The moving image. Since its premier in the late 1890s, it has restructured the industrialized world’s self-perspective, forever shifting the course of almost everything, from politics to art. Through this century, films in particular grew to function not just as cultural reflectors, but as the molders of culture, as signposts to attitudes and trends. Although the nature of film has ebbed and flowed with the rhythm and changes of the decades, it has never lost its basic appeal as an open space for visual and thematic creativity.
It is a space which more and more Georgetowners seem to want to learn about, as well as fill with original material of their own. “Georgetown has always offered film classes,” said School of Foreign Service and College professor Lalitha Gopalan, who has taught film and film-related courses at Georgetown for the past eight years, “But I can’t believe that we now have so many students that are interested. There is a lot of potential here. Smart, creative students. I write recommendations for people to go on to film school every year. I think it’s great that, despite Georgetown’s lack of technical training and facilities, we still have people going on to film programs at Columbia and NYU.”
Coming Together
Student interest in film manifests both on the organizational and individual levels, spanning both the analytical and the technical aspects of the genre. The Georgetown Film Society, headed by founders Brendan Kredell (SFS ‘01), a contributing editor of the Georgetown Voice, and Dan McCall (SFS ‘01), along with Tom De Napoli (CAS ‘01) and Matt Suter (SFS ‘03), tackles the art form’s thematic issues. Explaining the impetus behind the creation of the club, De Napoli stated, “We’d seen a lack of foreign and independent film coming into this campus and there was simply no organized forum to discuss them.”
The directors of the organization meet at the beginning of each semester and select the films to be shown at weekly screenings. “We try to have a degree of name recognition in our selection,” said De Napoli, “But overall we aim to show original films and are careful that it’s balanced, that no one country is overly represented.” Sometimes professors and critics are invited to participate in the viewings and discussions, contributing expert angles on complex themes. Channel 4’s on-air critic Arch Campbell once participated in the screening and analysis of Hitchock’s Vertigo. The Society also welcomed the sci-fi cult classic motion picture Blade Runner’s co-writer Hampton Fancher.
“The Film Society is the academic end; we tend to focus on film studies,” said Kredell, “But interest in film has grown, which is evidenced by the increase of professors teaching it. Now people interested in film are starting to splinter, with different motivations.”
This year, one of the splinters materialized in the form of the Georgetown Independent Film Co-op, an organization spearheaded this fall by Chris Boucher (CAS ‘04) and centered on student filmmaking rather than story and character analysis.
“I took an intensive six-week workshop at NYU last summer and wanted to continue what I was doing here at Georgetown,” Boucher said, “But I found no film-making organization here, so I decided to start one. I printed flyers, posted them up … I was so nervous that no one would show up for the first meeting. But I found that the interest here is incredible.”
The Co-op, whose members meet weekly, is geared towards the production and distribution of “shorts” written, produced and directed by students (anything under 70 minutes is considered a short).
“We get the people in the meeting, ask for the scripts, do storyboarding exercises,” Boucher explained. “We’ll take a scene and plot out how to film it. People without much experience can get a feel for it all this way.”
Right now, the Co-op is concentrating on two projects?a psychological drama and a far-out adventure?with a 10-person team laboring on each. The equipment necessary for these ventures comes from students’ personal resources as well as GUTV (Boucher is Student Film Coordinator for GUTV, as well as a member of the executive board).
GUTV’s Role
The two films currently under production by the Co-op teams will be submitted to the GUTV-sponsored Student Film Festival, which will take place at the end of April. Recently founded, GUTV has an increasingly intimate relationship with a number of filmmakers on campus because of its willingness to allow the artists to use the organization’s equipment in exchange for the right to air their work. Some students use the library’s editing and video technology, but it does not measure up to GUTV’s more current resources. “GUTV is the premier clearinghouse for filmmaking on this campus,” De Napoli pointed out.
With campus filmmaking becoming more prominent each semester, GUTV’s involvement in the student film arena is expanding, with the Student Film Festival being a high-profile early step in that direction. Students can submit any self-created short to the festival until the end of March. A 12-member GUTV board will select an hour to an hour and a half of shorts from the pool, which will be shown to the audience. Two critics and two professors will then choose a winner. Discussion and questions will feature prominently in the event, which will be open for anyone interested.
“We want to give student filmmakers a venue and an audience who cares,” commented GUTV’s general manager Zena Barakat (MSB ‘02).
