DAY 1
Heidi Gronauer, the Director of ZeLIG School for Documentary, Television and New Media welcomed the participants to the first LINCT online conference for film-makers on July 2 & 3, 2009. As she mentioned, it was fascinating to have gathered so many people from around the world onto the LINCT platform. In just one week, more than 110 professionals signed into the platform and posted many interesting projects, trailers and films.

She was confident that this form of dialogue: first the online-conferences and then the residential workshop in New Delhi, can be very fruitful. As she said, “Of course at the end it is up to you how and how intensively you will use our LINCT-community, which has been developed and created for all of you.

Heidi was followed by Savyasaachi Jain, Asia Projects Co-ordinator, Thomson Foundation, who introduced the four topics of the first day. 1. Co-production Dynamics. 2. Documentary Themes and Subjects. 3. Form and Style. 4. The Commissioning Process.

Heidi and Savyasaachi were joined by Neelima Mathur, Trustee & Trainer, Foundation for Responsible Media (Formedia), who was responsible for initiating the concept of online conferences between Europe and India.

Even before the conference started, participants were keen to know if the contents of the discussion would be available on the website. They were assured it would be. (The full chats are available for film-makers in the Film-makers Room in the Forum section.)

Representatives of the three partnering organisations were joined by panelists from Europe and India. From Europe there were Marco Wilms (Heldenfilm in Germany, film-maker, who has recently made a film called ‘Tailor Made Dreams’ in India), Patrice Barrat (France, film-maker, who has initiated many co-llaborative films wih directors in different parts of the world under the Mad Mundo series of Article Z) and Raffaele Brunetti (Italy). (Raffaele Brunetti, film-maker, who recently made a film in India called ‘Hair India’. ) From India, the panelists were Abhijit Das Gupta (film-maker and representative of INPUT in India), Gargi Sen (film-maker and now distributor for non-broadcast circuits in India through Magic Lantern Foundation) and Ranjan Palit (film-maker and ace cinematographer).

In context of Raffaele’s experience with India, the issue that came up was that the style and content of the Indian main broadcasters did not match with the style and content of European productions. Participants like Nandini Bedi (Indian film-maker based in The Netherlands) agreed this is a big issue. Though Raffaele felt this could also be due to a lack of information. He felt that occasions like the online conference may help everyone to understand both sides.

Further to which Lucia King (film-maker, UK) felt there are bigger questions behind all this about supposed global 'transferability', meaning assumptions of what is locally relevant and what is assumed to be internationally interesting. As she said, “It has to do with broadcasters and commissioners' taking responsibility for what they think their audiences want to know about the world... like the way BBC world in Europe doesn't show local films about Indian issues made by Indian documentarists.”

This took the discussion in the direction of what exactly do international broadcasters consider important and interesting. What sort of issues and subjects? T. Jayashree (primarily NGO film-maker, India) had an interesting remark regarding this, saying, “My film is a co production between two NGOs (Germany and Bangalore) shot in 3 countries, that looks at the global issue of HIV and access to medicine, a non commissioned film. She further explained that in both countries broadcasters feel it is international and not country specific!! In a slightly different vein, Raffaele said though his film in India was not co-produced here, he had several fruitful collaborations with Indian companies and professionals.

In this context, Savyasaachi raised the question: Do we have a lack of interest in co-productions simply because there is no existing 'model'? Is this one of the reasons? In response to this Gargi wondered which Indian broadcaster is commissioning or producing? How to co-produce in such situations? The best option would be international NGO funding for production and then locating broadcasters. Participants like Vasuki Belavadi (film-maker and professor, Department of Communication, University of Hyderabad, India) agreed saying they would rather choose an NGO option and then look for possible broadcasters.

This prompted Prem Kumar Aman (film-maker and web-based campaigner, India) to ask, “Can we also look at the new modes of production and broadcast - the new technologies - have in fact broken many barriers - and have opened up new opportunities to realize these synergies - both in the realm of production as also with exhibition. Can we redefine the term "broadcast" to include the new media?” Heidi stated that the public broadcasters know that their time is counted. If we are talking about money for our productions, we must be open to look into the future, to be those who create the creative potential of the audiovisual world of tomorrow and that is in the internet, it is new media.”

The issue of resources and co-productions continued at different levels. Participants wanted to know if there others apart from the Public Service Broadcasting Trust (PSBT) who are autonomous producer/commissioners in India? (PSBT is a not-for-profit organisation in India that commissions documentaries for telecast on the national public broadcaster, Doordarshan.) To which Gargi reacted that there is none and that is the key problem of the co-production space in India.

