Beyond the fame, beyond the money, beyond the followers, and even at times–beyond the glory–stands a stalwart in independent filmmaking, an auteur in global art that spans nearly three decades. A traveling cinéaste with the fervor of an intellectual activist, the focus of an academic scholar, and the passion of a renaissance musician lies a one–Raoul Peck, born in Port-au-Prince, Haiti–reared in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, educated in Berlin, Germany, and currently resides and works in the country of France. Not yet or ever will be a household name on varying continents but a much understood force in black, international cinema. Raoul Peck is one of the most important filmmakers alive today. In a world where over-saturation of media content and the redundancy of mainstream work has taken precedence in film and television industries worldwide–year after year, work after work Peck has delivered powerful, memorable filmmaking. He has risen to the pinnacle of top auteurs today simply upon the fact of his global relevancy. His work bridges the gap among three distinct continents–North America, Europe, and Africa. His tireless execution of delivery has gone beyond didactic tendencies or educational forums–it has raised a much marginal level of awareness into the profundity of a necessary voice.

Like all masters of their given craft Peck worked his way late in the ever-changing film industry that began with humble beginnings as a taxi driver in New York City and then as a freelance photographer and journalist up until he formed his award-winning film production. Along the way he educated himself on his place in a world from black Caribbean roots to a citizen of the African mainland. Establishing himself as an autodidact Raoul Peck found his mark behind the camera delivering the juxtaposition of real life in the context of cinematic dramas. Throughout his stellar film work Peck consistently carries his growing, niche audiences into disclosed corners of the world to piecemeal the nuance of troubled realities. We see this in his biopic film, Lumumba, centered on the fame Congolese freedom fighter. In the death scene that culminated the climax of the film, a poetic voice-over narration awakens the viewer spoken from the actual, gripping words of Patrice Lumumba himself–“…Don’t weep my love. One day history will have its say. Not the history they teach in Brussels, Paris or Washington, but our history. That of a new Africa….” Rarely, is Peck afraid to jump into the controversy of political strife and delve deep into the gray of troubled society and suck out all its marrow.

Consistency is a rare mark among the longevity of careers–in any industry today. Consistency is where Peck made his mark, his living, his impact, his legacy. Written scripts that bring forth absorbing, moving sentiments carries his movies’ leitmotifs with little to no moralizing involved. Gripping scenes of demise emotionally moves his audiences to places few movie creators dare to tread. We see the maim, bloody bodies in his movie, Sometimes in April, a lucid depiction on the Rwandan genocide starring Idris Elba. We are felt by the cracked debris and the pulverization of Haiti in ruins in the movie, Murder in Pacot. Both films brings for the the nuances of human bodies in the midst of poor, marginalized black societies. Peck’s signature touch is of quiet acknowledgment from the long, self-reflective commentary lucidly juxtaposed with scenic images of telling realism, the quiet reflection of profound points-of-views from varying soundbites and narration, and even the simple music touch that carries with it an emotion of sorrow and hope. In his documentary, Fatal Assistance, he speaks to his audience with a pan aerial camera shot of post-earthquake hit Haiti where blue tents map out the given landscape: “Who’s going to save us from our saviors?”

Raoul Peck’s passion and enthusiasm is what should carry all artists forward; all artists forwarding into limitless boundaries. Bent on uncovering and exposing truth in its barest form Peck’s camera visualizes poetic movements from symbolism back to nature in its honest form. Seeking to raise awareness on controversial and complex subject matter Peck’s scripts is written in a lucid manner told in a philosophical tangent yet grounded in realism. In his biopic documentary, Lumumba: Death of a Prophet (a precursor to his latter narrative biopic) the carrying question of Patrice Lumumba’s fate as his country’s independence leader is conveyed with the quiet build of a biographical account. We pierce through the complex dimensions of a newly independent country–DRC, through the eyes of such glorified yet misunderstood hero–evolving from staggered colonization to stark despotism. His question of Lumumba as the prophet of not only the Congo but of central Africa if not all of Africa in the awakening years of the early 1960s–should be our question as the viewer too.

