THE UTTER AND COMPLETE FAILURE OF IMPACT FILMS

What are the pressing issues of the day?

Climate change/global warming. Wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and elsewhere. January 6. DEI. Democracy vs Autocracy. Income inequality. Poverty. The high cost of health insurance. Gender issues. Reproductive rights. Disinformation. Suicide and depression. Crime. Homelessness. Religious intolerance. Clean water. It seems to be an unending list.

Thank god there are impact films that tackle important issues and bring them to the attention of the public and policy makers in the government!

For those who may not be familiar with the term, "Impact Films" are designed to make an impact. This is their stated purpose. These types of films dive into important social, political, cultural, and economic issues to enact change and to foster engagement. At least, that's the theory.

But what has happened? Why have impact films been such an utter and complete failure? There isn't a single issue on the list above that has substantially enacted real change. Yet, if you follow the film world, you will continually hear about the power and importance of impact films.

Take Climate Change. In 2006, former Vice President Al Gore produced the groundbreaking film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. Surely, this was going to make a difference. In 2007, he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, largely because of his climate work. There have been many films on climate change since then. What has the impact been? Every year, the world has gotten warmer. Out-of-control fires, floods, and tornados directly caused by climate change have all increased substantially. In 2016, President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement, the legally binding agreement that 175 countries signed to use verifiable benchmarks to fight climate change. Biden reinstated the US into the agreement only to have Trump pull out again days into his second term.

This is how it is for most issues: impact films bring in experts to talk about the big issues. Solutions are proposed. Filmmakers are applauded and lauded for giving the issue the attention it deserves. Yet nothing changes. Judging by the state of the world we are currently living in it would be more accurate to say impact films have had a negative effect on every single issue. Why is that?

Impact films are almost always documentary films. Like all films, they need to be funded and paid for. So, who is putting up the money for impact films? Most impact filmmakers rely on funding through individuals, organizations, companies, or foundations created as 501c3 nonprofit corporations. By creating a 501c3, the funders get tax write-offs.

On the surface, philanthropists and philanthropic organizations benefit many and diverse causes: Democrats and Republicans, right-wing, left-wing, and all shades in between fund these philanthropic enterprises. Wealthy and powerful people use their money so the government doesn't have to do it. Thus saving taxpayers money. Many worthwhile causes have benefited from philanthropic organizations. But philanthropy also allows the rich and powerful to decide what they want to spend their tax dollars on. Wouldn't you like to have that option? Funding a documentary film is a lot sexier than paying to have garbage picked up on the side of the highway, or paying to house mentally ill people who are homelessly roaming city streets or terrorizing subway riders.

Being a good deed-doer isn't the only reason philanthropists fund films. Philanthropists, like all people, want stories to tell. When they are out to dinner with friends, family, or people they want to impress, they can say they fund documentary films that support important causes. This gives them cachet that can be leveraged socially, politically, and economically. It's not a small amount of influence. All for the cost of a tax write-off. A damn good bargain for many. Especially when you're not really expecting much to change.

The average salary for a CEO of a top philanthropic organization is more than $1,000,000. If you're making that much money, you don't want to create disruptions or be too vocal about change. In Syriana Stephen Gaghan's brilliant film, Jeffrey Wright plays the ultimate cards-to-the-vest corporate lawyer. He's hired to show the government that the merger of two billion-dollar international oil conglomerates will not break antitrust laws--the companies have, of course, broken all kinds of laws. The government doesn't want to break up the merger--there are too many political insiders secretly on the payroll--but they also can't act like they're doing nothing. Wright tells his corrupt client, Chris Cooper, "We're looking for the illusion of due diligence, Mr. Pope."

This is what too many impact films have become for funders: the illusion of making change. The illusion of making an impact. If impact films were making an impact, we would be living in a different world.

Documentary films are often left-leaning. Right-wing people, Republicans, also make documentary films, but not as many as the left. Why is that? Because Republicans know if you want change, you have to do more than fund a film that goes out to your echo chamber. Republicans know if you want policy change you go out and buy yourself a senator or a congressman or a judge. Or all three. You keep on buying politicians until you get what you want. Not all politicians are for sale, but enough are to buy a majority. That's the world we are living in.

This isn't to say good and important impact films aren't being made. Plenty of them are. But too often, they are not being seen because they are not being shown. Or, if they are on streaming platforms they are buried at the bottom of recommendation lists--unless they are documentaries about the usual suspects: celebrities, true crime, or music biopics. That's what the documentary world has become: feel-good films about well-known subjects.

It seems the goal of philanthropists funding films isn't to have the films actually see the light of day and actually make an impact. The goal is to give the illusion that something is being done. Many of the films that really have something to say win festival awards but aren't ultimately acquired. Streaming platforms want to keep it safe. They don't want to stir up trouble or create controversy with provocative films. It's a business after all and all businesses want to avoid controversy. Controversy doesn't pay.

Two recent powerful and provocative films that didn't get out to the public the way they should have are The Bibi Files (Alexis Bloom) about the corruption of Bibi Netanyahu, and 64 Days (Nick Quested) about the January 6 attempted coup. Mainstream distributors rejected both because the subject matter was potentially inciteful. That's how it goes. (The Bibi Files got a limited release on Jolt Film).

Why does any of this matter?

Print media died a long time ago. Digital media is controlled by billionaires (Zuckerberg, Musk, and Bezos) who care nothing about democracy or the domestic or international rules of law. Film still has somewhat of a voice, but it's a voice given more and more to the illusion of saying something. As it becomes silenced, a breeding ground for oligarchy and authoritarianism oozes out of the vile swamp of Trumpism.

If those funding-impact films really want to make changes, they have more work to do. The philanthropists who fund films are often wealthy and powerful people with plenty of connections in the right places. If they want real changes they need to do more than just sign checks. There is an audience eager to watch and discuss films of value. Not everyone wants an endless supply of mindless entertainment and digital distraction.

If impact films aren't making a difference, don't blame the filmmakers. Filmmakers make tremendous sacrifices to make films and, for the most part, get little in return. So, if you're wondering why important documentary films aren't making enough of an impact, start questioning the people funding them.

Terence Donnellan