Filmmaker Andy Gately, the founder and director of programming for the Austin Underground Film Fest, has one hell of a vocabulary."...Films of a radical, critical, disaffected, progressive, provocative, confrontational, controversial, subversive, seditious, irreverent, illicit, offensive, obscene, rebellious, profane, pornographic, conspiratorial, corruptive, psychotropic, phantasmagoric, volatile, violent, anarchic, blasphemous or otherwise irresponsible nature are especially encouraged," he writes about the relative newbie festival.

After wrapping up the festival's second year run on June 9, Gately decompressed, taking time out to share his thoughts on the underground film scene, creative freedom and the future of the AUFF.

SM: In an interview with the The Austinist reporter Matt DeWitt last year, you'd said, "To me, "indie" just means non-studio, whereas "underground" has connotations of being from a dissenting viewpoint, because it's only underground if it's being marginalized." What defines the marginalization of a film for you--financial failure, an ideological eschew from the mainstream?

AG: I would define marginalization of a film (and we’re talking good films here, some films deserve to be marginalized) not so much as its financial failure, but the reason for its financial failure, which reveals what separates it from successful mainstream fare. It could be that it deals with topics that those in control of the traditional media are afraid of touching, because they might, horror of horrors, agitate viewers instead of comforting them, or, more likely, because the moneymen fear no one will show up if the subject matter departs from the tried-and-true precedents.

It could be that it deals with topics that those in control of the traditional media are afraid of touching, because they might, horror of horrors, agitate viewers instead of comforting them, or, more likely, because the moneymen fear no one will show up if the subject matter departs from the tried-and-true precedents.

SM: Off that, how do you note a difference between marginalization on the one hand and simply a lack of exposure on the other? Unpopular ideas, as you also noted, do find their way into the mainstream with auteurs at the head of the pack.

AG: I would certainly differentiate between the two. Marginalization, by definition, means that outside forces in this case, the theater, studio and distribution cartels, actively choose what type of content to throw their money behind and so control the public’s ease of access to mainstream content. While they’re not going away anytime soon, there are more and more ways to circumvent their power and overcome lack of exposure, which is becoming less and less of an obstacle with each new technological leap. And if all else fails, you can always rent out a theater like my friend Ray Schlogel did and just promote and screen it yourself.

There aren’t many excuses left for not getting your film out there these days. If you made a good film, it will get noticed, even if it’s just YouTube, because the chances of it being seen are greater than ever before in history. And, if your first one doesn’t win you any acclaim, just get a few more credit cards and roll the dice again.

SM: In this same interview, you'd said, "I think you're only a victim of censorship if you allow yourself to be, because there's always a way to say what you want, if you're creative enough, under even the most oppressive of regimes." This statement strikes me so forcefully, especially if you look on a micro level at the development, for example, of Spanish cinema under Franco.

However, in this country, I'm not certain that people are so much aware of creative limitations, primarily because the Supreme Court has historically ruled constructionist in its view of the first amendment. Granted with Michael Moore stirring up controversy, and the Freedom of Information Act pull backs, the general public is increasingly savvy to rights abridgements. In your estimation right now, how do you see this all playing out in the future, and where--if anywhere-- do you want to position AUFF in the debate?

AG: While I do think that we’ve got a huge amount of comparative freedom here in the U.S. to say what we please via the First Amendment, we have to remember that it’s all relative and far from ideal. What is a starving artist to do, for example, if he is sued by a mega-corporation over, say, some copyright infringement, like showing Mickey Mouse in a compromising situation with Minnie Mouse? Even if the artist is legally in the right, using it as commentary, he probably can’t afford a good legal defense, so he’s effectively silenced and maybe even ruined, unless the ACLU or someone sees a cause and steps in.

Do-it-yourself film is the people’s way of establishing a dialogue with an entertainment industry and government that strives to make the lines of communication one way, and it’s a constant fight.

