The World Is Our Why

The Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival is one of the highlights of the local arts calendar. I almost always end up seeing one of my favorite movies of the year there, such as most recently 7 Walks with Mark Brown, and it’s also a great place to interact with Ithaca-based filmmakers, performers, and cinephiles at the “talkbacks” that follow most of their events. Festival Co-Directors Michael Richardson and Andrew Utterson, who are both also professors at Ithaca College, were kind enough to sit down with me recently ahead of the start of the 29th edition next Friday to talk about their programming philosophy and FLEFF’s place in the local arts ecosystem.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Thank you both so much for making the time to talk to me today! Before we get into this year’s program, how would you describe the festival to someone who’s never attended?

RICHARDSON: One of the things that makes the festival special is that we really privilege audience interaction. We bring in experts, often directors, producers, people associated with the films. The idea is that the festival experience doesn’t start and end with: they came in, watched the film, and left. But rather, we continue to have these ongoing dialogues. And I think dialogue and conversation is a big part of the festival.

UTTERSON: We have lots of films that are recognizably environmental to do with the natural world–ecology, sustainability, and so on. But we also approach the environmental through different filmic lenses. We mix, very deliberately, a heterogeneous combination of narrative features, documentaries, experimental films, and placing film, in one or two instances, in dialogue with new media and other arts. Our definition of the environmental is deliberately fluid as well.

Is there something about Ithaca that makes it especially well-suited to the kind of festival you’re describing?

RICHARDSON: Ithaca has a commitment to sustainability and is interested in environmental issues. People in Ithaca are also very engaged politically. I think that’s one of the reasons why the festival does so well, because people are predisposed to come out and talk about issues. Also, we have such a lively arts community in Ithaca that people want to support, and we’re fortunate in that the director of Cinemapolis Kate Donohue helps us connect with people and opportunities that we can showcase during the festival.

UTTERSON: Part of the success, I think, also rests on Ithaca being a college town. Where we really see that special, unique liveness come into play is the grouping of different people who will gather for a festival screening. In Ithaca we get the benefit of our multiple campuses but, crucially, in dialog with the wider community as well, and so we are always bridging the expertise of campus colleagues with the dynamic contributions of Ithaca’s wider population.

I look forward to what the theme is going to be every year. Could you talk about how this year’s theme of “Migrations” emerged? And does the theme typically dictate what films you select, or is it more vice versa?

RICHARDSON: To start with the second question, we decide on the theme first and then start to look for films, so it’s definitely one way in that regard. In terms of choosing it, we usually have conversations well in advance and we try to find the theme that we think will resonate on multiple levels, because we don’t want to feel like we’re narrowing our focus. To your question about whether the films dictate the theme, the short answer is no. The longer answer is, we try not to choose a theme that would exclude too many films, and so we try to be as broad as possible without losing coherence.

UTTERSON: Yeah, the theme typically is chosen so as not to limit or over-determine the content of the festival and how people interact with the films, but rather the opposite, to be a loose conceptual lens that might actually open up new ways of seeing the films and aspects of them that even we haven’t thought of before. Not so much to label or categorize explicitly-connected films, but to prompt readings, new connections, and new ways of thinking about the films that might emerge in those screenings and conversations themselves.

Do you tend to settle on the theme quickly?

UTTERSON: Definitely not quick.

RICHARDSON: A lot of back and forth, a lot of fine tuning. We brainstorm the theme, we let it sit with us for a while, and revisit it after the moment to see whether we still feel like it has the resonance that we want.

UTTERSON: Something that’s topical, but also is somewhat universal. Something that will resonate with a range of different films, but not be too determining of how we think about them. Something that’s stimulating and thought-provoking without being too esoteric or provocative. It takes a while to find something that seems to be just right.

I’m jumping ahead here: do you already know the theme for next year?

RICHARDSON: (Laughing) No, we do not. The festival ends April 12; probably late April, we start thinking about themes.

You mentioned the expansiveness of your definition of “environmental.” Some previous FLEFF themes like “Turbulence” or “Polyphonies” have definitely opened the door to a wider range of films than what people who are just thinking about nature films might expect. But is there a point at which the theme ceases to become productively open-ended, but instead becomes so abstract that it just doesn’t have a purpose? And how do you safeguard against this if that is something you’ve run into?

UTTERSON: I’d say it’s a fairly organic process. If the theme in any given film doesn’t seem to encourage particular insights or new entry points, we will leave it to one side, but in other instances the theme will emerge and present itself in ways that we hadn’t otherwise imagined or anticipated. And so we approach it flexibly. If this lens will be useful in any given moment, then it’s a great conceptual tool to simulate conversation and to make new connections.

RICHARDSON: Yeah, having an expansive view of environment, having a theme that’s open-ended, we don’t go into it thinking every film needs to push those definitions, but we’re open to films that at first blush might not seem to fit that theme. We’re open to seeing ways that they resonate. But there certainly have been films that we have identified early on, and then we’ve talked about and said, boy, what a great film, but that’s not for this year’s festival. So we’re open to being expansive, but we’re not beholden to having to be expansive. As Andrew said, it’s really about an organic process.

When you start talking in late April, do you already have some films that you’re thinking about or does that come after?

RICHARDSON: It’s really been an ongoing process. Part of what happens is that we get tipped off to films, say, now. And with our schedule set, we just have to earmark them for later festivals. We’re looking for films within the past two or three years, so sometimes there are missed opportunities, but we try to keep an unofficial list of films that we might go back to next year. We’re always getting suggestions, and we take them as they come and keep looking constantly.

UTTERSON: We always try to be timely and topical, but sometimes there are films that don’t quite fit that cycle, and if they’re new to Ithaca, that will still be a good fit for us. And there may be some older films that we can re-present and reframe and rethink and reconsider as well.