The Kids With the Cameras
In dorm hallways and dining halls, in economics classes and the Tombs?blending smoothly into the Georgetown landscape?a distinct yet hardly distinguishable population flourishes on campus, consisting of those that harbor a genuine and committed passion for the medium. The levels of dedication among these film buffs vary, although, in the words of one campus filmmaker?a person cannot easily be a casual filmmaker ?just as one cannot be a casual sort of artist if one truly is an artist ?since film, like other art, is considered by many to be a labor of love. On the extreme end, some of these Georgetowners live and breathe film, many such enthusiasts not belonging to the previously mentioned campus organizations. Zal Batmanglij (CAS ‘02), Mike Cahill (CAS ‘01) and Doug Laible (CAS ‘01) are prime examples of such devotees, each one taking film course upon film course, each willing to spend endless hours on a single scene, all three seriously considering a career in the field.
Batmanglij?who likens the pain and stress involved in creating film to that of having a baby?owns his own editing equipment, which he employs on a great number of shorts, sometimes working by himself and sometimes enlisting help or teaming up with fellow artists. The shorts vary from twisty and experimental to observationalist, near-documentary style, music intertwined into each. Admitting that he has known that he wanted to be involved in film since he was a child, Batmanglij confessed that he has steered his academic career as far as possible in that direction, “Considering all the film classes I’ve taken here at Georgetown, I could be considered a film major.”
When questioned about his style, Cahill?who utilizes his filmmaking skills at National Geographic as an intern and is frequently seen out and about with his camera?stated, “I am the product of the MTV generation. I kind of have a Guy Ritchie style,” indicating that his is a rockier, edgier method than traditional.
The approach taken by Laible?who has taken a comprehensive NYU course on filmmaking?is open, “I try not to limit myself in my filmmaking. I want to see what I can and can’t do with my shorts. I’ve done comedy, dark stuff, some action scenes. One genre is not better than the other.”
The Roadblocks
Despite the zeal for film exhibited by some Georgetown students in both their personal lives and the courses they select, as well as the rave reviews received by much of the film faculty, Georgetown is not, by most standards, considered the ideal place for film studies or filmmaking.
“Georgetown neglects a huge student interest in film, nor is it fulfilling academically in terms of film,” said Barakat.
Although there is a growing amount of film and film-related classes offered within SFS, the College and the Art, Music and Theater departments, there is still no film major/minor option.
“A film minor could be launched,” said Gopalan. “It should be an interdisciplinary program, with mandatory film classes from the history, language and the Art, Music and Theater departments. That would give students a better sense of the field.”
“We need a healthy, creative environment,” said Laible, “People with know-how, skills … A solid film department.”
Resources are also lacking. “No one sees films here?they see videos,” Gopalan insisted, “The Film Society should really be called the Video Society. The University needs to buy a 35-mm film projector. At this point we can’t screen anything on film. People should really be educated in the arts they pursue?filmmakers need access to film, especially if they want to go to film school. If we had that, we as professors would get much more involved. At this point we’re discouraged?why should we stay around and watch videos when we can do that at home?”
When questioned about the university’s meager funding towards film needs, Chief Financial Officer Darryl Christmon commented, “They aren’t getting money because they don’t seem organized. Equipment needs to belong to a university department or a recognized campus organization. It needs to be a formalized effort. I am personally not aware of requests such as that for the 35-mm projector being made on any level.”
Many believe that current film courses?which tend to focus on the interpretation of film, treating it as a dissectible literary art?need to be supplemented with classes that actually instruct in the physical techniques behind the metaphors, subtexts and motifs. “Video production is the new mobile alternative to film,” stated Gopalan, “The costs have gone down. Before you had chunky cameras and now, with video and editing equipment, anyone can make a film quite easily?so we need to teach video production. We should hire a full-time professor that teaches this. It would bring a whole different set of energies.”
Suter agreed, “Video is a lot more economical. Now everyone can be a ‘filmmaker.’ But what is the talent behind it? People sometimes forego learning the techniques their entire career; they miss out on things they should know about.”
“When I came to Georgetown, I did not see any courses from the production point of view,” said Boucher, “This is the reason for the Independent Film Co-op. With it, we hope to build up a film culture, push for a film production course.”
“It’s clear that film isn’t a priority for Georgetown University,” Gopalan lamented, “Students need to really complain about this.”
The recent splintering of filmmakers and film lovers on campus into different groups is also regarded as a problem by some. Several film aficionados complained that the film culture on campus is not large enough to divide into subgroups. “We need to pull our forces together,” said Kredell.
Into the Digital Age
As the digital age progresses, visual forms of communication and expression advance with it. With time, film receives increasing attention because of its fluidity, its ability to evolve and change with new technology and new perspectives. Perhaps its college draw lies in its capability?with the in-your-faceness of spectacle and immediacy?to break through the supposed Gen-X wall of impatience and indifference.
“Everyone is awed by the silver screen,” Laible mused, “It just causes a spark in people’s minds.”
“Students belong to the television generation, the internet” Gopalan concluded, “They are the ones creating the cultural scene. Why should Georgetown be left behind?”
