May 30, 2006
The 500 Hours of 9/11

By GLENN COLLINS
A brown fedora rests abandoned in ground zero dust: owner's fate, unknown. In images shot from space, a plume of smoke rises miles above the World Trade Center. Two workers cling to a scaffold that dangles from an office building beneath the inferno. A handheld video camera, pointing at a north tower in flames, shakily veers to show the second hijacked jet striking the other tower.

Those images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw visual data from what historians say is the best-documented catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they were put on Google Video.

The 7,000-gigabyte archive was assembled by Steven Rosenbaum, a Manhattan-based documentary producer. In the days after the terrorist attacks, he put up posters and fliers and placed an ad in The Village Voice urgently requesting images that captured the attack, its aftermath and the mood of the city.

Now his collection is the largest asset of his dormant television production company, CameraPlanet, and Mr. Rosenbaum is working out an agreement with the Bank of America, the company's primary lender. He wants to structure a deal with a donor, buyer or partner that would keep the collection from being sold piecemeal, would repay the company's debt of more than $500,000 and would make the videos available to researchers, filmmakers and the public.

Pat Aufderheide is of those people who is a fixture at every film festival and important indie film event. I'm not quite sure how she does it. But whe she told me a few months back that she was going to try to organize the best thinking about Fair Use, i knew she would make something important. Well, sure enough... it is:

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fairuse.htm
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/rock/backgrounddocs/bestpractices.pdf

Tuesday nights panel at the museum of radio and television in New York had more than a few memorable moments.

I've been on panels before, but being a moderator is a whole different thing. And the combo of a live audience and a satellite audience of 30+ colleges made the whole thing a little surreal.

Stuart Brotman - the Museum President - welcomed the crowd and provided a generous introduction (and then showed a clip from 'Inside The Bubble' - (which was a fun bit of advance PR for the film).

My opening remarks were meant to throw a little red meat, and get things riled up. But perhaps it was more effective than i knew. (The mention of F/911 seems to make some filmmakers squirm in their seats.)

Bob Drew - the dean of the political documentary - was in fine form. After showing a clip from the JFK doc Primary Drew revealed that he'd be asked to do a Nixon film some years later. He passed.

Drew was the lone voice on the panel defending the concept of Objectivity (I'd posed the question "Is Objectivity Dead" to get things rolling). But it seems like it was more a matter of defining Objectivity. Drew's work - when cinema verite was being invented as bulky film cameras were retrofitted to become portable. Drew was both critical of Michael Moore - who he called propaganda, and praised Alexandra Pelosi - whose film he said was a masterpiece. He seemed to reject a film with an agenda.

Next to him- Eugene Jarecki, who showed a clip from "Why We Fight" I'd never met Eugene before and found him to be startling reveling. He talked about the 'little lies' of making a film - and how you try to be honest about your bias and point of view. This is film I MUST see based on meeting him.

The always entertaining Alexandra Pelosi was in fine form. She proclaimed that she hated John Kerry, that she liked Bush - though not his policies.
Overall she left the whole "Passion of the Partisan" thesis a bit muddy, but probably rightly so. Part of why so many filmmakers have issues with Partisan films is that they pride themselves on being committed to honest storytelling, which means not just selling your thesis at the expense of your legitimacy and an honest dialog.

Thom Powers showed "Guns and Mothers" - and may have had the most truly startling moment when he showed an NRA Promotional tape that included women shooters learning how kill deer. It was a chilling scene - and it's hard to think of any film with those images as objective.

Ted Steinberg - the filmmaker behind Celsius 41.11 was next, and showed a clip from the anti-moore 'atackumentary'. Oddly - he didn't have horns. In fact he was pretty up front about the slapped together nature of Celsius (it was made in 5 weeks). While hardly a Moore fan, he didn't engage in the Moorebashing that he had been billed to provide.

Last on the Panel was Paul Steckler. His film "Last Man Standing" was a truly great political film - a bare knuckles campaign in Texas. Steckler seemed the most uncomfortable with the whole evolution of Partisan filmmaking - and his work is a good reason why.

Overall - it all seemed not to come down to objectivity - but to fundamental fairness. But I can't help to wonder if we don't all like our films with their political bias elegantly woven into the music track, the sly editing, and the convincing overall debate being swung in favor of the filmmakers agenda. A film like "Why we fight" is an intellectual, reasoned, carefully constructed argument. Fahrenheit 911 is a filmmaker with a nuclear weapon and an agenda - hell bent to change the world or take his best shot. It's passionate, but not gentlemanly in the old style of documentary film.

one final note: Ron Simon, Ritty Burchfield, and the entire staff at MTR did an amazing job of organizing, hosting, and managing this event. The place runs like a top and it's a pleasure to work with them.

Let's take a poll - do you think that in the upcoming 2006 mid-term elections political films will be:

a. an old idea (Michael Moore was sooo 2004)
b. an exploding trend (pleeease - no more DVD's from Move On)
c. a permanent part of the media eco-sphere (vblogs forever)

Listening to Hillary Clinton talk about the role of the media in the 2004 election (and the lack of couragous coverage of the current administration) it's pretty clear that the leaders of the Democratic Party are none too pleased with the media status quo.

All that should make for good fodder Tuesday night, when political filmmakers from all persuasions gather at the Museum of TV and Radio to debate "The Future of Partisan Filmmaking". I get to moderate - which should be like trying to ref a food fight.

The Passion of the Partisan:
What Is the Future of the Political Documentary?