As for the AUFF, if it continues to help filmmakers gain a wider audience, be it online or theatrically, then it's doing its job. I’m working now with some people who could help us expand into more and bigger venues, so it's an exciting time for us. Underground film has and always will be around, and as information becomes increasingly audiovisual, I see its importance only growing as well. It’s like a portal into the future; these are the kinds of works just around the corner, the new mainstream. Soon they’ll be co-opted, become part of the public discourse, and influence global opinion and, in turn, public policy.

Some people think film, and art in general, doesn’t change the world, but I disagree. The success of Oliver Stone’s JFK directly prompted Congress to appoint a committee to further investigate Kennedy’s murder, reopening not just the debate but the actual files themselves, though many outrageously still remain classified. John Hinckley shot Reagan because of Taxi Driver. If movies can inspire the congressional investigation of a president’s assassination, or even the act itself, I think that pretty much ends the debate on whether they can change the course of history. The revolutionary used to shoot a corrupt politician with a gun. Now he can shoot him with a camera.

SM: I've jumped the gun a bit I know. Back tracking just a bit, you've said in the past that you hadn't intended to create a film festival. But at this point, AUFF has successful ties with the Alamo Drafthouse, B-Side, some frankly killer merchandise and a lot of street credibility, buoyed no less than by The Austin-American Statesmen and ATX Magazine among others. With all this, it seems like the AUFF is a done deal and will serve as an mainstay in the underground film festival circuit. Now, the question is: How do you manage this monster now that you've created it?

AG: Thanks for the kind words! I do hope to see the AUFF live a long life as an antidote to Brett Ratner and his geriatric ilk. If we had a mascot, it’d probably be an army ant, or a termite, gnawing away in society’s crutches. Since we’ve built a base of contacts and relationships with other local filmmakers and businesses, managing the fest actually gets easier each year.

SM: The AUFF also depends greatly on Caitlin Leach and Jeremy Van Doren, and I was hoping you could speak to the programming collaboration that you've developed with both of these buddy filmmakers.

AG: They’ve been invaluable. Also a special thanks real quick to Fat Mansion, who played the after party and rocked. Caity, Jeremy and I are all old friends from Florida State and were in the film club there, and it's been a pleasure to work with them on the show this year. This year’s lineup was actually perhaps a little lighter, and while it was still subversive, it was done on maybe a subtler level. This wasn’t a conscious decision on the part of myself and my fellow programmers I don’t think, but it might reflect our collective tastes more, rather than last year, where I personally hand-picked the full lineup, which had a slightly harder edge in retrospect. Also, we’re of course dependent on what people send in, and we just happened to receive less overt social commentary pieces this go-round. Fewer bludgeons, more mirrors. Which one is more effective is always under discussion.

SM:As a filmmaker yourself, how do you switch hats from artist to programmer? With many entries and few open slots, I imagine the screening task must be a bit overwhelming.

AG: It can be at first, but the best ones always stand out, and you get pretty quick at separating the cream. This year, at the risk of being self-indulgent, I put in a 20 minute short of my own making Exhibit A: Leary Vs. Hicks. While it wasn’t in the running for the voting, it was fun wearing both hats at once.

AG: This year’s theme, is there is one, might be a playful, mischievous one, and all the films really just seemed to play well off of each other. And, yeah, a lot of time is spent determining the order. It's like making a mix tape: you gotta know when to take it up a notch, when to bring it down, when to insert comic relief. I also enjoy pushing the audience close to their threshold, making them confront things that they don’t normally talk about in polite company. Some people have walked out, but I’m not afraid of that. I do try to have a little something for everyone. The after party debates are always heated after a few drinks.

AG: If it becomes financially feasible, we were thinking of experimenting next year with the implementation of the first-ever system in which the contributing filmmakers make money from their film festival screening. We hope to split the box office profits directly among the artists, so they actually see the fruits of their labors for once, and who knows, maybe we’ll kick start a trend. ‘Cause it shouldn’t just be us profiting off of their work.

For more information on the festival, visit www.austinundergroundfilm.com.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form