Los Angeles Times Interview : Jean Picker Firstenberg

Since filmmakers first arrived in Hollywood, the enterprise of making motion pictures has often involved a brutal collision of art and commerce, with commerce generally coming out on top. That film can be art now seems beyond question, but in Hollywood, where “Leprechaun II” co-exists with “12 Monkeys,” discussions about the place film occupies in high culture--common during Oscar season--often seem disingenuous, at best. Yet, for almost 30 years, Hollywood has been home to the only national arts organization dedicated to the preservation and advancement of film as art--the American Film Institute.

Created in 1967 shortly after the National Endowment for the Arts, AFI’s mission has grown from a celebrator and preserver of American film to a $12-million-a-year operation that maintains archives and databases, trains young professionals in film and television production and operates a state-of-the-art lab to explore new technologies such as digital graphics and online media. In May, the AFI Showcase opens at Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Fla. It will feature displays on film preservation, profiles of film-industry giants and movie memorabilia, all designed to spark interest in American movies--and in the AFI.

Like virtually every other arts organization in the country, AFI has been forced into reorganization by the cutbacks in federal support for the arts. The institute traditionally received some 20% of its operating funds from the NEA, and that funding has now virtually vanished. AFI’s response has included hiring marketing and communications experts to help it create more commercially oriented programs, like the Orlando Showcase, that it hopes will raise both public consciousness and money. It has recast its mission to encompass not just film, but what it now calls “the art of the moving image”--a genre that also includes television and digital media.

Presiding over the AFI is its longtime director and CEO, Jean Picker Firstenberg. As head of AFI for more than 16 years, she helped establish the institute’s eight-acre campus in Los Feliz and has assembled a board of trustees that includes many of Hollywood’s most influential executives. Firstenberg’s grandfather, David V. Picker, helped found the Loew’s chain of theaters; her brother, David, was president of United Artists. Having just celebrated her 60th birthday, she is the mother of a son and daughter, and grandmother of five. In conversation from Orlando, Firstenberg talked about the conflict of art and culture in Hollywood and the ways AFI is reinventing itself to meet new realities imposed by both government cutbacks and technological change.

*

Question: How much has government support for AFI been cut, and what do you expect that support to be in the future?

Answer: To really understand what the support has meant, you must acknowledge that this is a very young art form. When the National Endowment for the Arts was created just over 30 years ago, it decided to create an area for support they termed “media arts.” Media arts had never been supported in the traditional philanthropic way in which the traditional art forms--music, dance, theater--were supported. So the mere fact the NEA said the media arts are important was a huge statement. The NEA was critical in establishing the AFI, and the three initial champions of the institute were the NEA, the Motion Picture Assn. of America and the Ford Foundation. That trilateral support was very, very important.

Over the years, the NEA support has been unique and valuable in creating a national organization that would represent the art form and artists. As far as financial support from the NEA, it’s amounted to about a fifth of our budget, until a few years ago. When the NEA began to come under fire from Congress, I think all of us in arts organizations started to think about what it would mean to exist without national support and endorsement of the arts from the government. At AFI, we started to think about what a national, not-for-profit arts organization was going to look like in the future. Our NEA support is down almost 50% this year from last year, and next year we may be down an additional 30% to 40%. It’s clearly on a downward trend.

Q: Given shrinking, or perhaps disappearing, government support, how do you go about reinventing the way your organization will exist?

A: It forces you to focus on the art form and the artist. This is an art form which is, without question, the most successful of the century. It has the largest audiences; worldwide recognition and appreciation; and there is something almost mythical about American movies. American genius established the moving image as an art form, and continues to create the world standard. So we are thinking about ways to generate support in that context. We have a worldwide audience of people who care about what our filmmakers are doing and who, through the media, have become extremely knowledgeable about the filmmakers themselves.

The institute has been fortunate to find support from corporations within the industry who understand the importance of our role. Disney has given us the opportunity to reach an international audience by providing us with a showcase at the Disney/MGM studios in Orlando. They’ve recreated Hollywood and, within that environment, are creating a 7,000-square-foot showcase that will display what AFI stands for. There will be extensive displays about how film preservation works, how it’s done and why it’s important. There will be a section about our conservatory and the training program. They’ll be a section on the Life Achievement Award winners, and on why we celebrate their work. And there will be a whole area of film memorabilia.

So it’s a very exciting opportunity to bring the AFI message to the millions who visit the park. The challenge is to find a way to get those millions of people to become a part of the support that AFI needs to generate new revenue. But it means the AFI story will now reach more people than we’ve ever been able to reach before, and on a hands-on basis.

Q: You say that film is the most successful art form of the century. But how do you distinguish between art and commerce when dealing with film and television?