In Person:
Robert Drew (Primary)
Eugene Jarecki (Why We Fight)
Alexandra Pelosi (Journeys with George)
Thom Powers (Guns and Mothers)
Ted Steinberg (Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die)
Paul Stekler (Last Man Standing)

I was invited after the museum read my article about Michael Moore in the October issue of the IDA magazine: DOCUMENTARY.

PANEL DESCRIPTION
This year Michael Moore and the Swift Boat Veterans proved that there was a passionate audience for partisan documentaries. This Museum seminar will address whether the politically charged films that made headlines in 2004 have transformed the craft and mission of the documentary. Panelists will consider if filmmakers are now expected to bring a strong political viewpoint to a project before filming starts and to appeal to a specific audience. The long-term implications of the partisan documentary will also be examined, with executives and distributors discussing upcoming projects.

Tickets: $15 ($12 for individual Museum Members); $5 for students with valid ID. Series Price (any 3 events): $40 ($30 for individual Museum Members); $12 for students.

I don't know if the event is sold out - but if you want to attend, email me and i'll see what's up with seats.

From socialsoftware, a really interesting debate about the conflict between sharing and protecting IP:

Bringing together a few somewhat disparate threads from the blogosphere (my favorite pasttime!), I’m going to remix them all into today’s question for you. As the Grokster case looms large and broadcast content creation companies seek to morph the internet into a one-way street more like TV, folks are being forced to define more precisely why this is an inherently bad idea. Techdirt reports on one individual who has just grokked this: he already has a TV, so doesn’t really want more TV content via his broadband connection. What he really wants to do is use that internet connection to communicate with friends and family, which means precisely creating his own content and sharing it with others. However, as Clay Shirky discovered recently, locking up content with ever-more complex DRM protection schemes works directly against sharing and distributing one’s own created content just as effectively as it prevents “piracy” of content prepared by broadcast media outlets. So, then, my question is this: are DRM and social media directly at odds? Copy “protection” isn’t about to make communication any easier, and it makes media that wants to be social that much less valuable, because it can’t be (easily) shared or discussed. Going further: does a social component have the potential to add value to all media? What’s your take?

Link

'Eyes on the Prize,' off the shelf
By Thom Powers

Due to copyright issues, the landmark civil rights documentary can no longer be shown on television or released on DVD.
January 16, 2005

"EYES ON THE PRIZE,'' the epic 1986 documentary series on the civil rights movement, contains a scene showing Martin Luther King Jr. on his 39th birthday -- his last -- in 1968. King, who was trying to take on poverty and the Vietnam War simultaneously, was under tremendous stress at the time, and his staff sang ''Happy Birthday'' in an attempt to cheer him up.

But the producers of ''Eyes'' almost had to leave the scene out of the finished documentary. ''Happy Birthday,'' as it turns out, was copyrighted in 1935 and, following the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998, will remain so until at least 2030. Filmmakers have been known to pay $15,000 to $20,000 for just one verse, according to a recent report on documentary clearances issued by the Center for Social Media.

The song ultimately stayed in the film, but don't plan on celebrating King's birthday tomorrow by going to your local video store to buy a copy of ''Eyes on the Prize.'' Thanks to rights restrictions on archival material used in the documentary, the 14-hour chronicle tracing the civil rights movement from the Montgomery bus boycotts in the 1950s to the rise of black mayors in the 1980s can no longer be released in new editions or shown on television. PBS's right to air the film expired in 1993. Meanwhile, the VHS edition has gone out of print and a DVD release would require relicensing. (Complete sets of used videos are currently going for as much as $1,000 on Amazon.)

What is a "Roll-Up" and why does it matter to you?

If you're active in the film, documentary, or film communities in New York then you've no doubt heard the rumors about a Roll-Up that's making it's way door to door from one mid sized company to another.

The pitch is seductive, and simple. You've got all this value in your company... Wouldn't you rather be focused on creative work and filmmaking, and be part of an enterprise that will do the sales, business affairs, and financial back office work for you?

No obligation. No risk. Seems too good to be true?

Here's some free advice. Take it for what it's worth.

1. Roll-Ups are about using your reputation, equity, clients, and library to raise money. Make sure anyone who approaches you has a real financial base. Make sure that ALL correspondence is copied to your lawyer and theirs.

This is NOT a casual transaction. It's your life, and your future.

2. Letters of credit. If someone is asking you for personal financial information - you deserve to see theirs. Who is their bank? Who is their accountant? Will they provide a letter of credit, or a 'break-up fee' if they use your reputation, brand, and financial information to shop for a deal and then don't include you in the transaction?

3. NDA. Non-disclosure agreement. Don't let anyone see inside your company without an NDA. And make sure it's SIGNED. Hold firm. If you can't get a legal document that protects your interests - don't proceed.

4. Google. Everyone has a history. If one of the principles seems to have non past, no work history, no former clients or employers... You're not dealing with people who's past activities can be verified. This is a warning sign.

5. Legal research. In this era of the internet, don't assume that everything you need too know about your potential partners can be found on the internet. Legal research is arcane, and often involves proprietary databases like PACER that can't be searched without a low-cost subscription. Once again - your attorney should advise you to do both a civil and criminal background check on any potential investor or acquirer of your company.

5. Creative people tend to be trusting. And asking hard questions of someone you think may be a lifelong business partner can be uncomfortable. But business people understand due diligence. They shouldn't want things to be done in a less than forthright manner. If you're uncomfortable asking tough questions - make sure your accountant and lawyer do it for you. Any transaction that can't pass the smell-test with your accountant and lawyer is one you can afford walk away from.

