
The New Year Parade Director/writer: Tom Quinn.
Rainbow Around the Sun Directors: Kevin Ely and Beau Leland.
My Effortless Brilliance Director: Lynn Shelton. Starring: (Rooftop Alum) Calvin Reeder

[This is the complete article originally published on March 13, 2008.]

Late last night, after jumping from IFC's My Morning Jacket / Yo La Tengo concert to the wide-open SXSW Closing Night party and finally onto Joel Heller's birthday, I wound up at the Magnolia diner, eating scrambled eggs and discussing scrambled documentaries. I was there with Dan Nuxoll from Rooftop, Joel, and Alex Karpovsky and Eric Bruggermann, the director and editor, respectively, of "The Hole Story" and 2008 SXSW selection "Woodpecker" (pictured left).

I brought up the fascinating dialogue about the distinctions of fiction and non-fiction filmmaking that I had heard surrounding some of the films here at SXSW, including Alex's film(s), Daniel Stamm's "A Necessary Death," and even films as different as Nanette Burstein's "American Teen," Morgan Spurlock's "Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?" and Josh Safdie's "The Pleasure of Being Robbed," where categorical definitions would appear pretty straightforward. We'd heard a rumor that when "A Necessary Death" played one European festival, it was in the documentary section, and the crowd was incensed.

Why is it that people get so mad about films that blur these distinctions or even deliberately mislead the audience? Do these distinctions matter? And if so, how should we be defining these films?

One of the first things we realized is that general audience members, far more than film critics, filmmakers, and film programmers, do question what's "real." You hear in Q & A sessions how important it is to them. And a great number of film professionals also debate (and confuse) these terms and distinctions. So the distinctions do matter. And I think the first reason why they matter, why people want to know if a film is a work of fiction or non-fiction, is because people don't like "being suckered" (as entertainment lawyer and SXSW panelist Alan Levy put it when I was discussing the issue with him). Being suckered is different from being tricked: a murder mystery tricks you, but that's what you want it to do; a fiction film that poses as a non-fiction film (the thinking goes) suckers you. People think that the film is somehow lying to you, which you don't want it to do.

I think this discrepancy comes initially from expectation: when you go to see an action movie, you don't want to find yourself instead watching a quiet drama. When you see certain documentary aesthetics, you expect that what you are seeing is non-fiction. So the second and more important reason why audience members want to know the nature of the film is because of the inherent differences in the way we interact with fiction and non-fiction films. People are more likely to immediately connect emotionally with non-fiction characters because one of the greatest challenges of fiction cinema--effective suspension of disbelief--is alleviated. When a character in a fiction film does something outlandish, an audience member is likely to think, "No one would ever do that." Not so in documentary; you have to assume they really did it. So when you think a film is non-fiction, and it turns out to be scripted, you mistrust your own emotional reading of the film. The same is true in reverse for non-fiction films. Every camera move and edit in a documentary is of course a manipulation of reality, yet people still get hung up on the details of some non-attainable objective truth.

With either fiction or non-fiction, that mental approach to film watching is limiting. We should be able to watch a movie, and analyze our feelings and our thoughts based on the emotions expressed and the ideas addressed, not solely on whether it was "real." I think keeping the lines between fiction and non-fiction blurry is a wise move. Whether the filmmaker writes a story and casts actors to play the characters, or if the filmmaker follows the story of people leading their existing lives, the goals are the same for any film: to entertain the audience, to enlighten them, to take them to emotional highs and lows.

This is where films like Safdie's "The Pleasure of Being Robbed" and Burstein's "American Teen" come in. I thought "American Teen" was entertaining and engaging, but I didn't love the film because of some of the manipulations--jumps in time to enhance the weight of an emotion, moments that are clearly created in the editing room but didn't happen live. My problem isn't the manipulations per se, and I don't doubt the veracity of the basic facts. My problem is that because of those manipulations, I didn't really connect with the characters. I thought the jumps in time simplified complex emotions, and the forged scenes fell flat. When watching either a non-fiction or a fiction film, you understand that this isn't an objective reality, but if the cuts and camera angles fail to create a subjective emotional and intellectual truth, the film has failed.

In contrast, some scenes in Josh Safdie's film are, as he put it, "stolen"--he caught people on the street unawares and wrote them into his narrative. I was impressed by the way he was able to fluidly bring these elements into his rather fantastical story, and from a narrative standpoint, I was touched by the interactions.

