|
 |
 |
|
|
Inside the ITVS Jury Room (Continued)  The panel discusses the scores from the lowest to the highest. After evaluating each project, one by one, from the bottom up, people's scores tend to change as alternative perspectives weigh in. If there is consensus about the lowest scores, these projects are generally eliminated and a second round of scoring follows. On rare occasions, people respond differently to a sample, but generally, the weakest samples correspond to the weakest proposals. Once the lowest ranked proposals are eliminated, panelists engage in approximately 15 hours of discussion. These seven people, plus ITVS staff, will very likely pick up on each proposal's inconsistencies, muddy ideas, budget omissions or legally risky propositions. If your project needs extensive music rights and you do not have a music budget item, for example, the panelists will raise questions about your experience. If you have a list of questions and half-baked research instead of a treatment in which you describe the visual style and structure, the panelists will likely conclude that you are not ready for production. If you are using a mini-DV camera and you have not obtained releases for people found in unflattering situations, ITVS will definitely consult its lawyers and this oversight may cost you the funds. Towards the end of the first day, panelists score once more. These new numbers are revisited on the second (and last) day, in which panelists, after another round of discussion, will proceed to rank projects from "1" onward, "1" being the highest score. Each panelist's new ranking is then added to create an average score for each project. The re-ranking will again be evaluated and debated, allowing panelists to persuade others of projects excluded from the top 5-10. The key issue facing the panel at this point is the cutoff point for funding. In other words, how many projects will receive funding, and how many will become alternates in case one of the higher ranked projects does not accept the funds. This decision is partly limited by the amount of money available for funding the projects of the particular call, but there is a small window to include one or two additional projects if these received very strong panel recommendations. While ITVS staff—not the panelists—usually get the flack, these folks are the producers' best friends, which should make you think twice when calling up! The staff acts as a balancing force, providing additional information such as whether the maker is emerging or established, clarifying or correcting misconceptions about a project, and pushing panelists to fully articulate their positions, particularly when panelists become emotional. Contrary to what many of us may assume, the staff's sympathies are with the applicant, not against him or her, particularly when faced with pitbull panelists. In the end, the grueling discussions that take place benefit the applicant more than anyone else as it forces the panel to be as fair as possible and provides a tool for the staff to share the discussion with the applicant. From my experience participating in two panels in which several projects came back, I can say that the feedback process can greatly improve a proposal and sample tape. In this sense, and in contrast to most other funders, ITVS performs a service to the applicant, even when he or she is not funded. The only moment in which the staff's voice adopts a specific agenda is towards the end of the second day when the programming team directly asks the panelists, particularly those who are programmers, whether a particular show with esoteric subject matter or approach favored by the panel will play well in their respective markets. This type of concern is understandable for ITVS, although since the panel's recommendations tend to be followed, the carriage criteria is not determinant. Very focused experimental work still gets an engaged round of discussion by the panel, although "content is (still) queen."  Tipping the ScoresI hate to admit it, but the system generally works. The best projects eventually tend to rise to the top and the disciplined producers who come back have a better chance than those who give up. So, how can we explain a rejection when producers feel their proposal is flawless? Most proposals that reach even the last round fall into three camps: verbally flawed but visually gifted, visually pedestrian but verbally impressive, and uneven on both counts. Since the weeding out process depends most heavily on the written word, producers who can create well-crafted documents are more likely to make it to the table than those who don't. Yet, once you get there, things change. When all panelists turn their eager heads to see a mediocre or inept sample, it is when you are more likely to hear comments like: "I so wanted to like this" and "I am just sad." Hence, if words got you to the table, images bring home the bacon. This maxim brings me to five strong recommendations to avoid being booted from the ITVS funding island: Communication. To get money from ITVS—or any other source for that matter—know thy audience. Find out what ITVS has funded. Talk to other producers who have been funded by ITVS. Call Richard Saíz or Claire Aguilar at ITVS (they're going to kill me for this). Understand that not all projects are suited for this source and if you can figure this out, you may save yourself and others a lot of agony by applying to the source that is right for your project. The imperative to do your homework also applies to very successful producers. Don't assume that just because you have Du Ponts, Emmys, Oscars and Peabodys, you don't have to bother. Remember that what's under scrutiny is not your career but your specific project. In fact, some panelists will apply higher standards to experienced producers, which means that a fair proposal from a young producer will actually fare better than one from a star. The first time I saw the proposals of several internationally respected producers go to the bottom of the pile, I realized that if there are folks who get repeated funding from ITVS, it is because their proposals continue to be compelling to panelists. The written word. Your project's concept will be read many times before any pair of eyes will view your sample. Do not underestimate this part of the process. If you can't write compellingly but can make good movies, hire or collaborate with someone who can help you articulate your ideas. This process will not only result in a better and more confident proposal, it will also help you to not fall into an insular view about your project. Also, if you are an inexperienced producer or someone taking on a bigger challenge than ever before, make sure that you demonstrate that you have the right kind of support to face the challenge. In contrast to what one may think, the issue is not