THE INDEPENDENT Is Published 10 Times Yearly by the Foundation for Independent Video and Film
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
spsn m n 10 ^fe^. \, nvol.3/no.lCvol.3/no.lO the ndependentdent: february SO THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foundation for Independent Video and Film. Inc.. 99 Prince St.. NY. NY 10012. with support from the New York State BUSINESS — By Mitchell Block 5 Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts, a federal agency. Subscription is included in membership to the organization. MEDIA AWARENESS — By Tad Turner 7 ETHNIC COMMUNITIES 9 CHALLENGE LOCAL STATIONS Publisher: Alan Jacobs Editor: Bill Jones Associate Editor: Judith L. Ray CPB PAYS A VISIT — PART II 10 Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block Dee Dee Halleck GLENN SILBER INTERVIEWED 12 Sol Rubin Frances Piatt THE COLUMN — By Judy Ray& 15 Layout & Design: Bill Jones Typesetting: Josephine Coppa, Compositype Studio Rich Berkowitz FESTIVAL DE TROIS CONTINENTS 18 By Monica Freeman The viewpoints expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified as our member and staff contributors. We welcome your response in the form of letters, reviews, articles or suggestions. As time and space are of the essence COVER: THE WAR AT HOME we can't guarantee publication. Please send your material tc THE INDEPENDENT. 99 Prince St., NY, NY 10012. If you'd like your material returned to you please enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope. NOTE: All submissions to newsletter due by the 15th of month preceding publication, preferrably earlier. correspondence INDEPENDENT FOCUS: A Peer's Review It would indeed by unfortunate if the controversy over the interesting failures — anything that may not fall the four films excluded by WNET from this season's In- within the obscure yet rigid boundaries of "broadcast dependent Focus obscured the films that were ac- standards". Given the amount of work a programmer cepted, and the role of the peer panel in that process. In has to face in sorting through hundreds of films in a spite of its omissions, this year's programming is more short amount of time, outside opinions are helpful. diverse, and even "controversial", than in the previous This is not to say that the resulting group of films is, or two years, and the independent film community should should be, the product of a consensus. Nor does it not lose sight of this fact. Even in its limited, advisory mean that all the films have to appeal to all the role, the panel did have an effect. segments of the WNET audience (past, present, or For a program like Independent Focus, one of whose future) — or to the WNET management. But if the sta- aims I would like to think is the expansion of the form tion is, as it says it is, committed to expressing diverse and content of public television, this outside opinion is points of view, and developing new audiences, it has an crucial. Bureaucracies are conservative by nature — obligation to include those prints of view in the deci- and WNET is a bureaucratic organization. It operates sion process itself. according to the laws of gravity: it's always harder to Film programming is neither an art nor a science, nor push things up from below than it is to have them fall simply a question of selecting "good" films; it's what down from above. you do with the films that have "problems" that makes The pull is always there to take the safe, competent the difference. There were, for example, no objections films, to avoid the controversial, the outrageous, and to Salt of the Earth, With Babies and Banners and several other films. On the other hand, California UNNATURAL ACTS. It's not a question of the merits of the Newsreel's documentary about multi-national corpora- film — it's just that the gay community was the most vocal tions, Controlling Interest, and Charles Burnett's fiction and organized. feature about a black family in Los Angeles, Killer of So the series goes on, true to form for independents with Sheep, were, and will be, less unanimous in their ap- NO publicity and NO follow through. There has been NO peal. In style and content, they will upset some viewers, attention paid to the selections that did get by, and they as they did people at WNET, but Independent Focus is include some of the most controversial work ever aired by a stronger series for having these films — and the public television: THE SALT OF THE EARTH, CIA CASE OFFICER, and views of the panel made their inclusion possible WITH BABIES AND BANNERS, CONTROLLING INTEREST. Those films got under the fence, I'd like to see more outrageous and courageous films despite the objections of such WNET honchos as Walter on Independent Focus, and elsewhere on public tele- Goodman, formerly of the limes and now editorial czar and vision — but it's not going to happen unless people ask gatekeeper. In a memo, he declared that the only reason for them, and filmmakers are encouraged to make them CONTROLLING INTEREST would pass was because of the independent pressure. because they think there is an audience for work which is out of the ordinary in some way. And I'd like to think At this point, it seems obvious that some controversial that this year's program is a small step in that direction. work was bound to get on and just as obvious that WNET would have had to draw the line at some point — if only to Eric Breitbart have us all keep in mind just who the boss is. Of course they knew we would object. I would venture to say that the main reason they had to draw the line was to make sure THE INDEPENDENT REGRETS: that the panel system failed. It would be a disaster for WNET and PBS if the panel system was to actually succeed Mr. Alan Jacobs in choosing a good series, getting good publicity and President initiating positive and trusting relationships with indies A.I.V.F. What a frightening precedent! They might really have to 99 Prince St. do more of that sort of thing. And it was almost a success. New York, N.Y. 10012 Marc Weiss was the perfect combination of conscience and sensibility; the panel he chose and worked with was truly Dear Alan: diverse and respected, the films they winnowed out are a In the spirit of keeping your membership both regularly good mix of topics and styles. That four of those films were and accurately apprised of developments in the area of nixed was just a convenient out for WNET. This way they independent television program funding policy, I'd like to are vindicated. Obviously independents are too hot to bring to your attention a fairly important inaccuracy made handle as programmers, spreading dissension and bad in the December/January issue of the INDEPENDENT. press. Best of all: WNET has remained — THE ENEMY. The image of the strong, protective, restrictive Daddy against The legal memorandum that was printed on pages 19-20, those rebellious independent youngsters is one they like to under the banner, "C.P.B. HEARS FOOTSTEPS", was cultivate in their board rooms and in Congress. The set-up mistakenly attributed to the Corporation. In fact, this feeds on keeping us angry and frustrated. The madder we memo was prepared for the Public Broadcasting Service get, the more reasonable they sound. It's a classic case of (P.B.S.) under an arrangement with an outside law firm. blaming the victim. Like the poverty programs of the The memorandum was in response to CPB's August, 1979 Sixties, their gestures at reform need to fail. draft paper on independent television producting funding, a fact which can be confirmed by contacting Elizabeth Designing a panel system that can work against these odds Shriver, the PBS General Counsel. is a tricky business. Marc Weiss is now in the difficult position of having to drum attention to the films that Cordially, up DID get on the series (thereupon becoming a gratis promoter of WNET) and at the same time give support and sympathy to the irate panelists. Steven J. Symonds Assistant Director As an irate non-panelists, I will swallow my pride and Legislative Affairs watch the show. Thanks to Marc and the panel and despite Liz Oliver and her bosses, it's the best independent series so far on the tube. DeeDee Halleck CATCH 13 When Marc Weiss asked me to be on the Independent Focus AIVF is updating and enlarging our reference library so panel, I declined (INDEPENDENT, October 1979). It seemed to that it will be more comprehensive and useful be a no-win situation and I could tell it would be a long to our and drawn out battle. Not that I have anything against members. battles — but I'd rather do my fighting out-of-house or at We are seeking the following materials from members least get paid (well) if the show's going on inside. The and other interested groups or individuals: smoke is still clearing over at the Henry Hudson (Newark- • successful proposals, on-Ninth), but here's what I see through the field glasses: treatments and scripts which can be used as models, That the four panel-recommended films which WNET • sample budgets, vetoed will NOT be included in the series was evident from contracts, business prospec- the first meeting that the panel had with management. The tuses for production companies, only film that seems to even stand a chance of getting • any tax law and copyright information pertaining broadcast singly is Jan Oxenberg's A COMEDY IN SIX to all areas of film and video production.