Sky Sitney is the Director of Programming for SILVERDOCS, one of our premier documentary festivals which takes place every June at the AFI Silver Theatre and Cultural Center in Silver Spring, Maryland. She has held this position since the fall of 2005, and is recognized as one of the key contributors in helping the festival become one of the leading film events of its kind. Sitney's role will expand even further this year, as she also takes over a lot of the duties that former festival director, Patricia Finneran, who departed last year to join the Sundance Institute, left in her wake.
Formerly, she was Programming Director at The Newport International Film Festival, and also served as a programmer at the (now, sadly, defunct) New York Underground Film Festival. She is the co-founder and curator of the on-going series, "Fresh Film" at the Anthology Film Archives in New York City.
Sitney is also a doctoral candidate in Cinema Studies at New York University, where she has taught film courses on a variety of genres. She is completing a dissertation on the subject of documentary film, a section of which has been recently published in the journal Grey Room, and the book Captured: A Lower East Side Film & Video History.
I've had a chance to run into Sky several times at various festivals and film events and we always have such wonderful and exciting conversations. I meet a lot of people passionate about documentary film and the nonfiction genre, but Sky's infectious enthusiasm and immensely savvy take on it all, always delights, surprises and inspires me. Recently, I had a chance to talk to her more formally and in-depth about her work at SILVERDOCS and the current landscape of film festivals, film juries and what we can look forward to in Silver Spring this coming June for the festival's seventh iteration. Here's our conversation:
Still in Motion (SIM): Film festivals in general, but particularly our domestic festivals, have become this incredible phenomenon in the independent film community. I think their importance is just peaking, actually, as the landscape continues to change for media makers. I want to talk with you, in particular, about this domestic scene from your vantage point. There seems to be a sense of cooperation, if you will, between many of our most successful festivals, with the major programmers of those festivals working together to build some sort of archive of the best of what’s coming out year after year. Is that a conscious effort or is that something that’s just happening organically because you tend to run into one another on the circuit and support one another’s festivals in various ways? What’s your take on that?
Sky Sitney (SS): That’s a complicated question. On the one hand, festival professionals, and particularly programmers, do view one another as colleagues. It’s a very unique job that has incredible joys and incredible challenges. There are very few people who really understand that as fully as your fellow programmers. I do think that we often look to one another to understand the ever-changing landscape, to brainstorm about certain challenges and ideas. But the bottom line is that we all have to focus on our own events and deal with the challenges of making them unique, something that isn’t a complete replication of what someone else is doing. But you do want to always recognize that you're part of the same culture. In terms of whether or not we actually go so far as to do "collaborative programming" or consciously select films that can function as this archive, as you put it, I don’t think that’s a conscious decision.
Great work tends to naturally find its home in these festivals. Any strong festival programmer who really loves film is not going to want to deprive their audiences of these great films simply because they've played at another festival. Now, what I’m saying actually opens up a tremendous can of worms or complications because there are those premiere-oriented festivals that exist; it's a very important part of their identity and their agenda, and that’s fine. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s their mandate. But for SILVERDOCS, certainly, and for many of what I consider to be my peer festivals, I think that we all want to try to have some discoveries and we all do have those discoveries. We all act as launching pads for new film work in greater or lesser degrees. Each festival has its own ratio, or proportion, of new work to other films that play the circuit. I think that in any given year, there are natural standouts; films that feel absolutely essential.
SIM: When you do discover something that you realize no one else has tapped into just yet, will you go ahead and ask a filmmaker if he or she would be willing to forego exhibiting at other festivals in order to have a premiere at SILVERDOCS?
SS: It all depends on timing. The Garden, for example, had its world premiere at SILVERDOCS last year. Not only did it go on to win the Sterling Award at the festival, but it's now one of the five nominees for the Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary. That film came to me at the very tail end of the screening review process. We looked at a very strong rough cut but it wasn’t really finished when it came to us. I could see that this film was extremely special. It had an extraordinary narrative story arc, fantastic cinematic values. It had already missed its opportunity to be at Sundance, SXSW, etc., so it really was a very easy negotiation. Every film that we look at is considered holistically. We’re looking at the big picture of what that film’s life has or what it will be.
