FilmClick

“In a Dream”, a documentary about the tumultuous relationship between mosaic artist Isaiah Zagar and his wife, Julia, opens April 17 at the Roxie Theater in San Francisco. “In a Dream”, an IndiePix release, is in English, runs for 80 minutes, and is not yet MPAA rated.

In the vibrant, bohemian neighborhood of South Philadelphia, 50,000-square feet of concrete are covered with tile and mirrors-mosaics that were created by Isaiah Zagar, an eccentric, tormented artist.  The murals chronicle his love for his wife, Julia, and subtly hint at the darker corners of an extraordinary imagination. Where Isaiah is obsessive and narcissistic-a former Peace Corps volunteer who has become an icon in South Philly’s art community-Julia is gracious and warm. For decades, their opposing natures complemented one another perfectly. But suddenly the family is torn apart at the seams: A few hours before picking up his oldest son from a rehabilitation center, Isaiah declares to the camera, “As people get older they have less and less passion.” He then confesses to an affair with his assistant, is kicked out of the house, and spirals into a debilitating, suicidal depression.

The end result is a deeply moving film that started as an exploration of a man’s life and resulted in exposing the secrets of an entire family.

About the Filmmaker

Jeremiah Zagar was born in South Philadelphia in 1981. At age 19, he shot DELHI HOUSE, a documentary about a hospital and orphanage in India. The short premiered at the 2002 Slamdance Film Festival and aired on PBS affiliates across the country. Since then, Jeremiah has written and directed two award-winning short films: BABY EAT BABY and CONEY ISLAND 1945 They have screened in numerous festivals in the US and abroad, including Tribeca, SXSW, and the London Film Festival.  A graduate of Emerson College, Zagar now lives in Brooklyn.

“In a Dream” was part of the 2008 San Francisco Documentary Film Festival.

Kate Churchill is a filmmaker and hard-core yoga practitioner who insists that yoga can transform anyone. She decides to prove it in the making of Enlighten Up! The doc begins with short clips of published yoga instructors who claim to do yoga for varying reasons: it is an amazing workout, it has the power to transform, it is a means of spirituality. None of them can agree how old yoga is, ranging anywhere from 2,000 years to 40,000 years, allegedly.Churchill has the noble aim to find a novice and prove that yoga can transform spiritually and physically (at least one way if not the other), although she herself does not know why, and , reminding us that yoga is a multi-million dollar business in the United States, she remains slightly but refreshingly skeptical herself.

She chooses 29-year old Mark Rosen, a journalist living in New York City, who has recently quit his job. His father is a lawyer with a “big office” and his mother is a spiritual healer. True to his journalistic nature, Mark seeks facts in his yoga quest, as he is not looking to believe anything that cannot be proven to him. This primarily-journalistic and increasingly skeptical approach takes Mark through a variety of different types of yoga practices and everywhere from New York to LA to Hawaii to India. When asked why he is participating in the documentary, Mark affirms that he wants to explore the issue of yoga for both himself and society, although he does not expect to find earth shattering changes.Instead he embarks on a journey of travel, discussion, inquiries, and discovery, as he exposed to different ways of life and beliefs. A self-proclaimed “non-religious/spiritual” person, one yoga guru explains that admitting he knows nothing makes him inherently spiritual. But Mark struggles with his spiritual-less identity, hoping for it all to click. Meeting a large variety of people, one woman believes yoga to be better than sex, giving her an “incredible, unbelievable feeling of goodwill and oath” that is better, she swears, than an orgasm. Mark seems intrigued by this, although he never achieves it himself. Another practitoner promises better sleep, love life, and ways to make money. In his global quest, it seems that each person has different advise. Some claim that yoga is solely spiritual or solely physical, while others declare it is both on the “inside and outside”. As Mark wrestles with the conflicting data, Churchill wants desperately for him to undergo a transformation, and he seems disappointed that he does not live up to her expectations. However, multiple yogis constantly explain that it is a lifelong achievement.We cannot help but enjoy Mark’s honest struggle, as he seems generally laid back about the whole issue. He is charming and seems to get along with those who take yoga with a grain of salt and a sense of humor, and the audience cannot help but appreciate this. The documentary takes a close look into a highly trendy American practice, literally tracing back its roots. It is a cultural exploration, worth taking an hour and a half pause on which to reflect. Although it doesn’t appear that yoga is for everyone, Mark finds it does affect his life. In the end, it seems that experienced yoga teachers, writers, and gurus, alike, that no one really can define yoga. In fact, it is Mark who explains it best: “yoga is different things to different people”.

by Lily Saltzberg, FilmClick staff

In Considering Democracy: 8 Things To Ask Your Representatives (56 mins), writer/director Keya Lea Horiuchi explores American democracy through the process of asking questions.  Taking us through ten  countries, including Thailand, India, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Japan, Australia, Nepal, and the US, the documentary begins by asking, “Have you ever wondered what other people think of the United States?”  Through a series of interviews and extensive research, Horiuchi complies a list of eight questions to ask your representatives before electing them into office or even challenging them once they are there.