Peck’s gift to us as a master cinéaste shines once again in his latest Academy Award-nominated film, I Am Not Your Negro. Here, he challenges us and ultimately  challenges himself to deconstruct through the deep wounding reality of modern racism laid out in the vision and eloquence of the fiery James Baldwin. No other filmmaker could’ve accomplished this task. This intriguing storytelling approach takes the deep subject matter of a James Baldwin commentary and life story into an understood context to an audience not familiar with his work.  The film, written from an unpublished work of the passionate Baldwin and narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, guides the viewer in the intricate and contentious subject matter of American racism in the subsequent generation following the Civil Rights Movement. The documentary is constructed like a flowing arthouse, experimental piece where images of slaves, lynched bodies, Civil Rights icons are matched with and along movie snippets of African Americans portrayed in 1940s and 1950s-era Hollywood films.  Delicately interwoven with James Baldwin interviews and lecture videos that illuminate the articulate brilliance of this seminal figure in modern black history, I Am Not Your Negro hits home the direct question (if not answer) to the destiny of the so-called “American experiment” as it relates to her growing and diverse racial demographic. With the subtlety of poetic lyrics from Baldwin himself portrayed with the lucid depictions of archival material we better appreciate the nuances that is race relations of the late 20th and early 21st century.

To that–we must thank Raoul Peck for such achievements.

Something ought to be said about the Golden Age of Japanese Cinema for film historians, film buffs, film distributors, film enthusiasts, and fellow cinéastes worldwide. Something ought to be said for why a budding, African-born, American indie filmmaker is writing a blog on the topic in 2017 nearly two generations later–on the impact the Japanese made in film lore. Early ’50s through early ’60s Japanese cinema was by far the best in the world–light years ahead of Hollywood–with masterful cinematography, near-flawless acting, solid costume & production design, stellar written storytelling across genres (horror, drama, action, and romance), captivating stylistic approach, and even profound film music scores. Besides the works of the legendary international icon Akira Kurosawa other great, lesser-known filmmakers included Keisuke Kinoshita, Mikio Naruse, Yasujirō Ozu, Kenji Mizoguchi, Kon Ichikawa, and Kaneto Shindo. Such great Japanese films completed in this time period included: “Yojimbo”, “Early Summer”, “Sound of the Mountain”, “Harakiri”, “Fires on the Plain”, “Rashomon”, “Ugetsu”, “Floating Weeds”, “Children of Hiroshima”, “The Burmese Harp”, “Ikiru”, “The Human Condition”, “Godzilla”, “High and Low”, “When a Woman Ascends the Stairs”, “Repast”, “Seven Samurai”, and my favorite–“Tokyo Story”. What I find more interesting about the topic of the Golden Age of Japanese Cinema is not so much the profundity of its great film art but more so, how it has been snubbed in the global conversation on film history.

While I hesitate to group things, people, accomplishments, and certainly–works of art in superlative categories that begin with the “Best” or “Greatest” I feel rather slighted in my formal education on global, film history that have shaped cinema as we know it today. Without getting to the nuts and bolts of why this happened in my days as an enthusiastic film student I am convinced in one thing as the reason for this apparent snub–Eurocentrism. In a world where Western nations dominate the business, political, and economics stage and render a near hegemony on most activities, policies, and access throughout the world it is no wonder the academia, and the arts very much fell in line with “European thinking”. Moreover, coupled with Hollywood’s domination of the film industry especially after World War II we see a provincial outlook in the industry among movie directors, producers, actors, and even writers who have put out films through the years targeting a specific demographic market. Add that with the Japanese role in World War II as a member of the Axis power a Japanese snub come as no surprise as the marginalization of the “enemy” where not even two atomic bombs could help lift.

As a student soaking in the survey of film history I went through all the major film movements of study and the style its renowned auteurs put out and introduced. Italian neorealism of the mid-40s through early 50’s led by the works of Federico Fellini, Roberto Rossellini, Vittorio De Sica, and Giuseppe De Santis certainly paved the way in poetic expression of realism set in post-war Italy. French New Wave (the French terminology La Nouvelle Vague) brought a new approach with an avant-garde style that broke with conventional norms practiced for decades. Two of the movement’s seminal figures were Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut. Godard’s 1960 film, Breathless, is the best example of the movement’s rejection to particular norms as jump-cuts were used in the ongoing sequences of the film’s story. There is no denying Godard’s influence and inspiration among a range of important filmmakers later down the road. The British had its own New Wave film movement in the late 1950s through late 1960s which brought to the scene the usual in black-and-white visual approach but with a spontaneous quality, often shot in a pseudo-documentary (or cinéma vérité) style on real locations and with real people rather than extras–apparently capturing life as it actually happens. German Expressionism, a creative movement, that reached its zenith in the 1920s Berlin scene, actually spilled into film art as an infectious appeal. German expressionist films have been analyzed to have highlighted the coming days of the Third Reich. Then of course there was the film noir tradition of American cinema that traversed from the early 40’s to the late 50’s with the directing works of “The Master of Suspense” Alfred Hitchcock to the acting of Humphrey Bogart especially in the movies, “The Big Sleep” and “The Maltese Falcon”. Unfortunately, nothing on the Golden Age of Japanese Cinema. I had to learn on my own years after my days as a formal, collegiate student what the Japanese did.

