Matt Gallagher’s latest documentary Grinders (review) just premiered at Hot Docs. I spoke to him about the film and about his own time as a struggling poker player on Toronto’s underground circuit.

Drew Kerr (DK): For someone who’s not really a fan of poker, such as myself, why should they watch the film?

Matt Gallagher (MG): Well, that’s always the challenge. I tend to do films on these subcultures and maybe only 1% of the audience is going to care about a film about poker, so you’re always looking for something that will transcend the idea of poker as the subject that you’re doing.

DK: How did the film’s premiere go (on April 29th at Hot Docs)?

MG: I was pleasantly surprised because you never know how many people are going to show up and it was a big theatre and we pretty well sold it out. The audience, from what I could tell, was half poker folk and half documentary folk, so it was a really good audience.

DK: How did you initially get into the underground poker scene and at what point after you started playing in these games did you decide there was enough there for a documentary? Was there a specific moment where the light bulb went off in your head?

MG: I started playing at these underground clubs right after my little girl was born, my first child. I’m a freelancer and in the world of documentary you get used to feast or famine. There was a period when the world economy went into a tailspin and there wasn’t a lot of work in film and television, so I had time off and started playing poker. A friend of mine I met at a casino introduced me to this underground world in Toronto and I started to play. The first week I was making $200-$300 a night, even $500 one night. At the end of the week and month I was doing the math and figuring out that I could pay the mortgage and maybe I didn’t have to worry about getting my next filmmaking job right now, maybe if there’s nothing happening I can ride out this lean period. So I did this for about two or three months and I was talking to these great characters and interesting people and I guess the light bulb went off where I thought to myself that maybe there was a documentary here.

DK: How much resistance did you encounter trying to bring cameras into these places?

MG: With the players at the table, 99% of the time they had signed a release giving consent to film them. The most challenging part of any documentary is getting access to your subjects and it’s not just difficult in illegal underground poker rooms, it’s difficult in general because people have to trust you because they’re opening up their lives. I didn’t want to make it one of those documentaries with a hidden camera — that’s not my style. I started to play at these places and was becoming a very familiar fixture in these poker rooms and eventually I started telling people about this idea I had, floating this idea around the table. I got some resistance, but I also came across a few people who ran some clubs and said sure, you can come in here on a Tuesday or Wednesday night. I always had an agreement never to show the exterior of those clubs. The only exterior you see in my movie is the one where the club doesn’t exist anymore.

DK: How safe was it to be in these clubs? Was there much of a threat of police raids, or did you come across many unsavoury characters?

MG: Personally, when I’m playing at the clubs, I’m not worried about the cops. The cops very rarely will raid an underground poker game for some reason…I guess they’re out there fighting real crime. It’s not the police I was worried about, I was worried more about the criminal element with people doing armed robberies. Criminals know that at these games there’s thousands and thousands of dollars in cash at these places. At three of the clubs I’ve played at in the last two years there’s been armed robberies and most of the time the guys will come in with masks and guns. There’s usually two or three of them and they’ll take everyone’s money and their wallets and basically just walk out. Nobody reports it because nobody wants to get the cops involved. Fortunately, I wasn’t there for any of those nights, but you sort of run the risk of bumping into this, so you protect yourself. I had some rules that I would only bring $500 to a club, or I wouldn’t bring my wallet into the club, I’d leave it in my car. It is dangerous…there was a robbery-homicide just three weeks ago in Toronto at a poker club.

DK: The scenes with world poker champion Daniel Negreanu worked nicely as a counterbalance to the unglamorous grinders world. Did you have to twist his arm very much to get him to participate in the film?

MG: Daniel Negreanu represents sort of the mirage that these poker players chase after. He got his start in Toronto at the illegal clubs and was a guy you always heard a lot of stories about at the table, so I wanted to track him down and find out what his life was really like and, sure enough, his life does look pretty good. We went to the World Series of Poker to do some filming there and one of the members of our team saw him walking through the hotel lobby. They approached him, told him that we were from Toronto and asked him to do an interview. He’s a Canadian, right? Super nice guy and pretty accommodating.

DK: Just a further question on him. In the interviews he’s wearing both a PokerStars.net shirt and hat. Are these guys contractually obligated to wear that stuff whenever there’s a camera on?

MG: I’m not sure what his agreement with them is, but I imagine that he is because whenever you see him on TV he’s always flaunting it, right?

DK: The topic of addiction comes up in your film, specifically with Danny, who I think is supposed to be a reformed gambling addict?

MG: Danny was a grinder I was following for a short period of time and we were off to go up to the casino to play some cards and just in a casual conversation in the car he tells me that he used to go to Gamblers Anonymous. That surprised me, because he’s such a good poker player. As far as the calibre of players whom I met throughout this film, he’s one of the best. He’s always the guy who cashes out the most money at the end of the night, so it was interesting to me to find a guy who’s an addict, and he actually went to rehab for it. That’s why I decided to keep on following him because there’s sort of this strange relationship that he has in his own life. For all the guys who were risking stuff he has the most to lose. He’s a guy who’s got the house and the family and he plays nothing but poker to support his family.

DK: I found it a little unsettling watching a guy, with his history, gambling for a living. It didn’t feel exploitative, but is that something you were conscious of and at what point are you getting too close to that “line”?

MG: We wanted to make a film that speaks of larger issues than just poker, so you’re always looking for characters who are undergoing some process or struggle. We originally were following probably ten or twelve characters and some of their stories didn’t have beginning, middle, and ends to them, so we dropped them. I’m not a social worker, so what I wanted to do was let the theme play out itself and let Danny speak for himself on that one.

DK: Can you give me any updates on anything noteworthy happening with Danny and the two other main characters, Andre and Lawrence?

MG: Andre is planning on going to the World Series of Poker this summer in Las Vegas and he’ll be part of the reality show being filmed there. Danny continues to grind out a very successful living here in Toronto and throughout the tournaments that are happening, and he’ll also be going down to the World Series of Poker if he can make it big. Lawrence…I haven’t been able to get a hold of him, so I don’t know. His old club has disappeared.

DK: The movie was partially funded by TVO (TVOntario) and I was wondering if you had an air date yet?

MG: They’re looking to broadcast it this fall.

DK: And what’s up for you next, Matt?

MG: I’m going to do a non-personal film in Ireland for the History Channel, so I’ll be moving to Ireland for three months.

Post from: Toronto Screen Shots

Interview: Matt Gallagher

I met Jarod Neece back in September, where he was the incredibly gracious host of a really swell SXSW party at TIFF. He was so gracious that he also agreed to an interview, right in the midst of the pre-SXSW maelstrom.

The 2011 edition of the South by Southwest Film Festival takes place in Austin, Texas, from March 11th through the 20th. If you’re going to be there, say Howdy!

James McNally (JM): You have a formidable-sounding title. Can you explain exactly what you do before, during, and after SXSW each year?

Jarod Neece (JN): Yes, after working for SXSW for 10 years my title has grown to be Film Production & Conference Manager / Feature Film & Genre Programmer.

Before the festival I manage the film conference programming, the film festival production, while also working to program the Narrative Feature and Midnight sections, running the daily operations of the film festival and traveling to several fests each year to watch films and consider them for SXSW.

During SXSW I oversee the film festival and conference operations, intro films, do Q&As and try to fit in at least a few parties and a couple hours of sleep a night.

After the festival, I rest for a few weeks, hang out with my wife and daughter full time and then start all over again.

JM: According to your statistics, there were 1,800 feature submissions and 3,000 shorts submissions this year, an increase of 25% over 2010. How does a festival cope with that kind of growth? It’s wonderful that filmmaking tools have become more accessible but do you sometimes feel like there are just too many films being made these days?

JN: We have definitely seen more and more films each year. We handle the growth with more screeners, more staff and more hours personally watching films before the festival. I would never say there are too many films being made, I think it’s great that anyone can have access to filmmaking tools. I never know when I put in a DVD if that film will be the next discovery. It keeps you going through the long screening process.

JM: Do you feel that festival programmers are now bearing the burden of responsibility for weeding out bad films that previously would have been the job of studio slush pile script readers? Is it just too easy to make a film now?

JN: Festival programmers have always weeded down submissions to create their programs each year. We just have many more films to choose from these days. I’ve made a few short films in my day and I know how hard it is to make a film, regardless of changing technology. I’d never call it easy.

JM: I’ve been attending SXSW Interactive since 2001, and over the years the overlap between Interactive and Film has grown. In what particular ways do you see the two streams of the conference converging this year?

JN: We are increasing the size of the room of our crossover panels to allow more film and interactive registrants access to each other’s programming. We have several crossover events, including the panels in 18ABCD, the Film/IA fusion party and out IA@The Movie films.

JM: What films, panels, parties and special events are you most excited about this year?

JN: It would be impossible to narrow it down to only a few, but the first films off the top of my head — Ti West’s The Innkeepers, Joe Cornish’s Attack the Block, Xavier Gens’ The Divide, and so many other premieres. Some of my favourite films I saw while attending other festivals include Phase 7, Insidious, Our Day Will Come, Bellflower, Being Elmo, and tons of others.

On the panels side we have Todd Phillips, Paul Reubens, and the casts of Source Code and Super. Our Opening Night Party is always a blast and we are really excited about the second year of the Opening Title Sequence and Film Poster Design Competition.

JM: I know that in your increasingly scarce free time, you are the author of a blog about the best taco places in Austin. Do you care to share any secrets for visitors this year?

JN: Go east! If you want good breakfast tacos crossover (or under) I-35 to get real tacos at Porfirio’s or Joe’s or good lunch tacos at Rosita’s Al Pastor on E. Riverside. Or show up to our Taco Journalism Meet Up at 9am on Sunday, March 13 in Brush Square Park and eat some tacos with us!

JM: I’m sure your work won’t suddenly end on March 20th, but what’s the first thing you’re going to do when the festival winds down and you have some time to yourself?

JN: Put down my computer and phone, tell my wife Happy Birthday, and just hang out with my family.

Post from: Toronto Screen Shots

Interview: Jarod Neece

I met Sundance shorts programmer Jon Korn back in the summer, when he was in town for the Worldwide Short Film Festival. He was a surprise bonus guest when I interviewed Wholphin editor Brent Hoff (which you can read here), and at the time, I made him promise to submit to a more formal interview. Six months later, here it is.

The timing is actually great because Sundance just recently announced their full slate of shorts programming, and so Jon might just have a breather for a few short weeks. We conducted this exchange over email in mid-December 2010. The Sundance Film Festival runs from January 20–30, 2011.

James McNally (JM): So the shorts program has finally been announced, which must be a relief for you. To quote the press release, “81 films from 21 countries, selected from a record 6,467 submissions.” That’s a mind-boggling number of submissions and a minuscule 1.25% success rate. First of all, can you describe what you and the other shorts programmers’ lives were like for the past few weeks and months watching all of those submissions?

Jon Korn (JK): It’s pretty amazing when you add it all up…we’re very lucky that so many people want to be a part of our festival! We actually started watching submissions in August to be sure that we saw everything. There are six Shorts Programmers and one Associate Shorts Programmer — and at least one of us watches every film submitted — so we’re all watching over 1,000. The reality of that is months of 20–30 shorts a day, five days a week. It’s solitary work and you can definitely go a little stir-crazy. I actually made a rule that I had to leave the house and talk to a human in person every day, which sounds insane, but was so necessary. Every year when we finish, I’m shocked that I still have a girlfriend. She is the real heroine here.

JM: How do you let 98.75% of the filmmakers know that their short just didn’t make the cut? Form letter email? Personal phone call?

JK: Given the numbers involved, we can’t do calls, so filmmakers get notified via email if their film was not selected. But this year the shorts programmers will be calling anyone who submitted a film AND participated in our ShortsLab in July to give them feedback. It’s super exciting and slightly terrifying. The first ShortsLab was in LA, but more are planned for around the US next year, so keep your eye on our site for more info and you too could get a telephone call from a nervous programmer!

JM: Can you give me an idea of how you put together the shorts program? Do you have an overall shape in mind before you begin the selection process or does a structure emerge organically as you go along?

JK: The program comes directly from what we see and love. I feel like trying to cram shorts into a preconceived organizational structure would be incredibly frustrating and ultimately work against what we try to do, which is to present what we feel to be the most successful American and International work. As far as the process, after we each watch our 1,000 or so, we compile a list of our favourites and then these titles are circulated amongst the other programmers. Then we all meet for four days of deliberation to cut those selects — usually 300–400 — down to the 81 that will play in the festival. Each one of us has to lose films that we love, which sucks, but the sheer joy of watching my colleagues’ favourites and collectively discovering amazing stuff is just incredible. I’m very lucky to have my job.

JM: What portion of the selection comes from unsolicited submissions as compared to films invited from other festivals?

JK: I feel like filmmakers often feel like they need to have a ‘connection’ to get into the fest. As a filmmaker I met this year said “I thought I needed a Bro who had a Sundance Bro,” which, while poetic, is just not true. The vast majority of stuff comes in unsolicited, everything gets watched by a programmer and ultimately films have to stand up against the strongest stuff we’ve seen. I think it’s very egalitarian and pretty transparent. Of course, all of us scour other fests, short film markets and the Internet to find things we love, too.

JM: Speaking of other festivals, how important is premiere status for a short film screening at Sundance?

JK: Not at all. As long as the film was made in the last calendar year and hasn’t been on TV, we don’t care whether it’s played at other festivals internationally or domestically. And we also don’t care if it’s been online. In fact, there are at least four titles that we solicited directly from the Internet this year.

JM: Do many of your short filmmakers get the chance to come to the festival to present their films? Do they get to do (short) Q&A sessions afterward?

JK: I think almost all our short filmmakers were at the festival for at least part of the time last year. It’s a great opportunity to meet your peers and other industry folks. Plus I always feel like filmmakers leave the festival inspired to make the kind of work that will help them return! We do have Q&As after all the short program screenings — each of the programs will screen five times throughout the festival, so it’s always fun to see which filmmakers actually make it to all of their showings. Altitude + sponsored hootch + 8AM showtimes = a few bleary-eyed Q&As for filmmakers and programmers alike…

JM: Do you see shorts strictly as a calling card for directors who want to work in full-length features or is there anybody hanging out at the Sundance festival buying short films for distribution?

JK: Probably the nicest thing about short films is that they’re sort of impossible to define or categorize. So I think every director has to figure out what they want from each short they make. Some are obviously a segment of a longer piece and can serve as a tool for funding, etc. Others are just great examinations of the short form that may or may not have commercial potential. Certainly there are options to sell your short, although I think very few films actually make a huge profit.

JM: I expected the Internet and mobile devices to open up the market for shorts. Do you see this happening? Why hasn’t it seemed to happen as quickly as, say, the market for games?

JK: I think that it’s still pretty tough to charge for any content online, so it shouldn’t be odd that a market for shorts hasn’t yet appeared. That being said, I would argue that the Internet has resulted in a huge increase in the number of people watching short films. Certainly, the stuff that gets the most eyes are the kinds of thing that usually go viral. I know a lot of what I see online ends up featuring some combo of cats, Star Wars jokes and deep fried turkey mishaps, which can be great! But the Internet also rewards creativity and so by the time I get forwarded something, or see it on blogs, Twitter, etc., it’s probably going to be interesting. I’d point to one of our films that we found online, which actually won an award as part of Vimeo’s festival, called Oops. It’s awesome, and there’s no surprise it went viral. But it’s also undeniably art and experimental art at that! So the audience is there, but the money isn’t. Yet.

JM: Finally (and pay attention here young filmmakers!), after watching so many shorts, can you tell me what are some of the worst clichés that you tend to see over and over in rejected submissions

JK: My biggest disappointment is when filmmakers take on more than their skill and budget can realistically achieve. I love space operas and car chases as much as the next guy, but not when you’re doing it for $200 in your buddy’s Mom’s backyard. Save the Vikings and alien assassins for when you can really do them justice! We’re showing a film called Pioneer that’s just two people in a room. but it’s so well-written, shot and performed that it’s f-ing spectacular. And hopefully the director of that will now get a chance to try something bigger. Because he showed he was ready. You gotta walk before you run, especially if that running is in slow motion, away from a giant explosion.

Also, I feel like new filmmakers rarely get productive feedback on projects in development. You should be showing your film in every stage to people you trust to be honest, even mean. Your Dad will love it because he loves you, but he’s not gonna be able to suggest how it can get better. And every film can get better, even the really, really good ones.

Finally: mockumentaries. Proceed with caution! I’ve seen what feels like millions and it’s so hard to do well, let alone actually be funny. People train for years to be good at improv. Those Chris Guest and Sasha Baron Cohen films are deceptively complex.

That said, please ignore any of these if you have an amazing idea that you’re passionate about. (Except for getting feedback. That one’s non-negotiable.) We play films every year that feature what could be ‘clichés,’ except the filmmakers have figured out a way to make the material feel fresh, personal and exciting.

• Profile of Jon from the Sundance website (October 2010)

Post from: Toronto Screen Shots

Interview: Jon Korn

I’m a huge fan of Wholphin, a quarterly DVD filled with short films published by the fine folks behind McSweeney’s and The Believer magazines. It’s one of the chief reasons why my appreciation for short films continues to grow. So I was delighted to discover that Wholphin’s founder and editor Brent Hoff would be in Toronto to attend the Worldwide Short Film Festival. He graciously agreed to talk with me about the “magazine” and his passionate belief that films should be free to be just the right length. Extra credit for sitting down with me after spending 4.5 hours in the hot sun watching the Blue Jays win a 15-inning nailbiter.

An added bonus was the presence of Sundance Film Festival shorts programmer Jon Korn, who pipes in now and then. I’ve actually been promised a fuller interview with Jon soon so look for that in the weeks or months to come.

Special thanks to AJ Schnack for granting permission to use his photo of Brent enjoying himself at the 2008 True/False Film Festival.

James McNally (JM): The whole reason I wanted to have this interview is because I don’t know how to pronounce the name of your magazine. Is it HOLE-fin or WOLE-fin or WALL-fin or what?

Brent Hoff (BH): WALL-fin. It’s a whale-dolphin hybrid.

JM: Now, see, I’ve already learned something.

BH: We’re thinking of making a shirt that has all the different pronunciations…I never said it was a good name for a product.

JM: How did you come to have what I consider one of the best jobs in the world?

BH: It was just an experiment thing. Dave Eggers, the publisher of McSweeney’s, and I had been talking about it. We had both seen all these amazing short films, some of them at Sundance, and Dave had friends who had given him shorts and things which were great, and they’d never been released. We were talking about working together trying to get some of these films around and nothing was happening to get them out in the world. We couldn’t figure out why no one had done it already. ResFest had sort of tried it, but they were doing a lot of music video stuff. Spike and Mike did animation, but that was only a small portion of all the stuff.

JM: What were you doing before? Were you working in film in some capacity?

BH: I was in New York, and I was working in TV, mostly.

JM: What was it about shorter films that attracted you in particular?

BH: That’s just where the hole was. There were great longer films that were finding distribution, [but shorts were] the films that I saw that were just sitting there not doing anything.

JM: One of the things I really like about the magazine is the intros to the films, the filmmaker’s statements or the interviews. Do you do all of those yourself?

BH: I do them, and my co-worker and partner in Wholphin Emily Doe will give some of the interns some of the questions to do as well.

JM: Apart from some experimental filmmakers, I can’t think of an example of a filmmaker who has made their whole career just making short films. Do you think that’s going to change? Is it possible now? Unfortunately, the old wisdom is that you make a short film and then you make a feature. Do you think anyone can make a career making short films?

BH: It’s already happening. I guess it depends on how you define short films. There are people on YouTube making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I was talking to Nate [Weinstein] from YouTube yesterday, and there are some people who are really making a decent living from their YouTube videos, and they’re not all just obnoxious stunt-type things. They are serials and filmic things.

JM: I would compare that to television, though. Not so much as film, but maybe it is changing.

BH: What you’re starting to see is people becoming known for a certain thing, like the Ask a Ninja guys… The San Francisco International Film Festival just had a night where we brought up Derek Waters. He has done stuff for FunnyOrDie, but he’s also made a bunch of film shorts with friends of his, comedic shorts. He’s sort of branded as a comedic short filmmaker, but we did an entire night of his shorts.

JM: It’s funny you should say comedic, because my initial feeling about shorts was that they were almost like jokes, because they tended to have a punchline. I’ve seen a lot of shorts where there’s some kind of twist ending. I’m talking about shorts of 15 minutes or less. If they’re longer, they’re a little different, but I think it’s probably easier to do comedic stuff in short form because you don’t have to develop character. But I wonder if it’s possible to make dramatic films that are 20 minutes and keep doing that over and over. I don’t know anyone who has done it.

BH: I think what happens is that people who are doing that really well, like Taika Waititi (Two Cars, One Night) and Chris Waitt (Heavy Metal Jr.) end up very quickly getting offered large sums of money to…

JM: To do a longer version…

BH: To do a longer version. Some do still make shorts as well. [Steven] Soderbergh, while he was making Che, did a short. What I hope is happening is that all filmmakers are being freed up to make films of whatever length they want.

JM: And you guys are hopefully part of that enabling process.

BH: Hopefully.

JM: What are your guiding principles when you’re putting together each issue? You’re curating. You mentioned earlier a mixtape analogy. Do you have a theme? Do you think about what things are going to go well in certain months?

BH: I always say that I’m just trying not to waste people’s time, with any single thing on there. But it is true that you start to look at an issue and think “we have seven really heavy films here, maybe we should find something to complement that.” But, that said, at any given time, if what exists are seven really heavy documentaries, and not five great comedies, I would rather not put five not-so-great comedies on and put those seven great documentaries on.

JM: So you work with what’s being submitted at any given time or do you try to put things together a bit more?

BH: We do, and we’ll hold things for maybe an issue but really not so much. We really just want to put the best stuff that we’re seeing right now.

Jon Korn (JK): In terms of what you know, do people sit down and watch the whole thing through?

BH: It does happen. I mean, it generally takes two nights for people to watch the whole issue. There was a woman from Seattle who lost her remote control, so we made sure that when the DVD went in, she could watch it all in order without needing a remote control. An 80-year-old woman, who subscribes to Wholphin! So I know there’s at least one who watches it all in one sitting.

JM: What’s your acquisition process like? Do you get things sent in unsolicited or do you go to festivals? How do you keep up with what’s happening?

BH: In my bag right now are probably 50 short films, from this festival [Worldwide Short Film Festival] alone. Not as many from submissions, but we do get a lot of submissions and we watch them all. And we’ll commission a couple, now and then. Some of the best things we’ll find, often, are recommended by friends. I mean, this particular one isn’t going to work out, but Damon [Smith] from Babelgum was just telling me about Lou Reed and Laurie Anderson doing a concert in Sydney that can only be heard by dogs, this weekend. Now, we would have got down there and filmed that, for sure, had I known about it a few weeks before. But a lot of films come from filmmaker friends.

JM: Have you seen anything here that is noteworthy? Have you got your eye on certain things that you’ve seen here?

BH: One of the first things I saw when I opened the catalogue was this film Quadrangle, which I really want to get.

JM: That played at South by Southwest.

JK: And at Sundance.

BH: It’s a great film. A great film.

JK: I was on a jury in Dallas and we gave it a prize.

JM: I think it might have been at Hot Docs, too. I think.

BH: It’s a great film. That’s one I really am excited about.

JM: This one is a bit of a technical question. For my day job, I work at a distributor here in Canada, and I’m learning a little bit about rights. What sort of rights do you buy from filmmakers for Wholphin? Are they one-time rights? Do they still have home video rights, theatrical rights, all that stuff?

BH: Absolutely, yeah, yeah. We don’t do anything exclusively. The whole point of starting this was to get films out into the world so that they could be seen by more people. We don’t want to own anything, we just want to do whatever we can to get them out. Because we’re really open with it, we generally don’t have problems. All of the issues have gone into reprint and we’ve had no problems at all renegotiating for reprint rights with anyone. They’re generally happy.

JM: But it’s like a magazine rather than a regular home video release.

BH: Yeah, we don’t want it for seven years.

JM: Because you have subscribers all around the world, does that cause any issues with the rights to the films?

BH: No, not at all. You go to all these film festivals and you go to all these panels and you have people telling you a thousand different things. You know, “don’t give it to these guys. If you want it to be here, you better give it to us only” and, it’s for these short films. It just needs to get out there. And these filmmakers, they just need to build their names and their reputations and get this good work seen in all these different venues and different media and different formats. Anything that prohibits that and tries really hard to monetize that is generally helping some distributor and not the filmmaker.

JM: The big thing in distribution right now is online rights. Is that affecting you guys at all? I know you publish some of the films on your site, with downloadable versions. Have you run into any trouble with that?

BH: We just try to work with the filmmaker. Basically, we offer it. I mean, we do work with YouTube, and we’ve licensed stuff to TV. And if they want to be involved in that, we’ll definitely do it. It’s another digital revenue stream. If they want to hold onto it, then we strike it out of our agreement and let them hold onto it, and we just do DVD rights. It’s a little bit complicated for us. It sort of prevents us from doing straight digital releases of our exact DVDs to Netflix or iTunes or places like that. It does prohibit that a little bit.

JM: Do you foresee the magazine remaining on a physical DVD or are you thinking further down the line. Is it going to be an iTunes channel or something like that?

BH: Yeah, I keep expecting it to be moving that way faster. I’m a bit surprised. Maybe with the iPad it will be more appealing to have it just in digital form, but I haven’t seen it yet.

JM: As I said before, I still appreciate all the notes on the films in the booklet. To me, that’s added value, and I think there will always be a place for the physical object. I just wondered if you were looking at other opportunities. But it sounds like you’re running into other people’s territory a little bit, maybe they want to keep that. For instance, maybe an iPhone app. Is that something that’s crossed your mind at all?

BH: We have an iPhone app. McSweeney’s has an iPhone app, and we put shorts on there. We’re a little bit prohibited by bandwidth right now, so we can’t put some of the larger films, but I guarantee eventually, we’ll get more people downloading entire issues and subscribing that way than the physical DVD. But right now, at least our subscription base likes it this way. And it’s true, you want a backup, you want to own it in a way that you can make sure that if your iPad crashes or your computer crashes, you don’t have an Internet connection up in wherever, you can still watch them. And the quality’s better.

JM: So, speaking about quality, will there ever be a Blu-ray Wholphin? I know Blu-ray is still pretty expensive to produce.

BH: We’d love to do it, but it is sort of expensive. We’d also need to produce two, we’d need to offer both discs, and that’s not cost-effective. Most people don’t have Blu-ray players, it’s just not there yet. I mean, I don’t have a Blu-ray player. I’m all for it, and I want it to happen…

JM: The only reason I have one is that I have a PS3. I use it mostly to watch movies. But it does feel a bit like a transitional technology. We’ll probably have something else in five years.

JK: That form doesn’t make sense anymore. It should just be a tiny chip.

BH: Inserted right into the brain. Like a suppository.

Post from: Toronto Screen Shots

Interview: Brent Hoff

My first film at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival was Cleanflix (review), a documentary which explored the issues surrounding the sale and rental of edited versions of R-rated movies to observant Mormons in Utah. I knew that after seeing the film, I wanted to ask the creators many more questions than they could have fielded during the post-screening Q&A. So, thanks to David Magdael and Margot Hardy from TC:DM Associates, I was able to sit down for half an hour with the creators of the film during what must have been a very hectic week for them. In addition to co-directors Andrew James (on the left in the picture above) and Joshua Ligairi (on the right), we were also joined by producer Amber Bollinger.

Since the interview deals with some plot points in the film, it really makes sense to read my review first.

James McNally (JM): I’ll start by asking you how difficult it must have been to decide where to go with the film once the scandal around Daniel breaks. What were your discussions like about how much of the film you wanted to give over to that story?

Andrew James (AJ): In the beginning, we viewed Daniel more as a resource. It wasn’t until about two-thirds of the way into shooting that we realized that there was more to this Daniel guy, that maybe he could help guide the film a little bit, so we started focussing more on him. But it wasn’t until we started editing the film that we realized how significant he was to the film we were making.

Joshua Ligairi (JL): We were focussing on a couple of other store owners just as prominently as him that didn’t even make it into the film.

JM: I guess the contrast with Robert (another store owner), there was a real contrast between them.

JL: Which was nice. It was nice to see people who were doing it sincerely and then someone else who was manipulating the audience for their own benefit.

JM: In my opinion, you have about three films worth of stuff crammed into Cleanflix. One of the things I found interesting was just the exploration of Mormon filmmakers. You talked to Richard Dutcher, for instance. Strangely enough, there was just an article in Cinemascope magazine (here in Canada) about Richard Dutcher, and it got me wondering. What I wanted to ask was if you think there is any official encouragement given by the Church to Mormon filmmakers, to give people an alternative to Hollywood entertainment?

