FILMMAKER SPOTLIGHT: Karen Whitehead, Director of IMITATING LIFE: THE AUDACITY OF SUZANNE HEINTZ

In IMITATING LIFE: THE AUDACITY OF SUZANNE HEINTZ, director Karen Whitehead follows Suzanne Heintz, a "loud-mouthed" girl from Yonkers, who embarks on a strange and entertaining 15-year global photographic crusade to challenge persisting stereotypes about women’s roles and lives. With her provocative eye, sharp sense of humor, and feminist’s soul, Heintz creates glamorous portraits of mid-20th century domestic bliss by placing herself at the center of scenes where she is the perfect wife and mother of a meticulously dressed mannequin family. When social media catapults interest in work, Heintz’s resilience is put to the test.

SFF Selection Committee member Shelley Sackett caught up with the director of the film, Karen Whitehead ahead of the film being available to watch during Week 2 (Friday, July 17 - Thursday, July 23) of our virtual Salem Film Fest.

Shelley Sackett: How did the idea for IMITATING LIFE first start? 

Karen Whitehead: I met Suzanne Heintz when we were both asked to participate in a film festival panel about women artists as “change-makers” called “She Crossed the Line.” This followed the Denver screening of my documentary, HER AIM IS TRUE , a film that revealed the hidden story of rock n roll photography pioneer Jini Dellaccio. Heintz’s first short film about her Paris photo shoots with mannequin family props in tow was screening at the same film festival. As we discussed our work and excitement about using photography and film to address women’s roles and portrayals behind and in front of the camera, we found much common ground.  Soon afterwards, I was plotting the creative strands with my producing partner, Katherine Wilkins De Francis, for a documentary around Heintz’s surprising journey in art activism. From the start, we both felt this was access that takes the audience somewhere other than the usual artist profile.

IMITATING LIFE director Karen Whitehead

SS: Could you walk us through the process from initial spark to finished film? Did your focus change as the film progressed?

KW: The entire film evolved around our incredible access to Heintz’s archive and personal footage spanning more than 15 years of surreal self-portraiture. That was the first critical layer for us - to be flies on the wall of Heintz’s photographic crusade and bring the audience into Heintz’s process. We asked Heintz to make additional video diaries for us that would delve a bit deeper into her life’s work and her personal challenges around it. This is because from early into the film, it was evident to us that the lines between her life and her art were blurring. All the struggles and frustrations Heintz had to navigate as she pursued her life’s work amidst viral social media waves, and how that impacted her life, work and relationships were important to document. Heintz remarked she did all her thinking when she was driving to work - so  this gave us an opportunity to collect some off- the-cuff, very real moments with Suzanne: for example, when she stuck her smartphone to her car dashboard and gave us some "dashboard confessionals" as she put it!

Combined with our more traditional documentary production shoots -  adding interviews with family and friends, filming around Suzanne’s home, observing her in production mode on a big photo shoot such as the one we followed for her New York "To Die For" holiday card and treks further afield such as London - we were able to keep building this intimate portrait of an unusual artist, one who is very much outside the mainframe of the art world.

Obviously, along the way over a multi-year project like this, life happens and we adjust our focus. Situations developed that led us off into some different chapters, if you like. But I don’t think our overall storytelling vision for this film changed. We did not know when we started exactly where we would conclude the film—as is the nature of documentary filmmaking—but framing the structure of the film around the progression of Suzanne’s holiday cards was key. I think we ended where we intended to, giving audiences unprecedented access into one ordinary woman and her funny yet serious act of defiance!

SS: What was the biggest challenge in making this film? The biggest reward?

KW: For all indie filmmakers, the constant challenge during production is the dual task of fundraising and storytelling at the same time, including finding innovative ways to keep the documentary going despite gaps in funding. We definitely took a lesson out of Suzanne Heintz’s own book, re: keep on moving forward, with resilience and endurance!

Related to this, working on a project that is very much outside the mainstream without celebrity content to draw attention to it  or a major production partner such as Amazon or HBO, requires a Herculean effort in terms of building support for something that is quirky, off beat  and maybe hard for people to totally get until you are at the finish line with your film festival trailer!

But the biggest reward is sitting in the back of a sold out screening, such as our world premiere at DOC NYC, and witnessing  the sheer enjoyment and engaged reaction from the audience during the screening and afterwards, at our Q & A. This experience showed Katherine and me that we had created something thought-provoking and relevant for our times.

