Page 172
Tyndall:
I'm looking not at the kinds of films being made, but at the institutions. In my opinion, a lot of the places that show independent film nowadays exist because of the bureaucracies that have supported them in the past, rather than because they've got a vibrant audience that's supporting them through the box office. And it's a major question to ask about independent filmmaking: are you making films to please bureaucrats or to please people in the seats?
MacDonald:
Ironically,
Argument
seems more an analysis of content than of the spaces in which films are shown. From what you say, the idea of using
Argument
in a particular context was one of the main things that was new. But in the content of
Argument
that's not so clear. The film itself seems more about the ideology of commercial advertising and of the
New York Times
.
McCall:
We saw it as a political film with certain aims. The simple aim, as we said in our book [
Argument,
a pamphlet with statements and imagery from the film and with essays about the film and the issues it raised, was published in three editions in 197879], was to create a precondition whereby the problems that the film describes can be worked on. That meant using the film as a way of bringing together the community of filmmakers we had found ourselves part of.
MacDonald:
But you seem to have had it both ways in that decision. You wanted to show a ninety-minute film as a catalyst for a community dialogue about the issues raised by the film. Everybody was supposed to come in and watch
your
film, and
then
talk about the issues. Why not just hold the meeting and discuss the issues? And after the film, you two were in front to talk about it. The experience claimed to be about community, but it functioned more as performance.
Tyndall:
OK, remember that at the time
Argument
was made, the usual model in the places where you showed avant-garde film was that the person stood up afterwards and answered questions. We said, OK, we'll show the film and then stand up afterwards and answer questions, but we're going to limit the number of people to thirty, give them a book to read first so they're prepared for the film, and tell them this is a
discussion,
rather than a question/answer session. Our presentation was a reaction to
that
situation, rather than a reaction to the commercial cinema, where it would be a "radical" idea just to bring the filmmaker in after the film.
MacDonald:
Well, I respected and admired the idea thenand still doand yet as an experience
Argument
seems to have undercut its own modus operandi.
McCall:
Yes. As a political project, I don't think it worked out at all. It caused us to revise our ideas about the way people see film.
MacDonald:
At the time, I had what seemed like a common reaction.