... OR GET CANCELLED TRYING?!

You're receiving this newsletter because you've subscribed to my mailing list. You can unsubscribe at the bottom of this newsletter, but I hope you won't. (And in fact, I hope you'll invite more of your friends to join it!)

hi, friends!

It's March, and I've been struggling to write this newsletter (or do anything, really) as I'm living with you all through this historical time warp/repeated record scratch of an American president starting a regime change war in a foreign country with no exit strategy, no good excuse, and seemingly no adults in the room. It's dark times, and certainly not the time for platitudes about the power of art and creativity, but at the same time, I think we're all trying to figure out, in our little corner of the universe, what we can do.

So in the following newsletter, I'm going to talk about the rather evergreen topic of how concerned artists are (or are not) and should be (or should not be) about what's happening in the world.

In this newsletter, you'll find...

• This year's Berlinale recap
• Some films I highly recommend
• News about my latest project & how to get involved (scroll to the end for that!)

NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE BERLINALE?

As many of you know, February is Berlinale season, so this March update usually brings some of that to you. This year, there were some good films, and a very independent spirit to the entire program, but all that was overshadowed by an early press conference in which the Berlinale Jury president, Wim Wenders (one of my favorite filmmakers) answered a question about the responsibility of the festival to speak out against the genocide in Gaza by saying that "Art shouldn't be political."

(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

This preposterous claim started a whirlwind of controversy in the press, statements brave and humiliating by other filmmakers, and a general conversation about what responsibility artists have to use their voice, their platforms, and their films to talk about politics and current events.

The festival ended with an awards ceremony in which several winners used their stage time to condemn the German government for its complicity in Israel's genocide in Gaza.

​

In response, the German government called for the head of the Berlinale, Tricia Tuttle, to be fired for allowing "antisemitic speech" at the ceremony and filmmakers around the world rallied in support of her, and free speech at the festival. And in the end, she's not getting fired!

Wenders' comments, which set off the entire debate, were a little more complicated than the quote I gave, and in the full context we *could* say that he meant that art shouldn't be an arm of the government, and it shouldn't be propaganda. After all, I saw him just a few months ago introducing the Leni Riefenstahl documentary, which is a political documentary about the dangers of divorcing art from politics, and how it makes artists vulnerable to their art being used as propaganda by the government. So it seems preposterous that his statement should so clearly contradict so many others he has made, both explicitly and in his own career choices.

And yes, he did *actually* say that art "is the opposite of politics." In the case of the Berlinale, which is generously supported by the German government, whether Wim meant that film shouldn't speak for the government or that the government shouldn't speak for films, the point is moot because the two obviously intersect at a publicly-funded festival.

Nonetheless, you can hear the full question and answer below:

​

And even if art and politics didn't intersect at the festival in such a clear way, I think festival director Tricia Tuttle's own statement in defence of the artists at the festival cleverly underscored an important distinction:

Some films express a politics with a small “p”: they examine power in daily life, who and what is seen or unseen, included or excluded. Others engage with Politics with a capital “P”: governments, state policy, institutions of power and justice. This is a choice. Speaking to power happens in visible ways, and sometimes in quieter personal ones. Across the history of the Berlinale, many artists have made human rights central to their work. Others have made films which we see as quietly radical political acts which focus on small, fragile moments of care, beauty, love, or on people who are invisible to most of us, people who are alone. They help us make connections to our shared humanity through their movies. And in a broken world this is precious.

The way people organize in groups, in communities, in society, around shared values, oppositional values, and what's meaningful and important to us -- all of this describes politics. And art, too! Even aesthetics describes how we communicate and who and where we are in the world. We cannot disassemble these things, whether or not we choose to go to protests or speak up or not speak up or vote or not vote. And whether we engage with this purposefully or unintentionally. Everything is a choice.

On the other hand, when art aligns with the power of state Politics, it can be corrupted or used. The most powerful moment for me in the Leni Riefenstahl documentary comes when Riefenstahl defends herself by saying that she would have made movies for anyone who offered her money to do it: Hitler, Stalin, Churchill. She believed it was her sacred duty and her calling to express herself with her art, and she didn't care whose flag or whose values appropriated that art. That level of blindness to Politics and consequences makes it the most susceptible to being used as propaganda.

If you haven't seen the documentary, I highly recommend it.

​

WHAT CAN WE DO NOW?

Since I was a teenager, I understood that movies are a mass medium. They have the power to move people, to create empathy, to bring complex ideas to life in the hearts of people. In short, I knew that movies could have a social or moral impact, and that this was a sacred responsibility.

Many people I met in Hollywood and the "Entertainment Industry" thought that it was the sacred duty of movies to be first and foremost entertainment, and that any hint of expression of or promotion of "values" in film -- social, political, spiritual -- was foolish, impure, or even downright cringe. This wasn't real art. People should make their own meaning from art, shouldn't they? So when I made movies which, to me, had a deliberate message or value statement, I think a lot of people saw me as a little cringe -- and maybe I did too.

(Now, I'm completely setting aside how skillful, open-ended, or artful any movie, with or without "message" can be -- that, to me, is the true measure of artistic merit!)

Fast forward about 20 years, and there is actually a name for the idea that films can move people and make change: social impact filmmaking.

Social impact films present a story that may (or may not) have clear values, but does present a moral or social dilemma, somehow. A choice. It makes the audience think. It's not black and white, but it's intentional. Sometimes it's about politics, or sometimes it's *just* about empathy.

NO OTHER LAND, a Berlinale-winning film from 2024, was made by a Palestinian activist and an Israeli journalist who are both trying to protect a Palestinian community being decimated by the Israeli occupation. Filming began in 2019, but it just happened to be finished shortly after October 7, 2023. The story illustrates the power imbalance between Palestinians and Israelis, but also the power of friendship and solidarity and a mutual desire for justice.