Horiuchi expresses her admirable obligation to not only her country, but also the globe at large: “As an American, I want to see open and respectful dialogue between people and groups.   I believe in the perseverance of humanity and respect the beauty in democracy.  As more people begin open dialogue, I believe this will bring strength and courage to American democracy”.  Her impressively audacious aim is captured in the documentary that uses interviews, news footage, facts, and figures to raise suspicion about the activities of the government, corporations, lobbyists, and the complacent general public.  While the seemingly arbitrary compilation of questions are  in fact centered around the flaws of the Bush administration, the corrupt nature of lobbyists and corporations, and the US fiscal spending in comparison to other countries, the film implies that it is the failure of the American people to ask questions.   The doc begins as Horiuchi decides, “to leave [the US] and start asking questions” in order to explore her initial query of what  other people think of the US.  Beginning interviews by asking the simple question, “what do you think of the United States?”, she finds a wide array of answers ranging from admiration, awe, mockery, disdain, and fear.  Adapting her questions to the people she asks, she often found more provocative answers in asking simply, “What is important to you?”

Researching the feedback she collected, Horiuchi compares various governments policies of other countries to the US.  For example, the obligatory four-weeks of vacation in Australia starkly differs from the workaholic nature of the United States.  Therefore, Horiuchi logically launches her series of eight questions by asking, “why don’t we get mandatory paid vacation time?”, an inquiry that gives way to a series of more complex queries. In addition to international interviews, the film juxtaposes global perspectives with those within the US.  In one interview, a D.C. lobbyist refuses to state for whom she works, while another interview of a US economic scholar analyzes the expenditures of US taxes.  A personal favorite was the intermittent footage of “Bush-isms” that provide an ironic sense of comic relief.  In a clip of Bush speaking on the topic of terrorist, he says “every life is precious.  That’s what distinguishes us from the enemies.  Every life matters”.  Although he refers to the religious belief of “the enemies”, taken out of context, this clip shows a morbid hilarity in Bush’s irreverence for a larger sense of humanity; the film’s overall blatant liberalism, puts it at home in the bay area. 

Although the doc is undeniably well researched, it presents its audience with almost too much information.  While the research is provocative and thought provoking, it is impossible to digest all of the charts and graphs that seem somewhat more like a history lecture than a film.  That said, the documentary raises essential questions that the American people should be asking, especially in light of the impending election.  It is refreshing to see an American filmmaker looking for answers outside of the US, in a culture so typically “self-absorbed and ignorant”, as an Australian interview puts it.  In a country that “thinks inside, not outside”, Horiuchi raises the bar and makes gigantic leaps to help us look at the way Americans see themselves: by viewing though the eyes of others.  Ironically, however, almost all of the international interviewees speak English, perhaps more indicative of the US as a whole rather than the filmmaker.  In this way, the documentary shows us the result of one of the ignorant American stereotypes it criticizes, seen here in the US’s notorious devalue for learning multiple langauges.  In this, the doc self-reflexively reveals a flaw of the society that it explores. Horiuchi certainly achieves her hope that the film “can broaden the scope of debate in the U.S.”, as she sets a high precedent of the extent to which the American people should inform themselves and each other.  The film forces us to re-examine what it means to be patriotic, daring one to think and ask well-informed questions.

We also had a chance to interview this filmmaker at DocFest.

This is the HD version which will play above.
See it in SD here for lower bandwidth connections.

For more info on DocFest go to:

www.sfindie.com

Considering Democracy plays at DocFest on Saturday, November 1 at 12:30 PM at the Shattuck Cinema in Berkeley, CA.

by Lily Saltzberg, Filmclick.com

Keya Lea Horiuchi talks about “Considering Democracy” and the structure of her film. This interview was shot at DocFest in San Francisco and we discuss documentary filmmaking and the political aspects and intent of her film.

This is the HD version which will play above.

See it in SD here for lower bandwidth connections.