What’s often illuminating in a discourse on the various film movements that brought it’s own signature and moment in film history is how each one was not only influenced by the next but how it utilized and, in some cases, transcended previous impact film approaches and styles. This is important in exploring how film artists through screen writing, camera directing, and acting played a long, continuous role in the thread of great, important filmmaking. However, Japanese cinema during the period Europeans and Americans were out and about creating could not be ignored. Akira Kurosawa seems to be the first and only figure to reach an international and mainstream audience with his legendary films: “Ikiru”, “Seven Samurai”, “Yojimbo”, “Kagemusha, “Throne of Blood”, “Sanjurō”, “Ran”, and “The Hidden Fortress” (which was the film to inspire George Lucas himself to create his Stars Wars franchise). Kurosawa’s nearly 6-decade legendary film directing career was established with numerous awards that etched his name in the place of film achievement rarely passed since. But, why only Kurosawa? As deservedly of the accolades he received and as great of a filmmaker he was behind the camera, delivering the best out of his actors, and the inserting of an epic fight and encounter scenes in the climax of his movies–why was his works exclusively the illuminating light and example for Japanese cinema during the moment of its pinnacle years? I can only speculate to such a question–perhaps, Westerners were only comfortable in filling one slot of a cinema machine out of a distant country to their growing audiences. Perhaps, it was the bitterness and animosity the West still held for Japan with their involvement in World War II. Perhaps, many film critics and historians were convinced Kurosawa’s works highlighted what the Golden Age of Japanese Cinema represented and that he alone was enough to prop up that era of film works. Maybe, Japanese film marketing was nowhere near as great as its films.

Whatever the reason for the apparent snub then and up to now one thing is clear for anyone who has encountered or embarked on the film works the Japanese were constructing from the early 1950s through the early 1960s–something special and timeless was happening. Masaki Kobayashi’s Japanese epic film trilogy, “The Human Condition” takes us to a place of profound emotion illuminated with almost near stellar perfection of the dark side of war.  Yasujirō Ozu’s masterpiece, “Tokyo Story” delivers an intense and gripping account of growth in modern human beings in the backdrop of a growing, rebuilding metropolitan that often leaves an earlier generation behind. “Children of Hiroshima” is another telling film story of the innocence in collateral damage war often creates where the searing shot of naked children running in the street from the effect of the atomic bomb and the nuclear effects laid out afterwards is as powerful of a film depiction as any other. What we are seeing in observing these trends of films is a powerful visual-spatial dimension expressed in each of these films delivered by the poetic movement of a camera, a vivid production design that captures every mood of the story, the leitmotif of moral lessons learned–philosophically undertaken and psychological understood. One can even make a leap in implying the importance of World War II to what evolved in the Japan film industry once the nation lost the war. It’s often noted that with successes and failures is the tragic comedy of life; the ying and the yang of positives and negatives toward what is achieved and established. It is in tragedy that we, human beings, often triumph.

Ironically, fakes news has gone viral. No, not just fake news but the subject of fakes news in and of itself has gone viral. Media journalists of all platforms, channels, niche markets, and hues have spoken out and written about the (not-so) new phenomenon of “fake news” propped and pumped up by social media. Inflamed by the current fire of daily social media postings and shares, digital content in the 21st century has taken on a new fold where deliberate hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation are fluidly published and extolled on various websites—-all for the purposes of entertaining, informing, raising awareness, scaring, and—-believe it or not–educating many. But, beyond the appeal to consume and disseminate fake media content in printed galore or video streams is the heart of the true engine behind fake news—-cynicism. Cynicism is the precursor for such content creation aimed in the speed of light to be the first to “break” a story. Cynicism is the driving motive for anonymous trolls to flood social media timelines for the purposes of initiating a response in news content and kicking in high gear anger, fear, frustration into warped action, negative responses, and perplexed feelings—-even afterthoughts.

