Behind Filmmaker Magazine's 25 New Faces List
'Filmmaker' editor Scott Macaulay on how the list is conceived, how it's changed, and the story it tells.
Hello! Welcome to Nothing Bogus, an Indie Film Listings+ newsletter. The + is commentary, interviews, dispatches, tutorials, and other groovy stuff. I’m going to start with the +. If you subscribed for the listings and only the listings, scroll as fast as you can to the bottom of this email. If you came for the +, no scrolling necessary :)
This past weekend, Filmmaker magazine commemorated its 25th year of publishing its 25 New Faces of Independent Film list with a short series of works by filmmakers from past and present lists, over at Metrograph. (The series continues through Jan. 15 through Metrograph at Home.)
The New Faces list has become one of the magazine’s most anticipated features. But it began, in 1998, as a page-filler. “The summer months used to be a wasteland for independent film releases,” says founding editor Scott Macaulay. “I remember one night sitting in the office and saying, ‘Rather than cover at all these films we're not that enthusiastic about, why don't we take a big chunk of the magazine and devote it to up-and-coming people?’"
Macaulay and his colleagues’ goal for the list was for it to be “a genuine place for discovery” rather than yet another “publicist-driven list of people who are by and large already known within the film community.” And they also wanted to spotlight a diversity of work—both in the faces themselves and the interests, forms, and skillsets of the artists. “There's always been a mix of feature filmmakers with more experimental filmmakers with below-the-line people with people working in new media, or now VR,” Macaulay says.
I spoke to Macaulay about Filmmaker’s approach to creating the list, trends he’s noticed bubbling up right now, and the advice he gives young filmmakers.
When you started the list, what did the process of discovery entail? Where were you looking for people?
The early years of the magazine, we would just canvas a lot of colleagues. As part of the job we look at a lot of work each year. It probably started with a smaller group of recommenders, and now I blast maybe 200 people asking for recommendations. And then the other thing is we all keep a running list of work we see throughout the year.
The reason we chose "25 new faces" rather than the "25 best new filmmakers" was because we wanted to avoid that kind of bombast. Hopefully there's a kind of modesty built into the title. We're a small team and we're not canvasing the whole world. That's why it's very American independent focused.
When you're looking at people for the list, do you tend to look more at a single work that impresses you or a body of work as a whole?
I think it's a little bit of both. A lot of these people are up-and-coming young filmmakers, so maybe there isn't a broad body of work yet. I would say in almost all cases there is one work that pops out. We keep a running database of everyone we've looked at from previous years. So one of the things we do each year is look back at the previous year's database. And maybe if someone made a short that people have liked but didn't love, we'll look back and see, Ok, what has this person done the next year?
The list has always been something of a passion list. Someone on the team is always very passionate about that person, and often that is motivated by a work that is really great and popped out that year.
You write in this year’s editor’s note, “think of the “25” as a kind of geological survey, a dig into the new impulses, ideas and forces that will bring both new stories and new forms of storytelling to the surface in the years ahead.” What are some of the new impulses, ideas, and forces you’ve noticed?
In recent years, there's a lot of fluidity of form. We've featured hybrid works on the list for many many years, but I certainly think you see that in many films on this year's list. Particularly something like Sue Ding & Sarah Garrahan's film, Passersby. You can look at someone like Craig Quintero, who's working in new media and VR but bringing in a theater background. There's more and more personal work that's also quite sophisticated in filmmaking technique. Two films on this year's list, by Ben Brewer and Samm Hodges, have a level of technical sophistication in terms of VFX that would've been unimaginable [on their budgets] years ago.
Have you noticed any fertile scenes rising up outside of New York and Los Angeles?
We very much look at regional production centers and don't want it to be a super heavy New York and L.A. list. But it's interesting. When does one or two or three people become a scene? In the current issue of the magazine, Darren Hughes, the critic, writes a piece about lodging with Paul Harrill [who was on the 2001 list] at Film Fest Knox, which is a film festival in Tennessee. And they had a competition of independent regional cinema—films that hadn't been made outside of the production centers. So those are two people trying to spur independent production in Tennessee, and specifically in Knoxville.
When we started the magazine, there weren't state film tax credits and now there are. And those have something to do with larger filmmaking scenes in cities across the country.
What story does the evolution of the list tell?
Our main criteria each year is to come up with a list that we all feel proud about and we all feel represents the scene and brings to people's attention filmmakers they wouldn't normally have connected with. So what we feel are the markers of success aren't if this person became a star the next year, and we try not to overlap with other lists.
