Summer often lends itself to lighter cultural fare – think beach reads and blockbuster sequels – but that didn’t stop a sizable crowd from stopping by the Renaissance Dupont Circle July 20 for a special showing of Roy Germano’s documentary “The Other Side of Immigration.”

The film – which had its East Coast premiere at the 2009 Politics on Film Festival, where it won the festival’s Founder’s Award – explores the immigration issue from the vantage point of rural Mexico, which has seen entire villages of working-age men cross the border to work in the United States.

The screening was the second in the Renaissance Dupont’s Summer Screening Series, which features a different area festival each Tuesday throughout July and August.

Starting from this unique perspective, Germano’s film covers a lot of ground in 50 minutes, systematically looking at a number of issues via insightful interviews with migrants, their families, activists and government officials. The film considers the effect the North American Free Trade Agreement had on Mexican agriculture and employment opportunities, the impact remittances have on the rural Mexican economy and the ramifications the migration has on families.

Speaking after the screening, Germano said he first became interested in immigration after getting to know the largely immigrant staff at a Chicago restaurant where he was working. He later went to graduate school at the University of Texas-Austin and did fieldwork in Mexico funded by the National Science Foundation – work that eventually led him to want to make the film.

During an audience Q-&-A, Germano offered his thoughts on possible ways to deal with illegal immigration in the U.S.

“If people are going to come [to the United States] anyway . . . we might as well provide them with work visas,” Germano said. A work visa program would eliminate dangerous border crossings and could cut down on illegal immigration, as many migrants stay in the United States for many years because of the hazard and expense of traversing the border, he added.

Further, Germano points to little-known social programs in Mexico that facilitate entrepreneurship, giving young people a reason to stay in their hometowns and spurring economic development. “They’re excited about investing in their communities,” he said.

Since its premiere at the 2009 festival, Germano has tweaked the film and has plans for a DVD release this fall. And he told the audience he has more to say on the topic of immigration – in fact, he hopes to soon begin raising money for a second film on broader immigration issues.

2009 Festival selection Neshoba recently signed a distribution deal with First Run Features. Now titled NESHOBA: The Price of Freedom, the documentary tells the story of a Mississippi town still divided about the meaning of justice, 40 years after the murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. While their killers continued to live and prosper, most townspeople remained silent, as if the murders never happened. The film takes an unflinching look at ordinary citizens struggling to find peace with their town’s violent, racist past. In addition to being an official selection at Politics on Film, Neshoba has won numerous awards including Best Documentary at the Boston Film Festival and Best Political Documentary at the New York Independent Film Festival. The film opens in theaters in New York City on August 13, 2010 at the Village Cinema and in Los Angeles on September 10, 2010 at the Lammele Music Hall.

Brazilian filmmaker Chaim Litewski had a powerful reason to complete his new documentary, “Citizen Boilesen,” which looks at the connections between businessman Henning Albert Boilesen and the repressive Brazilian secret police in the late 1960s and early 1970s. “It was almost like an act of exorcism,” Litewski said of the film. “I had to get it out.”

Litewski first became interested in Boilesen at the time of his assassination in Sao Paulo in 1971, and began working on “Citizen Boilesen” in 1993, spending his own money to make the movie. The May 8 screening at the Politics on Film festival was the U.S. premiere of the film.

“Citizen Boilesen” looks at the close collaboration between Danish-born petroleum executive Boilesen and Brazil’s secret police – the OBAN – in the days after the country’s 1964 military coup, including charges that Boilesen attended brutal torture sessions. The collaboration – denied by the military and family members – ultimately led to leftist militants targeting and killing Boilesen on a Sao Paulo street.

The meticulously researched film includes an impressive set of interviews with both radicals and military officials – all of which is surprisingly backed by a bouncy rumba rhythm. “The theme is so heavy I needed to tell the story in a light way,” Litewski said.

Asked if there could be similar collusion in modern times, Litewski reflected on the seemingly universal relationship between a country’s industry and government elite. “Everywhere in the world, there is a strong symbiotic relationship between government and business,” Litewski said. “They need each other.”

Beyond his long-time interest in Boilesen, Litewski was driven to make the film because “so little has been written or spoken about” the interplay between businessmen and the secret police during the early years of Brazil’s military government.