As the most contentious presidential race in U.S. history winds down in collective memory fake news has proven to be the aftershocks of the earthquake that came to be in America’s electoral process that culminated to a Trump victory to the White House. Broadcast journalists, beat writers, correspondents foreign and domestic–have all chimed in on the subject of fake news and its tendency–motivated by the surprise victory of Trump in November. Journalists and pundits have taken a meta-journalistic look into their own news business 24/7 cyclical operations from all aspects through social media handling and actual mainstream media reporting. What they gathered were known and unknown entities working in varying platforms, sites, and channels via the world wide web spewing content without fact-checking, corroborating sources, researching backstories, substantiating leads, and other necessary elements to journalistic work ethic. They called out names, they identified fake news content with the jaded and pejorative term “conspiracy theory”, they even hinted at advice to viewers, readers, and consumers on what better ways to take in content on TV, internet and social media. But, they left out one thing in their lashing-out analysis—-the cynical disregard to established order—-part of the motif of the 2016 U.S. presidential election cycle from the primaries to the general race.

Academics, think tanks, bloggers, and some activists predicted the moment in the transcendence of the internet age at the turn of the century where unlimited, Google-released information would be matched and over-matched by content real and fake, small and big, true and false. Cynicism as both an emotional roller coaster rush and a sit-on-the-sideline jadedness skews growing viewers tendency to seek media coverage beyond discernment. And, rarely does cynicism encourage one to do homework on what’s going on especially when messages and factoids are consistently delivered in today’s up-to-the-minute coverage. Where content is all too available coming in from all different directions unasked of the viewer-consumer focus becomes somewhat of a distraction in news at a local to global level. Sensational headlines and attacking soundbites lead the way. Mix the saturation of media content in an advancing technological age where opinions and punditry replace hardcore, impartial news gathering emotion takes on a different guise in being informed. Watch any ESPN sports morning and afternoon show to confirm this point. Google searches are done with a snarky attitude. Wikipedia becomes all too reliable source sought comically in a rush for quick, summed-up info. Here we insert human frailties and insecurities in mixed, conflating feelings toward celebrities, politicians, and athletes with the open space of everybody’s opinionating. What we get is—-cynicism unleashed in the field of endless information. More anger, vitriol, and distrust toward the established elite media political class seemingly un-curbed has shifted consumers response to media content and even re-asserted a brand new approach to news consumption and gathering.

Whether it is out of jealousy of popularity and class privilege, frustration from the voiceless and those whose perspectives are far too marginalized, or simply anger of die-hard sports fans cynicism has swept across the land among all people of all demographics which then taints the very platforms and channels in which they follow. The comments section in most YouTube videos are clear examples of cynicism unleashed. Viewers-consumers seek out their “own” truth to what’s going on to appease their mood and behavior at the time not giving mind to the fall into delusions and misinformation. Trump voters along the ride on the Trump train wanted to believe wholeheartedly in all the dark, sinister stories of Hillary Clinton’s behavior and use of connections via her email scandal. Even middle-of-the-road, independent, not-sure-who-to-vote-for citizens took in the past histories and business dealings and connections real and fake of the two candidates as a big conspiracy ready to make victims out of many as a way to justify their eventual pick. Pizzagate became the latest of fake news story debunked driven primarily by emotional highs of its perpetrators and followers in demonizing the Other—-in this case, the Democratic Party. Cynicism is what allowed fake news stories and promulgators like Alex Jones to become mainstream entities with a growing following of “believers”. Donald John Trump became the product of fake news in the re-tweeting of unproven conspiracy theories and the lambasting of media entities that reported negative stories about him. However, Trump did not create fake news nor help propel it as a new fad. After all, fake news has always been around–in the form of hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation that came along with news content of current events for generations. Trump, the ultimate celebrity-politician (part of two hated groups today) allowed fake news to become mainstream and, sadly, accepted among a growing and real voting bloc of a cynical constituency.

Strangely enough–there’s a long tendency of Burundians to think that anyone who divulges a secret, even if it is true and about the facts is called a ‘liar’. The popular word in Kirundi-umubeshi is referenced to this notion. The thinking here, which may seem contradictory, is the feeling that such hurt that Burundians went through is not enough to articulate in words. Picture the Burundian who lived through the 1972 genocide retelling the horrific event to another person even a fellow Burundian. Another meaning could also imply that such sordid narratives must never be told. Therefore the telling of such stories needs to be put down swiftly–which often means discrediting the messenger and stifling any revelatory details. Any exposure to such revelation to truths, secrets and information–is shunned and dismissed. Umugabo afira ibanga or Gupfira ibanga are Kirundi expressions of keeping “the secret until death”. On the flip side this could also mean ‘”faithfulness until death”, like in the U.S. Marines motto ‘Semper Fidelis‘–Latin phrase meaning “always faithful” or “always loyal”. If my line of thinking is correct on this long tendency and practice of discrediting the messenger or limiting the access to accurate and profound truth-telling I believe it reveals a deeper reality to the level of trauma Burundians are living with. This trauma is brought by the constant cycles of war, hunger, insurrection, oppression, tyranny, injustice, impunity, pain, fear, betrayal and revenge. If people of a given milieu specifically and citizens of a country generally hold back in any dissemination of information, feelings, moods, secrets, facts, and experiences of their given environment due to an irreconcilable trauma important aspects are left out of the given narrative. We, who truly want to understand through the nuances of such narratives that are often relegated to the margins of history, will be left lost in piecing together the long saga that continues to haunt Burundians and their beloved homeland.