Right now, we’re still fairly early in our submissions and review process. I’m extremely aware that many of the films that are coming to us have also gone to Austin [SXSW], Durham [Full Frame] and other places. Personally, I try to be as collaborative as I can with the filmmakers in terms of respecting the choices they feel they need to make for their film. As we get closer to our deadlines, I naturally am looking at work that I’m aware has missed those other opportunities. Many filmmakers come to me to negotiate a world premiere here; it’s not always me doing the negotiating. They see SILVERDOCS as the place that would be the best launching place for their work, be it because of the production schedule’s timing, or the subject matter of the film. It’s a combination of all those things.
The bottom line is that I do look at each film holistically and I have to balance when our final program is set; I have to look at how many films have been at these other wonderful festivals and how many are new launches and I try to create a balance. That balance has to happen for a lot of reasons, not necessarily centered around the “press opportunity” something might afford. When people think of a festival and launching new work, sometimes they forget that not only is it good for the festival to be able to launch these new titles, but it’s also hugely beneficial for filmmakers, as well. There’s an enormous amount of content out there and I don’t think a festival really serves the filmmaking community by simply regurgitating the same films that every other festival is showing. It’s important to have a mandate to try and use the platform that you have to recognize new work. There’s always a higher volume of great work that will not find a festival home. There is more terrific content than there are opportunities to showcase it.
SIM: Many festivals from year to year go at programming from a thematic point of view. For you, do organic themes emerge from the work? Or do you work from a top-down approach starting with a thematic concentration for the festival, as a whole, and then go out and try to find the best work that speaks to that theme or idea?
SS: As each year passes, and every year I gain more and more experience in programming a major festival, I move further and further away from an interest in thematic programming, for a number of reasons. That is not to say that we don’t, ultimately, discover themes that inherently have percolated. But I do sometimes feel that if, in my mind, I set myself up to have this certain idea, I then start going out of my way to seek out films that fulfill that idea rather than keeping myself extremely open to the strong work that’s out there, listening to the natural collective unconscious that is being articulated when I look at a variety of films.
What I like to do is respond to the work that’s already out there and to showcase the very best of that. If I intellectually, in an isolated way, get excited about a particular thematic program and then go out there and try to seek something that fulfills that predetermined idea, I’m not really approaching the work fairly. You can make big compromises when you try and fulfill this intellectual idea in terms of content. With each passing year, we’ve moved into having a kind of structure that actually resembles something along the lines of Sundance or Toronto; that is to say that we set extremely wide parameters, creating sections of the festival that are not specifically thematically organized. Like Sundance, we want to have a section devoted to world documentary and US documentary and something like their Frontiers section which showcases films more on the cutting edge. We want to have a tremendous diversity of work showcased.
Having said all that, it’s amazing that you do see certain themes emerge and you can’t help but recognize them as such. That’s to be expected. If there is really strong work and we feel that an interesting dialog is emerging, we might want to call attention to that and steer people to experience or delve deeply into certain subject matter through a group of particular films. Some interesting discussions can be organized in that way and we’re happy and delighted to do so. But that has to come naturally from the work and it has to be an organic response to the work that’s out there.
SIM: As a programmer, as a film lover, as someone who’s in the driver’s seat for a major nonfiction festival that in a very short amount of time has become a destination festival for both domestic and international product, can you tell me what your overriding challenge in all this would be? You come to a certain time every year—maybe it’s right now—when you’re really deep into it. How do you stay focused on the end result, which is creating a massive program over the course of several days? And how do you keep loving film? The inundation factor must be pretty high at this point with your intense screening schedule.
SS: Well, in response to your question of how I keep loving film: parents often tell their kids to try and do something that they love and there’s always a bit of a danger with that. When you develop a career that is really deeply connected to your greatest passion, there is a certain danger of it being tainted. I feel very, very lucky; I’m such a cinephile that my work has done nothing to dissuade me from this passion. There was an instance not too long ago where I had spent, as I often do, an entire day from early in the morning to mid-evening (especially as the time gets closer and closer to locking this program) watching films back to back. Around eight o’clock at night, I thought to myself, “Gosh, I really need a break. Maybe I’ll go out to the movies.” [laughs]
What’s interesting for me is because the work I do is in documentary, it actually does allow me, in a certain way, to preserve that place of fantasy that watching fiction provides, a real escape. I love the fact that the work I do is in documentary because it allows a real concentration. At this point, I understand and am able to have a real comprehensive sense of the genre and what’s happening in the field. I can recognize that it’s fairly focused. I feel like the community is that much more focused. It does make it a bit more manageable than programming for a comprehensive festival, as I’ve done in the past.
