艾达（Ida）的里克·佩雷斯（Rick Perez）依靠纪录片A列表的危险：“我们需要多种声音的合唱”
IDA’s Rick Perez on the Dangers of Relying on a Documentary A-List: ‘We Need a Chorus of Diverse Voices’
5月，理查德·雷·里克·佩雷斯（Richard Ray“ Rick” Perez）成为第一个担任国际机场执行董事的有色人种。纪录片协会，接任即将卸任的领导人西蒙·基尔默里（Simon Kilmurry），经过六年的运行。纪录片制片人转身行政人员，佩雷斯（Perez）最近是GBH世界频道的收购和分销策略总监，负责策划和收购数字纪录片平台的三个原始系列。在此之前的七年中，他曾在圣丹斯学院（Sundance Institute）担任创意合作伙伴关系主任，在那里他开发，设计和领导的基于艺术家的电影制作计划，包括变更故事。关于已故联合农场工人领袖塞萨尔·查韦斯（Cesar Chavez）的电影，他撰写和执导，该电影在2014年圣丹斯电影节上首映。他努力制作这部电影，随后在圣丹斯学院的工作，教会他提高代表性不足的FIL的平等需求MMAKERS.HE与他谈到了他对IDA未来的愿景，缺乏纪录片制作中的缺乏包容性以及通过A-Lister镜头讲述非小说类故事的社会后果。在圣丹斯和GBH世界。您通过在篱笆的两边工作学到了什么？我花了七年的时间才制作一部电影（“塞萨尔的最后一个快速”），以了解美国历史上的标志性人物。在我做的时候，我有很多电影制片人的经验，我觉得‘哇。在美国历史上恰好是拉丁裔的这位非常重要的人的电影不应该花很长时间。’最终，这部电影在圣丹斯（Sundance）首映，但尽管我很难拍另一部电影并获得资金。我以为会这样打开的门并没有打开。当然，这是我的特定经历，但是一旦我开始在圣丹斯工作回顾纪录片电影节目资金的电影，我意识到这不仅仅是我面临这些挑战。这是一次令人大开眼界的经历，是在栅栏的另一侧，意识到，当我制作电影时，我自己面临的挑战是代表性不足的电影制片人，尤其是有色电影制片人的挑战。我想尝试找出一套非常建设性的解决方案，如：我们如何尝试解决不平等问题？这是在多样性，公平和包容性术语中是流行词典的一部分之前。我发现的是，挑战之一是可用的资源是有限的，需求是无限的。您提到了圣丹斯资助，这是如此有竞争力。您从看到该过程的工作原理中带来了什么？因此，当有电影制片人申请（例如首次电影制片人）时，审查委员会的成员有时不确定要赠款。问题，‘我们冒险？’会出现。我会故意扭转这个问题，说：“我们如何投资这家电影制片人？”，因为这是一个完全不同的想法 - 我们正在养育和培养，而不是潜在的失去东西。当然，所有这些资金都具有极大的竞争力。因此，资助者面临着有意识和无意识的压力。一些资助者就像是：“我们希望继续为可能被称为A列表的非常有成就的电影制片人提供资金。”但是，在继续支持该A列表时，机会成本是多少？由于资源是有限的，因此机会成本是无法投资于新的，更多样化，更具包容性的声音。作为IDA的执行董事，您将如何尝试确保不在A-上代表性不足的电影制片人列表是代表的吗？公众可能不会感知A-List（在纪录片中），但是我们肯定会称其为受益的百分之一的百分之一ROS，目前正在发生纪录片编程和资金的爆炸性增长。因此，培养尚未得到支持的新人才并不是很多。确实是：我们如何使市场更加包含多种声音和无法获得某些资源的经验丰富的声音？我们需要的是多种声音和包容性声音的合唱，因为纪录片在观众如何理解世界中发挥了特定的作用。在很大程度上，通过资源丰富的电影制片人可以看出非小说的叙述。问题是，如果我们只有从这个角度创建的故事，那么我们对全球和家庭叙事的理解和反思不完整，甚至是扭曲的。因此，对我而言，在IDA中，最重要的是要在我们传统上与之合作的独立部门与商业部门之间建造桥梁和更宽的桥梁。这些桥真的需要锚定在公平上。n关于在商业部门内建造这些桥梁？我们想与生产公司，流媒体服务和分销商成为合作伙伴，以最大程度地提高其目标以及我们的目标。我们有共同的利益和共同利益。这就是我将IDA定位的方式：我们可以提供帮助。