6. If it seems to good to be true - it is. This is a hard business. And the people who've built businesses that are attractive to investors tend to be honest, passionate, trusting, ethical individuals. But those qualities are attractive to less scrupulous characters as well.

Knowledge is power.

Stephen Carlis - CameraPlanet's Chief Operating Officer has been terminated from his employment with the company.

CameraPlanet CEO and Founder Steven Rosenbaum said that Mr. Carlis had been terminated for cause. "The company is evaluating appropriate legal action against Mr. Carlis and third parties, including as warranted to protect the company's intellectual property, based on thousands of pages of document the company discovered after Mr. Carlis's dismissal."

The dismissal comes after an investigation into business activities that have severely impacted the companies business activities.

Said Rosenbaum "We are facing a series of events that have destabilized the company, and forced us to return to our core mission of significant storytelling. In the past two years we've found ourselves with our toe in a number of ponds, including international sales, dramatic and narrative indie film development, star driven celebrity directors, theatrical film distribution, and so-called 'reality films'. These diversions - along with other specific acts that we can't yet talk about publicly - proved to be costly and ill conceived."

"In the face of these revelations - we have scaled back operations, re-focused our mission, and begun to rebuild the company around the core values that have served us well for more than 20 years" said Rosenbaum.

CameraPlanet operates a physical production plant with 6 edit rooms, digital tape facilities, duplication, post-production, and editorial space for 5 concurrent television series productions. As part of the re-organization, those facilities will be scaled back significantly.

CameraPlanet will continue to create, produce, and distribute films and television -and will move forward with focus and drive in our new Anchor Bay DVD division.

It seems like the stories we're being told about politics are at some kind of weird dividing point.

In the TV news world - everyone is bending over backwards to be 'balanced' and objective - the New York Times puts a front page story on the Sunday paper about John Kerry making his staff 'scurry around' to find out information about Medicaid premium increases. How dare he. And at Viacom, Chairman Sumner Redstone says he's supporting Bush because 'he's voting for his business, not his personal politics.' Ok, fine if that's what people want to do - they're call, I guess.

But meanwhile, films like Outfoxed and F911 are selling out theatres, generating tons of media, and telling stories that the mainstream media seems to not want to touch. It may be that subjects like Outfoxed could never be on TV (it's the pot calling the kettle black) but in theatres... they're doing just fine.

Now we're days away from "Going Upriver" the George Butler movie on the early days of John Kerry's career. It opens on 10/1 on 200 screens.

This will be interesting - because Vietnam isn't the kind of topic that brings people out to the theatres... but this is an opportunity to cast a vote with a $10 movie ticket... should be interesting... maybe even a surprise if it exceeds expectations...

OPINION (originally published in MEDIAWEEK).
Steve Rosenbaum
Missing Points of View
TV news didn’t show the whole story during the RNC in New York

If you want to check in on the state of freedom of speech and public dissent in America, New York during the Republican National Convention was the place to be. And certainly the media was here in force. ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and a horde of crews from outlets around the world.
I decided that I didn’t want to watch from the sidelines, so working with 14 other filmmakers, we split up assignments and ventured off to cover the RNC and the events that surrounded it from many points of view.

On Aug. 30, as the second day of the Republican Convention got underway, I found myself in Herald Square after a long day of shooting. All day long I’d been bumped, pushed, herded, and engaged by mix of policemen, publicists, and activists.

I was THE MEDIA. Or, as protesters called us, “Media”, as in “Media, Over Here” or “Hey Media!” The day had been full of events, staged for maximum effect. Some worked better than others. The giant lawn sculpture of the Statue of Liberty on the Sheep Meadow was hard to get excited about from the ground. But the Hallibacon protest in front of the Texas Delegation’s Halliburton breakfast was definitely effective political theater.

By 7 p.m. in Herald Square, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was doing a panel discussion about Laura Bush’s role in the campaign. As the chat went on, crowds gathered on both sides of 6th Avenue, chanting, “This is what Democracy looks like” and “Down with Bush.”

I knew 6th Avenue and 34th street had been slated for an “unpermitted” protest. The plan was to “shut down” Herald Square in a massive peaceful sit-in that would snarl traffic and tie up both subway and bus access to Madison Square Garden. The crowds grew and grew, with sidewalks crammed past capacity.
Despite the live camera positions and crane shot, MSNBC ignored the din. I asked a producer why, and she said, “We don’t want to let staged events dictate the news." OK, makes sense—they didn’t want to be “played.” But wait a minute, what’s happening inside Madison Square Garden? Isn’t that a “staged news event”? What’s the difference?

The protesters, several of whom I spoke to at length, had reasoned, passionate, politically astute options. They had something to say. But no one was listening. They were just a crowd of “rabble rousers” worth little more than a passing shot and relegated to background noise.

But after being ignored by MSNBC, one of them jumped a fence and tried to “get” Chris Matthews. Why? What was their goal? To simply act out and cause trouble? Or was it their acknowledgement that this kind of action was the only way to “make news” and become part of the story?

Before I left the scene, I saw NYPD officers on little motor scooters, and riot police with rolls of orange snow fencing ensnare entire sidewalks of pedestrians and make mass arrests. Without a doubt, the law had been broken. The sidewalks were blocked. The “peace” had been disturbed. But something else had been lost as well.

Later that night, ABC’s Nightline did a half hour on New York City security. Lots of shots of police, guns, phone banks, and promises of safety and security. At the end of the broadcast, perhaps 20 seconds were devoted to the “protesters” with a series of shots of arrests. Again, no explanation of the protests, just pictures of them in handcuffs being taken away.

