Back to index of Festival Previews

OTTAWA 2002 A conversation between Chris Robinson, Artistic Director Ottawa'02 and David Ehrlich, Honorary President Ottawa'02

David Ehrlich, the Honorary President of the Ottawa 2002 Festival, is holding a conversation with Chris Robinson, the Artistic Director of the event. David is asking quite strong questions, and Chris, well, speaks as frankly as we all love him. Right? Enjoy a vivid conversation, and insight in one of the oldest and most important animation festivals of the world. (Am I ass kissing?)

David: "Ok Chris, what is an 'Artistic Director' and how is it different from 'Festival Director'?"

Chris: "Basically it means I don't do the shit work anymore. I don't hire staff. I don't balance budgets. I don't find sponsors. I don't write cheques. All of which I did poorly. Now my responsibility is the content of the festival: the films in competition, panorama, retrospectives, jury selection, and catalogue articles. One part of this deal that I made with Kelly Neall (who took over as Managing Director and now deals very well with those jobs I did poorly) was that I remain the 'face' of the festival, so I'm also doing media interviews and introducing the screenings during the festival. I'd say it's a pretty good trade-off. "

David: "Kelly's face is a lot prettier than yours. Why don't we ever see it out in front?"

Chris: "Well...that's certainly true but she's shy, modest, humble, all the things I'm apparently not. She's there, ya just gotta open your eyes."

David: "Well I'm going to make sure she's introduced on opening night."

Chris: "Good luck."

David: "And what is an "Honorary President" and what are the functions, if any?"

Chris: "I don't know what it meant before I was in Ottawa, but since about 1996 I wanted to honour people who had contributed a lot to the Ottawa festival. Louise Beaudet and Yvonne Anderson, and now, you. The function is, as I believe I told Yvonne last time around, to have a good time. The President gets a free trip to Ottawa, says a few butt kissing words in the catalogue, a few more to open the festival, and then just sits back and has a good time. There are no ribbons to cut. "

David: "And if I don't butt kiss there'll be an Honorary Impeachment?"

Chris: "Christ...if you don't ass kiss, I'll give you the job permanently. I'm so sick of tired of these insincere and tepid speeches and texts that we see at festivals. Almost all of them are written by someone other than the purported author, they speak in cliches that make hippiespeak bearable, make great, swell promises (at least with politicians) they've no intention of keeping, and take a really friggin long time to do this. For once, I'd like to see festivals have some balls (or cunts) and be honest and frank. I'm not saying be disrespectful, of course not...but this current cow chew that passes for speeches and greetings is about as disrespectful as they come. (Note that I diverted from your initial question so that I could take the opportunity to, as you squares would call it, editorialize ---what I call subjectivity) "

David: "You asked for it. I'm going to enjoy my little Presidential speech."

David: "Now in preparation for it, let's talk about the Selection. You've chosen how many films? And of these I counted 24 Canadian, 21 from the U.S. and 20 from the UK. Do you feel animation is so strong in these English-speaking countries or that these animators are more likely to submit films to an English-speaking festival or that there's some other reason? "

Chris: "We took I think about 94 films (including about 9 internet films which will be screened on monitors this time around) out of 1700 entries. I was a little shocked when I tallied the country numbers up...but I think a large factor is that many of these titles are in the commissioned categories. The independent category is a mix of work from different countries. But I do feel that we are getting primarily North American and English entries for TV series, music video and commercials. It's ironic really because I know some Eurosnots perceive Ottawa as some mainstream festival and yet attracting 'art' films is never a problem...but getting international commissioned stuff from abroad is hard (granted...there have been some years where we get a better supply of Japanese commercials, for example). That being said...I must say that graphically (if not content-wise) there's a lot of good American and British television work. Samurai Jack, Teacher's Pet, Invader Zim, The Ripping Friends (Canada) and Spongebob Squarepants are probably among the best animated and designed Television shows out there (be thankful The Simpsons arent entered because they'd easily have an episode in every festival). And for me, aside from the Japanese and some foreign one shots, Acme Filmworks in L.A. always has a great body of commercials created by well known independent animators like Alexandra Korejwo (who is in competition), Raimund Krumme, Peter Chung, Michael Dudok De Wit (whose commercials we didn't take because I just found them WAY to damn derivative of Father and Daughter.) Beyond that I have also heard that commercial work is down a bit internationally so maybe that's a factor. And another factor is co-production. Alexander Petrov has this coke commercial in, but it's a Canadian production. Igor Kovalyov has a TV pilot, but it's a U.S. production and there are I think two or three National Film Board of Canada productions that are co-productions. We've listed Canada, but I believe that in both cases all that the NFB contributed was music. Both should be Norwegian and French productions actually...so you know as usual statistics are misleading. It's scary actually because I can imagine at least another 100-200 entries when I think of how English oriented some of the commissioned categories were. So we could have hit 1800-1900 entries...and frankly I've had it. I don't want to set any more records in terms of entries. As it stands now, our 1700 is the biggest entry number of any animation festival to date. Given the overall quality, it ain't a record I'm proud of."