Is there a specific balance between films you’re looking for between things that illustrate the theme and things that complicate it?

RICHARDSON: That’s a good question. We go into it with a very open mind in terms of how these films might resonate or not resonate with a particular theme. As we start building the schedule, we try to make sure that we offer a mix of films, documentary versus fiction films, local versus international, films that have a more direct connection and films that have a less direct connection. But I don’t think we go into it with any preconceptions.

UTTERSON: I wouldn’t add too much to that, other than to say that we have more of an eye on the overall mix of the festival and its different voices or forms, or the relationship between documentary and fictions and different regions of the globe, and those would typically be more pressing considerations than specifically whether they will fit the theme or complicate the theme.

How does this relate to putting together a syllabus, if at all?

RICHARDSON: It’s similar in the sense that we hope, once we have a full program, that there are meaningful connections, and although we don’t assume that everybody is going to watch every film, we hope that people will be able to find threads and come to several different events and see an idea develop and get problematized. But we don’t know what the festival is going to look like going into it, and that would be the difference.

UTTERSON: The connection I would see is the hope that when we put together a syllabus, we would embark on a journey, and from the beginning to the end have something of a course plotted out for us with a particular charted path through the material at hand. When it comes to the festival, we hope people will attend multiple films and start to build up connections across their different films and festival experiences, but it will be less knowable, less predictable, and a little more elliptical.

One of my favorite things about the event is the unique opportunity it represents to see things that generated buzz on the festival circuit, but for whatever reason, aren’t a good fit for Cinemapolis or Cornell Cinema or one of our other great local theaters, and therefore wouldn’t have ever played Ithaca otherwise. Are there any festivals in particular that you look to more than others to guide your programming?

UTTERSON: We look far and wide. We can’t go to all of the festivals that we would like to, but we can at least tap into their programs and keep an eye on what the conversations are and what new films might be available to us in Ithaca. It would really be a range of different types of festivals, because we’re in the fortunate position of being able to show issue-based documentaries alongside international art fictions and everything in between. We will be looking at festivals like TIFF or the Berlinale or Sundance alongside one or two festivals that are more focused on the environment in particular. Big Sky isn’t exclusively about the environment, but that can be a great glimpse into opportunities for films that could make their way to Ithaca. In general terms, we’re proud of being able to bring films to Ithaca that otherwise wouldn’t be coming here.

RICHARDSON: One of the things that we have been focused on in recent years has been showcasing films that maybe haven’t even gotten to the festival stage. The festival receives generous support from the Park Foundation, and through them, we get put in touch with filmmakers who are similarly supported by the Foundation. And this has been wonderful. It has really opened up a vein of possibilities for us. We also have recently been working with the Redford Center, and they also sponsor a number of films. These are often self-produced or they’re not at the stage where they found a distributor yet, so it’s a great opportunity for them to raise the profile of their work, and it’s a great opportunity for us to feel like we are showcasing young, emerging directors.

Another thing I personally enjoy about FLEFF are the silent films with live musical accompaniment. Is this a tradition you’re planning to continue? And how do these films fit into the festival’s mission of embracing and interrogating sustainability?

RICHARDSON: As long as our musical partners are willing, we’ll have silent films. We do try to find environmentally-related silent films, which is a little bit tougher. That often requires a little bit more of an explanation and a more expansive view of environment and nature, but they are a big part of the festival, and they add a dimension to the festival that we really enjoy.

UTTERSON: Silent cinema also opens up some historical vectors, connecting the early 20th century with debates that resonate 100 or so years later.

This isn’t the smoothest segue, but do you ever run into filmmakers who are resistant to being programmed in the festival because of that word “environmental,” where they somehow see that as not a label that they want associated with their film?

UTTERSON: I have not encountered an instance where a filmmaker has not wanted to be a part of the festival for that reason. I’ve seen the opposite on one or two occasions where a filmmaker has commented that they hadn’t necessarily thought of their film as an “environmental film,” but that, yes, after all, it is an environmental film when we get into conversation and discuss what we mean by the environment and are actually able to open out, open up, and broaden out that conversation.

RICHARDSON: I think most filmmakers are eager to show their films, with the caveat that they’re also looking to maximize visibility, and oftentimes that does mean forgoing a festival like FLEFF in favor of a North American premiere with greater visibility. But even in cases like that, we find filmmakers say “let’s circle back after the June premiere and maybe we can work something out.”

This is the 29th edition of the festival. What does an event like this have to do to still feel alive and necessary at that age? And do you have anything special planned for next year’s 30th anniversary?

RICHARDSON: Certainly, being a festival that’s run for 29 years, we’re very conscious of the FLEFF tradition. At the same time, we try not to be overly beholden to that tradition so that we don’t stagnate. If we look at the festival over its 29 years, it actually has had several different iterations. The festival began at Cornell out of the Center for the Environment and looked much different than it did when it moved over to Ithaca College. Our former colleague, Dr. Patty Zimmermann, who helmed the festival for a long time, she had a particular vision. Our vision is related to that, but we also are looking for new opportunities within the broader parameters of the festival.

UTTERSON: We have one or two unofficial mottos that we use to guide our curatorial decisions and our broader philosophy, and one of them, without wanting to sound too grandiose, is “the world is our why.” Each year there are new urgent issues to deal with, and we have to find new films to feel current and to be in conversation with the world we live in. In that sense, each festival is a new experience, even if there are continuities with the past.

RICHARDSON: Part of the ongoing dynamic nature of the festival is, sometimes it depends on who is involved in a given year. We’re very opportunistic in the sense that we definitely try and work with people, knowing that it might be the only year that they want to work with FLEFF, but that allows us to sort of refresh what we’re doing as well.

UTTERSON: In terms of the 30th, we would just say: stay tuned!