In the Nightline piece, there was a montage of “most dangerous” activists. I almost thought I heard the word “insurgents.” Each person looked dangerous and angry. I would have been scared, if it wasn’t for the fact that one of them was a woman that I’d gone to college with 20-plus years ago. I knew her to be smart, political, and engaged. So rather than accept the fact that she was dangerous, I called her. And spent the next day filming her. We walked, talked, and discussed world affairs, politics, her movement, and the frustration she and others have that they’re being left out of the discussion. I asked her about the Nightline piece, and what it felt like to be judged without being interviewed. She pointed out that I’d found her without much effort. Had ABC wanted to ask her questions, she wasn’t hard to find.

What we have to come to terms with is that the rules have changed. A balanced attempt to cover the convention would have asked how many protest organizations there were, and sought out the differences between them. How can viewers otherwise understand the scope, issues, and agendas of these groups of individuals?

To suggest that they were simply here to cause “mischief” or “tear down the government” is to tear the heart out of our democracy. Dissent is essential. And coverage of it can’t be sidelined or marginalized.

And for mainstream media, the need to return to covering news is all the more essential. The country is deeply divided on real issues, and if we don’t focus on the issues that are at the heart of that debate, then major media will push issue-oriented viewers to alternative sources as they try to come to terms with them: the “war on terror,” the war in Iraq, the economy, and our long-term place as a leader in world affairs.

Steve Rosenbaum is CEO and co-president of CameraPlanet.com, an independent news and documentary production company based in New York.

I'm working with 14 filmmakers to collaberate on a film about the RNC in NYC. (if you have video - contact me at RNCfilm@cameraplanet.com).

But in making that film I found myself in Herald Square on August 31st, as the second day of the Republican Convention got underway.

All day long I'd been bumped, pushed, herded, and fawned over by mix of
policemen, publicists, and activists.

I was - THE MEDIA. Or, as protesters call us "Media", as in "Media Over
Here" or "hey MEDIA."

The day had been full of events, staged for maximum effect. Some worked
better than others. The giant lawn sculpture of The Statue of Liberty on the
Sheeps Meadow was hard to get excited about from the ground. But the
HalliBACON protest in front of the Texas Delegation's Halliburtton breakfast
was effective political theatre.

In Herald Square MSNBC's Chris Mathews was doing a panel discussion about
Barbara Bush's role in the campaign. As the chat went on - crowds gathered
on both sides of 6th Avenue. Chanting "This is what Democracy looks like"
and "Down with Bush."

Despite the live camera positions and Crane shot - MSNBC ignored the din
around them. I asked a producer why and she said "We don't want to let
staged events dicate the news." Ok, makes sense - they didn't want to be
'played.' But wait a minute - what's happening inside Madison Square
Guarden? Isn't that a 'staged news event'? What's the difference.

The protesters - who I spoke to at length - had reasoned, passionate,
polticially asstute opions. They had something to say. But after being
ignored by MSNBC - one of them jumped a fence and tried to 'get' Chris
Mathews. Why? What was their goal? To simply act out and cause trouble? Or
was it their acknowlegement that this kind of action was the only way to
'make news' and become part of the story.

Later that night - Nightline did a half hour on New York City security. Lots
of shots of police, guns, phone banks, and promises of safety and security.
At the end of the broadcast they dedicated perhaps 20 seconds to the
'protesters' whith a series of shots of arrests. Again - the news isn't what
they say - it's simply pictures of them in handcuffs being taken away.

What we have to come to terms with is that the rules have changed. A
balanced attempt to cover the convention would have asked - how many protest
organizatons are they, what is the difference between them. How can viewers
understand the scope, issues, and agendas of these groups of individuals.

To suggest that they're simply here to cause 'mischief' or 'tear down the
government' is to tear the heart out of our democracy. Dissent is essential.
And coverage of it can't be sidelined or marginalize.

And for mainstream media the need to return to covering news is all the more
essential.

It's weird being both a prop in a media event and also a filmmaker covering it.
But Boston 2004 is a weird thing.

It seems that what can, and what can't be photographed is backwards.

Our first night here - Sunday - before the convention began, we were shooting sights and sounds and ended up at a Rock The Vote event at a night club called "Avalon" next to Fenway park. The crowd was big, the street teaming with people, and the club a 'no-picture' zone. Not because of RTV -but the club owners who said that they'd been sued too many times buy patrons who'd had their pictures taken. Each person entering was searched for cameras. And each person had a cell phone (most with cameras). Once inside DJ BizMarkee was great- and Al Sharpton was very strong. And I would have used the pictures in the film for sure. But nope.

Then Monday night - at the Fleet Center - cameras were EVERYWHERE. DV, beta, 24p, 16mm, all shooting everything that moved. The funny hats the speeches, each other.

It was more than a media free for all. It was a technology free for all. There were bloggers. There were DV crews for ABC news. There were wireless laptops. Everyone was wired. And everyone was taking pictures. When speakers roused the audience, a sea of cell phones was at the ready. Click Click Click.

Whatever Avalon thinks - picture taking isn't going to be ruled out of existence. It's going to be the order of the day - and that's clear in Boston.

Now all we need to do is remember that America is a free speech zone - not a cage off on a dirt parking lot. But that's a debate for another day... I'm off to hear John Edwards

Why are networks using 'Reality" in place of drama? What does it mean for the documentary genre?

No one seems to think that using the world 'reality' to represent staged, faked, cast, scripted, re-enacted programming will have any long term effect on the planet.

After all, the FDA makes sure that 'Organic" and "All Natural" mean something. But no one manages the labels in the media.