It’s hard to put the various challenges of this work on a scale in terms of what the biggest challenge might be. Every year, there are unexpected challenges. The shifting landscape of distribution and exhibition certainly keeps things in flux. You started off the conversation talking about how you think festivals, especially in this kind of climate, have an even more important role and I hope you’re right. I bank on the fact that you’re right. I’m not seeing extraordinary signs of something different, but one does have to stay on one’s toes. Even before we hit this particular time and place in independent film, there was always a sense that one was on a fast-moving stream and that from year to year, things are changing. You can never really rest on your laurels or sit back and assume that your festival, or any festival, has a fixed role in this universe. Part of the bigger challenge is being able to respond in the moment to all the changes that are happening.
Our festival serves quite a number of different needs. On the one hand, we are in that kind of universe where we’re both a festival for our community and for our region and the people who live here; by that I mean the mid-Atlantic region of the US. But we’re also an industry festival. In many ways, we don’t think of ourselves as a regional festival, but as a national one, with a bigger mission. Serving these various constituencies is important. But you don’t want to serve so many competing constituencies that you lose your identity, your distinction, and end up with something diluted. There are a variety of different needs that must be met and those needs can be contradictory.
Someone in our local audience might be thrilled to know that the Grand Jury Prize-winner from Sundance is here. That’s a huge selling point to attend the festival. For some of our industry folks who’ve been at Sundance and have already seen these films, they expect and want something new and fresh to make it worth their while to invest their time to come out here. For filmmakers who are launching their films here, they want to be assured that there are people in the audience who can help take their film to the next step, acquisitions people, exhibitors, etc. I have to make sure that the festival continues to serve all these needs, balance the program with the great work that’s out there and to be able to launch new work never seen before.
SIM: It’s a tall order, indeed. Let’s shift a bit and talk about the changing forms and the changing vocabulary of documentary. The word “nonfiction,” which I tend to use more than the "d-word," opens the focus a bit in this genre in terms of how we tell true stories. I want to know what that means to you, what speaks to you cinematically as a viewer? The subject matter, the importance of the story is always relevant; but, artistically, aesthetically, how is that impacting what you’re seeing out there?
SS: I think different programmers have different priorities when they screen documentary. I try not to have too fixed of an idea of what kind of films to program. It’s too limiting. I want to make sure that the films that are here are not solely governed by my own personal taste. That’s why I surround myself with a very strong and very diverse screening committee. The films need to reflect the wide variety of audiences that are out there—that’s key.
SIM: Does your screening committee consist of non-professional film people, as well as industry-related people or experienced filmmakers?
SS: The majority, definitely, do have relationships to film, albeit sometimes in an oblique way. They all have some sort of proven film sophistication. We do have some “civilians,” so to speak.
For me, ultimately, film is a cinematic language. If I’m reading a book, I expect the written word to have some eloquence. There are so many different kinds of styles. I just finished reading [Pulitzer Prize-winner] The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. It’s wonderful. It’s got its own vernacular that is singular, particular. There’s a consciousness, a control, a sophistication, even if the language is very rough. The artist behind it is totally in control of that material.
I expect films to be articulate in that same way. I expect them to be well versed in cinematic language. People misconstrue how experimental filmmakers or abstract expressionists, if you will, make art. They might say how easy it is for Jackson Pollock to stand before a canvas and throw dashes of paint on it. But Pollock could make, if he was interested in doing so, a perfect, meticulous image or representation. This is a choice coming from someone who understands the vocabulary, understands the language of painting and is taking it to another level of individual expression. I have the same expectation from filmmakers. First and foremost, the tool that’s being used to articulate a certain story is cinema and the goal is to recognize cinematic excellence. How that excellence is achieved or articulated has a huge array of possibilities—whether it’s through strict vérité storytelling, animation, etc. There might be a film from a first-timer in Afghanistan who expresses a very particular point of view. There is incredible diversity of storytelling in this genre. Ultimately, you want to get a sense that the piece is coming from an artist that has an understanding of the form. You know it when you see it. In some ways, I don’t want to know what I’m looking for for that very reason.