因此，我们需要弄清楚我们如何成为问责制的合作伙伴。我们如何才能成为计划设计的合作伙伴，以及我们如何成为最佳实践的合作伙伴。一些制作公司和组织已经安装了配额，以确保有色人种被雇用并获得资金。您对此有何看法？我完全欣赏配额，但有时这些配额看起来不错，看起来像问责制工具，但是在独立部门中总会有一些工作障碍。例如，有一些专为彩色电影制片人设计的非营利性资金，白色电影制片人只会出于化妆品而雇用有色人种（颜色）可能没有任何真正的创造性贡献。他们只是为了赚钱的窗户。因此，我们需要知道如何真正检查和评估真正的包容性和真正的多样性。您是第一个担任IDA执行董事的有色人种。最近，埃里卡·迪尔（Erika Dilday）成为美国纪录片的第一位黑人执行董事。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？这是解决方案的一部分。所有这些纪录片部门的领导者，他们的心都在正确的位置。但是，是的，有一个策展人集团，这又是一个很好的意图，但是它的目的是阻止有色人种之间获得真正的影响力。因此，当人们试图引入股权计划，包容计划，多样性计划时，您所拥有的就是从事这些计划的白人领导者。他们认为最适合com的彩色和代表性不足的电影制片人。那里有一个固有的光顾观点。因此 - 是的 - 雇用有色人种领导是解决方案的一部分，但最终，有色人种仍将不得不取得成功。因此，存在多个分层挑战。没有一个解决方案，但解决方案的一部分是做不同的事情。年份，HBO的Tiger Woods系列对两个白人指挥该项目的事实面临反对。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？我对为什么人们对此感到不高兴最感兴趣。这是一个更深入的问题。他们很沮丧，因为他们无法访问（这两个白人电影制片人）。赌注确实是关于访问的。访问资源；被认真对待；返回电子邮件；您的前任西蒙·基尔默里（Simon Kilmurry）说，大型彩带的主导地位可以从纪录片讲故事风格方面导致同质化。您会同意他的评估吗？正在委托和收购谁（纪录片）的人承受成功的压力。因此，投资准确的全球非小说叙事可能不是他们的首要任务。但是，向一部有关流行音乐家或体育人物或真正可笑的东西的性感纪录片传递了眼球。因此，（这些程序员）感觉到的只是非常真实的压力。但是，这种追求会产生非常真实的后果。因为社会与非小说之间存在相互作用，并且在脚本舞台上并不以相同的方式存在。这是一个深刻的问题，是非小说类电影，社会和扭曲叙事的后果之间的相互作用。在他的任期基尔穆里（Kilmurry）通过在IDFA进行活动并与纪录片Assn建立联系，为IDA创造了更多的国际联系。欧洲。您打算增加IDA的全球联系？通过与组织合作，扩展并更加包含国际电影制片人绝对是优先事项。不仅是家庭叙事。去年，这确实是一个全球叙事。通常，当会议是面对面的时候，大约有1000人参加。会议今年会混合以提供更多的包容性吗？是的。我们正在进行一项混合活动，原因是有几个原因。显然，人们想要亲自体验，但是我们从去年中学到的是，由于覆盖范围，尤其是国际覆盖范围和无力向洛杉矶旅行的人，我们必须使其能够让它能够访问与参加者数量最多。我知道这已经不到两个月了，但是您对真正获得纪录片开放和B的感觉是什么更具包容性？文化转变非常困难。涉及对它们运作方式和拥有非常具体文化的行业的文化转变可能更难以转移。IDA想要做的是建造以权益为基础的这些桥梁，可以作为一个领域集体完成。在每个部门，我们的行业中都有很多聪明人。我们正处于一个关键的社会时刻，我们可以选择做正确的事，或者我们可以照常违约，如果这样做，我们将在五到十年内再次进行对话。
In May, Richard Ray “Rick” Perez became the first person of color to serve as executive director of the Intl. Documentary Assn., taking over for outgoing leader Simon Kilmurry following a six-year run.
