Iikka Vehkalahti writes: Dear Tue and others. I am delighted, that Louise and Mikael took the cat on the table (or how do you say in it real English?).

Anyway, now after one month out from the position of a commissioning editor (who very often has a quite weak position in his or her own organization) and when writing from  Finland, the former “heaven of documentaries” here are some few sentences. I have written during the last months so much about melancholy and the situation in Finland and in the world, that I don´t want to repeat what has already been written – and maybe the situation was very much worse some 20 years ago: There are more documentaries produced in the world than ever?

But what kind of future and possibilities do we have for that kind of films Louise, Mikael and Tue have in their minds?

Feature length documentaries. When aimed for the big screen they should also get the financing from the same sources as any film aimed for big screens. It means public funding ( Art Councils, Film Funds etc…) and cinema distribution in co-operation with tv-stations,  who will also in the future have interest in having well known, brand products for transmission. The budget for these projects is and will not be huge compared to the fiction films, but big compared to the so called normal docs. But their surviving strategy can not depend on the television.

TV-docs. Television is another platform than festival and cinema distribution. It has to be accepted and seriously considered what kind of docs are best for television (not at festivals or in cinemas). Documentaries were very strongly tied with the television distribution some 10-15 years ago. It has changed when festivals and cinema have become players in that field.  We need to go back to television and to make docs, which will conquer the television of today. Instead of using the television as a funding source for films that aim foremost to big screen or festivals.

Personally I would love to see the life and development of the challenging, demanding real documentary films – very often seen only at festivals. The question is; how to arrange the financing of those?  Rich patrons, public funding? Or different kind of production process: “returning to the origins”: man and  camera?  But in every case we need new steps in the area of the distribution.

So many net platforms have been created for the distribution of documentaries. I don´t know any that functions really well. Why?  For two years we have developed and tried different concepts and one of the solutions is to build a co-operation with broadcasters the same way as has been done with the co-production of individual documentaries.

Co-operation would make possible to charge the fee when downloading the films (what is difficult or impossible to the public broadcasters in most of the cases) even if the sum would be quite small (my guess is somewhere between 1, 99 -2, 99 euros). If and when by a real co-operation of different partners a global reach of the platform can be build, can also these docs reach a substantial amount of  audience.

Iikka Vehkalahti, filmmaker and for many years commissioning editor at YLE, Finland. Famous for his international orientation and pioneer work with for instance Steps for the Future”. Now visiting professor at School of Communication, Media and Theatre at the University in Tampere, Finland. Photo of Viktor Kossakovsky, director of “Belovs”, documentary film favourite of Vehkalahti.

Doug Aubrey writes: Hi Tue, here are some personal comments that I would like to share with you…

I’m glad to see that some of the more – shall we call them – mature protagonists are addressing the issue of the ‘State of the Docs’ across the generation gap at last.

However I have to say that what’s happened is also as a result of the old pitching forum system being hijacked to become a ‘Dragon’s Den’ or ‘Apprentice’ style reality TV show where it’s simply all about money, greed and exploitation – rather than a rigorous platform for a filmmaker’s creative, cultural and political issues to be tested. Indeed one Doc-maker I spoke with compared pitching at IDFA now to being like a performer in a pole dancing bar full of businessmen – only without the dignity!

Still perhaps the worse example of this, is what’s happening at the SIDF (Sheffield, ed.) with its speed pitching, its 1 minute trailer et al culture that favours celebrity filmmakers, shallow ideas and geek/nerd film-making; More to the point it – like many festivals – is rapidly ceasing to be the place where you see difficult, challenging and even experimental works. Instead you can witness 100’s of new film students/ emerging filmmakers (some with a lot of talent) sidling up to TV executives, who mostly are interested in hanging around bars – understandably, far from the maddening crowd – with their pals from the ‘travelling circus’, or hiding in the toilets. They have 12-50 strands to fill a year – with est 2000 films on offer – so somehow sympathise…

SIDF’s trade event calls itself the Meet market for a very ironic reason that’s probably lost in translation (and which the Americans will never understand anyway! – it being a Canadian invention and aw).

Another example of what’s happening, is the evident demise of EIFF (Edinburgh,

ed.)  this year from a through-bred film fest into a delegate/trades event with a few films attached. That the doc programme was curated by/ co-programmed with SIDF should say it all. Anyone ever heard of travelling ‘best of’ programmes?

I’m sorry if I may sound bitter and angry – but it’s because I am.

I have spent the best part of nearly 2 decades working on my current project ‘Minefield’, and instead of smoothing along in the fast lane, am now told instead of a simple: ‘I like/don’t like your film’, ‘it’s not for our marketing mix’, ‘never mind our season’, ‘your content is  not frontline enough for our edgy ‘Diversity’ strand’ etc etc, by privileged young TV execs with very little life – or filmmaking experience!

Sadly the Documentary scene has allowed itself to be hijacked (in the UK at least) by both an economic and cultural elite – who represent a privileged, orthodox and conservative gaze – rather than an auteur, angry or impassioned view on the world.

They make films that deal – mainly with eco issues – that subscribe to a mono-cultural format (the ‘monoform’ as Peter Watkins might say).

Dox are increasingly  both made and commissioned by an elite who – although some do have talent –  for the most part have no financial woes in these hard times, so can in many cases work for very little…. Some even go on to become commissioners after making very few films, in some cases they are “trained” on fast-track schemes to become TV Executives. Weird that, how they can’t understand why we aren’t all like them, but maybe a reason, I think, why many documentaries are now little better than social/war/celebrity porn.

The makers and commissioners have not empathy with and in some case hate their subjects (the worst recent example of this was BBC Scotland’s ‘The Scheme’).

For the most part TV Commissioning and many festivals  are now in the hands of brand managers not filmmakers or Doc lovers even.

Let’s reclaim the territory we’ve lost and find new spaces by all means necessary!

Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number  –

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you –

Ye are many – they are few

(Percy B Shelley)

Doug Aubrey is a filmmaker from Scotland with an impressive filmography, many times awarded for his work. About his “Minefield” project – http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/875948233/minefield

Jorge Yetano writes: I was reading the posts from Louise Rosen and Mikael Opstrup, and I must say, I have been reflecting on the subject myself for some time now, like most of us, just trying to guess which way things are going to develop, so I can’t help myself commenting. Many problems have been pointed out, the most decisive are: the drastic reduction of TV funding and the saturation of the market, yes, but I also sense other signs. This is more or less how I see it:  talent is now everywhere, where somebody can buy a cheap, tiny, high-performance camera. Cheap tiny high-performance cameras do not make good documentaries, but in talented hands, these cameras will become story-telling devices, and these devices are now in the hands of thousands. That is a fact, and it means there is no longer a centre or a direction that stories from all over the world will take. They just apperar, it is the urge to tell the story going on around you, if you live in a country with poverty, armed conflict or other kinds of trouble, including everyday life. People are telling their own stories, you can see it on the internet: there is no need anymore to go to, say, Venezuela for a documentary if there are cameras in talented hands telling the story in Venezuela. If you want stories you just need the right venues to find them (Storydoc (www.storydoc.gr) was an example). So all of this gives me a feeling (only a feeling) that we are heading towards an “ecology” of documentary. Cameras in talented hands will tell the stories that are around them: local or very local issues, low budgets and deep knowledge of the reality to be filmed (specialization), will be the normal conditions. These stories, if well made, will have a universal sense. Surely talent and storytelling will remain the keys to successful films but the art will become somewhat more like a handicraft if you wish. It actually does sound a little like going back to the origins, but hopefully there will always be a place for bigger documentary productions.

Jorge Yetano is an independent film-maker and producer, based in Zaragoza, Spain, who is currently working, along with his brother Miguel, on the feature-length documentary ON THE SHORE, a visual essay on the origin of summer holidays on the spanish mediterranean coast and it’s consequences in present time. Photo from the production.

Louise Rosen writes:

Dear Tue and Mikael

It was a pleasure working with you again at Storydoc this year. Wonderful that we had a really diverse representation from all over the southern Mediterranean and could spend a day on the Arab Spring with filmmakers from that region. We are living in exciting and yet strange times.

So, speaking of strange times, I wonder when we among the oldtimers are going to start to speak more publicly about the dire state of the indie feature doc world? We keep training and workshopping emerging filmmakers but to what end? I looked back at my notes from my talk last year in Corfu (Storydoc training session, summer 2010) and it brings me to tears. Back then I wrote that in the face of media consolidation and diminishing resources for traditional journalism, the world urgently needs the vision and insight provided by independently produced single docs. All the more true today. But the conditions today are 3 or 4 times worse than they were a year ago.

What can we do? What is in the best interest of the filmmakers? Is this dreadful climate for feature docs the “new normal”? How do we deal with a sector of the television business that has become almost a monopoly – dominated by a few commissioning editors who wield enormous power and influence? What about the growth of film festivals that attract sponsors and increasing audiences but show films that can’t pay for themselves and will vanish into obscurity before they can reach significant numbers of viewers? The world of online, digital distribution is not paying yet. Does this mean that any project requiring more than a filmmaker with a camera, will be lost? No more alternative forms of history or art or science?

I’m hoping that there will be discussions of these important issues sometime soon. Filmmakers in some territories are hitting a “wall” in terms of funding and outlets and this will be the case everywhere before we know it.

I welcome your thoughts on this.

Photo: A film from the catalogue of Louise Rosen.

Mikael Opstrup writes:

Dear Louise

Thanks for your raising the issue about independent, feature docs.

It’s of course a key issue, as you point out. I see it like this: 15 years ago the establishing of a ‘preproduction TV-market’ with all the pitching forums etc. was THE right thing, it brought together the filmmakers and it brought together the filmmakers and the financiers at a time where TV was a major financing factor. In some of the big western European countries like Germany and France and in the Scandinavian countries there was and is a massive national public funding – but it doesn’t change the overall picture in Europe in general.

Now this has changed radically, the TV money has gone down dramatically and there is absolutely a need for a change.

The big question is what today’s equivalent in terms of financing is. I have a clear feeling that we are in a limbo, the old financing has diminished and no new one has come instead. Cross Media, VOD and other online platforms, crowd funding etc. none of it fills the gap and I’m not sure they will or at least I’m not sure which one will?

So the only source that I see apart from these ones is the public funding, which is of course more cultural and national orientated and less market orientated. There is no doubt that public funding and independent doc has a beautiful history together  – in Europe, not talking about the US – but is it realistic? I’m not sure – and I’m not only thinking of the current financial crisis but also beyond this.

Of course – speaking about strategies and future possibilities – one also has to take into consideration what impact the changing formats have on the financing possibilities. Will we see an explosion in shorter formats for web, mobiles etc? Will the digitalization of cinemas open up this location that has almost only been a temple for fiction and alongside screening sports events, operas etc be a possible financial possibility for docs?

Photo: Steam of Life, Finland, 2010, 82 mins. – chosen by Mikael Opstrup.