But that could be changing. With a leftist government in Brazil – and an upcoming election that includes a former guerilla as a viable candidate – Litewski said there has been a “rediscovery of the period” of the military government. And “Citizen Boilesen” has been playing in theaters for five months and is receiving a very positive response in Brazil and beyond, he said.

But don’t wait for a sequel. Litewski described the film’s production as “very painful,” and seemed to rule out another documentary. “In the future, I’m going to write books and paint paintings,” he said. “It’s so much easier.”

By Aaron Lovell

Two films at the 2010 Politics on Film festival dealt with racial issues, though they each approach the subject from their own unique vantage point.

Melanie Jeffcoat’s “Open Secret,”  which was screened for the first time in DC on May 8, painstakingly recreates scenes from Alabama’s 1901 Constitutional Convention, where delegates rewrote the state’s constitution in a way that disenfranchised black, female and poor white voters. Repercussions from that summer reverberate to the present, as the constitution continues to form the basis for the state’s laws.

“It’s longer than the Bible and it’s longer than Moby Dick,” Jeffcoat told the audience following the screening. The constitution, which has been amended 800 times and is currently the longest in the world, also served as powerful catalyst for the 1960s civil rights movement in Alabama, Jeffcoat said.

In addition to including language making it hard for blacks to vote and not allowing women to vote, Jeffcoat said the constitution gives undue power to politicians in the state capital of Montgomery because it requires county-level issues to be decided by state-wide ballot initiatives.

But entrenched interests, including elected politicians, out-of-state landowners and lobbyists, have largely shunned the idea of writing a new constitution, Jeffcoat said. In fact, the legislature must vote to even put the question of a new constitutional convention on the state ballot, something that has yet to happen. In the meantime, certain county issues – such as a tax increase to fund better schools or changing the liquor laws – are oftentimes defeated by a state-wide vote.

But while the esoteric issue has yet to resonate with voters in the state, though Jeffcoat is showing “Open Secret” to ever-expanding audiences around Alabama, including tea partiers, high school kids and church groups. “We need to work people up . . . and insist we create a new legacy for the state of Alabama,” she said. The effort will need to include “huge” educational efforts, Jeffcoat said after the panel, but also pointed out Artur Davis, current Democratic candidate for governor, has cited constitutional reform as an issue deserving of attention.

Fixing Alabama’s constitution could have an impact beyond the state, Jeffcoat said. Writing “equitable and fair [constitutional language] devoid of racism . . . would be such a healing balm for the state and the nation.”

While “Open Secret” looks at race- and gender-based inequality in the past, Brian Chinhema’s “Multiracial Identity,” which had its world premiere May 8 at the festival, focuses on the more contemporary issue of how people self-identify their race, particularly people with mixed-race backgrounds.

The feature-length film takes on questions on all sides of the issue, including whether the U.S. Census form should include a “multiracial” category. (When they addressed the issue in the 1990s, government officials decided to allow people to choose more than one race, rather than have a multiracial choice.)

The film also looks at the history of the multiracial issue in America, and how it has often been most connected with people of black and white ancestry, Chinhema said after the screening. But “it’s not simply about black and white, it goes deeper than that,” he added, saying more Asians in the United

States identify as multiracial than other groups.

The film moves beyond the “multiracial” question and looks at how race is really just social construct – albeit one that still occupies a key role in society. “Consciously or unconsciously, we are married to race,” Chinhema said. “It’s there whether you agree with it or not . . . At the end of the day, it’s about self identification.”

Much like the efforts to reform Alabama’s state constitution, Chinhema says in order to move forward it is important to educate people about the nonexistence of biological race. “Each individual is our own race,” he said.

By Aaron Lovell

Former Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Havel has always seemed larger than life, and Petr Jancarek’s new documentary captures not only an idiosyncratic politician at the height of his powers, but a fascinating figure at a crucial moment in world history.  

Jancarek’s film, “Vaclav Havel, Prague Castle,” made its U.S. premiere May 7 at the Politics on Film festival in Washington, DC. The film tells the story of dissident playwright-turned-president Havel and the first six months after the “Velvet Revolution,” when Czechoslovakia peacefully slipped out from under the Iron Curtain in the waning days of the Soviet Union.

Jancarek weaves this story from compelling video footage from the time, candid still photos and interviews with Havel and his former advisors, former president George H.W. Bush, the Dalai Lama and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who shows off by conducting her interview in Czech). In addition to a soundtrack befitting a revolution often linked with rock-n-roll, observant viewers can catch fleeting glimpses of musicians like Paul Simon and Frank Zappa.