JL: No. The Church self-produces some films, but they’re more about the Mormon story, they’re about the founding story of the Church, they’re about Jesus and stuff like that. The Mormon cinematic movement that’s happening, in Utah especially, is not connected to the Church at all, although there’s appreciation for those films from the Church leadership.

JM: I know there are some that would never break out of Utah, but for instance Jared Hess has done really well.

JL: There was a World War 2 film, Saints and Soldiers, that won an Independent Spirit Award a few years ago, and stuff like that, so there are some crossovers.

JM: But the Church doesn’t have any official stance.

Amber Bollinger (AB): No.

JL: Richard Dutcher was actually very successful, but within the Christian evangelical culture in the United States, they’re not accepting of Mormons as Christians, so it was difficult to market those films to them.

JM: In the Cinemascope article, he talks about that and how he’s tried to make himself more of a spiritual filmmaker, but nobody trusts that. You’re either not spiritual enough, or you’re too spiritual. Why do you think that guys like Dutcher and Neil LaBute others end up leaving the Church? Do you think the pressure’s too much, that they can’t make films that explore spirituality?

JL: Both Richard and Neil have had very specific run-ins with Church leadership with regard to the content of their films, and I think that probably has something to do with it.

AJ: I also think there’s a constant struggle in how to reconcile your art with the values that the Church is espousing. Because they have very specific ideas about how media affects you. It’s talked about a lot in church. So I think filmmakers who are trying to be challenging really struggle with that. I know I do, and that’s probably one reason why I don’t go to church anymore. Josh is still practicing, and that’s great, but for me, I was having a hard time reconciling that, going to church and hearing people say all these things that I didn’t agree with.

JL: At Brigham Young University, in the film program, the guys there struggle with this all the time. They’re just starting out as film students and they’re trying to make these films that represent their artistic viewpoints, and even in university they’re not allowed to make some of the films they want to make.

JM: Just to give you a little bit of background, I have about 20 years of experience with the evangelical church, and have gone through the same process so I can feel where you’re coming from on a lot of these issues. I wanted to bring up that question of how working on the film affected your own faith. You’re free to tell me to mind my own business, of course. Andrew, since you’ve already told me about your struggles with your faith, do you think the film has had anything to do with that?

AJ: I don’t think so. It’s been an ongoing process for me. Without giving too much away, a lot of personal things in my life have led me down that path.

AB: Any chance for self-exploration, too. The film talks about, you know, why not, why not ask questions about what you believe? Through the film, if that’s part of it, or whatever means you can. I think media’s a great way to do that, to think about what it is you believe and why.

JM: My main criticism of the film is that I thought Daniel’s troubles allowed the audience to paint him as the villain, to enjoy that irony and then to forget about the issues that you’ve raised in the first part of the film. I was very curious to see how advocates of copyright reform from one side of the political spectrum would interact with people like Cleanflix from the other end of the political spectrum who are doing kind of the same thing but for a different reason.

JL: The sticking point for me and for those two communities is the censorship. I tend to come down on the side of the end user. The fact that they’re censoring something that they haven’t created is problematic for me.

JM: But are they not just “mashing up” the film?

JL: I think that’s something that Hollywood has to wake up to, and figure out how to have a relationship with those end users, because people are going to stop paying for it if they can’t do what they want with it.

JM: I think that’s what’s started to happen.

AJ: That’s a very interesting point. I totally see that point of view and I actually agree with that point of view. But it’s hard for me to wrap my head around it in terms of Cleanflix. I don’t feel like that’s what they’re trying to do.

JM: But aren’t we still fighting for the same thing?

JL: But that’s not what the mashup guys are trying to do either. They’re just trying to dance.

JM: Now we see video mashups too.

JL: We were talking about “Brokeback to the Future” or the Phantom Edit, where they took Jar Jar Binks out of the Star Wars Episode 1. I think now that editing technology for films is going to become as available as it is for music technology, we’re going to see a lot more of this stuff.

JM: And we do laugh at those because they’re entertaining, but the films that Cleanflix makes are entertaining to a different audience. I think there’s a really good argument from those guys’ perspective that they’re just doing the same thing.

AJ: I wanted to comment on your criticism. I feel that, at least for me, the film is not an issue film. We’re trying to tell a story, and so I feel that that is why Daniel works in the film. Obviously, there are issues being explored in the film, for sure, but we feel like we’re trying to focus more on telling the story. I feel like you can’t tell the story of Cleanflix without telling what happened to Daniel, and I think Daniel helps inform that story, he sort of personifies that story.

JL: And you can see where that community can go wrong, where those kind of ideals can take a dark turn.

JM: I can see that but what I was disturbed at in my screening was that the audience was so very smug, like “oh, we’re liberals and it just figures that that guy is going to…”

AJ: They took so much joy in it.

JL: Yeah, they were laughing at some really dark stuff.

AJ: We were uncomfortable with that as well.

JL: When we were filming that, Andrew was in tears.

AB: That reaction was absolutely surprising.

JL: Our Sunday screening was a different story. No one laughed. Different audiences are always going to take something different from the film.

AB: And possibly, the audience that went to see it on the premiere night were people who expected a certain message from the film. Possibly the crowd mentality of the premiere night, let’s see what this film is about. Maybe those people had preconceived notions about what the film was about. As Josh was saying, our Sunday screening was very different, people did not laugh at those same parts. And when Daniel was kind of, headed downhill, if you will, there wasn’t laughter. It was different.

JM: That’s interesting to hear. I was disappointed in the crowd I was with, but I just hope that it doesn’t overwhelm the film.

AB: I don’t think that it will. I really feel that it may have been a premiere type of reaction.