SIM: I’m sure there are lots of things you see that you would love to program but, for one reason or another, simply can’t.
SS: Definitely. The bottom line is that we only have about 65 feature slots. We receive about 2,000 submissions. I will say this if it helps shed any light: you kind of program in two ways, simultaneously. Each film, on a case-by-case basis, is dealt with on its own terms. Each film is its own universe and it’s judged based on that. But then, you also have to step back (more and more as you get closer to locking the program) and ask yourself how the program, as a whole, is forming. That’s not to suggest that you need to have every film have some kind of relationship with any other film. But if, in fact, we’re saying that we’re an international festival, then one does eventually have to start making conscious decisions. You have to step back and figure out what kinds of themes are being represented. What’s missing? What kinds of stories are we not expressing at this point? Are we seeing films that are coming from a true global perspective? Who’s making these films? You can say you’re representing 50 countries and that might be true. But you might realize that almost all of those films are made by white, male, American artists and that's, obviously, problematic. So if you just closed your eyes and programmed based on what you love and that’s the only piece of criteria you’re utilizing, you could find yourself with a very unbalanced program. Strategy does come into play at some point where you begin to recognize absences or, even, abundances. If we have five strong films already that are dealing with very similar subject matter, then unfortunately, that sixth film that we just came across that’s just as good and just as timely may go by the wayside. The bottom line is that we really need to think about preserving the remaining “real estate” of the festival’s program for something that expands the conversation in a new direction.
Navigating this kind of complexity of looking at each film on its own terms and then stepping back and looking at the program as a whole is really key. What films are going to make people laugh? We certainly have the 45 films that are going to make someone cry, but is there one that will make someone laugh? Are there films to which one could take someone under 16 years of age to go see? Are there films here that are pushing form or more experimental in nature? Are we covering all the key issues that people are concerned about—environment, gender issues, etc.? You really have to work to make sure you’re culling diversity in all those regards.
SIM: SILVERDOCS, like many festivals, has a fairly traditional submission process where people submit through Without a Box or tag a film appropriately and follow the guidelines off the festival web site, etc. There’s a period between opening and closing that submission process where you get a huge influx of films. Yet, you travel extensively and probably run into people all the time who want to hand you their film or someone else’s film. How do you control that tide? How do you manage expectations, more importantly? There are many filmmakers (most, actually) who would never have that opportunity to meet you personally on the circuit or be able to personally hand you something, who don’t have that kind of access to programmers or industry people.
SS: It’s fantastic to be part of a community where I do meet other programmers and they tell me that they have something really amazing I need to see. That’s helpful. Same with hearing from a trusted colleague or a friend who flags a film for me. But part of the genuine goal for any festival is to find those discoveries. Every single film that’s submitted, ultimately, is on an even playing field. The value of having that kind of discovery is equal to the value of that personal recommendation. We do receive films in such an enormous variety of ways. We have a lot of relationships with international cultural institutions, some of which submit films. They’re on the ground in these various regions and cull submissions for us. We waive fees in those instances a lot of the time when it’s coming from places like Afghanistan or wherever those films might be coming from. We’re trying to encourage receiving work from underrepresented regions.
And yes, obviously, I’m out on the festival circuit. As soon as a festival announces their line-up, I contact the documentary filmmakers and ask them to submit. Any festival programmer does that where we track those kinds of things. Every day I read the trades, trying to keep track of everything that’s going on out there, keeping it on my radar. Every time I hear of a new grant being given a film in development or something that's gone into production or post-production, that goes on the tracking list, as well. I want to make sure I’m casting as wide and vast a net as possible. The blind submissions, however, are where the real surprises come through. When all is said and done, however the films get here, they get here. Every single film, whether it’s been invited to submit because it played at Sundance to a film that’s never been on my radar in any way, shape or form, all ultimately become democratized through the same rigorous process.