But when Real means Fake - how do viewers know the difference?

Michael Moore had the temerity to go on the Today Show and answer the first softball question from Katie Couric "So Michael, why did you make this movie" with the answer "Katie, because you didn't do your job."

Wow. Hardly an 'invite me back' response.

But the truth is that the media is a villain in F 9/11 for sure. And by the way - was a villain in the last election's "Journey's With George" as well.

You see - in the past it was the Governments job to stage mange, manipulate, cast, and fake events. It was the media's job to deconstruct it.

But now networks have gotten into the act - using real people as low paid chumps and using time honored documentary non-fiction techniques to create an aura of visceral reality.

The concern about 'stealing' isn't new. It's Hollywood. If you own it prove it. If we steal it - get a lawyer. We'll settle if you have deep enough pockets and can afford to never work with us again.

(sidebar - one of the great ironies for producers is that if you sue, are completely in the right, and win - you're still considered on a black list for taking on a network. No one likes when the vendor talks back to the client - right or wrong).

But back to reality. Reality has put the final nail in the coffin of network news. Programs have already devolved in a series of franchise gimmicks and showbiz clichés. If networks label 'fake' as 'real' then how do we know what their standards are? Ever watch "the restaurant." Great show. Dramatic, fun, shocking. So - why can't we mount a camera in Martha's cell? Call it "Celebrity Incarceration".

Can she get out early with good behavior and some strategic baking? Tune in!

Entertainment vs. Information.

I read that many people coming out of Michael Moore's film F 911 said they 'enjoyed it.' I'm not sure that is the reaction of viewers from OutFoxed.

Because the facts presented are pretty much facts in plain view. Fox hasn't really made any secret of it's politics, or it's tone, or it's agenda. Much like lots of consumer marketing "Fair and Balanced" plays like "New and Improved" or "Order Before Midnight Tonight' we know it's a come on.

So why is OutFoxed successful? We'll for one thing - it's about the media. Television in particular. And for a documentary to bite the media hand that feeds it (or hypes it - or hates it) is dangerous.

How will people hear about OutFoxed? Will it get 'buzz' - or will it simply get snowed under by the Martha news or the Campaign clatter?

Well - if you check Robert Greenwald's track record - it may not matter. Because direct DVD publishing is really a revolution in the making. It's not platform releasing... it's slow motion word of mouth. It's a series of concentric circles that allow films to get talked about, blogged, linked, forwarded, and stay a part of the public discussion for as long as the material is pertinent.

That's a major shift.

No longer does a film like OutFoxed need to "Open" and "Close" in the way that we think of distribution.

And that's pretty important.

Because Greenwald sold more than 100,000 copies of his last film. And he'll do even more on this one.

That's worthwhile data for anyone who wants to work in difficult (non-studio) subject areas.

Check out www.OutFoxed.com

It may be the most groundbreaking film of all times.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" has pushed into the public debate the very essence of the state of storytelling in this society. What is balance? What is objectivity? What is truth? And do citizens value a whole set of standards that the media has trumpeted as essential to our understanding of the world around us.

The truth is - Fox News began the whole thing. But wrapping themselves in 'fair and balanced' - they turned the very idea of objective storytelling into a bit of a farce. And rightly so.

Storytellers are human. And humans bring perspective. Institutions can legislate balance into their work by requiring multiple sources, equal time, separate church and state editorial boards for the Op Ed page, but in the end... Media organizations have a DNA. Fox is conservative. Shocker! But the more complex media personalities are CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. Because over the past three decades they've all transferred from the hands of ideological owners into the portfolio's of large multinational companies. The results are companies with a deeply conflicted internal sense of who they are. And the result - for viewers - is lots of media that's neither hard hitting nor incisive. Lot's of 'data' very little analysis.

Don't believe me? When's the last time that you heard an 'OpEd' on broadcast television. Probably 20 years. Eric Sevareid on CBS.

But networks don't do OpEd's any more. Because they've found that 'balance' and 'objectivity' is the way to escape the conflict between corporate owners and passionate individual employees. We've legislated out point of view. And told audiences that's what they want.

But 21 million dollars says they're wrong.

Because Michael Moore's film is his thesis. He looks at the facts, and adds them up as he sees it. You're free to accept his math, or engage your own brain and consider his evidence and draw your own conclusions, or reject outright his world view and therefore analysis.

But that's how information in a free society should be consumed. And it's worth pointing out that this isn't an expectation. Sure, Fahrenheit could be doing big box office because of the deeply fractured political situation - but then explain SuperSize Me? Morgan Spurlock is an unknown. MacDonald's is more of a guilty pleasure than corporate bad guy. And Fast Food isn't really a subject people are dying to see. But now with 6 million in box office, it seems like it may be worth considering.

It may be that the broadly defined genre known as 'documentary' is moving from sideshow to main stage. That independent non-fiction satisfies a need for unique perspectives, challenging ideas, and an editorial point of view that is not generated from a corporate perspective.

Clearly audiences that go in search of intelligent ideas and complex storytelling won't go to one movie a year. And DVD's will further reach into the living rooms and home theatres of a enthusiastic emerging audience.

Pretty cool - don't you think?

June 18, 2004

BROOKE GLADSTONE: The NRA has found one way to cut through the political message clutter. But the medium of choice this election season seems to be the political documentary, and the genre's heaviest hitter is Michael Moore whose new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, hits theaters Friday. [MUSIC UP & UNDER]

MAN: In the middle of the war, corporations decided to hold a conference to figure out how much money could be made.

MAN: Once that oil starts flowing, there's going to be lots of money. Whatever it costs, the government will pay you.