​

This is a classic "social impact" film because it exposes real injustice and has the power to change hearts and minds through story. It doesn't need to have an agenda to be Political: it just tells a story that is framed by an actual political conflict. It lives off-screen in the lives and thoughts and feelings of people who now protest (along with many Israelis and Jews from the international community) for an end to Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and a free Palestinian state. This is true social impact.

Maybe a less celebrated -- but equally important -- form of social impact lives in the kind of social realism film that deals with problems most of us don't think about and will never see in the news. They usually won't become real to us until we experience them for ourselves, or see a film that brings these details to life. This year at Berlinale, I saw TAKE ME HOME. It's the story of a family: an American couple adopts two Korean girls, one with developmental disabilities. As the couple ages, their mentally disabled daughter, in her mid-30s, continues to live with the parents. When one parent dies and the other begins experiencing dementia, the second daughter returns home to care for sister and father. But money, age, and independence provide obstacles to caregiving and community in unforeseen ways. The film shows us both the world we live in, and also the world we want to create for each other.

​

This film's social impact campaign revolves around raising awareness and changing laws to ensure people with cognitive disabilities receive the help and benefits they need to live in a world not designed for them. It's a warm, empathetic, beautiful film that impacted its own cast and crew, in addition to everyday audiences. It's also been a teaching tool for politicians to help them understand the needs of an underserved community.

Films don't have to be expressly Political to be socially relevant or conscious, or small "p" political. Although a film's social impact campaign is often a political one, it can be social in a broader sense, by simply being intentional about building awareness and empathy. And yes, that's often what leads to social, moral, and political change.

NOW, WHAT ABOUT ME?

As I said, I've always believed in the power of films to create not only personal, but social and political change. Real heart change. I've worked with charities and NGOs to make image films about real-world social issues since my first filmmaking job working with Bengal Creative Media in Bangladesh. Although our film work started as docs and explainer videos for NGOs to communicate with their donors, my creative partner Dan and I managed to pitch the idea of telling stories as a way to create social change, so one of our clients, a Christian NGO administering micro-credit loans, allowed us to use the timeless parables of Jesus to help loan recipients think about how they dealt with money. These "parables" weren't made to change people's religion, and they weren't even stories about how to be a good capitalist. They were stories (parables) about living in the spiritual and social economy of Jesus, where trust, equity, and competition play by different rules. My favorite one was based on a parable with the moral, "The last shall be first, and the first shall be last." That's a tough one. Because it's not fair!

We got pushback from most of our team (including our boss) about doing this parable, because the moral is so clearly NOT about a "Protestant work ethic." Like any good story, it allowed room for interpretation, discussion, and empathy for different characters. I would say this was the first time I explicitly made an impact film.

Would you like to see it? Click below.

​

FAST FORWARD TO NOW...

The latest film I've been writing, LOS AGELESS, is about an elderly woman with dementia who, in her last moments, reclaims and redeems the mistakes that have haunted her through her life. But it doesn't focus on grief or death; it centers the joy and life and community this woman is part of. It glimpses the important relationships she has with two of her grandchildren, and it shows the response of a chosen family to care for each other when illness overwhelms them. It's inspired by the relationship I had with my own grandmother and her community of retirees in California's Coachella Valley.

This is not an explicitly "P" Political film, it's more like that "p" politics. The politics of a social message driving change: our elders are our treasures, and there's so much we can learn from them! Sharing wisdom across generations can build powerful bridges, and caring for one's chosen family, whether old or young, is what builds resilient communities. Especially when mental illnesses like dementia are involved, the only way we can thrive is together. And with those messages, my producers are creating a social impact campaign for the film with me.

We're calling it Aging Wildly.

AGING WILDLY is our attempt to reframe aging, explore the ways elderly people defy ageist stereotypes, and celebrate the wisdom and experience of septua- octa- and nona-genarians, and encourage people across different generations to interact with each other!

We believe in this message, and in sharing these stories. The film is a narrative, magical, experiential version of that, but we decided we don't have to wait to make the film to tell the stories of real-life folks who are "aging wildly" either. In the next few months, we're collecting stories and interviews with elders in our communities to create some mini-docs about the loads of inspiring, curious, thoughtful, and wise folks who we're missing out on in our everyday lives. Since all of us are aging every day, Aging Wildly is an evergreen way topic -- and anyway, it's also a great way to talk about Los Ageless with donors, investors, and partners.

NOW: WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE INVOLVED?

I would love to make you, Dear Reader, a part of this campaign!

• Do you know someone in Southern California or Berlin and Brandenburg who is "aging wildly," and who I should interview? Please connect me!
• Are you in touch with dementia or Alzheimer's caregivers who could share tips or information about how to care for loved ones with these illnesses? A neuroscientist, maybe? Researchers? Please connect me!
• Does this message speak to that special "angel investor" or actor or "some person in film" in your rolodex that might be interested in the project? Please connect me!

I'll share more about this in coming months, but to close out, I want to say a huge THANK YOU to our very first donor whose support is making AGING WILDLY and LOS AGELESS happen: my dear friend, painter David Hawkins! It's friends like David, who believe both in me and the film, that can start the engine and push us forward. Thanks David!

I'll be sharing more in future editions of this newsletter. For now, I'll just say, in my small corner of the universe, I'm engaging with big-P Politics where I can, but trying to make the biggest difference I'm able in the quiet, community-shaping small-p politics of empathy-building social change. Its up to each of us to help create the world we want to live in, and not just accept the status quo of the terrifying world we're living in now.

Until next time,

Emily