Much is said about the motivation and inspiration of documentary filmmakers behind a particular film–which began as a idea-turned-project some several years back. Most of the time this question arises among audience members during Q&A sessions after film screenings.  Other times it comes up in Skype, radio, or broadcast television interviews. Filmmakers have answered it with the thoroughness of completed, personable responses. It is often their favorite question to answer. But, what truly does drive documentary film directors and producers to pursue a given topic and storyline for months, years on through? What compels them to deliver a project from concept to completion in arguably a much deeper and probing manner than a graduate student or field researcher? To be moved on a single thesis in a specific environment involving singular characters through a visual-spatial medium for the goal to disseminate a message and theme to global and niche audiences is, indeed, a worthwhile curiosity pondered by lay audiences. In truth, documentary filmmakers are pushed by a higher consciousness, a higher energy source that is beyond their scope or apparatus. It is said that such filmmakers are chosen rather than choose. Control is a serious yet delicate thing. It is prolonged by anticipation to direct a once-murky and broad subject matter and keep it going in the most turbulent of environs starting from pre-production well into post-production.

Documentary films are not accidents. They are as meticulously crafted and thoroughly put together like any endeavoring artistic project one phase at a time. However, the control to push through on a given project into a finished film work is not always there nor fully met. It can be said that truth with a capital T is what moves such filmmakers and their teams for months and years on through. But I believe something more is at the heart of the documentary film sojourn. Along the way as control is forever alluding them in the inspiring, aspiring journey to share a given message–an impulse to deliver a powerful and important understanding is called into destiny. In his 2013 documentary film on Haiti entitled, Fatal Assistance, director Raoul Peck is driven to go back to his homeland after a devastating earthquake left most of his country in ruins. He and his team are driven to tell the truth on the aftermath of “help” promised by outside governments, NGOs, and other nonprofit organizations. The control in understanding the politics and being able to sift through its often irreconcilable terrains to get at the story of post-disaster Haiti (and particularly–post-earthquake-hit Port-au-Prince) compelled him in his film journey to deliver an engaging film as much as his inspiration to exposing what has happened. He narrates in the film: “Who will save us from our saviors?” Peck like other documentarians are bent in exposing, reporting, and narrating a story but he is without control in the subject matter he is embarking on and the characters who will voice the subject matter. If he is to follow through on his intended thesis he is moved out of his control on an unscript story–the very approach to documentary film storytelling. Here, he is simply the messenger.

If documentary film titles were juxtaposed in an equal balance of thought and control the nonfiction theme to its work will be lost. It would be pushed in the category of a “docudrama” or “reality television” programming–which are completed with either “hard” or “soft” scripting. This elusiveness toward control and the inspiration to direct a storyline in a passionate pursuit does not shift the bias intention to documentary filmmaking. Let’s preface here that bias is not a pejorative term when truly understanding documentaries. After all, documentary filmmaking is not journalism–per se. Rather, they are persuasively-constructive, expository essays–longform think pieces of a given narrative established by premises and anecdotes. And, just like a thesis it is one-sided with flowing arguments, tidbits, nuances, and perspectives. In fact, that driven nature that completes documentaries when it comes from one side is what propels the best documentaries to the top over those that intend to be balanced for fear of not being neutral. No neutral tendency is enough to drive the motor of documentary film teams treading through strange milieus for the end goal of a completed documentary. Neutrality like control is a mirage.