On a minor note, concerning the filmmaking challenge itself—i.e. crafting this film in the editing process which involved juggling a huge amount of material we had amassed—it was extremely challenging to achieve a balance in the final film between video diaries and the intensity of life & art interactions for Heintz over an almost two decade stretch. Given the reaction we have garnered so far, I think we found the right balance!

SS: As a documentary filmmaker, what motivates and inspires you?

KW: For me it is about telling a good story, one that draws the audience in and takes them somewhere different than they expected. I love capturing off guard, fun moments, as well as the raw, candid footage—especially now that camera technology and production gear has advanced so much in this field. Being able to access and create a more intimate feel in the storytelling process is an invaluable tool.

Generally, I am motivated by filmmaking that invites us into ordinary lives, untold stories, and particularly women’s experiences that have been very much under the radar, hidden from mainstream media and history.

SS: What has audience reaction been so far to the film?

KW: We have recently enjoyed sold out screenings at our world premiere at DOC NYC in New York. Audience members came up to us after the Q & As to say how much they were blown away by Suzanne’s story and the film. Here’s a few comments we have had so far:

“An interesting and entertaining look into the life of a truly fascinating woman. “

“A unique combination of comedy and drama.”

“I love that she says, ‘I feel I have to be extra loud to be heard!’ Pretty accurate!!  It’s brilliant.”

SS: What message do you hope viewers take away from the film?

KW: There’s the obvious: that conducting film shoots with mannequins is really hard work and not for the faint-hearted, and that having a good sense of humor as filmmaker and subject really helps!

But seriously—I think there are several things to say here about messaging, not least of which is having one hell of a gutsy, fearless woman at its center. We need to keep telling more stories like Suzanne’s, and get them into the mainstream. This connects back to why we were drawn to Heintz’s work in the first place and the issues that are raised in the course of our film, from persisting stereotypes about women’s roles to the impact of social media in our daily lives. Perhaps viewers will find Suzanne’s story an inspiring one about being true to oneself, although she is an extreme example of this.

I hope there is something here that deeply resonates with viewers about situations they encounter in their own lives. Our film is about much more than the difficulties of mannequin wrangling in New York, Paris and London.  But what viewers get out of it in the end is entirely in their hands. We made the film, and now it belongs to audiences to respond to it as they want.

SS: What do you think the importance of documentary film in our daily lives is? 

KW: For me, the art of documentary filmmaking is telling an engaging true story. Drawing an audience in might lead them to think more deeply about something in their own lives, community or wider society. I think it can be as gripping as any work of fiction, and is often more powerful - like a catalyst for social change.  Documentary films have the same value to me as investigative journalism. We need them both very much! A documentary can have an unmeasurable impact on how we explore our world, live our lives and the choices we make. When I am behind the camera, on this journey with my film subject, I don’t know exactly where we might end up. All sorts of situations are continually unfolding in front of the camera, at all times in the process. But I am always asking myself: "What do I want the audience to feel here? What questions does this provoke?" It is a very transformative process and I love it because it is truth-seeking in its purist form.

SS: What's next for you?

KW: My producing partner on IMITATING LIFE, Katherine Wilkins De Francis and I have a couple of film projects in development. One of them is a unique story about an underserved, underemployed and sadly often segregated community of young adults who are on a mission to radically change the way the world sees their neurodiversity and intellectual "disabilities".

SS: Anything you'd like to add?

KW: We hope audiences will share the film: discuss it within their personal networks and encourage others to discover Suzanne Heintz’s work. Indie documentaries like this depend on having a strong connection with film festival audiences -word of mouth recommendations help us connect to more screenings and distribution chances... we have no Hollywood-type PR machine behind us! It definitely helps to re-post about the film on places like Facebook and Instagram and to share photos of attending festival screenings, tagging the film. This is how we reach new audiences. Please follow us on our Facebook and Instagram accounts, too.

https://www.facebook.com/imitatinglifefilm/

https://www.instagram.com/imitatinglifefilm/

IMITATING LIFE: THE AUDACITY OF SUZANNE HEINTZ screened as part of SFF 2020.

FILMMAKER SPOTLIGHT: George Gittoes, Director of WHITE LIGHT

George Gittoes is an Australian painter, photographer and filmmaker – for nearly 40 years, he has documented areas of conflict around the world, immersing himself in countries such as Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan and creating unique art with members of the community. His latest film WHITE LIGHT focuses on Englewood, South Side Chicago, an area known for gun violence. Interviewing friends and family, Gittoes documents the victims and their neighborhood. In doing so, he explores why these civilian deaths are happening and highlights the ways the community is working to bring peace and end the cycle of revenge and retaliation.

Salem Film Fest and the Peabody Essex Museum are presenting a FREE screening of WHITE LIGHT this Saturday, November 2 at 2pm - FREE tickets may be reserved online here or picked up in person at PEM.

SFF Selection Committee member Shelley Sackett spoke with Gittoes ahead of the screening.

Shelley Sackett: Why did you choose to focus on Englewood?

George Gittoes: Englewood is the area which people refer to as Chi-Raq. Since I made SOUNDTRACK TO WAR in Iraq, I felt it was my duty to make a comparable film in the US.  When in Baghdad, I visited the Gangster Palace of Saddam's son Uday where I filmed a rap battle in what the US soldiers called the "bull ring". Two of the most talented rappers were Elliot Lovett, who is African American from Miami, and Yonas Hagos, who is Ethiopian-born but from Chicago.  I felt that they were both geniuses, and offered to speak to their officers to see if they could be sent out on fewer combat missions. I was worried that the world would lose two very special artists and poets if they were killed.   Elliot laughed and said, "But George, it is more dangerous for me in Brown Sub, Miami."

Then Yonas countered this claim, saying, "Chicago is much more dangerous than Miami."I followed Elliot back to Miami and made RAMPAGE and Yonas never stopped criticizing me for this. He insisted I do Chicago.  Yonas is now a very successful millionaire and businessman, and his wife will not let him go back into the Southside of Chicago, as she fears for his life. But Yonas was the first person I met when arriving in Chicago, and he told me I should focus on Englewood. Yonas was embarrassed that he could not come with us to film, and warned that I would need a bodyguard with "a license to carry." He also told me I would not be able to live there, but would have to transit in and out to film.  I took his advice on Englewood but did not get a bodyguard. We rented two apartments in the heart of the community.

SS: How did Englewood compare to other war zones you've covered? Did you feel less or more safe? Why?

GG: The constant danger in Englewood is more exhausting and pressured than in most of the war zones I have worked in. Usually, it is possible to find somewhere safe to sleep and repair - even in Baghdad, at the height of the war, I felt my apartment was something of a sanctuary. Police broke into my apartment four times while I was in Englewood. There was also the problem that where we were living was Gangster Disciple Territory, and our film was mainly shot with members of their rival gang, the Black Stones.  I had to make an agreement with the local Gangster Disciples to allow passage of Black Stone members to visit safely.  I also had a strategy of having my morning cup of tea and afternoon shot of vodka on the corner where the local drug gang did their business. As a result, the people around us felt we had become part of the community and were friendly, but there was always the chance that while outside we could get caught up in the crossfire of a drive by or street shoot out. We never once thought we had become or were targets.

SS: Sprinkled throughout the film, you include many shots of yourself Either shooting or reacting. Why?

GG: Why shouldn't I be seen in the film?  While I understand that your question is innocent and without malice, I do not understand the kind of limitations that are starting to be placed on doc makers. I am guessing that the people who are teaching documentary making must be like missionaries of some strange undeclared religion that promotes a kind of documentary makers Ten Commandments of 'do and don'ts'. As a visual artist who grew up with Cubism and Dada, I find the kind of restrictions that are placed on documentary makers ridiculous.

In my opinion, the person making the film and the cameras that are being used are part of the reality of what is going on. To edit the filmmaking presence out of the final film has always seemed dishonest to me. We are not 'flies on the wall', but humans who are affecting the situation around us, and that is the truth of it. Every time I do a Q & A after any of my films have been screened, I always get the same formula questions. I can only guess that these purist views are coming from students who have been indoctrinated by a set of rules and principles which are totally artificial. The question about being in the film is typical and worries me that it is a symptom of a kind of religious fanaticism that is taking over the once liberated field of documentary making.

There should not be any restrictions on the way documentary makers create their films - our job is to break the rules and not follow them. The one thing I believe in the most passionately is freedom of expression, which includes the artistic freedom to create using intuition and without rules. In Communist China, the State is using facial recognition and a point reward and punishment system to reduce the freedom of individuals, while in America there is something happening where rules of political correctness are attacking the individual freedom of artists.

SS: How did you establish your first toehold with the locals?

GG: It only took about 15 minutes to gain the trust each of the people in the film. In a dangerous environment, like Englewood, everyone has learned that they have to be able to figure people out very quickly. Their lives can depend on being able to make fast judgements of people.  My first interview was with Solja in his apartment. I was the first white person to ever come into his living room. Solja and his friends only know about white people through watching them on TV and in movies. They have only ever physically met them other than in the form of white cops. In the 12 months we were filming, we never saw another white person except the police and Pastor Pfleger.  Within 15 minutes, we were filming Solja and his friends, and these were some of the most engaging conversations in the final film.We are still friends with all those people filmed in Solja's room, and have taken the film to them at all stages for them to give feedback. I explained that the film would be a platform for them to speak out about the things they felt needed to be said but were never discussed in the media. I have always believed that to show fear of someone is a kind of insult.  If you are showing fear, this is read as, "this person thinks I am scary and bad because they are nervous in my presence.” To be calm, comfortable and relaxed with people is the best way to show you are no threat and are not judging them.

SS: What steps did you take to protect yourself and your crew? How did this differ from other places you've filmed?

GG: Everyone who has seen me working in dangerous situations observes that I use the "hug factor.” I show love to everyone I meet and let them know I appreciate their situation, and would never judge them. That is our protection.There are only two crew members filming, myself and Waqar Alam. We film all situations with two cameras, simultaneously. Waqar is from the Tribal Belt of Pakistan, and has been my film partner for 12 years. We both have the same trusting approach, and both know how to show full respect to those in front of our cameras unless, of course, we are filming cops or military in situations where we do not have approval to film.I often compare what I do for protection to the 'force field' that the Starship Enterprise puts around itself in the Science Fiction series, “Star Trek.”  I believe in magic and feel that it is possible to create a 'force field' of protection around those I am working with. Making and sustaining this kind of 'force field' takes a lot of energy, so it is important never to go into dangerous situations when unwell or at an emotionally low point.

SS: In the film, one subject says, "The Chicago police is the biggest gang in Chicago," and the scene where the police ask you for your permit was full of tension. How did you feel? Can you compare that vulnerability to how you felt when riding around with some of the gang members? (i.e. which was scarier, potential police or gang violence?)

GG: We never felt scared with anyone in the Englewood Community. The May Block group do not like to be referred to as a 'gang' - there is a sensitivity to the words 'gang' and 'gangbangers'. 'Gangbanger' has become as much of a negative issue in the Englewood community as using the 'n' word.  They resent the way that everyone in their community are referred to in a racist and derogatory way as 'gangbangers' by what they see as White America.We approached the police media department and office of Superintendent Eddie Johnson on several occasions, but were refused access and cooperation. Bottom line— the police have good reason to hate cameras. They are antagonistic to being filmed, and this defensive posture has increased since the success of the Black Lives Matter campaign and the release of videos showing police shooting unarmed people of color.

SS: What do you hope audiences take away from this film?

GG: It is time for America to reform its gun laws and stop being hypocritical about what is happening in other countries while something as terrible as what WHITE LIGHT documents is going on in its own backyard.  People should leave the film wanting to help bring about change to segregation, urban poverty and gun violence. We are cooperating with local groups in Englewood, like Bullets for Peace, and doing community discussion screenings of WHITE LIGHT. Our film was designed as a tool to be used to help bring positive change, and we are delighted to see the enthusiastic way this is coming about.

SS: Have you thought about setting up something like the Jalalabad Yellow House (an arts and community center featured in SNOW MONKEY) in Southside? Why or why not?

GG: We have set up a temporary Chicago Yellow House that coincided with the period of filming. It has lasted two years and is getting stronger. The large multi-panel painting created at the Chicago Yellow House as a collaboration between myself and local artists has been acquired by the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, and recognition is coming to many of the young artists and musicians who have participated in our activities.  We are presently trying to get support for renovating the Forum Theatre in Bronzeville as an arts center. Bronzeville is a well-established neutral zone where rival groups of people can meet without the fear of attack. It is similar to Switzerland during WWII. A lot of progress is being made with realizing this dream, and we are on our way back to Chicago to take this to the next phase.

SS: How do you see the future for young doc makers who are just starting out?

GG: Of  all the mediums I work in —painting, performance art, music, drama and photography—a wonderful kind of  liberation has  never stopped, which means the mediums get freer and freer every year that passes. But with documentary filmmaking, the medium keeps slipping back to old attitudes towards creative freedom that should have disappeared in the early twentieth century. If documentary filmmaking is ever going to be seen as an art form, the way its sister medium of drama filmmaking is, then these restrictive dogmas about how a doc should be made need to go.

The problem is the that fanatical and Inquisitional people who want  to enforce laws and rules in the medium are making advances on stealing away our artistic freedoms. This is so negative, it would be impossible for any doc maker to please them. No documentary would ever qualify to be accepted by their standards. I worry for young and new-to-the medium documentary makers, as these restrictions on their freedom must be incredibly inhibiting.

These purists are damaging the doc medium in ways that could be irreparable, unless people begin to see the foolishness of what they demand and begin a revolution to free the medium and  allow  it  to find itself and begin to develop like all the other art forms. The tragedy is that the most idealistic people are attracted to documentary making because they want to make a difference and help the world and humanity to end many of the serious problems that youth are facing. Then, they come up against the frustrating and illogical world of the documentary rule makers. Many of those I speak with are so confused, they want to give up on documentaries and work in another medium.

FREE Tickets for WHITE LIGHT screened November 2, 2019 at the PEM here

A Q&A with Director Director George Gittoes, Producer Hellen Rose and special guests will take place following the screening..

FILMMAKER SPOTLIGHT: David Sutherland, Director of MARCOS DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE

MARCOS DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORENew England PremiereCinemaSalemWednesday, March 3 at 8:00p.m.

Elizabeth Perez is a decorated U.S. Marine veteran and mother living in Ohio. When Marcos, her undocumented husband, is deported to Mexico, her tireless efforts to reunite her family hit a legal brick wall. MARCOS DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE is a love story about a couple grappling with the realities of our nation’s immigration system. With its raw intimacy, the film examines the inner workings, and failures, of deportation and reveals the human cost through an unforgettable portrait of a couple and their children.Award-winning Director David Sutherland screened KIND HEARTED WOMAN at SFF 2013. He spoke to Salem Film Fest writer Sarah Wolfe before the New England Premiere of MARCOS DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE on Wednesday, March 3 at 8:00pm.

SW: Welcome back. Your latest film captures a side of deportation we rarely see in the media – the personal toll on families.DS: These stories of separation often live in the shadows. When undocumented workers – many without criminal histories – are sent away after decades of living in this country, there’s often family left behind.

SW: How did you discover Elizabeth Perez and her story?

DS: I wanted to do a film about immigration. I spent a week in Washington, DC, at a conference for The National Domestic Workers Alliance, which advocates for immigrant workers, and found several potential people to profile. And then I contacted my son’s best friend who works with immigration issues, and he connected me to Veronica Dahlberg at HOLA, the undocumented workers advocacy group in Cleveland that we see in the film. I went out there several times and filmed people for test footage — what I like to call sketchings.

SW: That’s a great term for it.

DS: It helps me plan for the film’s overall portrait. I often start out doing something and then make numerous adjustments. For example, for my film THE FARMER’S WIFE, I worked with 52 farm families over 2 ½ years – a minimum of four days with each family – until I found the right subjects.

SW: Woah, that’s quite a process!

DS: And it’s different with every project. I was interested in filming Dora and Luis first, who we see in this piece. And then Veronica mentioned Elizabeth’s powerful story and had her drive me to the airport after my second shoot in Ohio. We had lunch before my flight and really got along. Half of Elizabeth’s family is also from eastern Kentucky where I filmed COUNTRY BOYS. She reminded me of one the kids in the piece. I decided to film Elizabeth’s story in parallel with Dora’s, but the latter woman’s situation changed when she got her citizenship. So, in the end, Elizabeth’s family became the focus.

SW: Your films have been described as unfiltered and deeply intimate. We see Elizabeth and her husband, Marcos, at their best and worst. How did you gain the trust of this couple and of Elizabeth’s fellow HOLA members?