MAN: It's going to be good for business, bad for the people.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Fahrenheit 9/11, which includes some grisly footage from Iraq, grabbed headlines when the Walt Disney company refused to release it. Miramax Bob and Harvey Weinstein defied its parent company, bought the film and found a new distributor. This week it made news again when the Motion Picture Association of America gave it an R rating, barring kids under the age of 17, some of whom might soon be serving in the military, from seeing it without mom and dad. Moore is appealing that rating. Meanwhile, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo said he would urge people to watch the film before they pick their next president.

MICHAEL MOORE: How could Congress pass this Patriot Act without even reading it?

MAN: Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the bills.

MICHAEL MOORE: No one read it!

MICHAEL MOORE: [ANNOUNCING] Members of Congress -- this is Michael Moore. I would like to read to you the USA Patriot Act.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: This is a potent piece of political advocacy, and one in a series of films with liberal messages ranging from John Sayles' Silver City, a satire about what one reviewer calls "a grammatically-challenged born-again candidate from a right wing dynasty," to Tour of Duty -- a look at John Kerry's service in Vietnam from the director of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Pumping Iron. Add to that Harry Thomason's just-released film about the political vendetta against Bill Clinton, The Hunting of the President, and you have what some conservatives suggest is a vast, suspiciously-timed left wing cinematic conspiracy. [FILM CLIPS PLAY]

MAN: ...this is the inauguration reviewing stand...

MAN: ...here is where Bill Clinton will make his oval office...

BILL CLINTON: ...I, William Jefferson Clinton...

MAN: ...there was a sense in Washington that Clinton was not their kind of person...

MAN: ...the strategy was to use anything to inflict damage to his presidency...

HARRY THOMASON: All documentaries are made to influence opinion, and we hope this one does, but our opinion is not necessarily to affect the election. You have to understand, we thought we would have had this film out a year ago.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Director Harry Thomason says that the proliferation of documentaries arises partly from the public's growing acceptance of the genre. It's also a response, he says, to a growing suspicion that traditional journalism, pressed under the thumb of corporate ownership, is falling down on the job. As for the timing of this new wave of left-leaning films coming out on the eve of what will surely be a squeaker of a national election--

HARRY THOMASON: Actually I think that all these films are coming out and it's strictly coincidental.

ROB RICHIE: This isn't all coincidence, because you do have individual filmmakers who do care about this election, and they are turning to what they do best to try to have an impact.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: And they could, says Rob Richie, of the non-partisan Center for Voting and Democracy.

ROB RICHIE: When, you know, almost half the adult population doesn't vote, if you can get more of those people to vote, you can tip a close election. What can also happen, though, is that, say, Republicans can point a finger at Hollywood and say they're trying to steal this election, again, those rich liberals that aren't like you - and get out and vote. You know, like both sides are going to try to use such movies and the discussion about them to mobilize their base.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: In fact, that's happening already. This month, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly likened Michael Moore to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Then he read a list of fellow brownshirts who showed up at a recent screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 -- Billy Crystal, Sharon Stone, Martin Sheen, Larry David, Chris Rock, Demi and Ashton -- the list goes on and on. NBC's Tom Brokaw and New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. were there too, but the New York Post reported that the applause lasted only half a minute, and many declined to stand for the ovation. Harry Thomason.

HARRY THOMASON: I think Michael Moore is a wonderful filmmaker and-- I think if he thinks he's going to influence the election, then he's probably misinformed.

RICHARD VIGUERIE: I'm sure it'll have some impact, and it's almost certainly not good for conservatives, Republicans like myself.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Richard Viguerie is an expert in the political use of alternative media.

RICHARD VIGUERIE: Because the Hollywood media is not something that, you know, we're particularly well-versed in, and it's not one of our strong suits.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: But according to Viguerie, new campaign laws limiting contributions have both sides scrambling for new outlets. Film, he says, can be used as a partisan megaphone, like for instance, talk radio. Conservatives may own the microphone, but at the moment, liberals are running the cameras. And if ticket sales translate into votes--

RICHARD VIGUERIE: I suspect Republicans will, and conservatives, will weigh in, in future years. People are looking for ways to have an impact without violating McCain-Feingold law, and this is an obvious way to, to do that. But I think you're seeing the forerunner of a mass onslaught of documentaries that are just thinly veiled campaign pieces.

MEREDITH MCGEHEE: I don't believe at this moment that political documentaries that are being floated around are being used to evade the McCain-Feingold law--

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Meredith McGehee, of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, says that there is no evidence that people are funneling money into films as part of a coordinated effort to benefit a particular campaign. So despite reported grumblings from the GOP, there's no violation of the law.

MEREDITH MCGEHEE: It's the act of the coordination in itself that triggers any kind of limits. Being critical of a public official and having an intent to influence the outcome of a federal election, actually, are not exactly the same thing.

STEVE ROSENBAUM: Michael Moore's film -- I don't believe that two years ago when he started to make Fahrenheit 9/11, you know, that he was working on a film to support John Kerry. I think that he was making a film because he was really, really angry at what was happening in U.S. politics.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Steven Rosenbaum is the director of Inside the Bubble, a documentary about the Kerry campaign's brain trust, currently slated for release after the election.

STEVE ROSENBAUM: I don't understand why people get so concerned about the fact that Michael Moore has a point of view.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: He says filmmakers have always wanted to tell stories that move people, and today the big story is political. It's just the technology that's changed. With digital video, they work cheaper and faster, and so they are. As for influence, who knows?

