Slamdance Forum

Alumni Interview: Cynthia Lester

Peter Baxter — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:56:24 GMT

Question Time with Peter Baxter

Cynthia Lester’s My Mother’s Garden is a feature documentary about her mother and a hoarding disorder of epic proportions. As Mom’s swag temptation unfolds in the halls of Slamdance HQ, Cynthia discusses her feature directorial debut.

Tell me more about your mom.

Sure. My mother has a compulsive collective hoarding disorder. In the film she basically collects so much garbage in her house that she no longer can get in and lives homeless in her garden, hence the title. But she’s not just a hoarder. She has an amazing philosophy toward life and a strong connection with nature, and she wants to fill her life with things that are going to amount to something.

You show a great love for your mom in the doc yet decided to help her within a filmmaking process that also caused great pain. Why did you do this?

When I was a teenager I clung to filmmaking as a way to process things that were overwhelming me in my life, and they usually focused on my mom and my family. The filmmaking here allowed me to get to know my mother on a deeper level and better understand her. When you’re finding it hard to deal with a family member, often it’s easier to walk away. But the camera allowed me to be more patient with her and follow her around. I was able to go deeper into her life and observe a community of homeless friends I didn’t know about, that she would hang out with and entertain in her garden.

The big clean-up is a very dramatic part of your doc.

We weren’t thinking that it would be; I made three back and forth trips from New York to Los Angeles to clean a little bit, but we didn’t make a dent. I said to my mom: why doesn’t she come back to my home in New York around her birthday and give the boys a chance to better clean the house? So she did and it was her decision. Hoarding specialists would have said don’t do what we did to our mom’s house and I hope my action exemplifies why you should not try this at home. It was not an ideal situation and the wrong way to go. If we had more money and time we could have gone through a more therapeutic process but we had to compromise mom’s ideals, deal with my brothers and what was going on in my life.

I just didn’t want to live with the guilt of letting my mom die in her house like that. People might say I violated her but the possibility of her being trapped inside was real.

Is your mom happier now?

Yes, she is and healthier.

Do you think American consumerism contributed toward your mom’s disorder?

Yes, and it’s unfair because American corporations are leeching off these type of people. I had to do something to change that, but I didn’t want to make a preachy film about consumerism. I wanted to give my mom a voice. There are not many given to women in the lower economical bracket and I hope others can get a lot of strength out of this family. We are not exactly a “Leave It To Beaver” family.

Do you want to continue filmmaking?

I’m in the middle because it took a lot of out me. It was crazy for me to struggle making the film while working full-time in a crisis center for abused women. Once I recharge my creative juices and can raise money for a project maybe I’ll go back and do it again but first I have other goals: to go back to school for a social studies degree. So, if I come back to film, this education might give me a better insight and access for another project. I do have a passion for filmmaking… we will have to see.

Onward and upward Cynthia!

Alumni Interview: Russo Brothers

Peter Baxter — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:09:24 GMT

Question Time with Peter Baxter

In 1997 Joe and Anthony Russo premiered their first feature Pieces at Slamdance. The dadaesque Cleveland story Pieces won no award and no distribution, but after seeing the film in Park City Steven Soderbergh was about to change Brothers’ Russo career. Slamdance President Peter Baxter asks what happened and how they reached a Hollywood summit on their own terms.

Photo Credit premiere.fr

How did Steven Soderbergh get involved with your filmmaking?

Anthony: Steven was at Slamdance with his feature Schizopolis and saw our film. About three weeks after Slamdance he called us and said he wanted to make our next film. It was a total shoestring save and after three years of developing different stories with us he did it… we made our next film (Welcome To Collinwood). I remember when he won his Oscar we realized we could now make our movie.

How has independent film changed in the last 10 years?

Joe: At the start there was a kind of in-the-moment thing where you got filmmakers coming out of nowhere; it started with Ed Burns and Robert Rodriguez. You could still make a film that no one had ever heard of for $30K and get some recognition. It was like a fad, a soup de jour where you can pluck people (pre-reality TV) from obscurity and turn them into film director stars. In this 10-year span, corporations got involved with indie film and took the sort of juice and magic of indie movies and polished them up a bit, and now we have more premeditated art house fare. The mission now is not to be discovered. It’s Juno. It’s making $100 million, Little Miss Sunshine - films that will cross over in a commercial way, and are cast with actors who can help that crossover. Currently, there’s little room for a kid from Ohio and a camera and his buddies to make it.

Anthony: Often times when indie films are made, they are not made for the market place. The purpose of these films is more personal, driven by motives that go beyond economics. Those movies are still available, but we’re at a point in time right now they can’t reach mainstream audiences like they did back in the 90’s, 80's, 70’s and 60’s when foreign film was popular... when the obscure was valued.

Can there be another coming for these personal, obscure indie films?

Joe: Yes, but not on a national scale. Now there are different avenues. Because there are so many outlets for these films its difficult for people to find that outlet. And now specialized audiences are further segregated with new technologies. The Four Eyed Monsters filmmakers are a good example of how this segregation works. They expended a tremendous amount of effort to find online audiences, but outside of it they are not well known. It’s not the same as the attention that came out of the theaters in the 90’s. An auteur discovered in the 90’s was put on a platform, that’s not possible now.

Anthony: Amateur works on YouTube also satisfies indies, but they do not translate to feature narratives. I think the landscape will be very different in 5-10 years as technology extends the ability to play feature films online by those in the end who control it.

What are the opportunities for indie filmmakers today?

Joe: The hard truth is you can remain independent of the system, making your own works, buy your camera and do all the heavy lifting yourself or otherwise you can matriculate into the system. Eight major companies control that system. Back in the day, you had millionaires controlling studio filmmaking making personal decisions that created auteurs. Now conglomerates control and have the power to brand the director and make them a commodity. For example, look at Chris Nolan. Chris is known for Batman, it makes him live and exist in the market place as a powerful commodity and enables him to make more personal projects. Steven (Soderbergh) is an example of this type of filmmaker. Every three years he goes back and fills up the gas tank, functioning between indie and commercial fare.

Anthony: But you still have examples of filmmaker who carry on in the indie way. Darren Aronofsky is one example.

Joe: But he’s still a commodity.

Anthony: Every road is different. If you want to exist as a filmmaker you have to work out your commercial viability. You may have to fluctuate between commercial and indie film. But you may hit a sweet spot like the Cohen Brothers where their work crosses over in both worlds. That’s what it boils down to: how much do you care in reaching a larger audience?

How much did you after Pieces?

Joe: It had a lot to do with the debt phase of our life and not wanting to fall further into debt. After Pieces, it wasn’t easy waking up each morning next to your wife and saying life will change and then going to work at Hamburger Hamlet.

Anthony: There were many times we talked each other off the ledge. We carried each other. A defining moment came for us when Soderbergh told us “I can’t get money to make my movies anymore so I have to make a commercial film.” This made a lot of sense to us and was influential in how we have structured ourselves.

Joe: We came in at the tail end of indie filmmaker making it out of nowhere phase and we realized it’s a media game not just a feature game. And we could use our success to feed either format. We managed to break open the TV door with "Arrested Development" after Welcome to Collinwood. You have to make a living. I have four kids and you have to put food on the table each day. We’re trying to build up a financial foundation and also make more interesting fare with experimental projects and producing young filmmakers work.

Joe: We see ourselves at the beginning of the road now, where we want to be. It's unexpected how we got here. Now we are in the position of financing more interesting fare.

What is the most important filmmaking lesson you have learned?

Anthony: Follow your gut – it helps get you out of bed in the morning.

Joe: Set goals for yourself. Look forward and walk toward the light on top of the mountain.

Onward and upward Joe and Anthony!

Joe and Anthony Russo are currently directing the TV show Carpoolers on ABC.

Alumni Interview: Marina Zenovich

Drea Clark — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:53:39 GMT

Question Time with Peter Baxter

At Slamdance 1998, Marina Zenovich premiered her documentary about US indie filmmaking called Independent's Day. Since then, she's gone Euro on us, following up her first feature with docs Estonia Dreams of Eurovision!, Who is Bernard Tapie? and this year's Sundance entry Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired.

Although Marina's thing for seductive and flawed Francophiles has been checked by marriage to an English TV writer, P.G. Morgan, she remains committed to documentaries. In between stints in the edit room, Marina cuts to the chase with a festival Q + A ...

Since Independent’s Day how has independent filmmaking changed?

It seems like its become hip. But the challenges are the same as ever.

How have you changed as a filmmaker?

I'm not that different. I go between passion and work projects and I've been lucky enough to find a balance. I never take no for an answer. I think it's a very American trait and it's worked well for me in Europe. Having a child has put things into perspective. Ten years ago, I had every weekend to figure out how my career was going to work. Now, there’s no time and decisions are made quickly and instinctively. I became aware of this the day before we started shooting Polanski when I found out I was pregnant. I had no idea how I would feel but we continued ahead and there was no problem.

In scandal or film Roman Polanski has long fascinated the media. How did your interest turn into a documentary about him?

After my Bernard Tapie film, I had a hard time finding my next project. I toyed with several things until I come up with the Polanski idea. I read an article in the Los Angeles Times in January 2003 which examined whether Polanski would come back to LA if he was nominated for an Oscar for The Pianist. And then I saw the girl and her lawyer on 'Larry King Live'. He said that the day Roman Polanski fled was a sad day for the American judicial system. That's when I realised something wasn't quite right about Polanski's court case; the whole thing appeared weird. And here began the beautiful process of making the film.

5 years in the making... how did the editing collaboration actually work?

My first choice for editor was Joe Bini, but he was not available. After many attempts with different editors, he joined us and it was the perfect collaboration. My instincts had been right -- he was the perfect fit for the job. Joe, my husband P.G. Morgan, and myself wrote the text in the film.

I’ve heard Polanski was tough to complete. How did you get through?

The story elements were very complicated. Polanski's attorney Douglas Dalton or Los Angeles District Attorney Roger Gunson had to be convinced to talk to me.

Like Polanski's case, the production itself became Kafkaesque. Laying out the facts and telling a story that took place between 1978 -2003 took a lot of time. Through it all, my producers Jeffrey Levy-Hinte and Lila Yacoub made it happen.

Given how competitive the documentary is today, how important is it to have naturally built-in publicity and marketing devices in order to exist as a filmmaker?

I only go after things that interest me. I guess flawed and seductive Frenchmen are one of them! I'm actually challenged and excited to complete a trilogy and follow with French President Nicholas Sarkozy next. Everyone finds his or her filmmaking niche. I just did whatever it took to make the Polanski film happen and wasn't scared about its outcome.

What is the most important lesson you have learned about filmmaking?

Have the right editor.

Onward and upward Marina!

Sell. Or Buy. Or just point.

Drea Clark — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:14:44 GMT

Our community section here is a starting point for the Slamdance community to start providing their words, insights and needs with each other.

If you have an old Bolex you want to sell, this is the place to post it.

If you are planning a shoot in Oregon and are hoping for leads on an empty water park, this is the place to ask it.

If you had a production designer back out last minute and want some referrals for a new one that's maybe even easier to get along with than the last, this is the place to beg.

So... there you go. Take it away!