Speaking after Friday’s screening, Jancarek told the festival audience he was 9 years old during the Prague Spring of 1968 and 30 during 1989′s Velvet Revolution. “It’s proof of the freedom of our country,” he said of Havel’s story.

Jancarek’s documentary captures the excitement of the Velvet Revolution and the flourishes Havel brought to his foreign policy and political life: For example, wowing the U.S. Congress one week, and then flying to Moscow to meet with Soviet leaders the next. Or making it a priority to invite both Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama to the newly independent nation. And insisting on driving himself to his cottage in the country, or when he would let his bodyguards drive, insisting on sitting up front.

“As a playwright, he knew how to write the script,” Petr Kolar, current Czech ambassador to the United States and Havel advisor, said after the screening. “He was implementing that.”

Watching the film, one can see why — even 20 years on — Havel remains a symbol of a new era emerging in Central Europe. While his popularity in the Czech Republic has slipped since he was president, he remains “an icon” in the country and around the world is “still perceived as something incredible,” Kolar said.  “He became the symbol of the beautiful, lovely changes in Europe.”

By Aaron Lovell

Film director David Van Taylor (“The Perfect Candidate”) has a knack for good timing. “Advise & Dissent,” his newest feature on Supreme Court nominations and the Senate, had its world premiere in Washington as the city gears up for the next justice fight.

“Advise & Dissent,” which premiered May 5 to a sold-out crowd at the 2010 Politics on Film festival, follows the 2005-2006 nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito to the Court through the eyes of two key lawmakers – Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) – and two key lobbyists, Ralph Neas of liberal group People For the American Way and Manuel Miranda of the conservative Third Branch Conference.

Throughout the film, Van Taylor’s camera ably stays in the eye of the storm: poking over the shoulders of reporters as they chase down a nominee, catching senators in a quiet moment of self-reflection and watching lobbyists work their magic outside hearing rooms.

In a panel discussion after the screening that included the director, Neas and Miranda, CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford pointed out that the film’s release was primed to kick-start a discussion about the Senate’s role in the nomination process as President Obama seeks a replacement for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement last month.

As captured in the film, the Roberts’ nomination was marked by a relatively light discussion of his judicial philosophy and views on major issues. In the panel, Van Taylor concluded that a move towards more substantial discussion during the nominations process would need to come from a bipartisan group of senators saying, “We’re not going to confirm people unless they’re ready to have this conversation” about their views on key issues.

Van Taylor’s film contrasted the Roberts/Alito hearings with those of Robert Bork, which saw senators, including Specter and Leahy, question the judge’s philosophy and views. “The Bork fight was what it should be,” Van Taylor said. “It brings the people into the conversation,” he added, and people want a deeper discussion of the issues before a lifetime court appointment.

The film also offers a peek into the clubby world of the U.S. Senate, and what happens when that geniality is challenged. For example, while Leahy voted in support of Roberts, he later seems upset when his close friend and colleague Specter supports Alito, a nominee that raised strong concerns among Democrats. Van Taylor posited that Leahy seemed to subscribe to “a bipartisan paradigm that was old and went back to Bork,” while Specter had moved on from that line of thinking.

Questions about judicial philosophy are not limited to Republican nominees, as seen with Obama’s first pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who was confirmed by the Senate last summer and largely side-stepped questions about her approach to legal issues. At the panel, Neas said he is is “not disappointed” with the confirmation of Sotomayor, but saw the hearings as a “missed opportunity” to discuss judicial philosophy.

Crawford also pointed out that the Obama “short list” for the current court vacancy included a number of fairly moderate jurists – picks  Republicans would be hard-pressed to oppose. Miranda agreed that Republican senators would most likely support a nominee that is a “reasonable choice,” and said it was hard for lawmakers to oppose “qualified” nominees like Alito or Sotomayor.

The Supreme Court could also become a high-profile election issue as current justices begin pondering retirement. For the left in particular, recent controversial rulings, like the Citizens United decision, could draw more scrutiny from voters seeking to change the composition of the court. “They get what the court did and they don’t like,” panelist Margey Baker, of People for the American Way, said.

As the far-reaching panel discussion illustrated, Van Taylor’s film not only provided an insider snapshot of the nomination process, but also framed a set of issues that will only grow in importance in the coming years.