If a filmmaker has been to the festival many times or I know a particular filmmaker’s work, I have a particular curiosity to see their new film, of course. Not only do I see every film that winds up going through this rigorous submission and screening process, but I also see the films that are flagged for me in other ways. It’s not unusual for me, personally, to watch about 700 films over the course of the review process. That’s not all 2,000 but that’s why I have trusted people around me—I can’t see all of them. But that brings a tremendous amount of integrity to the process.
SIM: I want to talk about something that I’m curious about and has to do with that sense of integrity and that is the process of casting juries for the various competitions within the festival. SILVERDOCS has quite a few different competitions that award prize money and other in-kind support. What I’ve noticed in the last couple of years, in particular at domestic festivals, is that the juries consist of a lot of the same folks, as do the panels, for that matter.
SS: The same people or the same archetypes?
SIM: Both. This has been a bit of a concern, to be perfectly honest, that no one really seems to want to address, so I’ll take the watchdog stance and ask why this seems to be the case? Because it is such a tight-knit community, I was wondering when those juries are built or assigned, and those particular films are chosen for competition, how all that shakes down? Can you shed some light on how this works?
SS: I’m sure every festival has its own set of criteria. There is no rulebook or an across-the-board method or category of what falls into the competition track. It also depends on what the festival wants to put a priority on for recognition or wants to push for validation—a debut, or a first- or second-time filmmaker or a premiere, for example. And certain films that qualify are chosen because they fall within those parameters and because we think they're the best in that category. With these broad categories, there are many sub-competitions, as well, such as music films, a competition we have at SILVERDOCS. I know Full Frame has a tremendous amount of different kinds of competitions.
For us, it’s premiere-oriented rather than thematically oriented, things that are new on the circuit or haven’t received much attention. Right now, in order to quality, a film cannot have screened in more than two US festivals prior to ours. But that’s not to say that a film meeting these criteria will automatically qualify for competition. It’s not about the premiere status; I don’t want that to be the overriding determining factor as to whether a film gets to compete or not. I want these films to really be deserving.
In terms of the jury, that’s an interesting question and one I’ve never really been asked about. Perhaps it’s just something I’ve taken for granted. We try to make sure that the people on the jury represent leaders in the documentary arena. Now, simply by asking me that question makes me wonder if that’s too rigid. Maybe it doesn’t have to be leaders of the documentary arena; maybe there’s a whole variety of interesting people that fall outside those strict parameters, that still work in documentary but that could bring a fresh take. I think our juries are diverse in the roles people play in this arena, made up of filmmakers, programmers, distributors, etc. in the various juries. But yes, all of them share being part of this proven "cognoscenti" in this field. Your question does provoke an interesting challenge and, again, makes me question whether that’s too limited. Is that part of what you’re suggesting? Do you feel like maybe there should be more outsiders sitting on these juries?
SIM: I’m not talking, necessarily, about “outsiders.” But I do think there is more diversity within the industry and within the community than is being represented. There are sectors of that community that are not being asked or recognized as viable candidates to judge these competitive strands. Obviously, this also speaks to availability and the possibility of people being able to get to the festival and have the time to screen everything; it’s very time-consuming and an intense endeavor. But yes, I think I would like to see more diversity on the various juries. I rarely see anybody new or anyone outside of the usual suspects sitting on most domestic juries. It’s a concern that makes for an insularity that might be limiting, limiting to the form, limiting to what’s getting exposed. Let’s face it—those competition winners, those big prizewinners create a domino effect. Yes, the film might be absolutely superb but is it really worthy to win every single competition it enters at every single festival? And then when you look at those people jurying at those festivals, a lot of them are the same people. It’s raised a flag for me.
SS: I identify people that I feel are taste makers and contributors, people who are thinkers in this arena. But you certainly raise an interesting point in that this, again, may be a very narrow view. It’ll be something I’ll think about.
SIM: Having said all that, I know there are film events and festivals, particularly nascent ones, that are trying to carve out a niche for themselves and in doing so, cast their juries with recognizable names, whether they know anything about film or not. I’ve heard filmmakers complain that they’ve served on juries with people who have absolutely no understanding of cinema and yet are in positions to judge works of cinema. That’s a danger, too, obviously. You absolutely don’t want neophytes or “taste makers” in other fields, judging an art form in which they really don’t understand the nuances in this kind of storytelling or can't begin to dissect it in any critical, articulate way.