A documentary filmmaker turned exec, Perez most recently was the director of acquisitions and distribution strategies at GBH’s World Channel, in charge of curating and acquiring documentaries for the digital platform’s three original series. For seven years prior to that, he served as a director of creative partnerships at the Sundance Institute, where he developed, designed, and led artist-based filmmaking programs, including Stories of Change.
His documentary credits include “Cesar’s Last Fast,” a film about late United Farm Workers leader Cesar Chavez that he wrote and directed, which premiered at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival. His struggles to get that film made, followed by his work at the Sundance Institute, taught him about the need to improve equality for underrepresented filmmakers.
He spoke with Variety about his vision for the IDA’s future, the lack of inclusion in documentary filmmaking and the social consequences of telling nonfiction stories through A-lister lenses.
You are a documentary filmmaker who has also worked with filmmakers on an executive level at Sundance and GBH World. What have you learned by working on both sides of the fence?
It took seven years for me to make a film (“Cesar’s Last Fast”) about an iconic figure in American history. At the time I was making it, I had had plenty of experience as a filmmaker, and I felt like, ‘Wow. It shouldn’t take this long to make a film about this very important person in American history, who happens to be Latino.’ Ultimately the film premiered at Sundance but despite that it was difficult for me to make another film and get the funding. The doors weren’t open in a way that I thought they would be. Of course, that was my specific experience, but once I started working at Sundance reviewing the films that the documentary film program was funding, I realized that it wasn't just me facing these challenges. It was an eye-opening experience to be on the other side of the fence and realize that the challenges that I was facing on my own when I was making films were very common challenges to underrepresented filmmakers and particularly filmmakers of color. I wanted to try to figure out a very constructive set of solutions, as in: how can we try to address inequity? This was before the terms diversity, equity and inclusion were part of the popular lexicon. And what I found is that one of the challenges is that the resources available are finite and the needs are infinite.
You mentioned Sundance funding, which is so competitive. What did you take away from seeing how that process worked?
So, when there was a filmmaker applying -- say a first-time filmmaker -- members of the review committee were sometimes uncertain about giving a grant. The question of, ‘Do we take a risk?’ would come up. And I would intentionally reverse that question by saying, ‘How can we invest in this filmmaker?’ Because that’s quite a different idea -- that we are nurturing and cultivating as opposed to potentially losing something. Of course, all these funds are hugely, hugely competitive. So, there are conscious and unconscious pressures facing the funders. Some of the funders are like, "we want to continue to fund very accomplished filmmakers who might be called the A-list." But in continuing to support that A-list, what’s the opportunity cost? Because the resources are finite, the opportunity cost is the inability to invest in newer, more diverse, and more inclusive voices.
As executive director of the IDA, how will you try to make sure that underrepresented filmmakers who aren’t on the A-list are represented?
The general public might not perceive an A-list (in the documentary genre), but there’s certainly what we might call the one percent who are benefiting from the explosive growth in documentary programming and funding happening right now. So, it’s not so much about cultivating new talent that hasn’t been supported. It really is: how can we make the marketplace more inclusive of diverse voices and experienced voices who have not had access to certain resources? What we need is a chorus of diverse voices and inclusive voices because there’s a specific role that a documentary plays in how audiences understand the world. Largely that non-fiction narrative has been seen through a lens of the resourced filmmakers. The problem is that if we only have stories created from that point of view, we have an incomplete and even a distorted understanding and reflection of the global and the domestic narrative. So, the most important thing for me at the IDA is to build bridges and wider bridges between the independent sector that we traditionally work with and the commercial sector. And those bridges really need to be anchored in equity.