By Aaron Lovell

For Lucas Baiano, it all started with a YouTube clip. In 2007, the film student, sensing the “historic” nature of the upcoming election and the transformative power of new media, made a viral video in support of Hillary Clinton that turned snippets from the candidate’s campaign speeches into a full-fledged movie trailer.

Baiano’s subsequent attempts to get the attention of the Clinton campaign lead him to a book signing with Bill Clinton and countless fundraisers and campaign stops – a journey that forms the basis for his feature-length documentary, “Lucky Strike.” The film’s world premiere is Thursday, May 6, at the 2010 Politics on Film festival in Washington, DC.

“Lucky Strike,” which Baiano describes as a “light-hearted” look at the 2008 campaign, tracks the filmmaker’s quest to get a bowling pin signed by Clinton during the hectic 2007-2008 primary season after first meeting her at a Lucky Strike bowling alley in Miami. “My journey parallels Sen. Clinton’s,” the 21-year-old Baiano says. “I’m the underdog in the film.”

But — much like a political campaign — when Baiano started making his movie, he wasn’t sure how it would all turn out. “We had no idea where we were going,” he says. “We just kept the camera rolling.”

The film captures the moment when viral videos and Facebook posts were just starting to be taken seriously by the political establishment. “[New media] wasn’t at its peak yet,” Baiano says, explaining why his initial clip caught so many eyeballs. At that point, the cable news networks were still treating each new viral clip — “Obama Girl,” anyone? — as a news story in and of itself. For a film student interested in politics, it seemed only natural to put something online and try to get some hits.

Asked how the rise of new media is affecting politics, Baiano admits, “It could work both ways for you.” For every campaign gaffe that gets amplified on the internet, a candidate without a budget can create innovative ads, post them online and gain an audience, he says. “It’s another way for independents and individuals to be discovered.”

Further, for elected officials, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have quickly become the most effective ways of reaching the ever-elusive youth vote. “It’s great to see politicians leaning that way [towards new media,]” Baiano says. “It’s a great way to connect to the youth.”

Baiano is excited his film is making its world premiere in DC in front of a politically aware audience, which could include some of his co-workers – since completing “Lucky Strike,” Baiano has taken up work as a film and visual media expert with a political association in the District. It’s a fitting job for the young filmmaker: As “Lucky Strike” ably illustrates, when it comes to politics, viral has gone mainstream.

~By Aaron Lovell

Lucky Strike World Premiere, Thursday, May 6, 7 p.m., Landmark E Street Cinema

Newspaper journalism has seen momentous changes in the three decades since Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post broke the story of the Watergate scandal. For one, the internet has changed the way journalists cover the news – and the way people receive it.

But at the May 2 kickoff panel for the 2010 Politics on Film festival, Woodward himself argued that, despite the sea change brought on by the internet, reporting today is not that much different than 30 years ago.

“I don’t think [deep throat] Mark Felt . . . would be blogging even now,” Woodward said of one of his famous sources. “You have to go see them.”

The panel discussion followed an afternoon screening of the 1976 classic “All the President’s Men,” famous for its riveting performances and tracking shots of the Post newsroom. Woodward was joined by POLITICO reporter Mike Allen and actor Robert Walden, who played Donald Segretti in the film and Joe Rossi on the newspaper-focused television series “Lou Grant.” The event was moderated by Michael Calderone of Yahoo News.

Woodward said the internet helps with certain aspects of reporting – checking names and addresses, for example – but maintained that the key to breaking the Watergate story was the “incremental coverage” — reporting out bits and pieces of the larger narrative over time – which still requires plenty of shoe leather. “You keep hammering away and you don’t give up on the story,” he said.

Allen and Woodward said the use of anonymous sources – a key aspect of the Post’s coverage of Watergate – often gets a bad rap, but maintain it is still an important part of political reporting when used correctly. When a White House source goes on the record with something, “That’s spin,” Allen said. But learning  “what a newsmaker is really thinking” can be a “valid and valuable way” of using unnamed sources.

Woodward added that anonymous sources should not be used to grind axes, but can provide accurate, vital information for a story. “It’s the specificity of the information that lets you know it’s real,” he said.

Calderone remarked on one famous scene in the film (and in the annals of journalism), when Bernstein roused a very grumpy John Mitchell from his sleep. Calderone asked if this situation would even be possible with today’s well-insulated government officials.