Control also drives the destiny of documentary filmmakers. Was Joshua Oppenheimer truly in control when directing his films The Act of Killing and the follow-up The Look of Silence as he was corralled to the murky environs of the island country of Indonesia to unearth one of the most brutal periods of human violence that has occurred in the 20th century? In fact, shortly after his 2014 film, The Look of Silence, Oppenheimer was a 2014 recipient of the MacArthur “Genius” Award, a prestigious award for an individual who has shown “extraordinary originality and dedication in their creative pursuits and a marked capacity for self-direction”. Here, self-direction was his motivation and inspiration to continue beyond the storylines and characters that he could not essentially control in front of the camera; the narrative had to unravel one frame at a time. Along the way he had to treat the capturing and documenting of such a story as delicate as possible or allowable. Here, it sounds like Oppenheimer has been called not necessarily upon his own request. Being without control in this context leaves the impression that documentarians are without a choice as to how to navigate through a given plot. The choice to continue and further examine and articulate a story plot from climax to denouement is always on the table. The room for creativity through a variegated trajectory of expressions is always available. The decision to control outcomes, predilections, commentary, and recourse, however, is not. Only the most passionate and sensitive of documentary filmmakers prolong through this “out of control” journey for a final outcome of a completed product.

“Shhhhhhhhhh” your mind goes when the lights dim, projector turns on, and the big screen fades in. Within the faint sound of music and the first frame of film illuminating the projection screen you are suddenly transported into another world. Time stops and transcends itself in this moment. The movie screen has captivated your imagination and has hooked all your perceptions and outlooks for the time being. You have been quieted on all fronts–opinions, perspectives, viewpoints, and even thoughts. A great film has the power to shut you up.

When the viewer enmeshed in an audience setting looks upon a film of all genres–horror, drama, documentary, action, suspense, or comedy–everything stands still and one is plugged away at the images moving on screen with the sharp and distinct audio that encompasses each frame of projected film image. The visual storyline draws such a viewer in bent on seeing it unfold until the very end. Only a great film has the power to take the viewer away for 60, 90, or 120 minutes at a time calming the mind throughout the whole experience. This act of plugging one in through a feature-length film can occur in the dark-enclosed theatrical space, a comfy living room setting, or on one’s laptop or tablet computer. A great film–especially in this day and age of 24/7 media content flowing from everywhere–not only limits the distraction a person can get into when they are idly watching a screen but it shuts down outside content meant for distraction and disruption. A great film is an extended daydream; a dream enclosed in waking consciousness.

Try pulling yourself away from an Akira Kurosawa timeless classic where the action of the actors are met magnificently with the dialogue that carries forth the telling of the captivating narrative. Or look at the camera angles juxtaposed in the setting of a given scene in any one of Ingmar Bergman’s vintage films where his auteur-style keeps you probing on what will happen and how it happens–even if you are seeing the movie again. Stories that draws audiences in have this magical effect of engaging the audiences in wanting more, and their willing pursuit to seek the end of such a story from the climax of a problem to its final denouement. Greatly scripted films shuts us up on all our biases, prejudices, and sway. It opens our mind up and influences us to be free thinkers even for a slight and faint moment in time.

Film is language. A stylized language that connects images and sounds for an articulated, creative expression of storytelling. This aspect of storytelling in film language is expounded in visual-spatial form away from literacy and written prose. The speech, the voice, the signs, the sounds, the gestures, the movements, the semiosis is what carries the film from concept to completion, from beginning to end. Through this language that nonetheless shuts us up through the journey takes the engaged viewer on a traveling expedition filled with emotion, thought, feeling, and perspective. Such a power in articulating language for a short-form or long-form film length allows us as viewers to be taken away to places we only could’ve imagined while grounding us on pure expression and honest articulation.

See we live in a very fast-pace, over-populated world where sizeable changes occur at mostly every turn. A lot of it has to do with digital technology and how it has not only shaped the world that we live in but even shaped the very individual living in the world. The momentous changes in digital technology has shaped commerce, trade, and economics at global levels never seen before all operating in saturated markets–both in commodity and labor. This newfound reality has been juxtaposed within an American way of life that has thought children with the very thinking of being special. Such a thinking predicates belief and desire as insurmountable to achievement and in a lot of cases marginalizes the notion of hardwork and paying dues. Logic dictates that if everybody is thought that they were special than nobody is special per se. This belief of “specialness” creates an apparent chasm with how the world works and the young individual entering such a world.

