 |
| From The Fledgling Fund |
Fledgling Goes To Harvard
We had an opportunity last week to participate in the inaugural Gleitsman Social Change Film Forum sponsored by the Center for Public Leadership at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University that examined film as a vehicle for social activism.
A number of panelists discussed this topic through the lens of two films, both of which premiered at Sundance this year: Countdown to Zero, to be released in July, that examines the risk of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and accidental nuclear catastrophe, and A Small Act, that describes how an anonymous gift to educate one child in Kenya created a ripple effect with a widening circle of impact.
The discussions, robust and spirited, made me think about the films we support, always with the goal of achieving ever widening circles of impact and more specifically on the choice of films and the ever present question: what makes a good film? I was also intrigued by Ron Kramer's brief comments on his research concerning the psychology of trust, distrust and creativity and will follow up soon with a discussion of this work, as well as recent work on neuro-scientific understanding suggesting that the brain is hard-wired for empathy and stimulation by media.
For now, let's stay with the first question...what makes a good film? There are probably twenty variables that are part of this "soup"; Caroline Libresco, Senior Programmer at Sundance, was succinct and articulate when she listed some key ones: great characters, each of whose lives has an arc, the layering of multiple stories, beautiful cinematography and the ability to make audiences cry and laugh. In short, a great film entertains. Cara Mertes from Sundance once said to me that a key question to ask when we review a film is "why would people go and see this film?" It's a simple question, but a useful filter for us as we choose films. Why indeed? And then if we overlay an $11 price tag on the decision...
Some great films teach us something we didn't know before, but with some exception, to whit, Inconvenient Truth. That film was released at a pivotal moment and teaches far more than it entertains - too much teaching doth not a great movie make. It seems as if we want to be taught, but not at the expense of being entertained. Yet this concept of "entertainment" is an elusive one. Twilight Saga viewers clearly define it differently from the way I would define it. As do horror film aficionados. So this "entertainment" idea perhaps breaks along age lines and perhaps gender lines. Humor seems to be key; it may in fact mitigate some of the education morsels, making them easier to swallow and digest. We also want a great film to mirror at least our own society if not another. A Small Act seems to do all of this, it teaches something we didn't know - just how hard it is to succeed in the Kenyan educational system without paying school fees and just how easy this problem can be rectified, at least for some of the students, by the presence of small and consistent outside donations. The film entertains and compels; we become intensely interested in the lives of Hilde Back and Chris Mburu. What led her, a woman with a rich history and limited means, to provide these gifts, albeit small but pivotal, to a stranger? And what led Mburu to persevere in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, and then to give back? There is an arc, a number of story arcs in fact, as well as clear beginnings and endings.
Countdown to Zero certainly educates. We are appalled at the idea that the centrifuge-based technology required to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU) is fifty years old, can be purchased and used with remarkable ease, and equally appalled at how little HEU is necessary to wreak inestimable havoc on a major city, perhaps our own. Yet, I found myself almost closing down emotionally, barely being able to process data, feeling as if I too was in a centrifuge, plastered to my seat, unable to move. Yet the purpose of this film, and the depth of information presented, is both remarkable and necessary to impart. Perhaps by the time the film is released there will be more channels available for viewers to increase their awareness and play a role in nuclear disarmament rather than to leave the theater feeling overwhelmed and essentially out of control.
The answer might be obvious and also really difficult to achieve; how to achieve a balance among all of these variables so that one, say the educational component, doesn't overwhelm entertainment value, or the story arcs or the ability to see humor or pathos, to laugh or to cry.
There are a number of messages here for Fledgling as we enter the last phase of our application process. We receive so many really important projects, many that are high on the education scale, perhaps so high that they will not compel viewers. Others are able to impart important information, but in a way that leads to impact by engaging the viewer. They present specific ways to become more aware and more engaged, by sometimes amusing the viewer on the path to education.
Stay tuned for my next discussion that will look at what we know at the neuro-scientific level that can shed light on the ways in which we view, and assess films. With each funding cycle we learn and together with our filmmaker grantees, we are walking this road in tandem: trying to find the best way to use films as vehicles for social change.