Allen pointed out that it isn’t hard to find email addresses for even the most high profile government officials. “I can email anyone,” he said. “Oftentimes they don’t answer, but sometimes they do.”

As for the influence of “All the President’s Men,” Walden credits the film for launching “Lou Grant” and helping define the reporter in popular culture. “People understood the real value and essence of the fourth estate,” Walden said.

One thing that has changed since the days of “All the President’s Men” and “Lou Grant” is how people get their news. While Woodward said he still reads the Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal in their paper forms, he also provided a solid endorsement of Allen’s daily “Playbook” email. The widely read email digest is “an early-warning system for what’s going on,” Woodward said.

And the panelists also expressed hope for the future of a profession that admittedly has seen some rough days in the post-Watergate years – though someone may need to develop a new business model for delivering and monetizing the news.

“I don’t think the era of newspapers is over,” Woodward said toward the end of Sunday’s panel. “Someone is going to fix this.”

~By Aaron Lovell

“What’s the Matter With Kansas”, which we sneak previewed at last year’s inaugural festival, will be on screen at the E Street Cinema starting this Friday. Thomas Frank, author of the best-selling book from which the film is inspired, will be on hand Friday and Saturday nights for Q&A with the audience. Get tickets online at the Landmark Theater web site.

2009 was not a big year for political film.  But, that’s not particularly unusual.  The most lucrative audience for feature films is the moviegoer, on average a 16 year old boy, who pays a full price admission during the first couple of weeks of a film’s release.   It is during that period, the studio’s cut of a film’s revenues is the highest.  The longer a film is on the market the smaller the take for the film’s producers.  While there is money to be made in television rights and DVD rentals, it is in those first few weeks that a film gets its “legs”.  Word of mouth and the “buzz” combine to make one out of one hundred Hollywood realeases a Jackpot Film; a film that audiences will pay full price to see more than once.

In 2009 there was released what looks to be a quintessential Jackpot film, AVATAR.  Released on December 18 the film became the top grossing film of the year in just twelve days.  In that time Avatar grossed $1.3 billion dollars worldwide ($429 million domestically).  Already, Avatar is, after Titanic, the second top grossing film of all time (58^th when adjusted for inflation, right ahead of Back to the Future).   The rest of the top grossing films of the year are mainly Hollywood confections and franchises targeted at the puerile hordes, but Avatar is a different creature altogether.  It is a political film.  One gets the sense that in the main, audiences don’t go to see Avatar for the story but at least the plot doesn’t seem to get in the way.

Warning, I’m about to discuss the plot.  However, I don’t think that’s important.  In other words, I don’t think you’ll enjoy the film less for me telling you what’s going to happen.  If you can’t guess that in about the first fifteen minutes of the film, you wouldn’t be reading this column or attending this film festival.

Avatar is set on the planet (moon) Pandora which is rich in a mineral called creatively enough “unobtainium”.  An evil corporation in strip mining the planet runs afoul of the native population, the Na’Vi who besides being a pleasant shade of blue have the bodies of runway models.  Earthlings sent to negotiate mineral rights with the Na’Vi go native (literally) and eventually conspire with the Na’Vi to fight the evil corporation.  The Na’Vi are a peaceful people who live in a tree, hunt with bows and arrows and recognize that they don’t own the planet, the planet owns them.

Philosophically there is some pretty tricky work going on here.  The plot’s attack on corporate culture, on mainstream religion and capitalism is pretty straightforward.  To summarize; corporations bad, religion misguided, and capitalism wrong.  As a state employee I was relieved to see that the Government was not the evil doer (always bad for us bureaucrats) but I was also a bit surprised that the Government was no where to be found.  Isn’t the evil company violating some law, rule, treaty or something?  I guess an implicit message of this film is that the UN will survive into the future, doing nothing for eons to come.  The real, real bad guys in the movie are a retired Marine and his private army.  James Cameron (who directed and wrote the film) was not afraid to take on most of the icons of Western Civilization with the exception of the military.

Let me repeat.  I don’t think most people go to this film to get a dose of New Age religion but it doesn’t repel them either.  In making this film a top grossing behemoth, we accept the message that humans are the problem not the solution; and that we could solve our environmental concerns by shooting ourselves into outer space (pass the Kool-Aid!).  Or I suppose we could move into trees, hunt with bows and arrows and ride around on the backs of pterodactyls.

Daniel P. Franklin is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, and the author of Politics and Film: the Political Culture of Film in the United States.