always who you are, but who is working with you. Peer myths. As a filmmaker who identifies with "minority" communities, I often assumed that if members of my own groups were part of the panel, my proposal would have a better chance of being selected. But let me tell you, that ain't always true. In the two years that I have sat on ITVS panels, the folks from the same communities as the applicant are by far the project's harshest critics, particularly if the proposal touches upon issues that they are knowledgeable about and/or have a stake in. In addition, when people from these communities are very critical of a given proposal, panelists from other communities are less likely to defend it, deferring to the person with insider knowledge. This also happens with fiction projects. Most of the panel will listen carefully to those with screenwriting experience in the evaluation of scripts. Affinity between an applicant and a panelist based on common experiences or aesthetics can—and sometimes—does transform a panelist into an advocate. But this happens less frequently than we may assume. In fact, one of the most reassuring things about ITVS panels is that they are never the same and they are diverse on more than one count. This last session included five women and two men; one African American, one Latina, one Brit, one Asian, one Jew, one Anglo and several lesbians. There were people from Texas, San Francisco, New York, Utah, Los Angeles, and Miami (moi). The diversity, however, transcends these categories to also include people working inside, outside, and betwixt Hollywood, programmers in widely different markets and with diverse values. Having said that, panel dynamics change from panel to panel, yet, remarkably, each group tends to work towards consensus. And, believe it or not, it is generally achieved. The P.O.V. Effect. Many producers who apply to ITVS dream of a P.O.V. broadcast. Certainly P.O.V. is one of the most exciting venues on PBS and this is a logical goal. However, it seems that the P.O.V. mystique propels one too many producers to insert their biography into storylines they have only a tenuous relationship to. Claire Aguilar calls this phenomenon "the P.O.V. effect" and the number of people who fall under this spell is alarmingly high. When considering whether the personal voice is the best way to treat your subject, take some time to consider whether you are falling for the P.O.V. temptation and undermining your project's strengths. Bear in mind that a significant number of projects following this strategy were turned down because the personal often overshadowed the more interesting story.  Sample. Sample. Sample. If you are submitting a proposal for a work-in-progress, do try to produce a sample. But not just any sample. If you think that showing images is sufficient, think again. The people sitting in the room are expecting the highest quality possible. If your sample is technically substandard, structurally weak, or plain dull, it will relocate your project to the bottom of the pile. Or as one of the fellow panelists lamented: "A sample can do a lot of harm." I would go even further: It will kill your project. If you cannot edit a compelling sample in time for the deadline, address the reasons why you will not be presenting a sample and concentrate your efforts in assembling clips that show your past work in the best possible light. This may sound obvious, but you would be amazed at how many people do not have a critical eye when it comes to their own work. If you have ten mediocre clips and one brilliant one, just send the brilliant one. First impressions only need to last 10 seconds to be disastrous. Nobody Is Perfect: Stuff to Consider The peer process is not, of course, neutral. That is why a good project can be rejected by one panel and accepted by another. It can find a better advocate under a different configuration or the karma of a new group may be more favorable to the project's vision. These variables, however, tend to affect the middle-of-the-road proposals more than the strong or weak ones. That is why if your project is perceived to fall into this category and is rejected, it is imperative to make the call, receive and process the feedback from ITVS, and re-apply. An improved sample and proposal, plus a different panel can spell success for some applicants. In the last round, the panel funded much improved versions of earlier proposals, while discarding proposals that despite receiving feedback were still found lacking. It is also fair to say that ITVS's sweeping vision—to do things differently with television—is still a goal rather than a consistent practice. In addition, the overly complicated and convoluted procedures are not suited for many talented professionals used to the fast pitch and making a living as producers. Personally, I am currently working on several projects financed by investors and industry sources because I'd rather be in development hell than ITVS limbo (the money is better). But, the harsh reality of the American independent scene is that there are very few financing partners for innovative programming and ITVS remains an exceptional resource. Importantly, producers can both increase their chances at funding and strengthen ITVS as an institution by increasing the quality of their work. Quality is, of course, an elusive criteria and it is continually changing. Panelists' taste has certainly shifted over the years, and so has the media world. Certain traditions of documentary are almost dead while reality-shows generate monstrous ratings. Experimental filmmaking is nearly extinct, but its historical insights are liberally exploited by the advertising industry and MTV. I remember the good—or bad—old days when many of us debated the merits of a project in terms of its politics. The emphasis today is on creating accessible and well-crafted products of substantial impact to the broadest possible audience. Something may have been lost in translation, yet this situation presents us with stimulating challenges. Let's think harder of what we want to produce. If visual artistry is your strength, dedicate more time to your concept's depth. If analysis is your strength, critically examine your visual strategies. If you need collaborators, reach out. If you have nothing to say to a broadcast audience, make a movie that works for you but don't expect ITVS to fund it. In raising your standards or adjusting them to your intent, it will be harder for ITVS — or any source—to send you the infamous little letter. See you on public television, Frances Negrón-Muntaner This article originally appeared in the May 2001 issue of The Independent. Reprinted with permission of the author. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
ITVS: NEWS | NOW SHOWING | FUNDING FOR PRODUCERS | RECENTLY FUNDED PROGRAMS Contact us at itvs@itvs.org |
