The Singing Wilderness

In this article from the NY Times, a group of neuroscientists float the San Juan River in Utah to carry on a dialog and explore the ways in which our addictions to modern communication and information technology change how we think and behave, and how a retreat into wilderness might reverse those effects.  I think it’s safe to say that Sigurd knew this in his gut, and that he would have enjoyed the conversation.  And the ride.

I hope to track their work and interview some of these researchers for the film.

Click on the photo to link to the article, which incorporates video clips from their trip and some nice interactive features.

… to the unknown benefactor who donated $1000.  I would like to throw you a party – but instead I’ll use the money to make the film.  I can’t begin to express my gratitude.

Last Saturday, May 22, Alis and Byron Olsen (no relation to Sigurd) held a fundraising benefit to raise money, awareness, and to gather support for the film.  Kim made an assortment of savory, theme-oriented goodies and Carla made the desserts, with help from the Hillers.  Dad concocted a giant batch of deadly-but-delicious Fish House Punch, served in a bowl molded from a block of ice.  Bob Countryman, my original collaborator and first contributor, brought his amazing barbeque brisket.  Chris Cunningham and Greg Reese of Mississippi Peace performed music.  And many folks hand-made or donated items for the silent auction.

David Backes, the world’s foremost authority on Sig Olson, delivered an impassioned and poetic homily about why the world needs to hear what Sigurd had to say all over again – and more than ever before:  as we become more and more interconnected – electronically, virtually and absolutely – we are ever more disconnected with our environment, with our primitive origins, with the mystery and wonder which make us alive.  And he made a stirring case for this film as the new medium for Sig’s message.  I screened an expanded new promo which tells the story of Sig’s struggle to find his voice as a writer and get his work published.  Then Dick Haskett pled for everyone to take their place in the historic legacy of conservation by supporting the film.

One hundred-some were invited; more than half showed up (and more showed their support).  We received an average of over $100 per person in attendance.  More than I could have ever dared to hope for.   THANK YOU EVERYONE!  I can’t wait to get out there and start shooting again…

Annie Shull donated a case of her Raptor Ridge Wines, and Surly Brewing Co., U of M Press Books, Uncle Franky’s, and The Red Stag Supper Club all donated.  Thanks also to Dave for huge amounts of set-up help and the use of his PA; Ken for bartending, Sieren for greeting and checking in, and last but not least, Krissa and Jane for taking money!

To receive an invitation, please contact me.

Red Stag Supper Club

Thanks to our sponsors!

U of M Press

I learned in December that I was declined my application for a grant from the Jerome Foundation.  While they say that every “no” is one step closer to your first “yes”, I was pretty discouraged.

But perhaps in some way it’s for the best.  If nothing else it’s forced me to re-evaluate my approach to the material and helped me reconsider the identity of the project.

It has dawned on me that arts organizations may not be interested in funding a project which, on the surface anyway, appears to be a paean to a white guy from Minnesota with a canoe.  By a white guy from Minnesota.  Even though I know this project is about so much more: as I’ve envisioned it, the film is not so much a biography of Sigurd Olson (a man whom few have heard of and most may not think they’d care to learn about) but rather a story about the vital importance of wilderness in our lives, in which Sigurd is the protagonist.

One of the panelists commented that while the production values of my work sample (the promo) were strong, he couldn’t envision the arc of the story; another panelist echoed this concern.   I am taking that to heart, even though I know from experience that the structures of my films – especially documentaries – are usually conceived in my gut and sort of assert their narrative during the process of creating them.  But I have dedicated myself to formulating a more coherent story arc before asking anyone else for money.

Another thing I think the project has working against it is that it’s not addressing any hot-button topical issues, as is the current fashion.  It’s not overtly  political.  It’s not famously controversial.  And it doesn’t address any obviously pressing social concerns.

Or does it?  Or should it?  The other panelist that turned down my grant application said it felt like a conventional bio-pic.  This is exactly what I’ve been trying to avoid in my conception of the film.  But maybe she was right.  Maybe the human need for wilderness is of more urgent concern and should be brought to light.  I’ve always felt this to be true, and in my proposals for the film I’ve hinted at the premise that our alienation from wilderness is one of modern society’s greatest ills.   Maybe the film should be more about Sig’s ideas about wilderness and less about his life.  I honestly don’t know – I’ve gone back and forth.

REDEFINING “THE SINGING WILDERNESS” – THE FILM

I’d like to know what you think.  Please leave a comment below and tell me which film you think should be made –  a film about A MAN in the WILDERNESS, or a film about WILDERNESS and the HUMAN RACE.  Aside from considering which version would be more compelling to potential sources of funding, try to ask yourself which film could reach a wider audience, and which would have the greatest potential impact in the public awareness of the importance of wilderness and, in turn, its conservation.

And again, if you’d like to read the grant application and offer any feedback, you can download it here.

Thanks so much your time and your thoughts (click on the post title above if you don’t see the comments area below).