Earlier today, I was speaking with someone who works at a film society. The lady informed me that their programmers weren't teenagers looking at a computer screen but rather adults who sat in movie theaters while programming. Her elitist, rather ignorant comment hit several nerves with me.
1. Does she really think we (the industry, society, film festivals, film societies) want to exclude well-informed teens from the process of sharing indie films with larger audiences? Wouldn't we be better off ensuring that we reach the younger audiences. Who is more in tune with the teen audience - a 35-50 year-old or a teenager? Equate it to this, older people prefer phones or emails. Younger people prefer to text. You may tell them your way is better but it doesn't mean they'll believe you or start doing it your way. It is important to include teens in the conversation of independent film - from beginning to end. As a result, we will all benefit.
2. Did this lady really think most programmers watch the films on the big screen rather than on their computers at home or at the office? (In case you don't know, the majority of programmers watch films on small screens whether it be a TV or computer.)
What's Wrong With Elitism?
The main problem with this small-minded, narrow and elitist attitude is that the festival circuit losing the younger audiences and excluding them from the process is not going to improve this situation. Most festival goers are at least 35 years old. So, yes, many programmers are reaching their own demographic but the industry needs to embrace younger generations if they plan on gaining a younger crowd and hence survive. A middle-aged programmer is most likely not going to get the same out of a film that a teen might. Why would anyone condemn teen participation on any level rather than wanting that demographic represented and embraced? It is foolishly short-sighted and incredibly harmful to the longevity of our industry.
Snobby elitists are by definition some of the most narrow-minded, exclusionary people without reason generally basing their actions and reactions of fear and a lack of self-worth rather than any real basis for their holier-than-though attitudes. Quite unfortunately, there are a ton of these misguided souls in the independent film world. Thankfully, there are also a lot of well-rounded, respectful film lovers who wish to create and share indie films with the masses.
Where the Future Leads
The snob mentality is the past and on it's way out. There are too many people around the world feeling the pains of financial strain to carry on such high-falootin' airs... yet people of all backgrounds tend to be very creative. The industry can't sustain the damage that the snob mindset is doing to itself. Rather, it needs forward thinking equalists who are less concerned with appearance and attitude than they are with substance and quality of films. Arnold and Maria are a great example of a facade that way too many people - including themselves - bought into. (Side note: When indie filmmakers can begin to profit off their own work rather than continue to surrender their films to greedy middlemen much of this arrogance will be a thing of the past.)
If we don't embrace the Y Generation then the they won't embrace the independent film world either. We want the youth to be involved in expressing their voices freely and articulately in the medium of film whether they be programmers or filmmakers. We want them informed, curious and participatory. If we do not offer this opportunity to them then we will most likely hurt the industry as a whole. Maybe teens turn to video games instead of films because what is offered to them on a mass basis is generally lowball crap whereas video games actually stimulate and intrigue them. To disrespect the need and value of the Y Generation is fool-hearted at best and down right negligent as an industry.
Walking the Talk
My teen daughter knows more about film then most people her age or not. No, she doesn't know everything, but who does? She is better qualified then a lot of programmers and has a more practical and educational film background then many when it comes to choosing films. She programmed films like FIX starring Olivia Wilde before she was famous and HOW TO BE starring the then-unknown Robert Pattinson. There are a lot of films out there that older programmers aren't interested in and don't 'get' but her generation would love if we'd give them the chance to see them. She fought hard to get both FIX and HOW TO BE in the festival. Her choices were solid. She stood by them and as a festival we benefited from her input. Neither film would have been in the festival if it was not for that then 15 -16 year old. HOW TO BE won Best Actor in 2008. FIX won Best Film in 2009. Both films were packed. As a global society we are dead wrong to discount the importance, knowledge, input or intelligence of our youth. How can we raise productive members of society without allowing them to learn and be part of the process. This teenager has always been the festival's most dedicated and enthusiastic supporter of documentary films. Age matters less than sensibilities.
Inclusion Not Elitism
Including our youth is essential to the film industry. The lack of interest in films by our youth is evidence of this fact! It's interesting how people who work for companies with more expensive equipment or more money think that anything less should be treated with disdain. We call d'em folks 'Snobs'! Unfortunately, this unwielded ignorance that runs rampant in the film industry does nothing but keep indie filmmakers oppressed by under-educated, culturally-lacking, conservatism.
Ignorance is Bliss
The lady on the other end of the line also proclaimed that independent filmmakers need public relations representatives to help get their films out seen. How ignorantly snobby and insensitive can someone be? Is she indirectly saying that if someone can't afford a PR person they don't deserve to get their film seen because anyone who is anyone would, of course, be repped! Grrrrr. I guess this goes along with her theory that programmers with 24/7 access to movie screens are better than programmers who watch films on their computers or TVs? I personally wouldn't mind if a programmer was sitting on the pot taking a two hour dump while watching a film on an iPhone as long as the person was qualified, open-minded, could hear and see the screen fine and had the same interests as the festival.
Okay, let's examine the PR statement from a rational, realistic and informed viewpoint. Most independent filmmakers are broke spending every cent and more on the production of on their films which 999 times out of 1000 will never earn a profit. Now their work should be discarded and not considered relevant because the filmmaker doesn't have the means to hire a PR person? What about the filmmaker from North Carolina, Macedonia or Bolivia? Should we just discard these films because they aren't well-represented? This is why countries like France, Germany and Norway get their smaller films screened. These countries have the money to take the films to festivals and spend on PR. Maybe that's why the majority of films screened through this particular film society are already on the festival circuit and have momentum behind them.
Obligation and Opportunity to Serve the Independent Film World
Film Societies have the opportunity, if not responsibility, to bring new and retrospective works to local audiences. To coast on one's laurels by picking previously viewed, tried and true films from franchises (specifically speaking of governmentally sponsored film commissions) which programmers pick up at the largest of festivals might save them the time of actually seeking out new works and might make their peacock feathers ruffle but also does an absolute disservice to the independent film world. Maybe serving the independent film world is not their job. Maybe it's not their concern. But then, hey, maybe they shouldn't mock it because some of us really do give a shit!
Related Articles:
