美国纪录片执行总监Erika Dilday谈论了“ POV”的新季和PBS-Ken Burns争议
Erika Dilday, Exec Director of American Documentary, Talks About ‘POV’s’ New Season and the PBS-Ken Burns Controversy
埃里卡·迪尔（Erika Dilday）今年早些时候成为美国纪录片公司的首位黑人执行董事，负责监督非营利组织的各种企业，包括管理PBS上长期运行的“ POV”系列和“ America ReframeD”，这是一个独立纪录片的展示。在世界频道上。她曾担任Maysles纪录片中心执行董事，在那里她制作了Albert Maysles的最后一部电影《 In Transit》，她加入了Futuro Media Group的Amdoc，该组织是一家非营利组织，该组织自2017年以来一直担任“ Latino USA”在内的编程。她与综艺节目谈到了第34季的“ POV”阵容，她在7月5日进行了执行，并于7月5日开始，以及最近的PBS Ken Burns关于多样性的争议以及与Netflix等流媒体服务竞争的争议。您最近是您最近的首席执行官Futuro Media Group以及Maysles纪录片中心执行总监之前。您期望从这些经验中将什么转移到您的N中EW在“ POV”中的角色？与我合作的所有组织和团队都对正宗的讲故事或为通常不被视为被视为的人创造机会。因此，我将继续关注这一点 - 让人们看到自己以及电影制片人和其他讲故事的人，他们可能不认为自己在媒体景观中占有一席之地，以了解自己的发展，并能够分享他们的故事他们的真理真实而没有限制。您是该组织的第一位黑人执行董事。最近，理查德·佩雷斯（Richard Perez）成为第一个被任命为国际纪录片协会执行董事的有色人种。您是否认为将更多的有色人种置于守门人的位置将有助于在包容和多样性方面改变纪录片格局？毫无疑问。我在整个职业生涯中与不同媒体组织遇到的一件事是，如果您没有决策职位的人，他们会看到瘦弱GS与历史多数不同，您真的无法创造变化。平台带来了很多功能，但是如果您处于该平台的底层，那么您只能做很多事情。我们历来不了解它的重要性，不仅是让合适的人在房间里，而且觉得自己有能力使用自己的声音的人，这是一个很大的变化。last年，HBO的Tiger Woods系列面对反对关于两个白人指挥该项目的事实。这导致了一个问题，即谁被允许在比赛之外记录故事。您对此有何看法？这是我认为我们必须拥有更多有色人种的另一个原因 - 因为这比让我拥有特定的种族或民族身份以外的人更加细微。这是关于能够确保您从正确的角度讲述这个故事。能够考虑各个方面当您拥有一支看起来像该人或他们所涵盖的问题的团队时，通常很难做到这一点。我并不是说这是不可能的，但是我是说这是您必须权衡的东西。而且，在10分中有9次，如果您有参与该过程的人们深入了解他们所涵盖的内容，那么您将拥有更好的产品。在3月，将近140个纪录片制片人向PBS发送了一封公开信首席执行官宝拉·克尔格（Paula Kerger）认为，广播公司的节目表明“系统性失败无法履行多种多样的声音”，并且PBS为像肯·伯恩斯（Ken Burns）这样的白人创作者提供了不公平的支持。电影制片人在包括黎明·波特（Dawn Porter），山姆·波拉德（Sam Pollard）和加勒特·布拉德利（Garrett Bradley）等电影制片人签署了《超越包容》（Beyond Canne）的信件 - 由BIPOC领导的非小说制造商，高管和野外建造者的集合，并表示“ PBS与Burn有独家关系，直到在至少2022，直到2025年，现有电影和新电影的独家家庭视频和视听权，亚马逊Prime Channel拥有伯恩斯电影的整个目录。有多少其他“独立”电影制片人与公共资助的实体有数十年的独家关系？支持这一水平的未经投票特权的公共电视不仅让我们作为电影制片人，而且是作为税收付款的美国人的困扰。”您对这种情况有何看法？我不认为这是肯·伯恩斯的问题。我认为这是一个盲点，在整个领导力中都已经发生了，我认为现在正在改变。 Sylvia Bugg，PBS首席节目主管兼总受众编程总经理，PBS总裁兼首席执行官Paula Kerger与Beyter Anclusion团队进行了对话（发送信后）确实希望改变这一点。我确实同意，过去，合适的人可能不在房间里做出正确的决定。但是这比只是数字。这比确保您拥有这么多有色人种，Bipoc人，拉丁裔或西班牙裔人，妇女或性别未身份的人制作电影的人要细微差别。这是关于内容和影响的，并真正挖掘并说：“我们如何使这种景观反映出我们的国家，世界以及具有不同观点和观点的人们？”我不想只计算数字。我真的没有。我希望我们深入研究。我希望我们更加努力。我们应对我们的观众造成债务，以使他们的内容延伸，从而丰富他们，这有时会使他们有些不舒服。但这需要他们对我们的信任，以传达他们通常不会拿到手臂椅子的信息和想法，并给他们带来了一些确实反映出这个国家正在发生的事情的东西，这些声音可能永远不会听到。“ POV”的第34季有13个纪录片，其中一半是由Col的电影制片人导演的或妇女，跨性别或性别不合格的电影制片人，其中包括拉丁美洲和美国拉丁裔七个冠军中的五个。我意识到您最近刚刚接任执行董事，但是您知道如果不是白人男性的人指导的一半票价是一项任务吗？我认为说这是一项任务是不公平的因为我认为我们不会那样看电影。电影要电影，我们正在看：讲故事的人是谁？他们讲的故事是什么，这是我们应该给听众带来的东西吗？为什么我们要把它带给我们的观众？在即将到来的季节，一个很好的例子是由优雅布拉顿（Elegance Bratton）执导的电影《码头孩子》（Pier Kids）。这是一部关于LGBTQ有色青年的电影，他们聚集在纽约市的码头，他们的挣扎以及他们如何组成某个家庭，但这并不是一部简单的电影。 （Bratton）能够解决很多此类问题，并与这部电影中的年轻人交谈，因为他是电影制片人颜色，因为他是一个在性别认同上挣扎的人。没有像Elegance讲的人，您将无法理解这个故事。这是一个重要的故事，不是因为他们是有色人种的年轻人。并不是因为他们是LGBTQ青年，而是因为它们是我们国家和我们身份的结构的一部分。人们需要了解它们，并以真实的方式听到他们的声音。没有任务，但是有义务。而且我认为，在我们看的每部电影中，我们都会尝试履行这项义务。当您为“ POV”编程时，您是否希望观众希望由于纪录片的内容而改变某种方式？绝对？纪录片有两件事。其中有50％的人播出了它，让人们看到它并改变他们或想改变事物。其他50％是我们所做的参与部分，我们与可以使用（纪录片）的社区和团体一起工作的工具来帮助他们开始对话。如果他们看到的东西可以帮助他们走路，则e and to Action and Action。纪录片是一种社会工具，也是一种艺术和娱乐形式。我觉得，只要我们不确保人们有方法来获取他们吸收的信息，并且一旦学分付出了一些事情，我们才会做我们工作的50％。这是我们任务的一部分。这是纪录片存在的部分原因 - 让人们看到自己，感到有能力，感觉到某事，然后希望能做些什么。为什么被选为“中立的基础”，被选为启动第34季的“中立地”？这是如此及时，重要现在问题。那部电影的幽默，勇气和勇气确实说明了我们想开始季节的方式。“ POV”如何抵抗Netflix，Amazon和Hulu等订阅Vod Services，他们有深深的口袋？如果我说，我会撒谎竞争并不难，但我认为我们为电影制片人提供的东西与他们的东西完全不同要从Netflix那里说。我们为他们的电影提供了投资，不仅是使这部电影的伙伴关系，还可以与电影的订婚合作。这与许多电影制片人说话，而且您不一定要获得一项流媒体服务，而这是一定的关怀和关注，而这是谁知道谁知道有多少纪录片。我们每个季节（在“ POV”上）拍了16部电影，我们对这些电影和电影制片人以及他们的电影可以做什么深入投入。这不仅仅是关于这会赚很多钱吗？还是我们会得到新的订户？这也是关于这部电影可以做什么，我们该如何帮助这位电影制片人做到这一点？您希望在不久的将来对“ POV”做什么？作为新领导者，内部有两件事，我非常专注于。一个人是确保我们是一个组织，人们会感受到他们每天所做的事情的价值，以及他们知道我们所做的事情很重要。我想确保我们是一个，我想确保我们是一个嗓音。我们正在拍摄电影，与电影制片人合作，并帮助建立我们国家需要的对话和行动。
Erika Dilday, who earlier this year became the first Black executive director of American Documentary Inc., oversees various ventures for the nonprofit, including management of the long-running “POV” series on PBS and “America ReFramed,” a showcase of independent documentaries on the World Channel. Formerly executive director of the Maysles Documentary Center, where she produced Albert Maysles’ final film, “In Transit,” she joined AmDoc from Futuro Media Group, a nonprofit that produces programming including “Latino USA,” where she had been CEO since 2017. She spoke with Variety about the 34th season lineup of “POV,” which she executive produces and kicked off July 5, along with the recent PBS-Ken Burns controversy about diversity and competing with streaming services such as Netflix.
You most recently were CEO of Futuro Media Group and before that executive director of Maysles Documentary Center. What do you expect to carry over from those experiences into your new role at “POV”?
All the organizations and teams I’ve worked with have a passion for authentic storytelling or creating opportunities for people who are not normally seen to be seen. So, I’ll continue to focus on that -- for people to see themselves and for filmmakers and other storytellers, who might not think that they have a place in the media landscape to know that they do, and to be able to share their stories and their truth authentically and without restriction.
You are the organization’s first Black executive director. Recently Richard Perez became the first person of color to be named the executive director of the International Documentary Assn. Do you think putting more people of color in gatekeeper positions will help change documentary landscape when it comes to inclusion and diversity?
Without question. One of the things that I’ve encountered throughout my career, with different media organizations, is that if you don’t have people in decision-making positions who see things differently than the historical majority, you aren’t really going to be able to create change. There’s a lot of power that comes with a platform, but if you are on the bottom levels of that platform, there’s only so much you can do. We haven’t historically understood how important it is, not just to have the right people in the room, but people who feel that they have the power to use their voices and that’s a big change.
Last year, HBO’s Tiger Woods series faced backlash over the fact that two white men directed the project. That led to the question of who is allowed to chronicle stories outside their race. What is your take on that?
This is another reason why I think we have to have more people of color in positions of authority -- because it’s far more nuanced to me than having people outside of a particular racial or ethnic identity doing the chronicling. It’s about being able to make sure that you are telling that story from the right perspective. Being able to consider all sides and often that is very difficult to do when you have a team who looks nothing like the person or the issue they’re covering. I’m not saying that it’s impossible, but I’m saying it’s something that you have to be able to weigh. And nine times out of 10, you’re going to have a better product if you have people involved in that process in the creation of it deeply understanding what it is they are covering.
In March nearly 140 documentary filmmakers sent an open letter to PBS chief executive Paula Kerger that argued the broadcaster’s programming had shown a “systemic failure to fulfill a mandate for a diversity of voices” and that PBS gave an unfair level of support to white creators like Ken Burns.
The letter from Beyond Inclusion -- a BIPOC-led collective of non-fiction makers, executives, and field builders -- was signed by filmmakers including Dawn Porter, Sam Pollard and Garrett Bradley, and stated that “PBS has an exclusive relationship with Burns until at least 2022, exclusive home video and audio-visual rights to existing and new films through 2025, and the Amazon Prime channel boasts the entire catalogue of Burns’ films. How many other ‘independent’ filmmakers have a decades-long exclusive relationship with a publicly funded entity? Public television supporting this level of uninvestigated privilege is troubling not just for us as filmmakers but as tax-paying Americans.”
What’s your take on the situation?
I don’t see this as a Ken Burns problem. I see this as a blind spot that has gone throughout leadership, which I think is changing now. Sylvia Bugg, PBS chief programming executive and general manager, general audience programming, and PBS president and chief executive officer Paula Kerger, who had a conversation with the Beyond Inclusion team (after the letter was sent) are really looking to change this. I do agree that in the past, probably the right people were not in the room to make the right decisions.
But this is far more nuanced than just numbers. It’s far more nuanced than making sure that you have this many people of color, BIPOC people, Latino or Hispanic people, women or gender non-identifying people making films. It’s about content and impact and really digging in and saying, ‘How do we make this landscape reflective of our country, the world and people with different perspectives and points of view?’
I don’t want to just count numbers. I really don’t. I want us to dig deeper. I want us to try harder. We owe a debt to our audiences to bring them content that stretches them, that enriches them and that sometimes will make them a little uncomfortable. But that takes the trust that they put in us to deliver information and ideas that they might not normally get in their arm chairs, and bring them something that really does reflect what’s going on in this country that’s informed by voices that maybe they would never hear.
The 34th season of "POV" features 13 docus, half of which were directed by filmmakers of color and women, trans or gender non-conforming filmmakers, including five of the seven Latin American and U.S. Latinx titles. I realize that you just recently took over as executive director, but do you know if it was a mandate to have half of this year’s fare directed by people who were not white males?
I think it would be unfair to say that it was a mandate because I don’t think we look at a film that way. Film to film, we’re looking at: who are the storytellers? What are the stories they are telling and is this what we should be bringing to our audiences? And why should we be bringing this to our audiences?
A good example in the upcoming season is a film directed by Elegance Bratton called “Pier Kids.” It’s a film about LGBTQ youth of color who congregate at the piers in New York City, their struggles and how they formed a certain family, but it’s not an easy film. (Bratton) is able to reach through a lot of these issues and talk to the youth in this film because he is a filmmaker of color and because he is someone who has struggled with gender identity. You couldn’t get that story without someone like Elegance telling it. And it’s an important story to tell, not because they’re youth of color. And not because they’re LGBTQ youth, but because they are part of the fabric of our nation and of our identity. People need to know about them and hear them in an authentic way.
So, no. There was no mandate, but there is an obligation. And I think with every film we look at we try and fulfill that obligation.
When you are programming for "POV," are you hoping that audiences want to make a change of some sort due to the documentary’s content?
Absolutely. There are two things with a documentary. Fifty percent of it is getting it on the air and having people see it and having it change them or want to change things. The other 50 percent is the engagement part that we do, where we work with communities and groups who can use (the documentary) as a tool to help them start dialogue and move to action if what they see helps them on their path.
Documentary is a social tool as well as a form of art and entertainment. I feel that we would only be doing 50 percent of our job if we weren’t making sure that people had ways to take the information that they absorb and, in some way, do something with it once the credits roll. That’s part of our mandate. It’s part of the reason why documentaries exist -- to make people see themselves, feel empowered, feel something, and then hopefully do something with that.
Why was “The Neutral Ground” selected to kick off Season 34?
It’s about such a timely, important issue right now. The humor and grit and courage of that film really speaks to how we wanted to start the season.
How does "POV" position itself against subscription VOD services like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu who have deep pockets?
I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t hard to compete, but I think what we offer filmmakers is completely different from what they’re going to get say from a Netflix. We offer an investment in their film and a partnership in not just getting the film out but working with engagement around it. That speaks to a lot of filmmakers, and it is a certain type of both care and attention that you’re not necessarily going to get on a streaming service that’s putting out who knows how many documentaries. We do 16 films a season (on “POV”) and we are deeply invested in each of those films and those filmmakers and what their films can do. It’s not just about, will this make a lot of money? Or will we get new subscribers? It’s also about what can this film do and how can we help this filmmaker do it?
What do you hope for "POV" in the immediate future?
There are two things internally as the new leader, I am very much focused on. One is making sure that we are an organization where people feel the value of what they do every day and where they know that what we do is important. Number two at “POV,” I want to make sure that we are a voice. That we are putting out films, working with filmmakers and helping to create the dialogue and action that our country needs.
本文资料/文案来自网络，如有侵权，请联系我们删除。
|
发表于 2022-7-5 07:07:14
发表于 2022-12-31 16:56:12