What the hell has happened to you? You are among the most critical thinkers I know. Your movie festival writing is so happy, I think you need to cut back on your prozac. What is going on down there?

So, right off the bat, I know that even my friends don’t read my policies page.

More to the point, I think making art is hard as hell. I don’t want to spend my time tearing work apart, when I can be bringing my readers stuff I think is great. That doesn’t mean I can’t be critical of works that I love, but I haven’t been digging in for analysis for SILVERDOCS, since I’ve been mostly posting quick bits. I’ll have some more analytical writing following the festival, as the panels and fellow festival-goers typically give me lots to think about.

And to the particular writer of that question, I note that you know what I do if I want to rant, rave, criticize and attack–I write about politics.

Did I mention he is alive and well and living in Paris, where he runs a radical bookstore? Capitalism may be trying to eat Che, but I doubt they will be able to swallow Lucio anytime soon. Viva Lucio!  Viva La Revolución!

It definitely got people’s attention. People were asking if she was a real sex worker or a porn star, but I asked the first question that came to my mind–how do you walk in those crazy shoes? Apparently it helps if you take small steps.

The panel looked primarily at “serious games”–computer games that are designed to promote political, social or behavioral change, or to serve a function that goes beyond play alone.

Suzanne Seggerman opened the session, and introduced her organization, which promotes the use of games for social issues and social change. She pointed out that games are a young medium. They are still evolving and growing–maturing as a form. Gaming, said Seggerman, is where film was in the 60s and 70s: beginning to be studied in the academy, shown in museums, getting foundation interest.

Seggerman made the interesting point that unlike films, you have agency in games. So how you tell a story in a game has to account for that difference.

While Sharon Sloane previewed her company’s technology–the Virtual Experience Immersive Learning Simulations–which seem to be like old-style games: a set of decision tree scenarios, with video segments. While there is likely more to it than that, you couldn’t tell from the demo.

Wendy Levy talked about BAVC’s ability to bring together mediamakers, technologists, and storytellers for developing new tools and approaches–and to serve as an incubator for innovation with independent producers. She then showed a brief machinima, generated in Second Life. It seemed like it was the first exposure to machinima for several members of the audience, and she. seemed surprised by the machinima Then showed a brief machima–oops technical problems–ok, then did the piece. The piece was nice–all second life

Ken Ellis stepped in to briefly introduce Edutopia–which has a site, a magazine, and a research agenda. He showed a brief sample work. They have over 150 docs available on their site.

In my opinion, Nonny De La Pena’s project was both the most innovative and interesting. She created an interactive Gitmo experience in Second Life, where visitors get bound, hooded, transported, caged, etc. It seemed like a brilliant way to inform and change people’s perspective on what is going on inside Camp X-Ray.

Then Trisha Creekmore demonstrated one of Discovery.com’s projects–the game Shark Runners, built by AreaCode– which is a social game where you do shark research and gather info, get funding, etc. Creekmore noted that the challenge to her was how to make an interesting game that is fun, will keep people coming back and also help them learn something.

In the Q&A that followed, a number of interesting ideas arose:

Sloane observed that games must bring a perspective shift to bring change. The game must be personal enough to open people up, to lower their defenses while providing better tools, information, and behaviors. To be successful, you “must capture brain space and heart space at the same time.”

De La Pena spoke about the idea of “spatial narrative”: when you move into a virtual space, how do you get people to follow you? How do you build that narrative? Do we show you video? Take control of the avatar? How do you marry image and story?

Creekmore reminded us of the iron rule of gamers: the users totally hack what the designers plan. With her Sharkrunners game, players created their own HQ, gave their own awards, etc. She emphasized that this is something to be expected and embraced (Her best quote? “I like the unpredictable.”)

Respondent David Johnson set out an interesting framework for thinking about gaming. He said there are four considerations: the culture of play, the money of play, the storytelling of play, and the ethics of play.

Johnson said if you take a tool and play with it, you get a toy. So, that also works in reverse–we learn from play. Start as play, then toys may become tools (or, if playing with tools, new uses arise).

The money of play is a really big force–the push for faster, more powerful tech raises the bar for entry into making games.

Yet, Johnson noted, it is still about telling a story. The new tech engages people at a whole new level–simulation as the most powerful communication tool ever. (All games, he argued, are storytelling platforms. Chess itself is a teaching tool to teach war.)

And then, finally, gamemakers need to consider the ethics of what you create. Once you select some aspect, you are leaving something out–every choice limits, and so, in a sense, every choice speaks of intent.

Johnson’s closing point really seemed to reiterate what many of the panelists have already grasped. It is time for storytellers to embrace the gaming platform and its power to make visual worlds, use it to craft stories, and then to let people play with it.

Filmmaker Sascha Paladino has created a delight of a film as he joins his brother Fleck on a trip to Africa to explore the roots of the banjo.³ Their multi-country trip brings Fleck together with many talented musicians and remarkable collaborations result. The energy of the musicians is infectious, the music joyous to behold, and Paladino gives you the experience of being right in the mix.

Following the screening, the audience got an opportunity to hear Fleck play, joined by Cheick Hamala Diabaté, a terrific n’goni player and star in his own right (see photo below). For the second night in a row, SILVERDOCS hits it out of the park.⁴

1. I’m not exaggerating. I had the guy sign my mandolin today. How pathetically fanboy is that?
2. That it is Béla Fleck? Awesome! See footnote one re: my pathetic-ness.
3. I had a chance to hear the two speak at length earlier in the day about the process of making the film, and hopefully I will get a chance to write up those comments soon.
4. Look! A sports analogy! How did that happen? Answer: it’s a baseball analogy. Even I know from baseball.