The discussion then moved towards the issue of the documentary culture in India. Saachi said the documentary culture in India has been in a low-key phase. One necessity is to increase its visibility. Vasuki responded that small regional film clubs are attempting at increasing visibility. some run by interested filmmakers themselves & others critiques. And Gargi stated that actually we have quite a vibrant culture of screenings in India - through different networks of academics and NGOs. But revenue models don't exist and that's where a functional distribution model became important for us to think through.

In this context Raffaele felt that theatrical release should be an option for documentary films. Some documentaries can do better than some fiction movies. It is a matter of culture, habit, advertising and the monopoly of the 'mafia' of distribution (at least in Italy). Vasuki recalled there was a time when documentaries were shown before the main feature film in theatres. And that maybe one needs to give it a try again with the new kind of documentaries in India today.

Pramod Mathur (film-maker, India and Chairman of Formedia) felt the market realities cannot be denied and one cannot keep fighting for space on commercial networks and also ask to be paid. His suggestion was “To pitch for a global satellite documentary channel exclusively for documentary. If the organisations can get together to realise LINCT then international funders may not shy away from funding the satellite channel. Let us think in that direction....we need to be really independent.

In between these comments, Heidi raised the issue of the difference between Indian and European documentary styles. She said that European is as many styles and broadcaster differences as there are counties. There is not one style, not one broadcaster and the questions between Europe and India could also be asked between the single European countries.

The discussion also moved in the direction of how to bridge the interests and tastes of the two audiences. Rajesh Thind (non-resident Indian film-maker based in UK, working on a film in India at present) felt the barrier is in terms of the Indian conception of documentary, and the rapidly changing international one. Rajula Shah (film-maker, India) and Anirban Datta (film-maker, India) felt that globally there is a gap between the broadcasters and the audience.

Rajesh explained the broadcasters point of view, stating “In terms of content, form and style, the international training course leaders / commissioning editors / experienced international producers etc., all emphasise the international marketplace wants two things: 1) films with universal appeal, themes, values and 2) films that can sit on a shelf for five years if need be (i.e. films that aren't about passing). Issue films are hugely in demand right now, but largely when dealt with in cinematic ways rather than televisual. It seems to me that with some better grasp of that, filmmakers in India have huge opportunities. The international marketplace is very keen for interesting material from India. What the international market is increasingly geared towards is STORIES, PEOPLE, SPECIFICs. Not starting with a theme and then working backward to find a way to highlight that theme.” Sunita Thakur (film-maker, India) made a pertinent remark here saying, “While Indian doc makers may need to see more docs from Europe and and get into issues that can sit on the shelf.”

This immediately took the discussion to a slightly philosophical level. Gargi felt the idea of the documentary as 'real' is perhaps a problem. It is central to most European docs - whereas, the new filmmakers in India, transcend this rather false boundary, between the performed and the real. To which Rajula responded by saying, “ Real', which is almost always obliged to be 'interesting'...And Lucia took it ahead saying, “ Aren't we all engaged in navigating many voices of what is reality in our work?” On another take, Ranjan felt, “Well, I think nowadays, its "the dirtier, the better" - meaning, I think docus are looking at the dark, dirt side of human beings..that's the trend…

On the other hand Marco felt, “Personal stories are in fashion. It works for the audience, if the story is understandable and universal. Like "Supersize Me", because the viewer wants to feel involved like in an feature film. That’s why many docs were fictionalised.” He further re-iterated, “A film is always for a market - could be Indian TV, Indian cinema, European cinema, US TV.... so you are doing it for a certain audience. If you are more universal, the audience is bigger, that’s it. Europe, especially ARTE (the French-German niche hannel) is very interested in Indian films, but the topic need to be interesting for their audience.”

Patrice came in with a comment at this point, saying, “About India, I don't know. About Europe, "fortunately", the different crises are opening up the eyes of certain broadcasters, about the need for dealing with the real issues of today.” Marco felt it is not special topics, it is the form, the way of story telling. Patrice agreed adding that the key is to form a network of talents working on different story telling approaches. Gargi promptly asked, “We have often felt the 'European' broadcasters look for personalised narrative, whereas the complexities in India are multi-dimentiional and so Indian films, with complex narratives don't meet commissioning approval in Europe. To which Patrice responded by saying, “May be the time when European broadcasters wanted personalized narratives will go soon. It was exotic in the first place. But now, it's a bit "passé". India is not just exotic anymore. It's a place with a laboratory for the world on many issues. And we want to learn from your experiences.” He further added that co-operation between Europe and India should focus on simple co-productions for TV in the very short term. But in the long term, one needs to think about cross-media platforms and projects as well.