DS: What works for me is keeping an open mind and speaking from the heart. And I try to present a person the best I can by capturing their likeness – by creating a portrait.I really got to know all these people when my crew and I were riding in cars with them, visiting their homes, and when we saw them after they were detained by ICE and had the preacher and civil rights advocates there. So this was very close up for me. All my films are like that, but this was different in that the years were dragging on to get Marcos back, he and Elizabeth were both becoming depressed, and questions started arising about whether the relationship would last.

SW: We learn that Elizabeth and the children tried joining Marcos in Mexico prior to this film, but it was too much.

DS: Elizabeth didn’t want to live there because of the bad conditions and especially because Marcos was in such a dangerous part of Mexico. I had to film down there with bodyguards. At least 20 of the people you see in the piece were deported and some are dead because of the violence.

SW: That’s so frightening. I imagine you learned a lot about the U.S. immigration system while making this film.

DS: I certainly did. Veronica introduced me to David Leopold, the lawyer in the film, and he was very clear about immigration law. For example, say someone is an illegal immigrant and has been accused of a crime. If they’re deported before being convicted, their record will say they were charged with a felony. They’ll have no chance to prove their innocence while out of the country and that felony will be used against them trying to return to U.S. soil. There are so many things about immigration rules we don’t know. Things were bad during the Obama administration when we began filming, though it was different from the current administration’s approach – especially in regards to the treatment of children.The only thing that’s consistent about immigration policy is that the rules continually change.

SW: I can see this film creating a divide among viewers. Those who believe that our immigration laws need to be upheld, that ‘you come here illegally, you get deported.’ And those who want the laws changed — who call out the U.S. for knowingly providing jobs, homes and schooling to illegal immigrants, only to take it all away and separate families.

DS: I do hope this film creates a conversation. The one thing, though, that people can’t disagree with is that Elizabeth has done a lot for her country as a Marine and veteran. She lives semper fidelis – always faithful to this country and always faithful to Marcos. And part of her patriotism is every so often being able to take a stand. We’re not saying Marcos deserves to come back or doesn’t. Let the chips fly and let viewers decide. The bottom line is you get to see a family going through this hellish experience with our immigration system. And, even if you don’t want to, you can’t help but care about them as human beings.

MARCOS DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE screened as part of SFF 2019
Q&A with Director David Sutherland following the screening.

FILMMAKER SPOTLIGHT: Harrod Blank, Director of WHY CAN’T I BE ME? AROUND YOU

WHY CAN’T I BE ME? AROUND YOU
WINNER: Michael Sullivan Award for Documentary Journalism

East Coast Premiere
The Cabot
Sunday, March 31 at 4:30 p.m.

When filmmaker Harrod Blank's famous camera-covered van breaks down near Albuquerque, NM, the only mechanic capable of fixing it is local drag racer and machining savant, Russell “Rusty” Tidenberg. Rusty has recently started transitioning by adding new breasts and accepting “she/her” pronouns, yet chooses to live as both male and female. This has resulted in unimaginable rejection from her family, friends, and female love interests. Blank, moved by her story, begins filming Rusty as they work together on the van. The filmmaker then spends the next eight years following Rusty’s journey while interviewing an array of gender-non-binary individuals — many in Blank’s art car scene — in an effort to learn what it means to live outside of society’s gender norms. For Rusty — the heart of this film — it means choosing to embrace and exhibit both genders while ultimately hoping for acceptance and love.

Harrod (AUTOMORPHOSIS) and his father, legendary documentarian Les Blank (BURDEN OF DREAMS), participated in SFF 2010. Harrod’s latest film, WHY CAN’T I BE ME? AROUND YOU, is having its East Coast Premiere at The Cabot in Beverly on Sunday, March 31, at 4:30p.m. 

Salem Film Fest writer Sarah Wolfe interviewed Harrod ahead of the screening and had a unique opportunity, via speaker phone, to accompany the director into his late father’s archives as he searched for films.

Harrod Blank: I’m in the vault, can you still hear me? I just need to find a 16mm print.

Sarah Wolfe: I hear you loud and clear. You mentioned a team of folks are there helping you install post-production editing tools?

HB: Yes, it’s quite a process. But it will help me to digitally preserve my father’s work.