UPDATE: I had to leave after about 45 minutes due to a scheduling conflict, but was really impressed by what I saw and I look forward to seeing the final version. Not only was the rough cut remarkably coherent (remember, collaborative collective!), but it was quite moving. In addition, the energy and passion of the filmmakers themselves is enough to get me to go see everything they do. I am filled with regret that I wasn’t there for the discussion following the screening.

The festival kicked off last night with a brilliant film by Adrian Wills chronicling the development of an equally brilliant show by Cirque Du Soleil. All Together Now follows Cirque’s development of a show, LOVE, based on and inspired by the music of The Beatles. LOVE’s director, Dominic Champagne, is not only charged with getting this show to the stage, but must also satisfy Paul, Ringo, and the widows of John and George¹.

The drama of All Together Now is rooted in the difficult development and staging of LOVE, but also the interpersonal and creative tension arising from any collaboration that involves the Beatles’ music. Fortunately, Dominic has musical intermediary support by George Martin and his son Giles, who have been jointly charged by Cirque and The Beatles with developing and producing the music for the show while protecting The Beatles’ musical integrity.

While Paul and Ringo seem quite open to letting Cirque have its lead, Yoko Ono Lennon and Olivia Harrison have the tougher task of protecting and interpreting the work of their husbands. The independent and plain-spoken Yoko perhaps has the most obvious criticism of the process in the film, but when Cirque starts to deliver on their own vision, the results are visually and emotionally stunning, to everyone’s apparent satisfaction.

What came through strongly in this film is the playful, joyous and intense creativity of the Cirque company and its directors, and how closely that process resembles the early process of The Beatles. Coupling the backstage peek at Cirque with the appearances of Paul, Ringo, the Martins, Olivia and Yoko, the film pulls on the viewer at many levels and delivers on all its promises.

Following the screening, an all-star panel of the film’s director, Adrian Wills, LOVE’s director Dominic Champagne, Apple Corps’ Jonathan Clyde and MTV’s Bill Flanagan spent a few minutes discussing the process of making the film, the show and the impact of seeing Paul McCartney declare his own amazement at having been a Beatle. Dominic reassured the audience that while it seemed like Yoko and Olivia made it difficult for him, he actually felt very supported in the process and that he didn’t feel as if he had any constraints. This was echoed by Jonathan Clyde, speaking for Apple Corps, who have historically been ferocious and inflexible in protecting The Beatles’ musical legacy and have rarely shown willingness to cede any creative control, but were quite open in this particular case. All parties seemed to feel quite moved by George Harrison’s desire to see this collaboration succeed. In addition, Clyde spoke quite eloquently about Neil Aspinall, close friend of The Beatles and Apple Corps guru, who died only a few months ago.

Warning: once you see this film, you may feel compelled to fly to Vegas and see LOVE in person. brentgarland.com is not responsible for your plane fares, nor your losses at the gaming tables.

* * *

As always, the disclaimer applies: This is a festival to which I have a substantial connection. I have volunteered for the past two years and sat on this year’s Selection Committee. I wrote for the festival catalog and will likely be introducing some of the filmmakers and subjects at the festival. Feel free to adjust for my bias. My blog reportage and opinions, however, do not represent the views of AFI or the SILVERDOCS festival, the Selection Committee, or of any of their staff. No one should construe anything expressed on this site as being endorsed or supported by AFI, SILVERDOCS or anybody other than me.

1. Harrison was the spark for the creation of this show, but did not live to see its beautiful fruition.

And judging from Chevolution, that will be one long line of people.

Alberto Korda‘s photos of Che (and perhaps even more widely known, the stencil/pop art images of Che by artist Jim Fitzpatrick ) are among the most memorable and ubiquitous images of the twentieth century. Chevolution gives us a look at who Che was, what he means to different people, and the complicated history of the use of Korda’s images by artists, activists, politics, and commerce. Even if you are familiar with the life of Che, the story of his image (and the questions the film asks about the meaning of its use) will give you plenty to think about.

* * *

As always, the disclaimer applies: This is a festival to which I have a substantial connection. I have volunteered for the past two years and sat on this year’s Selection Committee. I wrote for the festival catalog and will likely be introducing some of the filmmakers and subjects at the festival. Feel free to adjust for my bias. My blog reportage and opinions, however, do not represent the views of AFI or the SILVERDOCS festival, the Selection Committee, or of any of their staff. No one should construe anything expressed on this site as being endorsed or supported by AFI, SILVERDOCS or anybody other than me.

Herzog’s questions lead to cinematic meditations on human extinction, on community and isolation, and on the wonders of the natural world–all with images that amaze, amuse, and inform. Simply stunning, this film is work from a master filmmaker and was a privilege to watch.

* * *

As always, the disclaimer applies: This is a festival to which I have a substantial connection. I have volunteered for the past two years and sat on this year’s Selection Committee. I wrote for the festival catalog and will likely be introducing some of the filmmakers and subjects at the festival. Feel free to adjust for my bias. My blog reportage and opinions, however, do not represent the views of AFI or the SILVERDOCS festival, the Selection Committee, or of any of their staff. No one should construe anything expressed on this site as being endorsed or supported by AFI, SILVERDOCS or anybody other than me.