STEVE ROSENBAUM: At this moment we can say for sure that Michael Moore's film will make a big noise when it opens on the 25th. Beyond that film, though, I don't know of anything coming down the pike that is a slam dunk in terms of the ability to kind of rattle the windows. You forget how extraordinarily hard it is to get people to take their 9 dollars out of their pocket and go to a movie theater and engage something serious and potentially a little hard to stomach.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So maybe it ends with Moore, but probably not. Rosenbaum says documentarians have always looked hard for funding, but depending on what happens in November, maybe the big campaign funders will come looking for them next time around. If they do, the watchdogs of campaign finance reform will be right behind them.

Why does everyone want to find something about fahrenheit 9/11 to criticize?

Michael Moore's latest movie has me thinking - and talking - a lot about it.

I saw it last night... With 300 other people that were involved in the film in one-way or another. And even in a room of 'fans' the audience reaction afterwards was sobering.

You can't cheer. The story is far too personal.
You can't applaud. It's about a war - and an ugly one at that.
You can't even yell nasty things about the people who Michael says did all these things.

So I left angry.

But not angry with George Bush. Or Donald Rumsfeld. Or Ashcroft. Or Condi Rice. I was angry at myself.

This isn't anyone else’s country. It's mine. And this Government doesn't act in a vacuum.

I was angry after 9/11. I tried not to let my emotions be played... And I thought that I was in control. But as Michael reminds me of the Terror alerts, I'm embarrassed to remember the 'escape kit' that we have in our closet. One for each member of my family. Yes. I was made to be scared.

And once I was scared - I was able to have buttons pushed that made 'shock and awe' seem like some sort of global statement. Don't F*CK with US. What made me angrier was I knew better. Peter Arnett had told me - and showed me -that Iraq was a modern, literate, evolving country. A bright spot in the Middle East. A place with issues, but not our issues. And as I watched "911" I remembered the Baby Milk Factor that the US Government had bombed back during Gulf War One. Peter knew it wasn't a chemical weapons plant. He actually touched the milk powder to his lips to prove it. But the US Government said it WAS... And he was labeled a traitor for trying to put facts in the face of fiction. His career was thrown into a tailspin. But he was telling the truth.

Now - the 911 commission and all evidence says that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Queda. Despite that- the President still says that there's a connection. The drumbeat of fact vs. fiction is intense. And it makes me angry to think that somehow patriotism, 9/11, oil, and the 'support our troops' drumbeat makes it almost feel like it's ok to support what's happening. It's not ok.

And Michael uses every trick in his filmmakers bag... Music, images, gottacha cameras, and a mother who lost her son. As I watched the image of the boy with the kite in Iraq... I was angry with the film for a moment. How dare he use such an emotional button to make me feel... Well.... Guilty.

But then I remembered my trip to Russia back in 1983. I landed in Moscow with a group of student journalists and was stunned by the fact that on the street people walked dogs. Yes - Russian's had Dogs! They were Human. I was stunned that I had never seen real life images of human's in Russia. Of course... Never humanize the enemy. So Michael's decision to show pictures of life, children, families, before we began bombing seemed like it broken some unspoken rule of dehumanizing the enemy. He was right to do it. But was it manipulative - yes. Am I angry at how I feel about what I let happen to the boy with the kite (the metaphorical boy with the kite). Yes. I'm angry.

I don't know how that emotion will translate to a national audience. Will people go to be entertained, and leave embarrassed and angry. Certainly George Bush is made to look disconnected, goofy, and unconcerned. But those images aren't news. And in fact, it may be that his easygoing demeanor is part of his appeal.

The real villains of this film are the Marine Recruiters who troll the parking lots and malls of Flint Michigan - telling young men and women whatever it takes to get them enlisted.

The enemy is the Patriot Act... Being used by a local sheriff in Fresno to infiltrate a group of aging hippies known as PEACE FRESNO.

The real quest for audiences is - can they accept the culpability that Moore charges all of us with in the world events that are now unraveling.

Fahrenheit 911 is layered, complex, serious film. It is important. And uplifting only in that it puts together all the threads that have been hanging out in the media for all to see.

It's our government. What it does is our responsibility. And if we don't speak up - then power will corupt, that's for sure.

So why does everyone want to find something about fahrenheit 9/11 to criticize? Maybe because to accept the film’s indictment is to have to look into a very personal mirror.

Sometimes - we point our camera at people... And we change their lives.
Sometimes - our subjects change OUR lives.

While it's great to feel like being a filmmaker is about discovering things and sharing them with the world... It's hard to feel like anything we did made Arthur Lederman any more extraordinary than he was.

Arthur died last week -at the age of 104. It's easy to think about his tenure on this earth as an accomplishment... But if you knew him, or had the chance to see the film that was made about him, then you know his footprint on this earth was far greater than the sum of its years.

I first met Arthur on film - as I meet many people. He was portrayed in a student film that had been submitted for the CameraPlanet Innovation award that we judge each year at the Columbia University School of Journalism.

Three graduate students had gone out to record the relationship between clients of Dorot - a Jewish service organization - and a group of young German home service aids.

In their travels they opened a door at 116th Street and Broadway - and found themselves in the apartment of Arthur Lederman.

Arthur was then a 101-year-old Polish refugee who lost his family in the Holocaust. His visitor was 21-year-old Christoph Erbsloeh, is a German student and the grandson of a soldier in Hitler’s army.

“If you were born 50 years ago, you would kill me” said Arthur in his first encounter with the first German to set foot in his apartment.

It was pure Arthur. Charming. Combative. Controversial. Feisty.