For more info on Docfest go to: www.sfindie.com

B. Douglas Robbins talks about “Debate Team”, the characters that make up the world of college debate, and the subject of objectivity in film. This interview was shot at DocFest in San Francisco at the Roxie Theater.

See it in HD here.

See it in SD here.

For more info on Docfest go to: www.sfindie.com

Dawn Valadez talks about the making of her film “Going on 13″. We were interested in how she chose her subjects and was able to gain a level of trust between herself, the parents of her subjects, and the school districts much of the film was shot at.  This interview was shot at DocFest in San Francisco.

See it in HD here.

See it in SD here.

For more info on Docfest go to: www.sfindie.com

Tags: 

An interview with director Melody Gilbert about the film “Urban Explorers” at DocFest in San Francisco.

See it in HD here.

See it in SD here.

For more info on Docfest go to: www.sfindie.com

An interview with director P.J. Bagley about the film “Fat Man Walking” at DocFest in San Francisco.

See it in HD here.

See it in SD here:

For more info on Docfest go to: www.sfindie.com

For me, this film has always been about one man. It’s extremely personal, in that what I’m attempting to do is get inside the space of one man’s life.  I’m not trying to explain away Johnny Tesar - there’s no way I, as an outsider, would feel right trying to psychoanalyze him. But I do want to let viewers look into his eyes, to make their own connection with him. To ask what events shaped this man, and how does he tell his story to us? Johnny is a born storyteller, and I wanted to take his story and find those rare instances where he (like all storytellers) drops his artifice and invites us in.
Viewers of “Bunnyland” have characterized the film as many different things. Some view it as a document of a region and a culture. Others see it as a series of tragicomic events of escalating seriousness.

Bunnyland

What led you to make this film?  Did you know Johnny or hear about the events?  How did you get involved?

This project found me, quite by accident. I’ve always had a personal interest in roadside kitsch, Americana, that sort of thing. So I was pretty amused when I first heard the story of a miniature golf course populated by rabbits. But there were also rumors and urban legends, about the slaughter of said rabbits, that were floating around on the internet, or by word of mouth in Tennessee. Thinking it might make for a quirky short film, I decided to do some research, and after a month or so discovered that the tragic events at Bunnyland Miniature Golf were no rumor. But in my investigation everyone kept mentioning a guy named Johnny Tesar - former owner, suspect in the killings, yes, but also a local legend, a fringe archaeologist, and a passionately spiritual person. I talked with people who loved him and hated him, but no one he hadn’t touched. But to me, people are not so easy to classify - no one can be written off as an eccentric, or a legend. So I knew Johnny was the person I wanted to talk to. It took me another month to track him down, but when I did, he practically gushed his life story over the phone. I told him to hang tight, and by 4am my assistant director and I were leaving Memphis for the first interview.

What were some of the greatest challenges you faced in making this film?

I would say there was one great challenge in making “Bunnyland”. I wanted to conduct the production in a way that was ethical and respectful. There were many, many shoots which took place in East Tennessee - Pigeon Forge, Knoxville, Gatlinburg - Appalachia. It’s a very tight knit community out there, and one that’s hard to walk into as a documentary filmmaker. In going and meeting people, whether in small towns, or tucked away in the hollows, I found a certain reluctance to open up. I think this is totally fair - the region has been completely skewered by every type of journalist, portrayed with a certain sense of patronizing “otherness”. I didn’t want to do this. So I met, I talked, I got to know people. I’d make the 6 hour drive just to talk to someone, to avoid the impersonality of a phone call. There were some interviews that took me a year and a half to get. And I think that’s great, because it means I really built a relationship with that person. So, generating a climate of comfort, trust, and mutual respect was my greatest, but most worthwhile challenge in making “Bunnyland”.

There’s a lot of silence and awkwardness with some of the interviews, especially the couple who were friends with Johnny.  Why did you make that choice?

The use of silence, and long pauses, is something I’ve been criticized for. Personally, I love awkwardness. And I’m not talking about the film - in my own life, with my friends or companions, I find that moments of awkwardness can be terribly revealing. That said, the pauses in “Bunnyland” are not always awkward. Often times, I just want to invite the audience to spend some time with my subjects. To look at them, see how they act, see what’s in their eyes. This sort of film-as-portraiture I often find more revealing in documentaries than anything said in an interview. To me, it’s the moments when people are at a loss for words that their story becomes most readable.

Bunnyland

Why Bunnyland for a title?

