I am an award-winning freelance journalist based in Brooklyn (formerly based in Providence, R.I.) and and an MFA student in creative nonfiction at the New School. This is not a blog, but rather a collection of some of my work.

My favorite stories are about people: people who do unlikely or awe-inspiring things, people with dreams and visions and singular voices, people and communities whose voices are marginalized or forgotten by the popular press. I have a special interest in the criminal justice system and health care for the underserved and disenfranchised, particularly HIV/AIDS. (Before I became a journalist, I worked as an outreach worker and research assistant at an HIV clinic.) I also write news and book reviews, and have been known to write enthusiastically about books, beer, old houses, music, and politics.

Lately I've slowed down my professional output to focus on my thesis, a book-length work of narrative journalism about hepatitis C and addiction. It should be finished over the summer, at which point I'll turn my attention back to newspapers, magazines, and (hopefully) teaching.

Thanks for stopping by to take a look at my clips.
Showing posts with label Film/Television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film/Television. Show all posts

Ms.>National Reports>From Harlem to Hollywood






From Harlem to Hollywood

A New York "boot camp" turns young women of color into feminist filmmakers

By Beth Schwartzapfel
Summer 2007

Instead of playing outside, “I was that kid who was up in her room, writing her screenplay,” says Karly Beaumont, 27, of growing up in New York City's Washington Heights neighborhood. “But I didn't see any women out there making movies--definitely not women of color who look like me.”

Harlem-based media justice organization Chica Luna Productions is trying to change that. Beaumont participated in the inaugural class of the F-Word program--“F” stands for “feminist”--a yearlong “boot camp” that trains young women of color, ages 16 to 25, to be socially conscious filmmakers. As her capstone, Beaumont produced
I’m Not Here, a gripping short about a young girl cowering in her bedroom as her father’s heavy bootsteps approach.

Although the program is about creating a safe space for self-expression, it’s also about developing participants into professional filmmakers. At a time when pop-culture-commentators are hailing YouTube as a great democratizer, Chica Luna aims higher: for “well-crafted films with visual soul,” says co-founder Elisha Miranda. In addition to achieving “media literacy”--the ability to recognize even the subtle racist, sexist, and homophobic undertones in films in order to avoid perpetuating them--the young women study producing, screenwriting, directing, camera work, lighting, and editing. They grapple with questions such as, “How do you light this well for people of color so they all don’t look like shadows?”

Several of the program’s weekly sessions are also dedicated to film industry nuts-and-bolts such as applying for artist grants and developing a salable film treatment. Co-founder Sofia Quintero says, “You could have the most powerful, important, conscious message, and if your craft is not tight--and if you don’t have the resources and know-how to get your film exhibited--“no oneís going to listen to it.”

Chica Luna founders Miranda, Quintero and Sonia Gonzalez each interrupted their own fledgling film careers to mentor young women of color. With a shoestring budget and a 6-month lease on a tiny office space, the women opened Chica Luna in September of 2001. “We did this primarily for selfish reasons,” says Quintero with a grin. “We didn’t want to be the only ones out there. This is a big recruitment drive for us.”

The program is starting to get Hollywood’s attention. One F-Word graduate is now a director’s assistant on the upcoming Michael Pinckney film
You're Nobody 'til Somebody Kills You. Symphony Space hosted a Chica Luna film festival this year, and this classís May graduation ceremony was held at the Times Square headquarters of HBO. “I was pretty impressed,” said Doris Martinez of Alianza@HBO, the company’s Latino networking group. “It really took me by surprise, the level of maturity that these girls have.”

One of the shorts screened was
Sol, Mar, Y Estrella, by Yaromil Fong-Olivares-- the story of a young Dominican girl who falls in love with her mother’s lesbian friend. “What’s out there in film is not very woman-positive,” she says. “A lot of what we see in the media is tits and ass, and you’ve gotta be tall and skinny, have light skin and straight hair. It’s a counter-protest for us to be able to take that power of the media and throw it right back.”

Rhode Island Monthly>Reel Stars





Reel Stars


By Beth Schwartzapfel
June 2007

OUTSIDE NEWPORT'S JANE PICKENS THEATER, a line is forming. It stretches down Touro Street, past a bed and breakfast and a tilting 1801 green clapboard house, to the corner. Inside, the theater is like something from another time. A soaring archway with elaborately decorated molding frames the stage, which is fronted by a pipe organ. But when the lights go down, and that unmistakable clack-clack-clack of a film reel starts up, you know exactly where you are. You’re at the movies.

This warm June evening in 2006 is the opening night of the ninth annual Newport International Film Festival. The house is sold out, and the audience is chattering with excitement. The opening night film, Quinceañera, won both the audience award and the grand jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival, and tonight’s showing is the New England premiere. The directors are here, as is one of the actors. Later, they will answer audience members’ questions about the making of the movie. But right now they’re hunkered down in their green-upholstered chairs like everyone else, waiting for the curtain to rise.

The first reason that most festival attendees are here is for films like this: films by independent filmmakers, films too quirky or off-beat for widespread distribution, films you can’t see anywhere else. The second reason is far more basic. The people here just love movies. “I’ve been going since I was eight years old,” says Jane Dyer, a compact silver-haired woman with bright eyes and rimless glasses who is in the audience with her daughter and a small army of friends. “I saw Snow White and the Seven Dwarves when it first came out in 1937.” Dyer says that during the festival she sometimes closes her downtown Newport shop, Cadeaux du Monde, earlier than planned in order to attend up to three films a day. “Then I can’t take it anymore,” she adds with a laugh.

Film festivals serve many purposes. For independent movie-makers, they are important opportunities to make connections, share their work and gain name recognition. For those in the industry, they are a chance to cherry-pick the hottest new movies to distribute and the brightest new talent to finance.

The big name venues, known as market festivals, are primarily a way for filmmakers and distributors to connect. What gets lost in their mad rush of hobnobbing and cocktail schmoozing is the everyday audience member, the film-lover who drops everything to take in that foreign flick or those series of animated shorts.

At Newport, it’s different. “I think the essence of this festival is bringing the people of Newport together with the film community,” says Ryan Harrington, who runs A&E IndieFilms and is a juror at the 2006 festival. Laurie Kirby, the festival’s executive director, agrees: “Our mission is not to be a market festival. Our mission is to be an audience-based festival.”

Quinceañera turns out to be a lovely film. Following the life of a fourteen-year-old girl from L.A.’s Echo Park neighborhood through the travails preceding the coming-of-age ceremony that will mark her fifteenth birthday, it’s also about the impact of gentrification on working-class communities, acceptance, forgiveness and family. And though Sony Pictures Classics will distribute the film to art-house theaters later in the season, those in the audience tonight will have seen it here first. Plus those in the audience will have heard the filmmakers’ stories about how the movie was shot (in their houses and those of their neighbors), cast (their cleaning lady and her family are all featured in the film; filmmaker Richard Glatzer says of Emily Rios, who plays the lead, “the top of her resume was that she had played Cleopatra in her school play”), and vaulted to success (filmmaker Wash Westmoreland says, “We never imagined we’d win both the audience award and the grand jury prize. It was better than sex, the best thing that’s ever happened to me.”)

“The audience felt like a warm embrace,” Glatzer says later, at the opening night party at the Newport Colony House. “You really do make your film to be seen. It’s nice to see it with a different audience that isn’t L.A. It’s really a nice festival.”