I have worked in the entertainment and media industry since the age of 21–the same age I graduated from college. Working wholly behind-the-scenes my professional experience encompasses the broad scope of production in entertainment and public communication. This includes music videos, broadcast news, independent filmmaking, commercials, infomercials, reality television, awards shows, webisodes and digital media. Anything that involved a camera I was in–actually, I was behind. My work résumé has taken me from sunny South Florida to the bustling New York metropolis to the eclectic Atlanta scene. From development, pre-production through production and post-production and even distribution I have worked and sweated in all the phases. My credits range in a litany of titles and accomplishments–as a writer, editor, production assistant, director, cinematographer, researcher, producer, logger, camera operator, preditor, and so on. In my years of work in an ever-changing, and precarious industry I certainly humbled myself up along the way and continue paying my dues, however little or small they come. I worked minimum wage gigs, drudged through long hours on set and off-set to meet deadlines, I drove long hours to meet assignments, worked odd jobs in strange conditions–that in hindsight upon my naïveté may not have necessarily been legal, executed projects with conflicting personalities in team dynamics and collaborated with a multi-varied and variegated of organizations. Through it all–with the ups and downs that came with its share of heartache, frustration, joy, relief, confidence, anger, weariness, and peace of mind I learned how vitally important it was to humble by myself each step of the way–paying dues and never forgetting. Not taking anything for granted nor expecting a shortcut along the way I learned how much timing and patience can mean in an industry, trade, economy, and world where change is a constant.

This is where after telling you my brief work biography you, as the reader, begin to turn away from this read with the dismissive belief of “duh” and “I heard all this before”. But, I cannot stress paying dues enough especially how simple yet overlooked it can be–again from one Millennial to another. It’s become very difficult for me to talk to young, aspiring members of my milieu who want to enter my industry or other industries for that matter all with the gleam and hope for greatness with little initiative to break a sweat, roll up the sleeves, work extremely hard, and hustle. In a social media age where everyone has a platform for expression regardless–if they are heard/seen or not–“overconfidence” can be a distracting if not self-limiting thing. There is a clear difference between confidence and disillusion. Not everybody is meant for “greatness” in the proverbial sense. Not every Millennial can do anything they put their mind to–which is in no way an attempt to knock any Millennial who tries. No amount of patience guarantees success. The way I see it Americans as parents, counselors, business brands, environmental stimuli, teachers, mentors, institutions, and neighbors raised the next generation on what I call the “American Idol” syndrome where all a person has to do is stand in line and someone will pick them from the lot and give them their break into stardom and financial success. Why? Because they are special. Over time young Americans through an ego-worship of themselves grew up waiting for their cue to come on camera; their moment to shine. In truth, very few people reach the kind of success that is so often sold to us and lauded in our society. Based on the numbers–thousands if not millions of Millennials are dejected, humiliated, and disappointed for not reaching what they taught they deserve.

With no intention to point fingers and blame anyone (since we are all at fault here)–we did a disservice to the young generation with this kind of message that “you can do anything you put your mind to”. Perhaps, the self-help industry in the past 20-30 years didn’t help either. The “you are special” belief furthered the mentality of young people to operate with the feeling that all they have to do is show up and success is theirs. Forget that hard work, dedication, patience, talent, and actually being good at what you do may just get you a crack in the door at elevated success. Young adults embark in their industries and trade as if the world was waiting for them negating the principle of paying dues. It was that scene in Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan of the frustrated young college grad during the Occupy Wall Street movement which later swept the country back in 2011 chanting of the plight of the “99%”. Suddenly, that smart, bright kid reared throughout his primary and secondary education on the belief of being special and “the world is yours” mentality–graduated with a heavily-indebted, collegiate education only to see that they didn’t get their cushy, white-collar-$60K-salaried job with a corner office and their name plate engraved on it. They entered the messy world of today’s global economics only to behold a long line with earlier college grads yelling: “Get in the back of the line, kid!”

I think this problem originated two-fold. One, it spawned out of the innocent appeal for equality in our new age of societal cohesion where no one regardless of race, gender, history, creed, and locale will be discriminated against. Any notion of such exclusion based on external and superficial boundaries is delegitimized in our culture; and for the better. This brought on the feeling that anybody–from the child of illegal Mexican immigrants to the black youth growing up in the inner city can achieve the highest of success based on simply thinking and believing. While there are such proven success stories adults who work and operate in the world experience along the way a gray, complex space where things are messy and roads to success not very clear. Cheating, luck, “isms”, circumstances, and timing all linger historically to the present moment. The second origination of this thinking that anyone can be successful stems ideologically in the propaganda of American exceptionalism where this country is believed to be the only one in the world that can lend you the resources and space to achieve your highest wants. Talking to young kids today it is amazing how many actually believe they will be rich in their lifetime–a component of the so-called American Dream.