Well, like I said, I originally thought “Bunnyland” would be a short piece about a rabbit-themed miniature golf course. Even when the film moved in a dramatically different direction, I was attached to the name. And when the project moved to a dark, personal tone, the name took on all kinds of new associations. And it reflects on the nature of Johnny’s life - here’s a man with all these tragic and wonderful facets and then suddenly, out of the blue, there’s also a rabbit-themed mini-golf in his life. It goes along with the idea that Johnny can’t be explained away, to have a non-sequitur from his life become the non-sequitur title.

Many of our users are just starting out; what advice do you have for aspiring filmmakers?

Wow, are you sure I’m qualified to answer this? I guess my advice would be pretty simple. Only try to do what’s within your means, but be a perfectionist once you get started. And don’t let the artifice of makin’ movies get in the way of actually doing something personal. And with Bunnyland, as with all the films I’ve worked on with my Memphis cohorts, there were Icee’s and cigarillos involved. And for documentary filmmakers, I would note that Hawaiian print shirts are the only way to go.

What format (film, video, hi-def) and camera did you use and why did you choose the format and camera?  If you had a choice, would you use that camera again? 
I shot standard-def 24p DV, on the Panasonic DVX. It’s a great little camera - the colors are almost improbably deep, and the shape and button placements are very intuitive for on the go documentary shooting. I’m still using it on some of my new projects - but I’m avoiding another widescreen project for a while. With all the hype over HD, I see most of my favorite work (and most of the audience) retreating to the web.

There’s some interesting framing in this film, (like Ray’s bear lamp)  When shooting the interviews, how did you decide what the framing and location would be?  What do you think that adds to an interview?

I made a conscious decision at the outset that “Bunnyland” would be composed of carefully framed static compositions. I suppose it’s a style that I like, something that evokes old educational docs, or early Errol Morris films. But the simple framing also helps the film read more like an oral history than a visual spectacle, and that was important to the story I was trying to tell. As for some of the more bizarre framing (Ray with his bear lamp, Sally at her desk, and of course Johnny with his taxidermies), I generally would let my subjects pick a location they felt most comfortable in. Then I would zoom wide and let the space become a real character in their interview - an economy of shots yes, but also way of illuminating my subjects that is at different points humorous, grave, or heartfelt.

Have you placed your films online and do you think it’s a good outlet for young filmmakers to get exposure?

I’ve played with online distribution in the past, certainly. “Bunnyland”, in it’s framing and pacing, wasn’t really designed for the web - but I’m sure it will end up there eventually. I think what’s happening with online video right now is really exciting. It’s so important what’s going on, the way that open source advocates and pirates are, from opposite ends of the spectrum, changing the very idea of what media is. Audiences are resisting the newest home video products and seeking innovative, personal voices online. The message it sends to young filmmakers is a powerful one - it’s all about quality, emotion, and story. And I only hope this gets more and more true.

Did you go to film school?  If yes, where and what did you think of the experience?

Well, yes. I’m currently a student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. I started shooting “Bunnyland” before I enrolled, but was hoping to pick up more technical skills. Now, I find myself taking almost no classes about the mechanics of filmmaking. I think more as an artist than a moviemaker, so the most useful things to me are courses in history, theory, and aesthetics.

What are the other films you have made?

I made a short documentary called “Above God” several years ago. It was similar to “Bunnyland” in its focus on one man, and a very unique one at that. I followed the life of Gene Ray, the fringe philosopher turned web celebrity behind timecube.com. I was happy with the film, and it picked up a few awards at festivals. But looking back on it, I realize I made some rookie mistakes. “Above God” is very reverent of Gene, but reverent from an outsider’s perspective. So while I got Gene across to the audience, he didn’t connect with it the way Johnny connected with the final draft of “Bunnyland”. Other than that, I’ve worked on a few shorts, some web content, and what might be called a documentary play. And I’ve been a part of a lot of collaborations in Memphis. Currently I’m working there on a magical realist film (What I Love About Concrete, a sort of feminist/fantasy coming of age story), and in Chicago on some short docs focusing on the aesthetics of the mundane.

Which filmmakers have most influenced your work?

Right now I’m really into Jim Henson, Greg Araki, and Ben Siler. But as far as documentary directors, I’ve taken great inspiration from Robert Stone, Errol Morris, and, tangentially, Rick Prelinger.

What’s you motto?

Art is suffering, suffering is pleasure.   : )

What other festivals is your film appearing in?

Bunnyland has screened at the Nashville Film Fest, Indie Memphis Film Fest, and the Austin Film Fest. This week it screens at San Francisco’s DocFest, and in November it plays at the Southern Appalachian International Film Fest. Maybe there will be more festivals, but who can say. It’s also going to have a small run of the Documentary Channel, starting on October 29th.