Geographically speaking, the Newport International Film Festival is largely based in Newport’s Washington Square. The event’s two main venues, the Jane Pickens and the Opera House theaters, are both on Touro Street. The panels, parties and events, held at places like the Newport Art Museum and the Newport Blues Café, are all a short walk away.

The 2006 festival features ninety-six films that fall into one of three categories: narrative features, documentaries and short films (shorts, which run anywhere from three to twenty-eight minutes, are shown either in clusters at a single screening, or individually, preceding a full-length film). The selections cover a wide range of genres, from comedy to drama to anime to mockumentary, from films about family to films about love, about small towns, the environment, immigration.

Some two dozen films play each day at different venues. Tickets for most screenings and events cost $10 (festival passes range from $50 for five screenings to $300 for twenty, plus three event vouchers and various goodies). Most films run on two separate occasions, and executive director Laurie Kirby estimates about 75 percent of them are followed by a question and answer session with the filmmaker, a cast member or director. “That makes it so much more of a rewarding and interactive experience,” she says. “It’s the icing on the cake, to see an incredible movie and then get to ask the director about it. It’s such a treat.”

Each day there are also panels and events. For filmmakers, there are how-tos, like “Get it Made the Legal Way,” and “The Distribution Game”; for audience members, there are events like “Live Comedy Improv,” featuring cast members from “Saturday Night Live.”

Most of the feature-length movies are culled from other festivals. Programming director David Nugent attends upwards of a dozen each year, picking out the ones he likes best and lobbying the filmmakers and production companies to bring them to Newport. Many of the name-brand, glitterati festivals, such as Sundance and Cannes, require what is known in the industry as premiere status. They only show a film if it’s the world premiere or the national premiere. This helps to create buzz, but it’s less important here in Newport.

“It’s a local community audience,” says Nugent. “They don’t care if they’re seeing the premiere of the film; they just want a good film… . So what I’ve done for this festival is, in addition to getting some premieres, I’ve found what I think are the best films that have been playing at these festivals, and I’ve brought them here.”

About 10 percent of the feature-length films shown, as well as almost all of the shorts, were submitted directly to the festival by independent filmmakers. In 2006, that totaled more than 700 films. In the months before the festival, Nugent assembled a screening committee of about a dozen people in the industry. Committee members watch ten to twelve films each week, enter their reviews into a database and meet once a week to discuss what they saw. Then they whittle down the pool to about 150 finalists. Nugent watches every one of these, and then makes the final decisions. There were a few films that didn’t make the cut, which Nugent says he agonized over, including one called Colma: The Musical, an Asian-American teen musical romantic comedy.

Given its, um, underwhelming premise, he expected to be disappointed. Instead he grew quite attached to it. “There are a lot of factors that go into [the decision-making process],” he says. “It’s not just going to be all of my favorite films. There’s a lot of things I’m trying to serve –– different audiences, different ages.”

THE IDEA FOR THE NEWPORT INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL was born in 1997, when two friends, Nancy Donahoes and Christine Schomer, were meeting in New York for weekly lunch dates. Donahoes was working in theater at the time, and Schomer, a Barrington native, was working on the David Letterman show. The two were kicking around the idea of making a movie together when Schomer came home for a visit with her parents. Director and Pawtucket native Michael Corrente was in town filming, and the movie Meet Joe Black was being shot in Warwick. Steven Spielberg’s Amistad, which was made largely in Newport, had just wrapped, and people were still talking about it. At their next lunch date, “Christine said, ‘You know, there’s a lot of film going on in Rhode Island,’ ” says Donahoes. “ ‘Don’t you think Newport is a great spot for a film festival?’”

And so it was. The two spent that first year visiting as many festivals as they could. At the Sundance Film Festival, which is held in Utah in January, they distributed handmade flyers with lush pictures of Newport. “Frost bitten?” read the flyers. “See you in Newport!” The idea was to get a sense of how it feels to be a regular audience member at the big-name events.

As it turns out, “we found some of them quite impenetrable,” says Donahoes. “We never felt comfortable. You really did need to know how to work the system in order to get tickets to things.”

Even industry insiders sometimes find these festivals to be less than user-friendly. Kirby says, “What the filmmakers tell me is that Newport’s a very intimate, accessible festival. Many of them say they’ve been able to watch films here that they wanted to see at other festivals but couldn’t get into.” David Nugent adds, “At Sundance, you spend half your time just trudging through snow, or on shuttle buses to get different places. The parties and the screenings are very hard to get into. And it’s just sort of tougher to get to meet people.”

Newport’s small scale means that meeting people here is easy. A short conversation in Washington Square Park with Nugent can be punctuated by filmmaker sightings and chats with other audience members. “There goes a member of the jury,” he says, pointing, and later, “there’s the star of The Last Romantic walking across the street. Did you see that film?”

Because of the city’s appeal as a tourist destination, many people make a vacation out of a visit to Newport during the week of the festival. Casey and Linda Roe, for example, were waiting in line to see the documentary 51 Birch Street. They had traveled from their home in Philadelphia for what they describe as a “springtime weekend getaway.” The walkable distances between venues make the festival feel low-threshold and easy-access.

In all, it’s a welcoming place for audience members. Nancy Donahoes should know. She passed the torch to executive director Kirby some years ago, so now she comes just for fun. “This year, I had a great time just watching movies,” she says.

The major market festivals on the circuit are Sundance, Cannes, the Berlin International Film Festival, the Toronto International Film Festival, and, to a lesser extent, New York City’s Tribeca Film Festival. For filmmakers seeking distribution, these are what New York-based independent filmmaker Alex Karpovsky calls the crown jewel festivals. “The best thing to do, if you can do it, is to try to get your film into one of the top three or four festivals,” he says. “When I say top, I don’t mean necessarily in terms of the content of the films, but in terms of industry and media presence.”

The fact that many of the films at Newport have played at other festivals first does a lot to eliminate backroom-negotiating here. However, the Newport International Film Festival’s identity as primarily an audience-centered event does not prevent contacts from being established or deals from being made. Though Karpovsky’s quirky comedy, The Hole Story, did not get into any of the big market festivals, he was pleased to be included in the lineup at Newport. “It’s certainly one of the best regional festivals in the country,” he says, “probably in the top ten or fifteen national festivals.”

The handful of feature-length films which, like Karpovsky’s, made it to Newport not via other festivals but rather by submission, can offer distributors some pleasant surprises. In 2000, for example, a film called George Washington came through submission from an unknown filmmaker named David Gordon Green. One member of the jury was so blown away that he encouraged the programmer at the New York Film Festival to show it; it went on from there to distribution. The Boys of Baraka, a submission in 2005, also went on to distribution. “That’s one of the delights for critics, to find those rare gems here,” says Kirby. “We have a good track record for uncovering them,” adds Streich.

However, in the independent film world, success stories like Quinceañera’s, and, to a lesser extent, like Karpovsky’s, are relatively rare. “Ninety percent of the films we see at these film festivals will never get distribution,” says A&E IndieFilms’s Ryan Harrington. For the makers of these films especially, festivals like Newport are critical. “No one wants to make a film and have it sit in their closet and not get seen,” says Nugent. “So for them, it’s a chance to get in front of an audience.”

Just as the festival organizers do their best to make the audience feel welcome, so too do they welcome independent filmmakers with open arms. When Kirby or Nugent commits to screening a film, that means the festival is also committing to transporting the filmmaker to and from Newport, housing him, entertaining him and feeding him for the duration of the event. There are parties every night where food and drink flow freely. “Generally our goal is to bring the filmmaker here, house them and stuff them with food and liquor,” says Kirby with a laugh. Festival manager Nina Streich agrees, “Good parties. Good camaraderie. Lots of filmmakers to hang out with.”

At the sweeping stone entrance to the opening night party, for instance, is a statue of a minuteman –– no, wait, a man, painted all in brown, like a statue –– who turns slowly to ring a bell in greeting each time a guest arrived. A band performs Ella Fitzgerald and Harry Connick Jr., and wait staff make the rounds with trays of appetizers of ahi tuna with wasabi on sesame rounds. There are five different kinds of tequila, beer, margaritas and other mixed drinks, free shot glasses and a sculpture of a film projector carved from ice. Glatzer and Westmoreland, the makers of Quinceañera, are there with actor Jesse Garcia, as are many of the festival’s other filmmakers, jurors, and industry guests. Glatzer chats with his old friend, Kelly Reichardt, whose film, Old Joy, is on the schedule for later in the week.

Whereas other venues will only cover expenses for feature-length filmmakers, Newport pays for the ones who make shorts, too. “It’s a very non-hierarchical festival,” says Streich, who herself is a filmmaker, “so everybody interacts on the same basis. It’s a very peer-to-peer film festival, and people really react to that.”

These expenses can add up quite quickly, and as the only full-time, year-round staff member, Kirby spends a large portion of her time fundraising. In-kind donations almost double the festival’s small $500,000 budget. Amtrak and Delta have provided free travel vouchers to bring the filmmakers here. The Newport Harbor Hotel and the Chanler, as well as many other local hotels and bed-and-breakfasts, have donated free rooms for housing and venues for panels and events.

Filmmaker Alex Karpovsky ultimately found some success here. “In fact, of all the festivals that I’ve been to, the most success that I’ve had from distributors has been at Newport,” he says. “It’s really exciting.” He met a distributor who agreed to distribute The Hole Story on DVD. Short of theatrical distribution, says Karpovsky, the DVD-rental website Netflix is “the most accessible way to get a movie into the world,” and the deal he signed with a woman he met here will get The Hole Story onto Netflix and into film lovers’ homes.

Including Laurie Kirby, the festival employs about thirty people, from a part-time development director and a part-time director of operations, to people like Nina Streich and David Nugent, who work full-time for a few months out of the year. There is also a crew of what Kirby calls itinerant festival workers, projectionists and others who travel from festival to festival and make sure all the crucial cogs in the wheel run smoothly. “Each year we become more, for lack of a better word, institutionalized,” says Kirby. “We really have systems down.”

However, no matter how many systems are in place, there is always the element of surprise. “I used to say, because my background is in theater, that it was really like putting on a performance or a show,” says founder Nancy Donahoes. “You could have the infrastructure going on, but the flavor of it wouldn’t happen until all the people arrived. Which is what makes a film festival more unique than just going to the multiplex and going to a movie.”

Casey and Linda Roe, the visitors from Philadelphia, wrinkle their noses at such a thought. “If it’s so popular that it’s playing at a multiplex,” says Casey, “we probably wouldn’t like it.” “We like the vibe of a film festival,” agrees Linda. “We’ll never go to a multiplex.”

Brown Alumni Magazine>Arts & Culture>Iraqi Life Online





Iraqi Life Online

By Beth Schwartzapfel
May/June 2007

“You can join a band, or you can join a militia,” says Adel, a twenty-three-year-old engineering student at the University of Baghdad as he straps on an electric guitar. “Playing this live music and screaming, it’s like a therapy,” he says, flashing a gap-toothed grin toward a video camera.

Adel is one of three Iraqi students who are chronicling their lives on HometownBaghdad.com, a series of documentary videos produced and distributed by Michael DiBenedetto ’03. In addition to the movie-star-handsome Adel, the cast includes medical student Ausama, and Saif, who wants to become a dentist.

Hometown Baghdad made its debut on the Web on March 19, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. New episodes are posted every few days, first to Salon.com, where they appear exclusively for twenty-four hours, then to YouTube and other sites. The “webisodes” range from forty seconds to five minutes.

Some are funny, some poignant, some banal. In one episode, Saif and his friends hang out, watching soccer and playing guitar while they prepare to say goodbye to a friend leaving for Jordan. In another, Ausama turns the camera on his young cousins as they describe a man they saw on their way home from school; he’d been shot in the head, and his brains spilled onto the road. Then the boys race around the house firing imaginary guns at each other and laughing goofily.

In an episode called “Hidden Camera,” Adel hides his video camera in a bag with a hole cut into it so he can film the wreckage and garbage in his neighborhood. “I’ll try to be careful and not say anything in English,” he says before leaving the house. If he’s caught with the camera, he says, “They’ll kill me!”

He says this in a singsong voice, but he’s dead serious. “The Iraqi producers risked their lives to do this,” says DiBenedetto. “The cast members put themselves in a ridiculous amount of danger.”

Hometown Baghdad was originally conceived for television. DiBenedetto works for NextNext Entertainment, a Manhattan-based media production company whose subsidiary Chat the Planet had produced an extraordinarily successful series of TV specials linking young people around the world. In early 2006, DiBenedetto and a colleague headed for Los Angeles to pitch a Baghdad-based reality-TV series to cable networks.

Then the urgency of life in Iraq persuaded DiBenedetto and his colleagues to use the Internet instead. They learned that their Iraqi filmmakers and cast “were receiving death threats and thinking about leaving Baghdad,” says DiBenedetto. Deciding not to wait for television’s snail’s pace, the producers went to two of their most reliable funders—the Shei’rah Foundation and Cinereach—and said, “Listen, we really want to tell these stories. We don’t really know what it’s going to look like. We don’t even know who is going to leave halfway through our production, but we need to start shooting,” says DiBenedetto.

The funders agreed, and in June the Iraqi team began filming, sending 120 hours of tape to NextNext’s New York offices for editing. The documentary will ultimately comprise forty-some episodes, upwards of two hours of programming.

Using the Web allowed the producers to connect viewers in ways TV could not, says DiBenedetto. “Online video has such an amazing ability to generate dialogue and real engagement,” he says. “There’s so much sharing with blogs that if it catches on, it will immediately spread.” So far, the Hometown Baghdad blog has received about 4,000 hits a day. Some episodes have been viewed as many as 10,000 times on YouTube. Online giants like BoingBoing, DailyKos, and Huffington Post have been spreading the word, and in the first week of the series the blog search engine Technorati registered more than 150 blogs linking to hometownbaghdad.com.

DiBenedetto, who says he “lives his life online,” is a passionate believer in the power of the Internet to connect everyday people and thus to humanize the war in Iraq, which is his ultimate goal. “People deserve to hear these stories,” he says. “ It may change the way that they see the whole war and the whole world.”

FORWARD>Arts & Culture>This (Televised) American Life




This (Televised) American Life


Radio Superstar Ira Glass Brings ‘Movies for Radio’ to … Television


By Beth Schwartzapfel
March 16, 2007

Perhaps it’s a stretch to describe any public radio personality as a superstar. But if there were such a thing, Ira Glass, host of the weekly radio show “This American Life,” would be it. Glass, 47, is nerdy in a hip kind of way, and he unselfconsciously professes his love, in equal measures, for radio shock jock Howard Stern, the now-defunct television drama “The O. C.” and fellow National Public Radio personality Terry Gross.

For one hour each week, “This American Life” tells true stories about everyday Americans; the show’s Web site describes them as “movies for radio.” The stories are organized loosely around a theme — recent ones have included “Quiz Show” and “Houses of Ill Repute” — and manage to locate drama, humor, joy and sorrow in such unlikely places that listeners can’t help but fall in love with the elderly Brooklyn man whose house has become a haven for homeless prostitutes, or with the building superintendent who was part of a Brazilian death squad.

This week, Glass and “This American Life” make the leap from the airwaves to the small screen: The first episode of the brand-new “This American Life” television show airs March 22 on Showtime. Earlier this month, Glass and his colleagues went on a six-city tour, promoting the television program and producing a live version of the radio show that airs this week; the theme is “What I Learned From Television.” Glass sat down with the Forward’s Beth Schwartzapfel to talk about making radio and making television, and what he learned about storytelling from his childhood rabbi.

BS: So what have you learned from television? What did you find you could do on television that you couldn’t do on the radio?

IG: One of the basic things I didn’t expect from television is that there would be a power to seeing somebody’s face as they tell a story, that there would be a drama to it that could be as powerful as not seeing the person. When we went into it, I truly believed that the most powerful way to hear a story would be if the person’s invisible and they’re saying it on the radio. But actually, I think that there are moments in the story that are enhanced by seeing someone’s face. Their face carries a lot of feeling. It allows empathy, and it’s a different thing than the radio.

I [also] wasn’t sure, when we went into it, if the two kinds of moments that I think of as being at the heart of our radio show would survive into TV. One is the weird, digressive, funny moment that’s just in there because it amuses us. Another is the kind of moment where someone will have gone through a bunch of stuff, and then they’ll [reflect on] something that they now realize about the world. It’s a light moment, and then a super-reflective moment, and it wasn’t clear to me that those things would be able to be on TV and have the same kind of feeling. Now that we’ve done it, I feel like it’s more just a matter of taste. That people have never done it because it’s not their thing.

BS: What did you find you can do on the radio that you can’t do on television?

IG: In the first few years of the radio show, I felt like it detracted from the power of radio to actually ever see the person who was on the show. I still believe this. It’s more powerful if you don’t know what the people look like. The invisibility of radio is a part of what gives it its numinous power. The person on the radio isn’t an actual person; they’re more of an idea of a person.

I remember when I met Terry Gross for the first time. It’s not like it’s surprising who Terry Gross is: If you were to think about it, she is a glasses-wearing Jewish lady of a certain age. She’s a slim, well-put-together, East Coast smart person. She’s exactly what you would expect if you were to take a second to think about who would be that lady on the radio. But the fact is, I never even bothered to think, what does Terry Gross look like? To me, she was just a presence on the radio; she was just an intelligence, and a sensibility, and that is more powerful than her being any particular person.

For the first few years of the show, I never let myself be photographed. And truthfully, it made it hard to publicize the show, because America is dominated by a photographic fetish, and you literally can’t get into a newspaper or magazine in the United States of America unless you will give them a picture, or agree to sit for a picture.

[But] the overall feeling of the television show is as much like the radio show as could humanly be done. Hopefully the overall feeling of the television show is enough like the radio show that when I show up in it, it doesn’t seem jarring and strange. Inevitably, if people know me from the radio, the first moment they see me is going to be a bad moment. [He laughs.] Oh, that’s what he looks like? There’s just no way around that.

BS: One of the stories in the first season of the television show is about an atheist who poses as Jesus in a series of paintings. It seems like Jesus stories lend themselves so well to television — the iconography —

IG: They’re iconic, exactly.

BS: Do Jewish stories lend themselves, as well, to drama? Are there Jewish stories on the television show?

IG: There are Jews on the TV show, but there are no particularly Jewish stories. Christians are actually, to me, anyway, as a Jew, much more interesting in America. And weirdly, much more misunderstood. Evangelical Christians are the most incompetently portrayed group in America, in TV, in fiction, in the news. When Christians say that the media gets them wrong, Christians are absolutely right. Christian life in this country is really horribly documented, and way more interesting than is done. Generally, in the media, very religious Christians are portrayed as hardheaded doctrinaire knuckleheads. But in fact, from my experience, the most religious Christians I know tend to be incredibly thoughtful, complicated, generous to a fault, very principled and not knuckleheads. Actually, they’re sort of weirdly the opposite of the stereotype, and that includes people from the hardcore fundamentalist faiths.

Maybe it’s just that I am Jewish and I’m so familiar with being a Jew, and I went to religious school and that is so much more familiar. I certainly wouldn’t rule out doing a story about those different kinds of things that happen among Jews, but we don’t stumble on them in the same way.

[But] many of our contributors are Jewish, so many of the stories [on the radio show] are about Jewish-y things. People going back to understand the roots of their Holocaust past; we did an episode in Israel; we did numerous stories about going away to Jewish day camp. Adam Davidson did a story for us about how, when he was a kid, he decided that he wanted to become the prime minister of Israel, from reading David Ben-Gurion’s biography, and started keeping a diary like David Ben-Gurion did, knowing that one day this would be an important document like David Ben-Gurion’s diary. And David Rakoff did a story about working on a kibbutz one summer. It’s a regular feature of our show; it’s a very Jewish show. So much so that often, we’ll have a story, and we’ll just think, “Well, this is a great story, but let’s not run it this week because last week we did something that was so Jew-y, we can’t do a whole other Israel thing again this week! We just did one!” And so we don’t get into that problem with the Christian stories. It’s still a very Jew-y show, even if we don’t want it to be.

BS: Was being Jewish a big part of your upbringing?

IG: We went to Beth Israel, a Conservative shul in Baltimore, and went after school and Sundays for Hebrew school, and then after six years of that, we all went to Baltimore Hebrew College for another few years of after-school classes. And I have very fond feelings about all that.

In fact, the guy who was the rabbi at Beth Israel…was an incredible rabbi named Seymour Esrog, who just passed away two or three years ago. I remember he was such an amazing preacher. He was a total entertainment package — he was incredibly funny, and very moving, totally knew how to milk a story — and then he gave you a little “Now here’s what we’re going to take away from this today when we walk out of here.” He totally had that, too. He’d quote from movies and things he was reading, and I remember even the kids would stay for the sermon. And I remember thinking, as a kid: “That guy’s got the job, man. You get up there once a week, you say your thing to the people,” and it was much, much later that I realized, “Oh, I got that job!”

Also I remember, going back a few years ago, I’d figured out this whole way to tell a story on the radio. This story structure I came to totally from trial and error, where there’ll be the action part of the story at the beginning and then there’ll be a moment of reflection, and then an anecdote, and then a moment of reflection. Which doesn’t sound like that big of a deal, but it was a big deal for me: a very different and more compelling way to tell a story than what most journalists do. And so, I sort of invented this thing sitting in an editing room at NPR, and tried it out in the field, and then built our radio show based on it. And so our radio show’s on the air for a couple of years, then I went back to Baltimore for High Holiday services, and we went and saw Rabbi Esrog. And I’m taking apart his Yom Kippur sermon, the structure of it — it’s been years since I saw him give a sermon — and at some point, I’m like: “Oh my God. The structure of this is exactly the structure of the radio show.” And I’ve talked to people who have been to seminary, and they’re like: “Yes, every sermon is that structure. Every single sermon you will ever hear is that structure — anecdote, moment of reflection, anecdote, moment of reflection.” And I’m like: “Did everybody know? Why did I have to invent this in a little room on M Street in Washington, D.C.?”

BS: Do you still go to synagogue?

IG: I don’t believe in God, and so I feel like a fraud when I’m in a synagogue. I feel like somebody’s who’s in a theme park of my own childhood. I know all the songs, and it makes me feel really warm and nostalgic, and it’s incredibly comforting. But then I think that I don’t believe anything that’s being said here. And so, I have no business here. This is for somebody else. This is perfectly pleasant, but it seems a little sleazy — to be there, where other people are having a relationship with God, and I’m there because I like the music. [He laughs.] That seems like other people are putting on a show for me or something. That’s not right. That’s not what that’s for. It’s nice hanging around with other people, but, you know — I’ve got a wife for that.

New York Times>The City>Sing Out, Buffy!




Sing Out, Buffy!

By Beth Schwartzapfel
February 25, 2007

THE lights had just dimmed when a young woman wearing a flowered dress made her way along the first row of seats of a theater at the IFC Film Center in the West Village with a pile of dry cleaning in her arms. “Do you want to dance on stage with us during the ‘They Got the Mustard Out’ song?” the woman whispered to members of the audience as she handed out freshly laundered shirts.

“They Got the Mustard Out,” a little number about the joy of having a competent dry cleaner, is not part of a new musical about the daily grind of living in New York. On the contrary, it is part of a sing-along inspired by “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” the cult television show about a tough young blonde who, along with her nerdy friends, fights demons and vampires in Sunnydale, Calif., her fictional hometown.

With a tip of the hat to “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” which set the bar for audience-participatory midnight screenings, the sing-along is based on “Once More With Feeling,” a musical episode from the show’s sixth season. The event is the brainchild of Clinton McClung, a 36-year-old film programmer who lives in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, and whose preference for sweater vests and tweed jackets makes him a natural for the role of Buffy’s bookish “watcher,” Rupert Giles.

Mr. McClung created the sing-along in 2004 when he worked at the Coolidge Corner Theater near Boston and brought the show to New York when he moved here last summer. Ever since, this “Rocky Horror Picture Show” for the postmodern set has been gaining steam, with the February rendition marking the fifth monthly, over-the-top, costumed, live-cast, sold-out, audience-interactive midnight performance.

“It’s all for the love of Buffy right now,” Mr. McClung says. But the sing-along has fast become his (mostly unpaid) full-time job, and as word spreads, he is ushering it onto stages around the country. The show has played in Huntington on Long Island, Chicago, Tucson, Pittsburgh and Austin. Mr. McClung, who said he has a licensing agreement with the distributor of the television program, is planning a national tour this summer.

What audiences around the country will see is the sort of thing that took place at midnight last weekend, when 200 people braved 10-degree weather in a line that snaked two blocks down the Avenue of the Americas, waiting for the theater to open.

Nerina Garcia, a psychology graduate student at Fordham University who described herself as “in love with ‘Buffy,’ ” was huddled in line with her boyfriend. “If you really analyze each episode, it’s not just superficial,” she said. “Every time I watch it, there’s something deeper.”

Each guest received a red plastic goody bag filled with bubble soap, vampire teeth, party poppers shaped like champagne bottles, and a rule sheet. The first rule: sing along. Others included shouting “Shut up, Dawn!” in response to the comments of Buffy’s clueless younger sister, played by a 23-year-old business analyst named Meghan Wherrity. The bubbles were for use during a ballet number — “to give it a Lawrence Welk feel,” Mr. McClung explained. The champagne poppers were to be popped at the “ahem, climax” of a love song.

After a round of “Buffy Jeopardy,” the room went dark. In this episode, a musical demon causes the residents of Sunnydale to sing and dance their secrets, sadness and joys. As the intricately choreographed numbers played on the big screen, a ragtag and goofy approximation of the show proceeded on stage below. The audience responded by singing, shouting lines along with and at the characters, waving lighters, and making a wave with their goody bags during a number called “Walk Through the Fire.”

At evening’s end, fans trickled reluctantly back into the cold. Among them was Joy Abella, a 33-year-old advertising account supervisor. The next day, Ms. Abella said, “I called my sister up, and I said, ‘Sheer genius.’ ”

Forward>Schmooze>A Swank Passover




A Swank Passover

By Beth Schwartzapfel
January 26, 2007


While Jews everywhere are dipping their pinkies in kosher wine and chanting the names of the plagues that befell the Pharaoh and his people, multiplexes nationwide will be offering Hollywood’s latest twist on the story. “The Reaping,” starring Hilary Swank as a skeptic investigating an outbreak of plagues in a small Southern town, opens March 30 — three days before the first night of Passover.

Swank’s character, Katherine Winter, is a former Christian missionary who renounces her faith after the death of her family and devotes her life to scientifically disproving religious phenomena. When she arrives in Haven, La., to find a river of blood and a sky full of locusts, however, her atheism is put to the test.

Synchronicity with Passover notwithstanding, “The Reaping” has a decidedly Christian bent; its trailer (available at thereapingmovie.warnerbros.com) includes such images as a dangling cross pendant, a priest and a straw-hat wearing man, who, in a Southern drawl, says menacingly, “I understand you’re not much of a Bible reader… some folks just don’t want to go to heaven.” The movie’s tagline: “Evil has a savior.”

This is not the first time that Tinseltown has rolled out a new release with ties to what Jews are reading; “Babel,” starring Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt, was released immediately before the Sabbath when the Torah portion containing the story of the Tower of Babel was read. Although at the time, Paramount executives told the Forward that the release date was a coincidence, the film’s recent nomination for a best picture Oscar would seem to indicate that they might have been on to something.

As for “The Reaping,” Warner Bros. publicist Peter Dangerfield told the Forward that the company uses “many criteria to determine all release dates, and this was the best date for this particular film. Proximity to Passover was certainly noted, but it is not the sole reason for the date.”

Brown Alumni Magazine>No Degrees of Separation




No Degrees of Separation

As documentary filmmakers, Rory Kennedy ’91 and Liz Garbus ’92 tell stories of ordinary people facing extraordinary political and social controversies. Their empathy provides an emotional depth you won’t find in news stories or the arguments of talking heads.

By Beth Schwartzapfel
Jan/Feb 2007

The brownstone at 39 Lincoln Place is a bright, airy space. Located in the heart of the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, it's the headquarters of Moxie Firecracker Films, an independent production company whose award-winning documentaries about often harrowing subjects are among the most highly praised of the past few years. Yet the atmosphere inside the building is far from harrowing. On a weekday this fall, a small, snorty dog named Angus hurled himself enthusiastically at a visitor walking through the tall wooden front doors. "We have dogs and fish and kids all over the office," says Liz Garbus '92 with a laugh.

Garbus and Rory Kennedy ’91, who first met at Brown, founded Moxie Firecracker in 1998 by merging their two independent production companies—Kennedy’s Moxie and Garbus’s Firecracker. Although the two women work separately on their individual films, their work has brought them together as friends and collaborators. As filmmakers with closely aligned creative visions, they brainstorm regularly and offer mutual support when a project becomes confusing. “We’re always consulting each other on the shape of our films,” Garbus says. “It’s really great to have someone who you can just talk to, and not have to explain the whole project from beginning to end. You want a partner in that. In the same way that when you’re married or in a domestic relationship, thatthe person that you can just talk with—this is a similar type of support.”

And as mothers of young children, Garbus and Kennedy have structured Moxie Firecracker as a family friendly place with flexible hours whenever possible. The tall-ceilinged rooms, with their marble fireplaces and creaky hardwood floors, seem full of good-natured chaos and people in jeans. Two of them chat over a computer; one gets up to corral Angus back to his little bed and then retreats to what was once a kitchen but is now a sunny sort of workspace. “They’ve really set up a nice thing for themselves,” says HBO executive Nancy Abraham, who has worked with the women on a half-dozen films. “It’s an unusual partnership.”

The atmosphere is a sharp contrast to the images being viewed in the editing room upstairs. Up here the world seems a grimmer place. Kennedy sits on a battered leather couch with writer-producer Jack Youngelson. With open binders on their laps, the two banter about the emerging shape of their current project while editor Sari Gilman ’91 controls the bank of computer monitors facing the couch. Suddenly the gruesome, now-famous photographs of prisoners at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison fill the screens. Here are filthy naked men, piled in a pyramid. Here is a smiling young U.S. MP posing with a battered corpse. A soldier’s voice explains how, on that night, a group of American officials arrived with an Iraqi prisoner, disappeared into a back room for several hours, and left the prisoner behind, dead. “You never saw us,” the soldier recalls the officials saying on their way out. “Have a nice day.” The images are from Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, which premieres in January at the Sundance Film Festival and airs on HBO February 22.

The clip ends, and the room is silent.

“So how long was that?” Kennedy asks.

Gilman clicks through some numbers on the computer screen. “Seven-and-a-half minutes.”

Kennedy inhales sharply. That’s long. “It’s good, though.”

Yesterday Kennedy showed a rough cut of the film to Abraham and her boss at HBO. Today she is trying to create another, more polished, version that incorporates the comments and suggestions that followed the showing.

Ghosts of Abu Ghraib did not begin as a project focused on Iraq. Kennedy was interested in the phenomenon of genocide, of exploring what happens, she says, “when people are put into situations and respond in ways that they wouldn’t imagine doing if they were living in a ‘normal’ society.” As she learned more about torture at Abu Ghraib, however, Kennedy saw many of the same themes emerging. The incidents there, she says, showed “there’s a pretty thin veneer that’s protecting us from doing crazy things.” Here was an opportunity to approach large themes through a specific story with ordinary characters, a method that is a hallmark of all her films. Kennedy got the nod from HBO to shift gears, and last March she began interviewing soldiers, Iraqis detained at the prison, Bush administration officials, and lawyers. “It’s been a whirlwind,” she says.

Kennedy and Garbus have made a name for themselves by making unflinching documentaries that tackle the bleakest of subjects—poverty, AIDS, the death penalty, substance abuse, the criminal justice system—through individual stories. While Kennedy was tracking down stories for her film, Garbus was doing the same for Coma, her documentary about patients in a persistent vegetative state, which is scheduled to air on HBO later this year. “They have crafted a distinctive reputation within the documentary community of making films that are great stories,” says Liz Ogilvie, head programmer for Docurama, which releases documentaries on DVD. “They’re really gifted storytellers. They take such intense topics and make them watchable.”

Most Moxie Firecracker films are done in a vérité style: a “fly-on-the-wall” approach that follows characters over time and watches their stories unfold. Kennedy’s 1999 American Hollow follows the life of one extended family in rural Appalachia over a single year, while A Boy’s Life, released in 2004, tells the story of an emotionally disturbed boy in rural Mississippi. Garbus’s 2002 The Execution of Wanda Jean follows the last months in the life of Wanda Jean Allen, the first black woman to be executed in modern American history, while Girlhood, released in 2003, tells the story of two teenagers and their mothers as the teens pass in and out of Baltimore’s criminal justice system.

Ogilvie says that to make a successful vérité film, the women build powerful relationships with their subjects. Kennedy’s and Garbus’s documentaries, she says, demonstrate “a certain closeness to their characters [that] really comes across. For them to be able to do that, it’s obvious that their characters trust them. And that is a real gift.”

The method allows Kennedy and Garbus to make political statements without preaching or relying on pundits and experts. Garbus’s Juvies, for instance, which aired on A&E in 2000, chronicles the lives of three young men caught up in the juvenile justice system; by simply telling their stories, the film raises questions about crime and punishment in the United States. Ghosts of Abu Ghraib zeroes in on the stories of soldiers who worked at the prison and describes the journey each took to Iraq and back home again.

“Always coming back to the emotional, the personal, makes the most powerful film,” Kennedy argues, and one of the struggles she currently faces during the editing process illustrates her point. “The experts are making all the political points that are so important, and important to me,” she explains about the footage she is editing. “But ultimately, what will happen is, we’ll edit them out. At the end of the day, hearing these [five soldiers] tell their stories and their perspectives—people can draw their own conclusion and decide about the war on terrorism, decide about the war in Iraq, decide about what America represents. We don’t have to tell them.”

Although the women broadly share the same cinematic approach, when it comes to making such artistic choices as what to shoot and how to shoot it, who gets interviewed and how, and what the overall structure of the film will be, each woman is guided by her own particular style. “As directors, we’re both very independent,” says Garbus. “Rory doesn’t need me in her editing room, and I don’t need her in mine.” Nancy Abraham has seen this dynamic play out; when working with one director, she barely interacts with the other. “Their films are really their own films,” she says. Yet Kennedy and Garbus often turn to each other for help. “I really cherish her feedback,” Kennedy says. “Together we’ve gone a lot further than we would have individually.” Garbus is always credited as a producer on Kennedy’s films, and vice versa.

The women have no qualms about directly helping the people in their documentaries. While filming Pandemic: Facing AIDS, which follows the lives of five HIV-positive people in five different countries, Kennedy bought towels and goats for some of them. She paid school tuition for others. While filming in India, she paid for a forty-by-twenty-foot neon Hindu deity. The people with whom she was working there had planned a parade for an annual festival of lights, and they “were just desperate to have this element in their parade,” she says. “I have to say, that was the weirdest thing I ever paid for.” She laughs. “But it looked pretty cool.”

Kennedy first considered filmmaking at Brown. A small-boned woman with blue eyes and thick blond hair that falls to her shoulders, Kennedy has the air of someone who is constantly thinking. As a concentrator in women’s studies at the height of the public preoccupation with “crack babies,” Kennedy decided to write her final senior project about the difficulties women face obtaining treatment for substance abuse. “The way it was being told in the press was that these were crack addicts who didn’t care about their children,” she says. However, what Kennedy learned from meeting and interviewing scores of women was that “the vast majority were trying to get treatment while they were addicted and pregnant, but couldn’t get it because a lot of the treatment programs don’t accept pregnant women.”

While working on the project, she would return to her apartment at night and try to tell her friends about the experiences she’d had that day. But Kennedy found that her recounting lacked the power and immediacy she’d heard from the women themselves. She thought of recording their stories. “If they were able to tell their stories themselves to the larger public,” she recalls thinking, “that would help people understand their plight more directly, and people would have much more empathy.”

She knew nothing about filmmaking, so she put together a film proposal and sent it to filmmakers all over the country, hoping to connect with someone who could serve as a mentor and teacher. She ultimately found Robin Smith, who ran Video/Action Inc., a nonprofit video production company in Washington, D.C. After three years of learning and working, Kennedy, along with Smith, released Women of Substance, which aired on PBS stations nationwide in 1994 and won the Gold Corporation for Public Broadcasting Award, the Gold CINDY Award, and first place at the National Council on Family Relations Media Awards Competition.

Kennedy made several more films after Women of Substance, but it was American Hollow that catapulted her career into prominence five years later. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and won best documentary prizes at several other festivals; after airing on HBO it was nominated for a Non-Fiction Primetime Emmy Award. It also spawned a companion book, published by Little, Brown, as well as a traveling exhibition. Since that time she has directed a dozen more films and produced twice as many. Along the way she has picked up an armful of film festival awards, and Pandemic was nominated for another Emmy.

“What’s characteristic of her films, to me, is a certain human, emotional element that is profoundly affecting,” says Nancy Abraham, “and an enormous sense of empathy for the kind of human condition that people find themselves in. That, to me, is really an element of her films that goes beyond any scripting or planning. It’s not technical. It’s something that comes from the heart and is really touching.”

Kennedy is the youngest of eleven children born to U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy and his wife, Ethel. Her family background has inevitably affected her career. “Doors were more open to me than most others,” she acknowledges. “But then you’ve gotta walk through them, and do the work, and make it happen. You have to make films that are worthy.” She also inherited her family’s commitment to progressive causes, which is reflected in her choice of subject matter. “I certainly grew up in an environment where social justice was important,” she says, “where being involved in giving back was very important.”

Her family background has affected her work in an unexpected way as well. Writer-editor Youngelson, who has worked with Kennedy on four films, says, “She comes from a big family. I think that there’s this desire to be heard, to have her voice heard.” A 1999 Washington Post story referred to Rory as “the quiet Kennedy,” but she says that’s a mischaracterization. “I feel like I do projects that are important to me, and I want to call attention to those projects,” she says. “And I’m not averse to saying what’s on my mind.”

The combination of Kennedy’s family connections and her willingness to make sure powerful people are paying attention to her films can also give her movies an effectiveness that is rare for a documentarian. Pandemic, for example, began as a short educational film called Epidemic Africa, and was initially inspired by a trip she made to Africa in 2001 as part of a Clinton White House delegation. After the trip Kennedy pulled some strings on Capitol Hill and arranged for a screening for some prominent Democratic lawmakers. “Senator [Patrick] Leahy was there,” she says, referring to the Vermont Democrat who is on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, “and he said, ‘You know, I had the opportunity to watch your film. I put 25 million dollars in the budget for AIDS in Africa because of your film.’ ”

Growing up in Manhattan, Liz Garbus was also no stranger to progressive politics. Her mother is a social worker, and her father is Martin Garbus, the well-known civil rights attorney whose work for the ACLU has included defending the Chicago Seven and members of the Weather Underground. Garbus recalls watching as a 1970s child the emotional television commercials designed to solicit money for organizations that work in the developing world. “I remember, as a child, feeling really upset, and being like, ‘How can we not do anything?’ ” she says with a self-deprecating laugh. “But those are the kinds of questions that were encouraged in my household. [My parents] were like, ‘Right, when you grow up you can do something about those children!’ There was a whole dialogue, a whole dinner conversation about what those kids were going through. In many ways I combined their particular interests. He was a lawyer, but also an activist. And my mother—there’s that kind of compassionate side.”

Garbus first got the filmmaking itch while she was still in high school. On a whim, she brought a video camera to school on the last day of her senior year. “I went around,” she recalls, “and I was interviewing everybody about the last day of school, and I filmed some people’s last classes, where people were sort of acting out. They were very rambunctious.” She went home and edited the film with the rudimentary software available at the time, then showed it to the father of a friend. A documentarian, he told her she’d done a great job.

“I’m sure he was just being very sweet to a seventeen-year-old,” Garbus says with a laugh. “But in any event it stuck in my head as a very positive experience.” She brought that experience with her to Brown, where she concentrated in both history and semiotics and took some video-production classes.

After graduating, Garbus was torn between filmmaking or going on to graduate school and an academic career studying social politics. At Brown, she recalls, “I definitely had a real political sharpening, a focus. Academia was very effective for me, in politicizing me.”

Instead of grad school, Garbus joined Miramax as an intern and then worked for filmmaker Jonathan Stack. While she was working for Stack she got to know Wilbert Rideau, an inmate on death row at the state penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Rideau, who was sentenced to death in 1962 for a murder he’d committed the previous year, was editor of the award-winning uncensored prison newspaper, the Angolite. In that capacity Rideau had interviewed every inmate on Louisiana’s death row since 1976. Rideau helped Garbus and Stack gain access to six inmates serving long sentences at Angola. After following the inmates for three years, Garbus and Stack made The Farm: Angola USA, with Rideau as codirector. The film was released in 1998 and went on to win an Academy Award nomination, two Emmy Awards, and the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. (Rideau’s conviction has since been commuted from murder to manslaughter. He was released in 2005 after serving forty-four years, and he and Garbus are still friends.)

“She’s very funny and very smart,” says Mary Manhardt, who edited The Farm and worked with Garbus on several subsequent films. “And she has a good attitude. Sometimes people have a successful film and they think they’re God’s gift to documentary. She had an amazing amount of success early on, but she’s very grounded about it.”

Garbus has long, curly brown hair shot through with strands of gray, a round face, and big brown eyes. She laughs a lot, and it’s easy to see why her childhood nickname was Firecracker. Nancy Abraham describes her as “a little more loose and feisty” than Kennedy. In some ways she is still the child at the dinner table. Her goal, she says, is “humanizing the stories” of people who we facilely assume are different from us. “It’s by bringing [the characters] closer to [viewers] that we all become a little bit more human,” she says. Like the little girl in New York City who can empathize with children thousands of miles away, in Garbus’s films, she hopes, “We realize that there’s not so much that separates us from them.”

Garbus is quick to point out that the people in her films have, in many cases, done terrible things. The Farm, for instance, includes a moving scene at the clemency hearing of a convict who is on death row for killing a man and maiming his wife. At the hearing, the son of the couple speaks at length about the pain that he and his family have endured, and the fact that his mother’s life is ruined forever. The Farm does not ignore that “there are victims of those crimes,” says Garbus. “That’s a very real thing.” Yes, these murderers are criminals, she says, “But they also are fifteen other things. They’re loving fathers or mothers or lovers. People aren’t equal to their worst action.”

“She has tremendous compassion,” says Manhardt. Sometimes, making films like these can lead to “a very ethically difficult situation. But she is always true to the dignity of her characters. Always.”

Watching several of Liz Garbus’s films in a row is an uncomfortable experience. Knowing the things we humans do to one another is bad enough; watching, in vivid detail, the struggles of people who are the agents or victims of those things is almost too much. But rather than let injustice and suffering depress her, Garbus gets angry, and the anger, she says, “makes me want to just keep on going.”

After all, there are so many stories left to tell. “I think we’re going to continue on as we are for the time being,” Kennedy says. “Both Liz and I really love what we do, and feel really lucky to be doing it.”

The women also have a tight-knit relationship outside work. Kennedy’s children, Georgia and Bridget, are four and two; Garbus has a two-year-old daughter, Amelia, and a son, Theodore, who is only a few months old. The women’s husbands are also friends and coworkers. Dan Cogan, Garbus’s husband, is a film producer, and Mark Bailey, Kennedy’s husband, is a screenwriter. Cogan’s production company, DMC Films, is producing several of Bailey’s scripts. The two families live within ten blocks of each other. “We laugh a lot,” Garbus says. “We have a lot of fun.”

On days when the women are traveling, filming, or editing, the hours are long and often inflexible. But at other times they can mold their schedules around the lives of their children. “Last night I was editing scripts until eleven at night,” Kennedy says. “But I went home at four and was with my children from four until eight.” Garbus is equally devoted to keeping work and family in balance. “If I’d been partners with someone who didn’t have those same priorities, I don’t know if we could have lasted as partners,” she says.

Meanwhile, in the editing room at 39 Lincoln Place, Kennedy sits with Youngelson on the brown leather couch. Takeout containers with half-eaten salads and Chinese food litter the table, and Kennedy recalls a moment in the making of Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. She was in Turkey, interviewing Iraqi victims of abuse at the prison. She’d had to meet them in Turkey because the men believed it would be too dangerous to be interviewed in Iraq.

One of the men asked Kennedy to withhold his identity in the film. Kennedy assured him that she would include that proviso in the release form they both would sign.

“And the man said, ‘No, you don’t need to write it down,’ ” Kennedy recalls. “ ‘You looked me in the eye and told me.’ It’s amazing they can trust Americans.” She pauses. The story reminds her of a scene from another interview, and she asks Gilman to pull it up. “That prisoner’s line,” she says, “is ‘All is forgiven.’ It’s so powerful and so unexpected. It makes me cry when I hear it.”

Forward>Schmooze>Finding Harmony




Finding Harmony


By Beth Schwartzapfel
November 3, 2006

Those who went to synagogue Saturday morning and then to the movies Saturday night may have experienced a little bit of déjà vu. The section of the Torah read in synagogues last week included Genesis 11:1-9, the story of the Tower of Babel, and among the movies that hit theaters last Friday was “Babel,” the new film by Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu.

In the Torah portion, residents of the land of Shinar (in modern-day Iraq) work together to build a tower “with its top in the sky.” Dismayed by their hubris, God prompts the builders to start speaking a multiplicity of languages, rendering communication impossible and grinding construction to a halt. In the film, an American man vacationing in Morocco is in a desperate race to save the life of his injured wife. Parallel storylines and characters in Mexico and Japan are woven into the action, resulting in a fast-paced back-and-forth set in four countries and seven languages.

The film, which stars Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt, is the third of Iñárritu’s full-length features to be released in the United States, after “Amores Perros” (2000) and “21 Grams” (2003). It earned him the best director award at the Cannes Film Festival. Executives at Paramount Vantage, which released the film, say that it evokes the major themes of the biblical story of Babel — namely “the mistaken identities, misunderstandings, and missed chances for communication that, though often unseen, drive our contemporary lives,” according to the studio’s production notes. As for the timing of the film’s release, “it was a coincidence,” a studio spokesperson said.

ADVOCATE>Update>Chad Allen's Not Sorry





Chad Allen's Not Sorry

By Beth Schwartzapfel
March 14, 2006

The evangelical Christian blogosphere ricocheted with outrage in mid January. The casting of out actor Chad Allen as real-life Christian missionary Nate Saint in the film End of the Spear was “like Madonna playing the virgin Mary,” fumed the Reverend Jason Janz on his blog, SharperIron.com. Condemning the devout Christian producers of the film, another blogger provocatively dismissed the idea of “firebomb[ing] these men’s houses.” Throughout the backlash Allen himself remained at peace with his participation in the film, which hit theaters January 20. “It’s a pretty amazing story of love and forgiveness,” he says. “I definitely knew I wanted to be a part of it as soon as I read the script.”

You’ve said that you wanted this film to bridge the divide between gay people and people of faith. Is that mission still feasible given the backlash from conservative Christians?
It’s not just my mission, it’s my accomplishment. We’ve done it. I’m surrounded by an enormous amount of letters and e-mails and phone calls [from] people publicly supporting me who are Christians, who are saying to me, “Look, we’re getting to witness firsthand the meanness of what’s gone on in the name of Jesus Christ for a long time now. And we’re shocked. And we’re sorry. And we love and respect you.” And that’s all I’m asking for. I’m not asking for us to agree on this at the end of the day. But we can respect each other.

In shooting the film, was it hard to work with people who thought you were a sinner?
I’ll be honest. I thought I was going to work with a bunch of right-wing conservative wackos. I think they, in turn, thought they were going to work with the godless bohemian kid. None of those preconceived notions were true. We had to throw everything out and get to know each other. Which is exactly the message I’m trying to get across.

You’re not a godless bohemian kid? Are you religious?
I’m a deeply spiritual person. Religion still makes me squeamish. I grew up a Catholic boy. I had what I considered to be a pretty profound relationship with God, even when I was little, and my relationship with the Catholic Church and my understanding of its teachings really screwed that up for me—a lot—and so I began a spiritual journey that’s taken me all over the map. I’ve studied Buddhism, Hindu philosophy, Native American spirituality—and it’s all coagulated; I’ve taken pieces of it to build my current spiritual understanding. My greatest hope is that when we die, we get to experience God and let go of all judgments and preconceived notions and ideas of separation. I think anything that comes with fear attached or judgment attached, it can’t be of God.

Has making this movie changed your approach to spirituality?
Working on this movie has provided me the invitation to go deeper than I ever have in my relationship with God. I got in touch with a huge amount of deep-rooted shame and guilt and even questioned my sexuality. And that’s the amazing thing about it. I actually allowed myself to go there. I could see that [director Jim Hanon and producer Bill Ewing] were loving people and this is what they believed is the most loving thing for me.

You actually considered the possibility that God didn’t want you to be gay?
Believe me, that was scary. I really came to that place. The amazing thing is, after a particular evening deep in prayer I woke up the next morning thinking about a church that I had been to one time. A friend of mine got married there years and years ago. I couldn’t even remember where it was. I knew nobody there. I just remembered [what town it was in]. So I drove in that direction. I figured if I was meant to find it, I’d find it. And I walked up to it—it happened to be Sunday—and it turned out mass was getting ready to start. I sat down in this pew next to this elderly man. And he said, “Hello. Today is a very special day. The bishop Gene Robinson is here today. We’re celebrating inclusion and diversity in the church.” And I just started crying. And since then, again and again it’s been affirmed for me, the perfectness, the wholeness, the goodness of who I am. That is, for me, the message of this movie. My only goal here is to just, in as many ways as possible, affirm our perfectness.