Unfortunately, we live in tough times. We live in a digital, technological landscape of a late capitalist, neoliberal global economy spawned by the forces of the financialization of Wall Street and the innovation of Silicon Valley rendered by giant corporations in oligopolistic markets. There are many losers and a few winners in this landscape. Decent jobs with living wage are scarce and many industries downsized to the degree where opportunities are slim, the space to operate more unstable and the kind of inequities caused by this institutionalized system toe the line of survival. It is incumbent upon adults to teach and mentor the next generation on the principle that patience, hard work, and luck plays a vital part in success after the belief to achieve has been established. Paying dues is fundamental to the long journey to achieve which along the way presents no guarantees of winning nor succeeding. The best thing a Millennial and all generations following is to face up to the reality of the present bleak yet exciting world and not attempt to live through the moment with naive predilections, willful ignorance or wishful thinking.

My Top 10 All-Time Favorite Documentary Filmmakers

1. Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line — The Fog of War)

2. Alex Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side — Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God)

3. Nick Broomfield (Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer — Tales of the Grim Sleeper)

4. Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine — Roger & Me)

5. Steve James (Hoop Dreams — The Interrupters)

6. Ken Burns (Civil War — Not for Ourselves Alone)

7. Spike Lee (4 Little Girls — When the Leeves Broke)

8. Orlando Bagwell (Citizen King — Frederick Douglass: When the Lion Wrote History)

9. Liz Garbus (What Happened, Miss Simone? — Bobby Fischer Against the World)

10. Ezra Edelman (O.J.: Made in America — Magic & Bird: A Courtship of Rivals)

NOTABLE SNUBS:

• Stanley Nelson (The Murder of Emmett Till — Freedom Riders)
• Raoul Peck (Lumumba, the death of a prophet — Fatal Assistance)
• Kevin Macdonald (One Day in September — Marley)
• Mark Achbar (The Corporation — Manufacturing Consent)
• Jehane Noujaim (Control Room — The Square)
• Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me — The Greatest Movie Ever Sold)
• Barbara Kopple (Harlan County, USA — American Dream)
• Brett Morgen (Crossfire Hurricane — Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck)
• Eugene Jarecki (The Trials of Henry Kissinger — Why We Fight)
• Michael Kirk (Money, Power & Wall Street — League of Denial)
• Andrew Rossi (Page One — Ivory Tower)
• Davis Guggenheim (He Named Me Malala — An Inconvenient Truth)
• Jonathan Hock (Survive and Advance — Through the Fire)
• Albert Maysles (Grey Gardens —Salesman)
• Charles Ferguson (Inside Job —No End In Sight)
• Kirby Dick (Twist of Faith — The Invisible War)
• Chris Hegedus (Startup.com — The War Room)
• Robert Greenwald (Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers — Outfoxed)
• Andrew Jarecki (Capturing the Friedmans — The Jinx)
• D.A. Pennebaker (The War Room — Dont Look Back)
• Rory Kennedy (Ghosts of Abu Ghraib — Last Days in Vietnam)
• Werner Herzog (The Grizzly Man — The White Diamond)
• Ric Burns (New York — Andy Warhol: A Documentary Film)
• Morgan Neville (20 Feet from Stardom — Best of Enemies)

In a movie industry where most popular movies are known more for the stars that are featured and the well-known directors name that are attached to a given movie documentary films rarely prop up the makers and those featured in a given piece–except in bio films of famous celebrities. The storyline and the power of the overall message and theme of an independent work is what is marketed and presented in the distribution model. This aspect is what makes the meaning of success different for this niche genre. The educational, informative component that motivates documentary film teams to go out on their pursuit and what the audience anticipates and takes in when watching documentaries is the essence of the achievement for documentary filmmakers. This notion is not to romanticize all those involved in the business and creativity of documentary filmmaking. Plenty of examples exist that prove producers and directors and their distribution partners who seek unique storylines for documentary film titles as a means to draw a big enough audience for high-dollar exploitation. Examples include documentary films like: Madonna: Truth or Dare, Religulous, Good Hair, and Justin Bieber’s Believe–to name a few. A lot of television programming is hallmark to this tendency. Especially with the ease of producing documentary film or television content with cost-effective equipment and personnel and the low risk of commercial distribution of this content success can indeed be realized through the accomplishment of money and fame. After all, a reality television series can be an asterisk to non-fiction documentary video content. However, success takes on a whole new focus and pursuit in this terrain. While many of these commercial products begin with a sensible feel to inform and inspire these documentary films in the long run lean in the motivation for entertainment and profiteering more so than anything else. So, while documentary films now and into the near future will continue to fall into sub-genres of reality television, mockumentary, docudrama, and so on the term “success” lies in the meaning and mode of documentary film’s truest and most authentic pursuit–informing and educating while for the filmmakers themselves–the ability to continue in the documentary film idiom.