JL: I think people think they know what the movie is already. They think it’s going to be funny and quirky and making fun of Mormons or something like that, and it’s not really that movie.

JM: And your soundtrack, and your editing does make it feel like that a little bit. Which leads me to ask if you’re finished editing the film now, after seeing the audience reactions at the two screenings.

AJ: Maybe some minor changes.

JL: We’re pretty happy with the film, for the most part. Now that we’ve had some feedback, it’s good.

AB: And seeing it on a gigantic screen always changes things. You can watch it on your biggest 50″ screen at home but it’s just different seeing it, with a crowd, first of all, and also on a huge screen. You’re like, Oh, didn’t notice that before.

JL: Little elements of production value that we’re definitely going to work on now.

JM: Those are things that people probably didn’t notice, but you did.

AB: Yeah, seeing it a thousand times.

JM: I noticed that you don’t have anyone from the Church on camera speaking about this issue. Was that a conscious decision or did no one want to talk to you?

JL: We did have someone at one point and we just realized…there were a lot of things we would have liked. I would have liked to show the diversity of the LDS community, for instance, because we were just focussing on this one group that watches edited movies. But it wouldn’t have made the film better. It would have made for a more nuanced discussion, and I would have appreciated that, as someone who’s from that community myself and probably other people of faith would have wanted to see that stuff, but it wasn’t furthering the story aspect of it. We were getting bogged down in that first half, because the balance was, how much do people need to understand about Mormons, and how much do people need to understand about edited movies before we can start telling the story.

AJ: We interviewed a guy who was like a “pseudo” representative of the Church.

JL: He was a media representative of the Church, but he wasn’t a religious figure.

AJ: And he sort of felt awkward speaking for the Church, but he did say some interesting things about the R rating, and how it was a cultural sort of thing.

JL: He was kind of disappointed in the idea that people would like edited movies. He had also been a professor at Brigham Young University and he said we get these students coming in and they don’t want to think for themselves, they want rules. And that was really disheartening for him to see that, too.

JM: I think that’s human nature. People want rules.

AB: Structure.

JM: I’m curious to see how Church leaders react to people who are so desperate to follow the letter of the law but who are kind of ignoring the whole spirit of it. I mean technically they’re not breaking the rules, but you know…

JL: The thing with the Mormon audience, though, is that in their minds they’re following the spirit of the law because they’re trying to take it even further than the commandment they’ve been given. So the thing is to avoid a certain rating and they’re going even further. In the Mormon religion, they ask you to abstain from certain things like alcohol and coffee, and you see that taken even further. So now we don’t drink Coke because that has caffeine in it and maybe that’s why they said don’t drink coffee. So people are always trying to go further, and self-censoring, and that was what was really interesting to me. Our film isn’t a doctrinal film, it’s a cultural film. The Church isn’t necessarily enforcing this but people are taking it upon themselves to self-censor and that was interesting to me.

JM: But isn’t there an audience that says that even those edited films aren’t going far enough?

AJ: Absolutely.

AB: Definitely. The sample of people in the film are the ones who are coming to Cleanflix so it definitely doesn’t represent every Mormon.

JL: There are people on both sides. There are people who say, I don’t care, I’m going to watch R-rated movies, and that’s a big portion too. And then there are some for whom Cleanflix isn’t good enough, who say we shouldn’t be supporting these Hollywood movies at all. Andrew has an interesting story about that, actually.

AJ: Yeah, I interviewed this woman who was a former employee at another edited movies store. One of the comments she made was “Who’s the creep in the back room watching R-rated movie after R-rated movie?” I think a lot of people have a hard time with the idea of Cleanflix, that someone actually has to sit through that filthy material, sort of to take one for the team. So there is a wide range of diversity on the issue. I think in a general sense, Mormons are trying to protect their families from what they consider harmful or evil elements.

JL: And in that respect, it’s not just Mormons. There are a lot of people throughout the world. This market is a big market, and I think people would embrace this if they knew…

JM: You guys must be reading my questions. I was going to suggest that the evangelical Christian market, which must be three or four times the size of the Mormon market, would be very interested.

JL: I think that’s why the Cleanflix guys tried to separate it from Mormonism, because they’re afraid that if it gets tagged as a Mormon thing, they can’t sell as many movies in the South.

JM: And I know that in Canada and parts of the States, there are conservative Muslim audiences, conservative Hindu audiences that would probably go for the same sort of edited movies. Do you know if the edited movie companies have tried to reach those markets at all?

JL: They were trying to reach out to those audiences when they were stopped, and they had 80 locations throughout the United States, they were doing online in Canada. They were spreading, and according to the store owners, everything was on the way up; they had just figured out their business model and they were about to capitalize on it when this all happened.

AJ: We could easily speculate that they would have had success in these other areas.

JL: We choose to focus on Mormonism because that’s where it started and that culture created it.

JM: You indicated too that some of these companies may still be operating online?

JL: That’s one of those things about the digital age. There’s no controlling it anymore, and it’s going to happen. And so if the studios were smart, I think they should figure out a way to handle this themselves because otherwise it’s going to happen without them.

JM: Did you get anyone representing the Directors Guild of America to talk to you?

AJ: We talked to their lawyers and PR people from the DGA who were fairly friendly and interested in helping us, but with all the big names involved and the bureaucracy, it was just hard for us to get at those people.

JM: Do you think they consider it a dead issue now?

JL: They would like it to be a dead issue, because they’ve won and they don’t want it to continue. So it’s good for them if it goes away.

JM: But you do reveal in the film that they do release edited movies for airlines, so what is stopping them from just expanding that?

JL: No one knows. The studios control the copyright and they’re not releasing them.

JM: I just wonder if they feel that the market is too small.

JL: They call it a small market.

JM: But it’s probably a lot bigger than they realize.

JL: An ABC News poll said 45% of the people in the United States would want edited movies if they could have access to them.