Karpovsky's "Woodpecker" is a brilliant example of the way a filmmaker can blend fact and fiction to make an amusing, moving and meaningful film that transcends either documentary or fiction modes. The film is about the true story of the supposed sighting of an Ivory Billed Woodpecker in the bayou of Arkansas. Hundreds of bird watchers descended on the swamps, hoping to confirm the sighting. Alex sets the stage for his film with mostly documentary footage, and provides a sincere and intriguing look into a region transformed and polarized by this funny little bird. We meet ordinary people who were transfixed by the beauty of the bird, and hunters who are displeased that the search for the bird is keeping them from their hunting grounds. There are locals opening tourist shops selling bird trinkets, and taxidermists who claim to be able to manufacture an Ivory Billed in minutes. Into this world, Alex injects Jon e. Hyrnes (pictured below left), an actor who Alex discovered, ironically, when Johnny appeared as the subject of another documentary, "Johnny Berlin." Alex makes the wise point, "Much like the bird itself, "Woodpecker" explores the intersection of fact and fiction, manipulating our notions of documentary and narrative techniques within a tragic comedy about hope, perception, and some very very strange birds."

One of the ingenious cinematic devices in "Woodpecker" is the way Karpovsky has the character he scripted continue to develop a theme first brought up by one of the documentary characters. One of the birdwatchers who (I'm pretty sure) is real, says that the bird's cry is simply the announcement, "I am here." This phrase becomes a core leitmotif for Johnny, the lead in the film, who himself is looking for the bird in order mark to his place in birdwatching history. This lonely guy, who drolly remarks that when his wife left him "she was essentially saying 'I am not here,'" thinks that if he spots the bird he will somehow justify and signify his own existence. He wants to be famous, yes, but only in this obscure realm. His core desire, as he explains in one of his ludicrous but subtly insightful rants, is to be an integral part of the birdwatching community. He wants people to know he is there, to care that he's there, and to enable people to see this bird. So as we watch Johnny mingle with the locals and drift through the swamps, we relate to the community with his specific perspective, this strange but pure and life-affirming connection with the world.

The film raises a lot of issues about environmentalism and hunting, about dying small towns and the pitfalls of media attention, about individual isolation and community, and the way in which the issues are presented through the perspective of an entertaining and astute on-screen character effectively makes them more genuine and resonant than if we were seeing them in a purportedly neutral documentary. "Woodpecker" is a far more potent use of motion pictures than a purely factual news report of the (possible) discovery of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.

So if blurring the lines between fiction and non-fiction can be useful, how do we define such films? Even though I think audiences shouldn't determine their appreciation of a film by any categories or expectations, I think we need definitions in order to avoid confusion and reach a more universal understanding of these conventions, so that audience members aren't burdened by misconceptions.

There are three essential categories, and a handful of styles within them. All films are fiction, non-fiction or a hybrid. I think one of the core confusions stems from the misleading term "narrative film." Most films, whether based on imagination or fact, are narrative--they are telling a story. Non-fiction films, however, can be told in a variety of styles, which include documentary, verité, and recreation. Conventional "documentary" style would include films in which the camera records events as they unfold in real time, without the director intentionally influencing the action. Documentaries often include elements such as music, titles, and effects that did not appear directly in front of the camera, and interviews, in which the action is perhaps staged with lights, sets, and questions, but what the subject says is not shaped by the filmmaker. In contrast, verité filmmaking does not use any such non-diegetic elements or staged events.

A film like Robinson Devor's "Zoo" (pictured left) is still non-fiction, because the audio and video are all based on facts not imagination, but it is a work of non-fiction not made in a documentary style, because the voices of the subjects were re-recorded by actors, and the images were recreated with actors, lighting, set-decoration, etc. (Throughout this article, I used the terms "documentary" and "narrative" to refer to the style of filmmaking, but not the category of films.) It's interesting to note that Morgan Spurlock's "Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?" is considered a work of non-fiction (by most people), in a documentary style, even though, like "Woodpecker," it contains scripted elements and a "character" who is interacting with real people. The differences between Spurlock's and Karpovsky's films is the way in which the character is presented (Spurlock as himself; Jon e. Hymes as the fictional Johnny Neander), and the essence of the narrative (Spurlock investigating a question; Karpovsky crafting a portrait).

Within hybrid films, the distinctions of style are equally varied, including mockumentaries, faux documentaries, meta-documentaries, and fake home movies. Over lunch at Stubb's BBQ joint, I was discussing the issue with filmmakers Andrew Bujalski and Garrett Savage, and filmmaker plus "Woodpecker" co-producer Dia Sokol, and for Karpovsky's film we settled on the term "faux documentary." Although "Woodpecker" is black comedy, it shouldn't be called a "mockumentary." A "faux documentary" is a film that incorporates fiction and non-fiction, and uses the style and conventions of a doc to tell semi-fictional story. A "mockumentary," in contrast, is completely imaginary, and tends to be making fun of the characters. Further, I think most "mockumentaries" poke fun at documentary form itself, with overly-contrived sit-down interviews and obvious nods to the camera, such as the ubiquitous "don't film this" moments.

