Denied
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).