AJ: But the Hollywood Reporter said that the studios want to control this, and if people start editing, and releasing edited versions, demand would become too great and it might take away from the theatrical run of some of these films because people will wait for the clean version to come out on DVD.

JM: I guess they figure that the rating system is working well enough.

JL: They like the way it’s working for them.

JM: Have you seen Kirby Dick’s This Film Is Not Yet Rated? A lot of the same issues come up in that.

JL: Yeah, that film was a big help to us as we were getting into this.

JM: I wondered if you’d seen another film here at TIFF, called Dogtooth (review). It’s a Greek film about a guy who keeps his family locked in their house. His children are now in their 20s and they just play games all day, they’re kind of infantile. The director said it was about the extremes to which people will go to protect their families. Of course, it doesn’t end well. And I guess neither does your story. I wonder why the Church feels that keeping bad things from outside is going to make us better people?

AJ: There’s a lot of fear. People are afraid. I’m not going to speak for the Church, but I think culturally there’s a lot of fear that these things are going to get in and affect you, you know to pervert your sexuality as someone says in the film.

JL: If you open that door…

AJ: People don’t trust themselves. You know, if I look at this, I might have some bad thoughts and do something that I might regret.

JM: But you think of it as an outside influence and never something inside of us?

JL: It’s a question of purity, and the idea is that these things stain you, you can’t get rid of that stain. I mean they believe in the idea of repentance, but it’s better if you keep yourself pure of this stuff, and that’s better for you.

JM: I mean I’m curious, because the Christian doctrine is that we’re already born sinful and that we need to be forgiven.

JL: It is part of Mormon doctrine that we’re here to make mistakes and learn from them, but you avoid those mistakes and obedience is the big thing.

JM: So they think you learn more by not making the mistakes?

JL: I don’t know.

AJ: Totally. Yeah, that’s really weird.

AB: It’s not just the media. The Church also teaches you to surround yourself with good people, surround yourself with good things. You know, cleanliness is godliness, there are so many things.

JM: Which is totally common sense.

JL: And it’s not all avoidance. Within the culture it becomes avoidance. Within the doctrine of the Church, it’s “seek after good things.” One of the kids in the films says “I’d rather read a good clean book and watch a good clean movie.” Find the good things, but within the culture it’s easier to follow a rule.

JM: How do you know what’s good until you discover it?

AJ: One of the things that’s interesting to me about this is that I think a lot of these films could help open their eyes to some different issues, help them become aware of cultures in different parts of the world, human experience, help them build empathy with other human beings. And so by shutting themselves out from these films, when you’re living in Utah, or actually, anywhere. But if you’re living a sheltered life, sometimes a film is the only way to expose yourselves to outside things and I think it’s really sheltering to say no.

JM: Another film that this reminds me of is Son of Rambow. Have you seen that?

AB: Yeah. It’s the same.

JL: Yeah.

JM: It’s the same idea. You need some way to connect with the outside world and unfortunately some might choose bad ones, but you can also recommend good ones. What are your plans for screening the film in Utah?

JL: We would love to have our American premiere in Utah.

JM: But it’s going to be R-rated, isn’t it?

JL: We’ve joked about making a Cleanflix version of our movie, and it’s a joke but it would also be a great way to target that audience. Hopefully there are issues discussed in the film that they could benefit from.

JM: A lot of the humour came from showing both the unedited and edited stuff, though. I was just amazed at films like Fargo and The Big Lebowski being edited. I mean, how long was the edited version of The Big Lebowski, 30 minutes? So some of that stuff adds a lot of humour to it.

JL: Yeah, that’s unfortunate, but even with The Big Lebowski and Fargo, there’s a chance we could still get a PG-13 in the United States, and keep those clips in.

JM: I also find this issue in the evangelical Christian community, that violence is not as bad as sex, for some reason I don’t understand, and swearing is also bad, but you can shoot somebody. Somebody’s making these rules, but…

AB: That’s definitely cultural. That’s not doctrine from the Church.

AJ: That goes back to the idea of purity, don’t you think? Like swearing and sexual images.

JL: I mean if you’re not going to do that, you’re definitely not going to kill someone. And that’s another thing in the Church. It’s those little things. They’re guarding themselves against all those little things.

JM: I guess so. It’s a slippery slope. Can I ask you about what your next projects will be?

AJ: We’ve each got our own separate projects which are each exciting on their own terms. I’m working on a documentary about a guy from Peru, during the 80s strapping cocaine to his torso, creating this whole operation smuggling drugs into the United States disguised as a Mormon missionary. And he would take it to Utah and deal it himself and then he’d go back to Peru, go to the jungle and get his cocaine. He did this for two years, made a ton of money, and then eventually gave it up and became a US citizen. It’s his story, this man, and how he became American and his journey and asking some questions along the way.

JL: I’ve got two projects I’m working on. One is about gay Mormons, and that one is a little more Utah-centric, and there’s another project I have that’s more issue-oriented, it’s a little bigger in scope, it’s about people who are robbing Native American graves and then selling the artifacts to big collectors and to museums and other people who don’t know that they’re getting stolen artifacts. There’s a twist, that there are these guys who believe they are being cursed for robbing these graves. Horrible things are happening to these people, suicides, deaths, and they’re happening to all these people who are involved with it. And then we’re also just trying to enlighten people so that they’re not buying the stolen artifacts, we’re trying to highlight the artists and people who are doing it properly and then expose the people who are doing it illegally.

JM: Well I hope that all of those are successful. We also have Hot Docs here in the spring.

JL: Yeah, we would love to be involved with Hot Docs.

JM: Amber, are you working on one of those?

AB: Yeah, I’m actually working on the one with Josh.

JL: It’s called The Skeleton Picnic, the Native American one.

AJ: That’s a great title.

JM: Well, they all sound good. I’m looking forward to seeing more from all of you guys. Good luck with the film and enjoy your time at TIFF!

Post from: Toronto Screen Shots

Interview: Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi