FULL FRAME FILM FESTIVAL |
By Ryan Koo

Now in its 13th year, the documentary-only Full Frame Film Festival (April 8-11) takes place in my hometown of Durham, North Carolina. The city of Durham is historically a tobacco town, moving slowly but steadily towards an uncertain future: while its tobacco warehouses are being converted to swank lofts, downtown office space is readily available with a seemingly high vacancy rate. The festival is very much a cultural cornerstone for the city, and as a result Full Frame means a lot to Durham.
As of late, however, Durham also means a lot to Full Frame: while in previous years the festival’s most visible sponsors were non-locals like the New York Times, HBO, and A&E (from which the festival still enjoys some support), the main sponsors today are local institutions like Duke University and the City of Durham itself. As a result, the festival has slimmed down from its 2005 incarnation, when Martin Scorcese came to town and the festival packed twenty more films into venues spread around downtown. Despite less sponsors, less films, and less screening venues, however, 2010 ticket sales were reportedly just as brisk, and most of the films I attended played to packed houses.
Having all 100 of the festival’s selections within walking distance makes it a more intimate affair, one where you’re likely to spot festival linchpins D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus eating lunch, watching movies, and standing in line with the rest of the patrons. The main screening venue, the Carolina Theater — the last of Durham’s original theaters, built in 1926 — also fronts a sizable courtyard perfect for milling about, provided the weather is nice (which it was this year), and as such Durham’s festival feels much more centralized and relaxed than many. And of course there is the much-vaunted southern setting and hospitality, which make Full Frame an important festival not just because it’s documentary-only, but also because it takes place in a city that, not unlike independent film, is figuring out its future on the fly.
Documentaries have what PBS’s Yance Ford referred to on a funding panel as a “demographic problem,” which is to say that documentaries typically play to an older, whiter audience than other genres of film. The question for a southern-situated doc fest, then, is whether it plays to this same limited audience, or whether it can find a way to reach out into the local populace (Durham is made up equally of blacks and whites) to become less of an exclusive event for out-of-towners. Sundance this is not; I heard mentioned at one point that 50% of the Full Frame audience comes from within the Carolinas. Perhaps with demographic issues in mind, this year the festival introduced for the first time free public screenings; however, pass holders had very little incentive to attend a free screening when as many as six other films were playing at the same time. Suffice to say I didn’t catch any of the free shows, which is probably true of most out-of-towners (I now live in New York); the free screenings will hopefully be a larger part of the festival going forward. Also of note is the sizable Fellows program, which ensures there are an extra hundred young people running around, which helps integrate regional college students and does much to lower the average age of the attendees. Full Frame is now an unmitigated success from an organizational and programming standpoint, but with its leaner foundation and unique positioning it has an opportunity to do for theatrically-screened documentaries what many insular festivals cannot.

Kings of Pastry
Speaking about the festival’s 1998 founding, Pennebaker recounted getting involved on the condition Full Frame show exclusively documentaries — a demand he described as being thought of as “absurd” and “a bad idea” at the time. Thirteen years later, he pauses and asks rhetorically, “How many documentaries were submitted this year? Twelve hundred? It’s not a bad idea.” Fittingly, then, the opening night selection was Pennebaker and Hegedus’s latest doc Kings of Pastry, which follows Chicago-based chef Jacquy Pfeiffer and his team to the Meilleurs Ouvriers de France, a sort of dessert Olympics. Pennebaker and Hegedus could easily turn the doc into a fawning example of food porn, but instead they employ a MiniDV aesthetic flattering to neither person nor pastry; the result is fitting, given the Direct Cinema tradition of observing drama instead of manufacturing it. Because of its lack of flashy cuts, voiceovers, and advertising breaks, Kings of Pastry manages to refresh the same subject matter seen on so many reality TV food shows. The doc also manages to address universal themes of craft, wherein the culinary creations are a stand-in for any artistic endeavor; you feel it in your gut when a cook makes a misstep and their ornate construction shatters to pieces on the kitchen floor. I care very little about luxurious foodstuffs, but there is one such moment in Kings of Pastry that’s nothing short of heartbreaking, and that is the mark of a good documentary: it made me care deeply for a subject about which I wouldn’t otherwise think twice.
While last year’s festival featured a thematic program focused on sports, Full Frame 2010 brought the reality of the current economic crisis to the fore with a thematic program focused on “Films on Work & Labor.” Despite the dreary thematic subject, however, only one doc I saw actually felt like a labor to watch — The Player, a fascinating look inside the minds of Dutch gamblers and swindlers, except for the “fascinating” part. And while the official thematic program may have been focused on labor, a host of documentaries in competition (totaling 57 films, with 29 world or U.S. premieres) dealt poignantly with the age-old question of mortality.
The obvious headliner to this theme was And Everything is Going Fine, Steven Soderbergh’s eulogy for the late monologist Spalding Gray (Soderbergh’s third film featuring Gray). In an era of Hollywood biopics, Soderbergh has made a different kind of career retrospective: the film offers no interviews with friends, no anecdotes from surviving family members, and no posthumous praise from fans: it’s Gray’s autobiography, told entirely in his own words. AEIGF manages to balances the funny with the morose, offering a fitting coda to Gray’s life — one that also happens to be a great introduction for Gray neophytes. At the conclusion of the well-received screening, editor Susan Littenberg observed of the Carolina audience, “New York audiences are much more reserved; they don’t laugh as much.”
Another film that managed to elicit widespread laughter while dealing with the same topic of mortality was The Invention of Dr. Nakamats, a profile of octogenarian Japanese inventor Yoshiro Nakamatsu. The doctor’s quirky self-aggrandizement is treated humorously by both filmmaker and subject, resulting in a comedic profile that also manages to avoid being Orientalizing. Dr. Nakamats believes he will live to the age of 144 using self-developed techniques, one of which includes photographing and cataloging every meal he eats (a feat he’s managed for 34 years), and through him the film brings a refreshing levity to the topic of our inevitable demise.
The second part of a double feature with Dr. NakaMats, Swedish doc Life Extended posits, “we don’t have an understanding of how to cope with death — only how to put it out of our minds.” The film includes interviews with several leading scientists and theorists, among them singularity theorist Ray Kurzweil, but it also focuses on how we pace our lives, interviewing a practitioner of a calorie-restriction diet one moment and a world-class sprinter the next. Perhaps out of my own interest in self-preservation, I found the film fascinating, even if some of the metaphorical visuals — sustained slow-motion shots of motion and decay — seemed to wear on fellow audience members.

Restrepo
While Life Extended portrays death as Father Time, Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington‘s Sundance-winning Restrepo characterizes the other side of the equation: death as a visitor who might call at any time, at the behest of a very real enemy. Restrepo follows U.S. soldiers deployed in Afghanistan’s Korengal valley, and reveals unflinchingly that the characters and vernacular of the conflict in the Middle East aren’t any different from what you might witness in a local paintball fight — except in this battle, the combatants are in way over their heads, with a lack of clear goals and deadly consequences on both sides. When one of the squad members is harrowingly killed in action, the U.S. Captain vows that the squad will “find the motherfuckers that did this and make them pay.” Translate that to Pashto and you can bet the exact same speech is being made on the other side.
Crossing the border to Iran, The Poot is a narration and dialogue-free look at the elaborate process of handcrafting a Persian rug. With a Zen-like focus on craft, the film rarely allows glimpses of faces, instead staying locked on the labor itself. In an era of fast-cut reality TV and beta-launched web sites, The Poot focuses on timeless craft and permanence, and as such should really be seen in a theater or, at the very least, as far as possible from the intrusion of instant messages.
The Poot won the jury award for Best Short, and in my mind the doc was one of the more understandable selections of the festival. I saw several of the winners after the awards had been announced, and perhaps my expectations were raised because of this, but I nevertheless found some of my main detractions were in fact aimed at the award winners.
John-Keith Wasson’s Surviving Hitler: A Love Story (Inspiration Award) is the story of Jutta, a 5’10” blonde-haired, blue-eyed picture of Hitler’s ideal Aryan female. The only problem is, Jutta is half-Jewish, and her boyfriend is not; as such the film chronicles a couple torn asunder by Hitler’s WWII. Jutta’s account is almost too good: on one hand because she’s 90 and makes for a more lively and coherent interview than many people 20 years her junior, but on the other because it sometimes sounds like she’s reading from a script at Wasson’s behest. Regardless, the film offers a revealing and often touching first-person account of some of the events surrounding Operation Valkyrie (sans Tom Cruise this time), and is ultimately uplifting despite my nitpicks.
Katrine Philip’s Book of Miri (President’s Award) follows Korean-born, Sweden-residing librarian Miri, who takes pictures of herself in all manner of outfits in order to post them to her blog and interact with commenters. Book of Miri operates under the assumption that the viewer will find something interesting about Miri’s issues; I didn’t.
Peter Bull’s Dirty Business: “Clean Coal” and the Battle for Our Energy Future (Honorable Mention) is at its most effective when highlighting the disastrous effects of coal-mining techniques such as mountaintop removal, and the film makes it abundantly clear that no matter what emissions come out of the smoke stacks, there is no such thing as “clean coal.” But the film suffers from a periodic loss of the main narrative thread, which I felt diminished its otherwise strong message.
One honor I didn’t have any issues with was the selection of Summer Pasture (Honorable Mention), a gorgeous doc filmed in the Szechuan province of China (or Tibet, depending on who you ask). Summer Pasture follows a Tibetan couple as they raise an infant daughter under harsh nomadic living conditions. The film effectively explores the conflict of rural self-subsistent living versus urban wage labor, and it captures the dramatic valleys of the Kham region in gorgeous widescreen frames, giving the film the flavor of a Tibetan Western.

Last Train Home
Exploring similar urban-versus-rural themes in China was Lixin Fan’s Last Train Home, which documents one Chinese family’s struggle with working far from home. One of the most valuable aspects of the film is the simple fact that it gives a human face to sweatshop laborers: while it’s one thing to know facts and statistics, to see two generations of a family sewing their lives away is heartbreaking. Unfortunately Fan seems to have too much material to work with, as the doc suffers from a sort of shapelessness, and some family scenes seem almost staged, with frequent tripod shots of expository dialogue. However, this style makes the film an unexpected antidote to MTV’s recent staged-doc style (The Hills, The City), making Last Train Home into a sort of The Real Sweat Shop.
Many of these films screened in the Carolina Theater’s main venue, Fletcher Hall, which at a thousand seats is one of Full Frame’s greatest assets. The screen gives documentaries a grand center stage they rarely receive elsewhere, complete with balcony seating and gorgeous HD projection. For Robert Patton-Spruill’s film Do it Again — about Boston Globe reporter Geoff Edgers’ attempt to reunite The Kinks — Full Frame not only sold out the theater, they also concluded the show by retracting the screen for Kinks cover band The Kinksmen to play a rousing if slapdash set.
In Do it Again, Edgers is not only attempting to reunite the Kinks, he also tries to convince every musician he interviews along the way (up to and including Sting) to perform a Kinks song with him. Patton-Spruill wisely pays Edgers’ own motivations close attention, as Edgers can be seen as a rock version of Humbert Humbert: Edgers’ motivations are Lolita-esque, in the sense that a pursuit interrupted during one’s formative years can leave a permanent trail of longing. For Edgers, his moment of coitus interruptus (rockus interruptus?) occurred as his high school band was about to perform on graduation day: a fire alarm was pulled and his climactic concert cancelled. By trying to unite The Kinks, Edgers is also trying to reclaim his childhood dream of being a rock star, and one perhaps-inevitable message of the film is: you can’t go back, and you can’t “Do it Again.”
The Full Frame Audience award went to Lucy Walker’s Waste Land (pictured above), which follows Brazilian-born, Brooklyn-residing artist Vik Muniz as he returns to his motherland to call attention to Rio’s recycling problems. Rio lacks a recycling plant or any sort of collection strategy, instead employing the Soylent Green recycling plan: it’s people. People, that is, who clamber over mountains of garbage at a massive landfill, picking out cans and bottles by hand and selling them in bulk to collectors, who in turn haul it off and presumably actually recycle the stuff. The film employs a stunning mix of 35mm film and hi-def video, and Muniz is a compelling central character, but I found the film to be at its best when it leaves him in the background and follows the compelling lives of the garbage pickers. Audiences don’t seem to share my protestations — the film has collected audience awards at Sundance and Berlin as well — but I found the doc to be confused about what it wants to be: a profile of Brazilian artist Vik Muniz, or a film focused on the garbage pickers of Rio and the larger issue of recycling? To me, the garbage is the art, which is not to say the art is garbage (though Vik does, in fact, make his portraits out of garbage).
In Waste Land, Muniz notes early on, “the realm of the fine arts is a very exclusive and very restrictive place to be.” This sentiment was shared by the late architect Louis Sullivan, profiled in the doc Louis Sullivan: The Struggle for American Architecture. An overlooked Chicagoan credited as inventing the skyscraper and mentoring Frank Lloyd Wright, Sullivan’s promising early career stalled when his desire to create a specifically American style of architecture proved to be unpopular compared to the classicism and European revivalist designs of his peers. First-time director Mark Richard Smith employs dollies and cranes to impressive effect, giving the structures the visual respect they deserve, but the film’s fawning voiceover, combined with a sumptuous but overwrought score, makes the piece as a whole too adulatory to fully engage with.
Sullivan attempted the impossible with his Grand Opera House, setting out to build “an opera house for the working man.” In a way, his challenge was the same as Full Frame’s: in the words of one of the film’s interviewees, Sullivan’s desire was to create a venue that’s “not just a place for people with money to enjoy high culture.” Looking over the sun-drenched courtyard of a former tobacco town — now filled with a filmgoing Carolinian audience — one gets the sense that in a world of red-carpeted film festivals, Full Frame is fighting the same fight.
–
Ryan Koo was selected as one of Filmmaker’s 25 New Faces for his Webby Award-winning series The West Side. He blogs everyday at nofilmschool.com and can be found on Twitter at @ryanbkoo.
Categories Festival Coverage | Tags: And Everything is Going Fine, D.A. Pennebaker, Full Frame Film Festival, Kings of Pastry, Life Extended, Restrepo, Steven Soderbergh, The Player, Waste Land
You can follow any follow up comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Leave a Comment
By submitting a comment here you grant The Filmmaker Magazine Blog a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.


8 Comments
Hi Ryan,
A slight but important correction to my statement quoted above. I said on my funding panel that PBS has a demographic problem, with audiences skewing older and whiter than other networks. These stats are well documented.
I did not say or mean to imply that documentaries in general have a demographic problem. I commented recently on the POV blog that Full Frame is perhaps the most racially diverse festival on the circuit, and I stand by that assessment. The question of how to achieve diverse festival audiences is complex. Location matters, ticket and pass prices matter, marketing matters and frankly, the line-up matters.
Full Frame has an institutional approach to diversity that other festivals could learn from. Finally, 2010 was not the first time free screenings were offered there. Food, Inc screened for free last year and I’m sure someone at FF can detail when free screenings began.
Thanks,
Yance Ford
Series Producer
American Documentary | POV
Thanks for the corrections, Yance! I suppose it’s not surprising that my notes from Saturday’s 10AM panel are fallible…
Turns out this was the first year free outdoor screenings were on the festival docket.
I agree that Full Frame is much more diverse than many festivals, and I hope that point came across in the article. Best,
Ryan
From a journalists perspective, there are serious problems with Full Frame, including getting tickets in a reasonable amount of time short of planning days ahead of screenings. From this journalists viewpoint, the greatest problem was the festival’s insistence that journalists not be allowed into filmmakers’ social events. A clear no-brainer — ALL filmmakers at ALL festivals want to have discussions with journalists about their films, including at a reception or party — yet, Full Frame, nearly alone on the film festival circuit, bars journalists from these events. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of festival media-filmmaker relations or possibly even a bias against journalits.
Still, this is a well written and interesting article. You obviously put a good amount of work into writing it. Thanks.
I have a question: How many people read online articles that are more 2,700 online? Wouldn’t it have been better to break this piece up into three parts? The ideal length for serious articles online is from 800 to 1,200 words, maybe the outer limit is 1,500. When reading off a monitor we supposedly read 30 percent slower and our eyes tire maybe 3 times faster than when reading off print. I’m just wondering how many people would read your entire article. I didn’t.
Finally, some festival honchos — including the one at Full Frame — are all excited about the potential of social games and how this can impact docs in a positive way by expanding and diversifying the audience, while at the same time stimulating the computer crowd into social action. I would like to read more about this issue.
Again, thanks for your fine article.
Hey Stuart, thanks for the comment. Article length in both web and print continues to be a conundrum. I too prefer to read long in print and shorter on the web… but space is at a premium in the book whereas its infinite online. Most people discover articles through search, so the more that is in them, the higher chance they’ll be read. Maybe I’m a bad online editor, but I tend to let people run long online since the ultimate goal is to cover as many films as possible.
Thanks, Scott. You are a dare good editor, with a critical publication in a field that more and more needs a dynamic, no-BSing forum. As for what I wrote, there are obviously many ways to utilize the Internet for outreach and content and my thoughts are just that, my thoughts. Agree the infinity of online is a great asset, If long articles are used, I prefer to have divisions and/or bullets and/or series so my fatigued mind can wrap itself around the content. On the other hand, others may have minds that grasp better. I’m not always the brightest lightest light bulb around.
Hope you’re enjoying Tribeca. Saw Sons of Perdition yesterday, really liked, going to its roundtable today.
Stewart — thanks for the comments. Interesting take on journalists and the festival’s social events; I actually managed to attend the social gatherings by befriending filmmakers and getting in as part of their entourage, but it did feel strange to be “sneaking” in with a press pass.
As for the length of the article — I think breaking up long articles into parts is certainly one solution. Another way to mitigate the lack of required brevity with web writing, I think, is to take better advantage of the web medium. If I write more festival coverage in this same vein, I think it would be great to do the following:
1) Make sure all the films listed are linked to their respective web sites so readers can discover more. Ideally there would be something better, as in a button to, say, add to a Netflix queue or some method of keeping tracking of films that you are interested in (but can’t yet see). Even better would be a way of being notified when those films are playing in your area or available on DVD/online.
2) Embed the trailers from each film in the post so readers get a flavor of the film; it’s less engaging to read someone’s thoughts on a film that you know nothing about.
I’m sure there are plenty of other ways to make this long chunk of text into more of an engaging read, but those two ideas were the ones I had while writing this.
Ryan,
Just saw you responded several weeks ago — thanks.
It sort of like writers making the transition from radio to television, it takes some time. I would in both, which means I probably can’t write decently in either.
I would have to grade Full Frame as the most hostile film fest for journalists. It was nearly as bad as being embedded with the Marines in Afghanistan. Well, that might be a little strong.
I agree with your two points, linking to film websites (which I don’t always do, but should) and embed the trailers. Your other ideas I agree would also be nice and in time they should be simple to accomplish.
I have a suggestion, which I am doing more and more. Shoot a video interview, from 5 but not more than 10 minutes, of the director or directors. Some are of course better than others, the Duplass Brothers being one that I really liked. I have the filmmaker give a short description of their film and then ask them several questions. Presto!
When with a written review, the combination can work well. My next fest, it appears, will be LAFF, where I will continue with the video reports.
Again, thanks for your reply.
Best,
Stewart
Trackbacks