SS: You have to recognize, first of all, that you’re creating a compatible team of people. Not compatible in terms of people sharing the same point of view; that would be very dull and incredibly non-stimulating for a jury. I want to make sure I’m casting a group of people together who can offer a challenging, expansive and intelligent discussion about the films they’re watching. I’ve been so lucky because all of the jurors that I’ve ever had at SILVERDOCS, in my experience, have just been so thoughtful and committed to the process. I’m not saying that they are people who don’t fit into this inner circle of documentary film leaders. But they’ve all been such committed and passionate people who’ve taken these roles very seriously. Last year, we had people like Steve James and Sandi DuBowski, extraordinary, extremely loving people who bring a passion about film that’s unbelievable. They take this responsibility extremely seriously. I want to make sure that I’m bringing people together who will all bring that level of commitment, integrity and passion. It’s challenging to think about bringing someone who might be an extraordinarily interesting person but not necessarily well-versed in documentary. And is that necessary? Again, something to think about.
SIM: Where do you want to take this year’s iteration of SILVERDOCS? What are some overarching goals? This year, you have a more expanded role that goes beyond the programming aspect. I know you’ve always looked at this event holistically, but now that needs to happen even more so. You have an even more substantive leadership role, becoming “the face” of SILVERDOCS, if you will. What are your top-of-mind ideas and goals?
SS: We’re not in a vast, expansionist mode. I think that there’s always the sense that every year, we have to be bigger and better, in a constant state of growth in a major way. I feel we’ve come very far. There’s nothing wrong with an interest in maintaining the excellence we’ve already achieved. Now, that doesn’t mean that we’re not an organic, living, breathing thing that needs to continue to evolve. But we’re not sitting here figuring out how we can take this to “the next level.” We want to have a festival that’s extraordinarily consistent in its excellence and we’re looking to continue to build upon the foundation we’ve created. You build this foundation and you run it proficiently and do everything you possibly can to ensure that it runs smoothly. The truth of the matter is half the festival becomes the unexpected, organic energy of all the people who come that year—their synergy with one another and their connection with audiences. What winds up being the true life of the festival is completely and utterly unpredictable. We provide the stable environment for all these wonderful things to happen.
Because I’m deeply in the trenches of programming, I believe we’ll be able to create a more holistic festival experience because I will have a really deep understanding of the kind of content that we’ll be presenting. That, in turn, will inform the other areas like the Conference and other events that happen concurrently. I think we can create a lot more synergy between what’s happening in the film program, on the screens, and connecting that to a more refined festival experience.
SIM: I think the festival is really strong in that regard already. You’re well on your way to being able to refine that, definitely. You’ve done that in a very short amount of time.
SS: Patricia [Finneran] is no longer here but the rest of the staff and the department heads, Conference producer, Diana Ingraham [pictured] and festival producer, Cindy Miller, are here. There’s a tremendous amount of consistency and continuity. We have a great deal of optimism that we’ll continue to build upon what we have. The pressure to grow by leaps and bounds is always there but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the right thing.
SIM: I think we’ve seen that festivals like Sundance and Tribeca, for instance, made huge missteps in that regard.
SS: We expanded by two days last year; we expanded the competitions and included two new awards. It was a tremendous success last year. But there’s a point where you have to recognize when the size and scope of your event is right. Now we want to settle into that. We want to deliver consistency and that’s where we are right now. Obviously, the flavor will be different every year; we’ll have a different Guggenheim honoree, different films—the people who attend will bring this unique thing that will happen and that’s, truly, what I love most about this work. I’ve never had a child, but I suppose you give birth to something and you nurture it and work to keep it healthy. But, ultimately, it’s not yours. You’re there to guide it, certainly, but this wonderful “being” has a life of its own and you share in that life. That’s how I feel about the festival. The reality of the experience is ours to share with the people that participate in it. The endless possibilities provide an excitement that no one can anticipate. Including me.
The SILVERDOCS AFI/Discovery Channel Documentary Festival will take place in Silver Spring, Maryland, June 15 – 22, 2009.
Recent Comments