Over the years, we've probably moved more towards identifying really interesting filmmakers working in shorts and working more artistically and within small groups. You could look at someone like Charlotte Wells, who was on the list in 2018. I think we had her on after the short film Blue Christmas. She works with her own small collective. You could look at someone like Rachel Walden this year, who has her own production company called Gummy Films and works with a small group of people. I think someone like Faye Tsakas, who's on the list this year, has directed really fascinating short documentaries but is also working on producing a narrative feature at the moment. So I think a fluidity of role has been more pronounced as years go by, as has people finding their own groups of collaborators.
And there are certain established filmmakers who you spot as influences in a given particular year. I think this year Chantal Akerman's name came up a lot, Harmony Korine came up a couple of times. I think it has a lot to do with what filmmakers people watch in their formative years. And Chantal Akerman's films, which may have been hard to see when we started the list, are now available to anyone with a Criterion subscription.
Let's define “success” as not just people with household names or people who make a lot of money. Now given that definition, have you noticed any traits that the people who have gone on to have successful careers in film share?
I think a self-confidence and an ability to just keep making the work—whether the work is done on a larger or smaller scale. An ability to sustain focus and keep making work and keep following a creative muse and to not be defined too much by industry pressures or trends of the day.
I'm guessing there are low points and high points in terms of the industry being hospitable. How do you feel about things right now?
It's always been challenging to make American independent films. There have been all these different cycles, whether there was a tremendous amount of private equity one year, or going back many years where the American broadcasters were really enamored with American independent film and were buying and pre-buying. Or there was a year where insurance companies were investing in independent films.
It's such a different moment now. On the one hand, it's very hard to make an American independent film, but on the other hand there are so many films being made. Every year, the Sundance list of submissions increases. I think one of the particular challenges of this moment is once a film is made, getting it seen and having it not be something that just disappears within the cultural conversation. That's one thing our list has helped, is creating a sustained dialogue around filmmakers and their work.
It's also interesting to look at the list and see who has continued to make work and how they've continued to do that. Because I think the list has always celebrated very early work, and often that work is done on a shoestring level, and that's not sustainable for those filmmakers. So one of the challenges right now is coming up with models that allow for sustainable practice.
When you reflect back on this whole run both for the magazine and the list itself, what kinds of things come up for you?
I look at the list and I remain fascinated by it. I'm fascinated by the people. I love the personal stories of filmmakers in terms of their relationship to their work and careers. Looking at all these different careers and people who started at different moments in time, and the way the impact they made in those years has rippled out.
What's the piece of advice you most often give to young filmmakers?
I feel like it's such a cliché answer, but: Be yourself. When I meet a young filmmaker, I really am interested in knowing how they personally connect with the film they're talking about. I’m drawn to people who are bringing a personal and fresh point of view in relation to their material as opposed to thinking about how something will land in the marketplace. So you want to feel people's enthusiasms and get a sense for them as a person and understand the range of what they take in and why they want to make the film they want to make. You're looking for those moments of human connection and unexpected influences. You want to get to know them and understand how their life connects with what they're trying to make.
A few films from this year’s new faces you can watch for free online:
Listings
From Abyn Reabe: I am a filmmaker helping produce a micro-budget New England fairytale feature shooting in NH January 4-14 (with travel days on January 3 and 15). To fill out the team, we're seeking an adventurous and resourceful DP, 1AC, Grip, and Gaffer who can evoke the pre-electric atmosphere of 1844. On-location doc or otherwise rough-and-tumble experience is preferred to someone obsessed with classical painterly images. Ours is the period piece rendered with kinetic natural style. We are looking for team members who want to obsess over lens choices and compositions, embrace limitations, and work closely as a team to compensate for our limited budget. Payment is according to the production's microbudget, with transportation, 3x meals per day, and lodging provided. Reach out to abynrb@gmail.com.
From Anna Torzullo: Does anyone have the following to borrow/use:
drop cloth or large plastic sheets for painting or a cube table that is either white or stone/cement (photos below for reference). To get in touch: Email annatorzullo@gmail.com. We would need it for a shoot that will take place from 1/7-1/11, and could pick up anytime before then. We have a vehicle so within a ~20 mile radius of nyc is ok for pickups!
If you want to promote a screening of your film, I created a chat thread here.
And for those attending Sundance or Slamdance who want to link up, I created a chat thread here
If you would like to list in a future issue, either A) post in the Nothing Bogus chat thread, or B) email nothingbogus1@gmail.com with the subject “Listing.” (It’s FREE!) Include your email and all relevant details (price, dates, etc.).
Gacías