SW: It’s wonderful you’re doing that. And that you both screened films together at SFF 2010.  

HB: Yes, definitely.  

SW: Your last SFF piece, AUTOMORPHOSIS, was about the culture of art car enthusiasts of which you’re a big part. It seems almost pre-destined that your camera-covered van broke down on that dusty road outside Albuquerque and led you to Rusty — a fellow car artist with a unique personal story that’s now the focus of your SFF 2019 film, WHY CAN’T I BE ME? AROUND YOU.

HB: If you look at my work previous to this, my specialty has been identity and the identity of artists, particularly art car people. What are the odds that the one person in the Albuquerque area who’s willing to help me upgrade my engine is an artist with an incredible story about identity? Let me tell you, I had exhausted all of my options for mechanics before finding Rusty.

SW: Definitely fate. By the way, I can’t get over those two copper-metal art motorcycles Rusty created.

HB: She is an amazing inventor; she built those motorcycles almost entirely by hand. She doesn’t just make an art vehicle, she creates something that all works together mechanically. She takes it to another level. I have the copper bikes on loan at the Art Car World museum in Douglas, AZ, which I established to promote art car culture.

SW: Okay, now I’m convinced your van was meant to break down. What was your first impression of Rusty when you met?

HB: I felt quickly that Rusty is a very strong individual with a strong character, which is the type of person I gel with because I’m pretty much the same and respect individuality. That’s my top tenet in how I operate: individuality is king.

SW: And what did you think when you first heard Rusty’s story?

HB: When I was underneath the van draining the oil and Rusty was taking the carburetor off the engine, she yelled down to me, ‘Can you believe just because I got these breasts my dad has taken me off salary?’ I really thought about it — about how my own father always encouraged me to express myself as an artist and as an individual. Rusty’s situation seemed like a total injustice. She was the same person, it’s just she felt incomplete and that she wasn’t honoring herself when she was fully masculine. Just because she had this one new body part, all these things suddenly happened — long-time friends left, her father/boss cut her working salary because he couldn’t accept her; and women didn’t want to date her at all. Gender diversity wasn’t something I knew very much about, but after making the movie and spending time with Rusty I learned a lot.

SW: You ended up filming Rusty’s story for eight years. Describe that experience.

HB: That first shoot (when my van was being fixed) was basically getting our feet wet and convincing me that, yes, we should keep filming. In retrospect, I wished I’d used a better camera. It was an anamorphic consumer mini DV Camera, which shot for widescreen, and was all I could find at the time. There were four or five return visits to film Rusty after that. The bulk of the film’s footage was shot at 1280 x 720 on a Panasonic P2 Camera HVX200.  A Canon SLR was also used along with shooting 4K footage with a Sony.

SW: Can you tell me about the 8mm family films that play a key role in the piece? We see Rusty’s father as a young businessman who loves taking hunting trips to different locales.

HB: That old footage from Rusty provided an amazing aspect for telling her story, about how different she and her father are. Her father’s particular mindset didn’t give Rusty room to express her gender identity growing up. And now, as Rusty tells us, she struggles for his acceptance.

SW: Since you first decided to film Rusty’s story, there’s been a growing discussion around gender identity. Can you talk about screening this piece at this particular moment in time?

HB: It’s definitely timely. If you talk to younger people about gender identity they have a whole different perspective on it. Rusty and I are close in age and part of an older generation, and it seems like from generation to generation the openness to gender identity and expression is broadening. I showed WHY CAN’T I BE ME? AROUND YOU to a high school teacher in Alameda, CA, and she told me she had 12 students that are non-binary and identify as “they.” When I was in high school, I didn’t know anybody who was exploring gender.

SW: And now we’re seeing more and more people opening up about that journey, including Rusty.

HB: Definitely. My hope is this film is a portrait of Rusty as an individual. That regardless of gender, this is about Rusty. And the fact that she’s pursuing the balance of two genders, which has been so taboo in our culture. There are a lot of people who share the same sentiments as Rusty. Who are also sort of in the middle. But that’s always been something you’re not supposed to do. People who have felt like Rusty in the past were often pressured into choosing one gender, to have full surgery and everything. I’ve heard some of them have regretted doing that and wished they’d stayed in the middle like Rusty. She will tell you she has no regrets. And that she continues to shape her gender identity and expression.