How do you plan on building those bridges within the commercial sector?
We want to be partners with the production companies, the streaming services and the distributors to maximize what their goals are and what our goals are. We have shared interest and common interests. That is how I’m positioning the IDA: we can help. So, we need to figure out how can we all be partners in accountability. How can we be partners around program design and how can we be partners around best practices.
Some production companies and organizations have installed quotas to ensure that people of color are being hired and getting funding. How do you feel about that?
I completely appreciate the quotas but sometimes those quotas appear good and appear like accountability tools but there are always work-arounds which we have seen in the independent sector. For example, there are some nonprofit funds designed for filmmakers of color and a white filmmaker would just go hire a person of color for cosmetic purposes and that person (of color) may not have any real creative contribution. They’re just window dressing to get the money. So, we need to know how to really examine and evaluate genuine inclusion and genuine diversity.
You are the first person of color to serve as the IDA’s executive director. Recently Erika Dilday became the first Black executive director of American Documentary. Do you think putting more people of color in gatekeeper positions will help change documentary landscape when it comes to inclusion and diversity?
It’s part of the solution. Leaders in all these documentaries sectors, their hearts have been in the right place. But yes, there was a curatorial clique, that again was well-intentioned, but what it did was that it prevented access to real influence among people of color. So, when people are trying to introduce equity programs, inclusion programs, diversity programs, essentially what you have is white leaders working on these programs on their terms. What they think is best for communities of color and underrepresented filmmakers. There’s an inherent patronizing perspective there. So – yes – hiring people of color to lead is part of the solution, but in the end, leaders of color are still going to have to deliver success. So, there are multiple layered challenges. There’s no one solution, but part of the solution is doing things differently.
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?
I’m most interested in why people are upset (about it). That’s the deeper question. And they are upset because they don’t have access the way (those two white filmmakers have). The stakes are really about access. Access to resources; being taken seriously; getting the emails returned; being seriously being considered for a project.
Your predecessor Simon Kilmurry said that the dominance of the big streamers can lead to a homogenization in terms of documentary storytelling styles. Would you agree with his assessment?
People who are commissioning and who are acquiring (documentaries) are under pressure to succeed. So, investing in an accurate global non-fiction narrative might not be their priority. But delivering eyeballs to a sexy documentary about a pop musician or a sports figure or something really tabloidy might be. So, there are just very real pressures that (these programmers) are feeling. But there are very real consequences around that pursuit. Because there’s an interplay between society and non-fiction that doesn’t exist in the same way in the scripted arena. It’s a profound question, the interplay between non-fiction film, society, and the consequences of a distorted narrative.
During his tenure Kilmurry created more international connections for the IDA by doing events at IDFA and building links with the Documentary Assn. of Europe. Do you plan on increasing IDA’s global connections?
It’s definitely a priority to expand and be more inclusive of international filmmakers by working with organizations. It’s not just a domestic narrative that is at stake. It really is a global narrative.
IDA’s annual Getting Real Conference in Los Angeles was digital last year and had over 3,000 people from 50 countries attend. Normally, when the conference is in-person, approximately 1,000 people attend. Will the conference be hybrid this year to provide more inclusion?
Yes. We’re doing a hybrid event that is accessible for several reasons. Obviously, people want the in-person experience, but what we learned from last year is that because of the reach, particularly the international reach and people who can’t afford to travel domestically to L.A., that we have to make it accessible to the widest number of attendees.
I know it’s been less than two months since you started at IDA, but what’s your sense about actually getting the documentary landscape to open up and become more inclusive?
Cultural shifts are very difficult. Cultural shifts that involve industries that are very comfortable with how they operate and have very specific cultures can be harder to shift. What the IDA wants to do, which is to build these bridges anchored in equity, can be done collectively as a field. We have so many smart people in our industry, in every sector. We are at a pivotal societal moment that we can choose to do the right thing, or we can default to business as usual, and if we do that, we’re going to have this conversation again in five or 10 years.
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 07:30:28
发表于 2023-2-27 06:08:57