David: "I can only imagine how exhausting it must have been to go through 1700 entries. We had nearly 1000 to see in the Zagreb Selection, and images started to blur in the mind and memory. How did you deal with a problem that concerned me? Some films by their nature reveal themselves only with a second or third viewing. If we think of our audience, who will view it only once, and that viewing in the context of more immediately accessible works, it's clear the film would be lost on that audience. And even before it gets to an audience, a selection committee already deluged with work would have somehow to choose to watch such a film again. Why? An intuition that the film had something not yet revealed? Or because we knew, respected and trusted the director? "

Chris: "Boy...that's a tough one. I figure there are films you just instinctively know are good and worthy of competition and similarily there are a large crop of films that for various reasons just are not up to festival standands either technically or conceptually. It's the middle pile that is the tough one. These are films that are good, but not great. And I think the selection of these is quite personal and in a sense random. And this is probably why you hear so many people say that they found some Panorama programmes better than a competition. And I don't mean random as in we sit back and shoot craps...but in the sense of time/space and temperment. I guarantee you if I went back and did selection again this week, for example, there would probably be at least a handful of different films selected. It's all so bloody relative and anyone who tells you differently is full of shit. It is impossible to sit back and give some of these entries the time they require. For example, you need to watch a Priit Parn, Igor Kovalyov, Mati Kutt film about 2-3 times to start to 'get it' and the festival environment doesn't allow for this. Which is why you hear all these reactionary comments about abstract films, Estonian films etc... because they're coming from people who are not only watching the film for the first time but watching it with, as you said, a group of generally accessible works. I think this is part of the reason we hear this b.s. about all Estonian films looking like Priit Parn's work. The Estonian films aren't any more similar to each other than all those heavily narrated Australian or NFB films are. As for the other questions. I think there certainly have been cases where we've put a film aside because our intuition said there was something more there and that we should watch it longer, later. And there are also cases where we've said..."ok...this person is a damn fine director with a good track record...let's take another look." --- although only when it was clear that the film seemed interesting -- there were many cases where established directors were very quickly rejected. Now I've always been the first to speak out against committees who select films because of who made them...but this isn't quite the same. There are some known, experienced veterans on the circuit who you know do their job well...and I'll be frank about it, this year Phil Mulloy, Georges Schwizgebel , and Mati Kutt required second screenings. Mulloy and Schwizgebel have a recognizable style that they rarely veer from....so it became an issue of: Ok...this is nice...but they've both made better films. But then another voice comes in and says...'that's fine, but is it fair for you to judge this film solely within the context of the filmmaker's body of work? How does the film stand on its own compared to the other entries?' And that helped me get through these because without any doubt, the films (Invasion, Girl in The Clouds) are quite outstanding on their own. Mati Kutt is another ball game because his work is loaded with playful, surreal imagery. You can't possibly grasp the film in half a screening. So this was viewed again...and while there was still no totally clear idea as to what he was saying..I did have a basic idea of the theme (free will), and how it was said was so bloody unique and unlike anything else that it really sorted itself out. So I have to say that there is a pretty good balance here. There were these three films that we felt warranted another screening partially because of who directed them...but there were also some films (eg. that Dutch Anglobilly film) that we watched again because we felt there might be something interesting there."

David: "I'd like to zero in on the issue of "because of who directed them". We both have had experience with our writing being juried in a "blind Jury process". We submit our writing to editors with our names omitted so that the readers may be able to judge the work without the extra baggage of personal relations or the halo effect given some writers. It's not a perfect system, but it generally holds up to scrutiny and to accusations of favoritism. Suppose a festival insisted that credits be removed from video entries? Could we gain a more equitable selection process or would you PREFER to know the director so that, as you say above, you could more intelligently go in for a second look? "

Chris: "Sometimes I'd prefer not to know who the director is ...absolutely..not just because of what we've talked about above, but because it's inevitable that you start to know a large chunk of the directors personally. That's what gets to me sometimes...only momentarily mind you...but the fact that it's such a small community and everyone knows everyone can be a real pain in the ass at times...You put a face behind the film. It becomes humanized whereas 90% of the other films are just anonymous. I'm not sure that I'm making sense there...but what I'm referring to is something internal...an internal torment that goes on...whereas the other 95% of the films are anonymous and you don't blink an eye either way. Sorry...I digressed. As for removing credits. It's not a bad idea...but at the same time...do you really think we're not gonna know a Priit Parn, Kovalyov, Krumme, Schwizgebel, Mulloy, Neubauer, Gockell, Plympton, Winter, Tupicoff, Ehrlich film just because there are no names attached? "

David: "But with no names, selection committees just might not be able to tell the Quays, Parns and Norsteins from their many copiers. That might make for interesting choices. "

Chris: "That reminds me..from what I saw out of the 1700 entries... Parn, Driessen and the Quays are the most copied animators. "

David: "Same thing with the Zagreb entries. But hey, if you've gotta copy, those are three great models. "

Chris: "I guess we could say that Kovalyov was inspired by Parn and adapted it effectively (although Parn certainly isn't his only influence). Anyway...I don't know the answer to this, other than to say that everyone has models. "

David: "Well, instead of copying models or even themselves perhaps artists might break their molds and go against type..against their own style and against their particular school or genre? For a change, wouldn't it be fantastic to see a serious, meaningful American work, a light and airy Russian piece, an Estonian crowd-pleaser, and an NFB film that was politically incorrect? "

Chris: "But they do exist (rarely). Michelle Cournoyer's The Hat was the most courageous film to come out of the NFB and she got attacked for it in some places. And hey, Bronzit makes funny Russian films...and well...Priit Parn made the incredibly funny commercial, Switch of the Lights, which won all sorts of prizes and was shown in best commercial programs around the world. But hey...I think 1895 is a crowd pleaser so what the hell do I know. "

David: "Given your selection of work that ranges from funny crowd-pleasing cartoons to very difficult work, how have you learned to program the difficult work to its best advantage? "

Chris: "That is the part I love the most. Once we've finalized the competition, I immediately sit down and start programming each section...and the next few days I then make vhs tapes to see how each program works. I like to mix it up...not repeat styles, tones etc... it's hard to articulate it..because programming is very sensory for me. This year...we open with Stephen Woloshen's Ditty dot Comma. I like to start with a Canadian film. Ditty is non-narrative, direct on film and just has a really loving, musical feel to it. It makes even me feel good. And then I sort of go from there...try to maintain some internal rhythm with an avoidance of too many dark films. But I must say, commercials are a god send here because they really help break up the longer films and that gives the audience a chance to take a breather and contemplate what they've seen. I also toy around a bit. In 1998, I remember programming a really disturbing film between these two sweet pieces...and this year I place an absolutely hilarious film in front of an absolutely devastating piece. I just like to have some fun. "

David: "You're certainly not avoiding dark films by programming retrospectives of Harry Smith and Piotr Dumala. Let's talk about the retros then. What are your considerations when you choose them?"

Chris: "Dumala is guy whose work I've always liked and he's never had all his work shown here...so it seemed like the time. The Smith idea was presented to me by Kevin Kurytnik of Quickdraw Animation Society a couple of years ago and I really liked the idea. Smith is one of those guys whose work with the music anthologies overshadows the many animated films he made. He gets acknowledgement, it seems, at galleries and museums in the states, but the animation circuit hasn't done anything yet. This year I consciously went after lesser known figures for retrospectives. I've called three of them Unsung Animators specifically, but certainly Harry Smith fits in there too. I've just found that festivals seem to keep doing the same damn programmes (Dumala is a good example!) and re-hashing the same old tired bits of history we already know."

David: "But you're showing Piotr's work. He's VERY well-known and has had retros in every other festival."

Chris: "Cause I like him, he's cute and his films made me chuckle. To answer your initial question, I pick programs that I find interesting myself."

David: "And how do you choose when to show them? Do you go for balance or contrast as you do with shorts in the Competition, or are you so limited by time and venues that you just fit them in as you can? "

Chris: "I put the programmes I think are gonna lure the public out in popular time slots like weekends and evenings (ie. John Kricfalusi, Gerald Mcboing Boing show) because I don't have the guts to just stick an obsure retrospective in a popular time slot...and hell..i ain't stupid. I try for a bit of balance...and do a country (Korea), individual (Dumala, Taku Furukawa, Smith, Geiser etc...), studio (Buzzco, Ink Tank), historical program (McBoing Boing) and definitely mix it up in terms of comedy-drama. I also try to ensure that every retro is shown at the National Arts Centre at least once because it's a mighty fine venue. But cost is also a factor too.... "

David: "Speaking of cost, how are your finances doing? There's an economic downturn throughout North America. Have you had to "downsize" anything? "

Chris: "Well...finances are ok now. As I said at the top, I was a terrible manager and spent too much on programmes and guests. So we're definitely cutting back a bit this year...and there is a more North American bent to the program (although I'm not entirely sure that was conscious). As of Friday, I was told that we were just a few thousand smackers from meeting our budget. Somehow we seem to do ok."

David: "More than ok, I'd say. You guys have kept one of the largest animation festivals in the world going strong for 32 years. And ya always got veggieburgers at the picnic. Now that's something! "

Back to index of Festival Previews