In "Woodpecker," by contrast, although one is often laughing at Johnny's naiveté and quirky obsession, he's more like a Don Quixote, the madman on a mission who is lovable and laughable but also honest, noble, and inspiring. The film treats Johnny and all the characters with warmth and respect, so it lacks the spoofing of a mockumentary.

Non-fiction and fiction "meta-documentaries" would include films that explicitly address the essence of documentary form. "Woodpecker" does not, but Karpovsky's "The Hole Story" and "A Necessary Death" both in some ways deal with the nature media and the way the act of filming events inherently affects the action. "Fake home movies," such as the infamous "Blair Witch Project," purport to verité filmmaking conventions in which the on-screen characters are filming their own lives, only the characters and actions are scripted and staged.

So, I hope all my rambling has proved helpful or at least interesting to some. It seemed interesting enough in late-night film festival conversations over eggs migas and pulled pork sandwiches. The next question, I guess, is whether I've accurately documented all that we discussed.

Rooftop Films Artistic Director Mark Elijah Rosenberg (referring to himself here in the 3rd person so as to avoid any hyperbole, positive or negative) recently wrote and directed a music video for the sinister love song "Can't Let Me Go" by the gravel-voiced Brian Grosz, the first track of his album "Bedlam Nights."

I'll try to get a nicer looking copy online somewhere to highlight the enticingly grungy video FX created by Josh Pelzek of Ballooned Eye, and the crisp photography by Sam Cullman (What Would Jesus Buy; King Corn), but for now YouTube will have to do. The clip was produced by Jessica Wolfson (Crazy Sexy Cancer; The Bridge; This Film is Not Yet Rated) and features Shonda Robbins (the upcoming Natural Causes).

We shot on a blustery day and a half in Brooklyn.

Mark Elijah Rosenberg is the Founder and Artistic Director of Rooftop Films. Born and raised in New York City, Mark received his BA in Film Studies at Vassar College before returning to the City to translate his study of film into an artistic and curatorial career. In twelve years, Mark has built Rooftop Films from an off-the-cuff idea into a cultural institution with an international reach.

As Artistic Director of Rooftop Films, Mark has brought over 1,400 films by more than 1,100 filmmakers to over 60,000 audience members. He has supported nearly sixty new and emerging filmmakers through the Rooftop Filmmakers' Fund and Production Collective that he established. He has forged collaborations with more than 30 film festivals, schools, and social service organizations throughout New York's five boroughs and across the country, including Sista II Sista, Automotive High School, the Van Alen Institute, and Electronic Arts Intermix. In 2007, Mark served on the short film jury at the Sundance Film Festival.

Mark has published several articles on filmmaking and short films, including "How to Make a Film in Seven Days" and "How Long is a Short Film" in publications such as A Companion Guide to Rooftop Films magazine, The Zine Yearbook, and the Ms. Films DIY Guide. Mark has lectured on topics ranging from narrative devices in experimental films to the logistics of running a film festival, at places such as the Allied Media Conference, the Grassroots Media Conference, Univesity of Texas, Austin, Collegiate School, Skidmore College and Vassar College. Mark has served on film grants panels for the Brooklyn Arts Council and the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, and serves on the Artists Advisory Council for Fractured Atlas, a 501c3 Arts Service Organization. Mark has programmed film screenings across the world, including shows at the National Building Museum (Washington, DC), 911 Media (Seattle), The Detroit Film Center, Makor (New York) and Ewha University (Seoul, Korea).

An independent filmmaker in his own right, Mark has shot, directed, and edited dozens of films, including Heartbreaker, a reclaimed-footage music video; Unhappiness, a romantic, black comedy ghost story; I Nightly to Nothingness Do Sing, an experimental travel narrative; The Man Who Shouted Teresa, a modern-day, Manhattan-based adaptation of Italo Calvino‚s short story of the same title; and Hide Your Kids While the Dogs Run Wild, a "home movie" about a puppy and a bag of chips. Mark was a producer-editor on the WNYE television show IMNY, where he taught video production to New York City public school students and supervised production on twenty episodes. He is currently co-producing a feature documentary titled Gary and the Romans about one man's struggle to self-finance an epic Roman gladiator film. The film appeared at the 2005 Independent Feature Project Conference. Mark's films have screened as part of film festivals nationally and internationally.

Mark is also the second baseman for the New York Giants of the Tri-Borough Baseball league, and the proud father of a dog named Rizzo.