And while I 'meet' hundreds of people on film every month... I can't think of but a few that I feel compelled to seek out in person.

So I reached out to the filmmakers -both to help them finish their film, and to make a connection with the man they had embraced. Amy Rubin, Michael Rey, and Stefan Knerrich were the three grad students.

The film begun at Columbia, they skillfully crafted into the documentary feature "Facing Arthur".

Inside his apartment - there was a treasure trove of sculpture, watercolors, and memories. Arthur was a concert Violinist. He was an accomplished artist. He spoke Polish, German, Russian, and Hebrew. We was a Talmudic scholar.

He was a soaring spirit.

And he had been trapped - in the Upper West Side apartment.

So we didn't discover him. He discovered us. He allowed us the privilege of knowing him. And not in a casual way.

Once you met him - he was in your life. His laugh. His wisdom. His extraordinary view of world events. Moments after 9/11 - my thoughts raced
to him. Would this terrible tragedy crush his spirit. No, I quickly understood, he'd seen tragedy before.

He's live through this century. A difficult one. He came to America alone. His wife ran away with a rich man. His music had made him a star in prewar Poland, while here he suffered as a music teacher.

“I’ve got a sense of humor!” says Arthur in the film. “You don’t buy your sense of humor at Macy’s, even if they say it’s 25 percent cheaper!”

And humor he has - but always to a purpose.

“Children in Germany aren’t killing Jews anymore, but they don’t know anything about Jews" says Arthur. "How did you imagine a Jew? With a crooked nose?”

For almost 3 years... Arthur became the center of a group of friends and filmmakers. First with Amy, and Michael, and Stephan. Then as I broke the 4th wall and ask Amy to introduce me... He charmed and embraced my family. My older son, at the time 12 years old, was studying to be a Bar Mitzvah. And Arthur became his teacher. Both gentle and formidable... We would go for visits and he would insist on a scholarly response. Soon Max and biking up the 20 block on weekends to spend time with Arthur on his own.

In September of 2002, when Max was reading from the Torah at his Bar Mitzvah...he spoke eloquently about Arthur and all that this man had taught him. What an extraordinary gift to give a boy that had just a year earlier been a strangers son.

Arthur had faced adversity, sadness, joy, loss, and the extraordinary weight of a mind that is both extraordinarily empathetic and deeply judgmental and demanding. To those closest to him, Arthur's probing could be piercingly painful. He said to Christof once, without rancor - “You know, you have a little Hitler in you. Deep in your being, you are a Hitler.”

Sharp tongued. But empathetic. He was born on Christmas day. He says with his wry smile "two great Jews born on that day." And he laughs.

Arthur was always coy about his age... Not because he didn't want to reveal his years as much as not wanting to be judged by them. More than twice my age, more than once I thought he was younger than I was.

Always - the question of 'how long' was in the air. He'd broken all the records. He was in good spirits. He lived at home. His intellect was very much in tact. His signature was beautiful. "Of course... It has ART in it"

Arthur grinned when complimented on his name. Another Arthur-ism.

And then the subject -mostly unspoken - of the fact that he'd already outlived all of his peers.

"I don't know - perhaps I'm immortal" he said when asked about his tenure on this earth.

And the truth is - if immortality is being able to live forever, then he is immortal.

His art. His humor. His music. His sculpture. His philosophy. All recorded, all wrapped in the careful fabric of a movie.

Did Amy and her peers find him?
Or, in hindsight - did he send out some cosmic smoke signals from his apartment... A message in search of a messenger.

Sometimes... You don't make films. They make you.

We make films. And some days - it can feel really good. Today is one of those days...

Oh, right... I almost forgot.

McDonalds is bad for you - and NEW YORK WILL UNDERGO A NEW ICE AGE. It's docu - truth weekend.

First of all... I'm never going to walk the streets of New York again without knowing exactly how far I am from the Public Library. If that wall of water comes - I'll be able to scramble up those steps and SURVIVE! (Who said the internet makes books obsolete?)

This is one of those weird movie moments where our desperate need for a summer movie might have saved this film.

I saw it at a multiplex way upstate. And trust me - MoveOn.org wasn't handing out flyers. This crowd was coming for a rollercoaster ride. The kind that only a true 'disaster' movie can provide.

I schooled my son in the art form. "the Poseidon Adventure" "The Towering Inferno" "Earthquake" ... a genre of fine b movie art. But this would not be a lesson in that craft.

Because this was a film with a message. Make that a MESSAGE. Ok, really it was a MEEESSSSAGGGGEEE!!!!! We're killing the planet. And, btw - the homeless are just like you and me, interracial marriage is cool, dad's need to pay more attention to their young sons, the President is being bamboozled by his Veep, and a bunch more politically correct storylines that I couldn't keep track of.

I get the concept of wrapping important info in entertainment. Michael Moore take a bow. But in this film, the message gets lost in the pure fog of silly science, bad science, no facts, and just plain head scratching weirdness.

How does a Wendy's flame broiled burger save your life? You'll have to spend 9$ to find out. I'm not going to ruin it.

So - back to my basic point. Supersize Me? Yes. Fun, entertaining docu can teach us stuff while being engaging. Roland Emerich GAZILLION DOLLAR blockbuster -and environmental agenda setter - Nope. The less from The Day After Tomorrow was... hmm, don't ignore global warming. Ok. Sold. But the snow shoe treck from Philadelphia to NY to save the son... no way. The cell phone working. We learned that after 9/11. The super cooled air kept away by the library door. Ok, I'm munching on popcorn so I'll take a zero... but don't expect this to be a staple in science classes for years to come.