SW: What do you hope audiences ultimately gain from seeing this film?  

HB: I’m hoping it will help folks realize there’s a human being behind every story. To be a little more open-minded about what we might perceive before we pass judgement on someone. And to not adhere to the boxes we’ve been brought up with. Embrace individuality!

WHY CAN'T I BE ME? AROUND YOU screened as part of SFF 2019

A Q&A with Director Harrod Blank and Film Subject Rusty Tidenberg will take place following the screening.

FILMMAKER SPOTLIGHT: Olivia Martin-Maguire, Director of CHINA LOVE

At Only Photo Studio just out of Shanghai. This is a "go-to" pre wedding photography studio with 3 floors of 'old world' romantic and fantasy sets. July 2015

CHINA LOVE
New England Premiere
Peabody Essex Museum
Sunday, March 31 at 12:30p.m.

Nothing says love and marriage in China better than its $80 billion pre-wedding photography industry. Just over 40 years ago marriages were arranged by the Maoist state, and wedding photos (if any) consisted of a single black and white passport image of the couple. In today’s China, pre-wedding photo shoots have become the ultimate display of modern romance, status and wealth. CHINA LOVE follows several couples on their fantasy rides of glitz, excess and underwater glamor as they embark on their quest for the perfect photos.

Salem Film Fest writer Sarah Wolfe connected with Director Olivia Martin-Maguire ahead of the New England Premiere of CHINA LOVE at the Peabody Essex Museum on Sunday, March 31 at 12:30p.m.

Sarah Wolfe: Your background is in professional photography. What inspired you to get into documentary film?

Olivia Martin-Maguire: CHINA LOVE started as a photo series. Once I really started talking to people, though, I realized there was more depth to the story of Chinese pre-wedding photography that needed exploring. I wanted to do something with more impact and emotional audience engagement about this subject than photography allowed. I took a documentary course at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School as a way to learn more video work to help alongside my photojournalism jobs. I felt I needed to skill up. During this course I had to present a formed idea, so I pitched the story of CHINA LOVE. And from there I managed to find amazing producers who then helped open doors to broadcasters and funding.

SW: How has your photography work influenced your filmmaking?

OMM: For me it was a natural development from visual storytelling. It’s like I was just waiting for the depth that film can offer.

SW: When did you first become aware of China’s pre-wedding photography industry?

OMM: The pre-wedding photo shoots happen all over the streets of China. Especially in the French Concession in Shanghai where I lived. It started when I began photographing a cluster of these shoots on The Bund one morning when I was running early for a job with the Australian Financial Review. I then pitched the images to the AFR and they commissioned a feature story on it. I went with a journalist after that to a big, factory-style studio and began to learn more about the pre-wedding photo industry.

SW: Your film starts off as this vibrant, swirling view of an industry that creates dreams for couples – the Chinese Dream of wealth and happiness. But then its tone beautifully transitions into something much deeper. At what point did you realize your initial interest in pre-wedding photography would provide such a rich opportunity to explore China’s complex history?

OMM: I was searching for a beating heart of the story. The one question I asked people over and over again was, ‘Why are these photos so important to every Chinese couple?’ It always came back to the restriction during Mao’s Cultural Revolution, when the government arranged marriages and the couples only had a passport-sized image to mark their union. I then found a charity that does pre-wedding photography sessions for elderly couples who had endured those times in China. Their stories became the beating heart of the film.

SW: What has been the overall reaction to your film?

OMM: I was worried about China, but this has been our most popular audience. People have thanked me for reflecting their culture with warmth and honesty. Often they feel that foreign films and media only highlight the negative about their country. They’re encouraged it’s being shown in a positive light from an outsider’s perspective. Also, many Chinese students living in Australia and NYC have told me this is their story — that they relate to some of the film’s couples that struggle between their tradition and the Western ideas of freedom.

SW: What overall message do you hope this film brings to audiences?

OMM: Those of us in the West are encouraged to quickly judge everything. This can lead to demonizing other nationalities without seeing the fuller picture of who they are. I hope this film shows that by having a little more empathy and a holistic perspective, so much more can be gained from our connections in the world.   

CHINA LOVE screened as part of SFF 2019

Associate Producer Amelia Chappelow will be present for a Q&A after the film screening.