You saw the collection of artifacts…do you believe?

I look at Johnny’s rock collection, and I can certainly see what he sees. But what I wanted to get across in the documentary is that it doesn’t matter whether Johnny’s artifacts are carved or he’s just seeing faces in clouds.  Johnny has amassed a breathtaking collection, but whether its beauty is inherent or a reflection of its brilliantly creative curator, I will leave up to the audience.

What did you think about Johnny’s seeming contradiction between saying he would shoot the dogs and not care and his previous statements about never hurting an animal?

I think Johnny has a great ability to rationalize his decisions. I really don’t doubt that he is an animal lover. He killed several hunting dogs because they were threatening other animals, the raccoons he took care of, and I think that decision felt right to him. Johnny’s decisions are circumstantial, and to the viewer, shades of gray.

Where’s Johnny now?

After Johnny lost his land and left Pigeon Forge, he settled down south of Nashville. He’s driving a truck and working on his tee-shirts, and still taking care of his rocks. He’s doing well these days, and trying to keep things low key after all that happened to him in the past two decades.

See Bunnyland at Docfest:
Sun, Oct 26 2008, 12:30 pm at the Roxie Cinema in San Francisco, CA.

Fri, Oct 31 2008, 5:00 pm at the Shattuck Cinema in Berkeley, CA.
For more info on DocFest go to:

www.sfindie.com

For more info on Brett Hanover and Bunnyland check out these sites:

www.bretthanover.com
www.bunnylandmovie.com

Check out a trailer of the film here:

In the Washington forest, my brother-in-Law recorded audio of what he thought was Bigfoot. The film is my quest to find out if his recording is real. - David Thayer on why he made Bigfoot.

What were some of the greatest challenges you faced in making this film?

Long drives across the west, with girlfriend Katrin Sutter (who helped film it) and my baby boy Jethro, to meet the folks in the movie. It was also a challenge to keep Jethro from walking into the shots. I gave up after a while and managed to integrate him into the film.

What impact do you hope this film will have?
You mean, like, bringing awareness to Dafur?
I think that there are already too many “Movies That Matter” so I am honored when my film makes no impact whatsoever.

Bigfoot: A Beast on the Run

What are you working on now, or next, and how do you find documentary projects?

I am currently working on a couple of screenplays and I am in the middle of making a doc on the St. Bernhard dogs here in Switzerland.

What are your three favorite films?

Dogsville, Fake! and Robocop 2.

Many of our users are just starting out; what advice do you have for aspiring filmmakers?

I’m an aspiring filmmaker myself. My advice might be bad.

Have you placed your films online and do you think it’s a good outlet for young filmmakers to get exposure?

I have. Why not?

Did you go to film school?  If yes, where and what did you think of the experience?

I learned everything on the streets.

What are the other films you have made?

Mostly I’ve worked on other people’s films, but Bigfoot is my first real movie.

Which filmmakers have most influenced your work?

As soon as I’ve made my first fiction film I can answer that: but as far as Bigfoot goes, I can’t reference anything other than the many hours I spent in front of the TV as a child.

What’s you motto?

I’m working on it.

What do you think film festivals like DocFest offer to the dialogue about issues facing our society?

What I like about the Docfest program is that it doesn’t offer anything like this. Unfortunately, most festivals do.  I think it’s cynical of any festival to imply that they can change or ‘better’ anything in our society when they charge in excess of 70 bucks entrance fee.  With numerous civic and private sponsors posted in their catalogs, many festivals anyway accept huge entrance for one of their unpaid volunteers to almost watch, and reject, hundreds on bad films on 300 dollars worth of equipment.  I guess it’s OK to charge that much because it’s business: but if they’re gonna rip the little guy off, they shouldn’t do it under the pretense of saving the world.

What format (film, video, hi-def) and camera did you use and why did you choose the format and camera?  If you had a choice, would you use that camera again?

I used a sony DV cam. It’s broken now and I now have an HDV cam.

What other festivals is your film appearing in?

It showed at Fantaspoa in Brazil, and It’s been rejected by another four festivals. It’s encouraging that it made it into the SF docfest so I will send it off to another few festivals. Ultimately, though, I would like to see my film appear on television.

What was your goal when you decided to make the film?

Laughs, education, fun - maybe find Bigfoot.

“Bigfoot” is playing at DocFest in the San Francisco Bay Area in October.

For more info, check out http://www.sfindie.com