A: All art has a relation to commerce. All artists are interested in finding an audience. All artists seek recognition and communication and a relationship with an audience. The difference is that here we have a “populist” art form--one that appeals to a mass audience. At its highest level of achievement, the moving image does become art, and does have something to say to future generations. That seems to be the real test--the test of time reveals whether any art is worthy of long-term respect and appreciation. But the balance between art and commerce is always a source of tension, and in the art of the moving image, that tension is even more intense. That’s because this art form is the only one in which the artists cannot afford their own tools. And because the cost of those tools is so high, the pressures and tensions are much more intense, and result in any number of repercussions.

Q: What has AFI’s impact been on the commercial film and television business? How have you shaped, changed or otherwise altered the landscape?

A: I wish I could tell you that we are an enormous influence on the commercial sector, but that’s not our role. Our role is one of context and delineation. We’re institutionally very new in this environment. Our conservatory has graduated perhaps 2,000 men and women--not a huge number. But the people who come out of AFI, come out with a point of view that their role is that of a storyteller, and if they tell their story well, they’ll succeed. I think AFI does play a role in having the film community see itself in its very best light. I think it’s difficult to run corporations today, with all the competition and pressure. Trying to figure out how this new technology is going to play itself out is difficult. It’s hard to know what audiences are going to want to see 18 to 24 months in advance. What AFI can do is to let that world of commerce know that what they are doing can be something that can last a very long time.

My grandfather was an early film exhibitor, and he thought that once a film had been shown to audiences, that was it--they wouldn’t see that work again. Now, half a century later, much of that work has not only commercial value, but it also has an emotional pull for a whole new audience. So AFI can provide a context--that when making a film, it’s not just here today, gone tomorrow. It gives you a reason to do your very best.

Q: Given that you represent the moving image, which now includes film, television, and new media like CD-ROM and even the Internet, is there a problem with your name--American Film Institute--as we move into an age of digital technology?

A: We’ve always used film in the generic sense, to mean all forms of moving images. But generic terms aren’t always as encompassing as they should be. I don’t think an organization could have a better title than American Film Institute, but I don’t think it says exactly what we do. That’s why we’ve added the tag line, “advancing and preserving the art of the moving image.” In 1990, AFI was way ahead of the curve by beginning to explore the whole concept of new media and where technology was taking us. That year, John Sculley [former president of Apple Computer] presented us with a challenge and an opportunity. He gave us $1 million of Apple equipment and challenged us to create an advanced-technology center. That quickly became the intersection for the filmmakers of tomorrow, and the visionary technologists of Silicon Valley. Sculley said these two genius groups need to talk to each other, because the technologists can’t create the tools if they don’t know what the creative people need. So we became a place where this redefinition could be honed.

It’s been a very exciting six years, because in 1990, frankly, we didn’t have a clue about where things were going, and neither did anybody else. Now it’s clear we have lots of technology to work with. The issue today is how is this digital revolution going to work its way into our everyday lives. Certainly, we’re going to be receiving digital images in the future in very different ways. So it’s very exciting for a not-for-profit organization to be involved in this kind of ground-breaking work.

Q: Among your efforts to re-engineer AFI is a stepped-up interest in marketing and merchandising. Are there dangers in attempting to profit from the reputation of AFI, and how significant can merchandising be as a source of revenue?

A: As a not-for-profit organization, we are trained to seek contributions from individuals and corporations. For a new art form, like the moving image, that has always been a challenge. I think we’re going to do quite well, because the moving image is recognized now as the art form it is. Does marketing AFI impose on art and artists? Does it create a more commercial environment? I think we’ve been able to feel comfortable doing this, because American movies set the standard. We can bring this art form to people in a way that allows them to enjoy moments of film history. And we can make them feel that if they become a member, or buy a product associated with AFI, part of what they spend goes to support preservation of movies and the training of the next generation of movie makers.

The Smithsonian is now 150 years old, and now, for the first time, it’s going on a nationwide tour with part of its collection. I think that’s a great thing, to give Americans, wherever they are, an opportunity to see this incredible material. We sometimes think of ourselves as the Smithsonian of the moving image, and we are trying to do much the same thing in Orlando. I hope we can take the American film story around this country, and even around this world, in a way that shows the contributions it’s made, and allows people to support the ongoing work of AFI.

Q: Do you think, in retrospect, that the cuts in government funding might turn out to be some bad-tasting medicine that does the patient good?

A: I’m deeply concerned about the federal cuts. Every civilized nation in the world supports artists. When we think about countries and history, we think about the contributions that those cultures made. I would hate to think that the United States of America is not going to support its arts and its artists. It’s really a measure of our society. We may not like the message that our artists give us, but I don’t think that we should banish the messenger.

I really do believe there are dips and valleys in the support of the arts, and we are now deep in one of those valleys. The economic arguments against government funding for the arts can be very valid, and those are the arguments that will carry the day, in the short run. I tend to take the long view and be very optimistic that this is just a short-term dip, and that support for the arts and for the NEA is going to be there in the long term.