Set up in 1985 as an official Berlinale program the Panorama focuses on difficult issue-oriented features and documentaries by first and second time international film directors and has been programmed since 1997 by Wieland Speck. Compared to other programmers Speck has the rare distinction of being an accomplished film director and writer whose works ranges from educational HIV/AIDS shorts to documentaries like ESCAPE TO LIFE: THE ERIKA AND KLAUS MANN STORY screened at the 2005 Berlinale. Speck has also been in charge of the famed Berlinale TEDDY program, the only section of any major film festival which is devoted exclusively to films with gay, lesbian, or transgender themes. Wieland Speck’s reflections on the 2007 crop of queer films and of the Teddy will be featured in part II of this interview, published within the next week.

Panorama

Claus Mueller If you compare this year’s Panorama edition to 2006, do you observe any new thematic orientations with respect to content and/or new approaches as to how films are made?

Wieland Speck Well, thematically of course, we find our themes once the program is done and then we see tendencies that might have an effect on the future. Sometimes it is just a coincidence. For example we have six films in the Panorama by actors who became directors and in one case producer. This is not necessarily a trend, yet it show that actors want to say more than just the lines in the script written by somebody else, They want to take part and this in basically in all cases effects the issues they are talking about. It is Sarah Polley [AWAY FROM HER] dealing with the issue how to treat old people in our Western societies. It is Antonio Banderas [SUMMER RAIN] who goes back to his youth in the Franco time, it is Javier Bardem, a famous Spanish star , as a producer who brought together famous directors to put on little vignettes that talk about issues in the Third World, in Africa, and in South Latin America the Western world looks away from [INVISIBLES]. The pharmaceutical industry is not interested because they cannot make enough money [in those regions] yet people are dying but nobody actually sees or hears anything about this in our world. Wim Wenders is part of the group assembled by Bardem as is Isabelle Coixet.

CM To return to new film making approaches, new ways of using the new electronic technologies...

WS The change the digital world has brought is huge, it is a revolution, and it is still in the process. But you could not say that a new aesthetics has developed. The major interesting part there is that the quality in digital productions is sometimes incredibly high so you can hardly see the difference [to film] any more. On the other hand you still have film makers who cover a strong issue that does not find any backing though they use the inexpensive format to produce their films.

CM In that context do you observe an explosion of submissions because of the use of low cost production technologies?

WS Certainly very true. We have to find our fifty films now among submissions that have doubled. We have to filter the fifty out of 3000 submissions, four years ago we had only 1500 submissions.

CM Thus you face the danger of a good film falling between the cracks since you need more people to screen all these films?

WS Very true. Also we have to keep in mind that the percentage of talented people of course is always the same on this planet. Thus it does not matter how many films you have to watch to find the good ones

CM Thus you would concur with Peter Scarlett (Tribeca Film Festival) that the tremendous increase in the number of productions is not tantamount to an increase of outstanding new productions?

WS An increase ? Definitely not. But of course it changes the esthetics and approaches because of the influence of technical issues. But the technical changes and the digital phenomenon do not mean that we have all of the sudden more talented people.

CM What about the explosion of film schools and distribution platforms?

WS My generation type people have been creating their own jobs, making film schools and giving courses, thus have contributed to the [surplus production] situation. Thus it becomes even more important for festivals and also funding systems, etc not to jump just on the train to discover the new generation [of film makers] because then we create thousands and thousands of first timers every year and the world is not ready to swallow the second and third films of all these people.

CM Sometimes the problem is recognized. In Denmark the number of students admitted each year to the film school to train as directors is restricted to seven since only few such positions are available. To the contrary in my university ( Hunter College City University of New York) where I teach media research a surplus of students are trained each year in expanding film programs though they cannot get jobs in the film industry or otherwise survive making films.

Speaking of the United States, are more US independent films represented this year in your program compared to past years?

WS There something has definitely changed. And I would say fortunately because in the framework of Panorama and Berlin we can use films that have a bite. And the bite among American independents was lost over the last ten years. It seemed that no matter how much money you had even with the tiniest bit of money everyone tried to create a product and trade it. That, though not necessarily all the time, created rather boring films that all tried to look alike. Now we are back, we have the film by Mitchell Lichtenstein TEETH , we have the film ITTY BITTY TITTY COMMITTEE by Jamie Babbit, we have of course the doyens of independent cinema, Steve Buscemi [INTERVIEW] as director again and Hal Hartley [FAY GRIMM]. So we have the old school and the new school at the same time and both are very exciting, interesting and more radical than what we could show in the past.

CM That certainly contrasts with last year when you commented about the scarcity of good US independent productions. Let me ask you a question that I pose each year. Do you plan any changes for next year’s Panorama ?

WS . No, I do not plan any changes except we will strengthen the short film section. It declined this year due to the departure of the [shorts] Panorama programmer, Margaret von Schiller. Thus we did not generate enough titles, so we want to change that. Otherwise Panorama is running steadily with its three subsections Special, Main Program, and Documents which is a rather good set up. We show fifty films and we cannot show more or less. That will not change.

CM Thank for your Panorama comments


Claus Mueller, New York Correspondent
filmexchange@gmail.com